Hansard 18 MARCH 1993 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Legislative Assembly 18 March 1993 2395

THURSDAY, 18 MARCH 1993

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Second Report on Audits Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to advise the House that today I received from the

Auditor-General the second report on audits for the financial year ended 30 June 1992.

Ordered to be printed.

PETITION

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Child MolestersFrom Mrs McCauley (1 044 signatories) praying that the parole period be

removed when sentencing child molesters, that offenders are given and serve maximumsentences and that their names be released for publication.

Petition received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in theChamber, the following documents were tabled—

Acts Interpretation Act—

Administrative Arrangements Order 1993

Constitution Act—Administrative Arrangements Order 1993

Officials in Parliament Act—Administrative Arrangements Order 1993.

PAPERSThe following papers were laid upon the table of the House—

Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts (Mr Wells)—Ballot paper survey conducted by the Electoral Commissioner following the

general election conducted on 19 September 1992

Details of polling at the State General Election held on 19 September 1992,together with the results of By-Elections held during the term of theForty-Sixth Parliament.

Ordered to be printed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

2396 18 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Operation TridentHon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and

Minister for the Arts) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: Honourable members are aware that theSolicitor-General recommended excision of those sections of the Operation Tridentreport which could be prejudicial to any prosecutions. I acted solely on that advice. TheSolicitor-General has further advised me that the comments relating to the CJC are soclosely intertwined with the narrative of the events of Operation Trident that it would beimpossible to publish all of those remarks without risking prejudice to cases before thecourts. No implication negative to the CJC should be drawn from that. In my opinion,there is nothing in the report which reflects adversely on the conduct of the CJC or ofany officer of the CJC.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Operation TridentHon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Police and Emergency

Services) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: Far too often, it has been left to the Goss Governmentto clean up the mess of the past. Yesterday’s tabling——

Mr Littleproud: Are you talking about the Education Department?Mr BRADDY: The honourable member ought to listen. He ought to have the

humility to at least be quiet for once. Yesterday’s tabling of the report of thecommission of inquiry into Operation Trident is further recognition of the task before theState Government in cleaning up the wrongful practices of the past. It was the GossLabor Government that set up the official inquiry into Operation Trident. Nobody everwants to see another operation Trident. As Mr Carter states in his report, the operationwas characterised—

“. . . by a variety of deceitful, dishonest and corrupt practices.”I have complete confidence in the commissioner’s report and I am not surprised by therecommendations.

One of the most important outcomes of the inquiry is that victims are to becompensated. That recommendation from Mr Carter, QC, the State Government willhonour in full. In his report, Mr Carter recommends that the 69 people who sufferedfinancial loss and emotional anguish should be compensated. He also said thatOperation Trident—

“. . . was the classic case of how innocent third parties can become the victims ofan ill-conceived and poorly executed police undercover operation.”

As Police Minister now responsible for the changes that have arisen out of OperationTrident, I accept the recommendation for compensation for those victims. The StateGovernment will meet costs of approximately $60,000.

I would also like to inform the House of the changes that have occurred within theQueensland Police Service relating to undercover operations—changes that wereimplemented more than a year ago under the aegis of the then Deputy Commissioner ofOperations, Jim O’Sullivan. Those changes were brought about to ensure that covertoperations in the future would be properly conducted. Mr Carter states in his report thathe was satisfied that these current guidelines for covert operations were generallyacceptable. However, he recommended that both the Police Commissioner and theChairman of the CJC be given legislative authority to conduct and authorise covertoperations. He further suggests the principles under which such operations should beconducted. I have held preliminary discussions with Commissioner O’Sullivanconcerning those recommendations. We accept that those recommendations shouldform the legislative base for the reform of undercover policing practices. After detailedconsideration of the recommendations, the Government will bring forward theappropriate legislation to implement the commissioner’s report relating to those matters.


PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of House by Minister for Environment and HeritageMr SLACK (Burnett) (10.07 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I am now in

possession of information which indicates that the Minister for Environment andHeritage misled the House in relation to her answer to a question with respect to theresolving of a dispute over the removal of trees from Fraser Island by John Sinclair,project officer with the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation and former Australian ofthe Year. I table the information, which is in the form of a fax from John Sinclair, whocategorically denies claims made by the Minister. Mr Speaker, I would ask that youconsider this matter and rule that it be referred to the Privileges Committee forconsideration and report to the House.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Northern Link Road, Yeppoon and Bruce HighwayMr LESTER asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on

Economic and Trade Development—“With reference to the publicity gained by the Labor Government during the

run up to the last State election, through promising a $20,000 grant for a feasibilitystudy to ascertain whether it would be possible to have a northern link roadbetween Yeppoon and the Bruce Highway and as the announcement was subjectto a joint press conference with the former Member for North Rockhampton, MrSchwarten and the former Federal Member for Capricornia, Mr Wright—(1) Is his department delaying or shelving this promise?(2) Is he aware that the Capricorn Coast Chamber of Commerce and the

Capricorn Tourist Organisation are totally united in demanding thatconsultants be appointed to carry out this study?

(3) If the project has not been stalled, when will it commence?”Mr HAMILL: (1 to 3) In June 1992, the then local Federal member for Capricornia,

Mr Keith Wright, announced Federal funding for a feasibility study for a proposed newlink between the Capricorn Coast and the Bruce Highway north of Rockhampton. Thishas also been a project which has been strongly supported by my colleague themember for Fitzroy, Mr Jim Pearce. On the 31 July 1992, Queensland Transport wroteto the Department of Transport and Communications in Canberra offering to makeavailable resources to undertake the project on its behalf. However, to date, noresponse to this offer has been forthcoming from Canberra. While I understand that theCommonwealth has been prepared to allocate a sum of around $20,000 for the study, nofunds have as yet been paid to Queensland Transport to undertake this project. 2. Purchase of Boomer and Rookwood Holdings for National Park Purposes

Mr LESTER asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage—

“With reference to the acquisition of land for national park purposes—(1) Why was there no consultation between industry, National Parks and the

Queensland Forestry Services before Boomer and Rookwood holdings wereacquired for National Park purposes?

(2) Did the purchase of Boomer and Rookwood holdings advantage a largepastoral company and at the same time disadvantage long-established localsawmillers?

(3) Will she give an undertaking that there will be appropriate consultationbetween interested parties in all future cases?


(4) Will she also give an undertaking not to gazette the Boomer holding as anational park until all commercial timber is removed from those areas that donot contain the flora values that are being preserved, as the orderly removalof this timber might take up to 10 years?”

Ms ROBSON: The Boomer Range/Rookwood national park proposal dates backto 1977 and is one of the most important national park proposals in the Rockhamptonarea. Negotiations with the lessee of Boomer and Rookwood holdings began in mid-1991. With respect to the specific questions, the answers are as follows—

(1) Consultation with the timber industry is the responsibility of the QueenslandForest Service and my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries.

(2) Compensation paid to the lessee for the acquisition of Boomer holding and partof Rookwood holding was based upon the Crown’s valuation in accordance withstandard land acquisition procedures. There is no question of advantage ordisadvantage to any party.

(3) The Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Landsconsult jointly with land-holders of properties which are proposed for national parkacquisition.

(4) It is proposed that the Boomer holding will be gazetted as a departmental andofficial purposes reserve under the joint trusteeship of the Department of Environmentand Heritage and the Queensland Forest Service. This will enable logging on the area tobe completed over a five-year period while protecting the area’s conservation values.Existing logging contracts will not be affected by this proposal. At the end of thisperiod, the area will be added to the Rookwood national park area.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Compass AirlinesMr BORBIDGE: I direct a question to the Attorney-General. As he is the Minister

responsible for the Corporations (Queensland) Act, I refer him to revelations that theparent company of Compass had breached the law by not lodging a 1991 return to theAustralian Securities Commission, and I ask: did he advise the Treasurer, theQueensland Investment Corporation and Suncorp of this irregularity at the time of theirinvestment in Compass?

Mr WELLS: That is not a matter which falls within my portfolio, nor within any Actwhich is administered by my portfolio.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is responsible for theCorporations Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Oppositionwill ask his second question.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Is the Minister denying that he isresponsible for the Corporations Act?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just said that there is no point of order. I ask theLeader of the Opposition to ask his second question.

Compass AirlinesMr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the legal

requirement for companies to lodge returns with the Australian Securities Commissionfor the 1991 year by 31 January 1992, and I ask: at the time of his decision in March1992 to commit taxpayers’ funds to Southern Cross/Compass, was he aware that thislegal requirement had not been met? What checks were carried out by him to safeguard


taxpayers’ funds and to detect any possible irregularities in respect of the company’saffairs?

Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. He reads theAustralian Financial Review in the morning and then comes in here as an expert oncorporations law, and in retrospect knows all the detail and what we should have done,just like a lot of political commentators——

Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr De LACY: I will come to it. He is just like a lot of political commentators

around this country who, in retrospect, knew what was going to happen last Saturday.

Mr Cooper: You know more than the liquidator does.Mr De LACY: No. I will answer the question. I was not aware, and I still have not

been advised formally, that the 1991 report was not lodged, as I understand it wassupposed to be lodged under corporations law. But let me say that in respect of ourinvestment and our subunderwriting of Compass, we——

Mr Santoro: You made an informed decision.

Mr De LACY: We made an informed decision based on a lot of information. I willtell the honourable member what the information was. This is a serious question. I think itdeserves a serious answer. The honourable member should sit there and listen to what Iam saying. The first thing is that when we or anybody else become involved in a publicfloat, there is a whole process which is laid down under corporations law associatedwith the lodging of prospectuses. Those prospectuses need to go through the wholedue diligence process. They are vetted by the Australian Stock Exchange and theAustralian Securities Commission. Many people in this country say that the regulationsin relation to the prospectuses under corporations law are too stringent. But having saidthat, I guess it is something that needs to be re-examined in the light of this issue. Theprovisional liquidator is making investigations, and I believe that today he will beapplying to the court to freeze the assets of the Deputy Chairman of Southern CrossAirlines. The ASC has already laid charges before the court alleging that the DeputyChairman of Southern Cross Airlines has falsified documents that went before theboard.

Mr Borbidge: What checks did you carry out before you put the $10m in?

Mr De LACY: I am explaining those. The other aspects that gave us comfort inthis respect was the quality of the board generally. The board did comprise some ofQueensland’s best-known company directors, including a former head of the NationalCompanies and Securities Commission, as well as a former Federal Liberal Minister forFinance and a former head of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. It was a high-quality board.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr De LACY: Listen to the retrospective experts! The Government was givencomfort by all of the checks and balances in the system. It stands by the decision that itmade at that time. Based on that sort of information, it would make a similar decision inthe future. Before the event, the Opposition never questioned whether or not theGovernment had checked that sort of detail. The Opposition is a fraud, it has alwaysbeen a fraud, and I regret to say that it will never be anything but a fraud.

Cairns Casino Tendering Process

Mr PITT: I have two questions, the first——Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr De Lacy interjected.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn both the Treasurer and the Leader of theOpposition. Yesterday, I stated that I will not countenance other members speakingwhile a member is asking a question.

Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the recent statementsby the Leader of the Liberal Party in which she claimed that all tender documents for theplanned Cairns casino licence should be opened upon receipt and made public. I ask:has this method of selecting casino licence tenderers been used or is it being used inany other jurisdiction?

Mr De LACY: That is an important question. The Government is currentlyevaluating the tenders for the Cairns casino. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party isnow of the view that the entire tendering process ought to be conducted in public. Thatis another of the great conversions performed by the Opposition. Do honourablemembers remember the process that the former Government followed when it called forcasino tenders? The tender documents had to be delivered to Bjelke-Petersen House atSpring Hill. Suddenly, the Opposition claims that casino tendering must be a full, open,public and accountable process. The Leader of the Liberal Party has probably made thatstatement to justify the ridiculous comments that she made last week about secretdocuments. I believe that she has apologised privately for those comments, but sheought to apologise publicly for them, as well.

I want to refer to the various models that can be adopted when assessing casinotenders. One is the full, open, public inquiry. At present, that method is being used inNew Zealand, and it has been used for the past couple of years. I venture to suggestthat the same method will be used there for the next couple of years. I advisehonourable members to put their money on somebody replacing Mrs Sheldon as Leaderof the Liberal Party before they put money on anybody being granted a casino licencein Auckland.

Mr Livingstone: Santo can’t even count. Mr DE LACY: That is right. Another model is that adopted by the National Party,

in which the selection process is conducted by the party and not by the Government.The third process is that followed by the Government, in which an independent, expertbody assesses the tenders objectively against a range of very important criteria. Thetenders are ranked against those criteria. The independent body makes a consideredrecommendation to Government and then publishes the reasons for its selection. That isthe process adopted by this Government.

I know that it sounds superficially good to claim that the public ought to make thechoice. The public has an important role in terms of design and site. However, otherimportant aspects must be considered, namely, the probity of the tenderer; the financialstrength of the tenderer; and the experience and capacity of the tenderer to run acasino and a hotel. All of those aspects require detailed examination. They require theproduction of a large amount of commercially confidential information. The Governmenthas decided on a process which will have the best outcome for the public and the bestoutcome in terms of a casino operation which is clean and corruption free, but onewhich takes into account the design, the quality and the financial offer. Let us faceit—the only reason that casinos are being introduced in Queensland is their financialbenefits. Those benefits will enable the development of convention and exhibitioncentres, which are very important to this State’s tourism industry.

Poker Machine Security Systems

Mr PITT: In directing a second question to the Treasurer, I refer to previousstatements by the Leader of the Opposition that the central monitoring and securitysystem for Queensland poker machines was flawed and, indeed, that it opened the wayfor criminal elements to infiltrate the industry. As poker machines have been operating inQueensland for 13 months, I ask: has any substance been found to support thoseclaims?


Mr Gibbs: Where’s all the Mafia? Mr DE LACY: The Minister for Tourism asked, “Where is all the Mafia?” Members

who were in this House just over 12 months ago, when poker machines were beingintroduced in Queensland, will recall the “Prince of Hyperbole” opposite and all of hisallegations. Day after day, he came up with a new set of allegations which he referred tothe Trade Practices Commission, to the Criminal Justice Commission, to the Electoraland Administrative Review Commission, to the Federal Police—to everybody except theUnited Nations Security Council. He claimed that one could tamper with the system witha knitting needle and that one could tamper with the system with a drawing pin. Dohonourable members recall those allegations? The Leader of the Opposition claimedalso that the central monitoring unit was a sleazy, second-rate monitoring unit. After 12months of operation of poker machines in this State, what is the reality? It is anunprecedented success story. Jurisdictions from all around Australia—in fact, from allaround the world—are visiting Queensland to discover the way in which theGovernment approached the matter. It has proved to be the best system in terms ofintegrity, in terms of benefit to the clubs and in terms of cost effectiveness. If theLeader of the Opposition had any integrity or any credibility, he would stand up andadmit that last year he was dead wrong on every single count. Today,with my colleaguethe Minister for Tourism, I will be switching on without a hitch in the Minister’s electoratethe ten-thousandth poker machine in Queensland.

Mr W. K. Goss: They are having a meeting.Mr De LACY: Have a look at them. They do not like what I am saying. They

cannot stand it when they are wrong. In conclusion, if members of this House wanted anexample of the way in which the Leader of the Opposition rants and raves withoutsubstance, it is what has occurred in relation to poker machines.

Compass Airlines

Mrs SHELDON: In directing my first question to the Treasurer, I refer him to hisanswer to my question in this Parliament on Tuesday when he boasted of his detailedknowledge of the corporate world, and I ask: since Compass receiver/liquidator RichardBarber took just two days to discover $10m missing from the company accountsthrough off-shore shams involving money trails in the United States and the VirginIslands, did he, with the full resources of the Queensland Treasury at his disposal,institute adequate checks on the financial structure of Compass/Southern CrossHoldings before the initial commitment of taxpayers’ funds in March last year, or was hecontent with a Dean Wells standard probity check?

Mr De LACY: I am again impressed with those half-smart retrospective commentsby the experts in the Opposition.

Mr Santoro interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Clayfield under Standing Order123A.

Mr De LACY: I venture to suggest that one thing that they are expert at is beingin Opposition.

Mr Hamill: They don’t even do that well.

Mr De LACY: My colleague does not even agree with that. However, I do. Ibelieve that they are so expert at being in Opposition that they will be there forever.

In my earlier answer to a question, I explained the comfort that the QueenslandGovernment had before deciding to invest in Compass. It should not be forgotten thatCompass was underwritten by J. B. Were and Sons, Australia’s pre-eminent brokers. Ihave explained the other checks and balances. The Government carried out the sametype of inquiry as, I presume, every other investor carried out—National Mutual, APT,J. B. Were and Sons and Colonial Mutual. As I said, it is easy to be wise after the event.


Until today, not one word about corporate malfeasance has come from members of theOpposition, but suddenly, this morning they read it in the Australian Financial Reviewand now they are experts.

Purchase by QIC and Suncorp of Southern Cross SharesMrs SHELDON: My second question is to the Treasurer. In the light of comments

made by the Chairman of the Queensland Investment Corporation, Jim Kennedy, inBusiness Queensland on 14 September 1992—

“I will oppose any investment for social or political reasons and will not do itunless the Government orders me to”—

and comments in the same article that Suncorp departed from its investment strategy tobuy five million Southern Cross shares, I ask: as Queensland Treasurer, did he or hisofficers have any discussions with the QIC and Suncorp about their take-up ofSouthern Cross shares and, as the Minister responsible, why did he allow QIC andSuncorp to go against their respective charters and invest in Southern Cross Holdingsto the extent of $3.186m?

Mr De LACY: If the Leader of the Liberal Party is alleging that I put pressure oneither of those organisations, the answer is, “No.” That is dead wrong and, in respect ofthe QIC, it would be illegal. If the honourable member wants to know the reasons whythey make their investments, she should ask them. I find it offensive—and I am sure thatboth Mr Kennedy and Mr Tucker would find it offensive—for the honourable member tostand up in this House and allege that not only did I put pressure on them but also theyresponded to that pressure. That is quite wrong.

In answer specifically to the honourable member’s question, the answer is, “No.”Neither I nor my officers had a conversation with either body or either person aboutCompass, and nor would we. Again, such a question from the Leader of the Liberal Partyis passing strange. A couple of weeks ago, she lectured me for not putting pressure onthe QIC to stop it from selling shares in Arnotts. The honourable member simply doesnot understand how this system works. The QIC will have to stand on its performance.Ever since I have been Treasurer, it has stood very well on its performance, and we willjudge its performance at the end of this financial year. Suncorp will have to stand on itsperformance, and we will judge its performance at the end of this financial year.However, to suggest that I put pressure on them or even intimated that they shouldinvest in Compass is quite wrong. I reject that absolutely, and I find it offensive.

High Court Decision on Mabo CaseMr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Premier: can he inform the House of the latest

developments, as they relate to Queensland, of the High Court decision on the Mabocase?

Mr W. K. GOSS: This issue is very important for all Australians, particularly forAboriginal and Islander Australians. It also has significant consequences for other centralinterests, including major investors and, in particular, the mining industry. Basically, the6-1 decision by the High Court last year effectively found a form of native title. Althoughthat title can be extinguished by the exercise of sovereignty by the Crown in Australia, ifsuch an exercise has not taken place, that native title in one form or another couldcontinue.

The situation is that the Commonwealth Government has announced a process totry to clarify the meaning of the Mabo case because, unfortunately, while reaching thatimportant decision, the High Court decision unleashed about 1 000 questions. It willtake a considerable amount of work on the part of Governments at all levels and variousother interested parties and individuals to clarify the situation. We have agreed with theCommonwealth Government and other States that the Mabo case raises issues ofnational significance. We welcome the initiative of the Commonwealth Government to


consult with us, with industry groups and with the States. However, time is pressing. Ibelieve that the Commonwealth Government needs to give the highest priority to theresolution of this issue for two reasons: firstly, because it offers an opportunity and,perhaps, in some ways forces on the country the opportunity to achieve a better form ofreconciliation with Aboriginal and Islander people in this country. Secondly, there havebeen some inaccurate reports in relation to the possible impact of the decision inrespect of major resource projects. We do not want to see any adverse impact oninvestor confidence in this country. The Commonwealth Government has indicated thatit will fund a number of test cases on the Mabo decision. I caution the CommonwealthGovernment against rushing into litigation that may prove to be an unnecessaryexpense, and perhaps add little or nothing to the process that active consultationcannot achieve.

On the best advice available to the Government at this stage, I believe that it isreadily apparent that, on reading the Mabo decision, it is not a threat to existing land-holdings in Queensland, nor should it be a threat to the continued development of theState. At this stage, it appears to be entirely, or largely, consistent with the legislationpassed through this House in 1991. In relation to particular sectoral interests—as I saidbefore, the best advice is that various holdings are not affected at present. The bestadvice to us at this stage is that ownership of minerals remains vested in the Crown,existing pastoral leases are not affected, private land-holdings are not affected, and anyclaims on the CBD would be without substance as there is no claimable land.

Mr Lester: Don’t forget Great Keppel Island.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Ridiculous and extreme comments by that individual——

Mr Lester: Hey, come on, you’re talking through your hat.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I am talking to the honourable member. While many peoplebelieve that the member for Keppel needs his racquet restrung, I am not one of thosepeople, because I believe that he is a much more cynical and clever publicity-seekerthan his madcap antics would suggest. The sort of scaremongering in which he indulgesfor the purpose of dividing the community for his personal gain and, on the other hand,publicity driven ambit claims, will not help the process that needs to be under way in thisState.

In relation to major resource projects and investor confidence—I say again that it isimportant that the Commonwealth Government, in cooperation and consultation with theStates, work as a matter of priority to a resolution of this issue. I believe that this is anappropriate topic for the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. Inrelation to one particular project that is referred to from time to time, namely, theCentury project in north Queensland—the Queensland Government has been workingclosely and continuously with, and is prepared to continue consulting with, the localAboriginal community and the company. While no agreement has been reached betweenthe Aboriginal community and the company, the fact that talks are continuing and thatthere is a preparedness to talk is a healthy sign. We are confident that with goodwill onboth sides, issues such as that and others can, and will, be resolved.

Undercover Police Operations

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: will heinform the House about current Queensland police practices relating to undercoveroperations?

Mr BRADDY: In relation to covert or undercover policing—it is salutary andinstructive to refer to page 172 of the Carter report in relation to covert policing. Carter


complimented the current Queensland police practices in relation to this matter, andstated—

“It is relevant to note that policy, orders and procedures are now developedas a matter of course in Queensland Police Service and this is now in place inrelation to covert operations. Moreover, the same have been developed in the lightof the provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the PoliceService (Discipline) Regulations 1990. None of these were in place at the time ofOperation Trident.”

That was commenced under former Police Minister Borbidge. Mr Carter continued—

“Accordingly, any covert operation which is approved henceforth mustoperate subject to this Act and the Discipline Regulations.”

Mr Carter states further—

“. . . that the Policy and Procedures for Covert Operations—Covert PoliceOperatives and Informants which are now in place, are generally acceptable.”

I am pleased to inform the House that under our Government, police practice requiresthat the Queensland Police Service set in train certain instructions in respect to theconduct of covert operations. Secondly, it is required that no police officer will be usedas an undercover operative unless that officer has received training in undercoverduties. Further, all members involved in covert operations must have successfullycompleted a course in such operations, and that details of all operations of that natureof whatever magnitude—however small or however large—must be communicated inadvance to the officer in charge of the task force operations. Those operations then gobefore a target committee at the task force, and that target committee considers theoperation in the light of its importance to the community and of any danger involved tothe police concerned. As well as police personnel, a senior officer of the CriminalJustice Commission is on the task force. The target committee will recommend to thedeputy commissioner of operations of the Queensland Police Service whether theoperation should proceed. I stress that, since our Government has been in power, all ofthose things have been put in place by the Queensland Police Service. None of themwas in place when Mr Borbidge was the Police Minister at the start of Operation Tridentin the month of September 1989 and when Mr Borbidge and Mr Lester transferredpowers between them. Trident commenced in September 1989.

Mr Borbidge: Two weeks.

Mr BRADDY: Mr Lester was around for more than two weeks. I know it seemsthat he did only two weeks’ work, but he was Police Minister for longer than that. Apartfrom sitting on police bikes and going “vroom, vroom” for photographers, he did nothave much other input on those matters. I stress to the House that these guidelines,which were drawn up by Commissioner O’Sullivan in his former capacity as deputycommissioner, have been in place since March last year. It is very instructive to see thatthose guidelines received the substantial approval of the commissioner, Mr Carter. Ireiterate, as I said in my ministerial statement, that these guidelines will not only be nowdeveloped further but also have a legislative base.

Brisbane Casino

Mr SLACK: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Irefer to the Treasurer’s answer yesterday to the member for Mulgrave regarding theBrisbane casino proposed for the Old Treasury Building, and I ask: is it appropriate for


the architect employed by Jupiters to determine the Government’s position on what isappropriate to preserve the heritage value of the Old Treasury Building? Given thevested interests involved with such action which would be aimed at saving Jupitersmoney, why did the Minister not insist on some independent input from her owndepartment whose role supposedly is to protect the State’s heritage?

Ms ROBSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I thought it hadbeen made fairly clear in this House over the period of this debate about the Brisbanecasino/Treasury Building project that I play an advisory role; I do not decide whether ornot the project goes ahead. That responsibility under the Act has clearly beentransferred to the Minister responsible for this project, who is the Treasurer. My role ofoverseeing the administration of that Act has been undertaken completely andaccurately. The determination of the architect to advise on the specific project is thepurview of the Treasurer; it is not my responsibility. In fact, it would be inappropriate if Iwere to intervene in that process. As I said, the process has been outlined. It is thecorrect process, and I am comfortable with it. The process that the Treasurer hasundertaken is complete, it is accurate and it is protecting to the highest possible levelthe heritage value of that building.

Brisbane Casino

Mr SLACK: I further ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: as theMinister responsible for the protection of heritage-listed buildings within the State, isshe satisfied that due processes have been followed in accordance with the BurraCharter for the selection of the heritage-listed Old Treasury Building, LandAdministration Building and Queen’s Park as the Brisbane casino site? Does she think itfair that her Government’s heritage laws should apply to private citizens and firms butnot to the Government? Can she assure the House that she will not allow the mistakesmade in relation to the Brisbane casino site to recur in Cairns?

Ms ROBSON: The assumption that mistakes have been made is quite erroneous.The process has been exhaustive in terms of protecting that building, in terms ofinvestigating the best possible ways of preserving the heritage of the building. Thehonourable member does not seem to understand the role of the Heritage Council. Itsrole, under the Heritage Act which was declared in August 1992, is to advise theGovernment and the appropriate Minister. The council has performed that role. Thehonourable member should understand it was not a unanimous decision of the HeritageCouncil. He is completely unable to accept the difference between a recommendatoryor advisory role and any other role which relates to giving the Government advice. Thiswas an advisory position. The decision was not unanimous; the committee was split onit. That is a very important point which the honourable member needs to understand. Ibelieve that, given the brief it had, the council did execute its role. But the honourablemember should try to understand that the Act talks about various esoteric values. Theesoteric values are part of the consideration for that building. It is perfectly possible tototally preserve the heritage values of that precinct, of the buildings involved, and stillpromote the building as a viable and useable building for the people of Queensland.That is what the Treasurer and the Government have done. I support that decision.

Commonwealth Financial Assistance GrantsMs POWER: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer him to recent

newspaper articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age which claimthat Queensland is effectively being subsidised by Victoria and New South Wales underthe system of fiscal equalisation by the distribution of Commonwealth financialassistance grants. I ask: can he inform the House precisely who is subsidising whom?


Mr De LACY: The first shots have been fired in what I believe will be a veryimportant battle this financial year and into the future. I note that both Victoria and NewSouth Wales seem to be talking to some of the influential financial commentators in theirStates and articles are starting to appear. Last week, one article appeared in the SydneyMorning Herald and one in the Melbourne Age referring to the subsidy which comes toQueensland, ignoring a subsidy which goes to South Australia, Western Australia,Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It just seems to be Queensland at whichthey are directing all their attention—and even making reference to Queensland in apejorative way by referring to the “mendicant status” of Queensland. I reject thatabsolutely. The Queensland Government rejects it absolutely, and we will fight thisbattle right to the end. Fiscal equalisation is a principle that has been in place in thiscountry since Federation. Fiscal equalisation, in the simplest of terms, is the way inwhich the Commonwealth would spend its funds if there were no State boundaries. It isall to do with the equal provision of services throughout this country. If we violate thatprinciple, we violate the Federal system itself. But to talk about the mendicant status ofQueensland is just quite wrong.

I want to make two points. The Opposition conveniently focuses just on financialassistance grants—and that is where the fiscal equalisation principle applies—but, at thesame time, it conveniently ignores the specific purpose payments which advantage bothNew South Wales and Victoria. If honourable members opposite look at the total fundswhich go to the States, they will see that Queensland receives very little benefit at all ona per capita basis. So if Opposition members want to talk about Commonwealth fundingto the States, let us put it all in the one pool; let us talk about financial assistance grantsand special purpose payments—all of the funds.

The second point about a subsidy flying from New South Wales and Victoria toQueensland and Western Australia is also quite erroneous. I think we have canvassed itin this House before, but the tariff protection and other kinds of protection ofmanufacturing industry, which has principally flowed to industry in New South Walesand Victoria, has represented over the years a massive subsidy from the exportingStates of Queensland and Western Australia to those large manufacturing States. EPACestimated that in the 1990-91 financial year that was worth something like $4.8 billiondollars transferred from Queensland and Western Australia to New South Wales andVictoria. I know that it is starting to be said that tariff protection is being wound back,but the fact is that that misallocation of resources over the last 90 years has created aneconomic infrastructure in those States which adds to their taxing base. That economicinfrastructure is still there and it will continue to provide a benefit to those States for thenext 50 years. The Government absolutely rejects the assertion that fiscal equalisationrepresents a subsidy to Queensland. I suggest that those commentators look to otherareas to find out why States such as New South Wales and Victoria cannot balancetheir budgets and are running up the national debt.

Women in Queensland BusinessMs POWER: I ask the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development:

can he advise of any Government programs designed to support women in Queenslandbusiness, and the outcome of those programs?

Mr ELDER: I thank the member for the question. She is acknowledged as being astrong advocate for women’s rights and women’s issues in this State. The short answeris that the Government believes in utilising the talents of women in all areas that areworth while, not just for equity reasons—because those equity reasons are strongenough—but because we need to encourage the use of the talents of all people insociety.

Specifically, one of the Government’s schemes is designed to support researchinto the role of women in business and industry. This year, it has targeted twoindustries—the food-processing industry and the information technology industry—withgrants of some $40,000 for three studies. Dr Glenda Strachan from the Queensland


University of Technology will be establishing a profile on men and women and the rolethat they play in the information technology industry in Queensland. Dr Phyllis Tharenoufrom the University of Queensland will be examining the amount and type of trainingreceived by women in that industry. Denise Conroy of Queensland University ofTechnology will be examining the good employment practices within the food-processing industry.

The reason that the Government has chosen those industries in particular is thatthey are mainstream and are the sort of new industries in which we need to maximisefemale participation in this State for the reasons that I have outlined previously. On thesurface, it appears that it is working. Many of the new jobs created in Queensland havebeen going to women. Over the last 12 months, the growth of women in the work forceis eight times that of men. In the December quarter, there was a 0.7 per cent increase inmale employment and a 5.7 per cent increase in the number of women employed inQueensland. Interestingly, as well, there is a higher percentage of women than men inbusiness as employers or self-employed—4.6 per cent—in Queensland. Of those whoare employers, the average for the country is approximately 3.4 per cent. InQueensland, 9 per cent of women are self-employed, whereas the national average isaround 8 per cent. The figures may surprise some. They certainly put the lie to the myththat Queensland women have been dragging behind their southern counterparts. Thesimple fact is that the Queensland economy, as I said yesterday, is broadening. Wehave more of a technology——

Mr Cooper: You talked your way into this place and your can talk you way out ofit.

Mr ELDER: Obviously, the member disagrees with what I am saying.

Mr Cooper: No, not at all.Mr ELDER: A foundation member of the Liberal Party, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire,

made a very pointed comment about the Liberal Party and how it sees the role ofwomen in business and in society generally. For the information of the member forCrows Nest, she said—

“I know a number of women who didn’t stick with the Liberal Party at theelection but voted Labor.

They think Labor has done more for women and accepted the changing roleof women more”—

in society and business. She continued—

“The Liberal Party has not been willing to accept their changing role.”The Goss Government and Dame Beryl Beaurepaire are at one on this particular issue.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. We are having a question time in whichsome Ministers will not answer questions about their own portfolios and other Ministersare allowed to say anything.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr ELDER: I was merely making the point that a foundation member of the Liberal

Party believes the coalition parties have lost the plot. We agree with her on thatparticular issue; we are at one on that issue. Quite frankly, as I said to the member forMansfield, we have a long way to go, but there are better opportunities in Queenslandand there are job opportunities for women in Queensland.

Queensland Ambulance Service

Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: given theincreasing public disquiet and the uncertainty in the Queensland Ambulance Servicewhich is caused by severe budgetary constraints, will he advise the House of the status


of the Queensland Ambulance Service budget? Will he also advise the House of theextent of reported major cost overruns?

Mr BRADDY: I reject totally the hyperbole of the honourable member in relationto the severe disquiet to which he refers. At any time there is a change and reformprocess, clearly some people become somewhat concerned about that change, and allhonourable members would be familiar with that. What has occurred in the QueenslandAmbulance Service is that for the first time in Queensland’s history, we now truly have aQueensland Ambulance Service, unlike the collection of local feudal baronies of thepast, which were a loose confederation. Members on the Government side of the Houseare proud Queenslanders and we believe that Queenslanders should work together,unlike members of the Opposition, who try to promote division, and continue discontentand division by continuing to foment local discontent where they can.

The Government is in the process of setting up a more efficient ambulance serviceand making sure that it is truly an emergency service. I can inform the House that theambulance service is on target to be in surplus this financial year, as I previouslyindicated. With its changed processes, it is on target to be able to operate on acompletely level playing field within several years. In the next financial year, based oncurrent operations, there will be some difficulties in relation to the full processes, as Ihave indicated before. What we have to do is work out, in the course of the budgetaryreview process that is undertaken every year, whether it will require more funding byway of Government funding, subscriptions or a loan to finance some of the services. Weare assisted in that regard by the Public Sector Management Commission review whichwill commence in April this year.

As I say, we are on line to bring in a surplus this financial year, but next year will bemore difficult. It will be an interesting process. I believe that our Government hasdemonstrated its ability to carry out this process efficiently and competently, and we willbe reporting to the House on the next financial year when the Budget is brought down. Iinvite the honourable Opposition spokesman for Emergency Services to question us atthat time, when we will go into detail. We are confident that we will continue with ourcompetent administration. We will be on line to bring about a truly efficient QueenslandAmbulance Service.

Queensland Ambulance Service

Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices, I refer to this week’s reports that ambulance services on the Gold Coast havebeen threatened with strike action during the Indy Car Grand Prix weekend owing toplans to force the transfers of 15 ambulance staff from the region. I ask: how is it thatsuch action is justified when only last August the QAS conceded that the Gold Coasthad identifiable staff shortages? Can he guarantee that those employees who do notwish to be transferred elsewhere will not be sacked? Given that a review of the Bureauof Emergency Services will be commencing next month, as the Minister has said, whycannot these forced transfers be delayed or deferred at least until then?

Mr BRADDY: There are no forced transfers taking place at present. I refer to myprevious answer in which I spoke about conducting a truly Queensland AmbulanceService as distinct from district ambulance services which were allowed to continueunder the administration of members of the present Opposition, who never bit the bulletto provide a proper organisation of true Queenslandwide services. Let me say in relationto the particular incident referred to by the honourable Opposition spokesman that inthe course of reorganising the service, questions are asked of people with respect towhether they are available for transfer to other regions where they are needed more, orwhether they are intending to retire. It is only that stage which has been reached atpresent. There has been no decision made and certainly there has been no referral to meby the Queensland Ambulance Service of matters related to dismissing any of thepeople concerned. It is merely an inquiry.


Of course, some members of the Queensland Ambulance Service are concernedabout the upcoming review. Many people who are employed in the public servicebecome concerned when the Public Sector Management Commissioners look into theiroperations. It is a natural concern that some display more than others, but we arecommitted to having the most efficient ambulance service. This Government has put alot more funding into it than had ever been provided before, and we will continue to dothat. But a price for this Government’s financial support is that there must be the mostefficient service. This means that we must have the officers in the different centresthroughout the State where they should be and inquiries are being made along thoselines at present. That is all that is occurring, and we will make sure that this efficientservice becomes even more efficient. When we have received all the information, theQueensland Ambulance Service will speak to officers and the union. The inquiries will beconducted in accordance with the normal way in which this Labor Government conductsindustrial relations and not in the way that the Opposition’s Victorian counterparts andcolleagues—whom they hoped to put in office in Canberra—would carry out theirindustrial relations policies.

Boat-building IndustryMrs ROSE: I ask the Minister for Transport: considering that Queensland boat-

builders and manufacturers are regarded by many as some of the very best in the world,what is the Government doing to assist our marine export industry?

Mr HAMILL: As the member for Currumbin has asserted, Queensland’s boat-building industry is recognised as a manufacturer of very fine products indeed.Certainly, within our region, there is a growing market for those products. In South EastAsia, particularly in areas such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, very importantmarkets are opening up for our boat-building industry. Indeed, in the USA, where therehas already been some penetration of that market by our producers, there is a $2 billionmarket for our marine products. Our exports of marine products and vessels haveexperienced significant growth. If we go back five years, marine exports fromQueensland totalled approximately $9m. Last year, the figure was of the order of $64m.

In order to try to focus that improvement in our export capacity, an initiative of mydepartment has gone some considerable way in improving the prospects for all of ourmarine industry. Some 60 companies have come together under the umbrella of acooperative company called Q-Marine. It was facilitated by the Department of Transportand by me as Minister. The purpose of that is to obtain for the industry in Queenslandthe advantage that size can have in terms of both obtaining a niche market overseas andbeing able to research those markets. I am pleased to say that last year, following theapproach and the work done by me, the companies came together as Q-Marine and arealready demonstrating very clear advantages from that undertaking.

In terms of the economies of scale in market research, market penetration andpromotion—this year alone, we expect a 15 per cent increase in our marine exports fromthis State. The business plan for Q-Marine demonstrates that, in the following year, weexpect a further 20 per cent increase. I see that as a very clear demonstration not onlyof this Government’s commitment to developing small business and business withexport potential in this State but also the fact that we can compete effectively and wecan create real employment in this State by so doing.

School Buses

Mrs ROSE: I direct a further question to the Minister for Transport. Overcrowdingand standing on school buses has long been a problem on the Gold Coast and, indeed,right throughout Queensland. I ask: what is the State Government doing to address thatserious problem?


Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Currumbin has raised that very importantmatter with me. It is a concern for a great many parents in this State that their childrentravel to school and home on buses that have inadequate seating capacity for them.Under the existing regulations, it is permissible for students—and, indeed, for any otherpassenger—to stand on a bus. In peak-hour services in our cities and towns, it iscommonplace to see people standing on buses. For many years, it was permissible forchildren to stand on school buses for distances up to 32 kilometres. I regarded such aprovision as quite unacceptable. By regulatory changes that were put in place a littleover 12 months ago, that has been reduced to a 20-kilometre maximum. However, I stillbelieve that there is considerable room for further improvement. For that reason—andtaking into consideration the safety issues involved—I have referred this matter to theconsideration of the all-party parliamentary Travelsafe Committee. It is a matter that Ibelieve deserves attention.

A number of problems arise, one of which relates to the capacity of the existingbus fleets to move large numbers of people, including students, at the peak times whenthey wish to travel. Another issue is the costs involved in being able to increase thecapacity of that bus fleet. It is an important safety issue. I assure the honourablemember that, as it is an important safety issue, consistent with the approach of theGovernment to improving road safety and safety matters in the motor vehicle industry ingeneral, the Government is giving attention to the matter its highest priority.

Youth Conservation Corps

Mr BUDD: I ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: given the Treasurer’soutline to the House recently regarding Queensland’s status as the leader in job creationin Australia, can she explain what role the Government’s Youth Conservation Corpsscheme is playing in that job creation?

Ms ROBSON: I thank the honourable member for his question because he hasshown a great interest in the activities of the Youth Conservation Corps and generally inthe $150m commitment that the Government has made to the creation of jobs in thisState. The role that my department has played in that in terms of jobs for theenvironment—specifically the Youth Conservation Corps—is to indicate that an amountof $3.6m is committed to that program. The Federal Government, through its Landcareand Environment Action Program, or LEAP, as we call it, has provided more than $5m forYouth Conservation Corps activities in this State. By the end of April of this year, thosefunds will have allowed 560 unemployed youth to be trained and employed in 40conservation projects spread throughout Queensland. Those projects are taking placein national parks and State forests throughout Queensland, including the VenmansReserve in the electorate of the member for Redlands, where the Government hasundertaken to do some restoration following degradation of the land and some clearingof paths and trails to make that area suitable for public use and to make it safe. Thoseprojects involve a TAFE component. As I have gone around this State inspecting someof those programs and talking to the young people involved, I have been very pleasedto see that the success of that program is evident. Apart from providing jobs for 26weeks for groups of 14 young people, the Government is giving them skills that theycan take with them when they leave. The young people are telling me that the sorts ofskills that they are acquiring are applicable not only to the environment and to jobs in theenvironment but also to a much broader base. Many of them are telling me that they aregoing into jobs that require carpentry skills and landscaping skills and that they aresetting up businesses in their own right.

The success of the program should be measured not only in terms of filling ayoung person’s life for a matter of 26 weeks but also in terms of giving that person somehope and job prospects for the future. The other side effect that we see from thoseprograms, including the Venmans Reserve program in the electorate of the member forRedlands, is that those young people are getting self-esteem. They are acquiringteamwork skills. They are learning about the synergy of working together and relying on


each other. They are taking ownership of their projects and they are producing aproduct for the public. The program is wonderful. Some of the other projects arelocated at Fraser Island, North Keppel Island, Airlie Beach, Lawn Hill and CapeTribulation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.

BANK INTEGRATION (BANK OF QUEENSLAND) BILL

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (11.08 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to facilitate the integrationof Bank of Queensland Savings Bank Limited with Bank of Queensland Limited.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (11.09 a.m.): I move—“That the Bill be now read a second time.”

This Bill is complementary legislation to the Bank Integration Act 1991(Commonwealth). The purpose of that Act was to facilitate the integration of savingsand tradings banks following the removal, for regulatory purposes, of the distinctionbetween savings and trading banks by the Banking Legislation Amendment Act 1989.The removal of this distinction represents a reform that will allow more efficient bankingoperations and enhanced services to customers. It will enable better use and allocationof funds by banks within the same group and allow simpler funding and accountingarrangements. Complementary State legislation is required in those States where a bankis incorporated. The only entity affected in Queensland is the Bank of Queensland.

This complementary legislation ensures that—

(a) the receiving bank is taken, on the succession day, to be the successor in lawto the transferring bank;

(b) the assets and liabilities of the transferring bank become those of thereceiving bank;

(c) activities undertaken in relation to this integration are exempted from Statetaxes; and

(d) the transferring bank is dissolved on the day of succession.Clause 6 provides for the vesting of all assets and liabilities in the receiving bank

without any further action required. However, procedural steps such as the recording ofinformation on the Registry of Titles would need to be taken. The exemption from Statetaxation in clause 8 of the Bill covers all fees due to any Government department incarrying out the vesting of the assets and liabilities pursuant to clause 6 and covers feesfor any action required to be carried out by the Registrar of Titles pursuant to clause 6. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY LAND (CARRIERS’ LIABILITIES) REPEAL BILL


Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting thePremier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to repeal the Carriage ofGoods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act 1967.”

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first

time.

Second Reading

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting thePremier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 a.m.): I move—

“That the Bill be now read a second time.”This Bill provides for repeal of the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities)

Act 1967 to allow normal commercial practices and legal mechanisms to apply whenconsignors wish to seek compensation for goods damaged or lost whilst in the care of aland carrier. The Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act limits the amount ofdamages a customer can claim from a road transport carrier if goods are damaged or lostwhile in the carrier’s care, to $20 for an item or $200 for a consignment, regardless of thevalue of the articles consigned. These amounts have not changed since the Act wasintroduced in 1967. The Government considered simply raising these limits to morerealistic amounts to reflect the effects of inflation since 1967. However, this would be abandaid solution which does not address the inequities of the Act and would stilldisadvantage the unknowing consumer. The provisions of the Act strongly favour thecarrier. They leave a consignor with no recourse to a carrier for loss or damage ofgoods beyond the limits specified in the Act.

An example of the unfairness and injustice of the Act is evidenced in a case whichrecently appeared in the press, where a small business lost $19,000 worth of equipmentdue to a carrier’s self-confessed negligence, but was only entitled to compensation of$200 due to the provisions of this Act. I find any artificial limitation of damagesabhorrent. It is inconsistent both with fundamental principles of justice which dictatethat we must all take responsibility if we cause harm or loss to others through our ownnegligence, and with normal business practice. No other State or Territory imposeslimitations on the liability of land transport carriers. Carriers in other States protectthemselves from claims for damages by taking out normal business liability insurance. Aspecialist transport insurance broker estimated the cost of such insurance asapproximately 1 per cent of the carrier’s freight charge. However, the actual costincrease to Queensland carriers is likely to be less than this amount, as carriers currentlyoperating interstate would be likely to have some cover against their exposure to legalliability in those other jurisdictions. In practice, the cost to carriers depends entirely ontheir individual claims history. Every carrier has the opportunity to lower his or herinsurance premium by taking measures to prevent or reduce loss to customers’ goods.

Repeal of the Act will also produce fairer competition within the Queenslandtransport industry, since Queensland Rail does not benefit from the limitations on liabilityprovided by the Act. Queensland Rail has shown how a carrier can effectively manageexposure to liability without the artificial protection of the Carriage of Goods by Land(Carriers’ Liabilities) Act. Queensland Rail provides automatic insurance to a value of


$500, with the cost included in the freight rate, and invites customers to insure for theremaining value of the consignment. However, Queensland Rail remains liable for anyloss or damage arising from its negligence.

Upon repeal of the Carriage of Goods by Land (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act, carrierswill be able to use exemption clauses in their contracts of carriage. However, theseclauses will be subject to the normal restrictions which the courts place on the use ofthose clauses. These include taking reasonable steps to bring any exclusion clause tothe attention of the customer. I am pleased to present this Bill as the interests of allparties would be served by the repeal of the above legislation. It is not necessary forthe Queensland Government to limit the liability of a carrier and the possible entitlementto damages of a consignor. Repeal of the Act will encourage carriers to manage theirliabilities in the same manner as every other business in Queensland and will giveconsumers a fair go. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned.

BUSINESS LICENCE DEREGULATION (MILKSELLERS AND FISH BUYERS)AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.16 a.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to discontinue certainbusiness licences under the Dairy Industry Act 1989 and the Fishing IndustryOrganisation and Marketing Act 1982.”Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.17 a.m.): Imove—

“That the Bill be now read a second time.”

Bringing legislation into the late twentieth century is what this Bill is about—theremoval of ridiculous burdens placed on small businesses in the State of Queensland byprevious conservative Governments. The Goss Labor Government is committed to themodernisation process in relation to the removal of unnecessary restraints on theoperations of businesspeople with a view to allowing those people to get on withsuccessfully operating their businesses. My colleagues opposite may ask, “But why doyou not go further?” For a change, they would be right. The Government is goingfurther, and this Bill is but one step in the process. The Bill will remove therequirements for people to hold milksellers’ licences under the Dairy Industry Act andrestricted buyers’ licences under the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act.Although the honourable members opposite may refuse to recognise the fact, since itcame to Government in 1989 the Goss Labor Government has been actively engaged inmodernising the legislation and removing unnecessary regulations. I commend the Bill tothe House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned.NEW SOUTH WALES-QUEENSLAND BORDER RIVERS AMENDMENT BILL


Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.18 a.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the New SouthWales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946, and for other purposes.”

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first

time.

Second ReadingHon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.19 a.m.): I

move—

“That the Bill be now read a second time.”This Bill amends the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 and

the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers agreement, which is part of that Act.The objective of the amendment is to enable the Border Rivers Commission to assessand to generally manage ground water in the aquifers with the border rivers, and toallocate those waters between the two States.

In 1946, the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission was constituted tofacilitate the management of the border streams. The commission comprises threecommissioners: an independent chairperson and a senior officer of the watermanagement authority of each State. The commission is responsible for monitoring theresources available, investigating the resources, and recommending the volume of waterthat is available according to a sharing formula set out in the interstate agreement. Thework of the commission is carried out by officers of the water authorities in each State,and the water allocation arrangements are implemented through the licensing powers ofthe State authorities.

In recent times, there has been increased development of the subartesian groundwater resources in the alluvium associated with the border streams. This ground water isconnected to the streams. The extent of the connection varies. Where there is a directconnection, there is a concern that use of ground water and the resultant lowering ofthe water table may result in water from the stream being drawn naturally into the groundreservoir, depleting stream flows. Further, heavy development on one side of the bordermay affect ground water levels in the other State. Therefore, there is a need to managethe surface and ground water resources in an integrated manner.

Accordingly, the responsibilities of the Dumaresq-Barwon Border RiversCommission are to be extended to include ground water contained in the alluvialmaterials associated with the border streams. The commission will investigate andmonitor the resources and recommend policy for the management and sharing of theresources. An agreement amending the current New South Wales-Queensland BorderRivers agreement has been negotiated between the States. The Premiers of Queenslandand New South Wales have signed the agreement. This Bill amends the New SouthWales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 and implements the new agreement. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned.

HIGHER EDUCATION (GENERAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.20 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—


“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to make provision inrelation to the establishment of universities and for the accreditation of coursesthat lead to higher education awards proposed to be offered by other bodies andinstitutions, and for related purposes.”Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Comben, read afirst time.

Second Reading

Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.22 am.): I move—“That the Bill be now read a second time.”

I present to the House a Bill to provide new legislation which will do two things:firstly, it will protect both the standing of universities and the standard of highereducation awards, including bachelor degrees and postgraduate degrees and diplomas;secondly, to this end, it will establish authority for the Minister for Education to accreditcourses leading to higher education awards offered by providers other than universities.At the moment, these two important and related areas are dealt with in separate Acts interms which are no longer appropriate. This Bill brings these two related areas togetherin one piece of legislation, which is relevant to the situation which now prevails.

Until 31 December 1989, the Board of Advanced Education had statutoryresponsibility under the Education Act 1964 to be the accrediting authority for awardsconferred by colleges of advanced education established under that Act. The boardalso had the power to act as accrediting authority for courses leading to advancededucation awards conferred by institutions other than colleges of advanced education.In 1989, major changes occurred in the structure of higher education: the binary systemof advanced education and university education was replaced at Commonwealth levelby a unified national system of higher education; colleges of advanced education inQueensland immediately began to seek and achieve university or university collegestatus, either in their own right or through amalgamation (as such they becameresponsible for accreditation of their own courses); State boards of advanced education(or equivalent) were replaced by offices of higher (or tertiary) education throughoutAustralia.

The Education (Board of Advanced Education Dissolution) Act 1989, whichdissolved the Board of Advanced Education, vested in the Minister for Educationresidual powers of the board relating to advanced education, including the power toaccredit courses leading to awards conferred by any remaining colleges of advancededucation, and by non-public institutions offering courses of comparable standing. Indeveloping that legislation, the then Cabinet, in August 1989, foreshadowed the need,after the cessation of the last college of advanced education, for the legislation toprovide a clear head of power for the Minister to be the accrediting authority forcourses leading to higher education awards conferred by non-public institutions. That isnow the situation. There are now no colleges of advanced education in Queensland. Allhave either been granted university status in their own right or have amalgamated withuniversities. It is no longer relevant for the Minister’s accrediting authority to becouched in terms of “advanced education”. Universities are, by virtue of their Acts, thefinal accrediting authorities for the courses they offer. But there is a need for a newpiece of legislation which provides clearly for the accreditation of higher educationcourses offered by providers other than universities, for example, non-publiceducational organisations and other private providers.

The information explosion, the Commonwealth Training Guarantee AdministrationAct 1990, and the advent of open and packaged learning techniques all have


contributed to a subsequent increase in the private higher education market. Thatmarket includes: non-public educational institutions; private business organisations, orGovernment departments, with training and education enterprises; and, of course,professional associations. There is a great deal of evidence of interest from a range ofproviders in developing courses, particularly at graduate diploma and bachelor’s degreelevel. The universities have expressed strong support for the Queensland Governmentto maintain procedures which enable some regulation of private providers, for theprotection of consumers and the reputation of the system as a whole. In addition to theobvious concerns about bogus providers, there is a strong general trend towardsgreater portability and cross crediting of awards, partly driven by award restructuringprinciples. Such portability is impossible without some common standards, which aremost easily and efficiently established by an accreditation process. In addition, there arerequirements under Commonwealth legislation in relation to institutions wishing to enroloverseas students. Only formally accredited higher education courses can attract fee-paying overseas students.

Concern has been voiced at the national level in a recent report of the AustralianEducation Council Working Party on higher education, and by the Australian ViceChancellors Committee that all States should develop controls over the use of the terms“university”, “degree” and other awards. While the Queensland Education (GeneralProvisions) Act 1989 does contain provisions for such restrictions, they do not belongcomfortably in an Act which is primarily about schools and related matters. It is moreappropriate to bring together in a separate Act, the two related provisions foraccreditation and for protection of terms such as “university” and certain highereducation awards. The relevant provisions contained in Part VII of the Education(General Provisions) Act 1989 in any case require updating and amendment to reflectthe current situation. The proposed Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 tobe administered by the Minister for Education will complement the provisions of theVocational Education, Training and Employment Act 1991 administered by the Ministerfor Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. That Act provides for theaccreditation of vocational education and training courses conducted by State colleges,that is, TAFE institutions and other bodies which apply for accreditation of coursesdeemed to be comparable to them.

The system of vocational education and training awards includes certificates,advanced certificates, associate diplomas and diplomas. Courses leading to degree andpostgraduate awards are the responsibility of the higher education sector. There is anarea of overlap, with associate diplomas and diplomas being offered in both sectors.The standards of courses at these levels are equivalent in both sectors but there aredifferences in kind, for example, courses in areas such as teacher education whichtraditionally have their foundations in higher education. While it is expected that themajority of courses at associate diploma and diploma levels will be accredited forawards in vocational education and training, a small number may be more appropriatelyaccredited in the higher education area. This overlap situation is not a difficulty. To date,such cases have been negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the two accreditingauthorities. It is intended that this close cooperation continue. The Minister forEducation would not accredit courses at either of these two levels without the expressagreement of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment CommissionAccreditation Board. That agreement is to be expressed formally in a statement signedby the two Ministers.

It is in the interests of this State to protect the good name of universities, and toensure that the name “university” is not misused. This new legislation makes it unlawfulin Queensland for any body or institution to call itself a university unless it is establishedas, or recognised as being, a university. Similarly, the public has the right to expect thatthe integrity of what we have come to expect of degrees and postgraduatequalifications is not demeaned by the unauthorised granting of these higher-educationawards. The new legislation makes it unlawful for a person or an institution to confer oruse these awards unless they are authorised to do so. At the same time, it is recognised


that there are education providers other than universities which may wish to offerhigher-education courses leading to awards such as bachelors degrees. The newlegislation provides for the Minister for Education to be the accrediting authority forsuch courses. To accredit a course to lead to a higher education award, the Minister willneed to be satisfied, following an assessment made in accordance with approvedaccreditation procedures, that the course and the way of delivering it are appropriate tothe level of the award that is to be conferred. With increasing numbers of peopleseeking to advance themselves through degrees and higher qualifications, it is essentialto be able to provide some assurance and regulation of the standards of coursesoffered. This new Bill will certainly help to protect the quality of higher-educationcourses offered in Queensland, and to protect the interests of an increasing body ofpaying consumers, who may include international students, and it will provide an up-to-date and relevant framework for the Minister’s accrediting authority to continue tooperate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Quinn, adjourned.

SUPREME COURT LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (11.32 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend and repeal certainActs in relation to the appointment of Supreme Court Judges, and for otherpurposes.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (11.33 a.m.): I move—


At present, section 3 of the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Act 1983provides for the appointment of a maximum of 20 Supreme Court judges. A ceiling onthe appointment of judges has existed since 1867 and can only be increased bylegislation. There is no logical reason for the statutory imposition of this ceiling. Nosimilar situation exists in any other Australian jurisdictions. Whenever the complement ofjudges needs to be increased, legislation must be prepared and introduced to raise theceiling. Legislative changes have been necessary on at least 11 occasions since theestablishment of the Supreme Court. This requirement can prevent a timely response tofluctuating circumstances and the effective allocation of resources on either apermanent or temporary basis or to meet emergency situations. Moreover, with the rapidincrease of population in Queensland, it is reasonable to anticipate a need for theappointment of more judges.

On occasions when the complement of judges has fallen below the stipulatedceiling, the Government has been criticised for allowing such a situation to occur. Thecomplement of judges should be determined according to need, not merely to fulfil amaximum number specified by legislation. The constraints suffered by the SupremeCourt do not exist in the District Court, where there is no statutory limit on the numberof judicial officers that may be appointed. The procedure for appointing an additionalDistrict Court judge is simple and effective. If an additional judge is required, approval issought from Cabinet to increase the judicial establishment. This system allows for


appropriate and timely response to a manifested need for a variation in judicial numberswithout the additional costs associated with the preparation of legislation and passagethrough this Parliament.

Under the present law, one could not even appoint a temporary judge to clean upthe backlogs. This new arrangement will allow extra judges to be appointed on atemporary basis as and when they are needed. The system for the appointment ofSupreme Court judges and District Court judges will now be the same. This amendmentwill allow more flexibility and responsiveness to needs without removing any of the strictrequirements that govern the appointment of a new Supreme Court judge. I commendthe Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, adjourned.

CLASSIFICATION OF FILMS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Ferny Grove—Minister for Consumer Affairs and Ministerfor Corrective Services) (11.36 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Classificationof Films Act 1991.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Ferny Grove—Minister for Consumer Affairs and Ministerfor Corrective Services) (11.37 a.m.): I move—


The Classification of Films Amendment Bill has three main objectives. The first andprimary objective is to introduce a new classification for films and videos, namely, MA ormature audience. This legislative initiative flows directly from a resolution of the Councilof Australian Governments at its meeting in Perth on 7 December 1992. As part of itsgeneral concern about the level of violence in Australia, the council considered the issueof violence on film, television and video and the value of achieving one classificationsystem across these three forms of media. The council had regard to discussions thatthe Prime Minister had with the television networks in late 1992 and the fact that thenetworks had agreed to draw up a draft program code adopting the system ofclassification currently used for films and videos. The council also took note of the factthat under these arrangements two new M classifications would replace the current wideand indiscriminate AO category for television with the more violent films being classifiedas MA. It was agreed, consistent with this, that films and videos would also have anidentical classification system and that the existing M classification would be split intwo. The new M category will be recommended for those 15 and over and will includefilms now falling within the lower end of the M classification. Those films falling withinthe higher range of films classified M and which the censor is of the opinion containsscenes depicting, expressing or otherwise dealing with matters of sex, violence orcoarse language in a way that makes the film unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15years of age, will be classified M.

To give effect to the resolution of the Council of Australian Governments, it isnecessary for each Australian State to pass necessary amending legislation, and this Bill


gives effect to Queensland's participation in this nationwide initiative. Pursuant to theBill, a child aged between the age of 2 and 14 years cannot view an MA film in a publicplace unless accompanied by an adult. A cinematograph film exhibitor who allows a childaged 14 or under to view an MA film unaccompanied by an adult will commit an offenceunless the exhibitor or the exhibitor's employee or agent believes on reasonablegrounds that the minor attained 15 years or had not attained 2 years; or is, or will be,accompanied by an adult during the exhibition of the film. In addition, the exhibitor orthe exhibitor's employee or agent does not commit an offence if that person believes onreasonable grounds that the person accompanying the child has attained 18 years.

Honourable members may be aware that some concern was expressed by filmexhibitors about these proposals. It was suggested that it was unfair to introduce suchlegislation as it would be very difficult for exhibitors to comply with these requirements.Film exhibitors suggested that children under 15 years of age do not carry ageidentification and therefore it would be impossible to conclusively determine whether achild under the age of 15 years was attending the exhibition of an MA film. Thiscomplaint is not without foundation, but as film exhibitors often already make adistinction between children aged 15 and under on the basis of fees charged, it is notconsidered that the setting of an age limit of 14 places an impossible burden on filmexhibitors. Nevertheless, the State's films classification officer has liaised with industrysources with respect to appropriate education campaigns to inform members of thepublic of the new classification system, as well as the development of an appropriateprosecution policy to ensure that exhibitors who are attempting in a sincere and bonafide way to obey the law will not be unfairly prosecuted. In short, I believe that theintroduction of this new classification system, having, as it does, a number of majorcommunity advantages, will not result in an unfair burden being placed on the industry.So far as possible both in Queensland and, hopefully, elsewhere every effort will bemade to ensure that the industry, who are at the forefront of this change, will be assistedto ensure that the advantages flowing from this law reform measure are enjoyed by all.

It goes without saying that the main object of this legislative initiative is to ensurethat parents can exercise greater control over what their children view. It has becomeabundantly clear in recent times that the existing M classification is far too wide. Theexisting M classification is advisory only and recent films which have fallen within itinclude such diverse productions as Crocodile Dundee, My Left Foot, Cape Fear andSilence of the Lambs. I also draw honourable members’ attention to a recent review ofthe film The Last of the Mohicans which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald ofThursday, 4 March 1993.

Mr FitzGerald: You’d never get in that film with your hairstyle, Mr Minister.You’ve got the reverse; the negative of it.

Mr MILLINER: The honourable member is being very hurtful.

Mr Briskey: If he turned side on, they wouldn’t see him any more.

Mr MILLINER: That is correct, but I had better continue. That film was given an Mrating. The reviewer made the following comments—

“Mohicans is rated M, which according to its publicity material, means ‘low-level violence’. Low-level scalping, knifing, hatcheting, burnings and hearts beingcut out, that is.”

It is clear that all Australian Governments are deeply concerned about young childrenbeing exposed to violent images which could have lasting detrimental effects on theirpsychological wellbeing. This Bill will go some way towards tilting the balance backtowards a less violent society by assisting parents to protect their children againstviolent and disturbing films. I am sure that this is a goal all members support.

The second object of this legislation is to introduce a new definition of the term“sell”. Recently, a number of complaints have been received about the activities ofalleged X-rated video swap clubs. Without discussing the facts of the case, a test


prosecution was launched against one alleged swap club and it is currently beingdetermined in the courts. Obviously, I wish to say nothing further about this case.Nevertheless, as honourable members are aware, there has been considerable presscomment recently about the proliferation of swap clubs. Following the obtaining of legaladvice, it was considered desirable that the law be clarified to ensure that the relevantprovisions of the Act are redrafted to facilitate the successful prosecution of personsinvolved in this activity.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the mere possession of X-rated videos is notan offence in Queensland or any other Australian jurisdiction; nor is it an offence for aperson to lend or exchange their X-rated video to another person where the lending orexchange is non-profit related. In other words, where there is not a commercial elementin the exchange or lending, no offence is committed. The object of introducing a newdefinition of the term "sell" is to ensure that, where clubs are formed for the purpose ofexchanging X-rated videos where there is a commercial element, this activity isspecifically dealt with and charges can be laid. From information supplied, it would seemthat swap clubs are cunningly created in an attempt to disguise the true nature of theiroperations. Persons joining such clubs are asked to pay a membership fee, and, inaddition, when a video is exchanged, a service fee is charged, which is said merely tocover the costs entailed in effecting the transfer. In other words, the fee is supposedlynot for commercial gain but to cover the costs inherent with carrying out the transaction.This, in many cases, is nothing more than a sham and designed to evade the law. Theproposed extended definition of “sell” is specifically designed to facilitate theprosecution of these types of swap clubs.

To reiterate, the object of this amendment is not to prevent persons who haveobtained an X-rated video legally from exchanging or lending it to a person where thenature of the exchange or hire involves no commercial element. However, where suchexchange does involve a commercial element, albeit disguised under a number ofdifferent names, then this amendment is designed to facilitate the prosecution ofpersons engaged in this type of activity.

The third object of this legislation is to effect a number of statute law revisionamendments. If honourable members are desirous of obtaining a more detailedexplanation of any of the statute law revision amendments, I would be pleased toprovide them either during the second-reading debate or during the Committee stage ofthis Bill. I have much pleasure in commending this Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Stoneman, adjourned.

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BILL

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning) (11.45 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act providing for the approval,development and management of schemes of mixed use development, and forother purposes.”Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read afirst time.

Second Reading

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning) (11.46 a.m.): I move—


“That the Bill be now read a second time.”The Mixed Use Development Bill will provide a code of practice which will make it

easier to develop buildings for a range of uses which may include residential,commercial and office space. This legislation allows for the growing trend to establishdevelopments with a number of uses as compared to the traditional approach ofestablishing a single purpose building under single ownership. Under this Bill, lot typeswould be decided according to the proposed use. Group, strata or building unit title lotscould all be incorporated into one development and each lot sold separately allowing fora range of uses within a development and giving clear title to each purchaser.

Under current arrangements, the occupant must buy into a complex company titleand lease space from the developer. They cannot then use their interest in thedevelopment as collateral to finance other activities. The Bill does away with this type ofcompany title, giving each purchaser clear title and allowing them to mortgage their lotto finance other activities. It also recognises that an appropriate management structuremust be established to ensure common facilities are properly maintained for the benefitof all users of the development.

Under the Bill, a number of individuals with an interest in only one specific type ofdevelopment may join forces and raise finance for a mixed use development as a jointventure. The exposure for each of these partners would be far less than for a developerunder current arrangements. All approvals required for a mixed use development mustbe obtained from the local authority in the first instance. The Act will also protectindividual interests without much of the complex legal documentation which is nownecessary.

The Bill is the product of wide consultation between my department and thedevelopment industry, local authorities and legal practitioners. The Bill will have generalapplication throughout the State. It will substantially increase benefits which will flow tothe development industry and, more particularly, its financiers. At the same time, it willprovide greatly enhanced security for individuals who purchase a registrable interest inparts of such developments.

These enhanced benefits for the development industry will have a positive anddramatic flow-on effect to Queensland’s private sector, allowing for the provision ofmore jobs. Any scheme submitted for approval as a mixed use development is requiredto comply with the uses permitted under the current planning scheme. Where a proposaldoes not comply with the zoning assigned to the land under a planning scheme, it is aprerequisite of this legislation that the land in question must be rezoned.

In preparing this legislation, extreme care has been taken to ensure that the localauthority concerned is involved at all stages of the approval and development processin much the same manner as it would with a normal development. At every stage in theprocess, the approval of the local authority is required. In addition, the approval of theGovernor in Council is required before a scheme of mixed use development can beimplemented. These approvals are dealt with in much the same manner as applicationsfor the rezoning of land or integrated resort development approvals.

As stated earlier, the Bill is a code of practice designed to provide for theemerging trend that developments be implemented as planned unit developments whichincorporate more than one type of use on a site or within a building. A further trend isthat developments which are undertaken as planned unit developments are usually verylarge and have a construction time frame extending over a number of years. The Billrecognises that staged implementation of large projects is becoming the norm andprovides for future development areas to be subject to further approvals. Anycomprehensively planned development will not only contain a range of differentcompatible uses, but will also require that the types of land titles which are to be offeredwithin the development will also vary considerably. The Bill provides for this to belawfully done. It also recognises that in the implementation of schemes such as these,appropriate provision must be made for the owners of lots to have clearly identified theirrights and obligations. This has to be established to protect each owner’s interests and


rights to use their lots or land and to identify the extent of financial contributionsrequired to be made by them towards the ongoing operation, management andmaintenance of the development as a whole. It follows, therefore, that the owner of anytitle whatsoever within a site of mixed use development becomes a member of a bodycorporate which represents the interests of the owners of property having similar userights.

By its very nature within a mixed use development, a need would normally exist fora number of different precinct bodies corporate to exist to represent the differentinterest groups contained within the site. In any developments envisaged by the Billthere will be other facilities within the site which are provided for the community benefitin varying degrees depending upon the nature of uses which are permitted to establishin each precinct or community development lot. These facilities have to be managed andmaintained for the benefit of all users. The Bill provides for the establishment of acommunity body corporate which will have as its members representatives from each ofthe precinct bodies corporate and community development lots.

Under an approved scheme of mixed use development, the scheme itself willprovide more precise land use rights within the site than those which are assignedgenerally by a planning scheme. The uses assigned by the mixed use scheme to parts ofa site must be ones which are permitted by the zoning of the land under the planningscheme. The Bill also recognises that certain uses will utilise common facilities orcommunity property more than others, and provides a mechanism for obtaining anequitable management cost sharing arrangement. The approved scheme must allocatevoting entitlements to each part of the site, which will be distributed to each of theowners within a site in a manner provided for by the scheme. The bodies corporatereferred to previously will have perpetual succession, and any owner or occupier ofproperty within a site is required to become a member of those bodies corporate and toaccept the responsibilities which flow from that membership.

The Bill represents the culmination of five years of hard work by Governmentofficers, members of the private sector and specialist legal advisers who are expert inthe area of commercial development, titling and the relationship which titling has to thebody corporate system of management. I pay particular tribute to Arthur Muhl and NoelThorne and the Local Government Department for the hard work they have put intopreparing this Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, adjourned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 March (see p. 2100). Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.53 a.m.): Today, we are seeing the third attempt by

this Government to get it right in respect of the political agenda which the Labor Partyhas sought to impose on local government in this State. This is the third attempt tocross the t’s and dot the i’s so that no legal loopholes remain whereby aggrievedcouncils that are forced into amalgamation can appeal through the courts on thegrounds of legal technicalities. It is interesting, as background to this legislation, to goback over past events and plot the course of political interference in local governmentsince Mr Goss and his cohorts came into power in this State. The Labor Governmentcame into power in December 1989 and it was only one month later, on 3 January 1990,that the proposal for a review of electoral and administrative matters relating to localauthorities was raised by Deputy Premier Tom Burns. Mr Burns, who was the then LocalGovernment Minister, obviously agreed with other Labor members, such as ClemCampbell and Brian Courtice—who will soon be the late Brian Courtice politically—and


others that local authorities in Queensland were a den of conservatives in need of aclean-out.

Let me stress that no request came from local authorities in this State or, moreimportantly, from ratepayers for a review of local government. There was no evidencethat local authorities in this State were running amok financially or otherwise; nor wereratepayers complaining about inequities in voting entitlements during local authorityelections. The only people complaining were Labor politicians, so with the politicalagenda being firmly set by the Labor Party, the Deputy Premier moved a motion on 29March 1990 authorising EARC to investigate local authority electoral and administrativematters. This did not come from Fitzgerald; it came from Labor Party headquarters.

The timetable which the Labor Party set for the political overhaul of localgovernment was totally unrealistic and, of course, could not be met. EARCcommissioners complained about the enormity of the task set for them in the timeallotted, but Mr Burns was determined to have the changes in place in time for the localgovernment elections in March 1991—and, to a certain extent, they were. The wholeprocess was notable for the time constraints which impeded proper consultation and forthe way in which EARC was swamped with submissions from irate local governmentpeople and ratepayers. It is history now that Cabinet rejected the ParliamentaryCommittee of Electoral and Administrative Review’s recommendations and that we sawthe Labor Government backing off at a great rate of knots. In fact, in the main, Mr Gossadopted the recommendations of the dissenting report which was compiled by Nationaland Liberal members.

An Opposition member interjected.

Mrs McCAULEY: And very competent fellows they were, too! Submissions haverecently closed in relation to internal boundaries where local authorities were compelledto look at those boundaries and change according to a formula, if necessary, or facegoing to the next election undivided. This has led to Duaringa Shire Council Chairman,Kerry Park, calling the exercise “an electoral obscenity”. To comply with new legislationadministered by EARC, Duaringa Shire Council was required to merge Divisions 1, 2 and3, which will result in two separate divisions with disproportionate councilrepresentation.

Mr Mackenroth: You supported the legislation.

Mrs McCAULEY: I did at the time, yes.

Mr Mackenroth: Just as long as we note that.Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, but there are problems arising from that, and I think it is

important to highlight those problems. Councillor Park says the council now has theshameful and embarrassing task of telling about 3 000 people who are living in an area of17 900 square kilometres that they have only three representatives because of themandatory boundary changes. Nine representatives come from Blackwater, and if thechairman came from there also, there would be 10 representatives for the town andthree for the bush. I also point out that most of the people in Blackwater are notratepayers, either, because they live in company housing. This ludicrous situation ismade worse when it is considered that if all three rural councillors come from around theBlackwater/Bluff area, those three councillors could quite conceivably have to travel 400kilometres to do a road inspection on the other side of Blackwater, which is entirelypossible. A similar situation has arisen in Mount Isa where that council did not fit thecriteria for even one division and is forced to go undivided into the next election.Apparently, this is not what that council wanted, but what has been forced upon it bythis Government.

Mr Mackenroth: They were not forced; they chose to go.Mrs McCAULEY: The council did not fit the criteria and it had no choice. This is

another blunder in a long chain of errors concerning local government which Tom Burnsdecided to straighten out in this State—to socialise, in the Labor manner. That is an


example of previous legislation in the local government arena not meeting with theapproval of those whom it most affects, and now we see this Labor Government tryingagain to get it right with this Amendment Bill. On its past record, it seems doubtful that itwill succeed.

Let me make it quite clear that the National Party does not object to the position ofLocal Government Commissioner or to the person—Greg Hoffman—who holds thatposition. I privately believe that Greg has been set an impossible task in an impossibletime frame and that he is probably copping more flak in his new job than he had everthought possible. However, he is thorough and he knows local government in this Stateinside out. I have no doubts about his ability.

Mr Mackenroth: The Government has given Greg Hoffman not one time frame.He has put his own time frame. There is absolutely no request for anything within anygiven time.

Mrs McCAULEY: It has got to be done before the elections in March next year.

Mr Mackenroth: No, it hasn’t. That’s not true. I have not asked him to do anythingin any time frame. He has set his own time frame, not me.

Mrs McCAULEY: That is interesting because I know that he is trying to get thesesorted out by June.

Mr Mackenroth: He is an independent commissioner and I would not put anythingsuch as a time frame on him.

Mrs McCAULEY: That is interesting. If they are his own time constraints, I stilldoubt that he will be able to meet them.

Mr Mackenroth: That is his choice.

Mrs McCAULEY: If that is his choice, that is fine. It is going to be a very difficulttime frame to meet. This Bill deals with matters of legal content rather than matters ofpolicy and follows legal advice from the Crown Solicitor, who identified deficiencies inprevious drafting and is seeking to rectify them. Of course, when amalgamations wereforced in Victoria, expensive litigation through the courts followed and, of course, thisGovernment is keen to avoid that path, if possible. That is not to say that localauthorities will not have redress through the courts if they are forced into amalgamationsagainst their wishes, but it will probably have to be on the grounds of natural justicerather than legal technicalities. The legal opinion of a QC on this matter is—

“This is very much a political matter and the remedy is a political and not acurial one. To put it more directly, any remedy would be through the ballot box atthe next election and not through the court.”

It is important therefore from the Government’s point of view to ensure thatreferences from the Minister to the commissioner are entirely correct in law. That has ledto those clauses which try to be all things to all people, for example, when the Bill talksabout specifying with reasonable certainty things that are or are not included in thereference. To my way of thinking, that is called two bob each way. Indeed, the very factthat the legislation is being introduced suggests that amalgamations will proceedregardless. I would also suggest that, by putting the internal boundaries review beforethe external boundaries, the Government is putting the cart before the horse.

The Local Government Association position on the legislation is that it is satisfiedwith the processes set down in law for the commissioner to follow, so the association isnot opposed to the Bill. However, it should be pointed out that the original submissionof the Local Government Association contained provision for referendums in case ofamalgamation. Tom Burns flatly refused to contemplate that course, so the LGA took thebest line it could under the circumstances and accepted the set procedure put forwardby Greg Hoffman for the Local Government Commissioner to follow. The referendumsafeguard is also the line taken by Communities Against Forced Amalgamations—CAFA—in the event of amalgamations which are against the wishes of either council andwhich do not have community support. Let me stress that I believe that referendums are


useless unless people are fully briefed on what they are voting on. In the case of localgovernment, I suspect that the bottom line is dollars and cents; in other words, what therate bill will be if amalgamation is endorsed. This is fair enough. Most people thinkthrough their hip pocket and, let us face it, if amalgamation is so good it must bebecause of the substantial cost benefits to ratepayers, must it not? I will say more aboutthat shortly.

Recently, an interesting exercise in referendums was held in the Gympie/Widgeearea, where Bruce Chapman and a group of interested ratepayers organised acomprehensive and professionally run referendum on whether or not theGympie/Widgee councils should amalgamate. In that referendum, 26.38 per cent ofeligible electors cast a vote, which went 84.3 per cent against in Widgee and 54.4 percent against in Gympie, for a total of 76 per cent against. Although the turnout wasrather small, apparently anything over 20 per cent in such a poll is considered rathergood. I am not convinced in my own mind that the ratepayers of those two shires knewenough about the amalgamation issue to be able to cast an informed vote. However, thewhole exercise flags big problems for the State Government if it continues to try toforce local authorities to amalgamate against the wishes of the people in those shires.

Mrs Woodgate: People couldn’t care less, if only 23 per cent voted. Mrs McCAULEY: They are concerned if their rate bill goes up. They are very

concerned and very interested. I am concerned that, when the matter first arose, boththe Mayor of Gympie and the Widgee Shire Chairman favoured a referendum. Now,neither do. Although I understand the attitude of the Widgee Shire Council thatcouncillors are the only people fully briefed to make a decision on the amalgamationissue, I am very concerned that that council may end up in the same boat as the MurillaShire Council over the Gurulmundi toxic waste dump. Murilla was placed in a position inwhich it very reluctantly joined the tripartite committee with the Brisbane City Counciland the State Government to run Gurulmundi. Now it has become the whipping boy forthe irate group of ratepayers who are opposed to the Gurulmundi site and who blamethe local authority for all their woes because of its involvement on that committee.

Anyone involved in any tier of government, whether local, State or Federal, whoforgets whom he or she seeks to represent, or who appears to forget, will become acasualty at the ballot box. I am sure that all honourable members would agree with that.A quote on the front of the latest publication by Michael Jones and CAFA to the LocalGovernment Commissioner states—

“With public sentiment on its side, everything succeeds; with publicsentiment against it, nothing succeeds.”

That was an interesting and wise observation by Abraham Lincoln, who himself lived in atime of great turmoil and public unrest—and he was not talking about the GST, either. Asecond quote in the same publication is even more relevant, and perhaps the Ministerwould do well to ponder it. It is from a book called Organising Political Life: WhatAdministrative Reorganisation Tells Us About Government. It states—

“Reorganisations tend to become collections of solutions looking forproblems, ideologies looking for soapboxes, pet projects looking for supporters,and people looking for jobs, reputations or entertainment.” I believe that the present Minister is not as bloody minded in his approach to the

whole matter of local authorities as his predecessor was and that there will hopefully beless ideological knife wielding than we would have seen from Mr Burns. I am open to beproven wrong in my assessment——

Mr Stoneman: I think that little stint in the sin bin has softened him. Mrs McCAULEY: I hope for the sake of local government that I am correct in my

assessment. When the first Bill dealing with the office of the Local GovernmentCommissioner was brought into Parliament in April last year, the member for Miraniopposed the broadening of scope as to matters which could be referred by the Minister


to the Commissioner for Local Government. There was a lot of discussion about theterm “reviewable local government matter”, and that term is being quite extensivelyamended in the Bill today. There is also provision to change the method of declaring amatter a reviewable local government matter from an Order in Council to regulation, andI will be talking to the Minister more about that during the Committee stage, because Ihave a lot of questions. I want to go on record here and express my concerns aboutthat method of doing things, because it effectively removes from Parliament the abilityto oversee changes to the Act. That is not something which should be countenanced,even though I am aware that previous boundary changes did not go to Parliament,either. If it is good enough to tamper with boundaries, it is good enough to do it throughParliament. If there are no problems, the whole process will obviously be short andsweet. Because the means of defining and refining——

McElligott: Does that apply to State electorates, too?

Mrs McCAULEY: Why not?Mr McElligott: Do we determine our own boundaries?

Mrs McCAULEY: No. I am saying that all of that should come through Parliament.Because the means of refining and defining a reviewable local government matter wereso difficult and extensive, the Bill even allows for reference to anything relating to localgovernment mentioned in a report of the parliamentary committee. I sympathise withMaurie Tucker and his team in the Local Government Department about the problemsposed for them by this Bill. At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to expressmy thanks for the briefing I was given by those officers. They are always courteous andprofessional in every way, and I appreciate that.

During the Committee stage, the Opposition will be moving two amendmentswhich we believe add a stronger dimension to this Bill from the perspective of localauthorities. The first one deals with any recommended amalgamations and requires thecommissioner to identify any benefits likely to be gained from such action. Last year,under the Local Government (Review of External Boundaries) Regulation 1992,guidelines were published for the drawing up of external boundaries. These may havegiven some people a warm inner glow but were fairly nebulous and talked about suchmatters as “community of interest”, and needing to “facilitate the efficient and effectiveprovision and maintenance of services and facilities”. Nowhere was there any mention ofsubstantial cost benefits which may flow on to ratepayers as a result of amalgamation. Infact, any thought of cost-benefit analysis seems to be anathema to this Labor lot.

Mr Stoneman: The other thing that was significantly missing was the capacity ofthe local government representative to effectively represent his or her area. There is nosign of that.

Mrs McCAULEY: I think there is very little understanding of that particular finerpoint. I firmly believe that there can be no talk of amalgamations without such a cost-benefit analysis, and the two go together like the proverbial horse and carriage.Ratepayers will vote whichever way their hip-pocket nerve dictates, and it is essentialthat they are aware whether their rate bill will increase or decrease in any amalgamationor other likely change. In the Gympie/Widgee amalgamation issue, a reportcommissioned by both councils highlighted a substantial increase in the rates in WidgeeShire and a lesser increase in rates in Gympie. Those Coopers and Lybrand type reportsmust be done in all regions facing amalgamation recommendations and must be widelypublicised. The second amendment provides for a referendum to be held—at StateGovernment expense—if a local authority decides to exercise this option. I am stronglyof the opinion that such an amendment is necessary in this Bill because it is the “justicemust not only be done, it must be seen to be done” sort of thing.

Mr McElligott: Would voting be compulsory?

Mrs McCAULEY: No, and nor would the referendum be compulsory. But theprovision is there for it if the council wishes to have it.


Mr McElligott: You may get only a 20 per cent turnout.Mrs McCAULEY: Don’t you believe it! It would be a lot more than that. If it was

held in Rosenthal, every one of the 2 536 ratepayers—or whatever the number is—inthat little shire would come out to vote against it.

Mr FitzGerald: The difference is that it wasn’t a local authority conductedreferendum.

Mrs McCAULEY: It was not done by the local authorities in Gympie and Widgee,it was done privately; and apparently that was a fairly good percentage for a private poll.If the Minister does not agree with the Opposition’s amendments, he is missing a goldenopportunity to temper his legislation with some compassion and understanding, and I amsure that he would like to be associated with compassion and understanding.

Let me turn now to the other sections of this legislation. It seems appropriate tome that the Local Government Commissioner have the power not only to increase theBrisbane City Council boundaries but to decrease same. Because this power is vestedin the person of the commissioner, and he has to report to the Minister with hisrecommendations, there does not appear to be cause for concern. However, it isinteresting that in his second-reading speech, the Minister, when discussing this sectionof the Bill, offered the safeguard that—

“The Act further provides that a change to a reviewable local governmentmatter can only be implemented by the Governor in Council after receiving a reportfrom the commissioner.”

This is no doubt meant to reassure any doubting Thomases—and it does, until we cometo the second part of the Bill in which the Minister says that he is giving the Governor inCouncil the power to make a regulation to extend the Act. Although his comments arenot referring to the same sections of the Act, I believe he cannot have it both ways.

As the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council can only be altered on arecommendation from the Local Government Commissioner, we will not oppose thissection of the Bill. Nor will the Opposition oppose the second amendment to the City ofBrisbane Act, which enables the council to manage and control bridges which it did notconstruct. As I understand it, this amendment pertains to a particular bridge at FishermanIslands, which is controlled by the Port of Brisbane Authority. As there are severalratepayers on the island who use the bridge, it is sensible that it be under the care andcontrol of the local authority rather than the port authority.

The final amendments are to the contract powers of local authorities and are simplya clarification of the position of Optus as it seeks to extend throughout the State. I amrather disappointed with Optus—in fact, I am very disappointed with Optus. In myelectorate, people are screaming out for mobile phones. Every second person seems towant one. So we took a petition of several thousand signatures to Telecom, andTelecom’s reply was that it would be 1994 before there was any action. So I sent a copyof that same petition to Optus, thinking that it might have its act together, and was toldthat 1997 would see all of us lucky bushies get mobile phones. So it is back to the two-way radios and a long wait for something which will be of immense benefit to countrypeople. We are not opposed to this section being amended and so will not vote againstthe second reading. However, there will no doubt be divisions during the Committeestage.

Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (12.14 p.m.): I am pleased to rise to speak to this Bill.The prime intention of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1936 to clarify thematters that can be referred by the Minister to the Local Government Commissioner forexamination and report and recommendation and to also provide the Governor inCouncil with the necessary powers to implement any recommendations concerningmatters termed “reviewable local government matters” under the Act. Essentially,“reviewable local government matters”, as opposed to local government mattersgenerally, deal with constitutional issues such as internal and external boundary


alterations of local authority areas, assigning or reassigning members, determining theclass of a local authority area or changes to the system of voting.

The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review endorsedEARC’s approach to amalgamation when it reported on 19 March 1992. AlthoughEARC’s recommendations were not supported in full, the parliamentary committeerecommended 16 local authority areas for amalgamation into seven new areas. Theprovisions in this Bill will enable the boundary changes recommended by theparliamentary committee, which are to be referred to the Local GovernmentCommissioner.

The new electorate of Gladstone contains two complete local authorities: theGladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council. The boundary of the latter isalso the boundary of the Gladstone electorate. I am sure that honourable members willagree that they are the finest local authorities in the finest city of Queensland. TheCalliope Shire is led by Shire Chairman Elizabeth Cunningham; Councillors Creed,Stiller, Bailey, Bichsel, Brushe, Fox, Chapman and Dinte; and Shire Clerk GraemeKanofski. The shire has an area of 5 875 square kilometres and a population of 11 000people to 12 000 people. In 1880, the first meeting of the Calliope Division Board washeld. Recently, the Calliope Shire Council decided to end the divisional system ofrepresentation. That decision was taken because of a change in status of the shire fromrural to urban. The local authority has set aside divisional representation and itsmembers are elected by popular vote.

Several small townships are contained in the Calliope Shire, some of which wereestablished during the goldmining days. Recently, I visited Many Peaks in the BoyneValley area. I thank John Hoff and his wife Jan, proprietors of the Many Peaks Hotel, fortheir hospitality. I thank also those who took the time to meet me and to make my visit anenjoyable occasion. Whilst in that area, I visited Mr Frank McKee, who is undertaking ahistorical railway dam project. On his behalf, I contacted the Department of Environmentand Heritage and the Water Resources Commission to seek assistance with that project.

The people of the Calliope Shire will be well serviced by a road upgradingannounced recently by the Minister for Transport, David Hamill. A $1m upgrading of theGladstone-Monto Road will be undertaken. Primarily, that road will service the newstickmakers’ factory, but it will also service the people of that area. For approximately 30years, representations have been made to Government for an upgrading of that road.That upgrade is finally under way.

Mrs McCauley: It should be on that road, anyway.

Mr BENNETT: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Callide. Ashonourable members may be aware, prior to the electoral boundaries redistribution,Many Peaks was contained within her electorate. Obviously, the honourable member didnothing to advance the cause of those people. The upgrading of the road will improvetourism in the area. The local residents are very pleased about that, because it will injecta few extra dollars into the region. Despite that positive move, the honourable memberfor Callide can only bleat about it. Even though an improvement has been made, theonly contribution offered by the honourable member for Callide is knocking, mumblingand carrying on. Dear me!

Mrs McCauley: You have got a lot to learn, old son.Mr BENNETT: I inform the honourable member for Callide that I am not her son,

and I never will be. The twin towns of Boyne Island and Tannum Sands at the mouth ofthe Boyne River are the fastest-growing towns in the shire. The Boyne AluminiumSmelter is undertaking a due diligence process for the third potline expansion. Whenthat expansion is commenced, considerable further growth will occur in theBoyne/Tannum area. The Calliope Shire Council will have to work hard to provideservices for the increasing population. With the assistance of the developers, theCalliope Shire is undertaking a new sewerage works program in the area. Even though


much hard work will be involved, the council foresees no problems with the expansionof the Boyne Island, Tannum Sands and Calliope townships.

Predominantly, the Calliope Shire is a rural shire. The principal rural industry is theproduction of beef cattle, which represents some 60 per cent of rural production.Grazing is carried out on natural grassland with only limited improved pasture.Approximately 116 000 beef cattle on 260 properties are maintained within the shire.Brahman and Hereford are the most popular breeds. Dairying, which was once asignificant rural industry in the shire, has declined in favour of beef cattle production. Atpresent, approximately 4 000 dairy cattle are run on 30 farms. Only a small quantity ofgrain is grown in the shire. The total area dedicated to grain growing is approximately1 290 hectares. The principal grain crop is sorghum. Paw-paws are the main fruit grownin the shire. The paw-paws grown at Yarwun are famous for their quality. They areexported as far south as Adelaide and to many other places in Australia.

The total area of the shire dedicated to fruit growing is approximately 350hectares, almost all of which is paw-paws, the remainder being mangos and pineapples.Only a small quantity of vegetables are grown in the shire. The total area dedicated tovegetable crops is 40 hectares. Fishing is a major industry in the area. During thesummer months, choice mud crabs are harvested from rivers and estuaries. In particular,The Narrows between the mainland and Curtis Island produces large quantities of crabs.Prawns are taken offshore. Barramundi, salmon, whiting, flathead and cod are the mainestuary fishes caught. Sweet lip, emperor, cod and mackerel are the most common reeffish caught.

I turn now to secondary industries. Earlier, I mentioned that in the period between1978 and 1982, $850m of industrial development occurred in the shire. Primarily, thatdevelopment involved the Boyne smelter and the Queensland Cement and LimeCompany’s cement clinker plant at Fisherman’s Landing, which is presently undergoingexpansion. That plant processes limestone mined at East End, and ships transport theclinker to Brisbane and Townsville, where it is ground and used for the manufacture ofcement. That industry employs approximately 100 workers.

At the Boyne Island smelter, south of Gladstone, aluminium is produced and istransported from the Boyne Island wharf to Japan and elsewhere all over the world.Limestone is mined at Taragoola, which is 10 kilometres south of Calliope. The productof that mine is used in the production of alumina at the refinery at Gladstone and is alsoused as concrete aggregate and railway ballast. As I said, limestone is mined at EastEnd. Services for that operation come from the Mount Larcom area, which has beenboosted by that mining. Several deposits of oil shale have been found in the shire, andthe Rundle deposit adjacent to The Narrows is estimated to contain 1.5 billion barrels ofoil. Currently, it is under investigation, with ore samples being production tested in theUSA.

A major feature of the Calliope Shire is recreation, particularly on the beaches atTannum Sands and in the picnic areas. Last weekend, the Statewide Nippers LifesavingCarnival was held at that beach. I believe that the honourable member for Currumbin’sson participated in that carnival. Approximately 1 500 nippers took part in it.

Mrs Rose: And Currumbin won.

Mr BENNETT: That is correct. Calliope Shire has also undertaken extensiverecreational projects at Tannum Sands such as Turtle Way, which is a riverside parklandthat will enable pedestrians and cyclists to have ready access to kilometres of naturalriver and ocean foreshore and bushland areas. The linking of recreational facilities suchas the recreational club at Boyne Island, the Canoe Point nature reserve and the surfingbeach at Tannum Sands is the long-term aim of that project. The Boyne/TannumCountry Club is a community club which is sited on a pleasant bend of the Boyne River.It is open for membership to the general public and it provides a wide range of facilities,including modern bars and bistros, golf courses, a bowling green, a tennis court andplaying fields. An information centre at Tannum Sands assists in directing visitors toother points of interest in the area. Pony club activities and polocrosse—which is based


at Calliope—are popular with horse lovers and have a large following. Calliope alsoboasts an 18-hole golf course and a bowling green for enthusiasts, and recreation areasexist for other sports. A modern library caters for the local community and provides aback-up for branch libraries at Boyne Island and Mount Larcom. I urge all honourablemembers to visit Awoonga Dam, which is located south of Benaraby, and which is in abeautiful area. It supplies water to the region and offers excellent picnic and sailingfacilities. Boat ramps are provided at Tannum Sands, Boyne Island, Calliope River andThe Narrows to cater for fishermen. Numerous picnic areas alongside creeks also existthroughout the shire. Heron Island, which is a coral cay located 70 kilometres off thecoast, is known internationally for its recreational facilities and its ecological studies. Thereefs surrounding the island are a major attraction to skin divers. I also mention the workthat has been undertaken at the Port Curtis Historical Village, which attracts thousandsof visitors.

The Gladstone City Council, under Mayor Col Brown and Councillors Burns,Sellers, Noort, Dahl, Lenz and Curtis, covers an area of approximately 128 squarekilometres and has a population of 24 000. Gladstone, which was once described as adirty city by uninformed members of the media, is a result of the hard work that has beencarried out by several city council administrations to make it the wonderful city that it istoday. Over the past eight years, it has won the Tidy Towns contest six times, and onother occasions it was a runner-up. The beautiful botanic gardens, which Minister MollyRobson visited recently, set a scene of Australian bushland beauty. I believe that itsclass has no equal, and the Minister was suitably impressed. During the days when BillPrest was the Mayor of Gladstone, he had to fight hard for services for that community.That hard work is now paying off. It boasts a wonderful city theatre, sports facilities,clubs, nightclubs and a beautiful marina complex, with a bridge linking the main businesscentre with the marina campus, which is expected to be completed shortly.

The interaction of the Calliope Shire, the Gladstone City Council and theGladstone Port Authority for the benefit of the region is cordial, with very littledisagreement between them. The councils provide a good service to their ratepayersand are pro-active in obtaining State and Federal grants for job creation projects andimproving the lifestyle of their citizens. Recent grants for bikeway projects in Calliopeand Gladstone have been well received by the respective councils and the public. Ipoint out also that Gladstone was forthright in protecting its ratepayers from the effectsof Hewson’s goods and services tax, were it to be implemented.

I turn now to the EARC and PEARC recommendations. I believe it is important tooutline the role of the Local Government Commissioner, which is to provide timelyreports to the Minister on matters that have been referred for investigation. Thecommissioner should act with integrity and in a professional manner in examining andreporting on referrals and must comply with any prescribed criteria or principlesapproved by the Governor in Council and other procedures laid down in the Act. Thecommissioner is independent of the Government, and exercises a statutory role thatinvolves investigating referrals made by the Minister from time to time. It is expectedthat those referrals will invariably be matters of a constitutional nature. Under the Act, noaction can be taken to implement one of those reviewable local government mattersunless there has been an investigation and a report from the commissioner. However,there is discretionary power for the Minister to refer any other matter relating to localgovernment to the commissioner for investigation and report. The end goal, or aim, ofthe commissioner is to contribute towards an improvement in the system of localgovernment. That occurs through meeting the immediate goal of submittingrecommendations in respect of specific councils that address the reviewable localgovernment matters.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to the attention of this House the fact that theFederal Government is considering changing the Australian Constitution to recognisethe role of local government. An article in the Australian , dated 17 March 1993, states—


“The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, is considering changing the AustralianConstitution to recognise the role of local government.

But in a letter to the president of the Australian Local GovernmentAssociation, Alderman Peter Woods, Mr Keating indicates he would proceed withthe move only with the support of the federal Coalition.

Any change to the Constitution would have to be put to a referendum.

‘There would be no advantage in taking the issue to a referendum withoutbipartisan political support,’ Mr Keating’s letter says.

Athough Mr Woods has not received a response from the Coalition, MrKeating believed the Coalition would not back such a change. When the issue wasput to the nation at a referendum in 1988 by the Hawke government, withoutCoalition support, it was lost.

Mr woods said yesterday he was waiting on support from the Coalition, ‘butthis letter opens the way for more effective federal and local government co-operation.’

The ALGA”—

the Australian Local Government Association—

“lobbied during the election campaign for the incoming federal government togrant more autonomy to local government and Mr Keating has agreed to discussthe proposal with the ALGA executive.

Mr Woods said local government currently was seen as little more than anappendage to State government.”

I believe that the content of this Bill will assure local government that we do notregard it an as appendage of State Government; that we regard it as an integral part ofgovernment in Australia. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill to the House.

Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (12.31 p.m.): I join in this debate on the LocalGovernment Legislation Amendment Bill with a very great knowledge of the support thatlocal government gives to the community and the recognition that is given to thetremendous amount of work that it does in the community. If there is anything that isready to get a kick in the head, it is usually local government, and it always seems tocome back for more. For that reason, I believe that local government needs support andencouragement wherever and whenever possible. In common with the member forCallide, Mrs McCauley, I am concerned about some of the statements made by theMinister in his second-reading speech. He stated—

“It is also proposed to introduce more flexibility into the law regarding theimplementation issues that the Local Government Commissioner is required toreport upon when a recommendation is made to alter the external boundary of alocal authority.”

The part that worries me is—“This will be achieved by giving the Governor in Council the power to make a

regulation to extend the current list in section 4L of the Act.”

This seems to be running very close to a Henry VIII clause, because the Government isgiving authority through regulation to alter what should normally come throughlegislation.

Mr Mackenroth: We are getting rid of all your party’s Henry VIII clauses. Wewouldn’t be bringing in our own, let’s face it.

Mr STEPHAN: The Minister would have to convince me that he is getting rid of allHenry VIII clauses.

Mr Beattie: We trust him.


Mr STEPHAN: I am glad that the member trusts the Minister. But I am concernedbecause, in the past, Labor Governments and conservative Governments throughoutthe Commonwealth have allowed to sneak through matters that should be debated inParliament. This issue should be reviewed and watched constantly. Statements havebeen made about amalgamation. If ever there was a divisive issue in the community, Iassure members that it is amalgamation, particularly in the Gympie/Widgee district in myelectorate.

Mr Mackenroth: I haven’t seen you standing up anywhere.

Mr STEPHAN: As far as that goes, I have not seen the Minister stand up verymuch, either. If the Minister is saying that the commissioner has the authority and hemakes the decisions, I wonder under what guidelines the commissioner is operating. Willthe commissioner decide when elections are to be held in the local government areasthat are to be amalgamated? People have said to me that local government elections forGympie and Widgee will be held in approximately the middle of the year. Who has madethat decision? If it was not the Minister, or the commissioner working along those lines,who has actually said that the elections shall be held in about the middle of the year? Isit the—your—commissioner, or is he working under the guidelines of the Minister?

Mr Mackenroth: He is not my commissioner, he is our commissioner.

Mr STEPHAN: I said “the commissioner”.Mr Livingstone: You said “your commissioner”.

Mr STEPHAN: Never mind about “your” or “our” or whatever. The Minister is partof this Government, and he is ducking the issue.

Mr Mackenroth: He is not my commissioner, he is an independent commissioner.Mr STEPHAN: Under whose guidelines is he working?

Mr Mackenroth: He is working under the Act.Mr STEPHAN: The commissioner is working under the Minister’s Act, which

states that he is apparently giving directions to various local authorities and saying tothem that they shall amalgamate or “we will not bother about you at the present time”. Ihave heard comments to the effect that the Minister is having a large influence over thedecisions, even though he is not prepared to put anything in writing.

Mr Mackenroth: No way.

Mr STEPHAN: The Minister is not prepared to put anything in writing. He cannotduck away from the fact that——

Mr Mackenroth: That is not true.

Mr STEPHAN: What is not true? That the Minister is not prepared to put it inwriting?

Mr Mackenroth: That I am trying to influence what is going on.

Mr STEPHAN: I have not heard the Minister answer too many questions aboutamalgamation and what is required there.

Mr Mackenroth: It would be totally wrong of me to go and pre-empt thecommissioner.

Mr STEPHAN: The Minister has just made the comment that the commissioner isworking under his Act and the guidelines that he has set. He is now contradicting himselfif he says that he is going to keep at arm’s length. It just does not add up. We arewaiting to determine the advantages of amalgamation and what will be at the end of thetunnel when the decision to amalgamate is made. Comments have been made aboutenormous increases in rates. That leaves a lot of doubt in people’s minds. It is a difficultquestion, but it must be answered before a decision is made or before people willsupport amalgamation. For example, if people are facing a 30 per cent or 40 per centincrease in rates, one can understand their concern and why they are worried about therepercussions. Naturally, they are thinking of how the amalgamation will affect them and


how they can afford to pay for it. Further down the track, because of the greaterworkload that will occur in the one location, new workshops or administration buildingsmight be required. Differential rating will have to be introduced. Under the present ratebase, in Gympie, the total value of unimproved land is $50m and, in Widgee, it is $258m,which is a large variation in the valuation base. In one local authority, residents pay ratesof 1.8c in the dollar, and in the other they pay 5c in the dollar. They are working on thesame type of valuation per property but there is an enormous difference in the ratecharged in the dollar. The Government will have difficulty appeasing those people.

Mr Mackenroth: If there was a recommendation for amalgamation, do you thinkthe new local authority should be called Gympie or Widgee?

Mr STEPHAN: I would not necessarily want it to be called Widgee. Ifamalgamation must occur, what is wrong with calling it the Greater Gympie Area? Orperhaps it could be called Nashville. People would not know where Nashville was, but atleast they know where Gympie is.

Mr Mackenroth: So you support the name Gympie?

Mr STEPHAN: I suggested that it be called the Greater Gympie Area. If therewere to be an advantage of the amalgamation, it would be in relation to tourism.Statistics reveal that, in the last couple of years, the population of Gympie hasdecreased by approximately 10 people. However, in the past seven or eight years, thepopulation in the Widgee Shire has doubled. Statistics of the growth rate in Gympie donot reflect the growth rate in the whole district. We must look at the positives—there aresome—and ensure that there will be no negatives. If the Government has decided thatthe Gympie and Widgee local authority areas are to be amalgamated, it will need to takethose statistics into account. However, many people are concerned. They are notconvinced that they will be better off as a result of any amalgamation.

Earlier, mention was made of the voluntary referendum that was carried out. Icommend the people who organised and paid for it out of their own pocket and fromdonations from friends and supporters. The referendum was carried substantially. Eventhough the Minister might comment that only 20 per cent of the population took part inthat referendum, I assure him that the people in that area are concerned about theproposed amalgamation. If he does not believe that, I invite him to accompany mearound the district to ascertain the support that exists for the electorate and the twolocal authorities. When 84 per cent of the residents of the Widgee Shire who voted inthe referendum do not want an amalgamation and only 15 per cent do, that is a fairindication that the people who did not vote would have to swing greatly in the oppositedirection to affect the result. Of the 17 000 voters who were eligible to vote, almost5 000 took part. Gympie City was a different story in that only 54 per cent of theresidents were against the merger and 45 per cent were in favour of it. The Ministermust consider those matters. Neither the Government nor the Minister has stipulated thebenefits that will be derived by an amalgamation of those two local authorities. Manyhurdles must be overcome, but the Minister has not satisfied the people as to what thebenefits will be. I look forward to this debate and to the result of any amalgamations,whether they be in my area or in any other area in which it has been suggested. I notethat the Government has been proceeding slowly with the amalgamation of many localauthorities. The process has not been as easy as the Government would have hoped itwould be, which indicates to me that there is concern not only in my area but also inmany other areas throughout the State.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (12.44 p.m.): I rise to support the LocalGovernment Legislation Amendment Bill 1993. One of the central objectives of the Bill isto amend the City of Brisbane Act to provide for the amendment of the externalboundaries of the City of Brisbane by either removing or adding properties to the cityarea. This would happen after an appropriate recommendation was made by the LocalGovernment Commissioner and agreed to by the Governor in Council. Currently, thereare sections in the City of Brisbane Act which restrict the way in whichrecommendations from the Local Government Commissioner may be implemented. For


example, the city area is prescribed by metes and bounds description. Currently, thepower of the Governor in Council is limited in the City of Brisbane Act to increasing thearea and not, for example, transferring properties from Brisbane to Logan City. In fact,the present provisions require any changes to city boundaries of Brisbane to beapproved by Parliament as amendments to the schedule to the City of Brisbane Act.This Bill amends the City of Brisbane Act to ensure that the Governor in Council has thepower under the Local Government Act to either enlarge or reduce the size of BrisbaneCity based on a recommendation received from the Local Government Commissioner.This Bill provides for a second amendment to the City of Brisbane Act which amendssection 36A of the Act to give a discretionary power for the council to assumeresponsibility for bridges where it was not the constructing authority but where therelevant constructing authority makes a request for the council to assume responsibility.At present, section 36A enables the council to only manage and control bridges itprovides and constructs. The provision has, therefore, been widened. The BrisbaneCity Council supports both those amendments.

One of the advantages of amalgamation of local authorities—and one of theadvantages of the type of amendments to the City of Brisbane Act that I referred toearlier—is that it allows for more effective planning than what has occurred in the past inQueensland, particularly in a local government area. Effective boundary adjustments canprovide for coordinated planning and development of the area for the long-term good ofpresent and future residents, efficient and effective provision of physical and humanservices and future projected growth. Today, I intend to deal with the issue of futureprojected growth at some length, because it is central to Queensland’s future. I noticedwith some interest a publication by the Queensland Department of Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning entitled Planning for the People of Queensland, which setsout the enormous planning task that faces Queensland over the next few years. Onpage 3, it states—

“From the first days of the colony, it took more than a century forQueensland’s population to reach one million.

It took only another 37 years, until 1974, to reach the two million mark. Andnow, 18 years on, Queensland has more than three million people.

The pace of change is such that research now indicates the next 30 years willsee a further two million people living in Queensland.

Much of this growth will be concentrated in the South-east of the State, withpopulation increases ranging up to 177 per cent.

By 2020, more than three million people will live in the south-east corneralone—a total of 66 per cent of the State’s residents.

The Far North will also experience major growth, with a predicted doubling ofpopulation in 30 years, making it the third most populated region in Queensland.

The Wide Bay-Burnett, Mackay and Townsville areas are expected to seepopulation growth of 60 per cent.

This growth will impact on every aspect of Queenslanders’ lives.For every 50,000 new Queenslanders, we need to provide:

18,000 new homes

35 new schoolsroad space for 20,000 more cars

450 new hospital beds600 new shops.

They will need water, electricity, public transport, shops and offices to workin and land for their houses.


They will need parks to relax in, fields to play on, and natural bushland as abreathing space for people and animals.”

I will to come back to the issue of bushland as I intend to deal with that in some length.The publication continues—

“Land will have to be protected for crops and stock to feed urban dwellers.”That is the task that is confronting this State. Therefore, we need to have localgovernment in a position in which it can adequately plan. That is why amalgamation isessential to that.

We have to try to take the politics out of this debate. Unfortunately, thecontributions made by members opposite today, and on previous occasions outside thisHouse, have generated an hysterical debate for short-term political gain. Sometimeswhen we are confronted with these planning issues—and I have highlighted themagnitude of the task facing this State—we have to put short-term political gain behindus and look to what is in the best interests of Queensland. We will end up with moreeffective planning out of an amalgamation process, which is clearly what the Bill isdesigned to do and clearly what the whole thrust of the legislation introduced by theformer Minister, Tom Burns, and by the present Minister, Terry Mackenroth, has beenabout. It has been about better planning. That is what the focus is on. If we cannot dealwith that in a mature way, then we will end up with short-term and long-term planningproblems which, in the long-term, will mean hardship for Queenslanders and they will nothave the types of facilities that they are entitled to expect and deserve.

I am saying that we have to put politics behind us and not use local government asa political football or use this House as a vehicle for political exercises. Early this week,the honourable member for Toowong attacked the Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley. Themember was trying to advance the proposition that there was a council bribe of $10,000or whatever to the Broncos. He did this to try to beat up some fictional tension betweenthe State Government and City Hall. Such tension does not exist. He was abusing hisprivileges as a member of the House. But he is not the only one who does that. BobWard, the Leader of the Opposition in City Hall, is pretty keen to do it, too. So we areseeing the beginning of one of the dirtiest campaigns that we have seen in any City ofBrisbane election since the formation of this city. While Bob Ward is spreading thosestories and getting his old mate Denver Beanland—who used to be Deputy Mayor butthey got rid of him because he was so hopeless——

Mrs McCauley: That is not nice.

Mr BEATTIE: No. It is not nice, but it is true—and I always tell the truth, as thehonourable member knows. Bob Ward has been attacking City Hall and attempting tocreate difficulties—a bit of a smokescreen to attack the State Government as well. Whileattacking what the Brisbane City Council is doing at QEII with the Broncos, heapproached council officers to put a good word in for him to obtain free season ticketsfor the Bronco games! Bob Ward is a real classic. He is trying to start one of the dirtiestcampaigns this city has ever seen. I do not think people will tolerate that sort of politics,and I think it is about time that he got his act together. We should not use thisHouse—as the honourable member for Toowong did on Tuesday—as a place in whichto act in a sleazy and dishonest manner. If the honourable member for Toowong wantsto be the head of sleaze in this place, let it be known that that is what he wants to do,instead of trying to denigrate——

Mr Ardill: Indooroopilly.

Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. In fact, he is the honourable member forIndooroopilly. He was the member for Toowong in the last Parliament. If that is what hewants to do, let it be known that that is what he wants to do. I think we have to riseabove that because, as I said before, the planning decisions that have to be faced bythis Government are important to this State’s future. Let me return to what I was talkingabout in terms of local government. The whole thrust of this legislation and similarlegislation introduced by this Government is designed to enhance the role of local


government, not to take away its power. Philosophically, the Labor Party has alwayssupported a greater role for local government as far back as when Whitlam was PrimeMinister. It is nonsense for Opposition members to suggest otherwise. This Governmentis trying to make local government more effective and more efficient. Local governmentwill continue, under the plans devised by the Goss Government, to be responsible forthe preparation, administration and implementation of planning schemes. Such schemesare likely to be more comprehensive, incorporating environmental, social and economicobjectives, and would identify any State interests of significance to the locality. Therecan be a joint arrangement for planning. In the south-east corner of this State, where somuch growth has taken place, some of the difficulties confronting the Goss Governmenthave occurred because of a lack of planning in the past. Tom Burns initiated moves tohave a broader planning strategy worked out. In the past, no emphasis was placed on acoordinated approach to planning. Public infrastructure often ended up remote fromcommunities that did not have access to facilities, and planning was not synchronised topopulation growth. There was a mishmash of growth without any coordinated approachto development. That occurred because no attempt was made to sort out some of thedifficulties. Past planning systems traditionally focused only on the physicalcharacteristics of land to determine whether it could be used for urban development. Noprovision was made for the social and economic implications of land use changes to beevaluated as part of the rezoning process. There was no mechanism to connect theinfrastructure planning and programming of public agencies to local governmentstrategic planning processes.

In Queensland, local government effectively determines, through planningschemes, where people will live, and that is why there has to be a very sensible, overallcoordinated approach. As I said earlier, a number of Bills, including this one, have beendesigned to initiate better planning. The Government has commenced a reform of theQueensland planning system to overcome the deficiencies to which I referred earlier.The Government has established regional planning processes such as SEQ 2001 andFNQ 2010 to develop mechanisms for the effective management of growth. Animportant objective of these regional planning exercises is to reach agreement with localauthorities—and I emphasise “agreement”—and key sector groups on the sequencing ofurban development. That is the whole thrust of this Government’sapproach—consensus, consultation and agreement, not conflict and short-term politicalgain. In addition, the Government established the Planning and InfrastructureCoordination Standing Committee of Cabinet to look at ways of achieving bettercoordination. New planning legislation was announced by the Premier, Mr Goss, in theQueensland—Leading State economic policy statement. That document contains anumber of principles for the new planning legislation which will be vital to the directiontaken by this State in the future.

This topic may not be flash when it comes to news stories, but planning is vital tothe future of this State in a very meaningful and direct way. The new planning legislationwill provide for the integration of State and local planning objectives in planningschemes so that the services required by local communities are planned by apartnership of State and local government in a cooperative and comprehensive manner.In addition, there will be greater emphasis on strategic or forward planning so that needsfor physical and social infrastructure and human services are known in advance and canbe reflected in programs accordingly, and there will be established within theDepartment of Housing, Local Government and Planning planning services to work withlocal authorities and developers of large-scale urban communities to integrate keycomponents of public infrastructure such as roads, education, health, water, etc., whichis something that did not happen in the past. These facilities will be integrated into theplanning of new and existing communities and the Government will seek agreement forthe protection of strategic sites for these purposes. Master plans for major new urbancommunities and strategic plans of some local authorities are now beginning to showmajor public infrastructure intentions. We are finally getting there, and that has beenbrought about because of an overall strategic approach to planning.


Let me now deal with the greater Brisbane area. It is no secret that there has beensome tension between Brisbane and Logan City in terms of where the boundaries wouldbe placed. I am happy to say that I believe a fairly happy arrangement has beenachieved and that relations are improving, although only time will tell. Part of what theBrisbane City Council is trying to do in that area is protect very important bushland. Infact, the State Government has lent the Brisbane City Council $11.8m to assist in theBrisbane City Council’s bushland acquisition strategy. I think all honourable memberswould agree that Brisbane is Australia’s most “livable” city.

Mr Ardill: The experts do.

Mr BEATTIE: As my colleague the member for Archerfield says, the experts do,too. Brisbane has magnificent environmental assets such as bushlands, wetlands,forested foothills, open parklands, wildlife and extensive creek networks and MoretonBay—or “sparkling Moreton Bay”, as they say—right on our doorstep. The BrisbaneCity Council has demonstrated that it is committed to protecting our natural heritage andto ensuring that our children will enjoy the same quality of life as we do today.Unfortunately, in the eight years up to 1991, almost one-fifth of our city’s bushland wascleared at the average rate of three football fields a day. If this had continued, we couldhave lost up to three-quarters of our remaining bushland within 20 years. Brisbane’s27 000 hectares of bushland is probably one of the city’s more threatened assets. Sixty-three per cent of this land is privately owned, and much of it is at risk of beingdeveloped. Council has made the protection of the city’s significant bushland its highestenvironmental priority. The strategy is designed to buy back bushland, which is whythere is this cooperative approach by the State Government and the Brisbane CityCouncil. The Brisbane City Council’s $22.5m bushland acquisition program is the largestsingle green initiative of any council in Australia. Every Brisbane ratepayer contributes a$20 annual levy to enable council to buy and protect the city’s finest bushland. Thecouncil has now added to these funds the $11.8m advance I mentioned earlier that wasprovided by this State Government. This is something for which the Goss Governmentdeserves full credit. Up until March 1993, there were 15 properties covering 369hectares that were bought at a cost of $10.74m. This land is located in five key areasaround the city, including the nationally significant koala habitat at Burbank, BelmontHills, the city’s green backdrop of Mount Coot-tha—something that the honourablemember for Mount Coot-tha has fought tooth and nail to preserve—and ecologicallysignificant areas at Karawatha and Leslie Harrison Dam. For the information of theHouse, I now table a list of all the properties that have been acquired by the BrisbaneCity Council under this important project.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr BEATTIE: Before the lunch break, I was talking at some length about the needfor planning strategies. One of the things that I was talking about was the need for theprotection of bushland. Brisbane is Australia’s koala capital. Brisbane is located at theheart of one of Australia’s largest koala habitats, around the Leslie Harrison Dam. Thejoint regional koala study pursued by the Brisbane City Council identified about 5 000koalas in that region. The Brisbane City Council is leading the way in protecting theregion’s koalas, already buying 288 hectares of significant habitat at a cost of $6m underthe bushland acquisition program. The fact that this buy-back program exists is a clearindication of the reason why a comprehensive overall planning strategy is needed.

In the couple of minutes remaining to me, let me come back to some of theconsequences of short-term planning at a local level in my electorate. Past problems inmy electorate are now being addressed, in particular by the Brisbane City Council,which is now working on those planning strategies. Had an overall plan been inoperation in the past, those sorts of difficulties would not have occurred. For example, amajor study is being undertaken in the New Farm area in regard to an urban renewalstrategy. Consideration is being given to whether the New Farm powerhouse shouldstay and in what form. That is being done in an assessment study. Consideration isbeing given to the enlargement of New Farm Park and to the land use adjacent to that


area, as to whether industrial activity should continue or whether more compatibleactivity should take place in New Farm.

There must be a mixed development in those areas, or a mixed plan which allowsfor the current socioeconomic structure to remain but, at the same time, to plan for thefuture. I was pleased that, when the Lord Mayor wrote to me on 18 January 1993, hepointed out that the enlargement of New Farm Park is a common element in all theoptions being investigated by the Brisbane City Council and is intended to be a featureof whatever scheme is ultimately recommended to the council. As the representative forthat area, I am delighted that New Farm Park will be extended. In terms of thepowerhouse assessment study—the future of the powerhouse is currently beingassessed. As honourable members would appreciate, there is a divergence of views asto what should happen in that area.

Those are a couple of illustrations but there is more to it than that. Problems arisefrom poor road planning. For example, there is a desperate need for lights at the cornerof Merthyr Road and James Street, New Farm, which has recently been the location of anumber of accidents, some of which have been fatal. Because of short-term planning,the road network in the inner suburbs is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be.When planning for that area is being done, James Street should be considered. Anotherresult of short-term planning by past councils is that there are no toilet facilities near theColes shopping centre in New Farm. Long-term planning could ensure that those sortsof things happen properly. Even the dredging of Breakfast Creek could be incorporatedinto an overall strategy to protect the environment and the quality of life of people livingin the inner suburbs. I conclude by saying that the legislation is important, and I hopethat it is supported by all members of the House.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (2.34 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak to the LocalGovernment Legislation Amendment Bill. The Bill deals with several issues, includingamending the external boundaries of the City of Brisbane; enabling the council tomanage and control bridges that it provided and constructed; expanding the framing ofthe references to the Local Government Commissioner; giving the Governor in Councilappropriate power to implement the recommendations of the Local GovernmentCommissioner; giving the Governor in Council power to make regulations to extend thecurrent list in section 4L of the Act; and others, including expanding the opportunity forlocal authorities to enter into contracts. The Bill contains quite a lot of points, and itwould take a long time to canvass them all.

Today, I want to touch on one main point, which is the proposal to give theGovernor in Council power to make a regulation to extend the current list in section 4Lof the Act. The Act now provides an extensive range of things that the Government cando. I presume that the Minister in his reply will clarify how far the Government will gowith regulation, that is, whether the Government is trying to replace legislation withregulation or whether it is not. It is a matter of interpretation. How far will theGovernment go?

Mr Mackenroth: Only as far as necessary.

Mr HOBBS: That is probably right. It depends upon who the Minister is and whathappens under the circumstances at the time.

Mrs McCauley: And what his politics are. Mr HOBBS: And what his politics are, as the member for Callide said. In this term

of the Parliament, the former Minister for Local Government went very gung-ho to takeon local authorities, to amalgamate local authorities and to bring many of those peopleinto line. As a result of that, the Minister found himself in some very embarrassingcorners, particularly on the issue of amalgamations. Legislation was introduced but, bythe same token, that legislation was not enough to amalgamate local authorities in theway in which that Minister wished it to happen. We now have a different Minister and hemay adopt a different attitude to those forced types of amalgamations or appropriateamalgamations.


One of the things that we must remember is that the academic argument ofamalgamation being good is not always correct. The idea that big is beautiful is notalways right. Many local authorities are able to hide or obscure their not-very-goodfinancial management and decisions. In many cases, smaller local authorities have theability to be more flexible and can be scrutinised in a much more professional way. Overthe years, many changes have been made. People do not always like changes. Bettercooperation is needed between shires, particularly those that border large provincialtowns, where the people who live in the surrounding shires come to use the facilities ofthe main centre. There needs to be some cooperation between the shires. In quite a fewcases, that does happen. In the area of the member for Warwick, Waggamba andGoondiwindi do adopt a cooperative approach to providing facilities for the people ofthe whole district. I understand that Roma and Bungil also cooperate. In other shires,that cooperation may not exist. We have to do everything we can to try to assist thatprocess. It is far better to have that cooperation than forced amalgamations.

If the Government wants shires to amalgamate, it should realise that the initiativehas to come from the ratepayers themselves. They are the ones who have to make thedecision. It does not necessarily mean that the hand of bureaucracy must ride overthem. The people who live in shires in a certain district and pay rates should be the oneswho make the decision as to whether the shires amalgamate, and if it is a benefit tothem, so be it.

Mr Welford: Are any of the councils likely to indicate to their residents that it willbenefit them?

Mr HOBBS: It could be the case. However, it should not be forgotten that theremay be some shires which get themselves into financial trouble and they need to go outand try to take over a smaller shire to bump up their rate base to a certain degree. Theprofessional guys with the resources to advertise and so forth may try to take over asmaller shire. So it can work both ways. On the other hand, a smaller, aggressive shiremay want to take over a bigger shire, or a portion of it.

Mr Welford: But you’re saying the residents should have a say. What if a smallshire doesn’t want to be taken over?

Mr HOBBS: If two small shires do not want to be taken over and separatereferendums are held in both shires and there is not a majority vote on the amalgamation,it is all over.

Mr Welford: So that the bankrupt ones stay that way?

Mr HOBBS: It depends on the reason why the bankrupt shire went bankrupt.Mr Welford: Someone has got to be the bankrupt one.

Mr HOBBS: It all depends. If a shire is inefficient, that is not the fault of thepeople who live next door and who are efficient. It has to be looked at along thoselines. I do not really think that the smaller shire should pay for the mistakes of the biggershire.

Mr Welford: No, I agree, but the State Parliament and the State Government areresponsible for the efficiency of local government.

Mr HOBBS: Yes, that is why I am saying there should be cooperation betweenthe two shires. Perhaps the outlying shire may not be paying a fair share for theresources that are provided for the whole localised district. There may need to be a bitof help given there. Local authorities play a very important role. They need to beassisted. The smaller shires that border provincial shires rely on their own work forceand on the money staying in their towns. Those places also have an infrastructure inplace, and if money is taken out of those shires and placed in the bigger areas, acentralist type of movement takes place. If all the works done in local authorities weredone by contractors, it would be found that the contractors would head out west, theywould do the job and then return to where they came from. They would not leave theirmoney in those towns. As a result, the infrastructure of those towns—the schools,


police stations and shops—is lost. That is another element that concerns localauthorities with regard to funding, amalgamations and such like. We must keep that inmind when we make decisions affecting local authorities.

One very important aspect with which I want to deal today is the plight of manylocal authorities in the south west, particularly in the mulga areas in the Charleville regionand right down to St George. I understand that soon the Minister will be going out thereto talk with one of the shires. One of the great worries that exist in those areas concernsthe rate base of those shires. Although the rate base has probably kept pace withinflation, the simple facts of the matter are that the people in those shires just cannotmeet their rate expenses. Quite frankly, there is no easy answer to all of this. At present,particularly with wool prices being so low and with the persistent drought, those localauthorities will have to be given assistance in some manner or form, otherwise at the endof three years many of the ratepayers who cannot afford to pay their rates will be soldup. We have already seen some movement in that direction. Fortunately, agreement wasreached and the properties were not sold. However, mark my words, next year there willbe an enormous increase in the number of people who for three years have been unableto afford to pay their rates. In many cases, they cannot even afford to feed their kidsand themselves. As a result, we will find that the rate base of many shires will not exist.The local authorities will be looking for Government help for sure. Where else can localgovernment turn? I guess that local government has to turn to the State Government,and whether the State Government in turn has to turn to the Federal Government forhelp is a matter of determination. The matter has to be addressed very seriously. Myview is that it should certainly be done on a bipartisan approach. We want to be able totry to resolve the matter before it is too late.

Many ratepayers in that region are affected. I guess that it is not only that regionbut also other regions which may be affected. The farming areas around Dalby, whichhave had some very, very dry times, must also be facing some enormous troubles,because the rates in that area are not cheap. I must point out that many of the shireswith which I have been involved have been good financial managers. They havereduced their debt—their borrowings—over a number of years. The figures show thatmany of those shires have made a determined effort to reduce debt.

Some of the management structures used by some local authorities were not verysound. For example, in the past, if a roadworks project was to be undertaken, a localauthority may borrow the money for it from the Government. That money would be paidback over 15 years at a low rate of interest. However, a 15-year loan for a road that willlast only five years is not sound management. The local authority in question ended upwith hard-core debt and was paying for something which was no longer of any use.Those management practices have changed. Most local authorities have moved awayfrom long-term debt arrangements. Unfortunately, many shires incurred large debts forwhich they are still paying. However, by moving away from such arrangements, localauthorities have shown responsibility. Many shires have the foresight to plan for futurepopulation increases. Many of them have had to carry out development work to copewith those increases. If a local authority covers an area that is likely to expand and if ithas not done any planning, it certainly will be in trouble.

The smaller towns in our State which rely heavily on local authorities are sufferinggreatly. Businesses in those towns are really struggling. Basically, those towns have arural base and their main income source is livestock. In times of drought, the whole townwithers slowly until the season changes. For three years now, the season has notchanged, and it seems as though it may never rain again.

Mr Johnson: Commodity prices keep coming back.

Mr HOBBS: As the member for Gregory said, commodity prices keep dropping,which does not help. The biggest problem for everyone was that period which lastedfor a number of years during which interest rates were very high. That really madepeople turn the corner. They found themselves in debt from which they just could notrecover. Honourable members on both sides of the House have canvassed this issue


reasonably well. The Opposition’s spokesman on Local Government made some veryvalid points during her speech. I endorse her remarks.

Mr BUDD (Redlands) (2.48 p.m): Because local government is an area in which Ihave always had a great interest, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak tothe Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. One of the amendments contained inthis Bill will give the Governor in Council the power to make a regulation to declare anymatter relating to local government which is not already listed in section 4F of the LocalGovernment Act a reviewable local government matter. That amendment will not onlyprovide a simplified and more flexible approach but is also necessary to enable theGovernor in Council to implement the changes recommended by the Local GovernmentCommissioner. The amendments to the Act address a number of issues on which theAct was either silent or its meaning very obscure. Another amendment clarifies theposition of local authorities in relation to having a discretion to lease land by privatecontract to public utility suppliers without calling for public tenders. That is yet anotherarea in which State Government is extending the powers of local government.

In recent years, State and Federal Governments have acknowledged the importantrole that local government plays in our community and the need for local councils tobecome efficient and professional in their operations. This Bill further demonstrates thecommitment of the Goss Labor Government to raise the standard of local governmentthroughout Queensland. In turn, local authorities must accept that it is a double-edgedsword. Granting councils further autonomy over their own decisions also ensures thatthey become more accountable for their actions.

A great number of benefits will flow from the amalgamation of local authorities.However, one of the major problems with the amalgamation of local authorities is thatmany of the boundaries of Queensland local authorities were established in thenineteenth century. Over time, local communities have become divided by localauthority boundaries, which has created problems of coordination. In my electorate ofRedlands, one of the problems is the boundary on the western side of the shire betweenthe Brisbane City Council and the Shire of Redland. The suburb of Capalaba falls intoboth the Shire of Redland and the Brisbane City Council. The main issue of concern toresidents and to businesspeople in Capalaba is the different by-laws between those twolocal authorities. Capalaba West, which is within the jurisdiction of the Brisbane CityCouncil, contains the area’s major water supply, the Leslie Harrison Dam, and much ofthe catchment area for that dam. I do not know the solution to those problems.However, with the rapid growth occurring in the Redland Shire and the suburban sprawlbeing experienced in the area covered by the Brisbane City Council, those problemswill have to be considered seriously in the future.

In common with most State members of Parliament, in the vicinity of 50 per cent ofthe complaints that come through my door are related to local government. Outside theBrisbane area, people find it difficult to accept that local government is a level ofgovernment in its own right. They still believe that the State Government determinessuch matters as rezonings and rate charges. That is a myth that many local councils seekto propagate. Too often in the past, the State Government has become the fall guy forunpopular local government decisions. It is now time for local authorities to stand upand say that the buck stops with them. A classic example is the relationship betweenland valuations and rate increases. I frequently receive complaints from constituentsabout increases in their valuations, which almost inevitably lead to increases in theirrates. In the past, local authorities have often absolved themselves from responsibilityby stating that the legislation requires them to use the unimproved capital valuationsmade by the Valuation Division of the Lands Department. However, under the provisionsof the Local Government Act and the City of Brisbane Act, local authorities are requiredto levy general rates on those unimproved capital valuations. What local authorities donot tell people is that they also have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility indetermining exactly how they distribute the rating burden amongst their ratepayers.Local authorities do not have to simply set down a single rate in the dollar based on landvaluations. Each local authority has the power to introduce a differential general rating


scheme which allows it to categorise land and then to levy different rates in the dollar onthe different categories. Indeed, the valuation department will even take the trouble togroup those lands into categories. The local authority only has to determine thenecessary criteria. The valuation department will then maintain those categories, anddeal with objections and appeals against the inclusion of land in the wrong category.Quite clearly, a definite division exists between the valuation system and the ratingsystem. It is a pity that local authorities prefer not to make that clear when they aresetting the rate in the dollar for rates.

Local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. Itprovides the most basic of public services, such as water and refuse removal. It is thelevel of government that perhaps touches most closely on people’s personal day-to-daylives. However, there is much more to local government than taking away rubbish andmowing the parks. Already, some councils recognise that their role is to provide morethan basic services. For example, recently, an environmental levy has come into effect inthe Redland Shire. The purpose of that levy, which is set at $20 per household, is toprovide funds for the council to acquire endangered environmental land throughout theshire, and to preserve it for future generations. The decision to impose thatenvironmental levy shows great foresight and initiative, and it is a great pity thatprevious administrators of the Redland Shire Council did not show similar initiatives.

During the boom development years of the 1970s and the 1980s, every availableblock in whole suburbs was developed regardless of its suitability. Recently, I heard of acase in which a soil test had been carried out, but the tester had to go down more thanthree metres to get through the fill. To build a house on such a block would cost morethan $20,000 for the foundations alone. I can remember as far back as 1982, the LaborParty was advocating in the lead-up to the local government elections that green bufferzones should be provided throughout the shire. It is a great pity that that did not occur10 years ago, because many important bushland areas in the Redlands have beendestroyed and lost to the community. I would like to place on record my congratulationsto the Redland Shire Council on its initiative in introducing the environmental levy.

Another important reform with the present Redland Shire Council is theintroduction of a standardised payment to councillors. Previously, councillors’ salarieswere based on meeting fees and expenses. Since the Redland Shire Council held itsmeetings during the day, and the amount a councillor earned depended on the numberof committees on which the councillor served, previous councillors consisted of realestate agents, retirees or the self-employed and were unrepresentative of thecommunity. There is an old political adage that people get the Government theydeserve. Of course, that has always been able to be manipulated. By paying councillorsless than a living wage, it denied the average ratepayer the chance to nominate. Thereare those who would say that people who run for local government are standing forservice to the people and not for financial reimbursement. However, I argue that thedesire to serve the people is not the prerogative of the rich.

Mr FitzGerald: Did you see your Labor mates in Cairns—what they did tothemselves in the Auditor-General’s report? Your Labor mates up there certainly lookedafter themselves.

Mr BUDD: Certainly, the same as the member’s National Party mates and LiberalParty mates did in other councils. At least members of the Labor Party have the guts tonominate themselves as Labor Party counsellors, not as Independent people. Not so themember for Callide, who was an Independent councillor for her area, but a member ofthe National Party. The problems with the Nationals is that they use their local councilsas a breeding ground for this House. Clearly, the time is fast approaching when areassuch as the Redland Shire, with a population in excess of 80 000, will need to looktowards councillors providing full-time representation instead of part-time workers whoare trying to provide a full-time service. I believe that the amalgamation of small localauthorities into larger, more efficient authorities will lead to better and improved servicesthroughout the State. Local government should, and will, play an increasingly important


role. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the amendments to the Act. I support theBill.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (2.57 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to this Bill. Icongratulate the new Local Government Commissioner on his appointment and I hopethat he places great emphasis on his role, especially as it relates to listening to localauthorities throughout the State. I want to talk mainly about the issues that are relevantto my own region. The electorate of Gregory encompasses 12 local authorities. Whetherlocal authorities are in the Gregory electorate, the Redlands electorate or Cape York,they are probably the most important facet of government for people. Local authoritieshave direct contact with the people, and wherever they are, they play a very importantrole in addressing the needs of the people. I hope that the Minister for LocalGovernment will work very closely with local authorities. From time to time, theyexperience many problems, and it is absolutely paramount that the Minister listens tothem.

The member for Brisbane Central referred to short-term planning. I take his point.However, at the same time, we must look very closely at long-term planning. When I say“long-term planning”, I am referring to works that are currently being carried out by localauthorities for the Department of Transport. A couple weeks ago, I was able to meetwith the Main Roads people in Dysart. Officers from the Department of Transport askedme about my main concerns. Everybody in this Chamber, including my colleague themember for Fitzroy, who no doubt is well aware of those concerns because the area thatI visited is in his electorate, would agree with me when I say that it is paramount thatlocal authorities be allowed to do a certain amount of Main Roads Department work. Themember for Warrego referred to outside contractors. It is essential that, where is itpermissible, local authorities be allowed to do this work and, at the same time, do theirown work.

I give the example of the Jessamine Creek crossing on the LandsboroughHighway south of Winton, which is a project worth in the vicinity of $12m, and which is alot Federal money. Last year, I wrote to the Federal Transport Minister, Bob Brown, andthe State Minister for Transport, Mr Hamill, with regard to allowing local authorities toundertake a fair amount of that work. In order to consolidate the structure of small localauthorities, it is absolutely essential that they be able to do a lot of that work. Thatmoney then stays in the district and is spent there. Those people on local authoritieshave wives and children there. The whole infrastructure of society in those western andremote areas of the State revolves around local authorities. I am greatly concernedabout giving those local authorities more autonomy in their day-to-day activities.

Another concern is the amalgamation of shires. Prior to the last election, the formerLocal Government Minister, the Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, recommended aninvestigation into amalgamations. I opposed that vehemently, and shall continue to doso. Amalgamation of the smaller local authorities will mean the disintegration of the fabricof those smaller towns. No doubt the Minister understands what I am saying. Forexample, 70 people in Aramac work for the local authority. In Isisford—another smalltown—59 people work for the local authority. In Ilfracombe, 28 people are employed bythe local authority, and in the Jericho Shire, 60 people are employed by the localauthority. If those people are taken out of those local authorities, the nucleus of thosetowns will disintegrate. Patronage of schools in those areas will be lost if families haveto leave town. Stores, police stations, Government facilities and business operations runby private individuals will also suffer.

Mr Mackenroth: None of those shires that you mentioned have been looked atfor any form of amalgamation.

Mr JOHNSON: I am just talking about this in case there is a change incircumstances in the future.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: This is just scare tactics.


Mr JOHNSON: It is not scare tactics. I am drawing this to the attention ofmembers, just in case it happens. Why would the member say that it is scare tactics?That is a very silly thing to say. This issue was raised before the last State election, butit was put off until after the election. I am simply drawing this to the attention ofmembers, just in case it does happen.

Mr Perrett: Like all the railway workers.

Mr JOHNSON: Yes. As my colleague the member for Barambah said—like therailway workers. In my electorate, the Jericho Shire has been raped by this Government.The railways have been taken out of Jericho, and a fair amount of the work force hasbeen taken out of Alpha. If we lose any more people from those places, they will besimply dots on the map. That is scary. The point that I was getting to before theMinister interjected was that many of the people who work in those small centres ownhomes there. If something happens, and those shires are amalgamated, close up or gobankrupt—as my colleague the member for Warrego said—the assets of those peoplewill be worth virtually nothing. This is a great concern of mine. The Deputy Premier, MrBurns, always talks about the battler. There is nobody in this place who works harder forthe battler than I do. All those people are battling, because they rely on the profits ofrural industries. I assure members that in the past five or six years there have been noprofits. Some of that country has been in the grip of drought for 10 years.

Mr Nuttall: If you represent the battler, why aren’t you over on this side of theHouse?

Mr JOHNSON: The honourable member has it wrong. Last year in Longreach, Isaid that the party on this side of the House represents the worker. The Labor Party hasforgotten about the worker.

Government members interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: I will press on. They have all had their midday drinks, and they area bit dozy over there. But they are now coming back to life.

Mr BUDD: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark very offensive. I had coffeeat lunchtime.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr FitzGerald: Irish coffee?Mr JOHNSON: No doubt it was Irish coffee, as my colleague the member for

Lockyer said. As I was saying, the matter which concerns me greatly is the assets ofthose people. The houses in those smaller places are not worth a great deal at the bestof times. On many occasions, people in those towns have to move away for educationreasons, health reasons or whatever. But if something happens and they have to moveaway, they will not get a lot of money for their houses. A middle-aged person who hasto move, say, to Brisbane, Rockhampton or Townsville would barely have a deposit toput down on another house. At that stage of life, it is too late to start all over again. It isabsolutely paramount that we preserve the rights of those people, whether they becouncil workers, railway workers, business people or whatever. We must give localauthorities in those areas the autonomy that they need to continue in the way to whichthey have become accustomed over a long period. I pay tribute to many of thosepeople, especially the councillors and employees of councils that do a lot of work inthose areas. Many councillors spend much of their own time and money for no reward,because they have their communities at heart. They are the sorts of people we need inthis nation. But they are also the sorts of people who are worried about where their nextdollar will come from so that they can survive next week. Those people should berewarded and considered when we are able to say, “Thank you.”

Because I have mentioned council employees, it would be terribly remiss of me if Idid not pay tribute to the late Bill Ritchie, who for many years was the Shire Clerk ofBarcaldine Shire. Mr Ritchie passed away just a few days ago. No doubt the people of


Barcaldine will suffer a great loss at Mr Ritchie’s passing. I extend my condolences tohis wife, Pat, and his five children. He will be sadly missed.

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (3.08 p.m.): I have listened with great interest to some ofthe speeches coming from the other side of the House.

Mrs McCauley: Now you can sit down.Mr NUNN: Not on the honourable member’s lap. The previous speaker was

holding forth at great length about what he had to drink at lunchtime. Whether it wascoffee or lunatic soup makes no difference to him; he is always irrational.

Mr Johnson: I rise to a point of order. I do not think I am irrational. I represent myconstituents very well. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr NUNN: I certainly will withdraw. I am most abject in my apology. How I couldever have come to say that about the honourable member, I will never know. But it is alla matter of perception.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has been asked towithdraw. That will do.

An Opposition member: You didn’t withdraw.

Mr NUNN: I thought I did. In an effort to simplify and clarify some aspects of localauthority management, it was deemed advisable to amend both the Local GovernmentAct of 1936 and the City of Brisbane Act of 1924. The amendments to the City ofBrisbane Act will allow the Brisbane City Council now and in the future to assumeresponsibility for any bridge inside the city or even those bridges which abut the city. Ido not wish to go too deeply into this matter, but I will touch briefly on it. From time totime, it may be desirable to alter the boundaries of the City of Brisbane, and it isincongruous to have a situation in which the boundaries of the city can be varied byregulation under the Local Government Act when those boundaries are defined in theCity of Brisbane Act. Having made the regulation under the Local Government Act,Parliament then has to update the amendments to the City of Brisbane Act. Surely that isan unnecessary and time-wasting exercise. Because of the movement of the boundariesof the City of Brisbane, bridges which were not originally in the city ended uppresenting a problem. With no legal backup, the city council would not take theresponsibility for those bridges where it was not the constructing authority. Thisamendment will enable the city to take that responsibility at the request of theconstructing authority. It is surprising to note that not one speaker on the speakers’ listis from the Liberal Party. They are the people with whom the National Party is so keen tojump into bed, but they have no interest in local authority matters whatsoever. It is ashame that the Liberals cannot realise that, if they continue on that narrow path, theirpercentage of the vote in Queensland will stay as narrow as it is now, or get evennarrower.

Mr Ardill: They are probably using the knives at the moment.

Mr NUNN: If they are not using them, they are out sharpening them up; but Idoubt whether they would be sharpening them. They would be paying somebody elseto do it, because that is the way they operate. Moving on to the proposed amendmentsto the Local Government Act—it would appear that in regard to reviewable localgovernment matters under the Act as it stands at present, the Local GovernmentCommissioner is required to examine and report and make recommendations to theMinister on any reviewable local government matter or any other matter relating to localgovernment that is referred to him by the Minister. Honourable members should beaware that reviewable local government matters, as opposed to local governmentmatters generally, deal with constitutional issues such as the internal and externalboundary alterations of local authority areas, assigning or reassigning members,determining the class of local authorities—that is, city, town or shire—or changing thesystem of voting.


In 1990, EARC was authorised by Parliament to investigate and report on theexternal boundaries of local authorities. In November 1991, EARC reported toParliament and recommended that 18 local authority areas be amalgamated into sevennew areas. Although the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview did not accept those recommendations in full, it did recommend 16 areas foramalgamation into six new areas. It appears that members of the Opposition do not likethose recommendations and they are bitterly opposed to this Bill. However, I expectedthem to be bitterly opposed to it, in the same way as they were bitterly opposed to theAudit Legislation Bill that was passed yesterday. Both these Bills take away theiropportunity to interfere in and to control the affairs of other people, as they did in thepast. Nevertheless, the provisions contained in this Bill will enable boundary changesrecommended by the parliamentary committee to be referred to the Local GovernmentCommissioner.

The boundaries of many Queensland local authorities were established in thenineteenth century. It is pretty clear that those boundaries cannot still be relevant inevery case. The boundaries would now be clouded, and the division between urban andrural areas might no longer be defined. It was time that those matters were examined andamalgamations occurred. In determining local authority boundaries, community ofinterest principles are paramount. The honourable member for Gregory used the word“paramount” on a number of occasions. It is a good word, so I thought that I would havea crack at it. Once a local authority meets the requirements for appropriate financialresource base and service area, it is the community-based principles that determinewhere the boundary should be drawn. Where existing boundaries do not facilitateeffective, efficient and responsive local government, the benefits which externalboundary alteration and, more specifically, amalgamation of areas can provide are varied.Boundary adjustment can provide a local authority with sufficient resource base to fulfilits statutory functions; to provide and maintain services and facilities required by thecommunity and respond to changing needs of that community; to be flexible andresponsive in financing its activities; and to function without becoming undulydependent on external financial assistance or losing its independence as anautonomous, elected body. Put simply, the authority must have a rate base which willprovide the funds to enable it to operate efficiently on behalf of the community itrepresents. That is what this Bill is all about. It is about representing the community as alocal authority. Effective boundary adjustments can enhance coordinated planning anddevelopment of the area for the long-term good of future and present residents. It canalso affect the efficient and effective provision of physical and human services andfuture projected growth. From time to time, the area of planning and developmentrequires some review.

There are two instances about which I will be specific. One of those instancesrelates to the City of Hervey Bay. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, the council decidedthat it was time for the city to have a town plan because growth was occurring fairlyquickly. After it introduced a development control plan—do not forget that it put itsDCP before its strategic plan and when Tom Burns came along he had to correct it andmake sure that the council got things in the right order—and decided that someheadworks charge should apply, the council was lobbied by developers to remove thatheadworks charge. It was lobbied by the developers to disadvantage the ratepayerswho had suddenly become less important. Until about 1987, the council used to giveaway rezonings and subdivisional approvals for a box of chocolates or anything elsethat went with it. I took the matter up with the council. It was a matter about which thecommunity had already become aware. However, we persevered with it. When I left thecouncil, after Tom Burns introduced legislation to prevent a councillor from also holdingthe position of a State member of Parliament, it had been decided by the council toimpose a charge of at least 75 per cent of the cost of headworks. It is now imposing acharge equal to 100 per cent of the cost of headworks. However, as it is such acomplex issue, the council has not really decided what the right formula is. Although ithas received advice from other local authorities and from the Local Government


Department, the council still cannot decide on a formula. As I say, it is a fairly complexissue, but it should not have taken that long. I think that outside pressures do prevail.

Boundary adjustments generally should allow an area to reflect local communitiesof interest. Note should be taken of human activities—where people live, work and play,and the linkages between them. In other words, note should be taken of how people liveand the needs of that community. Among other things, any review should ensureeffective elected representation for residents and ratepayers at the local level—that issomething else that can come under review from time to time—and it should takecognisance of the rating base.

Under the provisions of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1993,recommendations regarding reviewable local government matters are to be implementedby regulation. Where a recommendation in relation to a reviewable local governmentmatter is implemented, the Governor in Council is also empowered to rationaliseassociated administrative arrangements by regulation. I know that there is some disputeamongst members on the other side of the Chamber about that, but it appears thatrecommendations with respect to other sections regarding other matters are alsoallowed to be implemented by regulation. I will speak about that further in a moment.

Although the commissioner is also obliged to make recommendations regardingcertain administrative arrangements as a result of recommending the implementation of areviewable local government matter, no such fettering of the Governor in Council’spowers extends to those other recommendations of the commissioner to facilitate theimplementation of a reviewable local government matter, for example, the apportionmentof assets and liabilities between two local authorities as a result of an external boundarychange. On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council has the widestof discretions to vary such recommendations or substitute new recommendations. Icannot advance any reason why the same should not apply to the change ofboundaries. In all cases, there is a very wide discretion to deal with therecommendations of the commissioner, that is, they can be accepted, rejected orsubstantially changed. Once the commissioner has submitted his recommendations, it isup to the Minister and the Governor in Council to decide whether they should beaccepted, rejected or varied. I support the Bill.

Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (3.20 p.m.): I am pleased to join in the debate andsupport the coalition spokesperson and shadow Minister for Local Government, themember for Callide, in her eloquent comments and foreshadowed amendments. I takethis opportunity to congratulate Mr Greg Hoffman on his appointment as the LocalGovernment Commissioner. I wish him well in the very delicate and wide-rangingdeliberations in which he will be involved and in which he is involved at present. Thismorning, it was noted by the member for Callide that the terms of reference that are nowgradually evolving in terms of Mr Hoffman’s operational duties are tending to focus moreon the processes suggested by the Opposition way back during the EARC process. Isuggest to the Minister that he could probably do little better than to take the advice ofMrs McCauley in respect of the amendments that she has circulated. Thoseamendments will not only enhance the role of the commissioner in this State but also willenhance the capacity of local government to do an even better job than it has done formany years. I say that with sincerity, because those amendments have been drafted in afashion that would make them entirely acceptable to a Government of any politicalpersuasion. It is our duty to represent, through the legislative process, the bestintentions and wishes of local government—the section of government that is closest tothe community in every instance.

Earlier today, the Minister interjected about the Opposition’s attitude to EARC andits recommendations. I say to the Minister that I think it is reasonable to separaterecommendations. We have been consistent in our attitude to the recommendations ofEARC as they relate to local government, and we have always said that EARC was underincredible pressure from the Government in the first instance. The problems of thereview have snowballed, but that has no connection whatsoever to the Opposition’s


wholehearted support for the Audit Legislation Amendment Bill. The processes of localgovernment review operate very differently from the processes recommended by EARCthat I was supporting last night. I inform the Minister that despite the fact that theOpposition wholeheartedly endorses EARC, we have never endorsed itsrecommendations in respect to local government.

As has been said on numerous occasions in this Chamber—I will not repeatthem—we believe that it is widely accepted that the local government reform processeswere forced on local government in an inappropriate, ad hoc manner that puts the cartbefore the horse. We are now starting to find that there is duplication because, althoughI agree with the member for Callide, who pointed out that there are some necessarychanges in this Bill, the changes have been poorly thought through at first instance. TheGovernment has attempted to politicise the local government reform processes, but itsefforts have fallen flat. This Government has created a great deal of pain for no gain tolocal government. I suggest to the Minister that it is unreasonable to say that theOpposition’s rejection of EARC recommendations in one area has any bearing on itswholehearted support for EARC’s recommendations which were referred to in thedebate last night on the Audit Legislation Amendment Bill.

I have already mentioned the disruption that has been caused to local governmentover the last two or three years because of these processes. It is important to look atthat disruption a little closer because the time is fast approaching when the divisionalstructures and internal representative processes of local government right throughoutthe State will be changed for local authorities that did not, by force of legislation, makerearrangements in the first round just prior to the last local government election. Thoseboundary changes are now taking place, but in many instances a further change may bemade when adjustments result from a great number of references and recommendationsthat will be forwarded from the Minister to Mr Hoffman when this legislation is passed.The concern felt by many communities is that because local authorities will have to meetthe time limits that are imposed by virtue of the fact that the elections are due early nextyear, albeit not by the Minister, that process will create another phase of disruption. Atthat stage, local authorities could face another round of boundary changes.

In my own electorate, all types of changes could take place in the Thuringowa,Dalrymple, Burdekin and Townsville City local authorities. I think those changes areenvisaged by the amendment proposed by the member for Callide. There needs to be aclearly identifiable and major benefit shown so that more people will be able tounderstand the nuances of proposals that may well come from the commissioner. Thecoalition’s amendment acknowledges and recognises that factor which will be animportant part of the flow of processes that are necessarily involved in local governmentadministration. There is a need to identify and correct anomalies as we go along. Ibelieve it is part and parcel of the responsibility of all honourable members, irrespectiveof our political persuasion, to tease out perceived anomalies in legislation and bringthem before the Government of the day. I recall a former Local Government Minister, thelate Russ Hinze, accepting an Opposition amendment during debate on legislation asbeing realistic and reasonable.

Mr FitzGerald: A number of times.Mr STONEMAN: Mr Hinze pulled up the debate and said, “Hang on. That’s a

good idea. I like that. Bring it over here and let me have a look at it.” He instructed hisdepartmental officers to incorporate that within the Bill. This was before the time of mostcurrent members of Parliament, but the member for Lockyer will verify that it happenedon a number of occasions. It is that spirit of cooperation that should be seen in relationto this Bill, and I sincerely urge the adoption of that process in relation to therecommendations and amendments proposed by the member for Callide. We areconstantly seeing a threat to pure adherence to the one vote, one value concept in localgovernment. This morning, reference was made to Mount Isa and a number of otherareas. In the local authority area in which I live, Thuringowa City——

Mr Beattie: What’s your view on Thuringowa?


Mr STONEMAN: I have a few minutes available, so I can answer that interjection.For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central who interjects, let me saythat it is my view that Thuringowa is a very, very good local authority. I think theTownsville City area and Thuringowa City will continue to be well served by maintainingtwo local authorities. I believe that it is such a rapidly growing area, bearing in mind thatit is the major urban area outside Brisbane, that it requires a representative process thatis not confined to a handful of people trying to represent the interests andaccommodate the problems of that rapidly growing part of the State. I have consistentlysaid in my electorate and stated in representations and submissions that that is my view,and for that reason I stood aside from my position as Deputy Chairman of theParliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review Commission so that Icould have input without being seen to have a conflict of interest. One of the spin-offsof the changes that occurred in Thuringowa as a result of the first round of requirementsbeing met for internal boundaries is that the fringe area of the city, which is the areacontaining the greatest number of anomalies and problems, such as 5-acre blocks, 1-acre blocks, new roads and new subdivisions, is represented by just one person. Forhim to get anything onto the debating table, he had to ask the mayor to give anundertaking that the mayor would always second any proposition that he put up. That isthe ludicrous situation that has resulted from the strict insistence on one vote, one valuefor those people during the most critical time in the development of that region.

As numbers increase, those people will have another representative. However, thepain that will be part and parcel of their deliberations and of the growth pattern will meanthat that representative will have such a load that, in all probability, he will give it awayand a new person will have to be found. The moment that the Government went to theone vote, one value concept in Thuringowa, the number of people with any experienceor standing in the community who were prepared to put their names forward diminishedrapidly. People said that the job was too big and that they could not handle it. Themember for Gregory said earlier that the job done by local authority membersthroughout the State is incredible. Whether or not they receive allowances or salaries, inmany instances those people could not hope to recoup financially the input that theymake.

Mr Beattie: That’s not a reflection on the council of Thuringowa, I hope. Mr STONEMAN: No, it is not. This is a concern that I have with one of the other

local authority areas in which I am involved—the Burdekin. Last week, the local authoritymade a recommendation to move to an undivided shire. I have reservations about shiresthat are split because they comprise several communities that are being amalgamated. Aproblem exists. I have no problem with shires such as Blackall, Barcaldine, Longreach,Winton, Flinders, which is based on the town of Hughenden, Richmond and McKinlay.Those shires have a single town centre with maybe a couple of pocket handkerchiefvillages, and their economic base is such that all of the people—whether they beshearers, shopkeepers, mailmen or council workers—are dependent on the economythat flows into the central town. Bowen Shire is different. It has industrial areas,including Collinsville which has coalmines, Abbot Point, and a number of other centres.That shire needs to maintain some sort of a divisional structure so that the people whoare represented know that their voice is at least being heard.

The problem that I have with an undivided local authority structure in shires thathave several communities of interest is that most councillors, or in some cases all, couldcome from the one centre. The natural tendency is for those representatives to lookafter the regions that they know best, the areas in which they live and with which theyare most comfortable. I am not saying that in a denigratory way. I am sure that,regardless of where they live, most local authority representatives try to give thebroadest representation that they can. It is natural to be more understanding, to be morefocused and to give more attention to the area where one lives and with which one ismost familiar. Honourable members can imagine what would happen if there were nowards in Brisbane City. People are able to identify their elected members. They are ableto make judgments on the performance of those members.


Mr Beattie: They all wanted to live in my area. Mr STONEMAN: That could well be the case. I am looking at the Brisbane City

Council situation.

Mr FitzGerald: How about the State? What if you didn’t divide the State? Mr STONEMAN: Exactly. I have made that point to some people in the Burdekin

Shire. What would they think if the 89 members of this House potentially were able to beelected from the Brisbane City area?

Mr Beattie: You realise this is a speech attacking the Senate. Mr STONEMAN: I take that interjection. The Senate is a protective process. It is

not a primary Chamber. We are talking about base representation. We are talking aboutthe primary level of representation, which goes from the first level, the electedrepresentatives, into the decision-making Chamber where the money Bills and the ratesare spread out. I have always argued that the criteria for change and the basis uponwhich many of the references will be made are too narrow. The determination for newboundaries or divisions must take into account the following criteria: firstly, communityor diversity of interest; secondly, means of communication; thirdly, physical features;fourthly, density of population; fifthly, demographic trends; and, sixthly, developmenttrends. However, the Bill does not talk about the ratepayer balance. I am not suggestingthat we return to the system in which wealth or property ownership was part of themeasurement or that we should have a property franchise. In many instances, the localgovernment structure in this State automatically recognised that some communities hadan imbalance in the population with respect to the rate base. That does not happen somuch in the city areas, because what is lost on the swings is picked up on theroundabouts. However, in country areas, many people in a town might not beratepayers. They are still entitled to vote. The proportion of the rates that they pay isnothing like the proportion paid by people in the surrounding areas. The Governmentmust be careful that the balance does not get out of kilter. There is a need for aratepayer balance.

With respect to representative access—the Mount Isa region covers 43 000square kilometres. The people who live in Camooweal must drive for two or three hoursto get to the local library or to other ratepayer-funded community facilities. They haveno hope of ever having anyone to represent their specific interests simply becausethere are not enough of them. They used to have one or two representatives for that43 000 square kilometres and the city centre area had the other 10 or 11 representatives.That is not unreasonable, because the city centre representatives were able to heardirectly the problems of the people in those sparse areas.

Mr Mackenroth: Have you got more than one centre in your electorate?Mr STONEMAN: Yes, I have.

Mr Mackenroth: Do you represent both of them equally or do you represent onemore than the other?

Mr STONEMAN: Wait a minute. The Minister is coming to a different point. Irepresent——

Government members interjected.

Mr STONEMAN: Okay, members opposite can have their fun. I represent, in theparochial sense, my electorate, which is called Burdekin, which has a number of centres.The Minister represents his electorate, which is called Chatsworth. I am saying that if wewere all living here and there were no boundaries——

Mr Mackenroth: Each of the centres in your electorate you represent as much asyou do the others?

Mr STONEMAN: Yes, but it is a different argument. Wait a minute. I representBurdekin far more than I represent Chatsworth, and for the Minister the situation is viceversa. The councillors in the Burdekin Shire represent the interests of the whole


community, but they bring to the shire table the particular community views. That is whatlocal government is about. That is what localism is about—taking the views of thepeople by whom one is elected into the council chamber.

Mr Mackenroth: Representation, wherever it is, is what it’s all about.

Mr STONEMAN: Obviously, the Minister would be quite happy to have the wholeof Queensland represented by 89 people elected at large in an undivided situation.Wouldn’t that be marvellous! The Government would romp in. The likes of the memberfor Gregory, the member for Callide and myself would never be seen. What a tragedythat would be. I say in conclusion that we need to understand the impact of the changesthat any legislative amendment brings forward. We need to recognise the validity of theamendments that will be proposed by the member for Callide, Mrs McCauley. We needto make sure that single-interest communities are accommodated in a realistic sense andthat multi-interest communities are also able to be recognised. We have to recognisethat there is a need to maintain the identity of local authorities and the identity of therepresentative processes in the two-way sense.

Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (3.40 p.m.): It amazed me that the member forBurdekin should mention the record of one of the former Ministers for LocalGovernment, the late Russell Hinze. Could honourable members imagine for a momenthow issues such as the redistribution of local authority boundaries would have beenhandled? Could they imagine for a moment how the internal boundaries would havebeen handled under the previous Government? It was an absolute nonsense to suggestthat. The amending legislation before the House is of particular relevance to myelectorate of Sunnybank because the Bill defines the role of the Local GovernmentCommissioner as requiring the commissioner to examine and report on referrals andcomply with prescribed criteria and principles approved by the Governor in Council.This Bill is relevant to the Sunnybank electorate in that it empowers the LocalGovernment Commissioner to examine recommendations arising from bodies such asthe Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee upon reference by theGovernor in Council.

In referring to the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, Iwould like to address my remarks today in particular to the PEARC Report on ExternalBoundaries of Local Authorities tabled in this House in 1992. In particular, I refer tothose recommendations contained in the report which pertain to the Brisbane CityCouncil/Logan City Council boundary. Over many years, this issue has been the subjectof a great deal of public discussion, particularly in Berrinba, a suburb in my electorate onthe outskirts of Brisbane bordering Logan City. I am pleased to say that it has taken thisLabor Government and the present Minister for Housing, Local Government andPlanning to finally resolve this problem. I believe that the recommendations arising fromPEARC, amending as they do the original recommendations for boundary changes byEARC, are fair, reasonable and, importantly, environmentally justifiable and responsible.The Bill before the House today enables the Local Government Commissioner to actupon these recommendations from the Parliamentary Electoral and AdministrativeReview Committee. I take this opportunity to commend those members of the formerParliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee who came up with this setof guidelines, in particular, the member for Everton.

The recommendations enable, for example, the Trinder Park Rest Home to becomepart of the Logan City Council area. It is currently situated on the Brisbane City Councilside of the local authority boundaries, even though the water, sewerage and roadsystem is supplied by the Logan City Council. The Trinder Park Rest Home is isolatedfrom the remainder of Brisbane, and clearly there exits a community of interest betweenthe rest home and Logan City. This claim is supported by the receipt of a petition fromthe rest home to PEARC requesting the home’s inclusion in Logan City. However, againto the credit of the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, thesubmission to include parts of the Karawatha bushland which surround the Trinder ParkRest Home was rejected. As a result, the environmental integrity of that very attractive


part of south-east Queensland has been retained. The Karawatha bushland, the largesttract of bushland remaining within the Brisbane City Council boundaries, is important toresidents of both Brisbane and Logan City. It is important in that it is one of the fewremaining non-urban buffer zones in Brisbane. It is an area of environmental significanceand an area in which the Brisbane City Council has been pro-active in purchasing privateland-holdings using the bushland protection levy.

The Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee’srecommendation that the new Brisbane City/Logan City Council boundaries be setalong Wembley Road again represents a sensible outcome to what may be described asthe competing interests between the two councils. It allows the southern, populatedpart of Berrinba to become part of Logan City, situated as it is close to theadministrative centre of Logan, whilst again maintaining Brisbane City Council control ofthe Karawatha bushland that boarders Wembley Road to the north. Whilst I appreciatethat the vast majority of Berrinba residents support Logan City’s claim for control ofBerrinba, I, like a number of other residents, do retain some concerns about the future ofBerrinba as a semirural area containing, at present, non-subdividable five-acre blocks.The Logan City Council has already stated it would provide services such as water andsewerage to Berrinba for the first time, and this will no doubt be welcomed. However, itis hoped that future development in that area will be sensitive to the concerns ofexisting residents, many of whom have lived in this area for many years and who movedthere specifically because of its semirural atmosphere. Importantly for the StateGovernment, the new boundaries will place the Berrinba State School within theboundaries of the Logan City Council. I have had discussions with representatives ofthe school’s p. and c. association and the local alderman. I hope that this move willresult in certain improvements to the land on which the school is situated. I am awarethat the Logan City Council is keen to provide assistance to the school so that it canupgrade its sporting fields. The Local Government Commissioner will be empoweredalso to address the existing problems with the boundaries that split properties,particularly in Charles Avenue and Garfield Road in Berrinba.

Hopefully, the recommendations from PEARC will put to rest the bickering whichhas occurred, even up to a couple of months ago, between the Brisbane City Counciland the Logan City Council. Unsubstantiated accusations that the Brisbane Lord Mayorwas involved in party backroom deals did nothing to enhance the integrity of a minorityof the Logan City councillors. I am pleased to say that I have a good workingrelationship with a number of the Logan City councillors on this issue, including themayor. We have worked together with the Minister for Local Government and Housingto reach the stage at which the recommendations of PEARC have now been referred tothe Local Government Commissioner. I hope that the minority of the councillors of theLogan City Council who seem happier to get a headline in the local newspaper than dothe necessary footslogging and research to resolve problems will appreciate theimportance and significance of the Bill before the House. I am sure that communityorganisations such as the Karawatha Bushland Protection Society recognise thesignificance of the Bill before the House. I am sure that those people will be pleasedthat their efforts over a number years have not been in vain, enabling as it does theLocal Government Commissioner to consider the recommendations of PEARC to retainthe southern portion of Karawatha within the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council.Unlike the member for Callide, I do not believe that matters such as community ofinterest, effective planning and determining boundaries can be described as nebulous.The management of the adjustment of local authority boundaries by the Minister, whotook into account these important considerations, should be commended.

I conclude my remarks by expressing some dismay at the contributions to thisdebate by Opposition members. Only two weeks ago, Opposition members weredefending the GST and its effect upon local government rates and charges. Here theyare today, all anxious and worried about local government; yet only two weeks ago,they were prepared to rape councils throughout Queensland by the imposition of a GSTon user charges such as water and sewerage. If Opposition members think that


Government members have forgotten about that, they can think again. The localgovernment elections are only 12 months away. I am sure that Government members willbe very helpful in reminding the people of Queensland what the Opposition wasprepared to do to their rates with the imposition of a GST. During the last session of thisParliament, I spoke about the effect of the GST on environmental initiatives such as theBrisbane City Council’s proposed recycling scheme. The reality is that the GST wouldhave increased the charges for the BCC’s soon-to-be-introduced recycling scheme.That is nothing short of environmental vandalism.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: People like Sallyanne Atkinson wanted that GST.

Mr ROBERTSON: Yes, Mrs Atkinson supported the GST. If I recall correctly, MrBob Ward was also a big supporter of the GST, in spite of the fact that it would bumpup the charges of the recycling scheme for Brisbane residents. As the member forSunnybank, I can say that my electors are looking forward to the introduction of thatrecycling scheme. I will not be backward in coming forward in reminding my electorsthat Bob Ward supported the GST, which would have increased the costs of thatrecycling scheme.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Bob who?

Mr ROBERTSON: Bob Ward, the late alderman for Runcorn and the soon-to-belate Liberal candidate for the Lord Mayoralty.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) (3.50 p.m.): I want to make reference to some ofthe contributions by Government members and also to speak in broad terms about theeffects of the local authority boundary changes on the local authorities within myelectorate. Before I do so, I congratulate the Minister for Local Government andHousing on his ascendancy to that position. Recently, the Minister received adelegation comprising myself and members of the Glengallan Shire Council. We spokeabout the much-needed common effluent disposal scheme for the township of Killarney.I would say that Killarney is the largest town in Queensland which does not have aneffective sewerage system scheme. The town still relies very heavily on septic systems.Because of the area in which it is sited—which is usually quite a high rainfall area, withthe exception of the last couple of years—and because of the high clay content of thesoil, the effluent bubbles over into the streets, which causes a health problem. Thatproblem exists also in the major township of Wallangarra, which is located in thesouthern part of my electorate. The State Government should provide some money tohelp alleviate the negative financial impact that such schemes would have on ratepayers.Those schemes will involve a $1m investment in the case of Wallangarra and a $2minvestment in the case of Killarney. I thank the Minister for his cooperation in thosediscussions. Hopefully, resolution of the problem is not far away.

At the outset, I must say that I found the contribution by the member forSunnybank a bit amusing. He jumped up and asked what it would be like if Russ Hinzewas carrying out these changes. I do not know what it would be like if Russ Hinze wascarrying out substantial boundary changes in Queensland. However, I can tellhonourable members about the effect on the local authorities in my electorate of theTom Burns-instigated amalgamation/boundary change process. In early 1990, theDeputy Premier, Mr Burns—a man for whom I have some degree ofaffection—introduced legislation that allowed EARC to look at the internal boundaries oflocal authorities, and subsequently to run away to look at external boundaries. On thatoccasion, he opened a major can of worms. He went about it in totally the wrong way.Opposition members have been vindicated in that they said a far more cooperativeapproach was the best way to go. That approach has been adopted through theappointment of a well-respected local government boundaries commissioner in thisState. Unfortunately, Mr Burns is no longer in charge of this portfolio. He has thrown thenew Minister, Mr Mackenroth, in at the deep end, and left him to fix up the problemscreated by Mr Burns. I have no doubt that the new Minister is aware of the heat that wascreated by the EARC process, and the discontent that exists in the community as aresult. EARC recommended substantial boundary changes and, in some cases, the


complete dismantling of some local authorities and the amalgamation of some others,particularly in my area. Those local authorities now seem to be quite happy with theprocess. The boundaries commissioner, Mr Greg Hoffman, has been meeting withpeople and is working on a cooperative approach. Those matters need to be workedon. That should have occurred in the first place.

Unfortunately, the EARC process placed major amalgamations and boundarychanges on the agenda. It cost a lot of money, which most certainly has been wasted.Nothing came of it, except the appointment of a boundary commissioner, which onlyoccurred thanks to the contribution to the report by members of the National and LiberalParties. The EARC process divided many local authorities. Rosenthal Shire and AlloraShire, which are in my electorate, were quite friendly. However, during the frenzy of theEARC proposal and the EARC review of local authority boundaries, Allora Shire madesubmissions stating that in order to survive it wanted to take parts of Rosenthal Shire.Other local authorities submitted that in order to survive, they also wanted to take overthe Rosenthal Shire. The Pittsworth Shire, which is not in my electorate but in theelectorate of the honourable member for Cunningham, submitted that it wanted to takeparts of the Millmerran Shire, and vice versa—“We want the gravel pit, but we do notwant that.” That has caused a great deal of discontent that will take years and years todissipate. The appointment of a local government boundaries commissioner will certainlygo some way towards helping that process.

I have six local authorities within my electorate. I believe that they have a greatdeal to contribute, and over the last few years, have contributed quite well. I have theInglewood Shire on the western end of my electorate; on the southern end, I have theStanthorpe Shire—no boundary changes were recommended for these shires—and atthe northern and the eastern edges of my electorate I have the Rosenthal Shire, theAllora Shire, the Glengallan Shire and the Warwick City Council. Unfortunately, thoseshires were bickering, but they have now started to settle down. Those authorities cancontinue to function quite adequately the way they are. Rosenthal Shire, which theEARC report earmarked for amalgamation, is free of debt and provides a good service tothe isolated towns of Dalveen, Leyburn and Karara. Glengallan Shire, which is on theeastern side of Warwick, provides a similar standard of service. I also believe that theWarwick City Council provides a very good service for the community, as does theAllora Shire.

Members of the Opposition are not opposing this Bill in its entirety. However, theywill propose amendments during the Committee stage that ask the Government toconsider, in the case of the complete amalgamation of some local authorities, calling areferendum. That would certainly take the heat off the Government, and it would throwthe responsibility back to the local community for making that decision. I am referring tothe minority of those local authorities that the EARC report recommended should beamalgamated. I believe that is the fairest thing that Parliament can do. Many localauthorities and the ratepayers within the local authorities are calling for a referendum onthe matter, and we, as the Parliament of Queensland, are duty bound to support thosepeople in that way. Who is it going to hurt? The Government could launch an educationprogram that outlined the benefits and disadvantages of amalgamation and ask thepeople to make up their minds. I am not convinced that those ratepayers are completelynaive; I am not convinced that they would not make the right decision.

I turn now to cost-benefit. We hear a lot of about community of interest. Certainly,community of interest is very important when a local authority or an electorate is beingestablished, and ensuring that they do have something in common is one of the criteriathat must be met. That is an important consideration. However, it is also important toensure that those local authorities are cost effective. In many cases, it has not beenconsidered that those little authorities, which have been earmarked for amalgamation, orsubstantial boundary changes, or incorporation into another local authority or other localauthorities, are cost effective. No doubt, some are not. The Opposition hasforeshadowed an amendment which calls for the demonstration of that cost-benefitfactor as a major tenet in any amalgamation. It should be supported. That is a very, very


important issue. As I said, people who live in those small local authorities are very proudof them. They are very proud of the work that they carry out. This legislation stipulatesthat a local authority cannot contest an amalgamation or a boundary change on the basisof a technical point. They cannot go to court and protest on the basis of what “and”means or what “the” means. That is quite correct.

Although I am sure that this particular amendment does not allow this to happen,we must not stop those particular local authorities from being able to take this decisionto court if need be—if they believe that there is a major miscarriage of justice, or if theybelieve that the boundaries commissioner went about his job in the wrong way and hasmade a decision that does not consider all the facts in purity; that is, the commissionermight believe that some of his figures are right, but further down the track we learn thatthose figures are wrong. I do not believe that any member of this Parliament would wantto stop a local authority from taking a decision to court on the basis of a miscarriage ofjustice. I am sure that this is not what the legislation is all about.

Earlier today, the member for Brisbane Central spoke about Mr Beanland, themember for Indooroopilly, and former Alderman Bob Ward. He said that the member forIndooroopilly never gives credit to anybody; he comes into this Parliament and lambaststhe Brisbane City Council. But I believe it is fair to say that there is none so pure asthyself. During my time in this Chamber, some members on the Government side of theHouse have had a running battle with the local authorities in their area. Mr Elder, theformer member for Manly, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the former member forRedlands, took great delight in getting stuck into the Redland Shire Council. We reallyshould consider our history because, as I said before, there is none so pure as thyself. Itry to work very closely with the local authorities in my area, even though I know thatsome of them are supporters of the Labor Party. Nevertheless, they are very dedicatedto their local communities. I am not convinced that the decisions of local authorities aremade on the basis of politics. Whether the members of those local authorities supportthe National Party, the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, I believe that they makedecisions on the basis of what is best for their particular local authorities. I have neverseen the need to get stuck into the local authorities in my area. I hope that I can alwayswork with them to set about doing what is best for the people of my electorate.

We cannot let this Government off the hook. Early in 1990, this Government putthe amalgamation process on the agenda by introducing to the Parliament legislationthat facilitated the EARC review. When it then made a decision, some of the stalwartmembers of the party, such as Tom Pyne, went up in arms about it. As I said, we cannotlet the Government off the hook. Last year in this House, Tom Burns said, “We want tolook after you people. We want cooperative arrangements.” We cannot let him run awayfrom the fact that he put the issue on the agenda. He is trying to run away from it. Butnow we have probably the best process to sort out an unholy mess. I believe that, byand large, this process has the potential to arrive at the best result so long as, at the endof the day, the Parliament supports the amendments foreshadowed so eloquently andadequately by the honourable member for Callide and shadow Minister for LocalGovernment and which will be moved at the Committee stage. I look forward to workingwith the local authorities in my area. I believe that we face a very difficult and veryinteresting time in setting about sorting out the mess that has been created in this Stateby this Labor Government as a result of planned boundary changes to local authorities.

Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (4.04 p.m.): I would like to talk about an issue thatgreatly affects my electorate, that is, the external boundaries of local authorities. BeforeI do that, I point out that this process has occurred before. Local authorities have beenamalgamated in other areas. If we do not learn from the past, we will never changeanything. If the National Party had its way, we would all be driving T-model Fords andnot updating our cars to newer models.

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I would like a BMW, but I cannot afford one. We shouldstart looking at the boundaries and start changing them. In my electorate, there were the


Shires of Waterford, Beenleigh, Nerang, Burleigh, Coolangatta and Southport. Sevenlocal authorities in that region have merged into two local authorities. We need toconsider changing the external boundaries. For example, on one side of the Gold Coastis Broadbeach, and on the other side is the Conrad casino, which are a stone’s throwaway from each other. Town planning decisions in Albert affect the Gold Coast and theAlbert Shire.

Another issue that affects my electorate is the rising population in that region. The22nd Urban Futures Congress is now being held at the Gold Coast. That congress islooking at large population growths in that south-east corner from 1.8 million to 2.8million in 15 years. That growth will impact on local authorities. If the National Party hadits way, we would have inefficient local authorities providing large numbers ofratepayers with no service delivery. One of the EARC recommendations was to movethe boundaries down Markeri Street, touching the area around Tugun Heights. In such arapidly growing area, we should be looking at an east-west boundary and merging someof the southern end of the Albert Shire with the Gold Coast. I have always said to BillLaver, the Albert Shire Chairman, that we should look at merging that southern end andcreating a boundary in the north on the Coomera River.

For many years, there has been fighting about water on the Gold Coast. The HinzeDam is in the Albert Shire, but it is owned, funded and operated by the Gold Coast CityCouncil. There should be cooperation and, last week, an agreement on that matter wassigned. With the EARC recommendation, I do not believe that we can move the borderto the west and run it down Markeri Street. In 10 years’ time, when the populationexpands to that boundary and continues moving out, the problem will recur. That is whyI have been having discussions with Bill Laver and Lex Bell. The domino effect sets in. Anew shire should be introduced north of the Coomera River encompassing Beaudesert,Tamborine Mountain, Logan Village and Beenleigh. I have made that view clear to thelocal mayor and the shire chairman, but they have their heads buried in the sand and donot want to make changes. That is the problem.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I have always said that we should plan for the future in thatregion—not just for next year, but for 15 years ahead. That has never been done. Amajor example of poor planning is the highway from Brisbane to the Gold Coast. ThisGovernment took the initiative to investigate an alternate route from Brisbane to theGold Coast. Because of heavy traffic flows, when an accident occurs and the highwayis blocked, traffic is held up for hours.

Mr Connor: When is that alternative going to occur?

Mr SZCZERBANIK: We should be considering those matters and puttingforward options. A decision cannot be made without obtaining background information.

Mr Connor: What about the rail link?Mr SZCZERBANIK: The member for Nerang mentioned the rail link. When he

travels along that highway, he must have his eyes closed. If he were to leave thehighway and travel around some of the back streets, he would see the amount of moneythat this Government, in cooperation with the Federal Government, is expending on thatrail link. If he were to drive along the Nerang-Southport road, he would see that anoverpass that is connected with that rail link is under construction.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Who got rid of the railway?Mr SZCZERBANIK: This Government is now constructing the railway. Twenty-

five years ago, the former Government ripped the line up and sold the land.

Mr Connor interjected.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is 25 years too late. The former Government should neverhave ripped up that line. That puts an end to the argument. Statistics reveal that, everyweek, between 600 and 800 families are entering Queensland. That impacts on planningand resources. We should legislate to ensure that developers contribute to the


infrastructure that is needed to service the developments that are going ahead.Recently, officers from the Education Department informed me that, in the next 15 years,11 primary schools and 2 high schools will need to be constructed in my electorate. Theminimum cost of each primary school is $4.5m and, for each high school, it is $20m. Weshould, in cooperation with developers, start planning in order to provide thoseservices. As well, the developers should bear some of the cost. They obtain the benefitfrom rezonings and sales of land. They should put some of that money back into thecommunity and the infrastructure.

Mr Gilmore: Would you prefer they didn’t do any development?

Mr SZCZERBANIK: They will always undertake development, but they shouldshare the costs.

Mr Elliott: Some of them have been forced to go offshore because of the wayyou people have treated them in the past three years.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: The National Party might think that people will not comehere to live. However, that cost should be included in development costs. StudioVillage is in my electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! The honourable members who arehaving a conversation across the Chamber should have that conversation outside. Iwish to hear the honourable member for Albert.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Rapid growth is occurring in my electorate. When I enteredthis place three years ago, my hair was the same colour as that of Mr Deputy Speaker.However, because of the problems that are being experienced with the huge number ofdevelopments in my electorate, my hair is going grey. In the next 10 years, 20 000 to25 000 people will be living in the area south of Studio Village. Three primary schoolsand a high school will be required in that area, as well as water, sewerage, electricity,roads, community halls, libraries, kindergartens, parks and recreational fields. Developersshould be asked, in a cooperative way, to assist in the provision of that infrastructure.Otherwise, when the developers leave, the communities and the State Government willbear all the cost of providing those amenities.

I turn now to internal local authority boundaries. At present, the aldermen on theGold Coast are squabbling about which area should be in which division. To find anexample of why the Government is forcing local authorities to make changes to theirboundaries and amalgamate, all one has to do is look at the population in some of thedivisions. Division 1, which is represented by the Liberal alderman Alan Rickard, has15 000 electors; yet Division 7, which is represented by Kerry Smith, has 4 500 electors.

Mr Pearce: But she’s a fruit loop.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I know she is a bit of a fruit loop.A Government member: God help the Gold Coast!

Mr SZCZERBANIK: God help the Gold Coast! All we will find is a paper cut-outon top of the dais with a microphone behind it saying, “Yes, sit down. Yes, sit down.”That is what we need to consider. Every day in the newspaper, she is reported assaying, “I am out there working for my electors and doing things. Just come to me.” Shehas one-third of the workload of the alderman who represents the northern division, yetshe receives the same allocation of funds as that alderman does. She can say, “I amgetting things done,” but she only has a third of the area.

An honourable member interjected.Mr SZCZERBANIK: Her little bambino. That is what we need to look at. If we

want to consider comparable figures, we should take the example of Russell Cooper’selectorate. He can virtually shake hands with everyone in his electorate. At the time ofthe 1989 election, there were 33 000 people on the roll in my electorate.

An honourable member interjected.


Mr SZCZERBANIK: That is right, and it is equal distribution except for those fivewestern seats. As I said, the Government is planning for the future. In cooperation withthe Federal Government, it is looking at expanding the Better Cities Program. Concernis being expressed about the growing population around the railway stations in myelectorate. People say, “We do not want such a big population around the stations. I donot want the area to change. I came out here for the peace and quiet.” The region isbooming and the population is growing.

If honourable members want to talk about bucketing the Albert Shire Council, thisis a perfect opportunity. The top of the hill surrounding the suburb of Mount WarrenPark is presently zoned Residential A. That rezoning has been in place since 1975. Wenow have the ludicrous situation in which the Albert Shire Council has rezoned the areafrom Residential A to Special Residential and is constructing 182 duplexes or units, orwhatever one wants to call them, on top of the hill. I cannot understand why that work isbeing carried out because it will create other problems with drainage—that is the majorproblem—traffic flow and the general amenity of the area. People have said to me,“When we came to the area, the land was zoned Residential A. Now the council is sayingthat it is changing it to Special Residential so it can have a greater control in that area.”That is simply a cop-out. The local councillor, Tom Costigan, should explain to thepeople why he has rezoned the top of that hill to Special Residential. It will causeproblems with water supply and drainage. Helensvale residents have alreadyexperienced those types of problems. Ten to 20 years ago, drainage easements werenot constructed. There was no planning. The run-off from houses is now being directedto the streets, which is causing major problems further down the hill. If members want todiscuss the problems facing local authorities, they should visit the Albert Shire—it isbooming.

An honourable member: Booming with problems.Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is booming with problems. The Opposition cannot say

that the State is not going ahead. Approximately 100 to 200 people are putting theirnames on the roll to vote. I would estimate that there are ten times that number ofpeople who, every month, do not put their names on the roll as they are moving fromplace to place. I support the Bill.

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (4.19 p.m.): I follow on from the very wise words thatwere spoken by some of my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to begin bypaying a tribute to the shire councils in my area. There are four local shires in theelectorate of Tablelands. All of them run a pretty tight ship. In fact, they run excellentoperations, and I do not argue with those councils. I believe that those people areelected to perform their function as they see fit, just as we are elected to this place toperform our function as we determine it to be.

I am pleased to say that an occasion has not arisen in which I felt any need to be atodds with any of the councils. They do a fine job. They play an important role in thelocal communities. It is enough to say—following on from what was said a few momentsago by the member for Gregory—that councils are probably the closest of all the levelsof Government to the people and they are very reactive to the needs, aspirations andwants of the community. So if a local shire council takes a certain course of action, wecan be sure that there would be a very good reason for that and that there is anundercurrent of feeling in the community that that course of action should be taken. Thecouncillors work within their community all the time and are very aware of the feelingsand thoughts of the community.

I want to focus for a few moments on the possible effects of amalgamation ofcouncils by referring to two scenarios—a regional city that is surrounded by a localshire, as would be the case with Mulgrave and Cairns, or Townsville and Thuringowaand a neighbouring shire area. I am sure that there are others in the State. I will paint aword picture by speaking about the structures of both organisations. One the one hand,we have a regional city that is landlocked and unable to have any land developed and,therefore, expand its rate base except through increases in evaluation on an annual or


biannual basis and, on the other hand, we have a neighbouring shire with large areas ofland, which is an attractive tropical paradise and is expanding at an exponential rate. It isvery easy to understand that some conflicts will arise if we indulge ourselves in theamalgamation of those two shires. I am not saying that we should not do that. I amsimply offering a word of caution to those persons working with the commissioner whomight be involved in considering those matters.

Firstly, the regional city would provide a vast amount of the infrastructure—community centres, swimming pools and other types of facilities—that is highlyexpensive and is utilised to a very great extent by the people in the surrounding shirewho have not made a contribution to those facilities in any way. On the other side of thecoin, the developing shire has increasing investment in urban and resort development,etc., and is responsible for long stretches of road, communications and infrastructuresuch as sewerage, and there is an imbalance between the needs and aspirations of bothcommunities. When the commissioner finally gets around to addressing those issues,the results will be very interesting. Let us consider the scenario in which he choosespartial amalgamation so that, on the one hand, there is a smaller council and, on the otherhand, a larger city. It may be the case that as the city expands into an area that is alreadydeveloped, all the infrastructure costs associated with that development are inherent inthe expansion, and the rate base associated with it will take the form of an ultimatepromise of development for the shire. That is then taken away from the shire and givento the city as a fait accompli and provides an expanded rate base for the city. It is alsopossible for a total amalgamation to take place. In that situation, the city may haveborrowings for infrastructure costs of community centres and matters of that naturewhich may not, on a per capita basis, outweigh the borrowings that have beenundertaken by the surrounding shire for infrastructure such as roads, water supply,sewerage, etc. There will be an imbalance in the change in rates applicable to the peopleliving in the city or the shire, or both, when they are amalgamated.

Another matter that must be considered is a rural area in which there are twoadjoining shires, one of which has been particularly frugal in the management of itsaffairs over the last 20 or 30 years, resulting in very low overhead costs in terms ofinterest and redemption on loans. The proportion of individual rates in that shire that areattributable to redemption may be very small. If that shire is amalgamated with theadjacent shire, council B, that has not been quite so frugal and has large borrowings forfacilities which might be considered by the people living in council A to be specialbenefits rather than the necessities of life, once again a serious imbalance will result inthe rates charged. Council B’s rates would go down and, for no perceived benefit,council A’s rates would go up, which is a matter of serious concern to me. For sometime, I have thought that when changes to boundaries and amalgamations of shires thathave accounting divisions take place, there will be an unholy tangle. I know there arevery few accounting divisions left in the State, but none the less they are still there.

Mr Mackenroth: Five.

Mr GILMORE: I thank the Minister. I thought there were five or six. In thesituation of a council with accounting divisions, within each of those divisions there willbe various levels of rates because, according to the Valuer-General’s categorisation ofland that is used for primary industries, rural/residential or rural/home site, some councilshave also adopted differential rating. There are two levels of changes of the structure inrating an individual property. In one instance, there is the Valuer-General’s determinationof how the property should be rated or valued for rating purposes, and on top of that isthe local authority’s rating levels. In one case of which I am aware, there are over 13levels in the differential rating table. In fact, there are 18 levels in that rating table which,in itself, is difficult enough to sort out. If the divisions within the shire are amalgamated,that would be difficult; but if the divisions within the shire are amalgamated with anothershire outside that area, there would be something of a conglomeration which would takea great deal of working out. There would be a difference between the rates that wouldbe struck on Day 1 as of today and the rates that would be struck after the amalgamationtakes place.


I will take a few moments to go into the reasons for differential rating and I willrefer briefly to the differential rating system in Division 3 of the Mareeba Shire. This wasbrought about because of the Valuer-General’s recognition of changes in propertyvalues. There were people on 1-acre and 2-acre blocks who were paying more in ratesthan was my father who lives on a 100-acre farm. The local council considered that andthought it was an inappropriate way of dividing up among the community theresponsibilities of meeting the rates burden of the shire. They took advantage of theconcept of differential rating. I must say that I was particularly cool towards thatproposition but, because I could see no other way of sensibly coming to a satisfactoryconclusion to the problem, I had to agree to it. Having said that, and having pointed outto honourable members that there is a multilayered application of rateability in thatparticular division in that particular shire, I must now inform the House that one of theother divisions does not have differential rating. If one were to take away thoseaccounting divisions and amalgamate the areas to make a single shire instead of the fourthat presently exist, effectively, and then amalgamate that area with the Atherton Shireor the Eacham Shire where there are no differential ratings and no accounting divisions,can the Minister imagine the unholy mess that would take the commissioner and othersin the community a lot of unravelling when the proposals come to fruition?

It is for those reasons that I am very supportive indeed of the proposedamendments to the Bill foreshadowed by the member for Callide, particularly becauseone of the amendments states that the commissioner should be able to demonstratesome perceivable benefit to the people of the communities involved in theamalgamation. Although we might consider that it is an entirely appropriate way to go,on consideration of all of those financial matters in terms of the potential fordevelopment of a shire area because of its beauty or its position or because it is inrainforest or another place, or the lack of potential of another shire area because of itsdistance from centres of population or because it is out in the sticks, how does thecommissioner come to a conclusion to balance those differences? The amendment saysthat substantial benefits must be able to be identified. I am quite sure that, if honourablemembers were to agree to the amendment, it would give some balance to the processso that the commissioner and the councils involved could consider the matter and say,“Having considered all of this, we cannot determine that substantial benefits exist for allof those shires and for all of those communities involved in respect of the rearrangementof affairs. Therefore, we should not proceed.”

Mr McElligott: How would you define “benefit”? Mr GILMORE: That is for the commissioner to work out, not me. There are other

considerations, not the least of which relates to the Grants Commission. Neighbouringshires get different treatment from the Grants Commission in terms of the distribution ofannual grants. On a per capita basis, that can make a considerable difference to therateability or the rate paid by land-holders in the individual shires. That will also impactquite heavily on the changes that will be perceived by the people with the hip pockets,who have to write out the cheques. Those people will be most unimpressed by theconsiderable changes because they will not necessarily perceive that change to be intheir best interests.

I turn briefly to the benefits pointed out by the member for Gregory in having localshire administration centres, works depots and operations such as that in smallcommunities. The shires in my electorate are fairly small. They are rural. Some of themare developing. It is interesting to see rural shire councils coming to grips with thatdevelopmental boom, learning to understand the need for change in their by-laws, andaccepting the need, as the member for Albert said, for example, to apply headworkcharges to developers. It has been an interesting evolutionary period and I havewatched it with some interest. It is important to those small communities that theycontain within them the administration centre and the works centre which areresponsible for the expenditure of their own rates.


Local government is interesting. It taxes people at their property and it spendstheir money at their property door. It does not necessarily tax people from their backpocket, as do the Commonwealth and State Governments, and spend the moneysomewhere else. It is a home-grown and home-spent tax. People who walk down thestreets of Malanda, Atherton, Herberton or Mareeba see their shire office and see theircouncil workers working and are able, firstly, to see their tax dollars being spent as theydetermined that they should be spent and, secondly, to have some immediate and directinput to the people who determine the priorities for that expenditure. If they seesomething happening about which they are unhappy or if they believe that a priority thathas been set is inappropriate, they can tell the local councillor, “That is not on. Webelieve that you have pulled the wrong string. You have set the wrong set of prioritiesand we believe that you should change it.”

Local government is an immediate “push the button and see the result” type ofsituation. It should be fostered rather than denigrated by the Government of the day.That is an unfortunate trait that has developed recently. Although I do not say that nocases exist in Queensland for amalgamations or changes in boundaries for one reason oranother, we must always consider the community of interest, the potential or lack ofpotential for development and all of those kinds of things that are generally notconsidered in redistributions of boundaries or population. Those matters must beconsidered for the best interests of those persons who are being affected by theredistributions. I conclude on that point, with a further repetition that I am very much insupport of the amendments to be moved by the member for Callide. They arecommonsense and they bring a level of balance to the debate and to the legislationwhich will long serve Queensland and local government in Queensland well.

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (4.36 p.m.): This Bill that we are debating today shouldbe called the “Woodridge, Berrinba and Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill”,because the principal thing that it will achieve, in the Brisbane area at least, is areallocation of the boundaries in that region. It was interesting to hear the member forBurdekin turning cartwheels in comparison with what he was talking about last night.Yesterday, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission could do no wrong.Everything that the commission handed down was Holy Writ and the Government hadfailed to carry out the Ten Commandments. Today, the member for Burdekin has adifferent attitude. EARC is totally in error and even the parliamentary committee is totallyin error in wanting to change the boundaries or even look at the boundaries, bothinternal and external, of the local authorities. It was quite interesting. I found it quiteamusing. It is the first time that I have ever found a speech of his amusing in any way.However, on this occasion, it was.

From my point of view, words coming down from EARC, and the CJC for thatmatter, are anything other than Holy Writ and anything other than correct. Therecommendations by EARC on the issue in the Berrinba and Woodridge area were quiteridiculous. They followed from a number of seminars, one of which I attended, at which Ihave never in my life heard so much nonsense spoken by academics who knew nothingabout their subject whatsoever. On reading the submission from EARC, it seems prettyobvious that it had taken notice of those people who had no knowledge of their subjectwhatsoever—no practical knowledge at all. It reinforced my view that there is no waythat we should be adopting the recommendations of either of those commissions lock,stock and barrel. The Criminal Justice Commission, in its nomination of 54 members ofthis House having carried out some activity that was not correct in the matter of travelexpenses, is another example of the wrong recommendations coming down from thosecommissions. On this one occasion I agree with the member for Burdekin, although lastnight he could not have been further from the truth.

Why I say this is the “Woodridge/Berrinba Bill” is that there has been a problem inthat particular area ever since 1924, and numerous Brisbane City Councils have askedfor action to be taken. On one occasion, I mentioned in this House the ridiculoussituation of the boundary actually going through the middle of people’s bedrooms inthat particular area. The fact is that it still does. It has not been changed yet. The


boundary between Brisbane City and Logan City, between the electorate of Sunnybankand the electorate of Woodridge, used to be part of the electorate of the member forBeaudesert, although he did not seem to know much about it when he spoke and pooh-poohed the idea. In fact, there are married couples sleeping in the same bed, who are ondifferent sides of the boundary, and that ridiculous situation has been——

Mr Bennett: Who did they pay their rates to?

Mr ARDILL: They paid them to both. They had to pay rates to both. Thatridiculous situation has been allowed to continue right up until now, simply because ofridiculous opposition, not from Brisbane City, the old Beaudesert Shire or Logan Shireor Waterford Shire, but from the Liberal Party in this House. When Russ Hinze hadagreed to change the boundary, it was torpedoed, just as a number of other logicalrecommendations that had been agreed to by Ministers in this House were torpedoedby the so-called ginger group of the Liberal Party, people who had no interest inanything except division—as their people in Canberra clearly demonstrated during therecent election campaign.

Mention has been made of Russ Hinze. I can only take people as I find them and asthey appear to me. As chairman of the planning committee in the Brisbane City Council,I had quite a bit to do with Russ Hinze. Not once did Russ Hinze ever try to put over onthe Brisbane City Council anything which could be construed as being something illegalor something that gave the Government an unfair advantage. On numerous occasions,we were called upon to explain because some developer had complained that hethought he should have had a better hearing than he did from the Brisbane City Council.On each occasion, in conference with such people, we explained the situation to RussHinze, and not once did he ever try to coerce us to change our minds. I was quiteamazed when I heard that he had been involved in some illegal activity regarding theSunny Park shopping centre in my area. I have no doubt that the developer wascertainly involved in nefarious activities. I had unfortunate experiences with thatparticular developer and his minions. In relation to that particular shopping centre, thecouncil held firm because people’s lives were at stake. The Brisbane City Councilinsisted on the proper development of that shopping centre block. As I said, we werecalled to account. We explained to the Minister that everything had been done on aproper engineering and planning basis, and no further action was taken. Imagine myamazement when the decision was later reversed by the new Liberal Party council, thedeveloper obtained a particular advantage, and the matter ended up in the courts as acase of corruption.

Mr Szczerbanik: What about the Gemini Towers down at Burleigh?Mr ARDILL: I have heard all sorts of criticisms of Russ Hinze. I can only speak of

him as I saw him. The same situation existed with differential rating. After many years ofcouncils asking for differential rating, Russ Hinze gave it to the new Liberal Party councilunder Sallyanne Atkinson and, like a dog with an outsized bone, she did not know whatto do with it. She knew what it was, but she did not know what to do with it. She wasunable to take advantage of it. One of the reasons she lost the election was the fiascoover the type of differential rating decided on by the Liberals. Differential rating, whichseemed to be criticised by the member for Tablelands, is a marvellous tool for localauthorities to use to iron out some of the anomalies created by the system of rating onthe unimproved valuation of land. The present Lord Mayor of Brisbane has done that,and rating in Brisbane is much fairer now than it has been for about 40 years. Thepresent Lord Mayor has demonstrated management skills of which the previous councilhad no knowledge. It had no idea how to manage the city and it had no idea of theneeds of local government in any way, shape or form. It was big on publicity andhopeless on management. Alderman Ward’s believing that he will oust Alderman Soorleyhas to be the most wishful thinking one could imagine.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: Mr Soorley is a popular Lord Mayor.

Mr ARDILL: That is right. Alderman Soorley has brought to the Brisbane CityCouncil the management skills and fairness that were demanded by the people of


Brisbane. He is an excellent Lord Mayor, and he is doing an wonderful job for thepeople of Brisbane. The City of Brisbane Act, which is being amended by this Bill, hasserved Brisbane very well. It was introduced in 1924, when anomalies such as the one inWoodridge/Berrinba presented no problem. In 1924, no development existed in thatarea. In the Berrinba area, the only development in an otherwise isolated suburb was anairstrip used during the war. The anomalies have occurred not because of anyshortcoming on the part of those who drew up the original boundaries, but becausethey have been overtaken by later developments.

The City of Brisbane Act enabled tremendous economies of scale to be carriedout in Brisbane. The city had a very poor beginning. It was a mean little convictsettlement where the harshest treatment was inflicted on people to force them to workso that the whole population would not starve. Brisbane had to overcome tremendousobstacles. No funding was provided to the City of Brisbane such as that provided toMelbourne from the gold rush days in Victoria and such as that provided to Sydneybecause of its status as the major population centre of Australia. Brisbane failed todevelop as a city until the City of Brisbane Act was introduced in 1924. It was thefarsightedness of the Labor Government of the day which facilitated that greatexperiment, which has been such a tremendous success and which most large cities inAustralia would love to be able to copy. Other cities would love to have a city such asBrisbane under one control; to carry out those tremendous economies of scale; and toemploy the expert management skills that Brisbane has employed. Sallyanne Atkinsondestroyed most of those expert management skills. Within three years of Mrs Atkinsongaining power, all the expert managers employed by the council had left, from the townclerk down. Because Mrs Atkinson did not agree with their expert opinions, they eitherhad resigned or had been called upon to leave. It is the job of Jim Soorley and his teamto build up in the council a structure which was sadly lacking for six years under LordMayor Atkinson.

Mr D’Arcy: You put the management structures in place when you were DeputyLord Mayor.

Mr ARDILL: No, I cannot claim that I did. The management structure wascommenced by Clem Jones and it was cemented by people such as Frank Sleeman, thegreat Lord Mayor who followed Clem Jones and whose position in history will berecognised in the future. I do not believe that many people appreciate the major effectthat Frank Sleeman had on the City of Brisbane.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: I think students of Brisbane’s history will already recognise thecontribution that Frank Sleeman made.

Mr ARDILL: I have no doubt about that. I just wish that the media wouldrecognise the fact that the sporting complex located in the suburb of Chandler is notthe Chandler complex but the Sleeman Complex. The City of Brisbane Act enabledgreat aggregations of land to be set aside for a green belt in the city. Again, Lord MayorSleeman was involved in establishing that scheme, as he was involved in establishingthat great sporting complex at Chandler. That is entirely his monument; he was theperson who was responsible for its construction.

In most areas, Brisbane has a clear identity. One of the provisions of this Billenables the city to control the bridges which lead out of Brisbane. To the best of myknowledge, only two bridges are covered by this legislation, and they are located atDawson Parade at Grovely and Rickertt Road at Thorneside. Those are the only twobridges of which I am aware that are not controlled by the Main Roads Department. I amnot quite clear on how important that issue is. Perhaps there is an intention to take overother bridges or to build new bridges. However, that seems to be the main provision ofthe Act, other than that which adjusts local authority boundaries.

One area in which the city has no clear identity is in the north-western area nearGrovely. Other than in the Grovely area, where the Pine Rivers Shire has developedadjacent to the city, the city has a clear identity. The recommendations by theParliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review clearly enable that


identity to be maintained. The recommendations of the committee are set out in words,and the member for Woodridge and I have also illustrated them on a map. It is importantthat every city have clearly defined boundaries, unlike Melbourne or Sydney, wheresome minor back street represents the boundary. Of course, that applies to Brisbane inthe case of Hibiscus Avenue at Everton Hills. It is unfortunate that that area does nothave clear definition.

The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission proposed that the KarawathaPark be handed over to the Logan City Council. If that had occurred, the park wouldhave been devastated and turned into a housing development. One of the mostsensitive and valuable environmental areas in the Brisbane region was destined for thechopping block. Fortunately, this Bill will enable that area to be preserved andmaintained. I am very proud to have initiated the $20 per household per year green levyscheme, which has been taken up by the present Brisbane City Council. That is a veryvaluable means of dedicating green areas around the city. I give credit to the previouscouncil for introducing that scheme. However, once again, it did not really know what todo with it. Rather than spreading them over the city, the former council spent all of thefunds received from that scheme on Mount Coot-tha. The new council has taken thestep of applying to this Government—and thankfully this Government has agreed—toprovide loan funds which will be repaid from that green levy. As I said, at present, thecity of Brisbane is under very good management and I look forward to seeing anextension of those green areas and a protection of the identity of the city.

On the eastern side, we have Moreton Bay; on the western side, we have theD’Aguilar Range; on the northern side we have the Pine River; and on the southern side,we have the green bushland. In some time to come, the city may extend to take in someareas which are contiguous and which, logically, could be included in the city. I am notpushing that point, but it is something that should be considered. Likewise, the GoldCoast City, as was mentioned by the member for Albert, should encompass all of thoseareas on its western side. This Bill will enable such things to be done. I cannot imaginewhy the National Party is so opposed to logical extensions of local governmentareas—not without thought, not with a heavy hand, but in the careful hands of thisGovernment, this Minister and the commissioner who has been appointed. I support theBill.

Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (4.55 p.m.): I rise to support the very fine speechpresented by the shadow Minister for Local Government, the member for Callide. Thisvery thorough reply to the legislation leaves little extra to be said. However, I believethat I can make some observations in support of her words. My own electorate ofMooloolah takes in substantial parts of both Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire. Forprobably 20 years, proposals have been put forward to amalgamate those shires andNoosa Shire into a Sunshine Coast city. For the benefit of the member for Archerfield, Ipoint out that if those three shires were amalgamated into one city, it would rival thelovely City of Brisbane. Other proposals put forward suggest that the coastal strip fromNoosa to Caloundra should be excised and made into one city. That would leaveNambour as the heart of a suggested hinterland shire. For that reason, the subject ofamalgamations of local authorities is very important to me, even though thoseamalgamations to which I have referred might not be imminent. I support theamendments to be moved by the member for Callide, and I hope that the Minister willgive them due consideration.

My first concern is one of consultation, not with the Local GovernmentAssociation, but with local authorities. The Minister is the Minister for Local Governmentand not the Minister for the Local Government Association. As was the case with theLiquor Act, which has impacted heavily on local authorities, there seems to have beenvery little direct consultation with local authorities. Neither the Town Clerk at CaloundraCity nor the Shire Clerk at Maroochy Shire seem to have been advised of the legislationor consulted about it. Fortunately, I was able to receive some comments from the ShireClerk at Maroochy Shire, Mr Geoff Adamson, and his concern about this Bill amplifiesthose which have been raised already by members on the Opposition side of the House.


Mr Mackenroth: Do you know what the Local Government Association is? Mr LAMING: Yes, I do. Mr Adamson referred to proposed new section

4F (1) (k) (1), which states—

“. . . anything else relating to local government declared by regulation to bereviewable local government matter.”

It would seem that the Government can, by regulation, over which there is no processto seek public input, give the Local Government Commissioner power to do anythingthat it wishes. Mr Adamson wonders whether this function is too wide for a personwhose position was created initially out of EARC to deal with matters of representationand equity, or representation in local government areas. My second concern, followingthat of consultation with councils, is that of consultation with the people—theratepayers. That is what local government is all about. During the eloquent address bythe member for Callide, we heard that polls should be taken. I wish to take this option alittle further and suggest that no external boundaries or amalgamations should occurwithout a complete formal referendum, simultaneously held with council elections.Others have preceded me and asked, “Why change internal boundaries and then changeexternal boundaries?” Next year, both Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City will go to thepolls with changed internal boundaries. In both cases, those changes appear to bebeneficial. I trust that there will not be a subsequent move to change the externalboundaries shortly, or indeed, to amalgamate those shires.

Mrs Woodgate: Caloundra City has chosen itself to have less councillors. That isa decision of the local council.

Mr LAMING: Yes, I will accept that interjection. If the honourable member waslistening closely to me rather than formulating the interjection, she would have heard mesay that it was beneficial in both cases and, in both cases, it was put together by thealdermen and the council. However, it would be a great pity if this good work of workingout the internal boundaries was despoiled by changing the external boundaries—whichmakes those internal boundaries quite irrelevant—or if amalgamation was consideredshortly afterwards. Some members on the Government side of the House who have notbeen involved in local government and can only quote one vote, one value do notunderstand the impact that changed boundaries and amalgamations will have onratepayers. Many shires and cities are much more debt ridden than others. Why shouldone group of ratepayers who have gone without be called upon to pay off the debts ofothers? If they agree by referendum, I suggest that that is okay.

I can say from personal experience that recently, despite the wishes of thoseratepayers in that local authority, divisional financial separation has been abolished. Ofcourse, I refer to my own area of Kawana which, after many years of going without andavoiding borrowing, was forced to abandon financial separation. In one year, thoseratepayers were slugged with a 36 per cent increase in rates for no extra services. Theyhad no opportunity to avoid this impact. Only a few moments ago, the member forThuringowa asked for a definition of “benefit”. How does one define benefit? I suggestthat the answer is very simple—it is what people pay and what they get. Ratepayers canwork that out pretty well.

Mr Mackenroth: What happens when one ratepayer in one shire pays, and aratepayer in another shire gets what he pays for?

Mr LAMING: Is that after an amalgamation?

Mr Mackenroth: No, before. Do you understand that proposition?Mr LAMING: The Minister will have to explain that to me a little later.

Mr Mackenroth: Where you have a city, and the ratepayers in the city pay for thecultural facilities, the libraries and whatever, and the ratepayers of the surrounding shiresuse those facilities that the ratepayers in the city pay for, the ratepayers in the shireswho aren’t paying are the ones who are getting the benefits.

Mr LAMING: Yes, I can understand that.


Mr Mackenroth: How do you define that with your benefits?Mr LAMING: There is a benefit.

Opposition members interjected.Mr LAMING: I appreciate my colleagues giving me time to think, but that is not

necessary. The Minister will find that when people are visiting local authority areas toenjoy the facilities paid for by the ratepayers in those areas, those people are bringing inmoney and spending it. That is of benefit to the ratepayers in those areas. I have seenthat happen. The ratepayers do not mind that at all. The only thing that they do not likeis when people from other local authorities bring their rubbish to the tip. They are nottoo keen on that. But that can be controlled.

Because of the impact of higher rates on my electorate, which was formerly a low-rated area, many people are considering selling up. It was one of the lowest-rated areasin Queensland. I refer to Division 2 in Caloundra City. Many people who moved therewith an expectation of the low rates continuing are now seriously considering leavingthe area. That is very sad. I would not like to see this Bill pass through the Housewithout the suggested amendments being made if it meant that such an occurrencecould happen elsewhere in Queensland without the ratepayers having the opportunitynot simply to object but to avoid it happening at all. That is what democracy is all about.After all, local authorities exist for the benefit of ratepayers. They do not exist for theexpedience of the State Government.

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (5.02 p.m.): I welcome the amendments to the LocalGovernment Act, which will clarify the operation of the local government boundariescommissioner and his office. Last year, the Government decided that the appropriatemeans of responding to the recommendations of EARC and the parliamentary committeewith respect to local government external boundaries was the appointment of anindependent commissioner to report to the Minister on these matters. I believe that theappointment of Greg Hoffman, the former secretary of the Local GovernmentAssociation, as commissioner was an excellent choice. Mr Hoffman has a long history ofinvolvement with local government and an intimate knowledge of local government andits personalities. I have confidence in his ability to work with local authorities to achievesensible arrangements that will provide long-term benefits for the ratepayers and theeconomy of this State.

I know better than do many members that debates about local governmentboundaries frequently generate more heat than they do light. Unfortunately, in the caseof the local authorities in my area, both the Mayor of Cairns, Alderman Kevin Byrne, and,indeed, the Chairman of the Mulgrave Shire, have expressed very entrenched attitudeson the issue of changes to the local government boundaries for Cairns and Mulgrave.

Mr Mackenroth: Do you think their views are entrenched?Dr CLARK: I think that they are very firm. There is no doubt that Councillor Pyne

is adamantly opposed to any change whatsoever to boundaries.

Mr Mackenroth: I got that impression when I spoke to him, too.Dr CLARK: I do not think that there is much doubt about it. In response to that

view, he has come out very favourably and strongly on the side of regional planning andcooperative joint arrangements, whilst Alderman Kevin Byrne is still of the view thatsome sort of amalgamation is the preferable way to go. As members would know, as amember of the parliamentary committee I am on record as favouring joint arrangementsas the first option prior to any actual amalgamation and change in boundaries. I still feelcomfortable with that position as being the way to go—exploring those options first.

Mr FitzGerald: You recommended a lot of amalgamations in your shires, didn’tyou?

Dr CLARK: At times, getting the right balance can be uncomfortable. I amsatisfied that my approach is quite sensible. In Cairns and Mulgrave, I am lookingforward to the time when we get some data about what might be the costs and benefits


of any changes to boundaries, and when we can have some good debate on that issue.I am aware of the amendments that the Opposition is proposing, but I am quite satisfiedthat, with respect to Widgee and Gympie, we can get that sort of information and wecan have the local government boundaries commissioner directing that process so thatgood decisions are made. However, knowing how fraught the Cairns/Mulgrave situationis, I do not intend to debate that here in this House this afternoon. I understand that thereference from the Minister is quite some time off, because there are more pressingmatters to be addressed by the commissioner. This afternoon in the House, I would liketo make the point that when the time comes to consider Cairns and Mulgrave, there maywell be a case for looking at some adjustment to boundaries in parts of the MareebaShire, the neighbouring shire to Mulgrave. That is what I would like to contribute to thedebate this afternoon.

As members may be aware, the boundaries of my electorate have changed toinclude the township of Kuranda and the surrounding area. It is important that membersrealise the very clear differences that exist between the township of Kuranda and therest of the Mareeba Shire. Kuranda has a very interesting history. In the sixties, manypeople moved into that area looking for an alternative lifestyle. The very attractiverainforest ecology in that area has attracted people who value lifestyle. There is a veryvibrant community of artists in the Kuranda area. Amongst them is Ray Crook, a recipientof an Australia Day award. I congratulate him on the receipt of that award. His work isvery well regarded in far-north Queensland and the whole of Australia. People inKuranda see themselves quite differently from the rest of the Mareeba Shire, which isvery rural. Mareeba township is a very typical country town. Many of the problems thatare looming have their genesis in the very different nature of Kuranda from the rest ofthe Mareeba Shire. I have personally been trying to work with the Mareeba ShireCouncil, the residents of Kuranda and the business community of Kuranda to get themto work cooperatively on planning issues. I believe that I have been making someprogress in that regard. There was some common ground, and a truce was developingbetween the parties in respect to how they were feeling about planning issues.

Unfortunately, a couple of recent issues that have erupted in the Mareeba Shireare threatening that truce and will possibly lead, unless there are some changes ofattitude, to some very real problems for the relationship between the Kurandacommunity and the Mareeba Shire Council. Recently, two issues have come to a head.One is a proposal of the Mareeba Shire Council to obtain a loan of $1.4m to becomeinvolved in constructing a large social club at Davies Park, which is at the showgrounds.It is proposing to build a clubhouse which will have poker machines and generaterevenue, and it saw that as a means by which it could generate some revenue that wouldbe of value to the community. Unfortunately, that proposal has generated a lot ofconcern and a lot of anger among some members of the community, and not just theKuranda residents. They were particularly concerned because they saw the prospect ofmoney being directed away from Kuranda to build the club in the Mareeba township thatwould be of no benefit to them whatsoever. They were most concerned that money setaside for road construction in their part of the shire would be absorbed into thatproposal and they would receive no benefit. Many residents have expressed concernabout that. Several of them have written to the Minister for Local Government on thematter and provided copies of that correspondence to me.

To give honourable members a flavour of the concerns that those people have, Iwill refer to some of that correspondence. There is the principle of public funds,including rate money, being expended on this kind of facility when there is a notablelack of expenditure on and interest in improving roads and other infrastructure in theirshire. Another point is in relation to the amount of public funds being expended on asingle facility which, it is felt, private enterprise should more properly handle. Moreover,they feel that, as the council would actually own the facility, it may be seen as being incompetition, either directly or indirectly, with other local clubs and businesses. Iunderstand that there are clubs with poker machines that are not fully utilised at themoment. The residents are also concerned about the proposal that is seen by them as


being an unsafe investment, that is, the whole thing may fail and their rates will go downthe drain with it. They are concerned that they will find themselves suffering an increasein rates, with nothing to show for it, which is the complete reverse of what the council isproposing. Their primary concern is that there has been a complete lack of publicconsultation regarding the proposal. The council has apparently, despite requests,refused to release feasibility studies regarding the proposed investment for publiccomment. There has been quite a deal of comment in the media and the residents feelthat the council is ignoring that opposition. That is one issue.

Another issue about which they are most concerned is a planning issue whichrelates particularly to the people of Kuranda. In the area known as Jumrum Creek andSpeewah there is a proposal to change the draft strategic plan that went on displaythere recently. When that plan went on display, it was indicated that that particular areawould retain its Rural Residential designation. During the period that is available forpublic comment on a draft strategic plan, there was not much comment made by theKuranda residents because they were very relieved to see that designation there. Thatwas what they felt was appropriate and they just let the process continue. One canimagine their dismay when there was further discussion on the part of the council withrespect to that plan and it decided that it would put a proposal in its strategic plan to theMinister that the whole area of Jumrum Creek and the Speewah district would berezoned as Park Residential. The intent of a Park Residential zone is to allow for densersettlement—the blocks are much smaller, about one acre. The matter that has reallyconcerned the residents is that this proposal for Park Residential zoning does not alsorequire the installation of sewerage. There is a very real fear that the ground water willbe contaminated and that Jumrum Creek, which flows into the Barron River, will also becontaminated. The council has indicated that, if it feels that, in the light of the evidenceit has, it is appropriate to require the developer to sewer the area, it will require thedeveloper to do so.

The point is that the residents are well aware of previous Park Residentialsubdivisions that have many problems with septic trenches—they are not getting agood absorption rate and there are definitely failures. The residents are, not surprisingly,most concerned that they will have a major problem with a Park Residential zoning. But,most importantly, they are again concerned about the lack of consultation that theMareeba Shire Council appears prepared to engage in. The councillor who representsthat area has made strong representations at council and has, I am afraid to say, reallybeen derided by many council members and has had no support for the stand that shehas taken.

In light of those issues, the people in Mareeba Shire, and the Kuranda district inparticular, decided to utilise section 53 of the Local Government Act, which provides fora poll of residents to be carried out. It is necessary for them to take up a petition. If apetition is signed by more than 10 per cent of the residents, that is sufficient groundsfor a poll to be carried out. There is no compulsion for the council to actually conductthat poll. It would have to be carried out voluntarily by the council, or at the direction ofthe Minister. The people took the opportunity of the holding of the Federal election anddistributed their petition with respect to the issue of the social club throughout theshire. Approximately 20 per cent of electors—some 2 289 people—signed the petitioncalling for a poll. With respect to the strategic planning matter, they again had a veryfavourable response—well in excess of 10 per cent of electors signed a petition sayingthat they wished to see a poll conducted to give the people an opportunity to put theirviews forward and have their voices heard.

I understand that a council meeting was held today and that the Mareeba ShireCouncil has decided not to conduct such a poll—at least not at this point in time. It mayconsider later that that is the appropriate course to follow; however, as of today, itappears that the council is not prepared to give the people of the Mareeba Shire theopportunity to voice their opinions on those very important matters. I hope that thecouncil will reconsider that matter and will give people the opportunity to express theirviews. In any event, I will be holding further discussions with the Minister. Prior to


today, I raised some of these matters with him in a general way, but now that we havereached this point, I will be making representations to the Minister that he direct—as isallowed under section 53 of the Local Government Act—that a poll be conducted sothat the people of the Mareeba Shire have an opportunity to express their views bothon the social club proposal and also on what they believe is most appropriate withrespect to the strategic plan for their area. If the momentum of the people of Kurandaincreases, and if their dissatisfaction with the Mareeba Shire Council increases, I thinkthat there may well come a point at which the people consider that their interests mightbest be served by being part of the Mulgrave Shire rather than the Mareeba Shire. Myview is that if a majority of the people of Kuranda, which is now part of the Barron Riverelectorate, support that proposal, I will certainly lend my support to it. I believe that itwill be my responsibility to assist the residents in trying to achieve an outcome that mostclearly enables them to achieve their objectives.

Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (5.18 p.m.): I do not intend to take up too much time ofthe House. I will be fairly short, but not necessarily sweet. The amendments to the Cityof Brisbane Act have been spoken about at considerable length by representatives ofthose areas affected. The member for Archerfield expressed his position on the City ofBrisbane Act, and I think that he is more equipped to do that than I am. A review of localgovernment issues is often very emotive. I believe that it is necessary to ensure that allparties act in a manner so as to ensure public accountability at all times. This legislationpermits a process of consultation and inquiry before a determination by the Minister andthe commissioner. Recently, I became concerned when a constituent—someone whoworks in a related local government position—wrote to me and expressed the followingconcerns—

“My concern is that these amendments re-enforce the power of the twopositions—that of the Minister of the Department of Housing, Local Governmentand Planning and the Commissioner. This may be seen as a weakness in thesystem, as essentially all matters referred to the Commissioner are assessed onlyagainst the Commissioner’s values. Whilst the Commissioner may undertake aninquiry on a reviewable matter the Commissioner may still control that evidenceplaced before him or her.”

However, in discussions with departments today and previously, and indeed as outlinedin the speech by the member for Hervey Bay, that process is not only accountable butalso very public. Because some other members may have received similarcorrespondence and concerns, the Minister may wish to comment on that point.

It is considered that the lines of communications to all parties subject toinvestigation in local government must be kept open and, for that reason, all reviewablelocal government matters must be subject to public input prior to the commissioner’sdecision being made. The modification or adjustment, abolition, creation and division oflocal authority boundaries are significant matters to those people living within the areasaffected by those changes. It is likely to be the matter referred most often to thecommission. Extensive investigations have already been carried out by EARC and, withthe winding up of EARC, it seems important that the transfer of the review process tothe commissioner take place. It is commendable to see that the reviewable issuesstatement for the local authorities of the Mackay/Pioneer region and the matter of costeffectiveness are now finally being addressed. I cannot stress too heavily the needwithin that financial aspect to encompass a financial cost benefit analysis of theboundary alteration options. Given that local government is financed by local residentseither directly or indirectly, a full cost analysis of the commissioner’s recommendationsin terms of options may be warranted.

The point must be made that the size of the local authority and its cost efficiencyare not necessarily maximised by total amalgamations. It is obvious that there is somepoint at which a local authority operates at maximum efficiency. To date, identificationsof this point for the Mackay/Pioneer area have not been considered either by EARC orthe commissioner. Moreover, the social environment and public opinion are matters that


should be given special weight. Boundary alterations may be considered very minor tous as decision makers; however, to the person affected by such a change, the matter isquite important and affects what that person perceives to be his community of interest.In my own experience, I have seen the issue of amalgamation arise in theMackay/Pioneer region for many years.

In the last 15 years, the Pioneer Shire has commissioned three social surveys byindependent bodies which clearly illustrate that community’s preference for the currentlocal government arrangements. As the overseers of local government, it is part of theState Government’s responsibility to ensure that local government fulfils thecommunity’s expectations. Total amalgamation of these two areas clearly would not fulfilthe expectations of the Pioneer Shire residents. I have expressed the view before and Ido so again that I believe strongly in the powers of the Minister remaining with theMinister and being vested ultimately in the Governor. I therefore have to say that it isdesirable that the powers of the commissioner intervening in local government mattersother than boundary issues be mildly limited. The commissioner is not elected by thepeople and, therefore, the public or local authorities have limited recourse if they are notin agreement with the commissioner’s rulings. We must be vigilant to ensure that thepower of the commissioner will not disrupt or, indeed, promote the autonomy of localauthorities.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning) (5.24 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for the contributionsthat they have made to the debate today. Some of the speeches have been on the Billand some have been a little wide of the mark, but all members have certainly had theopportunity to raise matters that are very pertinent to local government, particularly intheir electorates. There seems to be a perception among members of the Oppositionthat the Government has some type of agenda in relation to amalgamation of localauthorities in Queensland, but that is not true. The Government has received a reportfrom EARC and a subsequent report from the parliamentary committee whichrecommended fewer amalgamations or changes to boundaries than were recommendedby EARC. Cabinet has made a decision that in the first instance a Local GovernmentCommissioner would be set up, and that person is Mr Greg Hoffman. During this debate,any member of the Opposition who mentioned Greg Hoffman did so in the sense ofgiving support to that person in the position he holds. The Government set up the officeof Local Government Commissioner and appointed Mr Hoffman to that position whichhas allowed him to review matters on which the Parliamentary Committee for Electoraland Administrative Review has made recommendations.

The Opposition spokesperson said something along the lines of this Governmentnot being able to get the legislation right and having to try, try, try again. Perhaps wecan hope for third time lucky, but this is a very complex matter. To ensure that it iscarried out properly, the Government has to take a great number of matters intoconsideration. There seems to be a perception among members of the Opposition,however, that the Government is trying to make this legislation as wide as it possibly canso that the Government can do as many things as it wants to do. In fact, theGovernment is trying to frame the legislation in terms that will give references to theLocal Government Commissioner that specifically state what the Government wants theLocal Government Commissioner to look at and how far we want him to go. Under theexisting Act, the Government could ask the Local Government Commissioner to look at“any other matter”. When the Crown Solicitor considered that expression in relation todrawing up the references, it was found that what we considered to be “any othermatter” could be contested in the courts. Through this amending legislation, theGovernment is now attempting to bring before the House a series of changes that willensure that when the references are sent to the Local Government Commissioner, hewill be very clear about the decision of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review, the Cabinet’s decision and the references that I send to him, aswell as what the Government wants him to look at.


Let me cite as an illustration a very simple matter such as boundary changesbetween Logan City and Brisbane City. The parliamentary committee made arecommendation which was sent in the first instance to Mr Hoffman. When heconsidered it, he found that it was not very clear. The Government has since given him afurther reference which clearly states exactly what we want to look at, but as soon as hestarts to examine minor boundary changes, the particular local authorities concernedand individuals want to bring new matters before the Local Government Commissionerfor his consideration. This means that if we had a reference that was wide and notconfined to a specific matter, a report could come back to this Parliamentrecommending things that the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview, EARC, the Cabinet, the Government and probably not even the Opposition hadconsidered, and that is not what we want. We want the matters referred to the LocalGovernment Commissioner to be very specific so that he can examine matters that arerecommended by the parliamentary committee. I would like to see those matters off thetable and out of my hair—the little bit that I have—as quickly as possible.

During the debate, a matter was raised which caused me to interject at the time. Iwould now like to answer it because it was suggested that I, as Minister, had imposedtime constraints on the Local Government Commissioner. That is totally not true. At theend of last year, I had a meeting with Greg Hoffman in relation to the references that hewill receive. He gave me a proposed timetable that he had prepared. I looked at that andsaid, “Thank you.” That is the only time that Mr Hoffman and I have mentioned any timesin relation to any of the references—I emphasise “the only time”. On 10 March 1993, theIpswich Advertiser published a letter from Greg Hoffman which was in response to anarticle by Councillor Nugent and which stated—

“The State Government has not, and cannot, set goals for this office.Under the legislation that established it, this office is independent from the

State Government. It determines its own goals, timetables and schedules.

I believe this office is competent to do so and has no unrealistic goals.Its legislative responsibility is clear . . . to review Local Government matters

referred to it by the Minister for Local Government.

This office has begun reviews of eight major cases that EARC and PEARCrecommended for boundary change.

Its process is a fair, equitable and open one that encourages extensiveparticipation by councils and the public before making recommendations to theminister on how local communities are best governed in the future.

This office will review all options including amalgamation, boundary change,joint arrangements and a combination of these before making reports to theminister.”

The legislation will allow those references, which Mr Hoffman is aware that he willreceive, to go to him. There will not be any other references at this stage, in the nearfuture or in the very distant future coming from me in relation to any other amalgamationor boundary changes.

The member for Gregory and the member for Mooloolah raised the issue ofamalgamations in their electorates. In the case of the member for Gregory, I do notbelieve that any amalgamations are proposed or recommended by PEARC or evenEARC. In relation to the member for Mooloolah—there is no thought of anyamalgamations within his electorate. One minor boundary change is proposed betweenthe Maroochy Shire Council and the Noosa Shire Council, and that is at PeregianBeach. It is not an amalgamation of those councils. To try to raise those matters now iswrong. The Government has absolutely no intention of recommending anyamalgamations of that sort to the Local Government Commissioner. Under the Act nowand under the Act after it is amended today, the Local Government Commissioner hasno power to start to look at amalgamations unless he has a specific reference from me as


the Minister for Local Government. Those matters that have been raised are not on thetable. The Government has no intention of having them on the table. I can assurehonourable members that they will not be on the table.

I want the matters that came from the parliamentary committee to be sorted out asquickly as possible. It is up to the Local Government Commissioner now to decide howquickly that is done. I would like the matters to be finished and off my plate tomorrow,because whenever I go somewhere in this State that is the subject of some form ofrecommendation from PEARC to talk about the great job that the State Government isdoing in housing, in providing apprenticeships or in planning, the very first question thatis asked of me by the journalists is, “Mr Minister, what is happening about theamalgamation or the joining of our shire councils?” I have not been prepared to offer anyprophecy on what will happen, and I do not intend to. Although I always comment onanything that journalists ask me to comment on—even if it is only to say “Nocomment”—I certainly will not give them any views on what should happen in particularregions. It is up to the Local Government Commissioner to talk to the local people andto give me his views so that the Government can then make its decision on that.

In relation to some other matters that were raised—I would like to read intoHansard a response that the Government received from Mr Hoffman after our LocalGovernment Department talked to him about the proposed amendments. It must beremembered that the Government consulted with Mr Hoffman about the amendments. Istated that in my second-reading speech. The Government invited Mr Hoffman to beinvolved by being an observer at a meeting between the Local Government Departmentand the parliamentary draftsmen when they were drawing up the amendments that werenecessary. It is very important that the Government gets it right this time, because theGovernment wants to get the job done. This is what Mr Hoffman had to say—

“The need for amendments to the Act proposed by this Bill have arisen froman opinion of the Solicitor-General on 11th December, 1992, in which it was statedthat the Act should be amended to make it incontestable that referrable matters canencompass specific proposals relating to a matter or, simply, a matter in general.

I have been advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the draft Bill achievesthat objective. In my opinion also that objective has been achieved. The draft Billprovides sufficient scope and flexibility to construct the references in generaland/or specific terms to cover the possible range of matters that could be referred.

Earlier drafts had contained sub-sections proposing ‘limits’, ‘instructions’ and‘directions’ could be imposed on the Local Government Commissioner in areference. Whilst seeking to achieve a solution to the problems identified in theopinion, such words could easily create the impression of a desire to imposerestrictions contrary to the independent role of the Commissioner. This impressioncould prejudice the successful operation of the Office of Local GovernmentCommissioner with the community and Councils believing the Commissioner’sindependence had been eroded and the issues involved would not be consideredon their merits. Once the reference was given to the Commissioner, the originalAct envisaged the Commissioner undertaking investigations and preparing a reportand recommendations in an independent manner provided any prescribedprinciples and criteria were complied with. These principles and criteria provide theopportunity for Government policy and requirements to be identified andadditional provisions were not necessary to specify such matters. Consequently,they have not been included in the current draft.

The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the current draft of the Billprovides for the necessary scope and flexibility recommended by the Solicitor-General in the construction of the references and does not impinge upon theintended independence of the Local Government Commissioner in dealing with thereference after its receipt. On this basis, I express no objection to the current draftof the Bill.”

I table that document. Members of the Opposition are quite welcome to look at it.


The other matter that was raised by a number of speakers was that of the Governorin Council being able to make regulations and whether the Government is inserting intothe legislation a Henry VIII clause. I do not believe that we are in any way inserting aHenry VIII clause. A Henry VIII clause allows the Governor in Council, by regulation, toactually change the meaning of the Act. That is not what we are doing by allowing thisregulatory power under this Act.

Under the original Act, which was agreed to by the Opposition, the LocalGovernment Minister had the ability to refer any other matter to the Local GovernmentCommissioner. The situation that exists under this legislation is that whilst “any othermatter” is still there, we are providing a series of instances that can be referred,specifying what they are, and allowing regulations to actually specify the matters so thatwe do not get caught up in a court case in relation to what some of these things mean. Iwill say more about this when Mrs McCauley moves her amendment during theCommittee stage, because it is important that we understand the problems that weourselves can get into if we try to limit the legislation by allowing “any other matter” toremain, and to work under that handicap.

That is the problem that we got into when we tried to have the Solicitor-Generalgo through draft references to ensure that they were written in a proper legal manner sothat there would be no problems with them in the future. I repeat what I said earlier,namely, that I want this matter to be completed so that not just the Government has itoff its plate but so that the local authorities in the relevant areas know where they aregoing. I am sure that all of them would have very fixed views on what they would like tosee happen, whether it is to amalgamate or to join some particular areas, or whether it isto leave things as they are, or whether it is to have joint arrangements. They all havefixed views. I am certain that all of them would like to have the matter off their plate.That is what I would like as well. I sent the references to the Solicitor-General to ensurethat we would not have problems with them.

The member for Gympie claimed that I had a lot of influence on what is happening.That is implying that in some way I am influencing the Local Government Commissioner.That is totally untrue.

Mr Stephan: You must set some guidelines for him.Mr MACKENROTH: The guidelines are set by legislation. As I said before, Greg

Hoffman himself, in a letter to the editor of the newspaper, said—

“Under the legislation . . . this office is independent from the StateGovernment. It determines its own goals, timetables and schedules.”

So we are not setting——Mr Stephan: You have got guidelines.

Mr MACKENROTH: We do not have an influence on what is happening otherthan the actual reference that we send to him. The references were set out in thesubmission to the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. Thatcommittee made a recommendation that certain local authorities be amalgamated or thatjoint arrangements be worked out.

Mr Stephan: Why are some local authorities saying that they are going to haveelections by the middle of the year?

Mr MACKENROTH: That is not something that I have said. I have not said that.The inference in relation to an election by the middle of this year would only be relevantif there was an amalgamation between Widgee and Gympie—is that right?

Mr Stephan: Yes.Mr MACKENROTH: That proposition was put up by the Widgee and Gympie

councils, not by the Government. The Gympie and Widgee councils decided that theywould like to amalgamate, but if they do amalgamate, they want to have an election bythe middle of this year and they want the amalgamated council to start operating from 1


July this year. I will give to the Local Government Commissioner a reference to considerthe amalgamation of the Gympie and Widgee councils. It will be up to him to considersuch an amalgamation. The Gympie and Widgee councils will, I imagine, put to him theproposition that they would like to have an election by the middle of this year. They willput that to him, not to me. He will then report back to me as the Local GovernmentMinister. The Governor in Council will then consider that report. If in that report there isa recommendation that an election be held by a certain time or on a certain date, and theGovernor in Council accepts that recommendation, it would then be held. But it is not adecision that we can influence. In fact, it will be more a matter of the councils having aninfluence on the Local Government Commissioner than influencing him. I think thehonourable member needs to really understand that.

The honourable member for Burdekin raised the point about people having toaccept different types of representation, and I guess that he was speaking about thelegislation that was passed in the past year to allow for 10 per cent and 20 per centtolerances. He said that in some areas there will be seven elected representatives in thecity and three outside the city. He said that that could not be done on an uncontestedbasis because someone could not represent both areas. I put to him the proposition thatin fact in his electorate he has more than one centre and that he represents all of thepeople in his electorate. If I am right, I think the member for Cook has something like 50different centres in his electorate, and he represents each and every one of thosecentres. I am sure that he would tell the House that he represents each and every one ofthem equally.

Mr Stoneman: But it is very difficult for him.Mr MACKENROTH: Certainly, it is difficult, but that is a fact of life. In relation to a

local authority, the member for Burdekin cannot put forward the proposition that aperson cannot represent two different areas within one shire yet have me believe that hecan represent two different areas in his electorate equally well. That is what thehonourable member attempted to put forward. If he can represent two different centresin his electorate equally well, I believe that a shire councillor can in the same mannerrepresent the town and the country. I thank all members for their contributions to thedebate. Tomorrow, when the amendments are discussed, I will certainly have furtherthings to say. The Government is certainly committed to the recommendations of theparliamentary committee—to see them through, not to see them implemented. TheGovernment will see them through with the process that it put in place. That process isto have an independent person look at the proposals and ensure that he puts to theGovernment recommendations that it can consider.

Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.

Hansard 18 MARCH 1993 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Documents

Transcript of Hansard 18 MARCH 1993 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au