Hansard 14 September 1995

Legislative Assembly 183 14 September 1995

THURSDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 1995

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

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Giant Steps Program

From Mr Briskey (1,785 signatories)praying that the Parliament of Queensland willurgently provide a Giant Steps program forQueensland children with significant autismand associated developmental delays.

Students with Disabilities

From Mr Carroll (1,200 signatories)praying for an increase in the projecteddisability package for 1996-97 to facilitate theestablishment of post-school options forstudents with disabilities.

Burke Shire, Road Funding

From Mr McGrady (1,428 signatories)praying for a review of road funding in theBurke Shire with a view to commencing a roadimprovement program to be completed by theyear 2005.

Gold Coast City Council Election

From Mrs Rose (18,550 signatories)praying that action be taken to ensure that thenext Gold Coast City Council election is held inMarch 1997 to coincide with local governmentelections.

Renaming of Palmerston National Parkand Bellenden Ker National Park

From Mr Rowell (2,468 signatories)requesting that the decision to change thename of the Palmerston National Park andBellenden Ker National Park to WooroonooranNational Park be reversed and that the originalnames be retained.

Cardwell, Boating Facilities

From Mr Rowell (436 signatories)requesting the urgent provision of all-weather,all-tide boat launching and retrieval facilities atCardwell.

Heritage Listed Churches

From Miss Simpson (1,043 signatories)requesting that (a) legislation be enacted toprovide for compensation payments toheritage listed churches where the marketvalue of the property is adversely affected bylisting restrictions and (b) ensuring thatchurches have freedom to use, furnish andalter the interior of all listed buildings whilepreserving the main structure.

Cannabis

From Mr T. B. Sullivan (19 signatories)praying that the statutory prohibition on theproduction and usage of cannabis becontinued.

Teachers' Superannuation

From Mr T. B. Sullivan (17 signatories)praying that the Parliament of Queensland willurgently reconsider a buy-back proposal forteachers with broken patterns of service whohave been financially disadvantaged in termsof superannuation retirement expectations.

Petitions received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Drought

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Primary Industries and Minister forRacing) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: A record five-year drought has depleted the water suppliesin many of the State's dams. The presentwater storage situation in Queensland is criticalin a number of areas and shows little sign ofimproving. If rainfall is not received in thecoming summer months, many rural-basedindustries will be facing a desperate situation.

My department is doing everythingpossible to assist irrigators during this drought.DPI is liaising with water-user groups todistribute the available supplies fairly. TheState Labor Government has alwaysunderstood the importance of water to theState's growth. New water projects form asubstantial part of From Strength to Strength.However, I need to say that droughts of theseverity of this one are very difficult towithstand.

Forty shires, five part-shires and 1,009individual properties are currently droughtdeclared. This represents 35 per cent of theState's area or some 19,000 farms. Of the 23major storages managed by the State, eight

14 September 1995 184 Legislative Assembly

are now empty or virtually empty and anotherseven are less than a quarter full. Theremaining eight are generally less than halffull. Only the Burdekin Dam and Kinchant Damare holding 80 per cent. This year, water usehas been restricted in many schemes, and lowallocations have been announced in a numberof areas. This year, all available surface waterin Bundaberg has been allocated out to theirrigators. Sugarcane growers in that area areapproaching a critical stage if there is no inflowinto the storages during early 1996.Canegrowers are expecting a 30 per centdecrease in production this year.

Without rain later this year or early nextyear, the cotton industry will also suffer badly.Water storages at Emerald and St George willsoon hold nothing more than reserves forurban and industrial use. Next season's cottonis being planted now. The citrus industry isalready in a critical stage in the Upper Burnett,as many growers are battling to save treesand are experiencing heavy crop losses.

In relation to town water supplies—theLabor State Government has a number ofstrategies for minimising the impact of droughton urban water supplies. The drought strickenlocal governments urban water supplyassistance scheme ensures that existing townwater supplies are secure and of anacceptable quality. To date, 25 Queenslandtowns enjoy a more secure supply, and afurther 10 towns have improved quality. Some$11.6m has been spent on the scheme overthe past three years. An amount of $410,000has also been allocated under the droughtstricken urban water supply assistancescheme to cart water or provide capital works.Thirteen country towns have receivedassistance under this scheme.

I advise the House that I do not thinkthere is an appreciation by some members ofthis House and the public generally of theseverity of the situation facing this State. Weare facing a situation in which, in the nextcouple of weeks, the people in towns such asMount Morgan, which has a population of4,000, will have to physically cart waterbecause the water supply simply will not bethere. Probably within about three weeks ofthat, there will be another six country towns inthis State that will also be in this situationunless there is good rainfall.

What I am getting at is simply this: anoperation of this size is going to requirecooperation and non-political antics from a lotof people throughout this State. It will require adegree of cooperation between the FederalGovernment, State Government and local

authorities that has never before been seen. Itis alarming because in terms of weatherpatterns and predictability, this country is stillinfant. Two hundred years of weatherpredictions and drought is not enoughtime—the scientific community will makehonourable members aware of this—toaccurately assess what is going to happen.This could be a 5-year drought in 100 years, itcould be a 10-year drought in 200 years—nobody knows. So I stress upon allhonourable members the importance of acommunity approach to what will be a seriousproblem.

The State Government has alsocontributed $7m to foster good planning bylocal governments through the totalmanagement planning initiative and hashelped over 120 local governments to improvetheir water planning and managementpractices. In 1994-95, we had doubled thenumber of planning investigations undertakenby local governments. During the electioncampaign, the Government promised $100mto continue rebuilding rural Queensland. At thecentre of the package is $44m for restocking,replanting and recharging primary production.This is on top of the $30m pledged in theBudget for water infrastructure developmentand maintenance.

As I have said, the drought has meantthat many small rural communities aresuffering severe financial hardship and aresimply struggling to survive. Since its onset in1991, the Government has provided morethan $92m in assistance targeted atcommunities and farmers. Around $32m hasbeen spent on freight subsidies for movementof stock and fodder. More than $121m hasbeen paid to some 2,000 rural producersunder the Federal/State Rural AdjustmentScheme.

We have stuck by and will continue tostick by rural Queensland, and I consider thatto be a proud achievement of thisGovernment. Over the past couple of weeks, Ihave been able to meet with members of thepeak rural organisations throughout this State.As many members on the other side of theHouse would be aware, many of the peopleinvolved in those organisations support thepolitics of the members opposite—that is theirright and I do not question that in any shapeor form—but it has been heartening to me todiscover when I have sat down with thosepeople that they are not interested in apolitical agenda and that they are happy withthe support that they have received fromGovernments of all political colours in this


country. That is something of which we, as aGovernment, are very proud. Today, I simplyreiterate that, for whatever time this droughtmay continue, this Government will besupporting rural Queensland as much as itpossibly can.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

SEQ 2001

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning, Minister for RuralCommunities and Minister for Provision ofInfrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Communities) (10.12 a.m.), by leave:Last Friday, the South East QueenslandRegional Coordination Committee endorsedthe SEQ 2001 regional framework for growthmanagement, in what is a significant decisionin terms of managing the immense growth ofthe region that is to occur over the next 20years and beyond. Over the past five years,the population of south-east Queensland hasgrown by over one quarter of a million,primarily as a result of migration from interstateand overseas. It is forecast that, by 2011,there will be another one million people livingin the region—increasing the total populationto over three million.

Whereas the task of developing ablueprint for guiding this growth has beenchallenging, the cooperative spirit with whichState, Commonwealth and 18 localgovernments have worked together alongsidethe community sector to develop theframework for progressing the region's futurecould be cited as one of the project's majorachievements. With myriad differing agendasand a wide range of perceptions on the bestoutcome for south-east Queensland,SEQ 2001 could have easily faltered. But byany standards, the process has been asuccess, and last Friday's endorsement istestament to that. It is now time for tangibleresults to begin to be felt by the people ofsouth-east Queensland.

Many State departments as well as localgovernments in the region are well advancedin their preparations for implementation of theinitiatives recommended in the framework.One of the important initiatives of the regionalframework is the development of a majorcentres policy for south-east Queensland. Thispolicy provides a long-term strategy that isaimed at bringing people, jobs and communityfacilities closer together in order to reduce

travel demand, improve environmental qualityand provide a focus for significantinfrastructure and investment decisions.

The Regional Coordination Committeeendorsed an agreed hierarchy for majorcentres in south-east Queensland, withBrisbane and its frame area to continue as thedominant centre for the seat of Government,national and regional headquarters of largeprivate firms, and cultural and recreationalfacilities of State importance. Beenleigh,Ipswich and Caboolture are nominated as keymetropolitan centres, owing to their existinghigh level of accessibility to the regionalpopulation by public transport, particularly rail.In addition, Beenleigh and Caboolture arelocated in the centre of major urban growthcorridors recognised in the regional framework.Key regional centres have been nominated atSouthport, Robina, Toowoomba andMaroochydore, and these will serve similarfunctions to the key metropolitan centres.

Key metropolitan and regional centres willbe the preferred location for majoremployment growth through office, retail,community services, recreation and culturalfacilities and other significant infrastructure.Centre development plans will be prepared foreach of the key centres in order to guide theirlong-term development. Those plans willaddress a range of issues, including publictransport, pedestrian and cyclist accessibility,urban design, open space, residential mix,community facility planning, employmenttargets and environmental issues.

The framework also contains a widerange of principles and priority actions toachieve our desired social and environmentalobjectives for the region—in short, to preservethe quality of life currently enjoyed in south-east Queensland. A Regional Open SpaceSystem is also being implemented to providea network of green open spaces for ourgrowing population to breathe in, and toprovide green links between our expandingurban areas. Funds of $35m over five yearshave been provided to ensure that thoseareas that are especially vulnerable arepreserved as open space for our futuregenerations.

The provision of infrastructure to urbandevelopment areas is aimed at ensuring thatnew communities are properly served by thetimely provision of schools, public transportand other essential services. The frameworkproposes a future urban settlement pattern forthe region that will assist agencies in theirforward planning. A key objective is to providetertiary-level services, such as hospitals,


universities and TAFE colleges, in closeproximity to where people live. The frameworkalso aims to protect the environmental assetsthat residents and visitors enjoy and whichcontinue to attract new residents.

Although these examples are by nomeans an exhaustive list of therecommendations of the regional framework,they provide a very positive indication of themany initiatives that will guide our growth andensure that our quality of life is enriched,rather than degraded, by our increasedpopulation. Now that it has been endorsed bythe Regional Coordination Committee, theregional framework needs to be owned by allthe stakeholders, and responsibility forimplementation lies with all the region'sresidents as well as Government. The widercommunity needs to make a commitment tothe outcomes of the framework to ensure thatthe objectives become reality—to ensure thatthere are tangible benefits for the people ofthat region.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTShaping the Future

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Education) (10.17 a.m.), by leave: TheGoss Government has embarked on thebiggest reform of Queensland's educationsystem in this State's history. The three coreobjectives of our reforms will be: firstly, tobetter inform parents of how their children areprogressing; secondly, to ensure that studentswho are not coping receive the support thatthey need to succeed in the future; and,thirdly, to deliver a comprehensive andrelevant education to students that providesthem with real opportunities. Moreover, thekey objectives of Shaping the Future—uniformity in curriculum and assessmentstandards, increased accountability throughquality assurance measures, andimprovements in literacy and numeracy skills—are all being achieved.

Shaping the Future is a long-termcommitment to the future of this State, andone in which we will not shirk the enormousresponsibilities involved. As we strive forexcellence, we believe that, in education,second-best can never be good enough. Wehave initiated the most extensive and best-resourced curriculum initiative through aninvestment of more than $300m and thecreation of thousands of jobs over the next sixyears to implement those reforms. Shapingthe Future will see Queensland take theleading edge in delivering a first-class

education system to our children forgenerations to come. Implementation ofmajor reforms has reached some importantmilestones, and I take this opportunity toreport to honourable members on ourprogress to date. I can report to the Housetoday that, by the end of 1995-96, theGovernment will have spent $52m on theWiltshire package of reforms. With a back-to-basics philosophy, innovations in curriculumhave delivered major job opportunities to ourteacher graduates in Queensland to theextent that 5,000 new teaching jobs will havebeen created by the end of this three-yearterm of Government.

The detail of our reforms is worth stating.This year alone, the Department of Educationhas appointed and trained 600 key teachers,110 education advisers in key learning areassuch as literacy and numeracy, 77 keylearning area regional coordinators, 90education advisers in mathematics, 45education advisers in English and 23 qualityassurance officers for curriculum development.At the moment, we are advertising to fill 81deputy principal positions by the end ofNovember. Those deputy principals will assistin behaviour management services. In roundfigures, 1,000 additional curriculum supportstaff will be in place for the beginning of the1996 school year—an equivalent of 500 full-time positions. We are delivering a qualitylearning experience that will allow students toachieve the maximum benefits from ourschools.

Another key aspect of the reforms,assessment of students, ensures that parents,teachers, the Education Department andnon-Government school authorities are awareof how curriculum reforms are progressing. Iwould like to underline that Year 2 and Year 6reforms are intersystemic initiatives and I havestrongly encouraged participation bynon-Government schools. The Year 6 test wasadministered on 29 and 30 August to over35,000 students in State schools and to over5,000 students in non-State schools. The Year2 diagnostic net is currently under wayinvolving over 11,500 children in State schoolsand 3,000 children in participating non-Stateschools. I will report on the outcomes whenthe information becomes available later thisyear.

These diagnostic measures will give thepeople of Queensland an up-to-dateassessment of how our children areprogressing, provide a benchmark for futureresults and enable us to direct our resourcesto the children in our schools who need more


assistance to develop their skills in literacy andnumeracy. I assure the House that this hugeinvestment in our young people will seeQueensland students reap the benefits ofwhat the best education in this country canoffer.

APPROPRIATION BILLPublic Bill

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(10.21 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That so much of the StandingOrders be suspended to enable anAppropriation Bill to be introduced as apublic Bill at this day's sitting."Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTBILL

Remaining Stages; Abridgment ofTime

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(10.21 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That so much of the StandingOrders and Sessional Orders besuspended to enable the LocalGovernment Amendment Bill to passthrough all its remaining stages at thisday's sitting."Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—

Treasurer) (10.22 a.m.): I second the motion. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer)

(10.22 a.m.): The Opposition recognises theimportance of this Bill. The matter has to beexpedited. The Opposition has received abriefing on it. It is unusual for us to concedethat we need to suspend Standing Orders toput a Bill through all stages, but theOpposition is happy on this occasion tocomply with the request from the Minister.

Motion agreed to. Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier

and Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (10.23 a.m.): I am still trying towork out what they are up to.

Opposition members interjected.Mr W. K. GOSS: It was a joke.Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the

member for Crows Nest that I am on my feet. Ithink we are doing really well. I call thePremier.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of Hon. F. A. Campbell , MLA

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premierand Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (10.23 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"1. That this House desires to placeon record its appreciation of the servicesrendered to this State by the lateHonourable Frederick AlexanderCampbell, a former member of theParliament of Queensland and Minister ofthe Crown; and

2. That Mr Speaker be requested toconvey to the family of the deceasedgentleman the above resolution, togetherwith an expression of the sympathy andsorrow of the members of the Parliamentof Queensland in the loss they havesustained."

Fred Campbell was born on 17 January1911 in Brisbane, the son of Matthew, anindustrial chemist and poultry farmer, and hiswife, Annie. Fred was educated in Brisbane.Upon completion of his education he wasemployed within the insurance industry, beforebecoming a partner in a family poultry farm atAlbany Creek. He and his wife, Ellen, weremarried in 1936 and together they had twodaughters, Margaret and Barbara, and a son,Bruce. Fred Campbell managed the familypoultry business for some 25 years, acquiringa formidable knowledge of the poultry industry.

Fred Campbell was a firm believer in theimportance of the poultry industry to ourprimary sector. He had significant input intothe development and regulation of eggmarketing within Queensland, which was asignificant issue for poultry farmers in thecontext of fierce competition from southernStates. He was the vice president of both theState's poultry industry organisations of thetime, and represented the industry on the EggMarketing Board.

It was this background, knowledge andexperience that caused him to be labelled,somewhat affectionately, as "Chooky"Campbell by members of the then LaborOpposition, following his election as the Liberalmember for the new seat of Aspley on 28 May1960. He represented Aspley during thedramatic development of the area from asemi-rural setting on the outskirts of Brisbaneto a metropolitan suburb in every sense of theword. By all accounts, he represented hisconstituents ably in this place and worked hardto ensure that facilities and essential services


were provided in his rapidly developingelectorate.

Fred Campbell was an eminent memberof the Queensland Liberals, with 15 years as amember of the State Executive, serving asState President from 1956 to 1960. It was asState President that he played a key role infacilitating the first coalition between theLiberals and the then Country Party, enablingthem to form Government in 1957. It was as apart of this coalition that Mr Campbell madeperhaps his most significant contributions tothe development of this State, as Minister forIndustrial Development from 1967 to 1974;Minister for Industrial Development, LabourRelations and Consumer Affairs from 1974 to1977; Minister for Transport for four months in1977; and Minister for Labour Relations from1977 until 1980. During his time in theseministries he oversaw the introduction of theIndustry and Commerce Training Commission,the forerunner to the current VocationalEducation, Training and EmploymentCommission. He also played an important partas Minister for Industrial Development insupervising the development of industrialareas within regional Queensland. It is widelyacknowledged, however, that his mostsignificant contributions to this State weremade within the area of industrial relations,where he was held in high esteem by bothemployers and trade unionists alike.

He continued to serve as a Minister untilhis resignation in 1980. The circumstancessurrounding his resignation over issues ofprinciple reflect credit both on his integrity asan individual and his devotion to the LiberalParty.

In conclusion, Fred is survived by his wifeand children and their families. On behalf ofthe Parliament, I extend to them my sympathyand that of this House.

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.27 a.m.): Onbehalf of the Opposition, I second thePremier's condolence motion for the lateFrederick Alexander Campbell. Born inBrisbane on 17 January 1911, FredCampbell's infancy to early adulthood wasspent witnessing the cause and effect ofworldwide political disruption, tumult and waron Australian society. He was educated atBrisbane primary and high schools beforebecoming an insurance officer with Fire andGeneral Insurance and a participant in hisfamily's poultry business, from which heextended his interests and involvement as alocal and international industry representative.

His early association with the QueenslandPeople's Party, a moderate politicalorganisation which predated the Liberal Partyof today, was characterised by an unwaveringcommitment to furthering the conservativecause in the rapidly developing satellite suburband new electoral seat of Aspley. His 10-yearaffiliation with the then Country Party from1940 marked his first formal politicalinvolvement, but he was to make his markultimately as a respected and longstandingadministrator of the Queensland Liberal Partyand then, of course, as Liberal member forAspley in this place from 1960 to 1980.

Fred was an astute and powerful force inthe Liberal Party. His personal, political andreligious convictions made for pertinentchallenges and debate with those in his ownranks on our side of politics, as well as theOpposition. His trademark ministerialaccomplishments in the Bjelke-Petersen ledcoalition Government came most notably inthe portfolio of industrial relations. His belief ina system of consultation over confrontation inthe work force predicated the modern-dayedict of enterprise bargaining.

Fred's introduction to QueenslandParliament as member for Aspley in 1960came at a time when the "lucky country" labelwas definitively Australian. The sociopoliticallandscape of the nation was stable, productiveand prosperous, and he wanted to help keepit that way through his responsibilities across awide area of public administration, butparticularly industrial development, labourrelations and consumer affairs. He was equallywell-respected by those from Trades Hall totop management levels for his absolute andtotal integrity, and this augured well for arobust Queensland workplace. His diligence asa parliamentary representative and his tirelesswork as a Minister and as a Deputy Leader ofthe Liberal Party secured Fred a seat in theHouse for two decades before his retirement inNovember 1980.

On behalf of the coalition, I extend mycondolences to Mrs Campbell and to thefamily.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (10.30 a.m.): I also rise tooffer my condolences to the family and friendsof a great figure in the history of theQueensland Liberal Party, Fred Campbell.

In 1960, Fred Campbell was elected asthe Liberal member for Aspley after adistinguished period as State Party Presidentfor four years from 1956 to 1960. Those wereturbulent years in Queensland politics, with thedisintegration of the Labor Party and the


vicious State election campaign of 1957, afterwhich the Labor Party was thrown out of officefor 32 years.

In 1957, Fred Campbell steered theLiberal Party through to power in the firstCountry/Liberal coalition Government. He wasthen preselected for the State seat of Aspley,which he won in 1960 and held until hisretirement in 1980. Fred Campbell was anactive and influential member of the LiberalParty during the period when the Liberals werean integral part of Government in this State.

His business background in the insuranceindustry and in running the family poultrybusiness for 25 years made Fred Campbell anatural for the Cabinet, which he entered in1967 and remained in until his retirement. In1967, Fred Campbell became the Minister forIndustrial Development before moving on tobecome the Minister for Development andIndustrial Affairs. In 1974, he took over theresponsibility for the Department of IndustrialDevelopment, Labour Relations andConsumer Affairs. He was also TransportMinister for several months in 1977 beforebecoming Minister for Labour Relations inDecember 1977 until his retirement in 1980.Fred Campbell was also Deputy Leader of theLiberal Party from 1976 to 1980.

During his career as a Minister, FredCampbell gained respect from both the unionsand the business sector for his even-handedand fair treatment of issues and his willingnessto listen to all sides of an argument. In days ofoften open confrontation between unions andthe then coalition Government, Fred Campbellwas always a voice of reason. Upon hisretirement, Fred Campbell noted his greatestministerial achievement as the creation of theIndustry and Commerce Training Act, whichreplaced the former Apprenticeship Act. Whenit was introduced, it was considered theleading legislation in the areas of training andemployment conditions in Australia.

Fred Campbell was often called the quietman of Queensland politics, or "Chooky" bythe Labor Opposition. He was a man whoachieved much during his life without making asong and dance about it. He got things doneand then moved on—surely a model for all ofus in public office.

However, politics was only part of his life.Throughout his life, Fred Campbell was alsothe Vice President of the Poultry Breeders'Association, a member of the World PoultryScience Association, a representative on theQueensland Egg Marketing Board, a memberof Rotary and an active member of the AspleyProgress Association. In fact, Fred Campbell

had achieved much for his electorate ofAspley before he was even elected toParliament through various local communityorganisations in which he was active. However,politics was his love, and he even describedhimself of having a romance with politics whichlasted for many years. Upon his retirement,Fred Campbell also spoke of his concerns forthe then tough anti-street march and essentialservice laws, which he believed would causeupheaval in the community.

Fred Campbell has left a legacy ofcommunity and Government service thatshould never be forgotten. On behalf of theLiberal Party, I offer my condolences and bestwishes to Mrs Campbell and family, and theirfriends.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Justice and Attorney-General, Minister forIndustrial Relations and Minister for the Arts)(10.34 a.m.): I rise to pay tribute to the lateHonourable Fred Campbell and to add myremarks to those of other speakers. Inparticular, I pay tribute to his contribution in thearea of industrial relations. No State can havea flourishing economy without a soundindustrial relations base. The late HonourableFred Campbell realised this and, in so doing,built bridges of understanding and cooperationbetween employers and trade unionists.

Fred Campbell's other contribution, whichhas been acknowledged by previous speakersand also in respect of which I wish to paytribute, was to the area of training, which isitself so important in ensuring a soundemployment base. The late Fred Campbellappreciated the need to move beyond thestructured training arrangements inapprenticeships into more wide-rangingstructured training arrangements. In so doing,he made an important contribution throughthe establishment of the Industry andCommerce Training Commission.

Previous speakers have outlined to thisHouse Fred Campbell's career, so I shall notrepeat that. However, I pay tribute to hiscourage in speaking out with respect to theessential services legislation and contributinghis views as a member of Parliament on amost important topic. He was one of thepeople who helped build bridges betweenthose who would otherwise be divided in oursociety.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (10.36 a.m.): Thelate Fred Campbell gave long anddistinguished service to this Parliament and tothe people of Queensland. He also served inthe highest offices of the Liberal Party for


more than a quarter of a century, and did sowith singular commitment and loyalty.

Fred's death at the age of 84 seversanother link with one of the most momentousperiods in the political history of Queensland.He was State President of the Liberal Partyfrom 1956 to 1960—a period which includedthe great Labor split of 1957 and the electionof the first Country/Liberal coalitionGovernment in August of that year. As StatePresident, Fred played a key role in theformulation of the coalition agreement for thefirst Nicklin/Morris Government—an agreementwhich led to a long period of good, stableGovernment for Queensland.

In 1960, Fred was elected as the memberfor the newly created seat of Aspley. Thatmove was seen in some circles as unusual, asa number of previous State presidents andsenior office holders of the Liberal Party hadchosen a career in Federal Parliament ratherthan in this House. Given Fred's background inagriculture, especially egg production, and hisinterests in the basics of Government, it cameas no great surprise to those who knew himwell. Even after his election to this place, Fredcontinued to serve the Liberal Party as StateTreasurer from 1960 to 1967, when heresigned on his appointment to theNicklin/Chalk Government as Minister forIndustrial Development.

In August 1976, when Sir William Knoxwas elected as the Leader of the Liberal Party,Fred Campbell was elected Deputy Leader ofthe parliamentary party—a position he heldunder Sir William and Sir Llew Edwards untilhe retired from Parliament in 1980. Even inretirement, Fred continued to give activesupport to the Liberal Party, as I am sure themember for Aspley will confirm.

Even though Fred held the highest officesin both the organisation and the Parliamentand Government, I am sure that he alwayspreferred the politics of cooperation andconsultation to confrontation. That is onereason why he was so well liked here and inthe community. As Minister for IndustrialAffairs and Labour Relations for some eightyears, he established an excellent rapport withthe leaders of the union movement—something of which he was very proud. Inthose days, the union movement was ruled bytough men such as Sir Jack Egerton and FredWhitby, but Fred got on well with them all,often over a drink or two, and this rapport withthe unions and the employers served theState well.

Fred Campbell was also very popular onboth sides of the House, as no doubt the

Deputy Premier and one or two others willreadily confirm. He took part in theparliamentary interstate bowls carnivals andsaw those events as an opportunity to bringmembers from all parties together in a friendly,totally non-political environment.

In my early days in the Liberal Party, I canrecall attending branch meetings, dances andother fundraising functions at Campbell's Barnat Albany Creek. The barn used to be part ofthe Campbell family poultry farm. Today, thewhole area is part of the first-class residentialsuburb of Albany Creek. Fred's nephew, PeterCampbell, served as Young Liberal StatePresident and as a councillor of the PineRivers Shire Council for some years.

Throughout his career, Fred enjoyed thewonderful support and assistance of his wife,Mac, whom he married 59 years ago. Theyhad a great life together. They were the life ofany party, and they were both proud of theirmembership of the Liberal Party. Tragically, inrecent years Fred was in very poor health.During this difficult period, Mac gave himwonderful support and care. Our thoughts arewith Mac and her son and daughters andgrandchildren and Fred's many friends andadmirers.

Fred was a very good Liberal, a first-classrepresentative of his electorate and a verycommitted, genuine Minister in importantportfolios for 13 years. Above all else, he wasa very decent man, popular with all who knewhim, regardless of politics. I regret his passingand I join in expressing sympathy to his widow,Mac, and to his family and friends.

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (BrisbaneCentral—Minister for Health) (10.40 a.m.): Iwish to speak briefly in support of thiscondolence motion. I knew Fred Campbellwell. As has been indicated, Fred was theMinister for Industrial Development andLabour Relations between 23 December 1974and 18 December 1980. For part of that time,I was the State Secretary of the QueenslandRailway Station Officers Union and a delegateto the Trades and Labor Council. FredCampbell was well regarded by the tradeunion movement. He was seen as amoderating influence in the Bjelke-Petersenyears. He was also seen as supportingreasonable consensus positions in industrialrelations and opposing legislation such as theEssential Services Act, which was of majorconcern to the trade union movement at thattime. As the Honourable Minister for PrimaryIndustries just said, Fred was seen as areformer in industrial relations.


Fred Campbell was a very decent man.He was regarded as a person of dignity. Hehad tolerance and understanding. As I said,he was widely respected by the trade unionmovement. It was clearly the view of the tradeunion movement that he had been the bestIndustrial Relations Minister from theconservative side since the Labor Party hadlost office. I pass on my best wishes andsympathies to the Campbell family.

Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (10.41 a.m.): Irise to pay tribute to the late Fred Campbelland endorse the remarks of the previousspeakers. As other speakers have said, Fredwas the member for Aspley for 20 years andspent 13 of those as a Minister in this House.He was a statesman amongst politicians. Hewas dedicated to his family and committed tohis electorate. He served in the days whenthere were no electorate offices, secretaries,faxes or mobile phones. In those days, amember's wife had to contribute greatly torunning an office from home.

As a Minister, Fred would get up early inthe morning. Being a farmer, I suppose hewas used to getting up early. Before going tohis ministerial office, he would call in on theelectors in the area who had problems. It wasnot unusual for people to tell me, "FredCampbell came so early this morning that hecaught me in my pyjamas." As the member forIndooroopilly said, the Campbell home wasthe centre of activity for the Liberal Party onthe north side of Brisbane. The "barn", as itwas called, which was part of Fred's poultrybusiness, was always a favourite meetingplace and venue for functions.

Fred had time for everybody, and hecontributed so much to encouraging andassisting hundreds of industries to come tothis State and set up business here. Hiscontribution is probably reflected in thenumber of people from all walks of life whoattended his funeral yesterday. People fromboth sides of politics attended, as did peoplefrom industry, including those who have sinceretired. Also in attendance were the people inthe community who still remembered that Fredhad assisted them.

According to an article in my possession,in the mid-1960s Fred worked hard to improveroad safety outside the Aspley State School.To this day there is still a problem with roadsafety outside the Aspley State School. Someproblems just never go away. During the floodof 1974, Fred picked me up and we went outto Sherwood and Chelmer. He had asked meto bring along a long-handled shovel. All day,Fred shovelled mud and cleaned houses. That

was the sort of Minister he was. We had ourrubber boots on, and I must admit that theministerial car did not look too good after weclimbed back into it with our boots on.

I wish to relate another brief story. TheAustralian and Italian Bowling Club atCarseldine could not obtain a liquor licencebecause its members played bocce and notlawn bowls. Therefore, it could not beassociated with the Royal Queensland BowlsAssociation and was not entitled to a liquorlicence. After having no success, on a freenight Fred took the then Justice MinisterDelamothe out to the club. Delamothe boughtsome drinks from the bar. On the way home,Fred asked Delamothe, "Do you realise thatyou have just done something wrong there? Itis an illegal bar." That was the way Fred gotsome legislation changed—and had itchanged quickly.

Fred had the respect of his electorate,and that was reflected in the number of timesthat he was re-elected. He went from strengthto strength. He was always dedicated to thetask at hand, and he always had the love andloyal support of his wife Mac and the family.After his retirement, he was still involved withthe Liberal Party. I acknowledge the supportthat he always gave to me. Fred made a greatcontribution to this State, and he will be greatlymissed.

Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (10.45 a.m.): Iwould like to associate myself with thecondolence motion for the late Fred Campbell.Fred was a gentleman. He was a quietachiever in this House. Fred achieved atremendous amount for Queensland, yet hewas one of the people who was never angry inthis place. At times, it would have been easyto get angry with some people.

I wish to relate a joke that Fred and Ishared. When I was young and a bit morefiery, the Housing Commissioner at the timewas George Campbell. My relationships withGeorge were never very good, given the typeof electorate that I represent. One day, Iasked a girl to get Mr Campbell on the phone.I do not think I drew breath for about fiveminutes until I heard Fred on the other end ofthe phone saying, "Bill, it's Fred, not George."He said, "He is not even related." Around theChamber he used to say to me, "It's Fred, Bill,Fred." He was one of those people with whomone could get on particularly well. Fred didachieve a lot.

I was very friendly with the late FredWhitby, Jack Egerton and people from theunion movement. Fred was a consultativeperson, not an abrasive one. He achieved a


tremendous amount in industrial relationsthrough consultation and his approach to thatwork. Fred will be sadly missed by his family. Iwas sad to see his health deteriorate in recentyears. I always saw Fred when he visited thisParliament. I wish to be associated with themotion of condolence to his wife and family.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield) (10.47 a.m.): Iwish to be associated very closely with thismotion of condolence. I remember meetingFred Campbell for the first time prior to joiningthe Young Liberal movement of Queensland.At that stage, Fred Campbell was one of thepeople who influenced me to make thedecision to become a member of the LiberalParty. Shortly after I became Young LiberalState President in 1985, quite turbulent eventsoccurred within the Liberal Party. At that stage,I sought advice as to who would be able topour oil over very troubled waters. The advicethat came overwhelmingly from the partyelders was, "Go and talk to Fred Campbell."

I remember sitting down with FredCampbell, the other leaders of the YoungLiberals and other influential people from theLiberal Party. In his usual customary style,which has been referred to in this condolencemotion, Fred provided some very good anduseful advice which led to the resolution ofmuch conflict. Fred was always an essentiallyquintessential Liberal. People who haveperused the record of his achievement wouldhave read that he was a member of theCountry Party for 10 years prior to joining theLiberal Party. However, as soon as the LiberalParty formed a branch at Aspley, Fred was thefirst to join. His words—"I was their firstmember"—were often spoken in discussionswith me; that was something of which he wasimmensely proud.

I will not read the list of Liberal Partyoffices that Fred Campbell held, because theyhave been canvassed extensively by otherspeakers. However, if the records of theLiberal Party are checked closely, particularlyby the newer members in this place, they willreveal that very few other office-bearers withinthe Liberal Party have held the range ofdistinguished, high-level offices that Fred heldwithin the Liberal Party.

The major aspect that I wish to raiserelates to Fred's contributions to industrialrelations. Only three or four weeks ago, Iattended a major employer industryorganisation function. At that function, one ofthe very senior players within the industrialrelations system of Queensland came up tome and made a very definite attempt to findout the state of health of Fred Campbell.

When I told him that Fred was not in goodhealth, he expressed great sadness and wenton to reiterate the respect and high esteem inwhich he, as somebody on the other side ofthe political fence, held Fred Campbellbecause of his past dealings and veryconciliatory style in terms of industrial relations.

As other members have said, during hislong and distinguished ministerial career Fredachieved much for many of the industrialrelations institutions and players. Many ofthose institutions owe their existence to him. Itis interesting to note that on his retirementFred claimed that the Industry and CommerceTraining Act, which revamped the formerApprenticeship Act, was his most notableachievement. When talking to some of hisformer colleagues recently, I was told of Fred'slove for young people and particularly of hisdesire to provide them with an opportunity totake their place in the work force in a highlyeducated and trained manner. Fred wasalways extremely concerned to create real jobopportunities for young people, particularlywithin the private sector.

After his retirement from politics, my majorcontact with the Honourable Fred Campbellwas through our joint association with theEnglish Speaking Union, which is atremendous institution brought into existenceby Fred's joint efforts with the late Sir GordonChalk. After he retired from politics, Fred didan enormous amount to keep that institutiongoing and to sustain it in a very tangiblemanner.

I join other members in expressing mycondolences to Fred's wife, Mac, and to therest of his family.

Motion agreed to, honourable membersstanding in silence.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of House byMinister for Transport

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.52 a.m.): I riseon a matter of privilege. I refer to commentsmade by the Minister for Transport to thisParliament yesterday concerning the caucusdecision on the south coast tollway, in whichhe claimed that the decision was unanimous. Irefer also to the public comments by themember for Woodridge, Mr D'Arcy, whichappear in this morning's Courier-Mail,namely—

" 'Jim Elder can say what he likes,but that claim is rubbish' . . .


Earlier, after Mr Elder had toldParliament the decision was unanimous,Mr D'Arcy walked over to him and theyhad a heated exchange. "

In the absence of a Privileges Committee,I move—

"That the Minister for Transportapologise to the House formisrepresenting the position of themember for Woodridge and formisleading the Parliament."

Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point oforder. The Leader of the Opposition cannotmove a motion without seeking the leave ofthe House.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point oforder. The House can determine a matter ofprivilege by a motion of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: That is the situationunder the Standing Orders. Normally, mattersof privilege are referred to the Speaker andthe Speaker considers whether they ought tobe referred to the Privileges Committee, whichI am sure will be formed tomorrow. It is aprovision of the Standing Orders—but it is notthe preferred way to go—that a member maymove a matter of privilege suddenly arising.What is the member's motion?

Mr BORBIDGE: I move—

"That the Minister for Transportapologise to the House formisrepresenting the position of thehonourable member for Woodridge andfor misleading the Parliament."

Question—That the motion be agreedto—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 44—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

NOES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

The numbers being equal, Mr Speakercast his vote with the Noes.

Resolved in the negative .

PRIVILEGEAlleged Misleading of House by

Member for Nerang

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning, Minister for RuralCommunities and Minister for Provision ofInfrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Communities) (11.01 a.m.): I rise on amatter of privilege. Yesterday in the House,the member for Nerang said—

"Over recent months, property valueshave declined by 30 per cent and more."

I then challenged the member on that, and heresponded—

"I said some have."

The member for Nerang misled the Houseyesterday; however, I will not take the matterany further.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Eastern Tollway

Mr BORBIDGE (11.05 a.m.): I refer theMinister for Transport to an altercation thatoccurred yesterday afternoon on the floor ofthis House—and it was quite audible—between himself and the member forWoodridge following the Minister's claim thatthe caucus decision not to proceed with theeastern tollway was unanimous. I refer also topublic comments by the member forWoodridge that "that claim is rubbish". I askthe Minister—when the enforcer beside himhas finished briefing him—whether he hasdeliberately misled the Parliament, or has themember for Woodridge misrepresented thecaucus decision?

Mr ELDER: Fancy this question comingfrom the Leader of the Opposition—of allpeople! Unlike the debates entered into bymembers opposite, the Labor Party conductsrobust, energetic debates. The Labor Party isa broad party with myriad views. Within ourdebates in caucus meetings, our conferencesand our councils, we exchange views far morethan would members opposite, and weexpress those views far more robustly thanthose opposite ever would.

Yes, the debate on the motorway wasenergetic. A number of views, which at timeswere differing views, were put forward bymembers of caucus. At times, members' viewsdid differ, and some amendments werediscussed. However, those amendments weredefeated, and the views of those memberswere recorded. It is my understanding—and


that of a number of other people—that thefinal decision was without dissent and, in myview, unanimous. However, subsequent tothat, the member for Logan did raise the issuewith me.

Mr Braddy: Woodridge.Mr ELDER: I apologise to the Premier;

the member for Woodridge did raise the issuewith me and said that he dissented. I havespoken to the caucus secretary about therecording of that, and I accept that from him.

Eastern TollwayMr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to

the Minister for Transport's assurance to thisParliament—yesterday at least—that thecaucus decision not to proceed with theeastern tollway was unanimous. I refer also toclaims by the member for Woodridge that"that claim is rubbish". I ask: was the caucusvote unanimous, or was it closer to the 26 to16 reported in the media this morning? Who istelling the truth, and when did they tell thetruth—the Minister for Transport, yesterdayand today, or one of either, or the member forWoodridge?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his seven questions; Icannot remember them all. In relation to the26 to 16 figure, or whatever it was——

Mr Borbidge: You can't remember.Mr W. K. GOSS: It does not matter

whether or not I can remember. If that is thebest second question that the member cancome up with, the Government will not havemuch trouble during this term.

Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I assure the member

for Lockyer that it will not be long for theGovernment, because time flies when you arehaving fun, but it will be a very long time forthose opposite. I assure the member that it willbe as long as 1992 to 1995 and as long as1989 to 1992.

I wish to make two points. As I recall it,the vote to which the Leader of the Oppositionrefers was in relation to one particular aspectof the resolution put yesterday by the Ministerfor Transport to the media, and that was inrelation to the community consultativecommittee. As to the balance of the member'squestion—I endorse the remarks made by theMinister for Transport in his previous answer.

Firefighters March, Fax

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Ministerfor Emergency Services to a comment made

yesterday by the member for Western Downs,who accused the member for Rockhampton ofsending a fraudulent fax cancelling the UnitedFirefighters Union march, and I ask: what isthe Minister's response to the insinuation bythe member for Western Downs that the faxedletter was sent under the instructions of theMinister?

Mr DAVIES: My attention has beendrawn to what I regard as the honourablemember's ridiculous insinuation last night andhis claim that I owe this House an explanation.Normally, I would not bother with thehonourable member's demands. However,when he makes allegations which both cutacross the truth and directly affect the beliefsof workers within my portfolio, then suchnonsense cannot be left unanswered. Inresponse to the question asked of me by themember for Western Downs in theAdjournment debate last night, that is, "Wasthe faxed letter sent under the instruction ofthe Minister?"—the answer is simply: no. If themember for Western Downs has questions toask of me, this House accommodates such adesire by having what is called a questiontime.

What is sad about these allegations is themethod by which the honourable memberchose to make them. The honourablemember did not elect to take the option whichwould have answered his queries; rather, hechose to mislead this House in theAdjournment debate and to grandstand. Irepeat that he misled this House, the public ofQueensland and the workers in my portfolio. Ifthe member actually did have the courage ofhis convictions, his devious curiosity couldhave been resolved yesterday morning inquestion time.

This morning, I had the opportunity tohave a look at part of the documents tabledby Mr Littleproud. One of the documents is onUnited Firefighters Union of Australialetterhead, with the heading "MarchCancelled" and so on. The fourth paragraph ofthat document states—

"Our actions went within 16 votes ofbringing down the discredited, so-calledGoss workers' Government and we canget rid of Skerritt and Keliher too. Thefattest cat of them all is currentlysharpening his claws on the newMinister's ultra-thin hide, talking his PSMCmumbo-jumbo to a Minister clinging tooffice by a few votes."

If the honourable member for Western Downsreally does think that I would be part ofdistributing something like that, which is


operating against me, I have to say, "Wakeup, Brian. It's spring. Get out. Sniff the breezeand see what it is that you have obviouslybeen sniffing to make such ridiculous claims."

South Coast Motorway

Mrs SHELDON: In directing a questionto the Minister for Transport, I refer to hisanswers to questions in this House yesterdaythat he did not know how much compensationwas owed by the Government to companiesalready contracted to work on the south coastmotorway, and I ask: will he now confirm thatboth the Cabinet and the caucus made theirso-called informed decisions to scrap themotorway despite having no idea of the costto the Queensland taxpayer of thecompensation?

Mr ELDER: At least the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition has a different question forthe third question. I was thinking for a secondthat we would be straight down the caucusline. At least the honourable member changedtack, indicating that she is a little bit smarterthan her leader. It appears to me that thehonourable member opposite does notsupport the decision. That has been herposition from day one. As I said yesterday, thehonourable member has had more identitieson this issue than Helen Demidenko. Firstly, itis, "Build it"—and she was actually out therebuilding it—secondly, it is, "No, we will not buildit"; and, thirdly, it is, "We will come up with aneight-lane super freeway that will reduce thenumber of exits from 120 down to 12." Thehonourable members representing Gold Coastelectorates would be okay driving up toBrisbane but the rest of the people insouth-east Queensland, such as in theelectorates of Springwood, Redlands andMansfield, would not be using the road. Thehonourable member has been dishonest onthis issue right from day one. She has beenduplicitous on this issue right from day one.

Yesterday, in response to questions fromthe Opposition Transport spokesperson, I saidthat I would get back to him in relation to anumber of contracts. In fact, in terms of thenorthern and southern sections of themotorway, there are no major constructioncontracts. The contract that has been let is toRust/PPK, on which to date $750,000 hasbeen spent. It is a baseline planningcontract—a project management planningcontract that looks at the preparation ofresumption plans, some geotechnical workand some baseline environmental work. It isthe only contract current. In terms of other

contracts, they are basically propertyacquisitions.

Victorian Minister for Education

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I ask the Ministerfor Education: is he aware of the pendingresignation of the Victorian EducationMinister? Could he compare thisGovernment's record on education with that ofthe Kennett Government?

Mr HAMILL : I am aware——

Opposition members interjected.

Mr HAMILL: I was going to say somenice things about him, so give me a go. I amaware that Mr Don Hayward, the EducationMinister in Victoria, intends to resign at theend of this parliamentary term.

Mr Foley: He just got in with the wrongcrowd.

Mr HAMILL: I take the interjection fromthe Attorney-General, who sat with MrHayward at ministerial council meetings. MrHayward is a nice man who probably got inwith the wrong crowd—but he is getting out. Iam sure all members would wish Mr Haywarda long and happy retirement. Certainly, I thinkthe education unions and the educationcommunity of Victoria would join me in thatwish.

Opposition members: You've got thewrong one.

Mr HAMILL: The Kennett Governmentin Victoria certainly has a very chequeredhistory when it comes to education. Mr DonHayward, the Education Minister in Victoria,has the custodianship of schools in that State.Even though honourable members oppositedo not seem to know who their interstatecolleagues are, I am going to talk a little aboutthe track record of the Kennett Governmentwith respect to education. Mr Kennett'sGovernment has been in power only since1992, but in that time it has managed to closedown 300 schools.

Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

honourable member for Hinchinbrook underStanding Order 123A.

Mr HAMILL: Not only has the VictorianGovernment closed down 300 schools butalso it has put 8,200 teachers out of a job.That is in stark contrast to what we have donein our time in Government. Indeed, comparedwith when we first were in power, some 3,000additional teachers are now employed on theQueensland payroll.


Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point oforder. This is a matter of clarity for the benefitof the Minister. The Minister for HigherEducation is the one who is retiring, not theMinister for Education.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order.

Mr HAMILL : If that is the quality of theinformation from honourable membersopposite, it is little wonder that they are inOpposition. As I said, some 3,000 additionalteachers are on the payroll in Queensland,and no doubt those 8,000 teachers who havebeen displaced in Victoria look enviously at theemployment prospects for teachers in thisState.

It seems that school closures are reallythe hallmark of conservative Governments inthis State. Certainly, the closure by Mr Kennettof 300 schools is in the great tradition ofcoalition Governments here in Queensland. Iwas actually having a look at the track recordof this lot when they were in power, and it isinteresting to note that when the Liberal andNational Party Governments held office in thisState, from 1957 to 1989, no fewer than 787schools were closed in Queensland. That isnot a bad record. That is about two dozen ayear. The member for Western Downs was thelast champion of the school closing tradition ofthe conservatives. In 1988, Mr Littleproudmanaged 18 closures. It is useful to know thatin its last term—in those glory days of NationalParty Government—no fewer than 23 specialschools were closed. We have beenincreasing our Education budgetssuccessively, year after year, since we came tooffice. In fact, we have raised Educationspending in this State from $1.8 billion to $2.6billion. In a shorter period than we have beenin office, the Victorians have managed toslash Education budgets by $350m.

The other point I make is in relation toclass sizes. From time to time in this place wehear the Opposition bleat about oversizedclasses in Queensland schools. I am pleasedto report yet again that fewer than 5 per centof students in Queensland are in oversizedclasses. If there is an oversized class, it isusually by about one or two students. InVictoria, 54 per cent of students are in classesof between 26 and 30 students. Sevenand-a-half per cent of students in Victoria arein classes of between 31 and 35 students.

If the Opposition were the Government inthis State, it would be going down the Kennettroad again. Last week, we heard that the1 per cent cut in the Education budget in thisState that would have occurred had the

Opposition won Government would haveslashed $26m from the Education budget. AsI table the Opposition's record of schoolclosures, I point out that, had Governmentchanged in this State this year, there would bea few more schools to add to the hit list of theLiberal and National Parties.

Penalties and Sentences Act

Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Minister forJustice and Attorney-General to the fact that inNovember last year the Premier promised thatthe Penalties and Sentences Act would beamended so that gaol would no longer be thelast resort for serious violent offenders. I ask:how many more Queenslanders are to fallvictim to serious violent offences before thisGovernment amends the legislation?

Mr FOLEY: Yet again the Oppositionseeks to make something out of the Penaltiesand Sentences Act which, as has been madeplain by the Court of Appeal, effectivelyrestates the common law. As the Premierindicated previously, that amendment will beforthcoming and it will be brought before theHouse.

What is disappointing in this debate is theattitude shown by the honourable memberand by the other members opposite who seekto portray the Penalties and Sentences Act asin some manner, shape or form indicatingsome softening of the approach to the criminallaw, whereas in fact one saw in the CriminalCode that was passed by this Parliament anincrease in the available penalties that thecourts can impose for serious offences. Thatallows the court to make the punishment fitthe crime and that, of course, is the law as itshould be.

Metropolitan Greyhound Racing ClubInc. (Lawnton)

Mr HOLLIS: I ask the Minister forPrimary Industries and Racing: can he advisethe House of the true position surrounding theclosure of the Lawnton greyhounds?

Mr GIBBS: I am delighted to be able toadvise the House of the true position and thefacts surrounding the closure of Lawnton,particularly after the hypocritical performancethis morning by the member for Crows Nest,who tried to draw a red herring across the trail.That is typical of him. Before I cite the factsregarding Lawnton, I will acquaint the Housewith that member's hypocrisy. I will quote froma letter that he sent recently to all club controlbodies in Queensland. That letter states—


"I have already begun to assemble ateam of industry-experienced advisersand to inform myself of all aspects of theindustry. I don't pretend for a moment tobe an 'instant expert' despite my life-longinterest. Mr Graham Healy MLA, Memberfor Toowoomba North, will be my PolicyCommittee Chairman."

And this is the important part—"Fundamentally, I believe the role of

Government in the racing industry is toencourage, nurture, and protect and letthe industry get on with the business ofdoing what it does so well. My basic policythrust will be to ensure the creation of apositive environment for the industry andthat means as little Government andbureaucratic control as possible."The closure was an industry-based

decision. Allow me to make that point veryclear. It was an industry-based decision madeby the Greyhound Racing Authority after fullconsultation with the industry. I will quotefrom a report of an independent review of theclub—

"On 20 July 1994 the GreyhoundRacing Authority appointed anadministrator to the MetropolitanGreyhound Racing Club.

The club had operated at a loss forthe last 3 years . . ."

In late 1994, after already commissioning oneindependent audit, the Greyhound RacingAuthority commissioned a secondindependent audit. The report continues—

"In late 1994 the GRA commissioneda second independent audit report on thefinancial viability of the MGRC. Thereport's conclusions were as follows:

Our overall conclusion as to thelong-term viability of the club has notchanged. The club has operated at aloss for the last three years andalthough a surplus is forecast for theyear ended 30 June 1995 weanticipate the club will revert back toa loss situation in 1996 due to thecancellation of the Lawnton$100,000 series. If these losses continue, as appearslikely, the club will not be able tosustain its operations. Most avenuesof cost reductions have beenexplored and it is likely that unlessthere is a significant change to theincome being generated, the club willfind itself insolvent in the next two tothree years."

Insolvent it is indeed—it was, it is and it wouldhave continued to be. For the honourablemember's information, I point out that thereality is and the facts are that although thefinancial statements revealed an operatingprofit of $99,159 for the 1994-95 year, the wayin which that was achieved is an importantpoint. We are talking about people in thegreyhound industry who are battling.

Mr Cooper: You bet they are.Mr GIBBS: They are people in whom

the honourable member does not take muchof an interest, nor did he when he was inGovernment.

Mr Cooper: You don't give a damnabout them, either.

Mr GIBBS: Do honourable membersrecall when the honourable member wasknown as Gary Cooper, the gunfighter? In1989, he was shot down on the street; he wasoutdrawn. The honourable member was shotand he has been firing blanks ever since. Thatis the reality.

The financial statements revealed anoperating profit, but that was achieved byraising revenue from owners and/or trainersthrough nomination fees which amounted to$148,100. In other words, the profit was madeby charging excessive fees to owners andtrainers to race dogs at that particular venue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Ministerto conclude. He is debating the question.

Mr GIBBS: I am concluding. However,for the sake of the industry, it is important thatI make these points.

Mr Cooper: They are lies. That is all youtell us.

Mr GIBBS: I ask for an unequivocalwithdrawal of that remark.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the memberfor Crows Nest to withdraw that remark.

Mr Cooper: I withdraw.

Mr GIBBS: The member will not getaway with it. He is a lightweight; he is aflyweight.

Mr Cooper: I'll take you on any day.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been

indulgent. I suggest that the Minister makeshis comments through the Chair andconcludes his answer to the question.

Mr GIBBS: Certainly, Mr Speaker.When the Greyhound Racing Authority askedmy permission for that closure, I gave thatauthority on the proviso that the money—theTAB distribution—stayed within the greyhoundindustry.


Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCrows Nest! My patience is wearing very thinwith the honourable member's interjections.

Mr GIBBS: This closure is important fora number of reasons. They include: theretention of the race dates; Sky Channelcoverage of Queensland greyhound racing willfinally be extended to cover those meetingson a Wednesday night, which have now beentransferred to the Ipswich Club, at no cost tothat club; racing will occur two nights a week atIpswich, Wednesday and Saturday, with theadditional prize money; licensees will not berequired to contribute any nomination, startingor acceptance fees so that free racing canoccur on Wednesday nights at Ipswich; thedistribution formerly paid to the MetropolitanGreyhound Racing Club will be paid to theIpswich Greyhound Racing Club; industryoverheads will be reduced with the use of theone complex more often; and all owners andtrainers will be catered for with races beingconducted over 431 metres, 512 metres, 630metres and 732 metres, which cannot bedone at the other track. Quite frankly, moreflies than patrons were attracted to thatparticular venue. That will not happen atIpswich.

Townsville General Hospital

Mr HORAN: I refer the Minister forHealth to the quiet week—or minimal activityweek—that will take place at TownsvilleGeneral Hospital from 16 September as partof four quiet weeks at that hospital which havebeen announced for this financial year, and Iask: how many patients will be added to themassive elective surgery waiting lists atTownsville by the reduction in surgery duringthe quiet week, and does the Minister acceptthat the financial stress that necessitatesthose quiet weeks is a direct result of the failedregional health system——

Mr De Lacy interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warnedhonourable members, and I now warn theTreasurer, that I will not allow members tointerject while questions are being asked.

Mr HORAN: I repeat: how manypatients will be added to the massive electivesurgery waiting lists at Townsville by thereduction in surgery during the quiet week,and does the Minister accept that the financialstress that necessitates those quiet weeks is adirect result of the failed regional healthsystem absorbing millions of Health dollars?

Mr BEATTIE: I have been waiting forthis question all week! Let me start by beingvery clear about the position in Townsville.Yesterday, I announced a package which willbring about long-term financial planning in thatregion. In common with many people in thehealth system, the people of Townsville aresick of the Opposition spokesman goingaround denigrating Queensland Health. Wehave the best health system in the world. Ifthe Opposition member talks to doctors,nurses or indeed anyone who works in thehealth system, he will learn that we have thebest health system in the world. Thehonourable member was going to introducean efficiency dividend by stealth, and he didnot even have the honesty——

Mr Horan: Ask the staff.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willaddress his comments through the Chair. Themember for Toowoomba South has asked hisquestion; he will now give the Minister achance to answer it.

Mr BEATTIE: The Opposition wasgoing to introduce a tax by stealth, whichwould have taken $27m and 148 nursing jobsout of the health system. Did the member tellthe nurses that they were going to lose theirjobs? He did not. He was going to tax thehealth system; the Opposition was going totake out $27m.

The position is very simple. TheOpposition spokesman has sought todenigrate the health system for cheap politicalgains; that is all he has sought to do. Everydoctor and nurse in this State is sick of it. Ilook forward to his one day saying somethingpositive about the health system. Let him saysomething positive about it; we have neverheard anything like that.

Mr Horan: $51m extra.Mr BEATTIE: The member has come

out of the 1950s. He probably sits at homewith a black and white television; or he sits athome waiting for his radio to warm up.

Dealing specifically with the situation inTownsville—yesterday, I went to Townsville. Iwas concerned about the financialarrangements in that region. I had previouslyset up an investigative committee to report tome on the operations of that region. We havesome fine people in Townsville and thatregion, and they are working very hard. Iappointed for two months an acting regionaldirector to sort out the region's long-termfinancial planning. That was designed toguarantee the future of the oncology andcardiac units; to guarantee that the people of


north Queensland will get the best tertiaryhealth services that the system can provideand to which they are entitled. I will continue todo that and will not tolerate any financialinefficiency in any part of the health systemanywhere in this State.

House and Land Packages, Aldershot

Mr DOLLIN: I refer the Minister forEmergency Services and Consumer Affairs tothe land rort operating in Aldershot, which Ifirst raised with Consumer Affairs in May 1995,and I ask: what progress has been made todeliver some justice to those families?

Mr DAVIES I thank the honourablemember for Maryborough for his question andthe way in which he has pursued this matterso diligently. For the benefit of the House, Ipoint out that in May this year, the honourablemember asked the Office of Consumer Affairsto look into some house and land packagesbeing sold at Aldershot, outside Maryborough.The honourable member had some suspicionsthat all was not well, and I inform the Housethat our investigation proved that thehonourable member hit the spot. As a result ofthe concerns that the honourable memberraised, Consumer Affairs began investigationsimmediately. What we have discovered is asorry tale of houses built in a flood-prone gully,shoddy building work and financialarrangements which saw those home ownerspaying back more than the value of theirproperties.

The central figure behind this scam is aPeter Clement Coombes of Bli Bli, whosecompany, Queensland Housing and Finance,advertised no-deposit finance and an all-inclusive house and land package for$65,000. Those loans were advanced indubious circumstances by relying onmisleading information as to the prospectiveborrowers' assets and liabilities, inadequatesearches, invalidation of the loan applicationsand jacked-up valuations. The people whobought those house and land packages havebeen ripped off, and I have instructed myoffice to pursue every avenue available thatwill provide redress for the affected families.

Firstly, we have sought Crown law adviceto determine whether the people behind thescheme have breached the Land (FairDealings) Act or any other statutory provision.Secondly, we have asked the Hervey Bay CityCouncil to implement a stormwater strategyand alleviate drainage problems. I have to saythat the council has been disappointingly slowin its response. I am advised that it still has not

contacted all of the residents to discuss theproblems and options for solutions. Thirdly,residents have been advised of their rights tosubmit claims about shoddy workmanship withthe Queensland Building Services Authority.Fourthly, the Queensland Office of FinancialSupervision will be informed of the results ofour investigations so that it can determinewhether it needs to make inquiries into thelending institutions or their management.Fifthly, at our request, the Valuers RegistrationBoard is investigating the valuations in thatarea. That last sector is where we really haveto point the finger, because a scam such asthat would not eventuate without jacked-upvaluations. I should add that the great majorityof valuers in Maryborough want to do the rightthing by potential customers. However, it isclear that not everyone in Maryborough isprepared to play by the rules.

The accepted risk in the lending industryis 90 per cent of valuation. What is happeningin that scheme is that valuations are providedwhich—surprise, surprise—are a bit more than10 per cent over the purchase price of$65,000. In one case of which I am aware,one of those no deposit house and landpackages was sold for $65,000 but valued at$76,150. In other words, 90 per cent of$76,150 allows for a loan of over $65,000.Allegations have been raised that thevaluations were given site unseen.

The honourable member forMaryborough is to be acknowledged for hiskeen pursuit of justice for the people in thatarea. Without his attention, the scam maynever have come to light. Now we areexploring every avenue available to bring totask the people behind that rort and to provideavenues for redress to the affected homeowners.

Local Government Amalgamations

Mrs McCAULEY: I refer the Minister forLocal Government to the forcedamalgamations which the Goss LaborGovernment has implemented in the supercities of Ipswich/Moreton, Gold Coast/Albertand Cairns/Mulgrave. This has resulted inenormous rate rises in the new Ipswich localauthority area, which the mayor says havebeen caused by the cost of amalgamation ofmore than $3m. I ask: given that it was theMinister's Government which forced thoseamalgamations, which were opposed by themajority of the population in the affectedareas, will he now offer financial assistance tocover the costs of amalgamation so thatdefenceless ratepayers are not forced to pay


for something that they did not want in the firstplace?

Mr MACKENROTH: I understand thatin some areas of Ipswich there have beenlarge rate increases. That was as a result ofthe policies of the Ipswich City Council, not theamalgamation; the Ipswich City Council maychoose to paint it that way, but that is not true.In relation to the costs associated withamalgamation—those costs can be spreadover a number of years, and there is no needwhatsoever for the Ipswich City Council tooffset all of those costs in one year, as Iunderstand it is attempting to do. The basis forthe amalgamation, which was spelt out in thereport of the commissioner, was that it wouldsave a considerable amount of money. Takinginto account that there were some up-frontcosts, there would still be considerablesavings. Recently, the Mayor of the GoldCoast said that his council had identified about$2m a year more than the commissioner did.

Mrs McCauley interjected.

Mr MACKENROTH: That is theirdecision. Councils decide the rates that theycharge in their particular areas. I understandthat the Ipswich City Council did not choose tooffset those costs over a period, or to haveany sort of policy whereby that could happen,even though the Local Government Act allowsit to do so. That is its decision. It is not thefault of the State Government; it is a decisionof the local government. I know that in someof those areas the simplest thing to do isblame the State Government for local policiesand decisions; but that does not reflect thetrue situation.

Moura Mine DisasterMr PEARCE: I ask the Minister for

Minerals and Energy: is he aware that there isincreasing community concern as to the timebeing taken for the handing down of the reportinto the 1994 Moura mine disaster? If so, willthe Minister please inform the House why it istaking so long for the report to be finalised andwhen the report is likely to be handed down?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the member forFitzroy for the question. When the disasteroccurred at the Moura mine, immediately I setup an open and independent inquiry. I thenwithdrew from the whole matter and made nocomment as I believed there should be noministerial interference whatsoever.

The inquiry finished in April this year andthe panel is now working long and hard inpreparing recommendations. I am aware thatthere is some community concern about the

delay. I, too, would like to see thoserecommendations handed down as soon aspossible because I want to introduce somehealth and safety legislation. However, I alsowant to ensure that the report iscomprehensive and carries a full set ofrecommendations to be implemented by bothmy department and the industry.

Recently, I met with the Mining Warden. Iexplained my concerns and he has assuredme that meetings are still taking place.However, it is expected that therecommendations will be handed down inOctober.

Eastern Tollway

Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister forTransport to the fact that both the 1993-94and 1994-95 Budgets refer to significant sumsof expenditure planned for those years on theeastern tollway, namely $21.m in 1993-94 and$16.6m in 1994-95, making a total of some$38.4m to have been spent on the project by30 June this year, and I ask: how many tensof millions of taxpayers' dollars have beenwasted on this project because of hisGovernment's actions?

Mr ELDER: Earlier, I answered anumber of questions that were asked inrelation to contracts and issues ofcompensation. At the time, I said that the onlycurrent contract that we have is with Rust/PPK.I also said at that time that that contractrelated to base planning—confirmationplanning. Previously, some consultancies wereundertaken. There will be no compensationpayable in relation to them. The moneys thatwere allocated for the tollway in the Budgetsgo towards groundworks and propertyresumptions. Those resumed properties canbe sold.

Daintree Rescue Package

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the memberfor Cook.

Mr BREDHAUER: Mr Speaker, myquestion is to the Minister——

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going toallow interjections while members are askingquestions. I warn the Leader of theOpposition. Honourable members, this isfrustrating.

Mr BREDHAUER: I ask the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage: can he update


progress on the Daintree rescue program andexplain to the House how the program isfulfilling its objectives?

Mr BARTON: Firstly, I thank themember for Cook for the question because heis well known for his support of the Daintreerescue package and also for his support forthe entire conservation and environmentalmovement in his electorate of Cook, which hassome of the most important environmentallysignificant land in Queensland. The Daintreerescue program has received equal fundingfrom this State Government and from theFederal Government totalling $23m for theentire program. The program has the dualobjectives of seeking to protect importantheritage conservation values and to ensurethat the use of the Daintree as a tourist facilityis ecological sustainable. Of course, ensuringthe ecologically sustainability of the Daintreeas a tourist facility will also provide jobs.

Land acquisition is certainly a keycomponent of this rescue package, and Istress that that will be done on the basis ofnegotiated settlements with the owners ofthose properties. Tourism infrastructure is thesecond focus of the program. Already, theDaintree is one of Australia's most lovednational parks and conservation areas, andcertainly the most loved in Queensland.

Under the program, to date 65 propertieshave been selected for acquisition. Of those,20 properties have been valued and 19properties have been purchased or are undercontract for purchase. Almost $2m has beenexpended on purchasing 74 hectares of high-priority land. World heritage values protectedby those purchases include the highestpercentage of rare and threatened plantspecies in the lowland Daintree. Of the listed120 rare and threatened plant species in theDaintree, up to 40 species can be found oneach of the residential blocks, with an averageof 12 to 17 species found on each block. Veryrare vegetation types are associated with thebeach sands. Sections of that area are themost intact lowland rainforest in the Daintreeregion.

Some of those land purchases will beused to provide passive tourism facilities.Recently, we have acquired a parcel of land atCape Tribulation, which will prove extremelyimportant for providing day-visitor facilities inthe Daintree area. Stage 1 of the AlexandraRange lookout and associated car park hasbeen completed at a cost of $142,000. Thatlookout provides magnificent views over theDaintree River mouth and the Low Isles andsouth to Port Douglas. Currently, the feasibility

of constructing a further lookout to the north isbeing assessed. Tenders are being preparedfor improvements to existing beachside picnicgrounds and car parks at Thornton Beach.Construction is expected to be able to takeplace this year.

A most important feature is thecommunity information and resource centre,which is being developed by the DouglasShire. Funded by the Daintree rescueprogram, it will provide the base for staff. It willbe used by visiting Wet Tropics ManagementAuthority staff and it will also be a resource forcommunity groups participating in Daintreerescue program activities. Construction isexpected to begin in two weeks. To date, theDaintree rescue program has contributed$46,000 for that project.

Opposition members interjected.Mr BARTON: It is pretty obvious that

Opposition members are showing their lack ofconcern for environmental issues in theDaintree. I think that it is absolutely atrociousthat they adopt that attitude.

Other infrastructure plans include toilets,new signage, boardwalks and tracks, andscenic viewing spots. The program isprogressing well and we expect that tocontinue. Finally, I want to say simply that it isa real shame that the former National PartyGovernment, of which many membersopposite were a part, sold the land in theDaintree in the first place. It left a mess thatthis Government, in conjunction with theFederal Government, is now cleaning up.

Workers' Compensation

Mr SANTORO: I refer the Premier to hisrecent public statements that one of his toppriorities is to engender employmentgeneration, and I ask: does he believe thatthis priority will be assisted by proposedmassive increases in workers' compensationpremiums of as high as 40 per cent, which isone of the scenarios contained within theCabinet submission that was leaked to theOpposition, and the host of proposed anti-business measures before his Cabinet,including increases in employer excesspayments, the introduction of increasedpenalties for offences and the application of asystem of on-the-spot fines? Does the Premierbelieve that all of those proposed measureswill increase employment generation inQueensland.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The policies of thisGovernment have been proven by theemployment statistics for Queensland and


Australia that have been released regularlyduring the course of this Government. Thosestatistics have shown that the Government'spolicies are delivering in terms of makingQueensland the State with the best record forjob creation of any State in the country. As aGovernment, we will ensure that our policiescontinue to pursue that goal, and I have nodoubt that they will be successful in achievingthat goal.

The member glosses over, or fails toremember, that when the National and LiberalParty coalition was in power, theunemployment figures for this State wereconsistently 1 per cent or so above thenational average. Under this Government,they have been consistently at the lower endof the spectrum.

In terms of the other side of the coin,which is job creation notwithstanding thefluctuations of unemployment from month tomonth, this Government has had anoutstanding record on job creation and anoutstanding record on support for the businesscommunity and the sorts of policies that willfoster economic development and jobcreation. Part of that record has been a policythat has kept our workers' compensationpremiums among the lowest in the country.

We will continue to strive to achieve thatsort of outcome for the business community.At the same time, in relation to workers'compensation, employers have aresponsibility, which some have failed to fulfil,to ensure proper safety standards for theiremployees. Under the new set ofarrangements that will come into place in thecoming months in relation to workers'compensation, we will seek to strike anappropriate balance with respect to theinterests of stakeholders. But employers willhave to play their part.

In conclusion this is an issue in relation towhich we again see the policy void on theother side of the House. Again, we seemembers opposite pining for a policy. If welisten to the questions asked by the Leader ofthe Opposition—a person who has acomplaint for every situation but no positivesolution, which is why he is consistentlyrejected by the people of this State—we noticethat he implies——

Mr Cooper: Forty six per cent.

Mr W. K. GOSS: No, I am not talkingabout the party vote. The honourable memberhas got me there. I am talking about the votefor leadership. The recent result has confirmedthe Leader of the Opposition in his position,

and we could not be happier. The icing on thecake is that his deputy has been confirmed inher position. To conclude the point that I wastrying to make——

Mr Mackenroth: Not her deputy?

Mr W. K. GOSS: No, not her deputy;his deputy.

Mrs Edmond: He got dumped; Santogot dumped.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The honourablemember should leave him alone. Let us notbe too tough on him.

The point I was trying to make is this: ifwe listen to the questions asked in this placeby the Leader of the Opposition, the clearimplication is that he is suggesting that thereshould be no premium increases and nochanges to common law. That is typical; theLeader of the Opposition has a complaint forevery situation but no solution. That is why heis going nowhere.

Info Express

Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for

Tablelands! How many times in one day do Ihave to ask for silence to hear a questionbeing asked by a member? I am gettingexasperated.

Mr WELFORD: I refer the Minister forAdministrative Services to the forthcominginformation technology andtelecommunications exhibition, the InfoExpress, and I ask: what benefits will thisexhibition bring to the people of regionalQueensland?

Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourablemember for the question, and I acknowledgehis very keen interest in the IT&T industry. It isan exciting industry that is going ahead inleaps and bounds. The member for Everton isacknowledged as having a very keen interestin this industry.

The Info Express is a travellinginformation technology andtelecommunications exhibition that will betouring through regional centres along theQueensland coast from 8 October to 19October.

Mr De Lacy: Is it coming to Cairns?

Mr MILLINER: It will be in Cairnstowards the middle of October.

As its name would suggest, the InfoExpress is a train that consists of eightcarriages of displays ranging from theWorldwide Web to new three-dimensional


multimedia technology, which is very exciting.The so-called information super highway isopening up a world of information and newideas in regional Queensland. This will improvethe services in those areas—for example,education and health services—and will evenhave a major impact in the fight against crime.

The project is a joint venture between thepublic and private sectors. I am very pleasedthat private sector exhibitors include some ofthe most prominent multinational and nationalcompanies and even very prominent localcompanies. I am delighted that multinationalcompanies such as Microsoft and Digital aretaking part, as well as national companiessuch as Telstra. I am also absolutely delightedthat some well-known and very successfulQueensland companies are involved, includingthe Sunshine Coast's Future, a company thatis really going ahead in leaps and bounds andone of which we can all be very proud. Theaim of the exhibition is to give to regional andprovincial Queensland the opportunity to havea first-hand look at developments in the IT&Tindustry. The exhibition will be very successfulin doing that.

This Government has a very proud recordof bringing to regional and provincialQueensland many of the services thattraditionally have been confined to thesouth-east corner. The State PurchasingCouncil is a very good example of a bodyencouraging provincial businesses to dobusiness with the Government. This is a veryexciting project. I am very pleased that we areassociated with it. I have no doubt that it willbe an outstanding success and will bring manybenefits to the people of regional Queensland.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr RADKE: I direct a question to theMinister for Health, whose Government hasconsistently indicated that waiting lists are nota major problem.

Mr Gibbs: Can you slow it down a bit?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

Minister for Primary Industries.

Mr RADKE: I ask: why are people in theGreenslopes electorate having to wait twoyears for elective surgery—and that is slow—atthe PA Hospital, with still no hope in sight ofhaving their operations?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourablemember for his first question. The Governmenthas a clear four-point strategy to deal withwaiting lists. This is the first time that there hasbeen a strategy. Under the former

Government of members opposite, people onwaiting lists just waited, and that is all thathappened.

Let us deal with the reality of thesituation. It is estimated that this yearQueensland Health will treat 565,000 publicpatients. That is 25,000 more than weretreated last year.

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Members opposite arestill in the 1950s, like Elvis sitting up the backon the opposite side of the Chamber.

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

member for Toowoomba South underStanding Order 123A. Every time a question isasked about health, the member forToowoomba South wants to answer it. I informthe member for Toowoomba South that theMinister for Health sits on the Governmentside of the Chamber. I ask the member forToowoomba South to stop interjecting duringanswers to questions about health.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, you can seehow seriously the Opposition takes health. Thehonourable member is eighteenth in thepecking order. If the honourable member fallsany further down the seniority list, he will endup in John Goss' lap.

As I was saying, this year we will betreating 565,000 patients in Queensland. Thatis 25,000 more patients than were treated lastyear. If honourable members look at theposition, they will see that in just six years thisGovernment has dramatically increased thecapacity of our public hospital system. Fromtreating fewer than 380,000 public hospitalpatients a year, which was the case when theOpposition was in Government, we are nowtreating 565,000 patients. There has been a50 per cent increase in the number of peoplereceiving public hospital treatment each year.We are refurbishing the hospital system acrossthe State, including hospitals in the member'selectorate. We have a four-point plan to targetwaiting lists. Not only are we doing all of this,but we are also providing quality healthservices. When the Opposition was inGovernment, it counted wrought-iron beds onhospital verandahs that were not in use.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: They were instorage rooms.

Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection;their beds were in storage rooms and some ofthem were on verandahs. In fact, the PSMCreview found that under the formerGovernment there was scurvy in some hospital


facilities. That is the legacy we inherited fromthe Opposition. We will do something aboutthe problem. We are supporting the publichospital system. I am sick and tired of theOpposition attacking the high-quality,dedicated people who work in the Queenslandhospital system. How about giving them a fairgo?

Automated Titling System

Mrs ROSE: I direct a question to theMinister for Lands. The new computerisedland titling system has been the subject ofsome ill-informed criticism. I ask: can theMinister explain the improvements andprogress which are of benefit to the public thathave been achieved by the introduction of thenew system?

Mr McELLIGOTT: The question givesme the opportunity to outline to the Housewhat has been a very good news story for theGovernment and for the people ofQueensland. The new automated titlingsystem—or ATS, as it is commonly referredto—is a world-class system. No titles systemanywhere in the world is as comprehensive asthe one operating in Queensland. At theoutset, I compliment the staff of the TitlesOffice. The loading onto or capture of all of therelevant titles on computer is expected to becompleted next month. It has been amammoth task for the Titles Office to capture1.6 million titles, and it represents an amazingperformance by the staff involved.

The member who asked the question iscorrect. There has been some ill-informedcriticism of the new system. I want to offersome responses to that criticism. One of thefrequent complaints about the new system isthat a duplicate title is no longer issued whena title is transacted. Many people hold theview that under the old system they actuallyheld in their hand a certificate of title. That hasnever been the case. The title itself has alwaysbeen retained in the Titles Office. Previously,people were issued with a duplicate. Under thenew arrangements, for every registration aregistration confirmation statement is issued.That statement contains the name of thecurrent owners, the legal description of theland, reservations to the State and details ofall current encumbrances affecting the land—that is, mortgages, easements, etc.—references of any unregistered dealings,administrative advices and references to theinstruments registered. If people wish to havetheir own certificate of title on a title which isnot mortgaged, then for the princely sum of

one dollar they can request a certificate fromthe Titles Office.

I am proud to say that under the newsystem the time for processing of documentshas been virtually halved. For simpledocuments, processing has been averagingabout five days. It is not all that long ago thatthe backlog of work in the Titles Office as aresult of the conversion to the new system wasover 70,000 documents. As of Monday thisweek, it was down to 18,000, which representsabout a week and a half's work. So there hasbeen a massive impact on the workload andthe processing of documents through theTitles Office. Staffing costs have beensubstantially reduced, with overtime no longerbeing necessary. For example, in January lastyear under the old system $108,000 wasspent on overtime. In July this year, there wasthe same volume of work but no overtime wasnecessary.

Importantly, the new system is moresecure, with back-up computers with differentpower supplies and back-up tapes. Thesecond computer holds a copy of theinformation stored on the working computerand, in addition, all information is copied eachnight onto back-up tapes so that there arethree copies of all data. Under the old system,all the files were held in the Titles Office and, ifa fire occurred, all of the records would havebeen wiped out forever.

The new system represents a substantialimprovement to the way in which the TitlesOffice operates. As I said previously, the titlingsystem operating in Queensland is better thanany other system in the world. I cannotpersonally take any credit for the new system.I take this opportunity to compliment mypredecessor, the Honourable Geoff Smith, forpresiding over what has been a veryworthwhile exercise. Mr Speaker, through you Iwant to make an offer to members of thisParliament. The new process is veryinteresting. If any member wishes to have adetailed briefing on the operations of the TitlesOffice or inspect the Titles Office and be runthrough the way in which it now operates, theyshould contact my office and I can arrange forthat to occur.

There has been quite a remarkablechange to the Titles Office. Under the previoussystem, documents were stored from floor toceiling. That is no longer the case. All of thosedocuments have now been archived, and thatinformation is now held on computer. That isan extraordinary result.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has now expired.


APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2)Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—

Treasurer) (12.05 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That the House will, at its presentsitting, grant leave to bring in a Bill for anAct to appropriate certain amounts toservices for the financial year 1994-95."

Motion agreed to.Mr SPEAKER read a message from Her

Excellency the Governor recommending thenecessary appropriation.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—

Treasurer) (12.06 p.m.): I move—"That the Bill be now read a second

time."

With the passage of the 1995-96 StateBudget in May, before the end of the 1994-95financial year, there is a need for theintroduction of a further Appropriation Bill inorder to finalise the application andappropriation of moneys from the publicaccounts for 1994-95. The need forsupplementary appropriation exists becauseadditional expenditure requirements arisethroughout the year that were not anticipatedat the time of the original 1994-95 Budget.Section 25A of the Financial Administrationand Audit Act makes specific allowance for thisinevitability. This Bill is therefore technical innature.

The appropriation sought in this Bill hasbeen previously approved by ExecutiveCouncil and is based on the Statement ofUnforeseen Expenditure to be Appropriated1994-95, a copy of which has been certified bythe Auditor-General and tabled. This Billprovides for the supplementary appropriationof $534.107m for the Consolidated Fund and$4,650.764m for Trust and Special Funds.These amounts are in addition to amountsoriginally authorised by the Appropriation Act(No. 1) 1994 and together provide authority forall expenditure of the Government for the1994-95 financial year.

The major reasons for the increases inappropriation with respect to the ConsolidatedFund are early redemption payments toQueensland Treasury Corporation as part ofthe restructuring of the public debt which was

financed through the sale of financial assets toQTC, increased superannuation benefitpayments and increased award payments andsuperannuation costs in the Department ofHealth. Over 80 per cent of the supplementaryappropriation for Trust and Special Fundsarose because investors found Australiandollar debt attractive during the year and wereconsequently willing to invest at lower thanexpected rates. Both receipts of borrowingsand the level of deposits made by theGovernment and public sector entities weregreater than budgeted. Borrowings andinterest income which are not immediatelyrequired for funding are invested whichresulted in expenditure on account ofinvestments being some $3.9 billion morethan budget.

The Treasurer's Annual Statement whichcontains details of financial transactions andthe final outcome for the appropriationaccounts of the Consolidated Fund and theTrust and Special Funds for 1994-95 will betabled in the House next month. In themeantime, I would like to table a documentwhich details the major items of increasedappropriation for the 1994-95 financial yearand provides a brief explanation of theseitems. A full explanation of all items ofsupplementary appropriation will be providedin the Treasurer's Annual Statement.

Overall, the performance of the Budgetwas broadly in line with the estimated outcomepublished in the 1995-96 Budget Papers andsomewhat better than original Budgetexpectations. As documented in the latestedition of the Queensland Economic Review,to be released today, the Consolidated Fundended the financial year with an accumulatedcash surplus of $51m compared with theestimated outcome of $41m. It is also higherthan the 1994-95 Budget-time forecast of a$2m surplus, due primarily to increasedreceipts from continuing strong economicgrowth during the year. Both receipts of$11,256m and expenditure of $11,243m werehigher than the estimated outcomes for 1994-95 published in the 1995-96 Budget papers.In particular, the underlying growth in receiptswas stronger than expected at the time theestimated outcomes were prepared. Theincreases in both receipts and expenditurealso involved offsetting transactions relating tothe sale of State financial assets andsubsequent repayment of public debt.

The latest edition of the QueenslandEconomic Review will also confirm thecontinuing strong outlook for the Stateeconomy. For the fourth consecutive year,


economic growth in Queensland in 1995-96will exceed 4 per cent in real terms,demonstrating the ongoing sustainability ofhigher economic growth in Queensland than inthe rest of Australia. Based on Treasury'sanalysis of recent partial economic indicators,the outlook for 1995-96 remains consistentwith the forecasts made at the time of theState Budget.

Queensland's rapid economic andpopulation growth over the last six years haspresented a challenge for the GossGovernment in providing the necessaryinfrastructure to maintain and enhance bothour lifestyle and the momentum ofdevelopment. It is a challenge to which theGovernment is responding in a strategic,effective and fiscally responsible way.

Fundamental to the Goss Government'sfinancial management philosophy is itscommitment to the fiscal trilogy. A key elementof this trilogy is the Goss Government'scommitment to fund social infrastructure suchas schools and hospitals from recurrentrevenues and borrow only for economic assetswhich can generate an income streamsufficient to service the debt.

What is particularly disturbing is that,during and since the election, there has beena chorus of advice from a number ofcommentators suggesting that Queenslandersare somehow being infrastructurallydisadvantaged through the Government'sfiscal approach of not borrowing for socialinfrastructure. It seems that some of thosecommentators want us to throw away ourprudent fiscal approach and go down thesame road that the other States took in theeighties and early nineties—the road whichlead them into spiralling debt, a collapse oftheir economies and, inevitably, underfundingof infrastructure.

This course of action appears to bebased on a belief that, if one uses debt as away of financing social infrastructure, one getsmore in the long run. In fact, in the long run,one ends up with less. I regret to say it, butthere are some people out there who still livein a fiscal fairyland—they cannot face up tothe fact that if debt is used and it has to berepaid, it has to be repaid from the Budget,and when infrastructure is funded from debt,but repaid from the Budget, the impact of realinterest costs on purchasing power needs tobe taken into account. Based on current realinterest rates of around 5 per cent, borrowingseffectively buy 5 per cent less infrastructure.

The next argument they use is that theinfrastructure we provide today will be used by

the citizens of tomorrow and therefore shouldbe spread evenly over time. This convenientlyignores the fact, of course, that we are usinginfrastructure today which was provided andpaid for by the citizens of yesterday.

The further argument is that infrastructurespending is lumpy and therefore should bespread over time, that is, the family homeanalogy. This does not hold up, either, from aState Government perspective, because wehave an ongoing infrastructure program whichin aggregate terms changes very little fromyear to year—except of course for the annualincrease which has characterised our capitalspending over the last six years.

Even the argument that debt spreads thecost over the life of the asset is not a fundingargument at all. How the cost of an asset isallocated over time, that is, by depreciation ordebt service payments, is an accountingargument. So whilst it may be a theoreticalproposition to rationalise an addiction to debt,it does not provide a mechanism for increasinginfrastructure funding.

The final argument is that moreinfrastructure leads to more economic activityand, therefore, more revenue, and thereforecan be funded from debt. I might say if thiswas a valid argument, Victoria ought to be theboom State of Australia.

I need to stress that if we choose to usedebt to fund our social infrastructure—and Iadmit that this has long been the case in otherStates of Australia—we would eventually shiftfrom funding it up-front from the Budget tofunding it after the event, but still from theBudget. At the end of the day, there is lessinfrastructure for the same dollar.

The average debt servicing costs of theother States that choose to debt fund theirsocial infrastructure is 13.4 per cent of theirBudget. If we had the same debt servicingcosts as those States, we would need to findan additional $1.6 billion to service debt.Instead, these funds are available to godirectly into providing infrastructure. Moreover,our financial management policies have givenus the fiscal strength and capacity to continueto increase spending in important social areaswithout increasing debt or raising taxes.Indeed, our policies produce a virtuous cycle inwhich lower net debt leads to lower debtservicing costs and hence a greater capacityto fund real services, including capitalexpenditure. Contrary to the calls from localcommentators, other State Governments,envious of Queensland's financial strength,are now following Queensland's lead andadopting a more prudent approach to


borrowings. Some have even legislated therequirement to reduce debt to meet certainfiscal targets.

A comprehensive analysis ofinfrastructure spending in Queensland overthe last 30 years is reported in the Junequarter Queensland Economic Review towhich I have already made reference. Thisanalysis shows just how successfulQueensland's approach has been in enablingthe Goss Government to meet theinfrastructure challenge over the last six years.These statistics clearly show that Queenslandhas outpaced the rest of Australia in terms ofinfrastructure spending.

The Goss Government has lifted StateGovernment spending on new fixed assetsfrom $691 per capita in 1989-90 to $1,024 percapita in 1994-95. This represents an increaseof 47 per cent. Over the same period,infrastructure expenditure in the rest ofAustralia increased by only 6.4 per cent to anestimated $778 per capita. We now spend 32per cent more per capita than the otherStates. This has been made possible largelybecause our fiscal discipline has given us thecapacity to fund a higher level of capitalexpenditure than would otherwise be the case,without resorting to debt and thereby leavingfuture generations with a burgeoning debt-servicing legacy. This trend is set to continueand clearly demonstrates that Queenslandhas the financial capacity to meet futureinfrastructure challenges and build for theState's long-term economic development,without compromising the integrity of our fiscalstrategy.

Finally, I should emphasise that theGovernment's disciplined approach to financialmanagement is in no way doctrinaire. It isbased on the practical, commonsenserealisation that the achievement of good fiscaloutcomes is fundamental to the achievementof the Government's social objectives. Withouta strong financial position, the Governmentcannot hope to deliver its planned agenda ofenhanced social services and infrastructurespending. If the good times are to besustained, virtue resides in prudence.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate, on motion of Mrs Sheldon,

adjourned.

STATUTE LAW (MINORAMENDMENTS) BILL

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(12.19 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to make minoramendments of certain Acts."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(12.20 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

I introduce the Statute Law (MinorAmendments) Bill 1995. Statute law Bills makean important contribution to the maintenanceand improvement of Queensland's statute law.They allow minor amendments, andamendments of even less significance, to bemade with the minimum of parliamentary time.Taken alone, the amendments would be ofinsufficient importance to justify separatelegislation. However, the cumulative effect ofthe amendments can have a substantialimpact on the overall quality of Queenslandlaw.

Queensland legislation has perhaps notbeen as well maintained in the past as mighthave been desirable. It has, therefore, been amajor task to bring the Queensland statutebook up to contemporary standards. This isreflected in the size and number of statute lawBills in recent years.

The Government has consistentlymaintained the position that amendmentsmay be included in statute law Bills only if theyare concise, and of a minor nature, and non-controversial. These standards are maintainedin the statute law Bills I am introducing today.Because of their size and the range of theiramendments, statute law Bills present twopotential difficulties.

The first of these is to ensure thatadequate information is available tohonourable members to scrutinise theamendments they make. To assist honourablemembers, in statute law Bills, different types ofamendments and repeals have always beendivided among different schedules. Statutelaw Bills have also included detailedExplanatory Notes in the Bill itself. Statute lawBills are unique in this regard. These practiceshave been continued, and are further


enhanced, by the statute law Bills I amintroducing today. In addition, I shouldmention that the Government has alwaysmade the Parliamentary Counsel available toanswer any queries that honourable membersmay have on statute law Bills. This opportunityis, of course, open with today's Bills.

The second potential difficulty with statutelaw Bills is the possibility of misuse, or eventhe perceived possibility of misuse.Honourable members may be aware of thestory about the town clerk for a certain localcouncil in England during the last century. It isclaimed that, in a long and boring privatemember's Bill, the town clerk inserted aprovision divorcing himself from his wife. I canassure honourable members that the Bills donot include such provisions.

Nevertheless, there is always theperceived temptation to include amendmentsin statute law Bills that are not minor and non-controversial, but substantial and contentious.In addition, what is minor or substantial, non-controversial or contentious, can be a matterof value judgment about which, in somecases, people can honestly disagree. Forthese reasons, the Government has insistedon a rigorous scrutiny within Government ofamendments included in statute law Bills. TheGovernment has also sought to maintain theintegrity of statute law revision processes byensuring that a high standard of informationabout amendments is available to honourablemembers.

However, I do not believe that these aresufficient. Accordingly, as an additionalsafeguard, the Government has decided thatstatute law (miscellaneous provisions) Billsshould in future be divided into two Bills: oneto be called the Statute Law (MinorAmendments) Bill and the other the StatuteLaw Revision Bill. The title of the first Bill couldbe adjusted if the Bill included repeals as wellas amendments.

The Statute Law Revision Bill will includeamendments and repeals that are made forstatute law revision purposes only. Moststatute law revision amendments are initiatedby the Office of the Queensland ParliamentaryCounsel as part of its statutory obligation toensure that the Queensland statute book is ofthe highest standard.

Amendments to give effect to individual,minor policy changes unconnected with theoverall state of the Queensland statute bookwill be included in the Statute Law (MinorAmendments) Bill. These amendments areinitiated by Ministers and their departments.

This Bill will also include any statute lawrevision amendments that could be seen assensitive because of the subject matter withwhich they deal, for example, search warrants.I should stress that these changes will in noway diminish the high standard theGovernment has already set for statute lawBills. In particular, amendments will beincluded in statute law Bills only if they areminor and non-controversial.

This Bill is the first Statute Law (MinorAmendments) Bill to be introduced into thisParliament. The purpose of the Bill is toimprove the quality of the statute law ofQueensland by making amendments thatotherwise would not justify separate legislation,but the cumulative effect of which may have asubstantial impact. All amendments takeeffect from the date of assent.

The Bill's format is similar to, but simplerthan, the format used in recent statute lawBills. It contains five clauses and a singleschedule of amendments. The moresignificant of the amendments are brieflyoutlined in the Explanatory Note. Moredetailed Explanatory Notes for theamendments are placed at the end of theamendments for each amended Act. Eachamendment is numbered and can beidentified readily by reference to the number.The notes are not part of the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald,adjourned.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(12.26 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend or repeal certainActs for the purpose of statute lawrevision."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(12.27 p.m.): I move—


"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."In my speech on the introduction of the

Statute Law (Minor Amendments) Bill, Ioutlined the purpose of statute law Bills andthe Government's decision to divide futurestatute law (miscellaneous provisions) Bills intotwo Bills. I do not propose to repeat myremarks.

This Bill is the first Statute Law RevisionBill to be introduced into this Parliament forover 80 years. The purpose of the Bill is toimprove the quality of the statute law ofQueensland by amending or repealing Acts forthe purpose of statute law revision. Allamendments are required to be concise, of aminor nature and non-controversial. Allamendments take effect from the date ofassent unless the contrary is expresslyprovided.

In some cases amendments are declaredto operate retrospectively. In each case theamendments correct minor errors or aretechnical or mechanical adjustments. The Billcontinues the process of improving theQueensland statute book by statute revision infive principal ways. First, the Bill rationalisesthe types of statutory instruments used in Actsand regulation-making powers. Amendmentsconcerned with these matters appear inSchedule 1.

Second, the Bill includes a number ofamendments to facilitate the reprinting ofparticular Acts and enable the reprinting ofsubordinate legislation. The Office of theQueensland Parliamentary Counsel isendeavouring to have all current Acts reprintedby early next year and all subordinatelegislation reprinted by mid-1996. Theseamendments are included in Schedules Iand 2.

Third, forms are removed from legislationin amendments included in Schedule 1.Fourth, the process of identifying andrepealing spent and obsolete Acts. Many ofthese Acts have long been redundant buthave never been repealed. Repeal of the Actsmentioned in Schedules 3 to 8 will improve theQueensland statute book by removing "deadwood". Schedules 9 and 10 containtransitional provisions for repealed Acts.Finally, the Bill includes a range of minoramendments made for statute revisionpurposes only. The amendments are includedin Schedules 1 and 2.

The Bill's format is similar to that used inrecent omnibus Bills. It contains 7 clauses and10 schedules. Each schedule serves a

particular purpose. For example, Schedule Ideals with minor amendments for statute lawrevision. The Explanatory Notes for eachamended Act are placed at the end of itsamendments. Each amendment to an Act isnumbered and the note explaining the natureof the amendment can be identified readily byreference to the number. The notes are notpart of the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald,adjourned.

JURY BILL

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Justice and Attorney-General, Minister forIndustrial Relations and Minister for the Arts)(12.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act about juries."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Justice and Attorney-General, Minister forIndustrial Relations and Minister for the Arts)(12.31 p.m.): I move—


Ever since the time of Magna Carta theright to trial by jury has been a foundation ofour rights and liberties. When that fatefulgathering met on the Isle of Runnymede toextract concessions from King John in 1215,the right to trial by one's peers was regardedas so fundamental as to be included in thegreat charter. The institution of the jury isancient in origin but we have a duty to ensurethat its place in today's world is respectedamidst the sea of change in our modern socialand legal systems. If we are to keep thatwhich is rich and valuable about our legaltradition we must necessarily ensure that itresponds to the challenges of modern times.Hence the need for this Bill, which deals,among other things, with the vetting of juries,the polling of prospective jurors and protectingjurors from the intrusion of powerful mediainterests.


This Bill is the result of the deliberations ofa number of bodies over the last few years,namely, the Nolan Committee report inJanuary 1992, the Litigation ReformCommission report in August 1993, and thereport of the Criminal Justice Commission. TheCriminal Justice Commission investigated theempanelling of the jury in the Bjelke-Petersentrial. Members would remember that retiredSupreme Court judge Mr W. J. Carter, QC,delivered a 500-page report on the Bjelke-Petersen trial in which he made manyrecommendations to ensure that jury selectionin Queensland would be free from corruption.This Bill includes his recommendations.

Firstly, and most importantly, the Billprovides that neither the prosecution nor thedefence will be able in future to engage inlarge-scale jury vetting as was done in theHerscu and Bjelke-Petersen cases. The Billprovides that after the sheriff of the SupremeCourt arranges for jurors to be called into juryservice, which is done by random selectionmade by a computer from names on theelectoral roll, the list of jurors due to be calledfor a particular trial can only be given to thelawyers representing the parties in the trial at4 p.m. on the business day before the start ofthe trial.

The Bill provides that as soon as the juryis empanelled on the day a trial begins the listmust be given back to the sheriff and thesheriff must destroy the list. This will prevent apractice which has existed whereby jury listsare circulated amongst defence counsel andsolicitors and Crown prosecutors showing themake-up of juries in particular trials and theverdicts delivered by those juries fromcontinuing. The practice enabled counsel forthe parties to try to select jurors favourable totheir case.

The Bill also outlaws polling of personssummoned for jury service endeavouring tofind out their views on issues that may arise ina trial. The penalty for conducting pre-trialpolling will be a maximum of two years'imprisonment. Prospective jurors should beentitled to approach jury service free from theconcern that they will be subject to intrusivevetting and polling. The Bill represents anendeavour to establish a fair and just systemof jury selection in accordance with Mr Carter'srecommendations. It has created a new rightof jury challenge, whereby in a trial thatinvolves some notoriety, the parties'representatives may approach the trial judgebefore the trial begins to ask the judge to drawup a list of questions to be put to all membersof a jury panel before the jury selection

process actually begins. This will allow parties'representatives to choose those persons whoare strictly impartial. The Bill also provides that,after a jury has been empanelled, the judgemay discharge it if the judge believes that theuse of challenges by the prosecution and/orthe defence has led to the formation of a jurythat appears to be not impartial.

The Bill also provides for a number ofother matters that I shall now mention. The Billprovides that verdicts in criminal cases willremain unanimous. The Government believesthat unanimous verdicts are more likely to bepublicly accepted than majority verdicts. Publicconfidence in the jury system could be erodedwhere an accused person was convicted by amajority of jurors only as it might be said thatthe verdict could not have been one beyondall reasonable doubt since the minority ofjurors obviously entertained a reasonabledoubt. It is interesting to note that, inQueensland, the figures for disagreementscompared to total trials over the years 1986 to1991 were 1.83 per cent in the SupremeCourt, and 2.77 per cent in the District Court.Hung juries are not perceived to be a majorproblem in this State.

The Bill follows the lead of jurisdictionssuch as the United Kingdom, Canada andVictoria by preventing jurors from breachingthe sanctity of the jury room by revealingdeliberations to the media. The secrecyprovision is necessary for a number ofreasons. There is a reasonable fear that ifjurors knew their views about issues were to beexposed, social pressure would discourageunpopular verdicts, especially in smallcommunities. There may even be situations inwhich jurors' livelihoods could be threatened ifit were revealed that they held views contraryto those held by their employers or theircustomers, depending on their circumstances.Where the reasons for a decision are notknown, unpopular verdicts cannot beeffectively challenged. Jurors stronglyadvocating a finding of guilt need to beassured that their views will not be discoveredby a defendant who has become vengefulafter having been found guilty.

The thought that something said by ajuror in the course of discussions could later bereleased in the media for debate wouldundoubtedly have a seriously inhibiting effecton discussions. In fact, the whole deliberationprocess would be undermined if a juror had toproceed with the onus of thinking half the timeabout the evidence and the other half on howwhat is said may be treated by the media. Thismay even extend to thinking about what profit


may exist in talking to the media about thecase—as I understand has happened inAmerica. Without protection from unwantedscrutiny there could be a reluctance to serveon juries.

It should always be remembered thatjurors do not volunteer to serve; they areconscripted. Many are not used to speaking inpublic. Speaking out in front of 11 otherpeople may be a daunting enough prospectand challenge for some people, without theadded pressure of worrying about beingbesieged by the media.

The Bill does contain a safeguard in theevent that a juror suspects another member ofbias, fraud or some other offence inconnection with the jury's duties. The juror maytake his or her concerns to the Attorney-General or to the independent Director ofPublic Prosecutions.

This Bill addresses deep public disquietthat came about in Queensland as a result ofattempts by certain people before the Bjelke-Petersen perjury trial to pervert thecomposition of the jury in that case. The fullextent of the disturbing activities engaged inby those people is extensively catalogued inMr Carter's 500-page report. That reportdiscloses a sorry saga of attempted jurytampering. The measures contained in this Billwill make sure the methods used in that casecan never be repeated.

The Bill is the latest in a long andimpressive list of reforms introduced by LaborGovernments since the end of National PartyGovernment to deal with the excesses andcorruption that flourished because of NationalParty Government. This Bill protects one of thefoundations of a truly democratic system ofgovernment—the jury. I hope all members willsupport these necessary changes. I commendthe Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland,adjourned.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—Minister for Environment and Heritage)(12.38 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend legislation aboutthe environment."

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Barton, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—

Minister for Environment and Heritage)(12.39 p.m.): I move—


The objective of this Bill is to amendvarious pieces of legislation that govern thebuilt and natural environments. This Bill hasbeen drafted to overcome minor errors andimplementation difficulties and to clarify therequirements for the preparation of the WetTropics Management Plan.

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 isamended to correct a number of draftingerrors relating to cross references withinsections and to clarify the interpretation of anumber of sections. The Bill also clarifies thedistinction between the powers of authorisedpersons and the powers of police officersregarding the abatement of excessive noise.

The Marine Parks Act 1982 and theRecreation Areas Management Act 1988 aresimilarly amended by the insertion of astandard clause which takes account of adecision by the courts regarding theinterpretation of the word "fee". Minoramendments are also proposed for the NatureConservation Act 1992 which clarify theinterpretation of a number of sections andovercome minor operational anomalies.

The proposed amendments to theQueensland Heritage Act 1992 are intendedto solve problems in the application of the Actwhich became apparent during an appeal inthe Planning and Environment Court againstthe permanent entry of a place in the HeritageRegister by the Heritage Council.

One amendment provides clarification ofthe term "aesthetic significance". The Planningand Environment Court in Advance Bank v.the Queensland Heritage Council held that"aesthetic" referred only to matters of beauty.The amendment will broaden the definition of"aesthetic significance", ensuring that placescan be listed on the Heritage Register for otherreasons, including visual merit or visualinterest. The criteria for entry in the registerhave been altered to accommodate theaddition of a definition of "aestheticsignificance" and to remove ambiguityassociated with the previous linkage in the Actbetween "particular aesthetic characteristics"


and "the community or particular culturalgroup".

The definition of the term "culturalheritage significance" is being amended toinclude architectural and technological valueswhich had previously not been deemed by theterm. The definition of "cultural heritagesignificance" will also relate to past, presentand future generations to avoid any ambiguityin legal arguments that heritage significancecannot be judged in reference to either thepast or the future. Further, the term "historic"has been replaced by the more general term"historical". In the Advance Bank case, thecourt held that the term "historic" related to aparticular event in history, such as the Battle ofWaterloo, whereas the term "historical" relatedto the general thread of history.

On its introduction, the QueenslandHeritage Act 1992 established the HeritageCouncil, a community-based bodyrepresenting a range of expertise andcommunity viewpoints to administer theHeritage Register. The amendment proposedremoves any limitation on the number of termsfor which a person can be appointed to theHeritage Council. In this way, the wisdom andknowledge of members of the council cancontinue to be utilised and the Governor inCouncil is able to ensure that the bestexpertise possible is available for the HeritageCouncil at all times.

The Wet Tropics World HeritageProtection and Management Act 1993amendments predominantly relate tomanagement plans under that Act. Theamendments allow for management plans todeal with the same matters as a regulation.The amendments also recognise that the firstWet Tropics Management Plan is comparableto that of a regulatory impact statementprepared under the Statutory Instruments Act1992. This amendment reflects the extensiveconsultation that has already occurred on thedraft plan in the last few years and ensuresthat the plan will be released by themandatory deadline of 1 November 1995.

This Bill will ensure that Queensland'senvironment and conservation legislationmaintains its leading edge and continues toprovide the tough legislative means requiredto ensure the long-term viability ofQueensland's environment for futuregenerations.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Slack,adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 7 September (seep. 66).

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (12.45 p.m.): Thereintroduced Parliamentary Committees Bill isthe first piece of legislation from the electorallychastened Goss Labor Government. It showsthat, despite its drubbing by the people ofQueensland, this minority Labor Governmentand this minority Labor Premier have learntnothing. The content of this Bill shows that thevery same arrogant style of Government,which was the hallmark of the first and secondGoss Governments, is set to continue. Thatarrogance is demonstrated by theGovernment's determination to constrain andcontrol information to the Parliament and thepeople.

This Bill provided the Government, andthe member for Logan, with a goldenopportunity to show that it had heard themessage from the people. That message wasa community desire for an honest and openGovernment that listened and was prepared tohave its processes and decisions scrutinised.Instead, we have a Bill which basicallyrevamps and renames the parliamentarycommittees that exist at present. It falls farshort of the "comprehensive system ofparliamentary committees to enhance theability of Parliament to monitor the efficiency ofGovernment" envisaged in the Fitzgeraldreport. Furthermore, it falls far short of thesystem proposed by the Leader of theAustralian Labor Party in Queensland, themember for Logan, in his 1988 submission tothe Commission of Inquiry into Possible IllegalActivities and Associated Police Misconduct. Akey plank of that submission was "a workablecommittee system". The Premier's ownsubmission stated—

"The Labor Party believes that thereis real benefit to be obtained fromintroducing a system of parliamentarycommittees, representative of all partiesin the Parliament."

The submission goes on to say—"In particular there should be

established an effective public accountscommittee and an effective public workscommittee."

As I said before, the current Premier was theauthor of that document.

The Premier has had five years in whichto deliver a "workable committee system" and


an "effective" public accounts committee andan "effective" public works committee. Theshame for the member for Logan and theLabor Party is that the Goss Government hasdone nothing to provide a comprehensive and"effective" parliamentary committee system.This Bill fails to provide the power for theparliamentary committees to be effective andshows this Government's shallow commitmentto parliamentary reform. It is about limiting thepowers of committees, rather than makingthem effective parliamentary entities.

The Goss Government has had the bestadvice to ensure that it got the committeesystem right. It, however, chose to ignore it.This Government had access to two draft Bills.The vanquished Electoral and AdministrativeReview Commission submitted its reportcontaining a draft Bill in October 1992, and thedefunct Parliamentary Committee for Electoraland Administrative Review—PCEAR—made itsrecommendation, which also contained a draftBill, exactly 12 months later in October 1993.Despite this advice and assistance, theGovernment has procrastinated, and now,almost two years later, we have before us agutted version of what the ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview proposed.

The Australian, in its editorial "PoliticalReform" of 24 January 1995, stated—

"It is disappointing that more thanfive years after Labor was elected there isstill no fully-fledged committee systemoperating in the State's single-HouseParliament."

This Bill still does not provide for a "fully-fledged committee system" in our unicameralParliament. For example, the Public AccountsCommittee proposed in this Bill is nothing buta token committee. The Explanatory Notesstate—

"The Public Accounts Committee willhave responsibility to ensure that theLegislative Assembly has sufficientinformation to hold the Governmentaccountable for the management ofpublic resources. The Committee mayexamine Government financialdocuments (including annual financialstatements and annual reports ofagencies) and the reports of the Auditor-General, and may ask the Auditor-General to consider issues which come tothe Committee's attention through itswork."

In other words, the Public AccountsCommittee has equivalent access to

Government documents to that of abackbencher. It has no access to internalaccounts. Quite clearly, it is impossible toensure accountability when the Governmentlimits documents to what is available to thepublic. In the best traditions of the member forLogan, the Government is doing a snow jobon the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr Santoro: Another one.Mr BORBIDGE: It is another snow job.

He is setting records. The Government isdoing the same snow job on the Estimatescommittees by restricting questioning to limitedprogram outlays and enforcing strict formatprocedures. The farce continues with theEstimates committees with Governmentmembers being given written dorothy dixquestions to which the Minister can reply froma prepared script.

It is instructive to look at the GossGovernment's Fitzgerald reform processrecord. On Sunday, 19 November 1989, thethen Leader of the Opposition, the memberfor Logan, said—

"In Parliament I pledge mycommitment to implement Fitzgerald andtoday I reaffirm that commitment."

He went on to say—

"We will move to restore democracyto our parliamentary system. Labor willreform and maintain the Public AccountsCommittee and the Public WorksCommittee as effective watchdogs of thepublic interest. I intend for openGovernment to be more than just aslogan. Freedom of information legislationwill be introduced so that, for the firsttime, Queenslanders will be able to breakdown the wall of secrecy surrounding theprocess of Government decision making.And the office of theAuditor-General—the caretaker of thepublic purse—will be reformed andproperly resourced so that taxpayers'money is spent properly andaccountably." What does the record show? To

determine that, the starting place is the Billbefore the House, the ParliamentaryCommittees Bill. The Goss Government'sintent for this Bill is signalled by the name.EARC suggested, and the parliamentarycommittee recommended, that there shouldbe a Queensland Parliament Bill. For thebenefit of the House and for the parliamentaryrecord, in summary, I point out that thecomprehensive Queensland Parliament Bill,rejected by this Premier and discarded by this


Government, in Chapter 2 provided for thepowers, privileges, immunities, contempt andparliamentary papers; and in Chapter 3provided for the statutory committees of theParliament, which were the Legal andConstitutional Committee, the Members'Ethics Committee, the Public AccountsCommittee, the Public Sector ReviewCommittee, the Public Works Committee, theScrutiny of Legislation Committee and theStanding Orders Committee.

That Bill then went on to provide forprocedures for the membership of statutorycommittees. The Bill then continued withChapter 4, which provided for the officers ofthe Legislative Assembly, from the Speakerthrough to the powers of the Acting Clerk.Chapter 5 of the Bill referred to theParliamentary Service Commission andprovided for the commission's establishment,status and related matters, and forcommission staff. But that is not all. Chapter 6of that Bill set out the members' salary andallowances and the salaries for office holders.Chapter 7 provided for a separateappropriation for the Legislation Assembly.Chapter 8 dealt with repeals, amendmentsand transitional matters. As all honourablemembers would understand, it was acomprehensive Bill that was designedparticularly to suit our unicameral Parliament.

On the other hand, the Bill before theHouse, the Parliamentary Committees Bill, is amere shadow of the Bill proposed by theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review. The Bill before theHouse today provides for the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee, the PublicAccounts Committee, the Public WorksCommittee, the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee and the Standing OrdersCommittee.

The Goss Government has made theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee responsible for issuesrelated to administrative review reform, theConstitution of the State, the electoral systemand legal reform. The committee also takesover the responsibility of the ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview to review the reports of EARC that theparliamentary committee had not reviewed.

On top of this workload, the GossGovernment decided that this committee, justin case it felt that it was having a light day,should also have the responsibility foroverseeing the Criminal Justice Commission.

That committee, which was three times busierthan any other committee, has just beenmade at least twice as busy again. Under thisBill, the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee has all thefunctions and responsibilities of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. Itshould be noted that the axing of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee is adecision made by this Government followingits drubbing at the polls when it limped backinto office. The pre-election ParliamentaryCommittees Bill did not provide for theabolition of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee.

Mr Lester: It was very deceitful, wasn'tit.

Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend themember for Keppel reminds me, it was verydeceitful.

Mr W. K. Goss: Fancy you taking yourlines from Vince.

Mr BORBIDGE: That is so typical of thetotal and absolute deceit of the member forLogan.

Mr W. K. Goss: What sort of a leaderis it who takes lines from Vince Lester?

Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Loganmight like to compare the swing against theLabor Party in the electorate of Logan with theswing to the coalition in the electorate ofKeppel. If the member for Logan had a bitmore respect for the good sense of thehonourable member for Keppel, we wouldhave a bit more commonsense in this place.Time and time again, the member for Keppelhas made the member for Logan look like afool.

The decision to abolish the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee flies in the face ofthe Fitzgerald report, which recommended thatthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeremain a separate, specialist body. Thecoalition does not support the abolition of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee and,I add, nor does the Queensland Council forCivil Liberties.

It is fair to say that the people ofQueensland would not support this move. ThisGovernment has effectively diminished thepeople's oversighting of this very powerfulbody. Quite rightly, the people of Queenslandwould not like this and would not approve of it.For that reason, we saw the deception inregard to the change to this legislation afterthe member for Logan limped back intoGovernment by 16 votes in Mundingburrawhich, of course, are now subject to dispute. It


has been noticed that the Government did notraise the abolition of the PCJC during theelection campaign.

The Opposition is in this place with theknowledge and the comfort that 53 per cent ofQueenslanders wanted it to be in Governmentcompared with 47 per cent who wanted thehonourable members opposite. That is,110,000 more Queenslanders voted for theOpposition side—the equivalent of five Stateelectorates—than voted for that ramshackle,broken-down, deceitful mob opposite. Theabolition——

Mr W. K. Goss interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Loganwill never hurt me. The abolition of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeecomes after some public rows between——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: The majority ofvotes in the majority of seats; is that how itworks?

Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of thehonourable member, I point out that, since thereintroduction of preferential voting in thisState, this Government is the first Governmentto be returned with less than 50 per cent ofthe two-party preferred vote. So the membershould not talk to me about honest or fairelectoral boundaries.

Mr W. K. Goss: You voted for it.Mr BORBIDGE: I remember the

whingeing and the complaining of the memberfor Logan. In 1989, when for the first time hisparty received more than 50 per cent of thetwo-party preferred vote under the old electoralboundary system, he won office.

Mr W. K. Goss: And we're still here.

Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Loganwill not be there for long. He should talk to themember for Woodridge. Last night in the bar,he was doing over the member for Logan toanyone who would listen.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.Mr BORBIDGE: Prior to the luncheon

adjournment, I was making the point that theabolition of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee comes after some public rowsbetween the PCJC and the CJC and criticismof the Criminal Justice Commission by theGovernment. It has been reported that theGovernment is considering reducing divisionsof the CJC, such as its research and educationfunctions. It is clear to all that the GossGovernment wants a tame CJC and threats tocut its functions, coupled with the abolition ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee,are designed to curb its influence.

The House will recall that the Governmentdid not like the Criminal Justice Commission'srole in law reform, such as its reports into thedecriminalisation of marijuana, brothels andprostitution. Ironically, the axing of the PCJCcoincides with the Government's considerationof the parliamentary committee's report on theCJC, which contained some 30recommendations. These included that theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeshould have the power to give directions to theCJC. It will be interesting to see whether theGovernment approves that particularrecommendation. The Government'sdetermination to abolish the PCJC wasforeshadowed by its refusal to resource itadequately. I remind the House that theformer Deputy Chairman of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee, the member forNicklin, the Honourable Neil Turner, resignedfrom the committee because it wasinadequately resourced to properly monitor thecommission.

Mr Terry O'Gorman, the vice-president ofthe Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, wasreported in the Australian of 9 August assaying that the move would be—

" 'totally contrary' to the Fitzgerald Reportand the new committee would be unableto perform its watchdog function.

'We are opposed to the dilution ofthe role of the PCJC by incorporating it ina committee that had such significantother functions . . .

We are concerned that themonitoring role is going to be swamped inthe welter of work that's going to fall tothe committee.' "

Mr O'Gorman said that he was going to writeto the Premier and the Attorney-Generalasking them to reconsider replacing it.Obviously, that request fell on deaf ears. Thereality is that the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee has a verysolid workload, but with the addedresponsibilities of the PCJC it will be absolutelyhorrendous. The new committee will not havethe time to perform the watchdog role of theformer Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee.

It must be remembered that the CJC hasvery strong powers with which to fightorganised crime and corruption. Therefore, it isimperative that there be a separate watchdogcommittee to ensure its accountability. Everycrime-fighting body in this nation—and I referto bodies such as ICAC, ASIO and theNCA—has a parliamentary committee


specifically for the purpose of overseeing itsactivities. It would make the CJC uniqueamong similar organisations interstate andfederally if it had its own overseeing body. Onecan only wonder at the true reason for axingthe PCJC and loading up the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee with such a large workload. Onecan assume only that the Government musthave in mind the limiting of the responsibilitiesof the CJC.

The Opposition will oppose any reductionin the role and functions of the CJC. As with somany decisions of the Goss Government, itsreason would include some aspect of politicalexpediency. In Committee we will be movingto reinstate the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. As well, we will be proposingamendments to those parts of the Bill relatingto the establishment of statutory committees,ethical conduct, powers to call for persons andso on, and privilege against self-incrimination.

There is a noticeable omission from thestatutory committees nominated in this Bill andthat is the public sector review committee,which was proposed by both EARC and theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review. For the benefit of theHouse, I point out that its proposed area ofresponsibility included the following: the publicadministration of the State, includingassessing the probity, economy and efficiencyof a department, local authority, statutory bodyor statutory office; the structure, organisationand efficiency of a department, local authority,statutory body or statutory office—for example,the Parliamentary Commissioner forAdministrative Investigations, the InformationCommissioner and the PSMC; and legislationproviding for the review of decisions, access toinformation, equal employment opportunityand anti-discrimination. The Bill establishedthe specific area of responsibility and includedthe following: annual and other reports to theParliament, and so on; resources andperformance of a department, and so on;standards, guidelines and other instrumentsissued by the Public Sector ManagementCommission.

Quite clearly, the Goss Government didnot want this committee looking into the publicsector, even though its stipulatedresponsibilities are harmless. It can only beassumed that the reason for the deletion ofthe public sector review committee was that itwould have been a bother—an intrusion intoGovernment affairs and in particular into theaffairs of the Executive. The deletion of thiscommittee once again raises questions of

integrity, accountability and openness of thestyle of this Labor Government. Actions speaklouder than words. It is the omission of thepublic sector review committee, with its abilityto look at what is very basic material, thathighlights the Goss Government's paranoiaabout public scrutiny. As I said before in thisHouse when speaking to other parliamentaryreform measures, this Government isobsessively secretive; it is paranoid.

The Goss Government has not onlygutted a number of committees; it has alsolimited the responsibilities of the samecompared with the Parliamentary Committeefor Electoral and Administrative Review'sparliamentary Bill. For example, the legal andconstitutional committee was to have as oneof its responsibilities parliamentary reformwhich, of course, has been removed. Insteadit has been given administrative review reform,which includes taking over the responsibility ofthe Parliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review to review the reports ofEARC which the parliamentary committee hadnot reviewed and legislation dealing withfreedom of information, the review ofadministrative decisions, anti-discrimination,and equal employment opportunity.

I now refer to the Public WorksCommittee, which once again under this Billhas had limitations applied to it—limitationsthat I believe are most inappropriate. In theCommittee stage, we will be seeking to amendthe Bill so that the Public Works Committeecan have some of its investigatory powersrestored through certain deletions. It isrecognised that, when the Queenslandparliamentary legislation was framed by theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review, the Government ownedcorporations had not quite reached the level ofsophistication they have now. However, theextent to which the Government goes toprevent scrutiny of GOCs and any public worksin which they may be involved is really quiteremarkable and speaks volumes about themember for Logan.

Quite clearly, GOCs are untouchable.They are exempted from scrutiny by the PublicWorks Committee, except if the LegislativeAssembly approves it—in other words, if theGovernment approves. And it is obvious to allthat the Government does not want anycommittee inquiring into the works andoperations of GOCs. The Bill states—

"The Public Works Committee'sareas of responsibility are—

(a) works . . . undertaken by an entitythat is a constructing authority for the


work if the committee decides toconsider the work; and

(b) major GOC works referred to thecommittee by the LegislativeAssembly."

In other words, the Public Works Committeecannot consider any major GOC works unlessthe Government approves it. As the Australianeditorial of 24 January 1995 stated when adraft Bill fell off the back of a truck—

"This is an unnecessary intrusion intothe independence of the committees."

This means that GOC works are off limitswithout any accountability to the Parliament.With this restrictive provision, there is not theopenness promised by the member for Loganin his 1989 election policy speech. It is anotherbroken promise, another political fraud andanother political sham.

I take the opportunity to draw to theattention of the House a significant PublicWorks Committee responsibility rejected by theGovernment of the member for Logan. Therelevant clause from the QueenslandParliament Bill proposed by the ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview states—

"Committee to considerenvironmental matters. The Public WorksCommittee is to consider allenvironmental implications of a matterdealt by it."

Where is that provision in this Bill? It has beenrejected—it has been tossed out by the GossLabor Government. The omission of thatprovision from this legislation underscores theGoss Government's poor environmental recordand lack of genuine concern for theenvironment. The rejection of that clause bythe Goss Government is another nail in itsappalling environmental credentials. I remindthe House that, according to an independentaudit of the Goss Government's environmentalelection promises from 1989 by this State'speak conservation body, the QueenslandConservation Council, the Government hadfully met only 16 per cent of those promises.On the other hand, the Goss Government,using the self-assessment process, gave itselfa good mark—59 per cent achieved.

A distinction can be drawn between theGoss Government's environmental record andits Fitzgerald reform record. Fitzgerald reformmeasures which would have openedGovernment processes to scrutiny have eitherbeen watered down—and watered downsignificantly—or ignored. The record is asfollows: Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

recommendations—gutted; freedom ofinformation—neutered to the extent that it isuseless; protection of whistleblowers—gutted;local authorities external boundaries review—gutted; public sector auditing—partly gutted;review of information and resource needs ofnon-Government members of the LegislativeAssembly of Queensland—gutted; codes ofconduct for public officials—partly gutted;review of Government media and services—little or no action.

Mr Lester: Absolutely scandalous—scandalous!

Mr BORBIDGE: It is absolutelyunacceptable, but that is the record of themember for Logan and his Government.

As stated earlier, the reforms that allowpeople to scrutinise the Government—thereforms that provide for open and accountablegovernment—have been gutted. The tragedyfor the people of Queensland is that they donot know the extent of the Goss Government'shypocrisy with respect to the parliamentaryreform process. The Goss Government hasfailed the people of Queensland onparliamentary reform.

To hammer home the point, once again Irefer to the Australian editorial, which states—

"It is perhaps not surprising that as it(the Goss Government) becomes used tothe comforts of Government benches, theGoss Government may be less willing tosurrender to Parliament the breadth ofpowers necessary to properly scrutinise it.

The Government has already shownlack of grace and judgment in its seriousunder-resourcing of the Opposition,ensuring it remains hamstrung inattempts to keep the Government on itstoes.

Equally important is the need to giveParliament the ability to play its role inscrutinising the actions of ExecutiveGovernment. A unicameral parliamentarysystem needs adequate reviewprocesses."

I turn now to the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee. Once again, it is a mere shadowcompared with that proposed by theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review. For the GossGovernment, the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee's responsibilities have been verynicely contained. It will not be able to causemuch trouble; its wings have been well andtruly clipped. The Bill also provides that thePublic Accounts Committee and Public WorksCommittee have the power to call for persons,


documents and other things. Othercommittees, including the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee, do not have thosepowers and can do so only by resolution of theParliament. We will be seeking to change thatby moving an amendment during theCommittee stage.

The Goss Government through thislegislation has applied the maximum controlover the committees so that ExecutiveGovernment and GOCs can go unscrutinised,except for a few frills on the margin—exceptfor a bit of embroidery around the edges. Ifthe people of Queensland knew the limitationsof this Government's parliamentary reformprocess, they would be left with no otherconclusion than that the Goss LaborGovernment has failed its central promise tothe electorate. The Goss Labor Governmentoverall has failed the Fitzgerald reform agendathrough limiting or culling out those provisionsthat would provide open and accountablegovernment. Seven years on from the deliveryof the report to former Premier Ahern, we havea secret Government that is not just afraid ofscrutiny but is paranoid about it. The GossGovernment's proposed parliamentarycommittees hardly fit EARC's proposals forcommittees "empowered to examine all thatGovernment does or proposes to do wherethe particular committee considers it necessaryor desirable".

I will conclude by quoting the Speaker ofthe Forty-sixth Queensland Parliament—andthis Parliament—the Honourable Jim Fouras,MLA, in an address to the Royal AustralianInstitute of Public Administration on 15November 1990 on the subject "TheSpeaker's perception of change". Mr Speakerstated—

"The most serious criticism of theWestminster system, particularly in thetwentieth century, has been thedevelopment of a situation where the realpower inherent in Parliament has beenmoved on further, past the main body ofmembers and into the hands of either theExecutive or the hierarchy of politicalparties or both."

The Speaker went on to state— "This situation is further exacerbated

in small Parliaments where there areproportionally fewer members who are notalso Ministers of State, and the tendencyis for the size of ministries to keep onexpanding.

All this in turn is putting a new twistonto the parliamentary system which

makes it somewhat difficult, any longer, tohold the view that Parliament is still thesupreme authority in the land."

Those are the words of the then and thepresent Speaker. That observation, I submit, ismore relevant today than it ever was.

This Bill demonstrates that the GossGovernment has no zeal for genuineparliamentary reform, no zeal for an effectiveparliamentary committee system and aquestionable commitment to parliamentarydemocracy. What is needed is a selectcommittee on procedural reforms to considerthe workings of all the parliamentarycommittees. Such a select committee shouldprovide for a review of the Estimatescommittees, which we on this side of theHouse have been advocating for some time.Any fair assessment of the functioning of theEstimates committees is that the process andoutcomes fall far short of what was envisagedby the Opposition and even, I suggest,Government members. Such a selectcommittee would also be able to determinewhere GOCs fit into the scrutiny process. TheGovernment has failed to provide for aneffective parliamentary system; such a selectcommittee would provide committees with theteeth to be effective.

The overall theme of the proposedQueensland Parliament Bill was to provide acomprehensive parliamentary committeesystem and to give those committees real,genuine power. What we have before us arefewer committees with no real increase in thepowers they have currently. It is to bewondered whether the gutting of theparliamentary committees was inspired by theall-powerful but now almost totally discreditedOffice of the Cabinet.

The coalition supports the amendmentsin Schedule 1, with the exception of thechanges to the Criminal Justice Act. As to theamendments to the Electoral Act—thecoalition will be proposing additional changesto ensure that the Minister continues—and Iemphasise "continues"—to consult the leaderof each political party in the Parliament, as wellas the parliamentary committee, with respectto the appointment of the chairperson of theElectoral Commission and the senior electoralofficer. As to the amendments to theParliamentary Service Act—it is noted that theSpeaker may establish an advisory committeeto advise on issues pertaining to the Act. Itwould be to the advantage of the Parliament ifthat committee was to be establishedpromptly.


I draw the attention of the House to whatappears to be an oversight in proposed newsection 8. I invite the Premier to respond tothis matter during his reply. There appears tobe no provision for the unexpected absence ofthe Speaker when the Parliament is not sittingsuch as through prolonged illness orresignation or death. I suggest that the Billshould provide for such contingency, with theDeputy Speaker or the Clerk automaticallybecoming the head of the ParliamentaryService, should for some reason Mr Speakerbe indisposed.

The coalition supports the Bill inprinciple—the principle of the Bill is sound—butwe have very severe reservations about theend product that has been submitted to theParliament. We will therefore be proposingamendments in the Committee stage in a bidto make this Parliament's committee system areal benefit to all, rather than a sideshow toExecutive Government. I make the point thatthose of us outside of the Executive, whetherwe be on the Government side or theOpposition side, have a deep and a realresponsibility in respect of the relevance andthe supremacy of Parliament. What is wrongwith having a parliamentary committee systemthat works properly? A parliamentarycommittee system that works properly that hasthe powers that it should have at the end ofthe day will lead to greater accountability bythe Executive, more effective Parliament andtherefore, I would suggest, greater respect inthe community for both.

The Government's response to thecoalition's amendments will determine how weshall vote on the third reading because, at thisstage, the Opposition has serious doubtsabout supporting this legislation in its currentform. If the Government is prepared toconsider the amendments that we will beputting forward, or at least some of them, thenobviously we will be considering our positionlater during the debate.

In closing, there is much that is wrongand unpalatable and an affront to theparliamentary process in the legislation thathas been presented to this House by themember for Logan. In its present censoredform, it is designed to protect the excesses ofExecutive Government and to muzzleaccountability and the proper functioning andsovereignty of this Parliament and itsparliamentary committees.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture)(2.53 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise tosupport the Bill before the House today. Ibegin my contribution to this debate with

quotes from two sources. Firstly, I quote thewell-known Dr Peter Coaldrake who, in 1989,wrote—

". . . throughout this century theparliament has been regarded as havingno role other than that of legitimatinggovernment activity."

Secondly, Justice Kirby, who was also quotedearlier in the nineties, said—

"Unless we are able to give up thenotion of democratic Government asnothing more than a triennial vote for thepeople, we should all be concerned toarrest the declining fortunes of theinstitution which reflects our diversedemocracy."

That institution, of course, is the Parliament. Itis quite clear that for some time there hasbeen a concern that, as the QueenslandParliament is presently and was thenconstituted, it does not function effectively.

The report of the Commission of Inquiryinto Possible Illegal Activities and AssociatedPolice Misconduct, the Fitzgerald report,identified Parliament's need to look at its abilityto review or scrutinise Government activities,culminating in a recommendation concerningthe establishment of a comprehensive systemof parliamentary committees. The Bill beforethe House is the Government's response to alengthy process begun in December 1991 bythe release by the Electoral and AdministrativeReview Commission of its issues paper on areview of parliamentary committees.

Since then, there has been a report fromEARC and a subsequent consideration of thatreport by the Parliamentary Committee forElectoral and Administrative Review, acommittee on which I served. The EARCreport and the parliamentary committee reportalso recommended that a comprehensivesystem of parliamentary committees beestablished but, significantly, each offered anessentially different set of committees tosatisfy that recommendation.

This Bill has not given expression to eitherof those competing sets of committees, but Ido not believe that that weakens what is beingachieved. Neither the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission nor theparliamentary committee was established totake the place of Government.

Earlier, we heard the Leader of theOpposition give a lengthy list of what he claimswere actions by this Government that did notaccord with recommendations given to it byEARC. Governments are required to sourceinformation from a variety of sources before


making decisions. I would be disappointed ifour Governments were to slavishly follow therecommendations of any one of those sourcesto the extent that others are eliminated fromconsideration. Having said that, though, I doadmit that I have some attachment to therecommendations of the parliamentarycommittee in the formation of which I played apart. I am particularly pleased to see that thisBill gives effect to the most important aspectsof the system envisaged by that committee.

I speak now of the Public AccountsCommittee, the Public Works Committee andthe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Morethan anything, these three committees provideParliament with the vehicles with which toeffectively scrutinise the activities ofGovernment. Public works committees andpublic accounts committees have been afeature—a particularly well-received feature—of this Parliament since the late 1980s. As thePremier said in his second-reading speech,they have had a distinct and beneficial impacton the Parliament and the process ofgovernment.

However, those committees have alsoprovided this Parliament with a connection withother Westminster derived Parliaments. Forexample, a CPA conference session onparliamentary committees a year or two agofocused almost exclusively on public accountscommittees. That is an experience shared bymost member Parliaments and one that theyhold in high regard.

The third of the committees I havementioned is the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee, one in which I had a particularinterest, having served on its predecessor, theSubordinate Legislation Committee since1990, the last three years as chairman. It iseasy to overlook the importance of thiscommittee, concerned as it is less withoutcomes than with the means by which thoseoutcomes are achieved.

In my time in this place, one thing thathas been obvious is that debate has rarely, ifever, strayed into the area of statutoryinterpretations, as members choose toconcentrate their attention on the broaderpolicies. As we have seen this week with theissue of the 70-odd councillors whoseelections will have to be validated, that lack ofattention to detail can have wide ramifications.On occasion, it has been said that membersopposite are somewhat hamstrung by the lackof legal expertise among their members. Iunderstand that the new member forMansfield, Mr Carroll, is a legal practitioner; I

think that will be beneficial to membersopposite.

The establishment of a committee tosubject all Bills to a technical scrutiny bringsthis Parliament in line with the Commonwealth,the ACT and Victoria, all of which havecommittees established to carry out thisfunction. The process begun by EARC throughits report on the Office of the ParliamentaryCounsel, which resulted in the watershedwhich was the Legislative Standards Act of1992 and the Statutory Instruments Acts of1992, is brought to its conclusion with theestablishment of the committee.

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee isnot simply an extension of the SubordinateLegislation Committee, although it does alsotake on the functions performed by thatcommittee since 1976 in respect of thescrutiny of statutory instruments. Althoughthese are related functions and althoughsubordinate legislation is just as muchlegislation as an Act of Parliament, theScrutiny of Legislation Committee will deal witheach differently. There is a longstandingmethodology by which the Committee ofSubordinate Legislation is operated. Briefly,this entails the examination of statutoryinstruments, the identification of potentialproblems and the elimination or resolution ofthose problems in consultation with theappropriate Minister.

In its 19-year history, the committee hashad to resort to its ultimate sanction, a motionto disallow an instrument, only twice. In thefirst instance, in 1978, the issue was resolvedafter a further meeting with the Minister andhis senior officials and the notice ofdisallowance was withdrawn. The secondinstance, just last year, occurred simply toallow time for additional public comment on areport tabled by the committee in relation toan issue that had attracted a great deal ofpublicity. That notice was also withdrawn.

I think it is a tribute to the members ofsuccessive committees of subordinatelegislation and successive Governments thatthose are the only examples. Clearly, the spiritof cooperation between the two hascontributed to the quality of government in thisState. There is no reason to change the wayin which these matters are dealt with.

The new function for this committee, theexposure of Bills to the same kind of technicalscrutiny that subordinate legislation has hadfor 19 years, is, to my mind, the mostimportant of the reforms encompassed in thisBill, but, of course, I am biased in thatdirection. However, the nature of the task is


different, particularly in respect of therequirement of the committee to alert both theParliament and the Minister to potentialproblems. In respect of subordinate legislation,as I have said, the committee will, I presume,continue the practice of negotiating outcomeson behalf of the Parliament. In respect ofprincipal legislation, the committee willobviously alert the Parliament to potentialdifficulties and the Parliament will negotiate itsown outcome during the debate on the Bill. Ina sense, this is the most desirable way forthese matters to be addressed, but clearly,because of the volume of subordinatelegislation, it is not practical for thoseinstruments to be dealt with similarly.

I would like to make a couple of generalcomments in closing. Firstly, if I could refer tosome comments made by the Leader of theOpposition in respect of powers ofcommittees. As a person who has served on anumber of committees in this place and aperson who is looking forward to serving oncommittees in the current term, I found theLeader of the Opposition's comments aboutpowers somewhat puzzling. It has alwaysbeen the practice in Parliaments in theWestminster tradition that powers, particularlythe power to send for persons, papers andother things to which the Leader of theOpposition referred, have been incorporated inthe motion for the appointment of thecommittee.

Clearly, there are the powers entrenchedin this piece of legislation for threecommittees: the Public Accounts Committee,the Public Works Committee, and the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee in respect of its function as thePCJC or the successor to the PCJC. The firsttwo of those, I think it is fair to say, areincluded in this Bill simply because the Acts ofParliament that will be repealed as thosecommittees are set up under this Bill includedthe powers of those committees. It would beopen to him to say if it did not appear in thisBill that we were gutting their power.

In the third instance, that of the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, the power, I think, is needed onlyto be stated clearly in respect of anysuggestion by the members opposite thatthere is also a power gutting going on. Ineffect, all of these committees could be wellserved by having the power provided throughthe resolutions of this Parliament, as we willsee occur for those committees not named inthis Bill as the motions are moved in the nextfew sitting days.

In February this year, the CommonwealthParliamentary Association sponsored aconference known as the Wilton Parkconference. It was convened to deal with theissue of committees. I would like to read intothe record some of the issues that werecovered at that conference. I refer to the Apriledition of The Parliamentarian magazine,which we all receive. Firstly, the group thatconsidered committees indicated that it was—

"Clearly the view of the group thatcommittees are in principle valuableadditions to the parliamentary process."

I invite all honourable members to set asideany concern they might have with the words"in principle" that have been raised by theactivities of Sir Humphrey Appleby in theprogram Yes Minister. I think we all agree thatparliamentary committees are valuableadditions to the parliamentary process.

The group also indicated that it believedthat—

"A decision to establish effectivecommittees must be accompanied by arecognition that all sides have tocooperate with each other and respectthe role of committees."

As I said a moment ago, I have served on anumber of committees with a number ofmembers of the Opposition and it has beenmy experience that each of those committeeshas been able to set aside difficulties and workcooperatively.

Another of the issues that the Wilton Parkconference canvassed was the—

". . . basic premise that committees mustoperate independently from partydiscipline."

This also has largely been a hallmark of thisParliament, although I express somemoderate regret at the treatment to whichmembers of the National Party were subjectedas a consequence of the all-partyparliamentary committee report on the reviewof the Ambulance Service. I thought that thattreatment probably was not deserved.

Another thing that the people at thisconference agreed on was that—

". . . once formed committees must bearmed with the facilities and services toconduct their inquiries."

It also spoke of a—

". . . widely held theory that committeesystems offer Parliaments an effectivesolution to many perceived deficiencies inthe democratic process."


A well-known Brisbane QC, Mr AnthonyMorris, has also expressed a view that in thecircumstances of the Commonwealthjurisdiction, the operation of two committees,the Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee and the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee, both of which areestablished by this Bill, the Senate nowexercises a function commensurate with itsdescription as a House of review. I think thatthat is more than important when we considerour unicameral Parliament.

We have heard a lot in Queensland in thepast six years or so of the Fitzgeraldcommission and its report. I would like to read,if I may, just a few small quotes from anotherreport, another commission in anotherjurisdiction, the Western Australian royalcommission into the commercial activities ofGovernment. In that report, CommissionersKennedy, Wilson and Brinsden alsoconsidered the issue of parliamentarycommittees. That commission indicated that—

". . . if parliamentary committees are to beable to realise their purpose, severalconditions require to be satisfied."

Those conditions number three. They are asfollows—

"(a) Their mandate must not be cast inways which curtail, in any arbitrary orprotective way, the matters intowhich they can inquire.

(b) Their powers must be ample.

(c) They must be provided with thesupport staff, resources and facilitiesnecessary to enable research,investigation and reporting to be fullyand effectively undertaken."

The report then states—

"We particularly emphasise the lastof these. An unsupported committee is awounded committee."

In conclusion, can I say that thecommittee system that this Bill anticipates forthe Queensland Legislative Assembly and thepeople of Queensland is not thereby one thatwe are going to find unmanageable. It is acommittee system that is, I think, drawn withconsideration of the numbers of members inthe Parliament and the amount of work that isrequired of them in other capacities, be it onthe floor of Parliament as we are now or in ourelectorate offices. Therefore, it is all the moreimportant that we concentrate not on anyperceived deficiency in the committees as theBill is drafted, because the deficiencies simplyare not there, but concentrate on ensuring

that these committees are able to performeffectively the work that they have been given.

In his second-reading speech, thePremier indicated that there had beenchanges in the parliamentary horizons andlandscape since the Fitzgerald inquiry, andthat is true. So, too, will there be changes inthe next five or six years. I think that we needto recognise in this Bill before us today not theestablishment of the committee system thatwill serve this Parliament for time immemorial,but rather the establishment of a committeesystem that is right for the Parliament at thispoint and one that is always going to besubject to and open to reconsideration by thisHouse at the appropriate time. I have pleasurein supporting this Bill.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (3.07 p.m.): One of thesaddest things to occur in the post-Fitzgeraldera under Labor has been the misuse ofcertain terms—the way the State LaborGovernment has twisted words and phrasesso that they no longer represent the dictionarydescription. This Government has done thatwith the phrase "public consultation".Everyone in Queensland now knows thatwhen this Government promises publicconsultation over an issue it means that theGovernment is going to organise somemeaningless meetings to parade before themedia and then go back to the 15th floor anddo exactly what it had planned to do in the firstplace.

The second word that the LaborGovernment has grossly misused andmisrepresented is the word "accountable".Accountability was the Labor Party's catchcryin the 1989 State election. It was the call toarms for the ALP. For the then OppositionLeader, Wayne Goss, it was, in fact, the basisof his entire 1989 election campaign. After all,he and the Labor Party did not have muchelse to run on, and we have seen that in thesix years that have followed. Talk about apolicy free zone—this ALP Government hasbeen a policy black hole!

Without the Fitzgerald report and itscreations, like EARC and the CJC, the peopleof Queensland could be forgiven forwondering whether the Premier and his ALPGovernment have ever had an originalthought. "Accountability" is a word that hasnow lost any real meaning in Queensland,because it has been so badly misused andtwisted by the Goss Labor Government. In thepast six years, we have seen little ofaccountability Tony Fitzgerald-style and muchof accountability Wayne Goss-style. We have


seen the Premier and the ALP Governmentignore recommendations from independentcommissions and, when it suited them, evenignore recommendations from parliamentarycommittees that the Government controlled.

We have seen the word "accountable"used to corrupt important issues, such asfreedom of information, the committeesystem, the reforms of Parliament, the publicservice, whistleblowers, the politicisation ofsenior Government positions and the blow-outin ministerial staff numbers while Oppositionstaff numbers are still stuck in the Dark Ages.In common with the phrase "publicconsultation", the word "accountable" has nowlost all meaning in Queensland under Labor.

The third word that has become twisteddue to gross misuse by this State LaborGovernment is, of course, the word "reform".The fact is that, whenever I hear the Premieruse the word "reform" in regard to a new pieceof legislation, I immediately wonder just who isgoing to cop it in the neck this time.Unfortunately, in far too many cases,whenever the Premier has used the word"reform" it has been used to cover up a nakedgrab for even more power by the Executivearm of Government.

I do not think that anyone could forgetthe way this Premier "reformed" the freedomof information legislation to prevent the publicfrom obtaining any information. He reformed itso well that the Labor Government hasperformed midnight plane runs to countryCabinet meetings just to put boxes ofinformation in the Cabinet room so that theinformation cannot be accessed under theFreedom of Information Act. So freedom ofinformation really has become freedom frominformation. We also saw this with theparliamentary Estimates committees which,under this Premier's legislation, are little morethan expensive charades run and directed bythe Executive through Government-weightedcommittees and the refusal to allow questionsto be directed to public servants.

Once again, we are here debating a Billthat the Premier is touting as reform but whichthe rest of Queensland knows is just anotherattempt by this Government to hamstring thereal reform of the Queensland Parliament. Letus look at the details of this deceitful piece oflegislation. The fact is that the word "reform"would suggest that this piece of legislationwould allow for a more open and morepowerful parliamentary committee system toencourage more scrutiny of Governmentdecisions and spending. Instead, this Billproduces a hamstrung committee system,

much the same as the Estimates committeeswere hamstrung.

The first and major problem with this Bill isthat it abolishes the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee and throws parliamentaryscrutiny of that powerful, independent bodyinto the new Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. This newcommittee seems to be the committee foreverything. Parliamentarians serving on thiscommittee will barely have time to turn up tothe infrequent sittings of this House. But, ofcourse, the crux of the problem is that this willmean a drop in the parliamentary scrutiny ofthe CJC. The CJC is the most powerfulindependent body in Queensland. The onlycheck and balance on its performance is theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee.ICAC in New South Wales, which does nothave the power or scope of reference of theCJC, has its own parliamentary committeewatchdog. Federally both the NCA and ASIOhave their own parliamentary committeewatchdogs. None of those committees in NewSouth Wales or Canberra is forced to controlso many disparate responsibilities. In fact, theparliamentary ICAC committee only hasresponsibility for ICAC, and the same appliesin the Federal Parliament.

In Queensland, the former PCJC was atleast three times busier than the othercommittees, yet the Premier wants to give thenew committee an even bigger workload. Thequestions has to be asked: why? Perhaps inhis reply the Premier will tell us why. Whywould the Premier go out of his way to ensurethat the parliamentary scrutiny of the CJC wasreduced? Why would the Premier throw thescrutiny of the CJC onto a committee that willbe overworked and unable to properlysupervise this important crime fighting body? Itis a question to which I do not know theanswer.

A Government member: Why don'tyou say something positive?

Mrs SHELDON: I think that this is verypositive for the people of Queensland. Theywant to know that the CJC has a watchdog,that it is effective and that that watchdog hastime to do its job. Effectively, this Bill hassidelined that committee. As I was saying, it isa question to which I do not know theanswer—and that concerns me as it should allmembers on the other side of the Chamber.The inclusion of the CJC in that supercommittee is flaw number one in this Bill.

Flaw No. 2 is the unbelievable effort bythe Premier to ensure that the parliamentarycommittees have restricted, lame-duck


powers. This lame-duck Premier has forcedlame-duck powers on the committees toensure that they will be unable to fulfil theirreal duties and responsibilities.

Mr W. K. Goss: Will you take aninterjection? If you're a lame-duck Premier,how do you force things onto the committee?

Mrs SHELDON: The Premier is makingthe committees lame ducks through what he isdoing to them through this Bill. If he hadlistened to what I said, he would realise thatthat was spelt out very specifically.

Mr W. K. Goss: If you're a lame duck,you can't force anything on anyone.

Mrs SHELDON: There is no doubt thatthe Premier is a lame duck. What about whathappened yesterday, and the debacle overthe election of Speaker? If that is not anexample of a lame duck, what is?

The Premier has made the committeeslame ducks by refusing to give all of them thepower to send for people, papers andrecords—effectively, the power to summonpeople and records before the committee. Infact, even the super committee, the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, has only limited powers to forcepeople, papers and records to be presented tothe committee. This is a power seldom usedby committees, but it is essential if thesecommittees are to have any teeth. Withoutthis power, the committees can essentially besnubbed by those who refuse to appear, orrefuse to divulge written information that theParliament requires. That would severelyhamper the operations of these committeesand, when important investigations are beingcarried out, leave them at the mercy of theExecutive Government, which would have thepower through the Parliament to grant orrefuse temporary powers to summon for thecommittees. In the Bill before the House theonly two parliamentary committees whichretain that power in full are the PublicAccounts Committee and the Public WorksCommittee. I believe that clause 25(1) of theBill must be amended to cover allparliamentary committees.

Another issue of serious concern in theParliamentary Committees Bill is covered byclause 26. In it, the State Government hasindulged in some tinkering where no tinkeringwas needed. This is a complicated and, attimes, convoluted area of the legislation;nevertheless, it is very important. The politicalcorrectness police within the Premier's officehave obviously decided to put on theirextreme civil rights caps to try to play with an

area of the Bill that did not need to beinterfered with.

Essentially, this section of the Bill willcause massive problems for the committeesystem because it blocks the committees fromdemanding that evidence be given bywitnesses if that evidence may incriminatethem. Instead, a witness can defy thecommittee and refuse to give evidence if thatevidence may incriminate that witness. Somemay say that this is a good thing because itprotects witnesses from offering evidence thatcould get them into trouble. Under thislegislation, a witness could defy the committeeand refuse to answer questions, and the onlyrecourse for the committee would be to goback to the Parliament and ask the Parliamentto give the committee the power to force thewitness to give evidence. This would create allsorts of problems. Firstly, any witness whowanted to frustrate a committee investigationand refuse to give evidence could drag out aninvestigation for months as the committee wasforced to run back and forth to the Parliamentto get permission to continue questioning.Secondly, this would expose the name of thewitness to massive publicity and createmassive public scrutiny on an individual whensuch attention may not have been warranted.Thirdly, there is absolutely no need for thischange.

Currently, under the natural justiceprovisions, evidence given before aparliamentary committee cannot be used in acourt of law. Also under the current provisionsof natural justice and the current provisions forcommittees, witnesses who believe that theirevidence will incriminate them can request thatthe committee hear their evidence in camera.The committee can hear the evidence anddecide whether it is to be included in therecord of the committee's proceedings. This is,and has been, a perfectly workable systemwhich gives the parliamentary committees theability to properly investigate issues withoutbeing unduly frustrated by witnesses whoeither refuse to attend at all or refuse to giveevidence once they do attend. I also believethat the existing system protects civil rightswithout unduly hamstringing the processesand powers of the committee system.Therefore, I believe that this clause of the Billshould be removed completely.

We heard in the Premier's second-reading speech to this Bill how he praised thework of EARC and the PCEAR in theirpreparation for the introduction of theparliamentary committee system advocated inthe Bill. However, the Premier has, in the past,


been more than happy to ignore EARC reportsand the independent umpire—as he callshim—when he decides it does not suit him,such as with the recommendations for anincrease in staff and resources for theOpposition parties. Recently, Mr Speaker—and I thank you for it—you have seen fit togive increased office space to the Oppositionon level six, which has been sorely needed forthe past six years. However, so far we haveheard absolutely nothing from the Premier withregard to our critical need for more staff andfor resources for that staff. This washighlighted very recently in my own office,where I have four professional staff and onlythree computers. Therefore, one person hasto go without a computer and write things outin longhand; yet this is the day of informationtechnology. Further, two of those computersblew up, so we had four staff with onecomputer. How can any Opposition acteffectively to look after the interests of peoplewho elected it to this House—and elected theGovernment—with that deplorable system inplace?

It must be remembered that thecommittee structure is still, essentially, an armof the Government and an arm of theExecutive. The committee structure inQueensland is still based on four Governmentand three non-Government members, alwaysgiving the majority to the Government andalways giving the Chair to the Government.This opens the door to the problem with theBill before us today. This Bill not only enforcesthe Government's control over theparliamentary committee process, it alsodiminishes the Parliament's control over a veryimportant arm of the Government. The fact isthat, instead of improving and increasing theParliament's supervision of the Criminal JusticeCommission, this Bill actually diminishes therole and the power of the Parliament byabolishing the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee.

This Bill also diminishes the powers of thecommittees to be able to summon witnessesand information, and further diminishes thepowers of the committees in demanding thatthose witnesses actually cooperate with thecommittees and give evidence. So much forthe Premier's reforms! So much for theParliamentary Committees Bill, in which thePremier once again promised so much, yet, asusual, delivered so little!

I believe that a very important andprogressive reform which has been ignored bythis Bill would be a change in the numbers onthe parliamentary committees themselves.

Currently, the Government not only has theChair of each committee but it also has afour/three advantage over non-Governmentmembers. This should end, as it has in otherplaces. These committees are committees ofthe Parliament, not of the Government, andcertainly not of the Executive. There isabsolutely no reason why these committeescould not be made up of three Governmentand three non-Government members. Notonly would this make the committees morerepresentative of the Parliament rather thanthe Government, it would also ensure thatthey more accurately represented the currentParliament, because, whether one likes it ornot, this Parliament is split on a knife-edge,and the Labor Government can no longerclaim the overwhelming majority either in thisHouse or on these committees. I wouldsupport any moves to reduce to six thenumbers on the parliamentary committees,with the Government still appointing one of itsthree members as chairman with the castingvote. I believe that this small change wouldmake these committees more representativeof the Parliament and less beholden to theExecutive on the fifteenth floor of theExecutive Building.

While on this note, it would be remiss ofme not to mention the farcical status of thoseother parliamentary committees, namely, theEstimates committees. Anyone witnessing theoperation of the Estimates committees overthe last two years would realise that he or shewas witnessing, by and large, a time-wastingfarce. Anyone who has been involved in theEstimates committee process—as I have—would realise that it is basically a charadewhen it comes to true financial accountability.A true system of Estimates committees wouldopen up questioning to a much wider area ofGovernment expenditure, including GOCs,because, of course, more and more ofGovernment debt is being shifted off budgetthrough the GOCs.

The Estimates committees would also bemore effective if committee members couldactually question senior public servants, ratherthan suffer a series of political answers fromthe Ministers. The carve-up of time spots into20 minutes for Opposition questions and 20minutes for Government questions is also afarce, and it is designed to prevent detailedand supplementary questioning of Ministers.Also, the Estimates committees sit too closeafter the introduction of the Budget.

When one looks at the TreasuryEstimates committee and, indeed, the onesthat start on the first day of hearings—and I


will speak of the composition of EstimatesCommittee A—one finds that there is usuallyonly one week between the Budget and whenthe committee must have its questions ready.This is hardly fair, because the Treasurer hashad all that time to prepare his Budget withthe Treasury Department behind him. Thispractice limits the effectiveness of theOpposition to be able to accurately questionnot only the Treasurer but also other Ministerson their budgets. If we are going to be realabout these committees, that time restraintshould not be put in place.

Further, as to the composition ofCommittee A—it covers the Governor, theAttorney-General, the Speaker, Treasury, thePremier and the Department of LocalGovernment and Housing in one day. It isimpossible for any Parliament and anyEstimates committee to accurately do that.Therefore, if we are going to be true to whatan Estimates committee should be, we shouldlook at what is done in the Senate, where theywork well and where, indeed, shadow Ministersand other interested people have adequatetime—in fact, all the time they need—toquestion not only the Minister but also thepublic servants who are part of thatdepartment. That is what a true Estimatescommittee is set up to do—not the farce wehave here. These are all changes which, if thePremier was truly accountable, he wouldintroduce.

I also wish to make some comments onthe scrapping of the Parliamentary ServiceCommission. The PSC has been an abjectfailure. It is an experiment that has failedbecause it was just another vehicle throughwhich the Premier and the ExecutiveGovernment could exert influence. I shouldknow; I was a member of the PSC for the pastthree and a half years. In that time, I saw thePremier's henchman, Mr Terry Mackenroth,constantly pushing to bring the Parliamentfurther and further under the wing of thefifteenth floor of the Executive Building. MrMackenroth pressured the PSC to try to bringthe operations of the Parliament under thecontrol of the Executive, particularly throughthe Treasurer and his hold on the pursestrings. Time and time again, we in theParliamentary Service Commission were askedto cut back on our budget.

As all members would know, theParliamentary Service Commission runs theParliament and looks after members' interestson both sides of the House. I know thepressure that was put not only on the Speakerbut also on other members of that committee,

when we were told again and again that wehad to reduce our budget by $2m, $1m orwhatever, yet we had no way of bringingincome into the Parliamentary ServiceCommission. I am pleased to see that MrPalaszczuk agrees with me, because hesimilarly served on that commission.

I support the abolition of the PSC,because it puts the Parliament back where itbelongs: run by the Speaker. I welcome theSpeaker's initiative in forcing the issue early inthe Forty-eighth Parliament. The Speaker'sresolution in forcing the issue, and the obviouspublic support of the coalition, has led to thePremier including in this Bill the section toabolish the PSC. Of course, there will be anadvisory committee of members of thisParliament who will advise the Speaker onhow they—representing all 89 members—believe that this House should be run. ThePremier deserves small credit, but at least herealised when he was beaten and adopted thecommonsense approach to the scrapping ofthe PSC.

The Bill before us should be supportedonly if the amendments to be introduced laterby the Opposition Leader—and to which Ihave alluded in my speech—are agreed to bythe Government. The coalition does not wantto oppose this Bill outright, but we would notbe doing our duty if we supported the Bill in itscurrent form. I strongly support theamendments which are to be moved by theOpposition Leader at the Committee stage,because I believe that those amendments willlead to a much superior piece of legislationand a far superior parliamentary committeesystem. I urge members on the Governmentside of the House to support thoseamendments. After all, it might not be too longbefore they are in Opposition and, with that inmind, they should give our amendmentsserious consideration. In the long run, allobjective observers would realise that theamendments I have foreshadowed would befor the best.

Time expired.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(3.30 p.m.): I had the privilege to present thefirst report of the Public Accounts Committeeto this Parliament. That was as a member ofthe Opposition, because at that time theChairman of the Public Accounts Committeesuddenly found himself a Minister. It may havebeen for only one or two weeks, but it was justat that time. The process of Parliament andthe system of parliamentary committees didwork. I also had the privilege, on 10 November


1988, of participating in the debate on thePublic Accounts Committee Bill.

When I hear the hypocritical statementsby Opposition members about the gutting ofcommittees, I have to say to them, "You donot know what happened back in 1988." Thatis when, in three divisions, the Liberal Partyvoted against the National Party Governmentbecause it was gutting the Public AccountsCommittee. There was a division called on thetime limit——

Dr Watson: That doesn't make usinconsistent.

Mr CAMPBELL: I will take thatinterjection. That does not make the LiberalParty inconsistent. However, the Liberal Partyand the National Party a very strangebedfellows. It is interesting to note that, at thattime, Parliament had a pairing system. Duringthose three divisions to which I have referred,pairing took place. I hope the National Partyand the Liberal Party decide to resume thattradition of pairing.

It is interesting to read the debate on thePublic Accounts Committee Bill. The memberfor Logan, who is now the Premier, led thedebate for the Opposition. The debate hingedon an area for which there should have beenpublic accountability, and that was ministerialexpenses. The vetoes that gutted the PublicAccounts Committee were put in place toprotect National Party Government Ministers.However, the tactic did not work, becausethree of them ended up in gaol formisappropriation of funds.

We have to look at what the committees,even at that time, were doing. I believe verystrongly that the Leader of the Opposition andDeputy Leader of the Coalition cannot have itboth ways. They referred to guttedcommittees. We now have a Public AccountsCommittee that has more say than previouscommittees. It has the full powers of a properparliamentary committee—something that wasdenied to it by the National Party Government.

Mr Veivers interjected.Mr CAMPBELL: Mr Veivers was a

member of that Government. The Premier ofthe time said that the Public AccountsCommittee was going to be the Rolls Royce ofParliamentary Public Accounts Committees.However, it was shackled by limitations andoverburdened by the limits of time, ministerialveto and departmental cooperation.

It is interesting to read some of thespeeches made in Parliament at that time.One speaker referred to the fact that most ofthe Bill was taken from South Australian

legislation. At that time, I asked why theGovernment did that. I noted that a clause inthe Bill relating to casual vacancies was takenword for word from the South Australianlegislation. That was an example of the way inwhich that Bill had been drafted. Clause 8 ofthat Bill stated—

"The seat of a member of aCommittee shall become vacant if—

(a) he dies."

It was bad enough that the legislation usedold, sexist terminology, but subclause (1)(a)stated "he dies" and (c) stated "he ceases tobe a member of the Legislative Assembly." Iguarantee that if a person dies, he ceases tobe a member of the Legislative Assembly.

However, we now have a system ofparliamentary committees that will be wideranging. They will have the power to be able toscrutinise fully Executive Government. I foundit interesting to note that, when the LaborParty was in Opposition, a transition toGovernment committee looked at——

Mr Palaszczuk: A long time ago.

Mr CAMPBELL: It was a long time ago.That committee looked at parliamentarycommittees. I believe that the collectivewisdom of those members of Parliament, evenin Opposition, was as great, if not greater thanthe collective wisdom of those involved in thewhole EARC process. I listened to theeducated experts. I have to say that, in manycases, unless they had actually been in aParliament, they had no idea of what occurredin a Parliament. I remember going to an EARCseminar at which academics tried to comparethis Chamber with the House of Commons.They were trying to say what work themembers of this Parliament should be doingbecause that work was done by members ofthe House of Commons. They forgot onething: there are 650 members of the House ofCommons and there are 89 members of thisplace. If one excludes Executive members,there is only a small pool of people to do theparliamentary committee work on top of thework they do for their electorates and theirconstituents as well as their responsibilities toParliament.

I think we should reconsider the workundertaken by the transition to Governmentcommittee. I am glad to see that thelegislation, although it does not say soexpressly, allows for a committee, such as thePublic Works Committee, to actually set up acapital assets register, because we have noidea of the value of our capital assets, manyof which are immensely valuable, and which


are going to need expensive maintenance.Under this Bill, it would be part of the role ofthe Public Works Committee to maintain suchan assets register and part of the guidelinesfor the Public Works Committee would be toensure that departmental expenditure strikes aproper balance between the maintenance ofexisting capital assets and the generation ofnew ones.

It is interesting to note that one of therecommendations of the transition toGovernment committee related to the PublicAccounts Committee. One of that committee'srecommendations, which is not contained inthis Bill, was for the setting up of a publicbodies review committee. That committee wasto examine quangos and to makerecommendations as to their reform orabolition.

The transition to Government committeerecommended Estimates committees and acapital works committee so that workingmembers of Parliament, whether they be onthe Government side or in Opposition, couldput forward good ideas about how committeesof the Legislative Assembly should work.

Both the Leader of the Opposition andthe Deputy Leader of the Coalition talkedabout lame-duck committees. If they had readthe Bill—and it is important that they do—theywould know that the power of the LegislativeAssembly to establish committees and toconfer functions and powers on committees,including statutory committees, is not limitedby this legislation. The Bill indicates that theLegislative Assembly has the power to ensurethe establishment of select committees. I amvery pleased to say that, at our last caucusmeeting, it was decided that there will be aTravelsafe Committee. That committee willhave full powers and its members will berecompensed for the work that they carry out.

Mr FitzGerald: You mean it should berecommending to the Parliament, not decidingthat the Parliament will have——

Mr CAMPBELL: Does the member notwant to have a select committee?

Mr FitzGerald: Your people havedecided that there will be, rather than that youwill recommend to the Parliament.

Mr CAMPBELL: We will recommend tothe Parliament. It will come in the form of amotion. Opposition members will have theirsay, and I hope that they will support thesetting up of a Travelsafe Committee, just asthe Labor Party has supported a TravelsafeCommittee both in Opposition and inGovernment.

One of the committees that is providedfor by this Bill is the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee. Thatcommittee will have very interesting andpioneering work to do because ethics, codesof conduct and the registration of pecuniaryinterests are now becoming a very importantpart of parliamentary procedures. Just asQueensland is looking at developing a code,New South Wales and the Commonwealth aredoing the same thing. In fact, we will not onlybe reviewing the register of pecuniary interestsbut also establishing a code of conduct. It isinteresting to note that codes of conduct andethics are quite an important part of politicallife in America. The preamble of one State'scode of conduct begins with the TenCommandments. I do not know if we need togo that far, but we have to look at all aspectsof a code of conduct. What we do need is tomake certain that we achieve a workablebalance that does not hamstring members ofthe Parliament.

The code will be bound by the ethics,principles and obligations contained in thepublic sector legislation, which does createsome concern. Basically, under the publicsector legislation, the minimum standardsexpected of public officers include thefollowing: respect for the law and the systemof government, respect for persons, integrity,diligence, economy and efficiency. Given thatthe code is being developed along those lines,it would be interesting to look at the diligence,economy and efficiency of members opposite,which I suggest might prove harmful.

I turn now to a matter that has beenraised often, that is, the power of committees.The Leader and Deputy Leader of theOpposition mentioned clauses 25 and 26 andthe power of committees to call for persons,and so on. Interestingly, by resolution theLegislative Assembly will be able to authoriseother committees to call for persons,documents and other things. It is good toknow that we have been given an undertakingthat, by resolution of the Legislative Assembly,the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee will be able to call forpersons, documents and other things.

Quite a deal of the arguments put forwardby the Opposition concerned privilege againstself-incrimination. There is some precedent forincluding these provisions in the legislation.For example, these provisions were included inthe Public Accounts Committee Act of 1988. Itis very important to ensure that committeesare not hamstrung in doing their work becauseof the provision of privilege against


self-incrimination, which has been the casepreviously. I will refer to a precedent.

In 1994, we put forward a very clearmotion that was accepted by both sides of theHouse in relation to the procedures forwitnesses appearing before parliamentarycommittees. In addition, there was anunderstanding that parliamentary committeesare not bound by the same rules of evidenceand that parliamentary privilege extendsprotection to any evidence provided.Parliamentary committees do not acceptincriminating evidence in a legal sense,because it cannot be provided to courts. MrSpeaker, as a member elect of the Members'Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee, I would ask that, if concern isexpressed concerning the evidence and thecalling of peoples and papers, such instancesbe referred immediately to the Members'Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committeeso that we can ensure that the committees arenot hamstrung in any way by this provision inthe legislation.

Some provisions in the Bill concern theadministrative functions of the Speaker. As tothe Speaker's role within the ParliamentaryService—it concerns me that Mr Speaker willdecide major policies to guide the operationand management of the ParliamentaryService. I would be interested to learn thedefinition and scope of "major policies". I thinkit would be fairly difficult to expect the Speakerto become involved in the day-to-day runningof the Parliament in addition to the Speaker'smore general role.

We should also examine the delegationof the administrative functions of the Speaker.The Bill states—

"The speaker may delegate thespeaker's powers under this Act to theclerk or a parliamentary service officer oremployee."

Perhaps we should also examine delegatingthese powers to the Acting Speaker, forexample, if the Speaker is away for anexcessive time. In this House, the StandingOrders indicate clearly that the powers of theSpeaker go to the Deputy Speaker in anacting role. Perhaps that aspect could beclarified in this Bill.

There is one other aspect that concernedme in relation to parliamentary committees. Irefer to the CJC and the PCJC. I have beenvery concerned about the loss of members'privileges and powers as a result of the CJClegislation, which provides for up to 12 months'imprisonment for members of Parliament

breaching confidentiality provisions of aparliamentary committee. Former members ofthe Parliamentary CJC are also bound bythese provisions. Section 132 states that themaximum penalty could be 85 penalty units orimprisonment for a year.

The major concern with respect toparliamentary privilege is that the actions of amember of Parliament acting on aparliamentary committee are investigated andthat member is charged with allegedmisconduct by an outside body—the CriminalJustice Commission—and the matter is notsubject to the traditional referral to thePrivileges Committee or to Parliament itself. Inaccordance with parliamentary practice underthe Westminster system, the House directs theAttorney-General to prosecute if necessary. Ibelieve that loss of privilege is of concern.

I refer to the disgraceful Operation Tridentcar-stealing fiasco. The associated overt policeaction was more damaging and unacceptableto Queensland citizens than much of thepolice behaviour exposed in the Fitzgeraldreport. Although top police and the CJCpraised Trident as an outstanding success, themedia—the Courier-Mail—was able to exposethis car-stealing fiasco. What concerns me isthat, if a member of the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee had attempted to exposeOperation Trident after briefings by the CJC, ifthere were any, the Chairman of the CJC mayhave decided that the parliamentarycommittee member had acted improperlyunder the CJC legislation and had criminalcharges laid against the member. Themember could have been acting on what hebelieved—and subsequently proved—to be inthe public interest, yet possibly suffer criminalcharges. In the past, the CJC has proven tobe vindictive and unprofessional and may actin its interests rather than in the public interest.

We have to ensure that the parliamentarycommittees and the powers of Parliament areprotected. With this parliamentary committeeslegislation, we will be able to extend theaccountability of Executive Government toParliament. Overall, this is a good, realistic andpractical Bill for the provision of parliamentarycommittees in the Parliament of Queensland.

Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (3.48 p.m.): TheOpposition agrees with the intent of thislegislation. However, there are certainly someparts of it with which we disagree. During theCommittee stage, we will be indicating thatdisagreement. If our amendments are notaccepted, we will possibly oppose the thirdreading of the Bill.


As I say, clearly we agree with the intentof the legislation. However, the legislationgoes against several key recommendations ofthe Electoral and Administrative ReviewCommission and its parliamentary equivalentand leaves out large chunks of PEARC'sunanimously endorsed QueenslandParliament legislation. That is one of ourbiggest concerns. We believe that those partsof PEARC's recommendations that do makean appearance in this Bill are substantiallywatered down. PEARC acknowledged thatthere may be some minor overlap betweenthe functions of the PWC and the PAC.Nevertheless, it upheld the need for thisseparate committee to augment the roles ofthe PWC and the PAC.

It appears that some of the functionsproposed for the public sector reviewcommittee have been incorporated as a fringeresponsibility of the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. With it hasgone responsibility for Parliament to monitorand investigate the activities and performanceof the Public Sector ManagementCommission. Why has the PSMC specificallybeen exempted in this legislation fromparliamentary scrutiny? I will be curious to hearthe Premier's response to that comment.

Will examination of the PSMC be withinthe powers of committee? If it is to remainunder the umbrella of the committee'sresponsibility, what is the reason for not havingit in black and white in the Bill, as PEARC haddone? I certainly believe that this body, sohated by public servants and wielding suchpower over the structure and operation ofdepartments, should be open to stringent,parliamentary scrutiny.

I remind honourable members of thecomments of Dr Roger Scott, formerDirector-General of Education, who isextremely critical of the Goss Government'sefficiency reforms. I believe his exact wordswere that they were farcical. The behind-the-scenes machinations of the PSMC havehistorically shown that they have very little todo with good government and a great dealmore to do with the ALP's political agenda. Itis for this reason that the PSMC should betreated as an independent body that isresponsible to the Parliament and subject tothe same scrutiny as other sections of theGovernment.

I note also that PEARC's recommendedmonitoring of and reporting on the functions ofthe Law Reform Commission and thecommission's performance of its functions hasbeen deleted from the terms of responsibility

of the Premier's Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. Ifparliamentary committees are to effectivelyscrutinise all aspects of public expenditure,why has the Premier again failed to givecommittees the legislative framework underwhich to operate? Why has reference to thatresponsibility been dropped from the Premier'sBill? I hope that the Premier will provide theHouse with a reasonable response to thatquestion.

Another of the worrying aspects of this Billpertains to the appointment of the ElectoralCommissioner. PEARC outlined a pivotal andclearly defined parliamentary process for theselection of the Electoral Commissioner,spearheaded by the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. I refer theHouse to Part 7, proposed new section 7A (4)of PEARC's draft Queensland Parliament Bill,which stated—

"As soon as practicable after theLegal and Constitutional Committeereceives and considers the applications, itis to give notice of its recommendation,and the names of the members whosupport the recommendation, to theMinister.

(a) unanimously by the members of theLegal and Constitutional Committee;or

(b) a majority of the committeemembers, including at least 1member who is not a member of thepolitical party or parties ingovernment."

That clause codifies the necessity forbipartisan support in the appointment of anElectoral Commissioner and requires thecommittee to make a recommendation to theMinister on that basis. However, the Bill beforethis House has rejected that provision,meaning that a majority of Governmentmembers can effectively rubber-stamp anExecutive decision on the appointment of theElectoral Commissioner. I note that the Billbefore the House has watered down theclause requiring a bipartisan recommendationfrom the committee. The Bill now directs theMinister merely to "consult" with theparliamentary committee. This clearlyundermines the role of the Parliament inindependently selecting an applicant for thisposition and reinforces the power of theExecutive and party political preference in thiskey role.

In a similar vein, I am also greatlyconcerned at the Government's rejection of


PEARC's model for the Public AccountsCommittee. PEARC had specificallydesignated the appointment of theAuditor-General as one of the PAC's keyresponsibilities. This is one of the mattersabout which the Premier has always spoken.The omission of that responsibility from the Billbefore the House excludes Parliament fromparticipating in and scrutinising theappointment of the Auditor-General. That is agrave omission, as the Auditor-General isanswerable to this Parliament and thereforethe Parliament should have a clearly definedrole in that person's selection.

Another notable and ultimately morerevealing omission is the responsibility toscrutinise the financial wheelings and dealingsof Government owned corporations. This weekin this House we have raised the question ofthe refinancing of the Stanwell Power Station.That action is patently mortgaging the publicassets of this State. The Treasurer has beeninvolved in what we believe to be some shiftyfinancial dealings, debt switching and balance-book tightrope walking to rival the best—orworst—traditions of failed Labor regimesinterstate. There have also been some funnydebt dealings under the AdministrativeServices portfolio. The Government recentlyrefinanced the Government car fleet. That wasa $112m golden handshake for Treasury.Goprint, Q-Build and CITEC are all to followdown the same path, that is, they will all inheritdebt from the Government; debt that thisGovernment has shoved off budget—out ofmind, out of sight,and particularly out of thesight of this Parliament. I believe that that isone of the single gravest issues facingQueensland today.

What will happen if one—just one—ofthose corporatised entities is no longer able toservice the massive debts being placed uponit? The Victorian Labor example was that theGovernment was reaping more in taxequivalents and dividends than the authoritieswere making in profit. The result was financialdisaster on a massive scale. Yet thisGovernment, by design, wants to hide its off-budget financial dealings from scrutiny by theParliament. I wonder why?

I note from the Bill that the PWC and thePAC will have conferred on them powers tocall for persons, documents and other things.Although this provision of the Bill is welcomed,it is still a long way from EARC's intention thatall committees have those powers, as well asthe power to generate their own inquiries.PEARC supported EARC's position and alsogave statutory committees the power to order

people to attend before and/or produce adocument to the Parliament. In contrast,however, this Bill states—

"The Legislative Assembly may, byresolution, authorise another committeeof the Assembly to call for persons,documents and other things."

In effect, the power of the majority ofcommittees to generate their own inquiries bycalling for witnesses and documents has beensubordinated by a requirement that theLegislative Assembly must authorise suchaction. The committees have been blindfoldedby a Government that holds itself up as theguardian of accountability—in fact, aGovernment that rode to power on the back ofthe white horse of accountability. This clauseundermines the independence and powers ofall committees aside from the PWC and thePAC—particularly the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee—leaving thedoor open for political inference in what arepotentially politically damaging committeeinvestigations. Clearly, that provision isunacceptable to the Opposition. Allcommittees should have the power to call andexamine witnesses independent of theExecutive arm of Government—I repeat:independent of the Executive arm ofGovernment—or party political majorities.

Although the PAC and PWC have thepower to call for witnesses under thislegislation, the Government has built in anescape hatch. The General Powers ofCommittees section of the Bill outlinesprivileges for witnesses before parliamentarycommittees against self-incrimination. Itmeans that witnesses can refuse to answerquestions or supply documents or things toassist the committee in its inquiries if theperson would have a claim of privilege againstself-incrimination in a Supreme Court action.On this score, there is not just a split in opinionbetween EARC and PEARC and theGovernment but a canyon. Chapter 2 ofPEARC's draft Queensland Parliament Billrelating to powers, privileges and immunitiesreproduces Article 9 of the Bill of Rights bystating—

"Legislative Assembly proceedingsgenerally privileged

The freedom of speech and debatesor proceedings in the LegislativeAssembly cannot be impeached orquestioned in any court or place out ofthe Legislative Assembly."

The draft Bill then goes on to outline in clause13 an obligation to be sworn or to respond,which reads in part—


"A person ordered to attend mustnot, unless excused by the LegislativeAssembly—

. . .

(b) fail to answer a question that theperson is required to answer by theSpeaker or committee chairperson,as the case may be; or

(c) fail to produce a document that theperson was ordered to produce."

EARC had clearly given some thought to thelegal repercussions for witnesses ordered togive evidence, and it underlined the powers ofthe committee to hold an in-camera hearing ifthe witness was unwilling to disclose evidencein public. The self-incrimination clause couldeasily work to frustrate the investigations ofcommittees—and therefore publicaccountability—if key witnesses refuse to giveevidence.

I am extremely concerned about theexemption of the works of Government ownedcorporations from scrutiny by the Public WorksCommittee unless they are referred to thecommittee by the Legislative Assembly. Again,this subordinates the powers of thatcommittee to the will of the Government-dominated Legislative Assembly. We all mightsay, "That is the Government", but it stillsubordinates the powers of that committee tothe will of the Government-dominatedLegislative Assembly. This is a significantexemption which, by and large, excludesmajor GOC infrastructure—for example,railways, dams and electricity—frominvestigation by the Parliament. That wassomething which this Government criticisedthe previous Government for doing; but withthis legislation, it is doing exactly the samething. This off-limits status of GOCs puts thoseorganisations in a unique position and anotherstep away from what I believe is true publicaccountability.

While the PCEAR did not specificallyidentify the works of GOCs as the responsibilityof the PWC, it provided no specific exemption.However, the breadth of the PWC'sresponsibilities under the PCEAR's draftlegislation clearly encompassed such works.Part 6 of PCEAR's Queensland Parliament Billreads in part—

"The Public Works Committee isresponsible for dealing with works that . . .provide revenue directly to the publicaccounts; or . . . are constructed for theeconomic and social development of theState, even if the private sector isresponsible for the work."

The PCEAR Bill further identifies the followingexamples of works within the investigativescope of the PWC and refers to—

"Air and sea ports; communicationfacilities; energy generation anddistribution facilities, including electricityand gas; transport infrastructure, includingroads, bridges, tunnels and railways; andsewerage and water services."

I am convinced that the Government will useits numbers to torpedo regular scrutiny of theworks of GOCs by the PWC.

It is interesting also that, when reportingcommercially sensitive information to theAssembly, the committee may report theinformation to the Legislative Assembly only ifit considers that it is in the public interest toreport the information. Clearly, that is a farce,and it should be seen by the community as anabsolute farce. This Government has a coneof silence over GOCs, and under this Bill itintends to ensure that Parliament is kept in thedark about works undertaken by those entities.

The performance of consultants andcontractors, especially the time taken forfinishing the work and the cost and quality ofit, is also of some concern. This issue hasbeen extremely contentious for theGovernment, and my fear is that this provisionis merely a scapegoating provision for shoddyGovernment performance. For example, theunmitigated disaster of the BrisbaneConvention and Exhibition Centre is a case inpoint. The Government lurched from onebungle to the next in the planning of thatbuilding. It chopped and changed its mindmid-construction about major structural items.Cost blow-outs and delays were inevitable, butthey were not due to any incompetence onbehalf of the contractor or subcontractors. Iquite honestly believe that they were due tothe Government's own incompetence and theMinister's own incompetence in the handlingof the portfolio.

So what happens if a building company isin dispute with the Government over paymentfor works, as is often the case? The possibilityexists for political intervention in thecommittee's affairs, and it is enforced by thisBill. What would be the consequences tocontractors who have had an unfavourablePWC against them? We have already seenthis Government's track record and, I believe,phoney commitment to Executive scrutiny.The PWC's refusal to conduct a full and openinvestigation into the massive overruns at theBrisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre isan example of political puppetry. In that case,public accountability was clearly and absolutely


usurped. If the PWC is not to investigatemultimillion-dollar blow-outs on showcasepublic works in this State, what use is it as aguardian of accountability? It is useless!

I remain unconvinced that this Bill willsubstantially enhance the powers of thecommittees. For example, I believe that theprovisions against Parliamentary Counsel aredraconian and an example of increasing thecontrol of the Executive. So, too, are theextraordinary powers conferred on the Premierin relation to the suspension or removal of theInformation Commissioner and theOmbudsman.

Members would be aware that, on manyoccasions in this House, I have questioned theoperations of the Parliamentary ServiceCommission. I am pleased to see that the roleof that body in this House is to be reduced toa purely consultative capacity. I hope that thisamendment will result in improved operation ofthe Parliament.

For the last word on this Bill, I turn to thewords of the Premier, taken from Hansard on6 July 1989, when he was in Opposition. Hesaid—

"What I am concerned about is whatwe have seen in the track record of thisGovernment"—

talking about the previous Government—

"and, in particular of this Premier. Whatworries me is that, when people have aprofessed commitment to reform and toweed out corruption only when it isconvenient and popular, will thatcommitment disappear when it is nolonger convenient?"

I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that genuine, far-reaching reform of the parliamentarycommittee system is no longer convenient forthis Premier, and this Bill shows him for thephoney that he is.

Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (4.06 p.m.): Itgives me pleasure to join in this debate on theParliamentary Committees Bill. However, Ibear in mind the importance with which thecommittee system is regarded. While readingthrough the Bill, I found a lot of rhetoric that isnot backed up by fact. In June, the Premierannounced that legislation would beintroduced to provide greater scrutiny over thespending of public money and that thesecrecy practised by the previous NationalParty Government would be replaced withopenness and accountability. I question hisstatement about openness and accountability.It must always be remembered thatincompetence and dishonesty can cost. We

must also be wary of the move to hold internalinvestigations, the results of which are notaired publicly.

Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORSMr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to

announce to the House that in the Speaker'sgallery at the moment we have theHonourable Jeremy Hanley, MP, Minister ofState, and Sir Roger Carrick, KCMG, LVO,High Commissioner. I welcome them to theQueensland Parliament.

Debate resumed.

Mr STEPHAN: I also welcome the twogentlemen to the Queensland Parliament,which we consider to be one of the betterParliaments in Australia. I will not say whichones it might be better than.

Mr Beattie interjected. Mr STEPHAN: They have arrived just at

the right time.

In his second-reading speech, I thoughtthat the Premier went out of his way to try tobuild up the committee system. He stated thatdevelopments to be investigated by the PublicWorks Committee have a minimum cost of$2m, but he also said that there was noreason why the committee should not be ableto examine works worth less than that amountif there is a public need to do so. I questionthose words: "if there is a public need to doso." Who is going to determine if there is apublic need? The Opposition wanted thePublic Works Committee to inquire into theTreasury Casino in Brisbane. In fact, wesought legal opinion. However, we were told inno uncertain terms, "No, you cannot do that."That was a split decision. Although thePremier has brought in legislation that is full ofrhetoric and which states that works involving acost of less than $2m cannot be investigated,I have every reason to doubt that statement. Iawait with interest to see whether smallerdevelopments will be scrutinised andinvestigated by that committee.

My colleague the member for Beaudesertspoke about GOCs. He pointed out veryclearly that a minimum cost is involved andsaid that the Government is doing its utmostto ensure that GOCs are not scrutinised. I donot believe that this Government should bevery proud of that.

I want to spend a little bit of time talkingabout the scrutiny of legislation. I have been amember of the Subordinate LegislationCommittee for a few years and I wish the new


committee well in its deliberations. Accordingto the Premier, the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee will be a major safeguard ofQueenslanders' rights and liberties againstGovernments that want to equip themselveswith unwarranted and excessive powers. Inaddition, under new legislation, all newGovernment regulations that impose asignificant economic, social or environmentalcost must be accompanied by a regulatoryimpact statement.

Last week, a disallowance motion wasdebated in this place. The motion that wasdefeated sought to disallow excessiveincreases of about 17 per cent over theprevious 12 months in the fees for birth, deathand marriage certificates. I believe that suchincreases are of great concern. We need to bevery wary of Governments wanting to keepincreasing their costs and charges.Governments should not get carried away bytheir ability to use the general public as a milchcow.

In this area of the scrutiny of legislation,the Subordinate Legislation Committee hasbeen fairly restricted in the areas into which itcould carry out inquiries. When we look, forexample, at the way that the new Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee can undertakeinquiries, its area of responsibility includesmonitoring the operation of section 4 of theLegislative Standards Act, which deals with themeaning of fundamental legislative principles.Fundamental legislative principles do coversome areas of importance but leave outothers. For example, section 4(3) refers to theprinciples requiring that legislation hassufficient regard to rights and liberties andwhether the legislation provides for thecompulsory acquisition of property only withfair compensation.

I believe that there would be a great needfor the committee to cast its eyes over section4(4), which deals with whether a Bill hassufficient regard for the institution ofParliament, whether it allows the delegation oflegislative power only in appropriate cases andto appropriate persons, and whether itauthorises the amendment of an Act only byanother Act. Far too often in this place we findthis sort of provision creeping into legislation. Itis called a Henry VIII clause, because on anumber of occasions Henry VIII did alterlegislation by regulation. If it is good enoughfor a delegation to be enshrined in legislationthen amendments to that legislation should, Ibelieve, only be amended by legislation. WhatGovernments tends to do is try to hide behindregulations without having them debated in

the House unless a disallowance motion ismoved in the House itself.

The committee's other area ofresponsibility is monitoring the operation ofsection 9 and Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the StatutoryInstruments Act 1992. Under section 9(1),subordinate legislation is stated to mean—

"(a) a statutory rule that is a regulation,rule, by-law, ordinance or statute;

(b) a statutory rule that is an order incouncil or proclamation of alegislative character;

(c) any statutory instrument (includingan order in council or proclamation)that is declared to be subordinatelegislation by an Act or a regulationmade under this Act;

(d) any other statutory instrument thatfixes or otherwise determines thecommencement of—(i) an Act or a provision of an Act;

(ii) an instrument, or a provision ofan instrument, mentioned inparagraph (a), (b) or (c)."

Section 9A(2) refers to what instrumentsare not subordinate legislation and thereforecannot be inquired into by the committee. Iknow that the committee will have a fairlysubstantial workload and I know that it willcarry that out with a great deal of enthusiasm,but I just question why so much is being keptaway from scrutiny by that committee.

I find it particularly strange that thecommittee has not been granted theresponsibility of, for example,monitoring theOffice of Parliamentary Counsel. EARCrecommended that the committee monitor theoperations of the OPC in accordance with thepurpose and provisions of the LegislativeStandards Act 1992. That recommendationhas in fact been ignored. There will now be atotal lack of oversight of the OPC. As a resultof the EARC recommendation not beingimplemented, the OPC is now the only unit ofGovernment not subject to any form ofoverview at all. The Auditor-General, theElectoral Commissioner, the InformationCommissioner and the Ombudsman are allsubject to review or overview, but not so theOPC. Parliamentary Counsel is increasinglyresembling an officer of the Executive ratherthan an officer of the Parliament. I do notbelieve that it is in the best interests of theParliament that that office should not comeunder scrutiny.

I turn now to legal professional privilege.For example, the OPC's relationship with the


Executive is further strengthened by the factthat dealings with the Executive are nowprotected by statute through having theapplication of an illegal professional privilegeextended to cover the OPC. Proposed newsection 9A(2) of the Legislative Standards Actprovides that—

"Confidential communicationsbetween a client of the office, and theParliamentary Counsel or any member ofthe office's staff, are subject to legalprofessional privilege."

An example to illustrate this point makesspecific mention of the fact that advice givenby the OPC on the application of the FLP iscovered.

I turn to the subject of professionaldrafting styles. EARC ha recommended thatthe committee monitor progress in achievingprofessional drafting styles. The fact that thecommittee has no monitoring role of the OPClargely prevents it from carrying out thisfunction. The committee can, however, ensurethat plain English drafting is maintained bysection 4 (3)(k), an example of an FLP in theLegislative Standards Act 1992.

As to exempt instruments—EARCrecommended that the committee monitorobservance of drafting guidelines for exemptinstruments. The committee is effectivelyexcluded from doing this because the Bill onlygrants responsibility to monitor two particularaspects of the Legislative Standards Act 1992,which does not include clause 9 relating todrafting of exempt instruments.

As to consolidation and availability of andaccess to reprints—EARC recommended thatthe committee monitor the progress inensuring efficient and effective consolidationof statutes, reprinting of statutes, theavailability of computerised legislativeinformation and accessibility of legislative textsin regional centres of Queensland. Thecommittee has no responsibility for monitoringthe operation of the Reprints Act 1992.

EARC recommended that the committeeshould have the function of reporting toParliament on any proposal for nationalscheme legislation which comes before theParliament and the impact of any subsequentamendments to any such scheme.

The Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee has beengiven responsibility for proposed nationalscheme legislation referred to the committeeby the House. The Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee has no such role, but itsresponsibility is to examine all Bills and

subordinate legislation. This will includescrutinising the national scheme legislation—orit should. EARC had already recommended apro-active role in addition to this reactive role.

A further point arising from the Bill is thatonly national scheme legislation that isreferred by the Legislative Assembly will beconsidered by the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. Thequestion then arises as to whether nationalscheme legislation Bills will be introduced intothe House and then referred to the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee—a similar situation to that whichexists in Western Australia—or will theExecutive merely introduce drafts when theyare suitable?

It may be argued that it is inappropriatefor two committees to have coincidingresponsibility for national scheme legislation.However, such an argument would not holdwater as it is clearly considered appropriate forthe two committees to be overlapping andhave overlapping responsibilities for Aboriginaltradition and Islander custom.

The Queensland committee has workedwith other scrutiny committees on nationalscheme legislation for over two years.Nationally the scrutiny committees havecarriage of national scheme legislation, exceptin Western Australia where a specialistcommittee has been appointed to inquire intothe uniform legislation of intergovernmentalagreements. The Queensland Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee will now be the onlyscrutiny committee that does not haveresponsibility for national scheme legislation.

Clause 26 of the Bill seeks to balance thecompeting demands of two fundamentallegislative principles: the need to have regardto the rights and liberties of individuals and theneed to have regard for the institution ofParliament. The Bill acknowledges also thatthe interests of individual witnesses mayconflict with the interest of the parliamentarycommittee in obtaining information. The Billenables the Legislative Assembly to decidewhich of those interests should prevail inparticular circumstances.

Clause 27 of the Bill introduces privilegeagainst self-incrimination, allowing it to beclaimed in committee hearings. Thissubstantially undermines the position of theParliament as being the supreme body whereall matters may be discussed and revealedwithout concern for recrimination. InQueensland, parliamentary committees haveeffectively been devalued. Instead of actingon behalf of the Parliament with all the powers


and privileges of Parliament, the committeesare now second-rate bodies that have beendeprived of the ability to establish the truth.

The Bill introduces a procedure allowingclaims of self-incrimination to be referred toParliament, but this is an extremelycumbersome process. All that is required isone reluctant witness who may claim privilegeat every turn, refuse to answer the committeeand be referred to the House. That processmay be repeated on any number of occasionsby the same witness. Committee hearingscould, as a result, run for months instead ofdays while parties wait for the nextparliamentary sitting. The effects on the costsof committee hearings would be enormous. Itis also possible for a person to appeal to thecourts against a decision of the House or of acommittee on a claim of privilege. For the firsttime judges may be asked to pass judgmenton the decisions of politicians. Perhapshonourable members opposite would like tohave that judgment passed on them.

Certainly witnesses who genuinely haveconcerns about self-incrimination would bemuch better protected under a procedure thatallows them to claim privilege before acommittee; have the claim heard in privatebefore a closed committee hearing; and, if thecommittee so requires, reveal the informationin question to that closed forum. Theprocedure created in the Bill means that sucha witness would have to reveal the potentiallydamning evidence before the entire House ofParliament. The chance of controllinginformation is better in the committeesituation. In the latter scenario, the Parliamentmay still, if it considered necessary, require theinformation to be revealed.

A Government member interjected.

Mr STEPHAN: I am not looking foranyone to close it down at all. In common withprevious speakers on this side of the House, Isupport the Bill in principle but believe that itcontains some problems that need to beaddressed.

Time expired.

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt)(4.26 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in supportof the Parliamentary Committees Bill. I believethat, in the past six years, our system ofstanding committees has been one of thesuccess stories in terms of increasing theaccountability of the Parliament. I believe thatmany observers of our committees have beenunduly critical and have not taken into accountthe short time that committees have existed inthe Parliaments of this State.

The first parliamentary committees to beestablished were the Public AccountsCommittee and the Public Works Committee,established in 1988 and 1989 respectively. SoQueensland has had a committee system forroughly seven years only, in comparison withother Parliaments in this country whosecommittees date back to the 1920s and1930s.

Mr FitzGerald: Not in all otherParliaments; come on!

Ms SPENCE: That was the case inmany of them.

Mr FitzGerald: Just some.

Ms SPENCE: Yes, some.Taking into account the relative newness

of our committees, I believe that they haveworked well because they have hadcooperation from all members of Parliamentwho, in the most part, have adopted abipartisan spirit and have been enthusiasticabout their work on the committees. We havebeen fortunate to have good quality researchstaff and well-resourced committees. Takinginto account all of those factors, I believe thatwe have had a very successful number ofstanding committees in the past six years.Obviously a need for improvement exists andboth EARC and PEARC examined ways thatthose committees could be improved. I willconcentrate on issues related to the PublicWorks Committee. Obviously, as a member ofthat committee for the past six years and Chairof it for three years, it is a committee of which Ihave some knowledge and, therefore, someknowledge of this legislation.

I am concerned that the members forSurfers Paradise and Beaudesert havecriticised the section of this legislation thatrelates to the Public Works Committeebecause the EARC recommendations do notall appear in the legislation. The member forSurfers Paradise kept using the word "gutted",the suggestion being that through thislegislation the Government has gutted EARC'srecommendations. I think the member has ashort memory. I was Chair of the Public WorksCommittee when the EARC report wasbrought down and that report was basicallyrejected by all the members of our committeeand most members of Parliament who took aninterest in it.

As Chair of the Public Works Committee, Iread with great concern EARC's report of therecommendation to change the system ofparliamentary committees. It seemed to methat EARC had its head in the clouds when itwrote that report. It devised a system of


committees that would have been perfect in aworld where politicians have nothing to doother than devote all their time to the work ofparliamentary committees. The committeesproposed by EARC were so broad in theirscope and powers that one could have beenforgiven for thinking that EARC thought thatcommittees were more important thanParliament itself. Obviously Parliament is theinstitution that should be superior tocommittees. However, because of its size,Parliament is limited in its ability to carry outcertain functions and the committees areagents to perform those functions.

Because the Public Works Committeefound many of the recommendations of theEARC report so unpalatable, the committeeendorsed me to present a report to lodge ourobjections to those recommendations, and Ishall refer to that report. We said that the mostobvious mistake was attempting to place toowide a range of functions and responsibilitieswith the one committee in the belief that allsectors of government must be covered byspecific references. The results of such anaction would be many, but would include anexcessive workload on members unless thecommittee is large and appointssubcommittees to oversee specific matters.However, if this is done, it would probably bebetter to appoint separate committees forthose ongoing matters.

Our committee said that, because of thepressures of time and scope, there would be atrend towards more superficial inquiries. It is afact that members have myriad demandsmade on their time by the Parliament, theirelectorates and their parties. The timeavailable for committee work is not unlimited.We also said that a wide-ranging committeecould replace the sense of cohesiveness, thesense of direction and ownership of specificsubject areas by members. We said that awide range of subject areas or responsibilitieswould result in a mixing of disciplines andwould reduce the ability of both members andsecretariats to develop necessary andvaluable expertise in focused sectors. In otherwords, there would be melding of what wouldbe functionally distinct sectors.

The Public Works Committee generallyrejected the suggestions that EARC putforward for changes to that committee. Iappeared before the PCEAR and voiced thoseobjections.

Mr FitzGerald: You did it well, too.

Ms SPENCE: I thank the honourablemember for that. I believe that most of theother committees also appeared before the

PCEAR and objected to the EARC report. ThePublic Works Committee submitted that itbelieved that it should remain separate andeasy identifiable. The committee recognisedthat the very existence of a Public WorksCommittee served to act as a check onbureaucratic excess because of theknowledge that scrutiny external to thebureaucracy may be forthcoming. Thecommittee wished to retain public works as itscore business. It considered this essential, dueto the wide range and value of public worksundertaken by the State. For example, in mostfinancial years, the Budget outlay for capitalworks is over $3.3 billion, or roughly one-thirdof the State Budget. This level of expendituredemands scrutiny to ensure that value formoney is being obtained and that works areappropriate and needed.

Our committee confirmed that it shouldnot be required to undertake any policy orlegislative review. The existing committee wasstrongly of the view that policy formation is theprovince of Governments. It does recognise,however, that the distinction between policyand its administration can often be difficult todetermine. The PCEAR then brought down itsreport and set of recommendations to changethe committee system, which the members ofthe Public Works Committee found verysatisfactory. I congratulate Dr Lesley Clark,who was the Chair of the PCEAR at the time,and the members who served on thatparticular committee. The difference betweena report prepared by a group of academicsand theorists—as the EARC report was—andone prepared by a group of practitioners whowere preparing a workable system was veryobvious in the two reports.

Today, the member for Surfers Paradisevoiced objections to the section of thislegislation dealing with public works. However,it is very close to the report brought down bythe PCEAR. The member for Surfers Paradiseasserted that this legislation takes away thePublic Works Committee's right to pursueenvironmental investigation. That assertion isclearly untrue. Clause 20(2)(e) states clearlythat, in deciding whether to consider a publicwork, the committee may have regard to—

". . . the present and prospective publicvalue of the work, including, for example,consideration of the impact of the work onthe community, economy andenvironment."

There is nothing in this legislation that stops afuture Public Works Committee fromconducting any kind of environmental reporton a public works, and it does nothing to


diminish the rights that existed within theprevious legislation.

The member for Surfers Paradise alsocriticised the public works section of thislegislation because it does not go far enoughin allowing the committee to examine GOCs. Iacknowledge that this Bill is a slight stepbackwards from the PCEAR'srecommendation in relation to Governmentowned corporations. However, it should beremembered that the powers offered withinthis Bill to examine some activities of GOCsrepresent a great leap forward from what theprevious Public Works Committee could do,which was nothing.

I turn now to an issue that I have longadvocated, namely, the need to have thereports of committees debated in thisParliament. As agents of the Parliament, thecommittees are charged with offering advicethrough reports and recommendations.Properly, the Parliament should then decidewhether such recommendations are to beaccepted, amended or rejected. Debate onthis issue would allow the Government to offerits views, and the Parliament could thendecide on them. The existing procedure forthe Public Works Committee, forexample—because it was enshrined in thelegislation and will be enshrined in thislegislation—results in the Government denyingthe Parliament the right or opportunity toconsider reports made to it by that committee,and the very same situation will apply to theother committees.

That is a matter that the Standing OrdersCommittee could consider. I believe that thereis time and room in this Parliament to devotean hour—for example, every Thursday—to theconsideration of committees' reports. Theintroduction of debates on committees' reportswould achieve several things. Apart fromplacing the committee function and itsreporting responsibility in the correct context, itwould publicly demonstrate a commitment todemocratic and responsible Government inaccordance with the Westminster model. Thedetermination to effect such reform and haveQueensland adopt procedures which arenormal parliamentary practice has merit andwould undoubtedly be perceived by the publicas such. It would also underlie the separationof the Parliament from the Executive—one ofthe underlying causes of Queensland's recentreforms.

I am looking forward to joining the newMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee—should that be the desire of thisParliament. I understand that one of the

committee's first roles will be to draw up acode of conduct for members of this House.The experience of my six years in thisChamber has convinced me that this is longoverdue. On almost a daily basis, members ofthis House indulge in behaviour that in otherworkplaces would have them hauled beforeanti-discrimination tribunals. On a daily basissome members find it humorous to call eachother things like "dogs", or to call men "boys"or "girls" or "sissies" in the name of good-humoured interjections. One incident thatsticks in my mind occurred last year, when amale member shouted after a female memberwho was leaving the House, "She is leavingthe Chamber like a deprived love bug." Thevery same member shouted out to anotherfemale member, "She should try to learn tospeak English." That very member sits therewinking at female members on the other sideof the Chamber. I wonder who it is! I do notbelieve that behaviour which is unacceptablein other workplaces should be accepted here.The member who wolf whistled at me only anhour ago as I was walking across the corridorfrom the House to the Annexe——

Mr FitzGerald: Was he blind, or what?Ms SPENCE: The member might

laugh.

That member who whistled at me doesnot realise how publicly demeaning andunacceptable his actions are in a workenvironment. I am not going to go on and onabout these issues, but I could; and one daythe book will come out. There will be plenty oftime to debate those issues in the Members'Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee, but I mention them today so thatthey will be recorded in Hansard and so thatfuture generations will understand why we feltthat there was a need for that committee.

Mr Hamill: Keep the book simple,because there are some slow learners around.

Ms SPENCE: Very slow. I look forwardto that committee and the implementation ofthis legislation.

Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin)(4.40 p.m.): Mr Speaker, no-one has everwinked at me. I am not surprised to see thisParliamentary Committees Bill introduced bythe Premier, Mr Goss. He would have thisHouse and the people of Queensland believethat this apparently innocuous piece oflegislation is designed for reform. Nothingcould be further from the truth.

Mr Welford: Hear, hear!Mr TURNER: My friend should wait a

while and he will hear what I have to say. He


should not be impatient. The Premier's statedposition is false, and this legislation isinsidious, deceitful and by all meanssubversive in the light of the hidden agenda ofits intended purpose.

Not since the introduction of theamendment to the Freedom of InformationAct, which rightly should be called the"Censorship of Information Act" has thisParliament seen such artful cunning andtreachery towards the people of Queensland.Indeed, this Bill complements theamendments to the Freedom of InformationAct, in that it will further cause a suppressionof information from the public arena and, bythe complete suppression of the release ofinformation, make an absolute mockery of thepublic interest being served .

I will refer briefly to this wonderfulFreedom of Information Act. I will not readevery word of it, but under the Act it states thatcertain things are exempt. It states—

"Matter is exempt matter if—

(a) it has been submitted to Cabinet; or

(b) it was prepared for submission toCabinet and is proposed, or at anytime has been proposed, by aMinister to be submitted to Cabinet;or

(c) it was prepared for briefing, or theuse of, a Minister or chief executivein relation to a matter—

(i) submitted to Cabinet; or

(ii) that is if it forms part of anofficial record of Cabinet"—

or if it is in a draft form. The next subsectiontakes some working out. Some of theacademic, learned people on the Governmentside could work it out, but its meaning escapesme. Subsection 3(a) states—

"A certificate signed by the Ministerstating that specified matter would, if itexisted, be exempt matter mentioned insubsection (1), but not matter mentionedin subsection (2) establishes, subject topart 5,1 that, if the matter exists, it isexempt matter under this section."

That sounds very much like lifting oneself intoa bucket; it is pretty hard to imagine how onewould do it. If one reads through the Freedomof Information Act, one sees how allinformation is being suppressed in this State.

Let us look at this ParliamentaryCommittees Bill. The Premier's second-readingspeech actually discloses the key to how theGovernment intends to stifle parliamentary

reform and members' ability to raise matters ofconcern. He stated that members of theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee are to be appointed underthe Parliamentary Committees Act andStanding Orders. Fortunately for Mr Goss, veryfew people in Queensland would be aware ofthe parliamentary Standing Orders or how aparliamentary committee really works. MrGoss, in his infinite wisdom, must rub hishands together as he thinks there is noproblem in passing this one by the peoplebecause they just do not understand theworkings of Parliament.

As all members would know, I was theDeputy Chairman of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee—a seeminglyimportant position. In an all-party committeeestablished to monitor and review the workingsand operations of the Criminal JusticeCommission, the committee was empoweredto report to Parliament and, through suchprocess, ultimately to the people ofQueensland. The truth of the matter is that thePCJC was lame and impotent. I resigned fromthe PCJC because I believed that I couldachieve more as a backbencher than I couldas deputy chairman of this seemingly powerfulcommittee. I was stifled and prevented fromspeaking out. However, that is a story foranother time. The fact that I had to resignowing to such circumstances is in itself a sadindictment upon Queensland's parliamentarycommittee system. This Bill in no wayaddresses those problems; it only compoundsand magnifies them.

Mr Welford: Why?Mr TURNER: If the member would just

listen, I will explain. He should not beimpatient. If his shoes are pinching, he shouldsing out, but if he waits for long enough, hewill hear what I have to say. Without divulgingany secrets, I will explain how the PCJCworked. Matters of concern would be raised,evidence would be examined by the membersbut, more often than not, by the research staffattached to the PCJC through the chairman.In reality, many matters brought before thePCJC were never investigated thoroughlybecause we never had the time or the staff.Let me get this point across: the PCJC staffare answerable to the chairman and not to thecommittee. I will demonstrate that by readingStanding Orders 202 and 203. Standing Order202, which is headed "Chairman to PrepareReport", states—

"It shall be the duty of the Chairmanof a Select Committee to prepare theReport."


Standing Order 203, which is headed"Proceedings on Consideration of DraftReport", states—

"The Chairman shall read to theCommittee convened for the purpose ofconsidering the Report, the whole of hisdraft Report, which shall be printed andcirculated amongst the Members of theCommittee; and at some subsequentmeeting of the Committee the Chairmanshall read the draft Report paragraph byparagraph, putting the Question to theCommittee at the end of each paragraph,that it do stand part of the Report. AMember objecting to any portion of theReport shall propose his Amendmentwhen the paragraph which he wishes toamend is under consideration. A Memberdisagreeing with the Report may require astatement of the reasons of hisdisagreement to be appended to theReport. A statement of disagreement is tobe furnished to the Chairman of theCommittee within 14 days of theCommittee adopting the Report."

That is the amount of time that membershave to furnish a statement of disagreement.It is largely those Standing Orders that allowthe chairman to control the flow of information.The chairman has the resources; the othermembers of the PCJC do not, and never will. Iwill give examples of what I experienced. Inthe preparation of a dissenting report that Ihanded down in 1993 into Mr Huey and theoperations of the CJC, under Standing Order203 I had to prepare that report within 14days. I had no staff—only an electoratesecretary who was already stressed out of hermind doing her job—no resources and nofunding. To prepare the particular report, whichI have here, to put before this Parliament costme $1,400 in legal expenses out of my ownpocket. That is an example of the extent ofthe resources that we had under the PCJC.

In the past, as Deputy Chairman of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, Iwould probably have faced a criminal chargefor saying what I am about to say; however,this has been discussed in the open, publicinquiry, headed by Mr Hanson, QC, into theleaking of sensitive Operation Wallah materialto media reporter, Mr Whittaker. In relation toOperation Wallah, the information known bythe media at large was not known to membersof the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. Allegations of cover-ups at thehighest levels of Federal law enforcementagencies was rife and reported in the papers.Some members of the PCJC, including me,

sought to perform our role to monitor andreview the operations of the CJC and to beproperly briefed. We went out to the CJC toget a thorough, full and proper briefing to beable to monitor and review the operations ofthe CJC. We were not given a briefing; wewere not to take any photocopies; no noteswere to be taken; no questions were to beasked. The information was sanitised andconcealed. Despite asking for it, and despitemy being the Deputy Chairman of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, wenever received a full briefing of the materialthat was available. I might say that, in manyways, thank God we were denied thatinformation, because we would have facedcharges for leaking the information.

I turn now to the inquiry, headed by MrHanson, into the article that was written by MrWhittaker. He was not engaged under theCommission of Inquiries Act to hold anindependent inquiry; by virtue of his office, heis a member of the Criminal JusticeCommission. Once again, we have thesituation of the CJC investigating itself, or thetail wagging the dog. Although it was wellknown that we never, ever had in front of usand before our eyes the material Mr Whittakerhad put into the newspaper articles, all PCJCstaff and past members of that committeewere called before the inquiry. Members of thecommittee were subpoenaed like commoncriminals to appear before the inquiry. Wewalked through the media, with members ofthe media photographing us and portraying usas being possibly responsible for the leak,when the CJC knew that we had never seenthe material that was printed in the paper. Itwas a classic case of chasing the shadow andleaving the substance alone. So much for ourpower to monitor and review! That was theformer PCJC, not this super, elite committeethat we are discussing. I say to members withall sincerity—and some will come back andsay, "You were right"—God help anyone sillyenough to accept nomination to this supercommittee. They know not what they aresubjecting themselves to. I will leave it at that.

Any primary school student knows thatthe number 4 beats the number 3, and thoseare the political numbers on thesecommittees, with all the resources and thestaff attached to the chairman. In this form,the committee system is a farce. This is thesystem being supported strongly by theGovernment under the cover of new andsweeping reforms which were supposedlydesigned to bring complete openness andaccountability to the operations of theExecutive Government of this State.


The Goss Government has achievednothing. Under Mr Goss there has beensubversive change and mutation of thetraditions and accepted conventions of theWestminster parliamentary system which thisnation and State inherited from ourforefathers. What we have achieved over thepast six years in Queensland under the GossLabor Government would be the envy of the1960s cultural revolution of the People'sRepublic of China. Mao wanted to change theentire culture and accepted beliefs of thepeople of China. Mr Goss wants to change theaccepted traditions and inherited rules ofWestminster parliamentary democracy throughthe absolute prostitution of the committeesystem under this insidious legislation.

What Queensland has achieved underthis subversive Government is a committeesystem that does not serve the Parliament,and ultimately the people, but one whichserves the interests and furthers the aims ofthe current Executive Government. Thecommittees and so-called independentagencies and commissions have become littlemore than the watershed to provide legitimacyto each and every decision that theGovernment might make. In any Liberaldemocracy and Westminster tradition, theParliament is meant to be supreme, yet underGoss and the Labor Government theParliament has been placed in the position ofbeing virtually subordinate to the Cabinet. Thepeople of Queensland have deserted theGoss Government, yet it is clutching to power,and this Parliamentary Committees Bill provesthat it will do almost anything to stay in power.

I observe that electoral matters are tocome under the super committee titled theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee. On the subject of electoralreform—we have the scenario of the"executioner's" seat of Mundingburra, furtherdevelopments in respect of which could yetsee the execution of this illegitimate GossGovernment, which holds power with amajority of 46.7 per cent of voter support. It iswell known that hundreds of people inMundingburra discovered that they had beenstruck off the electoral roll. There were casesof people double voting and "dead" peoplevoting. The postal votes of army personnelposted overseas were never lodged.

Under the committee system, all of theseevents could have been suppressed beforethey reached the public arena. The matter willever so simply disappear into the endless anddark pit of the administrative and investigativebureaucracy of the super committee, where it

need never surface again. A matter may neversurface again; the chairman and his fellowmembers have the numbers, and theGovernment has the numbers in Parliament.The committee system has the ability to burycomplaints, which can be referred to it andraised only by the chairman.

Another great feature of the committeesystem is that complaints can be receivedand, because of the workload and so on,never addressed! This happens with regularity.I could cite many cases, if I wished. MrSpeaker, do not be mistaken or fooled—thecommittee system in Queensland, as it isstructured, is the greatest threat to democracythat we have ever faced. The reason thatParliament is an open forum is that ourforefathers wrote into our laws andConstitution that issues can be raised andquestions asked, the answers to which mustbe given. And if the answers are notforthcoming, questions can be pursued in theParliament and in the press until we have theanswer.

The committee system avoids thisopenness and public accountability, as"chairman" Goss is well aware. In addition,there is a further insurance policy to make surethat nothing ever comes out into the publicarena. I refer to Standing Order 206, whichstates—

"The evidence taken by a SelectCommittee, and documents presented tosuch Committee, which have not beenreported to the House, shall not,"—

and I repeat "shall not"—"unless authorised by the House, bedisclosed, published or referred to in theHouse."

Everything can be concealed. Is this not acosy arrangement? Anything can be hiddenaway forever. I congratulate Mr Goss onanother move to prevent open andaccountable Government under the guise ofproviding more accountability.

The super committee will not only monitorand review the CJC but also oversee legalreform in matters of civil and criminal law. It willmonitor the Ombudsman, replace PEARC,review State elections, examine issues arisingfrom Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercustomary law, and so on. What an array ofresponsibilities! I wonder whether thiscommittee will be known as the "committee foreverything" or the "committee for cover-ups".How is a member of this Parliament and amember of this committee meant to functionproperly? Even a trained lawyer or a QC on


$5,000 per day could not do this job withoutsignificant staff. What a joke!

As has been mentioned, members' ethicsare to be instituted and scrutinised by anethics committee. Members will be told what todo in their electorates and what committeesthey may sit on. On page 9 of Mr Goss'second-reading speech, he states—

". . . the committee will develop a code ofconduct for members. The proposedcode of conduct provides an excellentopportunity to define the standardsexpected of members, not only in thearea of propriety but also in the area ofservice to the member's electorate and tothe broader community."

This is unbelievable legislation. Who died andmade Mr Goss God? We are members ofParliament, elected by the people andanswerable to the people at election time. Weare the representatives of the people andanswerable to them and not to representativesof any Government-dominated committee.However, more importantly, this ethicscommittee will allow the CJC to investigateonly criminal matters with respect to a memberof Parliament—no more scrutiny of travel ormeal rorts but scrutiny of members' activities intheir electorates.

The big losers under this draconianlegislation are the media and the people ofQueensland. Talk about accountability! Thelegislation must rate as the most insidious,secretive and shameful legislation of all time.The ability to suppress matters will beenshrined in this legislation. It is nothing butcensorship and a shameful indictment on aGovernment elected on the platform ofintegrity, honesty and accountability. Clearly,this is the worst example of abuse ofExecutive power ever in the history ofGovernment in Queensland, and it is theaction of a Government intent on covering upits inadequacies and maladministration. If everthere was a case to bring back an UpperHouse in Queensland, it has beendemonstrated by the actions of this GossGovernment and moves to bring in legislationsuch as this which further erodes the rights ofthe citizens of this State.

Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (4.59 p.m.): It is apleasure to rise to support the ParliamentaryCommittees Bill, which is yet a furtheradvancement and improvement on thecommittee system of the QueenslandParliament. Perhaps it would be appropriate tocomment on some of the history of thecommittee system of the QueenslandParliament when speaking to the Bill.

In the late 1900s, when the QueenslandParliament was a small, new and enthusiasticinstitution flush with the excitement of carvingout new cities and establishing newcommunities and industries, it frequently metthe many demands placed upon it by formingselect committees to deal with specific issues.Prior to 1922, when the dissolution of theLegislative Council took place and theQueensland Parliament was reduced to oneHouse, both Houses had been accustomed tohaving large numbers of committees. In theSeventh Parliament, which went from January1874 to October 1878, there were 59committees of the Legislative Assembly andfour joint committees formed with theLegislative Council. This was indeed a record.The tide of parliamentary activities was veryhigh.

After the turn of the century and theestablishment of the CommonwealthFederation, much of the motivation andenergy which inspired Queenslandparliamentary committees to conductinvestigations and review legislation wassubmerged in the fast-flowing currents ofchange. The role played by the parliamentarycommittees was washed higher and higher onthe shore with the incoming tide of the largeand strong political party systems and growingExecutive power and influence. The fact thatthe Queensland Parliament did not go on asother Parliaments did to establish standingcommittees is linked to the abolition of theUpper House. This event not only reduced thenumber of parliamentarians and shifted theworkload of the parliamentary representativesonto fewer shoulders; it delivered power to theLower House without the threat of review. Theneed for special parliamentary investigationswas frequently pre-empted by an expandedbureaucracy and an increasingly strong partysystem.

Today, over a century after those earlydays of the 1880s and 1890s when theQueensland Parliament was a stronginstitution, the tides of change are again onthe rise. Much of the impetus for this changestems from the Fitzgerald inquiry. Fitzgeraldconcluded that the corruption and misconductwhich it uncovered was due in part to theinability of the Queensland Parliament toreview effectively the Government's legislativeprogram or its administration of public affairs.Many of the changes that this Governmentimplemented in its first three years of office aredirectly attributable to that inquiry.

There have always been committeesworking within the Queensland Parliament.


However, they were concerned with internalmatters pertaining to the administration ofParliament. The Subordinate LegislationCommittee, which came into existence in1976, was the exception. The committee'sterms of reference were broad; however, lackof access to independent legal advicehindered its development. Its resources werealso severely limited. For example, memberswere totally reliant upon the support of a juniorofficer for secretarial assistance and an officerfrom the Attorney-General's Department forlegal advice. That situation was unsatisfactory,as the source of advice to the Governmentwas the same as the source of advice to theparliamentary committee. That incongruity wasdealt with in recent times when the committeeemployed the services of an independentlegal adviser; and so the tide has turned forthat committee. Under this Bill, theSubordinate Legislation Committee increasesits scrutiny of legislation role. It will now monitorall legislation and will be able to raise issueswith the responsible Minister or with a membersponsoring a private member's Bill.

During the Forty-fifth Parliament, whichran from February 1987 to November 1989,the Ahern National Party Government foundeda fledgling parliamentary committee system.Two committees were established bylegislation—the Public Accounts Committeeand the Public Works Committee. Both wererequired to review the workings of ExecutiveGovernment and the quality of publicadministration.

The Public Accounts Committeecommenced operations in September 1988.However, it did not table its first report untilSeptember 1989. In the interim, it establishedits offices, hired staff and began the exerciseof developing procedures for the conduct of itsinquiries and the administration of its office.The Public Works Committee commencedoperations in May 1989 but did not hire staff.It proceeded with its first inquiry with the helpof consultants. It tabled its first report inOctober 1989. Both committees had much incommon with their counterparts in otherStates, with one noticeable difference. Bothwere empowered to initiate their own inquiries,and few restrictions were placed on eithercommittee's powers. It is clear from thedebates of the time that those committeeswere intended to play a powerful role inscrutinising Government activities.

However, no sooner were thosecommittees up and running than an electionwas called which saw a change ofGovernment and a new administration

committed to implementation of the Fitzgeraldinquiry recommendations, one of which wasthe introduction of a comprehensive system ofparliamentary committees. The fledglingcommittee system became an interim system.In the first year of the new Government, therising tide of change ushered in three newcommittees additional to the Public WorksCommittee and the Public AccountsCommittee. Fitzgerald recommended theestablishment of a commission againstcorruption, which became the Criminal JusticeCommission, and an Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission. Bothbodies were established. Both were overseenby parliamentary committees. In addition tothose two committees, the Parliamentappointed a select committee to report andmake recommendations on all aspects of roadsafety in Queensland, known as theTravelsafe Committee.

The future of the committee system,which is being altered by the introduction ofthis Bill, promises to have some realsubstance. It is my belief that the mostsignificant development within the committeesystem—and the introduction of this Billconfirms this—would be better scrutiny oflegislation. The Parliament's legislativefunction must evolve further to include greaterlevels of scrutiny and consultation. TheElectoral and Administrative ReviewCommission recommended that a newcommittee be appointed to scrutinise alllegislation coming before Parliament and notjust subordinate legislation. I sense that thisrecommendation will bring change which isdeep and lasting.

I turn now to the role of the PublicAccounts Committee. It was pleasing to readin this Bill the change of name from theParliamentary Committee of Public Accountsto the more simple term "Public AccountsCommittee"—or PAC, as it is known in manyStates of Australia. In discussing the role andfunctions of the Queensland Public AccountsCommittee and some of the challenges itfaces, it must be noted that the separation ofpowers is the foundation stone of theWestminster system of government.Democracy requires that there must be aseparation of powers between the Legislature,which makes the laws, the Executive, whichapplies the laws, and the judiciary, whichinterprets and adjudicates upon the laws.Parliament is the watchdog of the Executiveand, to allow itself to properly perform thisfunction, appoints a number of specialistall-party parliamentary committees, includingthe Public Accounts Committee.


The PAC is appointed by the LegislativeAssembly at the commencement of eachParliament and operates for the term of thatParliament. The committee should bebipartisan in its approach, and its membershipis proportional to the composition of theParliament. To be successful, parliamentarycommittees need to develop a bipartisansolidarity, which enables them to resolve theirdifferent perspectives on issues and, at theconclusion of their deliberations, to tableincisive reports with constructiverecommendations for change. We saw quite afew examples of that under the PublicAccounts Committee of the previousParliament. No doubt members would recallsome of the reports brought down by theprevious Parliamentary Committee of PublicAccounts. One example is the two reports intothe operations of the Department of PrimaryIndustries, which resulted in quite a deal ofadministrative change within that department.Another example is the inquiry into Aboriginaland Island councils, which brought about achange in legislation and administrativereforms which have been of much assistanceto the financial stability of those organisations.

No member of this Parliament expectsevery Minister to know what is going on in thebowels of bureaucracy. We all know that, thefurther down one goes, the more difficult itbecomes to find out exactly what is going on.The role of the Public Accounts Committeeand other committees of the Parliament is toinvestigate and inquire into some of thehappenings within Government departments.In the last six years, that particular role ofparliamentary committees has proven to bevery worth while.

In pursuing its role on behalf of theParliament, the Public Accounts Committeesees its challenge as the scrutiny of andprovoking reform to the financial administrationof the public sector and ensuring that theExecutive Government is accountable to theParliament. That is a very important mission.As to scrutinising and provoking reform—towards the end of the last Parliament, thePublic Accounts Committee proposed toconduct an inquiry into BP fuel cards.Although initially we believed that that wouldinvolve an extensive amount of work, becauseit was a Public Accounts Committee inquiryand because the various departments knewthat we would pursue that issue vigorously,they instituted reforms without the committeehaving to investigate the matter further. That isone of the functions of the committee: lettingpeople know that, if they are not doing theright thing or if certain processes are not being

carried out in a sufficient manner to ensureaccountability, the Public Accounts Committeewill scrutinise those matters.

In short, the role of the Public AccountsCommittee is to exercise parliamentaryscrutiny over the Executive's—that is, theGovernment's—management of the publicpurse. The PAC's strategies for meeting thatchallenge are: to scrutinise public sectorfinancial administration and accountabilityissues of significance; to use established andinnovative methods to provoke reform andenhance accountability; to lead by example;and to establish the committee's relevance,credibility and respect as a committee of theParliament with members of Parliament, thepublic sector and the public. The committee isempowered to review annual financialstatements and other financial reports anddocuments tabled in the Legislative Assemblyand then to examine and inquire into anymatter so arising which, in the opinion of thecommittee, has or could have adverseimplications in respect of the probity,economy, efficiency and effectiveness of thecollection and expenditure of moneys and themanagement and control of assets andliabilities. Importantly, the committee has astatutory role in overseeing theappropriateness and adequacy of theaccountability processes within the publicsector.

Following tradition, the Public AccountsCommittee is not able to examine and reporton any matter of Government policy. Also, thecommittee does not have a Budget Estimatesreview function. Matters may also be referredto the committee for investigation by resolutionof the Legislative Assembly or by Order inCouncil. It is my view that the committeeshould maintain a close relationship with theAuditor-General's Department, but at thesame time respect the statutory andindependent roles of the two bodies. Such arelationship contributes to a more coordinatedapproach in improving public sector financialaccountability.

In the conduct of its affairs, the PublicAccounts Committee must be independent ofthe Executive Government. That is veryimportant. I am pleased that the QueenslandAct, unlike those in some other States, doesnot permit individual Ministers to refer mattersto the committee for investigation. In my view,it would be improper for Ministers to set thecommittee's agenda.

In fulfilling its functions, the PublicAccounts Committee uses a range of methodsin gathering evidence for its inquiries. These


methods include written communication anddiscussions between the committee, Ministersand public sector officers and, veryimportantly, the conduct at hearings. Thosehearings are held in public, unless thecommittee directs that they be held in private.Hearings are very powerful and essential toolsavailable to the committee.

The committee requires witnessessummoned to appear at its hearings toprovide sworn evidence, and it encourages theattendance of interested observers. Thetranscripts taken at committee hearings aretabled in the Legislative Assembly and arepublicly available. I want to make it very clearthat the committee is not a kangaroo court,and it certainly does not aim to cause personalembarrassment to witnesses appearing beforeit. The committee is very conscious thatwitnesses must be treated fairly and not askedirrelevant questions. The section dealing withwitnesses and their rights was very important; Ifully support that.

Upon completion of any inquiries, thecommittee issues a report which is tabled inthe Legislative Assembly. When a report ofthe committee makes recommendations, therelevant Minister is required by the PublicAccounts Committee Act and under this Bill toinform Parliament of the action taken orproposed to be taken by Governmentconcerning the committee'srecommendations. The Bill states that theMinister has three months within which torespond to the report of the committee, and ifthere cannot be a response in that time, afurther three months is allowed. After thatperiod, there must be a response to thecommittee's recommendations.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Premier'sstatement in his second-reading speech, whenhe said—

"At the end of the day, the successof the new committees will depend on thecommitment of all sides of the House tomake the system work. Most of all, it willrequire continued commitment todeveloping a spirit of politicalbipartisanship without which noparliamentary committee system canflourish."

This Bill will further enhance and improve thecommittee system of the Parliament. I supportthe Bill.

Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (5.12 p.m.):The wish of the previous speaker forbipartisanship in trying to have committees

that work together and actually achieve for thegreater good is all very idealistic, but it is notvery realistic when the numbers are alwaysstacked. It is always four to three, and theOpposition members always lose. It is all verynice to try to make these things work—andother Parliaments are moving in thatdirection—and maybe we will get there in thefullness of time; but this Bill is nothing short ofa scandal. This utterly discredited minorityGovernment should not have evencontemplated, let alone introduced, thisshameful, shoddy and self-serving Bill.

The fact that this Bill has beenintroduced, and the fact that it was given thefull 21-gun salute by its authors, should notreally come as a surprise. It is totally in accordwith its deceitful, so-called Freedom ofInformation Act, which I believe has loweredeveryone's confidence in this Government.That legislation was going to be the be-all andend-all of accountability. It was supposed toallow people in the street to actually getinformation on which decisions were based. Itbecame a fraud, and it still is. All of theseother so-called reforms, in essence and intotality, amount to what is a vast propagandacharade. It is a facade and a farce! It hasbecome plainly obvious that the more effusivethe Government's praise for its claimed reforminitiatives, the more cruelly and deliberatelydeceptive it really is. In effect and in practice,this Bill is a cheap confidence trick, and that iswhat it will be seen as. It is unfortunate that agreat deal of effort and cost are involved insetting up these things, when we all knowbefore they even start what a farce they areand will be.

All of the grand promises made by MrGoss while in Opposition have been shown tobe disgraceful shams, because this Billembodies the most determined, ruthless anddeliberate assault on the principles of reformand accountability that could be imagined.This Government and the Premier have againtrotted out their fatuous, inane andmeaningless slogans to try to dress up thisbogus bit of shabby deception, but this time itwill not wash. Government members knowdamned well that they will be protected bythese committees. The honeymoon cameabruptly to an end on 15 July. That is why thiswill not wash. Now we know that theGovernment has failed and that it has lost theconfidence of the people. The Government'shypocritical regime and its lame justificationsfor this sort of utter rubbish only make itappear more ludicrous, more threadbare andmore desperate.


The Bill provides for a completeemasculation of the Public AccountsCommittee by denying it access to any internaldocuments produced by a Governmentagency. If that is accountability, I am not here!The committee is to be reduced to the virtuallymeaningless pursuit of matters which may bedisclosed in officially published Governmentfinancial statements. Anyone who can readcan go and check things for himself.Government backbenchers on the committeewill be able to occupy their time by askingreally tricky questions such as, "Minister, why isyour financial administration such anoutstanding success?" They will be heroes inthe eyes of their Ministers. All they will be ableto do is ask questions such as that. No doubtGovernment members on the Public AccountsCommittee will be given written questionssimilar to that one, because some of them willhave difficulty devising questions even in thatsimple form.

Dr Watson: Just like the Estimatescommittees.

Mr COOPER: The Estimatescommittees have been reduced to that. Theystarted off okay; now all Opposition memberscan do is ask questions about the one-linebudget items; we may as well not bother. TheEstimates committee process is as boring aswatching grass grow. For the amount ofinformation derived from it, it is a waste oftime.

Some annual reports produced byGovernment departments and agencies areso demonstrably inaccurate that theyrepresent exercises in the study of deceit. TheCorrective Services Commission was caughtout by me when it failed in one of its annualreports to record the financial loss andadministrative fiasco arising from the collapseof the Brisbane Tribal Council Ltd—ashonourable members may remember—andthe forced closure of the Gwandalan halfwayhouse for Aboriginal inmates. Its excuses thenwere a disgrace, and it took my interventionwith the Auditor-General to ensure that thematter was aired first and subsequentlyreported. In fact, the commission lied to theAuditor-General. So how much faith and trustcan we have in it? Thus, it is critical that thePublic Accounts Committee has as free aspossible access to all relevant documents andinformation if it is to really do its job. Thecommittee will not have that access, so it willreally be a charade.

The Government is terrified of what mightemerge if the committee did have that accessto information. It has bound the parliamentary

Estimates committees hand and foot byruthlessly limiting questions to program outlaysand, as I said before, it is now moving toimpose the very same sort of censorshiprestrictions on the Public Accounts Committee.That is the Goss Government's so-calledcommitment to reform and accountability! It isan outrage against democracy and a flatdenial of a reform process.

The Bill provides for six committees and,in doing so, seeks to consign to the dustbin ofhistory the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. The huge burden of work andresponsibility of that committee is supposedlyto be carried by the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. Predictably,the Government did not breathe a word of itsintention to make this particularly disgracefuldecision prior to the election. The workload ofthe committee would be so impossibly largethat it will be simply intolerable. As well asoverseeing the CJC, it has to consider EARCreports not yet reviewed and be responsiblefor issues relating to administrative reviewreform, the State's Constitution, the electoralsystem and reform of the State's laws. Thatworkload is so massive and requires suchlengthy and considered determination that thecommittee could collapse under the weight ofit all.

The Opposition is particularly outraged bythe decision to abolish the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee, as it defies theFitzgerald report and plain commonsense. TheCJC is absolutely essential to the reform andaccountability process. All current and formerParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeemembers would agree—at least privately inthe case of some Government members—thata separate, stand-alone committee is critical.There can be no doubt that the decision toabolish the PCJC is part of the GossGovernment's secret agenda to bring the CJCto heel. On too many occasions, the CJC hasproven to be a thorn in the side of thisvainglorious regime. I am reminded of the factthat Police Minister Braddy could hardlyrestrain himself when sinking the boot into it inrelation to matters such as the CJC's definitionof so-called operational police. His tirades ofabuse on those occasions have really givenOpposition members an insight into what theGovernment sees for the future of the CJC.

Mr Schwarten: Did you listen to themember for Nicklin?

Mr COOPER: I will make my ownspeech. The Minister would say that 90 percent of police are operational; the CJC saysthat 73 per cent of them are operational.


Whom do we believe? One is political, theother is not.

Mr Schwarten: Do you support what hesaid?

Mr COOPER: I am quite happy with MrTurner's position. He was on that committee.He went through sheer hell being on thatcommittee because quite a few people werenot allowed to make it work. That was theproblem. We can make these things work butwe are not going to do it by changing thecommittee's structure to this ridiculous supercommittee provided for in this Bill. They willnever handle the business——

Mr Welford: Super committee.

Mr COOPER: The honourable memberopposite calls it the super committee. TheGovernment gets its way and abolishes thePCJC and, as a result, Parliament, andthrough it the people, lost their essentialwatchdog role. It would not surprise me if theGovernment then used that as a justificationfor gutting the CJC. The Government would, inthis scenario, say that the CJC is too big andtoo powerful for an adequate oversight by thisproposed new committee and should berestructured or, in other words, dismantled. Inmy opinion, this is the thin end of the wedgefor the CJC.

That the Government has moved on thisBill to effectively exclude all Governmentowned corporations from the scrutiny of thePublic Works Committee is yet anotherindication of its paranoia and deceit. Underthis Bill the committee can consider only majorworks by these corporations if the Parliament,which means the Government, approves. TheBill effectively and cold bloodedly closes thedoor on any scrutiny of hundreds of millions ofdollars worth of public works, and the questionthat must be asked is why? What has theGovernment got hidden away in the securevastness of these corporations that it does notwant to be exposed to the light of day?

This Bill, like so much other legislationintroduced by this Government, proposes areality that is literally light years away from therhetoric. It is a Bill that could be produced onlyby a Government that is so fearful ofaccountability, so terrified of scrutiny, and sodesperate to deny openness that it will doanything to try to deny and deflect criticalinvestigation. The irony, of course, is thatthese procedures which deny accountabilityand prevent scrutiny will rebound against theGovernment. In fact, they already have, as wewitnessed in the last election. Already, publicservants, who were appalled by the cover-ups

and the lies, are rebelling in the best waypossible, by leaking embarrassing documents.

If this fraudulent committee structureproposed by the Government in this Billbecomes law which, according to the numbersit will, the increasing trickle of leaks will becomea flood. Despite all of its efforts, the regime willbe judged in the court of public opinion, as itwas on July 15. As I said, those leaks havealready started. When the public servantshave lost faith in a regime they will turn on itwith a vengeance, and that is proving to bethe case.

There are a few other things that I wouldlike to talk about regarding the ParliamentaryService Commission, which is another outfit toget the chop. Quite frankly, it might as well,because it could never work. Again, it was runby the Executive. The Speaker was not able todo the things that he wanted to do. I ampleased to say, quite frankly, that I am on hisadvisory committee now and would like to stickwith it. I say that because, now that he hasbeen freed of the weight of the Executivesledgehammer upon him, he may be able todo things for this Parliament that have beenso vitally needed over time.

Certainly, we mentioned the fact that theshortage of space for the Opposition officers isnothing short of disgraceful. The situationlooks like being improved. We hope that it will.I refer to the member for Rockhampton, whosaid that the Labor Party was in Opposition forso long and that, looking back through the 32years, the Government of the day treated itsmembers so badly. Yes, that occurred. Buteven before that—before 1957—the LaborGovernment treated the Opposition badly. Ithas been going on for light years. I think it isabout time that it stopped. One day it will. Oneday everyone will have had enough of it. Oneday people on both sides will eventuallymature, because all honourable membersrealise that every dog has his day. We will beback over there one day whether honourablemembers opposite believe it or not. Then wewill be saying to them, "What is the point ofhelping you lot?" Honourable membersopposite will be saying, "Hey, we haven't gotany services. We need more space. We needmore staff." We will repeat the same old story.One day things will change—one day. If weactually believe in good government, we needto have services and facilities for theOpposition so that it can do its job, and do itwell. Honourable members opposite would getthe benefit when one day they are over on thisside. One day, as I said, we will grow up. It hasjust taken a bit of time——


Mr Welford: You were once Premier.Mr COOPER: It is worthless taking up a

discussion with someone as inane and asstupid as the honourable member for Everton.We know his reputation and background.Would he like to have it repeated again? Weknow about him, as does everyone else. Weknow that he has not got much going for him.He is not a very savoury type of fellow. Toother people I would like to speak moresensibly.

Because of the endless workload that weas members of Parliament have, this problemhas to be solved eventually. As onehonourable member said, once upon a timewe did not have electorate secretaries. Thewives or someone else took the messages,ran the errands and so on. Electoratesecretaries then came to the fore, and now wehave come to the point that more assistanceis needed. People realise that they need theirlocal members and that their local membersneed to be able to do the job and do it betterthan ever before. Members cannot do the jobif they are to be continually short-changed onthe provision of services to assist in their work.That is not money badly spent; it is money wellspent because it is spent in the interests of thepeople and doing the job for them.

I would like to speak up for electoratesecretaries, who I think do an enormousamount of work. They certainly work anenormous amount of overtime. They certainlyput an enormous amount of effort and theirown personal time into their job; yet, when itcomes to trying to increase their salarieseveryone seems to say that they do not needit or they do not want it. I say that they do; Isay that their salaries need to be lifted so thattheir work can be better recognised. I willalways stick up for them because I know thework that they do. As I said, they do a hell of alot that is above and beyond the call of duty.

The speaker has been hamstrung in somany areas. When I was first appointed to thePSC I always intended to raise the question ofthese darned lifts over in the annexe.However, someone would have said, "Ha! Itwas your fault. You built the building." I admitthat we built the building. It was our fault, butthat does not improve the use of the building.We know that those two lifts are inadequate.There should never have been only two, thereshould have been four or six. We admit tothat. But quite a bit of time has gone by sincethen, and it is still a problem that is going toget worse and worse as time goes by. So it isabout time that we said that we will dosomething about that. I would again support

the Speaker and others to try to improveservices such as the lifts in this complex. Weshould not just keep turning a blind eye to it,saying, "It was your fault." Again, we shouldgrow up a bit on these issues.

I also believe that staff morale of thosewho work in this building, without namingnames, has been through the floor—at rockbottom—over these last six years. If that is thefault of the PSC, then let us give the thing thepush, but let us make sure that what we put inits place actually works and that the staff aredealt with on a proper and decent basis sothat their voices can be heard and theirproblems overcome. The exercise will bepointless if their voices are not heard, if we aregoing to turn a blind eye to their difficulties andproblems. If their morale is down their worklevel will be down, and no-one benefits fromthat; they do not benefit and neither do we. Itis a case of making sure that their voices areheard.

I have already mentioned that we willhave to take a step forward for the electoratesecretaries. EARC recommended the provisionof a $10,000 research fee to provideadditional assistance in electorate offices. Thatwas another thing that was scrapped by thisGovernment. It took no notice at all of theEARC recommendations. I believe that thatrecommendation needs to be advanced againbecause, as I said, the workload on membersand electorate officers has increased to such adegree that that form of assistance is due andnecessary and would be put to very good usein the interests of the people.

I believe that many problems areassociated with this legislation. That is sad andunfortunate, because it could have been sogood. It could have been done well. It couldhave been done, as someone said, with a bitmore impartiality and a bit more involvementof goodwill and so on. I know most memberswould like to see that, but we are not going tosee it. That is the sad part of it. As such, wevery reluctantly support the Bill, but certainlyrealise that it has many problems attached toits provisions.

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton)(5.30 p.m.): After the doom and gloom that wehave heard from the member for CrowsNest—and I do not disagree with some of thethings that he said; I will refer to them downthe track—I must say that I believe that a farbetter Parliament exists today than existed adecade ago. I am reminded of the problemsthat the coalition experienced when it was inGovernment and of the bickering between theNational and Liberal Parties about the


introduction of the Public AccountsCommittee. Ultimately, that bickeringdestroyed the coalition at that time, and it hastaken them many years to recover. To give theformer Premier Mike Ahern his due, he didinstitute that committee; however, it was notwithout its problems, as the members of thecoalition soon found out. We all remember thedrought rorts affair, which created muchpublicity and furore and revealed that hugerorts had occurred.

Mr FitzGerald: How many people wentto gaol, do you remember? How manyconvictions came out of that huge rort that youhave spoken of?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I know thatapproximately $19m of public money couldnot be accounted for. Obviously, it was a caseof either sheer mismanagement or a rort. Itwas one of the two; the member can take hispick. I think that $19m is certainly a largeround of drinks, and the Public AccountsCommittee showed its worth on that occasion.

I sincerely believe that the Parliament is abetter place for the committees and I speak asa former Chair of the Public Works Committeeand a member of the first PCJC. During thosetough times of the PCJC's infancy, it hadmany very complex social and moral issues todeal with. I heard the previous speaker voicehis fear that somehow the monitoring powerwould be diluted by bringing together theadministrative and legal matters of theParliament. I do not believe that. I believe thatmost of the tough tasks have been carriedout, but the monitoring role still remains. Thatis a significant expectation placed upon thatcommittee, and I am sure that the committeemembers will perform that job admirably.

I have heard freedom of informationmentioned by a number of speakers from theOpposition side of the House, including theLeader of the Liberal Party, who said that itwas disgraceful that one could not obtain theinformation one desired. The speaker whopreceded me followed that up. I remember thegood old days of this place, when one couldnot obtain a solitary piece of information.

Mr Bredhauer: Remember trying to geta teacher's file out of a regional office?

Mr SCHWARTEN: When thehonourable member for Cook and I worked forthe Teachers Union we tried to get informationfrom the regional offices to help teachers withtheir workers' compensation claims and stressclaims——

Mr Bredhauer: Or to find out whichNational Party member had dumped on themand had them transferred.

Mr SCHWARTEN: There was a bit ofthat happening in those days, when all thedecisions about who was transferred wherewere made by Cabinet. That system waswrong and I am sure that we will never seethat happen again. Trying to obtain suchinformation was like trying to find feathers onthe back of a frog—it was simply impossible.

A sad reflection on this Parliament is therefusal by the members opposite to grant pairsin certain circumstances.

Mr Livingstone: Yesterday is a classicexample.

Mr SCHWARTEN: It was veryunfortunate when the honourable member forMurrumba, whose actions were endorsed bythis Parliament—we all said how disgracefulthe nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll is——

Mr Gilmore: Nobody on this side of theHouse stopped him going. We didn't stop himgoing.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is the sort ofchurlish attitude that I am referring to. Thehonourable member knows as well asanybody else how this place works and he issuggesting that the Government could loseconfidence on the floor of this House as aresult of a member discharging his or herresponsibilities on behalf of this Parliament. Ithink that is a tragedy.

I thought that the case of the member forMurrumba was unfortunate enough, but it wasabsolutely shameful that the Opposition wouldnot grant a pair to enable a member to attendthe late "Chooky" Campbell's funeral. He wasa person for whom everybody who spoke thismorning in the motion of condolence had thegreatest of respect. This morning, my goodfriend the member for Bulimba told me thatthe union with which he was associated, theBLF, worked closely with "Chooky" Campbellto try to develop legislation for portable longservice leave and he was very supportive. Ineveryone's estimation, he was a veryreasonable man and a well-respected memberof this House. Yet the Government wasunable to send a representative to his funeralbecause no pair was granted. I ask membersopposite to rethink that situation.

Mr FitzGerald: Has it ever been donebefore?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It was done in theMenzies Government.

Mr FitzGerald: Refusing pairs—has itever been done in this House before?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am sure that it has,but that does not make it right. I listened to


the member for Crows Nest when he wastalking about the lifts in the ParliamentaryAnnexe. He said, "We built them; we made amistake," but that does not fix the problem. Hesaid, "We move on." I think that all honourablemembers agree with him.

The member for Crows Nest talked aboutthe issue of staff for the Opposition. He spokeabout when the Labor Party sat on theOpposition benches. I remember Ed Caseybeing sent to Watkins Place with one staffmember and one secretary. At that time, thedeputy leader had no facilities whatsoever. Iremember that it was impossible to workbetween Watkins Place and this building. Iremember also the reluctance of the thenGovernment to show any compassionwhatsoever and to provide assistance. Inthose days, the Labor Party had to pay forresearch to be conducted. That was adisgraceful situation. I do not think that anyhonest observer of parliamentary processtoday could compare that with, say, forexample, the Deputy Leader of the Coalition,who has the right to a chauffeur-drivencar—she has staff. In 1982, Bill D'Arcy was thefirst Deputy Leader of the Opposition to beprovided with staff, but he was not providedwith a driver or a car, and he did not have anyoffice space. If the honourable membersopposite want to go back in history, I believethat the previous speaker made a very validpoint.

All that I am asking of the membersopposite is that they think through the issue ofpairing. It is not in the interests of a goodworking Parliament not to pair. As I said, theMenzies Government did it. Pairing is in theinterests of democracy.

If the Parliament so desires, thecommittee of which I would like to be amember is the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee. I noticethat that committee will have a charter todevelop a code of conduct for members. Ithink it is sad that we have to sit down anddraw up a code of conduct for membersbecause members cannot behave themselvesand conduct themselves honourably in thisplace. As one who has sat inside and outsidethis place in the past three years——

Mr Gilmore: You've lost it on severaloccasions.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, I acknowledgethat I have—and so has the honourablemember on a number of occasions.

An Opposition member: That isuntrue.

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is not untrue. Byand large, I believe that, at some time oranother, all honourable members have losttheir cool and said the wrong thing. That isperfectly understandable when one is dealingwith personalities and when one feels stronglyabout certain issues. I think that everybodywho comes into this place has reasonablystrong feelings one way or the other. In myeyes, just because a member disagrees withanother member, that does not make him orher any less a person.

The privilege that we have in this place isthat we can stand up on behalf of ourconstituents against the shysters and thecrooks out there—and we all have them in ourelectorates—who somehow continue to weavetheir way through the legal net. At the end ofthe day, sometimes the only thing that onecan do is to stand in this place and say it as itis. That is a privilege that we should never giveup, although I notice that there is to be someredress offered to people who are namedadversely in this place.

Yesterday, I was the victim of someonewho stood up in this place and spoke withoutfirst checking their facts. I say very sincerelythat the comments that were made about meyesterday hurt me deeply. I say that assomebody who has been involved in the tradeunion movement for about 22 years, andwhose father was sitting in the gallery. Myfather is a life member of the Building WorkersUnion, and for me to be accused ofundermining a union in its valid process ofmarching and protesting in the street is morehurtful than many people in this place canunderstand. I make that point to theOpposition.

However, I can cop it on the chin. When Ihave done something wrong, those peoplewho know me well enough know that I can copit. However, I will not stand in this place andcop that sort of abuse of privilege. That is whatit is: it is an abuse of privilege which couldhave been clarified if the decent thing hadbeen done. I notice that even though I refutedwhat was said, today I again had to suffer theindignity of that member of Parliamentrepeating those sorts of claims to the public. Iplace on record that those comments hurt me,they were untrue and they particularly hurt myfather.

Mr Gilmore: You are a wimp.Mr SCHWARTEN: The member may

call it that. Quite frankly, he has gone down inmy estimation because I thought he was aperson of some dignity and decency. By thatvery statement he has shown that he really is


not up to the scratch that I thought he was. Iam very saddened by that and it is a very sadindictment of him. The member is the sort ofperson for whom this legislation is required—toprotect the innocent and decent people ofQueensland from the excesses of people likehim.

I agree with the member for Crows Neston the issue of electorate office staff. The jobof members of Parliament is certainlybecoming more and more burdensome. Thismorning, the member for Aspley, I think it was,was talking about the days when members ofParliament did not have any facilities at all. Iremember a previous member forRockhampton North—whose name I will notmention, because he did the wrong thing bythe party—conducting affairs of state in hislounge room. In those days, the pressure ofaccountability was not there. Members sentthe few letters that they had to the typing poolin Brisbane, which would type them up andsend them back. That is why the recess wasthe length of time that it was. It was a differentworld.

I am sure that all honourable memberswill verify that people come to see theirmember of Parliament first, not last, althoughoften they come last as well. After they havebeen the rounds of everybody else andcannot win, they come to their member ofParliament. They have every right to do thatand that is what we are there for; to helppeople. However, any honest assessment ofworkloads in electorate offices over the past10 years would show a sharp increase. It istime that we looked at the support needed inthose offices, and it is time that we looked atthe role of electorate officers per se. They arethe backbone of our offices, especially forcountry members who necessarily have to beaway from their electorates while theParliament is sitting and while otherparliamentary duties have to be performed.The electorate officers have an enormousburden of responsibility upon their shouldersand it is time we looked into that.

The Bill before the House shows that theParliament has matured a great deal in thepast 10 years. I agree with the member forMount Gravatt, that people in EARC, at thattime—rather than PEARC—got it wrong. I thinkthat they tried to turn it———

Mr Ardill: They had no idea.

Mr SCHWARTEN: They had no idea,as the honourable member said. I do notknow whether they wanted to replaceParliament with a committee———

Mr FitzGerald: They did not have aclue.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think the memberfor Lockyer is right: they did not have a clue. Iwas the Chair of the Public Works Committeeand I remember talking to some of thosepeople, and it rapidly became apparent to methat they had little or no grasp at all of realityas far as this place goes. Having said that, Ibelieve there is no doom and gloom in this Bill.Basically, it is a good piece of legislation thatwill make for a better and more harmoniousworking Parliament.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (5.47 p.m.): Ihave been so overcome by the reasonable,statesmanlike attitude and dignifieddemeanour of the new member forRockhampton that I am almost speechless. Itis certainly not the member that I rememberedin the House before. It was very interesting towatch how he won the election. He did notopen his mouth. I watched him very closelyand he was very careful. He did not sayanything. He certainly did not say anythingcontroversial and I guess it just goes to showthat when one gets beaten by big Vinnie onestays beaten.

Mr Schwarten: I am back in herethough, Di.

Mrs McCAULEY: And the member isvery thankful, is he not? I was interested tohear a previous speaker talk about howinsulted she was by being wolf whistled at. Ihave to say that that would make my day. I donot even look around any more; I know it isnot me.

This Parliamentary Committees Bill 1995is typical of the type of reform that thisGovernment has become famous for in thepast six years. It is hypocritical and it is notwhat it is lauded to be. The reforms arerestrictive, repressive and designed to give theappearance of consensus and opennesswhen in fact they are usually quite theopposite. Members will remember when thePublic Works and Public Accounts Committeeswere formed, they were formed by a NationalParty Government. The member forBundaberg, Mr Campbell, leaked details fromthe Public Accounts Committee in an effort toembarrass the then Primary IndustriesMinister, Mr Harper, and not once in the sixyears———

Mr CAMPBELL: I rise to a point oforder. That is a serious allegation to makeconcerning a member of a committee. It isuntruthful and I ask that it be withdrawn.



Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! The member for CrowsNest! The honourable member has risen on apoint of order. In respect of the honourablemember for Bundaberg's request, I ask thatthe honourable member withdraw thecomment.

Mrs McCAULEY: I withdraw thatcomment. Not once in the past six years can itbe said that our members on that committeehave leaked any matter to the public. It simplyhas not happened.

The Public Works Committee, accordingto the Premier's speech when he introducedthis legislation, has enabled members to focuson the value and performance of major worksconstructed by the Government. What a lot ofrubbish. There was a glowing endorsement ofthe Labor Government's handling—or rathermishandling—of major facilities such as thenew Convention Centre complex, whichsuffered a massive blow-out of costs, yet thePublic Works Committee brings down an allsweetness and light report, and it really is awaste of time.

The member for Nicklin spoke about theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, andI need not add anything to what he said. Thecost in personal terms—and I am talking aboutthe questioning of members' integrity andpropriety—of serving on that committee hasbeen high and there is no doubt that thesalary attached to such positions is often theonly inducement for some people to serve onsuch a committee.

The only way the Goss Government canbe taken seriously on the matter ofcommittees is if it moves towards anindependent chairman or an even number ofrepresentatives of both parties on committeeswhich, of course, it will not do. So I believe thecommittee system is the greatest waste oftime and money imaginable. Every time acommittee is formed, the first thing it wants todo is go to New Zealand. New Zealand is theMecca for committees—"Let's go to NewZealand and see what they do there. I do notreally think that New Zealand can tell us much,but we will go off to New Zealand and have alook." So that is what the committee does—offit goes.

The committee that I wish to talk aboutthe most is, of course, the ParliamentaryService Commission. I have spent five yearsserving on that committee, and it was themost frustrating body upon which I have everserved. It really was a waste of time, and I amhappy to see it abolished. It was set up as an

autonomous body. The then Minister forFinance, Brian Austin, stated—

"The Executive arm of Governmentwill have no control over the commission."

During the debate on the ParliamentaryService Bill, the Leader of the House, MrMackenroth, who for the last few years hasserved on the PSC with me, stated—

"The commission itself will set thebudget; the commission will bring thatbudget before the House; the House willapprove the budget and it will be sent tothe Executive arm of Government whoseresponsibility it is to find the money."

Well, that sounds wonderful! Let me tellmembers what really happens: the Executivearm of Government looks at the budget andsays, "You will make cuts and you will not onlymake cuts but you will make them here, hereand here." That is what we on the PSC had todo. In those days, even Mr De Lacy had adifferent view of the PSC.

Government members interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr

Palaszczuk): Order! There is far too muchinterjection in the Chamber from my right.

Mrs McCAULEY: Thank you, MrDeputy Speaker. In 1988, Mr De Lacy had adifferent view of the PSC. He stated—

"I am concerned that in Queenslandthe changes have been initiated—and willcontinue to a certain extent to bedirected—by the Executive."

That same person, in his capacity asTreasurer, wrote to the Chairman of the PSCsuggesting areas where funds could be savedand stating quite categorically that, while thetargets that have been set are non-negotiable,the strategies proposed to achieve thosesavings will need to be considered by theSavings Task Force, which had been recentlyestablished by Cabinet. So much for nointerference by the Executive!

As I said, it was most frustrating to serveon the PSC. I believe that, by replacing theParliamentary Service Commission with anadvisory body, the shackles of the Executivewill be broken—and I hope they will bebroken—so that the Speaker can be theperson truly responsible. That gives him a bigresponsibility. I have to say that that hascaused concern to some people—quite a lotof people—who work in this place. They havesaid to me, "I do not know whether this issomething for the better or not." I have to saythat I believe that the PSC was not working.We are not losing something that we had. We


are not losing a voice, because we never hadone. As the member for Crows Nest said,decisions were made outside of thatcommittee. They were made by therepresentative of the Executive, MrMackenroth. They were made without anyconsultation with the committee. For example,because I was a member of the PSC, I shouldhave known about the refitting of the cafeteria.That was an innovation about which we neverheard. It did not come to the committee.

Mr Cooper: The first I heard of it waswhen I saw the thing under construction. I'dnever heard of it.

Mrs McCAULEY: Exactly. A primeexample is the overseas trip toWestminster—the trip that most members ofParliament dream about. When Mrs Sheldoninquired whether there was to be such a tripthis year, she was told, "No, there will not besuch a trip this year." I attended a PSCmeeting and, suddenly, there was to be a tripto Westminster. Who was going on this trip? Ican tell members that it certainly was not amember of the Opposition. It was all cut anddried; it was organised outside the PSC. Thedecision was just presented to us.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Whose turn was it?Doesn't it normally alternate between bothsides of the House?

Mrs McCAULEY: Unfortunately, a fewyears ago the Speaker went as an observer.That was a trip that was allocated to a Labormember, and the Speaker also went as anobserver. After that, we were not allowed tohave observers.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: What would yousuggest?

Mrs McCAULEY: I think that trip wasprobably a pay-off. Probably the least saidabout that the better.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: What do you thinkshould happen with the PSC?

Mrs McCAULEY: The PSC is finished.However, an advisory body that will, hopefully,advise a Speaker who is prepared to listen, willachieve at least as much as the PSC did. Itwas just a waste of time and effort to beinvolved with that committee. It was also avery frustrating time.

I have always supported the TravelsafeCommittee and I have said that I believe it hasdone a good job. I know that one of the Labormembers is pushing to have the members ofTravelsafe paid to be on that committee; he isthe man with the dollar signs in his eyes. Bythe same token I believe that those members,

probably more than members of any othercommittee, have earned the right to be paidas members of that committee because theydo excellent work. I commend the member forArcherfield for his dedication to that committeeand the work that he and his committee havecarried out. I think that he has done anexcellent job. I would not think twice if adecision was to be made to pay the membersof Travelsafe. They have certainly earned it forthe work that they have done.

I have concerns about the Members'Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee. I believe that it could be used as aforum by members to perhaps play politics. Ihope that that will not be the case. Certainly,as the previous speaker said, it seemsunfortunate that we need to have an ethicscommittee to tell members how to behave.We all know the stories that abound aboutpeople who have been members of this placeand some of the ways in which they havebehaved. I guess, human nature being what itis and 89 members of this place being themixture that they are, those stories willcontinue. A code of ethics will not stamp outunbecoming conduct by members ofParliament. Human nature being what it is,that will continue forever. I do not like the ideaof a code of conduct but, if we are to haveone, then I believe that there should be inputfrom all members into what they see asnecessary for a code of conduct. As I say, Ihave grave reservations and certainly a lot ofconcerns about it.

The problems of the lifts in this place andmembers' access to the House that themember for Crows Nest mentioned could havebeen resolved five years ago if the buildingthat was on the drawing board at that stage,with Don Duncanson in charge, had beenbuilt. That building was to be located betweenthe end of the annexe and the old ParliamentHouse. It was to be four floors high and havehoused members' offices giving them veryquick access to the Chamber, which wecertainly need now more than ever. Thatplanned building would have solved theproblems of the lifts and taken theaccommodation pressure off the place. It hasbeen sad for me to see this place turn into arabbit-warren. I have seen the big, openspaces on the sixth floor turn into arabbit-warren of little offices. I think that isunfortunate. I do not think that is the way togo. To some degree, it has been created bythe Speaker's insistence that committee staffbe housed within the annexe building. I do notbelieve that that is the be-all and end-all. As Isaid, I am not very big on committees,


anyway. I certainly do not believe that theyhave to be housed under this roof. It might bea cosy little arrangement, but it certainly is nota necessary one. It has cramped up the placeconsiderably, and it has detracted from theamenity of the place, which is mostunfortunate.

I guess a day will come in the future whenall of this will be changed. We may no longerhave the annexe in which to live, and all ofthose sorts of things. They are matters for thefuture. I hope the Speaker will not addressthose concerns without full consultation with allof the members of this place. It is somewhereto which we come and spend a great deal ofour time, so we become attached to it—orotherwise. I guess we have a love-haterelationship with the place.

As I said, I am concerned about thisParliamentary Committees Bill. I do not believethat its provisions are for the better. I guess wewill just have to wait and see. At the end of theday, it will give me no pleasure to be able tosay, "I told you so."

Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (7.30 p.m.): Insupporting the Parliamentary Committees Bill1995, I wish to confine my comments to arebuttal of some of the claims made byOpposition members in the debate today,namely, that the legislation is a sinister plot toundermine the parliamentary process. TheOpposition's comment that we have a hiddenagenda is quite extraordinary coming from apolitical party that probably would not knowwhat reform was even if it hit it in the face. It isquite astounding to see the Opposition goingdown that path.

What we need to do is go back to thebasics of the Bill and examine why it is beforethe House. This Bill is the result of majorreviews by EARC and the ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview. That is basically why the Bill is beforethe House. As has probably been said earlier,the main objectives of this Bill are to establisha new system of committees for theLegislative Assembly in Queensland and toassist it to make laws and monitor theGovernment. The Bill is no different from thatintroduced into the Chamber back in May ofthis year. However, a couple of provisions areexceptions to that statement.

A very important difference is that therevised Bill transfers the functions of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee tothe new Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. I will return

to that issue, because that is a point that hasbeen canvassed fairly widely by theOpposition. The other difference is that this Billabolishes the Parliamentary ServiceCommission and transfers its functions back tothe Speaker of this House. My understandingis that that provision has bipartisan support.

Some of the committees—not all—aregiven major new functions under the Bill. Ofcourse, I refer to the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee, which hasnew functions. The Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee and, of course, the Members'Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committeewill also have new functions, some of whichhave been spelt out.

As I said earlier, I wish to home in on acouple of points. The first concerns the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. My name will be coming beforethis Parliament as a candidate for thatcommittee, and I am hopeful of being electedto it. That committee is not one that, as somepeople have said, will gut or undermine thePCJC. If anything, it will have a lot more workto do. As well as replacing the old PCJC, theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee will replace theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review. In the past, thatcommittee's task was to review EARC reports.Most of that work has been completed.However, my understanding and advice is thatthere is still one EARC report to be reviewed,and that concerns the important Bill of Rights,which the new committee will examine.

The Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee will have farwider authority than the old ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview. There are some points that have notbeen raised in this debate that I wish tocanvass. The new committee will be able toexamine any law reform issue of its choosing.It will be able to examine any constitutionalissue, that is, issues relating to any Billsproposing to repeal any part of theQueensland Constitution. The new committeewill have a specific function to review theconduct of State elections and the capacity ofthe Queensland Electoral Commission toconduct those elections.

The Bill also amends the ParliamentaryCommissioner Act and the Freedom ofInformation Act to establish the newcommittee, which will consult on futureappointments to the position of Ombudsman,who is also the FOI commissioner. The Legal,Constitutional and Administrative Review


Committee will also be able to examine anyBill introduced into this Parliament as part of anationally agreed legislative scheme when theBill is referred to the committee by theLegislative Assembly. As I have said, the newcommittee will have all the functions of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee.

Other committees proposed in thisBill—the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee,the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee, the Public AccountsCommittee and the Public WorksCommittee—were covered by my colleaguesearlier in the debate this evening and I do notwish to comment on them. However, I endorsethe comments made by the member forRockhampton. It is a sad day for members ofthis House when we have to introduce somesort of code of conduct for members of theLegislative Assembly. To some degree, that isa sad reflection on the behaviour andperformance to date of members of thisChamber.

The other issue that I wish to canvass isthat of Government owned corporations,about which a lot has been said, including thatGOCs will be totally exempt from any sort ofreview by these committees. That is not totallycorrect. However, it would not be appropriatefor Government owned corporations to beexamined on a routine basis by thecommittee. GOCs are run on a commercialfooting and it would put them at somedisadvantage to their competitors if we were toreview them continually. Suffice to say that thecommittee will be able to examine any GOCwork that is being constructed to meet itscommunity service obligations. However, as Isaid, the committee will not be able toexamine GOC works constructed purely forcommercial reasons. However, the Bill doesenable such works to be referred to thecommittee by this Assembly where it isdeemed appropriate.

The other issue which I think is mostimportant in respect of this Bill is the protectionof witnesses. Earlier in the year, there wassome controversy surrounding a public hearingbefore the PCJC. This Bill limits the power tocompel witnesses to give answers to questionsthat might tend to be self-incriminating, that is,any answer that might implicate the witness insome form of criminal offence. This limitationhas always applied to the Public AccountsCommittee and the Public Works Committee,and this Bill merely extends that provision to allother standing committees. There really isnothing sinister in that provision.

As I have said, the Bill enables a witnessto refuse to answer a question on the groundsof self-incrimination, but it enables acommittee to refer the witness's refusal to theLegislative Assembly. The Assembly candemand that the witness answer the question,provided that in making its decision to havethe question answered the Assembly hasregard to the interests of the Parliament andalso the rights of the witness. This provision isan attempt to balance the legitimate interestsof this Parliament in pursuing its inquiries withthe legitimate interests of any witness, which isalways a delicate balancing act. That provisionis contained in the Bill to give protection to allparties.

I want to comment on the role of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. Anumber of Opposition members havesuggested that the Government is trying to gutthe PCJC and take away its authority. On myunderstanding and from my reading of the Bill,that is simply not the case. In fact, the Billtransfers the functions and responsibilities ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeto the Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee, which was originallyrecommended by EARC. We are simplyfollowing its recommendations. The transferralof the functions of the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee to the Legal, Constitutionaland Administrative Review Committee willavoid any duplication that would haveoccurred in having two separate committeesdealing with issues affecting the criminaljustice system. One would think that that issimply a matter of common sense.

This Parliament needs to amend theCriminal Justice Act. Schedule 1 of thelegislation before the House contains anamendment to clause 118 of that Act, whichmakes it quite clear that the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee has the powers of the PCJC to callfor persons, papers and records and toexamine witnesses on oath or affirmation.That power was previously conferred on thePCJC by a resolution of this House, but it willnow be enacted in legislation. I reiterate thatthe Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee will have the same powersas the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee currently has.

The Parliamentary Service Commissionwas established by the Parliamentary ServiceAct 1988. My understanding is that that Actwas introduced to curb the powers of theSpeaker of the day. I stand to be corrected onthat; it depends on one's interpretation of the


intention of that Act. The contributions bymembers on both sides of the Chamber havemade it clear that the Parliamentary ServiceCommission has not served this Parliamentwell. I believe it is a good thing that theParliamentary Service Act will be repealed andthat the Speaker of this Parliament will havethe administrative authority for the running ofthis Parliament.

I believe that this is a good,commonsense piece of legislation. It willenhance the reforms to the parliamentarycommittee system. I urge the members of thisForty-eighth Parliament to give it theopportunity to work. I support the Bill.

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (7.44 p.m.):I will make only a brief contribution to thisdebate, but there are a number of points that Iwish to canvass. Regrettably, many of thecontributions by Government members to thisdebate have been aimed at justifying theGovernment's position but have had little to dowith the reality of this legislation. I express mydeep disappointment in this legislation. Ibelieve that it is legislation of missedopportunities. One after another during thisdebate, Government members have stood inthis place to do nothing more than justify theGovernment's position, to try to paint a rosypicture of the legislation before the Parliamentand to try to pretend that it will provide for realscrutiny of Government. Nothing could befurther from the truth.

I acknowledge that the Goss LaborGovernment has introduced some worthwhilereforms to this Parliament. However, it has lostits steam. In fact, I believe that theGovernment has become afraid of its much-touted "reform process". When in Opposition,the Labor Party found it very convenient tomake grand statements about the types ofreforms that it would introduce. Labor Partymembers spoke at great length about theaccountability that would exist post-Fitzgerald.The Labor Party's intention was that thepeople of this State—the people whom weseek to serve—would know exactly what washappening on a day-to-day basis, wouldunderstand the decisions of Government andwould know that there was no corruption ormalpractice and that the Government and theprocesses of government were accountable tothe people and thoroughly scrutinised.Regrettably, this legislation does not provideadequately for those objectives. As I said, it islegislation of missed opportunities.

I want to speak briefly about Governmentowned corporations. Much has been said onthat issue by members on both sides of the

Chamber. Opposition members have putforward the reasons why GOCs ought to bescrutinised, and Government members—including the previous speaker, the memberfor Sandgate—have said that it would be quiteimproper for GOCs to be scrutinised because itmight adversely affect their competitiveadvantage. It should be noted that thelegislation provides that any sensitive evidencerelating to GOCs could be taken in camera.That type of information is able to beprotected under the legislation by thecommittee involved, as long as an appropriatescrutiny mechanism is in place. However, theGovernment has failed to take up theopportunity to scrutinise the operations ofGOCs.

Let us ask ourselves about GOCs. Why isit that GOCs ought to be off budget? Why is itthat their debt ought not to be scrutinised bythis Parliament? Why is it that the functions ofGOCs in terms of their efficiency and theircapacity to spend taxpayers' money shouldnot be scrutinised? After all, the GOCs are thetemporary custodians of that money as itpasses through their bank accounts. Whyought those matters not be open to thescrutiny of this Parliament? Earlier in thisdebate, a Government member stated thatthe Parliament remains the ultimate arbiter inthose matters—as it ought to be.

I am concerned about the position withGovernment owned corporations. I will fleshthat out by speaking about the matter that hasarisen in the last couple of days. I refer to thefact that AUSTA, the corporation responsiblefor the generation of electricity in this State,was discovered by the Opposition to havebeen undertaking a questionable fundingproposal. I say "questionable" because I haveconsidered this matter deeply, and I believethat there is little doubt that it wasquestionable. Why did that occur? It is myview that it occurred because the Governmentissued quite improper instructions to aGovernment owned corporation, which, by itsvery charter, ought to be and must be at arm'slength from the Government. That was theway in which it was set up.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: The Treasurer hasalready said to this House that he did notissue instructions, and he's an honestperson—unlike yourself.

Mr GILMORE: I cannot help but takethat interjection. The honourable member forChermside just made two statements that aremutually exclusive: he mentioned theTreasurer on the one hand and honesty onthe other. Regrettably, I cannot agree with the


comments by the member for Chermside. Imight add that I cannot agree with thestatement by the Treasurer in this place thatthat was not the position, because there is noevidence to the contrary—none at all. In fact,after considerable questioning, theHonourable the Treasurer refused to clarify thesituation or to justify his position other than tosay, "Believe me! I am from the Government. Iam here to help."

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Not at all. Heanswered, what, two or three questions on it.

Mr GILMORE: But all were answered inan obscure manner. The Treasurer was neverprepared to justify his position, and he did notdo so.

On any account, it appears that we havehere some sort of strange arrangementwhereby AUSTA, apparently under instructionfrom the Government, has chosen torefinance the only asset that was owned byAUSTA—as far as we can ascertain—thatnever had debt ascribed to it. It was builtwithout debt. I note that the Treasurer is in theChamber and that he is smiling quietly.Obviously, since the Treasurer has been sittingin that seat something strange and wonderfulhas happened to the funding arrangementsassociated with the Stanwell Power Station.When that power station was put on theground by the previous Government, it was tobe constructed without debt from theday-to-day cash flow of the QEC. There wasno question about that. Does the Treasurerseek to deny that?

Mr De Lacy: I think you're fantasising;that's all I can say.

Mr GILMORE: I am fantasising. An Opposition member: There was

no denial.

Mr GILMORE: I note that there was nodenial. Obviously, a bit of fancy footwork hasgone on concerning the debt associated withthe Stanwell Power Station.

What is the situation now? Let us becharitable for a moment. Let us suggest thatthe Stanwell Power Station was built withoutdebt; that it was built from the cash flow ofQEC—now AUSTA—as it was supposed to be.All of a sudden, the generators are to beleased—not the whole box and dice, not thewhole shooting match, just the generatingsets. They are going to be leased to acorporation that we have never heard ofbefore. We are not going to lease them to oneof Australia's great superannuation funds, theAMP or any other Australian which has a fewbob. We have sought that business

elsewhere—across the sea. We have sought itfrom a corporation with who knows what kindof a background. That corporation has beenbrought here, without any public expressionsof interest being called or tenders being called.It has been asked to inspect this asset and tolease our generating sets from us, to whataim?

It appears that somebody will get a$200m up-front payment per generating set.That appears to be the case.

Mr De Lacy: I wish that was true.

Mr GILMORE: The Treasurer hadseveral opportunities in the past couple ofdays to answer that question and he refusedto do so. Would he like to have the 12minutes left to me now?

Mr De Lacy: I just like to keep you insuspense.

Mr GILMORE: That is because theTreasurer is indulging in some dodgy financearrangement. Let us expose it further. We aregiving $200m up front. Who will get thatmoney, and for what? The interesting thing isthat AUSTA Electric, having leased out thethree generating sets of our newest asset withno debt, has now attributed some $600m tothat asset. That money is up front. Themoney—the justification for that $600m—willbe coming from the purchase of power fromthose generating sets by AUSTA for on-sale tothe people of Queensland. There is noquestion in my mind that that is the case,because the Treasurer and the Premier havealready said that there is no changewhatsoever to ownership. Therefore, it mustbe some kind of lease or mortgage or someother kind of document. I believe it is a lease,in which case we will be purchasing powerback from those generating sets.

Mr De Lacy: No, we are leasing it back.

Mr GILMORE: Does the Treasurermean that the Government has sold them andleased them back?

Mr De Lacy: No, it's a hire and aleaseback. It's just a financing transaction.One of these days, you'll wake up to that.

Mr GILMORE: I want that on record.

Mr De Lacy: There's been about 27 inthe last 12 years—17 by the National PartyGovernment and 10 by us.

Mr GILMORE: Let us flesh this out a bitfurther. Once the money comes up front,where does it go?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrBredhauer): Order! I have been quite lenient


and showed some latitude. However, I ask themember to come back to the Bill before theHouse, which is the Parliamentary CommitteesBill.

Mr GILMORE: Mr Deputy Speaker, Idraw your attention to the first thing I said inrespect of this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I haveheard all of the member's 10 minutes ofdebate. I am suggesting the member comeback to the Bill before the House.

Mr GILMORE: I will most certainly comeback to the Bill. The question I have raised iswhether Government owned corporations andtheir functions ought to be available forscrutiny by the parliamentary committees. Inany case, I am sure that what happened inthat dodgy fundraising proposal will be furthercanvassed at a later time.

I turn now to freedom of information. Ihave spoken about freedom of informationpreviously in this Parliament, and I havealways been harangued from the other side ofthe Chamber. Those opposite say that whenthe National Party was in Government therewas no freedom of information, and that istrue. However, let us look at some commentsmade by the previous Attorney-General aboutthe freedom of information legislation when hefirst introduced it into this Parliament. Let usthink back. He said that it was going to beworld-class freedom of information and that itwould be the best in this country. He said thatit was going to provide information to thecommunity that had never been providedbefore.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: That's true, and thatoccurred. It occurred, and you can check yourpersonal file.

Mr GILMORE: It did occur, but it nolonger occurs, because this Government wentweak in the knees. It chose to amend thatlegislation so that it would no longer affordproper scrutiny of the functions of thisGovernment. I welcome the Premier into theChamber.

When we seek some information, whatdo we get? I have a lot of experience at thisbecause I use freedom of information simplyto prove to myself that information isunavailable under this scheme. If one isfortunate enough to mention in an application,after paying the $30 fee, a certain documentor group of documents, then one receivesaccess to them. However, there is no provisionin the legislation for any kind of report orcompilation of information from those datathat are provided—those bare sheets ofinformation.

I said earlier that this was an opportunitythat was missed. It was a great opportunity forus to have a look at freedom of informationand to ensure that, in the future, reports areable to be provided, with the justification ofthat report appended on the side thatidentifies the documents from which it wasdrafted. All members are busy, and when wereceive 500 documents under freedom ofinformation we do not have time to sit downand compile our own report from them. Itwould save a lot of time and expense forGovernment departments if the compilation ofreports was allowed under the terms of thelegislation. However, it appears that that willnot be the case. This Government is notprepared to allow itself to be properlyscrutinised either by the Opposition or by thecommunity. That is sad, because thisGovernment is supposed to be the greatperformer, the great introducer of accountableprocesses.

I wish to speak briefly on whistleblowers.There is not a single mention in this legislationabout whistleblowers. What a wastedopportunity!

Mr Hollis: It's not whistleblowerslegislation. That's not what it is. It's aboutcommittees.

Mr GILMORE: Yes, I know. If thehonourable member looks at what thecommittees are entitled to consider, he will seefreedom of information and legislationmentioned, but nothing about whistleblowers.These committees are not able, in terms ofthe review of legislation or otherwise, to makerecommendations to this Government aboutthe future of whistleblower legislation. It is amissed opportunity because, under the currentwhistleblower legislation, any person whodiscovers something that he considers to bewrong, inappropriate, corrupt or otherwisemust go to his immediate superior, irrespectiveof whether that immediate superior happensto be the person who is the subject of thewhistleblowing action. Whistleblowers couldfind themselves blowing the whistle to theperson who is deemed to have donesomething wrong. That is a quite inappropriatedevice to keep this Government free ofscrutiny.

I suggest that there ought to be acommissioner of whistleblowers—somebodypeople can go to in the first instance withabsolute security for their position. I think weneed something like the Ombudsman's Office.I hear members opposite laughing about theOmbudsman's Office and saying that it is anincompetent office. I find that to be verystrange.


Mr T. B. Sullivan: I rise to a point oforder. No-one on this side of the House waslaughing and no-one made any comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thereis no point of order. The member forChermside will resume his seat.

Mr GILMORE: It is important that, whenspeaking of reform and the processes to beput in place by this legislation relating tocommittees, what they can do and whatrecommendations they can make to theGovernment relating to structure of legislation,whistleblowers be placed under theresponsibility of a particular committee so thatat the end of the day there will be realwhistleblower legislation that provides realprotection for individuals who are braveenough to stand up in the community andsay, "I have seen something which is bad; Ihave seen something which I believe to becorrupt." A whistleblower commissioner wouldallow many people who observe things on aday-to-day basis which they may misconstrueas being bad or corrupt which are notnecessarily bad or corrupt an opportunity to airtheir concerns. If there was an independentarbiter such as the commissioner forwhistleblowers who had the powers of theOmbudsman, he could determine those thingswithout damage being done either to thewhistleblower or to the innocent party. I believethat is a very important principle that has beenmissed by this legislation and one that weought to rethink.

Mr Santoro: Maybe they are trying tostop Peter Pyke from making furtherallegations about them.

Mr GILMORE: That may well be thecase. Whatever it is, the members oppositeare covering up. They continue to do so underthe guise of being the great reformers. Therhetoric that comes from the Government sideof the House in justification of that is sickeningand it makes me tired to listen to it.

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr GILMORE: I am sure I did. I amsure I hurt the poor chap, but it wasunintentional. I just called him a wimp and hegot offended by that. In terms of the PublicWorks Committee and the Public AccountsCommittee—it seems to me that what theGovernment is entrenching in this legislation isthe absolute certainty that things that come toour notice as members of Parliament as beingquestionable, doubtful, corrupt or inefficient willnever be looked at by these committeesbecause they have to be referred by themajority of these committees and the majority

is held by the Government and the chairmenof those committees who have the castingvote are members of the Government.

It seems to me that we ought to look verycarefully at an amendment to this legislation.Reference to this committee should be able tocome from citizens or it ought to be able tocome from two of the members of thatcommittee; it ought not be subject to themajority rule. If a citizen comes to thisParliament and says to the committee, "Ibelieve that this is crook", then there shouldbe an automatic referral. Two members of thatcommittee—who, after all, are members of thisParliament—should be able to go to thecommittee and present some evidence andsay, "Even though this is only a small amountof money, we believe that the actions of thisperson or that person or the incompetence ofthat department is so bad in respect of thisamount of money that it ought to beconsidered by these two committees."However, it is not to be so. It will not beallowed by this legislation.

It is of grave concern to me that thisGovernment continues to introduce legislationwhich is branded as reformist when in fact it isa cover-up—an absolute cover-up—of thekinds of things that we are saying ought to beexposed. This Labor Government should dothe right thing by the people of this State, butit has not got what it takes to take these verystringent steps.

I see the Premier smiling. It is not whatthe committee discovers that matters; it is howhis Government responds to that discoverythat matters. Clearly, the Premier is not gameto put himself to the test.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield) (8.02 p.m.):When the Premier introduced the originalParliamentary Committees Bill into this Houseon 24 May 1995, I had some concerns.However, I was generally satisfied with itsprovisions. Certainly the Bill had its drawbacks,but overall I thought that it would haveimproved the operations of the Parliament. Isuggest to all honourable members that theBill that the Premier introduced on 7September 1995—the one that we aredebating tonight—is a totally differentproposition. I fear that this Bill will weakenparliamentary control over the Executive andwill, in fact, lead to people questioning theeffectiveness and legitimacy of parliamentarycommittees.

These concerns are based on thedecision of this Government to abolish theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee andcombine its functions with those of the


proposed Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. I will discussthis retrograde step in a moment. However,before doing so, I would like to briefly put thisBill into historical context.

Firstly, as all honourable members wouldknow, commentators on the Westminstersystem this century have bemoaned theincessant diminution of the role of Parliamentand the seemingly inexorable rise of the powerof the Executive arm of Government, and,more recently, the party system. This problemis even greater in Queensland where there isonly one House, and, consequently, no houseof review, and a Government formed by aparty—the Labor Party—with the most rigidsystem of control of members in the WesternWorld.

In these circumstances, I would haveliked to welcome the introduction of theParliamentary Committees Bill, which creates atotally new standing committee—the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee—and considerably expands therole of two existing committees, that is, theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee and the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee. Like many other initiatives of thisGovernment, this reform measure has takenan inordinate period to reach this place andhas gone through many drafts, all dependenton the shifting and totally cynical politicalimperatives of the Premier and his colleagues.

The Electoral and Administrative ReviewCommission presented its Report on a Reviewof Parliamentary Committees in October 1992.In turn, the Parliamentary Committee forElectoral and Administrative Review presentedits report in October 1993. Almost two yearslater, and just before the last State election,the Premier introduced the first ParliamentaryCommittees Bill—a Bill which significantlydiluted the recommendations of thecommission and parliamentary committee andwhich, in any event, was left to lapse when thePremier called the election. Now we arepresented with Mark 2 of the Bill which, as Ihave said, is a much weaker version—aversion which has as much to do with theGovernment's knife-edge majority in thisHouse as it does with its fixation withcontrolling the political agenda by weakeningparliamentary oversight of the Criminal JusticeCommission so that it can play God with thatbody.

Firstly, I wish to place on record mysupport for the sensible and well-thought-outreasons adduced by the Parliamentary

Committee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview in its Report on a Review ofParliamentary Committees. The parliamentarycommittee proposed a system of six specialistcommittees augmented by Estimatescommittees which would be focused onscrutiny and accountability rather than generalpolicy inquiry. It suggested that any committeesystem at this stage should concentrate onthe core functions of Parliament rather thangeneral policy review, which could overload thecommittee system and not achieve anysignificant results having regard to the partysystem.

I agree with the parliamentary committeethat the main role of committees should bethe rigorous scrutiny of Government activityrather than general policy investigation. As tothe latter—committees would never have thetime, resources, bipartisanship or power toachieve sustainable results. In the jargon ofmodern public administration, a committee'sprime performance indicator must be effectivereview of administrative actions.

In this context, I turn to the Premier's lessthan helpful comments in his second-readingspeech on the proposed abolition of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee.Firstly, he pointed out that the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission in its reviewof the parliamentary committee systemrecommended that its proposed legal andconstitutional committee should take over therole of the PCJC. What the Premier did notdisclose, and did not attempt to rebut, was thefirm rejection of this recommendation by theParliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review. For the benefit of allhonourable members, I will quote what thisindependent all-party parliamentary committeehad to say about that recommendation—

"The Committee does not believethat the reform process has ended inQueensland. There is still work thatremains to be done, not least of which isthe implementation of outstandingrecommendations of this committee,EARC, the Criminal Justice Commissionand the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. It is appropriate andconstitutionally proper for the Parliamentto continue to have a voice in these areasand the most convenient and effectiveformat for such Parliamentaryinvolvement is through a committee. Thusthe proposed Legal and ConstitutionalCommittee is connected with Parliament'score constitutional functions in a way thatother constitutional committees proposed


by EARC are not. It is for these reasonsthat this Committee"—

that is, PEARC—

"recommends the establishment of aLegal and Constitutional Committee, assuggested by EARC, together with thecontinuation of the current ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee."

This all-party committee knew full wellwhat would happen to the reform process, toproper scrutiny of criminal justice issues in thisState, if the PCJC was abolished, and it hadno hesitation in rejecting such a suggestionout of hand. It is instructive to compare thePremier's comments in recommending theabolition of the committee with the cogentreasons adduced by the parliamentary EARCcommittee for retaining it.

The Premier suggested that combiningthe functions of the PCJC with those of theLCARC would avoid duplication and was notdesigned to "diminish the Parliament'scapacity to oversee the CJC". Yet PEARC, inits report, quoted this extract from asubmission it received from the CJC—

". . . a Legal and ConstitutionalCommittee with wide-ranging functionsproposed would have a greatlydiminished ability to closely scrutinise theactions of the Commission. Further, to acertain extent, the Commission would beless autonomous from other bodiesconcerned with criminal justice by reasonof the fact that the same ParliamentaryCommittee would also be overseeingthose bodies. There is a case for makingan exception to the system ofCommittees and retaining aParliamentary Committee solely for thepurpose of monitoring and reviewing theCommission."

These are powerful arguments forretaining the PCJC, and it will come as nosurprise that the PCEAR endorsed them.Indeed, the clear reasoning of the PCEARmakes a mockery of the Premier's excuses forabolishing the PCJC. For the benefit ofGovernment members, especially themembers for Caboolture and Everton, whowere members of the committee at the time, Ishall quote what the PCEAR said. It stated—

"The Committee agrees with the CJCand considers that the existing CriminalJustice Committee should be maintainedwith its current functions. Supervision ofthe CJC is a matter which, at least at thispoint in time, is of such significance andwhich involves such a workload that this

function would clearly dominate anycommittee which also had otherfunctions. Whilst supervision of the CJC isimportant, so too is the parliamentaryoversight of legal, constitutional andelectoral reform, and the Committeeconsiders that these functions can onlybe performed satisfactorily by separatecommittees."

Having served on the PCJC, Iwholeheartedly concur with those sentiments.The PCJC plays a pivotal role in our system ofcriminal justice. It ensures properparliamentary supervision over one of themost powerful statutory authorities evercreated in Australia. The CJC was a creation ofthe Fitzgerald reform process. It was regardedas central to creating and maintaining anethos of honesty and propriety in all arms ofExecutive Government and to assisting intargeting areas of substantial concern in ourcriminal justice system, especially organisedcrime.

I know that the commission's workload isenormous. When I was a member of thePCJC, I used to devote approximately eightfull days a month to my committeeresponsibilities; yet even this seemed not tobe enough. I often felt that my fellowcommittee members and I needed to givemore of our time just to keep abreast ofmatters as they were developing. Toamalgamate that committee with one havingresponsibility for reviewing the conduct ofState elections, the activities of the ElectoralCommission, reports of the Law ReformCommission, legal reform issues generally,Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customarylaw, constitutional issues affecting the Stateand the operations of the Ombudsman iscrazy. It is crazy if one is really serious aboutparliamentary oversight of the Executive; it isnot crazy if one wants to so overload thecommittee that it becomes incapable ofcarrying out its duties properly.

This Bill will emasculate parliamentaryoversight of the criminal justice system andoversight of legal and reform issues. It is atravesty and a repudiation of the reformprocess. It is the first major step in theabolition of the reform process that wasinstituted by Fitzgerald. In recommending thePCJC, Tony Fitzgerald argued that it could—

". . . provide an effective democraticmechanism to determine whichcontroversies should be fully investigatedto allay public concern."

I suggest that the PCJC has fulfilled that roleadmirably, at least during the term of the first


committee. I suggest to honourable membersthat perhaps it has fulfilled that role a little tooadmirably. The suggestion that it should beabolished is regrettable and will set back thereform process rather than enhance it.

Unfortunately, the proposed abolition ofthe PCJC is not the only major deviation fromthe PCEAR report effected by thisGovernment. The parliamentary committeerecommended that the public administration ofthis State required scrutiny by threecommittees, namely, the Public AccountsCommittee, the Public Works Committee andthe Public Sector Review Committee. I shouldadd that the first two committees were set upbefore the election of the Goss LaborGovernment. I join with other members of thisHouse who have acknowledged thecontribution of Liberal members who, in 1983,gave it all away in the interest of aparliamentary committee system.

The Public Sector Review Committee, asrecommended, was to have responsibility fordealing with, firstly, any matter concernedgenerally with the public administration ofQueensland, including assessing the probity,economy and efficiency of a department, localauthority, statutory body or statutory office;secondly, any matter concerned with thestructure, organisation and efficiency of adepartment, local authority, statutory body orstatutory office including, the Ombudsman,the Information Commissioner or the PublicSector Management Commission; or thirdly,any matter concerned with legislation providingfor review of decisions, access to information,equal employment opportunity or anti-discrimination.

Of these three sectors of responsibility,only the last-mentioned is adequately coveredin the Premier's Bill. It is referred to as"administrative review reform" and is capableof being investigated by the proposed Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. It is disgraceful that thisGovernment has emasculated theparliamentary committee's proposal forensuring accountability of the publicadministration of this State. Obviously, thisGovernment wants tame-cat accountabilityand runs scared when bodies such as thePSMC are proposed to be subject toindependent review.

When this Government came to power, ithad its minders in the PSMC and Office of theCabinet do hatchet jobs on each departmentof State. The first series of hatchet job reportswere in the form of Cabinet informationpapers, so that the people and bodies

defamed and vilified were kept in the dark andhad no right of reply. That was the form ofpublic sector review that this Governmentpractised. Yet when it is suggested that therebe an independent, open and objectivecommittee to carry out proper reviews on thepublic sector, this Government squibs.

The last Chair of PCEAR and formermember for Barron River, Dr Clark, quitecorrectly said in her foreword to the PCEARreport that one of the main roles ofparliamentary committees is to monitor andreview the efficiency and effectiveness ofpublic administration. This is particularlyimportant when it comes to statutory bodiesand persons. The importance of the PublicSector Management Commission goeswithout saying. But, in addition, Government-owned enterprises are increasingly in need ofproper supervision, especially with ongoingcommercialisation and the effects of theHilmer report now being factored in. I couldelaborate at length, but that point has beenelaborated upon by speakers who havepreceded me, including the honourablemember for Tablelands.

In comparison with this Government'sfeebleness, I point to the Victorian PublicBodies Review Committee, which has specificresponsibility for reviewing the efficiency,effectiveness, structure and role of Victoria'spublic bodies. It is instructional to note thatthat committee has operated successfullysince 1980. In a very interesting articlepublished in 1982, the then chairman of thecommittee, Dr Foley, raised three reasons whysuch a committee was essential for goodgovernment in modern Australia.

Firstly, he pointed out that responsiblemanagement—something of which thisGovernment is incapable—demanded that alllevels of a decision-making hierarchy havesufficient information on past actions, ongoingoperations and future plans to allow informedand rational decisions. Secondly, he arguedthat State Governments conduct the vastmajority of their activities through the publicbodies sector, which is poorly understood,diverse in the extreme and highly fragmented.Given that size, complexity and the fact that,until recently, this sector has not beenseriously analysed, any attempt to discuss themachinery of government withoutconcentration on that sector would be, to usehis words, "so partial as to be meaningless, orat best trivial." Finally, he suggested that therewas a recognition that all may not be as itshould, either within the public bodies sector orbetween various public bodies and


Government or between public bodiesgenerally and the Parliament.

I suggest that this is at least as true ofQueensland in 1995 as it was of Victoria in1982. For, unlike the situation in 1982, ourpublic sector is undergoing massive changesbrought about by corporatisation and theHilmer competition law reform processgenerally. The corporatisation of Government-owned enterprises and the greater competitionthese bodies will face present challenges andopportunities. Never before has the publicsector had to face such an uncertainenvironment, and, in that context, it is surelyessential that there be some ongoingindependent oversight capability by Parliamentso that taxpayers' funds are protected andundesirable practices do not develop.

I am also concerned that whilst theproposed Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee will havecertain administrative functions, it will not havethe power to consider or review particularcases that are determined by the InformationCommissioner, the Ombudsman or the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. If this committeeis to be effective, surely it should have such areserve power, because the outcomes ofcertain decisions, or the way that a decisionhas been reached, will have a bearing onwhether the particular legislation in questionneeds reform or redrafting.

I am also concerned about ministerialresponses to reports of the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee. Clause 25 specificallyexcludes ministerial compliance with theprocedure outlined in that clause forresponding to committee reports. TheExplanatory Notes explain this situation asfollows—

"Clause 25(1) provides that theMinister need not respond to a report ofthe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee.This provision has been included becausethe strict time limits applying to theCommittee's review of Bills will not enableMinisters to respond in the mannerenvisaged by clause 25. Ministers wouldgenerally respond to the Committee'sreports during Parliamentary debate onthe legislation. However, clause 25(7)makes it clear that Ministers are notprevented from making a formal responseto the Committee's reports when it ispracticable to do so."

The bottom line is that Ministers can ignorewith impunity reports of the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee.

Compounding this, as page 5 of theExplanatory Notes makes clear, thiscommittee will not be entitled to approachParliamentary Counsel about the policyinherent in the drafting of legislation orsubordinate legislation. I can understand thatthere is an argument about legal professionalprivilege between Parliamentary Counsel andinstructing departments. However, thecombination of a right of Ministers to ignoreScrutiny of Legislation Committee reportsadded with the inability of this committee toseek advice from Parliamentary Counsel aboutthe matters in contention ensures that thework of this committee as well as itseffectiveness have been seriouslycompromised.

In 1991, the then South AustralianMinister for Education, when introducing thatState's Parliamentary Committees Bill for thesecond reading, stated—

"The establishment of a streamlinedand revitalised review process whichinvolves members of Parliament in theprocess of Government and in significantcommunity issues, as well as encouragingdiscussion and communication betweendiverse interest groups across the State,is a significant step in maintaining andreinforcing the principles of parliamentarydemocracy.

An efficient and effective committeesystem will increase public contact,awareness and respect for the process ofdemocracy and allow for the developmentof a review process which establisheslinks and promotes discussion acrossdisciplines and professions, betweenregions, between parliamentarians andthose who elect them, and betweenpublic and private sectors."I know from personal experience on

parliamentary committees how useful they canbe and how they often have the habit ofreinforcing those principles which uniteparliamentarians and citizens, as distinct fromthose which divide us as members of differentpolitical parties. In a unicameral Parliament, avibrant parliamentary committee system is notonly desirable, it is essential. It was on thisprinciple that the Liberal Party, as I saidbefore, gave away so much in 1983. It is afundamental tenet of liberalism that theinstitution of the Parliament must bestrengthened by measures such as a strongcommittee system to ensure that it cancontinue to fulfil its core function of reviewinglegislation and retaining a position ofsupremacy over the Executive which it


chooses and which it has established to keepresponsible and accountable.

In this context, I am gravely disappointedwith this Bill. Not only will it not significantlyadvance parliamentary Government, properscrutiny of the Executive or independentstatutory bodies such as the CJC but it willweaken many of the controls, checks andbalances that are currently in place. I am surethat the wholesale deletion of the appropriatesupervision of elements of publicadministration, in particular the PSMC andGovernment owned enterprises, will have tobe remedied in the future because thisomission seriously weakens the Bill.

The ability of Ministers to ignore Scrutinyof Legislation Committee reports renders thatbody little more than a debating society. Tothe extent that the role of that committee hasbeen expanded, it has come at the cost of thecommittee being regarded as almostpowerless. I only hope that Ministers considerthat committee's reports and do not ignore italtogether, for this would indeed be a travesty.

However, these drawbacks pale intoinsignificance with the abolition of the PCJC.This move will hamper law enforcement, mostprobably weaken public confidence in the CJCand undermine the capacity of the proposedLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee to carry out its duties. Thismove has nothing to recommend it, and this issurely a black day for all those persons whoreally believed that this Government had learntany lessons from its overwhelming repudiationby the voters several months ago. Thearrogance, myopia and incapacity of thePremier and his cronies to stand any type ofcriticism has once again surfaced.

This Bill is an unqualified repudiation ofthe reform process and a symptom rather thana cure for what has been characterised as analmost total breakdown in the chain ofaccountability of the Government to thisHouse and the people of Queensland.

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(8.23 p.m.): The decision to incorporate theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee intothe new Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee is a sham.The Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeehad a large and very important job to do, yet itis going to be incorporated into a committeewhich will be responsible for administrativereview reform, constitutional reform, electoralreform and legal reform. I will not even go intoissues such as access to information, becausethat is covered in the Bill. However, thatamounts to one heck of a lot of work. The

members of the Criminal Justice Committeewere required to put in more hours of workthan the members of any other committee ofthis Parliament. However, that committee willbe incorporated in a super committee, whichwill be limited by the amount of time that itsmembers will have to serve on thatcommittee—and to serve on it well.

It is my view that the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee should remain andhave more power to keep an eye on theCriminal Justice Commission. The CriminalJustice Commission costs in the order of $22mto $23m a year to run, and it employs 250people. That represents half the cost and halfthe staff of the national organisation, ASIO.The CJC, which is its own entity, can literally doas it likes with very little comeback from theParliament. For example, on three occasionsthe committee raised major issues with theCriminal Justice Commission. On threeoccasions there was an automatic leak to thepress, and the committee underwentinvestigation. Of course, the daddy of thoseinvestigations was Operation Wallah, which iscosting taxpayers many thousands of dollars.That investigation is supposed to determinewho in the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee or the commission leaked thatinformation. It is fairly clear that nothing wasleaked from the committee. The leak mostlikely came from a southern source because aparticular group—probably the National CrimeAuthority or the Federal Police—felt that itsinvestigations into Operation Wallah and avery important senator were beingwhitewashed. The leak probably occurredbecause that group wanted to get somethingdone. Large sums of money are being spentby the commission on that investigation, andsome members have had to face five or sixQCs—and for what? For nothing! I questionthe ethics of that.

Could it be that the Criminal JusticeCommission is trying to stand over theParliament or its representatives, and themoment that an issue is raised its membersthink, "We will sort them out; we will have yetanother investigation"? A very serious concernis that some members of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee—or the new supercommittee which will incorporate it—mightthink, "What is the use? Why raise theseimportant issues? Why run the risk of beinginvestigated, because one does not know forsure what the end result of an investigation willbe?" I am not saying that that has been thecase, but it is possible. That could stop somemembers from raising issues which may becritical of the Criminal Justice Commission. As


members of Parliament we have to show thecommission that it is accountable. Let us notkid ourselves. If the commission continueswithout real accountability, it will be only amatter of time before it starts to take excessiveleverage. The flashier the hotels those peoplestay in, the greater will be the number ofunnecessary investigations; and we will reachthe stage at which the original job is not done.

Generally speaking, members ofParliament have a fair idea of what is goingon; they have their feet on the ground, andthey are in a good position to know what theCriminal Justice Commission should or shouldnot be doing. Our powers are being takenaway, and the parliamentary committee will bemerged into the new super committee. Yetagain, accountability will go out the back door.It should be remembered that the highestcourt in the land is indeed the Parliament. We,as members of Parliament, should beaccountable and responsible for the CriminalJustice Commission.

It is not good enough to say that we havea right to accountability if we cannot exercisethat right. It worries me very, very greatly thatwe are going along a track that, ultimately, willlead us into the hands of the criminals.Without proper scrutiny, the Criminal JusticeCommission, like any other organisationwithout proper scrutiny, will became lax in itsjob. It will become easier for the CJC toinvestigate Mary Smith from the Logan CWAabout sixpence rather than to investigate themain issues.

I have to say that the Criminal JusticeCommission undertakes far too many stupidinvestigations that, in the end, do not do a lotto bring criminals to heel. The current inquiryinto Operation Wallah is one suchinvestigation. Have members heard anythingso stupid? The senator involved—and I amnot going to name him—is now runningaround free. He is making lots and lots ofmoney while we silly clowns are beinginvestigated.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: We're not sillyclowns.

Mr LESTER: That does not really makea lot of sense. I meant that comment toinclude all of us, because we are all membersof the Parliament and the inquiry couldinvestigate each and every one of us. Onenever knows, the CJC has to power to extendthe terms of reference of the inquiry and callwhoever it likes, just to make a few extra bob.Is that not a temptation for QCs and suchpeople, who run these investigations withoutany responsibility for accountability? They just

widen the terms of reference and extend theinquiry for another 16 weeks. That puts moremoney in their pockets. That really has to besaid. God knows how members are going tohave the time to give this new supercommittee all that they should. Members arenot going to have the time to do their job onthat committee properly. Therefore, we have aserious problem.

Mr Cooper: The resources that you'regiven don't go to the members of thecommittee, they go to the chairman, don'tthey?

Mr LESTER: I am coming to that issueof resources. It has been said that moreresources will be made available to the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. That could well mean anothercouple of research officers. But the allocationof resources is really at the behest of thechairperson. At this point, I am going to makeit very, very clear that those resources aregoing to have to be made available to allmembers of the committee. They all have tohave resources to undertake investigations tokeep them up to scratch with what is going on.Those resources have to be made availablefor members without fear or favour. At themoment, this Parliament is very, very finelybalanced.

I serve notice that the Opposition will bedemanding equal access to the informationthat is made available to the Labor membersof the committee. If the Opposition membersdo not receive that information, we are goingto be heading for a row. Hopefully,commonsense will prevail. Certainly, I will notmake any prejudgments, but the Oppositionmembers of that committee need to be givena fair go. If not, quite simply, the Oppositionwill be presenting minority reports. If theOpposition members of this committee are notgiven the rights that they believe they shouldbe given, they will be making their views heardin the Parliament. The Legal, Constitutionaland Administration Review Committee is justabout the crux of everything—electoral review,discrimination, the Criminal JusticeCommission—just about the lot. Oppositionmembers have to make sure that they arebriefed whenever they want to be briefed. Ifthey wish to disagree with the committee'sfindings, they have to make sure that advice isavailable to them. This committee cannot be aparty-political committee, or be used to theadvantage of the Labor Party.

I must also comment on the issue ofparliamentary privilege. If members say thingsbehind closed doors, that is where they should


remain. If people who head inquiries press toobtain information that members ofcommittees have been privy to behind closeddoors, then our whole parliamentary systemcould break down. It really could. We have tomake sure that this practice is stopped.Parliamentary privilege is important. If at somesubsequent inquiry people can be sent to gaolfor not disclosing information that theyreceived under parliamentary privilege, that willinhibit people in saying what they think. So wehave a great deal to be worried about. I sayquite simply that, within reason, Oppositionmembers are going to demand the right tospeak out if they feel that they have to.

The situation that arose with the lastParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeemust never occur again. Opposition membersof that committee went to the Criminal JusticeCommission to look at the Wallah files. At theCJC, the former chairman of the committeeissued instructions that limited the informationthat the Opposition members of thecommittee could be given. That is wrong. Iserve notice that, under no circumstances willthe Opposition members of this supercommittee, the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee, beaccepting that sort of treatment. They willmake their position very, very clear. If theyhave to, they will state their position in theParliament and they will state it in the media.So I tell members to take note that that iswhat is going to happen.

I might also say that the action of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee ofputting my colleague Neil Turner before theParliamentary Privileges Committee waswrong. In my view, it was not fair or ethical forthe chairman of that committee to make thecomments that he did in this place. Membersknow that those were difficult times. We knowsome of the circumstances behind the matter.However, the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee is supposed to be a team. Thebottom line is that the committee should becatching the criminals, not engaging in cheappolitical point scoring shortly before anelection. Is it any wonder that the Chairman ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeenearly lost his seat? He could well lose it yet. Ijust leave it at that.

But let us make sure that the members ofthese committees, the whole jolly lot of them,are treated as they are supposed to betreated, as a fair and equitable group ofbipartisan people doing what is best for thepeople of Queensland. That must be a priority.Whether it is the Public Works Committee or

the Public Accounts Committee receiving a fairgo, or the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee catching thecriminals or whatever, we have to do ittogether. If we are going to use thesecommittees to politicise issues then we mightas well shut up shop.

The committees have to be make surethat the organisations for which they areresponsible are answerable to them. I will fightuntil the cows come home to make sure thatthe members of the committees receive a fairgo. They will not hesitate to again question theCriminal Justice Commission. They will expectthe CJC to be more forthcoming on the issues.The members the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee will also bemaking it very clear to the members of theCJC that they cannot behave like little childrenwhen members of the committee dare toquestion them about what they are doing. TheCJC has a responsibility to the people ofQueensland. It is going to have to take themembers of the committee for what they are,that is, its watchdog.

Somehow, the Government has caved inwith this legislation. It would not surprise me ifthe legislation is amended not too far downthe track to either split up the role of the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee or to give it more power to dealwith the Criminal Justice Commission. To thinkthat the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee has been investigated three timesbecause it has dared to question the CJC isreally a sad indictment on our State. Is thatnot a clear case of standover tactics? Is thatnot a clear case of bullying tactics? Is that notsaying, "Don't you dare question us. We willbeat you into submission by investigatingyou"? It did not stop the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee, but I really haveto question how those leaks appeared in thenewspapers every time members of thecommittee dared to ask a question.

From time to time, the Criminal JusticeCommission has to be taken on. I had betternot name any particular instances or I mightfind myself involved in another investigation.Nevertheless, credit is due to theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee,which took on the CJC over certain issues andwon. Importantly, that was done in theinterests of the public of Queensland. I offerthis advice to the Criminal Justice Commission:get on with what matters in this State and giveour police a fair go. I think one in 10 policeofficers are being investigated at any onetime, which inhibits the ability of police officers


to do their job. In no uncertain terms, somepolice officers have said to me, "Look, Vince, Iwould rather go out and book people forspeeding, drink-driving and so on thaninvestigate crime or apprehend criminals; theywill complain to the Criminal JusticeCommission and then I will be investigated. Ihave a young family to look after." That iswhat the police tell us. They say, "It is notworth it." They would prefer to catch BobGibbs or Vince Lester for speeding. Although Ido not think that they have been successful ineither case, that is the sort of thing that goeson.

The police are being stood over and arenot able to do their jobs. Because of personalconsiderations, the police are frightened to dotheir job. Police officers are continuallycomplaining to me about the antics of theCriminal Justice Commission. These are thesorts of issues that have to be addressed bythe new committee—that is, if it ever has thetime to examine any of the activities of theCriminal Justice Commission. The committeewill have to stand up to the CJC and makesure that it does the job that it is supposed todo. If we do that, this State might be a littlebetter off. I wish all of the people taking part inthe new committee system well. Let us hopethat the result is a better deal for the people ofQueensland. Let us hope that the Parliament,through the committees, is more accountable.And let us hope that the members of thecommittees will be more accountable. If theybehave in a bipartisan way, the committeeswill be able to do their job much moreeffectively.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (8.43 p.m.): It ismarvellous how an election can make such adifference to a piece of legislation! I refer to acomparison of this Bill with that which camebefore the Parliament before the House wasdissolved prior to the last election. That waswhen the Premier had 53 per cent or 54 percent of the vote. Now that he is down to justover 46 per cent, we see an entirely differentpiece of legislation.

Mr W. K. Goss: It was 47, not 46. Befair.

Mr BEANLAND: It is not much. Let ussay it is either 46 per cent or 46.7 per cent.The Premier still does not govern with thepopular will of the people, because he hasless than 50 per cent. It certainly grates on thePremier a great deal that he does not governthis State with the popular will of the people.

Mr Borbidge: An illegitimateGovernment.

Mr BEANLAND: As the Leader of theOpposition said, it is an illegitimateGovernment.

This legislation is certainly far-reaching.Today, we are not merely putting in placerecommendations of the ParliamentaryCommittee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview. In fact, this Bill contains far moreprovisions than PEARC recommended. Anumber of very important aspects in thislegislation were not contained in PEARC'sreport. To say that some of these changes arewatershed changes is quite true. For example,the super committee, that is, the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, represents a watershed change.

The committee's responsibilities willinclude administrative review reform,constitutional reform, electoral reform andlegal reform. In addition to the committee'smany responsibilities, it will take over the roleof the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee—even though that is completelycontrary to the Fitzgerald recommendations forreform. Mr Fitzgerald stated clearly—

"A standing parliamentary committeenot charged with any other responsibilityand known as the Criminal JusticeCommittee should oversee the operationsof the CJC. The membership of thecommittee should reflect the balance ofpower in the Legislative Assembly."

That final comment is interesting. Perhaps weshould have an even number of members onthe new committee. We will certainly be testingthat provision in due course this evening.

The important point that I wish to make isthat there should be a separate, stand-alonecommittee to focus on the CJC and its role.The Parliament of this State gave the CJCenormous powers back in 1989 when itpassed the enacting legislation. Suchenormous powers would not have been givento a commission of this nature under normalcircumstances. However, because of thecircumstances that prevailed at the time, thesepowers were given to the CJC by theParliament. However, as a counterweight tothese powers, the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee was instigated andextensive powers were given to it to overseethe operations of the CJC.

The Report on a Review of ParliamentaryCommittees is a unanimous report of thatcommittee. On that committee were fourLabor Party members, two of whom—Dr Clarkand Ms Power—are no longer with us.However, the member for Caboolture, Mr


Sullivan, and the member for Everton, MrWelford, are still in the Parliament. I trust thatthose members will maintain the positionstated in the report and will support it. Thisreport spells out very clearly that thecommittee, and those two members inparticular, believe that the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee should remain.

Mr Borbidge: At least Mr D'Arcy put upa fight.

Mr BEANLAND: As the Leader of theOpposition reminds me, at least Mr D'Arcy putup a fight in relation to the south coastmotorway. I, and I am sure the public of thisState, expect to see those two members putup a fight in this Chamber and say somethingin support of the position of the Opposition.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: Read it in Hansard.

Mr BEANLAND: The honourablemember for Caboolture has a lot to say. Let ussee the honourable member counted whenwe divide on this very important matter.

This unanimous report recommends aseparate committee, and for very goodreasons indeed. There should be a separatecommittee overseeing the enormous powerswhich the Parliament gave, through theFitzgerald reform process, to the CriminalJustice Commission. Since the report camedown a couple of years ago, the membersopposite who were on this committee havehad a change of heart. As I said, their changeof heart is all to do with the election. Theoriginal report supported theserecommendations. Now there has been achange of heart.

Although we have had a number ofinvestigations into the role of the CJC, I cannothelp wondering what role has been played byMr Rudd and the Office of the Cabinetcommittee, which has also been investigatingthe role of the CJC. Never mind any conflict ofinterest that might occur in that respect. Iunderstand that Mr Rudd, the formerDirector-general of the Office of the Cabinet,now occupies a position as the Director ofPolicy within the Office of the Cabinet. I cannothelp wondering whether the Federal Laborcandidate for Griffith, who is on the Statepayroll, has had some input into the legislationthat we see today. We know that he waschairing a committee of inquiry into the CJC atthe same time as other investigations of theCJC's activities were being conducted.

The proposal in this legislation is totally atodds with what occurs in other States. Forexample, New South Wales has a separate

special committee which oversees the role ofICAC, the Independent Commission AgainstCorruption, in the same way as the PCJC didpreviously in Queensland. It is quite clear thatthis move could easily be a forerunner to theretraction of some of the roles of the CriminalJustice Commission. Based on some of thecomments by Mr Goss and some members ofCabinet, it is evident that that is theGovernment's intention. That is not the beliefof the Opposition in isolation; it is also thebelief of a number of others in the community,including some in the legal fraternity. In thepast, some of those people have beensupportive of this Government, but they arenot so supportive of it now. Included in thatcategory is Mr O'Gorman, who is an activemember of the Council for Civil Liberties. Manybelieve that this Government intends to paredown many of the activities of the CJC,including the Research and CoordinationDivision.

Regardless of what the Premier may ormay not have in mind, the fact remains that,unless it is abolished completely, the CriminalJustice Commission will still play a significantrole in this State. Because it has suchenormous powers, regardless of whethersome of its responsibilities are pared down,there can be no justification for abolishing thecommittee whose role is to be totally focusedon the activities of the commission. This is asad day for accountability in this State. Giventhe wide range of matters that the supercommittee must oversee—including theElectoral Commission, law reform and a hostof other responsibilities—only a small amountof its time will be able to be devoted tofocusing on the activities of the CriminalJustice Commission.

The PCEAR report recommended theestablishment of a Public Sector ReviewCommittee. That recommendation was quicklygiven a roasting by the Government, and thatcommittee has not surfaced. No parliamentarycommittee will be established to review thepublic sector. That was a very importantrecommendation of the PCEAR. On page 51of its report, the committee went to greatlengths to spell out a number ofrecommendations for the roles of thatcommittee. One of those roles was to overseethe Public Sector Management Commission—a body which seems to be very dear to theheart of the Premier. One can well understandthe Premier's concern that any reviewsundertaken by such a committee might upsetsome of the processes which the Labor Partyhas implemented and about which, on 15July, the public of Queensland spoke out very


clearly, indicating its disgust at some of theactions of that commission.

There has been no attempt to establish aparliamentary committee to review the PSMC.Consequently, there is no attempt to examinethe resources and performance of thatcommission, nor the Office of theParliamentary Commissioner and theInformation Commissioner—all importantbodies which are responsible to thisParliament. One would have expected that aGovernment which talks so much about itsreform agenda would have wanted to ensurethat there was effective oversight of thePSMC. Instead, the committee recommendedby the PCEAR has not seen the light of day. Itis evident that this very important sector ofGovernment operations will not be the subjectof review by this Parliament.

I turn now to GOCs and the ability of thePublic Works Committee to scrutinise thosebodies. That committee has a very importantrole in the oversight of public works. Despitethat fact, a major sphere of public works—thatof GOCs—has largely been exempted fromscrutiny by that committee. GOCs can bescrutinised in only a couple of instances: onebeing where major GOC works are referred tothe Public Works Committee by the LegislativeAssembly; and the other being the communityservice obligations of GOCs. That is all welland good, but there are many other fields ofoperation of Government owned corporationswhich will not be subject to scrutiny by thePublic Works Committee. Under thislegislation, the concept of accountability hasbeen turned into a farce.

In recent times, the Goss Governmenthas corporatised a number of Governmentoperations. That has an important effect onthe bottom line of Executive Government andthe State Budget. Members have seen theproblems that the Labor Party encountered inSouth Australia, Victoria——

Mr Borbidge: Western Australia.

Mr BEANLAND:—and WesternAustralia due to inadequate scrutiny of anumber of semi-Government authorities. Atthe end of the day, the public of Queenslandmust meet any shortfalls that occur. TheGovernment can set up as many GOCs as itlikes, but this Parliament still has aresponsibility to the public of Queensland. Bynot making GOCs accountable to the PublicWorks Committee, and by preventing thecommittee from carrying out its proper functionby investigating those corporations—as it isable to investigate other sectors ofGovernment—we are negating the

responsibilities of this Parliament. That is notgood enough.

There are many factors that can affectthe Budget and the bottom line of theoperations of Government. My colleague theLeader of the Opposition would be aware ofthe current problems with the WorkersCompensation Fund. Only a few days after theState election, members were assured that nosuch problems were around the corner andthat the Government's finances were rocksolid. If that is rock solid, I would hate to see amire!

Mr Borbidge: A $200m turnaround insix weeks.

Mr BEANLAND: There has been a$200m turnaround in six weeks. If that is not aproblem, I do not know what is! The Premier iswell aware of it. This is how major financialproblems begin. Premier Bannon used toclaim that there were no problems with theState Bank and that it was functioning well. Itwas a beauty, that State Bank! It wasfunctioning perfectly! At the same time, thatGovernment had a $4 billion debt around itsneck.

Mr Cooper: That's exactly what couldhappen here.

Mr BEANLAND: The member for CrowsNest is absolutely correct. We might not incurdebts of $4 billion in the public works arena,but the level of debt certainly could amount toa couple of hundred million dollars—just likethe Workers Compensation Fund, which isnow causing concern within the community.The Government is taking a number of actionswhich could mean that this State incurs debtof hundreds of millions or perhaps billions ofdollars. So this legislation has application tomany sectors of Government operations. Thisis a very important principle. Corporatising thefunctions of Government in no way changesthe fact that the Government has aresponsibility to control the finances of thisState.

I note that some changes to the ElectoralAct are mooted. The legislation states—

"A person may be appointed as thechairperson or non-judicial appointee onlyif the Minister has consulted with theparliamentary committee . . ."

Again, there is reference to that famous Laborword: "consulted". I am sure that it wasinvented by the Premier or one of his minders,but at the end of the day it means absolutelynothing. Members of a committee are boundby the confidentiality applying to matters underconsideration by that committee. They cannot


go out and talk about any matters. TheMinister may have to consult the committee,but he does not have to be bound by thecommittee's decision. Even if the committeesays that it does not agree with arecommendation, the Minister may go aheadanyway. That is the meaning of "consultation"!It means absolutely nothing at all. It mightsound nice and give some members of thefront bench a warm, inner glow, but it has notfooled the public of Queensland, as we foundout on 15 July. The people see through thesmokescreen of the language used by theGovernment.

The Premier has made some verysignificant changes to the freedom ofinformation legislation. The legislation beforethe House states that the FOI Commissionercan be sacked only by the Parliament, but thatany such motion must be moved by thePremier—not by the Minister, but by thePremier. This is something new. I have notseen this in any other legislation, certainly notin any legislation that I checked where therehas to be an address by the Parliament. It is amatter for the relevant Minister, no doubt afterapproval by the Government that it willproceed down that course. However, the pointis that in this legislation—and it is at pages 28and 29 of the Bill—the Premier is the onlyperson who can actually move the motion inthis place. He is obviously on an ego trip. Icannot see why the Premier would want tomake that amendment, unless he wants to beresponsible for FOI. The last time I looked, itwas the responsibility of the Attorney-General.Perhaps the Premier has not taken control ofthat matter but, even if he has, he wouldappreciate that it would be a matter for theMinister of the day, because further down thetrack he might not be the Minister responsiblefor that legislation.

Clearly, the Bill says that the Premier willmove the motion that needs to be moved. Ilook forward to hearing the Premier'sexplanation. Perhaps it is another one ofthose errors like that in Mr Mackenroth's LocalGovernment Act.

An Opposition member interjected.

Mr BEANLAND: It is more than likelyhis ego. The member is quite correct.Whatever it is, the Premier has obviously notchecked the legislation too well.

Mr W. K. Goss: What is the question?

Mr BEANLAND: If the Premier looks atpage 28, he will see that it says—

"The motion for the address may bemoved only by the Premier."

I do not know why it can be moved only by thePremier, because those words do not appearin other legislation I have checked where therehas to be an address by the Parliament. Ihave no problem with an address by theParliament, but why does it have to be movedby the Premier?

An honourable member interjected.

Mr BEANLAND: If the Premier does notknow what it is about, it is clear that Ministersare not checking their legislation.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrBredhauer): Order! If the member for CrowsNest wishes to interject, he should do so fromhis usual place.

Mr BEANLAND: The point I have madeseveral times in this place when these issuescrop up is that Ministers are not checkingthrough their legislation. They are not au faitwith their legislation; they are leaving suchmatters to the minders in their offices. Ofcourse, when problems crop up, they like toblame someone else. In the last few days, wesaw Mr Mackenroth do that. Ministers mustaccept responsibility for their legislation. It isnot good enough to blame the parliamentarydraftsman or some other innocent personinvolved in the processing of legislation. TheGovernment is very good at telling us aboutresponsible Government and the Westminstersystem, but Ministers of a responsibleGovernment have to take responsibility forthese courses of action.

Time expired.

Dr WATSON (Moggill) (9.03 p.m.): I riseto speak on the Parliamentary Committees Bill1995. I do so from a position of being a strongsupporter of the parliamentary committeesystem and someone who has served on themajor committees of this House. I wish tospeak about the role of parliamentarycommittees, or at least how I perceive thatrole, and then compare this with what is in theBill before the House and consider whatalterations might need to be made.

The development of the Westminstersystem of government is about the separateevolution of the Executive and the Parliamentand the idea often referred to as theseparation of powers. The doctrine of theseparation of powers also extends to thejudiciary but, for our present purposes, it is thedistinction between the Executive Governmentand the Parliament which is crucial.

The development of the parliamentaryprocess can be viewed as one of placing the


Executive arm of the Government underincreasing scrutiny. The tussle between KingJohn and his peers is little different than thetussle today between a Parliament and anExecutive headed by a Premier or PrimeMinister. While the rhetoric and the proceduresfor resolving conflict differ, the principle is quitesimilar. The establishment of parliamentarycommittees is simply an extension of thisparliamentary role—one designed to scrutinisethe activities of the Executive in detail andmake the Executive accountable for its actionsto the people whom it is governing.

In today's modern world, there are, ofcourse, practical reasons for the developmentof parliamentary committees. There is nodoubt that the demands on the time ofelected members of Parliament haveincreased substantially during the twentiethcentury. Modern means of communicationhave not only enabled members to carry outtheir duties more effectively, but they havealso meant a rise in the expectations ofconstituents. Every member of Parliament,whether in the Government or the Opposition,finds the constraints on their time from thedemands of the Parliament, from thedemands of their party and from the demandsof their constituents to be exceedingly great.

However, the role of a parliamentariangoes beyond that of serving constituentsdirectly and involves a wider socialresponsibility to scrutinise the actions ofExecutive Government. The difficulty ofbalancing this wider role and the narrowerelectorate role is compounded by thecomplexity of Government processes and,thus, the amount of time which must bedevoted by members to scrutinise in detailthose processes.

The formation of committees is oneattempt by the Parliament to use effectivelythe talents of its members to scrutinise specificparts of the Executive Government. In thisway, it is hoped that the general imbalancebetween the power of the Executive and theopportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise theExecutive is remedied.

The power of the Executive rests in afundamental way on two prerogatives. The firstis that the Executive has the power to allocateresources to various activities. The ability toallocate resources gives the Executive asignificant amount of influence. However, thesecond basis from which the Executive derivesits power is its virtual monopoly of information."Monopoly" may actually be too strong a word,but it is essential to understand that theExecutive's access to and control of

information relevant to the Governmentprocesses is of fundamental importance to itsposition of power. If I can revert to some of myorganisational theory language, it can beargued that information becomes impacted inthe Executive arm of the Government andcannot be pried loose without a great deal ofeffort on the part of those outside theExecutive. As an aside, I might say that itmight be true to say that from time to timeMinisters also find difficulties in prying looseinformation which is buried deep in therecesses of the bureaucracy.

To my mind, a critical role ofparliamentary committees is to extract andgather that impacted information. Most of thatimpacted information is apolitical, at leastapolitical in the sense of not being partypolitical. However, it may be political in thesense that it is easier for the Executive if theinformation is not released.

It is also, in my opinion, of fundamentalimportance that parliamentary committees doserve this role. Firstly, eliciting information isthe basis for developing and asking detailedquestions on the use of resources. In order tobe able to probe, one needs a starting pointand it is better if that starting point has someobjective basis.

Secondly, this role is critical to breakingdown the information impactedness that Ispoke about earlier. Information exists in theExecutive arm of the Government—information which is critical to understandingthe functioning of the Government. It is gettingthat information out of the bureaucracy andinto the public arena which is crucial forevaluating the effectiveness of Governmentprograms. While this can be accomplished in anumber of ways, for example, royalcommissions and freedom of information Acts,parliamentary committees play a crucial,ongoing role in this regard.

Thirdly, this role is a fundamental meansof controlling the Executive. Elicitinginformation does not, by itself, get direct actionto change or modify Executive decisions orprograms. It is not the role of the Parliament todirect the Executive on the conduct of eachand every program. However, this processdoes mean that the bureaucracy is exposed tothe wider parliamentary process, and thusexposed to questioning, statements bymembers of Parliament and parliamentaryscrutiny in general. This is also an importantmeans by which the operations of theExecutive Government become known to themedia and thereby to the public at large. Sothe role of eliciting information is fundamental


to the democratic process in a wider sense.Finally, I believe this role is fundamental forinformed political debate.

In considering this matter, my attentionwas brought to a recent article by Harry Evans,the Clerk of the Senate, which states—

"The notion that legislativeendeavour depends upon information,and that legislatures are essentially in thebusiness of information gathering andanalysis is not new."

The article contains a couple of quotes that Iwould like to share with the House. The firstwas a statement from the United StatesSupreme Court in 1927. It states—

"A legislative body cannot legislatewisely or effectively in the absence ofinformation respecting the conditionswhich the legislation is intended to affector change; and where the legislative bodydoes not itself possess the requisiteinformation—which not infrequently istrue—recourse must be had to otherswho do possess it. Experience has taughtthat mere requests for such informationoften are unavailing, and also thatinformation which is volunteered is notalways accurate or complete; so somemeans of compulsion are essential toobtain what is needed."

Even more interesting, given the length oftime since it was actually said, is thisstatement quoted in the paper by Mr HarryEvans—

"Unless Congress have and useevery means of acquainting itself with theacts and the disposition of theadministrative agents of the government,the country must be helpless to learn howit is being served; and unless Congressboth scrutinise these things and sift themby every form of discussion, the countrymust remain in embarrassing, cripplingignorance of the very affairs which it ismost important that it should understandand direct. The informing function ofCongress should be preferred even to itslegislative function."

That statement was made, I understand, byWoodrow Wilson during the CongressionalGovernment of 1885. So it is not new.Parliamentary committees, in order to fulfil thefunctions ascribed to them in that article needto have both wide and detailed powers. Thereis no doubt in my mind that the traditionalpower of the Parliament to send for persons,papers and things is fundamental to aneffective parliamentary committee. This is

something that this current Bill attempts torestrict and will be addressed by amendmentsintroduced by the Leader of the Opposition atthe Committee stage.

The ability to examine witnesses at eitherformal or informal hearings is also afundamental requirement. This is one of theprime means of gathering information andarriving at informed decisions. My ownexperience on the PCJC in the last Parliamentemphasised the importance of being able togather information from a wide variety ofsources. The police powers reports tabled inthis House during the last Parliament reflectedthe immense value of wide consultation. Thereshould be little restriction, other thanbudgetary, on committees gatheringinformation. If members of Parliament aregoing to contribute in an informed mannerthey must have the opportunity to gather adiversity of opinions and information.

Finally, it seems to me that the ability toinitiate inquiries is also fundamental. This isrestricted to a significant extent in the currentBill, and other amendments to be introducedby the Leader of the Opposition will addressthis aspect. Central to obtaining informationfrom the Executive arm of Government is theability to elicit that information from anybodyconcerned with the bureaucracy.Consequently, it is important that seniormembers of the bureaucracy, includingdepartmental heads and the heads of otherunits of administration, are available to giveevidence to the committee. At times this doescause concern for the Executive arm ofGovernment. There is a grey line betweenwhat is policy formulation and thereforesubject to some form of Executive privilegeand what is policy implementation, that is,administrative issues which must be subject tothe detailed scrutiny of the Parliament.

It may seem useful to develop someguidelines on these particular issues. However,I believe they could only ever be treated asguidelines since it is impossible to determineex ante how each and every issue should beclassified. My own feelings on this issue arevery much conditioned by the US SenateWatergate hearings as I tended, like manyother people in the United States at the time,to be glued to the TV set for quite long periodslistening to that Senate investigation andthinking about the respective rights of the USCongress and the US Executive.

My own personal opinion is that one hasto be very circumspect on granting theExecutive immunity from divulging information.While undoubtedly we would all agree that


information that is likely to result in themiscarriage of justice or the denial of rights toindividual members of the community shouldbe treated extremely carefully by parliamentarycommittees—as is detailed in the committeeguidelines for witnesses—I believe the issue ofExecutive immunity must be treated with a fairbit of scepticism.

Currently, the Bill before the Houserestricts the purview of parliamentarycommittees in an unwarranted manner, andthis also needs correcting. As I have saidearlier in this speech, the Executive poweremanates from three sources: firstly, its abilityto allocate resources; secondly, its monopolyon information; and, thirdly, the fact that theExecutive in most occasions sets the agendain both a policy setting sense and in a politicalsense. I do not believe that it is ever possibleto take the agenda setting ability away fromthe Executive arm of Government, not in thesense of taking it away for an extendedperiod. The Executive arm of Government ischarged with making most of the decisionsabout Government. It is the arm ofGovernment that is responsible for setting thepolicy parameters, and in that sense it willalways retain the agenda setting ability.

The parliamentary committees must begiven sufficient power to examine in detail theresource allocation decisions that emanatefrom the policy settings of a Government. Itmust also be given sufficient power to elicit theinformation from the bureaucracy on theimplementation of Government policy, on theresources that are used in carrying out thepolicy and the results of the implementation ofthat policy, whether those results be positive ornegative.

Another aspect of this issue is theresources that are necessary to ensure thatthe parliamentary committees can in fact beeffective in their role. In looking at this issue, Ithink it must be understood that perhaps themost precious resource, or the factor which isthe most limiting, is that of members' time. Allmembers of Parliament, in both Oppositionand Government, will find restrictions on thetime that they can put into the committeeprocess. Therefore, I would make the followingvery general comments about the use ofresources. It seems to me that sufficientresources must be provided to parliamentarycommittees to cover about five generalobjectives.

Firstly, the time allocated by members totheir parliamentary committee must be usedefficiently and sufficient resources must beavailable to ensure that that occurs. Secondly,

the scrutiny provided by parliamentarycommittees must be perceived to be a seriousform of control. Thirdly, the resources mustenable the committee to employ staff withappropriate expertise; these skills must includenot only content related expertise, but alsoresearch skills, financial skills, managementskills and perhaps even bureaucraticknowledge. Fourthly, resources must enablesufficient staff to be employed to undertakethe activities; and some of my colleagues onthis side have mentioned that difficulty. Fifthly,resources must be available to enable thecommittee to undertake the responsibilitiesgiven to it by the Parliament.

These are a general set of prescriptionswith which perhaps very few people woulddisagree. However, I think it is important tounderstand that parliamentary committeeshave a unique contribution to make to thedemocratic form of government that we enjoyand this Parliament should ensure that theresources allocated to its committees are at alevel that permits that contribution to be madeto the fullest extent.

In my opinion, parliamentary committeescan be an effective means of controlling theactions of the Executive. In fact, there isanecdotal evidence to suggest that they areso effective that the Executive arm ofGovernment would like to reduce their impact.In many ways this Bill represents an attempt todo just that, that is, limit the power ofparliamentary committees rather thanenhancing their ability to perform theirfunctions. The amendments to be proposed atthe Committee stage are designed to rectifythat fault in this Bill.

Along with the resources that must beprovided to enable members to perform theiractivities efficiently, there is also an issue ofhow representative a particular parliamentarycommittee should be. Obviously, aparliamentary committee should reflect themake-up of the Parliament. As in mostParliaments, and particularly in this one, thereis approximate equality between Governmentand Opposition, so should the committeesreflect this balance. Again, some suggestedamendments distributed already by theLeader of the Opposition will help achieve thisgoal.

Finally, I think it is worth quoting againfrom that paper by the Clerk of the Senate, MrHarry Evans. In the middle of his paper hestated—

"The ideal committee system wouldbe one in which the committees have allmatters permanently before them within


their subject areas and are able tochoose their subjects of inquiry, informedby preliminary analysis (including knowingwhere to look) and supported bysubsequent profound analysis of theavailable information.

The objection which is always raisedto this kind of proposal is that theprofessional analysts of information willsubstitute their priorities for those of thelegislators. We are consistently warned bythe example of the 'unelectedrepresentatives' of the enormouscongressional staffs in Washington. Inthis connection it is important that thelegislature have access to a plurality ofsources of analysis, specialised andgeneral: committee staffs, library researchservices, legislative think-tanks and partyresearch units. All of these could bedeveloped, and, where they already exist,made more efficient."

The House has an historic opportunity toestablish a set of committees with anappropriate composition, appropriateresources and an appropriate set of powersthat will enable the committees to carry outtheir functions. The original Bill, presented bythe Premier, modified by the proposedamendments by the Leader of the Opposition,will ensure that these objectives are achieved.

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (9.20 p.m.):In rising to take part in the debate on theParliamentary Committees Bill, I begin bycommenting on the role of the Speaker. Forthe first time in a long time an opportunityexists for the Parliament to have a Speakerwho is truly independent. Over the years that Ihave been an elected member, thisParliament has had some good Speakers andsome who were not so good. The opportunitynow exists for the Honourable Jim Fouras,Speaker of this House, to be trulyindependent. I urge him to take thatopportunity, because he is in a very strong,unique position and I think he realises that. Iurge him to read all of EARC'srecommendations about electoralredistribution and consider the impact of theredistribution on the workings of theelectorates around this State. Theredistribution recommended by EARCeliminated a number of seats, which increasedthe size of a number of the remainingelectorates.

To enhance the running of those largeelectorates and to enable members torepresent their constituents without fear orfavour, EARC recommended that they have

two electorate offices. It is a nonsense to saythat, with exactly the same resources, amember in an electorate that is greater in sizethan Victoria can serve his or her electorate aswell as a member who represents a cityelectorate of 10 square kilometres—whetherthat city be Brisbane or Toowoomba.Everyone knows that that is a nonsense. Iknow that some improvement in conditionshas occurred inasmuch as some members—and I am not one of them, so I am not arguingmy own case—have been given theopportunity of using four-wheel-drive vehicles.Obviously, that was an advancement in termsof the service that those members can offertheir constituents; however, in monetary termsit is not proving to be of much assistancebecause their fuel costs are now higher thantheir car allowance. I accept that the intentionwas good and that that step was taken inorder to give members the opportunity tobetter represent their constituents.

A number of recommendations containedin EARC's report have been trampled uponand no notice has been taken of them. Inparticular, I refer to the issue of staff formembers of the Opposition. When oneconsiders the pace at which the sausagemachine operates to produce the largequantity of legislation that is introduced intothis House, one realises that is a travesty ofjustice to expect the members of theOpposition, without sufficient staff, to researchlegislation and to formulate an argument thatis both reasoned and reasonable to present tothe public through press releases—so that thepublic can be informed of both sides of anargument. If this Parliament is to have aproper Opposition with members who do notspeak off the top of their heads, it is importantto provide them with the appropriate level ofstaffing. The Government is the first to criticisemembers of the Opposition for appearing toshoot from the hip. Therefore, I urge theSpeaker to consider carefully EARC's report,because it contains some excellentrecommendations.

I ask honourable members to consider,for argument's sake, the member for Gregory.I do not see why he should have to pay for asecond electorate office in Emerald when, todo his job properly in an electorate the size ofGregory, he needs two electorate offices. I donot think that it is at all reasonable that heshould have to do that. Nor do I believe that isreasonable for a member in a smallerelectorate to pay for a second electorateoffice. For example, the electorate of Warwickhas two electorate offices. Before theredistribution, the member had an electorate


office in Stanthorpe. That electorate wasamalgamated with the Warwick electorate,which also had an electorate office. Was themember expected to shut down that officeand deny the people of Warwick access to anelectorate office? I believe that it is totallyunreasonable that the member should have topay for the second electorate office—which hedoes—in order to provide the people ofWarwick with the same service as thatprovided to the people who live in Stanthorpe.The electorates in the west are probably moreextreme examples than the electorate ofWarwick, but the principle is the same.

When one examines the manner in whichthe redistribution was determined, onediscovers that it was based on a false premise.For example, in relation to Cunningham, thoseinvolved in the redistribution said, "Here is abig country seat. Stick a bit of Toowoomba in itand it will work very well." They presented ascenario that the population of that electoratewould not grow. I have over 25,000 people inmy electorate, and a number of electoratesare probably bigger than that. The populationof my electorate is way over quota. Noallowance was made for that growth. One canbet one's life that the populations in thecoastal growth seats are increasing like mad.The members who represent those growingareas should be entitled to assistance,perhaps in the form of temporary staff. Theirelectorate offices are overloaded with workand they need additional assistance. Surely,electorates that are over quota are at leastentitled to a greater postal allowance than anelectorate that is under quota. There is nojustice or equity in the system. It really doesneed reviewing.

I am pleased to see that Mr Speaker isnow in the chair. In various ways, over theyears, I have had an interesting associationwith the Speaker and I look forward to hisperformance in this House. In the short timesince the opening of this session ofParliament, I have seen that he has a verystrong commitment to ensuring that, in thisterm as Speaker, he is independent. I amcertain that that will be good for all of us—forboth sides of the House. The members on theother side of the House may not enjoy someof the things that happen. However, I believethat it can only be good for democracy. Weneed the Speaker to take back control fromthe Executive. Regardless of which party is inGovernment and regardless of who is sitting inthe Speaker's chair—provided he has the willand ability to do the job, and I believe MrSpeaker has both—I believe it is important

that he be prepared to take the responsibilityto take back control from the Executive.

Let us consider a number of situationsthat have arisen over the past six years. TheExecutive has attacked Hansard and theParliamentary Library. Both of those areasneed reviewing. If all members are to be able,without fear or favour, to stand in this Houseand represent their constituents, some ofwhom have dire problems, they need thebackup of the Parliamentary Library. We donot need the Parliamentary Library staff to beleant on, intimidated or feel concerned abouttheir future if they provide certain informationto members. For argument's sake, I remindthe Honourable Minister who is sitting acrossfrom me in this Chamber that he was a greatuser of the library when he sat on this side ofthe House. He knows only too well what I amsaying. In those days, the Opposition used thelibrary tremendously well. They were able toaccess a tremendous amount of informationand used it to attack us. Quite frankly,sometimes we needed attacking. So thelibrary provides a very important service.

I turn now to the running of theOpposition offices. It is totally unreasonablethat the Leader of the Opposition, the Leaderof the Liberal Party and the deputy leaders ofboth parties should be provided with aninsufficient number of staff. Shadow Ministersare often unable to gain assistance fromjournalists in the preparation of press releases,which is the means by which the Oppositionputs information into the public arena.Government members, with only 46.7 per centof the vote, should remember that they couldwell be on this side of the House after the nextelection. Before the election I said that to afew Government members and they laughedat me, but some of them are not laughingnow. After looking at the big pendulum, someof them are not laughing as much as theywere.

Mr Borbidge: It could be as early asNovember.

Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. As theLeader of the Opposition so rightly says, thatcould be as early as November. TheGovernment ought to think about what it willdo and what it is prepared to accept on behalfof the Opposition, because it could well be theOpposition next year. The Government shouldnot walk all over the Opposition in too much ofa hurry.

I gave an undertaking to our Deputy Whipthat I would not waste a lot of time, as I waslate in putting my name on the list of speakersto this debate. Mr Speaker, we on this side of


the House look forward to your incumbency forthe coming three years. I believe you are in aunique position, and I am sure you realisethat. I feel that it can only be good for theparliamentary system if you take thisopportunity by the throat and, without fear orfavour, make sure that this Parliament is runby the Speaker and not by the Executive,which is what has led to the erosion of itsimportance over a number of years.

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premierand Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (9.33 p.m.), in reply: I thank allmembers for their contribution to the debate.Some good points have been made. I will notrespond to all of them, but I will try to respondto what I see as the main points raised. It iscurious, of course, that most people are verysupportive of the committee system, but somany speakers, particularly those opposite,seem to find some hidden or dark motivewhere there is none.

In particular, there is criticism of theGovernment that we picked up somerecommendations of various reports but wedid not pick up others and that that issomehow evidence of the Government's lackof faith in this matter, or whatever. Of course,from listening to the Opposition contributions Igather that there are some things that theyfavoured picking up and others they missed.In other words, the bottom line is: had theybeen on this side of the House they wouldalso have produced a Bill—if they wereminded to establish a parliamentarycommittee system; something that, for 32years, they were never serious about—whichcontained a cross-section—a selection—of thevarious suggestions put forward.

In relation to self-incrimination and theprotection provided to ordinary Queenslanderswho might be called before these committees,I believe that the Government has done theright thing by the citizens and struck the rightbalance in terms of having an effectiveparliamentary committee system withappropriate powers—indeed, far reachingpowers—but, at the same time, providing areasonable measure of protection for citizensplaced in this situation. Having said that, Iknow that some people have raised the issuethat there could be an abuse of this rightextended to the citizens, there could be afrivolous abuse of the freedom from self-incrimination. We want a committee systemthat works. If indeed we see the frivolousabuse of this right by some citizens, thenclearly I would accept, and I am sure most

people in this place would accept, thejustification for a review of that particularposition. At this stage, the Government takesthe view that citizens have rights, too, and thatwe should try to strike a balance. We believewe have struck the balance correctly, butclearly if there is abuse it should be revisited.

Another topical issue in relation to tryingto suggest some hidden agenda is thecomments that have been made about thePCJC. There is no secret agenda here; this isnonsense. It is simply a sensible rationalisationof the committee system. It is simply asensible approach to the construction ofcommittees and their responsibility.

In relation to the PCJC, members whohave been here for some years will recall thattwo independent commissions came out ofthe Fitzgerald inquiry: EARC and the CJC,both of which had parliamentary committees.EARC and its parliamentary committee aregone; they have finished their work and theFitzgerald report agenda has beendischarged. In relation to the CJC, a verysignificant part of its Fitzgerald report agendahas been discharged. There is, of course, theprimary role of the CJC in relation to detectingand deterring official corruption. That isongoing and, therefore, there should be anongoing parliamentary committee to scrutinisethat. This is provided for.

I make the point, particularly to thosepeople who have made much ofrecommendations of independentcommissions that they say have been ignoredby the Government, that they have not beenignored. They have been considered andthose that are appropriate have been pickedup.

Mr Santoro: Considered and thenignored.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I take the interjectionfrom the member for Clayfield. One of thoserecommendations was, of course, to do justwhat we are doing with the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. The member should not interjectto say that the recommendations have beenconsidered and ignored, because this is arecommendation that has been picked up.

Mr Santoro: Tell us where they saidthat.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The member is anexcitable boy, isn't he? I would have thoughtthat he would have got the message from hisown party that he was to have a lower profile.

Mr Santoro interjected.


Mr W. K. GOSS: If the member keepsinterjecting, I will keep noticing him. His profilemay be lower, but I can still see him and I canstill hear him.

Mr Santoro: It's called 65.5 per cent inClayfield.

Mr W. K. GOSS: If he keeps trying, themember might get as high as the vote inLogan.


Mr W. K. GOSS: We can tell from thepassion, they are still bleeding. It still hurts.

Mr Santoro: Where are your ministerialcolleagues?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I will tell the memberwhere they are: they are in Government andthey like it. I have been over there, and let metell Opposition members, it is better over here.I should go back to the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forClayfield is diverting the Premier. He will stopinterjecting.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee has the same powers as before tocarry out its watchdog role in relation to theCJC; it has the same parliamentary all-partycomposition; it has extra resources. Thesensible rationalisation that we have here isimportant, because it avoids the duplication ofhaving two committees examining the samelegal issues.

In relation to the point made by themember for Indooroopilly about theresponsibility of the Premier to put theaddress, there is no big deal about that; it ismerely underlining the fact that it is myresponsibility as the Leader of theGovernment to undertake that task and I amaccepting that and identifying it with thelegislation. That is all we are doing.

A number of points have been made andI will try to deal with some of the more specificones. The Leader of the Opposition said thatthe Public Accounts Committee has accessonly to public documents; this is not true. Thecommittee will be able to consider allpublished financial documents of Governmentauthorities. In addition, the committee hasaccess to briefings by the Auditor-General,including confidential briefings. The committeealso has the power to call for persons, papersand records. This could include internal,financial and other relevant documents. It is apowerful committee, equipped with allnecessary powers.

The Leader of the Opposition also madethe point that the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee will beoverwhelmed by its additional responsibilitiesin monitoring the CJC. I have made the pointalready that it will have extra resources and itwill avoid the duplication of having twocommittees looking at the same legal issues.As I said, it will have a substantial secretariat,indeed the most substantial secretariat of anycommittee, thus enabling it to discharge itsresponsibilities.

In relation to the criticism that this Billdoes not pick up all the recommendations inEARC's larger proposed Bill that dealt with thewhole Parliament, we have only sought and,at this stage, only purported to pick up thatpart of the Bill that dealt with the committees.The Government has not made otherrecommendations; it has simply given priorityto the committees. I want to get thecommittee system up and running early in theterm of this Parliament. That is why the debateon this Bill was brought on at the verybeginning of this Parliament. That is why,subject to the vote of the House and thepassing of the Bill, the Government will beseeking to get assent to the legislationtomorrow so that the committees can be put inplace tomorrow so that members on bothsides can commence discharging their roles inthese committees. I know a number ofmembers from both sides are keen to get intothat work. That is why setting up thecommittees has been given priority. It is not aquestion of the Government rejecting otherissues. At this stage, the priority is setting upthe committees.

The Leader of the Opposition was criticalof the fact that the Bill does not provide for apublic sector review committee. Let me saythat, although EARC and PEARCrecommended an additional committee calledthe public sector review committee, thatrecommendation was not adopted by theGovernment because the Public AccountsCommittee and the Public Works Committeealready have wide very jurisdiction to examinedepartmental management. In particular, thePublic Accounts Committee can examine anymatter connected with the efficient andeffective management of an agency's financialresources.

In relation to the point made by theLeader of the Opposition that the Bill does notrequire that it is mandatory that the PublicWorks Committee examine the environmentalimpacts of public works, I simply point out thatit is the committee that has the discretion. It is


entirely up to the committee. It can choose toexamine those issues. I also make the quiteobvious point that not all such works have anenvironmental impact.

In relation to the contribution by MrsSheldon—she very ably read her speech.

Mr FitzGerald: What are you doing?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I am reading mynotes. In relation to the point made by theLeader of the Opposition and the DeputyLeader of the National Party aboutconsultation in respect of the ElectoralCommission, I point out that, for example, onthe appointment of the Auditor-General theGovernment is required to consult the PublicAccounts Committee. The Bill also providesthat the Government must consult the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee about the appointment of theOmbudsman. We see no reason why theappointment provisions for the ElectoralCommission should be different.

I think the member for Gympie claimedthat the Bill's protection for witnesses againstself-incrimination will allow the courts for thefirst time to question the proceedings ofParliament. I do not believe that is accurate; Ido not believe that that concern is founded atall.

In relation to the point made by themember for Nicklin that the code of conduct tobe drafted by the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee could beused to impose draconian rules concerningmembers' behaviour, let me just make thepoint in response to the member for Nicklinthat that is something that will have to betreated very carefully by the committee and,ultimately, by the Parliament. However, thesafeguard——


Mr W. K. GOSS: That is right. It issomething that is fraught with danger and thatis why it should be considered very carefully.However, I point out that the code is to bedrafted by an all-party parliamentarycommittee and, of course, must be adoptedby the House. So we have 89 experts; wehave 89 people——

Mr Veivers: You've got the Speaker,though.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The rules will apply toeverybody.

Mr Veivers: That's a nice way of puttingit.

Mr W. K. GOSS: It is something inrespect of which we should be able to develop

a bipartisan approach. That is my view. As Isay, ultimately the decision will be made bythe members themselves who, I am sure, willinvolve themselves in very close scrutiny ofwhat the proposal means for them.

A couple of speakers made a point aboutthe PSMC. The PSMC is an agency ofExecutive Government. It is not anindependent investigatory body of the natureof the Auditor-General, or the Ombudsman, orso on. It is entirely appropriate that thosebodies have a direct relationship with theParliament. However, as I think membersknow, the PSMC is fundamentally different.

In conclusion, I thank members for theircontributions. I have tried to answer what Ithink are the main concerns of members,particularly the concerns of the members ofthe Opposition. I thank Government speakersfor their contributions, in particular themembers for Caboolture, Redcliffe andBundaberg, who have all been strongadvocates of the committee system. Theyhave all been very closely involved in thecommittee system and spoke from theperspective of their experience. I commendthe Bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. W. K. Goss (Logan—Premier andMinister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) in charge of the Bill.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2—

Mr BORBIDGE (9.47 p.m.): I take thisopportunity to ask the Premier what the statusis in respect of his consideration of thecoalition submission for additional resourcesas recommended by EARC and PEARC.

Mr W. K. GOSS: As I have indicated, itwill be considered in due course—certainly bythe end of the year.

Clauses 2 and 3, as read, agreed to.

Clause 4—

Mr BORBIDGE (9.48 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 7, after line 11—

insert—

'(2) A statutory committee mustconsist of an equal number of membersnominated by—

(a) the Minister who is recognised inthe Legislative Assembly as theLeader of the House; and


(b) the member who is recognisedin the Legislative Assembly asthe Leader of the Opposition.

'(3) The chairperson of a statutorycommittee must be the membernominated as chairperson by the Ministermentioned in subsection (2)(a).

'(4) At a meeting of a statutorycommittee—

(a) a question is decided by amajority of the votes of themembers of the committeepresent and voting; and

(b) each member of the committeehas a vote on each question tobe decided and, if the votes areequal, the chairperson of thecommittee has a casting vote.'."

By way of explanation, this proposedamendment seeks to give the parliamentarycommittee system equality in numbers. Thecoalition believes that this should go someway towards enhancing the effectiveness ofthe committees by ensuring that mattersraised by Opposition members are notswamped by Government members.

Mr Mackenroth: Has it been adoptedby any Parliament?

Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of theLeader of the House, I point out that it hasbeen adopted by some Parliaments—in fact,by some other jurisdictions in Australia.

Whilst the committee system put forwardby the Government is far from perfect, thisproposed amendment would go someconsiderable way towards improving itsoperations. Furthermore, numerical equalitywould reflect the balance of the Parliament. Itshould also be noted that Dr Noel Prestonfrom the Queensland University of Technologyhas suggested that the composition of theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee reflect an intention that it operateindependently with bipartisanship.

It is appreciated that the Governmentwould want control of the committees, and thisis covered by clauses 4.3 and 4.4. Thisamendment would ensure that a Governmentmember would be the chairperson of acommittee and would provide the chairpersonwith a casting vote to break any deadlock thatmay occur. The Opposition believes that thisamendment should be acceptable to theGovernment as it ensures that it has the finalsay. However, it should be said that equality ofnumbers will put pressure on the chairman touse the casting vote wisely and not for party or

political purposes. This amendment would goa long way to improving the effectiveness ofthe committee system. However, it would alsomean that the composition of theparliamentary committees would moreaccurately reflect the composition of theParliament, as determined by the people ofQueensland at the 15 July election.

Mr FITZGERALD: I support my leaderand the amendment that is being moved. Itake the opportunity to point out that historyshows that the make-up of parliamentarycommittees varies from State to State.However, when PEARC went to Victoria, itsmembers were rather surprised that, at a timewhen a Labor Government was in power, thechairman of one of the committees was aNational Party member of the LegislativeCouncil, a Mr David Evans. Mr David Evans,who was in Opposition at the time, was thechairman of a committee and received theremuneration and so on that as a chairman ofa committee he was entitled to receive. Whenit came to a vote, he would lose; there was amajority of Government members on thecommittee. However, it was seen asadvantageous to have a member of theOpposition chairing that committee in order toappear to get more bipartisan support.

Members should be aware that manyexperiments are taking place in variousjurisdictions. I note that the new Governmentin Victoria changed all that. I notice that somepotential chairmen of committees are noddingtheir heads and think that is a good idea.Some are saying that the positions ofcommittee chairmen were seen as job for theboys and those members who could not getan appointment to the Ministry. I know thatany incoming Premier has to say, "Look, wewill make you the chairman of one of thesecommittees." I note that members oppositeare all shaking their heads; they do not believethat that is how people were paid off and thatchairmen will not be selected on merit by therespective committees when they meet.

A rather unique amendment is beingmoved by the Leader of the Opposition, thatis, that chairmen be appointed by somebodyother than the committee as a whole. That isthe amendment that is being suggested. Isaid that it is a bit unique. We all know thatwhen the committees meet tomorrow, withoutany outside influence at all, they will elect achairman and possibly a deputy chairman.Yes, I know that fingers will be crossed. Whenthe cross-factional deals are done, when thevoting takes place, I know that there will be a


reporting back mechanism that never breaksdown. However, it can break down.

For example, a National Party member ofthe Victorian Parliament was to hold a positionas a deputy chairman. He did a deal and triedto get himself elected into a position againstthe party's wishes. Those things can happen.The committee system will be a viableproposition. I hope that it goes very well.However, this House should be aware thatmany jurisdictions and many Parliaments haveexperimented with various concoctions ofideas in trying to arrive at a system that works.The proposal of the Leader of the Oppositionis far superior to the unamended clause as itstands at this stage. I ask all honourablemembers to support the amendment asmoved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I think it is a nice try,but I do not think we can accept theamendment. I note that the Leader of theOpposition and the member for Lockyer atleast had the good grace to smile as they putthe proposition. I do not think it is appropriatethat the Premier or the Leader of theOpposition appoint the chairmen ofcommittees. The point made by the memberfor Lockyer is, of course, right; that is, in anyparty and Government of whateverpersuasion, there will be some considerationgiven beforehand as to who the majority partywants as the chairman of a committee. I stillthink it is the proper province of the committeeto appoint its chairman and not the Premier orthe Leader of the Opposition.

However, in relation to this exercise—theLeader of the Opposition will recall that, whenhe was in Government and established thePublic Accounts Committee, he did so on thebasis of appointing four Government membersand three Opposition members. That is whatwe are proposing to do. To the best of myknowledge, I think it is the standard approachadopted in all Australian Parliaments that theparty that has a majority in Parliament takesthe majority of committee positions. Theremay be some situations of which I am notaware in Upper Houses where there is adifferent complexion. However, I think thestandard approach is one that we allrecognise.

Dr Watson: The Federal Parliament hasmembers and senators equally drawn and thecasting vote goes to the chairman.

Mr W. K. GOSS: In the Senate?

Dr Watson: And in joint committees.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I am not aware ofthat. In any event, as I understand it——

Mr FitzGerald: You are now.Mr W. K. GOSS: Seriously, I would

want to check it.

Mr FitzGerald: Will you adjourn thedebate until you do so?

Mr W. K. GOSS: It is not thatimportant. I think we all understand theposition here. It is exactly the same positionthat Mr Borbidge adopted in Government in1989. It is like so many things with membersopposite; they discover a passion for doingthings differently when they do not have thecapacity or, indeed, the intention to do it.

Mr BORBIDGE: I will reply to a coupleof comments made by the Premier. I am surethe Premier would realise that there havebeen some major changes in politics and inthe nature of this Parliament since the 1980sand when committees were first established.What the Premier has been saying for sometime, and what everyone has acknowledged,is the need to have a committee system thatworks and functions properly. What thePremier has tonight is a chance to put hismoney where his mouth is. As my colleaguethe member for Moggill reminds me, what weare proposing is very similar to the Federalparliamentary system, which serves theFederal Parliament well.

Mr W. K. Goss: They have twoHouses.

Mr BORBIDGE: As the Premier says,we have a unicameral Parliament in this State,which makes a proper functioningparliamentary system all the more important inthe absence of a house of review. I suggestthat the Premier's interjection backs up ourargument rather than his. I expressdisappointment that the great reformer is nowprepared to deny the Queensland Parliamentthe sort of parliamentary committee systemthat is taken for granted in the FederalParliament.

Dr WATSON: I would also like tosupport the Leader of the Opposition. I admitthat committees—at least in their modernform—are relatively new in the QueenslandParliament. In looking at reviewing thecommittee system after five and a half yearsof practice, I think it is important to look at thesystem overall. This would be a significantreform.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said,politics in Queensland today is different fromwhat it was a decade ago. The reform processcan go further. At some stage in the future, weshould even look at sharing the chairmanshipof committees. But at the moment this would


be one step towards ensuring that thecommittees reflect the make-up of theParliament. As I said in my speech during thesecond-reading debate, most of the time inmost Australian Parliaments the make-up ispretty close to fifty-fifty as between Oppositionand Government members. This ought to besomething that the Premier should consider.That is the practice in the Federal Parliament,and it seems to work exceptionally well. TheGovernment still has the casting vote via thecommittee chairman. The system seems towork fairly well there. I cannot see why it couldnot work in a unicameral system.

Question—That the words proposed tobe inserted be so inserted—put; and theCommittee divided—AYES, 44—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, CarrollNOES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward,Hollis, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner,Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

The numbers being equal, the Chairmancast his vote with the Noes.

Resolved in the negative .Clause 4, as read, agreed to.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to.

Clause 6—Mr BORBIDGE (10.07 p.m.): I move

the following amendments—

"At page 7, line 24—

omit.At page 8, lines 1 to 2—

omit, insert—'(3) This Act does not apply to the

Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee.'."The first amendment provides that

proposed section 26, titled "Privilege againstself-incrimination", be omitted. The Oppositionconsiders that that section is unnecessary asthe rules of natural justice for parliamentarycommittee witnesses have been taken intoaccount. Proposed section 26 is a dragnet

which endeavours to cover all options, but indoing so could impede a committee such asthe Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee investigating complaintsabout ethical conduct. There is considerableconcern about the operation and impact ofthis section, and it should therefore beomitted.

The second amendment to clause 6concerns the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. The Opposition is strongly of theview that this amendment is necessary andthat the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee should not be axed. Ashonourable members from this side of theChamber indicated during the second-readingdebate——

Honourable members interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is fartoo much audible conversation in theChamber. The Chair has been quite lenient upuntil now, but the Chair will not be so lenientfrom now on.

Mr BORBIDGE: Thank you, MrChairman. We are dealing with the future ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee,and one would have thought that that wouldhave been deserving of some attention fromGovernment members.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: A cheap shot from acheap leader.

Mr BORBIDGE: The member forChermside would know all about cheap shots.He represents the definition of the word"cheap"!

We are strongly of the view that theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeshould not be axed. It is imperative that theParliament continue to have a committee withresponsibilities that relate to its mainpurpose—monitoring the CJC.


The CHAIRMAN: Order! The followingmembers are warned: the honourablemember for Southport, the honourablemember for Gregory and the honourablemember for Nerang.

Mr Connor: I didn't say a word!

The CHAIRMAN: The honourablemember for Nerang is warned under theprovisions of Standing Order 123A.

Mr BORBIDGE: In the minds ofhonourable members on this side of theChamber and in terms of the general view inthe community, it is simply not practical tolump the very heavy responsibilities of the


PCJC in with those of the wide-ranging Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. The Opposition argues stronglythat the CJC requires a specialistcommittee—not one that has to deal with anagenda ranging from freedom of informationto law reform.

I note the comments that have beenmade by the Premier that this committee willbe resourced. We have heard that before. Itsimply does not happen. Quite aside fromthat, I make the point that every major lawenforcement body in this land—whether it beICAC, ASIO or the National CrimeAuthority—has a separate parliamentarycommittee to monitor it and to make sure thatthere is a degree of accountability through theParliament. If it does away with theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee theGovernment will be putting in place a situationin which the CJC—which has enormous andwide-ranging powers in respect of every citizenin this State—will not be subject to the scrutinyto which it should be subjected via theparliamentary committee system to thisParliament.

I suggest that it is an absolute nonsenseto say that this new super committee can dothe job. We have already seen the difficultiesof members of the PCJC in the previousParliament and the Parliament before incarrying out the task that we gave them. Theywere simply flat strap trying to do the job. Wesaw a situation in which the honourablemember for Nicklin, a former deputy chairmanof the parliamentary committee, resigned fromthat committee and that post because thePCJC was hopelessly underresourced.

Mr Davies interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: The temporarymember for Mundingburra makes anappearance! We will see him in November.

I would have thought that the CriminalJustice Commission, with the enormouspowers that it has, warranted and continues towarrant a separate committee of thisParliament—as recommended by theFitzgerald commission of inquiry. We havenow seen the evidence of the difficultiesconfronting members of the PCJC. We haveseen the inquisitions that take place. We haveseen the enormous difficulties and costsconfronted by members of this Parliamentserving on that committee. I submit to thisCommittee that it is the height of lunacy foranyone to suggest that this new supercommittee—which will look after everythingfrom freedom of information to lawreform—can also take on the responsibilities of

the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeand do it properly and do it justice. If thePremier believes that, he must believe in thetooth fairy. That is just absolute and totalnonsense and it is an insult to accountability inthis State. At this late stage, I urge thePremier to acknowledge that theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeshould continue in existence.

Mr W. K. GOSS: There are two pointsraised by the Leader of the Opposition. Thefirst point relates to the right that we havegiven to citizens to protect themselves fromself-incrimination. This Bill limits the power ofcommittees to compel witnesses to giveanswers to questions that might tend to beself-incriminating. That limitation is afundamental common law principle in courtproceedings. For civil liberties reasons, thisprotection for witnesses was inserted in thePublic Accounts and Public Works CommitteeActs by the Ahern National Party Government.It has applied to those committees since thelate 1980s. However, the principle in those twoActs was applied in an absolute fashionpreventing the PAC and the PWC——

Mr Borbidge: You were saying whathappened before was wrong; now you'resaying it's right.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The member shouldjust listen for a second. In those cases, it wasapplied in an absolute fashion preventingthose two committees from seeking the leaveof the Parliament to demand a witness answera question in appropriate cases, even thoughthe answer may be self-incriminating.

We have not done what the NationalParty Government did; we have adopted acompromise position. We tried to strike a fairbalance between an effective parliamentarycommittee system and the rights of citizenswho are subjected to the far-reaching powersof these committees. We tried to strike thebalance between those two conflictingprinciples—the interests of the Parliament andthe interests of the citizen. We should not losesight of the interests of the citizen here. Toomuch emphasis has been placed on the rightsor the powers of the Parliament. It isappropriate that it have powers, but let us notforget the people and the need to strike abalance.

This provision enables a citizen to refuseto answer on the grounds of self-incriminationbut enables the committee, if it is a particularlyimportant matter—if it is a serious issue—tobring it to the Parliament. I acknowledge, as Idid earlier in my concluding remarks, that thereis a concern from some members on both


sides of the Chamber that this could be thesubject of abuse, that it could be usedfrivolously by a witness. I say that if that is theexperience—I do not believe it will be, but it ispossible—then this Government will beprepared to revisit it and review it. I am givingthat undertaking, but I believe this will work. Iam asking the Chamber to give it a go; if itdoes not work—if it is the subject ofabuse—then we will review it.

The second point raised by the Leader ofthe Opposition is in respect of the PCJC. I willnot go through all of those arguments againbecause he put his arguments forward; we putours and I put mine a short time ago when Imade my concluding remarks. I sayagain—there is no downgrading of scrutinyhere.

Mr Santoro: Oh, God, how can you saythat?

Mr W. K. GOSS: Because it is myopinion; you have got your opinion.

Mr Santoro: Well, you're wrong.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I listened to theLeader of the Opposition in silence, I ask themember to do the same for me.

Mr Veivers: We have been.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I did not think so. Thepoint is that it is a sensible rationalisation ofthe role of the committees because otherwisewe will have two legal committees looking atthe same legal issues.

The next point is that the Fitzgerald reportagenda generated in 1989 has been largelydischarged by the two commissions and thetwo committees that scrutinised it. There is aseparate and discrete role that goes beyondthat work that has now been completed by theparliamentary committee of EARC and thePCJC, that is, scrutiny of the ongoing officialcorruption and misconduct role of the CJC. Ibelieve that this committee, properlyresourced, can discharge that responsibility. Ibelieve it is a sensible rationalisation of havingone committee deal with legal issues insteadof two. The Leader of the Opposition hasraised doubts and displayed scepticism inrelation to the committee's resources. It isproposed that this committee will have themost substantial secretariat of any of thecommittees. It will have five staff, including twosenior research officers.

Mr FitzGerald: The membersthemselves will always go through and beresponsible for everything.

Mr W. K. GOSS: That is right, and theeffectiveness of the committee will depend on

the members. The resources will be officers atlevels AO8, AO7, AO5, AO4 and AO3. It is apretty substantial allocation of resources and Ithink that is appropriate.

In conclusion, I say again what I saidearlier—that it will have the same all-partyparliamentary composition and it will haveexactly the same powers.

Dr WATSON: I want to ask the Premiera couple of questions with respect to clause26, "Privilege against self-incrimination". Firstly,the Parliament has already delegated exactlythis power to a whole series of individuals inthe Executive arm. I was wondering whether ornot the Premier saw a civil liberties problemthere? The list prepared by the CJC in itspolice powers report cites the followingActs—the Plant Protection Act of 1989,section 19; the Private Employment AgenciesAct 1983, section 9; the Recreation AreasManagement Act 1988, section 23; the StampAct 1894, section 29; the State Transport Act1960, section 70; and the Workplace Healthand Safety Act 1989, section 81. There is awhole series of Acts; some of them may havebeen repealed. Of course, there are a wholelot of other Acts where people can becompelled to give answers to questions. I ask:why it is appropriate for the Executive arm ofthe Government to be given these powers butnot necessarily the Parliament to take themitself?

Secondly, I can see the situation arisingwhere a witness may take that particular actionand then the parliamentary committee willhave to come back to this place to try to getthe Parliament to give it the power to compel awitness to answer a question and disclose awhole lot of information which is actuallyinappropriate and which could be heard incamera. It would seem to me that we mayactually end up facing a situation where we dofurther wrong by abusing an individual's rightsand civil liberties in an even greater way thanwhen they were just compelled to answer thequestion to begin with.

Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to thequeries raised by the member for Moggill—Ithink he has misstated the position. I am notsure whether he did so inadvertently. We havenot taken this power away from theParliament. The power remains with theParliament. It is at the committee level that wehave tried to strike a balance between theinterests of the citizen and the interests of theparliamentary committee and its role.

The argument that is put forward bymembers such as the member for Moggill is areasonable one. We can go either way. I am


not saying that he is wrong; it is just that wehave considered this situation. I haveconsidered it personally, and I think we shouldtry to strike this balance between the rights ofthe citizen and the operation of thecommittees. The honourable member is quiteright when he says that there are other areasand other Acts where these powers are to befound.

We have to be careful when it comes tothe civil liberties argument that we do notsimply say, "Look, it operates here and here,so let us do it again." There is a never-endingsuccession of instances in which we keepextending the power of Government in oneform or another over the citizen. That is myconcern.

The other thing that probably switched mythinking on this, tipped the balance in terms ofthis sort of arrangement, is the controversythat we had a couple of years ago involvingthe PCJC in which there were some very loudcomplaints, some justified and someunjustified, in relation to the way in whichwitnesses were treated in one particular PCJCinquiry. There were strong calls from somepeople—some properly motivated and othersfor other reasons—for citizens to have somedegree of protection when they appear beforethese powerful committees.

I thought at that time that it wasappropriate to try to give some rights tocitizens. I agreed with those arguments, but Isay again: if in fact we do strike the problemsthat some members on both sides of theChamber have referred to and about whichthey have expressed concern—if we do strikean abuse of this right, if we do see a frivolousexercise of it—then I will be happy to revisit it.

Mr BEANLAND: There are just a fewpoints that I want to raise in relation to thisclause. Prior to the election—prior to theParliament being dissolved—the Premierpresented a Bill to this Parliament whichcontained a clause that stated that it did notrelate to the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. It specifically spelt it out. It did notrelate to the PCJC.

Now, in a matter of two months or maybeslightly more, we find that the Premier comesbefore the Parliament and says, "Well, this isthe great idea. This is my opinion. This is mybelief. I believe that if we still have the PCJCas well as this new super committee that isgoing to create a new watershed forcommittee powers, there is going to be somedoubling up." If there is going to be somedoubling up, why was that not evident whenthe last Bill came before the Parliament? It

certainly was not the opinion of theGovernment or the Premier at that time. Thatpiece of legislation, that ParliamentaryCommittees Bill, stated quite specifically that itdid not relate to the PCJC.

I think I mentioned a little earlier thisevening in relation to that Bill the fact that itdid relate to the PCJC. It followed theunanimous decision of the parliamentaryEARC committee. It will be interesting to seenow how the members for Everton andCaboolture vote because they are the peoplewho put their good names forward as saying,"No, we want to retain the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee." We will see whattheir signature on the line is really worth. Tochange their minds now would indicate that itis worth very little indeed.

I heard the Premier indicate earlier to theChamber that this committee is going to havelots of staff. It will be suitably staffed. That is allwell and good. However, we have seen howthat system operates here in this Chamber.Ministers simply are not acceptingresponsibility for errors that keep occurring.People say, "Oh, well, it was a drafting error. Itwas someone else's fault." In thesecommittees it is the members who are heldaccountable and responsible. It is themembers who have to carry out a lot of theinquiries; it is not a case of pushing stuff offonto some committee staff member down theline.

I think we are getting away from the realreasons why the PCJC was set up in line withthe Fitzgerald recommendations. There is agood reason why it operates in the samefashion in other Parliaments around Australia.I mention in particular ICAC in New SouthWales which is a similar body to ours. I do notthink the Premier has given any real reasonsto date. He just says that it is his opinion. Iaccept that from the Premier. It is obviously hisopinion now, but why was it not his opinion acouple of months ago before the election?What has changed so dramatically in such ashort period that we have now got to thissituation—

Mr W. K. Goss: I'm thinking all thetime.

Mr BEANLAND: The Premier says thathe is thinking all the time. Can I say that he isnot thinking very hard. Apparently we haveanother vacant lot situation. The Premier isshifting position. This is another toll roadsituation. The position is that there has to be acounterweight to the Criminal JusticeCommission, and we have been given noindication or rhyme or reason as to the


Government's change of attitude in only acouple of months in relation to this matter.

Mr SANTORO: What we are seeinghere tonight is the final cut in the death of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee bythe Premier who has always wanted to seethat parliamentary committee dead and gone.I will be interested to see how the honourablemembers for Brisbane Central, Caboolture andEverton vote. In fact, I will be interested to seehow the 16 honourable members who buckedthe Premier yesterday are going to vote.

The Premier will not answer the questionasked by the honourable member forIndooroopilly. I will answer the question onbehalf of the Premier as to why he haschanged his mind. The Premier has got agood memory. He remembers the trouble thatthe independent Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee caused him in his first term,which is one of the reasons why thehonourable member for Brisbane Central hada very barren first six years in this place. Unlikemost of his parliamentary colleagues, he hadthe guts to stand up to the Premier, to be anindependent chairman and speak his mind,and to lead his committee in an exemplaryway that the subsequent chairman, the not-so-honourable member for Mundingburra, did notdo.

That is the reason why the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee is being abolishedthis evening. I will tell the Chamber whatchanged. From the day that the Premierintroduced the first draft to the day that heintroduced the second draft, the people ofQueensland had their say. They gave to thePremier and to his Government the barest ofmajorities and he cannot stand the thought ofhaving an independent committee chairman—one of those 16 who bucked him yesterday,one of those 16 who did not toe the line—ofa powerful independent parliamentarycommittee bucking the system.

The Premier does not want a mischievouscommittee, as the first Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee in fact was. That is one ofthe reasons why this clause is being debatedthis evening. One of the reasons why I supportthe Leader of the Opposition is that thisPremier, who says that he supportsparliamentary committees and the right of thisParliament to decide when a committee isgoing to come into existence, is so arrogantthat undoubtedly it was he who instructed theofficers of this Parliament to erect a plaque onthe door of the offices on the sixth floor wherethese committees are going to operate. Ifhonourable members care to take a look

during the debate, they will see that the titleon that committee door at the moment is,"Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee", which we are forming thisevening.

Mr Mackenroth: That would not havecome from the Government.

Mr SANTORO: Government memberscan continue and, just like the HonourableMinister for Transport, they will have theirknuckles rapped tomorrow. Governmentmembers can satisfy themselves by going tothe sixth floor of the Parliamentary Annexe.Before this Parliament has formed thatcommittee, the name is already on the door. Ifanything demonstrates the arrogance of thisPremier and this Government, it is those fouror five simple words that were pinned upbefore the Parliament has made the decision.That is what happened between the first draftand the second draft. The most relevantquestion that has been asked this eveninghas been asked by the member forIndooroopilly. The most irrelevant answer to aquestion is the Premier's non-answer to thatquestion.

Mrs Edmond: Is this another challengefor the deputy's job?

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjectionfrom the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha, the "Mouth from the mount", as we usedto call her. I say to her——

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thehonourable member for Clayfield hastransgressed a number of Standing Orders inhis dissertation——

Mr Hobbs interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thehonourable member for Warrego is warnedunder Standing Order 123A. I would like thehonourable member for Clayfield to refer tohonourable members in this Chamber by theircorrect title. I would also like the honourablemember for Clayfield not to cast personalaspersions against other members in thisChamber.

Mr SANTORO: Of course, if I haveoffended any member, including you, MrChairman, I apologise unreservedly.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thehonourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Dollin interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thehonourable member for Maryborough iswarned under Standing Order 123A. As to thehonourable member for Clayfield—the Chairtakes his comments as casting a personal


reflection on the Chair. I would like thehonourable member to withdraw hisstatement.

Mr SANTORO: I do not understand butI will withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thank you.The honourable member may continue.

Mr SANTORO: I apologise to you, MrChairman, and I apologise to other members ifI have offended. It does not happen often inthis place.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is noneed for the honourable member to make anexplanation. He will continue.

Mr SANTORO: One of the reasons Ifeel so strongly about this issue, as should thehonourable member for Mount Coot-tha whosat on the first Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee, is that I realise how onerous theworkload is, how sophisticated is theinformation that comes before the committee,how much attention the work on that particularcommittee requires——

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is fartoo much audible conversation in theChamber.

Mr SANTORO:—and how often themembers of the committee of which I wasmember would remark on the exceptionallyonerous workloads that could not be fulfilledby members of the committee. The Premierhas said, "Let us put that particular concernaside, because we are going to be providingmore staff." That does not wear with amember such as me because, in the end, it isthe members of Parliament who have to readthe reports from the Criminal JusticeCommission. It is the members of Parliamentwho sit on the committee who need to go tothe Criminal Justice Commission to satisfythemselves about the contents of the reports.Some of the contents are exceptionallycomplex and they require explanation frommembers of the commission. They requiretrips and long interviews. Simply providingmore staff is not the solution, particularly whenone considers the extra areas of responsibilitythat that committee has been given.

Having the extra one, two or threeresearch staff members, I respectfully suggestto the Premier and other members in thisplace, will not ease the enormous workloadthat the new committee will have to shoulder. Ismell a rat in this clause.

Mr Veivers: And it's a big rat.

Mr SANTORO: The honourablemember is absolutely right, it is a big rat. The

rat that I smell is one that says that thePremier wants to hide from the scrutiny ofcommittees. That is one of the reasons theLeader of the Opposition has moved thisamendment. In his report, Fitzgeraldenvisaged a sunset clause for EARC andsubsequently PCEAR; he did not envisage asunset clause for the CJC and, by implication,he did not envisage a sunset clause for theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee as itcurrently exists. Therefore, I stand by all thepoints made by the honourable Leader of theOpposition. The Premier has not answered thequestion: what has changed in the last twomonths? If he can satisfy me—and he willhave time to seek to satisfy me about whathas changed in the last two months—I mightbe inclined to support the change. What is thePremier laughing at? The Premier answersquestions during question time with asarcastic, half-smart, knowing smile but that isno substitute for real answers to thisParliament. That is one of the reasons why heis almost sitting on this side of the Chamber:the people saw through the those half-smartsmiles and cynical abuse of this Parliament.That is why he sitting on a knife edge. As Ihave been saying, when the Premier goes, wewill blink and he will be gone—such is hisvanity and arrogance.

Mr FITZGERALD: I am absolutelyappalled by the statement made by thePremier that PCEAR's work is almost finishedand, therefore, we do not need a separateCJC committee; the one committee can lookafter everything. I believe that the Premier ismisinformed about the work that still needs tobe done. As a member of PCEAR, I was verymuch in favour of winding up EARC. However,one Bill still has to be dealt with, that is, the Billthat deals with the enhancement of individualrights and freedoms. The report on thatsubject is rather thick.

As a committee member I know that wehave had thousands of submissions to thatreport. Of course, many of them are verysimilar. That report deals with the questions ofabortion, euthanasia——

Mr Santoro: Very simple topics, aren'tthey?

Mr FITZGERALD: Very simple topics!Another topic dealt with in the report is a Bill ofrights. A committee of this House would haveits time taken up fully over a long perioddealing with whether or not we should alloweuthanasia and whether we should allowabortion on demand. The views of the peopleon those issues have to be listened to and apolicy has to be formulated. Submissions


could then be received on the subject of a Billof rights, followed by public hearings. To dealwith the Parliamentary Committees Bill,PCEAR met 25 times, and many of thosemeetings went all day. I checked the recordthat is in the back of the committee report.With due modestly, I must report that thechairman of that committee, Lesley Clark, theformer member for Barron River and I——

Opposition members: Who?

Mr FITZGERALD: Yes, she is an easyperson to forget, but a very good chairman atthe time. She and I attended all of those 25meetings and the majority of the committeeattended almost every meeting. The wholecommittee worked very well. We had differingviews, but we were able to produce aunanimous report. My colleagues on the otherside of the Chamber agreed with therecommendation of that report that a separateParliamentary Criminal Justice Committeeshould exist. The members of the committeewere firmly of that view. I can speak on behalfof my colleagues because we all said that aseparate committee should exist. It was aunanimous report because we knew thatunder the secrecy provisions the members ofthat committee had different legalresponsibilities from members of othercommittees. Therefore, it was very importantthat that committee should monitor what theCJC was doing. If the Premier is of the opinionthat the work of the EARC committee was justabout finished and there was nothing more forit to do, I think that he is in for rather a rudeshock.

Previous speakers have raised issues inrelation to staff matters. What is the good ofhaving staff to read through submissions,formulate a policy and send out the paper justto see if the committee member agrees? Thatcannot possibly be done. The membersthemselves have to be au fait with eachindividual subject. Would anyone trust thecommittee staff to write a report on abortion,when their signature goes on the bottom ofthat piece of paper? Would anyone trust thatcommittee staff with every line in that reportthat recommended abortion? No-one would.Members would feel personally responsible forevery line in that report and they would want togo through it with a fine toothcomb to makesure it reflected their individual views. That isexactly what happens on very sensitive issues.

No-one can tell me that euthanasia is notsensitive. I know that some members on theother side of the Chamber are looking forwardto getting a one-way ticket to Darwin. It is veryimportant to the State that this issue be

cleared up. Some Queenslanders supporteuthanasia, and there are members of thepublic and members of this Chamber whobelieve in abortion on demand. I know thatand I respect their views, but I do not supportthem. If I was on that committee I would wantto go through the report line by line, as it is theindividual member of Parliament who hasresponsibility for that report.

It is absolute poppycock and the height ofhypocrisy for the Premier to think that we canbe snowed by public servants. That is whathappened to this Government. It has centralcontrol; it has ministerial control over the Officeof the Cabinet. Decisions are being made by asmall group and the Government has run intotrouble because its Ministers are notresponsible for individual decisions. TheGovernment must be responsible for itsdecisions; that is the crux of where it has gonewrong. It has not learnt a single lesson in thesix years that it has been here.

Members of this Parliament must beresponsible for the decisions of thisParliament. We need staff, and we do haveexcellent staff on the committees I have beendealing with, and I praise them, but decisionsmust be made by members. Committees mustbe properly resourced and they must be thecorrect committees. The argument that is putby the Premier—and I can cut it to pieces—isthat they will be trampling around in legalareas. If committees in this Parliament areworking together, yet the chairmen cannot gettheir heads together and decide that onecommittee will look at, say, the abortion issueor the EARC report on the enhancement ofindividual rights and freedoms so that theother committee could start looking at someother matters, they are not worthwhilemembers of the same Parliament.

That is what the chairmen should do,through the Premier. We need separatecommittees. It would be an absolute travestyof justice if one committee was snowed by avery well resourced staff. It will not work andwe will finish up with the same problems thatthe Government has faced in the past. Nexttime, it will be a disaster. The Government willbe thrown out of office if it continues with thispolicy, and the committee system will suffer.

I am keen to see an excellent committeesystem set up, so let us the have the bestone, the one that the parliamentary committeerecommended on this particular issue. I wantto see the member for Everton and themember for Caboolture support us on thisissue.

The CHAIRMAN : The question is——


Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point oforder. There is another speaker who has beengiven the call and who wishes to speak. Thequestion has not been put, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: The member forIndooroopilly.

Mr BEANLAND: I again direct myquestion to the Premier, because he has notanswered it satisfactorily. What is the reasonfor the Government's change of heart in sucha short period? I do not think it isunreasonable to ask the Premier to answerthat question. The Bill did come into thisChamber previously and it would have beenprocessed and no doubt passed through thisChamber, yet this Bill is vastly different; thereis no point denying that. However, that wasonly two or three months ago at the very most.Because the Government failed to allowadequate time in which to pass the Bill, itlapsed when the Parliament was dissolved.Consequently, we have a new Bill which, withrespect, is considerably different from theoriginal Bill. I think it is only fair and reasonableto ask that the Committee be given ananswer.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I have explained thesituation about two or three times, and I will domy best to do so again. I took the view that itwould be a more rational approach to haveone committee do it. The member for Lockyermade much, in a very passionate contribution,of the parliamentary committeerecommendation that there be a separatecommittee. It is my recollection, as I saidbefore, that the Electoral and AdministrativeReview Commission recommended that therebe one committee.

Mr FitzGerald: They got it wrong; we alladmitted that. A lot of members said thatEARC itself got it wrong.

Mr W. K. GOSS: That is the member'sopinion, and I respect it. I am saying that Ihave taken the other view, the view which wasindicated in the recommendation from EARC. Ithink it is the rational approach to take and,furthermore, Opposition members are makinga big noise about how this Bill is dramaticallydifferent; it is not dramatically different. It is justdifferent. One can go either way on this, and Ithink it is the preferable way to go.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the clause—put; andthe Committee divided—AYES, 45—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,Cunningham, D'Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin,Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K.,Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, McElligott, McGrady,

Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Pearce,Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells,Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. NOES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett,Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers,Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 6, as read, agreed to.Clauses 7 to 15, as read, agreed to.Clause 16—

Mr BORBIDGE (10.53 p.m.): I movethe following amendment—

"At page 12, after line 17—insert—'(5) Subsection (4) does not limit or

otherwise affect the privileges of theLegislative Assembly and its committeesand members.'."I make the point that the Opposition

considers that this proposed amendment isnecessary to ensure that a court or a tribunal,in considering certain matters, does notintrude upon the privileges of the Parliament. Ihope that we would respect the sovereignty ofthe Parliament. In fact, if we go through thehistory of the development of Parliament, theNinth Article of the Bill of Rights of 1788declared that the freedom of speech——

Mr Hamill: 1688.Mr BORBIDGE: I thank the Minister.

His knowledge of history is better than hisknowledge of Shakespeare. Pick a box: doesthe member know the section?

Mr Hamill: Clause 39.Mr BORBIDGE: I thank the Minister.

The freedom of speech——Mr Hamill interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister

for Education will cease interjecting.Mr BORBIDGE: The freedom of

speech and debates of proceedings inParliament ought not to be impeached orquestioned in any court or place out of theParliament. I suggest to the Premier that it is areasonable amendment that should besupported.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I think that it is areasonable amendment and I am prepared toaccept it, but not tonight. The reason for thatis simply——


Mr FitzGerald interjected.Mr W. K. GOSS: I will just explain. I

enjoy the member's wit very much, but if Icould just explain? As I said in this placeduring my concluding remarks, I was keen toget the committee system up and running,which is why the amended Bill was introducedand the debate for this Bill has been broughton at the earliest opportunity today so that itcan be passed. Subject to this place passingthe legislation, as I hope will occur latertonight, I have made arrangements for the Billto receive assent in the morning. That isnecessary so that we can actually appoint thecommittees tomorrow. If that does not occur,we will not get to appoint the committees untillater in October. The Government wants to getthe committees up and running, and I knowthat the members who are going to beappointed to the committees want to get themoperating.

The practical consequence is that thedocumentation has been prepared with the Billin this form in the expectation that it will bepassed. So I simply say to the Leader of theOpposition that his proposed amendment isreasonable. I do not believe that it is anamendment that is of great substance.Therefore, if he is agreeable, I would beprepared to include it in the nextMiscellaneous Provisions Bill. However, if hefeels that it is an amendment of substancethat should not be included in such a Bill, thenI undertake to amend it at the next availableopportunity when the legislation is reviewed. Inshort, I accept that the proposed amendmentis reasonable and will move to pick it up at theearliest opportunity.

Mr BORBIDGE: In that case, theOpposition accepts the assurances given bythe Premier.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for that. He may wish toconsider it. If he is agreeable, we will look atincluding it in the Miscellaneous Provisions Billthat is now before this place.

The CHAIRMAN: I ask the Leader ofthe Opposition to withdraw his amendment.

Mr BORBIDGE: In view of theassurances given to the Committee by thePremier, I withdraw the amendment.

Clause 16, as read, agreed to.Clauses 17 to 19, as read, agreed to.


the following amendment—"At page 13, lines 10 to 11—

omit, insert—

'(b) major GOC works if thecommittee decides to considerthe work.'."

This proposed amendment removes therestriction placed on the Public WorksCommittee to consider major GOC works, ifthe committee agrees to do so. GOCsundertaking major works utilising public fundsshould not be beyond scrutiny. I believe thatthis proposed amendment is not mischievous;it is simply ensuring accountability. GOCs mustbe accountable, and I believe that thisproposed amendment will make for a far moreeffective parliamentary committee system. Inthe circumstances, it is reasonable andappropriate.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The reason theclause is drafted in this particular form is thatwe take the view that Government ownedcorporations should not be put at acommercial disadvantage in their commercialactivities. It is a very important micro-economicreform that Government owned corporationsthroughout this country operate morecommercially, and we in Queensland arestriving to achieve that aim. However, if we aregoing to ask Government owned corporationsto operate commercially, then we should notsubject them to unreasonable constraints or,to put it another way, constraints that theircommercial competitors do not have. That isthe reason for this clause.

In relation to a Government ownedcorporation being involved in activities otherthan purely commercial activities—itscommunity service obligations, or whatever—of course, the committee's power will extend tothe Government owned corporation in thatsituation, but not in relation to its commercialactivities which, as I say, would put it at adisadvantage. That really is in conflict withwhat we are trying to achieve with the reformof GOCs.

Mr BORBIDGE: The explanation givenby the Premier is not acceptable. I believe thatthe Public Works Committee should have thepower—and that is all that we are talkingabout—to examine GOCs. If we look at whathas happened in other parts of Australia inrecent years, surely the lessons of Victoria,South Australia and Western Australia arethere for everyone to see. There areenormous dangers in taking GOCs away fromproper and appropriate scrutiny—away fromthe parliamentary process.

I make the point that it is certainly myunderstanding that if matters of commercial in


confidence were being examined—and Ibelieve that that is a red herring—then thecommittee would still have the power to holdhearings in camera. Those matters could beheard in confidence and the accountabilityprocess would still be in place. However, I amparticularly concerned about the restrictionplaced on the Public Works Committee'sconsideration of major GOC works,. Again, thecommittee has to agree. The Government hasthe numbers on that committee. What theGovernment is saying is that it is prepared tohave a situation where it controls thecommittee, where a majority of members onthat committee are members of theGovernment, but at the same time thatcommittee should not have the right toconsider major GOC works.

Mr Santoro: He doesn't want to givethem the power.

Mr BORBIDGE: That is the onlyconclusion that a reasonable person cancome to; that the Premier does not want togive his own members on this committee thepower, because they would have to vote andagree that circumstances warranted such aninvestigation. We do not want half or a quarterof a committee system. If we want any proofat all that GOCs have to be accountable, weneed only look around and see what hashappened in Western Australia, SouthAustralia and Victoria. Because ofinappropriate checks and balances in thosesystems, the taxpayers of those States havebeen taken to the verge of bankruptcy.

Mr Santoro: They might even have alook at the sale of the Stanwell Power Station.

Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourablemember reminds me, it is of considerableconcern that, on the one hand, theGovernment gives the impression that GOCsare separate commercial entities beyondparliamentary scrutiny but, on the other hand,apparently in the case of Stanwell, atelephone call can be made and someonecan be told to sell a generating unit. TheGovernment cannot have it both ways. Whatis so unacceptable about a majority ofGovernment members being given the right toconsider major GOC works by a vote of thePublic Works Committee?

Mr Connor: Laurie Connell would thinkit's wonderful.

Mr BORBIDGE: I am sure that lots ofpeople would think it is wonderful. However, Iwould suggest to the Premier that, if he is notprepared to agree to this amendment, we will

have a Public Works Committee that is notworth having.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the clause—put; andthe Committee divided—AYES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D'Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward,Hollis, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner,Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

NOES, 44—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

The numbers being equal, the Chairmancast his vote with the Ayes.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 20, as read, agreed to.Clauses 21 to 24, as read, agreed to.


the following amendment—"At page 17, lines 17 to 22—

omit, insert—

'Power to call for persons etc.'25. A statutory committee is, by this

section, authorised to call for persons,documents and other things.'."

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is fartoo much audible conversation in theChamber. The Chair is having difficulty hearingthe Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BORBIDGE: This amendmentprovides for all statutory committees of thisParliament to be able to call for persons,documents and so on. In its wisdom, theGovernment provided that only the PublicAccounts Committee and the Public WorksCommittee should have such a power. Theother statutory committees would have to getthe authorisation of the Legislative Assemblyto call for persons and documents. In the viewof the Opposition, this is just a neat way offrustrating the committee and ensuring thecontinuation of strong Executive Government.I make the point that, from my knowledge, thisis a power that is rarely used. However, it is thestrongly held view of the Opposition that all the


statutory committees of the Parliament, notjust the Public Works Committee and thePublic Accounts Committee, should have thispower vested in them.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I agree that theyshould be vested with the power. However, Ithink the appropriate way to confer the poweris for the Parliament to do it by way ofresolution. If this legislation is passed, I wouldpropose such resolutions tomorrow giving thatpower to the relevant committees.

Mr BORBIDGE: In view of theassurance given by the Premier that there willbe a resolution tomorrow, I withdraw thisamendment.

Clause 25, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 36, as read, agreed to.


Schedule 1—

Mr BORBIDGE (11.13 p.m.): I movethe following amendments—

"At page 26, lines 15 to 20—

omit, insert—

'(7) A person may be appointed asthe chairperson or non-judicial appointeeonly if the Minister has consulted with themember of the Legislative Assemblyrecognised as the leader of each politicalparty represented in the Assembly aboutthe proposed appointment, and with theparliamentary committee about—

(a) the process of selection forappointment; and

(b) the appointment of the personas the chairperson or non-judicial appointee.'.

At page 27, lines 5 to 12—

omit, insert—

'(2) A person may be appointed as asenior electoral officer only if—

(a) press advertisements have beenplaced nationally calling forapplications from suitablyqualified persons to beconsidered for appointment; and

(b) the Minister has consulted withthe member of the LegislativeAssembly recognised as theleader of each political partyrepresented in the Assemblyabout the proposedappointment, and with the

parliamentary committeeabout—(i) the process of selection for

appointment; and

(ii) the appointment of theperson as the seniorelectoral officer.'."

The first amendment is designed toensure that the Minister consults with theleaders of the political parties in theParliament, as well as the parliamentarycommittee, about the process of selection forappointment and the appointment of theElectoral Commissioner. I believe that this isan important and sensitive issue which shouldinvolve consultation with party leaders in thisParliament.

The Electoral Act 1992 provided that theMinister must consult with the leaders of eachpolitical party in the Parliament. It did not referto any parliamentary committee, but obviouslywe accept that as part of the process. TheGovernment is probably thinking that, byconsulting with the committee, it isunnecessary to consult with the party leaders;but I believe that it is efficient and practical toconsult with the party leaders represented inthe Parliament. There must be a reason forthe Government to axe the consultation. Anumber of reasons come to mind, but it wouldappear from the wording of this legislation thatthe Minister does not want to talk directly withthe Leader of the Opposition and the Leaderof the Liberal Party. It also shows that theGovernment is watering down those provisionswhich make the process open.

Similarly, the second amendmentensures that party leaders in the Parliamentand the parliamentary committee areconsulted. This amendment refers to theproposed appointment of the senior electoralofficer. Provision for consultation with partyleaders in the Parliament is contained in theexisting Act. If this Schedule remains in itscurrent form, it would appear—in a subtleway—that the Government is whittling away atthe very essence of the Fitzgerald reforms,that is, open and accountable government.Effectively, what we are seeking is a statusquo in which all party leaders in the Parliamentare consulted—which is the current situation,according to my advice—as well as theparliamentary committees.

Mr W. K. GOSS: What theGovernment seeks to do here is to beconsistent in terms of the way in which otherparliamentary committees operate in relationto significant appointments. What we are


doing here is exactly the same—entirelyconsistent with what occurs with the position ofAuditor-General and the Public AccountsCommittee and with what will occur with theOmbudsman and the new Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. I believe that we should beconsistent in this regard. It guaranteesconsultation with all parties, because all partieswill be represented on those committees whichwill be the subject of consultation. I alsohappen to believe that the all-partyparliamentary committee is probably a morerational context in which true consultation cansuccessfully occur.

Mr BORBIDGE: In view of thatexplanation, I ask the Premier to outline whatwould occur if the Parliament were proroguedand committees of the Parliament were notfunctioning. Most honourable members wouldrecall the debacle on a previous occasion inrespect of the appointment of a new chairmanfor the Criminal Justice Commission. In thatcase, the new Parliament had not met and thecommittees had not been constituted. Will thePremier advise this Committee as to whatwould occur in that case?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I think that is anunlikely event. In that circumstance, I am surewe would find a way to deal with it. I wouldprobably consult with the Leader of theOpposition.

Mr BORBIDGE: The Premier'sexplanation is not acceptable to theOpposition.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the Schedule—put;and the Committee divided—AYES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward,Hollis, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner,Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. NOES, 44—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

The numbers being equal, the Chairmancast his vote with the Ayes.


Mr W. K. GOSS: For the information ofmembers, I refer to clause 8 on page 39headed "Delegation by speaker", whichstates—

"The speaker may delegate thespeaker's powers under this Act to theclerk or a parliamentary service officer oremployee."

I am responsible for an oversight in thedrafting of that clause. I think there shouldalso be included in that clause a reference tothe Deputy Speaker or Chairman ofCommittees as being one of the persons towhom there can be a delegation by theSpeaker. If the Opposition is agreeable, Ipropose to include that addition in theMiscellaneous Provisions Bill that will comebefore the House shortly.

Mr BORBIDGE: This matter was raisedduring the second-reading debate by theOpposition. I thank the Premier for taking thaton board. Obviously, what he has proposedhas the support of the Opposition.

Schedule 1, as read, agreed to.

Schedule 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third ReadingHon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier

and Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (11.23 p.m.), by leave: Imove—

"That the Bill be now read a thirdtime."

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (11.23 p.m.):Without unduly holding up the business of theHouse, I want to make a couple of commentsin respect of the third reading. Certainly, theOpposition acknowledges a little progresstonight from the Premier and the fact that theGovernment has been prepared to take onboard some of the suggestions from this sideof the House. I acknowledge that and I thankthe Premier. However, the Opposition remainsconcerned about two major aspects of thislegislation which, unfortunately, in the view ofthe coalition, flaw the final product. I referagain to the abolition of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee, which theOpposition cannot support. Therefore, wecannot support this legislation.

I refer also to the Government's refusal toallow the Public Works Committee to carry outinvestigations in respect of GOCs. These aretwo major weaknesses in the legislation which


effectively neuter a principle that is sound andcould well have had, with a bit more goodwillacross the Chamber, total bipartisan support.The issues have been canvassed earlier in thisdebate. The Opposition finds that the abolitionof the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee is totally unacceptable. It will meanthat, as from tomorrow morning, assuming HerExcellency gives assent to this legislation,when it is subsequently proclaimed theCriminal Justice Commission will no longer beproperly monitored in this State, and thisParliament will have severely abrogated itsresponsibilities.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to theattention of the Leader of the Opposition thatin speaking to the third reading of a Bill amember may suggest a delay of the thirdreading or a postponement, and a membermay raise matters that are new and have notalready been brought up in debate, but amember may not repeat what was said eitherduring the Committee stage or during thesecond-reading debate. I allow the memberthe opportunity to put forward why he maydecide not to approve of the third reading, butI suggest that he be very quick about it.

Mr BORBIDGE: We on this side of theHouse agree with the intent of the legislation.However, as I have indicated, because of thatmatter to which I have already referred and towhich I will not refer again, and because of theneutering of the Public Works Committee sothat it is hardly a committee worth having—particularly when one takes into accountcorporatisation and the number of GOEs thatare effectively going off budget and going offthe Estimates debate process, that areeffectively falling away from the scrutiny of thisParliament—we cannot support the legislation.I remind honourable members of the financialtragedies that have unfolded to the detrimentof millions of Australians across so manyStates.

It is, in my view, sad that tonight theGovernment has effectively neuteredlegislation the intent of which obviously wouldhave had the support of members on this sideof the House. The accountability to thisParliament of the Criminal Justice Commissionand the accountability to this Parliament ofGOEs will be effectively nonexistent. For thatreason, the Opposition has no option now butto oppose the third reading of the Bill.

Question—That the Bill be now read athird time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D'Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,

Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. NOES, 44—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

The numbers being equal, Mr Speakercast his vote with the Ayes.


LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTBILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 September (seep. 176).

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling thefirst speaker on this Bill, the member forCallide, I advise the House that this Bill is aminor amendment of a very large Billspecifically to clarify the general qualificationfor membership as a local councillor under theLocal Government Act of 1993. Therefore, Iintend to be very specific about what I allow indebate on this Bill, and members may onlydebate the qualifications of a councillor, notthe Local Government Act.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.36 p.m.):I was listening to the ABC news tonight and Iheard that this Bill had already been passedand I thought, "I wish." I think it has been adisappointment that we have to have thisamendment Bill, because with the number ofbureaucrats and legal advisers that the LocalGovernment Department and the LocalGovernment Minister have at their disposal, Iwould not expect this sort of thing to happen.Unfortunately, it has happened, and 76councillors in 35 councils suddenly have nolegal status.

The list is quite comprehensive: Atherton,1 out of 7; Banana, my own shire, 1 out of 13;Beaudesert, 2 out of 9; Belyando, 1 out of 13;Bendemere, 2 out of 7; Bowen, 1 out of 11;Burnett, 1 out of 11; Cairns, 5 out of 13;Caloundra, 3 out of 11; Cambooya, 1 out of11; Cardwell, 1 out of 10; Carpentaria, 1 out of9; Eacham, 1 out of 7; Etheridge, 1 out of 7;Gold Coast, 4 out of 15; Hervey Bay, 3 out of11; Ipswich, 2 out of 13; Johnstone, 1 out of9; Jondaryan, 1 out of 13; Logan, 5 out of 11;


Mackay, 2 out of 13; Mareeba, 2 out of 9;Maroochy, 4 out of 13; Monto, 1 out of 8;Murgon, 1 out of 10; Nebo, 2 out of 10; PineRivers, 2 out of 11; Pittsworth, 2 out of 10;Redland, 4 out of 11; Rockhampton, 5 out of11; Tiara, 1 out of 9; Townsville, 8 out of 11—Irepeat, 8 out of 11; Wambo, 1 out of 9;Warwick, 2 out of 13; and Whitsunday, 1 outof 10. So a number of councils are affectedand a number of councillors are affected.

Perhaps if nothing else, this shows thatmaybe the Opposition has a good case to putfor having legal counsel when pieces oflegislation come before the Parliament,because I defy anybody to have discoveredthat. The Government people did not find it—

Mr Mackenroth: And if I didn't find it,nobody would find it; that's what you aresaying.

Mrs McCAULEY: I am not saying thatat all. I am saying that the Government'sresources far outweigh my resources. InOpposition, our resources are zilch, so I do notthink I could have been expected to find it.The LGAQ did not find it. None of the councilsthroughout the State found it. It came up onlythrough Logan having a by-election. That issomething that perhaps the Minister couldconsider. The whole of the Government couldconsider that if the Opposition had had legalcounsel, we may well have discovered this.

It was not the intent of the old LocalGovernment Act and it certainly was not theintent of the new Local Government Act todiscriminate against people who lived within alocal authority area and say to them that theycannot stand for a particular division unlessthey live within that division. As the list that Ijust read out shows, there are a lot ofcouncillors who live within a local governmentbut not necessarily in that particular division. Ido not think that is a problem. It has obviouslybeen an ongoing practice for a long time. Itdoes not mean that they do not have the bestinterests of their division at heart. It is just ageographical fact of life. It does not affect theway they do their jobs at all.

Some of these councillors may actuallyspend more hours a day in the division thatthey work in and represent than they do in thedivision in which they actually sleep and eattheir breakfast. It is not something that I canget too upset about. I am sure that if peoplefelt that councillors were not going to representtheir division properly, they would not havevoted for them. I feel sorry for the twocandidates from Logan. There was a rulingthat they could not stand because they did notcome from the division in which they live.

While this legislation will fix the problem for the76 councillors and will legalise them, it will notsolve the problems for the two would-becouncillors who wished to stand in the Loganby-election because nominations for thatby-election have already closed. That is whythe Opposition has an amendment to move.

We understand the sensitivity in regard topassing retrospective legislation, but this issomething that I feel sure the Minister mustagree to. I cannot understand why he has notdone it himself. I believe it is only fair that thecase which brought this whole matter to lightshould be solved along with the other 76affected councillors from throughout the State.

Somebody asked me whether thisamendment Bill would raise more problemsthan it solves. I have been assured by soundlegal advice that, no, it validates all decisionswhich have been made previously bycouncillors who now have a question markover their worth or otherwise. Once they arevalidated and their position is validated, thenthe decisions that they have made previouslywith their councils have been validated, so I donot see that there is a problem with that.

It was interesting to read the TownsvilleBulletin editorial in relation to this matter. Itstated—

"The basis of local government lies inthe word 'local', which the dictionarydefines, in this sense, as 'belonging to,existing in, or peculiar to a particularplace'."

The editorial states further—

". . . this could be the time to look closelyat residential qualifications for election tolocal government to ensure that it is trulylocal and not a political perk."

That suggests that maybe people who wish tobe representative of a particular divisionshould come from that division.

The editorial also states—"Not only city divisions but those in

the bush are entitled to true localrepresentation and should not be forcedto accept a political appointee from somedistant part of the city or shire area . . . asis now too often the case when politicalpatronage plays a part. It is firmlyestablished in State and federal politics.The ACTU's Martin Ferguson in Batman isthe current example."

I do not agree with that theory and, shortly, Iwill tell honourable members why.

It is interesting that the editorialmentioned that it is a fact of life in State and


Federal Governments that candidates cancome from anywhere. In fact, at the recentState election, the Labor Party ran candidatesin electorates such as Callide, Gregory,Warrego and Western Downs who did notcome from the electorate, they did not set footin the electorate and had nothing to do withthe electorate. I believe that that is wrong.

However, in the case of a person wholives within a local authority area—I do notagree with the editor of the Townsville Bulletin,who said that the person has to live in theparticular division. The Act clearly covers therules by which a councillor lives. When aperson is elected to council, even though thatperson is elected to represent a particulardivision, that person has to make whole-of-council decisions, not decisions that aresuitable only for that particular division. Thatperson has to have a breadth of thought andinterest in the decisions that are made andmust think on a whole-of-council level. Thelegislation is very clear about that. Councillorsare very remiss if they think only about theirown divisions. In fact, the legislation statesquite clearly that a councillor represents theoverall public interest of a local governmentarea and, if the councillor is a councillor for adivision for the area, also represents the publicinterest of the division and takes part indeciding the facilities, services and enterprisesappropriate for the area. I believe that all goodcouncillors look at the wellbeing of all people inthe whole council area, rather than just theirown divisions. If one is looking only at one'sown division, one can become very insular.

When I was a councillor, the only timethat I looked only at my own division was whenI was fighting for my share of the budget. Therest of the time I took as keen an interest inthe Cracow road as I did in the streets ofBiloela, which was the area that I represented.The same principle applies to StateGovernment. The eastern tollway decisiondoes not affect only south-east Queensland; itaffects all of Queensland. Similarly, thedrought that has been suffered in so much ofQueensland affects the south-east corner. Wehave to look more broadly, not just at our ownlittle provincial patch.

This legislation raises the issue of thetypes of people who become localgovernment representatives. A report intoday's Courier-Mail referred to a surveyconducted by consultants for the LGAQ. Theresults of that survey showed that farming wasregarded as the most suitable occupation for aperson wishing to be a local governmentcouncillor. That finding is rather interesting. I

have a query about who the consultantssurveyed. To whom did they talk to come upwith those findings? I received one of theforms to fill in, and I put it in the rubbish binbecause I felt that I was the wrong person tobe giving consultants the answers as I sawthem. I am far too involved in localgovernment to give impartial answers. I querywho they polled to get that result.

The other interesting finding of that pollabout who makes the most suitable councillorswas that the people surveyed believe thatsomeone who is unemployed would be farmore suitable than a property developer or areal estate agent. I believe that that contains avery strong message: there is anoverwhelming distrust of those people whodeal in property development. In fact, thosesurveyed would prefer a person with no job atall to a property developer. That is aninteresting finding, and I believe it.

That survey shows the importance ofrevealing the sources of funding for localgovernment elections. At present, they do nothave to be revealed; so people could bevoting for a farmer who is backed bydevelopers or people with real estate interests,and the voters would not know. Until theMinister takes the bit in his teeth and changesthe legislation——

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mrs McCAULEY: That is important,because we do not know whether somecouncillors in this State have been put thereby developers and people with real estateinterests.

Mr Mackenroth: We've only just putthose rules onto ourselves at this last election.Now we're putting them onto the councils.

Mrs McCAULEY: The Minister couldhave done that for the local governmentelections, had he wished to do so.

Mr Mackenroth: No, we neededPCEAR to finish its report first—theParliamentary Committee of EARC. We havejust spent all day arguing about that properprocess.

Mrs McCAULEY: I do not know that Iaccept that, but I accept that it will happennext time. It has to happen; it is the only fairway to go in relation to the election of localgovernment officials.

One of the consequences of the actiontaken by this Government in relation to localgovernment and local government elections isthat we now have party politics in localgovernment. Who else can afford to be in


local government? Who else can afford to runa campaign in a place such as the Gold Coastor Ipswich? It is big business; it takes bigbickies; it takes a lot of money. I ask: is itbeneficial to have that trait coming through inlocal government? I do not think it makes forbetter government, particularly not better localgovernment. Local government is local, and itshould stay local.

Some other problems arise because ofthe way that local government has evolved.One of those problems, which was brought tomy attention today by the member for BarronRiver, concerns an independent person on theCairns City Council—the only independentperson on the Cairns City Council. That personfeels that the city council is attempting to gaghim by bringing in a code of conduct. Perhapsthat is a parallel with what the code of ethicsfor State members is all about. He certainlyfeels very strongly that there is an attempt togag him. While I believe that a code ofconduct for local government councillors is awelcome move, I believe that we have to becareful. I agree with that independent memberwhen he says—

"I trust that this proposed code ofconduct won't turn out to be a cover foran attempt to gag me or any othercouncillor prepared to stand up andreflect alternative views."

I hope that he is not curtailed when he is tryingto have his say, simply because party politicshas crept into the Cairns City Council.

The Cairns Post editorial referred to thisissue on 12 September. It stated—

". . . this city administration is one of themost secretive and most tightly controlledof recent councils - in terms of informationgetting out to the public.. . . the increasing number of townplanning and general business itemsappearing on the list makes a mockery ofmayor Tom Pyne and his Greater Cairnsteam's pre-election pledge of open andtransparent government. In fact, thistightly and centrally controlled manner inwhich the council currently is operatedwould be viewed with pride by any centralcommittee of a Communist Party."

The paper then states that that central controlis one of the great threats to democracy, and Ithink that that is probably a fair comment.There has to be open discussion and debatein councils and, if each councillor is doing hisor her job and is not just blindly following partypolitics, he or she has to be prepared to speakout and must be allowed to speak out.

The Cairns Post went on to state—

"This lack of opposition within thecouncil is dangerous and leaves the wayopen to the development of a sense ofseparateness between the governors andthe governed."

The editorial states that the councillors shouldreject the proposed code of conduct out ofhand.

This amendment also affects the newsuper city councils of Gold Coast/Albert,Ipswich/Moreton and Cairns/Mulgrave and, infact, the dissatisfaction, anger and sheerdisbelief at the recent actions of some ofthese——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have beentolerant while the member has been talkingabout some of the issues as to who should bea councillor. I will not allow the member todiscuss the amalgamation of councils underthis legislation.

Mrs McCAULEY: I have been here fornine years and this is the first time that I haveever been told that I am straying from thetopic. The topic is local government. It is theLocal Government Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Standing Order141 is very clear, and I will not allow a veryminor amendment about whether peopleshould or should not live in a ward—which iswhat it is about—blow out into a debate over aLocal Government Act which is, if I rememberrightly, about 500 pages long. I will not allowthat to happen and I am sorry that themember feels restrained. It is my responsibilityto ensure that members' remarks are relevantto the amendment Bill.

Mr FitzGerald: Are there anycouncillors in the new Gold Coast area——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the memberfor Lockyer taking a point of order? Is themember trying to assist?

Mr FitzGerald: No. I am asking aquestion by way of interjection. If it is acceptedby the member, the question is: are therealdermen in the Gold Coast City Council or inIpswich who are affected by this?

Mrs McCAULEY: In Cairns, 5 out of 13councillors are affected. At the Gold Coast, 4out of 15 are affected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCallide has already said that; she is beingtedious and repetitious.

Mrs McCAULEY: I would not like to betedious and repetitious, but in Ipswich thereare 2 out of the 13.


Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mrs McCAULEY: If those councillors in

the new super councils who are affected wereto go to the polls in 1997, as more than18,500 petitioners on the Gold Coast haverequested of the Minister, then they could bequite sure that they would not be re-elected. Infact, there is probably a challenge there for theMinister in that he could, if he so wanted, havemoved, via this loophole, not to have validatedthe positions of those councillors in thosesuper councils, where there is so muchdiscontent that a watchdog group has beenformed in Ipswich to keep a watching briefover the new council. The councillors have hadmassive increases in salaries and allowances,luxury cars and all the rest of it. Thosecouncillors would certainly not be re-elected ifthey suddenly found that their election wasinvalid and this legislation was not going tovalidate them, even if the next election isbrought forward from the year 2000 to 1997.The local government's response to all of thishas been to call for an independent person toassess these areas.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember. The Standing Orders are clear. If amember is warned twice, I am entitled to sitthat member down. I warn the member forCallide for the second time that she istransgressing from the purpose of thisamendment, which is to clarify the generalqualifications for membership as a localgovernment councillor. I have been quitetolerant and fair, and I will not allow themember to do that again. The member hashad her second warning.

Mrs McCAULEY: I accept that for thefirst time in nine years I have been gagged.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I find that remarkoffensive. I ask the member for Callide towithdraw it. The member is implying that shehas been gagged. She is not being gagged;she is being asked to submit herself to theStanding Orders of this House and be relevantto a minor amendment to a very large Act.

Mrs McCAULEY: I withdraw.Councillors have an important role to play andthey must be able to do so to the best of theirability. We in the Opposition are happy tosupport this legislation which validates theposition of councillors throughout the State.Our foreshadowed amendment will ensurethat those who brought this matter to light arenot victimised, either.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(11.56 p.m.): I rise to support the LocalGovernment Amendment Bill 1995. In his

second-reading speech, the Minister outlinedclearly the purposes of this Bill. I am sure thatmembers of local governments throughout theState will welcome not only the speedyresolution brought about by the Minister butalso the support of the Opposition.

I have heard some criticism of the StateGovernment and the Minister because thisproblem has been identified. I believe thatsuch criticism is misplaced. The LocalGovernment Act was available for publicscrutiny for many months. All local authoritiesthroughout Queensland had copies of the Billin its draft form and copies of the Act in its finalform. Hundreds of councillors and councilofficers studied the Bill. Most councillors wouldhave read the eligibility clauses, because theyconstituted their work ticket. These clausestold them who could and who could not standfor local government, yet not one personpicked up the anomaly that exists whendifferent parts of the Act are read together.Not one of the hundreds of members of localgovernment in Queensland recognised theproblem that came to light late last week.

The Minister is to be congratulated on hisspeedy resolution of this problem, and thesupport of the Opposition in passing the Bill isalso appreciated. However, the real test for theOpposition will become evident in what itsmembers say in this debate and, moreimportantly, what they say when they return totheir electorates. If they were to criticise thefailure to recognise the problem that hasarisen, they would be criticising almost everymember of local government in this State. Ifthe Opposition try to sheet home blame onlyto the Government or to the Minister, that willshow that the Opposition is not genuine andnot fair dinkum. If, on the other hand,members of the Opposition publicly recognisethat this is simply one of those hitches thatcan occur when complex legislation is drafted,then they will show that they are genuine andfair minded. I support the Bill.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (11.59 p.m.): I rise to make abrief contribution to the debate on thisamendment Bill. The coalition is, I believe,acting responsibly in supporting this legislationand there are a couple of major reasons why itis doing so. It is very obvious that a lot ofcouncillors were elected and thought that theywere being elected legally; so did their counciland so did their returning officers. Indeed,there are three councillors in my own ofCaloundra City Council who are currently in thissituation. I think it would be very unfair andunjust not to allow them to continue in their


elected positions and, indeed, when anotherelection comes due it is up to the electorate toreview that situation.

Also, of course, having been electedthese councillors have transacted business onbehalf of their councils and have been party todecisions made by their councils. Anyproblems arising from those transactionsshould similarly be rectified, otherwise we aregoing to find that we have chaos within thecouncils and the people of this State will haveto find a considerable amount of money toconduct fresh general elections or by-elections. I think, however, that the Ministermust take responsibility for this problem. Iknow that he says it is an oversight in drafting,but at the end of the day the buck stops withhim. I think this has created quite a lot ofunrest, confusion and misgivings within thecouncils.

I support strongly the amendment thathas been put forward by the shadow Minister,the member for Callide. People wanting tostand as candidates in a by-election in Loganfirst brought this problem to the attention ofthe Government and the returning officer.Hence they were barred from being able tostand in that by-election.

The Bill introduced by the Ministercontains amendments that will operateretrospectively. The shadow Minister'sproposed amendment could well be containedwithin the retrospective nature of theamending legislation. If her amendment is notaccepted, the only people who will be left outin the cold are those who brought this matterto the attention of the returning officer and theMinister.

Mr FitzGerald: The next election theywould be eligible to run; in this one, they arenot.

Mrs SHELDON: That is correct. Theelection campaign has not begun; it is just thatthe time for nominations to enable thosepeople to become candidates in theby-election has closed. So I ask the Minister torealise that, in those situations, the shadowMinister's proposed amendment is only fairand reasonable. He may well have overlookedthe situation, so I ask him to readily consider it.

The Opposition really wants to supportthis Bill but, if the Minister will not consider theproposed amendment, it has very little choicebut to vote for the amendment it hasproposed.

Mr Speaker, you have asked us to stick tothe point and I will be very brief. I would like tosay other things but, instead, I say that the

Opposition, in good faith, has supported theGovernment and I ask the Minister in goodfaith to support the amendment proposed bythe Opposition.

Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (12.02 a.m.):In addressing the Local GovernmentAmendment Bill 1995, I intend to canvas theOpposition's proposed amendment. MrSpeaker, I crave your indulgence becausematters have to be raised. Whenamendments to legislation are introduced forobvious reasons, one has to canvas thosereasons, which I am prepared to do.

Sadly, I believe that it is appalling,offhanded arrogance for the Ministerresponsible for this Bill to describe this hugelyembarrassing fiasco—and that is what itis—that requires this amending legislation asan "administrative oversight" and a "technicalhitch". What it is really is a blunder. I know verywell that when the National Party was inGovernment, things occurred that required theintroduction of these embarrassing pieces ofamending legislation. The Government has tobe called to account and it has to go throughthe amending process. That is what it is allabout. I believe any Government has to becalled to account for the mistakes that itmakes.

Although we are dealing withamendments to legislation that have beendescribed as "minor", as far as I amconcerned these amendments are of majorand significant importance, especially to thosepeople who have been affected, particularlycouncillors. I have spent some time serving oncouncils and I know that I would feel exactlythe same as those councillors who have beenaffected by the reason for this amendment.

As we know, the Government's localgovernment legislation was years in themaking. When it was introduced, it wastrumpeted loudly as the finest in the land, ifnot the world. It was supposed to herald thedawning of a bright, new tomorrow. When theMinister introduced the legislation in November1993, he stated—

"As I said earlier, the aim is to havethe best possible system of localgovernment for Queensland: a systemthat is democratic and one that is openand accountable and has the confidenceof the people."

Mr Mackenroth: And that's what wehave got.

Mr COOPER: But we are finding just afew little hitches along the way. The Ministerstated further—


"A system that enables the efficientand effective delivery of quality services tothe community; a system that operateswith fairness and equity"——

I have been told my microphone is notworking. I thought that it was.

Mrs Edmond: It sounded good to me.

Mr COOPER: That is one thing that Icould never say about the Minister. She isterribly savage. The Minister in charge of theBill stated further—

". . . a system that is adaptable and canmeet the challenges that face allGovernment; a system where councilscan achieve their potential, and mutualrespect exists between the StateGovernment and local governments; anda system where we work together aspartners. I believe this most importantpiece of legislation delivers these aims."

Of course, that did not happen.Fundamentally, one would have assumed thatthis bright, new tomorrow for local governmentin Queensland would have clear andunambiguous requirements for the nominationand election of councillors. While theGovernment heartily congratulated itself onthe politically correct decision to strike downthe perceived sexist terms such as "chairman"and "alderman" in favour of "mayor" and"councillor", it failed demonstrably andcomprehensively to determine clearly theproper basis for the election of councillors.

As usual, behind all the self-congratulatory and self-indulgent hype andpropaganda that heralds and followseverything that this Government does, therewas a fatal flaw. As a result, we now have theextraordinary situation in which dozens ofelected councillors have been temporarilydeprived of their proper office. Until thisamending legislation becomes law, councilsthroughout Queensland have been, to varyingdegrees, hindered or paralysed. In my ownelectorate, the Jondaryan Shire has beenaffected. Queensland's major provincial city,Townsville, has lost the services—howeverbriefly—of eight of its 11 councillors, which hasrendered that council legally inoperable.

It is a possibility that people who intendedto nominate—and, in fact, it is not just apossibility; there are people who intended tonominate as candidates for a particulardivision for the March 1994 election but didnot do so because their understanding of theAct was that they had to reside in theparticular division for which they intended tonominate as candidates. If there are such

people—and there are—and if they canproduce the evidence that that was, in fact,their intention, I wonder what advice theMinister might have for them? Perhaps hecould tell us what his advice would be in hisreply. Could not these people now cry foul andassert with a fair amount of justification thatthey were cheated out of their opportunity tobe elected?

Mr Mackenroth: That is exactly myargument for not accepting the amendment.

Mr COOPER: The Minister will get hischance to speak. Those people who wouldhave nominated——


Mr COOPER: That is right. We have toconsider those people. Of course, there is notmuch one can do for them. As I have said, theMinister has had the effrontery to say publiclythat he is not embarrassed by the bungle.Quite frankly, I think that he should be. It begsthe question: what might embarrass him? Isubmit it would be very little. We have knowneach other for quite a long time, so I knowthat.

It is now a matter of record that thisbungle was exposed when disputes arosefrom the need to hold a by-election for theLogan City Council. It is perhaps fortunate thatthat was the reason for the discovery. It is nothard to imagine what would have happened ifthis discovery had been made by one of thosewhiz-kid lawyers employed by somebodyaggrieved by a decision made by an affectedcouncil, or councils, particularly if that discoverywas made when Parliament was not sittingand was not able to rush this amendmentthrough the House. It could have created legaland administrative chaos. If that occurred, Iwonder how embarrassed the Minister mighthave been because he would have had torecall Parliament in order to pass theseamendments into law.

I also remind the Minister that in hisNovember 1993 oration about his trailblazinglocal government legislation he stated—

"The elections to be held next Marchwill be conducted on the fairest set ofelectoral arrangements ever applied toour local government system."

The Minister also stated—

"When the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commissionexamined the local authority system, itrecommended local government electionsshould remain under the LocalGovernment Act, but the election rules


should be amended to achieveconsistency, as far as practicable, with theState requirements. This generalphilosophy has been followed in thepreparation of the electoral provisions inthe new Local Government Act."

In view of why we are debating thisamending legislation, I say, "Oh, really?"When the legislation was introduced, it wassaid to be perfect. Suddenly, we find thatthings are not perfect. So I say, "Oh, really?What on earth are we doing here?" However,things were not as perfect as we were toldthey were, so we have to correct thelegislation.

The Minister went on to list what hereferred to as the "key provisions" in the Billrelating to the method of election ofcouncillors. He prefaced that list by saying—

"As a result a more rigorousapproach to achieving consistencybetween the two electoral systems, bothin terms of layout and context, it hasbeen necessary to significantly rewrite theexisting rules for the Local GovernmentAct."

Nine so-called "key provisions" were thenlisted by the Minister and not one of themrelated to any residential requirements forpersons intending to nominate for election ascouncillors. Not one! Given that the Ministerhad all the vast resources of a departmentthat this Government substantiallyrestructured, reorganised and restaffed, giventhat the Minister could call upon the collectivewisdom of the Government's legal advisers,and given that he could have, if he had sochosen, sought final opinions from anynumber of consultants—and heaven knowsthere are enough of them about—this bungleis not just an "administrative oversight"; hewould have to accept that it is a very, verysignificant failure.

Everybody—and councillors in particular—must be left wondering what other so-calledadministrative oversights lie buried in the fineprint of the Local Government Act. Can theMinister now absolutely guarantee that he willnot have to introduce amending legislation toretrospectively validate legislation in thefuture? I would like to know whether theMinister has ordered a comprehensive reviewof the Act. Can the Minister give everyQueenslander cause for some reasonablebelief that the Local Government Act will notagain be shown to be a complete dog'sbreakfast? If I were the Minister, I would havecarried out that review. I would have made

sure that we would never have had to gothrough this process again. The Minister mightalso like to take a very good, long, hard look atthe quality of the advice that he has beengetting from his department.

The legislation being debated tonight is inso many symbolic ways yet another indicationof a Government in terminal decline. With itsminority vote, its fragile majority and itsincreasing paranoia, it is rather fitting that onlytwo months out from the election we shouldbe rushing through this piece of correctivesurgery to an Act introduced in its triumphantheyday. If things were not so good back thenand the Government is now under a bit ofpressure, God only knows what sort oflegislation we are going to get in the future.

The Government might try to claim thatthis flaw in the original Bill was never detectedback in 1993 by the Opposition and thereforetry to spread the blame a bit. However, thatwould be really plumbing the depths ofhypocrisy and deceit.

Mr Mackenroth: I never, ever said that.

Mr COOPER: Please do not say that.The Government has persistently andconsistently denied the Opposition the staffthat the Electoral and Administrative ReviewCommission recommended it should have toassist it with its work in this House. If theMinister with all his vast resources—and hedoes have vast resources—cannot detect afatal flaw, it is simply beyond reason to expectthat anyone on this side of the House, with itsmeagre resources, could do so. Perhaps theMinister might like to impress upon thePremier our case for staff resources in thatrespect. With more resources, we could helpto prevent these humiliating experiences thatthe Government has had to endure. We wouldlike to help the Government in that regard a lotmore. Just as the Government says, "We arefrom the Government. We are here to helpyou", we could say, "We are from theOpposition. We are here to help you."

The shadow Minister indicated that theOpposition will support this Bill. However, thepassing of the legislation is critical if good localgovernment is to be resumed by so manycouncils. We understand that. However, as Iwarned earlier, the Minister needs to ensurethat a good, long, hard and independent lookis taken at the Act. We are correcting thisbungle. We are assisting the Government withthat. However, what other potential timebombs are ticking away for local government?We must make sure that we do not have to goback and do this all over again.


I also suggest to the Minister that, whenhe winds up this debate, he extends anapology—and I know he is not listening—to allof the councillors who have been, howevertemporarily, forced from their elected office bythis bungle and to all of the other councillorsand their electors who have had ongoing goodlocal government disrupted. Although thatapology might not have the real ring ofsincerity about it, if the Minister aspires to be agood Labor Premier—as he seems to hope tobe one day—he has to try to learn how to say,"I'm sorry" with a fairly straight face and meanit. This is a fairly good opportunity for theMinister to try that.

As I said earlier, a lot of councils havebeen affected by this oversight and a lot ofcouncillors' lives and livelihoods have beendisrupted. We have been through that. Weknow that. What we want to do is make surethat we continue to have good localgovernment. Local government is the tier ofgovernment that is closest to the people. It isan extremely important tier of government. Allof us must recognise that fact and ensure thatthat good government is continued. That isthe reason that the Government is getting thesupport that we are giving it tonight. It can bethankful for that.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (12.14 a.m.): Iintend to speak very briefly to the LocalGovernment Amendment Bill. The honourablemember for Crows Nest has canvassed theissue very well. However, there is one issuethat I wish to make reference to this evening.In the past, in the large, remote western shireswhich have divisions, good men and womenhave been unable to contest certain divisionsbecause of the anomaly in this piece oflegislation. I know that we are not all perfect. Icommend whoever picked up this anomalythat we are rectifying tonight.

As the honourable member for CrowsNest has just said, in the past a lot of goodpeople have had to either surrender theirpositions or have found that they have notbeen entitled to stand to represent their localareas. At the same time, good men andwomen who have been good communityoperators and successful people within thecommunity and who have the community atheart have been deprived of beingrepresentatives at the local government level.

I do not believe that I am wandering offthe legislation by referring to the fact that,when the Local Government Act wasintroduced into this House some time ago, itwas apparent that there was another areawhere anomalies could arise. I ask the Minister

to reflect on this issue. There will be vacanciesin both the Winton and Calliope Shires and itis possible that councillors from those shireswill contest mayoralty positions. In that case,we could end up having a duplicated election,which would be costly to local government,especially in remote areas or even some ofthe country areas. I believe that this is anotheranomaly within this Act that possibly has beenoverlooked by the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland. I ask the Ministerto respond to that issue in his reply.

I support the legislation. As I said, themember for Crows Nest and the shadowMinister for Local Government havecanvassed the issues very well. Although inthe past a lot of people have been deprived ofstanding in their respective areas within theirlocal authorities, I congratulate theGovernment on introducing this amendmentto rectify that situation.

Dr WATSON (Moggill) (12.17 a.m.): Irise to speak on the Local GovernmentAmendment Bill. Mr Speaker, in doing so, letme offer my congratulations to you on yourelection as Speaker. This is the first time that Ihave had the opportunity of speaking in thisHouse since your election.

I know that the Opposition has agreed tosupport this Bill and to make sure that it ispassed tonight, even though it was introducedonly yesterday. I understand the reason forthat, that is, it is important that councilsthroughout the State get on with the businessof local government. The issue is of concern tome and a number of my constituents,particularly those in the areas of KaranaDowns, Mount Crosby, Kholo and LakeManchester, which are now in the newlycreated Ipswich City Council. According to theCourier-Mail, the Ipswich City Council has twoof its 13 members in this predicament. Theyneed this Bill to be passed to ratify theirpositions.

The problem for my constituents—andwhat sticks in their craw—is that they have justbeen subjected by a margin of two tosubstantial rate increases. In standing heretonight and joining the Opposition insupporting this Bill, they want me to expresstheir concern that we are ratifying the positionsof a couple of councillors who have been partof a council that has put forward rate rises thatwere clearly beyond the rate of inflation andbeyond what was envisaged even when theMinister brought the amalgamation legislationto this place some time ago. I raised that issueat that time, that is, the concern that myconstituents in that area had about the


amalgamation, and the fact that we have twoout of the 13 councillors supporting a budgetwho are not legally——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going tosupport the honourable member's argumentthat this is relevant. The honourable memberhas been given some leeway, but I do notthink that he should stretch it too far.

Dr WATSON: Mr Speaker, I take yourwarning to heart, as you know. I realise that Iam stretching the friendship.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember is stretching the friendship.

Dr WATSON: But let me just say that,with two out of the 13—16 per cent of thatcouncil in this position—needing this Bill to beratified tonight and when those same peopleare imposing on my constituents significantrate increases and not giving them the benefitof the doubt, it makes my position verydifficult. I want to bring that to the attention ofthe Minister. I hope that he might look to hisown arguments in the past and reconsidertaking some action on that issue in the future.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning, Minister for RuralCommunities and Minister for Provision ofInfrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Communities) (12.21 a.m.), in reply: Ithank the Opposition for its support for thislegislation. It is unusual that we require a Billsuch as this to be passed so quickly, but it isdesigned to rectify the problem that has arisenwithin local government.

I was pleased that the member for CrowsNest spent some good time this week readingmy old speeches. Even I do not go back andread them so thoroughly! The membersuggested that I should be embarrassedabout this problem. However, these sorts ofthings happen; they happen not just to thisGovernment but to other Governments aswell. This is a technical hitch in the sense thatif one reads one clause there is no problem,but when one reads that clause with anotherclause a problem arises. I certainly view this asmerely a technical problem. Lawyers havegiven differing opinions as to whether in factthe problem that I have outlined exists. Thismatter could have been decided by a court.However, because the Parliament is sittingand because I did not want to see localgovernment subjected to this problem, Ibelieved that the best way to remedy thepredicament was to bring before theParliament this amendment Bill.

I am aware that the Opposition hascirculated a proposed amendment whichseeks to amend the legislation to cancel theby-election which is in train in Logan in order tostart that process again. Bringing before theHouse legislation which validates actions thathave occurred in the past—or retrospectivelegislation—is not something that I believe anyGovernment should do lightly, and aGovernment would need to consider such amatter very carefully. The problem beingrectified by this legislation came to myattention in its final sense only at 7 o'clock onMonday night, when I received the opinion ofa Queen's Counsel. It was necessary to actquickly to remedy this situation for localgovernment in Queensland. Otherwise,councils such as Townsville and Logan wouldnot have a quorum and would not be able tomeet until Parliament sits again in October.Therefore, it was necessary for us to actquickly.

The legislation before the House has noteven been considered by Cabinet; it camestraight to the Parliament so that the problemcould be rectified. By doing that, I limited theeffect of what we are doing to what I believedwas absolutely necessary. It is absolutelynecessary to ratify the position of those peoplewho have already been elected to localgovernments and the thousands of decisionsthat they have made over the past 18 months.That is precisely what we are dealing with. Ifwe were to accede to going further than that,we would be starting to give consideration tocancelling a by-election which is alreadyhalfway over, in that the nominations haveclosed, the ballot papers have been printed,and notifications have been sent to peoplewho live in that division. That process isalready well in train.

Until today, I was unaware of the identifyof any of those individuals who would beaffected by this problem. On the radio thismorning, I heard one person refer to losing$4,000. It surprised me that any candidate ata by-election in a local authority would havespent $4,000, but I attempted to glean furtherinformation. I have discovered that the personwho was ruled invalid in the first instance is infact a member of the Labor Party. If theGovernment were to agree to the amendmentthat the Opposition has foreshadowed, thatwould have the effect of allowing that personto nominate for this——

Mrs Sheldon: He's not the only one.

Mr MACKENROTH: No. I am merelypointing out that the amendment would havethat effect. I am not making this decision in


any political sense; that is how I see thesituation. The returning officer in Logan madehis decision based on the interpretation of theAct as he had it, and at that time the personinvolved had the opportunity to file for aninjunction with the court, if he wished, but thatperson did not choose to do that. We werethen faced with the problem of dealing withwhat we needed to deal with, that is, theproblem of the councillors who were elected18 months ago.

The member for Crows Nest and themember for Gregory both raised theproposition that there could be people who didnot nominate at the election 18 months agobecause they were aware that they wereinvalid. If we look beyond just those who havebeen elected and the decisions that they havemade—what do we do? What do we do withsomebody who comes to me tomorrow andsays, "Look, I did not nominate 18 monthsago because I knew that I was not eligible.What are you going to do for me?" Peoplesuch as that would have exactly the sameargument as those in Logan who have beenruled invalid. We cannot start to consider theposition of those people. If they want to run forlocal government, they can do so in 18months' time when we have a full election.

When I said that I was going to bring anamending Bill before the House, I said that Iwould make it as simple as possible. Theinstructions that I gave to the ParliamentaryCounsel were: it had to be as simple aspossible and to deal only with that one specificmatter. That is exactly what we have done. Ido not believe that I can go any further thanthat in trying to remedy the problems thathave arisen because of this unfortunate slighterror, other than to simply remedy theproblems that exist for local government—notfor the individuals as councillors, but theproblems that exist for local governmenttoday. That is the problem that we are dealingwith.

On Wednesday, when I addressed itsconference in Bundaberg, I told the LocalGovernment Association that we would berectifying the problem. At that conference, JimPennell read a letter from the OppositionLeader informing the conference that theOpposition would support this legislation. Sothose who attended the conference wereaware of that. One councillor from theSunshine Coast who attended that conferencesuggested to me that this predicament wouldleave her constituents unrepresented for thiswhole week; that I had disfranchised herelectorate from Tuesday—when I informed her

CEO—until tomorrow. I simply informed thatcouncillor that I was sure that her constituentswere very well represented by her being inBundaberg for the week.

Motion agreed to.

CommitteeHon. T. M. Mackenroth

(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning, Minister for RuralCommunities and Minister for Provision ofInfrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Communities) in charge of the Bill.


New clause 4—

Mrs McCAULEY (12.30 a.m.): I movethe following amendment—

"At page 4, after line 12—

insert—

'Insertion of new s 8184. After section 817—

insert—

'Filling of particular vacancy for City ofLogan

'818.(1) The vacancy to be filled bythe by–election that was to have beenheld in the City of Logan on 7 October1995 is taken to have happened on thecommencement of this section, andeverything done under this Act before thecommencement for filling the vacancy isof no effect.

(2) This section expires 2 monthsafter it commences.'.'."

I fail to see why the Minister will notaccept this amendment. I do not accept thatthe argument that he has put forward is a veryvalid one. He obviously thinks it is, but I donot. I really believe that the people whobrought this problem to light in the first placeshould not be now left totally out in the cold bythe changes that will validate the positions ofthe 76 councillors throughout the State butleave the candidates who would have liked tohave stood still unable to stand.

I do not accept the Minister's claim that, ifthis amendment were agreed to, people couldcome and say that they would have stood atthe last local government elections except forthis provision in the Act. That would not be avalid claim, because this matter had not cometo light then. It is not a valid argument for theGovernment to claim that, if it had knownabout this then, it would have fixed it then. Iknow that the Minister is a bit edgy about this


amendment because it is retrospective, but Ido not accept his total rejection of the claim ofthese two people who wish to stand for aby-election. I do not suppose it matters whattheir politics are; it is really the principle. Tome, in this particular case, it seems only fairthat, having been the ones who brought thewhole matter to light, they should not be theones who are inconvenienced by thislegislation. That is why the Opposition hasmoved this amendment.

Mrs SHELDON: I also cannotunderstand why the Minister will not agree toour amendment. Indeed, his whole legislationis retrospective, and our amendment is purelyan addition to his Bill. I know the Ministermentioned that letters had been sent, etc., butwe are talking about rectifying an injustice.This is not being argued on party political lines,as the Minister himself has said. One of thesecandidates is a Labor Party member, anotheris a Liberal Party member, and there may wellbe others of all persuasions who may wish torun in that by-election. It is a by-election—aseat is vacant. That is a little different to sayingthat this can be done in 18 months, becausein 18 months there will be a councillor who hasbeen elected—who is incumbent, one mightsay—and for whom it would be easier to winthat war than someone new coming in.

I think it is quite an injustice for thesepeople. They have been the whistleblowers inthis case and they have been ignored by theMinister. As I said in my very brief speech tothe second-reading debate, we in the coalitionsupported him in good faith; I think it is a greatpity that he cannot support us in good faith.

Mrs Bird: That's a load of rubbish.

Mrs SHELDON: It is a load of rubbishthat he cannot support us in good faith forsomething that is fair and equitable foreverybody involved. It is peculiar to thisparticular by-election in Logan; no other areasare involved. It seems that, while theOpposition is prepared to be fair andreasonable on this, the Minister is not,because nothing the Minister has said wouldconvince me of why he cannot agree toincorporate this amendment in the Bill.

Mr De Lacy: You have convinced me.

Mrs SHELDON: The Treasurer hasagreed; he might persuade the Ministersimilarly.

Mr Gibbs: Oh, all right.

Mrs SHELDON: Mr Gibbs has alsoagreed. Are there any other takers over there?This is improving by the minute.

Mr FitzGerald: We'll support you, Bob.

Mrs SHELDON: We will support Bob,and Keith, in this instance. I ask the Minister toreview his situation or forever stand incontempt of the people of Logan.

Mr MACKENROTH: I have alreadyoutlined my position, and I am sure that theMinister for Primary Industries and theTreasurer will support me.

Mrs McCAULEY: I neglected to saybefore that I have spoken to the returningofficer in Logan and I know that not a lot ofmoney has been spent so far on theby-election. I also consulted with the LGAQ,who said its position was that it was simply amatter for the Logan City Council and thatLogan City Council was very ambivalent; itdoes not mind one way or the other. It doesnot feel that it has been particularlyinconvenienced by the amendment I havemoved tonight.

Question—That new clause 4 beinserted—put; and the Committee divided—

AYES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell,Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers:Springborg, Carroll

NOES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder,Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

Resolved in the negative .

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read athird time.

The House adjourned at 12.42 a.m.(Friday).

Hansard 14 September 1995

Documents

Transcript of Hansard 14 September 1995