Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2395
THURSDAY, 18 MARCH 1993
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
Second Report on Audits Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to advise the House that today I received from the Auditor-General the second report on audits for the financial year ended 30 June 1992. Ordered to be printed.
PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—
Child Molesters From Mrs McCauley (1 044 signatories) praying that the parole period be removed when sentencing child molesters, that offenders are given and serve maximum sentences and that their names be released for publication. Petition received.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Acts Interpretation Act— Administrative Arrangements Order 1993 Constitution Act— Administrative Arrangements Order 1993 Officials in Parliament Act— Administrative Arrangements Order 1993.
PAPERS The following papers were laid upon the table of the House— Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts (Mr Wells)— Ballot paper survey conducted by the Electoral Commissioner following the general election conducted on 19 September 1992 Details of polling at the State General Election held on 19 September 1992, together with the results of By-Elections held during the term of the Forty-Sixth Parliament. Ordered to be printed.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 2396 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Operation Trident Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: Honourable members are aware that the Solicitor-General recommended excision of those sections of the Operation Trident report which could be prejudicial to any prosecutions. I acted solely on that advice. The Solicitor-General has further advised me that the comments relating to the CJC are so closely intertwined with the narrative of the events of Operation Trident that it would be impossible to publish all of those remarks without risking prejudice to cases before the courts. No implication negative to the CJC should be drawn from that. In my opinion, there is nothing in the report which reflects adversely on the conduct of the CJC or of any officer of the CJC.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Operation Trident Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: Far too often, it has been left to the Goss Government to clean up the mess of the past. Yesterday’s tabling—— Mr Littleproud: Are you talking about the Education Department? Mr BRADDY: The honourable member ought to listen. He ought to have the humility to at least be quiet for once. Yesterday’s tabling of the report of the commission of inquiry into Operation Trident is further recognition of the task before the State Government in cleaning up the wrongful practices of the past. It was the Goss Labor Government that set up the official inquiry into Operation Trident. Nobody ever wants to see another operation Trident. As Mr Carter states in his report, the operation was characterised— “. . . by a variety of deceitful, dishonest and corrupt practices.” I have complete confidence in the commissioner’s report and I am not surprised by the recommendations. One of the most important outcomes of the inquiry is that victims are to be compensated. That recommendation from Mr Carter, QC, the State Government will honour in full. In his report, Mr Carter recommends that the 69 people who suffered financial loss and emotional anguish should be compensated. He also said that Operation Trident— “. . . was the classic case of how innocent third parties can become the victims of an ill-conceived and poorly executed police undercover operation.” As Police Minister now responsible for the changes that have arisen out of Operation Trident, I accept the recommendation for compensation for those victims. The State Government will meet costs of approximately $60,000. I would also like to inform the House of the changes that have occurred within the Queensland Police Service relating to undercover operations—changes that were implemented more than a year ago under the aegis of the then Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Jim O’Sullivan. Those changes were brought about to ensure that covert operations in the future would be properly conducted. Mr Carter states in his report that he was satisfied that these current guidelines for covert operations were generally acceptable. However, he recommended that both the Police Commissioner and the Chairman of the CJC be given legislative authority to conduct and authorise covert operations. He further suggests the principles under which such operations should be conducted. I have held preliminary discussions with Commissioner O’Sullivan concerning those recommendations. We accept that those recommendations should form the legislative base for the reform of undercover policing practices. After detailed consideration of the recommendations, the Government will bring forward the appropriate legislation to implement the commissioner’s report relating to those matters. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2397
PRIVILEGE
Alleged Misleading of House by Minister for Environment and Heritage Mr SLACK (Burnett) (10.07 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I am now in possession of information which indicates that the Minister for Environment and Heritage misled the House in relation to her answer to a question with respect to the resolving of a dispute over the removal of trees from Fraser Island by John Sinclair, project officer with the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation and former Australian of the Year. I table the information, which is in the form of a fax from John Sinclair, who categorically denies claims made by the Minister. Mr Speaker, I would ask that you consider this matter and rule that it be referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration and report to the House.
QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
1. Northern Link Road, Yeppoon and Bruce Highway Mr LESTER asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— “With reference to the publicity gained by the Labor Government during the run up to the last State election, through promising a $20,000 grant for a feasibility study to ascertain whether it would be possible to have a northern link road between Yeppoon and the Bruce Highway and as the announcement was subject to a joint press conference with the former Member for North Rockhampton, Mr Schwarten and the former Federal Member for Capricornia, Mr Wright— (1) Is his department delaying or shelving this promise? (2) Is he aware that the Capricorn Coast Chamber of Commerce and the Capricorn Tourist Organisation are totally united in demanding that consultants be appointed to carry out this study? (3) If the project has not been stalled, when will it commence?” Mr HAMILL: (1 to 3) In June 1992, the then local Federal member for Capricornia, Mr Keith Wright, announced Federal funding for a feasibility study for a proposed new link between the Capricorn Coast and the Bruce Highway north of Rockhampton. This has also been a project which has been strongly supported by my colleague the member for Fitzroy, Mr Jim Pearce. On the 31 July 1992, Queensland Transport wrote to the Department of Transport and Communications in Canberra offering to make available resources to undertake the project on its behalf. However, to date, no response to this offer has been forthcoming from Canberra. While I understand that the Commonwealth has been prepared to allocate a sum of around $20,000 for the study, no funds have as yet been paid to Queensland Transport to undertake this project. 2. Purchase of Boomer and Rookwood Holdings for National Park Purposes Mr LESTER asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage— “With reference to the acquisition of land for national park purposes— (1) Why was there no consultation between industry, National Parks and the Queensland Forestry Services before Boomer and Rookwood holdings were acquired for National Park purposes? (2) Did the purchase of Boomer and Rookwood holdings advantage a large pastoral company and at the same time disadvantage long-established local sawmillers? (3) Will she give an undertaking that there will be appropriate consultation between interested parties in all future cases? 2398 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
(4) Will she also give an undertaking not to gazette the Boomer holding as a national park until all commercial timber is removed from those areas that do not contain the flora values that are being preserved, as the orderly removal of this timber might take up to 10 years?” Ms ROBSON: The Boomer Range/Rookwood national park proposal dates back to 1977 and is one of the most important national park proposals in the Rockhampton area. Negotiations with the lessee of Boomer and Rookwood holdings began in mid- 1991. With respect to the specific questions, the answers are as follows— (1) Consultation with the timber industry is the responsibility of the Queensland Forest Service and my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries. (2) Compensation paid to the lessee for the acquisition of Boomer holding and part of Rookwood holding was based upon the Crown’s valuation in accordance with standard land acquisition procedures. There is no question of advantage or disadvantage to any party. (3) The Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Lands consult jointly with land-holders of properties which are proposed for national park acquisition. (4) It is proposed that the Boomer holding will be gazetted as a departmental and official purposes reserve under the joint trusteeship of the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Queensland Forest Service. This will enable logging on the area to be completed over a five-year period while protecting the area’s conservation values. Existing logging contracts will not be affected by this proposal. At the end of this period, the area will be added to the Rookwood national park area.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Compass Airlines Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a question to the Attorney-General. As he is the Minister responsible for the Corporations (Queensland) Act, I refer him to revelations that the parent company of Compass had breached the law by not lodging a 1991 return to the Australian Securities Commission, and I ask: did he advise the Treasurer, the Queensland Investment Corporation and Suncorp of this irregularity at the time of their investment in Compass? Mr WELLS: That is not a matter which falls within my portfolio, nor within any Act which is administered by my portfolio. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is responsible for the Corporations Act. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his second question. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Is the Minister denying that he is responsible for the Corporations Act? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just said that there is no point of order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his second question.
Compass Airlines Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the legal requirement for companies to lodge returns with the Australian Securities Commission for the 1991 year by 31 January 1992, and I ask: at the time of his decision in March 1992 to commit taxpayers’ funds to Southern Cross/Compass, was he aware that this legal requirement had not been met? What checks were carried out by him to safeguard Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2399 taxpayers’ funds and to detect any possible irregularities in respect of the company’s affairs? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. He reads the Australian Financial Review in the morning and then comes in here as an expert on corporations law, and in retrospect knows all the detail and what we should have done, just like a lot of political commentators—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr De LACY: I will come to it. He is just like a lot of political commentators around this country who, in retrospect, knew what was going to happen last Saturday. Mr Cooper: You know more than the liquidator does. Mr De LACY: No. I will answer the question. I was not aware, and I still have not been advised formally, that the 1991 report was not lodged, as I understand it was supposed to be lodged under corporations law. But let me say that in respect of our investment and our subunderwriting of Compass, we—— Mr Santoro: You made an informed decision. Mr De LACY: We made an informed decision based on a lot of information. I will tell the honourable member what the information was. This is a serious question. I think it deserves a serious answer. The honourable member should sit there and listen to what I am saying. The first thing is that when we or anybody else become involved in a public float, there is a whole process which is laid down under corporations law associated with the lodging of prospectuses. Those prospectuses need to go through the whole due diligence process. They are vetted by the Australian Stock Exchange and the Australian Securities Commission. Many people in this country say that the regulations in relation to the prospectuses under corporations law are too stringent. But having said that, I guess it is something that needs to be re-examined in the light of this issue. The provisional liquidator is making investigations, and I believe that today he will be applying to the court to freeze the assets of the Deputy Chairman of Southern Cross Airlines. The ASC has already laid charges before the court alleging that the Deputy Chairman of Southern Cross Airlines has falsified documents that went before the board. Mr Borbidge: What checks did you carry out before you put the $10m in? Mr De LACY: I am explaining those. The other aspects that gave us comfort in this respect was the quality of the board generally. The board did comprise some of Queensland’s best-known company directors, including a former head of the National Companies and Securities Commission, as well as a former Federal Liberal Minister for Finance and a former head of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. It was a high- quality board. Opposition members interjected. Mr De LACY: Listen to the retrospective experts! The Government was given comfort by all of the checks and balances in the system. It stands by the decision that it made at that time. Based on that sort of information, it would make a similar decision in the future. Before the event, the Opposition never questioned whether or not the Government had checked that sort of detail. The Opposition is a fraud, it has always been a fraud, and I regret to say that it will never be anything but a fraud.
Cairns Casino Tendering Process Mr PITT: I have two questions, the first—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr De Lacy interjected. 2400 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn both the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday, I stated that I will not countenance other members speaking while a member is asking a question. Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the recent statements by the Leader of the Liberal Party in which she claimed that all tender documents for the planned Cairns casino licence should be opened upon receipt and made public. I ask: has this method of selecting casino licence tenderers been used or is it being used in any other jurisdiction? Mr De LACY: That is an important question. The Government is currently evaluating the tenders for the Cairns casino. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party is now of the view that the entire tendering process ought to be conducted in public. That is another of the great conversions performed by the Opposition. Do honourable members remember the process that the former Government followed when it called for casino tenders? The tender documents had to be delivered to Bjelke-Petersen House at Spring Hill. Suddenly, the Opposition claims that casino tendering must be a full, open, public and accountable process. The Leader of the Liberal Party has probably made that statement to justify the ridiculous comments that she made last week about secret documents. I believe that she has apologised privately for those comments, but she ought to apologise publicly for them, as well. I want to refer to the various models that can be adopted when assessing casino tenders. One is the full, open, public inquiry. At present, that method is being used in New Zealand, and it has been used for the past couple of years. I venture to suggest that the same method will be used there for the next couple of years. I advise honourable members to put their money on somebody replacing Mrs Sheldon as Leader of the Liberal Party before they put money on anybody being granted a casino licence in Auckland. Mr Livingstone: Santo can’t even count. Mr DE LACY: That is right. Another model is that adopted by the National Party, in which the selection process is conducted by the party and not by the Government. The third process is that followed by the Government, in which an independent, expert body assesses the tenders objectively against a range of very important criteria. The tenders are ranked against those criteria. The independent body makes a considered recommendation to Government and then publishes the reasons for its selection. That is the process adopted by this Government. I know that it sounds superficially good to claim that the public ought to make the choice. The public has an important role in terms of design and site. However, other important aspects must be considered, namely, the probity of the tenderer; the financial strength of the tenderer; and the experience and capacity of the tenderer to run a casino and a hotel. All of those aspects require detailed examination. They require the production of a large amount of commercially confidential information. The Government has decided on a process which will have the best outcome for the public and the best outcome in terms of a casino operation which is clean and corruption free, but one which takes into account the design, the quality and the financial offer. Let us face it—the only reason that casinos are being introduced in Queensland is their financial benefits. Those benefits will enable the development of convention and exhibition centres, which are very important to this State’s tourism industry.
Poker Machine Security Systems Mr PITT: In directing a second question to the Treasurer, I refer to previous statements by the Leader of the Opposition that the central monitoring and security system for Queensland poker machines was flawed and, indeed, that it opened the way for criminal elements to infiltrate the industry. As poker machines have been operating in Queensland for 13 months, I ask: has any substance been found to support those claims? Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2401
Mr Gibbs: Where’s all the Mafia? Mr DE LACY: The Minister for Tourism asked, “Where is all the Mafia?” Members who were in this House just over 12 months ago, when poker machines were being introduced in Queensland, will recall the “Prince of Hyperbole” opposite and all of his allegations. Day after day, he came up with a new set of allegations which he referred to the Trade Practices Commission, to the Criminal Justice Commission, to the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, to the Federal Police—to everybody except the United Nations Security Council. He claimed that one could tamper with the system with a knitting needle and that one could tamper with the system with a drawing pin. Do honourable members recall those allegations? The Leader of the Opposition claimed also that the central monitoring unit was a sleazy, second-rate monitoring unit. After 12 months of operation of poker machines in this State, what is the reality? It is an unprecedented success story. Jurisdictions from all around Australia—in fact, from all around the world—are visiting Queensland to discover the way in which the Government approached the matter. It has proved to be the best system in terms of integrity, in terms of benefit to the clubs and in terms of cost effectiveness. If the Leader of the Opposition had any integrity or any credibility, he would stand up and admit that last year he was dead wrong on every single count. Today,with my colleague the Minister for Tourism, I will be switching on without a hitch in the Minister’s electorate the ten-thousandth poker machine in Queensland. Mr W. K. Goss: They are having a meeting. Mr De LACY: Have a look at them. They do not like what I am saying. They cannot stand it when they are wrong. In conclusion, if members of this House wanted an example of the way in which the Leader of the Opposition rants and raves without substance, it is what has occurred in relation to poker machines.
Compass Airlines Mrs SHELDON: In directing my first question to the Treasurer, I refer him to his answer to my question in this Parliament on Tuesday when he boasted of his detailed knowledge of the corporate world, and I ask: since Compass receiver/liquidator Richard Barber took just two days to discover $10m missing from the company accounts through off-shore shams involving money trails in the United States and the Virgin Islands, did he, with the full resources of the Queensland Treasury at his disposal, institute adequate checks on the financial structure of Compass/Southern Cross Holdings before the initial commitment of taxpayers’ funds in March last year, or was he content with a Dean Wells standard probity check? Mr De LACY: I am again impressed with those half-smart retrospective comments by the experts in the Opposition. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Clayfield under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: I venture to suggest that one thing that they are expert at is being in Opposition. Mr Hamill: They don’t even do that well. Mr De LACY: My colleague does not even agree with that. However, I do. I believe that they are so expert at being in Opposition that they will be there forever. In my earlier answer to a question, I explained the comfort that the Queensland Government had before deciding to invest in Compass. It should not be forgotten that Compass was underwritten by J. B. Were and Sons, Australia’s pre-eminent brokers. I have explained the other checks and balances. The Government carried out the same type of inquiry as, I presume, every other investor carried out—National Mutual, APT, J. B. Were and Sons and Colonial Mutual. As I said, it is easy to be wise after the event. 2402 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Until today, not one word about corporate malfeasance has come from members of the Opposition, but suddenly, this morning they read it in the Australian Financial Review and now they are experts.
Purchase by QIC and Suncorp of Southern Cross Shares Mrs SHELDON: My second question is to the Treasurer. In the light of comments made by the Chairman of the Queensland Investment Corporation, Jim Kennedy, in Business Queensland on 14 September 1992— “I will oppose any investment for social or political reasons and will not do it unless the Government orders me to”— and comments in the same article that Suncorp departed from its investment strategy to buy five million Southern Cross shares, I ask: as Queensland Treasurer, did he or his officers have any discussions with the QIC and Suncorp about their take-up of Southern Cross shares and, as the Minister responsible, why did he allow QIC and Suncorp to go against their respective charters and invest in Southern Cross Holdings to the extent of $3.186m? Mr De LACY: If the Leader of the Liberal Party is alleging that I put pressure on either of those organisations, the answer is, “No.” That is dead wrong and, in respect of the QIC, it would be illegal. If the honourable member wants to know the reasons why they make their investments, she should ask them. I find it offensive—and I am sure that both Mr Kennedy and Mr Tucker would find it offensive—for the honourable member to stand up in this House and allege that not only did I put pressure on them but also they responded to that pressure. That is quite wrong. In answer specifically to the honourable member’s question, the answer is, “No.” Neither I nor my officers had a conversation with either body or either person about Compass, and nor would we. Again, such a question from the Leader of the Liberal Party is passing strange. A couple of weeks ago, she lectured me for not putting pressure on the QIC to stop it from selling shares in Arnotts. The honourable member simply does not understand how this system works. The QIC will have to stand on its performance. Ever since I have been Treasurer, it has stood very well on its performance, and we will judge its performance at the end of this financial year. Suncorp will have to stand on its performance, and we will judge its performance at the end of this financial year. However, to suggest that I put pressure on them or even intimated that they should invest in Compass is quite wrong. I reject that absolutely, and I find it offensive.
High Court Decision on Mabo Case Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Premier: can he inform the House of the latest developments, as they relate to Queensland, of the High Court decision on the Mabo case? Mr W. K. GOSS: This issue is very important for all Australians, particularly for Aboriginal and Islander Australians. It also has significant consequences for other central interests, including major investors and, in particular, the mining industry. Basically, the 6-1 decision by the High Court last year effectively found a form of native title. Although that title can be extinguished by the exercise of sovereignty by the Crown in Australia, if such an exercise has not taken place, that native title in one form or another could continue. The situation is that the Commonwealth Government has announced a process to try to clarify the meaning of the Mabo case because, unfortunately, while reaching that important decision, the High Court decision unleashed about 1 000 questions. It will take a considerable amount of work on the part of Governments at all levels and various other interested parties and individuals to clarify the situation. We have agreed with the Commonwealth Government and other States that the Mabo case raises issues of national significance. We welcome the initiative of the Commonwealth Government to Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2403 consult with us, with industry groups and with the States. However, time is pressing. I believe that the Commonwealth Government needs to give the highest priority to the resolution of this issue for two reasons: firstly, because it offers an opportunity and, perhaps, in some ways forces on the country the opportunity to achieve a better form of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Islander people in this country. Secondly, there have been some inaccurate reports in relation to the possible impact of the decision in respect of major resource projects. We do not want to see any adverse impact on investor confidence in this country. The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will fund a number of test cases on the Mabo decision. I caution the Commonwealth Government against rushing into litigation that may prove to be an unnecessary expense, and perhaps add little or nothing to the process that active consultation cannot achieve. On the best advice available to the Government at this stage, I believe that it is readily apparent that, on reading the Mabo decision, it is not a threat to existing land- holdings in Queensland, nor should it be a threat to the continued development of the State. At this stage, it appears to be entirely, or largely, consistent with the legislation passed through this House in 1991. In relation to particular sectoral interests—as I said before, the best advice is that various holdings are not affected at present. The best advice to us at this stage is that ownership of minerals remains vested in the Crown, existing pastoral leases are not affected, private land-holdings are not affected, and any claims on the CBD would be without substance as there is no claimable land. Mr Lester: Don’t forget Great Keppel Island. Mr W. K. GOSS: Ridiculous and extreme comments by that individual—— Mr Lester: Hey, come on, you’re talking through your hat. Mr W. K. GOSS: I am talking to the honourable member. While many people believe that the member for Keppel needs his racquet restrung, I am not one of those people, because I believe that he is a much more cynical and clever publicity-seeker than his madcap antics would suggest. The sort of scaremongering in which he indulges for the purpose of dividing the community for his personal gain and, on the other hand, publicity driven ambit claims, will not help the process that needs to be under way in this State. In relation to major resource projects and investor confidence—I say again that it is important that the Commonwealth Government, in cooperation and consultation with the States, work as a matter of priority to a resolution of this issue. I believe that this is an appropriate topic for the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. In relation to one particular project that is referred to from time to time, namely, the Century project in north Queensland—the Queensland Government has been working closely and continuously with, and is prepared to continue consulting with, the local Aboriginal community and the company. While no agreement has been reached between the Aboriginal community and the company, the fact that talks are continuing and that there is a preparedness to talk is a healthy sign. We are confident that with goodwill on both sides, issues such as that and others can, and will, be resolved.
Undercover Police Operations Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: will he inform the House about current Queensland police practices relating to undercover operations? Mr BRADDY: In relation to covert or undercover policing—it is salutary and instructive to refer to page 172 of the Carter report in relation to covert policing. Carter 2404 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly complimented the current Queensland police practices in relation to this matter, and stated— “It is relevant to note that policy, orders and procedures are now developed as a matter of course in Queensland Police Service and this is now in place in relation to covert operations. Moreover, the same have been developed in the light of the provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990. None of these were in place at the time of Operation Trident.” That was commenced under former Police Minister Borbidge. Mr Carter continued— “Accordingly, any covert operation which is approved henceforth must operate subject to this Act and the Discipline Regulations.” Mr Carter states further— “. . . that the Policy and Procedures for Covert Operations—Covert Police Operatives and Informants which are now in place, are generally acceptable.” I am pleased to inform the House that under our Government, police practice requires that the Queensland Police Service set in train certain instructions in respect to the conduct of covert operations. Secondly, it is required that no police officer will be used as an undercover operative unless that officer has received training in undercover duties. Further, all members involved in covert operations must have successfully completed a course in such operations, and that details of all operations of that nature of whatever magnitude—however small or however large—must be communicated in advance to the officer in charge of the task force operations. Those operations then go before a target committee at the task force, and that target committee considers the operation in the light of its importance to the community and of any danger involved to the police concerned. As well as police personnel, a senior officer of the Criminal Justice Commission is on the task force. The target committee will recommend to the deputy commissioner of operations of the Queensland Police Service whether the operation should proceed. I stress that, since our Government has been in power, all of those things have been put in place by the Queensland Police Service. None of them was in place when Mr Borbidge was the Police Minister at the start of Operation Trident in the month of September 1989 and when Mr Borbidge and Mr Lester transferred powers between them. Trident commenced in September 1989. Mr Borbidge: Two weeks. Mr BRADDY: Mr Lester was around for more than two weeks. I know it seems that he did only two weeks’ work, but he was Police Minister for longer than that. Apart from sitting on police bikes and going “vroom, vroom” for photographers, he did not have much other input on those matters. I stress to the House that these guidelines, which were drawn up by Commissioner O’Sullivan in his former capacity as deputy commissioner, have been in place since March last year. It is very instructive to see that those guidelines received the substantial approval of the commissioner, Mr Carter. I reiterate, as I said in my ministerial statement, that these guidelines will not only be now developed further but also have a legislative base.
Brisbane Casino Mr SLACK: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I refer to the Treasurer’s answer yesterday to the member for Mulgrave regarding the Brisbane casino proposed for the Old Treasury Building, and I ask: is it appropriate for Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2405 the architect employed by Jupiters to determine the Government’s position on what is appropriate to preserve the heritage value of the Old Treasury Building? Given the vested interests involved with such action which would be aimed at saving Jupiters money, why did the Minister not insist on some independent input from her own department whose role supposedly is to protect the State’s heritage? Ms ROBSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I thought it had been made fairly clear in this House over the period of this debate about the Brisbane casino/Treasury Building project that I play an advisory role; I do not decide whether or not the project goes ahead. That responsibility under the Act has clearly been transferred to the Minister responsible for this project, who is the Treasurer. My role of overseeing the administration of that Act has been undertaken completely and accurately. The determination of the architect to advise on the specific project is the purview of the Treasurer; it is not my responsibility. In fact, it would be inappropriate if I were to intervene in that process. As I said, the process has been outlined. It is the correct process, and I am comfortable with it. The process that the Treasurer has undertaken is complete, it is accurate and it is protecting to the highest possible level the heritage value of that building.
Brisbane Casino Mr SLACK: I further ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: as the Minister responsible for the protection of heritage-listed buildings within the State, is she satisfied that due processes have been followed in accordance with the Burra Charter for the selection of the heritage-listed Old Treasury Building, Land Administration Building and Queen’s Park as the Brisbane casino site? Does she think it fair that her Government’s heritage laws should apply to private citizens and firms but not to the Government? Can she assure the House that she will not allow the mistakes made in relation to the Brisbane casino site to recur in Cairns? Ms ROBSON: The assumption that mistakes have been made is quite erroneous. The process has been exhaustive in terms of protecting that building, in terms of investigating the best possible ways of preserving the heritage of the building. The honourable member does not seem to understand the role of the Heritage Council. Its role, under the Heritage Act which was declared in August 1992, is to advise the Government and the appropriate Minister. The council has performed that role. The honourable member should understand it was not a unanimous decision of the Heritage Council. He is completely unable to accept the difference between a recommendatory or advisory role and any other role which relates to giving the Government advice. This was an advisory position. The decision was not unanimous; the committee was split on it. That is a very important point which the honourable member needs to understand. I believe that, given the brief it had, the council did execute its role. But the honourable member should try to understand that the Act talks about various esoteric values. The esoteric values are part of the consideration for that building. It is perfectly possible to totally preserve the heritage values of that precinct, of the buildings involved, and still promote the building as a viable and useable building for the people of Queensland. That is what the Treasurer and the Government have done. I support that decision.
Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants Ms POWER: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer him to recent newspaper articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age which claim that Queensland is effectively being subsidised by Victoria and New South Wales under the system of fiscal equalisation by the distribution of Commonwealth financial assistance grants. I ask: can he inform the House precisely who is subsidising whom? 2406 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr De LACY: The first shots have been fired in what I believe will be a very important battle this financial year and into the future. I note that both Victoria and New South Wales seem to be talking to some of the influential financial commentators in their States and articles are starting to appear. Last week, one article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald and one in the Melbourne Age referring to the subsidy which comes to Queensland, ignoring a subsidy which goes to South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It just seems to be Queensland at which they are directing all their attention—and even making reference to Queensland in a pejorative way by referring to the “mendicant status” of Queensland. I reject that absolutely. The Queensland Government rejects it absolutely, and we will fight this battle right to the end. Fiscal equalisation is a principle that has been in place in this country since Federation. Fiscal equalisation, in the simplest of terms, is the way in which the Commonwealth would spend its funds if there were no State boundaries. It is all to do with the equal provision of services throughout this country. If we violate that principle, we violate the Federal system itself. But to talk about the mendicant status of Queensland is just quite wrong. I want to make two points. The Opposition conveniently focuses just on financial assistance grants—and that is where the fiscal equalisation principle applies—but, at the same time, it conveniently ignores the specific purpose payments which advantage both New South Wales and Victoria. If honourable members opposite look at the total funds which go to the States, they will see that Queensland receives very little benefit at all on a per capita basis. So if Opposition members want to talk about Commonwealth funding to the States, let us put it all in the one pool; let us talk about financial assistance grants and special purpose payments—all of the funds. The second point about a subsidy flying from New South Wales and Victoria to Queensland and Western Australia is also quite erroneous. I think we have canvassed it in this House before, but the tariff protection and other kinds of protection of manufacturing industry, which has principally flowed to industry in New South Wales and Victoria, has represented over the years a massive subsidy from the exporting States of Queensland and Western Australia to those large manufacturing States. EPAC estimated that in the 1990-91 financial year that was worth something like $4.8 billion dollars transferred from Queensland and Western Australia to New South Wales and Victoria. I know that it is starting to be said that tariff protection is being wound back, but the fact is that that misallocation of resources over the last 90 years has created an economic infrastructure in those States which adds to their taxing base. That economic infrastructure is still there and it will continue to provide a benefit to those States for the next 50 years. The Government absolutely rejects the assertion that fiscal equalisation represents a subsidy to Queensland. I suggest that those commentators look to other areas to find out why States such as New South Wales and Victoria cannot balance their budgets and are running up the national debt.
Women in Queensland Business Ms POWER: I ask the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development: can he advise of any Government programs designed to support women in Queensland business, and the outcome of those programs? Mr ELDER: I thank the member for the question. She is acknowledged as being a strong advocate for women’s rights and women’s issues in this State. The short answer is that the Government believes in utilising the talents of women in all areas that are worth while, not just for equity reasons—because those equity reasons are strong enough—but because we need to encourage the use of the talents of all people in society. Specifically, one of the Government’s schemes is designed to support research into the role of women in business and industry. This year, it has targeted two industries—the food-processing industry and the information technology industry—with grants of some $40,000 for three studies. Dr Glenda Strachan from the Queensland Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2407
University of Technology will be establishing a profile on men and women and the role that they play in the information technology industry in Queensland. Dr Phyllis Tharenou from the University of Queensland will be examining the amount and type of training received by women in that industry. Denise Conroy of Queensland University of Technology will be examining the good employment practices within the food- processing industry. The reason that the Government has chosen those industries in particular is that they are mainstream and are the sort of new industries in which we need to maximise female participation in this State for the reasons that I have outlined previously. On the surface, it appears that it is working. Many of the new jobs created in Queensland have been going to women. Over the last 12 months, the growth of women in the work force is eight times that of men. In the December quarter, there was a 0.7 per cent increase in male employment and a 5.7 per cent increase in the number of women employed in Queensland. Interestingly, as well, there is a higher percentage of women than men in business as employers or self-employed—4.6 per cent—in Queensland. Of those who are employers, the average for the country is approximately 3.4 per cent. In Queensland, 9 per cent of women are self-employed, whereas the national average is around 8 per cent. The figures may surprise some. They certainly put the lie to the myth that Queensland women have been dragging behind their southern counterparts. The simple fact is that the Queensland economy, as I said yesterday, is broadening. We have more of a technology—— Mr Cooper: You talked your way into this place and your can talk you way out of it. Mr ELDER: Obviously, the member disagrees with what I am saying. Mr Cooper: No, not at all. Mr ELDER: A foundation member of the Liberal Party, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, made a very pointed comment about the Liberal Party and how it sees the role of women in business and in society generally. For the information of the member for Crows Nest, she said— “I know a number of women who didn’t stick with the Liberal Party at the election but voted Labor. They think Labor has done more for women and accepted the changing role of women more”— in society and business. She continued— “The Liberal Party has not been willing to accept their changing role.” The Goss Government and Dame Beryl Beaurepaire are at one on this particular issue. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. We are having a question time in which some Ministers will not answer questions about their own portfolios and other Ministers are allowed to say anything. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr ELDER: I was merely making the point that a foundation member of the Liberal Party believes the coalition parties have lost the plot. We agree with her on that particular issue; we are at one on that issue. Quite frankly, as I said to the member for Mansfield, we have a long way to go, but there are better opportunities in Queensland and there are job opportunities for women in Queensland.
Queensland Ambulance Service Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: given the increasing public disquiet and the uncertainty in the Queensland Ambulance Service which is caused by severe budgetary constraints, will he advise the House of the status 2408 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly of the Queensland Ambulance Service budget? Will he also advise the House of the extent of reported major cost overruns? Mr BRADDY: I reject totally the hyperbole of the honourable member in relation to the severe disquiet to which he refers. At any time there is a change and reform process, clearly some people become somewhat concerned about that change, and all honourable members would be familiar with that. What has occurred in the Queensland Ambulance Service is that for the first time in Queensland’s history, we now truly have a Queensland Ambulance Service, unlike the collection of local feudal baronies of the past, which were a loose confederation. Members on the Government side of the House are proud Queenslanders and we believe that Queenslanders should work together, unlike members of the Opposition, who try to promote division, and continue discontent and division by continuing to foment local discontent where they can. The Government is in the process of setting up a more efficient ambulance service and making sure that it is truly an emergency service. I can inform the House that the ambulance service is on target to be in surplus this financial year, as I previously indicated. With its changed processes, it is on target to be able to operate on a completely level playing field within several years. In the next financial year, based on current operations, there will be some difficulties in relation to the full processes, as I have indicated before. What we have to do is work out, in the course of the budgetary review process that is undertaken every year, whether it will require more funding by way of Government funding, subscriptions or a loan to finance some of the services. We are assisted in that regard by the Public Sector Management Commission review which will commence in April this year. As I say, we are on line to bring in a surplus this financial year, but next year will be more difficult. It will be an interesting process. I believe that our Government has demonstrated its ability to carry out this process efficiently and competently, and we will be reporting to the House on the next financial year when the Budget is brought down. I invite the honourable Opposition spokesman for Emergency Services to question us at that time, when we will go into detail. We are confident that we will continue with our competent administration. We will be on line to bring about a truly efficient Queensland Ambulance Service.
Queensland Ambulance Service Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to this week’s reports that ambulance services on the Gold Coast have been threatened with strike action during the Indy Car Grand Prix weekend owing to plans to force the transfers of 15 ambulance staff from the region. I ask: how is it that such action is justified when only last August the QAS conceded that the Gold Coast had identifiable staff shortages? Can he guarantee that those employees who do not wish to be transferred elsewhere will not be sacked? Given that a review of the Bureau of Emergency Services will be commencing next month, as the Minister has said, why cannot these forced transfers be delayed or deferred at least until then? Mr BRADDY: There are no forced transfers taking place at present. I refer to my previous answer in which I spoke about conducting a truly Queensland Ambulance Service as distinct from district ambulance services which were allowed to continue under the administration of members of the present Opposition, who never bit the bullet to provide a proper organisation of true Queenslandwide services. Let me say in relation to the particular incident referred to by the honourable Opposition spokesman that in the course of reorganising the service, questions are asked of people with respect to whether they are available for transfer to other regions where they are needed more, or whether they are intending to retire. It is only that stage which has been reached at present. There has been no decision made and certainly there has been no referral to me by the Queensland Ambulance Service of matters related to dismissing any of the people concerned. It is merely an inquiry. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2409
Of course, some members of the Queensland Ambulance Service are concerned about the upcoming review. Many people who are employed in the public service become concerned when the Public Sector Management Commissioners look into their operations. It is a natural concern that some display more than others, but we are committed to having the most efficient ambulance service. This Government has put a lot more funding into it than had ever been provided before, and we will continue to do that. But a price for this Government’s financial support is that there must be the most efficient service. This means that we must have the officers in the different centres throughout the State where they should be and inquiries are being made along those lines at present. That is all that is occurring, and we will make sure that this efficient service becomes even more efficient. When we have received all the information, the Queensland Ambulance Service will speak to officers and the union. The inquiries will be conducted in accordance with the normal way in which this Labor Government conducts industrial relations and not in the way that the Opposition’s Victorian counterparts and colleagues—whom they hoped to put in office in Canberra—would carry out their industrial relations policies.
Boat-building Industry Mrs ROSE: I ask the Minister for Transport: considering that Queensland boat- builders and manufacturers are regarded by many as some of the very best in the world, what is the Government doing to assist our marine export industry? Mr HAMILL: As the member for Currumbin has asserted, Queensland’s boat- building industry is recognised as a manufacturer of very fine products indeed. Certainly, within our region, there is a growing market for those products. In South East Asia, particularly in areas such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, very important markets are opening up for our boat-building industry. Indeed, in the USA, where there has already been some penetration of that market by our producers, there is a $2 billion market for our marine products. Our exports of marine products and vessels have experienced significant growth. If we go back five years, marine exports from Queensland totalled approximately $9m. Last year, the figure was of the order of $64m. In order to try to focus that improvement in our export capacity, an initiative of my department has gone some considerable way in improving the prospects for all of our marine industry. Some 60 companies have come together under the umbrella of a cooperative company called Q-Marine. It was facilitated by the Department of Transport and by me as Minister. The purpose of that is to obtain for the industry in Queensland the advantage that size can have in terms of both obtaining a niche market overseas and being able to research those markets. I am pleased to say that last year, following the approach and the work done by me, the companies came together as Q-Marine and are already demonstrating very clear advantages from that undertaking. In terms of the economies of scale in market research, market penetration and promotion—this year alone, we expect a 15 per cent increase in our marine exports from this State. The business plan for Q-Marine demonstrates that, in the following year, we expect a further 20 per cent increase. I see that as a very clear demonstration not only of this Government’s commitment to developing small business and business with export potential in this State but also the fact that we can compete effectively and we can create real employment in this State by so doing.
School Buses Mrs ROSE: I direct a further question to the Minister for Transport. Overcrowding and standing on school buses has long been a problem on the Gold Coast and, indeed, right throughout Queensland. I ask: what is the State Government doing to address that serious problem? 2410 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Currumbin has raised that very important matter with me. It is a concern for a great many parents in this State that their children travel to school and home on buses that have inadequate seating capacity for them. Under the existing regulations, it is permissible for students—and, indeed, for any other passenger—to stand on a bus. In peak-hour services in our cities and towns, it is commonplace to see people standing on buses. For many years, it was permissible for children to stand on school buses for distances up to 32 kilometres. I regarded such a provision as quite unacceptable. By regulatory changes that were put in place a little over 12 months ago, that has been reduced to a 20-kilometre maximum. However, I still believe that there is considerable room for further improvement. For that reason—and taking into consideration the safety issues involved—I have referred this matter to the consideration of the all-party parliamentary Travelsafe Committee. It is a matter that I believe deserves attention. A number of problems arise, one of which relates to the capacity of the existing bus fleets to move large numbers of people, including students, at the peak times when they wish to travel. Another issue is the costs involved in being able to increase the capacity of that bus fleet. It is an important safety issue. I assure the honourable member that, as it is an important safety issue, consistent with the approach of the Government to improving road safety and safety matters in the motor vehicle industry in general, the Government is giving attention to the matter its highest priority.
Youth Conservation Corps Mr BUDD: I ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: given the Treasurer’s outline to the House recently regarding Queensland’s status as the leader in job creation in Australia, can she explain what role the Government’s Youth Conservation Corps scheme is playing in that job creation? Ms ROBSON: I thank the honourable member for his question because he has shown a great interest in the activities of the Youth Conservation Corps and generally in the $150m commitment that the Government has made to the creation of jobs in this State. The role that my department has played in that in terms of jobs for the environment—specifically the Youth Conservation Corps—is to indicate that an amount of $3.6m is committed to that program. The Federal Government, through its Landcare and Environment Action Program, or LEAP, as we call it, has provided more than $5m for Youth Conservation Corps activities in this State. By the end of April of this year, those funds will have allowed 560 unemployed youth to be trained and employed in 40 conservation projects spread throughout Queensland. Those projects are taking place in national parks and State forests throughout Queensland, including the Venmans Reserve in the electorate of the member for Redlands, where the Government has undertaken to do some restoration following degradation of the land and some clearing of paths and trails to make that area suitable for public use and to make it safe. Those projects involve a TAFE component. As I have gone around this State inspecting some of those programs and talking to the young people involved, I have been very pleased to see that the success of that program is evident. Apart from providing jobs for 26 weeks for groups of 14 young people, the Government is giving them skills that they can take with them when they leave. The young people are telling me that the sorts of skills that they are acquiring are applicable not only to the environment and to jobs in the environment but also to a much broader base. Many of them are telling me that they are going into jobs that require carpentry skills and landscaping skills and that they are setting up businesses in their own right. The success of the program should be measured not only in terms of filling a young person’s life for a matter of 26 weeks but also in terms of giving that person some hope and job prospects for the future. The other side effect that we see from those programs, including the Venmans Reserve program in the electorate of the member for Redlands, is that those young people are getting self-esteem. They are acquiring teamwork skills. They are learning about the synergy of working together and relying on Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2411 each other. They are taking ownership of their projects and they are producing a product for the public. The program is wonderful. Some of the other projects are located at Fraser Island, North Keppel Island, Airlie Beach, Lawn Hill and Cape Tribulation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.
BANK INTEGRATION (BANK OF QUEENSLAND) BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (11.08 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to facilitate the integration of Bank of Queensland Savings Bank Limited with Bank of Queensland Limited.” 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) (11.09 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill is complementary legislation to the Bank Integration Act 1991 (Commonwealth). The purpose of that Act was to facilitate the integration of savings and tradings banks following the removal, for regulatory purposes, of the distinction between savings and trading banks by the Banking Legislation Amendment Act 1989. The removal of this distinction represents a reform that will allow more efficient banking operations and enhanced services to customers. It will enable better use and allocation of funds by banks within the same group and allow simpler funding and accounting arrangements. Complementary State legislation is required in those States where a bank is incorporated. The only entity affected in Queensland is the Bank of Queensland. This complementary legislation ensures that— (a) the receiving bank is taken, on the succession day, to be the successor in law to the transferring bank; (b) the assets and liabilities of the transferring bank become those of the receiving bank; (c) activities undertaken in relation to this integration are exempted from State taxes; and (d) the transferring bank is dissolved on the day of succession. Clause 6 provides for the vesting of all assets and liabilities in the receiving bank without any further action required. However, procedural steps such as the recording of information on the Registry of Titles would need to be taken. The exemption from State taxation in clause 8 of the Bill covers all fees due to any Government department in carrying out the vesting of the assets and liabilities pursuant to clause 6 and covers fees for any action required to be carried out by the Registrar of Titles pursuant to clause 6. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY LAND (CARRIERS’ LIABILITIES) REPEAL BILL 2412 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to repeal the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act 1967.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill provides for repeal of the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act 1967 to allow normal commercial practices and legal mechanisms to apply when consignors wish to seek compensation for goods damaged or lost whilst in the care of a land carrier. The Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act limits the amount of damages a customer can claim from a road transport carrier if goods are damaged or lost while in the carrier’s care, to $20 for an item or $200 for a consignment, regardless of the value of the articles consigned. These amounts have not changed since the Act was introduced in 1967. The Government considered simply raising these limits to more realistic amounts to reflect the effects of inflation since 1967. However, this would be a bandaid solution which does not address the inequities of the Act and would still disadvantage the unknowing consumer. The provisions of the Act strongly favour the carrier. They leave a consignor with no recourse to a carrier for loss or damage of goods beyond the limits specified in the Act. An example of the unfairness and injustice of the Act is evidenced in a case which recently appeared in the press, where a small business lost $19,000 worth of equipment due to a carrier’s self-confessed negligence, but was only entitled to compensation of $200 due to the provisions of this Act. I find any artificial limitation of damages abhorrent. It is inconsistent both with fundamental principles of justice which dictate that we must all take responsibility if we cause harm or loss to others through our own negligence, and with normal business practice. No other State or Territory imposes limitations on the liability of land transport carriers. Carriers in other States protect themselves from claims for damages by taking out normal business liability insurance. A specialist transport insurance broker estimated the cost of such insurance as approximately 1 per cent of the carrier’s freight charge. However, the actual cost increase to Queensland carriers is likely to be less than this amount, as carriers currently operating interstate would be likely to have some cover against their exposure to legal liability in those other jurisdictions. In practice, the cost to carriers depends entirely on their individual claims history. Every carrier has the opportunity to lower his or her insurance premium by taking measures to prevent or reduce loss to customers’ goods. Repeal of the Act will also produce fairer competition within the Queensland transport industry, since Queensland Rail does not benefit from the limitations on liability provided by the Act. Queensland Rail has shown how a carrier can effectively manage exposure to liability without the artificial protection of the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act. Queensland Rail provides automatic insurance to a value of Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2413
$500, with the cost included in the freight rate, and invites customers to insure for the remaining value of the consignment. However, Queensland Rail remains liable for any loss or damage arising from its negligence. Upon repeal of the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act, carriers will be able to use exemption clauses in their contracts of carriage. However, these clauses will be subject to the normal restrictions which the courts place on the use of those clauses. These include taking reasonable steps to bring any exclusion clause to the attention of the customer. I am pleased to present this Bill as the interests of all parties would be served by the repeal of the above legislation. It is not necessary for the Queensland Government to limit the liability of a carrier and the possible entitlement to damages of a consignor. Repeal of the Act will encourage carriers to manage their liabilities in the same manner as every other business in Queensland and will give consumers a fair go. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned.
BUSINESS LICENCE DEREGULATION (MILKSELLERS AND FISH BUYERS) AMENDMENT BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.16 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to discontinue certain business licences under the Dairy Industry Act 1989 and the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act 1982.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.17 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Bringing legislation into the late twentieth century is what this Bill is about—the removal of ridiculous burdens placed on small businesses in the State of Queensland by previous conservative Governments. The Goss Labor Government is committed to the modernisation process in relation to the removal of unnecessary restraints on the operations of businesspeople with a view to allowing those people to get on with successfully operating their businesses. My colleagues opposite may ask, “But why do you not go further?” For a change, they would be right. The Government is going further, and this Bill is but one step in the process. The Bill will remove the requirements for people to hold milksellers’ licences under the Dairy Industry Act and restricted buyers’ licences under the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act. Although the honourable members opposite may refuse to recognise the fact, since it came to Government in 1989 the Goss Labor Government has been actively engaged in modernising the legislation and removing unnecessary regulations. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned. NEW SOUTH WALES-QUEENSLAND BORDER RIVERS AMENDMENT BILL 2414 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.18 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946, and for other purposes.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.19 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill amends the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 and the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers agreement, which is part of that Act. The objective of the amendment is to enable the Border Rivers Commission to assess and to generally manage ground water in the aquifers with the border rivers, and to allocate those waters between the two States. In 1946, the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission was constituted to facilitate the management of the border streams. The commission comprises three commissioners: an independent chairperson and a senior officer of the water management authority of each State. The commission is responsible for monitoring the resources available, investigating the resources, and recommending the volume of water that is available according to a sharing formula set out in the interstate agreement. The work of the commission is carried out by officers of the water authorities in each State, and the water allocation arrangements are implemented through the licensing powers of the State authorities. In recent times, there has been increased development of the subartesian ground water resources in the alluvium associated with the border streams. This ground water is connected to the streams. The extent of the connection varies. Where there is a direct connection, there is a concern that use of ground water and the resultant lowering of the water table may result in water from the stream being drawn naturally into the ground reservoir, depleting stream flows. Further, heavy development on one side of the border may affect ground water levels in the other State. Therefore, there is a need to manage the surface and ground water resources in an integrated manner. Accordingly, the responsibilities of the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission are to be extended to include ground water contained in the alluvial materials associated with the border streams. The commission will investigate and monitor the resources and recommend policy for the management and sharing of the resources. An agreement amending the current New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers agreement has been negotiated between the States. The Premiers of Queensland and New South Wales have signed the agreement. This Bill amends the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 and implements the new agreement. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned.
HIGHER EDUCATION (GENERAL PROVISIONS) BILL Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.20 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2415
“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to the establishment of universities and for the accreditation of courses that lead to higher education awards proposed to be offered by other bodies and institutions, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Comben, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.22 am.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I present to the House a Bill to provide new legislation which will do two things: firstly, it will protect both the standing of universities and the standard of higher education awards, including bachelor degrees and postgraduate degrees and diplomas; secondly, to this end, it will establish authority for the Minister for Education to accredit courses leading to higher education awards offered by providers other than universities. At the moment, these two important and related areas are dealt with in separate Acts in terms which are no longer appropriate. This Bill brings these two related areas together in one piece of legislation, which is relevant to the situation which now prevails. Until 31 December 1989, the Board of Advanced Education had statutory responsibility under the Education Act 1964 to be the accrediting authority for awards conferred by colleges of advanced education established under that Act. The board also had the power to act as accrediting authority for courses leading to advanced education awards conferred by institutions other than colleges of advanced education. In 1989, major changes occurred in the structure of higher education: the binary system of advanced education and university education was replaced at Commonwealth level by a unified national system of higher education; colleges of advanced education in Queensland immediately began to seek and achieve university or university college status, either in their own right or through amalgamation (as such they became responsible for accreditation of their own courses); State boards of advanced education (or equivalent) were replaced by offices of higher (or tertiary) education throughout Australia. The Education (Board of Advanced Education Dissolution) Act 1989, which dissolved the Board of Advanced Education, vested in the Minister for Education residual powers of the board relating to advanced education, including the power to accredit courses leading to awards conferred by any remaining colleges of advanced education, and by non-public institutions offering courses of comparable standing. In developing that legislation, the then Cabinet, in August 1989, foreshadowed the need, after the cessation of the last college of advanced education, for the legislation to provide a clear head of power for the Minister to be the accrediting authority for courses leading to higher education awards conferred by non-public institutions. That is now the situation. There are now no colleges of advanced education in Queensland. All have either been granted university status in their own right or have amalgamated with universities. It is no longer relevant for the Minister’s accrediting authority to be couched in terms of “advanced education”. Universities are, by virtue of their Acts, the final accrediting authorities for the courses they offer. But there is a need for a new piece of legislation which provides clearly for the accreditation of higher education courses offered by providers other than universities, for example, non-public educational organisations and other private providers. The information explosion, the Commonwealth Training Guarantee Administration Act 1990, and the advent of open and packaged learning techniques all have 2416 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly contributed to a subsequent increase in the private higher education market. That market includes: non-public educational institutions; private business organisations, or Government departments, with training and education enterprises; and, of course, professional associations. There is a great deal of evidence of interest from a range of providers in developing courses, particularly at graduate diploma and bachelor’s degree level. The universities have expressed strong support for the Queensland Government to maintain procedures which enable some regulation of private providers, for the protection of consumers and the reputation of the system as a whole. In addition to the obvious concerns about bogus providers, there is a strong general trend towards greater portability and cross crediting of awards, partly driven by award restructuring principles. Such portability is impossible without some common standards, which are most easily and efficiently established by an accreditation process. In addition, there are requirements under Commonwealth legislation in relation to institutions wishing to enrol overseas students. Only formally accredited higher education courses can attract fee- paying overseas students. Concern has been voiced at the national level in a recent report of the Australian Education Council Working Party on higher education, and by the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee that all States should develop controls over the use of the terms “university”, “degree” and other awards. While the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 does contain provisions for such restrictions, they do not belong comfortably in an Act which is primarily about schools and related matters. It is more appropriate to bring together in a separate Act, the two related provisions for accreditation and for protection of terms such as “university” and certain higher education awards. The relevant provisions contained in Part VII of the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 in any case require updating and amendment to reflect the current situation. The proposed Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 to be administered by the Minister for Education will complement the provisions of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 1991 administered by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. That Act provides for the accreditation of vocational education and training courses conducted by State colleges, that is, TAFE institutions and other bodies which apply for accreditation of courses deemed to be comparable to them. The system of vocational education and training awards includes certificates, advanced certificates, associate diplomas and diplomas. Courses leading to degree and postgraduate awards are the responsibility of the higher education sector. There is an area of overlap, with associate diplomas and diplomas being offered in both sectors. The standards of courses at these levels are equivalent in both sectors but there are differences in kind, for example, courses in areas such as teacher education which traditionally have their foundations in higher education. While it is expected that the majority of courses at associate diploma and diploma levels will be accredited for awards in vocational education and training, a small number may be more appropriately accredited in the higher education area. This overlap situation is not a difficulty. To date, such cases have been negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the two accrediting authorities. It is intended that this close cooperation continue. The Minister for Education would not accredit courses at either of these two levels without the express agreement of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Commission Accreditation Board. That agreement is to be expressed formally in a statement signed by the two Ministers. It is in the interests of this State to protect the good name of universities, and to ensure that the name “university” is not misused. This new legislation makes it unlawful in Queensland for any body or institution to call itself a university unless it is established as, or recognised as being, a university. Similarly, the public has the right to expect that the integrity of what we have come to expect of degrees and postgraduate qualifications is not demeaned by the unauthorised granting of these higher-education awards. The new legislation makes it unlawful for a person or an institution to confer or use these awards unless they are authorised to do so. At the same time, it is recognised Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2417 that there are education providers other than universities which may wish to offer higher-education courses leading to awards such as bachelors degrees. The new legislation provides for the Minister for Education to be the accrediting authority for such courses. To accredit a course to lead to a higher education award, the Minister will need to be satisfied, following an assessment made in accordance with approved accreditation procedures, that the course and the way of delivering it are appropriate to the level of the award that is to be conferred. With increasing numbers of people seeking to advance themselves through degrees and higher qualifications, it is essential to be able to provide some assurance and regulation of the standards of courses offered. This new Bill will certainly help to protect the quality of higher-education courses offered in Queensland, and to protect the interests of an increasing body of paying consumers, who may include international students, and it will provide an up-to- date and relevant framework for the Minister’s accrediting authority to continue to operate. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Quinn, adjourned.
SUPREME COURT LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (11.32 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend and repeal certain Acts in relation to the appointment of Supreme Court Judges, and for other 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—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (11.33 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” At present, section 3 of the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Act 1983 provides for the appointment of a maximum of 20 Supreme Court judges. A ceiling on the appointment of judges has existed since 1867 and can only be increased by legislation. There is no logical reason for the statutory imposition of this ceiling. No similar situation exists in any other Australian jurisdictions. Whenever the complement of judges needs to be increased, legislation must be prepared and introduced to raise the ceiling. Legislative changes have been necessary on at least 11 occasions since the establishment of the Supreme Court. This requirement can prevent a timely response to fluctuating circumstances and the effective allocation of resources on either a permanent or temporary basis or to meet emergency situations. Moreover, with the rapid increase of population in Queensland, it is reasonable to anticipate a need for the appointment of more judges. On occasions when the complement of judges has fallen below the stipulated ceiling, the Government has been criticised for allowing such a situation to occur. The complement of judges should be determined according to need, not merely to fulfil a maximum number specified by legislation. The constraints suffered by the Supreme Court do not exist in the District Court, where there is no statutory limit on the number of judicial officers that may be appointed. The procedure for appointing an additional District Court judge is simple and effective. If an additional judge is required, approval is sought from Cabinet to increase the judicial establishment. This system allows for 2418 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly appropriate and timely response to a manifested need for a variation in judicial numbers without the additional costs associated with the preparation of legislation and passage through this Parliament. Under the present law, one could not even appoint a temporary judge to clean up the backlogs. This new arrangement will allow extra judges to be appointed on a temporary basis as and when they are needed. The system for the appointment of Supreme Court judges and District Court judges will now be the same. This amendment will allow more flexibility and responsiveness to needs without removing any of the strict requirements that govern the appointment of a new Supreme Court judge. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, adjourned.
CLASSIFICATION OF FILMS AMENDMENT BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Ferny Grove—Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Corrective Services) (11.36 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Classification of Films Act 1991.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Ferny Grove—Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Corrective Services) (11.37 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Classification of Films Amendment Bill has three main objectives. The first and primary objective is to introduce a new classification for films and videos, namely, MA or mature audience. This legislative initiative flows directly from a resolution of the Council of Australian Governments at its meeting in Perth on 7 December 1992. As part of its general concern about the level of violence in Australia, the council considered the issue of violence on film, television and video and the value of achieving one classification system across these three forms of media. The council had regard to discussions that the Prime Minister had with the television networks in late 1992 and the fact that the networks had agreed to draw up a draft program code adopting the system of classification currently used for films and videos. The council also took note of the fact that under these arrangements two new M classifications would replace the current wide and indiscriminate AO category for television with the more violent films being classified as MA. It was agreed, consistent with this, that films and videos would also have an identical classification system and that the existing M classification would be split in two. The new M category will be recommended for those 15 and over and will include films now falling within the lower end of the M classification. Those films falling within the higher range of films classified M and which the censor is of the opinion contains scenes depicting, expressing or otherwise dealing with matters of sex, violence or coarse language in a way that makes the film unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 years of age, will be classified M. To give effect to the resolution of the Council of Australian Governments, it is necessary for each Australian State to pass necessary amending legislation, and this Bill Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2419 gives effect to Queensland's participation in this nationwide initiative. Pursuant to the Bill, a child aged between the age of 2 and 14 years cannot view an MA film in a public place unless accompanied by an adult. A cinematograph film exhibitor who allows a child aged 14 or under to view an MA film unaccompanied by an adult will commit an offence unless the exhibitor or the exhibitor's employee or agent believes on reasonable grounds that the minor attained 15 years or had not attained 2 years; or is, or will be, accompanied by an adult during the exhibition of the film. In addition, the exhibitor or the exhibitor's employee or agent does not commit an offence if that person believes on reasonable grounds that the person accompanying the child has attained 18 years. Honourable members may be aware that some concern was expressed by film exhibitors about these proposals. It was suggested that it was unfair to introduce such legislation as it would be very difficult for exhibitors to comply with these requirements. Film exhibitors suggested that children under 15 years of age do not carry age identification and therefore it would be impossible to conclusively determine whether a child under the age of 15 years was attending the exhibition of an MA film. This complaint is not without foundation, but as film exhibitors often already make a distinction between children aged 15 and under on the basis of fees charged, it is not considered that the setting of an age limit of 14 places an impossible burden on film exhibitors. Nevertheless, the State's films classification officer has liaised with industry sources with respect to appropriate education campaigns to inform members of the public of the new classification system, as well as the development of an appropriate prosecution policy to ensure that exhibitors who are attempting in a sincere and bona fide way to obey the law will not be unfairly prosecuted. In short, I believe that the introduction of this new classification system, having, as it does, a number of major community advantages, will not result in an unfair burden being placed on the industry. So far as possible both in Queensland and, hopefully, elsewhere every effort will be made to ensure that the industry, who are at the forefront of this change, will be assisted to ensure that the advantages flowing from this law reform measure are enjoyed by all. It goes without saying that the main object of this legislative initiative is to ensure that parents can exercise greater control over what their children view. It has become abundantly clear in recent times that the existing M classification is far too wide. The existing M classification is advisory only and recent films which have fallen within it include such diverse productions as Crocodile Dundee, My Left Foot, Cape Fear and Silence of the Lambs. I also draw honourable members’ attention to a recent review of the film The Last of the Mohicans which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of Thursday, 4 March 1993. Mr FitzGerald: You’d never get in that film with your hairstyle, Mr Minister. You’ve got the reverse; the negative of it. Mr MILLINER: The honourable member is being very hurtful. Mr Briskey: If he turned side on, they wouldn’t see him any more. Mr MILLINER: That is correct, but I had better continue. That film was given an M rating. The reviewer made the following comments— “Mohicans is rated M, which according to its publicity material, means ‘low- level violence’. Low-level scalping, knifing, hatcheting, burnings and hearts being cut out, that is.” It is clear that all Australian Governments are deeply concerned about young children being exposed to violent images which could have lasting detrimental effects on their psychological wellbeing. This Bill will go some way towards tilting the balance back towards a less violent society by assisting parents to protect their children against violent and disturbing films. I am sure that this is a goal all members support. The second object of this legislation is to introduce a new definition of the term “sell”. Recently, a number of complaints have been received about the activities of alleged X-rated video swap clubs. Without discussing the facts of the case, a test 2420 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly prosecution was launched against one alleged swap club and it is currently being determined in the courts. Obviously, I wish to say nothing further about this case. Nevertheless, as honourable members are aware, there has been considerable press comment recently about the proliferation of swap clubs. Following the obtaining of legal advice, it was considered desirable that the law be clarified to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Act are redrafted to facilitate the successful prosecution of persons involved in this activity. Let me make it absolutely clear that the mere possession of X-rated videos is not an offence in Queensland or any other Australian jurisdiction; nor is it an offence for a person to lend or exchange their X-rated video to another person where the lending or exchange is non-profit related. In other words, where there is not a commercial element in the exchange or lending, no offence is committed. The object of introducing a new definition of the term "sell" is to ensure that, where clubs are formed for the purpose of exchanging X-rated videos where there is a commercial element, this activity is specifically dealt with and charges can be laid. From information supplied, it would seem that swap clubs are cunningly created in an attempt to disguise the true nature of their operations. Persons joining such clubs are asked to pay a membership fee, and, in addition, when a video is exchanged, a service fee is charged, which is said merely to cover the costs entailed in effecting the transfer. In other words, the fee is supposedly not for commercial gain but to cover the costs inherent with carrying out the transaction. This, in many cases, is nothing more than a sham and designed to evade the law. The proposed extended definition of “sell” is specifically designed to facilitate the prosecution of these types of swap clubs. To reiterate, the object of this amendment is not to prevent persons who have obtained an X-rated video legally from exchanging or lending it to a person where the nature of the exchange or hire involves no commercial element. However, where such exchange does involve a commercial element, albeit disguised under a number of different names, then this amendment is designed to facilitate the prosecution of persons engaged in this type of activity. The third object of this legislation is to effect a number of statute law revision amendments. If honourable members are desirous of obtaining a more detailed explanation of any of the statute law revision amendments, I would be pleased to provide them either during the second-reading debate or during the Committee stage of this Bill. I have much pleasure in commending this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Stoneman, adjourned.
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (11.45 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act providing for the approval, development and management of schemes of mixed use development, and for other purposes.” Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time.
Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (11.46 a.m.): I move— Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2421
“That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Mixed Use Development Bill will provide a code of practice which will make it easier to develop buildings for a range of uses which may include residential, commercial and office space. This legislation allows for the growing trend to establish developments with a number of uses as compared to the traditional approach of establishing a single purpose building under single ownership. Under this Bill, lot types would be decided according to the proposed use. Group, strata or building unit title lots could all be incorporated into one development and each lot sold separately allowing for a range of uses within a development and giving clear title to each purchaser. Under current arrangements, the occupant must buy into a complex company title and lease space from the developer. They cannot then use their interest in the development as collateral to finance other activities. The Bill does away with this type of company title, giving each purchaser clear title and allowing them to mortgage their lot to finance other activities. It also recognises that an appropriate management structure must be established to ensure common facilities are properly maintained for the benefit of all users of the development. Under the Bill, a number of individuals with an interest in only one specific type of development may join forces and raise finance for a mixed use development as a joint venture. The exposure for each of these partners would be far less than for a developer under current arrangements. All approvals required for a mixed use development must be obtained from the local authority in the first instance. The Act will also protect individual interests without much of the complex legal documentation which is now necessary. The Bill is the product of wide consultation between my department and the development industry, local authorities and legal practitioners. The Bill will have general application throughout the State. It will substantially increase benefits which will flow to the development industry and, more particularly, its financiers. At the same time, it will provide greatly enhanced security for individuals who purchase a registrable interest in parts of such developments. These enhanced benefits for the development industry will have a positive and dramatic flow-on effect to Queensland’s private sector, allowing for the provision of more jobs. Any scheme submitted for approval as a mixed use development is required to comply with the uses permitted under the current planning scheme. Where a proposal does not comply with the zoning assigned to the land under a planning scheme, it is a prerequisite of this legislation that the land in question must be rezoned. In preparing this legislation, extreme care has been taken to ensure that the local authority concerned is involved at all stages of the approval and development process in much the same manner as it would with a normal development. At every stage in the process, the approval of the local authority is required. In addition, the approval of the Governor in Council is required before a scheme of mixed use development can be implemented. These approvals are dealt with in much the same manner as applications for the rezoning of land or integrated resort development approvals. As stated earlier, the Bill is a code of practice designed to provide for the emerging trend that developments be implemented as planned unit developments which incorporate more than one type of use on a site or within a building. A further trend is that developments which are undertaken as planned unit developments are usually very large and have a construction time frame extending over a number of years. The Bill recognises that staged implementation of large projects is becoming the norm and provides for future development areas to be subject to further approvals. Any comprehensively planned development will not only contain a range of different compatible uses, but will also require that the types of land titles which are to be offered within the development will also vary considerably. The Bill provides for this to be lawfully done. It also recognises that in the implementation of schemes such as these, appropriate provision must be made for the owners of lots to have clearly identified their rights and obligations. This has to be established to protect each owner’s interests and 2422 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly rights to use their lots or land and to identify the extent of financial contributions required to be made by them towards the ongoing operation, management and maintenance of the development as a whole. It follows, therefore, that the owner of any title whatsoever within a site of mixed use development becomes a member of a body corporate which represents the interests of the owners of property having similar use rights. By its very nature within a mixed use development, a need would normally exist for a number of different precinct bodies corporate to exist to represent the different interest groups contained within the site. In any developments envisaged by the Bill there will be other facilities within the site which are provided for the community benefit in varying degrees depending upon the nature of uses which are permitted to establish in each precinct or community development lot. These facilities have to be managed and maintained for the benefit of all users. The Bill provides for the establishment of a community body corporate which will have as its members representatives from each of the precinct bodies corporate and community development lots. Under an approved scheme of mixed use development, the scheme itself will provide more precise land use rights within the site than those which are assigned generally by a planning scheme. The uses assigned by the mixed use scheme to parts of a site must be ones which are permitted by the zoning of the land under the planning scheme. The Bill also recognises that certain uses will utilise common facilities or community property more than others, and provides a mechanism for obtaining an equitable management cost sharing arrangement. The approved scheme must allocate voting entitlements to each part of the site, which will be distributed to each of the owners within a site in a manner provided for by the scheme. The bodies corporate referred to previously will have perpetual succession, and any owner or occupier of property within a site is required to become a member of those bodies corporate and to accept the responsibilities which flow from that membership. The Bill represents the culmination of five years of hard work by Government officers, members of the private sector and specialist legal advisers who are expert in the area of commercial development, titling and the relationship which titling has to the body corporate system of management. I pay particular tribute to Arthur Muhl and Noel Thorne and the Local Government Department for the hard work they have put into preparing this Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, adjourned.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading Debate resumed from 4 March (see p. 2100). Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.53 a.m.): Today, we are seeing the third attempt by this Government to get it right in respect of the political agenda which the Labor Party has sought to impose on local government in this State. This is the third attempt to cross the t’s and dot the i’s so that no legal loopholes remain whereby aggrieved councils that are forced into amalgamation can appeal through the courts on the grounds of legal technicalities. It is interesting, as background to this legislation, to go back over past events and plot the course of political interference in local government since Mr Goss and his cohorts came into power in this State. The Labor Government came into power in December 1989 and it was only one month later, on 3 January 1990, that the proposal for a review of electoral and administrative matters relating to local authorities was raised by Deputy Premier Tom Burns. Mr Burns, who was the then Local Government Minister, obviously agreed with other Labor members, such as Clem Campbell and Brian Courtice—who will soon be the late Brian Courtice politically—and Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2423 others that local authorities in Queensland were a den of conservatives in need of a clean-out. Let me stress that no request came from local authorities in this State or, more importantly, from ratepayers for a review of local government. There was no evidence that local authorities in this State were running amok financially or otherwise; nor were ratepayers complaining about inequities in voting entitlements during local authority elections. The only people complaining were Labor politicians, so with the political agenda being firmly set by the Labor Party, the Deputy Premier moved a motion on 29 March 1990 authorising EARC to investigate local authority electoral and administrative matters. This did not come from Fitzgerald; it came from Labor Party headquarters. The timetable which the Labor Party set for the political overhaul of local government was totally unrealistic and, of course, could not be met. EARC commissioners complained about the enormity of the task set for them in the time allotted, but Mr Burns was determined to have the changes in place in time for the local government elections in March 1991—and, to a certain extent, they were. The whole process was notable for the time constraints which impeded proper consultation and for the way in which EARC was swamped with submissions from irate local government people and ratepayers. It is history now that Cabinet rejected the Parliamentary Committee of Electoral and Administrative Review’s recommendations and that we saw the Labor Government backing off at a great rate of knots. In fact, in the main, Mr Goss adopted the recommendations of the dissenting report which was compiled by National and Liberal members. An Opposition member interjected. Mrs McCAULEY: And very competent fellows they were, too! Submissions have recently closed in relation to internal boundaries where local authorities were compelled to look at those boundaries and change according to a formula, if necessary, or face going to the next election undivided. This has led to Duaringa Shire Council Chairman, Kerry Park, calling the exercise “an electoral obscenity”. To comply with new legislation administered by EARC, Duaringa Shire Council was required to merge Divisions 1, 2 and 3, which will result in two separate divisions with disproportionate council representation. Mr Mackenroth: You supported the legislation. Mrs McCAULEY: I did at the time, yes. Mr Mackenroth: Just as long as we note that. Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, but there are problems arising from that, and I think it is important to highlight those problems. Councillor Park says the council now has the shameful and embarrassing task of telling about 3 000 people who are living in an area of 17 900 square kilometres that they have only three representatives because of the mandatory boundary changes. Nine representatives come from Blackwater, and if the chairman came from there also, there would be 10 representatives for the town and three for the bush. I also point out that most of the people in Blackwater are not ratepayers, either, because they live in company housing. This ludicrous situation is made worse when it is considered that if all three rural councillors come from around the Blackwater/Bluff area, those three councillors could quite conceivably have to travel 400 kilometres to do a road inspection on the other side of Blackwater, which is entirely possible. A similar situation has arisen in Mount Isa where that council did not fit the criteria for even one division and is forced to go undivided into the next election. Apparently, this is not what that council wanted, but what has been forced upon it by this Government. Mr Mackenroth: They were not forced; they chose to go. Mrs McCAULEY: The council did not fit the criteria and it had no choice. This is another blunder in a long chain of errors concerning local government which Tom Burns decided to straighten out in this State—to socialise, in the Labor manner. That is an 2424 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly example of previous legislation in the local government arena not meeting with the approval of those whom it most affects, and now we see this Labor Government trying again to get it right with this Amendment Bill. On its past record, it seems doubtful that it will succeed. Let me make it quite clear that the National Party does not object to the position of Local Government Commissioner or to the person—Greg Hoffman—who holds that position. I privately believe that Greg has been set an impossible task in an impossible time frame and that he is probably copping more flak in his new job than he had ever thought possible. However, he is thorough and he knows local government in this State inside out. I have no doubts about his ability. Mr Mackenroth: The Government has given Greg Hoffman not one time frame. He has put his own time frame. There is absolutely no request for anything within any given time. Mrs McCAULEY: It has got to be done before the elections in March next year. Mr Mackenroth: No, it hasn’t. That’s not true. I have not asked him to do anything in any time frame. He has set his own time frame, not me. Mrs McCAULEY: That is interesting because I know that he is trying to get these sorted out by June. Mr Mackenroth: He is an independent commissioner and I would not put anything such as a time frame on him. Mrs McCAULEY: That is interesting. If they are his own time constraints, I still doubt that he will be able to meet them. Mr Mackenroth: That is his choice. Mrs McCAULEY: If that is his choice, that is fine. It is going to be a very difficult time frame to meet. This Bill deals with matters of legal content rather than matters of policy and follows legal advice from the Crown Solicitor, who identified deficiencies in previous drafting and is seeking to rectify them. Of course, when amalgamations were forced in Victoria, expensive litigation through the courts followed and, of course, this Government is keen to avoid that path, if possible. That is not to say that local authorities will not have redress through the courts if they are forced into amalgamations against their wishes, but it will probably have to be on the grounds of natural justice rather than legal technicalities. The legal opinion of a QC on this matter is— “This is very much a political matter and the remedy is a political and not a curial one. To put it more directly, any remedy would be through the ballot box at the next election and not through the court.” It is important therefore from the Government’s point of view to ensure that references from the Minister to the commissioner are entirely correct in law. That has led to those clauses which try to be all things to all people, for example, when the Bill talks about specifying with reasonable certainty things that are or are not included in the reference. To my way of thinking, that is called two bob each way. Indeed, the very fact that the legislation is being introduced suggests that amalgamations will proceed regardless. I would also suggest that, by putting the internal boundaries review before the external boundaries, the Government is putting the cart before the horse. The Local Government Association position on the legislation is that it is satisfied with the processes set down in law for the commissioner to follow, so the association is not opposed to the Bill. However, it should be pointed out that the original submission of the Local Government Association contained provision for referendums in case of amalgamation. Tom Burns flatly refused to contemplate that course, so the LGA took the best line it could under the circumstances and accepted the set procedure put forward by Greg Hoffman for the Local Government Commissioner to follow. The referendum safeguard is also the line taken by Communities Against Forced Amalgamations— CAFA—in the event of amalgamations which are against the wishes of either council and which do not have community support. Let me stress that I believe that referendums are Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2425 useless unless people are fully briefed on what they are voting on. In the case of local government, I suspect that the bottom line is dollars and cents; in other words, what the rate bill will be if amalgamation is endorsed. This is fair enough. Most people think through their hip pocket and, let us face it, if amalgamation is so good it must be because of the substantial cost benefits to ratepayers, must it not? I will say more about that shortly. Recently, an interesting exercise in referendums was held in the Gympie/Widgee area, where Bruce Chapman and a group of interested ratepayers organised a comprehensive and professionally run referendum on whether or not the Gympie/Widgee councils should amalgamate. In that referendum, 26.38 per cent of eligible electors cast a vote, which went 84.3 per cent against in Widgee and 54.4 per cent against in Gympie, for a total of 76 per cent against. Although the turnout was rather small, apparently anything over 20 per cent in such a poll is considered rather good. I am not convinced in my own mind that the ratepayers of those two shires knew enough about the amalgamation issue to be able to cast an informed vote. However, the whole exercise flags big problems for the State Government if it continues to try to force local authorities to amalgamate against the wishes of the people in those shires. Mrs Woodgate: People couldn’t care less, if only 23 per cent voted. Mrs McCAULEY: They are concerned if their rate bill goes up. They are very concerned and very interested. I am concerned that, when the matter first arose, both the Mayor of Gympie and the Widgee Shire Chairman favoured a referendum. Now, neither do. Although I understand the attitude of the Widgee Shire Council that councillors are the only people fully briefed to make a decision on the amalgamation issue, I am very concerned that that council may end up in the same boat as the Murilla Shire Council over the Gurulmundi toxic waste dump. Murilla was placed in a position in which it very reluctantly joined the tripartite committee with the Brisbane City Council and the State Government to run Gurulmundi. Now it has become the whipping boy for the irate group of ratepayers who are opposed to the Gurulmundi site and who blame the local authority for all their woes because of its involvement on that committee. Anyone involved in any tier of government, whether local, State or Federal, who forgets whom he or she seeks to represent, or who appears to forget, will become a casualty at the ballot box. I am sure that all honourable members would agree with that. A quote on the front of the latest publication by Michael Jones and CAFA to the Local Government Commissioner states— “With public sentiment on its side, everything succeeds; with public sentiment against it, nothing succeeds.” That was an interesting and wise observation by Abraham Lincoln, who himself lived in a time of great turmoil and public unrest—and he was not talking about the GST, either. A second quote in the same publication is even more relevant, and perhaps the Minister would do well to ponder it. It is from a book called Organising Political Life: What Administrative Reorganisation Tells Us About Government. It states— “Reorganisations tend to become collections of solutions looking for problems, ideologies looking for soapboxes, pet projects looking for supporters, and people looking for jobs, reputations or entertainment.” I believe that the present Minister is not as bloody minded in his approach to the whole matter of local authorities as his predecessor was and that there will hopefully be less ideological knife wielding than we would have seen from Mr Burns. I am open to be proven wrong in my assessment—— Mr Stoneman: I think that little stint in the sin bin has softened him. Mrs McCAULEY: I hope for the sake of local government that I am correct in my assessment. When the first Bill dealing with the office of the Local Government Commissioner was brought into Parliament in April last year, the member for Mirani opposed the broadening of scope as to matters which could be referred by the Minister 2426 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly to the Commissioner for Local Government. There was a lot of discussion about the term “reviewable local government matter”, and that term is being quite extensively amended in the Bill today. There is also provision to change the method of declaring a matter a reviewable local government matter from an Order in Council to regulation, and I will be talking to the Minister more about that during the Committee stage, because I have a lot of questions. I want to go on record here and express my concerns about that method of doing things, because it effectively removes from Parliament the ability to oversee changes to the Act. That is not something which should be countenanced, even though I am aware that previous boundary changes did not go to Parliament, either. If it is good enough to tamper with boundaries, it is good enough to do it through Parliament. If there are no problems, the whole process will obviously be short and sweet. Because the means of defining and refining—— McElligott: Does that apply to State electorates, too? Mrs McCAULEY: Why not? Mr McElligott: Do we determine our own boundaries? Mrs McCAULEY: No. I am saying that all of that should come through Parliament. Because the means of refining and defining a reviewable local government matter were so difficult and extensive, the Bill even allows for reference to anything relating to local government mentioned in a report of the parliamentary committee. I sympathise with Maurie Tucker and his team in the Local Government Department about the problems posed for them by this Bill. At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to express my thanks for the briefing I was given by those officers. They are always courteous and professional in every way, and I appreciate that. During the Committee stage, the Opposition will be moving two amendments which we believe add a stronger dimension to this Bill from the perspective of local authorities. The first one deals with any recommended amalgamations and requires the commissioner to identify any benefits likely to be gained from such action. Last year, under the Local Government (Review of External Boundaries) Regulation 1992, guidelines were published for the drawing up of external boundaries. These may have given some people a warm inner glow but were fairly nebulous and talked about such matters as “community of interest”, and needing to “facilitate the efficient and effective provision and maintenance of services and facilities”. Nowhere was there any mention of substantial cost benefits which may flow on to ratepayers as a result of amalgamation. In fact, any thought of cost-benefit analysis seems to be anathema to this Labor lot. Mr Stoneman: The other thing that was significantly missing was the capacity of the local government representative to effectively represent his or her area. There is no sign of that. Mrs McCAULEY: I think there is very little understanding of that particular finer point. I firmly believe that there can be no talk of amalgamations without such a cost- benefit analysis, and the two go together like the proverbial horse and carriage. Ratepayers will vote whichever way their hip-pocket nerve dictates, and it is essential that they are aware whether their rate bill will increase or decrease in any amalgamation or other likely change. In the Gympie/Widgee amalgamation issue, a report commissioned by both councils highlighted a substantial increase in the rates in Widgee Shire and a lesser increase in rates in Gympie. Those Coopers and Lybrand type reports must be done in all regions facing amalgamation recommendations and must be widely publicised. The second amendment provides for a referendum to be held—at State Government expense—if a local authority decides to exercise this option. I am strongly of the opinion that such an amendment is necessary in this Bill because it is the “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done” sort of thing. Mr McElligott: Would voting be compulsory? Mrs McCAULEY: No, and nor would the referendum be compulsory. But the provision is there for it if the council wishes to have it. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2427
Mr McElligott: You may get only a 20 per cent turnout. Mrs McCAULEY: Don’t you believe it! It would be a lot more than that. If it was held in Rosenthal, every one of the 2 536 ratepayers—or whatever the number is—in that little shire would come out to vote against it. Mr FitzGerald: The difference is that it wasn’t a local authority conducted referendum. Mrs McCAULEY: It was not done by the local authorities in Gympie and Widgee, it was done privately; and apparently that was a fairly good percentage for a private poll. If the Minister does not agree with the Opposition’s amendments, he is missing a golden opportunity to temper his legislation with some compassion and understanding, and I am sure that he would like to be associated with compassion and understanding. Let me turn now to the other sections of this legislation. It seems appropriate to me that the Local Government Commissioner have the power not only to increase the Brisbane City Council boundaries but to decrease same. Because this power is vested in the person of the commissioner, and he has to report to the Minister with his recommendations, there does not appear to be cause for concern. However, it is interesting that in his second-reading speech, the Minister, when discussing this section of the Bill, offered the safeguard that— “The Act further provides that a change to a reviewable local government matter can only be implemented by the Governor in Council after receiving a report from the commissioner.” This is no doubt meant to reassure any doubting Thomases—and it does, until we come to the second part of the Bill in which the Minister says that he is giving the Governor in Council the power to make a regulation to extend the Act. Although his comments are not referring to the same sections of the Act, I believe he cannot have it both ways. As the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council can only be altered on a recommendation from the Local Government Commissioner, we will not oppose this section of the Bill. Nor will the Opposition oppose the second amendment to the City of Brisbane Act, which enables the council to manage and control bridges which it did not construct. As I understand it, this amendment pertains to a particular bridge at Fisherman Islands, which is controlled by the Port of Brisbane Authority. As there are several ratepayers on the island who use the bridge, it is sensible that it be under the care and control of the local authority rather than the port authority. The final amendments are to the contract powers of local authorities and are simply a clarification of the position of Optus as it seeks to extend throughout the State. I am rather disappointed with Optus—in fact, I am very disappointed with Optus. In my electorate, people are screaming out for mobile phones. Every second person seems to want one. So we took a petition of several thousand signatures to Telecom, and Telecom’s reply was that it would be 1994 before there was any action. So I sent a copy of that same petition to Optus, thinking that it might have its act together, and was told that 1997 would see all of us lucky bushies get mobile phones. So it is back to the two- way radios and a long wait for something which will be of immense benefit to country people. We are not opposed to this section being amended and so will not vote against the second reading. However, there will no doubt be divisions during the Committee stage. Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (12.14 p.m.): I am pleased to rise to speak to this Bill. The prime intention of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1936 to clarify the matters that can be referred by the Minister to the Local Government Commissioner for examination and report and recommendation and to also provide the Governor in Council with the necessary powers to implement any recommendations concerning matters termed “reviewable local government matters” under the Act. Essentially, “reviewable local government matters”, as opposed to local government matters generally, deal with constitutional issues such as internal and external boundary 2428 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly alterations of local authority areas, assigning or reassigning members, determining the class of a local authority area or changes to the system of voting. The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review endorsed EARC’s approach to amalgamation when it reported on 19 March 1992. Although EARC’s recommendations were not supported in full, the parliamentary committee recommended 16 local authority areas for amalgamation into seven new areas. The provisions in this Bill will enable the boundary changes recommended by the parliamentary committee, which are to be referred to the Local Government Commissioner. The new electorate of Gladstone contains two complete local authorities: the Gladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council. The boundary of the latter is also the boundary of the Gladstone electorate. I am sure that honourable members will agree that they are the finest local authorities in the finest city of Queensland. The Calliope Shire is led by Shire Chairman Elizabeth Cunningham; Councillors Creed, Stiller, Bailey, Bichsel, Brushe, Fox, Chapman and Dinte; and Shire Clerk Graeme Kanofski. The shire has an area of 5 875 square kilometres and a population of 11 000 people to 12 000 people. In 1880, the first meeting of the Calliope Division Board was held. Recently, the Calliope Shire Council decided to end the divisional system of representation. That decision was taken because of a change in status of the shire from rural to urban. The local authority has set aside divisional representation and its members are elected by popular vote. Several small townships are contained in the Calliope Shire, some of which were established during the goldmining days. Recently, I visited Many Peaks in the Boyne Valley area. I thank John Hoff and his wife Jan, proprietors of the Many Peaks Hotel, for their hospitality. I thank also those who took the time to meet me and to make my visit an enjoyable occasion. Whilst in that area, I visited Mr Frank McKee, who is undertaking a historical railway dam project. On his behalf, I contacted the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Water Resources Commission to seek assistance with that project. The people of the Calliope Shire will be well serviced by a road upgrading announced recently by the Minister for Transport, David Hamill. A $1m upgrading of the Gladstone-Monto Road will be undertaken. Primarily, that road will service the new stickmakers’ factory, but it will also service the people of that area. For approximately 30 years, representations have been made to Government for an upgrading of that road. That upgrade is finally under way. Mrs McCauley: It should be on that road, anyway. Mr BENNETT: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Callide. As honourable members may be aware, prior to the electoral boundaries redistribution, Many Peaks was contained within her electorate. Obviously, the honourable member did nothing to advance the cause of those people. The upgrading of the road will improve tourism in the area. The local residents are very pleased about that, because it will inject a few extra dollars into the region. Despite that positive move, the honourable member for Callide can only bleat about it. Even though an improvement has been made, the only contribution offered by the honourable member for Callide is knocking, mumbling and carrying on. Dear me! Mrs McCauley: You have got a lot to learn, old son. Mr BENNETT: I inform the honourable member for Callide that I am not her son, and I never will be. The twin towns of Boyne Island and Tannum Sands at the mouth of the Boyne River are the fastest-growing towns in the shire. The Boyne Aluminium Smelter is undertaking a due diligence process for the third potline expansion. When that expansion is commenced, considerable further growth will occur in the Boyne/Tannum area. The Calliope Shire Council will have to work hard to provide services for the increasing population. With the assistance of the developers, the Calliope Shire is undertaking a new sewerage works program in the area. Even though Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2429 much hard work will be involved, the council foresees no problems with the expansion of the Boyne Island, Tannum Sands and Calliope townships. Predominantly, the Calliope Shire is a rural shire. The principal rural industry is the production of beef cattle, which represents some 60 per cent of rural production. Grazing is carried out on natural grassland with only limited improved pasture. Approximately 116 000 beef cattle on 260 properties are maintained within the shire. Brahman and Hereford are the most popular breeds. Dairying, which was once a significant rural industry in the shire, has declined in favour of beef cattle production. At present, approximately 4 000 dairy cattle are run on 30 farms. Only a small quantity of grain is grown in the shire. The total area dedicated to grain growing is approximately 1 290 hectares. The principal grain crop is sorghum. Paw-paws are the main fruit grown in the shire. The paw-paws grown at Yarwun are famous for their quality. They are exported as far south as Adelaide and to many other places in Australia. The total area of the shire dedicated to fruit growing is approximately 350 hectares, almost all of which is paw-paws, the remainder being mangos and pineapples. Only a small quantity of vegetables are grown in the shire. The total area dedicated to vegetable crops is 40 hectares. Fishing is a major industry in the area. During the summer months, choice mud crabs are harvested from rivers and estuaries. In particular, The Narrows between the mainland and Curtis Island produces large quantities of crabs. Prawns are taken offshore. Barramundi, salmon, whiting, flathead and cod are the main estuary fishes caught. Sweet lip, emperor, cod and mackerel are the most common reef fish caught. I turn now to secondary industries. Earlier, I mentioned that in the period between 1978 and 1982, $850m of industrial development occurred in the shire. Primarily, that development involved the Boyne smelter and the Queensland Cement and Lime Company’s cement clinker plant at Fisherman’s Landing, which is presently undergoing expansion. That plant processes limestone mined at East End, and ships transport the clinker to Brisbane and Townsville, where it is ground and used for the manufacture of cement. That industry employs approximately 100 workers. At the Boyne Island smelter, south of Gladstone, aluminium is produced and is transported from the Boyne Island wharf to Japan and elsewhere all over the world. Limestone is mined at Taragoola, which is 10 kilometres south of Calliope. The product of that mine is used in the production of alumina at the refinery at Gladstone and is also used as concrete aggregate and railway ballast. As I said, limestone is mined at East End. Services for that operation come from the Mount Larcom area, which has been boosted by that mining. Several deposits of oil shale have been found in the shire, and the Rundle deposit adjacent to The Narrows is estimated to contain 1.5 billion barrels of oil. Currently, it is under investigation, with ore samples being production tested in the USA. A major feature of the Calliope Shire is recreation, particularly on the beaches at Tannum Sands and in the picnic areas. Last weekend, the Statewide Nippers Lifesaving Carnival was held at that beach. I believe that the honourable member for Currumbin’s son participated in that carnival. Approximately 1 500 nippers took part in it. Mrs Rose: And Currumbin won. Mr BENNETT: That is correct. Calliope Shire has also undertaken extensive recreational projects at Tannum Sands such as Turtle Way, which is a riverside parkland that will enable pedestrians and cyclists to have ready access to kilometres of natural river and ocean foreshore and bushland areas. The linking of recreational facilities such as the recreational club at Boyne Island, the Canoe Point nature reserve and the surfing beach at Tannum Sands is the long-term aim of that project. The Boyne/Tannum Country Club is a community club which is sited on a pleasant bend of the Boyne River. It is open for membership to the general public and it provides a wide range of facilities, including modern bars and bistros, golf courses, a bowling green, a tennis court and playing fields. An information centre at Tannum Sands assists in directing visitors to other points of interest in the area. Pony club activities and polocrosse—which is based 2430 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly at Calliope—are popular with horse lovers and have a large following. Calliope also boasts an 18-hole golf course and a bowling green for enthusiasts, and recreation areas exist for other sports. A modern library caters for the local community and provides a back-up for branch libraries at Boyne Island and Mount Larcom. I urge all honourable members to visit Awoonga Dam, which is located south of Benaraby, and which is in a beautiful area. It supplies water to the region and offers excellent picnic and sailing facilities. Boat ramps are provided at Tannum Sands, Boyne Island, Calliope River and The Narrows to cater for fishermen. Numerous picnic areas alongside creeks also exist throughout the shire. Heron Island, which is a coral cay located 70 kilometres off the coast, is known internationally for its recreational facilities and its ecological studies. The reefs surrounding the island are a major attraction to skin divers. I also mention the work that has been undertaken at the Port Curtis Historical Village, which attracts thousands of visitors. The Gladstone City Council, under Mayor Col Brown and Councillors Burns, Sellers, Noort, Dahl, Lenz and Curtis, covers an area of approximately 128 square kilometres and has a population of 24 000. Gladstone, which was once described as a dirty city by uninformed members of the media, is a result of the hard work that has been carried out by several city council administrations to make it the wonderful city that it is today. Over the past eight years, it has won the Tidy Towns contest six times, and on other occasions it was a runner-up. The beautiful botanic gardens, which Minister Molly Robson visited recently, set a scene of Australian bushland beauty. I believe that its class has no equal, and the Minister was suitably impressed. During the days when Bill Prest was the Mayor of Gladstone, he had to fight hard for services for that community. That hard work is now paying off. It boasts a wonderful city theatre, sports facilities, clubs, nightclubs and a beautiful marina complex, with a bridge linking the main business centre with the marina campus, which is expected to be completed shortly. The interaction of the Calliope Shire, the Gladstone City Council and the Gladstone Port Authority for the benefit of the region is cordial, with very little disagreement between them. The councils provide a good service to their ratepayers and are pro-active in obtaining State and Federal grants for job creation projects and improving the lifestyle of their citizens. Recent grants for bikeway projects in Calliope and Gladstone have been well received by the respective councils and the public. I point out also that Gladstone was forthright in protecting its ratepayers from the effects of Hewson’s goods and services tax, were it to be implemented. I turn now to the EARC and PEARC recommendations. I believe it is important to outline the role of the Local Government Commissioner, which is to provide timely reports to the Minister on matters that have been referred for investigation. The commissioner should act with integrity and in a professional manner in examining and reporting on referrals and must comply with any prescribed criteria or principles approved by the Governor in Council and other procedures laid down in the Act. The commissioner is independent of the Government, and exercises a statutory role that involves investigating referrals made by the Minister from time to time. It is expected that those referrals will invariably be matters of a constitutional nature. Under the Act, no action can be taken to implement one of those reviewable local government matters unless there has been an investigation and a report from the commissioner. However, there is discretionary power for the Minister to refer any other matter relating to local government to the commissioner for investigation and report. The end goal, or aim, of the commissioner is to contribute towards an improvement in the system of local government. That occurs through meeting the immediate goal of submitting recommendations in respect of specific councils that address the reviewable local government matters. In conclusion, I would like to bring to the attention of this House the fact that the Federal Government is considering changing the Australian Constitution to recognise the role of local government. An article in the Australian , dated 17 March 1993, states— Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2431
“The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, is considering changing the Australian Constitution to recognise the role of local government. But in a letter to the president of the Australian Local Government Association, Alderman Peter Woods, Mr Keating indicates he would proceed with the move only with the support of the federal Coalition. Any change to the Constitution would have to be put to a referendum. ‘There would be no advantage in taking the issue to a referendum without bipartisan political support,’ Mr Keating’s letter says. Athough Mr Woods has not received a response from the Coalition, Mr Keating believed the Coalition would not back such a change. When the issue was put to the nation at a referendum in 1988 by the Hawke government, without Coalition support, it was lost. Mr woods said yesterday he was waiting on support from the Coalition, ‘but this letter opens the way for more effective federal and local government co- operation.’ The ALGA”— the Australian Local Government Association— “lobbied during the election campaign for the incoming federal government to grant more autonomy to local government and Mr Keating has agreed to discuss the proposal with the ALGA executive. Mr Woods said local government currently was seen as little more than an appendage to State government.” I believe that the content of this Bill will assure local government that we do not regard it an as appendage of State Government; that we regard it as an integral part of government in Australia. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill to the House. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (12.31 p.m.): I join in this debate on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill with a very great knowledge of the support that local government gives to the community and the recognition that is given to the tremendous amount of work that it does in the community. If there is anything that is ready to get a kick in the head, it is usually local government, and it always seems to come back for more. For that reason, I believe that local government needs support and encouragement wherever and whenever possible. In common with the member for Callide, Mrs McCauley, I am concerned about some of the statements made by the Minister in his second-reading speech. He stated— “It is also proposed to introduce more flexibility into the law regarding the implementation issues that the Local Government Commissioner is required to report upon when a recommendation is made to alter the external boundary of a local authority.” The part that worries me is— “This will be achieved by giving the Governor in Council the power to make a regulation to extend the current list in section 4L of the Act.” This seems to be running very close to a Henry VIII clause, because the Government is giving authority through regulation to alter what should normally come through legislation. Mr Mackenroth: We are getting rid of all your party’s Henry VIII clauses. We wouldn’t be bringing in our own, let’s face it. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister would have to convince me that he is getting rid of all Henry VIII clauses. Mr Beattie: We trust him. 2432 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr STEPHAN: I am glad that the member trusts the Minister. But I am concerned because, in the past, Labor Governments and conservative Governments throughout the Commonwealth have allowed to sneak through matters that should be debated in Parliament. This issue should be reviewed and watched constantly. Statements have been made about amalgamation. If ever there was a divisive issue in the community, I assure members that it is amalgamation, particularly in the Gympie/Widgee district in my electorate. Mr Mackenroth: I haven’t seen you standing up anywhere. Mr STEPHAN: As far as that goes, I have not seen the Minister stand up very much, either. If the Minister is saying that the commissioner has the authority and he makes the decisions, I wonder under what guidelines the commissioner is operating. Will the commissioner decide when elections are to be held in the local government areas that are to be amalgamated? People have said to me that local government elections for Gympie and Widgee will be held in approximately the middle of the year. Who has made that decision? If it was not the Minister, or the commissioner working along those lines, who has actually said that the elections shall be held in about the middle of the year? Is it the—your—commissioner, or is he working under the guidelines of the Minister? Mr Mackenroth: He is not my commissioner, he is our commissioner. Mr STEPHAN: I said “the commissioner”. Mr Livingstone: You said “your commissioner”. Mr STEPHAN: Never mind about “your” or “our” or whatever. The Minister is part of this Government, and he is ducking the issue. Mr Mackenroth: He is not my commissioner, he is an independent commissioner. Mr STEPHAN: Under whose guidelines is he working? Mr Mackenroth: He is working under the Act. Mr STEPHAN: The commissioner is working under the Minister’s Act, which states that he is apparently giving directions to various local authorities and saying to them that they shall amalgamate or “we will not bother about you at the present time”. I have heard comments to the effect that the Minister is having a large influence over the decisions, even though he is not prepared to put anything in writing. Mr Mackenroth: No way. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister is not prepared to put anything in writing. He cannot duck away from the fact that—— Mr Mackenroth: That is not true. Mr STEPHAN: What is not true? That the Minister is not prepared to put it in writing? Mr Mackenroth: That I am trying to influence what is going on. Mr STEPHAN: I have not heard the Minister answer too many questions about amalgamation and what is required there. Mr Mackenroth: It would be totally wrong of me to go and pre-empt the commissioner. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister has just made the comment that the commissioner is working under his Act and the guidelines that he has set. He is now contradicting himself if he says that he is going to keep at arm’s length. It just does not add up. We are waiting to determine the advantages of amalgamation and what will be at the end of the tunnel when the decision to amalgamate is made. Comments have been made about enormous increases in rates. That leaves a lot of doubt in people’s minds. It is a difficult question, but it must be answered before a decision is made or before people will support amalgamation. For example, if people are facing a 30 per cent or 40 per cent increase in rates, one can understand their concern and why they are worried about the repercussions. Naturally, they are thinking of how the amalgamation will affect them and Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2433 how they can afford to pay for it. Further down the track, because of the greater workload that will occur in the one location, new workshops or administration buildings might be required. Differential rating will have to be introduced. Under the present rate base, in Gympie, the total value of unimproved land is $50m and, in Widgee, it is $258m, which is a large variation in the valuation base. In one local authority, residents pay rates of 1.8c in the dollar, and in the other they pay 5c in the dollar. They are working on the same type of valuation per property but there is an enormous difference in the rate charged in the dollar. The Government will have difficulty appeasing those people. Mr Mackenroth: If there was a recommendation for amalgamation, do you think the new local authority should be called Gympie or Widgee? Mr STEPHAN: I would not necessarily want it to be called Widgee. If amalgamation must occur, what is wrong with calling it the Greater Gympie Area? Or perhaps it could be called Nashville. People would not know where Nashville was, but at least they know where Gympie is. Mr Mackenroth: So you support the name Gympie? Mr STEPHAN: I suggested that it be called the Greater Gympie Area. If there were to be an advantage of the amalgamation, it would be in relation to tourism. Statistics reveal that, in the last couple of years, the population of Gympie has decreased by approximately 10 people. However, in the past seven or eight years, the population in the Widgee Shire has doubled. Statistics of the growth rate in Gympie do not reflect the growth rate in the whole district. We must look at the positives—there are some—and ensure that there will be no negatives. If the Government has decided that the Gympie and Widgee local authority areas are to be amalgamated, it will need to take those statistics into account. However, many people are concerned. They are not convinced that they will be better off as a result of any amalgamation. Earlier, mention was made of the voluntary referendum that was carried out. I commend the people who organised and paid for it out of their own pocket and from donations from friends and supporters. The referendum was carried substantially. Even though the Minister might comment that only 20 per cent of the population took part in that referendum, I assure him that the people in that area are concerned about the proposed amalgamation. If he does not believe that, I invite him to accompany me around the district to ascertain the support that exists for the electorate and the two local authorities. When 84 per cent of the residents of the Widgee Shire who voted in the referendum do not want an amalgamation and only 15 per cent do, that is a fair indication that the people who did not vote would have to swing greatly in the opposite direction to affect the result. Of the 17 000 voters who were eligible to vote, almost 5 000 took part. Gympie City was a different story in that only 54 per cent of the residents were against the merger and 45 per cent were in favour of it. The Minister must consider those matters. Neither the Government nor the Minister has stipulated the benefits that will be derived by an amalgamation of those two local authorities. Many hurdles must be overcome, but the Minister has not satisfied the people as to what the benefits will be. I look forward to this debate and to the result of any amalgamations, whether they be in my area or in any other area in which it has been suggested. I note that the Government has been proceeding slowly with the amalgamation of many local authorities. The process has not been as easy as the Government would have hoped it would be, which indicates to me that there is concern not only in my area but also in many other areas throughout the State. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (12.44 p.m.): I rise to support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1993. One of the central objectives of the Bill is to amend the City of Brisbane Act to provide for the amendment of the external boundaries of the City of Brisbane by either removing or adding properties to the city area. This would happen after an appropriate recommendation was made by the Local Government Commissioner and agreed to by the Governor in Council. Currently, there are sections in the City of Brisbane Act which restrict the way in which recommendations from the Local Government Commissioner may be implemented. For 2434 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly example, the city area is prescribed by metes and bounds description. Currently, the power of the Governor in Council is limited in the City of Brisbane Act to increasing the area and not, for example, transferring properties from Brisbane to Logan City. In fact, the present provisions require any changes to city boundaries of Brisbane to be approved by Parliament as amendments to the schedule to the City of Brisbane Act. This Bill amends the City of Brisbane Act to ensure that the Governor in Council has the power under the Local Government Act to either enlarge or reduce the size of Brisbane City based on a recommendation received from the Local Government Commissioner. This Bill provides for a second amendment to the City of Brisbane Act which amends section 36A of the Act to give a discretionary power for the council to assume responsibility for bridges where it was not the constructing authority but where the relevant constructing authority makes a request for the council to assume responsibility. At present, section 36A enables the council to only manage and control bridges it provides and constructs. The provision has, therefore, been widened. The Brisbane City Council supports both those amendments. One of the advantages of amalgamation of local authorities—and one of the advantages of the type of amendments to the City of Brisbane Act that I referred to earlier—is that it allows for more effective planning than what has occurred in the past in Queensland, particularly in a local government area. Effective boundary adjustments can provide for coordinated planning and development of the area for the long-term good of present and future residents, efficient and effective provision of physical and human services and future projected growth. Today, I intend to deal with the issue of future projected growth at some length, because it is central to Queensland’s future. I noticed with some interest a publication by the Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning entitled Planning for the People of Queensland, which sets out the enormous planning task that faces Queensland over the next few years. On page 3, it states— “From the first days of the colony, it took more than a century for Queensland’s population to reach one million. It took only another 37 years, until 1974, to reach the two million mark. And now, 18 years on, Queensland has more than three million people. The pace of change is such that research now indicates the next 30 years will see a further two million people living in Queensland. Much of this growth will be concentrated in the South-east of the State, with population increases ranging up to 177 per cent. By 2020, more than three million people will live in the south-east corner alone—a total of 66 per cent of the State’s residents. The Far North will also experience major growth, with a predicted doubling of population in 30 years, making it the third most populated region in Queensland. The Wide Bay-Burnett, Mackay and Townsville areas are expected to see population growth of 60 per cent. This growth will impact on every aspect of Queenslanders’ lives. For every 50,000 new Queenslanders, we need to provide: 18,000 new homes 35 new schools road space for 20,000 more cars 450 new hospital beds 600 new shops. They will need water, electricity, public transport, shops and offices to work in and land for their houses. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2435
They will need parks to relax in, fields to play on, and natural bushland as a breathing space for people and animals.” I will to come back to the issue of bushland as I intend to deal with that in some length. The publication continues— “Land will have to be protected for crops and stock to feed urban dwellers.” That is the task that is confronting this State. Therefore, we need to have local government in a position in which it can adequately plan. That is why amalgamation is essential to that. We have to try to take the politics out of this debate. Unfortunately, the contributions made by members opposite today, and on previous occasions outside this House, have generated an hysterical debate for short-term political gain. Sometimes when we are confronted with these planning issues—and I have highlighted the magnitude of the task facing this State—we have to put short-term political gain behind us and look to what is in the best interests of Queensland. We will end up with more effective planning out of an amalgamation process, which is clearly what the Bill is designed to do and clearly what the whole thrust of the legislation introduced by the former Minister, Tom Burns, and by the present Minister, Terry Mackenroth, has been about. It has been about better planning. That is what the focus is on. If we cannot deal with that in a mature way, then we will end up with short-term and long-term planning problems which, in the long-term, will mean hardship for Queenslanders and they will not have the types of facilities that they are entitled to expect and deserve. I am saying that we have to put politics behind us and not use local government as a political football or use this House as a vehicle for political exercises. Early this week, the honourable member for Toowong attacked the Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley. The member was trying to advance the proposition that there was a council bribe of $10,000 or whatever to the Broncos. He did this to try to beat up some fictional tension between the State Government and City Hall. Such tension does not exist. He was abusing his privileges as a member of the House. But he is not the only one who does that. Bob Ward, the Leader of the Opposition in City Hall, is pretty keen to do it, too. So we are seeing the beginning of one of the dirtiest campaigns that we have seen in any City of Brisbane election since the formation of this city. While Bob Ward is spreading those stories and getting his old mate Denver Beanland—who used to be Deputy Mayor but they got rid of him because he was so hopeless—— Mrs McCauley: That is not nice. Mr BEATTIE: No. It is not nice, but it is true—and I always tell the truth, as the honourable member knows. Bob Ward has been attacking City Hall and attempting to create difficulties—a bit of a smokescreen to attack the State Government as well. While attacking what the Brisbane City Council is doing at QEII with the Broncos, he approached council officers to put a good word in for him to obtain free season tickets for the Bronco games! Bob Ward is a real classic. He is trying to start one of the dirtiest campaigns this city has ever seen. I do not think people will tolerate that sort of politics, and I think it is about time that he got his act together. We should not use this House—as the honourable member for Toowong did on Tuesday—as a place in which to act in a sleazy and dishonest manner. If the honourable member for Toowong wants to be the head of sleaze in this place, let it be known that that is what he wants to do, instead of trying to denigrate—— Mr Ardill: Indooroopilly. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. In fact, he is the honourable member for Indooroopilly. He was the member for Toowong in the last Parliament. If that is what he wants to do, let it be known that that is what he wants to do. I think we have to rise above that because, as I said before, the planning decisions that have to be faced by this Government are important to this State’s future. Let me return to what I was talking about in terms of local government. The whole thrust of this legislation and similar legislation introduced by this Government is designed to enhance the role of local 2436 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly government, not to take away its power. Philosophically, the Labor Party has always supported a greater role for local government as far back as when Whitlam was Prime Minister. It is nonsense for Opposition members to suggest otherwise. This Government is trying to make local government more effective and more efficient. Local government will continue, under the plans devised by the Goss Government, to be responsible for the preparation, administration and implementation of planning schemes. Such schemes are likely to be more comprehensive, incorporating environmental, social and economic objectives, and would identify any State interests of significance to the locality. There can be a joint arrangement for planning. In the south-east corner of this State, where so much growth has taken place, some of the difficulties confronting the Goss Government have occurred because of a lack of planning in the past. Tom Burns initiated moves to have a broader planning strategy worked out. In the past, no emphasis was placed on a coordinated approach to planning. Public infrastructure often ended up remote from communities that did not have access to facilities, and planning was not synchronised to population growth. There was a mishmash of growth without any coordinated approach to development. That occurred because no attempt was made to sort out some of the difficulties. Past planning systems traditionally focused only on the physical characteristics of land to determine whether it could be used for urban development. No provision was made for the social and economic implications of land use changes to be evaluated as part of the rezoning process. There was no mechanism to connect the infrastructure planning and programming of public agencies to local government strategic planning processes. In Queensland, local government effectively determines, through planning schemes, where people will live, and that is why there has to be a very sensible, overall coordinated approach. As I said earlier, a number of Bills, including this one, have been designed to initiate better planning. The Government has commenced a reform of the Queensland planning system to overcome the deficiencies to which I referred earlier. The Government has established regional planning processes such as SEQ 2001 and FNQ 2010 to develop mechanisms for the effective management of growth. An important objective of these regional planning exercises is to reach agreement with local authorities—and I emphasise “agreement”—and key sector groups on the sequencing of urban development. That is the whole thrust of this Government’s approach—consensus, consultation and agreement, not conflict and short-term political gain. In addition, the Government established the Planning and Infrastructure Coordination Standing Committee of Cabinet to look at ways of achieving better coordination. New planning legislation was announced by the Premier, Mr Goss, in the Queensland—Leading State economic policy statement. That document contains a number of principles for the new planning legislation which will be vital to the direction taken by this State in the future. This topic may not be flash when it comes to news stories, but planning is vital to the future of this State in a very meaningful and direct way. The new planning legislation will provide for the integration of State and local planning objectives in planning schemes so that the services required by local communities are planned by a partnership of State and local government in a cooperative and comprehensive manner. In addition, there will be greater emphasis on strategic or forward planning so that needs for physical and social infrastructure and human services are known in advance and can be reflected in programs accordingly, and there will be established within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning planning services to work with local authorities and developers of large-scale urban communities to integrate key components of public infrastructure such as roads, education, health, water, etc., which is something that did not happen in the past. These facilities will be integrated into the planning of new and existing communities and the Government will seek agreement for the protection of strategic sites for these purposes. Master plans for major new urban communities and strategic plans of some local authorities are now beginning to show major public infrastructure intentions. We are finally getting there, and that has been brought about because of an overall strategic approach to planning. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2437
Let me now deal with the greater Brisbane area. It is no secret that there has been some tension between Brisbane and Logan City in terms of where the boundaries would be placed. I am happy to say that I believe a fairly happy arrangement has been achieved and that relations are improving, although only time will tell. Part of what the Brisbane City Council is trying to do in that area is protect very important bushland. In fact, the State Government has lent the Brisbane City Council $11.8m to assist in the Brisbane City Council’s bushland acquisition strategy. I think all honourable members would agree that Brisbane is Australia’s most “livable” city. Mr Ardill: The experts do. Mr BEATTIE: As my colleague the member for Archerfield says, the experts do, too. Brisbane has magnificent environmental assets such as bushlands, wetlands, forested foothills, open parklands, wildlife and extensive creek networks and Moreton Bay—or “sparkling Moreton Bay”, as they say—right on our doorstep. The Brisbane City Council has demonstrated that it is committed to protecting our natural heritage and to ensuring that our children will enjoy the same quality of life as we do today. Unfortunately, in the eight years up to 1991, almost one-fifth of our city’s bushland was cleared at the average rate of three football fields a day. If this had continued, we could have lost up to three-quarters of our remaining bushland within 20 years. Brisbane’s 27 000 hectares of bushland is probably one of the city’s more threatened assets. Sixty- three per cent of this land is privately owned, and much of it is at risk of being developed. Council has made the protection of the city’s significant bushland its highest environmental priority. The strategy is designed to buy back bushland, which is why there is this cooperative approach by the State Government and the Brisbane City Council. The Brisbane City Council’s $22.5m bushland acquisition program is the largest single green initiative of any council in Australia. Every Brisbane ratepayer contributes a $20 annual levy to enable council to buy and protect the city’s finest bushland. The council has now added to these funds the $11.8m advance I mentioned earlier that was provided by this State Government. This is something for which the Goss Government deserves full credit. Up until March 1993, there were 15 properties covering 369 hectares that were bought at a cost of $10.74m. This land is located in five key areas around the city, including the nationally significant koala habitat at Burbank, Belmont Hills, the city’s green backdrop of Mount Coot-tha—something that the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha has fought tooth and nail to preserve—and ecologically significant areas at Karawatha and Leslie Harrison Dam. For the information of the House, I now table a list of all the properties that have been acquired by the Brisbane City Council under this important project. Sitting suspended from 1.01 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BEATTIE: Before the lunch break, I was talking at some length about the need for planning strategies. One of the things that I was talking about was the need for the protection of bushland. Brisbane is Australia’s koala capital. Brisbane is located at the heart of one of Australia’s largest koala habitats, around the Leslie Harrison Dam. The joint regional koala study pursued by the Brisbane City Council identified about 5 000 koalas in that region. The Brisbane City Council is leading the way in protecting the region’s koalas, already buying 288 hectares of significant habitat at a cost of $6m under the bushland acquisition program. The fact that this buy-back program exists is a clear indication of the reason why a comprehensive overall planning strategy is needed. In the couple of minutes remaining to me, let me come back to some of the consequences of short-term planning at a local level in my electorate. Past problems in my electorate are now being addressed, in particular by the Brisbane City Council, which is now working on those planning strategies. Had an overall plan been in operation in the past, those sorts of difficulties would not have occurred. For example, a major study is being undertaken in the New Farm area in regard to an urban renewal strategy. Consideration is being given to whether the New Farm powerhouse should stay and in what form. That is being done in an assessment study. Consideration is being given to the enlargement of New Farm Park and to the land use adjacent to that 2438 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly area, as to whether industrial activity should continue or whether more compatible activity should take place in New Farm. There must be a mixed development in those areas, or a mixed plan which allows for the current socioeconomic structure to remain but, at the same time, to plan for the future. I was pleased that, when the Lord Mayor wrote to me on 18 January 1993, he pointed out that the enlargement of New Farm Park is a common element in all the options being investigated by the Brisbane City Council and is intended to be a feature of whatever scheme is ultimately recommended to the council. As the representative for that area, I am delighted that New Farm Park will be extended. In terms of the powerhouse assessment study—the future of the powerhouse is currently being assessed. As honourable members would appreciate, there is a divergence of views as to what should happen in that area. Those are a couple of illustrations but there is more to it than that. Problems arise from poor road planning. For example, there is a desperate need for lights at the corner of Merthyr Road and James Street, New Farm, which has recently been the location of a number of accidents, some of which have been fatal. Because of short-term planning, the road network in the inner suburbs is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be. When planning for that area is being done, James Street should be considered. Another result of short-term planning by past councils is that there are no toilet facilities near the Coles shopping centre in New Farm. Long-term planning could ensure that those sorts of things happen properly. Even the dredging of Breakfast Creek could be incorporated into an overall strategy to protect the environment and the quality of life of people living in the inner suburbs. I conclude by saying that the legislation is important, and I hope that it is supported by all members of the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (2.34 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. The Bill deals with several issues, including amending the external boundaries of the City of Brisbane; enabling the council to manage and control bridges that it provided and constructed; expanding the framing of the references to the Local Government Commissioner; giving the Governor in Council appropriate power to implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commissioner; giving the Governor in Council power to make regulations to extend the current list in section 4L of the Act; and others, including expanding the opportunity for local authorities to enter into contracts. The Bill contains quite a lot of points, and it would take a long time to canvass them all. Today, I want to touch on one main point, which is the proposal to give the Governor in Council power to make a regulation to extend the current list in section 4L of the Act. The Act now provides an extensive range of things that the Government can do. I presume that the Minister in his reply will clarify how far the Government will go with regulation, that is, whether the Government is trying to replace legislation with regulation or whether it is not. It is a matter of interpretation. How far will the Government go? Mr Mackenroth: Only as far as necessary. Mr HOBBS: That is probably right. It depends upon who the Minister is and what happens under the circumstances at the time. Mrs McCauley: And what his politics are. Mr HOBBS: And what his politics are, as the member for Callide said. In this term of the Parliament, the former Minister for Local Government went very gung-ho to take on local authorities, to amalgamate local authorities and to bring many of those people into line. As a result of that, the Minister found himself in some very embarrassing corners, particularly on the issue of amalgamations. Legislation was introduced but, by the same token, that legislation was not enough to amalgamate local authorities in the way in which that Minister wished it to happen. We now have a different Minister and he may adopt a different attitude to those forced types of amalgamations or appropriate amalgamations. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2439
One of the things that we must remember is that the academic argument of amalgamation being good is not always correct. The idea that big is beautiful is not always right. Many local authorities are able to hide or obscure their not-very-good financial management and decisions. In many cases, smaller local authorities have the ability to be more flexible and can be scrutinised in a much more professional way. Over the years, many changes have been made. People do not always like changes. Better cooperation is needed between shires, particularly those that border large provincial towns, where the people who live in the surrounding shires come to use the facilities of the main centre. There needs to be some cooperation between the shires. In quite a few cases, that does happen. In the area of the member for Warwick, Waggamba and Goondiwindi do adopt a cooperative approach to providing facilities for the people of the whole district. I understand that Roma and Bungil also cooperate. In other shires, that cooperation may not exist. We have to do everything we can to try to assist that process. It is far better to have that cooperation than forced amalgamations. If the Government wants shires to amalgamate, it should realise that the initiative has to come from the ratepayers themselves. They are the ones who have to make the decision. It does not necessarily mean that the hand of bureaucracy must ride over them. The people who live in shires in a certain district and pay rates should be the ones who make the decision as to whether the shires amalgamate, and if it is a benefit to them, so be it. Mr Welford: Are any of the councils likely to indicate to their residents that it will benefit them? Mr HOBBS: It could be the case. However, it should not be forgotten that there may be some shires which get themselves into financial trouble and they need to go out and try to take over a smaller shire to bump up their rate base to a certain degree. The professional guys with the resources to advertise and so forth may try to take over a smaller shire. So it can work both ways. On the other hand, a smaller, aggressive shire may want to take over a bigger shire, or a portion of it. Mr Welford: But you’re saying the residents should have a say. What if a small shire doesn’t want to be taken over? Mr HOBBS: If two small shires do not want to be taken over and separate referendums are held in both shires and there is not a majority vote on the amalgamation, it is all over. Mr Welford: So that the bankrupt ones stay that way? Mr HOBBS: It depends on the reason why the bankrupt shire went bankrupt. Mr Welford: Someone has got to be the bankrupt one. Mr HOBBS: It all depends. If a shire is inefficient, that is not the fault of the people who live next door and who are efficient. It has to be looked at along those lines. I do not really think that the smaller shire should pay for the mistakes of the bigger shire. Mr Welford: No, I agree, but the State Parliament and the State Government are responsible for the efficiency of local government. Mr HOBBS: Yes, that is why I am saying there should be cooperation between the two shires. Perhaps the outlying shire may not be paying a fair share for the resources that are provided for the whole localised district. There may need to be a bit of help given there. Local authorities play a very important role. They need to be assisted. The smaller shires that border provincial shires rely on their own work force and on the money staying in their towns. Those places also have an infrastructure in place, and if money is taken out of those shires and placed in the bigger areas, a centralist type of movement takes place. If all the works done in local authorities were done by contractors, it would be found that the contractors would head out west, they would do the job and then return to where they came from. They would not leave their money in those towns. As a result, the infrastructure of those towns—the schools, 2440 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly police stations and shops—is lost. That is another element that concerns local authorities with regard to funding, amalgamations and such like. We must keep that in mind when we make decisions affecting local authorities. One very important aspect with which I want to deal today is the plight of many local authorities in the south west, particularly in the mulga areas in the Charleville region and right down to St George. I understand that soon the Minister will be going out there to talk with one of the shires. One of the great worries that exist in those areas concerns the rate base of those shires. Although the rate base has probably kept pace with inflation, the simple facts of the matter are that the people in those shires just cannot meet their rate expenses. Quite frankly, there is no easy answer to all of this. At present, particularly with wool prices being so low and with the persistent drought, those local authorities will have to be given assistance in some manner or form, otherwise at the end of three years many of the ratepayers who cannot afford to pay their rates will be sold up. We have already seen some movement in that direction. Fortunately, agreement was reached and the properties were not sold. However, mark my words, next year there will be an enormous increase in the number of people who for three years have been unable to afford to pay their rates. In many cases, they cannot even afford to feed their kids and themselves. As a result, we will find that the rate base of many shires will not exist. The local authorities will be looking for Government help for sure. Where else can local government turn? I guess that local government has to turn to the State Government, and whether the State Government in turn has to turn to the Federal Government for help is a matter of determination. The matter has to be addressed very seriously. My view is that it should certainly be done on a bipartisan approach. We want to be able to try to resolve the matter before it is too late. Many ratepayers in that region are affected. I guess that it is not only that region but also other regions which may be affected. The farming areas around Dalby, which have had some very, very dry times, must also be facing some enormous troubles, because the rates in that area are not cheap. I must point out that many of the shires with which I have been involved have been good financial managers. They have reduced their debt—their borrowings—over a number of years. The figures show that many of those shires have made a determined effort to reduce debt. Some of the management structures used by some local authorities were not very sound. For example, in the past, if a roadworks project was to be undertaken, a local authority may borrow the money for it from the Government. That money would be paid back over 15 years at a low rate of interest. However, a 15-year loan for a road that will last only five years is not sound management. The local authority in question ended up with hard-core debt and was paying for something which was no longer of any use. Those management practices have changed. Most local authorities have moved away from long-term debt arrangements. Unfortunately, many shires incurred large debts for which they are still paying. However, by moving away from such arrangements, local authorities have shown responsibility. Many shires have the foresight to plan for future population increases. Many of them have had to carry out development work to cope with those increases. If a local authority covers an area that is likely to expand and if it has not done any planning, it certainly will be in trouble. The smaller towns in our State which rely heavily on local authorities are suffering greatly. Businesses in those towns are really struggling. Basically, those towns have a rural base and their main income source is livestock. In times of drought, the whole town withers slowly until the season changes. For three years now, the season has not changed, and it seems as though it may never rain again. Mr Johnson: Commodity prices keep coming back. Mr HOBBS: As the member for Gregory said, commodity prices keep dropping, which does not help. The biggest problem for everyone was that period which lasted for a number of years during which interest rates were very high. That really made people turn the corner. They found themselves in debt from which they just could not recover. Honourable members on both sides of the House have canvassed this issue Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2441 reasonably well. The Opposition’s spokesman on Local Government made some very valid points during her speech. I endorse her remarks. Mr BUDD (Redlands) (2.48 p.m): Because local government is an area in which I have always had a great interest, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. One of the amendments contained in this Bill will give the Governor in Council the power to make a regulation to declare any matter relating to local government which is not already listed in section 4F of the Local Government Act a reviewable local government matter. That amendment will not only provide a simplified and more flexible approach but is also necessary to enable the Governor in Council to implement the changes recommended by the Local Government Commissioner. The amendments to the Act address a number of issues on which the Act was either silent or its meaning very obscure. Another amendment clarifies the position of local authorities in relation to having a discretion to lease land by private contract to public utility suppliers without calling for public tenders. That is yet another area in which State Government is extending the powers of local government. In recent years, State and Federal Governments have acknowledged the important role that local government plays in our community and the need for local councils to become efficient and professional in their operations. This Bill further demonstrates the commitment of the Goss Labor Government to raise the standard of local government throughout Queensland. In turn, local authorities must accept that it is a double-edged sword. Granting councils further autonomy over their own decisions also ensures that they become more accountable for their actions. A great number of benefits will flow from the amalgamation of local authorities. However, one of the major problems with the amalgamation of local authorities is that many of the boundaries of Queensland local authorities were established in the nineteenth century. Over time, local communities have become divided by local authority boundaries, which has created problems of coordination. In my electorate of Redlands, one of the problems is the boundary on the western side of the shire between the Brisbane City Council and the Shire of Redland. The suburb of Capalaba falls into both the Shire of Redland and the Brisbane City Council. The main issue of concern to residents and to businesspeople in Capalaba is the different by-laws between those two local authorities. Capalaba West, which is within the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, contains the area’s major water supply, the Leslie Harrison Dam, and much of the catchment area for that dam. I do not know the solution to those problems. However, with the rapid growth occurring in the Redland Shire and the suburban sprawl being experienced in the area covered by the Brisbane City Council, those problems will have to be considered seriously in the future. In common with most State members of Parliament, in the vicinity of 50 per cent of the complaints that come through my door are related to local government. Outside the Brisbane area, people find it difficult to accept that local government is a level of government in its own right. They still believe that the State Government determines such matters as rezonings and rate charges. That is a myth that many local councils seek to propagate. Too often in the past, the State Government has become the fall guy for unpopular local government decisions. It is now time for local authorities to stand up and say that the buck stops with them. A classic example is the relationship between land valuations and rate increases. I frequently receive complaints from constituents about increases in their valuations, which almost inevitably lead to increases in their rates. In the past, local authorities have often absolved themselves from responsibility by stating that the legislation requires them to use the unimproved capital valuations made by the Valuation Division of the Lands Department. However, under the provisions of the Local Government Act and the City of Brisbane Act, local authorities are required to levy general rates on those unimproved capital valuations. What local authorities do not tell people is that they also have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility in determining exactly how they distribute the rating burden amongst their ratepayers. Local authorities do not have to simply set down a single rate in the dollar based on land valuations. Each local authority has the power to introduce a differential general rating 2442 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly scheme which allows it to categorise land and then to levy different rates in the dollar on the different categories. Indeed, the valuation department will even take the trouble to group those lands into categories. The local authority only has to determine the necessary criteria. The valuation department will then maintain those categories, and deal with objections and appeals against the inclusion of land in the wrong category. Quite clearly, a definite division exists between the valuation system and the rating system. It is a pity that local authorities prefer not to make that clear when they are setting the rate in the dollar for rates. Local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. It provides the most basic of public services, such as water and refuse removal. It is the level of government that perhaps touches most closely on people’s personal day-to-day lives. However, there is much more to local government than taking away rubbish and mowing the parks. Already, some councils recognise that their role is to provide more than basic services. For example, recently, an environmental levy has come into effect in the Redland Shire. The purpose of that levy, which is set at $20 per household, is to provide funds for the council to acquire endangered environmental land throughout the shire, and to preserve it for future generations. The decision to impose that environmental levy shows great foresight and initiative, and it is a great pity that previous administrators of the Redland Shire Council did not show similar initiatives. During the boom development years of the 1970s and the 1980s, every available block in whole suburbs was developed regardless of its suitability. Recently, I heard of a case in which a soil test had been carried out, but the tester had to go down more than three metres to get through the fill. To build a house on such a block would cost more than $20,000 for the foundations alone. I can remember as far back as 1982, the Labor Party was advocating in the lead-up to the local government elections that green buffer zones should be provided throughout the shire. It is a great pity that that did not occur 10 years ago, because many important bushland areas in the Redlands have been destroyed and lost to the community. I would like to place on record my congratulations to the Redland Shire Council on its initiative in introducing the environmental levy. Another important reform with the present Redland Shire Council is the introduction of a standardised payment to councillors. Previously, councillors’ salaries were based on meeting fees and expenses. Since the Redland Shire Council held its meetings during the day, and the amount a councillor earned depended on the number of committees on which the councillor served, previous councillors consisted of real estate agents, retirees or the self-employed and were unrepresentative of the community. There is an old political adage that people get the Government they deserve. Of course, that has always been able to be manipulated. By paying councillors less than a living wage, it denied the average ratepayer the chance to nominate. There are those who would say that people who run for local government are standing for service to the people and not for financial reimbursement. However, I argue that the desire to serve the people is not the prerogative of the rich. Mr FitzGerald: Did you see your Labor mates in Cairns—what they did to themselves in the Auditor-General’s report? Your Labor mates up there certainly looked after themselves. Mr BUDD: Certainly, the same as the member’s National Party mates and Liberal Party mates did in other councils. At least members of the Labor Party have the guts to nominate themselves as Labor Party counsellors, not as Independent people. Not so the member for Callide, who was an Independent councillor for her area, but a member of the National Party. The problems with the Nationals is that they use their local councils as a breeding ground for this House. Clearly, the time is fast approaching when areas such as the Redland Shire, with a population in excess of 80 000, will need to look towards councillors providing full-time representation instead of part-time workers who are trying to provide a full-time service. I believe that the amalgamation of small local authorities into larger, more efficient authorities will lead to better and improved services throughout the State. Local government should, and will, play an increasingly important Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2443 role. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the amendments to the Act. I support the Bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (2.57 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to this Bill. I congratulate the new Local Government Commissioner on his appointment and I hope that he places great emphasis on his role, especially as it relates to listening to local authorities throughout the State. I want to talk mainly about the issues that are relevant to my own region. The electorate of Gregory encompasses 12 local authorities. Whether local authorities are in the Gregory electorate, the Redlands electorate or Cape York, they are probably the most important facet of government for people. Local authorities have direct contact with the people, and wherever they are, they play a very important role in addressing the needs of the people. I hope that the Minister for Local Government will work very closely with local authorities. From time to time, they experience many problems, and it is absolutely paramount that the Minister listens to them. The member for Brisbane Central referred to short-term planning. I take his point. However, at the same time, we must look very closely at long-term planning. When I say “long-term planning”, I am referring to works that are currently being carried out by local authorities for the Department of Transport. A couple weeks ago, I was able to meet with the Main Roads people in Dysart. Officers from the Department of Transport asked me about my main concerns. Everybody in this Chamber, including my colleague the member for Fitzroy, who no doubt is well aware of those concerns because the area that I visited is in his electorate, would agree with me when I say that it is paramount that local authorities be allowed to do a certain amount of Main Roads Department work. The member for Warrego referred to outside contractors. It is essential that, where is it permissible, local authorities be allowed to do this work and, at the same time, do their own work. I give the example of the Jessamine Creek crossing on the Landsborough Highway south of Winton, which is a project worth in the vicinity of $12m, and which is a lot Federal money. Last year, I wrote to the Federal Transport Minister, Bob Brown, and the State Minister for Transport, Mr Hamill, with regard to allowing local authorities to undertake a fair amount of that work. In order to consolidate the structure of small local authorities, it is absolutely essential that they be able to do a lot of that work. That money then stays in the district and is spent there. Those people on local authorities have wives and children there. The whole infrastructure of society in those western and remote areas of the State revolves around local authorities. I am greatly concerned about giving those local authorities more autonomy in their day-to-day activities. Another concern is the amalgamation of shires. Prior to the last election, the former Local Government Minister, the Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, recommended an investigation into amalgamations. I opposed that vehemently, and shall continue to do so. Amalgamation of the smaller local authorities will mean the disintegration of the fabric of those smaller towns. No doubt the Minister understands what I am saying. For example, 70 people in Aramac work for the local authority. In Isisford—another small town—59 people work for the local authority. In Ilfracombe, 28 people are employed by the local authority, and in the Jericho Shire, 60 people are employed by the local authority. If those people are taken out of those local authorities, the nucleus of those towns will disintegrate. Patronage of schools in those areas will be lost if families have to leave town. Stores, police stations, Government facilities and business operations run by private individuals will also suffer. Mr Mackenroth: None of those shires that you mentioned have been looked at for any form of amalgamation. Mr JOHNSON: I am just talking about this in case there is a change in circumstances in the future. Mr T. B. Sullivan: This is just scare tactics. 2444 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr JOHNSON: It is not scare tactics. I am drawing this to the attention of members, just in case it happens. Why would the member say that it is scare tactics? That is a very silly thing to say. This issue was raised before the last State election, but it was put off until after the election. I am simply drawing this to the attention of members, just in case it does happen. Mr Perrett: Like all the railway workers. Mr JOHNSON: Yes. As my colleague the member for Barambah said—like the railway workers. In my electorate, the Jericho Shire has been raped by this Government. The railways have been taken out of Jericho, and a fair amount of the work force has been taken out of Alpha. If we lose any more people from those places, they will be simply dots on the map. That is scary. The point that I was getting to before the Minister interjected was that many of the people who work in those small centres own homes there. If something happens, and those shires are amalgamated, close up or go bankrupt—as my colleague the member for Warrego said—the assets of those people will be worth virtually nothing. This is a great concern of mine. The Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, always talks about the battler. There is nobody in this place who works harder for the battler than I do. All those people are battling, because they rely on the profits of rural industries. I assure members that in the past five or six years there have been no profits. Some of that country has been in the grip of drought for 10 years. Mr Nuttall: If you represent the battler, why aren’t you over on this side of the House? Mr JOHNSON: The honourable member has it wrong. Last year in Longreach, I said that the party on this side of the House represents the worker. The Labor Party has forgotten about the worker. Government members interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I will press on. They have all had their midday drinks, and they are a bit dozy over there. But they are now coming back to life. Mr BUDD: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark very offensive. I had coffee at lunchtime. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! There is no point of order. Mr FitzGerald: Irish coffee? Mr JOHNSON: No doubt it was Irish coffee, as my colleague the member for Lockyer said. As I was saying, the matter which concerns me greatly is the assets of those people. The houses in those smaller places are not worth a great deal at the best of times. On many occasions, people in those towns have to move away for education reasons, health reasons or whatever. But if something happens and they have to move away, they will not get a lot of money for their houses. A middle-aged person who has to move, say, to Brisbane, Rockhampton or Townsville would barely have a deposit to put down on another house. At that stage of life, it is too late to start all over again. It is absolutely paramount that we preserve the rights of those people, whether they be council workers, railway workers, business people or whatever. We must give local authorities in those areas the autonomy that they need to continue in the way to which they have become accustomed over a long period. I pay tribute to many of those people, especially the councillors and employees of councils that do a lot of work in those areas. Many councillors spend much of their own time and money for no reward, because they have their communities at heart. They are the sorts of people we need in this nation. But they are also the sorts of people who are worried about where their next dollar will come from so that they can survive next week. Those people should be rewarded and considered when we are able to say, “Thank you.” Because I have mentioned council employees, it would be terribly remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to the late Bill Ritchie, who for many years was the Shire Clerk of Barcaldine Shire. Mr Ritchie passed away just a few days ago. No doubt the people of Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2445
Barcaldine will suffer a great loss at Mr Ritchie’s passing. I extend my condolences to his wife, Pat, and his five children. He will be sadly missed. Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (3.08 p.m.): I have listened with great interest to some of the speeches coming from the other side of the House. Mrs McCauley: Now you can sit down. Mr NUNN: Not on the honourable member’s lap. The previous speaker was holding forth at great length about what he had to drink at lunchtime. Whether it was coffee or lunatic soup makes no difference to him; he is always irrational. Mr Johnson: I rise to a point of order. I do not think I am irrational. I represent my constituents very well. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr NUNN: I certainly will withdraw. I am most abject in my apology. How I could ever have come to say that about the honourable member, I will never know. But it is all a matter of perception. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has been asked to withdraw. That will do. An Opposition member: You didn’t withdraw. Mr NUNN: I thought I did. In an effort to simplify and clarify some aspects of local authority management, it was deemed advisable to amend both the Local Government Act of 1936 and the City of Brisbane Act of 1924. The amendments to the City of Brisbane Act will allow the Brisbane City Council now and in the future to assume responsibility for any bridge inside the city or even those bridges which abut the city. I do not wish to go too deeply into this matter, but I will touch briefly on it. From time to time, it may be desirable to alter the boundaries of the City of Brisbane, and it is incongruous to have a situation in which the boundaries of the city can be varied by regulation under the Local Government Act when those boundaries are defined in the City of Brisbane Act. Having made the regulation under the Local Government Act, Parliament then has to update the amendments to the City of Brisbane Act. Surely that is an unnecessary and time-wasting exercise. Because of the movement of the boundaries of the City of Brisbane, bridges which were not originally in the city ended up presenting a problem. With no legal backup, the city council would not take the responsibility for those bridges where it was not the constructing authority. This amendment will enable the city to take that responsibility at the request of the constructing authority. It is surprising to note that not one speaker on the speakers’ list is from the Liberal Party. They are the people with whom the National Party is so keen to jump into bed, but they have no interest in local authority matters whatsoever. It is a shame that the Liberals cannot realise that, if they continue on that narrow path, their percentage of the vote in Queensland will stay as narrow as it is now, or get even narrower. Mr Ardill: They are probably using the knives at the moment. Mr NUNN: If they are not using them, they are out sharpening them up; but I doubt whether they would be sharpening them. They would be paying somebody else to do it, because that is the way they operate. Moving on to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act—it would appear that in regard to reviewable local government matters under the Act as it stands at present, the Local Government Commissioner is required to examine and report and make recommendations to the Minister on any reviewable local government matter or any other matter relating to local government that is referred to him by the Minister. Honourable members should be aware that reviewable local government matters, as opposed to local government matters generally, deal with constitutional issues such as the internal and external boundary alterations of local authority areas, assigning or reassigning members, determining the class of local authorities—that is, city, town or shire—or changing the system of voting. 2446 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
In 1990, EARC was authorised by Parliament to investigate and report on the external boundaries of local authorities. In November 1991, EARC reported to Parliament and recommended that 18 local authority areas be amalgamated into seven new areas. Although the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review did not accept those recommendations in full, it did recommend 16 areas for amalgamation into six new areas. It appears that members of the Opposition do not like those recommendations and they are bitterly opposed to this Bill. However, I expected them to be bitterly opposed to it, in the same way as they were bitterly opposed to the Audit Legislation Bill that was passed yesterday. Both these Bills take away their opportunity to interfere in and to control the affairs of other people, as they did in the past. Nevertheless, the provisions contained in this Bill will enable boundary changes recommended by the parliamentary committee to be referred to the Local Government Commissioner. The boundaries of many Queensland local authorities were established in the nineteenth century. It is pretty clear that those boundaries cannot still be relevant in every case. The boundaries would now be clouded, and the division between urban and rural areas might no longer be defined. It was time that those matters were examined and amalgamations occurred. In determining local authority boundaries, community of interest principles are paramount. The honourable member for Gregory used the word “paramount” on a number of occasions. It is a good word, so I thought that I would have a crack at it. Once a local authority meets the requirements for appropriate financial resource base and service area, it is the community-based principles that determine where the boundary should be drawn. Where existing boundaries do not facilitate effective, efficient and responsive local government, the benefits which external boundary alteration and, more specifically, amalgamation of areas can provide are varied. Boundary adjustment can provide a local authority with sufficient resource base to fulfil its statutory functions; to provide and maintain services and facilities required by the community and respond to changing needs of that community; to be flexible and responsive in financing its activities; and to function without becoming unduly dependent on external financial assistance or losing its independence as an autonomous, elected body. Put simply, the authority must have a rate base which will provide the funds to enable it to operate efficiently on behalf of the community it represents. That is what this Bill is all about. It is about representing the community as a local authority. Effective boundary adjustments can enhance coordinated planning and development of the area for the long-term good of future and present residents. It can also affect the efficient and effective provision of physical and human services and future projected growth. From time to time, the area of planning and development requires some review. There are two instances about which I will be specific. One of those instances relates to the City of Hervey Bay. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, the council decided that it was time for the city to have a town plan because growth was occurring fairly quickly. After it introduced a development control plan—do not forget that it put its DCP before its strategic plan and when Tom Burns came along he had to correct it and make sure that the council got things in the right order—and decided that some headworks charge should apply, the council was lobbied by developers to remove that headworks charge. It was lobbied by the developers to disadvantage the ratepayers who had suddenly become less important. Until about 1987, the council used to give away rezonings and subdivisional approvals for a box of chocolates or anything else that went with it. I took the matter up with the council. It was a matter about which the community had already become aware. However, we persevered with it. When I left the council, after Tom Burns introduced legislation to prevent a councillor from also holding the position of a State member of Parliament, it had been decided by the council to impose a charge of at least 75 per cent of the cost of headworks. It is now imposing a charge equal to 100 per cent of the cost of headworks. However, as it is such a complex issue, the council has not really decided what the right formula is. Although it has received advice from other local authorities and from the Local Government Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2447
Department, the council still cannot decide on a formula. As I say, it is a fairly complex issue, but it should not have taken that long. I think that outside pressures do prevail. Boundary adjustments generally should allow an area to reflect local communities of interest. Note should be taken of human activities—where people live, work and play, and the linkages between them. In other words, note should be taken of how people live and the needs of that community. Among other things, any review should ensure effective elected representation for residents and ratepayers at the local level—that is something else that can come under review from time to time—and it should take cognisance of the rating base. Under the provisions of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1993, recommendations regarding reviewable local government matters are to be implemented by regulation. Where a recommendation in relation to a reviewable local government matter is implemented, the Governor in Council is also empowered to rationalise associated administrative arrangements by regulation. I know that there is some dispute amongst members on the other side of the Chamber about that, but it appears that recommendations with respect to other sections regarding other matters are also allowed to be implemented by regulation. I will speak about that further in a moment. Although the commissioner is also obliged to make recommendations regarding certain administrative arrangements as a result of recommending the implementation of a reviewable local government matter, no such fettering of the Governor in Council’s powers extends to those other recommendations of the commissioner to facilitate the implementation of a reviewable local government matter, for example, the apportionment of assets and liabilities between two local authorities as a result of an external boundary change. On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council has the widest of discretions to vary such recommendations or substitute new recommendations. I cannot advance any reason why the same should not apply to the change of boundaries. In all cases, there is a very wide discretion to deal with the recommendations of the commissioner, that is, they can be accepted, rejected or substantially changed. Once the commissioner has submitted his recommendations, it is up to the Minister and the Governor in Council to decide whether they should be accepted, rejected or varied. I support the Bill. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (3.20 p.m.): I am pleased to join in the debate and support the coalition spokesperson and shadow Minister for Local Government, the member for Callide, in her eloquent comments and foreshadowed amendments. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Greg Hoffman on his appointment as the Local Government Commissioner. I wish him well in the very delicate and wide-ranging deliberations in which he will be involved and in which he is involved at present. This morning, it was noted by the member for Callide that the terms of reference that are now gradually evolving in terms of Mr Hoffman’s operational duties are tending to focus more on the processes suggested by the Opposition way back during the EARC process. I suggest to the Minister that he could probably do little better than to take the advice of Mrs McCauley in respect of the amendments that she has circulated. Those amendments will not only enhance the role of the commissioner in this State but also will enhance the capacity of local government to do an even better job than it has done for many years. I say that with sincerity, because those amendments have been drafted in a fashion that would make them entirely acceptable to a Government of any political persuasion. It is our duty to represent, through the legislative process, the best intentions and wishes of local government—the section of government that is closest to the community in every instance. Earlier today, the Minister interjected about the Opposition’s attitude to EARC and its recommendations. I say to the Minister that I think it is reasonable to separate recommendations. We have been consistent in our attitude to the recommendations of EARC as they relate to local government, and we have always said that EARC was under incredible pressure from the Government in the first instance. The problems of the review have snowballed, but that has no connection whatsoever to the Opposition’s 2448 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly wholehearted support for the Audit Legislation Amendment Bill. The processes of local government review operate very differently from the processes recommended by EARC that I was supporting last night. I inform the Minister that despite the fact that the Opposition wholeheartedly endorses EARC, we have never endorsed its recommendations in respect to local government. As has been said on numerous occasions in this Chamber—I will not repeat them—we believe that it is widely accepted that the local government reform processes were forced on local government in an inappropriate, ad hoc manner that puts the cart before the horse. We are now starting to find that there is duplication because, although I agree with the member for Callide, who pointed out that there are some necessary changes in this Bill, the changes have been poorly thought through at first instance. The Government has attempted to politicise the local government reform processes, but its efforts have fallen flat. This Government has created a great deal of pain for no gain to local government. I suggest to the Minister that it is unreasonable to say that the Opposition’s rejection of EARC recommendations in one area has any bearing on its wholehearted support for EARC’s recommendations which were referred to in the debate last night on the Audit Legislation Amendment Bill. I have already mentioned the disruption that has been caused to local government over the last two or three years because of these processes. It is important to look at that disruption a little closer because the time is fast approaching when the divisional structures and internal representative processes of local government right throughout the State will be changed for local authorities that did not, by force of legislation, make rearrangements in the first round just prior to the last local government election. Those boundary changes are now taking place, but in many instances a further change may be made when adjustments result from a great number of references and recommendations that will be forwarded from the Minister to Mr Hoffman when this legislation is passed. The concern felt by many communities is that because local authorities will have to meet the time limits that are imposed by virtue of the fact that the elections are due early next year, albeit not by the Minister, that process will create another phase of disruption. At that stage, local authorities could face another round of boundary changes. In my own electorate, all types of changes could take place in the Thuringowa, Dalrymple, Burdekin and Townsville City local authorities. I think those changes are envisaged by the amendment proposed by the member for Callide. There needs to be a clearly identifiable and major benefit shown so that more people will be able to understand the nuances of proposals that may well come from the commissioner. The coalition’s amendment acknowledges and recognises that factor which will be an important part of the flow of processes that are necessarily involved in local government administration. There is a need to identify and correct anomalies as we go along. I believe it is part and parcel of the responsibility of all honourable members, irrespective of our political persuasion, to tease out perceived anomalies in legislation and bring them before the Government of the day. I recall a former Local Government Minister, the late Russ Hinze, accepting an Opposition amendment during debate on legislation as being realistic and reasonable. Mr FitzGerald: A number of times. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Hinze pulled up the debate and said, “Hang on. That’s a good idea. I like that. Bring it over here and let me have a look at it.” He instructed his departmental officers to incorporate that within the Bill. This was before the time of most current members of Parliament, but the member for Lockyer will verify that it happened on a number of occasions. It is that spirit of cooperation that should be seen in relation to this Bill, and I sincerely urge the adoption of that process in relation to the recommendations and amendments proposed by the member for Callide. We are constantly seeing a threat to pure adherence to the one vote, one value concept in local government. This morning, reference was made to Mount Isa and a number of other areas. In the local authority area in which I live, Thuringowa City—— Mr Beattie: What’s your view on Thuringowa? Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2449
Mr STONEMAN: I have a few minutes available, so I can answer that interjection. For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central who interjects, let me say that it is my view that Thuringowa is a very, very good local authority. I think the Townsville City area and Thuringowa City will continue to be well served by maintaining two local authorities. I believe that it is such a rapidly growing area, bearing in mind that it is the major urban area outside Brisbane, that it requires a representative process that is not confined to a handful of people trying to represent the interests and accommodate the problems of that rapidly growing part of the State. I have consistently said in my electorate and stated in representations and submissions that that is my view, and for that reason I stood aside from my position as Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review Commission so that I could have input without being seen to have a conflict of interest. One of the spin-offs of the changes that occurred in Thuringowa as a result of the first round of requirements being met for internal boundaries is that the fringe area of the city, which is the area containing the greatest number of anomalies and problems, such as 5-acre blocks, 1- acre blocks, new roads and new subdivisions, is represented by just one person. For him to get anything onto the debating table, he had to ask the mayor to give an undertaking that the mayor would always second any proposition that he put up. That is the ludicrous situation that has resulted from the strict insistence on one vote, one value for those people during the most critical time in the development of that region. As numbers increase, those people will have another representative. However, the pain that will be part and parcel of their deliberations and of the growth pattern will mean that that representative will have such a load that, in all probability, he will give it away and a new person will have to be found. The moment that the Government went to the one vote, one value concept in Thuringowa, the number of people with any experience or standing in the community who were prepared to put their names forward diminished rapidly. People said that the job was too big and that they could not handle it. The member for Gregory said earlier that the job done by local authority members throughout the State is incredible. Whether or not they receive allowances or salaries, in many instances those people could not hope to recoup financially the input that they make. Mr Beattie: That’s not a reflection on the council of Thuringowa, I hope. Mr STONEMAN: No, it is not. This is a concern that I have with one of the other local authority areas in which I am involved—the Burdekin. Last week, the local authority made a recommendation to move to an undivided shire. I have reservations about shires that are split because they comprise several communities that are being amalgamated. A problem exists. I have no problem with shires such as Blackall, Barcaldine, Longreach, Winton, Flinders, which is based on the town of Hughenden, Richmond and McKinlay. Those shires have a single town centre with maybe a couple of pocket handkerchief villages, and their economic base is such that all of the people—whether they be shearers, shopkeepers, mailmen or council workers—are dependent on the economy that flows into the central town. Bowen Shire is different. It has industrial areas, including Collinsville which has coalmines, Abbot Point, and a number of other centres. That shire needs to maintain some sort of a divisional structure so that the people who are represented know that their voice is at least being heard. The problem that I have with an undivided local authority structure in shires that have several communities of interest is that most councillors, or in some cases all, could come from the one centre. The natural tendency is for those representatives to look after the regions that they know best, the areas in which they live and with which they are most comfortable. I am not saying that in a denigratory way. I am sure that, regardless of where they live, most local authority representatives try to give the broadest representation that they can. It is natural to be more understanding, to be more focused and to give more attention to the area where one lives and with which one is most familiar. Honourable members can imagine what would happen if there were no wards in Brisbane City. People are able to identify their elected members. They are able to make judgments on the performance of those members. 2450 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr Beattie: They all wanted to live in my area. Mr STONEMAN: That could well be the case. I am looking at the Brisbane City Council situation. Mr FitzGerald: How about the State? What if you didn’t divide the State? Mr STONEMAN: Exactly. I have made that point to some people in the Burdekin Shire. What would they think if the 89 members of this House potentially were able to be elected from the Brisbane City area? Mr Beattie: You realise this is a speech attacking the Senate. Mr STONEMAN: I take that interjection. The Senate is a protective process. It is not a primary Chamber. We are talking about base representation. We are talking about the primary level of representation, which goes from the first level, the elected representatives, into the decision-making Chamber where the money Bills and the rates are spread out. I have always argued that the criteria for change and the basis upon which many of the references will be made are too narrow. The determination for new boundaries or divisions must take into account the following criteria: firstly, community or diversity of interest; secondly, means of communication; thirdly, physical features; fourthly, density of population; fifthly, demographic trends; and, sixthly, development trends. However, the Bill does not talk about the ratepayer balance. I am not suggesting that we return to the system in which wealth or property ownership was part of the measurement or that we should have a property franchise. In many instances, the local government structure in this State automatically recognised that some communities had an imbalance in the population with respect to the rate base. That does not happen so much in the city areas, because what is lost on the swings is picked up on the roundabouts. However, in country areas, many people in a town might not be ratepayers. They are still entitled to vote. The proportion of the rates that they pay is nothing like the proportion paid by people in the surrounding areas. The Government must be careful that the balance does not get out of kilter. There is a need for a ratepayer balance. With respect to representative access—the Mount Isa region covers 43 000 square kilometres. The people who live in Camooweal must drive for two or three hours to get to the local library or to other ratepayer-funded community facilities. They have no hope of ever having anyone to represent their specific interests simply because there are not enough of them. They used to have one or two representatives for that 43 000 square kilometres and the city centre area had the other 10 or 11 representatives. That is not unreasonable, because the city centre representatives were able to hear directly the problems of the people in those sparse areas. Mr Mackenroth: Have you got more than one centre in your electorate? Mr STONEMAN: Yes, I have. Mr Mackenroth: Do you represent both of them equally or do you represent one more than the other? Mr STONEMAN: Wait a minute. The Minister is coming to a different point. I represent—— Government members interjected. Mr STONEMAN: Okay, members opposite can have their fun. I represent, in the parochial sense, my electorate, which is called Burdekin, which has a number of centres. The Minister represents his electorate, which is called Chatsworth. I am saying that if we were all living here and there were no boundaries—— Mr Mackenroth: Each of the centres in your electorate you represent as much as you do the others? Mr STONEMAN: Yes, but it is a different argument. Wait a minute. I represent Burdekin far more than I represent Chatsworth, and for the Minister the situation is vice versa. The councillors in the Burdekin Shire represent the interests of the whole Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2451 community, but they bring to the shire table the particular community views. That is what local government is about. That is what localism is about—taking the views of the people by whom one is elected into the council chamber. Mr Mackenroth: Representation, wherever it is, is what it’s all about. Mr STONEMAN: Obviously, the Minister would be quite happy to have the whole of Queensland represented by 89 people elected at large in an undivided situation. Wouldn’t that be marvellous! The Government would romp in. The likes of the member for Gregory, the member for Callide and myself would never be seen. What a tragedy that would be. I say in conclusion that we need to understand the impact of the changes that any legislative amendment brings forward. We need to recognise the validity of the amendments that will be proposed by the member for Callide, Mrs McCauley. We need to make sure that single-interest communities are accommodated in a realistic sense and that multi-interest communities are also able to be recognised. We have to recognise that there is a need to maintain the identity of local authorities and the identity of the representative processes in the two-way sense. Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (3.40 p.m.): It amazed me that the member for Burdekin should mention the record of one of the former Ministers for Local Government, the late Russell Hinze. Could honourable members imagine for a moment how issues such as the redistribution of local authority boundaries would have been handled? Could they imagine for a moment how the internal boundaries would have been handled under the previous Government? It was an absolute nonsense to suggest that. The amending legislation before the House is of particular relevance to my electorate of Sunnybank because the Bill defines the role of the Local Government Commissioner as requiring the commissioner to examine and report on referrals and comply with prescribed criteria and principles approved by the Governor in Council. This Bill is relevant to the Sunnybank electorate in that it empowers the Local Government Commissioner to examine recommendations arising from bodies such as the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee upon reference by the Governor in Council. In referring to the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, I would like to address my remarks today in particular to the PEARC Report on External Boundaries of Local Authorities tabled in this House in 1992. In particular, I refer to those recommendations contained in the report which pertain to the Brisbane City Council/Logan City Council boundary. Over many years, this issue has been the subject of a great deal of public discussion, particularly in Berrinba, a suburb in my electorate on the outskirts of Brisbane bordering Logan City. I am pleased to say that it has taken this Labor Government and the present Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning to finally resolve this problem. I believe that the recommendations arising from PEARC, amending as they do the original recommendations for boundary changes by EARC, are fair, reasonable and, importantly, environmentally justifiable and responsible. The Bill before the House today enables the Local Government Commissioner to act upon these recommendations from the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. I take this opportunity to commend those members of the former Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee who came up with this set of guidelines, in particular, the member for Everton. The recommendations enable, for example, the Trinder Park Rest Home to become part of the Logan City Council area. It is currently situated on the Brisbane City Council side of the local authority boundaries, even though the water, sewerage and road system is supplied by the Logan City Council. The Trinder Park Rest Home is isolated from the remainder of Brisbane, and clearly there exits a community of interest between the rest home and Logan City. This claim is supported by the receipt of a petition from the rest home to PEARC requesting the home’s inclusion in Logan City. However, again to the credit of the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, the submission to include parts of the Karawatha bushland which surround the Trinder Park Rest Home was rejected. As a result, the environmental integrity of that very attractive 2452 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly part of south-east Queensland has been retained. The Karawatha bushland, the largest tract of bushland remaining within the Brisbane City Council boundaries, is important to residents of both Brisbane and Logan City. It is important in that it is one of the few remaining non-urban buffer zones in Brisbane. It is an area of environmental significance and an area in which the Brisbane City Council has been pro-active in purchasing private land-holdings using the bushland protection levy. The Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee’s recommendation that the new Brisbane City/Logan City Council boundaries be set along Wembley Road again represents a sensible outcome to what may be described as the competing interests between the two councils. It allows the southern, populated part of Berrinba to become part of Logan City, situated as it is close to the administrative centre of Logan, whilst again maintaining Brisbane City Council control of the Karawatha bushland that boarders Wembley Road to the north. Whilst I appreciate that the vast majority of Berrinba residents support Logan City’s claim for control of Berrinba, I, like a number of other residents, do retain some concerns about the future of Berrinba as a semirural area containing, at present, non-subdividable five-acre blocks. The Logan City Council has already stated it would provide services such as water and sewerage to Berrinba for the first time, and this will no doubt be welcomed. However, it is hoped that future development in that area will be sensitive to the concerns of existing residents, many of whom have lived in this area for many years and who moved there specifically because of its semirural atmosphere. Importantly for the State Government, the new boundaries will place the Berrinba State School within the boundaries of the Logan City Council. I have had discussions with representatives of the school’s p. and c. association and the local alderman. I hope that this move will result in certain improvements to the land on which the school is situated. I am aware that the Logan City Council is keen to provide assistance to the school so that it can upgrade its sporting fields. The Local Government Commissioner will be empowered also to address the existing problems with the boundaries that split properties, particularly in Charles Avenue and Garfield Road in Berrinba. Hopefully, the recommendations from PEARC will put to rest the bickering which has occurred, even up to a couple of months ago, between the Brisbane City Council and the Logan City Council. Unsubstantiated accusations that the Brisbane Lord Mayor was involved in party backroom deals did nothing to enhance the integrity of a minority of the Logan City councillors. I am pleased to say that I have a good working relationship with a number of the Logan City councillors on this issue, including the mayor. We have worked together with the Minister for Local Government and Housing to reach the stage at which the recommendations of PEARC have now been referred to the Local Government Commissioner. I hope that the minority of the councillors of the Logan City Council who seem happier to get a headline in the local newspaper than do the necessary footslogging and research to resolve problems will appreciate the importance and significance of the Bill before the House. I am sure that community organisations such as the Karawatha Bushland Protection Society recognise the significance of the Bill before the House. I am sure that those people will be pleased that their efforts over a number years have not been in vain, enabling as it does the Local Government Commissioner to consider the recommendations of PEARC to retain the southern portion of Karawatha within the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council. Unlike the member for Callide, I do not believe that matters such as community of interest, effective planning and determining boundaries can be described as nebulous. The management of the adjustment of local authority boundaries by the Minister, who took into account these important considerations, should be commended. I conclude my remarks by expressing some dismay at the contributions to this debate by Opposition members. Only two weeks ago, Opposition members were defending the GST and its effect upon local government rates and charges. Here they are today, all anxious and worried about local government; yet only two weeks ago, they were prepared to rape councils throughout Queensland by the imposition of a GST on user charges such as water and sewerage. If Opposition members think that Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2453
Government members have forgotten about that, they can think again. The local government elections are only 12 months away. I am sure that Government members will be very helpful in reminding the people of Queensland what the Opposition was prepared to do to their rates with the imposition of a GST. During the last session of this Parliament, I spoke about the effect of the GST on environmental initiatives such as the Brisbane City Council’s proposed recycling scheme. The reality is that the GST would have increased the charges for the BCC’s soon-to-be-introduced recycling scheme. That is nothing short of environmental vandalism. Mr T. B. Sullivan: People like Sallyanne Atkinson wanted that GST. Mr ROBERTSON: Yes, Mrs Atkinson supported the GST. If I recall correctly, Mr Bob Ward was also a big supporter of the GST, in spite of the fact that it would bump up the charges of the recycling scheme for Brisbane residents. As the member for Sunnybank, I can say that my electors are looking forward to the introduction of that recycling scheme. I will not be backward in coming forward in reminding my electors that Bob Ward supported the GST, which would have increased the costs of that recycling scheme. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Bob who? Mr ROBERTSON: Bob Ward, the late alderman for Runcorn and the soon-to-be late Liberal candidate for the Lord Mayoralty. Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) (3.50 p.m.): I want to make reference to some of the contributions by Government members and also to speak in broad terms about the effects of the local authority boundary changes on the local authorities within my electorate. Before I do so, I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Housing on his ascendancy to that position. Recently, the Minister received a delegation comprising myself and members of the Glengallan Shire Council. We spoke about the much-needed common effluent disposal scheme for the township of Killarney. I would say that Killarney is the largest town in Queensland which does not have an effective sewerage system scheme. The town still relies very heavily on septic systems. Because of the area in which it is sited—which is usually quite a high rainfall area, with the exception of the last couple of years—and because of the high clay content of the soil, the effluent bubbles over into the streets, which causes a health problem. That problem exists also in the major township of Wallangarra, which is located in the southern part of my electorate. The State Government should provide some money to help alleviate the negative financial impact that such schemes would have on ratepayers. Those schemes will involve a $1m investment in the case of Wallangarra and a $2m investment in the case of Killarney. I thank the Minister for his cooperation in those discussions. Hopefully, resolution of the problem is not far away. At the outset, I must say that I found the contribution by the member for Sunnybank a bit amusing. He jumped up and asked what it would be like if Russ Hinze was carrying out these changes. I do not know what it would be like if Russ Hinze was carrying out substantial boundary changes in Queensland. However, I can tell honourable members about the effect on the local authorities in my electorate of the Tom Burns-instigated amalgamation/boundary change process. In early 1990, the Deputy Premier, Mr Burns—a man for whom I have some degree of affection—introduced legislation that allowed EARC to look at the internal boundaries of local authorities, and subsequently to run away to look at external boundaries. On that occasion, he opened a major can of worms. He went about it in totally the wrong way. Opposition members have been vindicated in that they said a far more cooperative approach was the best way to go. That approach has been adopted through the appointment of a well-respected local government boundaries commissioner in this State. Unfortunately, Mr Burns is no longer in charge of this portfolio. He has thrown the new Minister, Mr Mackenroth, in at the deep end, and left him to fix up the problems created by Mr Burns. I have no doubt that the new Minister is aware of the heat that was created by the EARC process, and the discontent that exists in the community as a result. EARC recommended substantial boundary changes and, in some cases, the 2454 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly complete dismantling of some local authorities and the amalgamation of some others, particularly in my area. Those local authorities now seem to be quite happy with the process. The boundaries commissioner, Mr Greg Hoffman, has been meeting with people and is working on a cooperative approach. Those matters need to be worked on. That should have occurred in the first place. Unfortunately, the EARC process placed major amalgamations and boundary changes on the agenda. It cost a lot of money, which most certainly has been wasted. Nothing came of it, except the appointment of a boundary commissioner, which only occurred thanks to the contribution to the report by members of the National and Liberal Parties. The EARC process divided many local authorities. Rosenthal Shire and Allora Shire, which are in my electorate, were quite friendly. However, during the frenzy of the EARC proposal and the EARC review of local authority boundaries, Allora Shire made submissions stating that in order to survive it wanted to take parts of Rosenthal Shire. Other local authorities submitted that in order to survive, they also wanted to take over the Rosenthal Shire. The Pittsworth Shire, which is not in my electorate but in the electorate of the honourable member for Cunningham, submitted that it wanted to take parts of the Millmerran Shire, and vice versa—“We want the gravel pit, but we do not want that.” That has caused a great deal of discontent that will take years and years to dissipate. The appointment of a local government boundaries commissioner will certainly go some way towards helping that process. I have six local authorities within my electorate. I believe that they have a great deal to contribute, and over the last few years, have contributed quite well. I have the Inglewood Shire on the western end of my electorate; on the southern end, I have the Stanthorpe Shire—no boundary changes were recommended for these shires—and at the northern and the eastern edges of my electorate I have the Rosenthal Shire, the Allora Shire, the Glengallan Shire and the Warwick City Council. Unfortunately, those shires were bickering, but they have now started to settle down. Those authorities can continue to function quite adequately the way they are. Rosenthal Shire, which the EARC report earmarked for amalgamation, is free of debt and provides a good service to the isolated towns of Dalveen, Leyburn and Karara. Glengallan Shire, which is on the eastern side of Warwick, provides a similar standard of service. I also believe that the Warwick City Council provides a very good service for the community, as does the Allora Shire. Members of the Opposition are not opposing this Bill in its entirety. However, they will propose amendments during the Committee stage that ask the Government to consider, in the case of the complete amalgamation of some local authorities, calling a referendum. That would certainly take the heat off the Government, and it would throw the responsibility back to the local community for making that decision. I am referring to the minority of those local authorities that the EARC report recommended should be amalgamated. I believe that is the fairest thing that Parliament can do. Many local authorities and the ratepayers within the local authorities are calling for a referendum on the matter, and we, as the Parliament of Queensland, are duty bound to support those people in that way. Who is it going to hurt? The Government could launch an education program that outlined the benefits and disadvantages of amalgamation and ask the people to make up their minds. I am not convinced that those ratepayers are completely naive; I am not convinced that they would not make the right decision. I turn now to cost-benefit. We hear a lot of about community of interest. Certainly, community of interest is very important when a local authority or an electorate is being established, and ensuring that they do have something in common is one of the criteria that must be met. That is an important consideration. However, it is also important to ensure that those local authorities are cost effective. In many cases, it has not been considered that those little authorities, which have been earmarked for amalgamation, or substantial boundary changes, or incorporation into another local authority or other local authorities, are cost effective. No doubt, some are not. The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment which calls for the demonstration of that cost-benefit factor as a major tenet in any amalgamation. It should be supported. That is a very, very Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2455 important issue. As I said, people who live in those small local authorities are very proud of them. They are very proud of the work that they carry out. This legislation stipulates that a local authority cannot contest an amalgamation or a boundary change on the basis of a technical point. They cannot go to court and protest on the basis of what “and” means or what “the” means. That is quite correct. Although I am sure that this particular amendment does not allow this to happen, we must not stop those particular local authorities from being able to take this decision to court if need be—if they believe that there is a major miscarriage of justice, or if they believe that the boundaries commissioner went about his job in the wrong way and has made a decision that does not consider all the facts in purity; that is, the commissioner might believe that some of his figures are right, but further down the track we learn that those figures are wrong. I do not believe that any member of this Parliament would want to stop a local authority from taking a decision to court on the basis of a miscarriage of justice. I am sure that this is not what the legislation is all about. Earlier today, the member for Brisbane Central spoke about Mr Beanland, the member for Indooroopilly, and former Alderman Bob Ward. He said that the member for Indooroopilly never gives credit to anybody; he comes into this Parliament and lambasts the Brisbane City Council. But I believe it is fair to say that there is none so pure as thyself. During my time in this Chamber, some members on the Government side of the House have had a running battle with the local authorities in their area. Mr Elder, the former member for Manly, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the former member for Redlands, took great delight in getting stuck into the Redland Shire Council. We really should consider our history because, as I said before, there is none so pure as thyself. I try to work very closely with the local authorities in my area, even though I know that some of them are supporters of the Labor Party. Nevertheless, they are very dedicated to their local communities. I am not convinced that the decisions of local authorities are made on the basis of politics. Whether the members of those local authorities support the National Party, the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, I believe that they make decisions on the basis of what is best for their particular local authorities. I have never seen the need to get stuck into the local authorities in my area. I hope that I can always work with them to set about doing what is best for the people of my electorate. We cannot let this Government off the hook. Early in 1990, this Government put the amalgamation process on the agenda by introducing to the Parliament legislation that facilitated the EARC review. When it then made a decision, some of the stalwart members of the party, such as Tom Pyne, went up in arms about it. As I said, we cannot let the Government off the hook. Last year in this House, Tom Burns said, “We want to look after you people. We want cooperative arrangements.” We cannot let him run away from the fact that he put the issue on the agenda. He is trying to run away from it. But now we have probably the best process to sort out an unholy mess. I believe that, by and large, this process has the potential to arrive at the best result so long as, at the end of the day, the Parliament supports the amendments foreshadowed so eloquently and adequately by the honourable member for Callide and shadow Minister for Local Government and which will be moved at the Committee stage. I look forward to working with the local authorities in my area. I believe that we face a very difficult and very interesting time in setting about sorting out the mess that has been created in this State by this Labor Government as a result of planned boundary changes to local authorities. Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (4.04 p.m.): I would like to talk about an issue that greatly affects my electorate, that is, the external boundaries of local authorities. Before I do that, I point out that this process has occurred before. Local authorities have been amalgamated in other areas. If we do not learn from the past, we will never change anything. If the National Party had its way, we would all be driving T-model Fords and not updating our cars to newer models. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: I would like a BMW, but I cannot afford one. We should start looking at the boundaries and start changing them. In my electorate, there were the 2456 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Shires of Waterford, Beenleigh, Nerang, Burleigh, Coolangatta and Southport. Seven local authorities in that region have merged into two local authorities. We need to consider changing the external boundaries. For example, on one side of the Gold Coast is Broadbeach, and on the other side is the Conrad casino, which are a stone’s throw away from each other. Town planning decisions in Albert affect the Gold Coast and the Albert Shire. Another issue that affects my electorate is the rising population in that region. The 22nd Urban Futures Congress is now being held at the Gold Coast. That congress is looking at large population growths in that south-east corner from 1.8 million to 2.8 million in 15 years. That growth will impact on local authorities. If the National Party had its way, we would have inefficient local authorities providing large numbers of ratepayers with no service delivery. One of the EARC recommendations was to move the boundaries down Markeri Street, touching the area around Tugun Heights. In such a rapidly growing area, we should be looking at an east-west boundary and merging some of the southern end of the Albert Shire with the Gold Coast. I have always said to Bill Laver, the Albert Shire Chairman, that we should look at merging that southern end and creating a boundary in the north on the Coomera River. For many years, there has been fighting about water on the Gold Coast. The Hinze Dam is in the Albert Shire, but it is owned, funded and operated by the Gold Coast City Council. There should be cooperation and, last week, an agreement on that matter was signed. With the EARC recommendation, I do not believe that we can move the border to the west and run it down Markeri Street. In 10 years’ time, when the population expands to that boundary and continues moving out, the problem will recur. That is why I have been having discussions with Bill Laver and Lex Bell. The domino effect sets in. A new shire should be introduced north of the Coomera River encompassing Beaudesert, Tamborine Mountain, Logan Village and Beenleigh. I have made that view clear to the local mayor and the shire chairman, but they have their heads buried in the sand and do not want to make changes. That is the problem. An honourable member interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: I have always said that we should plan for the future in that region—not just for next year, but for 15 years ahead. That has never been done. A major example of poor planning is the highway from Brisbane to the Gold Coast. This Government took the initiative to investigate an alternate route from Brisbane to the Gold Coast. Because of heavy traffic flows, when an accident occurs and the highway is blocked, traffic is held up for hours. Mr Connor: When is that alternative going to occur? Mr SZCZERBANIK: We should be considering those matters and putting forward options. A decision cannot be made without obtaining background information. Mr Connor: What about the rail link? Mr SZCZERBANIK: The member for Nerang mentioned the rail link. When he travels along that highway, he must have his eyes closed. If he were to leave the highway and travel around some of the back streets, he would see the amount of money that this Government, in cooperation with the Federal Government, is expending on that rail link. If he were to drive along the Nerang-Southport road, he would see that an overpass that is connected with that rail link is under construction. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Who got rid of the railway? Mr SZCZERBANIK: This Government is now constructing the railway. Twenty- five years ago, the former Government ripped the line up and sold the land. Mr Connor interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is 25 years too late. The former Government should never have ripped up that line. That puts an end to the argument. Statistics reveal that, every week, between 600 and 800 families are entering Queensland. That impacts on planning and resources. We should legislate to ensure that developers contribute to the Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2457 infrastructure that is needed to service the developments that are going ahead. Recently, officers from the Education Department informed me that, in the next 15 years, 11 primary schools and 2 high schools will need to be constructed in my electorate. The minimum cost of each primary school is $4.5m and, for each high school, it is $20m. We should, in cooperation with developers, start planning in order to provide those services. As well, the developers should bear some of the cost. They obtain the benefit from rezonings and sales of land. They should put some of that money back into the community and the infrastructure. Mr Gilmore: Would you prefer they didn’t do any development? Mr SZCZERBANIK: They will always undertake development, but they should share the costs. Mr Elliott: Some of them have been forced to go offshore because of the way you people have treated them in the past three years. Mr SZCZERBANIK: The National Party might think that people will not come here to live. However, that cost should be included in development costs. Studio Village is in my electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! The honourable members who are having a conversation across the Chamber should have that conversation outside. I wish to hear the honourable member for Albert. Mr SZCZERBANIK: Rapid growth is occurring in my electorate. When I entered this place three years ago, my hair was the same colour as that of Mr Deputy Speaker. However, because of the problems that are being experienced with the huge number of developments in my electorate, my hair is going grey. In the next 10 years, 20 000 to 25 000 people will be living in the area south of Studio Village. Three primary schools and a high school will be required in that area, as well as water, sewerage, electricity, roads, community halls, libraries, kindergartens, parks and recreational fields. Developers should be asked, in a cooperative way, to assist in the provision of that infrastructure. Otherwise, when the developers leave, the communities and the State Government will bear all the cost of providing those amenities. I turn now to internal local authority boundaries. At present, the aldermen on the Gold Coast are squabbling about which area should be in which division. To find an example of why the Government is forcing local authorities to make changes to their boundaries and amalgamate, all one has to do is look at the population in some of the divisions. Division 1, which is represented by the Liberal alderman Alan Rickard, has 15 000 electors; yet Division 7, which is represented by Kerry Smith, has 4 500 electors. Mr Pearce: But she’s a fruit loop. Mr SZCZERBANIK: I know she is a bit of a fruit loop. A Government member: God help the Gold Coast! Mr SZCZERBANIK: God help the Gold Coast! All we will find is a paper cut-out on top of the dais with a microphone behind it saying, “Yes, sit down. Yes, sit down.” That is what we need to consider. Every day in the newspaper, she is reported as saying, “I am out there working for my electors and doing things. Just come to me.” She has one-third of the workload of the alderman who represents the northern division, yet she receives the same allocation of funds as that alderman does. She can say, “I am getting things done,” but she only has a third of the area. An honourable member interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: Her little bambino. That is what we need to look at. If we want to consider comparable figures, we should take the example of Russell Cooper’s electorate. He can virtually shake hands with everyone in his electorate. At the time of the 1989 election, there were 33 000 people on the roll in my electorate. An honourable member interjected. 2458 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr SZCZERBANIK: That is right, and it is equal distribution except for those five western seats. As I said, the Government is planning for the future. In cooperation with the Federal Government, it is looking at expanding the Better Cities Program. Concern is being expressed about the growing population around the railway stations in my electorate. People say, “We do not want such a big population around the stations. I do not want the area to change. I came out here for the peace and quiet.” The region is booming and the population is growing. If honourable members want to talk about bucketing the Albert Shire Council, this is a perfect opportunity. The top of the hill surrounding the suburb of Mount Warren Park is presently zoned Residential A. That rezoning has been in place since 1975. We now have the ludicrous situation in which the Albert Shire Council has rezoned the area from Residential A to Special Residential and is constructing 182 duplexes or units, or whatever one wants to call them, on top of the hill. I cannot understand why that work is being carried out because it will create other problems with drainage—that is the major problem—traffic flow and the general amenity of the area. People have said to me, “When we came to the area, the land was zoned Residential A. Now the council is saying that it is changing it to Special Residential so it can have a greater control in that area.” That is simply a cop-out. The local councillor, Tom Costigan, should explain to the people why he has rezoned the top of that hill to Special Residential. It will cause problems with water supply and drainage. Helensvale residents have already experienced those types of problems. Ten to 20 years ago, drainage easements were not constructed. There was no planning. The run-off from houses is now being directed to the streets, which is causing major problems further down the hill. If members want to discuss the problems facing local authorities, they should visit the Albert Shire—it is booming. An honourable member: Booming with problems. Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is booming with problems. The Opposition cannot say that the State is not going ahead. Approximately 100 to 200 people are putting their names on the roll to vote. I would estimate that there are ten times that number of people who, every month, do not put their names on the roll as they are moving from place to place. I support the Bill. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (4.19 p.m.): I follow on from the very wise words that were spoken by some of my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to begin by paying a tribute to the shire councils in my area. There are four local shires in the electorate of Tablelands. All of them run a pretty tight ship. In fact, they run excellent operations, and I do not argue with those councils. I believe that those people are elected to perform their function as they see fit, just as we are elected to this place to perform our function as we determine it to be. I am pleased to say that an occasion has not arisen in which I felt any need to be at odds with any of the councils. They do a fine job. They play an important role in the local communities. It is enough to say—following on from what was said a few moments ago by the member for Gregory—that councils are probably the closest of all the levels of Government to the people and they are very reactive to the needs, aspirations and wants of the community. So if a local shire council takes a certain course of action, we can be sure that there would be a very good reason for that and that there is an undercurrent of feeling in the community that that course of action should be taken. The councillors work within their community all the time and are very aware of the feelings and thoughts of the community. I want to focus for a few moments on the possible effects of amalgamation of councils by referring to two scenarios—a regional city that is surrounded by a local shire, as would be the case with Mulgrave and Cairns, or Townsville and Thuringowa and a neighbouring shire area. I am sure that there are others in the State. I will paint a word picture by speaking about the structures of both organisations. One the one hand, we have a regional city that is landlocked and unable to have any land developed and, therefore, expand its rate base except through increases in evaluation on an annual or Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2459 biannual basis and, on the other hand, we have a neighbouring shire with large areas of land, which is an attractive tropical paradise and is expanding at an exponential rate. It is very easy to understand that some conflicts will arise if we indulge ourselves in the amalgamation of those two shires. I am not saying that we should not do that. I am simply offering a word of caution to those persons working with the commissioner who might be involved in considering those matters. Firstly, the regional city would provide a vast amount of the infrastructure— community centres, swimming pools and other types of facilities—that is highly expensive and is utilised to a very great extent by the people in the surrounding shire who have not made a contribution to those facilities in any way. On the other side of the coin, the developing shire has increasing investment in urban and resort development, etc., and is responsible for long stretches of road, communications and infrastructure such as sewerage, and there is an imbalance between the needs and aspirations of both communities. When the commissioner finally gets around to addressing those issues, the results will be very interesting. Let us consider the scenario in which he chooses partial amalgamation so that, on the one hand, there is a smaller council and, on the other hand, a larger city. It may be the case that as the city expands into an area that is already developed, all the infrastructure costs associated with that development are inherent in the expansion, and the rate base associated with it will take the form of an ultimate promise of development for the shire. That is then taken away from the shire and given to the city as a fait accompli and provides an expanded rate base for the city. It is also possible for a total amalgamation to take place. In that situation, the city may have borrowings for infrastructure costs of community centres and matters of that nature which may not, on a per capita basis, outweigh the borrowings that have been undertaken by the surrounding shire for infrastructure such as roads, water supply, sewerage, etc. There will be an imbalance in the change in rates applicable to the people living in the city or the shire, or both, when they are amalgamated. Another matter that must be considered is a rural area in which there are two adjoining shires, one of which has been particularly frugal in the management of its affairs over the last 20 or 30 years, resulting in very low overhead costs in terms of interest and redemption on loans. The proportion of individual rates in that shire that are attributable to redemption may be very small. If that shire is amalgamated with the adjacent shire, council B, that has not been quite so frugal and has large borrowings for facilities which might be considered by the people living in council A to be special benefits rather than the necessities of life, once again a serious imbalance will result in the rates charged. Council B’s rates would go down and, for no perceived benefit, council A’s rates would go up, which is a matter of serious concern to me. For some time, I have thought that when changes to boundaries and amalgamations of shires that have accounting divisions take place, there will be an unholy tangle. I know there are very few accounting divisions left in the State, but none the less they are still there. Mr Mackenroth: Five. Mr GILMORE: I thank the Minister. I thought there were five or six. In the situation of a council with accounting divisions, within each of those divisions there will be various levels of rates because, according to the Valuer-General’s categorisation of land that is used for primary industries, rural/residential or rural/home site, some councils have also adopted differential rating. There are two levels of changes of the structure in rating an individual property. In one instance, there is the Valuer-General’s determination of how the property should be rated or valued for rating purposes, and on top of that is the local authority’s rating levels. In one case of which I am aware, there are over 13 levels in the differential rating table. In fact, there are 18 levels in that rating table which, in itself, is difficult enough to sort out. If the divisions within the shire are amalgamated, that would be difficult; but if the divisions within the shire are amalgamated with another shire outside that area, there would be something of a conglomeration which would take a great deal of working out. There would be a difference between the rates that would be struck on Day 1 as of today and the rates that would be struck after the amalgamation takes place. 2460 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
I will take a few moments to go into the reasons for differential rating and I will refer briefly to the differential rating system in Division 3 of the Mareeba Shire. This was brought about because of the Valuer-General’s recognition of changes in property values. There were people on 1-acre and 2-acre blocks who were paying more in rates than was my father who lives on a 100-acre farm. The local council considered that and thought it was an inappropriate way of dividing up among the community the responsibilities of meeting the rates burden of the shire. They took advantage of the concept of differential rating. I must say that I was particularly cool towards that proposition but, because I could see no other way of sensibly coming to a satisfactory conclusion to the problem, I had to agree to it. Having said that, and having pointed out to honourable members that there is a multilayered application of rateability in that particular division in that particular shire, I must now inform the House that one of the other divisions does not have differential rating. If one were to take away those accounting divisions and amalgamate the areas to make a single shire instead of the four that presently exist, effectively, and then amalgamate that area with the Atherton Shire or the Eacham Shire where there are no differential ratings and no accounting divisions, can the Minister imagine the unholy mess that would take the commissioner and others in the community a lot of unravelling when the proposals come to fruition? It is for those reasons that I am very supportive indeed of the proposed amendments to the Bill foreshadowed by the member for Callide, particularly because one of the amendments states that the commissioner should be able to demonstrate some perceivable benefit to the people of the communities involved in the amalgamation. Although we might consider that it is an entirely appropriate way to go, on consideration of all of those financial matters in terms of the potential for development of a shire area because of its beauty or its position or because it is in rainforest or another place, or the lack of potential of another shire area because of its distance from centres of population or because it is out in the sticks, how does the commissioner come to a conclusion to balance those differences? The amendment says that substantial benefits must be able to be identified. I am quite sure that, if honourable members were to agree to the amendment, it would give some balance to the process so that the commissioner and the councils involved could consider the matter and say, “Having considered all of this, we cannot determine that substantial benefits exist for all of those shires and for all of those communities involved in respect of the rearrangement of affairs. Therefore, we should not proceed.” Mr McElligott: How would you define “benefit”? Mr GILMORE: That is for the commissioner to work out, not me. There are other considerations, not the least of which relates to the Grants Commission. Neighbouring shires get different treatment from the Grants Commission in terms of the distribution of annual grants. On a per capita basis, that can make a considerable difference to the rateability or the rate paid by land-holders in the individual shires. That will also impact quite heavily on the changes that will be perceived by the people with the hip pockets, who have to write out the cheques. Those people will be most unimpressed by the considerable changes because they will not necessarily perceive that change to be in their best interests. I turn briefly to the benefits pointed out by the member for Gregory in having local shire administration centres, works depots and operations such as that in small communities. The shires in my electorate are fairly small. They are rural. Some of them are developing. It is interesting to see rural shire councils coming to grips with that developmental boom, learning to understand the need for change in their by-laws, and accepting the need, as the member for Albert said, for example, to apply headwork charges to developers. It has been an interesting evolutionary period and I have watched it with some interest. It is important to those small communities that they contain within them the administration centre and the works centre which are responsible for the expenditure of their own rates. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2461
Local government is interesting. It taxes people at their property and it spends their money at their property door. It does not necessarily tax people from their back pocket, as do the Commonwealth and State Governments, and spend the money somewhere else. It is a home-grown and home-spent tax. People who walk down the streets of Malanda, Atherton, Herberton or Mareeba see their shire office and see their council workers working and are able, firstly, to see their tax dollars being spent as they determined that they should be spent and, secondly, to have some immediate and direct input to the people who determine the priorities for that expenditure. If they see something happening about which they are unhappy or if they believe that a priority that has been set is inappropriate, they can tell the local councillor, “That is not on. We believe that you have pulled the wrong string. You have set the wrong set of priorities and we believe that you should change it.” Local government is an immediate “push the button and see the result” type of situation. It should be fostered rather than denigrated by the Government of the day. That is an unfortunate trait that has developed recently. Although I do not say that no cases exist in Queensland for amalgamations or changes in boundaries for one reason or another, we must always consider the community of interest, the potential or lack of potential for development and all of those kinds of things that are generally not considered in redistributions of boundaries or population. Those matters must be considered for the best interests of those persons who are being affected by the redistributions. I conclude on that point, with a further repetition that I am very much in support of the amendments to be moved by the member for Callide. They are commonsense and they bring a level of balance to the debate and to the legislation which will long serve Queensland and local government in Queensland well. Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (4.36 p.m.): This Bill that we are debating today should be called the “Woodridge, Berrinba and Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill”, because the principal thing that it will achieve, in the Brisbane area at least, is a reallocation of the boundaries in that region. It was interesting to hear the member for Burdekin turning cartwheels in comparison with what he was talking about last night. Yesterday, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission could do no wrong. Everything that the commission handed down was Holy Writ and the Government had failed to carry out the Ten Commandments. Today, the member for Burdekin has a different attitude. EARC is totally in error and even the parliamentary committee is totally in error in wanting to change the boundaries or even look at the boundaries, both internal and external, of the local authorities. It was quite interesting. I found it quite amusing. It is the first time that I have ever found a speech of his amusing in any way. However, on this occasion, it was. From my point of view, words coming down from EARC, and the CJC for that matter, are anything other than Holy Writ and anything other than correct. The recommendations by EARC on the issue in the Berrinba and Woodridge area were quite ridiculous. They followed from a number of seminars, one of which I attended, at which I have never in my life heard so much nonsense spoken by academics who knew nothing about their subject whatsoever. On reading the submission from EARC, it seems pretty obvious that it had taken notice of those people who had no knowledge of their subject whatsoever—no practical knowledge at all. It reinforced my view that there is no way that we should be adopting the recommendations of either of those commissions lock, stock and barrel. The Criminal Justice Commission, in its nomination of 54 members of this House having carried out some activity that was not correct in the matter of travel expenses, is another example of the wrong recommendations coming down from those commissions. On this one occasion I agree with the member for Burdekin, although last night he could not have been further from the truth. Why I say this is the “Woodridge/Berrinba Bill” is that there has been a problem in that particular area ever since 1924, and numerous Brisbane City Councils have asked for action to be taken. On one occasion, I mentioned in this House the ridiculous situation of the boundary actually going through the middle of people’s bedrooms in that particular area. The fact is that it still does. It has not been changed yet. The 2462 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly boundary between Brisbane City and Logan City, between the electorate of Sunnybank and the electorate of Woodridge, used to be part of the electorate of the member for Beaudesert, although he did not seem to know much about it when he spoke and pooh- poohed the idea. In fact, there are married couples sleeping in the same bed, who are on different sides of the boundary, and that ridiculous situation has been—— Mr Bennett: Who did they pay their rates to? Mr ARDILL: They paid them to both. They had to pay rates to both. That ridiculous situation has been allowed to continue right up until now, simply because of ridiculous opposition, not from Brisbane City, the old Beaudesert Shire or Logan Shire or Waterford Shire, but from the Liberal Party in this House. When Russ Hinze had agreed to change the boundary, it was torpedoed, just as a number of other logical recommendations that had been agreed to by Ministers in this House were torpedoed by the so-called ginger group of the Liberal Party, people who had no interest in anything except division—as their people in Canberra clearly demonstrated during the recent election campaign. Mention has been made of Russ Hinze. I can only take people as I find them and as they appear to me. As chairman of the planning committee in the Brisbane City Council, I had quite a bit to do with Russ Hinze. Not once did Russ Hinze ever try to put over on the Brisbane City Council anything which could be construed as being something illegal or something that gave the Government an unfair advantage. On numerous occasions, we were called upon to explain because some developer had complained that he thought he should have had a better hearing than he did from the Brisbane City Council. On each occasion, in conference with such people, we explained the situation to Russ Hinze, and not once did he ever try to coerce us to change our minds. I was quite amazed when I heard that he had been involved in some illegal activity regarding the Sunny Park shopping centre in my area. I have no doubt that the developer was certainly involved in nefarious activities. I had unfortunate experiences with that particular developer and his minions. In relation to that particular shopping centre, the council held firm because people’s lives were at stake. The Brisbane City Council insisted on the proper development of that shopping centre block. As I said, we were called to account. We explained to the Minister that everything had been done on a proper engineering and planning basis, and no further action was taken. Imagine my amazement when the decision was later reversed by the new Liberal Party council, the developer obtained a particular advantage, and the matter ended up in the courts as a case of corruption. Mr Szczerbanik: What about the Gemini Towers down at Burleigh? Mr ARDILL: I have heard all sorts of criticisms of Russ Hinze. I can only speak of him as I saw him. The same situation existed with differential rating. After many years of councils asking for differential rating, Russ Hinze gave it to the new Liberal Party council under Sallyanne Atkinson and, like a dog with an outsized bone, she did not know what to do with it. She knew what it was, but she did not know what to do with it. She was unable to take advantage of it. One of the reasons she lost the election was the fiasco over the type of differential rating decided on by the Liberals. Differential rating, which seemed to be criticised by the member for Tablelands, is a marvellous tool for local authorities to use to iron out some of the anomalies created by the system of rating on the unimproved valuation of land. The present Lord Mayor of Brisbane has done that, and rating in Brisbane is much fairer now than it has been for about 40 years. The present Lord Mayor has demonstrated management skills of which the previous council had no knowledge. It had no idea how to manage the city and it had no idea of the needs of local government in any way, shape or form. It was big on publicity and hopeless on management. Alderman Ward’s believing that he will oust Alderman Soorley has to be the most wishful thinking one could imagine. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Mr Soorley is a popular Lord Mayor. Mr ARDILL: That is right. Alderman Soorley has brought to the Brisbane City Council the management skills and fairness that were demanded by the people of Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2463
Brisbane. He is an excellent Lord Mayor, and he is doing an wonderful job for the people of Brisbane. The City of Brisbane Act, which is being amended by this Bill, has served Brisbane very well. It was introduced in 1924, when anomalies such as the one in Woodridge/Berrinba presented no problem. In 1924, no development existed in that area. In the Berrinba area, the only development in an otherwise isolated suburb was an airstrip used during the war. The anomalies have occurred not because of any shortcoming on the part of those who drew up the original boundaries, but because they have been overtaken by later developments. The City of Brisbane Act enabled tremendous economies of scale to be carried out in Brisbane. The city had a very poor beginning. It was a mean little convict settlement where the harshest treatment was inflicted on people to force them to work so that the whole population would not starve. Brisbane had to overcome tremendous obstacles. No funding was provided to the City of Brisbane such as that provided to Melbourne from the gold rush days in Victoria and such as that provided to Sydney because of its status as the major population centre of Australia. Brisbane failed to develop as a city until the City of Brisbane Act was introduced in 1924. It was the farsightedness of the Labor Government of the day which facilitated that great experiment, which has been such a tremendous success and which most large cities in Australia would love to be able to copy. Other cities would love to have a city such as Brisbane under one control; to carry out those tremendous economies of scale; and to employ the expert management skills that Brisbane has employed. Sallyanne Atkinson destroyed most of those expert management skills. Within three years of Mrs Atkinson gaining power, all the expert managers employed by the council had left, from the town clerk down. Because Mrs Atkinson did not agree with their expert opinions, they either had resigned or had been called upon to leave. It is the job of Jim Soorley and his team to build up in the council a structure which was sadly lacking for six years under Lord Mayor Atkinson. Mr D’Arcy: You put the management structures in place when you were Deputy Lord Mayor. Mr ARDILL: No, I cannot claim that I did. The management structure was commenced by Clem Jones and it was cemented by people such as Frank Sleeman, the great Lord Mayor who followed Clem Jones and whose position in history will be recognised in the future. I do not believe that many people appreciate the major effect that Frank Sleeman had on the City of Brisbane. Mr J. H. Sullivan: I think students of Brisbane’s history will already recognise the contribution that Frank Sleeman made. Mr ARDILL: I have no doubt about that. I just wish that the media would recognise the fact that the sporting complex located in the suburb of Chandler is not the Chandler complex but the Sleeman Complex. The City of Brisbane Act enabled great aggregations of land to be set aside for a green belt in the city. Again, Lord Mayor Sleeman was involved in establishing that scheme, as he was involved in establishing that great sporting complex at Chandler. That is entirely his monument; he was the person who was responsible for its construction. In most areas, Brisbane has a clear identity. One of the provisions of this Bill enables the city to control the bridges which lead out of Brisbane. To the best of my knowledge, only two bridges are covered by this legislation, and they are located at Dawson Parade at Grovely and Rickertt Road at Thorneside. Those are the only two bridges of which I am aware that are not controlled by the Main Roads Department. I am not quite clear on how important that issue is. Perhaps there is an intention to take over other bridges or to build new bridges. However, that seems to be the main provision of the Act, other than that which adjusts local authority boundaries. One area in which the city has no clear identity is in the north-western area near Grovely. Other than in the Grovely area, where the Pine Rivers Shire has developed adjacent to the city, the city has a clear identity. The recommendations by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review clearly enable that 2464 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly identity to be maintained. The recommendations of the committee are set out in words, and the member for Woodridge and I have also illustrated them on a map. It is important that every city have clearly defined boundaries, unlike Melbourne or Sydney, where some minor back street represents the boundary. Of course, that applies to Brisbane in the case of Hibiscus Avenue at Everton Hills. It is unfortunate that that area does not have clear definition. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission proposed that the Karawatha Park be handed over to the Logan City Council. If that had occurred, the park would have been devastated and turned into a housing development. One of the most sensitive and valuable environmental areas in the Brisbane region was destined for the chopping block. Fortunately, this Bill will enable that area to be preserved and maintained. I am very proud to have initiated the $20 per household per year green levy scheme, which has been taken up by the present Brisbane City Council. That is a very valuable means of dedicating green areas around the city. I give credit to the previous council for introducing that scheme. However, once again, it did not really know what to do with it. Rather than spreading them over the city, the former council spent all of the funds received from that scheme on Mount Coot-tha. The new council has taken the step of applying to this Government—and thankfully this Government has agreed—to provide loan funds which will be repaid from that green levy. As I said, at present, the city of Brisbane is under very good management and I look forward to seeing an extension of those green areas and a protection of the identity of the city. On the eastern side, we have Moreton Bay; on the western side, we have the D’Aguilar Range; on the northern side we have the Pine River; and on the southern side, we have the green bushland. In some time to come, the city may extend to take in some areas which are contiguous and which, logically, could be included in the city. I am not pushing that point, but it is something that should be considered. Likewise, the Gold Coast City, as was mentioned by the member for Albert, should encompass all of those areas on its western side. This Bill will enable such things to be done. I cannot imagine why the National Party is so opposed to logical extensions of local government areas—not without thought, not with a heavy hand, but in the careful hands of this Government, this Minister and the commissioner who has been appointed. I support the Bill. Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (4.55 p.m.): I rise to support the very fine speech presented by the shadow Minister for Local Government, the member for Callide. This very thorough reply to the legislation leaves little extra to be said. However, I believe that I can make some observations in support of her words. My own electorate of Mooloolah takes in substantial parts of both Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire. For probably 20 years, proposals have been put forward to amalgamate those shires and Noosa Shire into a Sunshine Coast city. For the benefit of the member for Archerfield, I point out that if those three shires were amalgamated into one city, it would rival the lovely City of Brisbane. Other proposals put forward suggest that the coastal strip from Noosa to Caloundra should be excised and made into one city. That would leave Nambour as the heart of a suggested hinterland shire. For that reason, the subject of amalgamations of local authorities is very important to me, even though those amalgamations to which I have referred might not be imminent. I support the amendments to be moved by the member for Callide, and I hope that the Minister will give them due consideration. My first concern is one of consultation, not with the Local Government Association, but with local authorities. The Minister is the Minister for Local Government and not the Minister for the Local Government Association. As was the case with the Liquor Act, which has impacted heavily on local authorities, there seems to have been very little direct consultation with local authorities. Neither the Town Clerk at Caloundra City nor the Shire Clerk at Maroochy Shire seem to have been advised of the legislation or consulted about it. Fortunately, I was able to receive some comments from the Shire Clerk at Maroochy Shire, Mr Geoff Adamson, and his concern about this Bill amplifies those which have been raised already by members on the Opposition side of the House. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2465
Mr Mackenroth: Do you know what the Local Government Association is? Mr LAMING: Yes, I do. Mr Adamson referred to proposed new section 4F (1) (k) (1), which states— “. . . anything else relating to local government declared by regulation to be reviewable local government matter.” It would seem that the Government can, by regulation, over which there is no process to seek public input, give the Local Government Commissioner power to do anything that it wishes. Mr Adamson wonders whether this function is too wide for a person whose position was created initially out of EARC to deal with matters of representation and equity, or representation in local government areas. My second concern, following that of consultation with councils, is that of consultation with the people—the ratepayers. That is what local government is all about. During the eloquent address by the member for Callide, we heard that polls should be taken. I wish to take this option a little further and suggest that no external boundaries or amalgamations should occur without a complete formal referendum, simultaneously held with council elections. Others have preceded me and asked, “Why change internal boundaries and then change external boundaries?” Next year, both Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City will go to the polls with changed internal boundaries. In both cases, those changes appear to be beneficial. I trust that there will not be a subsequent move to change the external boundaries shortly, or indeed, to amalgamate those shires. Mrs Woodgate: Caloundra City has chosen itself to have less councillors. That is a decision of the local council. Mr LAMING: Yes, I will accept that interjection. If the honourable member was listening closely to me rather than formulating the interjection, she would have heard me say that it was beneficial in both cases and, in both cases, it was put together by the aldermen and the council. However, it would be a great pity if this good work of working out the internal boundaries was despoiled by changing the external boundaries—which makes those internal boundaries quite irrelevant—or if amalgamation was considered shortly afterwards. Some members on the Government side of the House who have not been involved in local government and can only quote one vote, one value do not understand the impact that changed boundaries and amalgamations will have on ratepayers. Many shires and cities are much more debt ridden than others. Why should one group of ratepayers who have gone without be called upon to pay off the debts of others? If they agree by referendum, I suggest that that is okay. I can say from personal experience that recently, despite the wishes of those ratepayers in that local authority, divisional financial separation has been abolished. Of course, I refer to my own area of Kawana which, after many years of going without and avoiding borrowing, was forced to abandon financial separation. In one year, those ratepayers were slugged with a 36 per cent increase in rates for no extra services. They had no opportunity to avoid this impact. Only a few moments ago, the member for Thuringowa asked for a definition of “benefit”. How does one define benefit? I suggest that the answer is very simple—it is what people pay and what they get. Ratepayers can work that out pretty well. Mr Mackenroth: What happens when one ratepayer in one shire pays, and a ratepayer in another shire gets what he pays for? Mr LAMING: Is that after an amalgamation? Mr Mackenroth: No, before. Do you understand that proposition? Mr LAMING: The Minister will have to explain that to me a little later. Mr Mackenroth: Where you have a city, and the ratepayers in the city pay for the cultural facilities, the libraries and whatever, and the ratepayers of the surrounding shires use those facilities that the ratepayers in the city pay for, the ratepayers in the shires who aren’t paying are the ones who are getting the benefits. Mr LAMING: Yes, I can understand that. 2466 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
Mr Mackenroth: How do you define that with your benefits? Mr LAMING: There is a benefit. Opposition members interjected. Mr LAMING: I appreciate my colleagues giving me time to think, but that is not necessary. The Minister will find that when people are visiting local authority areas to enjoy the facilities paid for by the ratepayers in those areas, those people are bringing in money and spending it. That is of benefit to the ratepayers in those areas. I have seen that happen. The ratepayers do not mind that at all. The only thing that they do not like is when people from other local authorities bring their rubbish to the tip. They are not too keen on that. But that can be controlled. Because of the impact of higher rates on my electorate, which was formerly a low- rated area, many people are considering selling up. It was one of the lowest-rated areas in Queensland. I refer to Division 2 in Caloundra City. Many people who moved there with an expectation of the low rates continuing are now seriously considering leaving the area. That is very sad. I would not like to see this Bill pass through the House without the suggested amendments being made if it meant that such an occurrence could happen elsewhere in Queensland without the ratepayers having the opportunity not simply to object but to avoid it happening at all. That is what democracy is all about. After all, local authorities exist for the benefit of ratepayers. They do not exist for the expedience of the State Government. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (5.02 p.m.): I welcome the amendments to the Local Government Act, which will clarify the operation of the local government boundaries commissioner and his office. Last year, the Government decided that the appropriate means of responding to the recommendations of EARC and the parliamentary committee with respect to local government external boundaries was the appointment of an independent commissioner to report to the Minister on these matters. I believe that the appointment of Greg Hoffman, the former secretary of the Local Government Association, as commissioner was an excellent choice. Mr Hoffman has a long history of involvement with local government and an intimate knowledge of local government and its personalities. I have confidence in his ability to work with local authorities to achieve sensible arrangements that will provide long-term benefits for the ratepayers and the economy of this State. I know better than do many members that debates about local government boundaries frequently generate more heat than they do light. Unfortunately, in the case of the local authorities in my area, both the Mayor of Cairns, Alderman Kevin Byrne, and, indeed, the Chairman of the Mulgrave Shire, have expressed very entrenched attitudes on the issue of changes to the local government boundaries for Cairns and Mulgrave. Mr Mackenroth: Do you think their views are entrenched? Dr CLARK: I think that they are very firm. There is no doubt that Councillor Pyne is adamantly opposed to any change whatsoever to boundaries. Mr Mackenroth: I got that impression when I spoke to him, too. Dr CLARK: I do not think that there is much doubt about it. In response to that view, he has come out very favourably and strongly on the side of regional planning and cooperative joint arrangements, whilst Alderman Kevin Byrne is still of the view that some sort of amalgamation is the preferable way to go. As members would know, as a member of the parliamentary committee I am on record as favouring joint arrangements as the first option prior to any actual amalgamation and change in boundaries. I still feel comfortable with that position as being the way to go—exploring those options first. Mr FitzGerald: You recommended a lot of amalgamations in your shires, didn’t you? Dr CLARK: At times, getting the right balance can be uncomfortable. I am satisfied that my approach is quite sensible. In Cairns and Mulgrave, I am looking forward to the time when we get some data about what might be the costs and benefits Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2467 of any changes to boundaries, and when we can have some good debate on that issue. I am aware of the amendments that the Opposition is proposing, but I am quite satisfied that, with respect to Widgee and Gympie, we can get that sort of information and we can have the local government boundaries commissioner directing that process so that good decisions are made. However, knowing how fraught the Cairns/Mulgrave situation is, I do not intend to debate that here in this House this afternoon. I understand that the reference from the Minister is quite some time off, because there are more pressing matters to be addressed by the commissioner. This afternoon in the House, I would like to make the point that when the time comes to consider Cairns and Mulgrave, there may well be a case for looking at some adjustment to boundaries in parts of the Mareeba Shire, the neighbouring shire to Mulgrave. That is what I would like to contribute to the debate this afternoon. As members may be aware, the boundaries of my electorate have changed to include the township of Kuranda and the surrounding area. It is important that members realise the very clear differences that exist between the township of Kuranda and the rest of the Mareeba Shire. Kuranda has a very interesting history. In the sixties, many people moved into that area looking for an alternative lifestyle. The very attractive rainforest ecology in that area has attracted people who value lifestyle. There is a very vibrant community of artists in the Kuranda area. Amongst them is Ray Crook, a recipient of an Australia Day award. I congratulate him on the receipt of that award. His work is very well regarded in far-north Queensland and the whole of Australia. People in Kuranda see themselves quite differently from the rest of the Mareeba Shire, which is very rural. Mareeba township is a very typical country town. Many of the problems that are looming have their genesis in the very different nature of Kuranda from the rest of the Mareeba Shire. I have personally been trying to work with the Mareeba Shire Council, the residents of Kuranda and the business community of Kuranda to get them to work cooperatively on planning issues. I believe that I have been making some progress in that regard. There was some common ground, and a truce was developing between the parties in respect to how they were feeling about planning issues. Unfortunately, a couple of recent issues that have erupted in the Mareeba Shire are threatening that truce and will possibly lead, unless there are some changes of attitude, to some very real problems for the relationship between the Kuranda community and the Mareeba Shire Council. Recently, two issues have come to a head. One is a proposal of the Mareeba Shire Council to obtain a loan of $1.4m to become involved in constructing a large social club at Davies Park, which is at the showgrounds. It is proposing to build a clubhouse which will have poker machines and generate revenue, and it saw that as a means by which it could generate some revenue that would be of value to the community. Unfortunately, that proposal has generated a lot of concern and a lot of anger among some members of the community, and not just the Kuranda residents. They were particularly concerned because they saw the prospect of money being directed away from Kuranda to build the club in the Mareeba township that would be of no benefit to them whatsoever. They were most concerned that money set aside for road construction in their part of the shire would be absorbed into that proposal and they would receive no benefit. Many residents have expressed concern about that. Several of them have written to the Minister for Local Government on the matter and provided copies of that correspondence to me. To give honourable members a flavour of the concerns that those people have, I will refer to some of that correspondence. There is the principle of public funds, including rate money, being expended on this kind of facility when there is a notable lack of expenditure on and interest in improving roads and other infrastructure in their shire. Another point is in relation to the amount of public funds being expended on a single facility which, it is felt, private enterprise should more properly handle. Moreover, they feel that, as the council would actually own the facility, it may be seen as being in competition, either directly or indirectly, with other local clubs and businesses. I understand that there are clubs with poker machines that are not fully utilised at the moment. The residents are also concerned about the proposal that is seen by them as 2468 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly being an unsafe investment, that is, the whole thing may fail and their rates will go down the drain with it. They are concerned that they will find themselves suffering an increase in rates, with nothing to show for it, which is the complete reverse of what the council is proposing. Their primary concern is that there has been a complete lack of public consultation regarding the proposal. The council has apparently, despite requests, refused to release feasibility studies regarding the proposed investment for public comment. There has been quite a deal of comment in the media and the residents feel that the council is ignoring that opposition. That is one issue. Another issue about which they are most concerned is a planning issue which relates particularly to the people of Kuranda. In the area known as Jumrum Creek and Speewah there is a proposal to change the draft strategic plan that went on display there recently. When that plan went on display, it was indicated that that particular area would retain its Rural Residential designation. During the period that is available for public comment on a draft strategic plan, there was not much comment made by the Kuranda residents because they were very relieved to see that designation there. That was what they felt was appropriate and they just let the process continue. One can imagine their dismay when there was further discussion on the part of the council with respect to that plan and it decided that it would put a proposal in its strategic plan to the Minister that the whole area of Jumrum Creek and the Speewah district would be rezoned as Park Residential. The intent of a Park Residential zone is to allow for denser settlement—the blocks are much smaller, about one acre. The matter that has really concerned the residents is that this proposal for Park Residential zoning does not also require the installation of sewerage. There is a very real fear that the ground water will be contaminated and that Jumrum Creek, which flows into the Barron River, will also be contaminated. The council has indicated that, if it feels that, in the light of the evidence it has, it is appropriate to require the developer to sewer the area, it will require the developer to do so. The point is that the residents are well aware of previous Park Residential subdivisions that have many problems with septic trenches—they are not getting a good absorption rate and there are definitely failures. The residents are, not surprisingly, most concerned that they will have a major problem with a Park Residential zoning. But, most importantly, they are again concerned about the lack of consultation that the Mareeba Shire Council appears prepared to engage in. The councillor who represents that area has made strong representations at council and has, I am afraid to say, really been derided by many council members and has had no support for the stand that she has taken. In light of those issues, the people in Mareeba Shire, and the Kuranda district in particular, decided to utilise section 53 of the Local Government Act, which provides for a poll of residents to be carried out. It is necessary for them to take up a petition. If a petition is signed by more than 10 per cent of the residents, that is sufficient grounds for a poll to be carried out. There is no compulsion for the council to actually conduct that poll. It would have to be carried out voluntarily by the council, or at the direction of the Minister. The people took the opportunity of the holding of the Federal election and distributed their petition with respect to the issue of the social club throughout the shire. Approximately 20 per cent of electors—some 2 289 people—signed the petition calling for a poll. With respect to the strategic planning matter, they again had a very favourable response—well in excess of 10 per cent of electors signed a petition saying that they wished to see a poll conducted to give the people an opportunity to put their views forward and have their voices heard. I understand that a council meeting was held today and that the Mareeba Shire Council has decided not to conduct such a poll—at least not at this point in time. It may consider later that that is the appropriate course to follow; however, as of today, it appears that the council is not prepared to give the people of the Mareeba Shire the opportunity to voice their opinions on those very important matters. I hope that the council will reconsider that matter and will give people the opportunity to express their views. In any event, I will be holding further discussions with the Minister. Prior to Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2469 today, I raised some of these matters with him in a general way, but now that we have reached this point, I will be making representations to the Minister that he direct—as is allowed under section 53 of the Local Government Act—that a poll be conducted so that the people of the Mareeba Shire have an opportunity to express their views both on the social club proposal and also on what they believe is most appropriate with respect to the strategic plan for their area. If the momentum of the people of Kuranda increases, and if their dissatisfaction with the Mareeba Shire Council increases, I think that there may well come a point at which the people consider that their interests might best be served by being part of the Mulgrave Shire rather than the Mareeba Shire. My view is that if a majority of the people of Kuranda, which is now part of the Barron River electorate, support that proposal, I will certainly lend my support to it. I believe that it will be my responsibility to assist the residents in trying to achieve an outcome that most clearly enables them to achieve their objectives. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (5.18 p.m.): I do not intend to take up too much time of the House. I will be fairly short, but not necessarily sweet. The amendments to the City of Brisbane Act have been spoken about at considerable length by representatives of those areas affected. The member for Archerfield expressed his position on the City of Brisbane Act, and I think that he is more equipped to do that than I am. A review of local government issues is often very emotive. I believe that it is necessary to ensure that all parties act in a manner so as to ensure public accountability at all times. This legislation permits a process of consultation and inquiry before a determination by the Minister and the commissioner. Recently, I became concerned when a constituent—someone who works in a related local government position—wrote to me and expressed the following concerns— “My concern is that these amendments re-enforce the power of the two positions—that of the Minister of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning and the Commissioner. This may be seen as a weakness in the system, as essentially all matters referred to the Commissioner are assessed only against the Commissioner’s values. Whilst the Commissioner may undertake an inquiry on a reviewable matter the Commissioner may still control that evidence placed before him or her.” However, in discussions with departments today and previously, and indeed as outlined in the speech by the member for Hervey Bay, that process is not only accountable but also very public. Because some other members may have received similar correspondence and concerns, the Minister may wish to comment on that point. It is considered that the lines of communications to all parties subject to investigation in local government must be kept open and, for that reason, all reviewable local government matters must be subject to public input prior to the commissioner’s decision being made. The modification or adjustment, abolition, creation and division of local authority boundaries are significant matters to those people living within the areas affected by those changes. It is likely to be the matter referred most often to the commission. Extensive investigations have already been carried out by EARC and, with the winding up of EARC, it seems important that the transfer of the review process to the commissioner take place. It is commendable to see that the reviewable issues statement for the local authorities of the Mackay/Pioneer region and the matter of cost effectiveness are now finally being addressed. I cannot stress too heavily the need within that financial aspect to encompass a financial cost benefit analysis of the boundary alteration options. Given that local government is financed by local residents either directly or indirectly, a full cost analysis of the commissioner’s recommendations in terms of options may be warranted. The point must be made that the size of the local authority and its cost efficiency are not necessarily maximised by total amalgamations. It is obvious that there is some point at which a local authority operates at maximum efficiency. To date, identifications of this point for the Mackay/Pioneer area have not been considered either by EARC or the commissioner. Moreover, the social environment and public opinion are matters that 2470 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly should be given special weight. Boundary alterations may be considered very minor to us as decision makers; however, to the person affected by such a change, the matter is quite important and affects what that person perceives to be his community of interest. In my own experience, I have seen the issue of amalgamation arise in the Mackay/Pioneer region for many years. In the last 15 years, the Pioneer Shire has commissioned three social surveys by independent bodies which clearly illustrate that community’s preference for the current local government arrangements. As the overseers of local government, it is part of the State Government’s responsibility to ensure that local government fulfils the community’s expectations. Total amalgamation of these two areas clearly would not fulfil the expectations of the Pioneer Shire residents. I have expressed the view before and I do so again that I believe strongly in the powers of the Minister remaining with the Minister and being vested ultimately in the Governor. I therefore have to say that it is desirable that the powers of the commissioner intervening in local government matters other than boundary issues be mildly limited. The commissioner is not elected by the people and, therefore, the public or local authorities have limited recourse if they are not in agreement with the commissioner’s rulings. We must be vigilant to ensure that the power of the commissioner will not disrupt or, indeed, promote the autonomy of local authorities. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (5.24 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for the contributions that they have made to the debate today. Some of the speeches have been on the Bill and some have been a little wide of the mark, but all members have certainly had the opportunity to raise matters that are very pertinent to local government, particularly in their electorates. There seems to be a perception among members of the Opposition that the Government has some type of agenda in relation to amalgamation of local authorities in Queensland, but that is not true. The Government has received a report from EARC and a subsequent report from the parliamentary committee which recommended fewer amalgamations or changes to boundaries than were recommended by EARC. Cabinet has made a decision that in the first instance a Local Government Commissioner would be set up, and that person is Mr Greg Hoffman. During this debate, any member of the Opposition who mentioned Greg Hoffman did so in the sense of giving support to that person in the position he holds. The Government set up the office of Local Government Commissioner and appointed Mr Hoffman to that position which has allowed him to review matters on which the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review has made recommendations. The Opposition spokesperson said something along the lines of this Government not being able to get the legislation right and having to try, try, try again. Perhaps we can hope for third time lucky, but this is a very complex matter. To ensure that it is carried out properly, the Government has to take a great number of matters into consideration. There seems to be a perception among members of the Opposition, however, that the Government is trying to make this legislation as wide as it possibly can so that the Government can do as many things as it wants to do. In fact, the Government is trying to frame the legislation in terms that will give references to the Local Government Commissioner that specifically state what the Government wants the Local Government Commissioner to look at and how far we want him to go. Under the existing Act, the Government could ask the Local Government Commissioner to look at “any other matter”. When the Crown Solicitor considered that expression in relation to drawing up the references, it was found that what we considered to be “any other matter” could be contested in the courts. Through this amending legislation, the Government is now attempting to bring before the House a series of changes that will ensure that when the references are sent to the Local Government Commissioner, he will be very clear about the decision of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the Cabinet’s decision and the references that I send to him, as well as what the Government wants him to look at. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2471
Let me cite as an illustration a very simple matter such as boundary changes between Logan City and Brisbane City. The parliamentary committee made a recommendation which was sent in the first instance to Mr Hoffman. When he considered it, he found that it was not very clear. The Government has since given him a further reference which clearly states exactly what we want to look at, but as soon as he starts to examine minor boundary changes, the particular local authorities concerned and individuals want to bring new matters before the Local Government Commissioner for his consideration. This means that if we had a reference that was wide and not confined to a specific matter, a report could come back to this Parliament recommending things that the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, EARC, the Cabinet, the Government and probably not even the Opposition had considered, and that is not what we want. We want the matters referred to the Local Government Commissioner to be very specific so that he can examine matters that are recommended by the parliamentary committee. I would like to see those matters off the table and out of my hair—the little bit that I have—as quickly as possible. During the debate, a matter was raised which caused me to interject at the time. I would now like to answer it because it was suggested that I, as Minister, had imposed time constraints on the Local Government Commissioner. That is totally not true. At the end of last year, I had a meeting with Greg Hoffman in relation to the references that he will receive. He gave me a proposed timetable that he had prepared. I looked at that and said, “Thank you.” That is the only time that Mr Hoffman and I have mentioned any times in relation to any of the references—I emphasise “the only time”. On 10 March 1993, the Ipswich Advertiser published a letter from Greg Hoffman which was in response to an article by Councillor Nugent and which stated— “The State Government has not, and cannot, set goals for this office. Under the legislation that established it, this office is independent from the State Government. It determines its own goals, timetables and schedules. I believe this office is competent to do so and has no unrealistic goals. Its legislative responsibility is clear . . . to review Local Government matters referred to it by the Minister for Local Government. This office has begun reviews of eight major cases that EARC and PEARC recommended for boundary change. Its process is a fair, equitable and open one that encourages extensive participation by councils and the public before making recommendations to the minister on how local communities are best governed in the future. This office will review all options including amalgamation, boundary change, joint arrangements and a combination of these before making reports to the minister.” The legislation will allow those references, which Mr Hoffman is aware that he will receive, to go to him. There will not be any other references at this stage, in the near future or in the very distant future coming from me in relation to any other amalgamation or boundary changes. The member for Gregory and the member for Mooloolah raised the issue of amalgamations in their electorates. In the case of the member for Gregory, I do not believe that any amalgamations are proposed or recommended by PEARC or even EARC. In relation to the member for Mooloolah—there is no thought of any amalgamations within his electorate. One minor boundary change is proposed between the Maroochy Shire Council and the Noosa Shire Council, and that is at Peregian Beach. It is not an amalgamation of those councils. To try to raise those matters now is wrong. The Government has absolutely no intention of recommending any amalgamations of that sort to the Local Government Commissioner. Under the Act now and under the Act after it is amended today, the Local Government Commissioner has no power to start to look at amalgamations unless he has a specific reference from me as 2472 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly the Minister for Local Government. Those matters that have been raised are not on the table. The Government has no intention of having them on the table. I can assure honourable members that they will not be on the table. I want the matters that came from the parliamentary committee to be sorted out as quickly as possible. It is up to the Local Government Commissioner now to decide how quickly that is done. I would like the matters to be finished and off my plate tomorrow, because whenever I go somewhere in this State that is the subject of some form of recommendation from PEARC to talk about the great job that the State Government is doing in housing, in providing apprenticeships or in planning, the very first question that is asked of me by the journalists is, “Mr Minister, what is happening about the amalgamation or the joining of our shire councils?” I have not been prepared to offer any prophecy on what will happen, and I do not intend to. Although I always comment on anything that journalists ask me to comment on—even if it is only to say “No comment”—I certainly will not give them any views on what should happen in particular regions. It is up to the Local Government Commissioner to talk to the local people and to give me his views so that the Government can then make its decision on that. In relation to some other matters that were raised—I would like to read into Hansard a response that the Government received from Mr Hoffman after our Local Government Department talked to him about the proposed amendments. It must be remembered that the Government consulted with Mr Hoffman about the amendments. I stated that in my second-reading speech. The Government invited Mr Hoffman to be involved by being an observer at a meeting between the Local Government Department and the parliamentary draftsmen when they were drawing up the amendments that were necessary. It is very important that the Government gets it right this time, because the Government wants to get the job done. This is what Mr Hoffman had to say— “The need for amendments to the Act proposed by this Bill have arisen from an opinion of the Solicitor-General on 11th December, 1992, in which it was stated that the Act should be amended to make it incontestable that referrable matters can encompass specific proposals relating to a matter or, simply, a matter in general. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the draft Bill achieves that objective. In my opinion also that objective has been achieved. The draft Bill provides sufficient scope and flexibility to construct the references in general and/or specific terms to cover the possible range of matters that could be referred. Earlier drafts had contained sub-sections proposing ‘limits’, ‘instructions’ and ‘directions’ could be imposed on the Local Government Commissioner in a reference. Whilst seeking to achieve a solution to the problems identified in the opinion, such words could easily create the impression of a desire to impose restrictions contrary to the independent role of the Commissioner. This impression could prejudice the successful operation of the Office of Local Government Commissioner with the community and Councils believing the Commissioner’s independence had been eroded and the issues involved would not be considered on their merits. Once the reference was given to the Commissioner, the original Act envisaged the Commissioner undertaking investigations and preparing a report and recommendations in an independent manner provided any prescribed principles and criteria were complied with. These principles and criteria provide the opportunity for Government policy and requirements to be identified and additional provisions were not necessary to specify such matters. Consequently, they have not been included in the current draft. The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the current draft of the Bill provides for the necessary scope and flexibility recommended by the Solicitor- General in the construction of the references and does not impinge upon the intended independence of the Local Government Commissioner in dealing with the reference after its receipt. On this basis, I express no objection to the current draft of the Bill.” I table that document. Members of the Opposition are quite welcome to look at it. Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2473
The other matter that was raised by a number of speakers was that of the Governor in Council being able to make regulations and whether the Government is inserting into the legislation a Henry VIII clause. I do not believe that we are in any way inserting a Henry VIII clause. A Henry VIII clause allows the Governor in Council, by regulation, to actually change the meaning of the Act. That is not what we are doing by allowing this regulatory power under this Act. Under the original Act, which was agreed to by the Opposition, the Local Government Minister had the ability to refer any other matter to the Local Government Commissioner. The situation that exists under this legislation is that whilst “any other matter” is still there, we are providing a series of instances that can be referred, specifying what they are, and allowing regulations to actually specify the matters so that we do not get caught up in a court case in relation to what some of these things mean. I will say more about this when Mrs McCauley moves her amendment during the Committee stage, because it is important that we understand the problems that we ourselves can get into if we try to limit the legislation by allowing “any other matter” to remain, and to work under that handicap. That is the problem that we got into when we tried to have the Solicitor-General go through draft references to ensure that they were written in a proper legal manner so that there would be no problems with them in the future. I repeat what I said earlier, namely, that I want this matter to be completed so that not just the Government has it off its plate but so that the local authorities in the relevant areas know where they are going. I am sure that all of them would have very fixed views on what they would like to see happen, whether it is to amalgamate or to join some particular areas, or whether it is to leave things as they are, or whether it is to have joint arrangements. They all have fixed views. I am certain that all of them would like to have the matter off their plate. That is what I would like as well. I sent the references to the Solicitor-General to ensure that we would not have problems with them. The member for Gympie claimed that I had a lot of influence on what is happening. That is implying that in some way I am influencing the Local Government Commissioner. That is totally untrue. Mr Stephan: You must set some guidelines for him. Mr MACKENROTH: The guidelines are set by legislation. As I said before, Greg Hoffman himself, in a letter to the editor of the newspaper, said— “Under the legislation . . . this office is independent from the State Government. It determines its own goals, timetables and schedules.” So we are not setting—— Mr Stephan: You have got guidelines. Mr MACKENROTH: We do not have an influence on what is happening other than the actual reference that we send to him. The references were set out in the submission to the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. That committee made a recommendation that certain local authorities be amalgamated or that joint arrangements be worked out. Mr Stephan: Why are some local authorities saying that they are going to have elections by the middle of the year? Mr MACKENROTH: That is not something that I have said. I have not said that. The inference in relation to an election by the middle of this year would only be relevant if there was an amalgamation between Widgee and Gympie—is that right? Mr Stephan: Yes. Mr MACKENROTH: That proposition was put up by the Widgee and Gympie councils, not by the Government. The Gympie and Widgee councils decided that they would like to amalgamate, but if they do amalgamate, they want to have an election by the middle of this year and they want the amalgamated council to start operating from 1 2474 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly
July this year. I will give to the Local Government Commissioner a reference to consider the amalgamation of the Gympie and Widgee councils. It will be up to him to consider such an amalgamation. The Gympie and Widgee councils will, I imagine, put to him the proposition that they would like to have an election by the middle of this year. They will put that to him, not to me. He will then report back to me as the Local Government Minister. The Governor in Council will then consider that report. If in that report there is a recommendation that an election be held by a certain time or on a certain date, and the Governor in Council accepts that recommendation, it would then be held. But it is not a decision that we can influence. In fact, it will be more a matter of the councils having an influence on the Local Government Commissioner than influencing him. I think the honourable member needs to really understand that. The honourable member for Burdekin raised the point about people having to accept different types of representation, and I guess that he was speaking about the legislation that was passed in the past year to allow for 10 per cent and 20 per cent tolerances. He said that in some areas there will be seven elected representatives in the city and three outside the city. He said that that could not be done on an uncontested basis because someone could not represent both areas. I put to him the proposition that in fact in his electorate he has more than one centre and that he represents all of the people in his electorate. If I am right, I think the member for Cook has something like 50 different centres in his electorate, and he represents each and every one of those centres. I am sure that he would tell the House that he represents each and every one of them equally. Mr Stoneman: But it is very difficult for him. Mr MACKENROTH: Certainly, it is difficult, but that is a fact of life. In relation to a local authority, the member for Burdekin cannot put forward the proposition that a person cannot represent two different areas within one shire yet have me believe that he can represent two different areas in his electorate equally well. That is what the honourable member attempted to put forward. If he can represent two different centres in his electorate equally well, I believe that a shire councillor can in the same manner represent the town and the country. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. Tomorrow, when the amendments are discussed, I will certainly have further things to say. The Government is certainly committed to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee—to see them through, not to see them implemented. The Government will see them through with the process that it put in place. That process is to have an independent person look at the proposals and ensure that he puts to the Government recommendations that it can consider. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.