Legislative Assembly 18 June 1992 5859 THURSDAY, 18 JUNE 1992 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMISSION Reports Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that today I have received from the Chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission the Report on Review of Archives Legislation and the Report on Investigation of Public Registration of Political Donations, Public Funding of Election Campaigns and Related Issues. Ordered to be printed. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Abortion Law From Mr Lester (197 signatories) praying that action be taken to ensure that the law prohibiting abortion on request be enforced. QEII Hospital From Dr Watson (2 555 signatories) praying that there be no restriction on facilities offered by the QEII Hospital and that no services or units be relocated to other hospitals. Pornographic Material From Mr Fitzgerald (693 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that restricted material be not openly displayed, marketed or sold at retail outlets where such material may be accessed by young Queenslanders, and that there be no licensing of sex shops to display, market and sell X-rated material. Community Legal Centres From Mr Beanland (6 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will continue to fund community legal centres. Petitions received. SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Health Rights Commission Act— • Proclamation—Commencement of provisions not in force—1 July 1992, No.98 Health Services Act— • Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (Transfer of Officers) Order 1992 (No.1) 5860 18 June 1992 Legislative Assembly Physiotherapists Act— • Physiotherapy Amendment Regulation (No.1) 1992, No.99 PAPERS The following papers were laid upon the table of the House— Mr Wells— (1) Reports for the year ended December 31, 1991— Special Prosecutor. Office of the Director of Prosecutions. (2) Report upon action taken or proposed with respect to Recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on the Management of Funds Earned on Solicitor's Trust Accounts. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Office of the Parliamentary Counsel Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: As members would be aware, the Fitzgerald report recommended that the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission undertake a review of the role and functions of the Parliamentary Counsel. The report stated that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel needs to operate with a degree of independence, given its role in advising on the appropriateness of legislative proposals. The Legislative Standards Act, which received royal assent on 1 June 1992, provides for the establishment of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel under the control of the newly created statutory position of Parliamentary Counsel. The Act provides for the Parliamentary Counsel to be appointed by the Governor in Council for a period of no longer than seven years. The eligibility criteria for appointment to the position of Parliamentary Counsel are established under the Act. I wish to inform the House that on 4 June the Governor in Council appointed John Michael Leahy to the new statutory position of Parliamentary Counsel for a period of five years. The remuneration arrangements which have applied since his previous appointment as Parliamentary Counsel under the Public Service Management and Employment Act remain the same. Mr Leahy was initially appointed to the position of Parliamentary Counsel on 27 December 1990. Members will recall that the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Report on Review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel recommended that an appropriate selection process be established for appointing the Parliamentary Counsel, namely, that the selection be undertaken by an independent selection panel. The State Government is of the view that the extensive recruitment process undertaken to fill the position of Parliamentary Counsel under the Public Service Management and Employment Act just 18 months ago, and the subsequent appointment of Mr Leahy, satisfy the requirements proposed by EARC. It is on this basis that I sought the approval of the Governor in Council for his direct appointment to the newly established statutory position of Parliamentary Counsel. The selection process carried out prior to his initial appointment not only adheres to the intentions of the recommendations made by EARC and adopted by this Government but also ensures that the operations of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel will continue to be conducted without disruption. I am confident that Mr Leahy will ensure that Queensland legislation continues to be of an exceptionally high standard and that the provision of independent advice on legislation generally is maintained. Legislative Assembly 18 June 1992 5861 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Standard Gauge Rail Link Project to Port of Brisbane Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: It can certainly be said that one of the hallmarks of this State Government has been its willingness and effectiveness in consulting with the public on important decisions. While Governments are elected to govern, they also have a responsibility to listen. Nowhere has this been more evident than in my own portfolio where consultation has occurred on every major project. We are currently undergoing a major consultation phase on the detailed design of the $72m standard gauge rail link project to the port of Brisbane. On 14 June, in his column in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, Associate Professor Ross Fitzgerald made a number of extraordinary statements about that project. For example, he wrote, firstly, that— “Whatever the motive (for the project) the result will be that, because of noise pollution, the southern half of Brisbane will be dissected by a belt of industrial sonic slums.” Secondly, he wrote that the current impact assessment study is a— “. so-called environmental impact study being undertaken by the Department of Transport”. Thirdly, he wrote that— “The study is just about ‘truck’ traffic versus train traffic on the existing route.” One could excuse a first-year history student but not a politics student for failing to do his homework, for building a case on a shaky foundation or for presenting a report before marshalling the facts; but when the author of such a derelict essay is an associate professor, one can only hope that it is indeed a rarity. There are some serious and fundamental flaws in Associate Professor Fitzgerald’s thesis. Firstly, the department is not conducting the impact assessment study at all. The independent and well-respected firm of Maunsell Pty Ltd has been contracted to do the study. Furthermore, it is not a study about truck traffic versus train traffic. The study is identifying and assessing potential noise problems, and it will recommend measures to ameliorate those problems. In addition, the study is assessing the potential impact of the project on local ecology, the community, road traffic, service infrastructure, land use amenity, hydrology and heritage as well as the economic impacts and safety issues. Professor Fitzgerald talks about local residents being threatened by the prospect of a standard-gauge rail line and the two to four additional train movements a day that it will bring. Yet there are already 116 trains a day using that rail corridor. The alternative route that he would have the Government reconsider does not now have a train line. He suggests that the best corridor to the port of Brisbane would be one that is away from the residential areas; but the alternative route goes through Calamvale, Browns Plains, Woodridge, Underwood, Eight Mile Plains, Wishart, Mansfield, Burbank, Carindale and Tingalpa, and that route involves cutting a swathe through the Karawatha Forest. As for Associate Professor Fitzgerald’s claim that the southern suburbs will be dissected by a belt of industrial sonic slums and the local residents will be forced to sell their homes at a loss, it is clear that the professor is the one who is well and truly on the wrong track. I would remind those who seek to distort the facts regarding this important infrastructure project that not only does it generate employment, but, by improved train capacity and scheduling, and with the commitment of this Government to noise abatement measures, the local community receives substantial benefits. They include fewer heavy vehicles on local roads, fewer night time freight movements and the opportunity to run additional electric passenger rail services. In common with Associate Professor Fitzgerald, I place the utmost value on the freedom of speech, but I recognise 5862 18 June 1992 Legislative Assembly that all wisdom does not flow from the coffee in the humanities common room at Griffith University. I believe that, before making public comments, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we get our facts right. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr T. Walker and Mr D. Reimer Hon. P. COMBEN (Windsor—Minister for Environment and Heritage) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: Recent statements made in the media and in this House by the Liberal Party Environment spokesman, David Dunworth, on the disappearance of two Environment and Heritage departmental officers are inaccurate and must be corrected. The decision to end the official search for officers Terry Walker and Darryl Reimer was taken solely by search authorities. Following consultation with family friends and colleagues, particularly those participating in the search, the department decided to maintain the search and only ended this—sadly and reluctantly—following advice from police and the SES. The decision to end the search had absolutely nothing to do with funding.