wednesday, 27 november 1996€¦ · the tyre manufacturers and the whale- ... reported in this...

27 Nov 1996 Privilege; Points of Order 4411

WEDNESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 1996

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. N. J. Turner, Nicklin)read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PRIVILEGEWhale-watching Permits

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (9.30 a.m.):Yesterday in this House, the Minister forEnvironment made a ministerial statement inwhich he accused me of issuing a mediarelease accusing him of duplicity in the issuingof new whale-watching permits. In that pressrelease, I made no such allegation. Therelease referred only to the duplicity of theMinister for Tourism.

The only reason that the Minister forEnvironment is showing such sensitivity on thismatter is his own incompetence on this andevery other environmental issue that he hashandled. There is not one group, from theGraingrowers Association, the conservationmovement, the Urban Development Institute,the tyre manufacturers and the whale-watching industry——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a personalexplanation?

Mr ELDER: It is a point ofprivilege/personal explanation. It will becompleted shortly.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourablemember will complete it quickly.

Mr ELDER: Those groups, the tyremanufacturers and the whale-watchingindustry are united as never before on oneissue: the utter incompetence of the Minister.If the cap fits, wear it.

PRIVILEGE

Black Deaths in CustodyMrs WOODGATE (Kurwongbah)

(9.34 a.m.): Yesterday in this House theMinister for Police and Corrective Services, MrCooper, stated that only one Minister from theformer State Labor Government had met withthe Black Deaths in Custody OverviewCommittee in six years. His words are alsoreported in this morning's Courier-Mail.

During my time as Minister for Family andCommunity Services my policy was to meetwith as many groups as possible to discusstheir concerns and aspirations in such mattersas related to my portfolio. Included among the

many meetings I held with relevant groupsthroughout the State was an official meetingwith the Black Deaths in Custody OverviewCommittee. Unfortunately, today I do not haveat my disposal my diary from the time, but acheck with departmental officials this morningconfirms that I did indeed meet with thecommittee in Brisbane during October orNovember last year.

The Minister has made this spurious claimon a previous occasion in the House and Itake this opportunity to set the record straight.I recommend to the Minister, in the nicestpossible way, that he checks his informationbefore he makes such claims in future.

PRIVILEGE; POINTS OF ORDER

Mr SPEAKER: I think it appropriate thatI make this statement. I have becomeconcerned that members are raising spuriouspoints of privilege and order during the courseof proceedings in the House.

If a question of privilege is raised, it mustbe in connection with something affecting theHouse or its members in their capacity assuch. I have already made a statement to theHouse on how matters of privilege are to beraised. I advise all members to read carefullythe reports of the Committee of Privileges of1979 and 1990 concerning the raising ofmatters of privilege.

In brief, Standing Order 115 shouldremain for members who feel aggrieved andwho must raise the matter publicly andsuddenly arising. But for all other matters ofprivilege, the following practice should befollowed—

(1) a member should write to the Speakerstating the matter;(2) the Speaker may confer with theChairman of the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee; (3) the Speaker then informs the Houseeither that the matter be referred to thecommittee, or that he does not intend torefer the matter to the committee;

(4) if the Speaker informs the House thathe does not intend to refer the matter tothe committee, the member has the rightto move in the House to have the matterreferred to the committee.

I support this procedure because I believe thatmatters being attempted to be raised underprivilege really have nothing to do withprivilege or are trivial in character.

With respect to matters of privilegesuddenly arising, the Speaker must be of the

4412 Ministerial Statement 27 Nov 1996

opinion that a prima facie case of breach ofprivilege has been made out and the matterhas been raised at the earliest opportunity.The member raising the matter must then beprepared to move a motion either declaringthat a breach of privilege has been committed,or referring the matter to the Members' Ethicsand Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

With respect to points of order, the basisof a point of order is that it is an appeal orcomplaint to the Chair in connection with theoperation of the House. It should not be long,frivolous or dubious. A member speaking toorder must direct attention to the pointcomplained of and submit it to the decision ofthe Speaker. If the Speaker is of the opinionthat the words or conduct complained of aredisorderly, he will call upon the member toconform to the rules of the House.

I intend to follow the House of Commonspractice and deprecate the practice ofinterruptions of debate by members who thinkthat the only way they can get their word in isby raising a point of order or privilege. Suchinterruptions constitute fraudulent points ofprivilege and order and must cease.

PETITIONSThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petitions—

Wallins Road, KuttabulFrom Mrs Bird (327 signatories)

requesting the House to upgrade theintersection of Wallins Road and BruceHighway, Kuttabul via Mackay, providing safeexit lanes into Wallins Road which is also usedby a school bus twice each weekday.

Goat MilkFrom Mr Stephan (1,662 signatories)

requesting the House to ensure thecontinuation of the availability of Queenslandproduced quality unpasteurised goat milk fromproperly licensed goat dairies.

MilkFrom Mr Stephan (870 signatories)

requesting the House to introduce a code ofpractice which would ensure a quality productof unpasteurised milk to be marketed throughretail outlets in south-east Queensland.

PAPERSThe following papers were laid on the

table—

(a) Minister for Health (Mr Horan)—Health Rights Commission—Annual Reportfor 1995-96

Written statement in accordance withsection 46KB of the FinancialAdministration and Audit Act 1977

(b) Minister for Economic Development andTrade and Minister Assisting the Premier(Mr Slack)—

Report on trade mission to Hong Kongand China from 17 to 27 October 1996Report on visit to India by Minister forEconomic Development and Trade.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTRemoval of I l legally Dumped Waste

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—Premier) (9.38 a.m.), by leave: Iadvise the House that action has commencedto remove about 80 tonnes of chemical wasteleft improperly on a Gold Coast propertyseveral months ago. The waste, contained in426 forty-four gallon drums, is mainly paintresidue.

Mr Beattie interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourablemember listens, he might learn something. Hiscolleague nearly messed up the entireoperation.

Under arrangements finalised in recentdays, waste management company ERSAustralia will take the waste material for eitherreprocessing or disposal. My department, inconjunction with Treasury and the Departmentof Environment, has developed a responsibleand economic solution to what was anextremely difficult problem. These discussionsalso involved Dulux Australia, ERS Australiaand United Transport Services, all of whichresponded to the need to find a proper andcost-effective outcome.

I add that the outcome was achievedwithout any positive input from the member forEverton, the Opposition Environmentspokesman, whose only contribution, to myknowledge, has been to be pictured interferingwith evidence which has been the subject ofan ongoing investigation. In fact, work towardsa solution was well advanced prior to hisgratuitous intervention.

In agreeing to meet the cost of this wasteremoval, the Government has beensympathetic to the concerns of the owners ofthe land at 15 Manufacturer Drive, Ernest, whohave been left with this waste after leasingtheir land to a person supposedly to storelandscaping materials. It is also a matter of

27 Nov 1996 Ministerial Statement 4413

concern for the community as no precautionswere taken to prevent environmental harmfrom leaking drums, or health hazards if thedrums should catch fire.

An environmental protection order wasissued in mid August by the Department ofEnvironment against the person whoimproperly placed the waste on the property.The order was not complied with and thedepartment has continued investigations andhas sought legal advice with a view toprosecution. That process is nearingcompletion and the Government is nowsatisfied that it can intervene with regard todisposal of the waste without prejudicing futurelegal action.

This morning, work commenced toremove the drums to a secure storage atRocklea, a process which should becompleted by early next week. It is estimatedthat more than half of the drums will need tobe secured in sleeves to prevent any leakageof the contents during transit. After furtherchemical testing by the project manager, ERSAustralia, the drums will be shipped interstatefor reprocessing at Albury/Wodonga ordisposal through appropriate facilities in eitherNew South Wales or Victoria.

In a spirit of cooperation betweenGovernment and industry, the Governmenthas found the best solution involvingreprocessing and disposal at the best price tothe taxpayer. However, the Government doesnot intend to continue to take responsibility forcleaning up such waste. In this instance, it hadno intention of standing by and allowing thecommunity and the environment to be put atrisk by people who will not face up to theirresponsibilities to deal properly with hazardouswaste. Such people will be pursued to the fullextent of the law.

This Gold Coast problem and other similarincidents involving drums of waste and wastetyres in the area demonstrate the importanceof coming to terms with the issue of wastemanagement, one which the previousGovernment ignored. This Government isprepared to take up the challenge, asdemonstrated in our Budget proposal for anenvironmental franchise scheme covering oiland tyres, which was opposed by the Leaderof the Opposition. Additionally, we intend tohave a waste tracking system in place nextyear which will help prevent the illegal dumpingof waste.

While concern has been shown for thelandowners in this instance in that theGovernment does not have a legalresponsibility to carry the cost of removal, we

are mindful of community concerns and theneed to take the proper course in pursuinglegal action in line with legal advice provided tothe Government. Investigations are continuingin this regard.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Brisbane Festival BoardHon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (9.42 a.m.), by leave: Today I wouldlike to inform the House of an exciting newdevelopment for the arts in Queensland.

An Opposition member: How exciting!

Mrs SHELDON: It is very exciting andwill be great for Brisbane and Queensland.

I wish to advise the House that, asMinister for The Arts, I have approved themerger of the Biennial Festival of Music withthe broader arts-based Brisbane Festival toform a new entity. The first combined festivalunder these new arrangements is planned formid 1998. The new board will be responsiblefor the 1997 Biennial, which has anastounding and exciting program.

I would also like to inform the House ofthe new board which will take this exciting new-look Brisbane Festival into the future. Thechairman of the new board is respectedBrisbane lawyer Mr Ross Clarke. Mr Clarke,who is senior partner of Clarke and KannLawyers, Brisbane, has a number ofdirectorships, including Opera QueenslandLimited, the Australiana Fund and AustralianQuality Council Limited. The board membersfor the new festival are: Ms Barbara Absolom,Mr Philip Bacon, Mr Chris Freeman, MrGraham Hart, Ms Rosalie Martin, Ms KathleenNewcombe, Ms Cathy Sinclair and Mr BrianWhite. They will be ably assisted by the newfestival's artistic director, Mr Tony Gould, AM,who is the Queensland Performing Arts Trustchief executive officer and artistic director ofthe recent Brisbane Festival. All of the boardmembers have a strong understanding of andcommitment to the arts, coupled with respectin the business community, and will be astrong force in developing the new festival.

I would also like to acknowledge theefforts and professionalism of outgoingchairmen Mr Trevor Reddacliff and Mr DavidGraham, of the Brisbane Festival and theBrisbane Biennial respectively. Both will act asadvisers to the new board during the transitionperiod. I know that both have worked tirelesslyto make their respective events a success. Butit is a tribute to their professionalism that theyrealise there is a need for a new start for the


combined festival, one which will see the bestfeatures of the Biennial and the BrisbaneFestival combined.

There can be no doubt that the inauguralBrisbane Festival was overwhelminglysuccessful and the Biennial had developed aspecial niche in the Australian music scene.But with the merger of the two festivals intoone large, exciting event held every two years,we will be able to enjoy the very best of bothfestivals, with a strong music component builton the precedent set by the former Biennial.With the amalgamation of all this talent andexpertise, there is no doubt that the newcombined festival will reach new heights inproviding our State with internationalrecognition.

The inaugural Brisbane Festival drewmore than 320,000 people to its 283performances. Box office targets wereexceeded by more than $200,000. Corporatesponsorship attracted $1.35m. In addition toenriching Brisbane's cultural life, the festivalenhances our economy by employing morethan 1,500 Queensland artists and returningmore than $1m to the Queensland artscommunity in the form of paid services. It alsogenerated almost 3,000 room nights forBrisbane hotels, which is a terrific boost tocultural tourism.

The Fourth Biennial Festival of Music, tobe held next year in May and June, promisesto be a bigger than ever program for thismusic event. The 1997 festival will extend over18 days, made possible by the increasedfunding from the Queensland StateGovernment, the Biennial's foundationsponsor. The coalition increased funding tothe Biennial by $700,000 this financial year,bringing its total commitment to over $1.5m. Intotal, the program boasts 130 events featuringartists from over 20 countries. Now, with themerging of this broad-based festival with theBiennial, the resulting larger festival has thepotential to attract a larger involvement of thecorporate sector and boost the number oftourists and music lovers visiting the eventeven further.


Gabba Test Match; Australia v. WestIndies

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: As Minister

responsible for the Brisbane Cricket GroundTrust, I have great pleasure in informing theParliament of the success of the first test ofthe series between Australia and the WestIndies.

Opposition members interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: We should praise theAustralian team at every opportunity. I amamazed that members opposite do not wantto praise the Australian team.

Apart from recording the largest first daycrowd at a Gabba test match, the test alsorecorded the tenth largest five-day cricketcrowd in the history of the ground. A total of50,561 Queensland cricket lovers attendedthe test over five days, the largest Gabba testcrowd since the 1982 series against England.In fact, it is the third largest crowd for a Gabbatest match since the televising of cricket inAustralia began. The last 12 months havebeen very successful for the Brisbane CricketGround Trust.


Mrs SHELDON: I am amazed that theLabor Opposition is not supporting ourAustralian cricket team.

In the 12 months to 30 September, theGabba has played host to a new record of406,214 sports fans. That figure is made up of135,606 cricket fans and a record 270,608AFL fans. There were seven sell-out matchesin the 12-month period, six Bears matchesand one, one-day international cricket match.

It would be remiss of me not to also takethis opportunity to congratulate the first native-born Queenslander to score a test century atthe Gabba—Ian Healy. Not only did Ian Healysee off any misguided rumblings about his testspot, he also entered the history books withthe highest score for an Australian wicket-keeper in a test match—161 not out.

The Australian team has now taken thefirst step to retaining the Frank Worrell Trophy,and I know I speak for everyone in thisHouse—or I thought I did; I certainly speak forthe Government—in congratulating the entireteam on a magnificent effort. The Gabba hasonce again proven itself as an internationalcricket venue of true class of which everyonein this House and this State can be proud. Infact, Ian Healy scored a total of 206 runs notout for the test match. That is a magnificentachievement for a Queenslander at his homeground, and I know that every Queenslanderwould take the opportunity to congratulate himon his man-of-the-match effort.



Cadmium Levels in Peanuts

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (9.49 a.m.), by leave: The Australianand New Zealand Food Authority—ANZFA—isthreatening human health and the destructionof Queensland's peanut industry for reasonswe can only guess at. The ANZFA Chair, MsWinsome McCaughey, is urging Australia'sHealth Ministers not only to double themaximum permitted concentration of a heavymetal in peanuts but also to go to extremelengths to hide the decision from theAustralian public. The heavy metal iscadmium, linked to a number of degenerativediseases such as emphysema andosteoporosis. High-risk groups include children,pregnant women, vegetarians and smokers.This is hardly a substance we should feed toour population in greater amounts!

The current maximum permittedconcentration of cadmium in all foodstuffs,including peanuts, is 0.05 parts per million.This is the level that Australian foodauthorities, until now, have considered to besafe for human consumption. The Australianpeanut industry, centred on Queensland, hasno problem meeting the current 0.05 ppmcadmium health standard. In fact, the PeanutCompany of Australia—PCA—based in myown electorate, spends in excess of $100,000each year on monitoring programs andresearch into lowering cadmium levels.

Why is Ms McCaughey pushing to permita concentration of 0.1 ppm for cadmiumspecifically in peanuts rather than havepeanuts regulated along with all otherfoodstuffs at 0.05 ppm for cadmium? Her ownregulatory impact statement contains answers.I quote—

"The existing level, while met bydomestic producers, creates problems forimporters who source product fromcountries which produce peanuts withhigher cadmium levels. The objective . . .is to facilitate trade in peanuts."

In other words, Ms McCaughey believes weshould sacrifice the health of allQueenslanders, particularly children andpregnant women, for the economic benefit ofimporters. I quote further from MsMcCaughey—

". . . there are a number of peanutconsignments to Australia aimed at fillinga shortfall . . . for the Christmas market."

I am aware there are currently 3,000 tonnes ofChinese peanuts on the way which are abovethe acceptable cadmium health standard.What does Ms McCaughey want to do—poison us all for Christmas? Not only does shewant to poison us but also her plan wouldknock 20 per cent off peanut growers' incomesovernight. But she does not want us to spendthe festive season worrying about the heavymetal we just consumed with our beer at aChristmas party. She wants Health Ministers tohide plans to raise cadmium levels; after all,what we don't know won't hurt us. She wantsHealth Ministers to agree that the foodauthority will not invite the public submissionsrequired by the Act and will not publish thechange in newspapers and the gazette.Nobody would ever know—except of coursethe poor old Queensland peanut farmer, whowould surely notice the loss of one-fifth of hisincome.

The Canberra bureaucrats have even putit about that China would retaliate against ourwheat exports if we failed to raise thecadmium levels. The QueenslandGraingrowers Association and its president,Ian Macfarlane, have given that furphy thethumbs down. China buys our wheat on thebasis of quality and price. China also knows italready exports peanuts to Australia, butproduce which complies with our healthstandards.

Australian consumers can thankQueensland's Health Minister for acting quicklyto make sure this ill-conceived change is notmade before the festive season. His promptrejection of the proposal means it must nowgo on the agenda for a ministerial council ofHealth Ministers next year. He has won thebattle for the moment, but the rest of the waris yet to be fought. Let me make this crystalclear to the Canberra mandarins: thisGovernment will not abandon the healthneeds of our citizens nor the interests ofQueensland producers. We will not roll overjust to satisfy economic rationalist zealots whoput their abstract theories above the interestsof real people. The fact that they wanted us toagree to this stupid proposal at all says a lotabout how they view the interests of Australianproducers and consumers. That they wantedus to undermine the law and do a deal withoutconsulting the intended victims is nothing shortof disgraceful. That they insisted this deal bedone in secret tells me that these people haveno place deciding questions affecting thehealth and economic wellbeing of ordinarycitizens of this State.



Workers' Compensation

Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Ministerfor Training and Industrial Relations)(9.54 a.m.), by leave: I rise to address thetacky political claims by the Leader of theOpposition in both the media and this placethat I and the Government have in some waybeen misleading the people on the state ofthe Workers Compensation Fund. TheOpposition claims to have come up with somegreat State secret as to when the fund will bereturned to full funding under thisGovernment's reform package. I say: somesecret! This information is so secret that itappears in the Hansard for 13 November. Thisinformation is so secret that it was contained ina media release that I issued on the same dayand faxed across the State. This information isso secret that anyone with an interest in theissue, which seemingly does not include themember for Kedron, could have read it in theCourier-Mail the next day. I table the relevantextract from the Courier-Mail of Thursday, 14November—almost two weeks ago—for thebenefit of honourable members opposite.

I totally reject assertions from the Leaderof the Opposition that I am guilty of deceit,duplicity or opportunism. I feel sorry for theOpposition Leader, because it seems that hehas not been kept informed by his shadowMinister or his economic adviser. Both thesegentlemen were, at my instigation, briefed bythe board's actuaries on the state of the fund.The actuaries—who I might add are the samehand-picked actuaries appointed by Labor;yes, Labor's actuaries—have said that Labor'sso-called reforms will not fix the problem. Nowthe Opposition is playing cheap politics on thisimportant issue. It is totally misreading what Ihave told the Parliament and is trying to gaincredit where clearly no credit is due. Its dudpackage will not work, and there are realconcerns that, without a threshold on commonlaw access, the reforms I will be introducingshortly also will not fix the problem. Theactuaries have said—and I have said this anumber of times before—that if the claimsexperience deteriorates by as little as 10 percent from January 1996 levels, then fullfunding will never be achieved under therestricted Kennedy reforms.

When Jim Kennedy conducted his inquiryearly this year he had data up to January1996, and he used this to estimate the likelydeficit as at June 1996 of $290m. This is animportant point for honourable members ofthe Opposition to note. When data wasavailable for the second half of the financial

year the actuaries updated the projections,and I informed the House of these projectionson 4 September 1996. This advice put thedeficit at over $400m to 30 June with an 80per cent probability of sufficiency. I havetabled the full end-of-year actuarial advice forthe benefit of all honourable members, butobviously those opposite have not bothered toread it or are incapable of comprehending it.

After the honourable member forGladstone informed the House that she wouldnot support the Kennedy recommendations toabolish journey and recess claims or furtherrestrict access to common law beyond therestrictions introduced by Labor from Januarythis year, I received further advice from theactuaries of the likely effects—and I urge theLeader of the Opposition to listen verycarefully to this point—of the remainingrecommendations. It was this advice that Ireferred to on 13 November, and I now table acopy of that advice for the benefit of membersopposite.

Mr Beattie: Table the Cabinetsubmission.

Mr SANTORO: I am tabling the advicethat I quoted from. It details—and this isimportant—the likely effects on the deficit ofthose remaining Kennedy recommendationswhich the Government will be introducingshortly and when full funding may be achievedas a result of these—this Government's—reforms. What it does not say is that Labor'srestrictions on common law will fix the problem.No media release, no Cabinet submission andno public statement that I have been involvedwith has ever said that.

It surely is not so difficult a concept forthose opposite to grasp, but just in case, I willspell it out as clearly as possible. The advicestates, as I have said on many occasions, thatthe remaining Kennedy reforms will achievefull funding after June 2006 if the claimsexperience stabilises at January 1996 levels.

Mr Beattie: Under the LaborGovernment's policy—exactly right!

Mr SANTORO: No, it is not that. Thoseopposite must realise that "after 2006" doesnot mean "before 2006" and it does not mean"by 2006"; it means "after 2006". Exactly howlong after has not been projected. Theactuaries ran the projection for 10 years out, orto the year 2006, and by June 2006 theyproject a $280m provision in the face of a$475m full funding level. They did notcontinue the projection beyond 10 years, butbased on the trends it would appear that atleast another five years would be needed toactually achieve the 15 per cent prudential


margin that the Leader of the Opposition hasaccepted as being necessary. $280mcompared to the required $475m clearly is notfull funding in nine years, as the Opposition isclaiming, and it certainly is not full funding innine years as a result of Labor's reforms. TheOpposition has got it totally wrong yet again.

Importantly, and in conclusion, theactuaries' projection is based on the remainingKennedy reforms to the current provisions, noton the Labor Party's dud package. When the"mouth from the mount" guaranteed her placein ALP history by making the QueenslandLabor Party the first party in Queensland tohave touched common law, she said herpackage would fix a $114m problem. Now itlooks as if the new shadow Minister, the"clutch from Kedron", is advising his leaderthat if these restrictions would fix a $100mproblem they must also fix a $400m problem.With financial management skills like that onthe other side, is it any wonder——

Mr BREDHAUER: I rise to a point oforder. Doesn't the Minister need to refer tomembers on this side of the Parliament bytheir seat instead of by the insulting namesthat he is using, or does that rule apply only tous?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The HonourableMinister will refer to members by their seats.

Mr SANTORO: I will certainly do that, MrSpeaker. With financial management skills likethat on the other side, is it any wonder that theTreasurer found a black hole when she lookedto find what Labor had done to the Budget?


Weed and Animal PestsHon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—

Minister for Natural Resources) (10.01 a.m.),by leave: For a long time now weed andanimal pests have been a major problem forAustralia's rural producers, costing primaryindustries and Governments hundreds ofmillions of dollars a year in lost production andcontainment measures. As part of the overallplans to overcome the growing problems ofthese pests in Queensland, earlier this year Icommissioned a review of the Rural LandsProtection Act.

The independent consultant who carriedout the review, Michael O'Neill, has reportedback to me, and the news is not all that good.In fact, his basic message is that a lot of hardwork will have to be done, and the attack onweeds and pests lifted to a new momentum ifwe are ever to succeed in long-termcontainment. Mr O'Neill says that the response

to the problem has been limited by fundingshortfalls and an apparent lack of direction. Ithas not been a strategic approach. He saysthat a new level of momentum is required toensure that weeds and animal pests arerecognised throughout the community as amajor environmental challenge.

This Government has recognised theproblems, through our election commitmentsand by allocating more funding towards weederadication. Of course, we have to do better.Mr O'Neill himself has recognised theincreased spending level in recent times,saying that on the 1995-96 figures, theproportion of control expenditure provided bythe State is currently at an all-time high of 64per cent. This compares with contributions aslow as 44 per cent in recent years. It clearlyshows the contempt that the previous LaborGovernment had for rural industry and forthose people who wanted assistance.

The goal as Mr O'Neill sees it should beone of managing a higher level of momentum,which includes the challenges associated withenforcement, declaration processes, research,extension services and so on. However, hesays it is encouraging that there appears to berecognition that the problem is a collective onefor all levels of Government and for land-holders.

Through such involvement andcommitment it will be possible to develop thenecessary momentum to overcome difficultiessuch as funding and recalcitrant councils,departments and land-holders. The size of theproblem is readily evident from the estimatesthat Mr O'Neill was able to compile. Forinstance, weeds are estimated to cost theQueensland economy more than $500m ayear in lost production and control measuresalone, without taking account of theenvironmental or social impacts, and nationallythe figure is more than $3.3 billion, with someestimates as high as $4 billion. The impact ofthe 1995 mice plague in Queensland wasestimated at $19m, and nationally rabbits areestimated to cost between $600m and$1 billion a year.

Mr O'Neill says that there is a lack ofavailable data, and anecdotal evidence from anumber of sources suggests that the problemcontinues to deteriorate through a growth inthe number of weed pests, more land lost toproduction and doubts about the possibleimpact of response measures to the problem.According to some, Mr O'Neill says, there is asense of the problem being too big,particularly among land-holders and localgovernments faced with significant infestations


and who are dealing also with the impact ofdrought and general rural downturn.

Mr O'Neill makes 30 recommendations,including that State Governments and localgovernments enter into a statement ofunderstanding about their individual andcollective roles in the management of weeds,pests and the stock route network. The StateGovernment should develop a comprehensiveStatewide strategy in partnership with localgovernment and land-holders for themanagement of weeds and pests. As well, hesays that the State should provide three-yearlyforward estimates of funding commitments tothe issue.

Other recommendations aim tostrengthen the Rural Lands Protection Act,such as by requiring all local governments andaffected State Government departments toprepare annual pest management plans.Another requirement would be for them toprepare and release publicly annualassessments of performance under theirplans. The legislation would also provide forthe development by the Lands ProtectionBranch of criteria on which to base pestmanagement plans. It would allow the Ministerto take action if a council is unwilling or unableto respond adequately to a weed or pestissue, such as strengthening the power of theMinister to have the work done. However, hesays that the response should be less extremethan the current arrangement that allows theMinister to dismiss a council.

Mr O'Neill also supports as a matter ofpriority development of a communicationsstrategy aimed at a sustained level ofawareness of the implications of the weed andpest issue, and urges that long-term basefunding be provided for an effective extensionstrategy. Other recommendations include—

the need for more and better coordinatedresearch and consultation;

a study of the current direction of stockroute management and resourcing aimedat developing a strategy for future stockroute usage;

establishment of a reference group on theoperation of the dingo barrier fence andother strategies to deal with the dingo andwild dog problem; and

a heightened role for the Rural LandsProtection Board, including responsibilityfor development of the State pestmanagement strategy and the boardparticipating fully in departmentalconsultation processes.

I will be closely studying the report and itsrecommendations, and I expect to take asubmission to Cabinet in the not too distantfuture.


Lotus Glen Correctional Centre

Hon. R. T. CONNOR (Nerang—Minister for Public Works and Housing)(10.06 a.m.), by leave: An in principle decisionwas made by Cabinet in March of this year fora pilot program to create a separate Aboriginalprison on the Lotus Glen prison property. Aletter was received also in March from theHonourable Minister for Police and CorrectiveServices requesting my department toinvestigate such a project. The Public WorksDepartment commissioned Ian Prentice to dothis work.

The Works Department regularly acts formost Government departments on theirbuilding needs. There is no doubting MrPrentice's eminent qualifications. Among otherthings, specifically he provided opinion on theimpact of anti-discrimination legislation. He is alawyer who has expertise in these matters.

I table a copy of legal opinion supplied byMr Prentice on this matter. He is experiencedin commissions of inquiry and is presentlychairing one, as I understand it. The reportfrom Mr Prentice was extremely well receivedby the Corrective Services Minister. I table twoletters requesting the investigation andreceiving the report. So much so that the $16million prison extension at Lotus Glen is in thisyear's capital works program and is about tobe constructed—tenders closed last week.

My department subsequently received anaccount from Prentice Lawyers for $10,113.This was for professional fees, phone calls,conferences with department personnel,perusing extensive material, consultation withcounsel and specialist correctional consultancyfees, etc. A cheque for $10,113 was paid toPrentice Lawyers. I table a copy of theaccount and the cheque.

Mr Fouras: What about the report?

Mr CONNOR: The payment, as part oflast year's audited financial statement, hasgone through the scrutiny of the Auditor-General. In response to a request, I table theactual report. I also table a document used inthe process, dated 30 October 1995, detailingsimilar work undertaken by my departmentunder the previous Government.



Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderEducation

Hon. R. J. QUINN (Merrimac—Ministerfor Education) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: MrSpeaker, there can be no doubt that muchhas been achieved in Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander education during the past 20years. Even so, the disappointing level ofparticipation and achievement amongindigenous students overall is still a source ofmajor concern. In July this year, the State andCommonwealth Governments agreed that theeducation of our Aboriginal students andTorres Strait Islander students was a nationalimperative.

More specifically, it was agreed that thenational priorities should be—

achieving literacy and numeracyoutcomes for indigenous Australians,similar to those of non-indigenousAustralians; and

addressing the development of soundfoundation competencies in the earlychildhood years.

To help us achieve these importantobjectives here in Queensland, mydepartment recently prepared and circulatedthis discussion paper—A Strategy Plan forAboriginal Education and Torres Strait IslanderEducation. Among other things, we proposeto—

set literacy, numeracy and employmenttargets in the education sector;

recruit and train more indigenous staff todeliver educational programs;

involve indigenous parents in theirchildren's education and school programs;

encourage the use of technology byindigenous students and staff;

include indigenous culture in syllabus andresource development;

encourage parents to improve theirchildren's school attendance;

involve indigenous Australians ineducational decision-making;

support culturally inclusive teachingmethodologies; and

improve educational and careercounselling.

By implementing these strategies andimproving the links between schools andcommunities, I believe we will greatly improvethe educational outcomes for our indigenousstudents. A key element of this plan will be the

collection and aggregation of school data tomeasure performance and monitor progresstowards achieving our State and nationalpriorities.

That information will be included in annualand periodic reports to assist principals andsenior management. Schools will evaluate theeffectiveness of their programs as part of theirnormal planning and reporting processes. Ourefforts will be guided and assisted by theQueensland Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Education Consultative Committee—QATSIECC—and the Torres Strait IslanderRegional Education Committee—TSIREC.These organisations will not only offerinvaluable advice as we pursue our objectivesbut play a key role in ensuring effectivecommunity participation at all levels of theschooling process.

It has to be understood that someAboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderstudents—no matter how intelligent orcreative—simply are not interested in theacademic and technological focus we offer inour schools today. This plan acknowledgesthat fact and the need to develop alternativeprograms which satisfy the legitimateeducational aspirations of those students.

I believe its implementation will go a verylong way towards achieving our State andnational objectives of more equitableeducational outcomes for indigenousAustralians. I now table a copy of theirdiscussion paper for the information of allmembers. Further copies are available frommy department.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTHealth Rights Commission Annual

Report

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—Minister for Health) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: Ashonourable members are aware, today Itabled in the House the Health RightsCommission's annual report for 1995-96. Thereport was furnished to me by the HealthRights Commissioner on 13 November 1996 inaccordance with section 46J of the FinancialAdministration and Audit Act 1977 and section34 of the Health Rights Commission Act 1991.

I tabled the report as received and withinthe required statutory time frame undersection 46K of the Financial Administrationand Audit Act. The report's receipt on 13November followed an extension of time Igranted to the Health Rights Commissionerunder section 46J(2) of the FinancialAdministration and Audit Act.

4420 Notice of Motion 27 Nov 1996

I would like to inform the House ofreservations I have in regard to the content ofthe report. I am concerned about the overallquality of the report and its compliance withstatutory requirements. The report assubmitted to me and tabled today contains anumber of content errors—some typographicaland some more substantial. For example,there are a number of errors in statistics onpages 36 to 39 of the report. However, themost serious concern to me is the completeomission from the report of annual financialstatements as required under section 46J(3)(b)of the Financial Administration and Audit Act.

Because I believe strongly in theaccountability mechanism which annualreports represent, I table the missing annualfinancial statements for the information ofhonourable members. In so doing, I wouldpoint out that the statements are in order andhave been certified without qualification by theAuditor-General.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Whale-watching PermitsMr WELFORD (Everton) (10.15 a.m.),

by leave: Yesterday in the House the Ministerfor Environment, in his desperate attempt toescape embarrassment, made a false and, Iwould suggest, dishonest imputation that I inany way lent support to the approval of awhale-watching permit to Akarma Cruises inMoreton Bay. At her request I met MsMcTaggart of Akarma Cruises at my electorateoffice. She came to me complaining that theMinister had refused to see her and that theMinister's department had duck-shoved herfrom one end of the department to the otherwithout properly and competently handling herrequests.

I gave Ms McTaggart absolutely noassurance of support for a whale-watchingpermit in Moreton Bay and, indeed, I put it toher that the department's advice wasappropriate and proper advice: namely, thatlicences in Moreton Bay should not be issueduntil a full conservation or management planfor the whale-watching industry and theprotection of whales was provided.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a personalexplanation or a matter of public interest?

Mr WELFORD: The personalexplanation is that the Minister falselyrepresented my position in the Houseyesterday to escape the embarrassment thathe had to wear as a result of the TourismMinister going to Hervey Bay and telling theHervey Bay whale-watching industry that theMinister for Environment was incompetent and

that he was very disappointed in the Minister'sfailure to consult the industry. He also told thewhale-watching industry in Hervey Bay that hehad hauled the Minister over the coals in frontof the Premier. That is why the Minister had togo to Hervey Bay again last week and appearbefore the representatives of the industry. Hehad to properly consult the people whom hehad not properly consulted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will thehonourable member make his personalexplanation or be seated? This is not an MPI.

Mr WELFORD: I will. The Minister hasignored his own department's advice. He hasignored best practice in scientific research. Hehas ignored the protection of the whales. Hedid all this in my absence yesterday, knowing Iwould be absent. On Friday when the Ministeris absent I promise not to tip a bucket on him.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Reports

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(10.17 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housetwo CJC publications. The first publication istitled Exposing Corruption—a CJC Guide toWhistleblowing in Queensland. The second istitled Defendant's Perceptions of theInvestigation and Arrest Process. Whilst theCJC has a specific responsibility to table its"reports" in Parliament—or no responsibility—pursuant to section 26 of the Criminal JusticeAct, as the committee has previously advisedthe Parliament there is currently no definitionof "report" in the Act. The committee believesthat it is in the spirit of the Criminal Justice Actthat all non-confidential publications by theCJC be tabled in the Parliament. Therefore,these documents are being tabled inaccordance with the prior request of thiscommittee to that effect.

The committee stresses that it has in noway conducted an inquiry into the matters thesubject of these publications. The committeesimply believes that the Parliament and thepeople of Queensland should be informed ofall non-confidential publications produced bythe CJC. The committee also stresses that it isthe CJC which has determined that thesedocuments are not "reports" of thecommission for the purposes of section 26 ofthe Criminal Justice Act.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Whale-watching Permits

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (10.18 a.m.): Igive notice that I shall move—

27 Nov 1996 Private Members' Statements 4421

"That this House—(1) notes the number of contradictions

made by the Tourism Minister, theMinister for Environment and a seniorpublic servant in the Department ofEnvironment regarding the issue ofcorrespondence exchanged betweentheir Departments over the issuing ofnew whale watch permits in southernQueensland;

(2) calls upon both Ministers to table allmissing correspondence, referralnotes and records of phoneconversations relating to this; and

(3) condemns both Ministers for theirdeceptive handling of this issuewhich placed at risk the future of theHervey Bay whale watching industry."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTSHospital Waiting Lists

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (10.08 a.m.): The Ministerfor Health, Mr Horan, refuses to release the fullfigures for waiting lists for operations in publichospitals. Why? Because his own officialfigures show waiting lists are up. He hasreleased a few figures which are impossible tocheck. He is operating on the figures insteadof the patients. I refer to patients such as MrDoman from Ipswich who waited so long for asevere hernia operation that his doctors werein fear of it strangulating. The man could notstand, sit or lie down because he was in somuch pain. But he was not placed in theurgent Category 1 list. Oh no! The push fromMr Horan is to keep Category 1 lists down sothat he can claim some sort of victory. MrDoman had to borrow money to get thesurgery performed privately. That is what theMinister calls a successful outcome: cuttingthe waiting lists by forcing people off the listswho cannot really afford to go private.

Mr Cohen from Caboolture was disgustedto see the Minister talking on television aboutcutting lists because Mr Cohen also had togive up on the public waiting list for a cataractoperation and sacrifice everything to goprivate. This is one inhumane way for theMinister to try to cut lists—to force people offthem. For three months to November this yearat the Princess Alexandra Hospital the waitinglists continued to blow out in completecontradiction of Mr Horan's disgraceful anddishonest claims. This is what the medical stafftell me: the waiting list for gynaecology is up21 per cent; for neurosurgery it is up 19.7 percent; for plastic surgery it is up 16.6 per cent;

for ENT surgery it is up 2.7 per cent, and 619people are waiting for this procedure; and forvascular surgery it is up 2.5 per cent to 201people. These figures prove that he is thesame Mike Horan who was exposed when hewas in Opposition for making nearly 40incorrect claims in his media releases. We areback to the same honest bloke!

Time expired.

Initiatives of the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment

Mr TANTI (Mundingburra) (10.20 a.m.): Inow continue with my series of two minutespeeches in relation to the positives that theBorbidge/Sheldon Government has achievedduring the last nine months. This Governmentcreated a separate Ministry of EconomicDevelopment and Trade. It opened Premier'sOffices in Townsville, Mackay, Cairns andRockhampton, as well as an Office ofEconomic Development and Trade inGladstone. It held a review of trading hourswith the resulting decision to leave thingsbasically as they are, but to provide incentivesfor small businesses affected by the existinghours.

Other initiatives include—a 10-yearblueprint to boost the number of police officersby 2,780; more police released from civiliantasks for operation; a new police academy inTownsville; complete overhaul of juvenile crimefighting, preventive measures and sentencing;brought on stream two water pipelines; thenorth-west gas pipeline, which is essential fornorthern industry; the eight-lane upgrade ofthe Pacific Highway between Brisbane and theGold Coast; regional development plan for theSurat Oil/Gas Basin and Dawson Valley coal;$1 billion in water storage projects;commitment to national electricity grid; theKorea Zinc project in Townsville; a $600mfertiliser plant; major infrastructure studies, onecovering the region around Cloncurry with$2.36 billion in projects and another centredon the Townsville region——

Mr McGRADY: I rise to a point of order.This gentleman is taking credit for theCarpentaria/Mount Isa mineral province. Thatproject has nothing at all to do with memberson that side of the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order.

Mr TANTI: I will continue with the list ofpositives—the sale of the $162m gaspipeline—Queensland's first privatisation; thepower arrangement for two new major mines;power plants in the north—lifted out of the

4422 Private Members' Statements 27 Nov 1996

former Government's too-hard basket; a$100m city-airport rail link in Brisbane; aChildren's Commissioner; complete restructureof Queensland Health; reorganisation ofHealth capital works committee; disbanding of13 regional health authorities and setting up of39 new community health areas; morehospital beds and wards opened; waiting listsfor surgery tackled; overhaul of Governmentmachinery including scrapping of the Office ofthe Cabinet and the Public SectorManagement Commission; creation of a rangeof new ministries and transfer ofresponsibilities——

I will continue this list at a futureopportunity.

Time expired.

Transport Infrastructure Levy

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): Themember for Mundingburra has two years tocontinue it and then he is finished.

The desperation of the BorbidgeGovernment to pretend it is doing somethingworth while, anything worth while, has reachednew lows. The Premier is now trying to curryfavour with the white-shoe brigade by givingresidential developers a $43m annual gift. No-one believes that the removal of the transportinfrastructure levy will mean more houses ormore jobs; it will mean money in the pocketsof the mates of the members opposite,because the abolition of the transportinfrastructure levy has removed a legitimatemeans of constructing roads that last yearprovided $8m directly to the roads budget andworks in kind—for the information of theMinister, I repeat: works in kind—to the valueof $35m.

The Premier has taken a court decisionthat the levy was misapplied in some casesand abolished the levy altogether. That wentbeyond even what had been sought by theUrban Development Institute's campaign. Itsaid that it had no problems paying forroadworks when the development itselfprompted the need for them. In other words,when it was needed, the institute believed thatthe levy was legitimate. The only concern thatwas ever raised was by the Minister forTransport. When he raised the concern withthe Royal Australian Planning Institute at aconference, the delegates at the conferencewere informed by the Minister that he actuallysupported the levy. He said that there wouldbe no change to that levy and the provision ofinfrastructure.

After that comment at that conferenceearlier this week, does the Minister still holdthose same views, or has the Premier got histongue on this particular matter? At the end ofthe day, it is not an anti-development tax, it isan anti-planning tax. The Minister should havesome concerns about that.

Time expired.

Redlands Electorate Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (10.25 a.m.):

According to the latest Midwood DevelopmentReport for Queensland, Redlands, the seatthat I represent in this Parliament, will be oneof the key areas for population growth in theyears ahead. Although the biggest projectionsare for Brisbane, the Gold Coast and theSunshine Coast, Redlands is grouped withLogan City, Ipswich, Pine Rivers andCaboolture as areas where we will see thegreatest population growth through to the year2011. The Australian Bureau of Statisticsestimates that Queensland's currentpopulation of 3.4 million will continue to growfaster than any other State and will exceedseven million by 2051.

The overall forecasted increase forQueensland up to 2011 is 1,160,180.Although at latest count Redlands registered apopulation of about 100,000, by 2011 it isexpected to jump to 155,030. Redlands willshare in the greatest growth in population,which is expected—not surprisingly—to be inthe south-east corner. Latest figures show thatthe Brisbane region is growing faster than atany time in the past 30 years. That is largelydue to the popularity of this region to interstatemigrants. There seems no reason to believethat that will change in the next decade atleast.

Of course, what all this helps point to is aturnaround in the building industry for theyears ahead. That must mean more jobs. Notonly will we see more residential growth in thesuburbs of Redlands but also the non-residential growth in the greater Brisbane areawill produce many thousands of jobs, andsome in time for the start of the 1997 schoolyear. That can only be good. In fact, there wasa 43 per cent increase in the amount of non--residential building work approved in greaterBrisbane in the September quarter comparedwith the previous quarter.

It is interesting to note in the Midwoodreport that the median average sale price of ahouse in Redlands to the June quarter 1996was $137,500, which ranked sixth behindNoosa at $175,000; Gold Coast, $164,500;

27 Nov 1996 Questions Without Notice 4423

Cairns, $159,000; Brisbane, $143,000; andCaloundra, $142,500. Time expired.

QGAP; Julia Creek

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton)(10.27 a.m.): Last week, I had the goodfortune to travel along with the members forIpswich West, Hervey Bay and Mackay on atrip of 3,500 kilometres in north-westQueensland. That is a trip that I urgehonourable members opposite, who pretendin this place to represent the people out there,to take. The fact of the matter is that,wherever we went on that trip, we found a lotof harsh criticism of the members opposite,especially for their neglect of the bush.

Nowhere was that more evident than inJulia Creek, where we met with a man whoreferred us to the QGAP office. Upon visitingthe QGAP office, we were met by the officerthere who indicated to us that he was havingsevere problems in serving that particular area.When we asked him why that was, he pointedto his means of transport, which was a bicycleon the front veranda, complete with a bicyclehelmet, with which he is expected to servesome 100,000 square kilometres.

Mr Elder: A bicycle bell as well?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The bike did have abell.

That was not the end of the story. Thenext part of the sorry tale of woe is that it istaking the good citizens of Julia Creek somefive or six months to get a set ofnumberplates. I know that it is a long way fromBrisbane, but I would not have expected that ittakes five to six months to get a set ofnumberplates up to the good citizens of JuliaCreek. That highlights the way in whichmembers opposite have lost control of theagenda of QGAP offices in this State since itjettisoned the Office of Rural Communities,tucked it away in a back room in 111 GeorgeStreet and gave it no ministerial protectionwhatsoever. It is clearly out of hand. I noticethat the Justice Minister is ignoring thisspeech. It is his department that is the leadagency in Julia Creek and which does notprovide a vehicle for that officer to do his workor the necessary back up to ensure that thepeople of the bush are looked after.

Time expired.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is now time forquestions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr P. O'Connor

Mr BEATTIE (10.29 a.m.) I refer theMinister for Police and Corrective Services tohis denial yesterday in Parliament that hearranged a consultancy job for his formerprisons adviser, Patrick O'Connor, with thePublic Works and Housing Minister. Why didPatrick O'Connor then say in his letter dated12 June to the Minister that—

"On Monday I was passed off toRay's Department working as a'Consultant'. You also promised"—

and that is the Minister—

"that this would help getting a positionthrough Trevor Carlyon in approximately 9weeks time."

I table the letter, and ask the Minister: why didhe deliberately mislead Parliament about histrue involvement in the O'Connor consultancyscandal?

Mr COOPER: I do not for a momentresile from the answer that I gave yesterday.

Mr Beattie: What about the letter? Hewrote to you.

Mr COOPER: What about the letter? Idid not arrange a job for Mr O'Connor.Whether it is Mr O'Connor or Mr Joe Blow, if Ican help people in certain circumstances, aslong as due process is followed, then I will. Ibelieve that not only do we assist people if wecan in finding employment in certaincircumstances but so also does theOpposition—and there have been plenty ofexamples of that occurring. The importantpoint is that due process be followed.

There was reference to Mr Trevor Carlyon.I obtained a list of jobs that may be availablefor people to apply for. If people are goodenough to apply for those jobs and receive ajob, that is fine. If those people do not get ajob as a result of following due process, so beit; that is the end of the matter. I have nointention of stopping trying to assist people aslong as due process is followed. If there arepeople with the necessary expertise, I believethat it is part of our tasks to assist them.

I have known Mr O'Connor for quite awhile. I also know that he is a very disgruntledperson. If due process is followed and thingsdo not go one's way, often one will becomedisgruntled and vindictive and seekvengeance. That is exactly what hashappened.

4424 Questions Without Notice 27 Nov 1996

I refer members to a press release that Imade back in August. I want to read it so thatpeople understand the nub of this issue. Itstates—

"I have been advised by a number ofsources over the past few days ofrumours to the effect that former QCSCofficer Pat O'Connor has taken a widerange of extraordinary allegations tomedia outlets and the ALP in order todamage my public reputation.

Mr O'Connor, as a former QCSCofficer provided me with considerableassistance relating to prison matters whileI was in Opposition.

I had hoped to appoint him to mystaff as an adviser in this area and, upontaking office, he commenced duties in anacting capacity.

Shortly after, adverse commentsmade in 1991 about Mr O'Connor in aCJC report into the Queensland PrisonService and the QCSC were widelypublicised.

Those comments stated 'O'Connormade a number of allegations all of whichwere hearsay.'

The report added that: 'Thephilosophies of the Commission wereclearly inconsistent with his views whichwere those of the "old guard".'

Its concluding comments in relationto Mr O'Connor stated: 'O'Connor'sallegations were virtually incapable offurther meaningful investigation.'

In the light of those comments, andthe fact that Mr O'Connor had neverraised them with me, I was advised andagreed with the view that it would beinappropriate to proceed with MrO'Connor's appointment.

However, because of myappreciation of his efforts on behalf of theCoalition while in Opposition, I understoodwhen Mr O'Connor expressed aconsiderable sense of grievance.

I felt under the circumstances that Ishould not simply abandon him.

I made a number of calls toacquaintances in the private sector in anattempt to find him alternativeemployment.

I also obtained a list of currentvacancies within QCSC for which MrO'Connor was professionally qualified andurged him to apply for those positionsaccording to the proper process.

I also told Mr O'Connor that I wouldseek an assurance from the QCSC thathe would not be negatively discriminatedagainst on the basis of his pastrelationship with the Commission.

Unfortunately, Mr O'Connor viewedthis response as inadequate and insistedthat I should circumvent proper processand direct the QCSC to appoint him.

When I refused, I understand that MrO'Connor made a number of statementswhich could reasonably have beeninterpreted as attempting to blackmail theGovernment but which were viewed at thetime as intemperate and immoderate butperhaps understandable given thecircumstances.

Indeed, at least one member of mystaff pointed out to Mr O'Connor that hisstatements could be interpreted asintimidatory and as such possiblyconstitute a criminal offence.

I believe that I have acted at all timesappropriately and in good faith in relationto Mr O'Connor. I remain appreciative ofthe assistance he gave to the Coalition inOpposition but it is clear to me in light ofwhat has transpired since I came to officethat it is in the best interests of allconcerned that he was not appointed tomy staff."That statement was released in August

and it has been available for quite some timeif people care to use it.

Mr P. O'ConnorMr BEATTIE: I refer the Minister for

Police and Corrective Services to a passage inthe letter that I tabled previously. It is directedto the Minister from Mr O'Connor and itstates—

"For the past 6 years I was totallysupportive, loyal and committed toassisting the Coalition Government returnto power in Queensland. At first it was RayConnor and then yourself I offered toassist." Secondly, I refer again to the Minister's

continued denials that he arranged aconsultancy job for Patrick O'Connor. I alsorefer the Minister to last night's ABC televisionnews where Mr O'Connor was interviewed andstated—

". . . they—that is the Minister and Ray Connor—

"were the ones that set me up in thisconsultancy.

. . .


Russell Cooper said the same rate ofpay I was on in his office would apply in anew consultancy."

I table the transcript from the news and I askthe Minister: why does the Minister persist insecret deals? When is he going to tell thisParliament the truth about his own shabbyinvolvement?

Mr COOPER: Again, I reject the tone ofthe question, which I regard as being rathersick. As I have said before, disgruntled peoplebehave in very, very strange ways, and thisperson has become very disgruntled. He isvery vindictive. He is seeking vengeance andhe is prepared to say and do almost anythingto justify his position.

I repeat that at no stage did I arrange aconsultancy for him. I was not able to do that.

Mr Elder: Who was?

Mr COOPER: That fell to others to beable to do. If Mr O'Connor had the expertise—and I believe that Mr O'Connor does haveexpertise in the prisons area; he has workedthere long enough so he does have expertisein that area—and if through due process he isable to obtain a position like that, all I wouldsay is: good luck to him.

As far as I am concerned, he did goodwork in his involvement in that report. Irecognise that good work was done becausewe have been able to follow through on theconcept in relation to Lotus Glen. However, Ido not have to accept those statements andallegations that are being made. I know that Idid not make arrangements for Mr O'Connorto receive that job. It was not my prerogativeto do so. As to the fact that he did get thereand the fact that he has made acontribution—I think that contribution has beenquite reasonable under the circumstances.

Consultancies

Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Premierto criticism by the Labor Party of consultanciesentered into by the Government, and I ask:can he inform the House of the actions of theprevious Government?

Mr BORBIDGE: In reply——


Mr BORBIDGE: It is interesting to notehow sensitive Opposition members are. Whatis the story about people who live in glasshouses? It is absolutely fascinating to hear thebleatings of the Leader of the Opposition andhis colleagues over a particular consultancywhich was entered into by this Government. It

is interesting to note how they will believeanyone who walks through the door.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants totalk about consultancies, if he wants to talkabout secret deals and if he wants to talkabout the appropriate and inappropriate useof taxpayers' money, then I am afraid that I willjust have to oblige.

Let us have a look at a few examples thatoccurred under the previous LaborGovernment. In respect of some of the shonkydeals that were entered into by the previousLabor Government, I have a high pile and I willbring them in day by day, Minister by Minister,portfolio by portfolio.

Let us have a look at the example of MrDavid Barbagallo, who was a former adviser tothe former Premier. He received massivepayouts from the Government after he left thePremier's side in the wake of the foxtail palmaffair via information technology work. Massivepayments were made, but we cannot find outthe extent of those payments. I will tellmembers why we cannot find out the extent ofthose payments: when the member for Loganhad the Office of the Cabinet, which washeaded by his mate, Mr Rudd, they did notuse the corporate services section of thePremier's Department, they had their owncorporate services section within the Office ofthe Cabinet within the Premier's Department.Now, one cannot find out about theconsultancies or where the money went. Thereis no paper trail. It has been dispersed to thefour winds of the Premier's Department. Anyremnants of that office——

Mr W. K. GOSS: I rise to a point oforder. It is untrue and offensive and, indeed,unworthy of the Premier to falsely suggest thatMr Barbagallo received payments from theOffice of the Cabinet. Mr Barbagallo had noassociation with the Office of the Cabinet.

Mr BORBIDGE: I did not say that. I wasreferring to consultancy work from theGovernment.

Mr W. K. GOSS: There was a clearimplication that there were improper practicesin terms of consultancy payments to MrBarbagallo by the Government and that thathad some association with Mr Barbagallo'sprevious employment with myself. That isuntrue and offensive and I seek a withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourablemember for Logan has asked for a withdrawal.

Mr BORBIDGE: If the member forLogan takes exception, I withdraw. However,he is out of practice. He needs to go tosummer school. One day, he might like to tell


the Parliament why under Kevin Rudd hisCabinet Office had its own corporate servicessection away from the department to look afterall the Labor Party apparatchiks who were inthat particular instrumentality.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I rise to a point oforder. For the purpose of efficientadministration—it was, however——

Government members interjected.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I have much practiceat dealing with questions from the Leader ofthe Opposition as he then was. It was forefficient administration, accounted for throughthe department and audited by the Auditor-General.

Mr BORBIDGE: I guess it was achange from shredding. Their own littlecorporate services section was established forthe efficient management of the contracts letby their mates, for their mates and of theirmates. That was the sort of administrationpresided over by the member for Logan:Government of the comrades, for thecomrades, by the comrades.

What about Raelene Kelly and the formerDeputy Premier? She was hired for a massivereview of the Building Services Authority lawsby her old boss. How much was that? Maybethat is one which I will bring into Parliamenttomorrow.

What about the appointment of thefactionally correct Dierdre Swan of the AWUfaction to the Industrial Relations Commissionso that she could look after the interests of thethen Premier's political power base at anindustrial level?

Mr FOLEY: I rise to a point of order. Ithas been a longstanding practice in the Housenot to attack the appointment of judges orindustrial relations commissioners. TheHonourable the Premier should refrain fromattacking such office holders.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member forhis advice.

Mr BORBIDGE: The honourablemember might tell the Leader of theOpposition to stop condemning Mr Connollyand Mr Ryan. A bit of free legal advice for theLeader of the Opposition from the formerAttorney-General!

What about the hush money, let alonethe shredding associated with the Heineraffair? The whole Cabinet was in on that one.It was hush money to keep a mouth shut.

What about the saga of June Abbs,employed in the old department of the Leaderof the Opposition. When this Left Wing

operative, high in the Health Department SESstructure, was not wanted by that other majorand disastrous Labor Party appointment, DickPerssons, what was the solution? They senther off to an academic job on full SES pay.They paid over $100,000 in full SES pay toget her out of the way because Dick Perssonsdid not want her.

I have received some legal advice on thecase, if members opposite want to talk aboutcontracts and if they want a bit of balance inthe argument. This was the legal advice to theDirector-General of the Department of Healthin respect of the massive abuse of the systemin relation to this particular lady. Thatdocument states—

"At the outset I have to say that thelegal status of this curious agreement isunclear.

It does not appear to fall into any ofthe 3 categories of arrangementcontemplated by the PSME Act asapplicable to SES officers viz assignment,secondment, or interchange, and to thatextent I agree with Mr McGraw's (PSMC)statement that it does not hang off thePSME Act."

In fact, it hung off the bottom of a dodgyfactional deal to get Ms Abbs out of the wayfor Dick Perssons. It is interesting—and itshows how they really used the taxpayers'money to get people out of the way when theydid not like it—that when Dick Perssons left, Iam told that the only thing left in his office wasJune Abbs' contract. That was the only thinghe left behind.

I can cite a few other examples of howthe Labor Party looks after its mates. Whatabout my old mate, friend and their comrade,the current member for Rockhampton? Whenhe lost his seat, Tommy Burns gave him a job.What was he on: $50,000 a year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point oforder. I was not on $50,000. I started on$38,000 and I did a damned good jobservicing coalition members.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point oforder. The Premier will complete his answer.

Mr BORBIDGE: The honourablemember should tell us about the expensesand perks he received on top of that $30,000paid when he started.

This is the party which is trying to castdoubts in respect of one particularconsultancy. However, its record inGovernment is an absolute disgrace. I promisehonourable members opposite that, if this isthe way that they want to play the game, we


will have a look at their consultancies. We willlook at every consultancy that we can find thathas not been shredded or lost. We will gothrough Minister by Minister, department bydepartment, one by one. There is a high pileup in the Premier's Department. If this is theway that the Labor Party wants to play thegame, we will bury it in it day by day,department by department, Minister byMinister.

If there is one thing that stands out moreand more each day, it is the hypocrisy and theduplicity of the Leader of the Opposition andhis colleagues who refined cronyism in thisState to an art form. They operated on thebasis of Government by the comrades, of thecomrades, for the comrades, consultancy afterconsultancy, job after job after job.

Mr P. O'Connor

Mr ELDER: I refer the Minister for Policeand Corrective Services to the statutorydeclaration signed by Mr Michael JamesHanran—which I table—in which he states thaton either 3 June or 4 June this year heaccompanied Pat O'Connor when he met theMinister at his ministerial office. Thedeclaration states—

"On greeting us, Mr Cooper said toPat, 'You're right with that consultancy jobthat I fixed up with Ray, aren't you Pat?' "

I ask: when will the Minister stop misleadingthe Parliament and admit his culpability in yetanother sleazy deal to make secret paymentsto National Party mates?

Mr COOPER: Again I have to cutthrough the vindictive rhetoric. As I have saidbefore, disgruntled people do and say strangethings. As far as I am concerned, I make nosecret of the fact—and I never have—that Iknow and have worked with Mr O'Connor andMr Hanran, just as I know lots of people. Ihave seen in them in my office and, onceupon a time, I thought that they were not badblokes. However, when they failed to measureup to due and proper process, they got nasty,vindictive and very vengeful. That is exactlywhat is happening. People who havebeen——

Mr Schwarten: They're getting square.

Mr COOPER: The honourable membercan call it what he likes, but those people canget very nasty and say a lot of things, whetherthey mean them or not. I know that they canget them totally out of context; I know just howthey are feeling. However, that is their

problem. They were given every chance toprove themselves. They could not provethemselves. That is their problem, not mine. Iknow they are trying to speak to anyone andeveryone who will listen. They took their littlebox of tricks to the Opposition, which delvesinto sleaze as much as possible. They peddletheir vindictive and vengeful wares in themedia to anyone who will listen. They eventrotted back to the CJC. They trotted all overthe place trying to get someone to listen.Obviously, the Opposition loves listening tothat sleazy, vengeful and vindictive stuff. Thatis what Opposition members are into. What isthe record of members opposite when inGovernment in respect of the people theyemployed? They never came out in the openabout that. In the public interest, we havetabled every darned thing that we can so thatwe know we have acted aboveboard in allcircumstances.

Criminal Justice Commission

Mr CARROLL: I direct a question to thePremier. The Leader of the Labor Oppositionhas sought to criticise the Connolly/Ryaninquiry for holding some of its hearings inprivate. I ask: will the Premier inform theHouse whether the practice of holding privatehearings by the CJC has been unusual, andwill he inform the House as to whether theLeader of the Opposition has criticised privateCJC hearings?

Mr BORBIDGE: It is interesting—andthis again shows the hypocrisy of honourablemembers opposite—that the Leader of theOpposition can sustain an ongoing attack onMr Connolly. In response to any suggestionthat Dierdre Swan's appointment was a bitdodgy, we hear mock outrage from thehonourable member for Yeronga. There hasbeen an ongoing campaign of vilificationagainst the Connolly/Ryan inquiry by theOpposition and criticism that the inquiry mayhold some of its hearings in private.

It is important that we read into the recordthe facts and the record of the Criminal JusticeCommission in respect of public inquiries andprivate hearings. In 1995-96, the CJC held twopublic inquiries and 16 private hearings. Thetwo public inquiries were headed by MrCarruthers, and they were an inquiry into theMOU between the coalition and theQueensland Police Union, and an inquiry intoan agreement between the Australian LaborParty and officers of the Sporting ShootersAssociation of Queensland. The CJC alsoconducted an independent inquiry into thealleged leaking of information about Operation


Wallah—the Hanson inquiry. Whilst a publicreport was released, the hearings were inprivate.

In 1994-95, the CJC held two publicinquiries and 21 private inquiries. The publicinquiries were into the abuse of patients at theBasil Stafford Centre and into mattersconcerning Ms Lorrelle Saunders. Significantly,the only hearings which were not open to thepublic were those relating to the investigationinto the Cape Melville incident and theinvestigation of the tow truck and smash repairindustries. In retrospect, the justification givenby the CJC for having a closed inquiry into theCape Melville incident was that reputationscould be smeared—presumably ALPreputations.

In 1993-94, the CJC completed fourpublic inquiries: the investigation into the arrestand death of Daniel Yock, the investigationinto the allegations of Lorrelle Anne Saunders,an inquiry into the improper disposal of liquidwaste in south-east Queensland, and aninquiry into the allegations of assault andneglect of clients and harassment of staff atthe Basil Stafford Centre. The following wereclosed hearings: the report of an investigationinto complaints against six Aboriginal andIslander councils, the investigation into thetowing industry, and the Cape Melville affair.

In 1992-93, the CJC conducted two publicinquiries: the inquiry into the jury selectionprocess and—surprise, surprise—the trial of SirJoh Bjelke-Petersen, and the LorrelleSaunders inquiry. In 1991-92, the CJC held 54hearings, four public and 50 private. Thepublic investigative hearings were into theC h a n n e l 7 all egations, t h eLandsborough/Maroochy water board, theGold Coast City Council and Kelvin Condren.In 1990-91, the CJC conducted 34 hearings,of which four were public.

At any time during that period did theLeader of the Opposition express concernabout closed hearings? Did he expressconcern about the closed hearings into theCape Melville affair presided over by a formerLabor lawyer? Were there any concerns aboutthat? Was there any accountability then? Ofcourse not! Once again, the hypocrisy andduplicity of the Leader of the Opposition isrevealed for everyone to see.

Mr I. Prentice; Mr P. O'Connor

Mr MACKENROTH: I direct a questionto the Minister for Public Works and Housing. Ihave read all of the documents that theMinister tabled this morning. He has not

answered this question yet. I refer to theMinister's admission in the Gold Coast Bulletintoday that his department commissionedformer Liberal MP Ian Prentice to prepare aconsultancy report on prisons and thestatement—

"Whom he employed to assist in itspreparation was entirely up to him. Thedepartment only dealt with Mr Prentice."

I ask: firstly, was the Minister in any wayinvolved in introducing Pat O'Connor to Mr IanPrentice; and, secondly, how can the Ministerclaim that his department only dealt with MrPrentice when departmental minutes showthat Mr O'Connor was present at a meeting ofdepartmental officers on 22 April when thereport was discussed? I table those minutes.

Mr CONNOR: I did not make thosestatements to the Gold Coast Bulletin.

Tourism and BusinessMr WOOLMER: I ask the Minister for

Tourism, Small Business and Industry: is thereany foundation or substance to the DeputyLeader of the Opposition's comments inMackay and Hervey Bay recently regardingtourism and business under this Government?

Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. MrSpeaker, I refer you to Sessional Order 6.8,Rules for Questions, which states, "Questionsshall not ask for an expression of an opinion."

Mr WOOLMER: I rise to a point oforder. The question did not ask for anexpression of opinion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear theMinister's answer and then decide whether heis giving an opinion.

Mr DAVIDSON: I thank the honourablemember for Springwood for his question. Iknow he has a——

Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order.The validity of the point of order that I tookdoes not rest on the Minister's answer; it restson the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister.The Minister must not give an opinion in hisanswer. If he does, I will ask him to resume hisseat.

Mr DAVIDSON: I have many opinionsof the Deputy Leader of the Opposition andthe Leader of the Opposition. Today, I willrefer to some of the statements they havemade in the past week or two as they havemoved around Queensland trying todestabilise both the tourism industry and thebusiness sector in this State.


I cannot work out who I am meant to betracking in the Opposition. The Oppositionmember for Whitsunday, who is thespokesperson for Tourism, never puts out atourism statement. However, last week, theLeader of the Opposition made statements ontourism saying that there should be anadvertising campaign because the Christmasholidays are coming. He said that the tourismindustry in this State needs a promotionalcampaign for the Christmas holidays tocapitalise on that market. That shows how littlethe Leader of the Opposition knows abouttourism. Had he taken the time to involvehimself with people in the industry, he wouldrealise and appreciate that Christmas is thebusiest time of the year for the tourismindustry. Bookings are at an all-time highacross the State, yet the Leader of theOpposition is making silly, throwawaystatements about the tourismindustry—something about which he knowsabsolutely nothing.

I am absolutely delighted to inform theHouse that yesterday I met with the CEO andthe chairman of the QTTC. In that meetingthey outlined to me the new promotionalcampaign for Queensland that will belaunched in early February. It is going to knockpeople's socks off. It will be the best campaignever. When we took office there wasabsolutely no research to back up or developa new advertising or promotional campaign forthe QTTC, because in 1992 the formerGovernment gutted the research division from10 staff to 2. The only campaign that wasbeing formulated while Labor was in office wasbased on someone's dreams of turtles andQueensland being sold in animated turtlecommercials. No research was beingundertaken. We have undertaken extensiveresearch into the markets in southern Statesto ensure that our campaigns are targeted atthe people who holiday in Queensland. I amdelighted to say that through our new brandcampaigns, which will be released in February,Queensland will well and truly have the bestand the latest promotional campaigns in thiscountry. The Leader of the Opposition shouldtalk to people about tourism before he runsaround making silly statements.

I want to refer also to a statement by theDeputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Elder, inMackay last week. He was travelling up anddown the coast and making all sorts ofstatements. In a radio interview, he said—

"The business department may beout there actually helping you set up thatbusiness"—

we do that—"a business plan"—

we do that as well—"a marketing plan"—

we do that as well—

"supporting you with that information,supporting that advice."

We do that. We provide all the backupservices to business. Then he went on tosay—

"And the next day, they come backthrough your door with a licence and saylook, you've breached your licence, wegotta take it from you. I mean thedynamic in this Department, the conflict inthis Department is beyond belief."

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition hasabsolutely no idea. He must realise thatDBIRD has changed enormously under thisGovernment. We have introduced servicesand facilities that have never been seenbefore in this State. In the three years MrElder was the Minister, I could hardly find onenew initiative that he introduced. He did nothave the guts to abolish the QSBC. Despite allthe advice given to him and therecommendations made to him, he left itthere. He did nothing in the department toprovide any new initiatives or any services forbusiness in this State.

In the short time I have been the Minister,we have made enormous inroads intoproviding greater services to business rightacross this State. We have set up the SmallBusiness Council. For the first time in thisState and in this country there is a SmallBusiness Council of 15 business people whichis representative of the small-business sectorright across the State. From correspondencewe have had so far to that council, Mr GeoffMurphy and his team have met with enormoussupport.

We have also set up the Red TapeReduction Task Force. I noticed that you wereon the Gold Coast the other day havinganother go at the Red Tape Reduction TaskForce.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willrefer to members by their correct titles.

Mr DAVIDSON: The Leader of theOpposition——

A Government member: Present.

Mr DAVIDSON: The present Leader ofthe Opposition was on the Gold Coast theother day having a go at the Red TapeReduction Task Force. Labor was in


Government for six years. It introduced somuch regulation and legislation that impactedon business. We were left with the task oftrying to tidy up that mess. We have formedthe Red Tape Reduction Task Force. TheLeader of the Opposition supported it in theEstimates debate. We invited him to ameeting. However, after his statements theother day, I withdraw that invitation.

The Red Tape Reduction Task Force hasnow met three times. I am taking a submissionto Cabinet in two weeks' time with sixrecommendations from the business andindustry communities right across this State onways in which the Government can betterfacilitate the reduction of red tape. That is anenormous step forward for business in thisState. Over the next months 12 months theState Red Tape Reduction Task Force willwork in conjunction with the Federal Red TapeReduction Task Force. I am attending aministerial business council meeting on 16December in Canberra with my Federalministerial colleague and other Stateministerial colleagues. I can assure the Housethat through cooperation between CharlieBell's Red Tape Reduction Task Force and ourRed Tape Reduction Task Force we will takeenormous steps forward for business.

In closing—I want to respond to theLeader of the Opposition's press release onwhale watching in Hervey Bay. He tried to beatup this issue last week in Hervey Bay. I amquite pleased today to be able to——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willcomplete his answer.

Mr DAVIDSON: I am pleased to beable to table the only correspondence I everreceived on the issue of the whale-watchingindustry in Hervey Bay. There are only twoletters. I point out to the Deputy Leader of theOpposition that I never wrote to Mr Littleproud.

Ms BLIGH: I rise to a point of order. TheMinister is discussing a matter which is thesubject of a motion before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point oforder, but I ask the Minister to complete hisanswer.

Mr DAVIDSON: I will table a letter fromAkarma Cruises and the response we wrote tothem. We never, ever wrote to the Minister forEnvironment. We never wrote to an officer inhis department. I never discussed this issuewith the Minister for Environment. So themember was caught out; he was sold a duck.

Mr I. Prentice; Mr P. O'ConnorMs BLIGH: I refer the Minister for Public

Works and Housing to the letter dated 12March 1996 tabled by himself in the Housethis morning from the Minister for Police andCorrective Services in which he requests thatthe Minister initiate an investigation into thefeasibility of an Aboriginals-only prison. I ask:did the Minister for Police and CorrectiveServices ever discuss the employment of IanPrentice or Pat O'Connor on this project withthe Minister personally?

Mr CONNOR: I thank the member forthe question. I want to place on record that Ihave tabled everything that the Oppositionhas called for as far as documents areconcerned, plus more. That is the first point.Secondly, Cabinet approved this project inprinciple. I also want refer to Russell Cooper'searlier reply. Clearly, Mr Prentice is eminentlyqualified. Clearly, the department dealt withhim. The account, the cheque and the reportproved that that is with whom the departmentdealt. The process was detailed within theBudget Estimates process. That point isimportant: the process was detailed within theBudget Estimates process and is subject tothe Auditor-General's accounting. If MrPrentice was not appropriate to do this work,then why did the Opposition not raise thisissue during the Estimates hearings when ithad the opportunity to do so?

Amalgamation of Acacia Ridge andSalisbury State High Schools

Mr RADKE: I ask the Minister forEducation: with regard to the Government'sproposal to amalgamate Acacia Ridge StateHigh School and Salisbury State High School,can the Minister please explain the benefits ofthis merger and clear up any misinformationinflicted on the local community?

Mr QUINN: I thank the honourablemember for his question. Both sides of theHouse ought to be aware that the Departmentof Education over a number of years hascontinued to monitor the enrolments ofschools right throughout the State, and whereit sees benefits to students in terms ofeducational outcomes it moves to havediscussions with parents and the generalcommunity about the future of a school. Thesouth side of Brisbane is no exception. Therehave been a number of schools in that regionwith which the Department of Education hasconsulted. I place on record my appreciationof the efforts of members of the Opposition. Irefer in particular to the member for Inala andthe role that he played under the previous


Government—a role he continues to play—with respect to the merger of the RichlandsState High School and the Inala State HighSchool. I acknowledge the very good work thatis being done out there.

I would also place on record myappreciation to the member for Chermside forthe part he has played in assisting thedepartment's smooth closure of theChermside State School. There will always besome parents, and understandably so, whoare reluctant to let go of the school their childattends because of the time and effort theyhave invested in the school. However, thosetwo members—the member for Inala and themember for Chermside—have realised thelong-term benefits these closures will give tothe students in their electorates and theysupported the closure of those schools.

I will address the proposed merger of theAcacia Ridge State High School and theSalisbury State High School and the relocationof the Acacia Ridge State Primary School intothe soon to be vacant high school. Thedepartment has been consulting with thosecommunities and it put a proposal to me onthe merger of the two high schools and therelocation of the primary school. It isregrettable that the local member, Mr Ardill,did not take a longer term view of the benefitsthis would bring to students in his electorate. Itought to be known that Mr Ardill has beenslightly misleading his local constituency.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willrefer to the member as the honourablemember for Archerfield.

Mr QUINN: The honourable memberhas been misleading his local constituency. Ina question on notice, he asked me to provideinformation to him about the enrolments ofhigh schools with enrolments of 300 studentsor under; and I provided him with thatinformation. The honourable membersubsequently made a number of pressstatements, saying that the enrolmentthreshold is 300 when in fact the Acacia RidgeState High School has an enrolment of fewerthan 250. Under those circumstances, themember's figures of 20 similar high schools inQueensland are wrong. If we compare theenrolment of the Acacia Ridge State HighSchool to that of other similar high schools inQueensland, the figure is actually 10, as Iunderstand it. Most of those schools are infact in country areas and the reason theyremain open is that they are quite a longdistance from the next nearest high school.That makes amalgamations or transporting ofstudents to alternative sites impossible.

Two high schools in Brisbane which willclose this year were in fact closed by theprevious Government, that is, the NewmarketState High School and the Richlands StateHigh School. The prime reason we makethese decisions and ask communities tomerge schools is on the basis of improvedoutcomes for students. Despite all the rhetoricand all the agitation by the member forArcherfield and some of the parents on thesouth side, the editorial in today's SouthernStar put the issue in the right perspective. Itsaid that it was a tough decision tomake—and it was a tough decision—but that,by and large, the benefits to the students inthe long term far outweighed the short-termnegatives. The department has made thedecision, and the Southern Star makes thepoint that, by and large, the teaching staff andother staff of the school have now acceptedthat the merger will take place. They see thepositive benefits of the merger and theyrecognise that two small schools simply arenot viable in the circumstances and that onelarger school will offer a broader range ofalternatives to students.

It is never an easy process to closeschools, especially because the communityinvests a lot of time and effort into localschools. The department realises that. Wemove slowly and we consult with the schoolcommunities. We appreciate the support oflocal members, as I said before, in movingwith the community to try to take a long-termview of the best educational benefits for kids.

Consultancy Work; Mr M. Hanran, MrR. Grenning and Mr M. Heery

Mr BRADDY: I refer the TransportMinister to the statutory declaration by MichaelJames Hanran in which he claims that oneither 3 June or 4 June this year the PoliceMinister said to him about Governmentconsultancy work, "Vaughan Johnson has gotyou under control, hasn't he, Mick?" Has theMinister or his department ever engaged oroffered consultancy work, either directly orindirectly, to Michael James Hanran; andfurther: has such work been offered or givenby the Minister's department to formerGovernment staffers Russell John Grenningand Matthew Phillip Heery?

Mr JOHNSON: I thought members ofthe Opposition might ask this question, andthey will get the honest truth, straight from theshoulder. At the time Michael Hanran wasthrown on the scrap heap, the HonourableRussell Cooper, who is a very considerate andcompassionate man, said to me, "Vaughan, is


there any chance of being able to find aposition for this bloke?" I said, "I will check theappropriate channels", and I maderepresentations in the right quarters. I did it.Russell Cooper said to me, "Make sure youuse the due and proper process", which I did.We used the due and proper process andfound nothing available for Michael Hanranbecause the skills that he had did not fit anyposition we thought he might be able to fill.That is the end of the story.

Members of the Opposition pulled thewrong bloke into gear when they pulled me, Iwill give them the mail.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: What about Heery?

Mr JOHNSON: I know nothing aboutMatthew Heery; I have had nothing to do withhim or Russell Grenning. The member is onepink feather short of being a proper galah. If Iwere the member, I would sit back and shutup. I have had nothing to do with the othertwo gentleman to whom the honourablemember made reference. I have made norepresentation on their behalf in relation toconsultancies; I know nothing about them.

The Honourable Russell Cooper is anhonest, considerate, compassionate man. Allwe seem to have from the Labor Party andthe Labor Opposition is the trial and executionof Russell Cooper. If members on that side ofthe House showed the consideration,compassion and the understanding that thisbloke has shown, they would not be a bad lot.The Labor Party is continuing the characterassassination of Russell Cooper, but RussellCooper is stronger than that. He is an honestman, and members opposite know it. Theyshould keep up the charge.

When are we going to see members onthat side of the House being constructive andpositive instead of being negative andobstructionist? That is what they are. That iswhy they are in Opposition and that is whythey are going to be doomed to Opposition fora long, long time.

Queensland Economy

Mr BAUMANN: I refer the Premier tothe fact that members opposite paid very littleattention to the member for Mundingburra'sserialised version of Governmentachievements this morning, and I ask thePremier to outline to the House the good newscontained in recent independent forecasts ofthe Queensland economy.

Mr BORBIDGE: I thank the honourablemember for his question on an issue ofsubstance. It is interesting that the Leader of

the Opposition and the front bench of theLabor Party have lost all interest in thoseissues that matter and are concentrating dayby day, hour by hour, on their ongoingprogram of destabilisation, of talking down theeconomy and spreading their negativity fromone end of this State to the other.

Today has seen the release of theMidwood Queensland Development Report,which on close inspection contains asignificant amount of good news forQueensland. This is of course in directcomparison to the merchants of doomopposite who parade from one end ofQueensland to the other trying to talk downevery initiative, every job creation project,every positive thing that is happening inQueensland at present.

The Midwood report has a number of keypoints. The report paints an underlying rosypicture but it also indicates that the State willface a number of challenges in the yearsahead. The key points in the report refer to anincrease in the Queensland population of over1.2 million in the next 16 years, which isalmost 400,000 people more than thepopulation growth anticipated in New SouthWales. It is anticipated that 74 per cent ofQueensland's increased population, or 60,000people, will settle in south-east Queensland.The report points to Australian Bureau ofStatistics' figures which estimate thatQueensland's current population of 3.4 millionpeople will grow much faster than that of theother States, exceeding 7 million by the year2051. The report estimates that by the year2020 Queensland will overtake Victoria andbecome the second most populous State. Thereport makes the point that BrisbaneInternational Airport is No. 2 after SydneyInternational Airport and is the fastest growingairport in the country. The report also makesthe point that—despite the very deliberatestrategy of honourable members opposite—building approvals soared to 16,960 in theSeptember quarter, the best figures that havebeen posted in this State since June 1995.

The report states that Brisbane inner-cityareas are showing renewed signs of activityand that building approvals andcommencements in outer areas have turnedupwards. The report also indicates a 43 percent increase in non-residential building workin greater Brisbane in the Septemberquarter—up by 43 per cent—with other stronggrowth being recorded in Townsville and theGold Coast. Rockhampton and Mackay areset to benefit from major expansion plans toboost Queensland's coal exports by 30 percent from 34 million tonnes to 44 million


tonnes annually. With $900m worth of projectscommitted to Townsville in the next two orthree years the economic outlook looks brightthrough to the year 2000, as the honourablemember for Mundingburra stated earlier today,only to be subjected to attack and ridicule byhonourable members opposite.

The figures show very strong movementin the Queensland economy. Sure, they showsome challenges ahead as well, but they showa surge in business confidence and a surge inactivity despite the best efforts of the LaborParty to talk down the Queensland economyand to talk down job growth and job prospects.My suggestion to the Leader of the Oppositionis that he should be playing a positive andconstructive role in maximising those businessand investment opportunities. I remind himthat he was part of a Cabinet which imposedthe transport infrastructure levy on new homeowners in Queensland, which was up to$16,000 per household in north Queensland.That was the policy of the Labor Party.

Was it not interesting to hear thatyesterday the Mayor of Cairns, Councillor TomPyne, commended the Government. He usedto be the campaign director for the memberfor Cairns. Councillor Pyne said it was thegreatest thing that could happen to Cairns. Infact, he was so excited that he used a bit oflanguage that might almost be deemedunparliamentary. He was absolutely delightedat this Government's response to this matter,in direct contrast to the actions and theattitudes of the Leader of the Opposition, themember for Cairns, the Deputy Leader of theOpposition and the rest of the sad, sorry oldcrew who sit opposite.

I think the Leader of the Opposition hasan obligation to the people of Queensland.Instead, what we are seeing day by day, hourby hour, is nothing but negativity. Where arethe policies? Where are the proposals? Whereis the vision? Where is the direction from theLeader of the Opposition? There is none. It isa policy-free zone. Today in the Cairns Postwe see this—

" 'More inappropriate subdivisionsand delays in providing subdivisioninfrastructure would occur as a result ofthe State Government's scrapping of theTransport infrastructure levy', Member forCairns, Keith De Lacy, said yesterday."

This is the man who was Treasurer in theprevious Government! Mr De Lacy was quitehappy for home owners to pay $16,000 for anallotment of land in his electorate. He hasstood up in this place and has been quoted inthe Cairns Post criticising what this

Government has done, despite the fact thatthe Mayor of Cairns says that it is the biggestboost that any Government could have givento the City of Cairns. It demonstrates that onceone believes in Labor taxes, one never learns.The former Treasurer, who was part of theGovernment that introduced the transportinfrastructure levy, is now opposed to itsabolition, despite the fact that his electorateand far-north Queensland will be among themajor beneficiaries.

Mr P. O'Connor

Mr BARTON: My question is to theMinister for Police and Corrective Services. Asthe Minister for Transport has admitted thatthe Minister for Police and Corrective Servicessought employment assistance for MickHanran, will the Minister now admit that hesought similar assistance from the Minister forPublic Works and Housing for Pat O'Connor?

Mr COOPER: It is not a question ofadmitting anything. I will go through it again. Imake no apology. I do not resile from it for asecond. I have made representations onbehalf of Mr O'Connor and Mr Hanran to theMinister for Public Works and Housing.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr COOPER: I did. It is no secret at all.I made representations to the Minister forTransport. I have made representations to theChairman of the Corrective ServicesCommission. I have made representations topeople in private enterprise on behalf of thosepeople to see whether I could help because Ifelt sympathetic towards them and I wanted tosee whether there was something that couldbe done. Every representation was made onthe basis that due and proper process befollowed. It is as simple as that. As far as I amconcerned, it never was a secret. I want it outthere in the open where it has always been.As far as I am concerned, these people areentitled to representation. I make no apologyfor it whatsoever.

Black Deaths in Custody

Mr HEALY: My question is also to theMinister for Police and Corrective Services. Willthe Minister outline to the House the realdetails of a meeting with the Black Deaths inCustody Overview Committee arising fromallegations by the member for Kurwongbah?

Mr COOPER: I thank the honourablemember for his question. I refer to comments

4434 Motor Vehicles Control Act; Transport Infrastructure Act; Transport Operations Act 27 Nov 1996

that I made in the House yesterday in which Isaid that in my first meeting with the overviewcommittee earlier this year I was told that inthe six years of the Goss regime thecommittee members met with a Minister of theCrown once. The committee met with AnneWarner and she walked out on them.

In my discussions with the overviewcommittee this morning, the members of thecommittee acknowledged that they told methat they had met with only one Minister. Theyapologised. The point is that the members ofthe committee said that they had cleanforgotten about the meeting with the memberfor Kurwongbah. They had forgotten thatmeeting because they said that MrsWoodgate was so lacking in understandingand so unconstructive that they did not evenremember the meeting. The members of thecommittee apologise for that. The members ofthe committee went on to say that all that theycan recall is the member for Kurwongbahdemonstrating her lack of understanding byrattling on about young blacks who had servedtime in detention centres and that, as a furtherpunishment, they should not be allowed toplay football. That is how much thehonourable member really cared about thosepeople! She wanted to stop them playingfootball.

Mrs WOODGATE: I rise to a point oforder. I find those comments offensive. Theyare untrue. I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember has found some remarks offensiveand asks that they be withdrawn.

Mr COOPER: With due deference, Iwithdraw. However, I am just stating whatthese people have told me. The honourablemember has reminded everyone that she hada meeting with the committee. It is a meetingthat everyone else forgot about. If I were themember for Kurwongbah, I would not draw somuch attention to myself. If those peoplecannot remember—

Mrs WOODGATE: Mr Speaker, I alsofind those comments very offensive and I askthat they be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember has found some remark to beoffensive. Would the Minister withdraw?

Mr COOPER: Again, with duedeference, I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: The time for questionshas expired.

MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROL ACT;TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

(ROADS) ACT; TRANSPORTOPERATIONS (ROAD USE

MANAGEMENT) ACTDisallowance of Statutory Instrument

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): Imove—

"That the Department of Transport(Variation of Fees) Regulation (No. 3)1996 made under the Motor VehiclesControl Act 1975, the TransportInfrastructure (Roads) Act 1991 and theTransport Operations (Road UseManagement) Act 1995 tabled in theHouse on 8 October 1996 be disallowed."

The increases in charges in this regulationprovide for the normal annual CPI increasewith which the Opposition has no problems.However, these increases also provide for theadministration fee of $3.60 announced by theTreasurer in the Budget. That $3.60 chargewill seemingly apply to most, if not all, classesof vehicles and came into effect on 8 Octoberthis year. It is that charge that the Oppositionfinds objectionable.

The Treasurer claims that the money willbe used to fund a $6.75m package ofmeasures to improve services in theDepartment of Transport customer servicecentres, allegedly due to increased costs andincreased demand for services. As I am surethe Minister for Transport will acknowledge,difficulties with workloads in customer servicecentres have been identified for some time. Asa Minister, I had identified those difficultiesand had initiated measures to relieve workloadpressures in those offices and thereby toimprove the level of service to the customers.During Estimates committee hearings itbecame clear that many of the measures thatI had initiated were now coming to fruitionunder the new Minister for Transport, and Icongratulate him for continuing with thatprogram.

I acknowledge that, under the previousGovernment, the concept of a $1 charge tooffset the capital costs of the measures withinthe customer service centre solutions packagewas under consideration. That charge was foronly capital costs and would have been atemporary impost. Instead, this Governmenthas now imposed a permanent administrationfee starting at $3.60. I am sure that theTreasurer will ensure that that will rise in futureyears, allegedly to fund the solutions packagefor the customer service centres. This is aclassic example of what this Government and

27 Nov 1996 Motor Vehicles Control Act; Transport Infrastructure Act; Transport Operations Act 4435

this Treasurer do when they are presentedwith a problem. What does the Treasurer dowhen there is a problem? She imposes a newor increased tax.

Mr Johnson: One that you wouldn't fix.

Mr ELDER: No, I have alreadyacknowledged—and during the Estimatesdebate the Minister acknowledged—that thesolutions package was working. I acknowledgealso that the concept of a $1 charge to offsetthe capital costs of customer service centreswas under consideration by me. However,when members opposite have a problem, theyimpose a new or increased tax. The Treasurerseems to believe that any problem can besolved by increasing taxes, by increasing theburden on each and every ordinaryQueensland taxpayer. She does not seem toknow any other way.

Mr Ardill: The Premier said, "No newtaxes."

Mr ELDER: She forgot about putting herhand over her heart and saying, "No newtaxes." That promise has gone with the sevennew or increased taxes that were delivered inthe Budget.

The impact of her decision making bothnow and her promises for the future is mostevident in relation to vehicle registration. Letus examine what this Treasurer is doing for thevehicle owners of Queensland. One of the firstthings that she did was to increase thecompulsory third-party element of vehicleregistrations by $66. This has already beenthe subject of some debate within this House,and it is clear that the Treasurer simply askedthe insurance industry how much and whenthey wanted it, and then slugged the motoristsaccordingly. Now she is imposing a $3.60administration charge because thisGovernment does not have the intellectual oradministrative capability to solve problems inany other way. It simply imposes a new tax. Ifthere is a problem—tax it!

However, of course, they are not the onlyincreases in vehicle registration charges. In theBudget, the Treasurer also identified a desireto "harmonise" stamp duty rates for vehicleregistration with other States. "Harmonise"seems to be just a nice, soft, gentle word;however, when the Treasurer uses that word,there is nothing soft and gentle about herintentions. She is simply using it to try todisguise her intentions to hike massivelystamp duty on vehicle registrations. That is justanother of her never-ending grabs for cashfrom the motorists. "Harmonise stamp dutiesacross States" means significant increases instamp duty for Queensland motorists. We

have some of the lowest registration charges."Harmonising" means bringing those chargesup to the national level. Harmonisation willinevitably lead to increases in stamp duty forregistration to the highest level of otherAustralian States, increases of up to hundredsof dollars for ordinary vehicles. In the case ofvehicles in the higher categories,harmonisation will result in increases in excessof $300.

Motorists could be forgiven for thinkingthat those three slugs that I have just outlinedwere enough; but no: the Treasurer has foundanother way to slug them. It has already beenannounced that consideration is being givento an extra $15 charge on registration of newvehicles to enable easy collection of the tyretax for tyres on new vehicles. That is theGovernment's way through the complicatedsituation in which it finds itself resulting fromthe new tyre and oil taxes. Even then, that isnot enough for this Treasurer: we nowunderstand that the milking cow of vehicleregistrations is being looked at as the solemeans of collecting the tyre and oil levies. Notonly will an imposition be placed on newvehicles but also her new oil and tyre levies willall be lumped in as part of the never-endingincreases in vehicle registration charges. Thatis how the Government will collect that levy. Itis administratively impossible for it to becollected from dealerships. The only way that itcan be done is centrally through vehicleregistration payments.

To return to the issue at hand, nobody inQueensland has any faith that this Treasurerwill maintain her unjustified and unfairadministration fee at the level of $3.60. Ireturn to the point that the Minister for wasmaking: under Labor, a temporary $1 chargewould have been imposed to cover capitalcosts in improving customer service centres,and the benefits of that charge would havebeen clear for all to see. This Government hasimposed a permanent charge that willundoubtedly continue to rise. Next year, therewill be some new problems. We all know that,at the end of the day, when the Treasurerfinds a new problem, she will increase taxes.That it is the only response that she knows. Ihave no doubt that there will be significantincreases to this charge as new problemsemerge.

Mr Hamill: She also creates a few.

Mr ELDER: She has created a few onher way through. The way to solve thoseproblems has been to tax.

This is the Treasurer who has overseenthe introduction of seven new or increased


taxes in her Budget after a solemn promise tothe people of Queensland—a contract withQueensland—that there would be noincreased taxes and charges under thisGovernment. There is no justification for thischarge.

Mr Johnson: We're fixing somethingyou wouldn't. I'll tell you about it afterwards.

Mr ELDER: No, I know it far better thanthe Minister does. That is a fact. That is whywe considered the $1 charge. TheGovernment asked the Minister, "How do weraise extra funds out of Transport?" He said,"Let's go with the administrative fee." If he did,then he has done the wrong thing by hisdepartment. Let us say that he stood up forthis department and that Treasury rolledstraight over the top and said, "No, a $3.60fee will be imposed for you to deal with yourcustomer service centres."

Customer Service Centres should be ableto be managed within the budget of theDepartment of Transport and Main Roads,because those departments have a budget ofsome $2 billion. Yet it has to find another$6.75m to give workers in customer servicecentres decent working conditions. Is that areason to impose a new tax? No, the $1charge was sufficient. When I was Minister, Ireceived advice that, had we imposed thattemporary charge to improve capital costs,that would have solved the problem. This isjust a new slug, a new tax—nothing more,nothing less. As I said, I am more aware of theproblem than is the Minister, and so is theTransport Minister who preceded me. Weknew that there were problems. I am pleasedthat the Minister, as he acknowledged duringthe Estimates committee hearings, is actuallysupporting and continuing the programs thatwe put in place to solve the problems.

Mr Johnson: Why didn't you do it? Youhad the opportunity to do it and you walkedaway from it.

Mr ELDER: I do not know how manytimes I have to repeat it for someone who isso thick, but I will go through it one more time.The problem was acknowledged. There was aprocess put in place to resolve that problem.There was talk about the charge to actually dothat. The money was being spent and duringthe Estimate committee hearings the Ministeracknowledged that. Already, the Minister hasgiven me a slap on the back andcongratulated me at the Estimates committeehearing. He also acknowledge the work of theprevious Transport Ministers. I said to him thathe was heading down the right path incontinuing the reforms. However, this impost is

just a straight tax because the Minister canresolve this problem within his department'sown budget of $2 billion. Yet as I have said,the Minister has to find $6.75m to do it.

This measure is just a straight excuse toimpose a new tax to fund an increase inexpenditure of one-third of 1 per cent withinthe Minister's portfolio. How does the Ministerdo it? He invents a new tax—a new levy. It issimply not good enough. A Governmentshould be capable of managing its Budgetwithout imposing a new tax every time it has aproblem. The Opposition remains opposed tothis measure. It is opposed to all of theTreasury's new taxes and increased charges.

As I have mentioned already, the problemwithin the customer service centres has beenidentified under previous administrations in thisState. The problems were significant industrialproblems. Workers in the customer servicecentres were being asked to work underunacceptable conditions. Certainly, there wereproblems within the department and, asMinister, I had serious concerns about theinternal reporting mechanisms for identifyingthose difficulties and bringing them to myattention as well as to the attention of mypredecessors. Nevertheless, it remains a factthat I was responsible for the negotiations thatoccurred between the department, the unionsand the employees to facilitate improvementsin those working conditions. The proposal forthe customer service centre solution packagewas well advanced by the time there was achange of Government in this State. TheMinister inherited solutions that I had set intrain.

As I said earlier, I welcomed the Minister'ssupport for the continuation of those initiatives.In relation to customer service centres, I raiseone very important issue. The Minister forTransport has spent a lot of time portrayinghimself as the workers' friend. I think that isgenuinely how he likes to see himself painted.However, what he says when he goes out andmeets workers at the coalface—whether theyare rail workers in Rockhampton or Townsvilleor customer service employees throughout thisState—is very different from the strategies thathe is supporting. Those strategies areencompassed in documents that he signs.Whether it is continuing reductions in staff inthe workshops or in the railways generally rightthroughout Queensland, or the Government'sproposal——

Mr Johnson: That was your policy.

Mr ELDER: No, the Minister signed itoff. He should read the annual report and thestatement of corporate intent from


Queensland Rail that he signed off. If he doesthat, he will see that what he says out in theboondocks is quite different from that he isdeveloping as a policy, a strategy and as acommitment in Government.

I remind the Minister for Transport and theTreasurer that when Treasury askeddepartments to identify opportunities forprivatisation—and they should rememberthis—the first opportunities given by theDepartment of Transport were customerservice centres. I have a copy of thatdocument, and I am able to table it. Whenthey were talking about privatisation, out of theDepartment of Transport came the proposal toprivatise customer service centres.

Under the former Labor Government, theproblems were identified and they were beingfixed. This Government is continuing toimplement those solutions but it is creating anew and permanent tax to fund them. Itcannot privatise the problem, and I am surethat the employees within the Department ofTransport are not impressed with the Minister'splans to privatise their jobs. Let me say to theMinister that, in recent weeks, I have spokento a number of employees within thosecustomer service centres throughout the Stateand in Brisbane and they have told me thatthey are all concerned about their jobs andthat they are all concerned about their futures.Senior managers in the Minister's departmentare openly canvassing outsourcing within thecustomer service centres. When the Ministerreads the word "outsourcing", he should readinstead the word "privatising", because that iswhat his senior managers are saying to theemployees.

The Minister boasts that the money that isgoing to be collected from this administrativefee is going to go into these customer servicecentres, but his managers are talking aboutoutsourcing, which means privatisation.

Time expired.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich)(11.45 a.m.): In rising to support the DeputyLeader of the Opposition in this disallowancemotion, I must say that I think that manypeople in the community must be askingthemselves: why has this Government got it infor the Queensland motorist? My constituentsrealise that, when they receive theirregistration notices in November 1996, theyare paying over $70 more to register theirvehicles than was the case prior to Februarywhen the coalition came to office.

Mr Johnson: Have you got a motor car?

Mr HAMILL: I take that interjection fromthe Honourable the Minister. Indeed, I have amotor car. I know only too well what the hike inregistration means for my family, and it isthanks to those sorts of imposts that are beingintroduced by this Government.

I remember only too well that last year theMinister and his ilk were running around theState hand over heart saying, "We have acontract with the people of Queensland." Doesthe Minister remember one of the terms ofthat contract? It was no new taxes and noincreased taxes. If the members oppositeconducted a business in the same way asthey have conducted the business ofGovernment, time and time again they wouldhave been sued for breach of contract.

Today, the Minister is defending anotherimpost on the people of Queensland. Itrepresents one of the clearest breaches of thisGovernment's contract with the people ofQueensland. The Government said, "No newtaxes; no increase in taxes."

Mr Johnson: This is not a new tax.Mr HAMILL: It is not a new tax? When

is a tax a tax? When is an additional impost atax?

Mr Johnson: It's not a new tax.

Mr HAMILL: It is a tax, all right. Thepeople of Queensland see it as a tax, all right.They have their hands in their pockets to addto the revenues of the State. As much as theMinister for Transport wants to bleat——

Mr Elder interjected. Mr HAMILL: The Minister made

reference to one pink feather short of a galah.He is doing all the bleating for a whole mob ofsheep over this matter. I understand hisembarrassment.

Mr Johnson: I'm not embarrassed at all.

Mr HAMILL: Come on, Vaughnie isflushing in embarrassment. I can understandit. I always considered him to be a man ofhonour.

Mr Johnson: I am, too.Mr HAMILL: The Minister is a man of

honour; I know that. That is why he is soembarrassed about having to come into thisplace and claim that this tax is not a tax andthat, of course, it is not a breach of theGovernment's election commitment.

However, for the Minister's comfort, I saythat it is not the only one. Mind you, theMinister is going to be the bunny who has toadminister a whole range of the Government'sbroken tax promises. Already, the poor old


motorist is paying an additional $70 a year tohave the family sedan on the road. Of course,it is the other tax imposts, of which this is butone, that further nail the Queensland motorist.For example, the two new taxes that wereannounced in the Budget—the tax on oil andthe tax on tyres—or are they not taxes? Arenot those franchise fees taxes? My oath theyare taxes, and the people of Queensland seethem for what they are—additional imposts onthem. Those additional imposts have been feltparticularly by motorists and, I might say in thecase of the oil and tyre taxes, by the primaryindustries sector. We have seen the troublethat the Treasurer has got into by trying to saythat the primary industries sector is supportingthose new taxes.

This Minister knows only too well that theprimary industries sector is very unimpressedwith the new taxes on oil and tyres, and thatmotorists generally are very unimpressed withhis Government continuing to increase taxeson motor vehicle use but trying to claim thatthey are not taxes, they are just imposts, orwhatever. On top of the extra $70 that thisGovernment is charging people to registertheir vehicle—in relation to the tyre tax, $15 avehicle is being proposed. Then there is the10c a litre tax on oil. That is a further imposton the motorist.

However, it does not end there. Latertoday, we will debate other matters that ariseout of the Minister's revenue grab. Of course, Iam referring to the very substantial increase inrevenue that is being proposed in the Budgetthrough the introduction of speed cameras. Iam not going to go into great detail about thatmatter just now; I will save my remarks for thatlater debate. However, the Minister knows aswell as I do that an important part of therevenue strategy of this coalition Governmentis based around taxing the Queenslandmotorist, increasing the charges on theQueensland motorist and, of course, usingroad safety as an excuse for increasing Staterevenues. It is of little wonder that the Ministeris so embarrassed about the task that he hasto undertake on behalf of the Government.The Minister has become not much betterthan the bagman for the Treasurer. TheTreasurer cooks up the new taxes and says,"I'll go and see the Minister for Transport; he'llcollect them for me." With such a good hearthe goes out and does the job for theTreasurer. However, he is doing a job on theQueensland motorist, which is what thisadditional charge is all about.

The Government is not content to breakonly its promise to Queensland motorists.Motorists remember that the Government has

also broken its promise in relation to bankdebits tax. If the poor old motorist pays for fuelon EFTPOS, he is paying 35 per cent more indebits tax, thanks to the Budget that theMinister is defending. New charges areproposed for people wishing to visit nationalparks; there are additional charges on TAFE;there is an increase in the tobacco tax.

Mr Johnson: What's that got to do withthis debate?

Mr HAMILL: It has a lot to do with it,because these are all elements of a wide-ranging strategy to break Governmentpromises and to increase the tax burden onthe people of Queensland.

It is most interesting that the Treasurer isrunning around saying, "But my Budget doesnot increase the tax burden per capita onQueensland", because it hits ordinary familiesheavily. Ordinary families do not pay payrolltax or land tax, but they do pay a tax on motorvehicles; they pay tax on debit charges ontheir bank account; they do go to nationalparks; they use oil; and they put tyres on theircars. On every count, the Minister and theTreasurer have their hands out saying, "Payus some, too." That is the revenue strategy ofthe Budget.

This debate is similar to the debate thatwe had in relation to bank account debits taxand tobacco tax—it is just another cheapattempt to raise revenue. The Governmentmight dress it up by saying that it is for aspecific purpose, but this charge will be leviedand it is going to be a permanent fixture of therevenue base of the coalition Government,raised through the agency of the Departmentsof Transport and Main Roads. The Ministerknows that. It is an insult to the intelligence ofmembers of this House to hear him say that itis not a tax. It is an additional burden on themotorist and it is a breach of theGovernment's commitment to the people ofQueensland. People will not forget that.

Mr Johnson: Did you ever raise any ofthese fees?

Mr HAMILL: I take the interjection fromthe Minister. One of the key commitmentsgiven by the former Labor Government wasthat we would not introduce new taxes and wekept the increase in taxes in line withmovements in the consumer price index. Asthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition hasstated, we do not object at all to a CPI-basedadjustment to the motor vehicle registrationcharge. That is fair, reasonable and proper.After all, the dollars that are generated in thatway are invested in worthwhile infrastructureprojects and so on. However, we do object to


these attempts to further widen the taxationbase and increase the level of revenue byintroducing a new tax. I want the Minister tounderstand that point, and I make it clearly:we are not objecting to a CPI adjustment of anexisting tax; we are objecting to theGovernment breaking its promises in relationto taxation—promises that the people ofQueensland were entitled to expect that theGovernment would keep.

It sticks in the craw of motorists, certainlyin my area, to see that not only are they beinglevied to create additional revenue, but theyare also still paying the tolls.

Time expired.

Mr MITCHELL (Charters Towers)(11.56 a.m.): I rise to support the minimalincrease to vehicle registration fees as it willprovide benefits to all Queensland road users.This is no arbitrary increase. It actually willdeliver improvements to customer service andallow us to commit to national reforms.

Mr Campbell interjected.

Mr MITCHELL: Having just heard ableat from the other side, I point out that it isinteresting that many of these improvementswere approved but not implemented by theformer Goss Labor Government. As theMinister said, when in Government membersopposite would not bite the bullet andQueensland motorists have been paying forthat failure.

On coming to power, the Borbidgecoalition Government was committed tointroducing a system for the nationalexchange of vehicle and driver information,commonly known as NEVDIS. ThisAustraliawide system requires an investmentof $16m. Through the National RoadTransport Commission, the Commonwealth isdeveloping national legislation to deliver micro-economic reforms to road transport inAustralia.

The road transport reforms includeuniform systems for vehicle registration andcharges, and driver licensing. There arecurrently eight individual registration andlicensing systems across Australia, eachlargely incompatible with the others. Webelieve that the States must work together ifthere is to be a truly national solution to theseinefficiencies. The inability to quickly gainaccess to driver and registration records acrossthe jurisdictions has contributed to thedifficulties experienced in road-usemanagement in Australia. Lack of coordinationhas cost millions and Queensland motoristshave been paying for a range of problems,

including vehicle theft, fraud involving falselicensing and the non-recognition of penaltiesfrom other jurisdictions. Only yesterday thepolice informed us that it is costing themhundreds of thousands of dollars a year indealing with interstate matters involving stolencars and so on. We believe that onceeverything is in order on a national level,Queensland will benefit.

It is also recognised that the NationalRegistration and Licensing Information Centre,which enables effective and timely electroniccommunication between jurisdictiondatabases, will resolve most of the problems Ihave outlined. The type of reforms that needto be adopted by all jurisdictions include: onedriver/one licence, the allocation of demeritpoints anywhere in Australia, national fatiguemanagement schemes, an enhanced facilityto transfer licences interstate, a nationalvehicle registration scheme, an enhancementof the national vehicle identification numbersystem known as VINS, a national stolenvehicle register, the seamless transfer ofvehicle registration between States and anational defective vehicle management andclearance scheme.

Nationally, we could save taxpayers in thevicinity of $20m through efficiency gains.Queensland will join a truly national effort andQueensland motorists will enjoy the benefits.The Government will not hesitate. We haveacted decisively in so many areas during ourfew months in office.

Five and a half years ago, the formerPremier, Mr Wayne Goss, attended a SpecialPremiers Conference. That conferencerecommended that Austroads develop a planfor a national registration and licensinginformation system to enable effectivecommunication between jurisdictions'databases to support the national registrationand licensing initiatives. The result was knownas NEVDIS, as I mentioned previously. Stateand Territory Transport Ministers endorsed theconcept of NEVDIS at Australian TransportCouncil meetings, also attended by someLabor Ministers of the time.

Austroads commissioned consultants—there is that word again—to investigatefunding options for NEVDIS. The optionadopted by the Commonwealth and StateGovernments is to outsource to a serviceprovider—the Integrated System SolutionCorporation, or ISSC—the development andoperations of NEVDIS in return for operatingcharges levied on jurisdictions. Failure tointroduce this fee may jeopardiseQueensland's efforts to meet its commitments


to the implementation of the national reformpackage and has further implications inqualifying for funds sharing under the NationalCompetition Policy.

It is clear that NEVDIS offers substantialbenefits for Queensland. This State cannotbecome a haven for criminals by a failure toconform to these national reforms. The valuethat the scheme has to offer far exceeds the40c increase in registration fees. Surely themember for Capalaba would agree thatQueensland must participate in this scheme.Also, when the honourable member forCapalaba was the Minister, he was aware ofmany of these issues—something which hementioned in his opening address. As I havepointed out, the former Minister for Transportand the Labor Government of which he was amember proposed to undertake many ofthese actions. I do not expect that any ofthese initiatives would be any less expensivebe they under a Government of membersopposite or our Government.

The House needs to be aware that thereis an expectation that the Government andthe Public Service will provide services tocustomers in such a way that ensures valuefor money. There is an expectation thatservices will be delivered where people livearound the State.

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order.Where is the Minister?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stephan):Order! The Minister is in the Chamber.

Mr ELDER: The Minister was not incharge of the Chamber.

Mr MITCHELL: There is an expectationthat people will have choices of how andwhere they will conduct their business and howthey can pay. It seems that the member forCapalaba is once again showing Labor'scomplete disregard for Queenslanders inremote and regional Queensland. Theopportunity to settle accounts by phone will beof great benefit to thousands of motorists wholive outside the coastal strip. This is a typicalexample of the coalition Government'scommitment to serve all Queenslanders.

People rightly expect that the advice theyare given is correct and accurate andpresented in a courteous and understandingmanner. Consumers expect that they will beprotected from illegal and unscrupulousactivities, particularly where the Governmenthas an opportunity to provide such protectionat minimal cost.

The registration fee increase commencedfrom October 1996 due to the need to have

the funding available for the development ofthese new initiatives. In 1997, as the initiativesare progressively implemented, there will be asubstantial improvement in the standard ofservice provided by Queensland Transport. Insummary, the initiatives that QueenslandTransport is implementing of the CSCsolutions, IVR and NEVDIS are essentialimprovements to customer service that needto be funded and implemented for the benefitof all Queenslanders.

The 1 per cent increase in fees is a smallprice to pay for the improvements that will beprovided. I also believe that the people ofQueensland expect this or any otherGovernment to pull its weight on nationalissues, particularly where the outcomes are ofsuch obvious benefit to everyone. I believethat all things are achievable, and that theTransport and Main Roads Minister hasestablished a strategy direction to achievesignificant benefits.

Although any increase is unwelcome,$3.60 per vehicle is considered to be areasonable amount to achieve all of thebenefits which I have outlined. Thehonourable member for Capalaba is perhapsbeing a little disingenuous in moving thismotion. I am sure that he, too, would haveliked to see these initiatives taking place whenhe was the Minister. I am not sure of themotives of the honourable member in movingthis motion. Certainly, I have outlined theservice benefits to over two million customers,the consumer protection benefits to allQueenslanders, and the improvements in therevenue to the State. Surely the honourablemember is not opposed to any of that.

Queensland motor vehicle registrationfees are still between $66 and $172 perannum lower than those in New South Wales.Members of the House also need to considerthat Queensland remains the only State whichdoes not charge a fuel levy. Other States mayattempt to claim to have lower registration feesbut, when fuel levies of between 6.1c and 9.7cper litre are taken into consideration,Queensland remains the lowest cost State inwhich to register and drive a vehicle.Therefore, I ask the Assembly to reject themotion for disallowance moved by thehonourable member for Capalaba.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (12.04 p.m.):The bottom line is that the so-calledadministration fee is a new tax. In respect ofthe $3.60 charge, the Minister has beenhijacked by the Treasury. That $3.60 feecomes on top of a $66 fee increase forregistration. When combined, the charges


increase the cost of registering the averagecar by $70. When registration fees wereincreased, in my electorate several thousandpeople signed petitions in protest.

In addition, the Government is nowcharging a $3.60 administration fee. TheGovernment is saying that that money willfund improvements to customer service.However, the bottom line is that such moneyrarely flows to the coalface, that is, to theaverage customer utilising customer servicecentres. Certainly, none of those centres iswithin my electorate. The closest centre is atStrathpine in the electorate of Kurwongbahand the next closest is in Zillmere in theelectorate of Nudgee. There is no customerservice centre in my electorate. Hence, thepeople in my electorate who will pay the extra$3.60 will not see any benefit. My otherconcern is that, if it is $3.60 today, how muchwill it be next year? Will it be increased to $6 or$7? That is the problem.

Mr Elder interjected.

Mr NUTTALL: That is right. We couldhave a one-off fee for one year. However, thisis a permanent fee. No doubt Treasury willcome back next year and say, "It was $3.60last year. This year, we'll increase it to $6 or$7." It really is taxation by stealth. Peoplesimply do not understand why they have topay an administrative service fee when theywill not see any benefit. That is the bottomline.

The people who work behind the counterat customer service centres do a tremendousjob. They are constantly under a lot ofpressure, because the queues are alwayslong. The honourable member for ChartersTowers indicated in his speech that this moneywill improve services. Does that mean thatthere will be additional staff in service centres?How do we improve the services? That is thequestion that the Minister needs to answer inthis debate. How will the services beimproved? Will we have more service centres?Will there be more staff? Will the servicecentres provide more facilities? The bottomline is that, when people go into the servicecentres, it is usually——

Mr Elder: No, no, no.

Mr NUTTALL: They answer "No" to allof the above. The question has to be asked:where is the money going? It is simply a tax. Itis no more than that.

In the eighties, when the coalition was inGovernment, car licence renewal fees werechanged from being payable after every 10years to every five years. Will that stay the

same or will that be changed as well? That isthe sort of question that people are asking.When renewing their licence, customers havetheir picture taken and receive a laminatedlicence. And that is it for another five years.However, what will happen to licensing fees?People in my electorate are saying, "They justupped our rego and they have charged us anadministrative service fee. What will happen tolicence fees? Will they be the next taxincrease?"

There is a new tyre and oil tax. Obviously,in an electorate such as mine, which containsa number of elderly people—mainlypensioners—such increases in fees are seenas quite substantial. It is a shame that there isno recognition for pensioners in relation to theincrease in fees. To someone on my salary, a$3.60 increase is no big deal. However, to apensioner, to someone who is unemployedand who needs a car to find a job, or to ayoung student in need of transport touniversity, these charges are quite substantial.Sadly, at the end of the day, customers willnot see any benefit. They will pay $3.60 andstill wait in a queue for half an hour or an hourto be served. There will be no improvedservices or additional centres. However,customers will still have to pay the $3.60 fee.As I asked before: where is this money going?

My electorate probably more thananyone's has seen substantial roadimprovements, with $21m being spent on theGateway Motorway by the FederalGovernment. I want to touch quickly on theissue of the noise barriers in my electorate,which was raised at the Estimates committeehearing by the shadow Minister. That matterhas not been finalised or addressed as yet. Iraise that issue for this reason: people see allthis money being poured into new roads. Theysee the Gateway Motorway being extended tofour lanes. They see a noise barrier going upwhich they got conned on. Now theGovernment says to them, "Pay $3.60"——

Mr Elder: On top of the $66.

Mr NUTTALL:—"on top of the $66 regoand we will give you improved services." Nowonder people are a little bit cynical. Theyhave every reason to be cynical, because themoney that they pay to Governments throughcar rego, third-party premiums, this levy andthe money that will be paid under the new tyreand oil levies is not going back into roads.That is the concern that they have, and in myview it is a legitimate one.

Mr Johnson: Plenty of money goinginto roads.


Mr NUTTALL: I am sure there is, andwhen we get to the Transport LegislationAmendment Bill later today I will have a littlebit to say on that. But I want to come back tothis administrative fee.

It would really be good for the people ofQueensland if the Minister could get up todayand say that next year he is going to makesure that Treasury does not come over the topand increase this fee. I do not know whetherthe Minister is able to give that guarantee. Thebottom line is that while the Minister is trying torun his department Treasury is coming overthe top of him all the time—as it does withmany of the Ministers in this Government.

Mr Johnson: No. That just happenedwith the Labor Government.

Mr NUTTALL: The Minister has to bekidding! Treasury is going to come in over thetop again. There are a couple of guaranteesthat the Minister can give the people ofQueensland today. The first is that there willnot be an increase in that fee. The second isthat there will be improvements to customerservices, and he could outline today howcustomer services will be improved. I amlooking forward to hearing how that will occur.The third is whether there will be more centres,both in the south-east corner and in regionalQueensland. If people are going to pay thesefees for improved customer services, theyhave a right to receive them. I would like tohear the Minister in his response outline to thepeople of Queensland whether he can orcannot do that and give those guarantees tothe people of Queensland.

Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North)(12.13 p.m.): It is with a great sense ofpurpose that I want to strongly oppose thehonourable member for Capalaba's motion todisallow the Department of Transport(Variation of Fees) Regulation (No. 3) 1996.This regulatory variation to motor vehicleregistration fees came into effect almost twomonths ago and was at that time publicised inthe media. The proposed variation to motorvehicle registration fees was alsoforeshadowed in this year's State Budget andwas open to the scrutiny of the parliamentaryEstimates committee in the recent debate onthe Department of Transport's financialperformance for 1995-96 and its budget for1996-97. Indeed, it was canvassed in thedebate on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) when itwas raised by Opposition members, includingthe shadow Treasurer and the members forMaryborough and South Brisbane, to name afew. Yet the member for Capalaba raised theissue on Tuesday, 29 October 1996—some

three weeks after the new fees had takeneffect. The Deputy Opposition Leader has notonly tried to shut the gate after the horse hasbolted; the horse has done a couple of laps.

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Iknow that the member is trying to be clever,but we cannot debate the issue until theregulation is tabled in the House. When theregulation is tabled in the House, a memberthen has seven days to raise the objection,and then it needs to be debated within sevendays. The Opposition cannot debate it untilsuch time as the regulation is tabled in theParliament. Do some homework!

Mr HEALY: The Deputy Leader of theOpposition clearly shows how out of touch heis, as members of his own party have alreadyraised the issue. The question is: why doesthe member raise it now? Why all of a suddenhas this initiative to improve services to allQueenslanders——

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Theonly way I can oppose it is by moving againstthe regulation when it is tabled in the House,as I am doing. Simple commonsense, myfriend!

Mr HEALY: The honourable member'scolleagues have shown him up again. He is ashow pony, and they have shown him upagain.

This initiative aims to improve services toall Queensland motorists and public sectoremployees who work at QueenslandTransport's customer service centres. This hasbecome objectionable to the membersopposite, to the point of their wanting todisallow the fee variations that underpinimproved customer services into the future.Why does the member for Capalaba want tohurt those front-line public sector employees?But then again, he and the members oppositehave a history of ignoring their heartland—justask all the railway workers, the ambulanceofficers, the school teachers and the policeofficers about the way Opposition memberstreat public sector employees.

As I mentioned earlier, this issue wasraised in the Appropriation debate. Let meremind members opposite of some of thepoints made by them during the debate. Themember for South Brisbane in her speechmentioned her concerns about public sectoremployees. This is the problem with membersopposite: they talk about problems; they try toportray the Labor Party as a party with heart,but then they do nothing to solve the problem.They have no heart and they do not careabout workers, and Queenslanders know it.Members opposite have no heart; they have


failed to convince the people of this State thatthey are sincere, and that is why they are onthe opposite side of the House.

Let me draw to the attention of memberswhat this very modest adjustment in annualmotor vehicle registration fees will enable to beprogressed. It has to do with people.

Mr Elder: Modest?

Mr HEALY: It is a modest increase.

Mr Elder: You're saying it's a modesttax?

Mr HEALY: I will come to that, and I willcome to a comment made by the shadowTreasurer in just a couple of moments' time. Itprovides three main benefits, but it is mainlyabout bringing benefits to public sector staff.Increased workloads have placed pressure onstaff, and the members opposite wereprepared to sit back and do nothing. They didnot care about the stress levels, nor the lowmorale. The members opposite just hoped theproblem would simply go away. Membersopposite may recall the media articles at thetime about the low morale and staff stresslevels at those customer service centres. Theymay recall that they were happy not to pay thecorrect wage to their employees.

Let me remind the House of thecomments by the Premier yesterday in thisplace in answer to a question that I put to himduring question time about the stress-relatedworkers' compensation claims by Queenslandpublic sector employees. He said—

". . . by 1994 the situation had changed,and in terms of stress claims the publicsector had overtaken the privatesector—728 claims compared with 642.By 1995 . . . the situation worseneddramatically, with public sector claimsblowing out to 1,249, well ahead of theprivate sector."

The Premier then said—

"Honourable members will be wellaware of the way that the former LaborGovernment treated the Public Service.They will remember when departmentswere reviewed not once, not twice, butthree times under the reign of terror of themuch lamented Public SectorManagement Commission and DrCoaldrake. They will remember the Officeof the Cabinet—the gulag—run by MrRudd, and the day by day turning upsidedown of the day-to-day running of thedepartments of this State."

Truer words have never been spoken! ThePremier continued—

"If the members opposite were still on theTreasury benches, we would still have thePSMC and the Office of the Cabinet andthe number of stress claims would begoing up each year, as they did underLabor previously."

Truer words have never been spoken.

When the coalition came to power, thenew Minister for Transport recognised theneed to address this issue. The additionalfunding will allow the introduction of a range ofinitiatives which Queensland Transport hasdeveloped in consultation with the State PublicServices Federation to address the industrialand workload problems. This collaborativeeffort lays a strong foundation for improvingthe level of service provided to the communityby the department and the quality of thestaff's working conditions. Essentially, theBorbidge coalition Government has steppedup to the line and done what the honourablemember for Capalaba and his predecessorsfailed to do in their term as the Ministersresponsible for the provision of motor vehicleregistration management services in thisState.

One of the fundamental responsibilities ofthe State Government is to manage transportwithin the State and in particular to managevehicle access to the road network. Motorvehicle registration is a critical component inthis vehicle and transport managementprocess. Registration enables vehicles to becorrectly identified and for appropriate fees tobe levied to fund the ongoing provision andmaintenance of Queensland's vast network ofroads and the services that are linked to thevehicle registration management process.

It appears that the honourable membersof the Opposition may be suffering short-termmemory loss. I refer now to what the shadowTreasurer said earlier. He can correct me if Iam wrong, but I think he said that it was LaborParty policy not to increase taxes but if therewere any extra charges, they would be in linewith the CPI increase. As I recall, it was onlytwo years back, in July 1994, that the thenGoss Labor Government increased the trafficimprovement fee component of motor vehicleregistration for all Queensland vehicle ownersby $10, over and above that year's consumerprice index increases to fees. This increasenetted the Government in excess of $20m inadditional revenue which was used to fund,among other initiatives, a $6m BikewaysInfrastructure Program.

Mr Ardill: That's right.Mr HEALY: What is the difference?

What is the difference between using that


increase to improve bikeways infrastructureand using parts of this increase to better theservice at customer service depots? There isno difference.

Mr Elder: Apply it to your capital costs,not your recurrent.

Mr HEALY: That was off Budget. Thisincrease was almost three times the feeadjustment which Mr Elder is now asking theHouse to disallow. That is what he is doing. Heis a hypocrite. More recently, if my memoryserves me correctly, the Goss Government, inits 1995 election campaign, made acommitment to introduce timed and credit cardpayment facilities for large Government billssuch as electricity and vehicle registration. It istherefore ironic that the member for Capalaba,the former Minister responsible for progressingthis more recent initiative and its associatedfunding package, has had a change of heartand now wants to disallow the fundingarrangements which underpin a package ofservice enhancement initiatives, including thevery initiative which he himself promoted toimplementation stage when he was Ministerfor Transport.

Enough of history. Let me outline why Isupport the registration fee variation whichtook effect on 8 October 1996. I have alreadymentioned the need to ensure that ourcustomer service centre staff get paid theaward rates. No Government gets any joy outof increasing its fees and charges, but in thecase of the $3.60 increase in registrationcharges introduced on 8 October 1996, thebenefits for all Queensland motorists arenumerous. Basically, this modest increase inthe overall cost of registering a motor vehiclewill provide the resources to fund three criticallyimportant service enhancement initiatives forall Queensland motorists.

From a customer service perspective, thelevel of service provided by QueenslandTransport will be improved in a number ofways. Firstly, the public will be given theopportunity to pay their bills by credit card. Thisoption, which has become widely accepted incommerce, is not only more convenient formost people but also allows them to bettermanage their financial outlays, particularlywhere larger registration bills are involved.Secondly, a system of telephone call centres,featuring interactive voice response units, isbeing established. This system will speed upthe handling of inquiries and make the payingof transport-related bills much easier. Thesetypes of call centres are also used widely inother areas of commerce such as Telstra andlocal government. Thirdly, it is planned to

introduce the central issue of vehicleregistration labels. This will forgo the need forvehicle owners to make a special trip to aQueensland Transport customer service centreto obtain their annual registration label.

I strongly commend this modest fundingincrease to all members, since it will producesubstantial improvements in the servicesprovided by Queensland Transport. Theseimprovements are not only a matter ofconvenience; they will also assist the motoringpublic to better manage their finances and willhelp to combat the major problem of vehicletheft. These initiatives need to be supported.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(12.24 p.m.): I support the disallowancemotion moved by the member for Capalaba.This charge, fee or tax is excessive andunnecessary. It is an excessive customerservice levy; it is greatly in excess of whatwould be regarded as necessary. When theLabor Party was in Government, that chargewas $1. This charge is excessive.

Mr Elder: They call it a moderate tax.Mr CAMPBELL: The members

opposite call it a moderate tax. I have tocongratulate the Minister on one matter. Atleast he did not give the two previousspeakers for the Government, the member forCharters Towers and the member forToowoomba North, the same speech to read.I congratulate the Minister on that. However,the speech given to the member forToowoomba North has shown that member'slack of understanding of parliamentaryprocedures. He does not appreciate the factthat when notice is given of a motion movedto disallow a regulation, that motion must bemoved within seven sitting days. In fact, themember for Capalaba moved thisdisallowance motion on the third sitting day,which was the first available day afterParliament resumed. We had a two-weekbreak. The member for Capalaba had until 13November to move this disallowance motion.There is no basis on which the member forToowoomba North can say that the memberfor Capalaba has been lax and that he lackedenthusiasm in moving this motion.

Mr Ardill: He didn't read the speechbefore he presented it and he didn'tunderstand the rubbish he was talking.

Mr CAMPBELL: That is all right; heprobably has not read the Standing Orders,either. We have to make allowance for that.

I wish to refer to the contribution of themember for Charters Towers. He stated thatQueensland has the lowest registration


charges in Australia, and he congratulated theState on that. Then the member forToowoomba North asked why the previousGovernment increased charges by so much.What hypocrisy! On the one hand, themembers opposite are saying that the chargeshave been increased, yet, on the other hand,they are saying what a great job they havedone in keeping registration fees down.

Under this Government, pensioners willpay a $70 increase in car registration. A lot ofpensioners live in my electorate and thismassive increase in vehicle registrationcharges has hurt them. The pensioners wholive in my electorate do not have a publictransport system to get them to the shops andto the doctor. They rely on private vehicles,and this charge really hits them. Registrationfees have increased by $70—almost $1.50 aweek.

The member for Charters Towerscongratulated Queensland on not having afuel tax. Well, the tax you have when you donot have a fuel tax is an oil and tyre tax. TheNational Party can call it a tax by any othername, but when people hop into their vehiclesthey are paying a tyre tax and an oil tax. It isjust the same as a fuel tax.

Mr Pearce: Did you know there aremore pensioners out on the road thumbing aride than ever before?

Mr CAMPBELL: I would say that that isa possibility. If the Minister wants to charge acustomer service levy so that he can improvecustomer services, why does he not provide aHail and Ride bus service in Bundaberg? Iacknowledge the good work done by the staffat the Bundaberg Driver Training Centre; theydo an excellent job. However, if theGovernment wants to impose a customerservice levy and it wants to do somethingconstructive with that extra revenue, it shouldprovide for at least one extra vehicle inspectorin the Bundaberg region. The one vehicleinspector employed in my region has to go outto Gin Gin, Eidsvold and further west. He canbe away for up to a couple of days, whichleaves no vehicle inspector in Bundaberg. Ifthe Government is determined to raise thismoney, and if it really wants to put on extrapublic sector staff, it should employ extravehicle inspectors.

When in Opposition, day after day thePremier would complain about all the extraPublic Service staff the Labor Governmentemployed. However, now that the coalition isin Government, the members opposite areasking why we did not put on more publicsector staff and why they have been reducing

in numbers. We see such hypocrisy now thatthey have moved from the Opposition side ofthe Chamber to the Government side. Whenincreasing staff numbers, there are certainmatters to be considered. I hope that theMinister does not employ staff such as thestaff at Maroochydore who were sellinginterstate licences for $70. We do not want tosee a repeat of that type of incident. It isimportant that we have the proper auditing ofthe licensing system to ensure that the publichas confidence in the licensing issuing systemin Queensland.

The charges are excessive. The initiativesneed to be funded, but I believe they could befunded by a $1 increase, not $3.60. That extracharge is simply going into extra revenue forthe department. How can we keep onspending dollar after dollar year in and yearout on improvements in customer service? Wereach a certain level and we need to spendnothing further. That is why this levy is going togo into general revenue. I thought that with aGovernment that believed in open competitionand world best practice we would be looking atreducing this charge in the long term. Perhapsit may be an increasing charge over time. I amconcerned that this is just another revenueraising process.

With uniform vehicle registration, I wouldlike to see some attention paid to REVS. Atpresent licensed motor dealers have to supplythe appropriate documentation for REVS, butthat does not apply to private sales of motorvehicles. Regardless of whether a vehicle issold by a private person or through aregistered dealer, the same process should befollowed. I believe this action would ensurethat appropriate ownership of vehicles wasestablished, which would minimise vehicletheft. The charge is excessive and is really notnecessary. I support the disallowance motion.

Mr BAUMANN (Albert) (12.32 p.m.): TheDepartment of Transport (Variation of Fees)Regulation (No. 3) 1996 made under theMotor Vehicle Control Act 1995, the TransportInfrastructure (Roads) Act 1991 and theTransport Operations (Road UseManagement) Act 1995 tabled in the Houseon 8 October 1996 allowed for a $3.60increase in registration fees. The honourablemember for Capalaba has moved for theincrease to be disallowed.

The Government supports the increase inregistration fees on the grounds that it willimprove customer service and vehicle security.The $3.60 increase was introduced to meet anumber of customer service improvements.Firstly, there were measures to reduce


workloads and improve working conditions inthe department's service delivery outlets andlift significantly the level of customer service.Of the $3.60 increase, $2.20 was allocated tothese improvements. Secondly, theintroduction of a customer service telephonecall centre, interactive voice service, credit cardpayment facilities and a system for centrallyissuing registration labels was allocated $1 ofthe fee increase. The remaining 40c wasallocated to establishing Queensland'sparticipation in the National Exchange ofVehicle and Driver Information System. Wehave heard from previous speakers about thepotential savings to be gained by theimplementation of that system.

Let us examine the second initiative inmore depth. The second initiative involves theimplementation of an interactive voiceresponse unit to support and enhancecustomer service operations. In addition to anautomated information service, customers willhave the option of dealing with specialisedtelephone operators in a call centre. This willmean that around 900,000 general telephonecalls annually will be removed from thedepartment's service outlets, improving thedelivery of over-the-counter service tocustomers and reducing customer queuetimes. The system will also initially provideautomated credit card registration payments,which will improve payment options forcustomers while reducing workloads incustomer service outlets.

Coupled with this is a national uniformityinitiative to implement centrally issuedregistration labels which include vehicleidentification information. This will assist inminimising the process of re-identifying stolenvehicles and further reduce the necessity forsome customer contacts with customer serviceoutlets.

The interactive voice response service willsignificantly improve and expand the range ofconsistent product information supplied toclients. The service will allow clients to pay formore than just vehicle registration fees bycredit card and will be the platform forexpanded agency arrangements that willfurther improve the cost-efficient delivery ofservice to clients. This initiative was originallyproposed by the Goss Government as part ofis election policy document called the GossGovernment Family Package. The packagewas designed to manage the burden of largebills such as electricity and vehicle registration.The introduction of an interactive voiceresponse service is the platform that will allowthe payment of services by credit card and is

the first step to increasing payment optionsavailable to families.

This Government supports the need toreduce the burden on families by introducingcredit card facilities and other initiatives thatimprove the delivery of services to thecommunity. After an initial review, thisGovernment realised that it had to go furtherthan the Goss Government had evenconsidered, and accordingly approved a morecomprehensive response. By takingadvantage of the advancements intechnology, this Government will be able tofully fund the project with this $1 increase inregistration fees, which is part of the $3.60general increase mentioned earlier.

The shameful hypocrisy of the memberfor Capalaba in moving this disallowancemotion is highlighted by the fact that his ownparty in Government had proposed a similarinitiative. Perhaps it is timely to remind theHouse of some of the Opposition'sdishonourable deeds. The previous LaborGovernment had a reputation of raidingnumerous statutory bodies and extractingfunds. One instance of that is the GossGovernment's disgraceful record in extractingfunds from ambulance boards and otherstatutory organisations. Those ruralcommunities lost important, sometimeslifesaving, facilities. As a result, during 1991about $101m was raided from the Auctioneersand Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Insubsequent years, $43.6m was taken,followed by $16.4m, and in 1994-95 about$15.1m was taken. Those are significantnumbers.

It was the intention of this Governmentthat there would be no increase in charges. Itis difficult for a party to come to Governmentand have to raise charges. I am sure theMinister does not believe in raising chargesunless he has to. I am sure the Minister, whenhe was shadow Minister for Transport, wasunaware of the actual state of the books,particularly in regard to the staffing problemsat our customer service centres.

I am sure that the Minister introducedthese charges because they not only providebenefits to those employees of customerservice centres, but also because of the otherbenefits such as inclusion in the nationalregistration and licensing information system—known as NEVDIS—and the introduction ofthe phone-pay system. I have no doubt thatthe Minister supported this increased chargebecause of the community good that thisenhancement to customer service provides,particularly in regard to preventing motor


vehicle fraud. In light of the overall feeincrease and the benefits that it will bring toQueenslanders, I suggest that the motionbefore this House not be supported.

Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (12.38 p.m.): Irise to support the disallowance motion movedby the honourable member for Capalaba. Thisnew impost on Queensland's motorists mustbe stopped. Let us not forget that thisGovernment came to power on the pretext ofno new or increased taxes, so this is justanother broken promise and another slug onQueensland motorists.

What does this Government have againstmotorists? Since this Government came topower it has made Queensland's motoringpublic pay for all the Government's rash ofelection-time promises—well, nearly all.Motorists using the Sunshine Motorwaycertainly seem to have benefited from havingthe Treasurer based in their area. Indeed, itappears that the rest of Queensland is beingmade to pay for the Treasurer's motorway.

This $3.60 increase is just the tip of theiceberg. I am sure that when Queenslandmotorists go to pay their car registration thisyear they will thank the Treasurer for adding$66 to their compulsory third-party insurance.When residents of the southern Gold Coastheard about this massive increase, my officewas flooded with complaints. With the help oflocal residents and community groups, wetook up a petition which attracted thousandsof signatures. Did the Government want tolisten to the people? Of course not! TheGovernment simply wants to look after itsmates in big business. This increased levy hasdone nothing but rip Queensland motorists offand boost the profits of the insurers.

Following the Treasurer's move, third-partyinsurers, such as FAI, must be rubbing theirhands in glee. FAI reported a 111 per centjump in profits. The company has attributed alarge amount of that increase to the increasein third-party charges. The Treasurer haseffectively paid the shareholders of insurancecompanies an extra bonus from anyone whoowns a car. She has penalised Queenslandbattlers who are trying to make ends meet.When one is on a fixed income, such as apension, paying an extra $66 to register one'scar is a big ask, especially when one's moneygoes to the coffers of companies makingrecord profits. The Government failed tohighlight that, apart from paying the 39 percent increase in third-party charges, othercharges and costs for registering a car wereincreased from 1 July, for example, the motorvehicle fee on a six cylinder car rose by $7.80

while the traffic improvement fee went up by adollar. When added to the rise in third-partycharges, the total shows that Queenslandmotorists have had to pay an extra $73.30 justto get their car on the road.

That is not where the motorist milking cowstops. The new tyre and oil taxes that wereintroduced by the Treasurer in the Budget willadditionally go to help prop up theGovernment's increasingly cloudy electionpromises. Every time motorists change thetyres on their cars or need new oil, they willfind the Treasurer and the Minister forEnvironment in their pockets. What a horriblethought! This poorly thought out scheme couldend up actually costing Queensland more inlost jobs and businesses for, as I have saidrepeatedly, consumers in search of a betterdeal for tyres and oil will desert small businesson the Gold Coast and go across the border. Itseems that the Treasurer is not only intent onhurting motorists but also she is keen onseeing that Queensland's fastest growingindustry, unemployment, continues to growunder her stewardship and that small businesson the Gold Coast suffers.

What will the Queensland public see fortheir extra tax burden? Better, safer roads—donot bet on it! This Government has committedmore than $650m to the ill-conceived plan toupgrade the Pacific Highway between Nerangand Beenleigh. That plan is bound to fail. Foryears to come, that plan will turn that area intoa treacherous gamble every time anyonedecides to risk venturing onto that stretch ofroad. If this Government were serious aboutspending those increased revenues wisely, itwould have adopted Labor's Pacific Highwayplan and not a silly scheme that is bound tofail.

One has to wonder what this Governmentwill do next if it gets away with charging thisincreased levy. I am sure that the Treasurer isthinking to herself, "How can I get moremoney to pay for goodies for the SunshineCoast? How can I get more money to makeeven more silly, money-wasting decisions?"She and the Premier are bound to consider afuel tax once again. That would be anotherslug on battling Queensland motorists.

This Government deceived its way intopower by making sleazy deals and promisingQueenslanders that it would follow Labor'sfiscal example and not introduce new orincreased taxes. For simply proposing this$3.60 increase, members opposite shouldhang their heads in shame, because theyhave betrayed the trust that the electors ofQueensland have shown in them. We on this


side of the House will not allow members ofthe minority Government to get awayunscathed from their broken promises. Theymust be held accountable for their actions.The Treasurer must be made to pay for herrash decisions. Queensland's motoring publicdoes not deserve to be the whipping boy of adiscredited Government desperate for cash.

This is a tax that hits the battler, theaverage, hardworking Queenslanders who relyon a vehicle to carry out their daily activities,such as getting to work or getting the kids toschool. The increase may not worry some ofthe more affluent people. It may not soundvery much to most people, but the ones whowill be hit hardest are the ones who can illafford it. One would not blame them or anyQueenslander for feeling angry anddisillusioned by being misled into believing thatthey would not be hit by an increased tax bythis Government. The coalition was soconvincing in the lead-up to the State electionwhen it said that there would be no newincreases in taxes. The Government calls thisa fee, but it calls all its new taxes fees. Domembers opposite really believe thatQueenslanders cannot see through their weakattempts to hoodwink them into thinking that itis not just another hidden tax? It is not fair thatthe types of taxes imposed by thisGovernment are aimed at the battler. Laborwill continue to remind members opposite atevery opportunity that we will not forget howthey tried to hoodwink the Queensland public.

I know that the Minister has said thatsome of the revenue raised from this tax willgo towards the customer service centres. Thestaff at the customer service centre at Burleighdo a fantastic job, but their resources areabsolutely stretched to the limit. At my office Ireceive constant complaints from people who,once they have got through to the customerservice centre, have waited in a queue for theirtelephone call to be answered. I share theirfrustration. On a number of occasions when Ihave tried to phone that centre and wasunable to get through, I rang QueenslandTransport and asked whether they could giveme another number to phone. I understandwhy customers become so frustrated.

I have also visited that office on a numberof occasions to pay my vehicle registration orwhatever else——

Mr Elder: Do you pay your speedingfines?

Mrs ROSE: Yes, I do pay my speedingfines.

Every time I have gone there, I have hadto stand in a queue. As I said, the staff are

excellent. They deal with people as quickly asthey possibly can; however, the customerservice centre is just not big enough and thereare just not enough staff members to deal withcustomers' everyday business. I am sure thatthe member for Burleigh would agree with me.Her office must receive as many complaints asmy office does about the lengthy wait forpeople phoning or standing in queues in theservice centre. I implore the Minister to take avery serious look at the Burleigh Headscustomer service centre.

The member for Fitzroy mentioned thathe had seen pensioners hitchhiking on theside of road. I have not seen that, but I doknow that pensioners are very concernedabout those extra fees and the increase inregistration costs. People will just not registertheir vehicles because they will find it far tooexpensive to do so. Queensland Transportneeds to consider varying methods ofpayment to help people. Perhaps they couldconsider quarterly payments to helppensioners and low income earners meetregistration costs, because for so many peoplethe $74 increase in registration costs is anawful lot of money. Some people are just notable to meet that.

Mr Johnson: We are debating $3.60here.

Mrs ROSE: The Minister cannotconsider just the $3.60 in isolation. That is thepoint. He can introduce a lot of new fees andtaxes, but they cannot be considered inisolation. He cannot ignore the fact that allthose increases are being imposed onmotorists.

Time expired.

Mrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (12.48 p.m.): Iassure the member for Bundaberg that therewill be no duplications of this speech. I havepleasure in rising in support of the Minister. Ashonourable members would be aware,Queensland Transport is a major provider ofservices to Queenslanders. For example, eachmonth some 30,000 vehicles are registered,and 200,000 registrations are renewed. Over49,000 drivers have their open licencesrenewed or issued each month. In addition,20,000 provisional licences and learners'permits are issued.

Queensland's strong population growthand economic activity since 1990 havecontinued to increase the demand for servicethrough Queensland Transport's Statewidecustomer service network. At the same time,the complexity of delivering services hasincreased through factors such as nationaltransport industry reforms, legislation to


address discrimination, disability access andfreedom of information. Those factors and thedemand for services have combined to causeproblems in providing quality customer serviceresulting in long waiting times and poor qualityservice in some areas. We are trying to solvethose problems. I believe that that is a majorissue as Queensland Transport customersexpect to receive the same high standard ofservice from Queensland Transport that theyreceive from other Government agencies andfrom private sector businesses such as banks.

To address the situation, QueenslandTransport is introducing major initiatives toimprove service delivery, especially atcustomer service centres. I note the concernsraised by the member for Currumbin. I havenot had anyone complain to me about thecustomer service centres. Maybe there areisolated problems in certain areas.

The customer service centre solutions isan integrated package to improve CSCworkloads, customer service and workingconditions. The interactive voice responsesystem is a telephone call centre system thatfacilitates credit card payments and the centralissuing of registration labels. The nationalexchange of vehicle and driver informationsystem is a national database to help combatvehicle theft.

The customer service centre solutionspackage was developed by the department inconsultation with staff and the State PublicServices Federation of Queensland, and it issupported by the SPSFQ. It will addressongoing industrial and workload issues incustomer service centres that have contributedto poor working conditions and incidences ofinadequate customer service.

As part of customer service centresolutions, staffing levels in CSCs will beincreased and CSCs will be restructured toprovide a higher level of specialist counterservice. Staff training will be enhanced tosupport quality service provision throughincreased technical and customer servicetraining. Those initiatives will probably havesome impact on the poor service and longwaiting lists about which other honourablemembers have spoken. The customer servicecentre solutions package is consistent with theGovernment's direction of a back to basicsimprovement in the delivery of customerservice. In 1995-96, an additional $1m wasfound within the department's budget tosupport this package. The CSC solutions willbe implemented progressively over the next12 months.

The interactive voice response system willlead to improved service delivery by redirectingtelephone calls to a call centre. Initially, callswill be answered by the IVR systemautomatically and operators will provide furtherspecialist assistance as required. The IVR alsoprovides the infrastructure for the introductionof credit card payments for registrationrenewals over the telephone. The IVR willreduce the number of customers who travel toCSCs leading to CSC staff having more timeto assist clients with complex business totransact. In addition, customer service centrestaff will not interrupt counter service byanswering telephones. Most of us who havebeen to those customer service centres havebeen frustrated when that has happened andstaff have had to attend to those duties. TheIVR system will be phased in from February1997.

Another measure to improve customerservice is the introduction of registration labelswhich will contain vehicle details. Thesevehicle- specific labels are part of a nationalscheme to improve vehicle security, and theywill be issued centrally. Vehicle security willalso be enhanced through the nationalexchange of the vehicle and driver informationsystem. The system will flag stolen vehiclesand support national on-road enforcement. In1997-98, funds will be used for thedevelopment of NEVDIS.

The CSC solutions, IVR and NEVDISinitiatives in combination will lead to improvedcustomer service through more accurate andconsistent information, shorter queues incustomer service centres and improvements tothe detection of stolen vehicles. That iscertainly going to be a plus for the people ofQueensland. All of those initiatives are fundedthrough a small increase in vehicle registrationfees of approximately 1 per cent, or $3.60 pervehicle. This fee increase is the first increase inreal terms for a number of years. For the past10 years, registration fees have increased bythe consumer price index only to account forinflation.

The increase in registration fees earlierthis year was actually an increase in the third-party insurance component only. That moneyis collected on behalf of the InsuranceCommissioner and not retained byQueensland Transport. Apart from the $3.60registration increase, there is no other meansof funding available for the initiatives.

The opportunities available to achievesavings within Queensland Transport are nowlargely exhausted. Similarly there are no fundsthat can be transferred from the Department


of Main Roads owing to the high priority ofmajor roads works. Funding of these initiativesfrom consolidated revenue would impact onthe provision of other important services suchas schools and police. If the fee increase isdisallowed, there will be major impacts onservice provision by Queensland Transport.For example, without the CSC solutionspackage, there would be inadequate fundingto meet workloads, no improvements totraining and the current problems with servicedelivery would continue, resulting in bothcustomer complaints and staff dissatisfaction.We certainly do not want that in Queensland.

Similarly, the IVR and credit cardpayments initiatives are essential for providinga higher quality telephone service and to meetcustomer demands for alternative paymentmethods. As has been mentioned already,NEVDIS is a national scheme to whichQueensland has made a formal commitment.If the fees increase was overturned thenQueensland would not be able to honour itscommitment to NEVDIS. Not proceeding withthe national scheme would not only impact onits overall effectiveness but also would havethe potential to lead to stolen vehicles beingbrought to Queensland. It could also haveflow-on effects to other national commitments.

The registration fee increase commencedfrom October 1996 owing to the need to havefunding available for the development of theinitiatives. In 1997, as the initiatives areprogressively implemented, there will be asubstantial improvement in the standard ofservice provided by Queensland Transport.

In summary, the initiatives thatQueensland Transport is implementing of CSCsolutions, IVR and NEVDIS are essentialimprovements to customer service that needto be funded and implemented for the benefitof all Queenslanders. The 1 per cent increasein fees is a small price for the improvementsthat will be provided: a little pain for a lot ofgain.

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (12.56 p.m.): Inthe run-up to elections, promises are madeand then there is the non-keeping of thosepromises. I allude to the famous statement bythose who now sit on the Governmentbenches that there would be no new taxes.Members can call it what they will, but this is atax. However, the big thing that gets to peopleis the raising of their expectations that therewill be no extra charges. A few speakersopposite have called this increase a moderatetax. It would almost lead one to believe thatthat is an orchestrated description of it to try tohide the fact that it is yet another tax and, if

one adds it on to all of the other taxes, it isanother impost.

It is worth repeating that if $3.60 is addedto $66, it becomes almost $70. If the tyre andoil tax is added, on average it is getting up to$75 or $80 a year. It might not seem much tomany people, especially these people here inthe Chamber, but my electorate of Hervey Bayis made up largely of social security recipients.Most of them are old aged pensioners whorely on a vehicle to get them to where theywant to go because the public transportsystem in Hervey Bay is very difficult tomanage as a result of the shape of the place.However, it is not just the pensioners,unemployed people and low-income earnerssuch as the man who has three or four kids,who works for the council and who does nottake home much money, who will find thisimpost very hard to bear.

People from out of town come to me andsay, "I really do need a car if I have to be outof town, so I will have to move into town." Sothose people move into town, they scrub theold bomb and they buy a bike. That isreminiscent, I suppose, of the situation that wefound at Julia Creek. Today, the member forRockhampton said that when we went to theGovernment agency in Julia Creek, after beingreferred to it by the mayor, we had a yarn tothe agent, who told us about some of thedifficulties that he was having. It leads one towonder why those people opposite would beso pleased to impose this tax when they arenot giving a service in remote areas. I heard amember opposite talking about some of thegreat things that the Government was doing.However, when we went out into the north-western areas of Queensland we found thatpeople were not getting a service. It is aservice that could be provided very easily. I donot think that taking $3.60 per registration feeoff the department's revenue would hurt itmuch at all. But in those remote areas, it takesweeks and weeks and weeks just to get a setof plates back. After speaking to the agent, weran into an old fellow who told us that, bygoing through the Government agency, it hadtaken him months to actually register a truck.

The Government agent was just pointingout that there are some difficulties with thesystem. I am sure that if the Minister knewabout these problems, he would do somethingabout it. I cannot think that, if he did knowabout these problems, he would allow them tocontinue. So I can only surmise that he doesnot know about them and that he will sendsomebody out to those areas to have a lookat what bugs there are in the system. Whenwe asked that fellow at Julia Creek if he had a


vehicle in which to get around—because hehad gone on to tell us how big his area was,and it was thousands of square miles—hesaid, "There is my transport", and pointed to apushbike. We said, "You did well to get thedepartment to buy you that." He said, "Theydid not buy me the pushbike. I bought itmyself." It had a yellow helmet hanging fromthe handle bars. I suppose he bought thathimself as well.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.Mr NUNN: Before we went to lunch, I

was speaking about the cyclist from JuliaCreek, and I will not weary the House with thatstory for much longer. However, it seemspassing strange to me that today theGovernment is defending its decision toimpose a $3.60 charge on the people ofQueensland, including pensioners, whenyesterday it gave developers relief from thepayment of the transport infrastructure levy. Ithink that that was a retrograde step. It wouldhave been more appropriate if theGovernment had maintained the levy ondevelopers, who at least have the ability topass the cost on to the people who will buyland from them when the project is finished,rather than imposing a charge of $3.60 onpensioners.

I remind members that two eminentplanners, Mr Tucker and Mr Day, had verydecided views on who should pay what when itcame to matters of development and publicinfrastructure. They were firmly of the opinionthat anybody who was developing land forresale and was putting pressure on publicinfrastructure should be made to pay towardsthat. Therefore, it would have been muchmore appropriate if the Government hadretained the developers' tax and removed thetax that will greatly affect pensioners. I supportthe motion of the Deputy Leader of theOpposition and I ask all honourable membersto support it.

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (2.32 p.m.): Thedisallowance motion moved by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition has great merit, andI have great pleasure in supporting it. As themember for Hervey Bay has said, it is quiteridiculous that developers are being let offscot-free while the ordinary motorists—including pensioners and others who can illafford to pay—are forced to pay ever-increasing vehicle registration fees. Let us takethe case of a family which lives in an outlyingsuburb or in a semi-rural area outsideBrisbane. Without access to public transportand with only one car, either the breadwinnerhas no means of getting to work or the

children cannot be taken to school. Inaddition, the registration fees would be over$1,000.

The Government, which before the Julyelection last year promised that there would beno new taxes and no increases in taxes, iscontinuing to sneak in charges which have notbeen foreseen. Not only do we have a chargeof $3.60 but we also have a charge of $66which the Treasurer imposed before theBudget as a means of funding herextravagant promises to the people whom shechose to assist. In addition, we have the so-called tyre and oil levies which will be imposedon motorists, somehow, in the near future. Allof these charges imposed on the people ofQueensland represent the Government'sbroken promises, despite its assurances to thecontrary before coming to power.

Mr McElligott: Didn't they have acontract with the people of Queensland?

Mr ARDILL: Yes, the Government toldthe people of Queensland that it had acontract with them. What happened to thatcontract? As soon as the coalition came intopower, it tore it up.

I notice that no Liberal Party members aregoing to speak against the motion ofdisallowance. Why have no Liberal memberscome into the Chamber to justify the rip-offthat the Treasurer has imposed on the peopleof Queensland. Can they not justify it or arethey too ashamed to try to justify that sort ofcontinuing rip-off?

It has been said that the charge of $3.60will cover a number of different administrationcosts which have suddenly arisen. That is notthe case. Most of the proposals were in trainwhen the present Deputy Leader of theOpposition was the Minister for Transport.Most of the proposals were seen asnecessary, were put forward and were underway. Now, of course, speakers on the otherside of the House have tried to take credit forthe proposals by calling them theirinnovations. They are nothing of the sort.Those proposals were foreseen and havebeen in the pipeline for quite some time. Nowthe Government is trying to take the credit.However, if we had remained in Government,there would not have been the imposition of acharge of $3.60.

Mr Dollin: And this State would not be inthe mess it is in today, either.

Mr ARDILL: Certainly it would not. Itwould not be the moribund State ofQueensland. The number of plates of carsshould have the slogan "The Moribund


State—Queensland". Queensland is certainlybecoming the high-tax State. I know that taxesare required to run a Government, but it isquite wrong to impose a charge of $3.60 ontop of the extortionate sum of $66 which wasimposed by the Treasurer before the Budget.

Some members have mentioned the factthat service centres have to be upgradedbecause they are fairly poor. I have found thesituation to be entirely different. I go to theservice centre at MacGregor and there are nolong queues of people wanting to pay theirregistration. People are in and out in a veryshort space of time, because that centre isproperly organised.

This morning, the member forToowoomba North—who obviously read aspeech prepared for him without checking tosee what sort of nonsense was in it—said thatthe $3.60 tax would provide for registrationlabels to be sent out from headquarters. Ihave news for him: that has been thestandard procedure for umpteen years. Ifregistration is paid by post, the registrationsticker is delivered through the mail. Therefore,there is certainly no need for an additionalimpost on the motorist to do that.

Government members talked aboutputting additional funds into capital costs, andthen compared that to recurrent expenditurecoming out of the registration fees. Of course,that indicates clearly that they do notunderstand the situation. There is absolutelyno need to impose any new taxes onmotorists, who are severely overtaxed throughregistration. Other means should be found tocover administration costs. There is no doubtthat the department needs additional funds,but imposing charges on every motorist,whether or not they can afford to pay, is notthe way to do it.

Time expired.

Hon. V. G. JOHNSON (Gregory—Minister for Transport and Main Roads)(2.39 p.m.), in reply: The motion moved by thehonourable member for Capalaba calls for thedisallowance of the Department of Transport(Variation of Fees) Regulation (No. 3) 1996made under the Motor Vehicles Control Act1975, the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act1991 and the Transport Operations (Road UseManagement) Act 1995, tabled in the Houseon 8 October. To let that regulation bedisallowed would be totally irresponsible.

We have before us a motion from themember for Capalaba, as I said, seeking todisallow a minimal increase in vehicleregistration fees. This modest adjustmentwould lead to a number of improvements

being introduced which would benefit nearly allQueenslanders. It is ironic that, as the formerMinister responsible for this area, Mr Eldershould know better than most about the needfor these improvements and yet opposes themodest adjustment that will fund them.Perhaps he is ashamed about his andprevious Labor Ministers' lack of action inaddressing this matter.

It may benefit all members if I provide thebackground that has led to this situation. Froman administrative perspective, almost2.5 million vehicles in Queensland have to beregistered, transferred to new owners,inspected for safety and so on. Further, thereare nearly 2 million drivers who need to belicensed or have their licences renewed and inrespect of which proper records need to bemaintained. This leads to in excess of 8 millionregistrations and licensing transactions beingperformed every year. That is equivalent toover 30,000 transactions every working day.

Further to this, Queenslanders makesome 2,000 inquiries over the counter and30,000 telephone inquiries to the departmenteach working day. Every working day, onaverage about $1.75m is contributed towardsthe cost of using our road system, with roughlythe same amount being collected on behalf ofthird-party insurers. Furthermore, about$300,000 is collected in stamp duties onbehalf of the stamp duty office. An additional$150,000 is collected in payment of 1,500traffic fines.

The task of managing this system falls toa single central business unit withinQueensland Transport and 60 customerservice centres. Also, a number of agenciesand police stations handle some, but generallynot all, of this business. I am not trying to stunthe House with statistics but merely makehonourable members aware that we are nottalking about a small business by any stretchof the imagination. Providing these services tothe public is a business central to the role ofGovernment and, if poorly managed orresourced, has the potential to have a majorimpact on Government, the business sectorand the community.

Over the past few years, Queensland hasexperienced significant population growth,especially when migration is taken intoaccount. Further, the ownership of vehicleshas been increasing steadily. In response tocommunity concerns relating to fraud andother illegal activities, successive QueenslandGovernments have also committed this Stateto a number of initiatives which will lead to anational system for vehicle and licensing data.


Add to this the increasing complexity of thebusiness environment, equity issues andfreedom of information and the House will seethe enormous task required of my departmentin this very important area. Over the sametime, because of budget constrains, additionalstaff and facilities have not been madeavailable to deal with the growth in the sizeand complexity of the registration andlicensing business. As a result, there has beena significant negative impact on customers interms of waiting times, queues and the easeof assessing information.

Upon becoming Minister, I was notprepared to see that situation continue. Iasked to see a longer term approach to theregistration and licensing business andcustomer service in general which wouldaddress these issues. The Director-General ofTransport presented me with a plan to improvethe department's service delivery in the longterm while addressing some of the morepressing needs. While endorsing theseinitiatives and noting that they form the basisfor the instrument under debate, I also notethat many of them were presented andapproved by the Goss Labor Governmentwhile the honourable member for Capalabawas the Minister for Transport. That is typicalof Labor. In Government, they were big onrhetoric, but when it came to actually deliveringthe services they were very small indeed. Theprevious Labor administration has now beenexposed as a Government that failed to tacklethe difficult issues.

This Government has come into powerwith a commitment to improve Governmentservices, and with such an extensive clientbase I believe it is critical to get the registrationand licensing business right. These servicesare delivered across the State and have thepotential to impact on both private citizensand, equally importantly, a large number ofbusinesses.

The fee increase of $3.60 per vehicle isvery minor compared with the cost to businessand the State economy of inefficiencies anddelays in transacting this business.Furthermore, the impact of not proceedingwith the National Exchange of Vehicle andDriver Information Systems, better known asNEVDIS, is such that Queensland couldbecome a repository for the nation's stolenvehicles, with the attendant problems—forexample, both private citizens and businessesface the very real possibility of having theirvehicles repossessed.

In addition, our roads would become ahaven for unlicensed drivers or drivers who

should have lost their licence in another Statebut who could potentially obtain a new licencehere. I am sure that honourable members donot need reminding about the consequence ofunlicensed driving on insurance coverage. Inconjunction with this initiative, from 1 January1997 all registration labels will be overprintedwith vehicle registration details and mailed tovehicle owners. This will reduce the opportunityfor unscrupulous persons to interchange orsteal labels and use them on an incorrect orstolen vehicle, thus protecting manyQueenslanders from fraud. It will also ensurethat fewer unregistered vehicles use ourState's roads, thus improving State revenues,ensuring that the vehicles involved in crasheshave personal insurance coverage, andensuring that those of us who use the roadscontribute to their upkeep. Do members of theHouse consider a $3.60 adjustment pervehicle too high a price to pay for thisprotection alone? I assure members that I donot, and in reality the majority of members inthis House probably do not think so, either.

I turn now to the customer servicecentres. The long-term strategy is to providecustomers with a choice of where and howthey transact their registration and licensingbusiness. Simple transactions are to bemoved away from the customer servicecentres by providing a greater choice inpayment methods. To this end, from early1997, for the first time Queenslanders will beable to pay for their vehicle registrationrenewals by using a credit card. As a bonus,this option will be available for telephonepayments only, allowing vehicle owners to paywithout having to visit a customer servicecentre, or an agency or write out and mailcheques.

For anyone who does not come into acustomer service centre and who wishes topay by credit card, courtesy telephone calls willbe provided. The outcome of this initiative willbe that queues and waiting times will bereduced and departmental staff will be morereadily available to deal with complex businessand advice. Every week, I receive letters fromQueenslanders asking for this facility, and I amconfident that it will be a huge success. Thehonourable member for Gladstone referredtoday to better service and a shortening ofqueues. I guarantee to honourable membersof this House that we will see exactly that.

This Government is not keen to increasefees and charges. However, it is consideredthat a $3.60 increase per vehicle is areasonable amount so as to extend thechoices for payments and to lessen delays inproviding services to customers.


Mr Elder: If you do it by Bankcard, thebank charges a fee.

Mr JOHNSON: If the former Ministerhad introduced this, he would not be feelinguncomfortable now.

Mr Elder: I don't feel uncomfortable atall.

Mr JOHNSON: The member isuncomfortable.

As a further means of streamliningtransactions at customer service centres andreducing queues and waiting times, from early1997 this Government has approved thatQueensland Transport will establish atechnology widely used by other organisationscalled an interactive voice response unit. Thisis a system which allows many standardinquiries to be dealt with efficiently over thetelephone. In a trial undertaken at Nerang onthe Gold Coast, a small unit captured enoughinquiries to reduce the number of customerswho physically had to visit a centre by 200 perday. Honourable members can imagine theimpact across the whole State of saving largenumbers of people from having to visitcustomer service centres. Especially for ouraged people, this is a great win. Importantly,the technology allows callers to talk to atelephone service officer if the information theyrequire is not available from the system or ifthey wish to speak directly to a customerservice officer. Queensland Transport isestablishing a dedicated telephone call centreto deal with these inquiries.

I have acknowledged that as part of thispackage of initiatives we need to recognisethe skills and efforts of the staff, who havebeen given a difficult task and a heavyworkload in a very complex environment. Itneeds to be stressed that, when I became theMinister in late February 1996, I was told bydepartmental officials of the appalling workingconditions for staff in many of these centres.There were numerous cases where workplacehealth and safety requirements were not metand award conditions were breachedcontinually. I witnessed the conditions at someof those centres. Many centres wereoverreliant on casual or part-time staff whohad been employed in that capacity for years.There was no career path and very little in theway of training for these people who weretrying their best to perform a very complex andresponsible task. It is little wonder that staffturnover was as high as 40 per cent in someof these centres. This was not a recipe forsatisfied staff or customers and reflects poorlyon the term of the former Laboradministration. Accordingly, I asked the

Director-General of Transport to restructure thecustomer service centre aspects of thedepartment to recognise staff and to ensurethat they have the appropriate mix of skills,support and attitude to perform an improvedbusiness of providing Government service toclients.

To this end, there is an exercise underway of centre structures which will lead toappropriate pay levels to reflect the skillsrequired of the job, position descriptions whichwill reflect the complexity of the job and theknowledge and skills required to perform it,and ongoing training which will enable staff toimprove existing skills and to develop newskills and feel important in the place in whichthey work. I am sure that all honourablemembers are aware of the dedication andhard work of the staff of Queensland Transportcustomer service centres and would supportany moves which would help them to enhancethe service that they provide.

From an industrial relations viewpoint, theoutcome of all of this will be vastly improvedstaff morale and training, which willundoubtedly lead to more accurate adviceprovided to customers in a more timely andcost-effective manner. The proposals whichare included in this package have beenaccepted by the relevant union as being anacceptable way of addressing staff issues.Again I point out that the $3.60 per vehicle isa reasonable adjustment to improve theaccuracy of information provided to customers,the level of service provided and staff morale. Iask the House to consider the costs to theState economy of unexpected closures ofcustomer service centres, bearing in mind thatmuch of the business transacted is to meetregulatory requirements and contributessubstantially to State revenues and theGovernment's ability to fund key roadprograms. The honourable member forCapalaba was aware of many of these issueswhen he was the Minister for Transport and,as I have pointed out, the Labor Governmentof which he was a member proposed toundertake many of these actions itself. I donot expect that any of these initiatives wouldbe less expensive with another party in power.

The House needs to be aware that thereis an expectation of the Government and thePublic Service that service will be provided tocustomers in such a way as to provide valuefor money. There is an expectation thatservices will be delivered where people livearound the State, that people will havechoices of how and where they do businessand of how they can pay. People rightlyexpect that the advice they are given is correct


and accurate and presented in a courteousand understanding manner. Consumersexpect that they will be protected from illegalor unscrupulous activities, and theGovernment has an opportunity to providesuch protection at minimal cost. I believe thatthe people of Queensland expect this or anyGovernment to participate nationally,particularly where the outcomes are of benefitto all parties. It is considered that all of thesethings are achievable, and as Minister I haveensured that there is a strategic direction toachieve them.

I cannot stress enough that, while anincrease is unwelcome, $3.60 per vehicle isconsidered to be—

Mr Elder: It's a modest tax.Mr JOHNSON:—a reasonable amount

to pay to achieve all the benefits which I haveoutlined. I think that the honourable memberfor Capalaba—and I note that his good friendthe honourable member for Ipswich has nowentered the Chamber; it doesn't take long todraw the crabs—is perhaps being a little silly inmoving this motion, as I am sure that he toowould have liked to put these initiatives inplace if he were still the Minister. I am not sureof the motives of the honourable member forCapalaba in moving this motion. I haveoutlined the service benefits to over 2 millioncustomers, the customer protection benefits toall Queenslanders and the improvements torevenue to the State. I have spoken on theneed for efficient transport managementprocesses for motor vehicle registration andlicensing. Surely the honourable member isnot opposed to any of these.

Earlier, I suggested that it was ironic thatthe Deputy Opposition Leader should opposethis package. I find it especially ironic when infact in 1994 the Goss LaborGovernment—and my colleagues should listento this one—imposed a $10 motor vehicleregistration increase on all Queensland ownersover and above the year's increase in theconsumer price index.

Mr Elder: What for?

Mr JOHNSON: For the very samereasons. I understand that some of this extrarevenue raised was used to fund activitiesunrelated to the needs of Queenslandmotorists. In contrast, I guarantee that thefunds raised from this "modest" increase—does that please the member—will be used todirectly and immediately improve services tomotorists as I have outlined. Queensland'smotor vehicle registration fees will be between$66 and $172 per annum lower than those forNew South Wales. Members also need to

consider that Queensland remains the onlyState which does not—— Mr Elder: $70 on average more thisyear.

Mr JOHNSON: Maybe so; I do not denythat. But we inherited that problem, too. TheLabor Government walked out the door andleft us with that problem, and the memberknows that perfectly well. He can yike all helikes, but he is going to have to wear it. OtherStates may attempt to lay claim to lowerregistration fees but, when fuel levies ofbetween 6.1c and 9.7c per litre are taken intoconsideration, Queensland remains the lowestcost State in which to register and drive avehicle. I therefore ask the members of thisChamber to reject the motion of disallowanceas moved by the honourable member forCapalaba.

I thank honourable members for theircontributions. There are a couple of membersI want to refer to.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCapalaba!

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, thank youfor your protection.

Mr Hamill: You need it.

Mr JOHNSON: I am terribly frightenedof the member for Capalaba and his mate themember for Ipswich, Mr Speaker, as you cansee!

This is not a new tax, as the honourablemember for Capalaba claimed. He said that itis a cheap attempt to raise revenue. It is not. Itis about correcting something that this blokeopposite did not have the intestinal fortitude tomake a management practice.

The honourable member for Sandgate,who is not in the Chamber, raised a couple ofvery important issues. His contribution wasquite constructive in comparison with those ofother members opposite. He expressed thehope that there will be an improvement incustomer service centres. I can assure thehonourable member for Sandgate that therewill be improvements in customer servicecentres. That is the objective of this exercise.

Mr Elder: No, it is not; it is nationaluniformity.

Mr JOHNSON: No, this is catch-up timebecause members opposite would notimplement these measures. We are doing thisfor the workers in QT. We are improving theirwork conditions—something that the formerMinister turned his back on. And he claims torepresent the workers!

4456 WorkCover Queensland Bill 27 Nov 1996

The honourable member for Sandgateasked whether there will be more customerservice centres. It is obvious that as thepopulation in this State grows and as citiesgrow there will certainly be more customerservice centres. Nobody can deny that.

The member for Toowoomba Northmentioned that the stress levels of staff wentup under Labor. Under this new program, wewill be bringing stress levels down.

The member for Bundaberg referred tomore inspectors. That was another very goodpoint. I can assure the honourable member forBundaberg that there will not be cutbacks inthe number of inspectors. That is a matter thatwe are going to address and one that themember very rightfully brought to the fore. Healso mentioned the fraud that occurred atMaroochydore. We are well aware of that, andwe are well aware that these things occur fromtime to time in the staff of any organisation.No member of this House condones suchactivity, and I thank the honourable memberfor his input in that regard.

The member for Currumbin mentionedthe problems experienced at the BurleighHeads customer service centre. The topic ofwheelchair access was also raised during thedebate. These are very valid issues, and wehave taken them on board.

The member for Archerfield claimed that ifthe Opposition were in Government none ofthese impositions would be placed on thepeople of Queensland. May I say that thecurrent problems in Queensland Transport andthe customer service centres came aboutbecause the former Minister, the member forCapalaba, would not stand up and becounted.

Time expired.Question—That the motion be agreed

to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 42—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, GossW. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott,McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn,Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Rose,Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford,Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

NOES, 42—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs,Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke,Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan,Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson,Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll

Pairs: Connor, Edmond; Harper, Robertson

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

Resolved in the negative .

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND BILL

Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Ministerfor Training and Industrial Relations)(3.06 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to provide for the workers'compensation scheme and for othermatters."

Motion agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER read a message from HerExcellency the Governor recommending thenecessary appropriation.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Ministerfor Training and Industrial Relations)(3.07 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

The WorkCover Queensland Billintroduces a wide range of reform measures toworkers' compensation in Queensland toaddress financial, regulatory and operationaldifficulties identified by the Kennedy Inquiryinto Workers' Compensation and RelatedMatters in Queensland. Its introduction seesthe effective implementation of 73 of the 79recommendations of the Kennedy inquiry.

As I previously stated in this House, oneof the first initiatives of this Government upontaking office was to establish a wide-rangingand independent review of the workers'compensation system in this State. The inquirywas the first of its type in Queensland andrepresented a concerted effort by theGovernment to address the legacy of Labor'sneglect. It also demonstrated theGovernment's commitment to re-create aworkers' compensation system which wouldmeet Queensland's current and future needs.

The process undertaken by Mr Kennedyin arriving at his cohesive package of 79recommendations was extensive in terms ofthe groups and individuals consulted. Inpresenting his report, Mr Kennedy said therewere "no easy solutions or quick fixes"

27 Nov 1996 WorkCover Queensland Bill 4457

regarding the changes that are needed. Hesaid—

"The recommendations in this Reportwill require all sectors of the community toaccept some compromises. They shouldbe accepted as a complete package."

The inquiry established beyond all doubtthat the Workers Compensation Fund was inserious financial trouble. In fact, one ofAustralia's best-known actuaries told theinquiry that the fund is "out of control", mainlyas a result of the deteriorating common lawexperience over quite a period.

Some of the most contentious Kennedyrecommendations were the introduction of a15 per cent impairment threshold foraccessing damages at common law, theabolition of recess and journey claims, and theimposition of a 42-day irrevocable election toeither accept a statutory lump sum or proceedto common law. The introduction of athreshold for access to common law is not newto workers' compensation. Queensland will beone of the few remaining jurisdictions in theworld allowing all injured workers the right toseek common law damages regardless of thedegree of impairment.

The Goss Labor Government's workers'compensation reform options, released fordiscussion in August 1995, contained a muchhigher threshold than that recommended byJim Kennedy. Those opposite philosophicallysupported a common law threshold then, andtheir views are not likely to have changed. Thereason they failed to implement a threshold toaccess common law was because theybuckled under in the face of pressure fromtheir mates in the unions. They were forced tointroduce a weak form of disincentive to initiatecommon law actions. Honourable membersand all Queenslanders should recall that it wasa Labor Government which first touchedcommon law rights for Queensland workers. Itwill be interesting to observe their level ofsupport for the WorkCover Queensland Bill1996, particularly given their own position in1995.

The utter failure by Labor in 1995 toadequately address the ballooning financialproblems faced by the fund, when they notonly had the facts, which they kept hiddenfrom the electorate and this Government, butalso a majority in this House, will, in time, beshown to have been against the long-termbest interests of workers. They had thecapacity to act but did not. In years to come,the price of this inaction will have to be paid inone form or another by the workers of thisState.

As I have indicated previously in thisHouse, Mr Kennedy believed that his reformmeasures offered a fair, humane and prudentapproach to benefits available to injuredworkers. He asserted that they would havehad access to the most balanced andequitable system of statutory "no fault"benefits and common law rights in Australia.Honourable members would be aware that onFriday, 1 November, the honourable memberfor Gladstone advised the House of herposition on the reforms proposed by JimKennedy. The honourable member said shewill not support the introduction of a thresholdfor access to common law, the abolition ofjourney and recess claims, or changes toLabor's 20 per cent irrevocable election.Honourable members would also recall that Iadvised the House in a ministerial statementon 13 November of the Government's positionas a consequence of the Independentmember for Gladstone's position.

This Bill reflects that position. The draftingof the Bill to accommodate these changeswas a realistic and responsible move by thisGovernment, given the complexity of thelegislation. To have introduced a Bill whichincluded those particular recommendationsonly to have it amended on the floor ofParliament would have run a significant risk oftechnically flawed legislation being passed.

As a consequence of the non-implementation of these recommendations,which I would point out are already in place inmost other Australian jurisdictions, the likelyimpact of the remaining changes will not, in allprobability, be sufficient to arrest thehaemorrhaging of the fund resulting fromcommon law claims for mild injuries.

As I reported to the House on 13November, the savings identified by MrKennedy at $113m per year are, according tothe actuaries, now likely to amount to only$59m per year, of which the Government iscontributing $35m. The actuaries haveprojected that it is possible for full funding tobe achieved some time after June 2006, butonly if common law claims experiencestabilises at the 1 January 1996 levels.However, if the common law claims experiencedeteriorates by as little as a further 10 per centfrom the January 1996 levels, full funding willnever be achieved.

For the sake of so many Queenslanders,including not only those workers who areinjured in the future and their dependants, butalso those Queenslanders whose livelihooddepends on the ability of Queenslandbusiness to remain cost competitive and


continue to employ people in this State, Ihope the measures in this Bill will arrest oreven reverse the decline of the fund. It is theGovernment's view, however, that regrettablyMr Kennedy's reform package has beencompromised to the point where it will be acase of "too little—too late". If Labor had thecourage of their convictions and introduced athreshold on common law access 12 monthsago when they had the numbers and thedeficit was only $114m, Queensland would notnow be facing the current unfunded liability ofthree times that amount. We would by now bea good part of the way towards making up thedeficit and be just a few years away from fullfunding.

On 23 July, I informed honourablemembers of the appointment of animplementation task force to oversee theimplementation of the recommendations ofthe Kennedy inquiry. The implementation taskforce's role of urgently facilitating thepreparation of legislation for introduction to theHouse was largely completed four or fiveweeks ago. Since that time, certain decisionshave had to be taken by me to ensure the Billis in a form which will allow it to operateeffectively while securing its passage throughthe House.

While the majority of Mr Kennedy'srecommendations have been incorporated inthe Bill as they appeared in the report, theimplementation process identified the need forsome modifications. This was envisaged byCommissioner Kennedy when herecommended that a task force be given theonerous job of converting hisrecommendations into legislation. In addition,the drafting process has highlighted someissues causing operational difficulties, andamendments have been made to addressthese issues.

In transferring the existing legislativeprovisions to the new WorkCover QueenslandBill, those existing provisions that are beingretained have been rationalised in terms oftheir appropriate location in the Bill andmodern drafting practices. Although appearingsomewhat different in style and format, theintent of these provisions has not changed.

I shall now outline issues of particularnote. As I have said, some of CommissionerKennedy's recommendations needed to bemodified following closer examination of theoperational implications by the implementationtask force. These include the following.

Firstly, a less prescriptive approach to thecomposition of the board of WorkCoverQueensland has been taken for a number of

reasons. Treasury has advised that it is notusual practice under GOC legislation to definethe specific skills for board members and thetask force felt that listing appropriatequalifications might be restrictive.

In his report Mr Kennedy discussed theneed to have a seven to nine member board,however Recommendation 9 of the reportnominated a nine member board. Thelegislation has been prepared to provide forthe board of WorkCover Queensland to have"at least 7 members", as it was considered thisprovided for both options.

Secondly, Mr Kennedy recommendedthat the board of WorkCover Queenslandhave the authority to set premiums andbenefits, subject to direction in writing by theMinister. The Bill continues the existingposition whereby the benefits structure iscontained in the primary legislation, while theprocess for the regulation of premiums hasbeen drafted to include provisions requiringthe board of WorkCover Queensland to advisethe Minister of any proposed changes topremium rates. The Minister has the power todirect the board to act differently. The boardcan also make recommendations to theMinister for changes to benefits. This hasbeen implemented in such a way as to ensurefull transparency to remove politicalinterference while preserving the integrity anddegree of accountability of the board. As such,ministerial directives must be gazetted within21 days and tabled in the Parliament within 14sitting days.

The board is also required to give a noticein writing to the Minister and the Auditor-General if it considers that a ministerialdirective will compromise the viability of thefund. This notice must also be gazetted andtabled by the Minister, but a reserve powervests with the Minister.

A number of issues were also raised byMr Kennedy in his report as needing attentionbut he made no specific recommendationregarding them. I shall now address theseissues.

Firstly, fraud provisions have beenamended to address some issues resultingfrom court cases which have limited theeffective investigation, prosecution andprevention of fraudulent activities. Penalties forfraud have been increased to reflect theconcern raised by Mr Kennedy in his reportand the serious way in which this Governmentviews fraud against the fund.

Secondly, new review processes for bothworkers and employers and new appealprocesses, including the introduction of


provisions for employers to appeal againstadministrative decisions relating to claims,have been incorporated in the Bill. This willformalise current administrative reviewmechanisms and provide a fair means bywhich injured workers' and employers'concerns can be addressed.

Thirdly, provision has been introducedwhereby claims experience will be carried overwhen business ownership changes, in order toimprove premium compliance and enhanceequity in the premium system.

I now turn to some of the key features ofthe Bill.

Definition of "worker"

The current definition of worker hascreated confusion for many years for bothemployers and employees in understandingtheir obligation and coverage under thelegislation. This confusion has resulted in thefailure by some employers to correctly declarewages for premium purposes. The newdefinition should overcome these problemsand provide a strong incentive for compliance.The Bill defines a worker to be an employeewho pays pay as you earn, or PAYE, tax. Thedefinition makes provision for low incomeearners who do not pay PAYE instalmentssimply because their income is below the taxfree threshold. Allowance has also been madefor new employees who are to be PAYEtaxpayers but have not in fact had taxdeducted from their pay, for the simple reasonthat they have not yet been paid.

The majority of people in employment arePAYE taxpayers. Most people who work oremploy people outside the PAYE tax systemdo so by choice because of other benefits thataccrue to themselves. This includes not onlythe prescribed payments tax system, but also"black money" or cash-in-the-handarrangements. It is the intention of thelegislation, in line with the recommendations ofthe Kennedy inquiry, that where employeesand employers willingly and knowingly enterinto such arrangements for whatever reason orperceived benefit, and are thereby outside thedefinition of worker, cover will not be providedby WorkCover Queensland. By that I meanprovision of benefits to the employee orinsurance cover to the employer for statutorybenefits and common law damages. However,situations may arise where persons areworking in non-PAYE taxation arrangementsthat are in contravention of the taxation lawsas a result of genuinely not having a properunderstanding of their taxation obligations.Examples might be minors or intellectuallyimpaired persons.

It is the intention of the Government thata claim from such a person would beconsidered by WorkCover Queensland on thegrounds that the employee should have beena PAYE taxpayer at the time of the injury. Theclaimant will be required to provide evidencethat they have applied to the TaxationCommissioner for a ruling as to whether theyshould have been taxed under the PAYEsystem for work performed at the time of theinjury. As a ruling from the TaxationCommissioner may take some time,WorkCover Queensland may, if it considersthe circumstances appropriate, pay theclaimant compensation in advance.

If the Taxation Commissioner subsequentlyadvises that the claimant should have beentaxed under the PAYE system at the time ofthe injury, WorkCover Queensland will seek torecover premium and associated penaltiesfrom the claimant's employer. If, on the otherhand, the Taxation Commissioner confirmsthat the claimant should not have been aPAYE taxpayer, WorkCover Queenslandretains the right to recover any compensationpayments made to or on behalf of theclaimant.

The current definition of "injury" requiresthat employment be "a significant contributingfactor" to the injury. By requiring employmentto be "the major significant contributing factor"causing the injury, the legislation will excludethose injuries which have only a minimal work-related component. The new definition willrequire the link between employment and theinjury to be stronger. This is intended toensure that employers are held liable only tothe extent that their employment of the workercontributed to the injury, or aggravation oracceleration of a pre-existing non-work relatedcondition. The provisions relating to thedefinition of injury for psychiatric orpsychological conditions have beenstrengthened in response to an increasingnumber of claims where reasonablemanagement action, for example remedialaction regarding a worker's poor workperformance, has been the stimulus for theworker lodging a claim.

Amendments to the definition of "injury"were introduced in January 1996 in an attemptto control this trend. However, under theseamendments, employers have still been heldresponsible for claims where reasonablemanagement action had been taken. This isconsidered to be inappropriate, especiallywhen a worker may have a pre-existingdisposition to psychiatric or psychologicaldisorder. It is intended that regard be had,when making a decision about the


reasonableness of the management action,as to how a worker of ordinary susceptibilitywould have reacted. A "reasonable persontest" has also been introduced so thatconsideration must be given to whether areasonable person in the same situation wouldhave been expected to sustain an injury.

Difficulties with the current premium ratingsystem and the option for eligible employers toself-insure their workers' compensation liabilitywere analysed by the Kennedy inquiry. Inaddition, Mr Kennedy recommended thecurrent merit bonus system be replaced by anexperience-based premium rating system. Theexperience rating system will apply an industryrate which is adjusted by the employer's claimsexperience. Prevention incentives will bestrong, with the impact of improvedperformance directly reflected in the premiumto be paid. The experience rating system willalso address some of the difficulties whichhave been encountered with the currentsystem of setting premiums. In particular,where employers have more than onebusiness activity operating from the sameworkplace, the premium rate currently appliedis that of the business activity with the highestrate. Under the experience rating system, theemployer's premium will, over time, relate tothe individual claims experience at thatworkplace.

It should be noted that the experiencerating system will have the effect of continuallypenalising poorly performing employers andcontinually rewarding good employers.Because the experience adjustment isweighted by the size of the employer, themajor effect of experience rating will be felt bypoorly performing larger employers. Thefinancial modelling required to implement thenew premium system is yet to be undertaken.Extensive consultation will occur with employerorganisations throughout this process toensure that a relatively seamless transfer tothe new system occurs, without significantfluctuation in premium levels.

The inquiry recommended that largeremployers be able to self-insure within theirown system or within their own pool on thecentral system, provided adequate eligibilitycriteria are met. The Bill also provides for self-rating. Licensed self-insurers will carry out thefunctions of workers' compensation for theirworkers in both the statutory and common lawclaims areas. Similarly, registered self-ratingemployers may be provided with somefunctions, powers and roles of WorkCoverQueensland to carry out statutory claimsservices for their workers. The Governmentexpects to implement the new premium

systems, including the new definition of"worker" from the start of the next financialyear, to coincide with the expiry of currentinsurance contracts.

Cover for journey claims has beenmodified from the total abolitionrecommended by Mr Kennedy to a restrictedcover. Cover will no longer be provided forinjuries occurring in the home, or where theworker was under the influence of alcohol ordrugs, or where the worker failed to takereasonable care for the worker's own safety, orwhere the worker contravenes the Traffic Act, ifthe contravention is the major significant factorcausing the injury.

The Bill provides for a new statutorybenefit to a maximum of $150,000 forgratuitous care provided to a seriously injuredworker. This lump sum payment under thefault free statutory system will be paid when aworker's impairment is stable and stationary asa once-off lump sum, based on a set scale,related to the levels of work-related impairmentand dependency. The benefit will be availableto those injured workers with 50 per cent ormore work-related impairment and who have amoderate to total level of dependency on day-to-day care for the fundamental activities ofdaily living. The implementation task forcedetermined that a work-related impairment of50 per cent should be used instead of the 15per cent level recommended by Jim Kennedy.

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer awards are namedafter the 1977 case of that name, whichestablished that nursing/caring servicesprovided gratuitously by friends or family maybe compensated by damages representingthe value of the services rendered. The Billabolishes common law damages awards forgratuitous services.

The Bill makes changes to the law withrespect to common law damages awards tostrengthen workers' obligations for their ownsafety in employment. For the first time, adefinition of contributory negligence has beenincluded in Queensland's workers'compensation legislation. This is intended toplace a more equal share of the responsibilityon employees to take appropriate steps toensure their own health and safety at theworkplace and to complement existingresponsibilities placed on employers.Commissioner Kennedy identified a trend overrecent years for courts to make decisionswhich place less emphasis on an employee'sown negligence and more onerous duties onemployers. This legislation is intended tocorrect this trend and make workersresponsible for their own negligence by


removing the inappropriate liability placed onemployers by the courts. The legislationrequires that the courts must make a finding ofcontributory negligence where the injurysustained by the worker was caused orcontributed to by one or more of thecircumstances mentioned in the legislation.The court must reduce the award of damagesby at least 25 per cent for each applicablecircumstance.

The Bill contains measures to ensure thatfraud against the Workers CompensationScheme can be more effectively targeted andminimised. To reflect the seriousness ofworkers' compensation fraud, and to act as areal deterrent, the Bill contains a maximumpenalty for workers' compensation fraud of400 penalty units or 18 months' imprisonment.This is an increase from the maximum underthe current Act of 200 penalty units or 12months' imprisonment. In addition tostrengthening the consequences for personswho are convicted of fraud against theWorkers Compensation Scheme, the Billcontains other major initiatives relating to fraudincluding—

formal information sharing arrangementswith the Queensland Police Service;

provision of power to obtain informationfrom persons with respect to offences;

legislating a duty to report fraud;the inclusion of a definition of "calling";and

allowing the recovery of costs associatedwith investigation of proven offences.

The Bill provides for the cessation of aperson's entitlement to statutorycompensation or damages for an injury if theperson is convicted of committing orattempting to commit relevant fraud or relatedoffences under the Criminal Code. Also, if it isproved that the person obtained payment forcompensation or damages by conduct that isan offence, then restitution plus costs must beawarded against the person.

The Bill introduces a formal reviewmechanism for employers, claimants andworkers. The intent of the review process is toprovide an efficient and cost-effective systemwhereby employers, claimants or workers mayapply to WorkCover Queensland to havedecisions reviewed, instead of relying only onthe legal system. It is designed to provide atimely review of the decision and, in manycases, resolution of the dispute. It specifies asystem of formal review by WorkCoverQueensland and retains a continuing right tobe heard by an industrial magistrate and the

Industrial Court. The Bill introduces, for the firsttime, a right for employers to appeal decisionsmade in relation to claims against theirpolicies.

Mr Kennedy recommended a completerestructuring of the Workers CompensationBoard and the organisation responsible for thedelivery of workers' compensation insurance inQueensland. This Bill establishes WorkCoverQueensland as an independent statutory bodythat will replace the Workers CompensationBoard. WorkCover Queensland will beresponsible for delivering workers'compensation insurance in a commercialmanner and enforcing the new legislation.

One of the major advantages of replacingthe tripartite Workers Compensation Boardwith the corporate body WorkCoverQueensland is the creation of a board ofdirectors who are fully accountable forWorkCover Queensland's commercialperformance and responsibility for overseeingthe enforcement of its regulatory responsibility.It will also remove the scope for hiddenpolitical interference by requiring anyGovernment intervention in WorkCoverQueensland's commercial operations to bemade fully transparent.

The organisation will also be freed fromthe bureaucratic structure of the Public Serviceto allow it to serve its clients as an efficient,customer-focused commercial organisation. Allstaff of the Division of Workers Compensationare to be transferred to WorkCoverQueensland on the same conditions ofemployment, including salary, and with fullretention of accrued entitlements. Transferredstaff will also have the right to transfer orredeploy to a position, and appeal against anappointment, within the Public Service, forthree years after transfer.

In conclusion, I wish to place on recordmy appreciation to the many people who havecontributed in a significant way to thepreparation of this Bill. Special thanks areextended to Mr Jim Kennedy and his advisoryboard for the professional and thoroughconduct of the inquiry into the workers'compensation system of Queensland. Alsosincere thanks to the implementation taskforce, led by Mr Des Knight, for helping totranslate the recommendations of JimKennedy's report into workable legislativeprovisions. Thank you also to the hundreds ofpeople who, on behalf of their variousorganisations—employer and employeeorganisations in particular—made submissionsto the inquiry and subsequently toGovernment. I also thank the dozens of

4462 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Nov 1996

dedicated professionals with the Division ofWorkers Compensation of my department forthe superlative and outstanding drafting effortsover a period of almost five months. I amgrateful for their unselfish and dedicatedcommitment to the task I set them. Inparticular, I mention the efforts of my director-general, Mr Col Thatcher, and the seniordivisional officers, John Hastie, Kath Woodsand Rhonda Pashen, who provided leadershipto some of the best professional publicservants with whom I have had the pleasure tobe associated. Last but not least, I wish tothank my personal and ministerial staff and, inparticular, my senior ministerial adviser, ClivePrescott, for service well and truly above thenormal call of duty.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill, on motion of Mr Braddy, adjourned.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 13 November (see

p. 4004).

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (3.31 p.m.): Let mebegin by saying that the speed managementstrategy, which was initiated by the previousGovernment, has the full support of those onthis side of the House. Speed kills too manyQueenslanders and it is incumbent uponGovernments of any persuasion to do all theycan to support measures to lessen or preventthis dreadful carnage.

I congratulate the Minister on adding tothe work that has been done—work that wasinitiated whilst I was the Minister for Transport.The Minister has said that speed cameras arean important part of that speed managementstrategy. As I have said many times, I am notopposed to the introduction of speed camerasbut I have substantial concerns about the wayin which this Government has gone about theirintroduction. I will return to speed cameras alittle later.

Firstly, I welcome the funding that thisGovernment announced recently for researchinto the prevention, treatment andrehabilitation of motor vehicle accident victims.The Treasurer announced that funding will begiven to the Queensland University ofTechnology, the University of SouthernQueensland, the University of CentralQueensland and the James Cook Universityfor a variety of projects. That funding comesfrom the Motor Accident InsuranceCommission and follows similar grants that

were made by the previous LaborGovernment. It is good to see this initiativebeing continued. I am sure that that funding iswelcomed by all concerned, including theMinister, who I know is very passionate andconcerned about road safety.

However, it concerns me that the Ministerneeds to do more to educate his Cabinetcolleagues, in particular the Treasurer. No, Iam not referring to the need for her to adhereto the speed management strategy and topay her speeding fines; rather, I am referringto her astonishing criticism of her Cabinetcolleague the Minister for Transport and MainRoads in her press release of 18 November, acopy of which I will table for the information ofthe House. In terms of that $1.475mcontribution to those four universities, in herpress release the Treasurer claimed thatQueensland lacks a pivotal organisation forthe development and coordination of acomprehensive road strategy. Let me repeatthose comments for the information of thoseopposite, in particular, the Minister who justmay have missed this on the way throughwhen the Treasurer was sent out to presentthis money for those programs. The Treasurersaid that Queensland lacks a pivotalorganisation for the development andcoordination of a comprehensive roadstrategy.

Members would recall that yesterday theMinister said that the road strategy that is inplace is second to none. I happen to agreethat we do have a good strategy in place. Iwas aware of it when I was the Minister forTransport, and I can say that we do have agood strategy in place.

The Treasurer's comments are anappalling attack on the Division of LandTransport and Safety in the Department ofTransport, which is so capably led by thedirector, Mr Paul Blake—and I see hispresence today in the lobby to advise theMinister—and which works very closely with thePolice Service. Under successiveGovernments, National, Labor and coalition,this team, led by Paul Blake, has consistentlysought to reduce the road toll. Over the past15 years, that team has made Queensland'saccident prevention strategies some of thebest in this country.

The Treasurer's comments are aninexcusable attack on this particular divisionand on the Minister. I have disagreed stronglywith a number of changes that have beeninitiated by this Minister for Transport, and Ihave said so publicly and in this place timeand time again. However, I am more than

27 Nov 1996 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 4463

happy to stand in this place and place onrecord my acknowledgment of the Minister'sgenuine commitment to road safety issues. Iassure him that he continues to have thesupport of the Opposition for the work that heis doing in relation to road safety, even if thatwork is not recognised by the Deputy Premieror his Cabinet colleagues.

The Treasurer's attack is a disgracefuldisplay of ignorance of the real work that isbeing done by the Minister and hisdepartment. While the Minister and hisdepartment are trying to save lives, theTreasurer is trying to score cheap politicalpoints.

Mr Ardill: And succeeding.Mr ELDER: Yes, she is succeeding. I

am not sure whether the Minister was aware ofthat attack by the Treasurer. For hisinformation, I will table that press release sothat he is aware of what his colleagues are upto out there in the marketplace. As I said, it isa disgraceful display of ignorance by theTreasurer.

I trust that the Minister has alreadyreceived an apology for this slight. However, ifhe has not, then if I were him I would call theTreasurer and seek an apology on behalf ofhimself and those dedicated and talented staffmembers of both the Land Transport andSafety Division and the Police Service. If theMinister has not done that, then he is derelictin his duty. I notice that at the moment themember for Gladstone is talking to theMinister, and I know why. However, I say tohim that, if he has not spoken to theTreasurer, he is being derelict in his duty. Heshould ring the Treasurer and receive anapology for those people who work in both ofthose departments.

It surprises me that the Treasurer of thisState would have such ignorance of the workthat goes on within the Department ofTransport, particularly the Land Transport andSafety Division, and the Police Service inrelation to these programs. They are some ofthe best in Australia and for the Treasurer tomake that comment publicly is reallyinexcusable. The Minister should take theTreasurer to task and seek an apology forhimself and for the two departments.

Mr Palaszczuk: What did she sayagain?

Mr ELDER: I will say it again. I willreinforce the point for the member for Inala sothat he understands where the Treasurer inthis State is coming from and her lack ofknowledge of what is happening across

departments. She stated that Queenslandcurrently lacks a pivotal organisation for thedevelopment and coordination of acomprehensive road safety strategy. How illinformed can a Deputy Premier of this Statebe?

In his second-reading speech, theMinister cited a fine example of the success ofhis team when he referred to the substantialreduction in alcohol-related road crashes overrecent years. That came about through acombination of education and effectiveenforcement techniques. Many similartechniques will be applied in the fight againstspeed on our roads. I support the Minister'sefforts in that fight.

As the Minister outlined, the provisions ofthe Bill are essentially mechanical or technicalin nature. They do not directly involve thecentral planks or strategies of the speedmanagement strategy. Rather, they are aboutchanges which will make it easier for speedcameras to operate, and the Opposition doesnot dispute the necessity for those changes toallow the cameras to operate optimally. Theexpansion of the range of offences to includeany offence under a Transport portfolio Actshould mean no more than that peoplecommitting offences are likely to be detected. Isupport that. Reducing the driving ofunregistered vehicles or vehicles with anobvious safety defect will have a beneficialimpact on road safety.

I admit that the proposals for the liabilitiesfor camera-detected offences and therequirement to nominate a responsibleoperator for a registered vehicle are notperfect. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committeehas raised concerns about the onus of proofand the reversal of the onus of proof, which isimplicit in this Bill. However, in terms of theright outcome, I think that that is probablysomething that we should tolerate. Certainly, itis not what one would be looking for generallyin legislation. However, in this case it isnecessary and, as the committee said, it hasleft it to the Parliament to debate. I believethat those who have nothing to hide and whoare not breaking the law should have noconcerns about the reversal of the onus ofproof in terms of this particular piece oflegislation.

The requirement to nominate aresponsible operator for a registered vehicle isnot perfect. There are potential loopholes, butthey are only small. It would serve no purpose,other than to encourage the exploitation ofsuch loopholes, to go into any great detailabout them in this debate. I will not do that.


We are all aware of the loopholes and I will notgive anybody the opportunity to exploit themthrough reading the debates of the House.

However, I will highlight the ability of thewealthy to avoid demerit points by having acorporation own the vehicle they drive. Thecorporation simply pays five times the penaltyrather than the individual running the risk oflosing his or her licence. I have no doubt thatfurther problems will emerge. I am not surethat there is an easy way through that.Perhaps the only way to deal with thatproblem is to penalise offenders heavily. Thatloophole would provide an opportunity forpeople with independent wealth to be able toavoid fines.

I suspect that, in a legislative sense, allthe Minister can do is to try to ensure thatpeople abide by lawful provisions in the State.I have no doubt that further problems willemerge as the legislation is applied. I hopethat the Minister will keep that area underclose review. I hope that he will be ready tomake alterations to the legislation if and whennecessary. If he sees abuse continuing and ifhe sees that loopholes are being used, I hopethat he will intervene very quickly to reduce theimpact on law-abiding Queenslanders and toensure that those who use loopholes arebrought to justice.

Although the existing provisions are notperfect, the Minister has done a reasonablejob in presenting a package that can work andthe Opposition will support it. However, I willmove some amendments in the Committeestage of the Bill, but I will speak about themlater.

Our major concerns relate to thecircumstances under which the decision tointroduce speed cameras was taken and thepressure that will be exerted within the system.With the introduction of this type of speedmanagement approach, it is always a problemthat pressure will be exerted to maximiserevenue returns from the use of speedcameras. I am concerned that, althoughCabinet originally decided not to support theintroduction of speed cameras when theconsideration of speed safety was put forwardby the Minister for Transport and Main Roads,when it became a revenue matter Cabinetmembers took a different view. It is one thingto introduce legislation for the purpose of roadsafety, but it was only when the broaderfinancial picture and the revenue-raisingcapabilities of speed cameras were recognisedthat the proposal received Cabinetendorsement. I am concerned that early nextyear, after the speed management audit is

finished—and I understand that it is drawing tocompletion now—the Government will looktowards introducing speed cameras on Statedeclared roads where the Minister hasresponsibility at this stage. Once negotiationswith local governments to look at the broaderspeed management strategy are completed,my concern is that the revenue raisingsupporters in Cabinet will override anyconsiderations the Minister may have for roadsafety and this then becomes a cash cow.Speed cameras then end up in local suburbs,at the bottom of hills and hidden behindbushes, thus becoming straight revenueraisers. From day one that has been aconcern of mine in relation to the introductionof speed cameras.

The concerns I had as Minister weresimilar. I was concerned that the technologyflaws that were evident in systems being usedinterstate were not replicated in Queensland. Idid not want to see cases such as that of ayoung Victorian mother who was booked onher way to preschool and on her way home.She was then booked on her way to schoolwith her older children, and on the way homeshe was hit again. Later in the day, she wasbooked on her way to the shops—and in thelobby I can see Mr Blake nodding. On her wayhome, she was again booked. The speedcameras remained in the same position for thewhole day, so what I am about to say shouldbe evident. Later in the day when the womanrepeated her first two trips, she was bookedagain. In the space of eight hours, onlyexceeding the speed limit by just over 10kilometres per hour, she lost her licence andreceived an horrendous fine.

I would hate to think that that could bethe ultimate experience for Queenslanderswhen speed cameras are introduced. Icontinually spoke to the department about thismatter and it is a concern that I continuallyreinforced. Speed cameras must be used forthe purpose as outlined by the Minister, andmust not be used beyond that purpose.Problems arise when the Treasurer of theState and others look at the introduction ofspeed cameras. I know that the TravelsafeCommittee even spoke about using speedcameras in suburban streets, because that isthe type of response they received from thecommunities that they spoke to. That is great,except that it has an impact. At the end of theday the impact is on Queenslanders who areon the road system and who do not abuse it.They are not travelling at 25 kilometres perhour over the limit; they are not driving downthe Sunshine Motorway to Brisbane. They aretravelling to and from preschools, work, and


the local shops. They are only just exceedingthe limit, but the speed camera makes noexception.

There is no discretion with a speedcamera. There is no opportunity for someoneto get out and say, "We were on our way to aCabinet meeting." When they nail you, theynail you. Just as the legislation is written forred light cameras, once an offence has beencommitted, that is it. If faced with a similarsituation to the poor woman in Victoria, theoffender's licence will be lost. That concernsme, because the introduction of speedcameras then becomes a straight revenue-raising exercise. It is far too convenient forTreasury and the major central portfolios touse speed cameras for that purpose. Oncethe speed cameras are introduced, theMinister has to be diligent to ensure that theyare used for the right purposes. It is far tooeasy for them to be used to generate incomefor Treasury. Again, I will be movingamendments at the Committee stage that willhelp the Minister for Transport to eliminate thatprospect.

Given that the reason which tippedCabinet in favour of speed cameras, as I nowknow it, was their potential for raising revenue,it is easy to see from where the pressurewould come to ensure that revenue targetswere reached. The Minister will be set revenuetargets and he will be asked to meet them.Once it is known how much income can begenerated from speed cameras, revenuetargets will be set. Even though the Ministerwill have the cameras placed in sites for whathe believes are the right reasons, some siteswill not turn over a large enough profit andundoubtedly there will be pressure to find sitescapable of raising more revenue.

Just as night follows day, the Minister willput these cameras in the places that hebelieves are appropriate. Then the beancounters from Treasury will move in. They willpressure the department and take hold of theagenda. They will move the cameras to areascapable of generating greater revenue. I saythat for a simple reason. All the Minister has todo is read Budget Paper No. 2, which forecasta rise in revenue from traffic fines in thecurrent financial year from $31.6m to$46.6m—an increase of around $15m, or 47.5per cent. That Budget Paper said, in part, thatthat "primarily reflected the introduction of aspeed management strategy, including speedcameras, from early 1997 . . ." That is why Isay that generating revenue will become thebiggest motivation. Speed cameras willprovide virtually all of that increase of$15m—in less than six months. Some

cameras will operate for only three monthsbecause there is a targeted phase-in. Myconcern is that that will be just the beginning.

As I said earlier, what is demonstrated inBudget Paper No. 2 and illustrated by thosecomments is that Queensland motorists areset to become the milch cows for theGovernment. That may not be the Minister'soriginal intention, but it will certainly be theultimate outcome. We have seen massivehikes in registration fees and compulsory third-party insurance. In addition, we recentlydebated the imposition of a newadministration fee. The ridiculous oil and tyretaxes will have to be lumped in with theregistration fees, because there is no otherway of administering them. Now we will have asecond level of revenue collection—speedingfines. They will be the Government's cash cow.Increased speeding fines and the introductionof speed cameras will double revenue in a fullyear.

I ask the Minister to provide the Housewith a full-year revenue estimate for theoperation of the cameras in 1997-98. I do nothave that information at present. I know whatis stated in the Budget papers in relation tothe coming year. However, to ease myconcerns and those of members of theOpposition, I would be interested to see arevenue estimate for the operation of thecameras in 1997-98. In a sense, that estimateis available in the Treasurer's ForwardEstimates, but I would like to know what theMinister and his department believe the figurefor revenue collection will be for 1997-98.

I remind members of the House that allmembers on Estimates Committee B foundthat the introduction of speed cameras wasrevenue based rather than singularly aimed atroad safety.

Mr Johnson: I have never said that.

Mr ELDER: I am reminding the Minister.I know what the Minister said. The Ministershould listen to what I am saying today. I knowwhat the Minister believes in his heart ofhearts. I know what the Minister is trying toachieve, and that is no more or less than whatI tried to achieve, or was going to achieve, asMinister. I am trying to make the Ministeraware of the agendas within the centralagencies. Those agencies have an enormousimpact on budget management and incomegeneration. The Minister and I both know that.I remind the Minister and the House of thefindings of Estimates Committee B. It believedthat the introduction of speed cameras wasrevenue based rather than singularly aimed atimproving road safety. That is the issue that


the Minister has to deal with and debunk.Time will tell how strong the Minister is. That isthe belief in the general community and mybelief in relation to the role that centralagencies will play in respect of the introductionof speed cameras. That belief will be judgedagainst how speed cameras are introducedand used over the coming years.

I hate to say it, but that statement byEstimates Committee B is a shockingindictment on the Government. TheGovernment rejected speed cameras whenthe issue was based purely on road safety.We should remember the rhetoric of the pastwhen speed cameras were rejected when theirintroduction was based purely on improvingroad safety. However, the Government is nowembracing speed cameras; it needs themoney. That is a shocking indictment. I knowwhat the Minister thinks and believes.However, with respect to the presentation ofthis issue by the Government, both I and theOpposition see it entirely differently. We do notsee speed cameras as being introduced forthe reasons outlined by the Minister. Rather,we believe what Estimates Committee B andthe public believe, that is, the introduction ofspeed cameras is seen as being purely togenerate revenue.

The motorists of Queensland shouldquestion why they should have faith in thisGovernment to manage the speed cameraprogram, bearing in mind what I have justsaid. There is good reason for that. TheMinister will have the Treasurer of this Statesitting on his shoulder monitoring the income.

Mr Johnson: No.

Mr ELDER: I believe that to be thecase. Let us see whether I am proved wrong.As soon as the income drops a little, theTreasurer will be exerting pressure on theMinister to fix it. Earlier, I raised the pointabout moving the cameras to more profitablesites. We know what happens withinGovernment and departments.

Mr FitzGerald: Will you abolish themwhen you come in?

Mr ELDER: No. My belief is still thesame: speed cameras have a role to play indealing with black spot areas on Statedeclared roads where it is known that speed isa killer. I have said that consistently from dayone. I have always had a concern about howthe money raised by speed cameras will beused, and I will discuss that issue further in thedebate. I have always had a concern aboutcentral agencies and their looking to speedcameras as a cash cow. I am stating what isobvious. The Treasurer will be sitting on this

Minister's shoulder. If revenue from speedcameras drops, if not the Treasurer, the UnderSecretary of Treasury will be asking theMinister to fix it. That comes back to the pointthat I raised earlier about shifting speedcameras to more lucrative sites. Ultimately, ifthe Minister does not do that, hisdepartmental budget will be cut. That is alwaysthe last card that is played.

The Minister should resist that pressure. Iknow that the Minister's primary commitment isto road safety. He must monitor very carefullythe speed camera program to ensure thatrevenue raising does not take over as theprimary goal. I remind the Minister and hiscolleagues—particularly the Treasurer, who Ithink has no understanding of this issue andcertainly no understanding of the role that theMinister's department plays in road safety—ofthe history of speed cameras across the restof Australia. I also remind those who sit on theGovernment back bench about that history. Ifpeople want a hard lesson in history, theyshould go back and read about theintroduction of speed cameras in otherjurisdictions. The backlash against StateGovernments which took that step wasenormous. I remind members opposite of that.It is fine if the Minister introduces them for thereasons that have been stated. He should befirm in terms of guidance to the departmentand those who actually enforce them so thatthe cameras are used for the stated purpose.History has a tendency to repeat itself,particularly with respect to the introduction ofspeed cameras, especially if the publicbelieves that they have been introduced forthe primary reason of revenue raising.

This Bill is not about the guidelines for theuse of speed cameras; it is about allowingspeed cameras to operate efficiently andrectifying existing deficiencies in camera-detected offences under the currentlegislation. Despite our reservations, as I saidearlier in this debate the Opposition intends tosupport the Bill. I do say this, though: I haveconcerns about the revenue generated fromspeed cameras. I have always had concernsabout how central agencies would grasp acash cow like this one. We are talking aboutsignificant sums of money. An initial figure of$30m has been mentioned. But when thesecameras are fully operational across the State,they will generate tens and tens and tens ofmillions of dollars.

To support the Minister's view and tomake sure that at the end of the day he, hisdepartment and his division in particular meethis objectives in terms of the introduction ofspeed cameras, I intend to move an


amendment to clause 8 to hypothecate therevenue generated. If the Government has noconcerns with my arguments about this beinga revenue-generating exercise, it will acceptmy amendment. The amendment statessimply that money collected for penaltiesimposed for camera-detected offences inexcess of the administrative costs—and Irealise that there is an administrative cost withthe running of this particular program—will beused in two particular areas. I intend towithdraw the amendment currently beforemembers and present another amendment tothe House before we get to the Committeestage. That amendment will specify that themoney be used for: (1) road safety educationand awareness programs; (2) road accidentinjury rehabilitation programs; and (3) blackspot funding on State-declared roads. That isthe amendment I will move. If the Minister trulyhas worthy reasons for the introduction ofspeed cameras and if they are not to be seenas a revenue-generating exercise byQueenslanders, then this amendment is theguarantee. For me, this means that centralagencies such as Treasury do not touch thefunds that are generated and that they gostraight to the purposes for which speedcameras should be introduced.

I will not keep the House long in thedebate today because we will support thislegislation. We have the reservations that Ioutlined, but we will support the Bill. I willcirculate my amendment as soon as it hasbeen drawn up by Parliamentary Counsel.

Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (4.04 p.m.): Imust admit that I have to agree with themember for Capalaba: the introduction ofspeed cameras is certainly not a popularmove. But at the same time Governmentshave to take on a responsible role. I was amember of the Travelsafe Committee underthe chairmanship of the member forArcherfield. I can assure the House that thecommittee researched this matter thoroughly.It created a lot of debate within the committee.We feel that we put forward a very goodreport. I am pleased that at this stage onlythree of the 31 recommendations have notbeen adopted. I want to pay tribute to theLand Transport and Safety Division because ithas made a significant contribution and hasalways been of great assistance to theTravelsafe Committee.

The Minister has put great emphasis onthe safety of road workers and the speed limitsaround roadworks. I still see speed limit signsleft up at weekends when there are noroadworks being carried out. I hope that thepolice do not place a speed camera at a site

where no work is being undertaken but wheresomebody has forgotten to take down thespeed limit signs.

Last Easter was an exceptional period inour history of road safety in that there were nodeaths on Queensland roads. One of thefactors that the police put that down to is thatjust prior to Easter there was considerablediscussion on speed cameras and peoplegenerally thought that speed cameras were inoperation at that time. That was a greatdeterrent to a lot of motorists. I must admitthat I did quite bit of driving over Easter and Ifound that motorists were generally wellbehaved. The member for Capalabamentioned the mother in Victoria who gotcaught for speeding several times. I would notthink that a mother taking children to schoolwould want to speed, but I guess the fact isthat some mothers do speed even thoughtheir children are in the car.

The fact is that speed cameras are goingto be a great deterrent. On the subject ofsuburban streets—I live in a street that has aspeed limit of 40 kilometres an hour. Thepolice tell me that when they do have a radarin my street they catch motorists doing inexcess of 100 kilometres an hour when thereis a 40 kilometre an hour speed limit. Thesooner the local authorities have their speedreview, the better off a lot of people will be,especially where there are schools on, say,arterial roads where motorists completelyignore the school signs and the speed limitsigns.

The introduction of speed cameras is acourageous and very responsible move by theMinister. During January and February thecameras will be in operation but in a trainingmode. If people are caught exceeding thespeed limit they will be sent a notice saying,"You were caught doing this speed." For twomonths there will be a lot of publicity.

Mr Johnson: Three months.

Mr J. N. GOSS: Three months. At anappropriate time in March the cameras willcome into full operation. As we have heard,they will be installed in black spot areas, areasthat have been shown to have a highincidence of accidents and high-risk areas.The Minister has given us an assurance onthis. I accept his assurance. I do not think theMinister will be bullied by Treasury, as themember for Capalaba has suggested. But atthe same time I have no doubt that mycolleagues on the Travelsafe Committee willreview what is happening in relation to speedcameras. We believe that this has been oneof the most significant reports put out by the


committee. It is one of the reports that willcontribute greatly to a reduction in the road tollin this State.

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (4.10 p.m.): Iwant to focus primarily on the very importantpolicing aspect of this Bill because membersof the Traffic Branch will be the people who willhave to put this legislation into effect, eventhough it is a transport Bill and, quite rightly,the province of the Minister for Transport. Mymain concern is that speed cameras are beingintroduced by the Government primarily forrevenue raising reasons, not for road safety.However, in common with the shadow Ministerfor Transport, I applaud the TransportMinister's genuine concern about road safetyissues. I know that he is a relatively recentconvert to the cause of speed cameras; hehas made that very public. Even though Ihave concerns, I am also a relatively recentconvert to the cause of speed cameras. I wasa member of Budget Estimates Committee B.We put the clause about speed cameras intoour report to this Parliament, and I will speakmore fully on that.

I am also concerned at the impact thislegislation could have on the Police Service ifthe public sees the Traffic Branch as simplyrevenue raisers for Treasury. That raises somevery important concerns for policing in thisState.

Mr Johnson: You're saying "the image",are you?

Mr BARTON: I am. If the public simplysee police officers from the Traffic Branch asrevenue raisers, not as doing a job for roadsafety reasons—and I will speak a little morefully about that and give some examples ofwhich I am aware—that can have adetrimental effect on the Police Service'simage. My concerns about speed camerasbeing seen as revenue raisers were fashionedafter my analysis of the Budget papers. Therevenue shows up in a number of places inBudget Paper No. 2 as well as in the programstatements of the Minister for Police. I haveconducted a pretty careful analysis of that, butmy views have been fashioned by myexperience at Budget Estimates Committee B.Much has already been said about theBudget, and I will go into that in more detailshortly.

I support the Minister's stand, becauseroad safety is absolutely crucial. It is the majorrole of the police to assist in making our roadsmuch safer, reducing the number of seriousinjuries and, most importantly, reducing thenumber of fatalities, and it is absolutelyessential that the Parliament provide

appropriate laws for that. The introduction ofspeed cameras needs to be managed by thisGovernment in a way that is seen by thepublic as being fair and reasonable, not asanother impost on the public, particularly if it isseen as an impost on motorists by the PoliceService.

There are two aspect of police speedenforcement I want to address in more detail.In my experience, the public are already verycynical about most police speed enforcement.Sadly, the experience has been that all toooften the police set radar traps or have theirmobile patrols operate in areas which are notblack spots or danger spots. There is aperception, and in many cases it is a reality,that the police set speed traps in inappropriateplaces, which makes it is easy for them to gainrevenue. I have to admit that I was given aticket earlier this year in Victoria. It was notbecause of a speed camera; it was a mobilepatrol. I had a new car and I subsequentlyfound out that Mr Ford built it with a faultyspeedometer.

Mr J. N. Goss: We have all used thatone!

Mr BARTON: This is documented. Itwas the day after the grand prix.

Mr Hamill: Didn't you say you were JoanSheldon?

Mr BARTON: No, I did not have thatprecedent on which to draw. My son was withme in the car and we agreed that we wouldtake turns at driving during the day and thatwe would watch each other because weexpected there to be a high police presenceon the Hume Highway the day after theformula one grand prix in Melbourne, andthere certainly was. I trundled past a highwaypatrol car that was stuck in behind a bridge—Idid not see him—at what I thought was withinfive kilometres of the speed limit. Somekilometres up the road from where he told mehe was, he arrived like a bat out of hell behindme. When I questioned whether in fact I wasspeeding or whether he could have clockedme at the speed at which he claimed to haveclocked me and where was he, he basicallylaughed at me as if to say, "Yeah, good spot,hey? I catch lots of you guys at that spot." Ihad been travelling down an open road, andthat officer was clearly treating that as arevenue raising exercise. That is my personalexperience this year.

We have all seen numerous examples ofpolice traps being placed at the bottom of hillsor at locations where speed restrictions havechanged. We have all seen, for example,where the speed limit, which was 100


kilometres per hour, has been dropped toeither 80 kilometres per hour or 60 kilometresper hour, and the police locate parked patrolcars with on-board radars in places wherepeople are actually coasting down to the newspeed limit, not necessarily drivingdangerously. Also, sometimes, some locationshave inappropriate speed limits in place. Nodoubt, as part of the introduction of speedcameras that is what the Minister's review ofspeed limits in this State is all about.

All members have seen many examplesof other locations at which it is absolutelyessential that speed enforcement occur. Themember for Aspley mentioned the street inwhich he lives. Another example is at majorroadworks sites, and I am aware that theMinister feels strongly about that, particularly inareas where workers are actually on site orwide suburban streets that have no trafficcalming—the sorts of streets the local hoonsuse as a racetrack. No amount of publiccomplaint seems to be able to attract effectivepolice attention to some of those locations.

My electorate has some good examplesof all of those aspects about which I have justspoken. I am talking about the widening of thePacific Highway between Winnetts Road andthe Loganlea Road ramp to the LoganMotorway. Frankly, the workers who work thereplay Russian roulette everyday with cars andtrucks travelling at 100 kilometres per hour ormore in what is currently a 40 kilometres perhour zone. I travel on that road almost everyday, frequently more than once a day, and Ihave seen a police presence in that area onlytwice since that road widening began. I amaware that the police have been there onother occasions, because one of the localcouncillors of my area assures me that he hasbeen booked there twice.

Mr Woolmer: There actually is amanaged plan through that section that is runout of the local station. They're there at leasttwice or three times a week.

Mr BARTON: The member forSpringwood must spend more time there thanI do, because I have not seen evidence ofthat. I have seen a police presence in thatarea twice over a long period—months. Thefirst time was on the day the Ministerannounced the Government's decision onspeed cameras. That day, I saw several policethere, with a speed gun, and they were beingfilmed by a TV crew, no doubt for a bit of filmfor the television story that night. I have noproblem with that being done to promote thedecision. That is one of the occasions I haveseen a police presence there.

The other occasion occurred on a recentnight when I was returning from Parliament.There were no workers on site but a radar-equipped patrol car was situated among thetrees beside the Winnetts Road ramp. Thepolice were booking cars that were leaving the100 kilometres per hour zone and entering the40 kilometres per hour zone. This occurred inan area where the road was not actually beingwidened. It is effectively the slow-down areabefore one gets to the area where theroadworks are taking place. I daresay that thepolice in that particular highway patrol car werehaving a lot of fun that night picking up peoplewho had not slowed immediately to 40kilometres per hour right at the sign. Thesepeople were being picked up about 50 yardsbefore the sign.

Mr Lester interjected.

Mr BARTON: I certainly do. I am awareof the member's commitment to road safetyfrom the time that I spent with him on anothercommittee. We talked about this matterregularly. That is the second example of whichI am aware.

During working hours, when the workersare on site, one travels on that road at 40kilometres per hour at risk to oneself becausecars and trucks tailgate dangerously. They tryto push other drivers to higher speeds andthey chop and change lanes in a dangerousmanner and continue to travel at high speeds.There have already been numerous accidentsalong that stretch of road. Sadly, severalweeks ago there was a fatality. I do not knowwhy that fatal accident occurred, but it seemsmore than a coincidence that we have had afatality in that area. I see manyaccidents—particularly the tailgating accidentsor the minor collisions—where people have hitother cars simply because they cannot stopbecause they are travelling too close behindthe vehicle in front and are trying to find a wayaround someone who is abiding by the speedlimit. That is an example of where, in my view,a higher police presence is necessary. Thehonourable member for Springwood tells methat a program is being undertaken, but I amnot aware of it. The honourable member mustreceive better briefings than I do about whatoccurs in my electorate. The freeway is theboundary between our electorates. I can tellthe honourable member for Springwood thatthe patrol car that was hiding in the busheswas in his electorate.

The second area concerns two streets,one of which is the street behind where Ireside. I refer to Castille Crescent, EdensLanding. The other street is Federation Drive


at Bethania. Both of these streets have aspeed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. They aresecondary roads in a high-density residentialarea. They are the feeder roads for both ofthose respective suburbs. Both roads are verywide. In its wisdom the Gold Coast City Councilhas resisted demands for calming measures. Ihave discussed this with the Gold Coast CityCouncil and I have been advised that there issignificant cost involved to the council becauseof the length of the two streets and theirlocation.

The residents of those two streets areconstantly subjected to high-speed traffic.People have driven past me on those roads atspeeds of not less than 100 kilometres perhour. This has occurred on many occasionswhen I have either been heading home downCastille Crescent or when I have been over inthe suburb of Bethania. I might say that I amfrequently in the suburb of Bethania. Late atnight residents are subjected to hoonssquealing the tyres of their cars. Residents areconstantly advising me that no amount ofcomplaints to the local police lead to anyaction being taken. I know that the police paysome attention to these particular streets.However, I would suggest that, in conjunctionwith the local authority, there is a necessity forthese two streets to be declared roads wherespeed camera devices can be used.

I frequently move up and down thefreeway and along some of the other majorroads in my area. A lot of police attentionseems to be paid to those roads because,with the volume of traffic, it is possible for thepolice to book a lot of motorists. But these arenot the danger spots. It is a question ofcommonsense prevailing. I cite thoseexamples because there is already a very highdegree of cynicism in the community aboutcurrent speed enforcement programs. I wouldnot want to see that cynicism increase with theintroduction of speed cameras.

Regrettably, the Logan and northern GoldCoast area is an area of very high crime.Another cause for the existence of thecynicism is that many of my constituents cometo my office and complain that they had abreak-in some 24 hours previously but theycannot get a police officer to attend. They aretold that the police cannot attend becausethey are too overloaded with work. However,when the residents are driving to my officethey pass a radar trap which has 10 or 12police officers standing around three or fourpolice cars and booking people at a set trap.

If one has just had a break and enter atone's home, one has certain views about the

police sitting out at a radar trap when theyshould be investigating that break and enter.In those circumstances, no amount ofexplanation about the different roles ofgeneral duties police and traffic policeconvinces those people that the job is beingdone as well as possible. I accept that theTraffic Branch has a very important role to playin regard to safety. I would not want this to beconstrued as a savage attack on the TrafficBranch, because it is not. The degree ofcynicism in the community is a reality. Weshould not do anything in terms of introducingspeed cameras that will increase that cynicism.That will occur if this matter is not handledsensibly and with a lot of public consultationand public education.

I am aware of the Ministers' statementsthat there will be an overall review of thespeed management strategy, includingeducation, engineering, enforcementprocedures, a review of the speed limits and areview of locations where speed camerascould be used before their introduction. I muststress that this process must be scrupulousand have a high degree of public input beforethe speed cameras are introduced.

I have looked at the Budget papers. TheMinister's Explanatory Notes reveal that thespeed cameras are expected to raise $30m ina full year of operation. When I analysed theBudget figures my estimate was that theywere more likely to raise $23m in a full year. Iam $7m short. However, we are still concernedabout the amount. If the speed camerasraised $23m it would mean that approximately150,000 additional Queenslanders wouldreceive speeding tickets in a full year. If thefigure is $30m, my estimate is blown out. Thatwould mean that a lot more than 150,000additional people will receive a ticket forspeeding. That is a very high proportion of theQueensland public who have drivers' licences.These would be tickets issued in addition tothose that are already being issued forspeeding.

There is certainly the potential for a verysavage public backlash. I do not want thePolice Service of this State bearing the bruntof that public backlash if this measure is beingintroduced primarily to swell Treasury's coffers.I support absolutely everything that theshadow Minister said about the risks of thelegislation being introduced under pressurefrom Treasury to gain revenue.

I want to make a few more commentsregarding locations. I fully agree on the use ofspeed cameras when roadworks are inprogress. Workers should not be placed in


danger from motorists who are speeding incars and trucks. I would also urge that limits bereviewed for those times when workers are noton site. The honourable member for Aspleyhas already mentioned this matter. I was inNew South Wales recently during a weekendand I saw big sections of the highway with the40 kilometre per hour sign still in place. Therewas not a worker in sight and the road wasessentially in good condition. On one longstretch I saw two police radar traps at eachend of the road and they were booking peoplewho were driving at speeds above 40kilometres per hour. This was at a time whenthe speed limit in this area could probablyhave been all the way up to 100 kilometresper hour in the prevailing circumstances.

It is essential that that matter isaddressed. I am also conscious of the dangerto some police officers in set radar traps. I, likemany members of the Labor Party caucus,came along the road shortly after the tragicdeath of that young policeman north ofBrisbane on 21 May this year. Several of mycolleagues stopped to assist because theycame along just as the accident happened.

Time expired.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich)(4.30 p.m.): I am pleased to join this debate tocanvass an issue about which I have made anumber of very public comments in the past.Certainly during my time as Transport MinisterI expressed some very strong views aboutspeed cameras and their use. I held the view,and I continue to hold the view, that speedcameras cannot be properly implementedunless there is a full review of speed limitsacross the State. I recognise that the Ministerhas indicated that a speed managementstrategy is an important part of theGovernment's plan to introduce speedcameras.

One of the interesting aspects of trafficmovements is that a dangerous situation canarise when traffic is moving too slowly or whensome vehicles are moving significantly moreslowly than the general flow of traffic and avery dangerous situation can arise when somepeople are seeking to exceed the speed limit.What brings speed management and trafficenforcement into disrepute are situations inwhich authorities have inappropriate speedlimits posted over sections of the highway—inappropriate in that they are not observed bythe safe movement of the traffic—and thenthey enforce that inappropriate speed limit.That is the great mystery that worries me inrelation to the introduction of speed camerasin this State.

I recognise that the Minister has said thatthe review of speed limits will be completed.That has been an extraordinarily long process.I remember only too well initiating that processwhen I was Transport Minister. The posting of110 kilometres per hour speed limits on certainsections of the highway was an initiative that Ibrought forward.

Mr Johnson: It was well received.Mr HAMILL: It was well received. I

believe that it was a very responsible move,because it reflected the fact that, on the openhighway, traffic often moved at speeds inexcess of the 100 kilometres per hour that hadbeen the open highway speed maximum.That does not mean that drivers should travelat 110 kilometres per hour for the sake of it;obviously the road conditions must be takeninto account, as they must always be takeninto account by drivers. Although the speedsigns set down legal limits, drivers must makea judgment as to the appropriate speed, thesafe speed, at which they should travel withinthe legal range of speeds. Just because thespeed limit is 110 kilometres per hour does notmean that drivers should travel at that speedunder every circumstance.

Mr Elder: Not if you are the Treasurer.Mr HAMILL: Some people seem to

have a charmed life when they take to thehighways around the State. I hear that thejoke is, when a family of four is stopped forspeeding, to avoid the prospect of receivingone of the very hefty fines that are now beinglevied for speeding, the driver says, "I amJoan Sheldon and so are my children."

Mr Woolmer: The children might pass.

Mr HAMILL: I think that probably themember for Springwood has tried that onealready.

This issue is about paying, and I see fromthe Budget papers that the State Governmentexpects that people in Queensland will indeedpay dearly this year when it comes to trafficinfringements. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2,which states that, last year, almost $33m hadbeen anticipated in traffic fine revenue to theState. The actual figure collected throughtraffic fines last year was somewhat less thanthat: it was $31.6m. In the Budget papers wesee that the estimate for 1996-97 for trafficfines to be collected is $46.6m. The Ministerwas asked about such an extraordinary jumpin the amount of revenue that is expected tobe obtained from motorists in the State. Itwould appear that the implementation ofspeed cameras lies at the heart of thatsignificantly enhanced level of revenue from


fines. A 50 per cent increase in the revenuederived from speeding fines may suggest anenormous emphasis on road safety by theGovernment, but it may also suggest thatTreasury has had its way. The implementationof speed cameras may be seen by theTransport Department as a safety measure,but by Treasury it is seen as a revenue raisingexercise. I will develop that point in a littlemore detail, because some interesting factshave come to light in relation to that issue.

In August, the Minister for Transportannounced that speed cameras would beintroduced. Over the period until that time, onfour occasions, I think, he denied that speedcameras were on the agenda of the StateGovernment.

Mr Lucas: He went to Damascus on theway to Melbourne.

Mr HAMILL: I hope that he did notspeed because of the experience of motoristson the way to Melbourne. When speedcameras were introduced in Victoria, theVictorian Government was so embarrassed byits riches that it had to reset the speedcameras to a little higher than the speed limitbecause too many motorists were beingpicked up for minor infringements of the speedlimit. Those Budget figures to which I referredearlier suggest that an expectation exists onthe part of this Government that manyQueensland motorists will be picked up for arange of infringements, and some of themmay well be very minor indeed.

Let us return to the plot, that is, how theGovernment could do a policy flip-flop on theissue of speed cameras. As I said, afterdenying that speed cameras were on theGovernment's agenda at least on fouroccasions the Minister announced—I think itwas the end of July or early August—thatfifteen $300,000 cameras would be acquiredas part of the wider strategy of reviewingspeed limits and improving driver education. Ihave already discussed the importance of theprocess of examining the speed limits on thehighway. When the Minister announced thatspeed cameras were now on theGovernment's agenda, a considerable amountof comment—and much of it critical—camenot only from the Opposition but also from theTravelsafe Committee and the RACQ whowere concerned that it would not beappropriate for speed cameras to beintroduced before the review of speed limitshad been completed. We certainly hold to thatview. The other point, and one on which theMinister has been extraordinarily sensitive—Iknow that he is a sensitive man, but on this

point he has been extraordinarily sensitive—isthe question of whether speed cameras arebeing introduced primarily for road safetypurposes or primarily for revenue raisingpurposes.

Mr Johnson: I hope we don't collect acent with them.

Mr HAMILL: Perhaps that is a forlornhope held by the Minister, because theBudget papers suggest that the Governmentwill collect an extra $15m through theimplementation of speed cameras. I will returnto that point, because the Minister's sensitivityis showing on this very point. In fact, thatfigure may relate to a quarter year—$15m inthree months is not bad money for some. Inan interview that the Minister gave in Cairns atthe end of July, he was pursued on the matterof the level of revenue raising. In the CairnsPost , the Minister stated—

"I'm not saying we'll put penaltiesup . . . but we definitely won't be puttingthem down."

Why would he be putting them down when hehas such a nice little money earner that willgenerate an extra $15m?

Mr Johnson: Would you put themdown?

Mr HAMILL: I am pointing out that theMinister has been extraordinarily sensitive onthis issue, because the Government plans tobe enriched by his little road safety initiative.As I say, the plot thickens because theMinister has been saying repeatedly, "We arenot about revenue collection. I hope that wedo not pick up an extra cent."

Mr Elder: He doesn't talk like that, doeshe?

Mr HAMILL: He does. He becomesquite emphatic about this matter. It is one ofthose matters of honour, and people say thatthe Minister is an honourable man. Whenpressed on the point about where the moneywas going to go, the Minister stated in thatCairns Post article—

". . . while a percentage of the revenueraised through speed cameras would fundhealth programmes and road safetyinitiatives, some of the money would beused for other purposes which he couldnot name."

I suspect that I know what some of thoseother purposes are and that they relate to arange of other portfolios. Treasury saw that theintroduction of speed cameras would help theGovernment sidestep one of those solemncross-my-heart promises that was made about


no new taxes and no increases in taxes. Ifspeed cameras were introduced, theGovernment could hold it up as a road safetyinitiative while at the same time receive thisbountiful harvest of dollars flowing back to theTreasury.

Mr Elder: Mr Lucas raises a good point:what about consultancies?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming):Mr Lucas does not raise a point from hisincorrect seat.

Mr HAMILL: The Minister said, "We arenot about revenue collection". If theGovernment is not about revenue collection,one would have to say that it is a veryincompetent Government. It is intending not tobe about revenue collection, yet it managed toincrease its revenue collection through fines by50 per cent. That is not about a bad effort fora Government that is not out to actuallyincrease revenue.

But then again, the Government wasrunning a whole range of taxes. It increasedthe BAD tax and introduced the tyre tax andthe oil tax. We have just had the situation inwhich the Minister introduced into Parliamentthe extra tax on motor vehicle registration. Thelist goes on and on.

Mr Ardill: This is the largest of all.

Mr HAMILL: Actually, it is. In terms ofbeing a revenue raiser, it is in the league ofthe tobacco tax and BAD tax. However, thisinitiative is from a Government that says that itis not about revenue collection.

The sad thing is that while the Ministerhas been going out as the Government'ssalesman on the introduction of speedcameras, he has not really let on that speedcameras had actually been on the agenda forsome time before the Minister actuallyannounced their introduction in July. When thecoalition came to office, one of the very firstthings it did was to ask Treasury to prepare apaper on revenue-raising options. The Ministerfor Transport should be very concerned aboutthis matter because he is also the Ministerresponsible for making sure that trucks keeptheir loads. However, one of those trucks thatcame past my door lost its load, and in theload was one of the documents arising out ofthe preparation of the Budget. I always like toshare my good things, and I am prepared toshare this bit of advice with the House. I tableand seek to have incorporated in Hansard thisimportant extract from the Government'sbudgetary strategy—the revenue raisingstrategy. This one is titled, "(vii)"—this was thelucky seventh revenue-raising option—

"Introduce speed cameras." Not muchmention is made about road safety but a hellof a lot of mention is made about dollars. Thedocument states—

"Revenue from speed cameras isexpected to significantly exceed costs"—

that is revenue—

"with Departmental revenue forecasts of$20M in 1996-97"—

that was based on a half year of itsoperation—

"and $44M p.a. thereafter."

The document goes on to state—"There is an expectation by the

Department of Transport that surplusrevenue derived from speed camerasshould be utilised for road safetyprograms."

But guess what Treasury said—

"However, hypothecation of surplusrevenue to road safety programs is notsupported on budget flexibility grounds."

Flexibility indeed! Treasury was going to flex itsrevenue-raising muscles at the expense ofQueensland motorists. But thanks to the goodefforts of Opposition members, we are notgoing to let Treasury get away with this littlesleight of hand whereby revenue was going toincrease.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hasthe member checked that with the Speaker?

Mr HAMILL: Yes, I have.

Leave granted.

(vii) Introduce speed cameras.The previous Government approved theimplementation of a speed managementstrategy, including introduction of speedcameras, subject to the outcome of a trial to beconducted during Easter 1996. Fundingarrangements were to be considered in the1996-97 Budget.

The Minister for Transport and Main Roads hasindicated scope for continuation of speedcamera implementation subject to Cabinetapproval. The Department of Transportconsiders that implementing the speedmanagement strategy would deliver anestimated reduction in casualty crashes of 400every year, saving the community $75M p.a.

Revenue from speed cameras is expected tosignificantly exceed costs, with Departmentalrevenue forecasts of $20M in 1996-97 and$44M p.a. thereafter. Implementation costs areestimated at $5 million, with recurrentexpenditure estimated at $2.3M p.a. A further$1.7M is proposed to be spent on a publiceducation campaign and a program for


replacement of illegible vehicle number plates.On this basis, ongoing net revenue to theBudget would be of the order of $40M p.a.However, this level of net revenue shoulddecrease over time as driver behaviour ismodified.There is an expectation by the Department ofTransport that surplus revenue derived fromspeed cameras should be utilised for roadsafety programs. However, hypothecation ofsurplus revenue to road safety programs is notsupported on budget flexibility grounds.Rather, road safety programs should beconsidered on their merits in the normal Budgetcontext.

Mr HAMILL: I think that is an interestingpassage. Members will find it of great interestin understanding from where theGovernment's speed camera initiative reallycame. While the Minister for Transport is outthere saying, "No, no, no, not on your nelly! Iam not going to introduce speed cameras",the Treasurer got a good hold of the Ministerfor Transport and rolled it through the Budgetcommittee.

Mr Johnson: Get a hold of yourself. Tellthe truth.

Mr HAMILL: Maybe the Minister did notknow. I did not want to break the news to theMinister; I thought that they would probably tellhim sooner or later. I was just waiting to seehow long it took for the Minister to be broughtinto the loop. However, there was the revenuestrategy.

So the Government's objective was clear:numero uno, the introduction of speedcameras was about revenue raising and thenthe by-product was going to be road safety.But the Opposition's proposed amendment tothis Bill will redress that matter. Although theOpposition recognises that there is merit in theproper and responsible introduction of speedcameras—and that point has been madeabundantly clear by the Deputy Leader of theOpposition—there is even more merit inensuring that the Government does not getaway with its little scam in relation to theintroduction of speed cameras. That is why Isupport the amendment that will be moved bythe Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ensurethat those funds, those riches, that extrarevenue that the Government does not wantto collect finds its way to worthwhile roadsafety and rehabilitation link programs as itshould.

Although I suspect that the Minister forTransport will be delighted with theOpposition's support for a view which he

professes to endorse, it may not be quite sowelcomed with open arms by Treasury. Nevermind, I think that it is an important public policyinitiative that is being proposed and one thatall members of the House ought to support.

Mr Johnson: You know that I alwayslisten to you.

Mr HAMILL: I am pleased that theMinister listens to me. Every now and again Itake pity on him and I like to throw a pearl ofwisdom his way and bring a littleenlightenment to the Honourable the Minister.In this case, I think that it has been trulyenlightening to learn what the Government'sreal agenda was going to be, had it got awaywith it. Had the Government got away with it, itwould have had this nice additional littlerevenue earner—one to add to the seven newtaxes or increased taxes that were announcedin the Budget—and Treasury would have beenlaughing all the way to the bank. Of course,the motorists would have been paying againfor a range of revenue measures that wereintroduced by this Government.

Earlier this year, I tried to pursue theMinister for Transport and the Treasurer aboutthese matters. In fact, it was back on 2 Maythat I asked the Minister a question about thismatter. In reply, he said—

"The Government has not made adecision to implement speed cameras."

However, I just wanted to let the Minister knowthat those documents that I tabled and hadincorporated in Hansard were actually from theApril meeting of the Budget committee. Somaybe the post takes a little while to make itdown the Minister's way. Certainly, that wasthe proposition. It was all happening behindthe scenes. In conclusion—-

Mr Johnson: Thank God for that.

Mr HAMILL: I have tried to be gentle onthe Minister. I have actually been casting himas the good guy—the one in the white hat—inrelation to this matter because I have actuallybeen prepared to accept that he has beenignorant of what has been going on behind hisback. If he were not ignorant of that, then Iwould have to say that he has beenmisleading the House. I would not want to saythat about the Minister because there is only acertain amount of embarrassment that theMinister can take in one day.

However, on this point, I trust that theMinister will also support the Oppositionamendment because, if the Government does


so, then there will be a lot of Queenslanders,who are the victims of road trauma, who will bethe beneficiaries of the introduction of speedcameras. I believe that not only will speedcameras be a deterrent to those who wouldotherwise exceed the speed limits on the roadbut also the additional revenue that is raisedthrough the operation of speed cameraswould go to a worthy cause of not onlypromoting road safety and enhancing drivereducation but also making a real difference toalleviating the product of road trauma.Goodness knows, there are just too manypeople in this State whose lives are ruinedeach year through road trauma. It is not justthose who lose their lives, it is those whosequality of life is impaired because of theinjuries they have sustained. By linking therevenue from those who infringe the speedlimits to alleviating road trauma, we canactually do something worth while in this place.

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (4.50 p.m.):This is a matter which is certainly beyondpolitics, as indicated by the fact that it is putforward by the Minister with the most altruisticof motives and it is supported by theOpposition spokesperson on Transport, themember for Capalaba, also with the mostaltruistic of motives. Road safety experts withinthe department have supported this movestrongly and it is a very important matter. Iunderstand the cynicism of our Treasuryspokesman, which is well merited becausethere is no doubt that the Treasurer is rubbingher hands together, along with a number ofTreasury boffins, because this is going to be awonderful money spinner for them unless theforeshadowed Opposition amendment toclause 8 is passed. If the amendment ispassed we will have achieved a great dealbecause, as the member for Ipswich said, themoney will go towards relieving the trauma,injuries and paraplegia caused by roadaccidents.

In recommendation 8, the TravelsafeCommittee recommended that speedcameras be used as part of a broader speedmanagement strategy. In recommendation 9,it recommended that speed cameras be usedin any situation which satisfies the criteria forthe operation of speed cameras.

There is no doubt that this legislation isbeing introduced as part of a broader speedmanagement strategy which has been inplace for about three years, if my memoryserves me correctly. It was a very importantday when the speed strategy was introduced

at what was then Lang Park. Figures showthat the speed strategy has been successful.Up until 17 November this year, there were292 fatal crashes, which is down from 357crashes last year. That figure is certainly wellbelow the number of crashes back in 1991,despite additional cars being on the road.Total fatalities this year number 330, which isdown from the 1991 figure of 342. Even thenumber of pedestrian fatalities is down on the1991 figure. The strategy of the department,as implemented by its expert officers, issucceeding.

In recommendation 1 of its report, theTravelsafe Committee recommended thatspeed cameras be used in Queensland. Thecommittee further recommended that aQueensland speed camera program bedeveloped, implemented, managed andoperated in accordance with the subsequentrecommendations of the report which addressthe core components of the program. That iswhere the concern lies.

There is absolutely no doubt that speedcameras save lives. On the other hand, it isindisputable that they can cause death on theroad when they transfer accidents from onelocation to another, and more vulnerablevictims can suffer at the new location. Thatissue must be addressed. The TravelsafeCommittee recommended the use of speedcameras in November 1994, and I andmembers of the committee would not want tobe, nor should we be, held responsible foraccidents caused by the inappropriate use ofthose cameras. In reporting the committee'sfindings to Parliament, I made the followingobservations—

"It is clear from the evidence by everyCouncil officer, that any proposed modelfor setting the location and usage ofcameras, principally on major roads,would not answer the problem ofspeeding in local streets, which meansthat one-third of the total problem is notbeing addressed. This is unacceptable. Inaddition, accidents would increase if fasttraffic were encouraged to avoid speedcameras by travelling through residentialstreets.

Submissions by other contributors,also show up flaws in any proposal toconcentrate on major roads with highvolumes. In that situation 15% of allfatalities (which occur in urban areas) and35% of all fatalities (which occur on 100km/h country roads and highways) would


not be addressed by speed cameras.22% of all non-fatalities (in urban areas)and 12% (approx) of all non fatalities (innon-urban areas) would not beaddressed. Continued use of radar oncountry roads would answer the problemsin those areas, but the major problem insuburban streets, needs to be addressed.

The situation in residential streetsclearly calls for a quota of cameras to bededicated to lower volume residentialstreets as suggested by Councils."

Otherwise, the problem of rat running inresidential streets would increase as speedingmotorists divert from major roads to avoid thecameras. There would be a reduction incollisions between vehicle and vehicle onmajor roads as unsafe drivers diverted tominor streets, but an increase in accidentsbetween vehicles and cycles and vehicles andpedestrians, who are the most vulnerable ofvictims, particularly juveniles and the elderly, inthose residential streets. On major roads thereare pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and soon.

Major roads should have a higher speedlimit than residential streets. The overwhelmingproportion of drivers indicates very clearly thatthis is the case by travelling generally between10 and 20 kilometres over the 60 kilometre perhour limit. It would be grossly improper to putspeed cameras on those roads to reap aharvest of fines while irresponsible rat runnersare free to travel at breakneck andinappropriate speeds down residential streets,putting at risk the most vulnerable of ourcitizens where poor visibility, parked vehiclesand a sense of reasonable safety prevail. Nomajor road should have a speed camerainstalled unless all alternative residential routesare also covered at or near the same time.

It must be made clear that inappropriatespeed kills, not speed per se. Otherwise, therewould be no variation in speed limits. TheTravelsafe Committee members approachedthe question of speed cameras with severemisgivings, particularly when we found thatthey were a million-dollar industry. We alsofound that, if they were introduced in aslipshod or half-hearted manner or to thewrong model, they failed to have any impacton the road toll. However, if introduced to thebest model, they can have a remarkable effecton the situation.

Speed cameras reduce the danger thatpolice face in detecting offences and reducing

speed. They reduce dramatically the numberof police required for a radar trap and releasethose officers for the more important work ofdetecting road offences which cause moreaccidents than does speed. Speed camerascan reduce the overall incidence of speedingand the culture of inappropriate speed whichhas developed on our roads to the pointwhere speed limit signs have little value. Byreducing overall speed, the severity ofaccidents will be reduced. Many of the 79 fatalaccidents we reviewed could have beenprevented as they were caused solely byspeed. Many more accidents could bereduced in severity at a lower speed. Onehundred and seventy-six people werehospitalised at great public expense and 192people received other injuries. However, that isonly the tip of the iceberg, as speed was thecontributing factor in hundreds of accidentsinvolving other prime causes.

Speed causes an increase in theseriousness of the injuries. Most drivers areresponsible people. If my memory is correct,only about 3 per cent of drivers are everinvolved in serious accidents, but many in that3 per cent are repeat and continuousoffenders. Within Brisbane, fatal accidentscaused by speed represent only 0.8 per centof all reported accidents. The ratio in thesurrounding areas and in provincial cities is 1.6per cent of a higher total than in Brisbane.That is for a number of reasons, one of whichis that Brisbane has a higher standard of trafficcontrol, which allows travel at a higher speedin safety.

As to other areas throughout the State—outside the metropolitan and provincial cities,the ratio is 3.3 per cent of the total, whichclearly indicates the need for speed camerasthroughout the State rather than in only thenear metropolitan area. Many of those areasare in country towns. Some 57 per cent of allfatalities caused by speed and 78 per cent ofinjuries caused by speed occur where thespeed limit is less than 100 kilometres perhour. If speed cameras are employed only onopen highways, only a very minor part of theproblem will be attended to. The majorproblem occurs where restrictions of some kindare required by congestion or visibilityproblems—for example, in urban areas orwhere there are conflicting movements. I tablethe statistics and seek leave to have themincorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.


TABLE 2: Speed Related Crashes and All RoadTraffic Crashes by Speed Zone andSeverity. Queensland: 1993

Speed Speed All roadZone related traffic(km/h) Severity crashes crashes

Fatality 0 0Hospitalisation 0 1

<40 Medical attention 0 1Minor injury 0 2Property damage only 1 8Total 1 12

Fatality 1 1Hospitalisation 4 35Medical attention 3 42

40-50 Minor injury 1 24Property damage only 6 81Total 15 183






100+ Minor injury 13 406Property damage only 70 1889Total 185 4210

Total crashes 829 19509

Source: Queensland Transport, Road Transport andSafety Division

Mr ARDILL: One of the prime causes ofthe speed culture which has grown up inAustralia is the fact that motorists know thatmost speed limits are inappropriate for theparticular roads and cars using them. Someare too low and some are too high. However,after travelling the roads daily in excess of theposted speed, motorists tend to become blaseand forget to compensate when roads areslippery during and after rain, when visibility ispoor, congestion is high and pedestrians,cyclists and other hazards require that theyslow down.

In Europe, signs are posted dictating thata lower speed limit is enforced when hazardsdictate that. That system should be introducedhere and novice drivers instructed accordingly.Admittedly, as I said, the Transport

Department has a clear strategy of speedmanagement and says clearly that speedcameras are only a part of it. The wholestrategy must be implemented as quickly aspossible if we are serious about reducing theroad toll.

The most effective weapon in the fightagainst inappropriate speed is to review allspeed limits. The next step is to enforce them.In Recommendation 12, the TravelsafeCommittee recommended that theQueensland speed camera program beimplemented with an absolute minimum of 90cameras and that that number should bereviewed after six months' operation, thereason being that, in a State as large asQueensland, it is essential that the message isheard all over the State and not just in thearea around Brisbane. The message needs toreach the areas where the problem is moreacute than it is here.

All major roads should be signedadequately at the appropriate speed for thatparticular section of road. Available electronictechnology should be used to promotecontinuous traffic flow along major roads.Speeding can also be reduced when driversrealise that travelling at inappropriate speedsonly takes them to the next red light. Speedcameras are a great aid to road safety whenused correctly. For that reason, the TravelsafeCommittee supported their introduction, butonly the most effective model, as I haveoutlined.

The Travelsafe Committee spent endlesshours investigating, reading, listening,watching, sifting, travelling and discussing thematter from the point of view of ordinarypeople as well as the experts. I am afraid thatthe present proposal does not satisfy thecriteria proposed as providing the best model.Quite clearly, the model should include thecouncils, which should be required toimmediately check all major roads to seewhere increased speed limits are necessary.Councils should be responsible for signingthose roads accordingly.

Also, at the same time as these camerasare being introduced, the Government ofQueensland should be introducing a 50kilometres per hour speed limit on allresidential streets other than major roads. Thisis being done piecemeal and for that reason Ihave severe misgivings about the proposal tobring in speed cameras at this time. However,as I said, there is no doubt that lives will besaved if and when speed cameras areintroduced in a proper manner throughout theState of Queensland.


As I said, Queensland is a very largeState. Our recommendation to introduce 90cameras is only double the number in Victoria.That pocket handkerchief State has 45cameras. In Queensland, we need double thatnumber to make them operate effectively andto destroy the culture of inappropriate speedwhich has developed. It is absolutely wrong topenalise motorists who are now travelling at asafe speed on major roads and at the sametime allow people to travel in residential streetsat totally inappropriate speeds.

As a postscript, I should add that the bestthing that will come out of this is that manypolice who now operate radar traps in veryunsafe working conditions will becomeavailable for other duties. This is a messagenot for the Minister for Transport but for theMinister for Police and the Oppositionspokesperson for Police. It is essential thatevery one of the police officers maderedundant by the introduction of speedcameras be utilised to patrol the roads so asto take action against road users who causeaccidents through offences other thanspeeding. Ten times the number of accidentscaused by speeding are the result of otheroffences by motorists. That is something whichmust be addressed.

It is great that we are tackling theinappropriate speed culture, but at the sametime we must do something about drivers whocarry out all sorts of fancy manoeuvres. Forexample, I refer to drivers who fail to stay inthe correct lane, who block other traffic andwho cause all sorts of problems by turningfrom the wrong lane across vehicles. We seethese things happening every day. It isessential that more police are on the road tostop accidents caused by unsafe drivingpractices. As I said, there are 10 times more ofthose types of accidents than there areaccidents caused solely by speeding.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(5.07 p.m.): In speaking to this legislation, I,too, join with the member for Aspley and alsothe member for Archerfield, who was amember of the Travelsafe Committee whenwe looked at the introduction of speedcameras and whether they should be used inQueensland. We had grave reservationsabout the introduction of speed cameras.However, when we looked at the impact ofspeed, we could reach only one conclusion: ifproperly implemented, speed cameras wouldhave a positive effect on the road toll inQueensland.

I wish to highlight some examples of theimpact of speed. A driver travelling at 80

kilometres an hour needs an extra 35 metresin which to stop in an emergency whencompared with a driver travelling at 60kilometres an hour. In addition, in his studiesWaltz showed that a vehicle travelling at 50kilometres an hour is able to come to acomplete stop and not hit a pedestrian,whereas the same vehicle travelling at 60kilometres an hour will hit a pedestrian at ahigh impact speed of 40 kilometres an hour.

It is very hard to get those types of factsthrough to the drivers of Queensland andAustralia. For example, a driver travelling at 50kilometres an hour will not hit a pedestrian inan emergency. However, when travelling at 60kilometres an hour, the driver will hit thepedestrian at an impact speed of 40kilometres an hour. When people realise thatthat is the result of travelling at an extra 10kilometres an hour, they can see the need forensuring that excessive and inappropriatespeeding does not occur on Queenslandroads.

After those types of facts were borne outin the studies and the program that weundertook, we then looked at the method ofintroducing speed cameras to ensure, firstly,that the interests of the motorists wereprotected. There has been severe criticism—and it is warranted—of police when they haveset up radar traps at the bottom of hills; inother words, when radar traps are used toraise revenue. We felt that, in the interests ofthe motorists of Queensland, if we were goingto recommend speed cameras we should notallow them to merely become a revenue-raising instrument; that site selection was veryimportant to ensure that cameras are locatedin the most appropriate places; and thatregional or district advisory committees shouldbe set up to ensure that police do the rightthing.

Mr Ardill: Community input.

Mr CAMPBELL: There should becommunity input. I acknowledge that there isgoing to be community input into siteselection. There must be an audit processwhen cameras are introduced to ensure thatsite selection criteria are enforced and thatvarious matters come back to thosecommittees to ensure that the right thing isbeing done. I want to make some criticismsnow.

Mr Johnson: Oh, don't do that, Clem.

Mr CAMPBELL: I am going to makesome criticisms now. I do not believe it is theMinister's fault, but——


Mr Johnson: Didn't you hear themember for Ipswich saying I was a bit thinskinned?

Mr CAMPBELL: The Minister is prettyright. He can take a belting around the chopsevery now and then.

Members should be disgusted to learnthat on 1 October a discussion paper wasreleased to the people of Queensland titled ASpeed Camera Program for Queensland—SiteSelection, Deployment & Operations but notone copy was given to any Oppositionmember. How many members of theGovernment have seen this document? Theone I have here is only a photocopy. Theoriginal had a blue cover. It referred to siteselection, deployment and operations. Itappears that not one Government memberreceived a copy, either.

Mr Veivers: We just assumed it wouldleak to you.

Mr FitzGerald: Can we get a leak fromyou—table it.

Mr CAMPBELL: I suppose I shouldtable it for the interest of members. It is poorthat this document was not available formembers of this House to comment on in thisdebate. Given that speed cameras are to beintroduced, it should have been available. Ittook me about three hours today to find acopy of this discussion paper.

Most of the principles andrecommendations are very much in line withthe recommendations of the TravelsafeCommittee, except for one very important onethat we believed strongly should beimplemented. I refer to the recommendationthat speed cameras should be located inresidential areas. The figures provided by thehonourable member for Archerfield regardingspeed-related crashes showed that 13,805crashes of a total number of 19,500 occurredin speed zones below 70 kilometres an hour.In other words, most of the accidents resultingin hospitalisation and injuries—but not thoseresulting in death, I must point out—occur inresidential areas. This matter is very important.I believe that residential streets should figurehighly in the consideration of the location ofspeed cameras.

I have spoken to the officers involved.They have given a clear indication to me, andI appreciate what they have said. We said thatbefore speed cameras are implemented thereshould be a review of speed limits so thatappropriate limits are in place. Myunderstanding is that councils are notundertaking those reviews. I seek an

undertaking from the Minister that he will havelocal authorities conduct those reviews assoon as possible, because if he does not theintegrity of the speed camera program will belost. That integrity will be lost even further if wedo not address the issue of rat running. If wetake the speedsters off the main arterialroads—because those are declared roads andthat is where speed cameras will belocated—then they will make higher use ofresidential streets, where fewer speedmanagement tools are in place. At least onthe arterial roads there is usually appropriatesignage. If necessary, there are crossings andalso traffic lights. But most of the residentialroads have none of those measures. I believeit will be to the detriment of road safety inQueensland if speedsters take over residentialroads. One of the things that should come outof this debate is an undertaking that as soonas possible we ensure that speed cameras areplaced on residential roads.

Mr Ardill: They could do it now inresidential streets.

Mr CAMPBELL: I take that interjection.I believe that that probably is the case, but ifwe are going to have a review of speed limits,that process must be fully completed. If wecome back in two years' time and just say,"The councils couldn't be bothered doing it.They did not have the manpower. We will getaround to it", we will have failed—just as wehave failed in the food hygiene and foodinspection process in Queensland andAustralia. For the most part we have relied onlocal councils to undertake food inspections,and in many cases they do not have themanpower or it is not one of their priorities. Ido not want the same thing to happen in thiscase. It is important that we place this matteron record and ensure that local authoritiesparticipate fully in this process.

When we undertook our investigation intospeed cameras, all the local authorities said,"We want speed cameras to stop excessivespeeding."

Mr Ardill: In residential streets.

Mr CAMPBELL: "Our residents wantspeed cameras to stop speeding in residentialstreets." In fact, in some cases where theyhave implemented local traffic managementprograms by putting in obstacles such aschicanes, speed bumps——

Mr FitzGerald: Traffic calming devices.

Mr CAMPBELL:—and traffic calmingdevices—I thank the honourable member forLockyer—they are now saying, "We do notwant them because when it comes to


essential services, vehicles cannot getthrough." So they would prefer the speedcameras so that vehicles providing essentialservices can get through.

We recommended that we embrace thebest available proven speed cameratechnology. It seemed at the time that thatwas going to be digital technology. If we aregoing to go to the expense of setting up anenforcement and ticket-issuing procedure, weshould have the best technology available. Ido not know whether any other State iscurrently using such technology, but I believewe should do so because it is going to be themost effective system in the long run. Weshould be looking to the use of digitaltechnology.

As I said, we were very concerned aboutthe selection of the sites. It is important tohave local involvement and local input into theselection of those speed camera sites. Thereshould be more than 15 cameras in operationbecause the impact has to hit. Queenslanddrivers need to learn that if they are going tospeed, no matter where they are inQueensland, they can get caught by a speedcamera. I am sorry to say that, with thismethod of introduction, that will not necessarilyhappen.

Our last recommendation was thatrevenue generated should be used to fundshort-term, non-recurring road safety programsand projects. I welcome the amendment to bemoved by the Opposition spokesman onTransport which states that a proportion of thefunds collected from speed cameras be spenton road safety issues. In the interests ofQueensland road safety, I ask the Minister toseriously consider that.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (5.21 p.m.):Any legislation a Government introduces whichwill help reduce the road carnage must bewelcomed. I congratulate the Minister onbringing this legislation before the House. I amaware that speed cameras have beenconsidered by both the Labor PartyGovernment and the present Government.This legislation is to be welcomed. There isnothing more chilling than driving along a roadand seeing a road accident and seeing peopleinjured and maimed. It is a great tragedy. As aparent of teenagers who have licences, theissue of speed is one of great concern to me.Honourable members know that young men inour society are probably most susceptible tobeing seriously injured because they speed intheir cars.

The introduction of speed cameras is amajor plus. I have some reservations about

how they will be introduced, and I will mentionthem shortly. It will be interesting to see thefirst member of this Parliament who will beprepared to show his or her picture of when heor she gets caught. I am prepared to run abook on that because I know of a fewmembers who have a heavy foot. The Ministermight be able to enlighten me. I thinkoffenders receive a picture of themselves inthe mail with their fine. People will be able toframe them.

Many concerns about the introduction ofspeed cameras have been canvassed. I havespoken to people within my electorate aboutspeed cameras and there is a wideacceptance of their introduction. I wish toaddress some of the reservations peoplehave. Some of these concerns have alreadybeen covered. Firstly, people would like to seea review of the speed limits. Secondly, peoplewant the Minister to ensure—and he coveredthis in his second-reading speech and I willcome to it a little bit later—that cameras areplaced in areas where there have beenfatalities or there are black spots or dangerspots. The third concern has just beenmentioned by the honourable member forBundaberg and it will be introduced as anamendment by the honourable member forCapalaba, that is, that the revenue raised fromthese fines goes back into roads and roadsafety. That is very important.

I ask the Minister at some stage in hisreply to this debate to comment on the nextissue I want to raise. The Explanatory Notesstate that $1.5m will be spent by QueenslandTransport for increased public education. Iwould like to know how that money is to bespent and what sort of public educationprogram will be forthcoming. Will it include justtelevision advertisements or newspaperadvertisements? I am interested in exactlywhat type of educational program that will be.

The Explanatory Notes also state that theintroduction of speed cameras in Queenslandis expected to generate $30m in the first yearof full operation. That is a significant amountof money. I hope the Minister agrees with theamendment to be moved by the honourablemember for Capalaba and that that money willbe used for road accident injury rehabilitationprograms and road safety education andawareness programs. If the Minister agrees tothe amendment, that money will go a longway. I would be interested to hear theMinister's response to that.

I would appreciate the Minister's commenton a few other matters. The Explanatory Notessay that $920,000 will be spent by Main


Roads for a review of speed limits on State-controlled roads. That seems a lot of money toreview speed limits. How will that money bespent, given the fact that most of the speedlimits will be reviewed by councils, althoughobviously State roads will be reviewed by theQueensland Transport Department?

The Minister says that $5m will be spenton 15 speed cameras. I ask the Minister togive members some information on the nextstep. How many more speed cameras will wehave? When will we have those speedcameras and will the public be made aware offorthcoming additional speed cameras?

There is a sneaky side to the introductionof speed cameras in terms of revenue raising.Just as there are signs to say that a cornerhas cameras for red-light runners, there shouldbe signs saying that an area is fitted out withspeed cameras. If that is a deterrent, that iswell and good. That is a good thing if it makessomeone take his or her foot off theaccelerator. I would like to know if signs will beput up to say that an area has speedcameras. I do not think there is anythingwrong with that sort of approach.

As I said, it is sad that young people arenot only killed on our roads but alsopermanently injured. Whether they lose a limbor are in some other way injured orincapacitated, they are obviously affected bythat for the rest of their life. That is anextremely tragic fact of our society. Hopefully,the introduction of speed cameras will addressthat. I am the first to admit that speedcameras will not stop the carnage totally, buthopefully they will be a speed deterrent.

Another plus in this legislation—and this ismentioned in the Explanatory Notes and theMinister's second-reading speech—is therange of offences which can be picked up bythese cameras. I think the Minister is basicallysaying that any other offence that comesunder the Traffic Act can also be picked up byspeed cameras. "Speed camera" is probably abad term to use, but it is a common term. Itwill be a plus if they pick up unregistered cars,cars with faulty number plates, etc. Obviously,the main issue is speed, but if they pick upother vehicles——

Mr Johnson: Unregistered vehicles.

Mr NUTTALL: Yes, exactly. That is aplus. That aspect of the legislation isworthwhile commenting on.

Obviously, as we go along, speed cameralegislation will need to be revisited. There willbe smarties who will try to get out of speedingtickets by taking the matter to court, and as

time goes by there will obviously need to beamendments to the legislation.

The other thing that I believe is a real plusis that when one receives an infringementnotice in the mail one will also be supplied withinformation about one's rights and the detailsrelating to the offence. If any honourablemembers receive one and if he or she wouldlike to share it with me, I look forward toreading of it. It is an important issue becausethe realities of life are that once the speedcameras are put into place and people startgetting fined, they are going to become verytoey and upset. I am sure most of us willreceive some sort of representations in ourelectorate offices from people who havereceived their little picture in the mail. It issomething that is worth while looking at andconsidering. I do not intend to take up anymore time other than to say that I welcomethe introduction of speed cameras on theunderstanding that the issues that I raised atthe start are given consideration. Those issuesare that the cameras be placed where therehave been known fatalities or dangerous orblack spots and that the revenue raised fromthe speed cameras goes back into roads androad safety.

Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (5.31 p.m.): Isupport the use of speed cameras as an extratool to bring about safer travel and to reducethe tremendous road toll in our State. As aParliament we cannot sit on our hands andcontinue to allow the mass slaughter of ourcitizens on our roads. Some 2,085 peopledied on Queensland roads in the five yearsbetween January 1991 and December 1995.Over 20 per cent of the fatalities were speed-related. That relates to an average of 70fatalities per year.

I have been a member of theParliamentary Travelsafe Committee since itsinception. This committee has looked at theoperations of speed cameras in all AustralianStates where they operate and in NewZealand. It is very interesting to note that inthe first year of operation of speed cameras inNew Zealand motorists were fined but did notlose any points. I do not know whether thesituation has improved but in the first 12months of their operation the number offatalities rose slightly. The great deterrentseems to be the loss of points. The loss ofpoints seems to be considered a greaterpenalty than the monetary penalty. This Billcarries both penalties and I consider that thatis the right way to go about it.

The committee spent days listening toexperts, police and ordinary people in an effort


to come up with the best recommendationspossible for this Parliament on the introductionof speed cameras. Our then chairman, themember for Archerfield, the honourable LenArdill, tabled the Parliamentary TravelsafeCommittee Report No. 15 in November 1994.The committee recommended that speedcameras could do much to reduce the road tollif implemented in accordance with thecommittee's recommendations.

I wish to quote a few of therecommendations which I believe are essentialfor the successful operation of speed camerasin our State. As previous speakers havecovered a lot of ground, I will not labour thepoint too much. Recommendation 1 stated—

"The Committee recommends thatspeed cameras be used in Queensland.The Committee further recommends thata Queensland Speed Camera Programbe developed, implemented, managed,and operated in accordance withsubsequent recommendations of thisreport which address the corecomponents of the program."

I am trying to pick out the more importantrecommendations. Recommendation 2stated—

"The Committee recommends thatthe Queensland Department of Transportconduct a network-wide review ofQueensland speed limits. Such reviewshould be completed within 12 monthsand prior to the introduction of speedcameras. The review should beconducted by Queensland Department ofTransport regional and district officesusing standards and proceduresapproved by the Director-General of theQueensland Department of Transport."

I think that is absolutely essential. Peoplecertainly drive according to the roadconditions. If we have nice straight areas withno dangers that drivers can see, it is prettyhard to stop them from speeding. I know ofseveral areas of four-lane highways or roads inmy area and the speed limit is 60 kilometresper hour, which does not make any sense atall. It is pretty hard to get people to remain ata speed of 60 kilometres per hour.Recommendation 3 stated—

"The Committee recommends thatwidespread and intense publicity andpublic education campaigns about speedcameras should precede theirintroduction."

I understand that this is happening. Therecommendation continues—

"Such campaigns should concentrateon the road safety benefits available fromspeed cameras and introduce theconcept of a moratorium period upon theintroduction of speed cameras."

Recommendation 6 stated—

"The Committee recommends thatspeed cameras be introduced with a shortmoratorium period during which offendingmotorists are issued with a warning letterinstead of a Traffic Offence Notice."

This was done in the majority of States. I thinkit is a good idea. It makes people realise thatthey have been booked. In many cases,unless one has been booked for speeding bythe use of a camera, one does not realise thatone has been booked. There was an instancethat was quoted to us where a lady in Victoriatook her child to school in the morning anddrove at 90 kilometres per hour through a 60kilometre per hour area. She did the samespeed when returning home from the school,and did it again in the evening when shereturned to the school. She received atremendous fine and had lost her licence bythe end of the day. It was not until about aweek later that she found out what hadhappened. The police in Victoria explainedthat that was probably one of the best piecesof publicity they received. All the TV channelsand all the papers picked up the story. Thepolice told us that the traffic just slowed rightdown. When the police first saw the story onTV they were a bit concerned but then theyrealised that people thought it was a lot ofmoney to pay for one day. The message gotacross to motorists the hard way. I supposethat poor lady is still worrying about it.

Recommendation 9 is another one whichI thought was interesting. It stated—

"The Committee recommends thatspeed cameras be permitted to be usedin any situation which satisfies the criteriafor speed camera operation and that theiruse NOT be limited to only those locationswhere other speed limit enforcement toolsare unable to be used."

I think that is self-explanatory. In Recommendation 12 the committee

stated—

"The Committee recommends thatthe Queensland Speed Camera Programbe implemented with an absoluteminimum of 90 cameras. This numbershould be reviewed after six months'operation."

As the member for Archerfield has explained,Victoria has 45 cameras and it is a fraction of


the size of Queensland. It is pretty hard toimagine how we are going to cover the Stateof Queensland with 15 cameras. It seems tobe a very small number. I wish the Ministergood luck with it.


"The Committee recommends thatuniformed Police should be the soleoperators of speed cameras inQueensland for the first five years of theprogram. Other options for operation ofthe cameras could be considered afterthat time, but only if the QueenslandPolice Service retain operational control ofthe speed camera program."

That recommendation was made becausesome people suggested that perhaps specialpeople should be appointed simply to operatethe speed cameras. We thought there wouldhave been a lot of problems if that suggestionhad been adopted.


"The Committee recommends thatspeed camera site selection criteria beestablished by the Speed ManagementSteering Committee. The basis of suchcriteria should be the history of speed-related crashes and of all crashes wherecrash rates are high. The criteria shouldalso require speed cameras to be used inresidential streets for at least 25% of theiroperating time and provide for residents'complaints about speeding traffic to beinput into the site selection process."

I believe that is something that we are notdoing at the beginning of the program. If weare not successful with the cameras, I wouldsay that this could be one of the majorreasons. I believe the Minister should considerthat matter. I think nearly every speaker in thisdebate today supports that recommendation. Icertainly do. One council in my electorate saidthat it would be prepared to buy a camera justto be able to control the traffic within the cityarea.


"The Committee recommends thatgeneral, permanent perimeter signs,similar to those used in the QueenslandRed Light Camera program be used towarn motorists of speed camera use.These signs should be placed on all majorroads and supported by repeater signs atstrategic locations throughout the roadnetwork."

I believe that is a very good idea. I thinkcameras work best when drivers are not toosure of their location and thus need to observe

the speed limit all the time. If those signs areplaced on the roads, that should be warningenough.

Recommendation 24 states—

"The Committee recommends thatthe accumulation of demerit pointsapplies to speed camera detectedoffences, in the same way as they do forspeeding offences detected using otherspeed enforcement tools."

I believe that that recommendation isexactly right. That was not the case in NewZealand and they wasted their first——

Mr Ardill: That was a failure.

Mr DOLLIN: It was a failure. When six ormore fatalities occur after spending theamount of money that they did, it certainly is afailure. I was surprised that, in that country,there was still a lot of argument about theapplication of demerit points. They seemed tothink that that was a bit unfair.

Recommendation 31 states—

"The Committee recommends that allrevenue generated by a Queenslandspeed camera program be used to fundshort-term, non-recurring road safetyprograms and projects. Such fundingshould be provided from the previousyear's speed camera revenue and shouldbe used across the broad spectrum ofroad safety programs."

I believe that that recommendation will be thekey to the success of speed cameras. If theyare seen as being just a revenue-raisinginitiative, the Minister will have more troublethan Flash Gordon, and he will receive asevere backlash. If that money could be usedfor ambulance services, hospitals and to makeroads safer, people will accept the introductionof speed cameras. I will not continueexplaining the recommendations, becausemost have already been covered in thedebate.

I am a bit disappointed that theGovernment is not implementing all of theTravelsafe Committee's recommendations. Ibelieve that that could bring down on thisGovernment the accusation that speedcameras are more a source of revenue than asafety tool. If the Minister is not able toconvince people that this is not correct, he willhave trouble.

Mrs Gamin: Your Government wouldn'tbring them down, either. I was on thatcommittee, too.

Mr DOLLIN: We are not theGovernment today, members opposite are.


I believe that the citizens of this State willaccept speed cameras provided that, in themain, they are implemented to make roadssafer and that the fines collected are used forthe purposes that I have just outlined ratherthan going into State coffers. It may beheartening to the Minister to know that sometime ago a survey revealed that 65 per cent ofcitizens were in favour of speed cameras ifthey were conceived to be in the interests ofsafety and not revenue generating. I believethat that will be the key to the success ofspeed cameras.

I congratulate the Minister on biting thebullet. Politically, this is a fairly big decision tomake. Through implementing speed cameras,the Minister has the opportunity of beingviewed as a very honourable Minister or a veryhorrible Minister. It depends on the end result.I believe that the Minister omitted to do acouple things, particularly in relation torevenue. The Minister should think hard aboutthe amendment that has been foreshadowedwhen it is moved at the Committee stage,because that amendment will go a long waytowards convincing the public that the Ministeris fair dinkum and that his intention is to savelives and not just to make a lot of money.

Speed cameras offer some bigtemptations. In the first year that Victoriaoperated speed cameras, they grossed $54m,that is, $1m a week. That is a bit of atemptation for hungry Treasurers. I think theMinister will have a fight on his hands toensure that that money will be used for thepurposes that the Travelsafe Committeerecommended. If it is, that will go a long waytowards enhancing the position of theGovernment rather than making it a littleeasier for the Opposition to be returned topower in two years' time. I wish the Ministerthe best of luck. With those reservations, Isupport the Bill.

Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (5.45 p.m.): I ampleased to be able to speak on the TransportLegislation Amendment Bill, which implementsthe legislative process for the introduction ofspeed cameras and tightens up the legislationfor the enforcement of camera-detectedoffences. Last year, 456 people were killed onQueensland's roads. No-one would argue thatwe do not need to do as much as we possiblycan to reduce that unacceptably high toll. Theintroduction of the limited use of speedcameras in specifically targeted circumstancesand locations was supported by the previousGovernment. The concern raised by memberson this side of the House this afternoon is thatthe Government has turned those good

intentions around and that this initiative isturning into a revenue-raising exercise.

I am particularly concerned that speedcameras will be placed only on those roadsthat are State gazetted roads and not onresidential and suburban streets. Thecomplaints that I receive in my office aboutspeeding relate not so much to speeding onhighways or major arterial roads, which aremore often than not State gazetted roads, butspeeding in residential areas. That was alsoreflected at the public hearings that were heldby the Travelsafe Committee throughout thisState. Everywhere they went, committeemembers found that the biggest concern ofpeople in relation to speeding was trafficspeeding in suburban streets.

Some of the streets in the Currumbinelectorate that are of major concern to localresidents and the streets that are constantlybrought to my attention as being areas ofproblems with speeding are streets such asAvocado Street, Angelica Street andNineteenth Avenue at Elanora, LagunaAvenue in Palm Beach, Bienvenue Drive inCurrumbin Waters and Pacific Parade atBilinga. When I receive those complaints, Irefer them to officers at the local CoolangattaPolice Station who respond with targeted radartraps. We should be managing our speedingproblems with the police by identifyinglocations with a particularly high incidence ofspeeding—particularly those streets wherespeeding creates very dangerouscircumstances—and locations where it isshown that speeding is a contributing factor toa high incidence of traffic accidents.

I note that one of the key initiativescontained in the speed management programis a comprehensive review of speed limits.That has been addressed by a number ofmembers from this side of the House. I do notknow whether or not the speed limits of thePacific Highway between Brisbane and theGold Coast have been reviewed as yet, but Ido not believe that it would be fair on themany thousands of people who travel theBrisbane-Gold Coast highway every day to befaced with speed cameras before the reviewhas been completed. Sections of that highwayshould be seriously considered as safeenough to carry a 110 kilometres per hourspeed limit.

A serious problem exists on thathighway—and I know that this is not a problemthat can be addressed by the use of speedcameras—with drivers who are travelling underthe speed limit remaining in the right-handlane. At one stage, I wrote to the Police


Service about that issue. I asked how manyinfringement notices had been handed out topeople who travelled in the right-hand laneunder the speed limit and who would notmove over. I asked also whether that wasactually an offence. I am afraid that I receiveda very non-committal response, giving nodetails and merely stating that infringementsare not broken down into categories ofoffences and that they have only the figuresfor overall number of infringement notices.

Mr FitzGerald: Victims by sex, by race,by religion.

Mrs ROSE: I could just about give thehonourable member some statistics off the topof my head.

The police have always been very vigilantin targeting speeding on the Pacific Highwaybetween Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I haveoften seen radar traps on that stretch ofhighway. I am sure that the number ofspeeding offence notices issued for that roadwould reflect that. I would say that at this timethere is a serious concern among police as tohow they are going to be able to catchoffenders either by radar or cameras on aneight-lane highway. Perhaps the Minister couldoutline to the House the capabilities and therange of speed cameras, in particular whetheror not it is possible for the cameras tophotograph across three or four lanes of trafficor whether or not their range is limited to onlyone or two lanes. Perhaps the Minister couldenlighten us and all the other Queenslandersas to how efficient and effective the camerasare and what their range is—without revealing,of course, too much about how it may bepossible to avoid them or to avoid detection.

Although I accept that any of the long-term benefits of the cameras in relation toreducing the road toll will not be known forsome time, it is generally well accepted amongspeed management experts and throughsimilar programs in other States that speedcameras are not the only answer toaddressing the high rate of road crashes andfatalities or that speeding is the only cause ofaccidents. I have to say that my majorconcerns about the contributing factors in roadaccidents are inexperience and lack ofeducation and driver training.

Successive Queensland Governmentshave published a number of reports andinitiated a number of programs, such as thewearing of seat belts in 1972, the compulsoryfitting of seat belts, motorcycle riders having towear helmets, targeted random breath testingprograms and a lot of education programsabout drink-driving. However, I do not believe

that enough has been done about theeducation and training of people before theyactually get their licences.

There have also been a number ofsuggestions about the ways of dealing withthe driving experience problem, particularlyamong young people. Some of thosesuggestions have included limiting the numberor type of kilometres driven and restricting newdrivers to less powerful vehicles. I understandthat there was a trial being conducted wherebyanyone who was applying for a bike licence, orany new bike licence holder, was restricted toriding a bike of a maximum power of 250cc.Apparently, that program was not successfulbecause it is very hard to police and to ensurethat young people do not jump on a bike thatexceeds the maximum power of 250cc. So Ido not think that those measures that peoplehave identified are very sensible and mostcertainly they are almost impossible to police.

However, we can address the issues ofeducation and training. I believe that thisamendment to the legislation by the memberfor Capalaba is an excellent amendment andone that I support fully. Only on Monday thisweek, my 16-year-old son purchased aQueensland Driver’s Guide, which is producedby Queensland Transport. He bought it fromthe local newsagency and I experienced whatI am sure hundreds of thousands of otherparents have experienced, and that was atightening in my chest that stemmed from therealisation that in a few weeks' time he will beable to get behind the wheel of a car with alearner's permit and, six months following thatafter some driving lessons, and I will insist thathe has adequate lessons——

Mr Elder: In what sort of time can youget from the Gold Coast to Brisbane?

Mrs ROSE: It depends on the time ofthe day. Of the 456 people who were killed onQueensland roads last year, 136 of thosepeople, or nearly 30 per cent, were in the 17-year-old to 25-year-old age group. I think thatit is also interesting to note—and these are thesorts of figures that we should be lookingat—that of those 136 people, 105 were malesand 31 were females. On top of that, nearly5,000 people in that 17-year-old to 25-year-oldage group sustained injuries. This is where themajor problem lies. I do not believe that ouryoung people, or even mature new drivers forthat matter, are well enough prepared, or wellenough trained to begin driving.

There is minimal driver education in ourschools, which is where the driver educationshould begin. Now that most young peopleare remaining at school until they are 17 years

4486 Whale-watching Permits 27 Nov 1996

of age or 18 years of age, that only makessense. However, I believe that the educationthat is available is being introduced too late.The foundations for driver education shouldbegin at least two years before those youngpeople are eligible to obtain a learner's permit.There should also be a requirement that everydriver should complete an advanced drivingcourse.

While I was a member of the TravelsafeCommittee for a short time, some of themembers of the committee, including me,visited Road Craft at Gympie, which is anaccredited advanced driver training school. Itwas an extremely worthwhile experience andthere was consensus of opinion by themembers who participated in the course thatthey had gained valuable information ontechniques in handling a vehicle in difficultconditions. I fully intend to do a moreextensive advanced driving course and I wouldcertainly encourage other people to do thesame.

In October, I asked the Minister about amoratorium during the phasing-in period of thespeed cameras. At that time, the Ministerresponded by saying that there would be amoratorium period of up to three months inwhich motorists exceeding the speed limitwould be issued with a warning notice ratherthan an infringement notice except where thespeed limit was being exceeded by 30kilometres an hour. I ask the Minister to clarifywhether or not that moratorium does, in fact,still stand.

Some of my colleagues on the Oppositionside who have spoken to this Bill have saidthat they have been converted away fromopposing the introduction of speed cameras tofully supporting the introduction of speedcameras. Although I believe that theintroduction of speed cameras should berelated first and foremost to road safety—and Iknow that the Minister agrees with that—I stillreserve my judgment on the effectiveness ofspeed cameras until such time as they havebeen in force for a 12-month period and untilsuch time as we are able to gather all of thedata and all of the statistics on how effectivethey have been in reducing the road toll orreducing the number of accidents or the typesof accidents in which people are involved.

Currently, there is an excellent educationcampaign being run by way of the electronicmedia about the stopping distance betweendoing 60 kilometres an hour, or 70 kilometresan hour, or 80 kilometres an hour, which is anexcellent campaign. The Opposition will besupporting this Bill. However, as I said, I hope

that we really have some good outcomes afterthe first 12 months.

Progress reported.

WHALE-WATCHING PERMITSMr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (5.58 p.m.): I

move—

"That this House—

(1) notes the number of contradictionsmade by the Tourism Minister, theMinister for Environment and a seniorpublic servant in the Department ofEnvironment regarding the issue ofcorrespondence exchanged betweentheir Departments over the issuing ofnew whale watch permits in southernQueensland;

(2) calls upon both Ministers to table allmissing correspondence, referralnotes and records of phoneconversations relating to this; and

(3) condemns both Ministers for theirdeceptive handling of this issuewhich placed at risk the future of theHervey Bay whale watching industry."

This motion relates to certain events thathave had a profound effect on the whale-watching industry of Hervey Bay. The HerveyBay whale-watching industry, although afledgling industry, is now beginning to flourish.The industry was pioneered in the bay, whichis a protected, calm waterway and is an idealhaven for whales that stop over with theiryoung for rest and recreation on their wayback to the Antarctic after their annual tripnorth. This industry was nurtured and fosteredin a cooperative manner by the stakeholdersof the industry, that is, the Governmentdepartment, which was the Department ofEnvironment, the whale-watching permitholders, and the conservation movement.

The annual whale-watching experience inHervey Bay lasts for up to three months andhas become central to Hervey Bay's economy.I cannot stress too much how important thewhale-watching industry is to the people ofHervey Bay. This year 83,000 people came toview the whales in Hervey Bay. They embarkon the whale-watching experience at the oldport of Urangan, which is now the UranganBoat Harbour. This is the beginning of anindustry which will grow to be something quitesubstantial.

The whale-watching industry has becomesomething of a child to Hervey Bay. It tookyears of planning to get the industry to theposition that it is in now. It is now viable,

27 Nov 1996 Whale-watching Permits 4487

although it is generally agreed that the first twoyears produced losses rather than profits. Thisis borne out by a letter from the TangaloomaIsland Resort to the Department ofEnvironment, which made the point that nomoney will be made out of the industry for atleast the first two years of operation. It takes alot to get the industry off the ground; it needsa great deal of capital investment and involvesa lot of risk. The people of Hervey Bay havetaken all the risk and they have investedcapital. They have cooperated with thedepartment and the conservation movementto form a set of guidelines which haveproduced a well regulated and an increasinglyviable industry.

Honourable members can imagine theshock that was waiting for Hervey Baystakeholders when they learnt that theirindustry was about to be invaded by permitholders from Moreton Bay. They knew nothingof this until they read about it in the press.They had had no word from the Minister thatthe industry was to be expanded in any way.As a matter of fact, the draft conservation planwhich everybody relied on as a guide in thismatter had specifically stated, having regard toall the scientific evidence that was available toit, that no more permits would be issued. TheMinister did not consult with the stakeholdersin the Hervey Bay industry. It compounded theshock when permits were issued in anotherplace without any consultation with the HerveyBay people about the effect that it would haveon their industry or on the welfare of thewhales. They received the news from an articlein the Brisbane press and from a Moreton Baypermit holder who did not have a boat andwho was in Hervey Bay endeavouring toacquire a boat, either by leasing or buying.When asked by the bay people whatrestrictions applied to boats in Moreton Bay,he was mystified because he did not know ofany. It appeared that there was one set ofrules for Moreton Bay and another for HerveyBay.

I suppose it can be said that some ofthese things came about through ignorance. Iwould accept that, although it really is noexcuse. I think the matter needs to berectified. To cut a long story short, the HerveyBay people were beginning to get restive. ThePremier was in town at a National Partyconference and he gave an assurance that hewould look into the matter and have thematter reviewed and discussed in Cabinet.

At a public meeting in Hervey Bay, adelegation was formed of representatives fromall sections of the community which had a vitalinterest in the whale-watching industry. That

delegation visited the Minister forEnvironment, who told them that the statusquo would remain. However, there was moreupheaval and uproar in Hervey Bay. A seniorpublic servant got into the act by makingcertain comments about another Minister andlater retracted those comments.

The Minister for Tourism, Small Businessand Industry came to town and his firstcomment was that he knew nothing about thesituation because he had not been briefed. Bymid afternoon he was telling people that hehad made his views known in Cabinet at sometime previous. The Tourism Minister assuredall and sundry that he would take their viewsback to the Premier and that the matter wouldcome under review. He said that he was surethat a satisfactory conclusion would bereached.

However, the other night the situationculminated with a statement made by theMinister in the House. After two pages ofnothing and one paragraph of what thepeople of Hervey Bay were really interested in,he announced that there would be amoratorium on the issue of permits. However,from a reading of the document, it wouldappear that that moratorium could end asearly as February. That is not good enough forthe people of Hervey Bay. They want somecertainty about their industry and somecertainty that scientific research will take place,over the period of a couple of years at least,and that they will get some satisfaction out ofit. More than that, they want real protection forwhat has become one of the major tourismindustries in Queensland. The whale-watchingindustry in Hervey Bay is a stand-alone majorevent which lasts for two and a half months.This year 83,000 people came to view thewhales and the industry is not fully operationalyet. There is a lot more to go into it.

The people of Hervey Bay and I believethat if the Government starts to issue permitsto different groups up and down the coast, it isgoing to fragment the industry. It will bust it upuntil there are all sorts of little groups operatingunder different rules, all scratching out ameagre existence from the industry and beingtempted to break the rules. This will not do theoperators any good and it will not doQueensland any good. More importantly, it willnot do the whales any good because theirwelfare is central to the whole industry.Without whales, there will be no whale-watching industry and no prosperity for thepeople of Hervey Bay.

In a place like Hervey Bay it is hardenough to have an industry which generates


money all the time. It is an inexhaustible,natural process that keeps rolling on. Thepeople of Hervey Bay are asking that theMinister for Tourism really considers treatingthe whale-watching experience as a majorevent on the Queensland calendar and givesit all the protection and assistance that othermajor events have enjoyed over the years. Iam sure that the industry will more than repayany investment that the Queensland Touristand Travel Corporation makes in it. It will notbe like the Indy car race; it will produce areturn because the industry is there alreadyand it will produce a multiplying return fromhere on. I am offering a positive solution to theMinister, that is, to grasp the nettle and tomake it a major industry, one that is capableof being sustained and not fragmented, andultimately Queensland will reap the rewards.

The Government of the day, of whateverpersuasion, should take the long-term view ofwhat is good for the industry, what is good forthe people who are running the industry andwhat is good for the whales. Nothing less willsatisfy the people of Hervey Bay. The Premier,a senior public servant and two Ministers ofthe Crown have not been able to sort themess out over a period of weeks. One wouldthink that they would be able to do somethingpositive in a very short time, because there isno reason why they cannot. A draftconservation plan which covers the matter andwhich was based on sound scientific advice isalready in place. The Labor Party intends tostick with that advice, as it always has, and ourpolicy, which is contained in the draftmanagement plan, is: no more permits.

Time expired. Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—Deputy

Leader of the Opposition) (6.09 p.m.): It is mypleasure to second this motion. It has been along time since I have seen an issue sodisgracefully handled by two such incompetentCabinet Ministers. Over recent weeks, we haveseen one of the worst examples of ministerialblundering, deception, incompetence anddownright misleading.

I will deal with the Tourism Minister first. InMay he was approached by a tourism operatorwho asked for his assistance to get a newwhale-watching permit for southernQueensland. The Minister took on board therequest and referred it to the relevant Minister,in this case the Environment Minister. He dulywrote back to the operator, supporting herapplication and wishing her well. However,when the Hervey Bay industry got wind of thenews that a rival industry was gettingGovernment backing, the Minister trotted off to

the friendly Liberal Party breakfast in HerveyBay and gave the Environment Minister—hisso-called colleague—a right royal bucketing,claiming that he had no knowledge of the rivalindustry being established until the matter wasraised in Cabinet following the National Partymanagement conference in Hervey Bay heldin late October.

Hoping that he can say one thing inHervey Bay while kidding the other people inBrisbane, the Tourism Minister completelyignored any reference to the exchange ofcorrespondence that he had with MsMcTaggart in May and June and dumped 100per cent on the Environment Minister. Thefollowing quote from the Minister when he wasin Hervey Bay appeared in the Hervey BayIndependent on 15 November, which stated—

" 'I can't believe Brian Littleproudwould have approved those five whalewatching permits in Moreton Bay withoutconsulting with the whale watchingindustry up here.' "

Further, it stated—

"Mr Davidson said he was absolutelyannoyed that he had not been involved inthe issue until it was raised in Cabinetafter the Premier's visit here for theNational Party conference the weekbefore."

And he has the hide to get upset when Iaccuse him of being misleading! What elsecould I call it? It is a blatant case of a Ministerbig-noting himself among his supportivefriends while, behind the scenes in Brisbane,doing his best to set up an alternative industry.However, if that is not bad enough, whencalled to account by the media on 20November, he got well and truly rattled andcontradicted himself in the space of twoparagraphs. In the first paragraph, he isquoted as saying that he did not send a letterof support; he only passed on the request tothe appropriate department. In the nextmouthful, he refers to the "letter he wrote onbehalf of them to the Environment Minister".By now he cannot even get his story right withthe media.

Also, by now the Environment Ministerhas decided to get into the act. Having madean absolute meal of his supposed consultationwith the Hervey Bay operators, he went onABC Radio on 20 November and stated—

"Since I've been back in my office Ihave in fact looked at the files and sawthat, yes, there was a letter coming to myDepartment from Minister Davidson in


support of a person applying for alicence."

That is right; he found a letter from theTourism Minister, but it did not come to him, itwent to the department. So now we have oneMinister saying that he wrote to the otherMinister, while the other Minister is saying that,no, he wrote to the department. Talk aboutCabinet solidarity! By now, a respected seniorpublic servant entered the fray and stated to ameeting of tourism figures and whale watchersin Hervey Bay that Minister Davidson hadwritten a strongly worded letter to theDepartment of Environment supporting one ofthe applicants for the new whale-watchinglicence and stating that he would ensure thatthe permit was issued.

Within 24 hours, the same public servantis issuing an apology to Minister Davidson,saying he got it wrong. But wait for it, in theapology he implies that Minister Davidson didnot write to either the Environment Minister orthe Department of Environment; rather, theletter on the files is a letter from Davidson backto the licence applicant which the applicantforwarded to the department in support of herapplication. What an absolute joke! What acomedy of errors and blunders! Why would Inot run with this issue? Members oppositecould not run a chook raffle.

I do not believe the story so far. The truthis still out there. What we have is a classicillustration of the old saying: what a tangledweb we weave when at first we try to deceive.The Minister for Tourism tries to pass himselfoff as an affable buffoon when all he is is abuffoon. All his political life he has stood fornothing more than a few jokes and a fewbeers—and that is just a substitute for hardwork. It is the same here. He told the people inBrisbane one thing—that he is fighting forthem—but then he snuck off to Hervey Bay,gave his Cabinet colleague a bucket, stood upfor the Hervey Bay whale watchers, becausethat is what they wanted to hear, and then hedisappeared out of town. He never stands foranything—not even from the old bait shop.

Time expired.

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (6.14 p.m.):I move the following amendments—

"Paragraph (1)—

Omit the word "number", insert"allegation".

Delete all words after "issue", insert"which will clarify the process used todetermine new permits;".

Paragraph (3)—Omit ."

In speaking to these amendments, I wishto refer to a few points made by the mover ofthe original motion, the member for HerveyBay, Mr Nunn, who referred to a publicmeeting that I attended. Yes, at that particularmeeting the local whale-watching people weresomewhat annoyed and were trying to defendtheir industry. I explained to those people that,as the Minister for Environment, I had to basemy decisions on conservation considerations.Their problems were mainly economic. Iappreciated their concerns, because whalewatching is a major part of the local economy.

Those people were trying to defend theirlivelihoods, and they tended to become ratherunreasonable. It was a statement made inerror by a senior officer that made themsuspect things that were not the case.Subsequently, a letter of apology and anexplanation were provided by the seniordepartmental officer. There were two meetingswith whale-watch people at Maryborough.Unfortunately, after the first meeting, somepeople thought that, when a comment wasmade in error, there was strong support for alicence in Moreton Bay. The situation wassummed up on the ABC news when a MsAngela Burger stated—

"Before any of us even knew aboutthe threats to the whales or the threats tothe livelihoods of half of Hervey Bay'stourism industry, there's the Minister forTourism deliberately saying, here's apermit friend."

The allegation was made by those people atthat meeting that something untoward hadhappened. On the plane travelling back toBrisbane, I became aware of these threatsbeing made and a suggestion that theyshould go to the CJC. I made contact bytelephone with the lady who made theaccusations. I faxed her a copy of a letter anda draft from my department, which was aninformation paper, trying to assure her thatthat was not the case.

The member for Capalaba and othersthen decided that there had to be somethingsinister in this. If there was anymisunderstanding, it was probably with respectto the words I chose to use when I was talkingto Cathy Border, because I made mention of aletter that I had sighted from MinisterDavidson. I did not explain properly that in factthe letter came, just as the member forCapalaba had explained, via the letter ofapplication for a permit from Akarma WaterWhale Watching in support of its permit.


A few days ago, I explained all of that inthe House. I would have thought that peoplemight have accepted my word for it. However,I now wish to table some documents. I tablethe relevant section of the only departmentalfiles provided to me in relation to whalewatching in Moreton Bay in relation to permits.I also table the transcript from the ABC newsat 12 noon on 19 November, wherein AngelaBurger—and she is referred to as "Burgess" inthe transcript—made the first accusation. Itable also a copy of the letter that I receivedaccompanying the application for the permitfrom Starkie and McTaggart of Akarma WaterCruises. I advise the House that, when thatapplication came in, it was referredstraightaway to the department. It is thedepartment which issues the permits, not theMinister. The former Minister wouldacknowledge that. He knows that that is thecase.

Since then, I have made public astatement from the senior departmentalofficer. I tabled it in the House the other day,but I will table it again. I also table a briefingnote from the same officer about the incidentat Hervey Bay on that day. I table a copy of adocument from Akarma Water WhaleWatching, which mentions her consultationwith Mr Welford, the member for Everton. Italso refers to contact with my office.

Mr Fouras: What's all this about?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: This is all aboutexplaining——

Time expired.Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa—

Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry) (6.19 p.m.): I second theamendment moved by the Minister forEnvironment. I want to outline to the Housethe series of events that occurred leading upto this issue and put to rest the political pointscoring that the Deputy Leader of theOpposition set about last week in the press.

I did attend Hervey Bay for a couple ofdays two weeks ago. I had many meetingswith business people and people involved inthe whale-watching industry in Hervey Bay,including a breakfast on the Friday morning. Imust say at the outset that I have neverreceived any correspondence from themember for Hervey Bay makingrepresentations to me as the Minister forTourism on behalf of the whale-watchingindustry. So I do not believe he has anycredibility in buying into this argument——

Mr NUNN: I rise to a point of order. TheMinister complains that he had no

representation from me. There was no needfor representation until the Governmentstuffed it up. It was going all right.


Mr DAVIDSON: The member for HerveyBay is buying into this argument. He has donenothing as the member for Hervey Bay in ninemonths in Opposition to ensure that I as theMinister for Tourism was aware of the needs ofthe whale-watching industry in Hervey Bay. Igot that message from them when I was upthere. They told me that the member wouldnot do anything for them, and that is why theywanted to talk to me.

I did the right thing by the industry inHervey Bay by committing myself and theQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporationboard to holding a board meeting in HerveyBay in February to ensure that all boardmembers, the CEO of the QTTC, the directorof sales of the QTTC and the marketingdirector of the QTTC visited Hervey Bay to seeat first hand the enormous opportunities thatwhale watching in Hervey Bay presents totourism in Queensland. Mr Bennett agreed tothat meeting and we put out a press release10 days ago advising all people in Hervey Baythat the QTTC board will meet there inFebruary. That is my commitment. I amprepared to send the appropriate people upthere and work with the industry to ensure thatthe Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation is aware of the enormous tourismopportunities that the whale-watching industryin Hervey Bay presents to this State.

Let me say that I never, ever wrote to MrLittleproud or any officer in the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage. I received a letterfrom Akarma Cruises requesting assistance inprogressing their whale-watch applicationthrough the Department of Environment andHeritage. As the Deputy Leader of theOpposition knows, that letter went through theprocesses in my department. It went down toa departmental officer who had contact withthe Department of Environment and Heritage,formulated a response to the letter I hadreceived from Akarma Cruises and posted itback to Ms McTaggart. That is the onlycorrespondence my department and myselfever, ever had with Mr Littleproud'sdepartment.

In her future meetings with theDepartment of Environment and Heritage, MsMcTaggart presented a copy of my letter tocomplement her application for this permit.The only problem with this letter is that at the


end, as a matter of courtesy, I chose theline—

"I trust you will be successful in yourapplication for a whale watching permit."

That is a matter of courtesy that I include in allbusiness letters I write back to constituentswho make inquiries to my office.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition hastried to belt this up into a story for his ownbenefit. He had no issues to run with lastweek; he could not generate a story forhimself, so he grabbed hold of this. In hispress release, he stated—

"But a senior EnvironmentDepartment bureaucrat has been electedto take the fall for Mr Davidson and MrLittleproud's duplicity in this whole sorrysaga."

That is the way Mr Elder does business as ahead kicker for the AWU. He has been knownfor years to force and pressure people intodoing what he wants them to do. I do notoperate in that manner. When Mr Boylandrealised his mistake and discovered that hedid not receive a letter from me—that he wasonly referring to a letter that the proponent forthis permit had given to him—he then put outan apology.

I had never spoken to Mr Boyland up untillast Wednesday when this issue arose. I didnot encourage him to take any action otherthan to say, "Well, mate, just make sure thatyou haven't got any letters on file." He said,"We haven't. I am sorry; I was referring to aletter that Ms McTaggart gave to me." Hechose of his own volition to put out a letter ofapology. I did not force him to do anything.The member was trying to score a few littlepolitical points by putting around a story thatwe had intimidated a bureaucrat. He mightwork like that; we do not. He is the thug of theAWU. We are not thugs. He has kickedpeople's heads through the AWU for years; weall know that. We do not operate in thatmanner.

We are totally committed to the whale-watching industry in Hervey Bay, and theQTTC board will be there in February.

Time expired.

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (6.24 p.m.): Irise to support the motion of the member forHervey Bay and oppose the amendment. Iwant to say at the outset that while I was theMinister for Environment there was no strongersupporter of his electorate's interests, includingwhale watching, than the member for HerveyBay. Whale watching in Hervey Bay is an iconindustry that deserves to be supported. It is a

fragile industry. It is absolutely shameful thatthese two Ministers put it at risk for narrowcommercial interests. Both Ministers shouldcome clean and table absolutely everything onthis issue—not the selective tabling that wehave seen to date. Major contradictions existin their statements, including those madetonight, and this Parliament is entitled to thecomplete information. If there is nothing tohide, then why not provide the lot and then letthis Parliament make an informed judgmenton just who is telling the truth and who is doingwhat?

This whole escapade should rightly becalled "The Dad and Davo Show". It is a sadindictment of this Government's attitude to theenvironment. Members opposite, particularlythe Environment Minister, seem to haveforgotten what is most important, that is, thesecurity and preservation of the whales. TheGoss Government gave this priority when itintroduced the draft conservation plan forwhales and dolphins. The Minister for Tourism,"Bumbling Dave", is interested only inexploiting this rare resource. Until recently,whales faced extinction from the brutalexploitation by commercial whaling. Now wehave a Tourism Minister who wants to put theirwelfare at risk by overexploitation of whalewatching for the almighty dollar. He has alsorisked an existing industry at Hervey Baywhich, handled sensitively under guidelines setby the Goss Government, is a major tourismindustry and a major money earner and jobcreator in Hervey Bay. Both these Ministersare prepared to kill the goose that lays thegolden egg.

It is sad that we have an EnvironmentMinister who is again demonstrating that he isprepared to put commercial business interestsahead of his conservation responsibilities. This"dad" of the Ministry appears to be preparedto ignore his own department's guidelines forwhale watching, which are based on very solidscientific evidence. The Minister is showingthat he is prepared to support his ministerialcolleagues—he is prepared to giveinappropriate support for more whale watchingin what is believed, based on the scientificevidence, to be a most sensitive area forwhales.

South-east Queensland adjacent toMoreton Island is very different from HerveyBay. The whales travel past Moreton Island onthe ocean side. They are not in the bay, andboats watching them have to leapfrog past thewhales to give clients any watchingexperience. This can be harassing to thewhales; it is potentially stressful for them andin fact can lead to the deaths of whales where


they are suckling calves. This is not as good awatching experience as Hervey Bay for clients.The fact that they are in open water in theswells can be very uncomfortable for clients.All the whales want to do when they arecoming past south-east Queensland is travel.They are not stopping or playing, as they areat Hervey Bay. It is a stop-off point, a restingplace for the whales. They are relaxed. Theysplash and dive out of the water. Watchingboats are mostly stationary at a safe distancefrom the whales while the majestic spectacletakes place. The whales will frequently comeright up to the boats by themselves becauseat Hervey Bay they are inside Fraser Island,they are in calm water and they are in a goodlocation.

That is why the current plan is in place—the plan that was put in place by the GossGovernment. It states that there should bestrictly limited watching and no more permits insouth-east Queensland until more scientificstudies are completed over the next few years.The Minister for Environment should accepthis department's current guidelines under thedraft conservation plan. I will quote severalaspects from that plan. It states—

". . . on the southern migration . . . undueharassment could cause increasedmortality for lactating cows with youngcalves."

That is what this pair of Ministers are preparedto risk. The guidelines continue—

"Consequently, commercial whalewatching along the southern Queenslandcoast will be strictly limited. Until furtherinformation is available on migrationroutes north of Moreton Island, no furtherpermits for commercial whale watching willbe issued."

But this pair are prepared to support thegranting of more commercial permits for whalewatching—all in the interests of the dollar andnot in the interests of the whales, who deserveto have proper conservation techniquesapplied to them. The plan also states—

"A small number of vessels couldtherefore effectively interrupt migration ofthe entire population. Because animalsare usually travelling at speed in this area,vessels must maintain a moderatespeed . . . or else 'leapfrog' to remain incontact with the whales. Neither practice isconsidered desirable."

Time expired.Ms WARWICK (Barron River)

(6.29 p.m.): I would like to inform the Houseabout the operation of the Hervey Bay whale-

watching industry, an industry that is a majorboon not only to the local economy but also tothe whole of Queensland. It is estimated thatwhale watching generates around about$2.5m annually in Queensland. The bay itselfis regarded as one of the best locations in theworld to view humpback whales.

Department of Environment officersadvise that operators pride themselves on thereputation of their industry, both nationally andinternationally. They consider that they haveworld's best practice in balancing tourism andconservation aspects. Whale watching startedformally or commercially in the area in 1987.The operation has changed significantly overthis time, from the use of fishing boats to morepurpose-designed vessels offering a moreeducational experience.

In 1990, the Department of Environmentbegan regulating the industry with a ceilingpermit of 20, and a management policy wasdeveloped through research and consultation.The season runs for three months a year,some operations running specifically andothers as part of larger tourist operations, whilesome run charters in the off season. The83,000 passengers carried this year isbelieved to be about 30 per cent of potentialpassenger numbers.

Although permits are not legallytransferable, they can be surrendered andreissued. The permits have increasedconsiderably in value, worth from $50,000 to$650,000 in businesses changing hands.Permit conditions were reviewed throughconsultation two years ago and another reviewis now under way. The Hervey Bay industryhas also developed its own code of conduct.

The Whale Watch Industry Association,Hervey Bay was formed in 1995 to representoperators and others whose business relied onwhale watching. Some operators have alsobeen involved in establishing the AustraliaWhale Foundation Trust which aims to raisefunds for cetacean research. By contrast, it issuggested that whale watching in the MoretonBay area would never be self-sustaining likethat at Hervey Bay. The conditions aredifferent and anticipated numbers arenowhere near those in the vicinity of HerveyBay.

I will now address the matter of theconditions attached to the new Moreton Baypermits issued for this year. These include: theuse of specified areas adjacent to CapeMoreton; adherence to the Department ofEnvironment code of ethics for commercialwhale watching in Moreton Bay Marine Park;restrictions on methods of approach, distance


from and direction of approach to whales,including not within 100 metres, not within 300metres of pods with calves, and only approachto be made from the landward side; and theprovision of adequate seating, protection fromthe elements and viewing space forpassengers.

A recent newspaper article quoted a DrRobert Paterson from the QueenslandMuseum as saying that the new Moreton Baypermits would not be detrimental to the whalesif managed correctly. Apparently he hasdedicated 18 years to researching humpbackwhales and he does not believe that whalewatching detrimentally affects them. He hasbeen quoted as saying—

"Humpbacks migrate instinctively.Hunting did not alter their migrationpattern and new tourism ventures won'teither. If the strict management measuresare adhered to, the new permits won'tcause any significant damage."

I come from an area where both conservationvalues and tourism are important assets. Thisis also very applicable to the whale-watchingindustry. I am confident that the Governmentis acting responsibly in the interests of both. Itis pleasing to note that the Department ofTourism, Small Business and Industry willincrease its cooperative work with theDepartment of Environment to ensure theintelligent management of this spectacularenvironmental and tourism resource.

I welcome the announcement yesterdayby the Minister for Environment, theHonourable Brian Littleproud, that there will bea moratorium on the issuing of whale-watchingpermits for Moreton Bay until morecomprehensive guidelines are developedunder the management plan for cetaceans.This plan is expected to be ready for Cabinetconsideration in the early new year. I lookforward to the strategic direction that it willprovide for the whale-watching industry andthe successful future that it should ensure forboth the whales and for those who want towatch them.

Mr WELFORD (Everton) (6.34 p.m.):The performance of the Government over theissue of whale-watching permits inQueensland has been an absolutelyincompetent performance if ever there wasone. This all started when the Minister forEnvironment, under pressure from the Ministerfor Tourism, issued permits for whale watchingin Moreton Bay against his own department'sadvice.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point oforder. That statement is wrong. I find itoffensive and ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister hasasked for a withdrawal.

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw.Mr DAVIDSON: I rise to a point of

order. I find that statement offensive. I neverspoke to the Minister for Environment or wroteto him on that issue.

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. I simply referto the report given to the whale-watchingoperators in Hervey Bay by the senior memberof the Environment Department staff who saidat that time that he had very strongrepresentations from the Minister for Tourismto issue the permits for Moreton Bay.

Mr DAVIDSON: I rise to a point oforder.

Mr WELFORD: Give it a break. I haveonly five minutes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister hasa point of order.

Mr DAVIDSON: The senior officer fromthe Department of Environment has sinceissued an apology saying that he madeuntruthful statements.


Mr WELFORD: Yes, and what anextraordinary statement it was that he wasforced to issue! Never before has a publicservant been put under that sort of ridiculouspressure.

Mr DAVIDSON: I rise to a point oforder. I did not force the officer of theDepartment of the Environment to issue anystatement. He did so of his own accord.

Mr WELFORD: If ever there was a guiltyconscience, that is one. I never said that theMinister forced the departmental official to doanything. There has been a monumentalattempt to cover up the circumstancessurrounding this matter. There is no questionthat there has been a massive bunglebetween the Environment Minister and theTourism Minister over this matter and that theyhave sordidly sought to cover up their mess byhaving statements issued by senior publicservants, people who are otherwise usuallyanonymous. Public servants are being forcedto issue statements to try to clear the namesof incompetent Ministers who trip over oneanother.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point oforder. I rise to defend the public servant——


Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order. A member cannot take a point oforder on behalf of someone else.

Mr WELFORD: This is an example ofthese two Ministers scrambling to limit thedamage to themselves because they havemade a mess of it.

Speaking at a Hervey Bay Liberal Partybreakfast, the Minister for Tourism said that hewas pretty disappointed with Mr Littleproud. Hesaid—

"I can't believe Brian Littleproudwould have approved those five whalewatching permits in Moreton Bay withoutconsulting with the whale watchingindustry up here.

It was pretty poor that there was alack of consultation . . . and I know thePremier is aware of it and as I understandfrom the meetings we've had this weekwith him and Brian that maybe somethingcan be sorted out."

What a bucket the Minister for Tourism tippedon the Environment Minister when he was inHervey Bay! What he did not tell, what hefraudulently concealed from the whale-watching industry in Hervey Bay, was that atthe very same time he was sending lettersacross to the Environment Departmentencouraging favourable consideration ofwhale-watching permits in Moreton Bay.

Mr DAVIDSON: I rise to a point oforder. That is untrue and I ask for it to bewithdrawn. I never sent a letter across to theDepartment of Environment and Heritage.

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. Where didthe letters go? This fellow has been changinghis story every second week. Talk about aseries of inconsistent statements! His credibilityis in shreds.

Mr De Lacy: Do you think that theyhave made Ray Connor look like a Rhodesscholar?

Mr WELFORD: Absolutely. The Ministerfor Tourism makes the Minister for Housinglook like a Rhodes scholar.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCairns should not interject from a seat otherthan his own.

Mr WELFORD: Because of thedesperation of these two incompetentsopposite trying to disrupt the opportunity that Ihave in this five-minute speech, I am runningout of time. I finish on this point: the ultimateresponsibility of the Environment Minister isnot only to protect the industry in Hervey Bay,which of course ought to be the concern of the

duplicitous Minister for Tourism sitting behindhim, but also to protect the whalesthemselves, that rare and threatened species.

I will read from a letter from theEnvironment Minister's own departmentregarding the humpback whale. The letterstates—

"The humpback whale . . . is stillrecovering from commercial whale huntingcarried out earlier this century and iscurrently considered a vulnerable speciesin Queensland.

. . .

Based on the experience of thisDepartment in Hervey Bay, theWhitsundays and Moreton Bay, theexpansion of whale watching in southernQueensland would be dramatic in theabsence of regulation."

Against the advice that his own departmentwas giving to the very applicants for whale-watching permits in Moreton Bay, the Ministerauthorised five new permits for whale watchingin Moreton Bay, scuttling the industry inHervey Bay.

Time expired.

Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (6.39 p.m.):Following all these histrionics of who said, wesaid, he said, she said, which is just politicalnonsense and point scoring, I would like tointroduce some commercial facts that comethrough in most disputes like this. If we getaway from all that nonsensical argy-bargy Iwould like to put some points to the House.

Mr Fouras: What's a commercial fact?

Mr GRICE: If the honourable membersticks around this place for another 10 years,he might learn what a commercial fact is.Firstly, I would like to refer to a submissionreceived on the Draft Nature ConservationPlan for whales and dolphins. A submissionwas received from two of the most vocalopponents of whale-watching permits beingissued for Moreton Bay this year, Mr SidMelksham and Angela Burger, relating to theirplan to base a whale-watching operation onthe Gold Coast. In concluding theirsubmission, they actually made application forsuch a permit in writing. They suggested—

"Overseas visitors in particular do nothave the time to travel to Hervey Bay towatch whales and many visitors generallyfind the only single day opportunity—byflying up to Hervey Bay—too expensive atmore than $250 per head."

They also suggested that if they did not gainsuch a licence an alternative would be to bus


people over the border to New South Wales. Asecond alternative was to travel by boat to theNew South Wales border before starting whalewatching. It was a completely commercialapplication. They waxed lyrical about the$2.5m that they had already spentestablishing a base in Surfers Paradise. Theyreferred to the 39-metre catamaran that theyhad just located. They said that they hadplanned all this before the terrible Minister, MrsRobson, planned to stop them. Thus theapplication was made.

Let us get back to a bit of commercialfact. These are the people who are causingthis ruckus, aside from the political nonsensethat the honourable member was going onwith. Labor, of course, would have us believethat it only wants whale watching at HerveyBay, which I agree, as the Minister saidyesterday, is the whale-watching capital ofAustralia. It is the capital because of itslocation and its conditions. However, Laborallowed an existing permit holder to continueoperating in Moreton Bay—at the TangaloomaResort—which had been operating before thedeclaration of the Moreton Bay Marine Park in1993.

It is interesting to note that on the latestavailable but unfinalised figures, Tangaloomacarried nearly 3,000 of the 3,366 whale-watchpassengers carried this year, the remainderbeing carried by the three other extra permitholders approved by the Department ofEnvironment during the season this year.Twenty permits were held for Hervey Bay thisyear and a total of 83,000 passengers, as wasmentioned earlier, was carried—an increaseon the 80,000 carried last year. Numbers haveactually increased by 20 per cent over theprevious three years.

The Department of Environment believesthat the number of Moreton Bay operators thisyear was at full capacity. The potential wouldbe for perhaps 10,000 passengers in a fullseason. Because of the conditions, clearlythere are differences between whale watchingin Moreton Bay and in Hervey Bay. Thewhales are in migration mode when they passMoreton Bay and, of course, the conditionscan be rough compared with the calmerwaters of Hervey Bay where the whales stop torest.

For example, this year Tangaloomaconducted 22 tours in July and August, two ofwhich were cancelled because of bad weather;and one of 11 trips in October was cancelled.Of the new operators, one conducted twotrips, with another two cancelled. As theHonourable Minister for Environment stated

yesterday, the Moreton Bay permits, apartfrom Tangalooma's, were issued only for thisyear and further permits will not be considereduntil the development of more comprehensiveguidelines to be included in the managementplan. This plan will also address issues such asthe important one of conservation and whalewatching in Moreton Bay and elsewhere,including the number of permits that should beallowed.

Final comment will be sought fromstakeholders before the plan goes to Cabinetin the new year. I am advised that there is noscientific data that suggests that four extracommercial operators in the Moreton Bay areawould impact on the conservation status of thewhale. The House should also note withpleasure that the actual population of thehumpback whale is on the increase.

Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (6.44 p.m.): Thismotion raises many questions about theintegrity of the Government's Environment andTourism portfolios and the respectiveMinisters. Whale watching is a worldwideattraction. Though whaling was a controversial,brutal industry, whale watching is now a much-loved, sensitive tourist attraction. As happenedin the past, self-serving politicians are usingthe animals to bring favour on themselves.The Minister for Environment and the Ministerfor Tourism are two such people. They havetaken what is an attraction for millions oftourists annually, and an important industry forthe people of Hervey Bay, and used it for theirown political gain.

We need to ask a couple of questions.Did the Minister for Environment consider theimpact of the intrusion of southern viewers onHervey Bay as the whales make their way tonorth Queensland to calve—particularly in theWhitsundays, which is now well known as thewhales' maternity ward? Did the Minister forTourism consider the impact on tourism in thecoastal areas of Queensland? Did he consultwith the existing whale watchers in Hervey Bayand the existing enterprises to consider whatimpact southern viewing would have on jobs inHervey Bay and the Whitsundays? Clearly,these few questions must be answered in thenegative. I am convinced that deception andself-promotion were the only considerations intheir minds. The only other explanation for thestuff-up in the correspondence and themisleading of this House can be stupidity,ignorance or incompetence, or all of theabove, plus the need to satisfy their ownpolitical requirements.

But we have only just heard someexamples of that for ourselves. We heard the


Minister for Tourism, Bruce Davidson, just saythat he had not spoken with these people. Idraw the Minister's attention to a transcript ofthe 4QR 7.45 a.m. news on Wednesday, 20November, when a reporter asked questionsof Mr Davidson about whale-watching permits.In his introduction the reporter said—

"Mr Davidson says he never met thepeople who wrote to him and he didn'tsend a letter of support. He only passedon the request to the appropriatedepartment."

The response from Mr Davidson was—

"As the Minister for Tourism, SmallBusiness and Industry I receive hundredsof letters every week from businesspeople raising certain queries with meconcerning other departments. Anyone iswelcome to come into my office and lookat the letters I received from thosebusiness people and the letter I wrote onbehalf of them to the Minister forEnvironment."

I repeat: the Minister said, "I wrote on behalfof them to the Minister for Environment".

Ms Spence: Didn't he just take a pointof order and deny that?

Mrs BIRD: He just took a point of orderand said that he did not say that. I table thattranscript. While members consider thattranscript they need to look at the track recordof these two people, particularly the Ministerfor Tourism. Just look at the Federal reef tax!Although now in damage control, it is clearthat the Minister for Small Business andTourism and the Minister for Environmenthave a case to answer on this issue. To datethey have been strangely quiet on the subjectof the reef tax.

The two Ministers sit on the Great BarrierReef Ministerial Council and, together with twoFederal Ministers, have the final say on whatmanagement changes to the reef occur. I findit impossible to believe that Senator Hill wouldnot, at the very least, have been in touch withhis State counterparts to discuss this massivetax hike or, more likely, to get their approval.How else could the Minister for Environment inQueensland have framed his own budgetwithout knowing the extent of the FederalGovernment cuts to the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority and the funds that thisnew tax would generate?

Apart from a very weak letter to theFederal Minister from the Minister for Tourismand a blurred radio comment, to date we haveheard little from these two Ministers on thereef tax. We have heard nothing—zilch. The

reason is plainly obvious. The two Ministerscan see the mess that their Federalcounterparts have got themselves into andthey are still ducking for cover. But tourismoperators along the length of the Queenslandcoastline are awake to the dishonesty andincompetence of these two Ministers inrelation to the reef tax and whale watching.The few pathetic comments made so far bythe State Minister for Tourism have certainlynot—

Time expired.Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (6.49 p.m.):

On behalf of the Minister for Environment I laythese documents on the table. The history ofwhale watching in Moreton Bay goes backmany years. One could even suggest that itwas happening in the best-forgotten days ofthe whaling industry based at Tangalooma,when whale watching was for hunting. Sincethat industry stopped in the early 1960s, thehumpbacks subsequently began to rebuild innumbers and more and more made their wayup the coast each year, whale watching hasincreased in popularity and was carried out inthe Moreton Bay area.

In February 1993, the Moreton BayMarine Park was gazetted. In March of thatyear a permit was issued to TangaloomaResort Limited, which had an establishedoperation predating the gazettal of the marinepark. A draft Nature Conservation Plan forWhales and Dolphins was released for publiccomment in September 1994. Elevensubmissions were received. This Governmentis in the process of finalising that plan forconsideration by Cabinet in the new year.

Since then, a number of inquiries havebeen made to the department with regard topermits for whale watching. The policy of thedepartment was that no permits be issued atleast until finalisation of the plan, but on thegrounds of natural justice operators who coulddemonstrate a history of commercial whalewatching in Moreton Bay prior to declaration ofthe park may be considered for a permit in theinterim. If the member for Waterford is againstthe issuing of permits in the Moreton Bay areanow, why did he let the Tangalooma operationcontinue? I would like him to explain that. Nofurther permits were issued by the departmentuntil this year when three additional permits—the applicants or their staff having hadprevious involvement with whale watching inthe area—were considered eligible. Anotherpermit was allowed for but not issued.

It is interesting to see the Labor Party'scurrent grandstanding on criticism of thepermits issued for Moreton Bay, which is in


stark contrast to the enthusiastic endorsementof issuing the permits by the former memberfor Lytton and former Deputy Premier andMinister for Tourism, Sport and Youth. MrBurns wrote last year to the then Minister forEnvironment and Heritage, Mr Barton, givingstrong support to an application for a whale-watching licence for Moreton Bay. Mr Burnssaid that he had no opposition to the provisionof a permit for the group that he wassupporting, and sought a meeting with MrBarton as a matter of urgency so approvalcould be gained for that year.

Letters of support for permit applicantswere also written by the member for Clevelandand the member for Bundamba when he wasMinister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, whichthe Honourable Minister for Environmenttabled yesterday. The following is worth notingfrom the review of public submissions on thedraft conservation plan—

"The issue of commercial whalewatching permits should not be demand-driven"—

that is the real issue: commercialismopportunism—

"but be controlled according to theprevailing conservation status of thehumpback whale population migrating toQueensland's waters.

It is true that there is little directevidence for a detrimental impact ofvessel traffic"—

on the whales. However, commercial whalewatching vessels of whatever size couldpossibly impact on whales migrating off theeastern coast. The review continues—

"However, there is a large body ofanecdotal and pseudo-quantitativeevidence, and a considerable body ofscientific opinion, that unregulated whalewatching carries significant risk torecovering whale populations."

Really this is all about recovering the size ofthe whale population and that has not beenfinally proven at this point. The reviewcontinues—

". . . the Nature Conservation (Wildlife)Regulation 1994, management of thespecies should take a conservativeapproach, and involve a coordinated suiteof management measures over the entirerange of the species within Queenslandjurisdiction. The proposed Areas ofSpecial Interest are one component ofthat coordinated approach. This approachwas endorsed at an international whalewatching workshop in Hervey Bay in 1995,

attended by scientific, industry,government, education and conservationinterests.

The continuing recovery of thehumpback whale population inQueensland waters is accepted. Basedon current predictions, humpback whalenumbers should reach 50% of the pre-whaling population early next century,more than 40 years after the cessation ofwhaling."

Members opposite say that problemsexist now. As I said before, why were theoriginal permits allowed——

Time expired.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the question—put;and the House divided—

AYES, 42—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D’Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, GossW. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott,McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone,Sullivan T. B.

NOES, 42—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs,Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke,Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan,Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson,Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll

Pairs: Connor, Edmond; Harper, Nuttall

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

Resolved in the negative .

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 7 to 8.30 p.m.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (see p. 4486).

Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (8.30 p.m.): TheOpposition supports this legislation as it is animportant initiative towards reducing the roadtoll and the resultant cost to the community ofinjuries and deaths caused by road accidents.It is important to note, too, that speedcameras are now used in all Australian Statesexcept for Queensland and the NorthernTerritory. There is little doubt that, all other


things being equal, there is an increase inroad crash severity as car speeds increase.

It is important to note Labor's record inrelation to accident and injury prevention. Itwas Labor that introduced the Motor AccidentInsurance Bill, which provided for the MotorAccident Insurance Commission and gave it astatutory role towards the investigation oftraffic incidents and the prevention of injuries.In its first two years of operation, it allocatedsome $4.1m towards reducing andresearching injuries and accidents.

I would also like to acknowledge thecontribution of the Parliamentary TravelsafeCommittee which, in its report of 1994,recommended the introduction of speedcameras. It was a very thorough and well-researched report.

I welcome the fact that the Minister haschanged his mind in relation to the issue ofspeed cameras. Prior to the last election hefelt differently about the issue. It is alwaysgood when someone changes his or her mindfor the better. In that sense, I commend theGovernment for its initiative.

Speeding has frequently beenunderestimated as a source of accidents. As Iindicated earlier, the severity of accidentsincreases substantially as travelling speed andimpact speed increases. Unlike liquorconsumption, where most people accept thatthe rate of consumption has an impact on thelikelihood of accidents and the likelihood ofinjuries, a lot of people do not seem to acceptthat speed is a factor in their own personaldriving habits. They think that other peoplecannot handle driving at speed but they seemto think that they are okay. So it is veryimportant that the Government understandsthe obligation that is upon it to educate peopleabout the dangers of driving at speed. In thatrespect, I commend the recent advertisingcampaign which depicts police officersindicating to motorists and other members ofthe public the danger of travelling at speedsand the injuries that——

Mr Palaszczuk: Did you commend MrsSheldon for her contribution?

Mr LUCAS: I commend Mrs Sheldon fordrawing the issue of speed limits to theattention of the Queensland public and theimportance of what can happen when oneexceeds the speed limit.

Surveys conducted by QueenslandTransport show that 85 per cent of motoristsexceed speed limits by 4 kilometres per hourto 28 kilometres per hour. My colleague thehonourable member for Archerfield indicated

that earlier, as well as the importance of areview of speed limits we should also ensurethat we do not penalise the whole of thepopulation and that people are prosecuted forspeeding only in appropriate situations.

In New South Wales an evaluation wasconducted at sites where the highestinfringements occurred. It showed that seriouscasualty crashes were decreased by 30 percent as a result of the operation of speedcameras. The Victorian Transport AccidentCommission in its research found that theaverage savings for the community as a resultof speed cameras was $1.5 billion—I repeat,"billion dollars". I must say that, on looking atthose figures, I find them somewhat hard tobelieve, but certainly there is a significantsaving to the community not only in the directcost of accidents but also in lost wages,medical costs and associated costs.

Probably the most important aspect inrelation to the introduction of speed camerasis their public acceptance. It is very easy tointroduce speed cameras the wrong way or toconduct their operations in the wrong mannerand therefore lose public confidence in them.The credibility of speed cameras rests solelyon drivers' perception of the appropriatenessof speed limits to the road environment.Things such as siting speed cameras at thebottom of hills or on straight roads are seen ascynical revenue-raising exercises and lead tothe undermining of public support for theinitiative. The police have noted that aperception of inappropriate siting diminishesthe role of enforcement as a driver educationprogram. In other words, if a driver thinks thatthe only reason he or she got done forspeeding was that the speed camera was atthe bottom of the hill rather than his or herpoor driving habits, then that driver is not likelyto have confidence in the system. Similarly, itimpairs community support for all policingactivities. If a member of the public is crankywith the police because of perceived injusticesdone to him or her as a result of speedcameras, then he or she is less likely tosupport the Government's other initiatives.

The other important factor relating topublic acceptance is what is done with themoney. This is where the Opposition takesissue with the Government's proposal to placeall the funds in consolidated revenue. Iendorse the amendment to be moved by theDeputy Leader of the Opposition whichrequires the funds raised by speed cameras tobe hypothecated to important areas wherethey can be used and be of relevance tomotorists. Motorists object to funds that theyhave paid by way of taxes, penalties or fines


going elsewhere. They are more likely tosupport the initiatives if they see that there is adirect benefit from the money that they havehad to, albeit reluctantly, pay over to theGovernment.

I would like the Minister to clarify what heproposes to do after the enactment of thelegislation with respect to a moratorium period.It is very important that people have publicconfidence and that people are not stung thefirst day that the laws are enacted. In NewSouth Wales a one-month moratorium periodwas introduced, and that was seen as animportant way of getting the public educatedtowards the new system. It also helps to ironout bugs in the system to ensure that, fromthe time that these speed cameras are fullyenforced, the system is up and runningproperly. Again, that aids in public confidence.

The Parliamentary Travelsafe Committeeidentified the great importance of communityconsultation—giving ownership in the siting ofspeed cameras and the decision to reviewspeed limits in consultation with the public.However, it is very important that those sorts ofdecisions are made at a local level. Forexample, I would have thought that aBrisbane-based committee that gave advice inrelation to speed limits would be just too large.One really needs local knowledge in order tohave local input in relation to particular blackspots. I call on the Minister to give this mattervery serious consideration in ensuring that theinput into those sitings and evaluations is aslocal as possible. That is not a problem in ruralareas but clearly it is in city areas.

As I indicated before, the TravelsafeCommittee recognised the need forcommunity representation. It also indicatedthat organisations such as the RACQ may notsufficiently report the views and interests of themotoring public. I endorse that view. It isimportant that members of the public haveownership of the proposals and it is importantthat members of the public can see that theirsuggestions are being implemented and thattheir criticisms are being noted. It then givesthem ownership of the program. It is theirprogram and it is seen by them as an initiativethat helps the whole community.

A number of important factors should betaken into account in site selection, includingincident history, complaints from the public,current changes in traffic conditions and thefact that these cameras would be very usefulin combating rat running in residential streets. Iask the Minister to take particular note ofconcerns that have been raised in theelectorate of Lytton with respect to drag-racing

on Wynnum Esplanade. A beautifulesplanade runs along the foreshore ofMoreton Bay in the electorate of Lytton.Unfortunately, certain irresponsible individualsfind it entertaining to drive along thatesplanade at high speed. This is an areawhere older people and young families tend tocongregate, and this drag-racing is extremelydangerous. This sort of area would be aperfect place for the siting of a speed camera.It would mean that action could be takenagainst these irresponsible individuals. It isworth while noting that tragically a few monthsago a young lad was killed on the WynnumEsplanade as a result of a foolish and stupiddrag-racing incident.

I am not suggesting that these problemswould be eradicated overnight. However, I canimagine how effective speed cameras wouldbe in getting the attention of theseirresponsible people and giving the publicsome confidence that something is beingdone about their irresponsible activities. I givethe Minister notice that I intend to follow upwith him this particular initiative at a local levelto combat some of these local problems.

I also support a number of importantinitiatives in relation to special speeding areas.Roadworks in particular are very important.They are dangerous to workers and theycause problems when members of the publicand motorists are unfamiliar with theirsurroundings. Often, although temporaryadvisory speed limit signs have been erected,motorists may know that the road is normallyan 80 kilometre per hour or 100 kilometre perhour stretch and drive accordingly,notwithstanding that there is a big hole in themiddle of the road. Signs can play a veryimportant role, not only in terms of the safetyof workers but also the safety of motorists.

I endorse the siting of speed camerasnear schools. Whilst speeds at schools areoften lower due to the duties performed bylollipop men and women and a generalawareness in the community, when a caraccident occurs at a school it is not usually acase of one car hitting another; generally, acar hits a young child. Of course, children canbe injured at extremely low speeds. Therefore,I endorse action in that regard.

There is room for disagreement on theissue of signage for speed cameras. As far asI understand it, the Bill says nothing aboutthis. At the present time there are no signrules with respect to radar. However, generalsigns within the metropolitan area relate tored-light cameras, which in themselves havethe added benefit of being very obvious. If


drivers go through the same set of traffic lightsfrom time to time, they get to know if there is ared-light camera there because they often seeit. I suggest that that has an additional role indriving home to the public the importance ofobeying the law and the likelihood ofdetection. As I am sure the Minister knows,cameras do not even need to be present atevery site in order for that site to have animportant deterrent effect. That is an importantfactor in considering whether or not to havesignage associated with speed cameras inQueensland. I support the adoption ofsignage such as occurs with red-light cameras.

As the member for Archerfield pointedout, New South Wales has site-specific signswith visible policing. The signs read, "You havejust passed a speed camera". I think that thatis very important, because people tend tohave confidence in an outcome or adisciplinary action when it is immediately drawnto their attention. If the ticket does not arrive inthe mail for three weeks, it is very easy for meto forget that I was, in fact, speeding.However, if that is drawn to my attention at thetime, even if it is through reading a sign ratherthan being approached by a policeman, as inthe case of an automatic speed camera, thathas the effect of drawing my attention to whatI am doing.

If drivers know that they are over the limit,they know that there is a possibility of theirbeing prosecuted as a result. In terms of thepolicing role, signage not only gives the publicconfidence but it also highlights the risk ofbeing caught. It is no good if tickets arrive outof the blue, because if they arrive in a randomfashion people will not adjust their drivingappropriately. The knowledge of detection hasbeen the success of random breath testing.With the old system of being intercepted bypolice, there was a risk of detection. However,the increased risk of detection through randombreath testing has been important. Withrespect to speed cameras, the same principleapplies.

A number of other police issues which areimportant relate to the resources. Only onepolice officer is required to operate a speedcamera, compared with four or five officersrequired to operate a Fairey slant radar trap.That represents an important saving inmanpower which allows the police to do whatthey are really trained to do: catch criminals,interview people, police the beat and so on. Itis very important that we liberate police officersto perform their more important roles.

Standing on the side of the roadoperating a radar is a dangerous job. Today,

my colleague the honourable member forMount Coot-tha attended the inquest into thedeath of policeman who was tragically killed onthe highway at Caloundra last year whilstoperating a radar. It might be thought thatpolice officers engage in certain mechanicalduties, but those duties can result in the tragicand senseless loss of life.

As I indicated before, probably thegreatest problem that the Opposition has withthe Government's proposal is its lack ofhypothecation. In other words, that moneythat will be raised from the fines will not go intoroad safety initiatives; it will go into generalpurpose funds. I note that on 29 March in theCourier-Mail the Minister foreshadowed thatrevenue could be used to fund ambulanceand health costs. I ask the Minister: whathappened to change that? In the first year ofspeed cameras operating in Victoria, $50mwas collected. Based on Treasury estimates,we will collect $30m in a year. All I can suggestis that the Treasurer wants the money, but sheis not prepared to pay it herself.

I call on the Government to support theamendment to be moved by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition in Committee todevote and hypothecate funding to initiativessuch as rehabilitation, road safety educationand black spot eradication. I note that theTravelsafe Committee similarly recommendedthis.

In 1989 in Victoria, when speed cameraswere introduced, 800,000 infringement noticeswere issued. For the population of Victoria atthe time, that is one notice for each person onaverage every five years. In 1993-94 inQueensland, 190,755 speeding tickets wereissued. If the same formula was translatedfrom Victoria to Queensland, that would trebleto 600,000 infringement notices. A threefoldincrease in infringement notices is clearlygoing to impact upon the public and it is goingto be a very important and difficult job toensure that the public is happy with theintroduction of speed cameras and that theyhave full confidence in them. Therefore, I amvery concerned with the refusal of theGovernment to specifically allocate the fundsraised by speed cameras, which could be acritical factor in the proposal not gaining fullpublic acceptance.

Mr FitzGerald: I thought the Oppositionwas designed to try to make the Governmentlook bad.

Mr LUCAS: At the moment we do notseem to have to do much to make theGovernment look bad. The Government is


more than happy to oblige and we can sitback and watch.

On behalf of the Opposition, I am happyto speak in support of the Bill. We will bemoving the amendment as indicated by theDeputy Leader of the Opposition. I think this isan important initiative. If implemented, it will doQueensland proud. If the money is applied toeradicating black spots and public education,Queensland will be the much better for it.

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee) (8.46 p.m.):Queensland has an horrendous road toll,evidenced by the statistics on fatalitiesmentioned by other speakers. In 1995, over400 people were killed and, to date, this year'sfigure is 330. Strong evidence suggests thatboth speed and alcohol were strong factors inthose fatalities.

If we had a war or a serious illness in theState that caused deaths of that order, therewould be a public outcry. However, it seemsthat year after year we blindly accept thatseveral hundred of our fellow citizens will dieas a result of road accidents. The sad fact isthat, in my view, the vast majority of suchdeaths were avoidable. Another major tragedyof these statistics is that a large percentage ofthe deaths involve young men aged between17 and 25.

Of course, one of the key features thathas been mentioned by other speakers is lackof training and experience. However, I alsostrongly believe that dangerous drivingpractices are a major contributing factor inmany of these deaths. That issue in itself canbe addressed by proper training andexperience.

A key issue arising is that ofteninappropriate speeds are driven according tothe condition of the road or the particularenvironment in which the car is travelling. Forexample, in my electorate Sandgate Roadruns directly past the Boondall State School.Currently, the speed limit on that section ofroad is 70 kilometres per hour. On a couple ofoccasions I have raised the matter with theMinister and also the department. Theirresponse was that there is no intention tolower the speed limit. However, thedepartment's own figures show that theaverage speed of cars passing the BoondallState School is 78 kilometres per hour. That istotally unacceptable, taking into account theenvironment in which that road is situated, thatis, adjacent to quite a major primary school inmy electorate.

I support a full review of speed limits. Ibelieve that we should have a certain amountof flexibility within our speed limits or speed

zones. For instance, I personally support thelowering of the speed limit in suburban streetsto 50 kilometres per hour. Also, in appropriateareas, I support increasing the speed limit to70 or even 80 kilometres per hour.

A further example in my electorate isSandgate Road where there is currently aproposal to build a bikeway along a largesection of that road. Most of the speed zoningalong that section is also 70 kilometres anhour. Again, we will have vehicles travelling at70 kilometres an hour which are separatedfrom cyclists by only a few lines on the roadmarking out a bikeway. In my view, fast-moving cars and bicycles do not mix.

I indicate that I do support the use ofspeed cameras as a means of addressing theissue of excessive speeding. However, I havea couple of provisos, namely, that they are notused simply as a revenue raiser and also thatthey are targeted at known danger spots.From the debate that has taken place today,that seems to be the general view of mostspeakers. I also believe that there is a generalacceptance in the community that speedcameras will help to address the problem.

One of the other disturbing features whichhas arisen particularly in recent years—and it isgetting worse—is that speed limits seem justto be a guide to the speed at which carsshould be travelling. For instance, motoriststravelling in a 60 kilometre an hour zone areexpected to do 70 or 75 kilometres per hour. Ifthey do not do that speed, they will find a caron their tail. Motorists in an 80 kilometre perhour zone are expected to do 90 kilometresan hour. Similarly, motorists in 100 kilometreper hour zones are expected to do at least105 kilometres per hour or even touching on110 kilometres per hour. The message that Ifeel is being given to the community is thatthat is okay. In my view, in many instancesthere does not appear to be a concentratedeffort to enforce the speed limits on majorroads in particular.

Mr Ardill: The motorists and the policeboth know that the speed limits are wrong.That is why that occurs.

Mr ROBERTS: That may be the case,but I still believe that motorists are aware ofwhat the speed limit is, and there is anobligation on motorists to obey it. As has beenmentioned, in any review there should be anadjustment and some flexibility in certain areasto take that into account.

Earlier I touched on the practice oftailgating. Although that does not relatedirectly to this issue, I rate it along with——


Mr Elliott: One of the biggest problemsthere are.

Mr ROBERTS: I rate the issue oftailgating, along with speed and alcohol, asone of the most dangerous driving practiceson our roads today. In my view, it should be aspecific offence under the Act. I am aware thata person could possibly be prosecuted underthe dangerous driving provisions. However,making tailgating a specific offence wouldsend a clear message to the many people inthe community who engage in that practice. Inmy view, that practice has been a contributingfactor in many accidents.

I turn to some of the specific provisions inthe Bill. I have indicated my general supportfor the thrust of this Bill. However, I do havestrong reservations about one particularaspect, and I wish to draw this to the attentionof the Minister. Proposed sections 44Q(1), (2)and (3) basically provide that a person is takento have committed an offence if it is detectedby the photographic device and that person isguilty if shown to be the owner of the vehicle.

Mr FitzGerald: Reverse onus of proof.

Mr ROBERTS: Yes, that is correct. Iunderstand that. I do not have a problem inthis case——

Mr FitzGerald: You would never collecta parking ticket otherwise, would you?

Mr ROBERTS: No, I am not arguingwith it. I accept that the reversal of the onus ofproof in this case is an appropriate process fordealing with speed camera offences. However,we take it a step further in this legislation. Wedo not just have an issue which involves thereversal of the onus of proof. If a person isidentified as the owner of a vehicle throughphotographic evidence, even if that personproves themselves to be innocent—that is,they have concrete evidence to say that theywere not the driver of the vehicle but were infact in another place and someone else wasdriving—that person is still deemed to be guiltyunless they can identify the driver of thevehicle or can show strong cause as to whythey cannot identify the driver. That is simplyunfair. In my view, it is a bad law. I am notsure whether there are too many other laws inthis country whereby, even though someonecan prove their innocence, that person will stillcop the fine and be deemed guilty unless theycan dob in the other person.

Mr FitzGerald: Who then? That's thequestion they ask you. Someone's got to pay.

Mr ROBERTS: That is right; someonehas to pay. I understand the argument thathas been put forward by the Minister regarding

the introduction of that provision, but I stillthink that it is a bad aspect of this legislation. Itis blatantly unfair. Again, I suggest that thereare very few examples probably in theWestern World whereby, even if someone canprove his innocence, that person will still bedeemed to be guilty if the other party cannotbe brought into the dock.

Mr FitzGerald: You can still go to court,though. The court may decide if you'reinnocent. You can still go to court.

Mr ROBERTS: The legislation is quitespecific. Even if someone is innocent, unlessthat person can show who the guilty party is,they will cop the fine. I draw that to theattention of the Minister. That is one aspect ofthis Bill which I believe should be reconsideredat some stage in the future. Innocent partiesshould not be required to pay fines for the baddeeds of other people.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone)(8.56 p.m.): I wish to raise a couple of points,some of which have already been mentioned.Unlike many other speakers in this debate, Ihave not had a steady stream of people in myelectorate rushing up to me saying what agreat idea speed cameras are. Quite thecontrary; I have heard a few expletives inrespect of what people think of speedcameras. I have heard a few explicitcomments.

Dr Watson: They didn't race in?Mrs CUNNINGHAM: No, they did not

race in, but they certainly meandered in at wellbelow the speed limit and told me what theythought. I and most of the people in myelectorate would acknowledge that researchhas shown that many accidents result fromexcessive speed. Research also shows thatthe severity of accidents is increased byexcessive speed. As has already been stated,with over 400 fatalities, 20 per cent of whichare speed related, 80 deaths each year aredirectly related to excessive speed. It is fairlydifficult to argue when presented with figureslike that. However, that does not mean thatAussies will accept it. They are not going tolike it at all. That makes it all the moreimperative that the introduction of speedcameras is transparently intended to addressthe safety problem, not to address therevenue problem.

I refer to the amendment that is beingproposed, particularly the third part of therevised amendment, which states that moneysbe expended on road safety education andawareness programs, accident and injuryrehabilitation and particularly on road fundingto improve the safety of sections of State-


controlled roads where accidents mostfrequently happen. With that amendment, Ithink we will find that a lot of Queenslanderswill come on side. That is simply because,although they may not like the fines, they willbe able to see where the money goes. It willnot go into the sinkhole of consolidatedrevenue.

The controls that are proposed in the Bill,that is, that cameras will be limited to use onroads which have undergone speed reviews,that police enforcement operations are to behighly visible and that the emphasis is to beon locations with a traffic crash history, areimportant. We mentioned the problem of radarguns being set up at the bottom of hills and atsafe spots where excessive speeds couldeasily be achieved. People became veryresentful of the use of radar guns. That shouldbe a lesson that is learned with respect to theintroduction of speed cameras.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister stated—

"Unfortunately, with the introductionof speed cameras an increase in offencesis inevitable. It would be nice to think thatmotorists will heed the warnings and slowdown before we introduce cameras, and Iencourage them to do just that."

I wish the Minister the best. It is imperativethat moneys collected—and they will besignificant—are collected and allocatedtransparently. I commend to the Minister theamendment that is proposed. Althoughpeople may not like the penalty, they will seethat over time it will improve their lot. A lot hasbeen said already about the TravelsafeCommittee's findings about speeding nearschools and at roadworks sites. I am not surewhether some of those areas actually fit intothe criteria that have been set for the use ofspeed cameras.

However, I would also like to reiterate theconcerns of the member for Nudgee aboutclause 5, proposed section 44Q. This iscompletely opposite to the Aussie ethos. Foryears and years, law enforcement officershave tried to get Aussies to dob in an enemy,let alone a mate. This section is saying, "Okay.You have proved that you're not guilty. Nowtell me who is." I cannot predict the sorts ofproblems that the Government will have inenforcing this.


Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

Mr FitzGerald: Mum will take theblame.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: It will come downto who has the most points left; it must havebeen her. Many drivers, especially if a vehiclegets multiple use—and if a family has teenagechildren the car engine never gets cold——

Mr Johnson: Have you got any points?

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I thank theMinister! A person may have a couple ofteenagers and they may get lobbed with abluey two or three weeks after the event. Mostpeople cannot remember who drove the caryesterday, let alone two or three weeks ago.The department is going to require thisdetailed logbook—"At 2 o'clock young Johnnyhad the car, at 3 o'clock dad had the car andat 5.30 young Mary had the car"—and pityhelp whoever was in the vehicle when thephotograph was taken. We are supposed tohave legislation that is enforceable and all thatsort of stuff. This provisions of this clause arenot enforceable. The guilty party should cop itsquarely on the chin—that is the Aussiementality. But this legislation allows for thefollowing scenario: "Look, sir, I am sorry, I wasat a meeting at Joe Bloggs' place and I wasn'tdriving the vehicle." "Who was?" I wish theMinister every success, because it is not——

Mr Santoro: Is this all ahead of me?Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes, that is

right—it is ahead of anyone with teenagers.But I do think that it is contrary to the spirit ofour law-making process. I think it is probablythe major flaw in the Bill. With thatamendment, I think it is an excellent proposal.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(9.01 p.m.): I rise to support the main thrust ofthis Bill and the amendment proposed by theshadow Minister for Transport. If 2,000Australians, including 400 Queenslanders,were killed as the result of a murder or asporting injury or a preventable surgicalprocedure, there would be a tremendousoutcry within our community and the mediawould be pursuing us relentlessly to have thelaw changed. But they are the facts of what ishappening on Australian roads. Last year2,017 people died on our roads, including 456Queenslanders.

I have recently become a member of theTravelsafe Committee and have beenprivileged to be more informed on thisparticular subject, but it is a problem which hasbeen prevalent in our society and somethingthat we need to attack with great vigour.Queensland's road toll last year rosesignificantly, especially when compared toother States, but fortunately this year therehave been 70 fewer deaths on the road thanthere were 12 months ago. There is an


anticipated road toll for the 12 months of 358,which is down significantly on last year. But it iswhen we compare ourselves to Victoria, andNew South Wales in particular, that we seethat we lag behind in terms of theenforcement of road and traffic rules toprevent death and serious injury.

When I have travelled to various Stateswith the Travelsafe Committee, almost everygroup that we have met with or that hasappeared before us has identified four majorcauses of accidents, serious injury and deathon our roads. They are alcohol, speed, fatigueand lack of restraints. The alcohol problem hasbeen identified for probably a decade and ahalf, and the introduction of random breathtesting in various forms has led to significantchange. Fatigue is more difficult to assessbecause we have the situation, especially onholidays, when people have been workinghard, they want to go a long distance in ashort time, they are often driving through thenight and an accident can happen randomly.Such accidents tend to be very serious. As torestraints—it may come as a surprise tomembers who know that most people wearseat belts that although there is highcompliance in the wearing of seat belts amongthose who are seriously injured or who diethere is a very high percentage who were notwearing seat belts. The stark reality is that seatbelts save lives and the non-wearing of seatbelts leads to a significant number of deaths.

That leads me to the second major issuethat I mentioned, which is speed. Thelegislation before the House addresses that.Other members have referred to a previousTravelsafe Committee report—a report thatwas produced before I became a member ofthe committee—and pointed out a few keyissues. One is that there needs to beappropriate speed limits on roads—speedsthat are accepted by the community. We areall aware that if the speed set for a road is notseen to be achievable by the driver, then thedriver does not even attempt to stick to thatspeed.

It is a shame, though, that at the momentthe Government has said that it will trial speedcameras only on main roads. I encourage theMinister to expand that significantly toresidential areas. Urban-based membersreceive regular complaints from constituentsabout rat runners—people using suburbanstreets at high speeds. The Minister'scolleague the chairman of the TravelsafeCommittee gave an example in his suburbanarea where this is a common problem. Itaffects amenity, people feel threatened, and

around homes and schools is a significantproblem. I encourage the review——

Mr Ardill: Gold Coast, Logan, Redcliffe,provincial cities—they all have the sameproblem.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: The person whojust interjected probably has the greatestknowledge of and commitment to road safetyof any member of this place. I commend MrArdill for his persistence and enthusiasm indriving the Travelsafe Committee for so manyyears. I have learned one thing: when LenArdill speaks on a matter of road safety or atraffic issue, and even railway timetables, I willalways believe him! What he has said is true.In all the urban areas throughout the States,this is a problem. Without necessarily sayingthat recommendation 17 of the Travelsafereport has to be followed to the letter—having25 per cent of operating times in residentialstreets—I hope that the use of speed camerasto respond to the urban problem is recognisedvery soon.

The Travelsafe report also said that thereneeds to be a widespread educational andpublicity campaign so that people are aware ofwhat is going on. I commend the Minister forthe three-month trial period in which there willbe very high media attention given to thespeed cameras. I encourage him to pursuethat in any way he can. I am sure thatmembers on this side of the House would behappy to work with the Minister and hisdepartment to advertise this in their ownareas.

The third thing that the TravelsafeCommittee recommended was a blanket useof speed cameras. This appears inrecommendation 12 of its report. Thecommittee recommended that 90 cameras beused across the State. Unfortunately, Cabinethas approved the purchase of only 15cameras. Allowing for down time for moving toother sites and for repairs, this will mean thatprobably 10 to 12 cameras are going to be inuse at any one time. If we compare this toVictoria, which has 56 cameras with 30operating at any one time, we will see thatthere is a huge difference in the density ofcoverage of the different States. In a couple ofminutes I will explain why I have referredespecially to Victoria which has been a leaderin saving lives by the use of its road safetystrategies. When one compares the size ofQueensland with Victoria, and one looks at thedecentralised nature of this State, it can beseen that Victoria's 56 cameras, if they were tobe translated to Queensland, would probablymean the use of around the 90 to 100


cameras recommended by the TravelsafeCommittee. The fact that there will be only 15cameras will actually mean that the goalswhich the Minister is rightly trying to achievewill not be achieved. Fifteen camerasthroughout the most decentralised State inAustralia will not have the effect that theyshould be having. I encourage the Minister toquickly accept the recommendation of theprevious Travelsafe Committee so that propercoverage of the State can be achieved.

I now refer to the situation in New SouthWales and Victoria. When one compares thenational road fatalities over the past decade,one sees that in the mid to late eighties theaverage road deaths throughout Australia wasaround 2,800 to 2,900 per year. At the end ofthe eighties and during the early nineties, thatfigure dropped dramatically to around 2,000and it has stayed at that mark for the past fewyears. The two significant influences whichbrought about this change were theintroduction of random breath testing to tacklethe drink-driving and the introduction of speedcameras in certain States.

Because Queensland did not introducespeed cameras, our road toll has stayedabnormally high compared to the dramaticchanges that have been achieved in NewSouth Wales and Victoria. Figures are readilyavailable from the Federal Office of RoadSafety in its 1996 reports. In those reports,members can see that that information paintsa very stark picture of the success in otherStates and the lack of success in Queensland.

New South Wales did something similar towhat the Minister is proposing. It did notintroduce blanket coverage of speed cameras;it had only 12 cameras in 1991 and they wererotated around 93 sites. That was laterextended to 300 sites. There were only 12cameras being used at 300 sites in New SouthWales. The percentage of vehicles exceedingthe speed limit appeared to decrease fromabout 34 per cent to 24 per cent. That is not abad reduction, but it is nowhere near thesuccess rate achieved in Victoria. Unless theMinister accepts the previous TravelsafeCommittee's recommendation of the need forup to 90 cameras, I believe that,unfortunately, our figures will be similar tothose of New South Wales and that we willachieve only moderate success.

Victoria, on the other hand, introducedfour cameras in 1986, and there was littlechange in the Victorian road toll. However, inDecember 1989, Victoria introduced anextensive speed camera program. This andthe random breath testing program were two

very strong and high profile weapons whichVictoria used against a rising road toll. Bothprograms were launched in 1989. By August1990, 60 speed cameras were in use. FromJuly 1991 to July 1993, Victorian speedcameras were used to carry out almost 46million vehicle checks with 105 millionspeeding infringement notices being issued.As a result of this two-pronged attack, that is,random breath testing and speed cameras,there was a dramatic decrease in Victoria'sroad toll. Also, in December 1989, when thespeed camera program was first launched,about 24 per cent of vehicles checked wereabove the enforced threshold. By December1990—just a year later—that figure haddropped to 13 per cent, and a year lateragain, in 1991, it had dropped to 9.4 per cent.That is a dramatic lowering in the number ofspeeding incidents across the State. Thathappened because of the blanket coverageand high profile that was given to speedcameras. Every driver knew that he or she wasgoing to be checked.

I am gravely concerned that the 15cameras to be introduced in Queensland willnot have that same effect. It is estimated thatin Victoria this led to a reduction of 18 per centin the number of casualty accidents andStatewide reductions between 28 per cent and40 per cent in the severity of injuries resultingfrom casualty accidents.

In terms of cost effectiveness, it wouldseem to have a beneficial effect of about 10to 1. It is not only in the Transport portfolio thatsavings were to be made. Savings were madein health, emergency services and also withinindustry. The loss to industry throughaccidents and down time was reduceddramatically, so business and the localcommunity all benefited from the introductionof speed cameras.

It is very difficult to point to an individualand say, "You are alive today because ofspeed cameras", yet when one looks at theStatewide programs, one sees that, afterspeed cameras are introduced there is adramatic reduction in deaths on the road. Wemust follow the high profile/high coverageprocedure of Victoria.

That leads me to a couple of decisionsmade by Cabinet, a couple of which I havereferred to already, that is, the small numberof cameras being introduced and that they willbe only on State-controlled roads. I also wantto talk about where the cameras will belocated. It is only partially accurate to placethem in places which have a history of crashesbecause many accidents occur randomly,


especially on the open road when a tyre blowsand where the speed results in death, orwhere fatigue, the great unknown in roaddeaths, causes accidents. When someone istravelling from Townsville to Brisbane orBrisbane to Mount Isa, an accident couldhappen at any time during the last two orthree hours of the long journey.

Mr Elliott: It could be in the first twohours just as easily.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I take theinterjection from the member. An accidentcould happen in the first two hours just aseasily.

Mr Ardill: And close to home.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Many accidents,as the member for Archerfield points out,occur close to home. The location of thecameras cannot be specifically mapped to anaccurate degree. I believe that camera sitesbeing determined by regional speedmanagement committees is an excellentprocedure because it gives some ownership ofthat action to the local community. Manymembers would be aware that, when peoplein a residential area ask for traffic controlmeasures to be taken and when the police dogo out with a radar trap, the police often findthat the people they nab speeding down thestreets are the locals. That drives home topeople the fact that they must driveresponsibly in their own area. Thedemonstration period and the moratoriumperiod are good ideas and I commend theMinister for that.

In the last few minutes available tome——

Mr Elliott: You don't have to take up thefull time.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I take theinterjection from the member for Cunningham.I am not taking up all of my allotted time forthe sake of it. There are very important issuesthat need to be raised. The member knowsthat, when 400 people die on our roads, thatis worthy of some comment. I thank themember for his previous interjection but not forthe last one.

There are some problems withenforcement and they need to be considered.Within the police culture, it is generallyseen—and on the Travelsafe Committee weobtained this information from a number ofdifferent States—that police often see trafficenforcement as low priority. There is a poorcareer structure for people working within thetraffic section and the Queensland policestructure does not allow for the proper

monitoring of traffic enforcement procedures.It is absolutely essential that there is a top-down emphasis given to traffic enforcement.Senior police officers must highlight theimportance of road safety and the PoliceService must provide a career structure whichwill allow movement and progression throughthe traffic section for their senior andexperienced officers.

The Fitzgerald inquiry said that thereshould be a decrease in the number ofspecialist branches within the Police Service,and I can see why, especially when MrFitzgerald focused largely on the licensingbranch and special groups which looked aftervice. Yet we know that expertise is needed inthe Fraud Squad, car theft, homicide, fauna,child abuse and traffic areas. We have tobalance the needs of the specialist knowledgethat can only be gained by staying in an areafor some time with the need for a turnover ofstaff so that corruption cannot be entrenchedin a particular section. I hope that the PoliceMinister and the Police Commissioner workclosely with the Police Service to try to changepolice attitudes so that they will see trafficenforcement for what it is—the saving of lives.If there were 400 murders a year in this State,the police would be very keen to pursue that.With traffic enforcement they are saving lives;their intervention prevents unnecessarydeaths.

This legislation has difficulty in coming togrips with the owners of corporate vehicles andI encourage the Minister to pursue that matteras best he can.

I agree with the amendment moved bythe shadow Minister for Transport. OtherStates have a specific allocation of fundsdirected to traffic management and roadsafety improvements. I agree with the shadowMinister for Transport when he says that weneed to have money specifically allocated toroad safety, rehabilitation and black spotfunding.

In conclusion, I would say that in the last15 to 20 years there has been a significantchange within our society with respect todrinking and driving. Twenty years ago men inparticular used to boast about how much theycould drink and then drive. Now the discussionat parties is, "I had better limit myself", or,"Who will be the designated driver tonight?" Ithas taken 10 to 15 years to bring about thatchange in attitude in our society. Tonight weare taking an important step to help changethe attitude with respect to speeding which isone of the four major causes of death on ourroads, particularly when young men and


young women in our society are more highlyrepresented in the road toll. I support thegeneral thrust of the legislation and I supportthe amendment to be moved by the shadowMinister.

Hon. V. G. JOHNSON (Gregory—Minister for Transport and Main Roads)(9.22 p.m.), in reply: With regard to theTransport Legislation Amendment Bill 1996, Ithank all honourable members for theircontributions to the debate this evening. It hasbeen constructive. It has been positive. I thinkit will be to the benefit of many of our motoringpublic in Queensland in the future.

Before I get into the summary, there isone thing I want to say. I thank Paul Blake,the Director of Land Transport and RoadSafety in Queensland, and his team. Theyhave done a power of work in putting thisprogram together. Mr Blake has travelledoverseas to investigate first hand the use ofspeed cameras in the United States andCanada. I believe this is going to beadvantageous to us here in Queensland whenthe final technology is selected and we havelet the contract to the successful company.People like Mr Blake have certainly made ourjob a lot easier. I believe that when theOpposition was in Government it did a lot ofwork in the area of speed cameras. Mr Blakewas instrumental in assisting the formerGovernment as well. I thank him and hisdepartment for their work.

I will not be speaking for too long in reply,but it seems that we have had muchduplication in the debate this evening. Manysimilar issues have been canvassed bydifferent speakers. I wish to refer to thecontribution made by the honourable memberfor Aspley. As he said, he is not happy withthe introduction of speed cameras, but I thinkat the end of the day he is going to bepleasantly surprised when he sees thebenefits that will flow from this legislation. Thehonourable member also made mention ofspeed limit signs being in position atweekends. This is in cases where the signshave been forgotten to be removed by roadworkers or construction workers. Thehonourable member said that if speedcameras are used in those areas they couldbe exploited. That is something of which theDepartment of Transport and the QueenslandPolice Service are well aware. I can assurehonourable members that this is not going tobe an issue.

The honourable member for Aspley saidthat the sooner local authorities undertaketheir reviews the better it will be for safety in

urban streets. This applies not only to thesouth-east corner of the State but to the majorregional centres around Queensland. TheLocal Government Association and the localauthorities will be responsible for undertakingthese reviews. Early in the new year we will beputting a package in place so that the localauthorities can undertake their reviews andthus be a part of the program. Manyhonourable members have spoken in thisdebate this afternoon and this evening of theimportance of having speed cameras in someof the urban streets in the major cities such asBrisbane, Gold Coast and the near northcoast. I believe everybody supports thatinitiative.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, thehonourable member for Capalaba andshadow Minister for Transport, offered a fairlyin-depth input into the debate this afternoon. Ithank him for the reference he made to PaulBlake and the stand on road safety that MrBlake and his group have taken over the lastfew years.

As many honourable members havementioned during the debate, the road toll inthis State last year was 456 fatalities. Untilmidnight last night, the road toll for this year is336 fatalities on our roads. I believe we havehad two fatalities on our roads today and thatprobably brings the total to 338. The sad thingabout this situation is that those lives arenever to be again. As one honourablemember said here this afternoon, 25 per centof those who have perished on our roads areyoung people aged from 17 to 25 years. Theyare the wealth of our youth. They are thefuture generation, the future leaders, and thepeople who will make this State and nationwork. We do not have those people any more.

We also have the injured persons who arelying maimed and injured in hospital wardsand in institutions around this State andnation. Those people will never again have aquality of life because they have sufferedhorrific injuries from car accidents. Thoseaccidents could have been caused byspeeding, fatigue, or they could have beenalcohol-related. As one member said heretonight, these people could have been injuredbecause they were not wearing restraints. Thisis a sad situation.

I think everybody in this House endorseswhat we are trying to achieve here thisevening with the introduction of speedcameras. In this State we believe that we cancut our road toll by up to 70 fatalities a year. Ifwe can do that, we are also going to cut thehorrific injuries to many of our people. Those


people will then be able to go on and have aquality of life.

Road accidents have a drastic impact onfamilies, friends and others in the community.There is also an impact on our health system.The health system is already overtaxed. If wecan lighten the load in that area we arecertainly on a winner.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition andother honourable members raised thequestion of "five times the fee" for the wealthyor the corporations, as he termed it. This issomething that is inevitable and somethingthat we cannot avoid. It is going to be up tothe responsibility and the honesty of thepeople driving the vehicles on the particularday to come forward and accept theirresponsibility for the fine.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition saidthat the loopholes will appear very quickly. Nodoubt there will be loopholes. When wemonitor the situation we will certainly look atthat. This is an initiative to reduce roadaccidents, road fatalities and road-relatedtrauma. We have to work together over thecoming months to make sure that this initiativeis put in place, is used properly and is going tobe advantageous to all Queenslanders.

The honourable member also mademention of revenue from speed cameras. Aswe have said all along, this legislation is a roadsafety initiative. That is dead right. It is a partof our road safety program. It is a programthat we have put in place to try to save livesand prevent horrific injuries on our roads. It isaimed at giving our citizens a quality of life.We want to have safe roads and make thingssafer for pedestrians.

The other issue the honourable membermentioned was the placement of hiddenspeed cameras. This is not the intention of thislegislation and it is not part of the agenda.Speed cameras will not be hidden. Thecameras will be mounted in a vehicle and thatvehicle will be on display to the public so that itcan be seen from a distance. Those peoplewho are speeding will certainly be the culprits.As someone said, that person will receive abluey in the mail at a later date.

The Deputy Leader of the Oppositionstressed also that those cameras be used forthe purpose for which they were designed. Iagree totally with that. That is exactly thepurpose for which they will be used. Hereferred also to the sites for those camerasand their revenue generation capacity. We areabout saving lives. This is part of the agendaof the quality of the road and traffic system.

As to full year estimates—we can discussall the estimates we like, but I do not thinkthan anyone can put their finger on how manylives will be saved or what the real outcomesof this initiative will be until those instrumentsare put in place and we see the final effects.Much has been said about the monitoring ofthose cameras. The monitoring period of threemonths from just prior to Christmas to Marchwill be a time for the training of staff and theselection of the location of cameras.

Another issue that has been raised is thecost of the initiative. Of the $1.5m budget,$900,000 is allocated for advertisements—$350,000 for radio, $100,000 for print,$150,000 for billboards and signs. That is onlyfair to the general public. They need to knowwhat is happening and what to expect if theyapproach one of those cameras at an illegalspeed.

Mr Lucas: Will you be enforcing duringthe monitoring period?

Mr JOHNSON: That is a very goodquestion. All along we have said that we woulddo that when a person violates the speed limitat a reckless rate during the trial period.However, we certainly do not have the powerto do that. We will be relying on the generalpublic to use their responsibility on the roadand trust that that will not happen. When theyreceive a letter in the mail to say that theyhave sped past a camera, hopefully they willview it as a warning that they will not get off solightly next time. The grace period extendsfrom December to March. I urge allhonourable members in the House to sell thiscampaign in their electorates because it is onefor all of Queensland.

Mr Palaszczuk: What if they speed at160 kilometres per hour?

Mr JOHNSON: That could be thesituation, but this is a matter of legalities andthat is something that we cannot currently doa great deal about. We will research thatmatter further; however, in the interim we justhave to wear it.

The honourable member for Waterfordraised issues in relation to his responsibilitiesas the Opposition spokesman for Police. I dorefer to the Police Minister, the HonourableRussell Cooper, because with me he isresponsible for putting this legislation together.Whilst it is Transport that puts the legislationthrough the House, the Police Service will beupholding and enforcing the legislation onceits operation is handed over to them.

The honourable member for Waterfordmentioned cameras mounted in inappropriate


places and a hidden agenda. I can assure himthat that will not be part of the deal. Hereferred also to hoons in urban streets. Again,that is a local government issue. Hementioned also Russian roulette and thePacific motorway when people tailgate and donot behave in a proper manner.

I trust that this new method will alleviatethe problems caused by louts who break thelaw in that way. As he mentioned thisafternoon, one great aspect of the introductionof speed cameras in this State is that thepressure on police resources will be lightenedto enable police officers to get on with otherduties. Only one police officer will man theoperation of a camera. That is a plus on itsown. As the member for Waterford said, theprocess must be scrupulous. We will monitorthat process to ensure that it is scrupulous.

The honourable member for Ipswichstated that this initiative cannot beimplemented fully unless the review has beencompleted across the State. That process iswell in place. It would be inappropriate to putthose instruments in place unless that reviewhas been conducted. Currently, thesecameras will be used on only State-controlledroads. Until local governments review thespeed limits in their jurisdictions, speedcameras will not be used in those areas.

The honourable member for Ipswich alsostated that the revenue raised will be a boostto Treasury. I interjected upon him and saidthat I hoped that not one dollar is raised fromthose cameras because if we did not raise anymoney people would be obeying the law;therefore, we would have a reduction infatalities and road injuries. That is certainly themission of this exercise and we will not bendaway from that for a moment.

Again I urge all honourable members tosupport our Road Sense campaign, the roadsafety program that has been put in place inrecent weeks. I believe that that campaign isworking. The reduction in road fatalities is notlinked to the change in Government. Icongratulate the people of Queensland andthe travelling public on the way that they havemanaged their road safety efforts this year. Ihope that in 1997 the record will be betterthan that so far this year. The emphasis is onour Road Sense program. We will certainly notlighten up on that between now and Christmasor even after Christmas into the new year.

The honourable member for Archerfieldreferred to the number of fatal crashescompared with the number this year. We arewell aware that the figures are down. Hereferred also to the Travelsafe Committee and

its recommendation of speed cameras. I thankthe honourable member for his input. Over theperiod of seven years that I have been in thisplace, he has had terrific input into theTravelsafe program and has been veryresponsible about the initiatives that he hassuggested. As one honourable member saidtonight, he is certainly a person who takesgreat pride and great interest in road safetyand transport issues. The review of State-controlled roads and local authority streetscannot be conducted together because thereview of State-controlled roads has to becompleted first. Once that is completed, thereview of local authority roads will beconducted early next year. Although I do notdisagree with the honourable member, it is notpractical at this point.

Mr Campbell: What are you going to doto make certain that they do it?

Mr JOHNSON: We will put themeasures in place to do that. I can assure thehonourable member that that will be done. It issomething that I think every member willsupport and endorse.

The member for Archerfield referred alsoto the 90 cameras. Although the TravelsafeCommittee recommended 90 cameras, wehave recommended the purchase of 15cameras. We believe that that is adequate forthe situation. We do have our computerisedRandom Road Watch program in place inQueensland. That has been very beneficial tothe travelling public. At this time we believethat 15 cameras will be adequate. Thatnumber is not final. I see the honourablemember shaking his head. We will beincreasing numbers as we go along. However,during this interim period we have to overcomesome of the minor hurdles.

The member for Bundaberg stated thatthis initiative will be of great benefit if properlyimplemented. In common with many othermembers, he mentioned a hidden agenda. Hereferred to site selection as did many othermembers. Site selection and deployment ofspeed cameras will be issues that we will bewatching very closely. The honourablemember raised the issue of local authorities.Guidelines will be made available in early 1997to allow local authorities to begin audits of theirspeed limits. Drivers of emergency servicevehicles are able to operate outside the TrafficAct and have their own internal emergencyprocedures. When we are talking about speedcameras, I think we all recognise that thoseofficers have a responsibility to theiremergency service roles, whether it be thePolice Service, the Ambulance Service or the


fire brigade. We certainly have to bend therules for those services.

The member for Sandgate mentionedyoung people. The importance of educationprograms for young people cannot beemphasised enough. Earlier, I mentioned thatfar too many of our young people areperishing on our roads. Our responsibility is toensure that the message gets through.

When I look around this Chamber, I seemany mums and dads of teenagers andyoung adults. I believe that, as responsiblemembers, we should pass on the messagethat speed cameras are going to be good forthe majority of Queenslanders.

The Government is considering the issuessurrounding having a moratorium. As I said,there has been much duplication in thespeeches. I believe that the issue of the sitingof cameras and all of the other issues raisedwill certainly be taken on board.

I thank honourable members on bothsides of the House for their contributions. Thislegislation is certainly going to be a plus forQueensland. Although I was totally opposedto speed cameras, last Christmas I saw at firsthand in Victoria the operations of speedcameras and I have done a backflip. I believethat that is a backflip for the better forQueensland, one that will be advantageous tosaving lives on our roads.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. V. G. Johnson (Gregory—Minister forTransport and Main Roads) in charge of theBill.

Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to.

Clause 8—Mr ELDER (9.42 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—"At page 9, lines 7 to 9—

omit, insert—

'Replacement of s 44T (Payment ofpenalty)

8. Section 44T—omit, insert—

'Use of penalties collected for cameradetected offences

'44T.(1) All money collected forpenalties imposed for camera detectedoffences in excess of the administrativecosts of collection must be used for thefollowing purposes—

(a) road safety education andawareness programs;

(b) road accident injury rehabilitationprograms;

(c) road funding to improve the safety ofthe sections of State-controlled roadswhere accidents most frequentlyhappen.

(2) In this section "State-controlledroad" means a road or route or part of aroad or route declared to be a State-controlled road under the TransportInfrastructure Act 1994.'.'."

A number of members have raised thisissue already, so I will not spend a lot of timegoing over the point again. One of theOpposition's major concerns about this Bill hasbeen revenue collection and the fact that theintroduction of speed cameras will be seen asa straight revenue generator for consolidatedrevenue—that the significant amounts ofmoney that will be generated as a result of theintroduction of speed cameras will go straightinto Treasury coffers.

To test the Government's mettle on thisand to see whether it is genuine in terms ofthe introduction of speed cameras—I acceptthat the Minister is genuine—I have moved anhypothecation of the money to three areasthat I regard as important. The first of thoseareas is road safety education and awarenessprograms. If we are going to achieve roadsafety in the long term, it will be throughprograms that educate not only youngerdrivers but also drivers generally about thepositions that they should adopt on the roadand the responsibilities that they have on theroad.

The second of those areas is roadaccident and injury rehabilitation programs. AtBald Hills, I first came across people who hadsuffered brain damage through roadaccidents. Those people have now beenrelocated to Wynnum Hospital. We tend tofocus on those people who have been killed inroad accidents and forget about those whoare maimed. As members would well know,some of those people are looked after for life.I believe that more could be done in thehealth area to support those particular people.If we can hypothecate the money towardstheir care, I see that as another valuablecontribution.

I accept what the member for Gladstonesaid about road funding and what we canachieve in the long term. QueenslandTransport has a major road program, butthose extra funds that are generated can be


used to eliminate black spots or sections ofState-controlled roads where accidents occurfrequently because of speed.

In the amendment I have raised threeareas that I regard as important. AsOpposition members have said, thisamendment ensures that the money goes tothe areas that are the most important: roadsafety, injury rehabilitation and black-spotfunding.

At the end of the day, if the Governmentis introducing these speed cameras for thereasons that it says it is introducing them, it isa far better outcome to allocate the money inthose directions than having the money gointo consolidated revenue. If the Minister isserious about the introduction of thislegislation, I ask him to support thisamendment.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I just wanted toadd a couple of comments consequent uponwhat was said by the previous speaker. A lothas been said already about this point. Theonly additional comment that I would like tomake is the fact that the introduction of speedcameras is a new impost; it is a new revenue-generating scheme. That money should go todesignated areas and not to consolidatedrevenue.

Historically, fines from other trafficincidents go to consolidated revenue. I thinkthat almost every member in this Chamberwould be experiencing deficiencies in thePolice Service in their electorates. It could beargued that fines and moneys collected inrelation to the Police Service should go backto policing. That does not occur.

This is a new revenue stream. It is onethat is open to significant criticism as being agenerator of revenue as opposed to a safetymechanism. That has been argued tonightbut, from the perspective of the community,that will still be the case. If the moneys areallocated to definable and recognisable areas,that will work towards reducing the incidence ofblack spots on roads. If the moneys are usedfor the rehabilitation of those who are actuallyinjured in road accidents or if the moneys areused to educate younger people inparticular—and older people—so that theirsafety record improves, that is a plus.

It will also be transparent if the Minister,whomever that may be, has his or her currentbudget reduced by an equal amount. Thatwould be a great disappointment. Thepurpose of this amendment is not to reshuffleconsolidated revenue; it is not to reshuffle theMinister's allocation; it is to give an extraallocation from a new revenue generator to

address specific problems. It is on that basisthat I think that the amendment has greatweight and great importance, and I commendit to the Chamber.

Mr ARDILL: I would also like to supportthis amendment, which is in line withrecommendation 31 of the Travelsafe report. Itis very important that the public is aware thatthis money is just not going into consolidatedrevenue, that it is dedicated for use on roadsafety matters.

I suggest that one of those matters isthat, once the 15 cameras that the Ministerbelieves are enough to service the State arefound to be totally inadequate, he will thenhave a fund from which he will be able to buysufficient cameras to cover the State in ablanket fashion. That is the only way thesystem will work.

I will give the Minister an example—and Itried to do this before by interjection. The redlight camera scheme worked wonderfully wellwhen it was first introduced. It is now almost atotal failure because at almost everycongested intersection where red-lightcameras are installed, at every hour of everyday one can see motorists running the redlight because they know that they have a verysmall chance of being caught. That is theproblem with having only 15 speed cameras toservice the whole of Queensland. It just will notwork.

I draw the Minister's attention torecommendation 12 in the Travelsafe reportwherein the committee went into great detailto explain why we need to have sufficientcameras. Fifteen cameras are not sufficient tocover each urban area in Queensland. In fact,half the time will be spend in moving thosespeed cameras around from one urban areato another. There would be days when therewould be no cameras in those urban areas atall. Queensland is a large State. Anothermember has mentioned how blanket coveragein Victoria works. However, non-blanketcoverage in places such as New Zealandmeans that the scheme is a total failure.Motorists will soon learn that they have a verysmall chance of being caught because thereare only 15 cameras throughout this very largeState. One can think easily of 15 places inQueensland, and still the cameras will have tobe moved to a different city every second day.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: That's the point Iwas making.

Mr ARDILL: That is right. That meansthat there would be only one speed camera inthe whole of Brisbane to have effectivecoverage. As I pointed out in my speech, the


major problem is not in Brisbane. Theprovincial areas, the outer metropolitan areasof Brisbane and country towns such as, say,Edmonton where the main highway runsthrough the town need to be covered also. Ifvery seriously disadvantaged areas such asthose are going to be covered, there wouldnot be a speed camera in the whole ofBrisbane. Fifteen cameras will not evenscratch the surface and motorists will soonshow utter contempt for them, just as theyshow contempt for red-light cameras at themoment.

Mr LUCAS: I spoke before about theimportance of the hypothecation method ofapplying funds in terms of achieving publicconfidence in the legislation and in speedcameras. When considering the amendmentmoved by my colleague the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition, another important issue toconsider is outlined in proposed newsubsection (c).

Proposed new section 44T(1)(c) deals withthe requirement for funding to be spent onimproving the safety of sections of State-controlled roads where accidents mostfrequently happen. The great beauty of theamendment is that it specifically directsattention in funding issues to eradicating theproblems referred to in the legislation. It alsoallows one to measure the success of theregime against statistics. If certain areas areidentified as being black spots, for want of abetter term, the funds that have beenhypothecated can be used to remedy thedefect. Having done that, one can seewhether it has made a difference, which hasthe great advantage of allowing theGovernment to say to members of the public,"We spent X dollars on the intersectionbetween Smith and Brown Streets and over afive-year period that has resulted in areduction in road accidents. That is where yourmoney goes."

In fact, during the Bicentennial RoadFunding Program, the CommonwealthGovernment often put up signs saying, "Thisroad is being funded by CommonwealthBicentennial road funds". I think that thatapproach assists public confidence. TheGovernment could erect signs saying, forexample, "This black spot eradication programwas funded by moneys provided through thespeed camera fund", or something similar.That is another way to aid in building publicconfidence in the scheme.

Mr JOHNSON: For the benefit ofhonourable members who are interested, I willhold up a picture of a police vehicle, which is

where these units will be located. They will notbe a camera as such; they will be mounted invehicles. The public will see them all the time.Even the honourable member forRockhampton will see them.

The Government accepted theamendment moved by the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition. I thank him and all Oppositionmembers for their cooperation in supportingthe Government in the passing of thislegislation. I also thank the honourablemember for Gladstone for her input into thedebate and for her support of theamendment. I take on board what themember for Archerfield has said about thenumber of cameras in question, and also whatthe member for Lytton said in relation toproposed new subsection (c) and other issuesrelating to the amendment. I thank theOpposition for its support.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20——

Mr LUCAS (9.55 p.m.): I support theadditional penalty for a body corporateinvolved in infringement. However, one of thereasons that we have a demerit point basedsystem is to impose equity across the systemwhere those who are wealthy and are of somemeans are penalised at least in the samemanner as the average battler in the street.

I have one concern in relation to theproposal, which is that the fine is imposed onthe company at up to five times the level but itonly makes the imposition on the company.Companies are sometimes companies ofstraw or companies that have no relationshipto their true owners. Although I am notsuggesting at this stage that an amendmentbe moved, I think that in the futureconsideration should be given to examiningwhether directors should be personally liablefor the fines incurred by companies as theyare in legislation such as the environmentalprotection legislation.

Mr JOHNSON: I take on board what thehonourable member is saying. That is certainlyof concern to everybody. We had to put theclause in the legislation because somebodyhas to be responsible for infringements at thispoint in time. The Deputy Leader of theOpposition raised that issue in his address thisafternoon. We will certainly be monitoring theissue as the program progresses. If there areanomalies, we will rectify them at a later date.

Clause 20, as read, agreed to.Bill reported, with an amendment.

27 Nov 1996 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Bill 4513

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Johnson, by leave,

read a third time.

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (MARINESAFETY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 October (seep. 3664).

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (9.58 p.m.): The Billdoes not provide the marine industry with aclear direction for the future. In part, it will onlycause more uncertainty. However, it doesadequately seek to remedy some problemswith the existing legislation. It also providesfurther evidence—as if it was needed—of howthe Government longs for the glory of pastdays. It would love to take us back to theseventies and eighties when Sir Joh was king,the National Party could get away with justabout everything and the Liberal Party wasnothing more than a pesky annoyance, a bitlike the naughty child next door. I guess atleast some things never change.

When in Government, Labor massivelyreformed the whole legislative framework fortransport in Queensland, and the marineindustry and marine safety were part of thosereforms. Labor reforms lifted a layer ofunnecessary bureaucratic red tape fromindustry whilst maintaining the high standardsthat are applied within the industry inQueensland. It gave industry more freedom tobe innovative and to create new markets,whilst also giving it more responsibility for itself.

The Minister has seen fit to reinstate thetitle "Marine Board" to replace the MarineIndustry Consultative Council. That isinteresting, because the fact is that there areno substantial changes from the role of theMaritime Industry Consultative Council. I guessthat is probably illustrative of what ishappening. There is primarily in this case achange of name. Admittedly, the number ofmembers has been significantly reduced, butthe real change is only in the name. So whydid they choose the name "Marine Board"?The Minister has said on a number ofoccasions that he wanted to go back—orshould that be "backwards"—to the way thingsused to be. Like so many of his ministerialcolleagues, the Minister often likes to pretendthat the last six years just did not happen.Times have changed. The world has movedon. The way the National Party used to dobusiness in the seventies and eighties is nolonger acceptable. Sticking a few mates on a

board with a nod and a wink is just no longergood enough. Public administration haschanged. The Minister cannot go back to theway it was.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming):Order! There is too much audible conversationin the Chamber.

Mr ELDER: Public administration haschanged. The Minister cannot go back to theway it was and expect everything to be okay.The Queensland public sector has beenmodernised to become far more efficient. Ithas developed an ethos whereby decisionsare made on the basis of what is good policy,not on which mate is owed the biggest favour.It has grown used to the idea of merit and notpolitical favours being the criterion foradvancement and success. Merely choosingthe name "Marine Board" will thankfully in thiscase not take us back to the past. Fortunately,it is a return to the past in name only, as thechanges will see the smaller Marine Boardlargely performing the consultative andadvisory functions of the Marine IndustryConsultative Council. It is a change in nameonly.

We certainly do not need—and I willreinforce the point—a return to the old days,when administrative responsibilities weredivided between the Marine Board, which wasa statutory authority, and the Department ofTransport. As we saw in the past, that led tofragmentation and uncertainty and, at best,blurred accountability. Changing the namedoes not make any substantive difference, sowhy worry if it makes the Minister and a few ofhis mates nostalgic for the glory days of thepast? However, it does send a bad signal. Ittells people that the Government is going backto the bad old days of sleazy deals andlooking after mates—even if that is theperception. As I have said in the past, therehave undoubtedly been some problemsassociated with the current legislation for somesections of the boat-building industry.

Mr Littleproud: Sleazy deals!

Mr ELDER: The Minister would beaware of deals. He is the one beingquestioned.

Mr Littleproud: You should havechecked your statement of privilege that youmade today a bit more closely.

Mr ELDER: I checked it closely. TheMinister will find that I will have some more forhim tomorrow. I will not miss the Minister; he isout there. As I said to the Minister thismorning, I will get to the truth. It might take me

4514 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Bill 27 Nov 1996

a few weeks, but I will get there. I will have thehides of the Minister and his incompetentmates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! TheMinister for Environment and the member forCapalaba!

Mr ELDER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wasprovoked. As I said——

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr ELDER: If the Minister wants to startup again, I do not mind; I have got allevening. I have time to work on the Minister.

As I said, there have undoubtedly beensome problems with the current legislation andwith some sections of the boat-buildingindustry. I may say that from time to time theMinister does overdramatise it. I believe that inthis case he has overdramatised some of theproblems outlined in his second-readingspeech. I certainly acknowledge that there is aneed for the chief executive of the Departmentof Transport to have greater flexibility torespond to the problems within the industryand to have the power to resolve many ofthose problems a lot more quickly than is thecase now.

It does appear that it is necessary toagain give the CEO the authority to approvethe design of a ship. The possibility of adifficulty with recognition of Queensland shipswith other jurisdictions was acknowledged bythe former Minister for Transport, DavidHamill—and by me—when he first introducedthis legislation. We knew at the time of thesenew changes that there may come a timewhen recognition was a problem. Thatsituation was always closely monitored. Underthe jurisdiction, it still seemed to be lockedinto, as I would see it, overly bureaucraticsystems and models. So I suppose in thatsense the amendment is necessary. I do notnecessarily believe it is the right way to go, butI accept that it is necessary.

However, I note that the previousunsatisfactory situation remains whereby theGovernment will approve a ship's design but itis legislatively protected from any liability forthe approval. So nothing has changed in thatarea. As I say, it seems to be just a change forchange's sake to try to resolve a problem inother situations. However, if we were seriousabout it, we would be looking at the liabilityissue as well. This new power for the chiefexecutive will operate side by side with existingprovisions. Again, we have a duplicatedsystem working. However, I accept thatprobably in this case it is necessary.

The general safety obligation is retainedand an accredited ship designer, builder ormarine surveyor may still issue a certificate ofcompliance. Many areas of the maritimeindustry embraced the opportunities offered tothem by the lifting of the heavy burden ofGovernment overregulation and theopportunities offered by self-regulation when itcame. Unfortunately, there are small pocketsof industry that are not up to thechallenges—and that is readily admitted—andopportunities offered by the new regime.However, the last thing the industry needs is areturn to the burdens of overregulation andthe irritations of daily inspections byGovernment officials. There should not be areturn to the delays in the construction ofvessels as inspections are arranged at virtuallyevery stage of the construction period.

The Minister would do well to maintain theethos of Labor's reforms and what we had inplace. They were on the whole very positive forthe industry. The Minister's criticisms in hissecond-reading speech, although a bitoverdramatised, were unfounded. Part ofdeveloping the new boating industry in thisState actually grew out of my time in theDepartment of Business, Industry andRegional Development. We actually set inplace networks. The boat-building network onthe coast is a good example of that. What wehave seen from that industry—and I see thePremier nodding; he is well aware of that, asan industry Minister—is a significant growth inexports of our commercial vessels overseas.Cougar Catamarans is a good example ofthat, as is Riviera Marine in respect of pleasurecraft, and there is a range of others.

Mr Borbidge: Up with the best in theworld.

Mr ELDER: I agree with the Premier;they are right up there with the best in theworld. That boating network worksexceptionally well on the Gold Coast. They arego-getters and are out there. I think thecriticism was harsh considering what I haveseen right throughout the State in terms ofthose networks and how they work. However, Iaccept what the Minister has said in relation tothe necessity to look at other jurisdictions andwhat we have to do in terms of easing theirconcerns.

Another thing that concerns me inparticular is the Minister's Federal counterpartswalking away from industry support. A lot ofthe NIES schemes and other schemes that wehave were jointly funded. I have concernsabout the Federal Government's walking awayfrom a lot of those industry support programs.


It would not take long for the Federal Ministerto see how they worked and worked well in atangible sense by looking at, for instance, theboating networks. Incentives are veryimportant for industry, provided they aretargeted and provided they are with industriesthat know exactly where they need to go in theinternational marketplace. The fact that theyhave withdrawn or wound back many of thoseschemes is a concern.

The power to allow the chief executive toexempt a person or ship from a regulatoryprovision is a broad power. I acknowledge thatit is an attempt to rectify some readilyidentifiable problems in the existing legislativeframework. Having to have a full regulationproclaimed every time there is a minorwater-skiing or boat event was excessive, anda remedy was necessary. But it is a broadpower indeed. The Minister has described theconstraints on this power of the chief executiveas "strict". In reality, these constraints areinsubstantial. This power is wide-ranging withvery few real constraints. That situation willneed to be monitored. I do not intend to moveamendments to this legislation, but I will speakto the clauses.

Mr Johnson: It certainly crippled thatrecreation industry in the past.

Mr ELDER: Yes. I understand thereason behind it. Those issues were broughtup with me near the end of my time asMinister, particularly for recreational usage. Butit goes beyond that. This is a broadexemption, and I will talk about it further at theCommittee stage. It is a broad power and onethat really needs to be monitored by theMinister. The last thing he needs is a CEO withthat power making those decisions unilaterally.I know that at the end of the day any changeshave to be gazetted, but it is important thatthis matter is monitored, and monitoredregularly.

I urge the Minister to ensure that whereregulations are made to relax the requirementfor safety equipment, it is done very carefullyand that all possible precautions, particularlywith safety equipment, are taken. The ideathat there might be a further relaxation ofcrewing requirements in somecircumstances—that is, crewing requirementson some of the commercial pleasure craft thattour the reefs—is of grave concern to me. AsMinister I consulted widely on the issue ofcrewing requirements and the impact ofQueensland's unique 35-metre rule, whichprovides significant relaxation of crewingrequirements for some tourist operators.Although there is undoubtedly a case for

some relaxation, I am not convinced that wehave not already gone too far and, in manycases, far too far. Perhaps that again needscloser monitoring.

From my discussions with various industrygroups, maritime professionals, operators andunions, I believed there was a lot of room forimprovement. I believe I could havenegotiated a tightening of requirements insome areas that would have been acceptableto the operators and not imposed significantcost hikes for them. The Minister has correctlypointed out that we have not had a majormarine accident in Queensland in recenthistory. Our aim should be to keep it that way.I am not convinced that further easing ofcrewing requirements on tourist vessels, ascompetition within the industry continues tobecome more intense, is a good way ofmaintaining that record. So again I say itneeds to be monitored, and monitored closely.

Operators are under enormous economicpressures to reduce costs. The exempt shipswill just get larger and larger with more andmore passenger-carrying capacity. If a tragedyever did occur and Queensland was notcomplying with international safetystandards—as many of the exemptionsapproved by the old Marine Board didnot—then the result could be catastrophic. Anaccident on a large tourist vessel would puthundreds of lives at risk. Even if the tragedywere unavoidable, any publicity suggesting wedid not comply with international standardswould be just disastrous for the whole touristindustry. The Minister must ensure that theCEO consults more widely than just with sometourist operators before any furtherexemptions are granted in this area.

The last issue is the cost ofimplementation. The Minister assures us thatthis legislation will be close to cost neutral. Isthe Minister going to impose fees for shipdesign and building approvals that will fullyrecover departmental costs? The Minister saysthat the legislation will be cost neutral. I ask:will those particular fees and charges fullyrecover costs? It will be very interesting to seehow important such approvals are to industry ifthe Minister requires full cost recovery. It hasbeen suggested that the level of fees will behigh enough to ensure that the department isnot competing unfairly—so the fee structurehas to be watched carefully—with accrediteddesigners. I hope it is the case that the feesare up there so that the department is notcompeting in that market. I would beinterested to hear what the Minister is going todo in that regard. It seems to me that with thisregistration to enable them to access these

4516 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Bill 27 Nov 1996

new jurisdictions, if the department is going todo it on a cost-recovery basis it will not apply totoo many of those that are out in the industry.Many of them are already self-regulated;many of them are already in the internationalmarket without it. I see the cost being asignificant cost. It would then be seen to be animpost on the industry. The Minister has toavoid subsidising the industry for the sake ofallowing them a rubber stamp and a tick toaccess other jurisdictions.

As I said earlier, I will talk to a number ofclauses. In light of the time and the fact thatthe Opposition will be supporting thelegislation, I will probably talk to clause 5regarding the chief executive's powers.Outside of that, I believe that the moves theMinister has put in place are reasonable forthe industry.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(10.15 p.m.): I rise to support the contributionby the member for Capalaba. We are talkingabout marine safety. The changes the Ministeris making are fairly major. The concerns thathave been expressed tonight had to be put onrecord to ensure that the Minister and thedepartment appreciate the very serious natureof these changes to marine safety standards.

Two issues that have arisen in Bundabergare covered by this legislation. The first is thesurveying of ships and boats. Concern hasbeen expressed to me about these changesnot only with regard to export industriesobtaining the appropriate certification but alsowith regard to insurance. Insurance policiescan often demand certain requirements withregard to surveying and other certification. Thesecond issue relates to the speed limitsimposed on boating in estuaries such as theBurnett River. We accept that we are allowingmajor flexibility, but the chief executiveofficer—the person who now has thisresponsibility—must be vigilant to ensure thatthere are not too many reductions in safetystandards. I ask the Minister to take on boardthose concerns. We must ensure that thesematters are dealt with properly.

The shipping on the Burnett River isundertaken by the Bundaberg Port Authority. Iacknowledge the role that the former chiefexecutive officer, Des Antrobus, played in thedevelopment of the Bundaberg Port Authority.Des Antrobus died several weeks ago. He hadworked tirelessly and enthusiastically for theBundaberg Port Authority over many years.The Minister has allowed that port authority tocontinue in its role of developing the port notonly as a sugar/petroleum port but also as ageneral cargo port, and that is an

acknowledgment of the work carried out byDes Antrobus. I know that Des will be sadlymissed by his three daughters and wife. Iwanted to put on record and acknowledge therole that he played in the Bundaberg PortAuthority.

Hon. V. G. JOHNSON (Gregory—Minister for Transport and Main Roads)(10.19 p.m.), in reply: I thank the DeputyLeader of the Opposition and the member forBundaberg for their support of this legislation.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referredto going back to the bad old days with thereintroduction of the board. I can assure thehonourable member that there are not goingto be any bad old days. These people will beresponsible people. They will be from industry.I believe that the member will be satisfied withthe people who are appointed.

I also say that there will be no sleazydeals. I give the honourable member anironclad guarantee that there will be no sleazydeals. It is not part of my make up and it iscertainly not a part of the agenda of theDepartment of Transport and Main Roadsunder my stewardship. I give the member thatassurance.

The Government has seen a need forthese changes, especially the changes to theship design and ship building industry. Theywill allow the Queensland industry to becompetitive in its interstate and internationalmarketplace. In the past, the legislationcontained an anomaly. I said that when I wasthe Opposition spokesman on Transport in myaddress in the second-reading debate on theoriginal legislation. This legislation will give theindustry a hand. It will make sure that not onlythe ship building industry but also all facets ofthe marine industry in this State get back ontoan even keel. This allows for input fromindustry and other interested persons, whetherthey be from Governments, Oppositions orwherever. We are trying to put in place a dealthat is going to be beneficial and constructiveto the whole of the marine industry, not just tocertain sections of it.

The member for Capalaba mentioned theFederal Government. I do not believe that is agreat issue with this legislation. As a part ofour State responsibilities, we have coveredthose problem areas. The member alsomentioned recreational areas and speed limitsfor speed boats. We will monitor that veryclosely. I am aware that the speed restrictionswere dropped in December last year. In recenttimes these restrictions have been the causeof heartache to the industry. This legislationgives the chief executive officer the powers to


address this anomaly. The membermentioned the chief executive officer's powers,too. We will monitor that very closely to makesure that it works properly.

The member mentioned ship safetyequipment. This is of concern. We will nothave ships in Queensland waters that do notcomply with safety equipment laws. We will bemonitoring that very closely as well. Themember knows as well as I do that it is just asimportant to have a safe shipping operation asit is to have safe motor vehicles on our roads.The two go hand in hand. They are bothissues that are of concern to me.

The member also mentioned ship designand approvals and asked whether industrywould recover the full costs of the inspections.Industry will have to cover those costs; theGovernment will not be covering them. It willbe revenue neutral for the Government. Theindustry will have to pay for these services;that will not be a responsibility of Government.However, we will be monitoring that to makesure things proceed in the direction that isbeneficial to the industry. The chief executiveofficer will have the necessary powers toensure that.

The honourable member for Bundabergraised a couple of matters. He mentioned agentleman who recently passed away. Suchpeople have played a very important role inthe industry, whether it be at Bundaberg oranywhere else in Queensland. I put on record,too, the thanks of the Government andQueensland Transport, especially the marinedivision, to that man's family. He has gonenow, unfortunately, but we certainly recognisehis achievements.

Overall, this is very responsible legislation.It is not about changing legislation introducedby the Labor administration for the sake ofchange. We believe these changes havebeen innovative and responsible, especially forthe boat building industry of this State. We aregoing to put that industry back to the fore. Wewill make it competitive with its interstate andinternational counterparts.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. V. G. Johnson (Gregory—Minister forTransport and Main Roads) in charge of theBill.


Clause 5—

Mr ELDER (10.25 p.m.): I will not dwellon this clause for too long because I raised

this matter in my speech at the secondreading. The insertion of new section 18Agives a broad power to the CEO, and I havespoken about that. In his second-readingspeech, the Minister said that theinterpretation of this legislation was strict.However, when one reads this clause onesees that it is far from being strict. There arefew constraints on the power the Minister givesthe CEO for the granting of exemptions, andthat is of concern. I can see the necessity forsome of these events about which the Ministerhas spoken, for example, the technicalregulatory provisions that are necessary forspeed events and other boat events.However, when he starts talking about theissues I mentioned, that is, crewing and safetyissues and major ship design, then I certainlyhave a concern.

It is important for me to raise this matter.The Minister needs to be aware of it. Thepower the Minister is giving the CEO is notstrict. This gives the CEO a broad power. TheMinister need only look at proposed newsubsection (8), which states: "A regulation mayregulate the giving of an exemption." That is apretty broad power. The CEO can give anexemption for just about every ambit of thelegislation and the industry. That gives theCEO a very broad power indeed.

It is important that I raise this concernheld by the Opposition. I was tempted todivide on this power because I thought it wasgoing beyond the pale, but we will wait to seehow it works. We will wait to see whether or notit gets away from the Minister. I hope it doesnot. We will give him the benefit of the doubt.We will not divide on it. However, it is importantthat I raise the issue during the Committeestage.

I wish to comment on the Minister's replyto the contributions to the second-readingdebate in which he said that we were notcompetitive as a State. We are verycompetitive as a boat building industry in thedomestic, interstate and international markets.We have very competitive ship and boatbuilders indeed. The reason the Minister isgoing through this provision is to allow themaccess, as some would see, to jurisdictions. Inother words, it gives them the QueenslandGovernment seal of approval. It has nothing todo with them not being competitive; they are avery competitive industry. It has not beendebilitating for those sections. They have beenvery active; they have been very competitive. Ido not accept that we do not have acompetitive industry in this State, and the GoldCoast is a good example of how competitivean industry we do have.

4518 Adjournment 27 Nov 1996

Mr JOHNSON: I thank the honourablemember for his query on clause 5. He hasconcerns about the powers of the chiefexecutive officer, but new section 18A (2)states—

"The chief executive must considerall relevant matters in deciding whether ornot to give an exemption, including, forexample . . ."

I bring that to the honourable member'sattention. I will take on board what themember has said. I give the honourablemember the assurance that we will monitorthis closely, because it is a change.

The member makes reference to crewingand safety issues. We will watch those closelybecause they are important. Safety issues areclose to the heart of every boat operator in thisState.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to.


Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Johnson, by leave,read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (10.30 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

St Bees Island LeasesMrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (10.30 p.m.): In

light of recent decisions by this Government,namely, to devalue land on Hamilton Island tonil, carrying nil rates, and a further decisionannounced today by the Premier to extendthe sunset clause for Woodwark Bay, theowners of St Bees Island appeal to theGovernment to overturn an injustice by an Actof Parliament and allow the island to developinto a planned sustainable eco resort thatwould be a showpiece for the world.

The mortgagees in possession of two ofthe three leases on St Bees in myconstituency are facing enormous losses andfinancial ruin due to an impasse with theDepartment of Natural Resources which doesnot permit them to sell or gain anycompensation for the value of theirmortgages. Mr and Mrs Lionel Berck ofMackay have owned and maintained theisland for 28 years, and the other owner, MrJohn Urch, for 16 years. In 1988 their rateswent from $8,000 to $138,000, which would

be applicable for a resort island but not whenthere were only three basic houses on theisland. This ensured that the island could notbe kept by the original owners. The island,rezoned for tourist development in the late1980s, could not procure a developer due tothe pilots strike, the stock market crash andthe death of another pending buyer.

The Department of Lands had imposed adeadline on the island for a resort to be inplace by 1993 or face forfeiture. The residentswere officially advised by the Department ofLands on 1 November 1993 that they had 28days to have the island sold. Due to theDepartment of Lands' deadline the ownerswere forced to sell to the only buyer availableat the time, Alan Bond, who represented hisson Craig Bond and two other partners onbehalf of Whitsunday Island Developments.

A great deal of stress was then sufferedby the owners in their protracted dealings withBond. In hard negotiating tactics thatcontinued for months right to 5 p.m. on thelast day the price was then reduced from$6.5m to $2.8m. During this protracted salePeggy and Peter Berck visited the Departmentof Lands with copies of some of the variousshocking contracts that they were being forcedto contend with and advised that Alan Bondwas negotiating the sale and that they did notwant to be forced to go ahead in thesepressing circumstances. It all fell on deaf ears.

In the contract of sale Alan Bond refusedto provide a mortgage on Lease A, the maintourism lease with all the best beaches, as hewanted it unencumbered to borrow upon tobuild a resort. The sellers were in no positionto bargain due to imminent forfeiture by theDepartment of Lands. Needless to say, Bonddid not pay, and the owners eventually won aHigh Court battle and put Bond's company,Whitsunday Island Developments, intoliquidation to assist them and other creditors toget paid. On the same day that the ownersappointed a liquidator to protect the assets ofthe company the Department of Landsresumed Lease A. On that same day theowners were able to pay the rates on LeasesB and C to protect their mortgages. Althougha liquidator was appointed to protect theassets, they were not able to secure Lease Afrom the Department of Lands.

The Department of Lands said to theliquidator that Lease A may be released to asuitable buyer but the liquidator could not sellthe island before the deadline set by theDepartment of Lands, and the Department ofLands withdrew Lease A formally a fewmonths after liquidation. The Department of

27 Nov 1996 Adjournment 4519

Lands made it impossible to sell the island,would not give the liquidator a letter to say thatthe island was for sale, and wanted a $14mfirst stage development built within a year,which would not allow a buyer to do his properplanning but would force him to meet the timeframes set by the Department of Lands. Indesperation the owners attempted to placecaveats on the leases to protect their interests,but the Department of Lands rejected theplacement of these caveats.

The owners have been advised by theDepartment of Lands that the leases will bewithdrawn from Whitsunday IslandDevelopments in a case to be heard in theLand Court in March 1997, that Lease A willbe forfeited officially and that the Departmentof Natural Resources will be seeking to getback Leases B and C. There are developerswho would like to build on the island anenvironmentally friendly eco resortimplementing new technology. Much work hasbeen done on the project, which can be madeavailable to interested parties in theGovernment. John Urch personally has spent15 years on the technology to make this aneco resort and his company, ThermalResearch, and ECO AIR have received a greatdeal of recognition and a number of awardsfor the technology developed.

In September 1996 the owners had acontract for a sale, but the Department ofNatural Resources advised these developersthat Lease A was Crown land and that LeasesB and C would be so shortly. The developerwas also told that he could apply to buy LeaseA but would have to pay a deposit of$500,000 and wait two years for a decision.Needless to say, the developer, who hadalready invested in Queensland, walked awayfrom further negotiation.

Lionel and Peggy Berck are in advancedyears with very little left financially—

Time expired.

Services for People with DisabilitiesMrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (10.36 p.m.): I

wish to advise honourable members of anumber of programs and initiatives which havebeen, or are being, implemented in thedisability area in the Department of Families,Youth and Community Care. We can dividethe respective programs into three main areaswhich cover centre-based care, community-based care and home-based care. All threeare provided through the Division of DisabilityServices, which includes the Disability Programand Intellectual Disability Services.

The main principles involved in theseprograms ensure appropriate levels of supportfor people with disabilities. Most importantly,that support is provided in a way which allowsthem to establish a quality of life valued by thegeneral community, and in a way which resultsin the minimum restriction of their rights andopportunities. There is an emphasis onrecognising the rights of individuals and theirfamilies to make choices regarding theservices that they require.

Together with their families, individuals areencouraged to participate actively in decisionsthat affect their lives, including thedevelopment of policies, programs andservices. That, in turn, necessitates theavailability of relevant information. One serviceprovided within the Office of Disability thatmeets this need is the disability informationand awareness line or DIAL, which is aStatewide telephone information service thatprovides information on services and supportfor people with disabilities, their families andcarers.

The department recognises theimportance of coordination in the provision ofservices to people with disabilities so thataccess to the full range of mainstreamservices and specialist disability supportoccurs. As a result, the department worksclosely with Queensland Health and theDepartment of Public Works and Housing—

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Your Minister won'teven allow for a SACS award increase.

Mrs WILSON: The Minister said that hewould look at SACS awards where he could.SACS has been on the board for a number ofyears and people should have been preparedfor it. As a result, the department works closelywith Queensland Health and the Departmentof Public Works and Housing to achieve amore integrated and coordinated servicesystem to support people with disabilities, theirfamilies and carers. Intellectual DisabilityServices provides a range of community andresidential services for children and adults whohave an intellectual disability. Those servicesinclude direct assistance with personal careand daily living tasks; counselling and support;family education; assessment; therapy andspecialist intervention; training in life skillsdevelopment; arrangement of respiteaccommodation, including in-home and out-of-home support; assistance in arrangingpermanent accommodation; and activities topromote community inclusion. Through thoseservices, the needs of some 2,400 people withhighly complex intellectual disabilities arebeing met at an annual cost of $77m.


Mr T. B. Sullivan: Do you know howmany are on the waiting list?

Mrs WILSON: Hang on!

Services are provided throughout theState from five regional offices, 15 serviceoutlets, 121 Alternative Living Service housesand units, a rural and remote area service,three villas, two residential centres and 12respite care services providing a range ofrespite options. The purpose of the DisabilityProgram is to assist non-Governmentorganisations through the provision of financialand developmental support to deliver a rangeof community-based support services forpeople with disabilities.

The eligible target group for servicesfunded under the Disability Program is peoplewith disabilities who are between the ages of0-64 years. It is expected that servicesreceiving funding under the Disability Programtake an individualised approach to the deliveryof their services. Funding is not provideddirectly to individuals, but rather to non-Government service providers for specifiedsupport in response to an individual'sassessed support needs.

The Disability Program funds services thatrespond to a range of needs of people withdisabilities. Those needs fall broadly into theareas of accommodation support, communityaccess, respite, recreation, information, printdisability, and advocacy. A total ofapproximately $60.8m in recurrent funds arebeing provided to 312 non-Governmentdisability services under the Disability Programin 1995-96. Of this, it is estimated that$18.8m, or 31 per cent, has been allocated tocentre-based support, with the remaining$42m directed towards supporting people withdisabilities in community-based services. Theymay include in-home support services. Centre-based care, currently funded through theDisability Program, includes services such asactivity therapy support services, residentialhomes and respite centres. A typical examplewould be for overnight or temporary stays.Community-basedcarecovers accommodationsupport and community access supportprovided in a range of settings, such as ingroup homes or family homes. It can alsoinclude support in the individual's own home,otherwise known as home-based care.

Carpentaria/Mount Isa MineralProvince

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa)(10.42 p.m.): When historians write the historyof Queensland and in particular the history of

the Goss Labor Government, one of thegreatest achievements will be theestablishment of the Carpentaria/Mount Isamineral province. That was a vision and adream of the Labor Government. Rather thanallow individual mining companies to operateand provide their own infrastructure in asection of north-west Queensland, the visionwas that those individual companies would gettogether, work out their infrastructurerequirements and then go their own separateways and make their own commercialdecisions. Today, after many years of hardwork and commitment by many people, wesee the Carpentaria/Mount Isa mineralprovince starting to provide the goods for thepeople of north-west Queensland, for theGovernment of Queensland and indeed forthe Australian economy.

In recent times, we have seen theannouncement that the gas pipeline would becoming out from the south west of the Stateup to the north west. As a result of thedecision to bring gas to Mount Isa, this weekWestern Mining Corporation announced that itwill build a project in north-west Queenslandwith an investment of between $600m and$700m. That will provide jobs for some 300people. Naturally, I would have liked to haveseen the work force living in my home city ofMount Isa, but because of commercial factorsthat is not the case. However, I believe thatthe north west will receive tremendousbenefits. I do not care who takes the credit forbringing the gas to north-west Queensland. AllI would say is that it was the Goss LaborGovernment that did the hard yards on thatproject and today we see the gas ready to bepumped out to Mount Isa.

Mount Isa Mines recently announced ahalf a billion dollar investment in theiroperations at Mount Isa. That means that thefuture of north-west Queensland, and inparticular the mining city of Mount Isa, isguaranteed for many years to come. TheCarpentaria/Mount Isa mineral province will bea $2 billion investment, involving some 6,000jobs and $30 billion of export revenue for ourState.

In recent times, we have heard criticism ofsome of the Aboriginal leaders in the northwest, but I am happy to report tonight that,following the recent ATSIC elections, theperson who now represents the Century area,the Doomadgee area, is a gentleman by thename of Reg Hookey. Reg was successful inthe recent election. I understand thatyesterday he was elected Chairman of theATSIC Regional Council. I have great faith inthe ability of this gentleman. I believe that,


under his leadership and guidance, massiveadvancement will be occur for Aboriginalpeople of north-west Queensland.

I also mention today the efforts of anAboriginal lady by the name of Elaine McKeonwho lives in Cloncurry. She has a vision forAboriginal people. She rejects the concept ofhandouts for her people. She says, "You workfor what you get." As a result of her efforts, theorganisation of which she is now part hasrecently done a deal with the Ernest HenryMining Company. I believe that that deal is asign of the times. The Ernest Henry MiningCompany will be placing a certain amount ofmoney into a trust fund. That Aboriginaldevelopment corporation will then go into jointventures with some of the commercialoperations. Where possible, they will employAboriginal people from north-westQueensland. The profits and proceeds fromthose joint ventures will go into a trust fundthat will be used to assist Aboriginal peopleand Aboriginal projects.

That is something that honourablemembers do not hear about. We hear thenegative criticisms of some Aboriginal people,but we do not hear of the efforts of peoplesuch as Elaine McKeon. She is certainlybringing a breath of fresh air into north-westQueensland.

Time expired.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point oforder. Mr Speaker, I draw to your attentionthat there is no member of the Executiveoccupying a position in this House.

Mr FitzGerald: It's an Adjournmentdebate, and as Leader of the House I havefull responsibility for the House.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I do not want totake the member's advice. I would rather havethe advice of Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seekyour advice on that situation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader ofthe House is capable of doing it and he isauthorised to take the Adjournment debate.

Schoolies Week

Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (10.47 p.m.): Itgives me great pleasure to report to the Houseon the success of the 1996 Schoolies Weekon the Sunshine Coast. In former years, theannual migration of Year 12 students toQueensland's holiday resorts was an activitylooked forward to—if that is the rightexpression—with great trepidation by policeofficers, councils, letting agents and, ofcourse, parents. In places such as Mooloolah,

it was greeted with a level of apprehensionexceeded only by that felt on New Year's eve.

To understand if not to excuse some ofthe excesses embarked upon by thosehedonistic participants, one must look at someof the issues involved. Schoolies Week doesrepresent perhaps the last hoorah of a lot ofQueensland's departing high school students,and Year 12 is pretty tough. Mixed with thatunderstandable feeling of relief, however, is acertain amount of uncertainty as to the nextstage, if not of their education but of their life'sambition. Will they be going to university orother forms of tertiary education or training?Perhaps they already have a job lined up. Ifthey do, they are in the minority.

It is quite likely, in fact, that they could bestaring into the face of unemployment. I donot mean just not getting a job in the nearfuture, but the possibility of tumbling into long-term institutionalised unemployment. As arelevant passing comment, I contend that inthis House we often tend to refer tounemployment as some sort of statistic;however, those young people are well awareof something like a 40 per cent youthunemployment rate on the Sunshine Coast,which, expressed in real terms, adds up toapproximately 13,000 young people whocannot continue with everything life has tooffer.

This number is coincidentally probablyfairly close to the total number of high schoolstudents on the coast. Just the fear of thisplus the parental expectations and peer grouppressure that go with it must have a dramaticeffect on young and not yet case-hardenedcharacters. To add to this, the possible firstabsence from direct parental or schoolsupervision and maybe a first blatant exposureto the risk of drugs and alcohol sets the scenefor danger and temptation. Is it any wonderthat such a cocktail of circumstances can getseverely out of control?

Yet for all this, the Sunshine Coast Dailynewspaper followed last week's festivities withthe following story headed, "Schoolies GoHome With An Excellent Report Card". Onbehalf of the wider local community, I wouldlike to say to all of those who participated,"Well done. You have done your year groupproud."

But such situations do not just happen. Alot of people have done a lot of work to makeit happen. In 1991, the Sunshine CoastCommunity Drug Awareness Network wasformed under the auspices of theDepartments of Education, Police and Healthplus community organisations such as Lions,


local councils and local businesses. Amongthe aims of SCCDAN, as it has becomeknown, is to maintain drug and alcohol abuseas a community issue, implement innovativedrug education and intervention programs andto promote and support alternative communityinitiatives. It is probably this third aim,successfully implemented again in 1996, thathas resulted in such a resounding successduring this most recent Schoolies Week.

I would like to place on record myappreciation and that of the wider communityto all those involved in the program. It isalways dangerous to single out individuals butI will do so on this occasion. Firstly, I refer toDavid Curd from the Mooloolaba and AreaSchool Support Centre, Venetta O'Brien fromthe Alcohol and Drug Service of QueenslandHealth and Detective Sergeant Ray Hoelscherof the Kawana Juvenile Aid Bureau. Secondly,I refer to the major sponsors, Coca Cola,McDonald's, Neilsen Brothers Surf andSunshine Plaza. Thirdly, I refer to the threeclubs that are licensed but put on alcohol-freenights, Stewarts, Troppos and Fridays. Ishould also include Maroochydore Cinema,Eric Moes from Maroochy Shire Council andLloyd Shemwell of Lake Currimundi LionsClub. I also commend the Sunshine CoastDaily on its positive reporting. I am sure that Ihave overlooked many contributors andvolunteers, and I apologise to them.

It is obvious from the way in which theseyoung people conducted themselves duringSchoolies Week that the future is in goodhands. I hope that we can make their effortsworthwhile by continuing to address thescourge of unacceptable high levels of youthunemployment.

Tennyson Power House; YerongaMilitary Hospital

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga)(10.52 p.m.): The Tennyson Power House siteoffers our community an historic opportunity toleave a great legacy for future generations onthis magnificent parcel of riverfront land.Accordingly, I urge the Government toapproach the future of this site with the loftygoal of maximising community benefit ratherthan any short-term mercenary goal of simplyflogging off the land to the highest bidder.

Since the decommissioning of theTennyson Power House, there has been thelengthy process of removing the asbestosfrom the site and removing the machinery

therein. Following my representations to theformer Government, a planning process wasapproved and I am pleased that the currentGovernment has agreed to continue thatplanning process through the Department ofNatural Resources engaging privateconsultants to carry out the report. Thisplanning process looks at the future of theTennyson Power House site together with theadjacent site of the Department of PrimaryIndustries animal research institute.

I have attended two planning workshopswith members of the local community on thesite and have welcomed the interest andsupport of this process given by Councillor TimQuinn and Councillor June O'Connell. Arisingout of those workshops, a communityreference group is continuing to work onoptions and issues with regard to the site.

I have to say that there is within theYeronga community considerable scepticismarising out of a similar planning process withregard to the future of the Yeronga MilitaryHospital where, following a communityconsultative process, the CommonwealthGovernment has acted with indecent haste tocall tenders and thereby frustrate the benefitswhich could have come out of a more carefulfollowing of the processes of communityconsultation and the resulting proper planningprocesses which should have been put inplace. So the local community look verycarefully to see that this process, being rununder the authority of the State Government,will be done properly and will give thecommunity a fair and proper chance to makean input and to have that input taken seriouslyin terms of the long-term decision making.

A number of key issues have beenidentified, such as traffic flows in the localarea. The residents of Tennyson in particularare most concerned that the existing trafficflow puts a burden on their community andthat any future development on the siteshould be planned carefully so as to respondto those concerns and certainly not to makethe traffic problems worse. The general feelingamong residents at the planning workshopswas that this was indeed an historicopportunity and one that should beapproached with vision. A wide range ofsuggestions were made, including the use ofthe site for a community arts facility, for asporting facility, for retirement housing, foraged persons, and a host of other innovativeideas including the possibility of multipurposeuse.


A common theme, and one which Iheartily endorse, is that there should be publicaccess to the riverfront. For far too long in thiscity we have turned our backs on the river. Wehave denied the public access to the BrisbaneRiver. We now have a golden opportunity toensure that the public has access to theBrisbane River at this most beautiful site. Forthat to happen, we need to ensure that theGovernment in its deliberations stresses themaximum community benefit as its goal, notsimply flogging off this site to the highestbidder.

This is an occasion when vision isrequired. No doubt, there will be pressureupon the Government of the day to maximisethe economic return on the site. I say to theGovernment of the day that the properapproach is to consider the benefit of thewhole community.

Time expired.

Gladstone Care Facilities

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone)(10.57 p.m.): I would like to take thisopportunity to acknowledge some very worthypeople in my community who work so hardbehind the scenes. There are very manypeople whom I want to mention and, if I misssome, I ask for their forbearance. Some ofthose people are paid; most are voluntary. Iwould say that in every communityrepresented in this Parliament, such peopleexist.

I would like to start with Mainstay, which isrespite accommodation that has paid staff.Those staff members go well and truly beyondtheir job requirements. The parents come inand do voluntary work and the committee, themembers of which again work on a voluntarybasis, is in there on a regular basis assistingwith quality of life. The people who useMainstay are aged up to 65 years, and theyare physically or mentally disabled. They haverespite a week at a time at Mainstay, whichgives their families, their parents and theircarers a wonderful break. I commendMainstay for that.

Similarly, the Endeavour Foundation givesday respite. It is not just for young people;older people come and spend time at thatfoundation. They have a great time. They arehappy. When one goes there, one sees thatthey are productive and they have dignitybecause they do work that is second to none.

The Endeavour Foundation in Gladstone winscontracts on the basis of its quality of work. Icommend the people at the EndeavourFoundation. The staff members of thatfoundation are great. They engender intothose young people dignity and a sense ofself-worth.

Also in the community there are a lot ofcarers who are funded under HACC. There arealso a lot of other carers who do not receiveany funding. They are usually parents or familymembers. Their work often goesunrecognised.

Another facility in the area is Alchera Park,which is a private nursing home facility.However, it goes that extra mile. The residentsat Alchera have a great time. Only last week, Iattended a 67th wedding anniversary and thecouple were bright and very alert. It was awonderful time. Family and friends fromBrisbane, north Rockhampton, Mackay andTownsville were there. It was a This Is YourLife Party. Again, the people at Alchera wentthe second mile. They organise people fromLifeline and other volunteer groups to helpwith folk whose families either cannot or do notvisit.

Evenglow, which has been in existencefor about 17 years, is run by a committee ofvolunteers who host functions. They have amonthly meeting. They have a wonderful timewith such things as hairy legscompetitions—the blokes usually win those.They have a great time of fellowship and fun.The service clubs cater and it is a time whenthe older folk can get together, and they goaway rejuvenated.

Groups like Grapevine and RoseberryHouse run drop-in centres to look after youth.Some staff are paid, but they work well andtruly beyond the call of duty. A lot ofvolunteers go along to try to instil some worthin the young people, to give them training,direction and lifestyle skills. At a cooking night,the kids learned how to make stew so thatthey did not need to go to, with respect,McDonald's or KFC. They were taught how tomake a good old Irish stew.

We have neighbourhood centres that arecouncil/Government funded. Again, peopledrop in to those centres, although it is adifferent group of people. They are usuallyolder people, married women and men whomay just need to be get a problem off theirchest. Counsellors and other people areavailable to help them with emergencyhousing.


Groups like Lifeline, Careforce, St Vincentde Paul, the Salvation Army and the serviceclubs do so much in my electorate, as I amsure they do in the electorates of allhonourable members. I take this opportunityto thank all those unsung heroes on behalf ofthe recipients of care, to thank them on behalfof the families and to thank them on behalf ofthe community. Their support for andinvolvement in the quality of life of older,disabled, lonely and/or homeless people givesour State such compassion and strength.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.02 p.m.

wednesday, 27 november 1996€¦ · the tyre manufacturers and the whale- ... reported in this...

Documents