Legislative Assembly TUESDAY FEBRUARY

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

QUEENSLAND

Parliamentary Debates [HANSARD]

lEegtsIattue Assembly

FIRST SESSION OF THE FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT

Appointed to moot

AT BRISBANE ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, IN THE THIRTY-SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1987

TUESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 1987

OPENING OF PARLIAMENT Pursuant to the Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor, dated 29 January

1987, appointing Parliament to meet this day for the dispatch of business, the House met at 11 a.m. in the Legislative Assembly Chamber.

The Clerk read the Proclamation.

COMMISSION TO OPEN PARLIAMENT The Clerk acquainted the House that His Excellency the Governor, not being able

conveniently to be present in person this day, had been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the public seal of the State, appointing the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Honourable William Angus Manson Gunn and the Honourable Russell James Hinze, Commissioners in order to the opening and holding of this session of Parliament.

74590—1

17 February 1987 Return of Writs

The Commissioners so appointed being seated on the dais, and the Clerk having read the Commission—

THE SENIOR (;:OMMISSIONER (Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen—Barambah) said: Honourable members, we have it in command from His Excellency the Governor to let you know that as soon as the members of the Legislative Assembly have been sworn, the causes of this Parliament being called together will be declared to you: And it being necessary that a Speaker be first chosen, it is His Excellency's pleasure that you proceed to the election of one of your number to be your Speaker, and that you present such person so chosen to His Excellency the Governor, at such time and place as His Excellency shall appoint.

The Premier and Treasurer thereupon produced a Commission under the public seal of the State empowering him, the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Honourable William Angus Manson Gunn and the Honourable Russell James Hinze, or any one or more of them, to administer to all or any members or member of the House the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, which Commission was then read to the House by the Clerk.

RETURN OF WRITS The Clerk informed the House that the writs for the various electoral districts had

been returned to him, severally endorsed as follows—

"Caboolture: "Albert: "Ivan James Gibbs

"Archerfleld: "Heinrich Palaszczuk

"Ashgrove: "Alan Frederick Sherlock

"Aspley: "Beryce Ann Nelson

"Auburn: "Neville John Harper

"Balonne: "Donald McConnell Neal

"Barambah: "Johannes Bjelke-Petersen

"Barron River: "Martin James Tenni

"Bowen: "Kenneth William Smyth

"Brisbane Central: "Brian John Davis

"Broadsound: "Denis Grenville Hinton

"Bulimba: "Ronald Thomas McLean

"Bundaberg: "Clement Bernard Campbell

"Burdekin: "Mark David Stoneman

"Burnett: "Douglas John Slack

"Kenneth William Hayward "Cairns:

"Keith Ernest De Lacy "Callide:

"Diane Elizabeth McCauley "Carnarvon:

"Peter Richard McKechnie "Chatsworth:

"Terence Michael Mackenroth "Condamine:

"Brian George Littleproud "Cook:

"Robert William Scott "Cooroora:

"Gordon Leslie Simpson "Cunningham:

"Jannion Anthony ElUott "Currumbin:

"Leo Francis Gately "Everton:

"Glen Richard Milliner "Fassifern:

"Kevin Rowson Lingard "Flinders:

"Robert Carl Katter "Glass House:

"Lyle Edward Newton "Greenslopes:

"Leisha Teresa Harvey

Return of Writs 17 February 1987

"Gregory: "William Hamline Glasson

"Gympie: "Leonard William Stephan

"Hinchinbrook: "Edward Charles Row

"Ipswich: "David John Hamill

"Ipswich West: "David Francis Underwood

"Isis: "Lionel William Powell

"Landsborough: "Michael John Ahem

"Lockyer "Andrew Anthony FitzGerald

"Logan: "Wayne Keith Goss

"Lytton: "Thomas James Bums

"Mackay: "Edmund Denis Casey

"Manly: "Eric Frank Shaw

"Mansfleld: "Craig Arden Sherrin

"Maryborough: "Gilbert Alison

"Merthyr: "Donald Frederick Lane

"Mirani: "James Henry Randell

"Moggill: "William Daniel Lickiss

"Mount Coot-tha: "Lyle Thomas Schuntner

"Mount Gravatt: "Ian Thomas Henderson

"Mount Isa: "Peter Francis Beard

"Mourilyan: "Andrew George Eaton

"Mulgrave: "Max Richard Menzel

"Murmmba: "Deane McMillan Wells

"Nerang: "Thomas Simpson Hynd

"Nicklin: "Brian Douglas Austin

"Nudgee: "Kenneth Hamilton Vaughan

"Nundah: "William Edward Knox

"Peak Downs: "Vincent Patrick Lester

"Pine Rivers: "Yvonne Ann Chapman

"Port Curtis: "William George Prest

"Redcliffe: "Terence Anthony White

"Redlands: "Paul John Clauson

"Rockhampton: "Paul Joseph Braddy

"Rockhampton North: "Leslie John Yewdale

"Roma: "Theo Russell Cooper

"Salisbury: "Leonard Arthur Ardill

"Sandgate: "Neville George Warburton

"Sherwood: "John Angus Mackenzie Innes

"Somerset: "William Angus Manson Gunn

"South Brisbane: "Anne Marie Warner

"South Coast: "Russell James Hinze

"Southport: "Douglas Bemard Jennings

"Springwood: "Huan Donald John Eraser

"Stafford: "Terence Joseph Gygar

"Surfers Paradise: "Robert Edward Borbidge

"Tablelands: "Thomas John George Gilmore

"Thuringowa: "Kenneth Victor McElligott

"Toowong: "Denver Edward Beanland

"Toowoomba North: "Alexander Carpendale McPhie

"Toowoomba South: "Clive John Berghofer

17 February 1987 Members Sworn

'Townsville: "Tony Anthpny Burreket

'Townsville East: "Geoffrey Norman Smith

'Warrego: "Howard William Thomas Hobbs

'Warwick: "Desmond James Booth

"Whitsunday: "Geoffrey Hugh Muntz

"Windsor: "Patrick Comben

"Wolston: "Robert James Gibbs

"Woodridge: "William Theodore D'Arcy

"Yeronga: "Norman Edward Lee"

MEMBERS SWORN The Commissioners, who with other members of the Ministry had been swom in

before His Excellency on 11 and 17 Febmary 1987 and subscribed the roll, then administered the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the following other members, who thereupon also subscribed the roll—

Alison, Gilbert, Esquire Ardill, Leonard Arthur, Esquire Beanland, Denver Edward, Esquire Beard, Peter Francis, Esquire Berghofer, Clive John, Esquire Booth, Desmond James, Esquire Borbidge, Robert Edward, Esquire Braddy, Paul Joseph, Esquire Bums, Thomas James, Esquire Burreket, Tony Anthony, Esquire Campbell, Clement Bernard, Esquire Casey, Edmund Denis, Esquire Comben, Patrick, Esquire Cooper, Theo Russell, Esquire D'Arcy, William Theodore, Esquire Davis, Brian John, Esquire De Lacy, Keith Emest, Esquire Eaton, Andrew George, Esquire Elliott, Jannion Anthony, Esquire FitzGerald, Andrew Anthony, Esquire Eraser, Huan Donald John, Esquire Gately, Leo Francis, Esquire Gibbs, Robert James, Esquire Gilmore, Thomas John George, Esquire Goss, Wayne Keith, Esquire Gygar, Terence Joseph, Esquire Hamill, David John, Esquire Harvey, Mrs Leisha Teresa Hayward, Kenneth William, Esquire Henderson, Ian Thomas, Esquire

Election of Speaker 17 February 1987 5

Hinton, Denis Grenville, Esquire Hobbs, Howard William Thomas, Esquire Hynd, Thomas Simpson, Esquire Innes, John Angus Mackenzie, Esquire Jennings, Douglas Bemard, Esquire Knox, Sir William Edward, The Honourable Lee, Norman Edward, The Honourable Lickiss, William Daniel, The Honourable Lingard, Kevin Rowson, Esquire Littleproud, Brian George, Esquire McCauley, Mrs Diane Elizabeth McElligott, Kenneth Victor, Esquire Mackenroth, Terence Michael, Esquire McLean, Ronald Thomas, Esquire McPhie, Alexander Carpendale, Esquire Menzel, Max Richard, Esquire MiUiner, Glen Richard, Esquire Nelson, Mrs Beryce Ann Newton, Lyell Edward, Esquire Palaszczuk, Heinrich, Esquire Prest, William George, Esquire Randell, James Henry, Esquire Row, Edward Charles, Esquire Schuntner, Lyle Thomas, Esquire Scott, Robert William, Esquire Shaw, Eric Frank, Esquire Sherlock, Alan Frederick, Esquire Sherrin, Craig Arden, Esquire Simpson, Gordon Leslie, Esquire Slack, Douglas John, Esquire Smith, Geoffrey Norman, Esquire Smyth, Kenneth William, Esquire Stephan, Leonard William, Esquire Stoneman, Mark David, Esquire Underwood, David Francis, Esquire Vaughan, Kenneth Hamilton, Esquire Warburton, Neville George, Esquire Warner, Ms Anne Marie Wells, Deane McMillan, Esquire White, Terence Anthony, Esquire Yewdale, Leslie John, Esquire

ELECTION OF SPEAKER Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.50

a.m.): I move— "That Mr Kevin Rowson Lingard do take the chair of the House as Speaker."

6 17 February 1987 Election of Speaker

As honourable members know, it is necessary for one of our number to be elected as Speaker of the House. The person that we, the members of the Legislative Asseinbly, select as our Speaker must have considerable ability. He is required to have an exceptional knowledge of pariiamentary procedures. He must have proven administrative capabilities, because he is required not only to preside over the sittings of the House but also to exercise control over the entire parliamentary complex.

In moving the nomination of the member for Fassifem as Speaker of the House, let me say that I believe that Mr Lingard has all the qualities needed to fill this most important office.

The member for Fassifem was elected to this Parliament in October 1983, after a very distinguished career in the field of education, a career which in 1974 saw him become, at the age of 31 years, the youngest person ever appointed as a high school principal in Queensland. His academic achievements include the attainment of the degrees of Bachelor of Educational Studies, Bachelor of Arts and Associate of Education, majoring in history and poUtical studies.

I am confident that, as a result of the parliamentary experience he has gained since his election to the House in 1983, the member for Fassifem will carry out the duties of Speaker extremely well.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to move that Kevin Rowson Lingard take the chair as Speaker of the House.

Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (11.52 a.m.): I have great pleasure in seconding the nomination by the Premier of the member for Fassifem, Mr Kevin Lingard, as Speaker of this ParUament.

The role of Speaker is one of the most important and challenging tasks that have to be undertaken in Parliament. Queensland is fortunate in that it has been well served by Speakers throughout the history of the Queensland Parliament. I am sure that the member for Fassifem will maintain and enhance that record. I commend his nomination to all honourable members.

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (11.53 a.m.): All honourable members are aware that the principal purpose of today's meeting of the Legislative Assembly, which is the first since last year's State election, is to elect a new Speaker of the Queensland Parliament.

The new Speaker, whoever he may be, should be made fully aware of how difficult the job will be as a result of recent events. I want to canvass those events.

Mr Simpson: No!

Mr WARBURTON: Whoever the Speaker is, it can already be seen that the basic problem in this Chamber is the contempt that the Ministers have for the Parliament of Queensland. That will probably be seen more and more as I go on.

In view of recent events, perhaps it would be much more appropriate if today's ballot was for the position of Premier of Queensland rather than the position of Speaker.

Government members interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: It is tme. Even before counting was finished in the 1986 State election, the Premier was making noises about his plans to head a new conservative political party. Now, a few short months later—only three months later, to be precise— the Premier has officially declared his intention to resign and contest the forthcoming Federal election.

The Premier has virtually abdicated his job as Premier of Queensland. That is why I now say that he was elected under false pretences and that he should step aside in the interests of good govemment. I see that the Minister for Health and Environment, Mr Ahem, is nodding his head vigorously.


At the moment, Queensland really has an absentee Premier. Queensland has a Premier in name only, because after presenting himself to the voters of this State for re-election as the leader of the Queensland Govemment, the Premier is now abandoning his job.

I challenge anyone to dispute that three months ago the Premier deUberately deceived the Queensland electors in regard to his political intentions. There is an admission on record that the actions he is taking now were planned in mid-1986. Not a day passes without Queensland's hearing about the latest instalment in Premier Bjelke-Petersen's escapades in the Federal political arena. This is the same man who late last year asked Queensland voters to elect him to the esteemed position of Premier of this State. Now he is saying, "I'm giving up that job. Elect me as the Prime Minister of Australia."

For the Premier's benefit, because he seems to be having difficulty in coming to grasp with reality, I repeat that he has to be elected before entering the Federal Pariiament. If he were honest about this, he would step aside and definitely divorce himself from the facilities that are now available to him as the head of this State. The last thing that Queensland can afford to have is a part-time Premier.

Mr Lane interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: The honourable member for Merthyr is the last person in this House who should be interjecting. If he wants to interject, I will have to respond accordingly, but he should be the last person to do so.

Mr Lane: Why?

Mr WARBURTON: You are a political scab, aren't you?

The last thing that Queensland can afford to have is a part-time Premier who wants to use or, more precisely, abuse his office in order to advance his own personal political career.

At the moment the problems confronting this State—and the Speaker, whoever he may be, will have to take them on board—are that Queensland has the worst record of unemployment in any of the mainland State in the nation; that there is wanton neglect

Mr Hinze: Save it for next week.

Mr WARBURTON: No, I am saying it now. It is important that this be said now.

Contrary to what the Premier is saying, Queensland has suffered from wanton neglect of its manufacturing industry, massive increases in State taxes and charges and woefully inadequate State Govemment services.

If the truth be known, the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment is an albatross around Queenslanders' necks. The Govemment's record of economic management is a saga of incompetence, cronyism and neglect. Instead of applying himself to sorting out the mess that he has created or has assisted in creating in Queensland, the Premier wishes to inflict himself full-time upon the rest of Australia. Nobody is stopping the Premier.

Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: Why are you so worried?

Mr WARBURTON: If the Premier, in his poUtical dotage, wants to audition as a modem-day Don Quixote, he may do so—it is a free country—but he should do it in his own time, and at his own expense.

The Premier is for ever saying that Govemments are elected to govem. Surely Govemment leaders are elected to lead Govemments, not to say, "See you later. I'm off to Canberra." That is precisely the position that exists in Queensland. More and more, Queensland will have an absentee Premier and, therefore, a mdderless Govemment. Whoever is elected as Speaker in this House will have to contend with the problems that that is causing and will continue to cause in the future.


As far as I am concemed the Premier can destabilise the Federal National Party and the coalition to his heart's content, but why should he be aUowed to destabilise and dismpt the mnning of govemment in Queensland? At this stage the Queensland Govemment is not working. Queensland has what I regard as a lame-duck Premier and a lame-duck Govemment. The National Party Govemment is being sucked along in the slip-stream of the Premier's exploits, in which he is attempting to manufacture his own second coming, this time on the national stage.

The people are saying that, at present, State Govemment business has ground to a halt. I ask National Party back-benchers: are your Ministers doing the job you require?

Government ipembers: Yes!

Mr WARBURTON: That is what I would expect them to say. However, Govemment Ministers are not; they are more interested in the Premier's job. They are not working at the moment; they are posturing. There is absolute silence from the Govemment because of the Premier's antics in telUng us about how the Govemment will get our State back on its economic feet.

I say to the face of Queensland National Party members that if they were not so gutless, they would instaU a new leader—one who would be a Premier genuinely prepared to work for Queensland instead of working for his own personal advancement. The Premier has constantly demanded absolute loyalty to himself; however, he has not shown loyalty to the National Party. And that is a surprise to me. He has ceaselessly attacked his Federal National Party Leader, Mr Sinclair. Mr Sinclair's National Party coUeagues, like their Queensland counterparts, are too gutless to do anything about it. Because of the Premier's actions, his party's credibility has been chopped to pieces. Yesterday, honourable members would have read Mr Sinclair's comments about how he regarded the Premier as a closet Labor Party supporter. That comment was made by the Federal National Party Leader, Mr Sinclair, and it was made in response to the Premier's gibe that Mr Sinclair was half Liberal, saying, in effect, that he could not lead a choko vine over a bamyard wall. By nightfall. Federal National Party members had left their leader in the lurch, preferring instead to encourage Queensland's Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to come down south. Apparently the sheep of the National Party in Canberra are keen to invite the further attentions of this marauding wolf

As late as this moming, the Chief Minister of the Northem Territory, Mr Hatton

Mr Gunn: Didn't he panic?

Mr WARBURTON: Is he not a Country Party member? He is the leader of the Country Party/Liberal Party coalition in the Northem Territory. As late as this moming, on radio, he referred to the Premier as a 76-year-old rookie Messiah. However, that is the National Party's business.

The Speaker who is elected today will take over the control of this Chamber and, hopefully, do a good job. He has to be concemed, too. If the Premier uses public funds to finance his switch to Federal politics, that will be of concem to me, and it should be a matter of concem to all members of this Parliament. The Premier draws a substantial salary that is close to $100,000 a year for being Premier of our State. Members of the National Party put him in that position to do that job and to lead them. Instead of doing the job for which Queensland tax-payers are paying him, and the job to which National Party members elected him, he has set himself up as a de facto leader of the Federal Opposition. He jaunts around Australia in the Queensland Govemment's jet as if it were his own personal aircraft. The entire resources of the Govemment at the Premier's disposal, which are all paid for out of the public purse, will be hitched and hamessed to fund his Federal election campaign. If they are not, I will be happy to apologise to the Premier. However, I believe that State Govemment resources will be used for that purpose.


I suggest that State Cabinet will do nothing to curb the misuse of public funds. It wiU ignore its unquestioned obligation to set down guide-lines covering the use of the State Govemment jet and other publicly funded facilities for partisan political business.

So long as the National Party Govemment refuses to set up a pubhc accounts committee, this ParUament wiU remain powerless to question the Premier's squandering of tax-payers' money to fuel his own personal political ambitions.

I do not know whether the Auditor-General is questioning the Premier's spending on items such as the use of the State Govemment jet to launch the Premier's Federal political career. I have written to the Auditor-General on several occasions in relation to that question. However, I beUeve that, if the Auditor-General were to see fit to investigate spending of that nature, he would, before reporting to this Parliament on his inquiries, first have to raise the matter with the Treasurer—who, in this case, also happens to be the Premier.

At least there has been one bonus from the Premier's excursion into the affairs of the Federal Opposition parties. The Premier's publicly funded campaign of self-promotion has resulted in his being exposed as a sham and a fraud. For years the Premier has touted himself as the champion of smaU govemment, lower taxes and the free-enterprise system. However, at the same time, the Labor Party in Queensland has continued to expose the Premier's claims as being highly fraudulent.

Some of the Premier's Federal National Party colleagues have woken up to what honourable members in Queensland have known all along. Last week, the Federal Liberal leader, Mr John Howard, stated that the Premier's claims in relation to small govemment did not match his actions. At that time Mr Howard described the Premier as a "big-spending, high-taxing man". That statement was made by the man who wants to become the Prime Minister of Australia—Mr John Howard. Quite correctly, Mr Howard stated that the level of State taxes in Queensland was very high.

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: I am talking about what Mr Howard said when he referred to the level of State taxes in Queensland as being very high. He referred particularly to hidden taxes such as rail freights and other State Govemment charges.

Last night on television, the Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal Party, Mr Brown, spoke about the appalling record of the Queensland Govemment in its assistance to private enterprise, in its high-taxing policies and in its general cargo-cult mentality.

The Federal Liberal Party is not the only party to condemn the Premier's track record. Last week, the leading light of the New Right, Mr Andrew Hay, made similar comments in relation to the Premier's track record. Mr Hay pointed out that the Queensland Govemment was not the protector and promoter of free enterprise that it claims to be. He also stated that the Premier had a long record of Govemment intervention in business in Queensland.

Not so long ago both Mr Howard and Mr Hay held up the Premier as a Uving example of their particular brand of political philosophy. The most recent falling-out of three prominent supporters of the New Right philosophies highlights two things: firstly, honourable members cannot tmst the New Right, and that is for certain; secondly, honourable members cannot believe the Premier's publicly funded propaganda.

I sincerely beUeve that the Premier has made a rod for his own back by attempting to thmst himself upon the Federal political stage. I can understand why the Minister for Transport, Mr Lane, and the Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for the Arts, Mr Austin, pleaded yesterday with the Premier to stay in Queensland. Day by day the Premier's lack of workable policies, his dismal record of economic management in Queensland, and his selfish and destmctive political philosophies are exposed further.

I have made those comments because I believe that whoever is elected as Speaker in this House today will have to contend with the instability that the ambitions of the Premier have caused.


I retum now to the task at hand, the election of a new Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland. It is tremendously important to note a section of Erskine May's publication on parliamentary practice, which states—

"The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority"—

and honourable members have heard something about that in respect of the National Party's candidate for Speaker, Mr Lingard—

"and impartiaUty." It says also—

"Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispeiisible condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiaUty of the Speaker but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized."

Unfortunately, those two chief characteristics of the office of Speaker have been in short supply for some time in Queensland. The two quaUties, authority and impartiality, go hand in hand in equal measure. There is far more to discharging the role and duties of Speaker than merely exerting the authority of that position. Above all else, the person occupying the position of Speaker must bring impartiality to the job. In that way a Speaker wiU exert his or her authority correctly and fairly.

It was not long ago that a National Party member, whom many honourable members would recall—as far as I am concemed, it is a matter of no names, no pack-drill—who, unfortunately, at a media interview subsequent to his election to the high office of Speaker of the Queensland Parliament, declared that he saw his role as being one to reflect the wishes of the Govemment of the day. Needless to say, that Speaker had difficulty in trying to reconcile that opinion with the tradition of independence and impartiality attaching to the position.

The parliamentary Labor Party has no indication at this stage that the National Party Govemment's attitude to the Parliament of Queensland has changed since the last election.

The parliamentary Labor Party has no grounds for believing that the Govemment will allow its choice of Speaker to fiU that position without interference.

The National Party may well have a majority of representatives in the House, but the Labor Opposition does not believe that that is any reason to vote in favour of its nominee in the election for the position of Speaker. To the contrary, the National Party's track record and the absence of any indication, let alone firm commitment, to restoring the Speaker's position to one free from political intmsion give the Labor Party very much cause for concem.

In this election, the Labor Party will support a member of Parliament who it believes will serve in the position of Speaker with great distinction. He is Mr Bill Prest, the member for Port Curtis, the Leader of Opposition Business in the House.

As I indicated, the Labor Party is used to the way in which the Ministers create problems in the House. Actually, the National Party back-benchers are quite reasonable.

Mr Lane interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: I refer particularly to Ministers such as the loud-mouthed gentleman on the Govemment side of the House in the cream coat.

Mr Prest has been a member of Parliament for the last 11 years and he will bring a great depth of knowledge and experience to the position of Speaker. Members of the Opposition believe that Mr Prest is eminently qualified for the position of Speaker, and certainly far better qualified than the National Party nominee.


Mr Bill Prest has served with distinction as the Mayor of the city of Gladstone. He has demonstrated that he has an outstanding knowledge of Standing Orders, which is more than I can say for many members on the Govemment side of the House.

The Opposition sincerely beUeves that the honourable member for Port Curtis, Mr Prest, would bring respect to the high office of Speaker, which is why I have nominated him.

Govemment members interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: I am about to talk about the Govemment's nominee, so Govemment members had better keep quiet.

The honourable member for Fassifem, Mr Lingard, may claim to have suitable credentials for the job; but as has been said openly around the corridors by some National Party aspirants, the member for Fassifem has not even served on the panel of Temporary Chairmen, let alone ever graced the chair to my right. National Party members who have gained considerable experience either at the centre table or in the chair to my right have been by-passed in favour of an absolute novice.

The Opposition accepts that in all Ukelihood, because of their superior numbers in the House, National Party members will succeed in electing the honourable member for Fassifem as the new Speaker. That acceptance in no way diminishes the conviction held by the parliamentary Labor Party that its nominee, the honourable member for Port Curtis, Mr Prest, deserves election.

Whatever the outcome may be, once again the Labor Party will affirm its unqualified support for the role of Speaker as the chief presiding officer of this Assembly. Respect and support for the person who occupies the Speaker's chair will rest on the authority and impartiality he brings to the position. Certainly, the abiUty to exert authority is part of what being a successful and respected Speaker is all about. The tme test of the calibre of the new Speaker will be whether the imposition of authority is matched by the application of impartiality. In order to pass that test, the new Speaker will need to adopt a vastly different approach from that adopted in recent years.

It is of paramount importance that the Speaker not be subjected to overt poUtical pressures. The worst offender is the gentleman who sits opposite me, the Premier and Treasurer, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Although he is, by far, the longest-serving member in the House, I have to say that it appears that he knows least of all about Standing Orders. One would think that the Premier and Treasurer, after 40 years in this Assembly, would be an unrivalled authority on Standing Orders and their appUcation, yet he acts as though they do not exist. In this House the Premier and Treasurer sometimes acts as though he is a law unto himself

As leader of the Govemment of the day, the role in the House of the Premier and Treasurer is of tremendous importance. In spite of that, how many times have honourable members seen the Premier and Treasurer either trying to usurp the position of Speaker or ignoring it altogether? The Premier and Treasurer thinks that the Speaker, being a member of the National Party, is in some way in that position to do the bidding of the Premier and Treasurer. That is very unfortunate indeed.

A number of matters, such as what usually occurs during question-time, need to be canvassed. I urge the Speaker, whoever he may be, to insist that Ministers abide by their obUgations under the provisions of Standing Orders and respond to questions in a relevant way. Ministerial responses are a major problem in this Assembly.

Another problem is created because the Premier and Treasurer stupidly aUows Ministers to leave the Chamber to attend Executive Council meetings. If changes are to be made to the way in which the Assembly operates, it is to be hoped that those changes will overcome the absence of Ministers during question-time. Every other Parliament in this country regards the absence of Ministers from the Chamber to attend Executive Council meetings as unthinkable. Queensland has the only Parliament that aUows such a practice.


It would be easy to speak at greater length about the manifold shortcomings of the Queensland Parliament, such as mishandling of legislation, refusal by the Govemment to have notices of motion debated and the absence of a proper committee system. A great deal needs to be done to improve the stature and operation of the Queensland Parliament. The election of an impartial and competent Speaker would go a long way towards achieving that objective.

I direct the following remarks personally to the honourable member for Fassifern, Mr Lingard. I was saddened to note that the honourable member succumbed to media pressure and responded in such a way as to indicate that he believed he was already the Speaker. That is sad. A secret ballot is supposed to be conducted. Perhaps it will now be seen to be farcical when members of the Govemment and Mr Lingard, who is the heir apparent to the position of Speaker, are seen to be making comments. An article appeared in the newspaper for the Fassifem area that Mr Lingard was suggesting the way in which he would conduct question-time. I bring that to the attention of honourable members because, if that is to be the way things are done in the future, what we are about to do—have a secret ballot—is tmly a farce. It may be that that is one aspect that needs to be looked at in the future.

As I have said, the Premier's behaviour in this place needs to be curbed, as does the behaviour of the Ministers. Last week, the Federal Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, labelled the Premier as Queensland's version of Guy Fawkes. I thought that that was rather strange. History records that Guy Fawkes was a pyromaniac who set out to destroy Parliament. It will be recalled that Guy Fawkes was apprehended before he could carry out his plot to blow up the House of Commons. Heaven knows what Mr Sinclair actually meant. Our latter-day Guy Fawkes might not be able to be stopped from going crackers, but any attempt to further degrade and devalue the institution of Parliament in our great State must certainly be guarded against.

I therefore formally move— "That Mr William George Prest do take the chair of the House as Speaker."

I commend his nomination to the House.

Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.22 p.m.): I am pleased and proud to second the nomination of Bill Prest for the position of Speaker of the Queensland Parliament. Bill Prest is a strong believer in the principle of a fair go for all. He will bring a fresh, new and fair approach to the mnning of the Queensland Parliament.

As a former Mayor of Gladstone in the days when that city was booming, he will bring a sense of dignity and propriety to the position of Speaker. His years in this House as Leader of Opposition Business in the House have seen Bill sit continuously in this House more than any other back-bench member has done. He knows the Standing Orders, he knows how the House should operate, and he deserves the support of all members.

Before the Opposition considered the important step of nominating a candidate for Speaker, it thought seriously of putting the National Party on tmst by supporting its nominee and asking him to adopt a bipartisan approach, to deal with both sides of this House fairly and impartially. However, the way in which Govemment members have performed this moming demonstrates how foolish the Labor Party was even to think that under the Westminster system the Govemment would agree that the Labor Party has a right to nominate a candidate for the position of Speaker.

The Govemment does not believe that anyone other than the National Party Ministry has a right to make decisions in this place. That is the pity of it all; that is the problem of it all. That is why people do not think much of this Parliament. That is why people look down on parliamentarians in this State. The reason for that is that the Ministers of the Crown in this State treat the Parliament and the whole process of Parliament very shabbily indeed. The Govemment does not know what Westminster stands for. It thinks it is a carpet, and it treats the Parliament like a doormat.


Make no bones about it; the Labor Party is going to demand its rights in this House—the rights of an Opposition. The first right is to be able to nominate its own candidate if it wishes, in an effort to try to have as Speaker someone who is independent and who is not a lackey, as some previous Speakers were.

Before the Opposition thought of putting forward its own nominee, it considered giving the Govemment a go, putting it on tmst.

Mrs Chapman interjected.

Mr BURNS: The honourable member for Pine Rivers would not know what "tmst" means. She could not spell it. She thinks it is a thing a bloke puts between his legs.

The Opposition decided it would look for a Speaker who would deal impartially with both sides of the House. If there was the slightest glimmer of hope of a fair go for all members—and 1 stress "all members"—that is what could happen.

National Party back-benchers have told many members of the parliamentary Labor Party that the Premier has laid his hands on the National Party nominee because he will "stop the Opposition". The National Party has nominated Mr Lingard because he is a headmaster who will be tough and who will use the cane. Apparently we will all be treated as schoolkids, and Mr Lingard has been nominated for the position because he will be tough and pull us into line.

Under those circumstances, any support for the National Party nominee as an independent, impartial Speaker would be a mistake. If the House does not vote for the nominee of the Labor Party, the Opposition can only put the new Speaker on trial and wait to see whether he is prepared to stand up to the National Party Ministry and whether he will be prepared, in the tme traditions of the office, to stand up and be independent. If Govemment members use their numbers and elect their nominee, the Opposition will give him a three-month trial to see how he goes. However, my guess is that three months will be far too long for any trial; we will be able to judge him in the first few days.

I will now deal with the very demanding role of Speaker. Many of the people who assumed that office have not been able to stand the pressure of the job, which requires a knowledge of parUamentary procedures and Standing Orders. Members of the Govemment have not been able to convince me that Mr Lingard has that knowledge. Just as important is the ability to interpret the mles impartially. The Speaker is not, and should not be, a servant of the Govemment; he or she should be a servant of the Parliament.

The Speaker is neither judge nor prosecutor. His position should not be used to protect and promote the National Party. His job is to protect each and every member of this House. That is the way the Westminster system should operate. However, under the National Party, it is quite different. The harsh reality is that the National Party, at the personal instmction of the Premier, will not let the Speaker be independent, be fair, interpret the mles impartially or even conduct the affairs of the House and its staff without executive interference and domination.

Who can forget what happened in November 1985 in this place, when the Premier prompted the Speaker by referring to Opposition members and saying, "It's about time some of them left the Chamber, Mr Speaker."?

Can honourable members remember at another time the Premier saying to Mr Akers and others who were on the panel of Temporary Chairmen that they had a hide to interpret the mles fairly and impartially and that if they did so again he would get rid of them and never let them hold that position again? That is an example of National Party impartiality; that is the way the National Party mns the House. The Premier threatened to kick those members off the panel of Temporary Chairmen because they interpreted the mles fairly and in accordance with Standing Orders. The reason the Premier will not read Standing Orders is that he does not want to know the mles, because if he does not know them, he cannot know that he is breaking them.


At that time none of the Ministers of the Govemment objected to any of the Premier's stand-over tactics. None of them rose to say that Mr AJcers had the right to make such a determination. When the Premier was standing over the Speaker and demanding that he throw some Opposition members out of the Chamber, not one of his Ministers said, "Hey, fair go; he is entitled to make his own decisions." A few days after that incident, the Premier and the same members of the National Party refused to support a motion of confidence in the same Speaker. However, today they are pretending that they will elect a man and let him make his own decisions.

I ask the House to think about the times when Opposition members are wamed repeatedly for interjecting, yet Ministers and Govemment members are allowed a free rein. It is about time the House had a Speaker who was prepared not only to be fair but also to be fair dinkum in the application of the mles of debate to all members and not just do the Govemment's dirty work. Unfortunately, that has been the recent history of the job.

I do not have the same qualms as my leader had about naming Sel Muller and mentioning the statement he made shortly after his election to the position of Speaker by members of the National and Liberal Parties. I remind the House that the Liberal Party voted for him, too. Let me quote his words—

"A Speaker is elected to apply the wishes of the Govemment and not as an independent."

They were his words, and he was supported by the member for Nundah, Sir WilUam Knox. Mr Muller said only what we who had sat in the House knew was Liberal and National Party policy of the day. We knew that, as Speaker, Sel Muller would carry out the wishes of the National and Liberal Parties in Govemment. I make no bones about it; Mr Muller was National Party to the bootstraps. He made it clear that his job was to interpret the mles of the House to suit his party bosses. That is why he got the Premier's endorsement. Is that why Mr Lingard has got the endorsement today? Mr Muller is on record in the press as saying—

"I beUeve it should be the Speaker's responsibiUty to interpret the decisions in the manner the Govemment of which he is a member would wish."

He did not say that decisions should be made in accordance with Standing Orders and fairly or impartially; he said "in the manner the Govemment of which he is a member would wish." That is the mle of law for National Party Speakers.

In his local press Mr Lingard has already been reported as saying that, because of the strength of the National Party in Govemment—not in ParUament—he will be elected to the position of Speaker. He has already made it clear that members of the Opposition will be entitled to ask of Ministers only one question a day and that they will have to jump to get the call from him. He has said all of that before honourable members have voted in the election of the Speaker. Honourable members should not believe all the hogwash about the support of members of the National Party for the Westminster parliamentary system.

I wiU always remember the submissions of the Minister for Transport, Mr Don Lane, who was then a Liberal, during that debate for the election of Speaker. The Minister said that the Govemment supported the Westminster system. However, he attacked the conduct of a debate to decide who should hold the position of Speaker, and he did so on the basis that it is a waste of time and money, adding "18 men sitting there who make up the Executive will govem in the tme sense." The Minister was not worried about the right given to all back-bench members under the Westminster system to have a say and to be able to vote for their own Speaker. He said, "It is a waste of time."

The right of all honourable members to elect their own Speaker is the comer-stone of the Westminster parliamentary system that the Liberal and the National Parties pretend to support. The Minister for Transport said that the debate to elect a Speaker


is a waste of time. That is how the Premier and his Ministers view Parliament—as a waste of time.

The Govemment does not want Parliament to sit. It does not want Parliament at all, because it poses a problem for the Govemment. The only time that there is the slightest sign of accountability in Queensland poUtics is when Parliament is in session. The trouble is that the parliamentary set-up is mn by the Executive.

Let us not forget that this is a system that flourished under previous coalition Govemments. Today members of the Liberal Party wiU jump up in their places and spout all sorts of flne-sounding platitudes in dismay at the way in which this Parliament is mn. However, despite their collective tut-tutting, the Liberals cannot escape blame for the low esteem in which this Parliament is held by the Queensland pubUc. During 26 years of partnership with the Nationals, Liberal Ministers treated this Parliament with the same contempt as the National Party Ministers display today.

Honourable members must not faU for the guff and the empty posturing that the Leader of the Liberal Party will carry on with very shortly. When he was in office he aided and abetted in the dilution of the powers of this Parliament and the erosion of public respect for this Parliament.

Control of Parliament passed out of the hands of the members of the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker when the Premier, with the support of the Liberals, amended the Financial Administration and Audit Act of 1978. The Premier gave the flnancial control of Parliament to his own department; in other words, to a bureaucratic group.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, Sir William Knox, was not present in the Chamber at the time, but on 28 November 1978 Mr Newbery stated the following on his behalf—

"First, I wish to indicate my support for the proposal that the Premier should be deemed to be the appropriate Minister in respect of the flnancial administration of the appropriations relating to the Legislative Assembly. (The sound reasoning for that proposal has been explained at some length by the Premier.)"

Unless ParUament can regain that control. Parliament in Queensland wiU continue to deteriorate into a mbber stamp for the Executive. Under Bjelke-Petersen the Executive is completely immune from criticism. The members of the Executive are a sort of "selected of the elected". They are not actually responsible to anybody but themselves and the Premier. They ignore the public and the back-bencher. I once said that the Executive is a Mafla-type administration, and I think that that still holds tme.

Why should we, as parliamentarians, accept the absolute take-over of the day-today affairs of this Parliament by the Ministry? There should be a parliamentary committee to consider the funding and administration of this Parliament. The National Party Ministry does not tmst its own back bench to make decisions. If a vote was cast in the usual manner in this (Chamber, there are sufficient back-bench members on the Govemment side to carry the day. The National Party Govemment is not even prepared to have committee reports debated in this Chamber, because it is afraid that some of its backbench members might think for themselves and might vote against some proposals on the floor of the Chamber.

When the Premier announced his new Speaker to the press, he said that the member for Fassifem, Mr Lingard, had been a headmaster and knew how to mn a school. I hope that the flrst change to Standing Orders will not be to force aU honourable members to put up their hands to leave the Chamber.

Only time will tell whether the member for Fassifem, Mr Lingard, follows the National Party tradition of forcing the Parliament to bow to a National Party Speaker who will carry out the orders of the Ministry blindly and without regard for the mles. In the past, the Premier has ensured that that happened by never annointing any National Party aspirant who ever served an apprenticeship as Chairman of Committees.

I would advise any honourable member who wants to be Speaker not to take the job of Chairman of Committees, because as soon as an honourable member leams the


mles, the Govemment will not even allow that member to be a candidate for the position of Speaker. That is because a knowledge of the mles would interfere with National Party control of this ParUament. Under the National Party, the Speaker must not have the idea that fair play comes into it or that the mles might have to be interpreted correctly.

The member for Warwick, Mr Booth; the member for Mirani, Mr Randell; the member for Hinchinbrook, Mr Row; the member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel; and the member for Caims, Mr De Lacy, had no chance. Any honourable member who has had an opportunity to leam the mles has no chance.

Mr Lane: Why didn't you nominate Mr De Lacy as Speaker?

Mr BURNS: Because the member for Caims is a shadow Minister, and the Opposition wants to keep his expertise where it is. That is why. Let there be no argument about that.

The National Party has reflned State parliamentary procedures so as to offer the least possible opportunity for informed discussion inside and outside Parliament.

Legislation is probably the most important of aU poUtical activities. In a parUamentary system the legislative process should afford maximum time for informed discussion and debate, and particularly time for citizens to advise their representatives. The people of Queensland are given little opportunity to express their views and their representatives in ParUament, outside the Executive, have Uttle chance to make any serious study of complex matters.

The flrst chaUenge for the new Speaker in this House is to end the legislative sausage machine and to put his foot down on the Leader of the House when he demands that large numbers of Bills be presented during the last sitting days of a session. The greatest obstacle to the advancement of parliamentary reform in Queensland has been the failure by this Govemment to sponsor regular updates of Standing Orders. The second chaUenge for the new Speaker will be to establish regular and meaningful meetings of the Standing Orders Committee.

Because of an outdated approach to question-time, the deliberate prevention of Opposition front-benchers from being allowed to debate ministerial statements and the failure to debate urgency motions raised by the Opposition, the restrictions placed on this Parliament are a disgrace. That attitude has tumed question-time in particular into a farce.

In March last year the previous Speaker said it was a Minister's prerogative to take as long as he or she liked to answer a question. As a result. Ministers answered questions for 15 minutes, mnning on and on and taking up half the question-time in answer to a question on notice or a Dorothy Dixer. This House has been told often that Ministers can answer questions however they like and the answer does not have to be relevant to the question asked. The practice of honourable members reading questions and, on the following day, of Ministers reading prepared answers is nothing but a waste of time.

The third chaUenge to the new Speaker is to make question-time a fair dinkum question-time. The broadcasting of Parliament would surely sound the death-knell for this antiquated system. It would be a bigger success than Days of our Lives or Dynasty. The people of Queensland would be aghast at the way question-time is conducted in this House.

The fourth chaUenge to the new Speaker would be to demand that petitions, compiled by people who have spent hours and days collecting signatures, when tabled in the House, are not just pigeon-holed in the dungeons, but go to the relevant departments and that those departments, within a fortnight, give answers to those petitions in this House.

The matter of the absence of Ministers during question-time has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and this shows the contempt in which Parliament is held by the National Party. Why is it not possible for the Govemor to visit ParUament House for Executive Council outside the hours set for question-time? Why could not the Speaker


put that to him? Why could he not say to the Govemor, "Why can't you come down at 2 o'clock, instead of 11 o'clock?" What a simple question that would be. What a simple resolution of the problem it would be. The Ministers would not have to keep whipping outside to sign a document or two. Instead, they would be present for all of question-time.

Ministers should be condemned for the presentation of departmental annual reports on the very same day that the Estimates of that department are debated in Committee. When a member of the Opposition is about to rise in debate on the Estimates of a department, a 150-page report is dropped on his table. At that time the honourable member is supposed to fully debate those Estimates and be aware of what has happened in that department as revealed in the annual report.

Mr Tenni: That doesn't happen with my department.

Mr BURNS: I do not know about the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, Mr Tenni, but the reports from the Department of Harbours and Marine were a bottom-of-the-harbour job.

I could name dozens of instances over the years when, prior to question-time, within half an hour of the start of the debate on a department's Estimates, the relevant report has been tabled, printed and distributed. Mostly departmental annual reports to Parliament are a waste of time. They contain glossy photographs of the Minister in all kinds of poses and add up income and expenditure flgures. They contain very little information for those who wish to discover how the departments are operating. Those reports clearly do not provide the means for an objective assessment of the affairs of a department.

The fifth chaUenge to the new Speaker is to demand that annual reports be tabled early and that all departmental Estimates be debated. Many of the new members in this House will find that some departmental Estimates are never debated. Perhaps, out of the total number of departments administered by 18 Ministers, only four or five, two or three, or half a dozen departmental Estimates are debated. The remainder of the accounts never have to be justified in this House. The Ministers make up their own minds which departments' Estimates will be debated—and those are always the non-controversial Estimates. If any problem at all is envisaged in debating any Estimates, they are not raised.

The Queensland system, whereby Ministers stand in their places and recite answers from scripts prepared by their departments, is acknowledged by all Westminster-watchers, inside and outside this House, as a farce. Consider the example of a Minister's response to an honourable member's question on notice. He said, "Answer to question 1, 'No'. Answer to questions 2 and 3, 'See answer to question 1.'" It is a parliamentary joke. What about those who sit in the gallery and those who read Hansard and see that parliamentary joke? Ministers eam salaries and allowances of $100,000 but are placed under minimal duress as they face question-time each sitting day. In fact. Ministers who are completely ignorant of their portfoUos survive and prosper in Queensland.

I tum now to Dorothy Dixers. The increasing use of Dorothy Dix questions is being orchestrated by the ministerial propaganda machine in an endeavour to tum Parliament into a PR stomping ground for the Premier and his Ministers. The propaganda conductors arrange for back-benchers to ask Dorothy Dix questions of the Premier and his Ministers, who then launch into a tirade against the Labor Govemments in Clanberra and other States, or the ALP in Queensland.

Let me show new Govemment members how to don the Dorothy Dix skirt and use question-time to catch the Premier's eye and thus gain ministerial appointment. First, they should not write out the questions themselves. Because some Ministers cannot read very well, that should be left to the ministerial staff. New Govemment members should make certain that ministerial staff prepare the question. The next thing that they should do is make certain that, when they have two questions, they ask question No. 1


first. In this Chamber, honourable members have seen the crazy situation in which a Govemment back-bencher has stood up and asked question No. 2 first. However, the Minister has not been listening and he has answered question No. 1. The answer has had nothing to do with the question. It has not made any sense and it has been a complete and utter farce. The Minister would not notice it because most National Party answers to questions do not make any sense, anyway.

I wiU not name the Minister—he has now retired—who, when answering a question, read the first page, dropped page 2 on the floor—all honourable members except the Minister saw that—and continued reading page 3. Although he read page 3 after page 1, the Minister did not realise that it did not make sense. When the Minister sat down, his mate said to him, "You dropped page 2." The Minister stood up again and read page 2. None of it made sense. The Hansard staff fixed up the Minister's answer so that it read in order. However, the Minister was not aware of what had happened.

By citing some of the questions that Mr Lester asked in this Chamber, I could show new Govemment members how he became a Minister. They should not think that Ministers are ever worried about such matters. One day, the Minister for Main Roads was asked a Dorothy Dix question. He replied, "When I was told that I was going to be asked a question without notice, I made certain that I had the answer ready." They are the type of questions without notice in the Parliament that put Ministers ri^t under pressure from their back-bench members.

Let me refer to some of the questions that have been asked in this Chamber over a period.

Mrs Chapman: Oh!

Mr BURNS: Why? Is the Minister embarrassed about them?

Mr Hinze: A point of order.

Mr BURNS: There are no points of order. The Minister is the greatest Dorothy Dix operator. If that bloke Grenning did not write out most of the questions that are asked of the Minister, the Minister would not know the answers.

Mr Hinze: No races for you.

Mr BURNS: The Minister is right; no races for me.

Vince Lester used to ask the Minister ,for Racing, "Could you tell me your achievements in the last three months?" On another occasion, he asked the Premier, "Could you tell me what you have achieved for Queensland in the last three months?", and he put the question on notice so that the Premier would not be embarrassed. If honourable members think that they are jokes, what about Don Neal, who has recently been appointed as a Minister? On 16 November 1982, he asked, "When compared with other States, what are the reasons for Queensland's success?" What a penetrating question! It nearly brought down the Govemment. The House was agog waiting for the answer. The Premier should have answered, "Gerrymander."

Mr Simpson wanted to be Premier and he wanted to be Speaker. He is a want-to-be. He asked a Minister, "Is he aware that the Sunshine Coast has the highest incidence of sunlight?" What a penetrating blow to the solar plexus for a Tourism Minister to be asked such a leading question by one of his back-bench colleagues.

Mr Muntz, who wanted to be a Minister, asked, "Is the use of the bright red colour an indication that the ALP has at long last admitted its heavy involvement with Moscow?"

Mr Casey: That would not mean that the Nationals' green means that they are associated with Ireland?

Mr BURNS: I thought that it might have meant that they were all conservationists.


Although Mr Muntz, Mr Neal and Mr Lester were appointed as Ministers, Mr Simpson was the only failure.

Honourable members become Ministers in this State by snivelUng their way there; by getting down on their hands and knees and going for their Uves.

Mr Mackenroth: Or be Uke Qauson and not speak at aU.

Mr BURNS: That is right. Honourable members could do as the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General has done, namely, make no speeches and ask no questions so that no-one would know whether or not he had any ability. An honourable member could be appointed on that basis, and away he would go. That is the system presently pertaining to the holding of office in Queensland.

Mr McElligott: Presty's looking better aU the time.

Mr BURNS: Yes, his prospects for being elected as Speaker are looking better aU the time. Govemment members are wavering. They are moving quickly towards the Labor Party's way of thinking.

After such hard-hitting questions, Govemment members to whom I have referred have been appointed to the Ministry. Neither Mr MuUer nor Mr Wamer had experience as members of the panel of Temporary Chairmen.

Mr Mackenroth: He did not have a great deal of experience as Speaker.

Mr BURNS: My colleague the honourable member for Chatsworth says that Mr Wamer did not have much experience as Speaker. However, I would be kinder to Mr Wamer. He was put under a tremendous pressure. I believe also that he was trying to do the right thing but was not allowed to do so.

The Premier has anointed the new Speaker; the National Party has said that Mr Lingard is the man for the job. Mr Lingard will be elected as Speaker of this House on the numbers of the National Party members in the secret baUot that will be held in the House. I now tum to some of the important tests for headmaster Lingard.

Mr Ahem: Didn't that happen in Canberra yesterday?

Mr BURNS: I do not know. I was not in Canberra yesterday, but I am here today. The Minister has interjected at just the right moment. I refer to comments that were made by Mr Ahem, as reported on 24 April 1978, under the heading, "They want to reform State Parliament", accompanied by a photograph of young Mike Ahem, glasses and aU. He did not wear contact lenses at that time.

Mr Ahern interjected.

Mr BURNS: The Minister has pitched the ball and I have caught it. I wiU now throw it back to him.

The Minister stated in 1978 that Parliament should be more meaningful to Queensland's needs. Some of the factors that Mr Ahem claimed would achieve those objectives were—

"• Sittings should be spaced out more than they are at present. This means more regular sittings, not necessarily more days.

• Question time—about an hour—should be devoted to questions without notice. Those on notice should be reported through the Qerk and included in Hansard."

Although Mr Ahem made those claims at that time, I do not remember him voting in favour of those reforms when Standing Orders were debated in the ParUament. He is 17th in Une in the premiership stakes. In fact, he is mnning just behind Alan Bond.

In 1978, Mr Ahem stated that— "• There should be daily opportunity—through an adjoumment debate—for

Members to air grievances and speak on topical public issues."


Mr Ahem also stated that there should also be a public accounts committee to vet Queensland Govemment decisions, together with the setting aside of private members' days when private legislation could be brought forward. Mr Ahem, who had recently retumed from overseas, spoke about his experiences in Alberta.

I tum now to the Report of the Government Committee to investigate the appointment of Parliamentary Committees in Queensland. That report by Mr Ahem and several other honourable members who became Ministers recommended that several committees be set up.

Mr Ahern: I sent it to you.

Mr BURNS: I am not sure if the honourable member sent me a copy of the report. I beUeve I had to grovel around for weeks in the Parliamentary Library trying to locate it. I do not believe that a copy of the report has been forwarded to all those National Party members who will be asked to vote on the premiership. I ask the Minister to hand out the report to all his colleagues. I also ask him to hand out his voting record when the Standing Orders were changed. I ask the Minister to take note of the grins on the faces of the other aspirants to the position of Premier. The report to which I have referred states—

"Recommendations The Committee, after thorough investigation, recommends to the Joint Gov

emment Parties"— Did the Minister send me an intemal party document? What an admission! The Minister is not even tmstworthy. He recommended that committees be set up to deal with regulations and privilege. It was then recommended—

"That this meeting recommends that future consideration be given to the appointment of the following Parliamentary Committees next year after the above Committees are observed in practice—

(a) Public Accounts (b) Public Works:".

At the conclusion of that report, the chairman commented— "I believe that the above recommendations are very conservative in view of

the evidence placed before the Committee. The suggestions were, in my view, made having in mind that there has been no Parliamentary Committee appointed in Queensland for more than twenty years and in view of the remarks expressed in the media indicating some apprehension about these Committees amongst senior Members of the Govemment.

The recommendations are, I think, very reasonable and the very minimum that could be recommended on the evidence presented."

The Govemment should put its money where its mouth is.

A Government member: Do you support it?

Mr BURNS: Of course I do. The Opposition has made proposals and put forward arguments to Standing Orders Committees and in the House. I have not seen the honourable member for Landsborough, Mr Ahem, vote once with the Opposition. He has toed the National Party line. The unfair part is that Mr Lingard, whether the Opposition likes it or not, will be forced to do the same thing.

Mr Ahern: How many times have you voted for it?

Mr BURNS: The honourable member for Landsborough need not worry about it because he just blew in the betting. Just now, in the House, the honourable member for Merthyr, Mr Lane, went ahead of him in the premiership stakes. The honourable member


for Merthyr was mnning last. Now he is second-last. I can see the Deputy Premier bouncing around, enjoying what is happening.

I wiU point to 10 or 11 aspects of the Parliament to which the new Speaker should address his attention if he wishes to appear impartial and to prove to the people of Queensland that he is not a lackey.

I ask that the new Speaker ensure that the Parliament has a fair dinkum question-time, with questions on notice being tabled and answered the next day. He could call the Standing Orders Committee together to do something about that.

I ask the new Speaker to ensure that questions without notice proceed for a fiiU hour and that Dorothy Dixers are outlawed.

Mr Stephan: How long do you want for question-time?

Mr BURNS: The honourable member for Gympie, Mr Stephan, would never ask another question if Dorothy Dixers were outlawed. The last time I heard him ask a fair dinkum question in the House, I thought I had the DTs.

Ministers should be required to answer questions according to Standing Orders. The Standing Orders Committee should meet regularly and it should be a genuine

all-party standing committee. All Bills should be tabled to allow public discussion for a lengthy period prior to

debate in the House. Why should Bills be pushed through in a day? The people of Queensland should be allowed time to consider Bills so that they know what the Govemment is up to. What a terrible suggestion and a scandalous idea that the people of Queensland should be allowed to read a Bill and make a few suggestions before it is pushed through Parliament!

All petitions that are tabled should be referred to the relevant department, and the Ministers should be required to answer by ministerial statement within 14 days. Why should that not happen?

Every departmental report should be tabled at least one month prior to the Estimates debate and all departmental Estimates should be debated each year.

Why cannot Ministers spend one day out of 365 days in a year in Parliament talking to and listening to people debate the Estimates of their departments?

The Matters of Public Interest debate should not be held at midnight on Thursday night. It should be in prime time.

The Opposition should be given an opportunity to debate ministerial statements. In the moming on a usual day. Ministers read out ministerial statements for 10 or 15 minutes and the Opposition is allowed no right of reply.

I propose that the Parliament conduct Adjoumment debates daily not just on Tuesday nights. It will not cost extra money to have an Adjoumment debate on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but it would allow members to speak on matters that people in the electorate are worried about.

Mr Ahem suggested that there be a private members' day.

A public accounts committee and a public works committee should be established. The Premier should support all of those proposals, which are what the people of

Queensland need. I have great pleasure in supporting the nomination of the honourable member for

Port Curtis. The Opposition has shown clearly that the claim of impartiality of the Speaker has been a sham. It has a right to propose its own nominee. Having put forward a nominee, the Opposition has a right to vote for him.

When the Govemment uses its numbers in the House on the vote for the new Speaker, the Opposition invites the new Speaker, Mr Lingard, to come to the party and


prove to the Parliament that he is independent and not a lackey for the Govemment. If he acts in the same manner as previous Speakers, the Opposition will soon put him to the test.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah—Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.54 p.m.): I move—

"That the Honourable William Daniel Lickiss, QGM, do take the chair of the House as Speaker." After hearing the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking, one would

have thought that past Speakers had not carried out their duties according to the rules. In fact, they had and they deserved the support of the House.

If honourable members seek an example of an impartial Speaker, I refer them to a former member for Brisbane who was a Speaker of the House. His appointment as Speaker prompted the then honourable member for Mundingburra to say that, if anyone appeared before him, he would be accused of everything from piracy on the high seas to camal knowledge of a goat. That was said about a Speaker in this House.

A Speaker's impartiaUty did not stop former Prime Minister Whitlam from interfering with Speaker Cope in the House of Representatives. He walked over to the Speaker's chair and said publicly, in audible tones, what the Speaker should do to handle an occurrence. Production of Speakers from the Labor Party in recent years is not a record of which members of that party can be proud.

The quaUty of the Speaker is only as good as the quaUty of the members who support him. The Speaker's role is to look after every member in this House, regardless of rank, status and influence. By and large, honourable members in Queensland have received excellent treatment at the hands of Speakers. From time to time, unfortunately, individual members try to take advantage of the Speaker's position. That type of conduct is not restricted to one side of the House only. It is regrettable that on occasions honourable members abuse the tolerance of the Speaker.

The Honourable WilUam Daniel Lickiss entered Parliament in 1963, and is the third most experienced member in this House. From 1971 to 1972, he was a Temporary Chairman of Committees and became Chairman of Committees from 1972 to 1974. He was excellent in the role as Chairman of Committees, and 33 of his mlings stand in the records of this Parliament to be referred to for ever and a day. The quality of his chairmanship in this Chamber is well remembered by many honourable members. He maintained a very high standard indeed, and his control of the Committee, and of the House when he was Deputy Speaker, was regarded as exemplary. I doubt that any honourable member would be able to gainsay the qualities he would bring to the role of Speaker.

Most honourable members would be aware that the honourable member for MoggiU was formerly Minister for Survey, Valuation, Urban and Regional Affairs and also a former Attomey-General and Minister for Justice. Throughout his professional life, he attained the office of Federal President of the Institute of Valuers, and has been associated with several other professional bodies, which he has served with great distinction. During the war, he served with great distinction in the Royal Australian Air Force. He was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal in 1974 for saving lives when Brisbane was flooded.

The honourable member for Moggill is a distinguished member of this House. His record will withstand close scmtiny. I am sure that, if he were successful in being elected Speaker on this occasion, he would conduct the affairs of this Parliament with considerable dignity and would be respected by all members.

I wish to bring to public notice a matter that relates to the operation of the Parliament. It is signiflcant that rarely are members afforded an opportunity to raise matters of this type. During the last three years, it has been assumed that the leader of the third political party in this House is provided with staff and has the opportunity of


getting things done in much the same way as do Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition or leaders of political parties in other Parliaments. In Queensland for the last three years, the Leader of the Liberal Party has been provided with a car and a driver, but no other staff have been provided.

After the last election, I was prompted by the situation that existed to write to the Premier and Treasurer, seeking for the Liberal Party adequate staff to carry out its duties in the Parliament, as would be expected under the principles observed in the Westminster system and in accordance with those applied in other ParUaments.

A comparison between Queensland and the other States proves interesting because the National Party is the third political party in other State Houses of Parliament. The National Party does not hold office in any State except Queensland. It is interesting to compare what the leaders of the National Party receive in States in which the National Party exists as the third political party.

Of the 100 members of the New South Wales ParUament, 15 are National Party members. In addition to the normal entitlements of a member of Parliament, the Leader of the National Party is allowed an extra 30 single air flights per annum. The Deputy Leader of the National Party is entitled to 10 extra single air flights per annum. The leader and deputy leader are also allowed extra allowances over and above those aUowed to ordinary members. I refer particularly to telephones and other facilities. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in New South Wales, which as I pointed out has 15 of the 100 members of Parliament, receive allowances of $143 a day when visiting capital cities and $96 a day when visiting other cities. If an overnight stay is not involved the allowance is $43.50. That amount is in addition to the ordinary allowances that back-benchers receive.

In New South Wales the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party also receive an additional stamp allowance, such sum being over and above the normal allowance. As far as staff are concemed, which is a matter that I want to bring to pubUc attention, the Leader of the National Party in New South Wales has a research officer, a private secretary, a press officer, two stenographers and a typist.

In Westem Australia, the National Party has four members of Parliament and is recognised as a third party. Apart from an additional allowance for postage, which is $4,000 a year over and above that allowed to a back-bencher, the Leader of the National Party is also entitled to extra interstate and intrastate flights per annum. He is also allowed up to $3,500 a year for air charter, staff such as a press secretary and a private secretary and a telex service and an allowance for its operation. He also is provided v/ith a car.

In Victoria, the National Party has 10 members of Parliament out of the total of 88. As in New South Wales and Westem Australia, it is regarded as a third party. The leader is provided with a secretary, a research officer, a press secretary, and a legal adviser. The deputy leader is provided with a secretary. The leader and deputy are also provided with the usual entitlements to cars and drivers. They also receive extra aUowances which I will not detail here.

Mr Casey: You have got good Labor Govemments in both of those States. They are very fair.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: In those States, regardless of what colour the Govemment was, the third party received not only extra allowances but also the staff required so that services could be provided to the public, the Parliament and the people it represented. It has been assumed that I am provided with such staff.

In Queensland, not only the Leader of the Opposition but also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition receives very generous treatment. I will not detail all of the allowances, but I will say that the Leader of the Opposition receives an expense aUowance of $4,000 per annum, which is over and above the allowance which is received by all members of Parliament. He also receives additional travel allowance and allowances for postage.


telephones and so on. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are provided with cars, which I understand were recently upgraded. The Leader of the Opposition has a private secretary, a press secretary, a driver and four stenographers. The deputy leader has a research officer and a stenographer. I do not begmdge their receiving those services.

After the last election I wrote to the Premier asking that some consideration be given to granting me staff. That was the fourth occasion on which I had made such a request to the Govemment. I asked for a private secretary, a press secretary, a research officer, two stenographers, a driver and the usual services that one would expect to see in a modem office. Bearing in mind the staff provided to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and also the entitlements granted to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in a number of other States, where it is the third party and where it has fewer members than the number of Liberal Party members in this House, I thought that it was a not unreasonable request.

I might point out that a couple of days ago I received a letter from the Premier and Treasurer, which stated in part—

"Cabinet has given careful consideration to your request and has approved the appointment of an Executive Secretary (Stenographer) to your office."

In addition to that, my office has been allocated a typewriter and a photocopier. That is quite inadequate. Every member of the House must recognise that that is totaUy inadequate. Because the opportunity to raise this matter at any other time is limited, I raise it now. I also raise it as a matter which is of some public concem.

In the last three years I have been able to carry out the work of the Leader of the Liberal Party only by enrolUng volunteers from the party who have assisted me in no small measure. I am very grateful for all their help during that period. However, I point out that the Liberal Party represents a significant number of electors; a number that would, in other Parliaments, be recognised by the provision of adequate staff. In this Parliament the Liberal Party has been provided with virtually no staff at aU.

Although over the last three years I have been asking for extra staff, during this financial year the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been aUocated $376,000 to provide increased services for them. In addition, the size of their offices and the number of their staff have been increased. In contrast, I have been allocated one stenographer, a typewriter and a photocopier. For those reasons, I protest in this form. I hope that there is support for the nominee of the Liberal Party.

Mr INNES (Sherwood—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (1.08 p.m.): I rise to second the nomination of William Daniel Lickiss as the Speaker of this House. His qualifications have been fully outlined and will be recognised by those who have been members of this House for some time.

There is need to reflect briefly upon what the House is doing today. What is the job of Speaker? Who is suitable for the job? What should he and other honourable members do upon his election? As I drove here this moming I had reason to recall the brief summary of what the Speaker is supposed to do. I think it is well known to people who have read anything about the office which, as we all know, is 1 000 years old, that the Speaker is supposed to protect—be the guardian of—the rights and privileges of members of the House.

This moming as I drove in the gates of Parliament House I saw a large, quarter of a million dollar, brand new, gleaming Rolls Royce parked in a position in front of the House where visitors and even members are not supposed to park. Indeed, it is not the flrst Rolls Royce I have seen parked in that position. That brought to mind the question bearing in mind the comments made by the honourable member for Nundah, it is an interesting question—of the basis on which people are selected for special privileges, protection, advancement or preferment in this State where some people are more equal than others, where some people can do things no member of Parliament can do and where some people can do things that no ordinary member of the public can do. How


and why do people get special access to those who hold the reins of Govemment in this State?

The whole power of the Govemment of this State comes out of this Chamber. Some might want to ignore that; many people do wish to ignore it. Some members of the pubUc believe that what is needed is a strong dictator who makes up his own mind. However, those who are tmly conservative wiU realise the wisdom of the ages—of a thousand years of development—that says that the smart and safe thing is to have a democratically elected Parliament that is a fomm in which all people have a chance of representation and in which aU members have some equality of rights.

What is said by members of Parliament is not said just on their own behalf; it is said on behalf of a significant number of residents of the State or of the country. They are the people whom members of Parliament represent. That is why the Speaker has the special responsibility of protecting the rights and privileges of members of ParUament. An attack on any of those privileges is an attack on the people of Queensland. If the privileges or rights of members of ParUament are curtailed, it is a curtailment of the rights of the people.

AU members of Parliament are elected. Irrespective of the party to which members of ParUament belong, they represent somewhere between 8 000 and 22 000 people in an identifiable part of this State.

Members of Parliament are elected to perform the primary role of raising in Parliament grievances and concems of their constituents, putting forward proposals for legislative reform, guarding the interests of their constituents in any changes to the law and questioning the administration of the law. That is part and parcel of the function of Parliament. That is why each sitting day begins with an hour for question-time.

If one refers to the words of the Constitution, one will see that not only do members of ParUament have an obligation to establish the law as the umbrella of administration of this State for the good govemment of this State, but they also have an obligation to check on the quality of administration.

The Speaker is supposed to ensure that all members have an equal right to be heard, an equal right to speak in this Chamber on behalf of their constituents, and he is obliged to treat members equaUy as far as the use of the facilities of ParUament House is concemed.

In the United Kingdom special Acts of Parliament separate the Houses of Parliament from the Executive Govemment. This State does not have such an Act of ParUament and, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has just pointed out, the members of this Parliament are entirely dependent upon or supplicant to the Executive Govemment of this State for the entitlements that each member of Parliament should have as of right. Of course, it has to be recognised that in the current environment members of ParUament usually belong to parties, have to operate within a party situation, and require additional facilities to operate in a modem political environment.

One must ask how small groups of Queenslanders are to be treated if members of Parliament are to be treated in a way that does not indicate a preparedness for equality. Why should the standards in this State be different from those in other States?

The reason why the Liberal Party has minimal facilities compared with the facilities available to the Opposition in this State and to those available in other States is because of a distorted view of the importance of the institution of Parliament and, indeed, because of the use of political power in this State. That reflects badly upon the Govemment of this State because the standards of this Govemment are not the standards adopted by other Parliaments and Govemments in this country, irrespective of the political makeup of those other Govemments. It is something that has to be attended to; it is something that deserves to be rectified quickly, as does the whole conduct of the Parliament.

For ZVi months this State has not had swom-in members of Parliament, nor a Speaker to control the Parliament House facilities. However, make no bones about it: things have happened in Parliament House. Some honourable members are about to go


into the dining room. They may not have seen what has happened to the dining room. It has been extended, and its fumiture discreetly rearranged. It is mmoured—in fact speciflc directions have been given—that each party will be directed towards a particular part of the dining room.

Although it is quite customary for members of the same party to sit together in the dining room, particularly when the Parliament is in session, for the convenience of exchanging ideas on topics, tactics or whatever else, an instruction has never been issued that in the dining room or bar of Parliament House, members wiU be less than equal and will not have the freedom to sit where they will and with whom they will. There was no Speaker to give any indication as to the way in which the dining room should be rearranged or the mechanics of the administration of the dining room, nor was there a meeting of those members of the Refreshment Rooms Committee or any of the members remaining from the last session.

Decisions have been made about the mnning and administration of Parliament House. As a result of decisions that have been taken in regard to the allocation of rooms, some country members have not had rooms in which to stay. The problem has occurred because the administration of Parliament House is not detached from the Executive Govemment of this State. Primarily the problem has occurred because this Parliament should have met after the election last year. Why has this Parliament not met for ZVi months? That is one-twelfth of the term of this Parliament. Is it because the Govemment could not decide who should become the new Speaker or is it because there is a danger that when Parliament does meet people other than the Executive Govemment will have a fomm?

Mr McPhie interjected.

Mr INNES: This is the reality. Cabinet meets frequently, but Parliament meets very infrequently. Queensland is moving into an era where the massive Govemment media machine controls the environment and conditions people's attitudes towards what is happening in this State. The facts are not made public. Because, when Parliament does meet, no matter how biased or prejudiced honourable members' views are—they might go off half-cocked or totally without basis—they are entitled to put those views. At least during exchanges in the House both sides of an argument can be looked at and some balance and tmth are revealed.

Many people who voted in the last State election are staggered to leam that their member has not attended Parliament since October last year. They assume that since the election all honourable members have been in regular attendance and that regular sessions of Parliament have been held. A number of people have made inquiries about the progress of legislation. There has been none. It is a contempt of the wiU of the people for Parliament not to meet. As the Minister for Health and Environment, Mr Ahem, said in his report, Parliament should certainly meet for fewer hours but more frequently. Parliament is the fomm where the anxieties, views and approval of the electors are expressed. It is the method by which the administration of this State is checked. The administration of Queensland is an enormous business. The Govemment's tentacles spread into every household and business in this State.

Changes have occurred in the functioning of Parliament. Many people will say that change is inevitable, and is happening everywhere in the world. There is tmth in that. Members of Parliament have a responsibility to hold the tendency to change in check and to insist that the private members of Parliament have a role to play in representing the people, that the Executive does not dominate and that it is accountable to a body which represents the real will of the people. There is no Cabinet without this Chamber. The Chamber comes flrst and Cabinet second. That must be understood and the conduct of the State must reflect the importance of this Chamber.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, Sir William Knox, has been fairly charitable, which is his wont, about the performance of recent occupants of the chair in this House. It is tme to say that they have encountered difficulties. Inevitably, as has occurred in the

Election of speaker 17 February 1987 27

Federal ParUament, there has been a tendency in this House to regard the occupancy of the chair as a perk of office. The majority party can expect its nominee to be elected as Speaker. If the Labor Party was the majority party, it would expect to have its nominee elected. There is a tendency to view the chair as the place for also-rans who have failed to gain a Cabinet appointment, and therefore the quaUty of the nominee is not considered. The attributes of the nominee must be considered, as well as his ability to conduct himself in the chair. He must have the facility to understand extensive Standing Orders, make quick, fair and consistent decisions and possess enough intestinal fortitude to, once he has made the decisions, carry them out.

The Chair in this House has been under enormous pressure, particularly from the front bench of the Govemment. Both eyes have been on the Opposition all the time. In my opinion, there has been a failure to act consistently. The failure of front-bench members of the Govemment to comply with Standing Orders has been ignored. However, every faUure on the part of the Opposition has been picked up.

Opposition members wiU get away with whatever they can. That is their track record in this Chamber. Nobody suggests that their peccadilloes should be ignored. One reason for the emotional heat in this Chamber is that mlings are not consistent. If flrm, fair and consistent decisions were made by the Chair and applied to everybody, it would take 24 hours to clean up this Chamber. One cannot have Ministers' ignoring Standing Orders and taking points of order that are not valid and have Opposition members sat down for taking the same points of order.

The member for Lytton made some commonsense observations about the working of the Chamber. By supporting Mr Prest's nomination, both the member for Lytton and the Leader of the Opposition destroyed any bid they made to conduct the debate on a high level. It was obvious that most members of the Labor Party were as surprised as I was at Mr Prest's nomination.

The member for Port Curtis, Mr Prest, who is the Leader of Opposition Business in the House, has not shown a particular regard for the detail of Standing Orders.

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr INNES: That is the tmth. I saw the member for Brisbane Central laugh when Mr Prest was nominated. All the remarks of Opposition members were made with tongue in cheek.

The Liberal Party's nomination is a serious nomination. It is a genuine attempt to retum some sanity, faimess and dignity to this Chamber and to bring about equality in the treatment of all members. If quaUty administration and law-making are to retum to this State, the dignity of Parliament must be restored. I have great pleasure in repeating my seconding of the nomination of the member for Moggill, Mr Lickiss.

Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (1.23 p.m.): The Govemment's nomination for the position of Speaker has been fairly well traversed by most members who have spoken. It was remarkable for the Premier to give a guide to form and a biography of the National Party's nominee. I noticed, during the last occasion on which a Speaker was elected, that the same biographical details were not given about the National Party's nominee.

I wish to refer to the remarks made by the member for Sherwood, Mr Innes, and to the whining, whinging speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Sir WiUiam Knox, who complained about his problems as the leader of 10 people. Let us face it: by giving the Govemment their preferences, the Liberals are the ones who put in Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is their own fault. They should cop it and bear the bmnt of their actions.

Mr Casey: If the Premier makes it to Canberra, again he wiU do it on Liberal preferences.


Mr DAVIS: The same thing again. I notice, too, that when we elect a Speaker our ballot wiU be conducted on a flrst past the post basis. Our priorities seem to be different.

The member for Mackay, Mr Casey, and I entered this august Chamber together in 1969. It was, in fact, a vintage year. Like good wine, we have survived. I think that all honourable members who knew Sir David Nicholson, the Speaker at that time, would agree that he was a person of great standing and one who had a thorough knowledge of Standing Orders.

It has been my fortune or misfortune to have known flve Speakers. As to Standing Orders—three of those Speakers were complete no-hopers. I think honourable members should call a spade a spade. I do not think that three of those five Speakers even read the cover of Standing Rules and Orders, let alone its contents. I have always liked the honourable member for Fassifem and have found him to be a decent fellow. Surely whether a member is a decent fellow will not be one of the criteria used in the election of a Speaker.

The Premier has given his imprimatur to, or anointed, the honourable member for Fassifem. What about other Govemment members? In the last three years, the position of Temporary Chairman has been filled by honourable members such as Jim RandeU. Ted Row was a terrific Chairman and Deputy Speaker. Why was he overlooked?

Mr Lane: Speak up so that we can hear you.

Mr DAVIS: The Minister for Transport seems to be the new numbers man for the National Party.

I repeat: why was Mr Row overlooked? Traditionally, when there is a one-party Govemment, the Chairman of Committees is eventually appointed to the position of Speaker. Obviously, that tradition has not been followed in this case.

I believe that Des Booth was outstanding in the way he handled the role of Temporary Chairman. I believe also that Jim Randell and Max Menzel were at least competent in carrying out that role.

Mr Milliner interjected.

Mr DAVIS: I concede that, although they may not have been totally competent, they were triers.

It is unfortunate that honourable members have not elected a Speaker. Had they done so, they may have sought some guidance from him before taking part in this farce of a secret ballot.

Mr Lane: The Bribie Island system.

Mr DAVIS: No, it will not be a Bribie Island system. I have checked the ballot-box, and there are no worries about that.

All Opposition members want a secret ballot.

Mr Gunn: We don't want a Trades Hall ballot.

Mr DAVIS: We certainly do not want a National Party ballot.

Mr Casey: We certainly do not want one of the type used when Mr Lane became a union representative for the Police Union.

Mr DAVIS: The honourable member is correct; however, that is another story.

For the benefit of those honourable members who were not in this Chamber on the last occasion on which a secret ballot was held following a State election, I point out the way in which it was conducted. Honourable members will recall that the result was very close. Two honourable members were nominated for the position of Speaker. Mr Miller was nominated—as was the fellow from Toowoomba South, who tumed out to be hopeless. In that secret ballot, honourable members received their ballot-papers. I


am unaware of how many Govemment members stood in front of the Premier, or one of his Ministers, and said, "Look who I am voting for.", and then cast their votes.

The honourable member for Lytton, Mr Bums, recounted the number of times when Dorothy Dix questions were asked during question-time. I am sure that the new Govemment Whip will carry on the tradition of asking Dorothy Dixers.

Although I do not like referring to the past, I point out that in 1969 only Opposition members asked questions.

The purpose of question-time was to enable members to prise answers out of Ministers. The Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for the Arts, Mr Austin, has told me quite clearly that he would not be able to answer a question other than a Dorothy Dix question. All honourable members are aware that question-time has become a farce.

I tum now to the Liberal Party. Honourable members will recall that in the last secret ballot the Labor Party supported Mr Col MiUer. However, he was not a Liberal at all. He did to the Labor Party what Don Lane and Brian Austin did to the Liberal Party. Honourable members never knew to which party Mr Miller belonged. We could not ascertain whether he was an Independent, a would-be Liberal, or a closet National.

Members of the Liberal Party should be the last to talk about upholding the rights of members of Parliament. During the last session, the then Speaker made mlings that were completely atrocious. However, when the Opposition moved a motion of dissent to a mUng, where were the Liberals? Every time, the six of them, voted with their sleeping mates on the Govemment side. The Opposition is not interested in a Liberal Party member as Speaker.

Mr Casey: The Liberal Party used to be called the six-pack. We will have to call them the decimal dozen now.

Mr DAVIS: I will not even discuss them. That is a bit too heavy for me to answer.

Mr I. J. Gibbs interjected.

Mr DAVIS: I am pleased that the Minister for Works and Housing has interjected.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bums, mentioned that the Speaker has lost control of Parliament House. A previous Speaker, Sir David Nicholson, had control of the complete precinct, which included the Bellevue Hotel.

Mr I. J. Gibbs: You had a big bedroom to let one of your colleagues in.

Mr DAVIS: Since when has the Minister for Works and Housing had the authority to tell members of Parliament their rights? I telephoned the office of the Minister for Works and Housing and informed his private secretary that I believed that the Minister lost control of the building after it was built.

Mr I. J. Gibbs interjected.

Mr DAVIS: In other words, the Minister for Works and Housing aUocates rooms.

Mrs Chapman: He builds houses.

Mr DAVIS: The Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnics Affairs, Mrs Chapman, should stick to hanging sexual perverts. That is all old "Madam Guillotine" has to do. The point is that

Mr Littleproud: You are back to page 1 again.

Mr DAVIS: No, I am not back to page 1.

Mr Casey: The honourable member for Brisbane Central would be the first Whip in the history of the Parliament who was denied a bedroom.


Mr DAVIS: Since the National Party has come to power, it has denigrated just about every position in Parliament. I do not know what the Liberal Party is complaining about, but I point out that the conditions of ParUament are slowly but surely deteriorating.

A vote for BiU Prest is a vote for faimess, justice and the rights of all parUamentarians. The Labor Party supports him.

Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (1.33 p.m.): The members who were retumed or elected to Parliament on 1 November 1986 and who treat ParUament seriously understand what an important occasion it is when Parliament assembles to elect the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. TraditionaUy, the Speaker represents the members and is the voice of the Parliament in speaking to the Crown. It is a very honourable office and one that in the next three years honourable members on aU sides of the House should treat with respect. Although honourable members may not be on the same side as the incumbent of the office, they should at least show some respect for the institution or the office of Speaker in the Parliament. I hope that the conduct of honourable members towards the Speaker will be an improvement on that which has occurred in the past.

This morning, I was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition devoted his speech to two subjects that have no relationship to the office of Speaker. For the past three or four months, since the election, the Leader of the Opposition has been absent from the poUtical stage. I presume that he has been hiding somewhere or that he went fishing. However, he endeavoured to inject himself into the political arena once again and to climb onto the bandwagon of Federal politics by commenting adversely on the very proper stance that the Premier has taken in urging the country to unite and reject the Hawke Govemment in Canberra. Over the last few weeks, honourable members have not heard the Leader of the Opposition offer any comments on that topic.

I was intrigued—and I would be interested to know—where he has been during the last few weeks. He seems to go fishing between parliamentary sessions. We never hear of him. He comes back here and endeavours to make an impact by opening his speech with a discussion of the position taken by the Premier and Treasurer in respect of the Federal Parliament, which is a matter that is unrelated to the election of the Speaker. It was improper of him and unnecessary for him to raise that matter in the context of this debate. Of course, someone who rarely appears in the public scene has to take up opportunities when they occur.

This moming, the Leader of the Opposition trotted out a prepared speech—written, no doubt, by one of the staff so generously provided by the tax-payer. It is understandable that the Leader of the Opposition must put forward some kind of performance for his peers—his colleagues—if he wishes to keep them behind him. He performs a masterful juggling act with the three or four factions, bearing in mind the conflicting personalities, the ambition of the younger members of his party and the different factions they belong to. The great difficulty experienced by the public these days is in identifying which Labor Party speaks. Because the Labor Party these days seems to be divided into three separate parties, the public experiences great difficulty in identifying which Labor Party is speaking.

As honourable members listened to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, they hoped for some sign of dignity, decomm and mature presence. Instead, honourable members were subjected to the Leader of the Opposition's resorting to words they have become used to hearing during the last three years—the kind of Trades Hall language that is more at home in street theatre than in Parliament. Honourable members have become used to words such as "gutless", "scab" and "lackey". That is the type of language used by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and honourable members have come to expect it from him. I am disheartened and deeply disappointed at the prospect of a continuation of that kind of language during the next three years.

The Leader of the Opposition has set the political tone of the Australian Labor Party. By using that language, he says, "Come on, fellows, fall in behind me and follow me down this path." The Leader of the Opposition is hardly a good example of


parUamentary conduct for members of his party, particularly new members of ParUament, whom I suspect would be disappointed also.

The tactics appUed by the Leader of the Opposition would be more at home in a protest movement. The sort of speech honourable members have become used to contains words such as "I demand", "I protest against this". They are words that were never used by the late Sir Winston Churchill or indeed by any of the great Labor leaders under the Westminster system, but they fall from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. By a narrow majority and factional support, the Leader of the Opposition is able to maintain his position. Later in the session, I will speak at greater length about who is who in that particular zoo, whose place is where, and why members of the Australian Labor Party do what they do.

When one watches the Opposition carefully and is aware of which factions members of that party line up with, it is not difficult to understand the jealousy, the viciousness and the back-stabbing that goes on among factions. By his poor performance and urban revolutionary type of speech, the Leader of the Opposition has set the tone for the Labor Party for the next three years. He gives a lead to the larrikinism that honourable members have become used to from the Opposition side of the House, and it looks as though honourable members can look ahead to three years of disappointment. I would have preferred a Leader of the Opposition who could lend some dignity, decomm and mature parUamentary practice to the conduct of this Assembly; an honourable member who was able to conduct himself in such a way that the office of Leader of the Opposition was respected in the outside world.

The second thrust of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition this moming was the most laughable, because it served to nominate the honourable member for Port Curtis, Mr Prest, as the nominee of the Australian Labor Party for the honourable office of Speaker of this Parliament. It was so laughable and such a joke that it brought laughter from aU sides of the House. Even Mr Prest had a little bit of a giggle about it. Members who have sat on this side of the House for some time know that he is the last person on the Opposition side whom anyone would dare nominate to occupy the Speaker's chair. His bittemess, his nastiness, his general manner around the hallways and in this Chamber, and his personal attacks on Govemment members—the bucketing—are the haUmarks of his political career. Such hallmarks hardly beflt him to occupy the very honourable and lofty position of Speaker of this House. He was the worst person that the Leader of the Opposition could have nominated. For that reason the argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is discredited. One can only presume that, in order to retain his position, the Leader of the Opposition had to try to mesh the factions with which he has to work and that he had to make some compromise by nominating the honourable member for Port Curtis. Everyone knows that there are members opposite who respect Parliament, who behave in a reasonable and dignified way and who properly devote themselves to this institution.

The honourable member for Rockhampton North, Mr Yewdale, would have been a good nominee. He is respected as sensible, stable and responsible. I do not mean to give him the kiss of death; I put that forward as quite a serious proposal. If the Leader of the Opposition had any regard for the honourable member for Nudgee, he could have nominated his former comrade from the ETU. I have heard Mr Vaughan speak in this Chamber and occasionally I have heard him make a reasonable contribution.

Even the old Irish war-horse from Mackay, Mr Casey, could have been nominated. Of course, he is very lucky to be back in the Labor Party, having been in it and out of it and back in it again and in and out of the leadership. He has managed to fUmflam the Opposition into keeping him in a reasonably prominent position in the party. The Opposition probably did not seriously consider nominating the honourable member for Mackay. A number of other Opposition members could have been nominated. In fact, any member other than Mr Prest would have been a more suitable nomination. His nomination almost brought the House down. People in the gaUeries were laughing. It was a national joke. His nomination discredited the whole argument of the Leader of


the Opposition who made the same old criticisms of the style of Parliament in Queensland. That has been heard many times before. He continued to foster the myth that this Parliament is undemocratic; that members do not have an opportunity to speak or to have their say and that they do not get an opportunity to ask questions. Anyone who had listened to the diatribes of the Leader of the Opposition or the very vociferous member for Lytton, who would talk under 2 tonnes of wet cement, would see that the allegation that members do not have their say in this place has been disproved. It has been disproved by what they were saying, and I am helping to disprove it now. No matter where members may sit, many opportunities exist for them to have their say. I refer to the Matters of Public Interest debates, which are used frequently for that purpose. However, such debates are not used for a very good purpose, but for tipping personal buckets on members on this side of the House. Such debates are misused.

Some of the lame questions which are asked by honourable members opposite only prove that they do not understand how to use question-time. They do not have the wit to properly use the forms of the House. During the parliamentary year the Adjoumment debate, the Estimates debate and the Address in Reply debate all aflow for wide-ranging comment and contributions. I have yet to detect that any honourable member opposite has ever read an annual report which has been laid on the table of the House. Honourable members opposite have never referred to such reports, nor have there been any signs in their speeches that they have studied them. Contained in those reports is a great deal of information of all kinds, including detailed flnancial information. Honourable members opposite do not read them because it suits them not to. However, it then suits them to mbbish the Govemment on that basis.

The tmth is that members of the Opposition have, as indeed does any member of this place, ample opportunity to express their views. They have ample opportunity to put forward proposals and to make contributions. They are not physically restrained, nor are they restrained by the Standing Orders of this place. To suggest that anything other than a fair go is available for any member, no matter where he sits in this place, is a complete farce and a sham.

Of course, I understand the reason for this criticism. When the Leader of the Opposition says that his members do not get a fair go, what he really means is that they do not get their way. Of course they do not get their way. They do not have the numbers. They were not elected to a majority of seats in this place. After the election, the Opposition does not enjoy the numerical support in Parliament that the Premier does, so why should the Opposition have its way on every matter? In fact, when one understands the attitude of the members of the Labor Party to the dictatorship of the proletariat, one understands very well why they expect to have more than an equal say in this place. They are in the minority in this place. In fact, after each election their number has declined. While I am on that subject, I should say that this is the seventh occasion on which I have been swom in as a member of this place. I have certainly been around long enough to notice the decline in numbers and the decUne in the ability of those on the opposite side of the House. I am saddened and disappointed by that.

That the minority should dictate to the majority is no more proper than it is for the majority to overlook heartlessly the views of the minority. To suggest that the minority on that side of the House should dictate to the majority on this side of the House whenever it wishes is a misuse of the term "democracy".

The arguments of members of the Opposition are fallacious. On the seven occasions that I have attended the election of Speaker, their nomination is the worst that I have heard put forward. I will admit that a couple of duds have been put forward from this side of the House but, by far, no-one has ever, ever nominated anyone in this place who has been as bad as the honourable member for Port Curtis. This moming that view was reinforced by the spontaneous laughter that occurred when he was nominated by the Opposition.

Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: It was an insult to the Parliament.

Election of speaker 17 February 1987 33

Mr LANE: It was probably the greatest insult to a ParUament that I have witnessed in a long time.

I now tum to the nominee of the Liberal Party. Probably the less said about Mr Lickiss, the better. I was disappointed in the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who seemed to mouth the old Labor cUches. He used the old catchcries of the Labor Party and seemed to be preoccupied with allowances and Cabinet appointments. It was a bit of a "green" speech—he was green with jealousy. I was rather disappointed with his contribution.

For a number of years I have seen the honourable member for MoggiU, Mr Lickiss, in action and all I can say about his nomination for the position of Speaker is that he would be a marginal improvement on Mr Prest. I leave the House with that thought.

Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (1.49 p.m.): I join the debate briefly to point out to the House that one feature of the potential Speaker of this ParUament has not been mentioned, that is the role of Mr Speaker's wife. As she is a most gracious hostess, AUson Lingard will be an exceUent Speaker's wife. She is an extremely presentable individual and I believe that Kev is very fortunate indeed in having her as his wife. I am very sure that Kev and Alison will be very worthy representatives of and ambassadors for this State and the ParUament. Mr Speaker quite often has to go overseas and I am certain that Mr and Mrs Lingard will be excellent representatives of the ParUament and that they will do that very weU. I am certain that Mr Lingard wiU be successful, so I wish him all the best. I am certain that he wiU enjoy his term as Speaker of this ParUament.

Mr INNES: I know that a mling cannot be given, but I point out that cameras in the Chamber are looking down on honourable members who are about to engage in a secret ballot during the election of the Speaker.

At 1.50 p.m., In accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 6 and 7, a baUot was

taken by the Clerk, with the foUowing result—

Mr Lingard 46 Mr Prest 30 Mr Lickiss 10 Informal 3

Mr Lingard expressed his sense of the honour proposed to be conferred upon him, submitted himself to the pleasure of the House and, on being called, was conducted to the chair by the mover and the seconder. Speaking from the dais, he said: honourable members, I thank you for the honour that you have conferred upon me.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (2.26 p.m.): Mr Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House, I extend to you congratulations on your election to this very important office. I am confldent that you wiU have the assistance of all members in ensuring that the business of the House is conducted in an orderly and disciplined way. I am confident also that you wiU discharge your duties and responsibilities impartially and without fear or favour. You are assured of the complete co-operation of the Govemment. I wish you every success in your term of office. I am sure all honourable members would also like to pass on their best wishes to your wife.

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (2.27 p.m.): This opportunity allows me to affirm once again the Opposition's unqualified support for the role of Speaker as the person charged with the responsibility of presiding over this Assembly. Mr Speaker, we sincerely hope and believe that you will take on board what was said today, particularly with respect to the authority and impartiality that are required of the position to which you have been elected.

74590—2


On behalf of all Opposition members, as you received slightly more votes than our exceUent candidate, Mr Bill Prest, I congratulate you on attaining the very high office of Speaker.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah—Leader of the Liberal Party) (2.28 p.m.): Mr Speaker, the Liberal Party wishes to congratulate you and to indicate its support and assistance at all times in your discharge of the duties of your office. Indeed, it is very impressive that a member who has been in the House for a fairly short duration has gained its confidence to become the Speaker. Your distinguished professional and sporting records and your record in this House will stand you in good stead. We in the Liberal Party are delighted to support you in your office.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank those members who have nominated me and spoken so generously about my selection as Speaker. Through all the comments today there have been no personal reflections against me, and I thank aU honourable members for that courtesy.

When I flrst took my position in this House as a back-bench member, I did not dare to think that three years later I would be given the great honour of being elected as your Speaker of Parliament. Therefore, like the many Speakers of the early Westminster system, I submit my reservations about my ability and experience for such a position.

During my studies, I have read with great interest the stories of how previous Speakers in the House of Commons were led stmggling and fighting to the chair by those who moved and seconded their nomination. History shows that at least eight Speakers have been beheaded. One Speaker ordered the death of a King and, of course, there is the magnificent story of Speaker LenthaU, who was Speaker during the notorious mle of Charles I.

When Charles I stormed Parliament in 1642 and demanded that the House submit five members of Parliament, the King tumed to the Speaker and said, "Are there any of these persons in the House?" The Speaker replied in the now famous words—

"May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place except as the House is pleased to direct me."

This, I believe, is an exceUent summary of the Speaker's position. However, honourable members, I submit to you that we are all in this together. Every one of you expects me to be conscientious and to act in a firm, fair and friendly manner. I have always had a great pride in my work in administration and control of personnel. I am determined to have strong control, strict discipline and impartiality. In retum, I ask for your support, because if all this happens, then I am sure that enjoyment wiU follow.

There are many members in this Chamber who have had many more years of experience in parliamentary procedure than I have. Many of you have legal and academic backgrounds. Many of you might see political and personal advantage in challenging the Speaker and causing embarrassment. Let me wam those people that if you do those things, you will undermine the position of Speaker to such an extent that when the time comes when you need the protection of a Speaker, he will not have the power to give it to you.

It is easy to forsake standards of dress, standards of behaviour and standards of speech, but any decline in these standards will be viewed poorly by the public we represent. We will see the decline in respect for Parliament and surely the demise of ourselves and those who follow in this Chamber.

I accept the role that the Opposition parties are required to play in the Westminster system of govemment. I sympathise with the fact that, at times, it is fiiistrating and non-rewarding. However, I wam the Govemment that the Opposition must be allowed to play a constmctive role, and it is my duty to ensure that that is continued. Similariy, the Opposition parties must not be allowed to impede the role of the Govemment in providing good govemment to the people of this State.

Special Adjoumment 17 February 1987 35

There are two stories that I have always considered to be very relevant to administration, and I mention them here, not because they are humorous or philosophical but because I often refer to them in my own decision-making.

My first story is of a monkey at the bottom of a long pole. Everyone around him teUs him to climb the pole, so away he goes with his arms and legs around the pole. As he starts, everyone cheers and congratulates him, saying how great he is and how well he is doing. However, as he gets higher, everyone looks up and says, "Hey, we can see a lot of your undesirable characteristics which we haven't seen before."

So the monkey has the option of whether he takes his legs or arms from around the pole to hide his "undesirable characteristics". Of course, that will impede his progress. He might even be silly enough to come back down the pole to the level of the others to discuss the problem. However, he might also say that he knows that he has those characteristics, but he is determined to keep going so that he can reach his goal.

The second story is about a football coach; we will say in this case the person who is appointed to coach the Queensland Rugby League team. The coach is presented with a group of players, aU of whom are probably far better players than he ever was. Every one of the players knows of an individual system of coaching that has been successfiil and, in fact, all the players have such individual ability that if they just ran onto the field the team would be able to win.

However, the coach has to select and implement a single method which is the most effective for the team. In selecting that style, he is aware of many other ways that would also be successful, but there is a need for a uniform method, and he has the responsibility of selecting and enforcing that way. Every attempt to compromise and satisfy everybody may weaken the system he has chosen.

Honourable members, I wiU have personal failings that will probably annoy and frustrate you. Like the football coach, 1 am faced with many experienced and capable players, and I have to select a system knowing that there are many other suitable methods. However, if I can show the ability to gain your respect and you have the decency to support me, I tmst that we will all find it a great pleasure to be members of the Queensland Parliament.

I submit myself respectfully to the will of the House. Thank you.

PRESENTATION OF MR SPEAKER Hon, Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer)

(2.35 p.m.): I desire to inform honourable members that His ExceUency the Govemor will receive the House for the purpose of presenting Mr Speaker to His Excellency at Govemment House this aftemoon at 3.30 o'clock.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (2.35

p.m.): I move— "That the House, at its rising, do adjoum until 2.12 p.m. tomorrow in the late

Legislative Council Chamber." Motion agreed to. The House adjoumed at 2.36 p.m.

Legislative Assembly TUESDAY FEBRUARY

Documents

Transcript of Legislative Assembly TUESDAY FEBRUARY