Ministerial Statement Announces Women's Council for Rural Communities

4 Dec 1996
Ministerial Statement
4845
WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 1996
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. N. J. Turner, Nicklin) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.
SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Resignation of Hon. D. M. Wells Mr SPEAKER: Order! members, I have to report that exists on the Scrutiny of Committee consequent upon the of Dean MacMillan Wells from that Honourable a vacancy Legislation resignation committee.
OVERSEAS VISIT Report Hon. R. J. QUINN (MerrimacMinister for Education) (9.32 a.m.): I table for the information of all honourable members a report of my recent visit to China in which I led a delegation of university representatives into the Province of Shandong. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Women's Council for Rural and Regional Communities Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a major step forward for the hardworking women and families of rural and regional Queensland. I am proud to make this announcement as Minister responsible for women's affairs, and I do so on behalf of my colleagues the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for Local Government and Planning. On Monday, State Cabinet endorsed the formation of a Women's Council for Rural and Regional Communities, a body which will give a stronger voice in Government to the women of the State. The council, to be chaired by respected Beaudesert grazier, community figure and drought worker Jan Joyce, will be made up of women from all regions outside Brisbane. It will be briefed to provide practical advice to Government on a range of issues affecting rural communities. To do that, it will draw on a great and somewhat untapped resource: the vast body of knowledge and ideas shared by the women of rural and regional Queensland. I share the view expressed by Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingworth that the bush is under unprecedented strain. So, too, are many communities not regarded as rural but which share similar disadvantages due to their distance from the State capital. I strongly support the archbishop's statements valuing the growing number of women in rural leadership. Governments must do more to support communities and families caught in the crisis in the bush. By giving the women of the State a greater opportunity to have their views heard, the Government may be more responsive to their needs. This move is one of a long chain of initiatives on which the coalition Government has embarked to assist people in rural and regional areas of the State. Those initiatives range from a massive injection of infrastructure spending, a huge return of Department of
Appointment of Mr P. T. Lucas Mr FITZGERALD (LockyerLeader of Government Business) (9.31 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That Mr Paul Thomas Lucas, MLA, be appointed to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in place of Dean MacMillan Wells, MLA." Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE Comments by Leader of the Opposition Hon. S. SANTORO (ClayfieldMinister for Training and Industrial Relations) (9.32 a.m.): During the second-reading debate on the Government's WorkCover Queensland Bill, the Leader of the Opposition referred to me and stated, and I quote from page 4799 of the Daily Hansard ". . . he has been exposed for misleading the people and misleading the Parliament." The honourable member has also Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. That legislation is before the House and the Minister has the opportunity to reply today. I believe that he cannot rise on a matter of privilege in relation to that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was going to make a ruling. In view of the fact that the legislation is before the House and the Minister can reply, I rule that he can make his statement at that time.
4846
4 Dec 1996
Primary Industries staff to rural areas where they are needed, funds to subsidise water and sewerage programs in small communities and an increase in drought relief funding. All this is evidence that the Government is determined to put the heart back into the heartland of Queenslanda heart that has been torn out by the wrong policies, the horror of drought and low commodity prices over six slow years. Few in this place would doubt the contribution that the women of the State have made in overcoming such hardships over those years. Rebuilding of the bush will take time, hard work and dedication. There are few easy answers, but I have great faith in Queenslanders, particularly the women of this council, to help bring about real solutions. The Government will certainly be listening to their advice. From a month after being sworn inand the Office of Women's Affairs was established to pursue such matterswe have worked long and hard to establish a mechanism that could make a real difference for women, families and communities of rural and regional areas by giving strong advice to Government. The steering committee, which made recommendations to Government last month, found strong support for such a women's council. So from March next year, that council will be a reality. The council will be required to consult extensively with the community and community organisations in formulating its recommendations. Issues to receive direct attention from the council include ways to provide jobs in traditional rural industries and in new industries, to give better access to telecommunications and to strengthen regional centres. Members of the council will represent all statistical regions of Queensland outside Brisbane. Those members are Jan Joyce, appointed chair, Beaudesert; Angela Toppin, deputy chair and member representing women of non-English speaking backgrounds, Mareeba; Joan Byers, Calen; Teresa Allen, Kumbia; Ellen Cotter, Goomeri; Jan Darlington, Monto; Laurel McCarthy, member representing Aboriginal women, Yarrabah; Elizabeth Gillam, Clifton; Jenny Crichton, Morven; Pat Fennell, Mount Isa; Betsy Fysh, Longreach; Jo-anne Fitchett, Kirwan; and Zena Ronfeldt, Dalby. The members for the Fitzroy area and for Torres Strait will be announced in the immediate future. The council's term will extend from March 1997 to June 1999 with a review by the Office of Women's Affairs due in March 1999. The establishment of this council honours the hardworking women and families who support
life outside the relative comforts of the city. It is an acknowledgment of the massive contribution that so many women make to the State by keeping their communities, industries and families viableusually while juggling their responsibilities to work, farm life, business, and, of course, raising children. These women are some of the most resourceful and experienced people in Queensland. They are experts on what works and does not work on the farm and in our regional areas. They will do the women of Queensland proud. I congratulate them on being appointed to the council and I look forward to receiving their first report and betterto making a real difference to life in rural and regional Queensland. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Surgery on Time Project Hon. M. J. HORAN (Toowoomba SouthMinister for Health) (9.38 a.m.), by leave: I wish to report to honourable members on the current status of the Surgery on Time initiative. As honourable members are aware, the Surgery on Time initiative was developed by Queensland Health as a Statewide approach to enhancing elective surgery services and reducing waiting times for elective surgery. The plan was approved by Cabinet on 1 July this year. Ten hospitals across the State were selected to be a part of the project. These hospitals are Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Nambour, Prince Charles, Royal Brisbane, Princess Alexandra, Gold Coast, Ipswich and Toowoomba. The hospitals were selected based on size and location criteria and collectively represent 70 per cent of the occupied surgical bed days for Queensland public hospitals. The targets for the Surgery on Time project for 31 December 1996 are: (1) a reduction to less than 5 per cent of Category 1 patients waiting longer than the recommended maximum of 30 days; (2) a reduction of the percentage of Category 2 patients waiting longer than the recommended maximum of 90 days; and (3) maintenance of the percentage of Category 3 patients waiting longer than the recommended maximum of 12 months. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr HORAN: In the first six months of the project, information systems have been implemented which facilitated the collection of data relating to waiting times for elective surgery in Queensland. Elective surgery coordinators were appointed at the
4 Dec 1996
4847
participating hospitals and are the vital link between the corporate project and the hospitals. The elective surgery coordinators have an oversight role in the management of elective surgery services and in ensuring the provision of reliable, consistent and comparable data. Full-time perioperative nurse educators have been employed in each of the 10 hospitals to implement training programs for all registered nurses entering perioperative nursing and to enhance skills for perioperative nurses already in the work force. Similarly, operating theatre management information systems are being progressively introduced to enable the better utilisation of our operating theatres, an equipment replacement program has been implemented and funding has been allocated to boost day surgery and support post-acute services for patients who have undergone surgery. Finally, considerable financial resources have been distributed to hospitals throughout the State to support extra elective surgery activity over and above base activity. As a result of these initiatives and the dedication and hard work of the staff of the participating hospitals, there have been an additional 2,080 operations performed in July, August and September of 1996 compared with the previous year. Special mention should be made of Townsville Hospital which, in July 1996, recorded its highest level of surgical activity ever. Princess Alexandra Hospital has also recorded a significant increase in surgical activity in the three-month period. I am very proud and pleased to inform the Parliament that the Surgery on Time initiative has achieved its first major milestone one month early. As of 1 December 1996, the proportion of Category 1 patients waiting clinically inappropriate times has been reduced to 4.5 per cent across the 10 hospitals. Of the 10 hospitals participating in Surgery on Time, there are three hospitals which are yet to reach the end of year target. Rockhampton Base Hospital currently has 14 per cent of Category 1 patients who are long-wait patients. This is a tremendous effort by this hospital which at 1 November this year had 43 per cent of Category 1 patients waiting longer than clinically appropriate. As the current number of long-wait patients is seven, the hospital assures me that it will reach its target of less than 5 per cent as at 31 December. Townsville General Hospital currently has 12 per cent of patients who are classified long waits. This represents a total of nine patients and again the hospital has assured me that it will reach the Category 1 end of year target. Finally, Cairns Base Hospital is marginally
above the end of year target with 6.25 per cent long-wait patients. This equates to two patients only, and again the hospital has assured me that it will reach the end of year target of less than 5 per cent. I am also pleased to inform the House that the proportion of Category 2 patients waiting longer than the recommended time has been reduced and the number of Category 3 patients waiting longer than the recommended time has been maintained at a similar level. The tremendous achievements being made to reduce waiting times for elective surgery in Queensland public hospitals are entirely due to the dedication and commitment of the health professionals in this State and particularly at those 10 hospitals. This result would not have occurred without their ongoing support and enthusiasm, and I look forward to an equally successful 1997. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Foreign Language Study Hon. R. J. QUINN (MerrimacMinister for Education) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: I rise to inform the House of new guidelines relating to foreign language study, which will be introduced into Queensland schools from the start of the next school year. Ever since Languages Other Than Englishor LOTE became a compulsory subject in Queensland schools, many in the community have voiced concerns that there were no exemptions available for students who do not have the capacity to benefit from such study. It was plainly unacceptable that no formal mechanisms were available to exempt certain categories of students. There are certain parallels that can be drawn between LOTE and other subjects such as physical education. No thinking person would expect students with severe physical disabilities to engage in high-order physical activities, for example, the triathlon. They could never achieve an appropriate level of competence no matter what effort was expended. Clearly they would be better off spending their time on other activities more aligned to their needs. So it is with LOTE. From next year, the following exemptions for students studying a compulsory core subject will apply students with intellectual or hearing disabilities who require intensive specialised assistancethat is ascertained at levels 4, 5 or 6; students with learning difficulties requiring individual education programsIEPs
4848
4 Dec 1996
and intervention and support from learning support teachers; students who because of cultural background, impairment, religion or political beliefs may ask for exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act. All such exemptions will have to be made in collaboration with school personnel, specialist personnel and parents and approved by the executive director of the relevant region. Students who can show that they are already fulfilling the requirements of a schoolbased LOTE program can also be exempted. Such examples could be distance education students living in a non-English speaking country where they are learning the language of that country; students with disabilities such as vision, hearing or physical impairment who may have to undertake LOTE through distance education under a special approved category; non-English speaking students; students for whom English is a second language. This does not prevent the student from taking a third language by choice. In some instances Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students may be regarded as learning English as a second language. All exemptions in this category will also require approval by the relevant executive director. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Small Business Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa Minister for Tourism, Small Business and Industry) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: When this coalition Government came into office, we made a firm commitment to the people of Queensland to reduce unnecessary red tape affecting business. As part of that commitment I set up the Red Tape Reduction Task Force to look at the compliance and administrative burden placed on business, particularly small business, by State and local governments. This task force is business based and comprises people from leading business and industry associations. I have pleasure in informing members of this House that Mr Don Keough of Business Queensland has been appointed as the chair. Mr Keough brings to the task force a great deal of business skill and knowledge of small business in Queensland. As some members of the House would be aware, the previous
Government's main policy in terms of cutting red tape was the systematic review of legislation which, I might point out, did not consider the issues of local regulations, a major issue of concern for the business community. Under the previous Government's grand plan, the systematic review process was left with the relevant Government department to be responsible for conducting reviews. When I had an opportunity to really look into this issue, I just saw that it was a case of Caesar judging Caesar. How can a department look at its own regulations and honestly look at the impact they may have on business? Business is saddled with complying with reams of legislation and regulations, which is costing them time and money. Studies conducted by my department show that the ongoing cost of complying with Government requirements represents up to 3 per cent of firms' turnover, up to 11 per cent of wages, and up to 35 per cent of net profits. Businesses are under pressure out there, and it is no wonder when one looks at what the previous Government did to make it so tough for small business. My Red Tape Reduction Task Force is serious about reducing this burden and the cost businesses have to put up with just to comply. The task force has come up with a number of recommendations which have been endorsed by Cabinet. It is going to look at issues such as providing greater flexibility and improvements of all business licences, such as longer registration periods and more flexible payment options; simplifying and streamlining operating licences required by tourism resorts; improving access by business to up-todate Acts, regulations and related guidelines; introducing customer service standards for all State Government agencies which administer regulations; reducing the burden on the tourism industry arising from regulations imposed by Government departments; and simplifying gaming machine and art union licences. It was clear to this Government from the initial outcomes of the task force that businesses in Queensland want us to look into these issues as a priority and find ways to ease the burden. Work has already commenced on the priority issues raised in their recommendations and by March/April
4 Dec 1996
4849
next year the task force will report to Cabinet on exactly how the burden can be lifted. I was delighted that during the Estimates committee hearings of my portfolio the Leader of the Opposition expressed his bipartisan support for the task force. In subsequent discussions, the Leader of the Opposition has voiced his support that the task force could make a real difference for the small-business community in this State and I again thank him for his support. This is a positive step forward for Government to get off the back of business, and that is what this Government is about, letting business get on with business. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dugong Recovery and Conservation Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Western DownsMinister for Environment) (9.49 a.m.), by leave: On Saturday, a meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council was held in Brisbane. An important item on the agenda was emergency measures needed for dugong recovery and conservation for the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent areas. The ministerial council adopted a recommendation that included confirmation that urgent action is required to ensure recovery of dugong populations in the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent waters. The council agreed to a list of nine interim dugong protection areas and to consider listing a further two areas as the basis of a sanctuary system. The principle of having such areas at approximately 200-kilometre intervals was recognised. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in cooperation with the Queensland Departments of Environment and Primary Industries and the Queensland Fish Management Authority, is to report to both Governments by 28 February next year on what action is necessary to ensure no further dugong mortality occurs as a result of commercial and recreational fishing practices in each of the protection areas. The aim is to ensure that fishing practices which may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in these areas. The report will be prepared in consultation with the fishing industry. Other measures include legislation to require attendance at offshore set mesh nets; enhanced surveillance and enforcement targeting areas of high dugong risk;
restrictions on the use of explosives by the Department of Defence; addressing the issues of Aboriginal and Islander involvement in the taking of dugong; and asking for a report on the status of research into the health and distribution of seagrasses. I seek leave of the House to table the resolution of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council with regard to dugong and a map showing the interim dugong protection areas. Leave granted. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Atherton Tableland, Proposed Sugar Mill Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) (9.51 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to be able to inform the House that all impediments have been cleared to allow the building of the proposed sugar mill near Mareeba on the Atherton Tableland. Over the past few months, an interim mill suppliers committee has been negotiating with Bundaberg Sugar Limited over details for the supply of sugarcane to the proposed mill. Just last week, the growers and the miller reached agreement on the basis for this mill to be built and for a strong sugarcane growing industry to be developed on the tablelands to supply cane to the mill. This is extremely significant for the Atherton Tableland's economy. It is also significant because this is the first new mill in over 70 years. The agreement represents a balance of the interests of the growers and the miller, while still being innovative. The success of the negotiations is due in large part to the tireless efforts of the women and men of the interim mill suppliers committee under the chairmanship of Mr George Adil and to the efforts of Mr Grant McLean and his team from Bundaberg Sugar. However, I must inform the House that the Government's policy of partnership with industry also was significant in achieving the resolution that will lead to this mill and to a strong economy on the tablelands. This Government worked closely with the growers and the miller, and with other sectors of the sugar industry, to assist these parties in reaching their agreement in the short time available to them. Our policy of partnership is proving itself to be very positive, and stands in contrast to the approach of the previous Government.
4850
4 Dec 1996
One must doubt that the mill would ever have been possible without a coalition Government and a change in philosophy from the past to that of genuine partnership. Soon after coming to Government, we started talks with the industry on the infrastructure that would be necessary to kick-start a sugar industry on the tablelands. This will give a tremendous boost to the economy of that area, which was so devastated by previous Labor decisions to destroy the timber industry. We gave substance to our policy belief that a Government investment in infrastructure would be a sound investment in this State's future. Government water, power, and transport infrastructure clears the way for private investors to build new industries and provide new jobs. What a contrast with the previous administration, which sat on its hands while our infrastructure decayed! I wish the tablelands growers and Bundaberg Sugar well in their future efforts, and look forward to announcing to this House the commissioning of the mill in June 1998. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Valuation of Land Act Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego Minister for Natural Resources) (9.53 a.m.), by leave: On 7 October, I presented a report to Cabinet on the State's valuations system which contained 68 recommendations on how to simplify the system and make it more open and accountable. While a detailed study of the recommendations is continuing, some early amendments to the Valuation of Land Act can be made. Cabinet this week approved amendments which will provide a separate value for each lot in a plan of subdivision instead of the current method of assessing subdivided land as a total package; remove the reference to cane assignments in the Actsomething sought by the sugarcane industry for some years; and adjust the display, objection and appeal periods for a valuation to a standard 42 days instead of the current range of periods from 21 days to 60 days. Providing a separate value for each lot in a subdivision will result in administration savings for both the Department of Natural Resources and local government. It will allow administrators to target rates and land tax at the people who actually own the land instead of missing them or targeting the wrong person.
This move, an initiative of the Local Government Association of Queensland, will come into effect from 1 July next. So as not to penalise subdividers, we will no longer provide an overall value of the land held vacant in subdivision but will provide a valuation of each lot. A 40 per cent discount of the valuation will be applied by local governments and the Office of State Revenue for calculating rates and land tax. This discount will have a sunset after a maximum of two years general rates and one land tax period applying from 30 June next. Currently, the Act provides for a 21-day display period for new valuations, 28 days for objections and appeals and 60 days for objections on new parcels of land. The report recommends that the objection, display and appeal periods be standardised at 42 days, the extended period for objections allowing more time for owners to consider options on grievances. This is what Cabinet has decided. Currently, the Act contains specific references to cane assignments forming part of the unimproved value. However, the sugarcane industry is not as regulated as it was in the past with, for example, the ability to move assignments around. It means there is no longer any particular need to specifically highlight cane assignments in the legislation. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Department of Housing Hon. R. T. CONNOR (Nerang Minister for Public Works and Housing) (9.56 a.m.), by leave: The Auditor-General's report, tabled in Parliament yesterday, has raised serious concerns regarding the record of accountability of the Department of Housing under the previous Minister, Terry Mackenroth. The Auditor-General's report documents a mountain of problems I inherited from the previous Labor Government. The records relate to Labor's maladministration and show they lacked ongoing accountability. As soon as I became aware of the enormity of these serious problems, I initiated revised procedures. I sought the assistance of the Office of the Public Service, which has established a task force comprising officers of both departments to investigate the issues essentially raised by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General's report is only part of the story. There is also a consultant's report commissioned by the member for Chatsworth when he was the Housing Minister. I table that report. There are also other reports, such as the Audit Office memorandum of 30 July,
4 Dec 1996
Overseas Visit
4851
which I also table. The Auditor-General's comments in the memorandum included criticism of the department in relation to unsigned ministerial approvals, lack of funding agreements, accountability, documentation not submitted by the recipients, reconciliation of grants not completed, lack of supporting documentation, incorrect coding of transactions, missing files and lack of system appraisal. The member for Chatsworth's legacy, spelt out in the Auditor-General's report, highlights Labor's mismanagement and lack of accountability. These are just some examples of Labor's legacy continuation of providing bond loans outside guidelines; and a system that produced more than 400 cheques for people who had disappeared off the tenancy rolls that were sitting around the department. Most of the cheques went nowhere and were still sitting there when we took Government months later. We should also not forget the HOME Scheme and the Rental Purchase Plan home ownership scheme failures and the total breakdown of the rental bond loan system. Data anomalies on the file also revealed the following anomalies 117 records which had the account number of 000,000,0002; and 431 records with the account number of 00,00,9999,97. That is over 500 records with just two account numbers! No wonder the Auditor-General was upset. The bond loan program assists people who cannot afford to pay the rental bond required to enter into private rental accommodation. These audit findings show that the bad debts written off over the last three years totalled $16m and, on average, represented 52 per cent of outstanding loans over those yearsmore than half were bad debts. Where were the policies and accountability? Additional issues identified by external audit included instances where they did not comply with the departmental policy on eligibility for bond loans in that the loans were given to people who had a previous outstanding bond loan debt; already had ownership of a property;
had income greater than the eligibility criteria; and were already living in the premises. Many measures have been put in place to clean up Labor's bond loans mess. The financial administration has been the subject of critical audit comment since 1993-94three years of maladministration under the member for Chatsworth. Labor's former Housing Minister should hang his head in shame. The former Minister also allowed letters of demand to be sent when nothing was owing. I table a letter dated 13 February that details bond loan accounts of zero required to be paid in arrears. Other debts were negative. One letter of demand required minus $20 to be paid; another required minus $30 to be paid. I table those documents for the information of the House. The former Minister also allowed millions of dollars to be supplied to community groups for the building of houses where the Act quite specifically required mortgage documents to go out without mortgages, and then put in place a process of offering $100,000-plus in a political cover-up of the fact that he had not complied with the Act. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue. When I became the Minister, there was no requirement for community groupsa carryover from the National/Liberal Party Governmentsto have any funding documents in place. I instituted procedures to have them put in place. Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr MACKENROTH: What he says is untrue and I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr CONNOR: Whatever the previous Minister found to be untrue, I withdraw. However, the legal advice given to my department is that the Housing Act as it was under the previous Minister required that there should be mortgages against those houses, and there was not. The previous Minister implemented a program that required that to be put in place. OVERSEAS VISIT Report Hon. D. E. McCAULEY (Callide Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.01 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House a report of my recent visit to Canada and the United States of America.
4852
Notices of Motion
4 Dec 1996
SITTING HOURS ON WEDNESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 1996 Sessional Order Mr FITZGERALD (LockyerLeader of Government Business) (10.02 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That not withstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, this day's sitting of the House will continue past 7.30 p.m. Private members' motions will be debated between 6 and 7 p.m. The House will then break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. Government business will take precedence for the remainder of the day's sitting except for a 30 minute adjournment debate." Motion agreed to. ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL Remaining Stages; Abridgment of Time Mr FITZGERALD (LockyerLeader of Government Business) (10.02 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That so much of Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to enable the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill to pass through all its remaining stages at this day's sitting." Motion agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Misrepresentation by Minister for Health Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane CentralLeader of the Opposition) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Health. In an answer to a question on notice on 4 September and in the Maryborough Chronicle on 3 December 1996, the Minister for Health said that on 1 July 1995 I had introduced changes to the eligibility criteria for people wanting to access Home Help services. In Opposition, the Minister never got much right; in Government, he misleads about dental lists, has not got a clue about hospital budgets and operates on waiting lists instead of patients. However, this incident is amongst his worst cases of misleading people. I became the Minister on 31 July 199530 days after Mr Horan alleged I had made changes. On 1 July, the Government was in a caretaker mode and would have made no changes of a policy nature under the
conventions. Mr Horan is now the Minister and is in a position to direct extra funding to Home Help. He should stop trying to blame others for his own incompetence. NOTICES OF MOTION Performance of Coalition Government Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane CentralLeader of the Opposition) (10.04 a.m.): I give notice that I will move "That this House Notes that a complete lack of leadership by the Premier and Deputy Premier has resulted in Queensland ending 1996 with the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State; the lowest business confidence in the country; a stagnant economy with capital works and major projects stalled; dozens of broken promises in health, law and order, education and other services; an excessive number of inquiries and reviews, now totalling 144; a Cabinet of non-performers incapable of providing leadership, vision and strong, decisive management for Queensland; seven new or increased taxes; government administration in turmoil; and Condemns the Borbidge-Sheldon Government for repeatedly breaking its Contract with the people of Queensland, leaving a litany of broken promises and a growing and dangerous economic malaise." Queensland Public Sector Ms BLIGH (South Brisbane) (10.05 a.m.): I give notice that I will move "That this House (1) Expresses grave concern about the Government's secret agenda for the Queensland public sector, including the introduction of Competitive Service Delivery requirements for all Budget sector agencies;
4 Dec 1996
Private Members' Statements
4853
the introduction of a purchaser/provider split in the delivery of public services; the introduction of radical new models of service delivery, including contractual franchising, voucher payments and direct social payments; and (2) Further, notes that the Government has no mandate for the implementation of this agenda and calls on the Government to put an immediate halt to the development and implementation of these proposals until a comprehensive Government discussion paper has been prepared and released for public consultation." Food Hygiene Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (10.06 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move "That this House notes with concern the suspected food related viral infection outbreak of passengers travelling on a Brisbane to Townsville Ansett flight last week, and that during the month of November the confirmed 500-plus passengers contracting salmonella poisoning on 14 Qantas flights out of Cairns; the 80 students and 9 teachers at Park Ridge High School who suffered food poisoning at a Brisbane Hotel; the 84 Townsville people who suffered food poisoning from eating chicken at seven different functions; the food poisoning outbreak in Toowoomba; and acknowledges the growing loss of public confidence in the food hygiene, food inspection systems in Queensland, the concern for the 'clean image' of our food exporting industries and the damage being done to our tourism industry; and condemns the State Government for its inaction and refusal to debate and establish an all-party select committee to inquire into this matter as I proposed to the House on 4 September 1996." PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Connolly Inquiry; Performance of Coalition Government Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane CentralLeader of the Opposition) (10.07 a.m.): The
Opposition regards with the utmost seriousness the intrusion into the operations of Parliament by the Borbidge Government's Connolly inquiry. The Connolly inquiry has demanded, in a clear breach of parliamentary privilege, that the accountability dealings between the CJC and the PCJC should be sacrificed to the inquiry for the benefit of a politically motivated inquiry. Is nothing sacred? Agents of the Borbidge/Connolly inquiry are trying to infringe on the rights of the Parliament in a clear breach of the spirit of Fitzgerald. As parliamentarians, we need to be vigilant against such attacks or intrusions on Parliament which, after all, is the people's House. In the minute remaining, I wish to talk about the Government's performance. On 2 December a column appeared in the Deputy Treasurer's own local paper, the Sunshine Coast Daily, headed "Shame Qld, shame". The Deputy Premier's local paper states that there is "a lack of leadership" by the Government and discusses its "abysmal performance". The article states, "the public service are forever wondering who will be next on the hit list" and that "promises on law and order, education and health . . . seem to lurch from one crisis to another as they slide downhill." The article continues ". . . but where is the protest at a Government so obsessed with saving its own skin against possible charges of electoral bribery that running the State is purely secondary? Where is the protest at the enormous cost to the Queensland taxpayer of all these inquiries? ... As for the treatment and undermining of this Government towards the CJC, I can only say I am quite appalled. ... Once again Queensland has become the butt for interstate jokes . . . Once again we have a Coalition that is secretive and places no importance on honesty and integrity in their determination to remain in power . . . Once again we have returned to the preFitzgerald era. ... Our State should be holding its head in shame."
4854
4 Dec 1996
Ready Recruits Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (10.09 a.m.): Recently, I visited the Ready Recruits work program being run on the Sunshine Coast for unemployed, particularly young, people. One of the main objectives of the program is to make unemployed people ready to enter the work force. When I talked to some of the young people involved in the program, I was quite disturbed to see their situation, because they are not used to the normal work force that many of us have come to expect. We need to look at this tragic situation, particularly as there are over one million unemployed people in Australia. On the Sunshine Coast alone there are 13,000 unemployed people. We need to look more deeply at the reasons for this situation. Many commentators have suggested that it goes back to changes in tariff structures and technology. However, today in this country we have a higher participation rate than we had 20 years ago. Social changes have created a group of people in the community who find it difficult to obtain work. I commend the work of some Government Ministers, particularly the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Small Business, and the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations, who are working hard to try to get the Queensland economy going. I am sure that that will happen in 1997. Those Ministers are working very hard, and we will take on this issue. I call on the Federal Government to find new ways of dealing with the residual numbers of people who will find it extremely difficult to get into the full-time work force. Time expired. Police Service; Operational Shift Allowance Mr BARTON (Waterford) (10.11 a.m.): I refer to the considerable concern being expressed by serving police officers and their union about the removal of a significant number of police from the 19 per cent operational shift allowance, along with the introduction of very tight new restrictions on police overtime. The shift allowance scheme was in lieu of overtime and provided improved availability of police to the public at the busiest times, particularly on weekends. In answer to a question on notice last week, the Police Minister advised me that the allowance provided an increase in the number of available shifts of 6.1 per cent, a most significant increase. In that answer, the Minister supported the operational shift
allowance. The Minister also strongly supported the operational shift allowance in his budget program statement during the consideration of the Estimates this year. I ask the question: why is the Minister allowing its use to be greatly reduced? The current action of removing some of the 4,500 police from this arrangement will reduce the availability of the Police Service to the public at the busiest of times. Those officers are now also having overtime tightly restricted, my advice is, to two hours per week without prior approval regardless of the circumstances. This will save costs in the State's crime operations alone of some $600,000. The public deserve to have the highest number of the already scarce police numbers available. The police must be allowed to work in the most effective manner on behalf of the public. Their union notified the State Industrial Commission on Monday of a dispute, and that will be the subject of a compulsory conference today. I trust that the Industrial Commission will look after the interests of the public and the police a lot better than this Minister is. The availability of the 19 per cent shift allowance was one of the most important reforms introduced by the Goss Government. It is sad to see it being destroyed by this Minister. Papaya Fruit Fly Inspection Stations Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (10.13 a.m.): I wish to praise the role of the papaya fruit fly inspection stations in fighting to control the spread of the pest. The roadblock at Rollingstone completed its first year of operations on 1 December. Since its establishment, more than half a million cars have passed through it. The Rollingstone effort was complemented by the establishment last month of the Cardwell inspection station. The Cardwell inspection station, which is located eight kilometres south of the town, provides further protection against the spread of the fly south. During the initial weeks of its operation, some interesting data has emerged which reinforces the importance of the roadblock. The Cardwell inspection station is open from dawn till dusk seven days a week and is staffed by 11 DPI officerssix full-time and five casual. Since commencing operations on Monday, 11 November, a total of 22,879 vehicles have stopped at the inspection station, with the daily average being 1,089. A staggering 22.5 wheelie bins full of fruit have been seized at the roadblock, mostly taken from tourists and locals who had yet to realise
4 Dec 1996
4855
that the Cardwell roadblock was up and running. Reflecting the seasonal fruit available, mangoes are the most common fruit seized at Cardwell. However, apples, oranges and bananas are also quite common. After less than a month since it was established, the Cardwell inspection station has already proven its worth. It is important that the stringent controls placed on producers having to comply with southern market requirements to sell their produce have not been carried out in vain. There are people who try to avoid the inspection stations and risk spreading the papaya fruit fly to other areas. Some people were circumventing the Rollingstone roadblock by driving via Mount Fox and High Range. Time expired. Auditor-General; Commission of Audit Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich) (10.15 a.m.): The year 1996 will go down as the year in which the Queensland Government set out to deceive the people of Queensland as to the state of our public finances. In a desperate attempt to pursue its political agenda, the Government allocated $1m to its Commission of Audit to push the coalition's ideological agenda of selling off public assets and contracting out public sector services. Despite the Treasurer having to admit in her Budget Speech that the 1995-96 Budget was in surplus on an accrual basis, much had been made of the Commission of Audit's allegation that there was a growing Budget deficit. We now have the Auditor-General expressing his concerns about the Commission of Audit. At page 133 of the First Report of the Auditor-General on Audits Performed for 1995-96, he states "Despite the use of the word 'audit', the Queensland Commission of Audit and similar Commissions set up by Governments in other jurisdictions have not conducted audits in the traditional or commonly understood sense. Rather, the roles of the Commissions have been directed more at reporting on the current and projected overall financial position through the preparation of varying consolidated statements of financial position based on a number of unaudited assumptions." On 25 July, the Treasurer told Parliament that the Auditor-General was very familiar with her Commission of Audit. She also told Parliament how she tried to cloak her Commission of Audit with respectability by seconding as a
member of the secretariat of the Commission of Audit Mr Errol Mulvahil, the Audit Manager of the Queensland Audit Office. She quoted from a letter sent by the Auditor-General to the then acting Under Treasurer in which the Auditor-General stated that the "experience was invaluable for Errol". No doubt this experience has also been invaluable for the Auditor-General, who has found it necessary to clarify his position vis-a-vis the Treasurer, her bogus audit and its politically motivated report. He states "While a senior member of my staff was seconded to the Secretariat of the Commission, no inference should be drawn that the estimated balances and projected financial results were subjected to audit by me." I congratulate the Auditor-General on reasserting his independence and exposing the Treasurer's attempts to mislead the Parliament. In conclusion, one can only pose the question: when is an audit not an audit? The answer is: when the Treasurer commissions it. Sitting Days/Hours Statistics Mr TANTI (Mundingburra) (10.17 a.m.): I wish to point out that the Leader of the Opposition's rantings in this Chamber about the coalition Government's failures to achieve give me just another opportunity to provide details that again prove that the only true failure in this Chamber is Mr Beattie's failure. Yes, the dummy-spitting "Elmer Fudd" of the Labor Party has failed. This is Chapter 4 in my serial, and I touch on details in relation to comparative statistics on sitting days, sitting hours and the number of Bills passed by this hardworking, achieving, forward-moving Government that continues to outperform the lacklustre bunch on the Opposition benches. The Opposition's only truly capable member is Anna Bligh. This Government thanks the Leader of Government Business, Mr Tony FitzGerald, for the way in which he has controlled the passage of legislation. During the period from February 1996 to the end of November 1996, this Government passed 74 Bills. During the same period in 1995, the Labor Party passed only 58 Bills. Under this Government, the Deputy Premier passed 20 Bills; Denver Beanland, 12 Bills; Trevor Perrett, 6 Bills; Rob Borbidge, 5 Bills; and Bob Quinn, 5 Bills. During our time, we sat for 463 hours and 49 minutes on 44 sitting days, while the former Labor Party Government sat for only 339
4856
4 Dec 1996
hours and 25 minutes on 45 sitting days. Our average duration of hours per sitting day was 10 hours and 32 minutes, compared to Labor's 7 hours and 33 minutes. While the failed Leader of the Opposition rants and raves and wastes time on any piece of muckraking that his ill-advised minders run with, this Government has passed Bills that set this State for a huge future through many reforms in law and order, education, State finances, transport and health. The Labor Opposition Leader is so worried about his party's factional fighting and the shadow of the Phantom creeping up on him that he has allowed this Government to outperform his lacklustre group. I again say that the Leader of the Opposition has failed. Princess Alexandra Hospital Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (10.19 a.m.): Yesterday I received information from concerned staff at the PA Hospital that they would soon lose beds from the intensive care unit and/or up to five nursing positions. I managed to confirm that a final decision on these bed closures and staffing reductions would be made this Thursday. Hospital staff have been told to make these drastic cuts to pay for the PA's budget overrun of which over $250,000 has been sheeted home to the intensive care unit. The empty promises of the Minister who said he would open wards and beds and boost staffing levels has been exposed as a fraud yet again. With all the arrogance we have come to expect, the Minister's spokesman confirmed the story in the CourierMail , admitting that the bed closures and the sacking of nurses in the ICU at the PA were due to budgetary pressures. That is code in the Health Department for "budget overruns". But how can this be? The Minister told the Parliament during the Budget estimates that he had given all hospitals a clean slate. Clearly this is another fraud and the real reason behind the Minister's decision to refuse my calls for him to release details of individual hospital budgets. I suppose the Minister's press secretary thinks his comments are pretty funny. He said that the PA's intensive care unit would be moved. Why? Supposedly to make better use of the unit! That is not an honest appraisal, as usual. The staff and services are going, going, gone as a direct result of mismanagement and budget bungling thanks to the Minister. At a time of the year when ICU and trauma services are stretched to the limit due to the road carnage which sadly comes with the
Christmas holiday season, this Minister wants to cut back intensive care services. Whether or not a person goes to ICU is now a monetary decision rather than a medical/clinical one just like the directive made under this Government that patients cannot get sick at the end of the month because the hospital might have a bit of a budget overrun. I have never once heard of the PA intensive care unit being anything but full most of the time, and to go and cut this essential service should be an indictable offence. The Labor Government was planning increased high-dependency beds at PA to reduce the pressure. This Government is cutting them. Time expired. Exercise Rough Landing, Clermont Mr MITCHELL (Charters Towers) (10.21 a.m.): The town of Clermont was the host centre for Exercise Rough Landing. Emergency services are vital in any community, especially when most of those in my area are volunteer based. I am very pleased with the way the Clermont community responds to emergencies. Exercise Rough Landing was a simulated exercise using personnel and equipment from responding agencies and was designed to review emergency procedures through the stages of a crash alert, culminating in a passenger aircraft crash on approach to the Clermont aerodrome. Organisations participating in the exercise were the Belyando Shire Council, the Queensland Ambulance Service, the Queensland Fire Service, the Queensland Police Service, the State Emergency Service and the Clermont Hospital. The aim was to exercise, in real time, the call-out and response procedures of emergency services and associated agencies to an aircraft crash within the vicinity of the Clermont aerodrome. The objectives were: to review the real-time response of emergency services; to review the resource requirements and their availability for effective rescue, evacuation and care of people on board; to identify and take steps to eradicate any serious procedural and functional weaknesses; to exercise the command, control, coordination and communication procedures between participating organisations responding to the exercise; and to review standing operation procedure/s. Fourteen emergency service personnel responded and were in attendance at the aerodrome, and others would have been on stand-by in Clermont.
4 Dec 1996
4857
At all times it was noticed that there was a high degree of cooperation and consultation between all agencies involved in the exercise. The exercise director in his summary said that from the results of the exercise it appears that the emergency procedures in the aerodrome manual worked well and no changes are required. He also mentioned that the emergency service personnel can be well pleased with their performance on the day and feel confident of their ability to cope with reallife situations. Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (10.23 a.m.): Last week the Government passed its Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill through the Parliament. At the time, the Opposition drew the attention of the House to its concerns that Division 4 of the Bill dealing with the cancellation of enrolments of students over 15 years of age might breach the AntiDiscrimination Act. Following repeated questioning during the second-reading debate and at the Committee stage, the Minister said that, to the best of his advice, only the AntiDiscrimination Tribunal could ultimately determine whether the Anti-Discrimination Act has been breached. Since that debate, further information has come to me via concerned public servants that this Minister and this Government have knowingly and deliberately passed a Bill through the Parliament which they know to be in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act. In fact, the Minister has legal advice to this effect. I am further advised that one of the justifications given for deliberately contravening one of its own statutes is advice to the Education Minister that the AttorneyGeneral intends to amend the AntiDiscrimination Act in 1997 to either water down or remove age as one of the criteria for claiming discrimination. The Education Minister does not intend to proclaim the offending sectionsthat is, Division 4 of the Education (General Provisions) Amendment Billuntil the Attorney-General has amended the AntiDiscrimination Act. Not only does this represent highly questionable legislative practice in this Housepassing a Bill which anticipates future decisions of the Parliamentbut the Minister has also perpetrated a fraud on Queensland's education community and especially on high school principals. Either they have no additional powers to deal with students of post compulsory school age, as the Minister has
claimed, or principals are likely to finish up before the Anti-Discrimination Commission every time they use their powers. This Parliament and the public of Queensland have a right to know whether it is the intention of the Attorney-General to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove age as one of the criteria for claiming discrimination. Instead of coming in here by stealth and amending legislation in anticipation that at some point in the future it is going to change another Act and therefore not proclaiming parts of the legislation it passed last week, the Government should have the honesty and the decency to go out there in the community and express its intentions for the Anti-Discrimination Act. Time expired. Industry Services Group, Department of Primary Industries Mr MALONE (Mirani) (10.25 a.m.): I rise to commend the Minister for Primary Industries, the Honourable Trevor Perrett, MLA, on his recent initiative in establishing an Industry Services Group within his department. The entire Parliament should be under no illusion as to the difficulties that Queensland's primary industries have faced in recent years in terms of drought, poor commodity prices, declining terms of trade and the increasing regulatory and cost burdens placed on them by the previous Labor administration. Despite these adversities our primary industries have continued to reward this State with handsome returns. The coalition Government recognises the valuable economic and social contribution our primary industries make to Queensland and is 100 per cent committed to facilitating further development and success in these industries wherever possible. To this end, our Government has worked hard to develop an excellent working relationship with various industry organisations, and Trevor Perrett particularly is to be commended on his efforts and achievements in this regard. One such achievement is the establishment of the Industry Services Group within the Department of Primary Industries, which has been set up to provide industry organisations with expertise and assistance for conducting special projects, such as strategic plans and the like. This initiative has been welcomed by the industry organisations, most of which through no fault of their own have felt the full brunt of the difficulties mentioned already and which will find this initiative extremely valuable. In fact, a number of organisations have already utilised
4858
Questions Without Notice
4 Dec 1996
this service, including the Queensland Pork Producers Association, which is conducting a review of the organisation's structure in light of changes occurring within the industry, and the Sheep and Wool Council of Queensland, which is developing a strategic plan aimed at focusing its industry on a recovery plan. The entire Parliament will agree that the establishment of the Industry Services Branch within the DPI is indeed a tremendous initiative and an excellent use of departmental resources. It is also yet another example of Minister Perrett's commitment to take DPI back to the bush. Time expired. Gold Coast Hospital Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (10.28 a.m.): Last week the Minister for Health tabled the long-awaited report into serious matters about patient care endangering lives at the Gold Coast Hospital, and what a whitewash it was! The Minister tabled the report in Parliament without any explanation as to what he was going to do about the problems identified in the report because the report provides him with no self-glory opportunities. The Minister made sure the report discredited the complainant, Dr Denaro, Director of Medicine, before the complaints could be turned on the Minister. Minister Horan made sure the report included recommendation 3, which states "The Director of the Division of Medicine to raise issues of patient care in the appropriate forums within the Hospital." That is code for "Keep your mouth shut". The Minister claimed that no-one had supported Dr Denaro's claims of underresourcing leading to the compromising of patient care. Well, he did not look very far. Today 22 medical staff at the Gold Coast Hospital are saying exactly the same as the Labor Opposition: this report was aimed at saving Mr Horan's face, not patients' lives. If Dr Denaro thought he could have raised these complaints earlier, he would have done so, and the report itself confirmed inadequacies in the hospital for addressing patient care problems effectively. Recommendation 14 reveals a more serious breakdown in communication. It states "The Hospital executive investigate communication within Hospital and Divisions with the development of strategies to enhance communication eg. Skill development, staff meetings etc." Despite the obvious attack on the doctor who had the guts to speak out, the report
does back up Dr Denaro's claims in many key areas. The Minister launched the investigation with a view to muzzling the hospital's director of medicine, who rang the alarm about staffing shortages, underfunding and the dangers this posed to patient care, in exactly the same way he bullies all critics into silence. Nevertheless, he forced out the director of medicine before the people of the Gold Coast had time to digest the contents of the report so he could promise his usual Clayton's implementation of its recommendations. We found out what he planned to do about the problem from the moment the allegations were made. Time expired. PRIVILEGE Criminal Justice Commission Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to advise the House that I have referred the matter raised by Mr Grice on 3 December concerning the Criminal Justice Commission to the Privileges Committee. PRIVILEGE Tabling of Report Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (10.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. In the Minister for Public Works and Housing's ministerial statement this morning, he claimed that he would table a consultant's report which was commissioned by me. He then went on to table an internal audit report dated April 1996 and not a consultant's report that was commissioned by me. The Minister continually misleads the House in relation to issues. Mr Connor: I did table it; they just mixed it up. Mr MACKENROTH: The Minister tabled a Queensland Audit Office memorandum to his director-general and he tabled an internal operational audit report, not a consultant's report which was commissioned by me. It was an internal operational audit, not a consultant's report. I will not ask that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee because it would be sitting on Christmas Day to hear the types of things on which this bloke misleads the Parliament. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland Place Mr BEATTIE (10.31 a.m.): I refer the Minister for Public Works and Housing to the Cabinet submission he had prepared on the
4 Dec 1996
4859
future of Queensland Place, which is part of the Roma Street redevelopment, and I ask: was this Cabinet submission prepared to prevent access to documents which had been requested by the member for Chatsworth under the Freedom of Information Act, and what in particular is the Minister trying to hide from the people of Queensland? Mr Elder interjected. M r S P E A K E R : Order! Mr CONNOR: No, and the second part of the question is irrelevant. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Capalaba! I could not hear the Minister's answer. Mr CONNOR: I said, "No, and the second part of the question is irrelevant." Queensland Place Mr BEATTIE: Can the Minister for Public Works and Housing confirm that he or officers of his department held discussions with Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd about an arrangement to allow the company exclusive rights over part of the land at Queensland Place without going to public tender? Mr CONNOR: The department has had discussions. It was referred to Cabinet. Mr Mackenroth: You just said, "No." Mr CONNOR: No, I did not. It was referred to Cabinet. What was the other part of the question? Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I am happy to read it again to assist the Minister. Can he confirm that he or officers of his departmentand I will read it slowlyheld discussions with Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd about an arrangement to allow the company exclusive rights over part of the land at Queensland Place without going to public tender? Mr CONNOR: I have already answered it. Truth in Political Advertising M r S P R I N G B O R G : I ask the Premier to reaffirm the Government's commitment to truth in political advertising. Further, I ask: how does this position of the Government contrast with actions taken by the ALP? Mr BORBIDGE: In reply to the honourable member, I am pleased to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for changes to the law in respect of truth in political advertising. I would just like to
say that the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the Labor Party knows no bounds. Who can forget in the televised debate prior to the last election, when I issued the challenge to the member for Logan, the then Premier, for truth in political advertising how he seized on the moment and gave bipartisan support? In fact, an article in the Australian of 15 July states "Queensland's political adversaries gave bipartisan support yesterday to legislating for truth-in-election advertising ... During a televised debate on the eve of the State poll, the Premier, Mr Goss, rose to a challenge by the Opposition leader, Mr Borbidge, and supported the Coalition's commitment to amending the Electoral Act." How that contrasts with the attitude of the Labor Party now. I refer to an article in today's Courier-Mail which states "Labor members of a parliamentary committee have split from their Coalition counterparts and rejected a recommendation for all false, misleading and deceptive political advertising to be banned by legislation." The article went on to state "But the three Labor committee members issued a dissenting report, saying they supported truth in political advertising but any legislation which attempted to define and regulate truth in election campaigns would be unworkable." They did not say that during the election campaign. How can we forget these grubby little postcards that went right across marginal electorates from one end of the State to the other? On the front of the one I have here, it says, "Sold. Redland Hospital", and on the back it states "Dear Householder, The Nationals and Liberals will SELL OUR HOSPITALS and make you pay for health care. ... ONLY Wayne Goss and John Budd" do honourable members remember him "have a plan to REBUILD OUR HOSPITALS AND KEEP THEM FREE." These were the tactics that the Labor Party used during that election campaign.
4860
4 Dec 1996
When confronted in the only debate that the then Premier would have with me as Opposition Leader, he committed the Labor Party to bipartisan support. What did they do after the election? They had their opportunity to follow through on that alleged bipartisan support for truth in political advertising given on election eve by the member for Logan. When the Opposition developed a private member's Bill seeking to implement truth in political advertising, the then Attorney-General, the member for Yeronga, belatedly gave notice of a motion referring it to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. When this reference lapsed with the change in Government, I again asked the committee to reconsider this matter. We have a Labor Party that talks about ethics, talks about standards and talks about Parliament that should be working better. Then, on the eve of an election, members of the Labor Party say that they support truth in political advertising when they have been caught out telling deliberate porkies; then when they get the chance to do it, when we have a report from the relevant committee of this Parliament so that we can finally address this issue, we find that Labor members of the committee run the other way. The Leader of the Opposition and honourable members opposite are going to have their chance because the Government will be giving priority consideration to the recommendation of the committee with a view to bringing to the Parliament next year legislation in respect of truth in political advertising. The party that talks about standards, the party that talks about ethics, the party that talks about political decency in the last election campaign ran one of the most dishonest political campaigns probably seen in a recent election in this State. On the eve of that election it promised that it would give bipartisan support to truth in political advertising. The Labor Party has dingoed out on the deal. Its members in the parliamentary committee have said, "No". This Government's commitment to truth in political advertising remains very firm. Mr BEATTIE: I rise on a point of order. I challenge the Premier to make the legislation retrospective to Mundingburra. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BORBIDGE: The irony is that the Leader of the Opposition was a member in the Cabinet that said it would bring in truth in political advertising and did not do so from July
until they were chased out of office. As the Leader of the Opposition is on the issue of political ethics, he might like to tell the members of this House what he is going to do about the allegations of vote rigging in regard to preselections in his own party in Townsville. This is the man who talks about ethics and decency. Today's edition of the Townsville Bulletin states "ALP candidate for Thuringowa Karen Ehrmann could be dumped by her party faction for failing to support factional colleague Tony Mooney in his preselection battle for the seat of Townsville." It gets more and more interesting! "A highly placed, Labor source" Brisbane-based
that is code for the Leader of the Opposition "last night said moves were already under way in Ms Ehrmann's Australian Workers' Union faction to have her expelled from the faction. ... Former Townsville mayor Mr Reynolds defeated Mayor Mooney for the State seat of Townsville while Townsville city councillor Ms Ehrmann beat union official Terry Gillman in Thuringowa. ... Most allegations centred on Thuringowa, although it was clear yesterday they were spilling into Townsville. ... Meanwhile, it could be a week before Mr Gillman decides whether to lodge a protest. Mr Gillman said under party rules he had seven days to decide if he would take his evidence of irregularities in the local branch voting to Labor's head office. Mr Gillman's supporters believe as many as 35 votes which went to Ms Ehrmann should have been ruled invalid." So they are again at that proud old Labor tradition of branch stacking, of rigging preselections, the proud old Labor tradition of deceit in political advertising. Those are the sorts of tactics that they use during election campaigns. They say that they will support truth in political advertising. When they have their opportunity to do it, they dingo out and run the other way because they are too busy carrying on a factional brawl.
4 Dec 1996
4861
I wonder what Mr Smith, the member for Townsville, thinks about this. I wonder what the member for Thuringowa thinks about this. I wonder what the member for Sandgate, who has been overlooked again for the front bench in favour of the failed, recycled AttorneyGeneral from up the back of the Chamber, thinks about this. This is a faction-ridden Labor Party full of political dishonesty and deceit. To help out the Leader of the Opposition and in reply to the honourable member, I am pleased to advise the House that this Government remains totally committed to truth in political advertising. I would expect Cabinet to discuss the majority report of the committee early in the new year. I would also expect that, next year, the Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and enact appropriate legislation. Thiess Contractors Mr MACKENROTH: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Housing: did Cabinet agree with his submission to do a special deal for Thiess Contractors? What are the details of that deal? Mr CONNOR: Mr Speaker, I ask your consideration. I think that that matter is a confidential one for Cabinet. Surgery on Time Program Mr CARROLL: I ask the Minister for Health: will he please compare the increase in numbers of elective surgery procedures completed in Queensland public hospitals during the first three months of the coalition's Surgery on Time program with the number of such procedures performed during the same period last year under the then Labor Government? Mr HORAN: This morning, I was very proud to announce that the first target that the coalition Government had set under our Surgery on Time program has been achieved one month before schedule, that is, on average, across the 10 major hospitals in Queensland, fewer than five per cent of people are waiting more than 30 days for Category 1 surgery, which is the very important category of people who urgently need surgery within 30 days. This Government has delivered on the first part of its promise to fix up waiting lists. We have attacked that in an organised, practical, strategic way. We have gone from 49 per cent of Queenslanders who needed elective surgery under Category 1 waiting more than the recommended 30 days down to fewer than five per cent. This morning, in a
ministerial statement I complimented not only the staff of the 10 hospitals involved in that program but in particular the Townsville Hospital, which in July set record levels for elective surgery, and also the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which has made significant strides in the extra numbers of procedures that have been undertaken. We often hear criticism from the Opposition that we are reducing only the percentage of people who are waiting more than the required time. I have told the House again and again that the most important aspect of waiting for elective surgery is the waiting, that is: how long will a person wait? If a person needs urgent surgery within 30 days, the important consideration is how long that person will wait and whether that person will receive the procedure within the required time. We have already reached target 1. Target 2, scheduled for the end of 1997, is to get the percentage of Category 2 patients down to no more than 5 per cent long waits. That is a very, very tough assignment. I compliment the staff of Queensland Health, who have already achieved target 1 one month ahead of time. In the first three months of this financial year, in those 10 hospitals we have undertaken 2,080 more elective surgery procedures than in the first three months of the corresponding financial year under the Labor Government. Not only are we reducing the time that people wait so that people have confidence again in the public hospital system and in the elective surgery process but also we have done over 2,000 extra procedures in those 10 hospitals in the first three months of the year. The facts speak the truth. I challenge the Opposition to stand up and have a go at us about the Category 1 target, because it will not do that. All Labor did in 100 days was produce 30 pages of definitions. Queensland has gone from a Labor Government that was all fairy floss and public relations with a Health Minister who waltzed around producing 25,000 copies per week over four weeks of four separate colour bookletsall wordage, verbiage and fairy floss about what is the role of a surgeon and what is a hospitalto a coalition Government that stood up and stated our targets. Target 1 was Category 1 patients needing surgery within 30 days, which was to have no more than five per cent long waits. That figure is down from 49 per cent. In only five months we have achieved that target one month ahead of schedule. I do not think that there is a more dramatic example of how this Government is about being practical about achieving than
4862
4 Dec 1996
that wonderful achievement by the staff of Queensland Health. We have delivered and shown to the people of Queensland what we can do compared with the absolute nothingness, wordage, public relations and posters on the wall that were the efforts of the previous Labor Government. Once again, I compliment the staff of Queensland Health, including the administrators, medical staff, nursing profession, support staff and all of the colleges of the various professions who came together to make this a clinical program. They are the ones who deserve the praise for what they have achieved. The coalition Government is proud of its staff. Newnham Road Child Care; Member for Mansfield Mrs WOODGATE: In directing a question to the Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, I refer to the member for Mansfield, who serves on the ministerial parliamentary committee that advises the Minister on community care matters such as child care. I also refer to Australian Securities Commission documents which reveal that Newnham Road Child Care at 89 Newnham Road, Mount Gravatt, is owned by the member's family company, Solgoben Pty Ltd, and is administered by solicitors Bennett, Carroll and Gibbons, the law firm in which the member is a partner and retains a one-third financial interest. I table the documents. I ask: is it a fact that the Minister's departmental records show the owners of Newnham Road Child Care are F. and J. Carroll? Has the member for Mansfield disclosed his family interests in Newnham Road Child Care to the Minister or to other members of his ministerial parliamentary committee? Mr LINGARD: The member for Kurwongbah and I have a very good relationship, so much so that I have invited her to be on the selection panel for the Children's Commissioner. I am sure that, with that liaison, if she was decent enough to come to me and ask for the details I would give her those details, as I most definitely will in the very near future. Direct Flights Between Queensland and North America Mr HEGARTY: I ask the Premier: can he outline to the House the progress of the Queensland Government's campaign to secure direct flights between Queensland and North America?
Mr BORBIDGE: I think members of the Government as well as members on the other side of the House have concerns about the lack of direct air services between Queensland and North America. Some time ago, the Government entered into discussions with a number of airlines to see what could be done to rectify the situation and to secure direct flights. I do not think it is in the interests of Queenslanders going to North America or, for that matter, people from North America who wish to visit, do business or holiday in Queensland to have to continually run the gauntlet of the horror story that is Sydney Airport. We have been involved in ongoing discussions and in recent days there has been some movement from Qantas in this regard with proposals that they will look at hubbing through Auckland on certain flights so that people will be able to fly from Brisbane International Airport into Auckland and then on to North America. While that is a small step in the right direction, it is still not good enough. We are keen to continue negotiations, obviously with Qantas, with United, with Air New Zealand and with other groups to secure direct air services. I think it is significant that Brisbane International Airport is now the second-busiest international airport after Sydney. It is busier than the Melbourne International Airport. In the first 12 months that the new international terminal was opened, it experienced something like a 15 per cent growth in international flights. The growth rate has been very steady and very healthy. The Government is also keen to build on the successful recent visit on holiday to this State by President Clinton and Mrs Clinton. To that end, the Minister for Tourism has been asked to report to Cabinet within a fortnight on additional tourism strategies for the North American market. The Minister is progressing that particular submission as a matter of urgency. However, I was heartened by press reports this morning that indicate that "a new alliance between Air New Zealand and United Airlines could bring about the State Government's sought-after Brisbane-Los Angeles direct air link a year sooner", according to a senior industry analyst. The Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation managing director, Peter Harbison, said he believed that the Air New Zealand/United Airlines alliance could "bring forward the time when you get direct services to the United States by about a year". He added "With more co-operation between Air New Zealand and United, it probably becomes more easily do-able to have a
4 Dec 1996
4863
certain number of direct 747 Los AngelesBrisbane connections. Where I thought probably we wouldn't see a US carrier in that market probably for another couple of years, it might bring it forward a year or so." The discussions and negotiations that we have had have obviously been having a degree of success. Qantas, of course, is an airline that owes its existence, its name and its history to the State of Queensland. I would be very keen for Qantas to be the first of the international airlines that have direct air services between Brisbane and Los Angeles. I concede that Qantas has gone a little part of the way in respect of Brisbane-Auckland-Los Angeles, but that still involves a changeover from a 767 to a 747 and some delay at Auckland Airport. In the near future, we will continue discussions with Qantas to push this State's case for direct flights. I hope Qantas will be the first. However, we are not confining our discussions to Qantas. Obviously we will be following this matter up with United, Air New Zealand and, for that matter, any other carriers that may be interested. Pecuniary Interests of Member for Mansfield Mr ELDER: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to Australian Securities Commission documents, which I will table for her information, that reveal that the Liberal Party Whip, the member for Mansfield, did not cease being a registered shareholder in Solgoben Pty Ltd until 31 January 1996, and I ask: as Liberal Party Leader, can she explain why the member knowingly failed to declare his shareholding in Solgoben Pty Ltd in a signed statement of members' pecuniary interests he submitted to the Clerk of this Parliament on 5 October 1995? I further ask: what action will she take as Liberal Party Leader against her party Whip for clearly breaching section 18 of the guidelines for members' interests, which states "A member who knowingly gives to the Registrar a statement of interests or gives information to the Registrar or Select Committee that is false, incomplete or misleading in a material particular . . . is guilty of a contempt of Parliament." Mrs SHELDON: The honourable member only assumes that this was knowingly done. I personally have no knowledge of that situation. He is also assuming that any wrong was done. I will look into that situation and get back to him.
Consumer Affairs Safety Standards Mrs GAMIN: I ask the Attorney-General and Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs: what activities has the recently restructured and expanded Consumer Safety section of the Office of Consumer Affairs been pursuing in the interests of Queenslanders' safety? Mr BEANLAND: I thank the honourable member for Burleigh for that question in relation to consumer issues. For quite some time she has shown her great interest in this particular issue. Unlike the previous Government, this Government is really concerned about the safety of all Queenslanders when it comes to consumer affairs. When taking office, I found the neglect that had occurred under the previous Government in relation to consumer safety standards in this State. In fact, this Government is very committed to the health, safety and wellbeing of all Queenslanders. It is quite clear that since taking office this Government has moved to ensure there is a consistency with the Commonwealth and other States, whereas before we lagged behind the other States and the Commonwealth. We have also taken action to ensure that Queensland will not be seen as a dumping ground for cheap goods, particularly as we move on to the Christmas period, a most important period in the life of our children. It is a time when the Consumer Affairs Office is most vigilant and active in cracking down on dangerous goods and ensuring that goods that come into this State measure up to safety standards. In recent times, rigorous testing has been undertaken in the testing of children's toys. They will continue to be tested. Officers of the Consumer Affairs Office will continue to go into the various retail outlets to check on goods on the shelves, and where suspect toys are found, the officers will take them and test them to ensure that they do measure up to safety standards. However, I believe that is important not only at Christmas time but also throughout the rest of the year. Not long ago, I indicated to this House that we had set up a consumer safety committee, a committee that was not in fact active under the former Government. I believe it is important when it comes to our children's lives that the Consumer Affairs Office is seen as a positive watchdog for all Queenslanders, not only at Christmas time but also throughout the rest of the year, to protect our young people from some of the cheaper articles which can be deficient in so many ways and hazardous to them.
4864
4 Dec 1996
Cockroaches at Princess Alexandra Hospital Mr LUCAS: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer to the plight of my constituent Mr Mick Eustace of Wynnum West who was admitted to the Princess Alexandra Hospital's Ward M5 on 21 October this year. Mr Eustace was warned by other patients to watch out for cockroaches and complains he awoke one morning to find cockroaches crawling over his bed. I ask: what action is the Minister taking to rid the hospital of cockroaches so that germs are not spread to patients recovering from surgical procedures? Mr HORAN: I thank the honourable member for his question. I also note that the honourable member has just recently arrived in Parliament. Had he been here in the previous Parliament he would have noted that that was something I often brought up about the Princess Alexandra Hospital, namely, the number of cockroaches Opposition members interjected. Mr HORAN: Wait on and I will tell you. Opposition members interjected. Mr HORAN: I am getting to the audit. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a State of Origin match. Mr HORAN: Had the member been a member of this place previously, he would have known about the massive problem. Of all the things that this Government inherited, I had not mentioned cockroaches. I thank the member for reminding me. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr HORAN: Cockroaches breed. The ones that the former Government left behind were very fertile. I have spoken extensively in this House before about the financial problems that this Government inherited from the previous Government. Among them were budget problems of some $40m. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member asked a serious question. We have had enough frivolity. I call the Minister. Mr HORAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am going through this Government's inheritance. I will get to the cockroaches, because I had not mentioned them before. When the coalition came to Government, it faced massive financial problems. At the time, the member who asked the question was not
a member of this House. However, I can say to him that there was at least a $40m budget overrun, unpaid accountsover 30 days from the previous financial year, and a financial system in absolute crisis. We have gradually turned around that situation so that by the beginning of this financial year we had put in place a system whereby, despite the massive demand created by an increasing population and requests from people for more complicated procedures, we could cope with that demand within a managed budget system. Firstly, this Government has brought financial accountability to Health. Secondly, it put in place administration that got rid of the absolute mess that existed under the previous Government. Recently, I received some statistics relating to stress levels of the Public Service staff in Queensland Health. Unfortunately, the member who asked the question was not a member at the time, but I can say that those stress levels peaked in October during the 100 days of the previous Health Minister, Mr Beattie. That was the time during which the member was wandering around with all those warm thoughts, saying, "Will we close down the regions or will we not close down the regions? Are we going to get rid of them because they are terrible, or do we keep some?" Then he went to Cabinet for a decision and got rolled. However, this Government has fixed that terrible financial inheritance. The Government has also fixed the mess and chaos that was its administrative inheritance. The waiting list problems have been fixed. Finally, previously I was too kind to members and did not tell them about the cockroach problem that this Government inherited. We now have regular pest exterminations and we now have regular inspections. The honourable member should take on board also that at the PA Hospital this Government has already allocated some $13m this financial yearand it is likely to be moreto bring on the development of the new hospital. If the member had had a look through the old PA Hospital, he would have seen that the columns through the centre of that hospital with the internal parts where the pipes go and so forth were virtually rotten. This Government has put in place the architects and the engineers. The geotechnical drilling has commenced. Early next year, we commence the demolition of buildings to get the footprint for the new building. We are bringing ahead the refurbishment of the spinal injuries ward and we are also bringing ahead the refurbishment of the mental health ward.
4 Dec 1996
4865
Everything is on track to fix not only the general problems but also the problems at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which had a massive budget overrun in the order of $40m last financial year. Under the new management system, that hospital is likely to run on budget this financial year. That will mean one big thing: there will be even more money to spend on cockroach eradication. The cockroaches were left by the previous Government when the hospital had a $40m budget overrun. It did not even have enough money to eradicate the cockroaches. This Government has the budget under control so it will gradually get the cockies under control. If the Opposition wishes, we can do an audit and say how many cockroaches there were last year. I also take the interjection of the spokesperson for Health. This morning, she made some mention about intensive care beds. In the intensive care section there are 12 beds of which two are not ventilated. Some cardiac care beds in the hospital are not fully utilised but they are ventilated. We have been able to shift patients to the underutilised cardiac care beds so that the people in those beds needing intensive care can actually ventilate, that is, receive some oxygen to keep them alive. So not only is this Government cleaning up the cockies but also it is giving people some oxygen. Police Numbers Mr GRICE: I refer the Minister for Police to his efforts to fix the chronic breakdown in law and order presided over by the grossly incompetent Labor Government in which the Leader of the Opposition played a silent and implicit part, and I ask: while crime rates under Labor were going up, what was happening to police numbers around the State? Mr Elder interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the member for Capalaba under Standing Order 123A. M r C O O P E R : In answering the question about the crime rate and police numbers, I will get to that in a minute. The member for Waterford raised the issue of operational shift allowances which, of course, has an effect on crime. As the member may realise, that matter was dealt with yesterday in the Industrial Relations Commission. Mr Barton: We've just been talking; it's not over yet.
Mr COOPER: That is okay. The police are entitled to take the matter to that place. For the member's edification, I point out that 4,487 police officers receive the operational shift allowance. It was introduced in May 1995 by the member for Kedron, and we support it. It was always intended that it be reviewed to see if it was working effectively and properly, which is something that Mr Barton: Why are you cutting it out? Mr COOPER: No, we are not cutting it out. Mr Barton: I'll table the list tomorrow. Mr COOPER: The member can table whatever he likes. The operational shift allowance will continue, but it has been reviewed. Any of those police officers who will be taken off the operational shift allowance will still be eligible for weekend penalty rates, night shifts and so on. Mr Barton: But they can't get overtime. Mr COOPER: No, it will be dual purpose. Operational policing will not be affected. It is only responsible to review any system to make sure that it is working well and working properly so that taxpayers get value for money and so that police are out there doing what they need to do. That is what is happening. It is being reviewed and being streamlined. The Industrial Relations Commission recognised the right of the Queensland Police Service to set those shift allowances and weekend penalties. However, the commission also said that consultations must continue, and they will. Quite obviously, we want to see those operational shifts and penalty rates continue so that we can be adequately policed. Operational policing will not be affected. Yesterday, I referred to the drop in police numbers during that period from 1993 to 1995 by 79. Over those three yearsfrom 1993 to 1996we had an increase of only 29, which is an utter disgrace. At that time, Queensland's population was increasing dramatically and the crime rate was increasing dramatically. I will refer to a few of those areas that actually bore the brunt of those effects. There were a lot of areas throughout the State that Mr Barton: You're grasping, Russell. Mr COOPER: Not at all. That is the record of the previous Government and that is the mess that this Government has to clean up. By increasing police numbers, that is exactly what it is doing. Mr Barton: You're really grasping.
4866
4 Dec 1996
Mr COOPER: I will keep inviting the member to police inductions. He will get sick of them because there are going to be so many. I think that they are great. That is going to happen all through next year. I refer to police numbers. In 1993, Cairns had 302 police officers. In 1996, back in your time, those numbers had fallen to Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Honourable Minister will refer to the member as "the member for Waterford". Mr COOPER: I should have said "the member for Waterford". An Opposition member interjected. Mr COOPER: I will be very nice to him! In Cairns, there was a drop of 8.28 per cent in police numbers while crime against the person increased by 20 per cent. In Gladstone, police numbers actually fell by 5.75 per cent while crime increased by 57 per cent. Only recently were we able to increase the number of police officers in Gladstone, and we will continue to do so. In Mackay, police numbers fell by 7.02 per cent while crime increased by 19 per cent. It is a top record over which the former Government presided! On the Sunshine Coast, police numbers fell by 7.9 per cent while crime went up by a whopping 59 per cent. That record is a shocker; it is absolutely disgraceful! Toowoomba is getting closer to home: police numbers fell by 8.4 per cent while crime against the person increased by 17 per cent. On the Gold Coast, police numbers fell by 11.6 per cent while crime against the person increased by 8 per cent. In Brisbane Central, the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, police numbers fell by 27.5 per cent while crime rose by 13 per cent. In South Brisbane, police numbers fell by 16.7 per cent and crime increased by 7 per cent. That is the record that we are trying to deal with. That is why we have to increase police numbers and develop our law and order policy to crack down and get tough on crime, which is exactly what we are doing. We will continue to do it until we drive the Opposition mad, because we are going to clean up its mess. We will show up the very poor record that the former Government left. It is an absolutely disgraceful record and the people opposite know it. They also know that police numbers will be increased to enable us to get on top of crime. That is the sort of thing that has them worried. As far as cleaning up their mess is concerned, we are happy to oblige.
Flying Fox Lyssavirus Mrs EDMOND: I ask the Health Minister: how does he justify his continued lopsided response to the deadly flying fox virus in which he is vaccinating all wildlife handlers who come into contact with flying foxes at a cost of $900 a treatment but all that he is offering the thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who regularly catch and eat flying foxes is a discussion with health officers about the dangers of eating flying foxes? Mr HORAN: I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member is well aware that part of the research that is currently being conducted by the national and State task forces and the Department of Primary Industries is determining what the particular danger is. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders cook flying foxes and the general opinion appears to be that that makes them safe. The public health units of Queensland Health are looking into the issue as a matter of urgency. I assure the member that the matter is being followed up. Tourism Mr WOOLMER: I refer the Minister for Tourism, Small Business and Industry to recent headlines in the Australian Financial Review which indicated a resurgence in confidence in tourism investment in Queensland. I ask: would the Minister inform the House of the development within the tourism industry in our State? Mr DAVIDSON: I thank the member for Springwood for his question. He is the chairman of my backbench policy committee and he has a real interest in tourism and small business in Queensland. Before I reply to the honourable member for Springwood, I wish to mention a press release that the Leader of the Opposition issued last week which has been brought to my attention. One of my mates who works for a regional newspaper sent a copy of the press release to my office. This morning, the Premier made some statements in the House about truth in political advertising. I suggest to the Premier that we also look at a requirement for members of the Opposition to put truth in their press releases. Following last week's debate in the House on the abolition of the Queensland Small Business Corporation, the Leader of the Opposition has selectively taken information
4 Dec 1996
4867
from statements I made during that debate. His press release states "Mr Beattie said Small Business Minister Bruce Davidson admitted in Parliament last night that many of the 35 positions he abolished are advisers" meaning business advisers "located in regional offices around the State." He then issued an attachment to the press release listing the number of QSBC offices which have had a reduction in administrative staff. This is the sort of deceit that the Leader of the Opposition has been continually peddling around Queensland and thereby confusing Queenslanders about what is really going on at a time when the Government, my department and I are totally committed to ensuring that small businesses are provided with the programs that they need to enhance their endeavours. The Leader of the Opposition has issued a list of QSBC offices which will have a reduction in staff, but he has not included in the attachment a list of offices where we have actually increased staff. I inform the House that four of the five offices that will receive additional staff are in Labor electorates and the fifth is in that of the Independent member for Gladstone. The Independent member was the only person who actually recognised the fact that we had appointed a business adviser to her electorate, and I thank her for that. The Leader of the Opposition's attachment relating to a reduction in QSBC staff fails to recognise that the Government has also appointed small-business advisers to offices in Ipswich, Maryborough, Bundaberg and Mount Isa. Those are all Labor electorates in which smallbusiness advisers had never before been appointed. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The Minister has been on his feet now for at least two minutes, and maybe three, speaking on a subject which bears no relationship whatsoever to the question asked about tourism. He is speaking to a press release issued last week by the Leader of the Opposition about small business. Mr DAVIDSON: It is so unfortunate that the member for Ipswich does not appreciate that small businesses benefit enormously from the tourism industry and that many small businesses in this State are involved in the tourism industry. Mr FOURAS: I rise to a point of order. In relation to the answering of questions, the Standing Orders state that answers should be
concise and relevant and that the Minister should not debate the issue. I ask: do answers no longer have to be relevant? Mr SPEAKER: I recall that when the member who just rose was Speaker, he ruled that a Minister can answer a question however he likes. The Minister is on his feet. I rule the member's point of order out of order. Mr DAVIDSON: I inform the House that such is the concern of the two members who raised those points of order that I have never had one letter or one representation from either of them on behalf of the business community or the tourism industry in this State. That is unbelievable. Just to set the record straight in response to the Leader of the Opposition's misleading press release to the business community in this Statewe have increased the number of small-business advisers. We have appointed five small-business advisers to electorates in regional offices in Queensland that never had them before. Everyone in the House knows how excited I am about the developments in the tourism industry in the 10 months that we have been in Government. The CEO of the QTTC, Stephen Greg, has absolutely fantastic support throughout the State. Alex De Waal started on Monday as the Director of Marketing of the QTTC. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will conclude his answer. Mr DAVIDSON: John Angels has been appointed the Sales Manager of Sunlover. The Premier officiated at the opening of the Watermark Hotel on the Gold Coast on Friday night. Mr Sawada and a group of his associates from Japan attended. I know from the time that I spent at the Watermark Hotel that the air of confidence among leading people within the tourism industry on the Gold Coast is absolutely fantastic. We are looking forward to 1997 with confidence and a vigour from the QTTC that it has never seen before. I am sure that the tourism industry in Queensland is on track. Mr P. Connolly Mr WELLS: In directing a question which relates to barrister Peter Connolly, QC, and his client, the Minister for Police, I refer the Minister to his answer to question on notice No. 1138, in which he confirms that he paid Peter Connolly, QC, in full for his legal opinion supporting him before the Carruthers inquiry. As the Minister also confirms that he
4868
4 Dec 1996
may claim full reimbursement for those fees from the Government, I ask: does he accept that to have Mr Connolly's legal fees underwritten by the National Party Cabinet further erodes the independence of Mr Connolly and his inquiry; and why should taxpayers also foot the bill for his personal legal fees to someone his Cabinet appointed specifically in the hope that his activities would save the Minister from the Carruthers inquiry? Mr COOPER: The tone of the member's question is a disgrace. That the member is trying to bring people into disrepute is typical of him. I do not think that anyone is surprised that the member would raise a matter such as this one. The question that the member asked me on notice has been duly and properly answered. As to my legal feesthat matter has not been decided. Queensland Place Mr HARPER: I direct a question to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. Today, the Opposition asked a question about Queensland Place. I ask: could the Minister please advise the House in relation to any proposal received from Thiess regarding the development of Queensland Place? Mr CONNOR: The Queensland Government did receive a proposal from Thiess regarding Queensland Place. It was not a recommendation to Cabinet. Cabinet rejected it and Cabinet is still deciding the future of Queensland Place. Public Library Funding Cuts Mr FOLEY: In directing a question to the Treasurer and Minister for The Arts, I refer to concern expressed by the Local Government Association in a recent news release, which I table, over her Government's funding cut to public libraries of $279,000 net, or $1m in real per capita terms. I refer also to the pre-election promise of the Minister for The Arts of an extra $5m for regional libraries, as set out in her media release of 24 June 1995, which I also table, and I ask: firstly, will the Minister now apologise to rural and regional Queenslanders over her blatant broken promise which further disadvantages them? Secondly, how can her Government be serious about literacy problems when it cuts back funds for libraries throughout Queensland to purchase books? Mrs SHELDON: In order for the coalition Government to address the $500m underlying deficit left to the State by the previous Labor Government and cuts to
Commonwealth funding, it was necessary to have savings across all portfolios, and The Arts was treated no differently. Mr Fouras: What about the tollway? Mrs SHELDON: This Government delivers on its promises. We promised that we would lift the toll; members opposite never did. Labor is regarded as blacker than black on the Sunshine Coast, and it will stay that way. I have had discussions with the Queensland Library Board. It wished to have adequate computer access for all regional librariessomething that Mr Foley promised when he was Arts Minister but never delivered. The mainframe for the computers in that library is so old that it does not work properly. There is no interconnection into the library databases. Fixing this problem was a high priority for the libraries. I assume that at some stage the former Minister listened to the Queensland Library Board and the State Librarian. This issue was of major concern to them, and money was given to them to buy the mainframe and set up the software. That was done at a cost of $2m. This Government has also increased funding to RADF right across-the-board. The former Minister spread the misconception around Queensland that RADF was going to be cut. Through his disgraceful misrepresentation, he created a lot of unnecessary concerns for councils. The former Minister made a lot of community grants. Mr Borbidge: The member for Yeronga has obviously got libraries in the reshuffle and the member for Murrumba is the new Attorney-General. Mrs SHELDON: I do hope that the new member of the front bench, Mr Wells, is a little better briefed on this topic than is the member for Yeronga, because he should have spoken to the library and the Library Board. We have a full commitment to funding regional libraries. They are of great value to the community. The commitment made in our policy will be given Mr Foley interjected. Mrs SHELDON: We have brought the Budget back to balance. There is a surplus, not the deficit left by the former Government. If the Government had not left us that deficit, we could have given millions of dollars more to libraries across the State. It was due to the former Government's negligence in economic management and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition blew out his Health budget to
4 Dec 1996
4869
$75m that we could not give as much money to people across this State as we wanted. However, we are delivering on our election promises, and we will continue to do so. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Rockhampton under Standing Order 123A. Dumping of Broken Bitumen, Logan River Area Ms WARWICK: I ask the Minister for the Environment: what action has he taken since learning last Sunday of road material being dumped near the banks of the Logan River in the Gold Coast area? Is it correct that the material included broken bitumen? Mr LITTLEPROUD: Again, it would appear that some people have been very irresponsible and have breached the Environmental Protection Act. In recent months, the department has gone all out to lay charges against various people who have been in breach of the Environmental Protection Act. Recently, in the Daintree in farnorth Queensland, 30 cubic metres of sewage was placed on private property. In addition, at Ernest on the Gold Coast, toxic waste was illegally placed on a leased property. The latest incident came to my attention on Sunday evening, after I arrived in Brisbane. On Monday morning, I instructed departmental officers to investigate it. I have been advised that, yes, an arrangement was made between contractors tied up in building the Gold Coast highway with a local property owner to have some clean fill placed on that property near the river. It would appear that the people who entered into that agreement did not carry it out, because we now know, as the member indicated in her question, that some of the material put onto that property as fill included broken bitumen, some of which has gone into the Logan River. I would think that that constitutes a breach of the Environmental Protection Act. We have had discussions with the people involvedthe subcontractors and a subsubcontractor. The department is carrying out investigations as to whether it will lay charges. I view that as a very serious breach. I wish to send a message to the people of Queensland that, although the vast majority of people in industry are complying with the Environmental Protection Act, those who flout it will be pursued.
Mr V. Conte Ms SPENCE: I direct a question to the Attorney-General. The Minister would be aware that earlier this year a Queensland court found that former Fitzgerald organised crime boss Vittorio Conte was not fit to hold a car dealer's licence in this State, and I ask: why has the Minister failed to take action to stop the same Vittorio Conte from operating a used car yard at Darra Hill Motors, 2820 Logan Road? Mr BEANLAND: I am not aware of the details of the matter to which the member refers, but I am very happy to get the details and make them available to her. Land Court Mr BAUMANN: I refer the Minister for Natural Resources to the recently announced changes in the administration of the Land Court, and I ask: can the Minister advise the House of the number of decisions which are reserved or waiting to be delivered by members of the Land Court as at 31 October 1996 and the period of time for which each such decision has been outstanding, that is, the date which the member of the Land Court completed the hearing of the case and reserved his decision? Can the Minister also elaborate on the changes occurring in the Land Court? Mr HOBBS: I thank the honourable member for his question. I just happen to have some details at hand on the matter that the member referred to. It is a very important issue. The previous Labor Government ran down the Land Court. It reached the point at which there was a record backlog and we were just not getting through the cases at all. As at 31 October 1996, the caseload in the Land Court stood at a total of 1,021 outstanding matters. Of these cases, 57 have been heard and are awaiting a decision by the members of the court. A breakdown indicating the number of matters disposed of and the length of time that decisions have been outstanding is as follows: in May 1996, the number of cases disposed of was 80 and the number of cases awaiting decision was 6; in June 1996, the number of cases disposed of was 59 and the number of cases awaiting decision was 8; in July, the figures were 37 disposed of and 5 awaiting decision; in August, the figures were 35 and 11 awaiting decision; in September 1996, the figures were 45 and 7 awaiting decision; and in October 1996, the figures were 145 and 17 awaiting decision.
4870
Criminal Law Amendment Bill
4 Dec 1996
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Solgoben Pty Ltd Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts) (11.31 a.m.), by leave: Further to the question raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am advised by the member for Mansfield that Solgoben Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Carroll Family Discretionary Trust, is a partowner of the Newnham Road child-care centre and that the member was a director and shareholder but resigned prior to signing the pecuniary interest declaration and had also transferred his shareholding by the same time. CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (11.32 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the criminal law." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Beanland, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (11.32 a.m.): I move "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill implements the coalition's undertaking that, on coming to office, it would repeal the much-criticised Labor Government's 1995 Criminal Code and, instead, implement a package of legislation containing a set of comprehensive amendments to the Griffith Code to update it in a way commensurate with the needs and expectations of contemporary society. Honourable members will appreciate that, because society is changing rapidly, the need to oversight legislation, particularly legislation intimately linked with personal behaviour and conduct, is a continuing duty of Government. What we have done has been well documented and received favourably by the community.
An advisory working group, whose membership consisted of lawyers with a wealth of experience in the criminal law, was set up in May 1996 to consider changes to the Griffith Code. With an enviable degree of expedition that working group produced, by the end of July, a set of recommended amendments which went to interested parties including professional bodies, the judiciary, community groups and to the general public. Over 120 submissions were received by the end of the consultation period. Since then I have personally assessed every proposal in the light of those submissions and come to a determination which in my view offers the best solution to a range of difficult, complex and sensitive issues relating to the content of the criminal law. I will now describe the more important of these. Clause 9 will insert a new section 10A in Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to return the law about the interpretation of the party provisions to the way it was in the case of The Queen v. Jervis. Since Jervis, the Court of Appeal has held that a person charged as a party or accessory to an offence under section 7, or as a party to a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose under section 8, can only be convicted of the same offence as the principal offender or other party to the common intent, or nothing. It is intended that by this amendment the party can be convicted of any other offence proved by the evidence against that party, which offence was a probable consequence of carrying out a common unlawful purpose, whether charged under section 7 or 8. Jervis was in our view rightly convicted of manslaughter for her part in the circumstances which led to the killing while others were convicted of murder for their part. The way sections 7 and 8 have been interpreted by the Court of Appeal since Jervis, the consequences of applying either section may be either too harsh, as the President of the Court of Appeal observed in the case of Wood, or too lenient. The amendment will ensure that all facts relevant to a party's role and intention in the commission of an offence, if relevant and admissible, will be taken into account by the jury. Clause 10 will amend section 23, which provides the defence of accident, to overrule the decision of the High Court in Van Den Bemd v. The Queen to the extent that where a person causes death or grievous bodily harm to another then the offender must "take the victim as he or she finds him or her" if the victim is later shown to have had some defect, weakness or abnormality such as an eggshell skull.
4 Dec 1996
4871
Clause 11 will amend section 28 which provides the defence of intoxication to overcome an anomaly identified by the advisory working group as created by the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Bromage so that if in future a person becomes intentionally intoxicated and commits a criminal offence then he or she will not be excused from criminal responsibility if he or she has also consumed some other toxic agent and the substances act in combination on the person's mind. Intoxication is not an appropriate defence to raise in such circumstances where the consequences of the defence of insanity are brought into play and other defences may be open on the facts. The Bill will also address the like-natured amendment of the Mental Health Act as recommended by the advisory working group. There are some 32 pages to the secondreading speech. I am happy to read out all of those or, if the Parliament is willing, I would be happy to incorporate the remainder of the speech in Hansard. I am open to the House. Leave granted.
Clauses 17, 20 and 92 will insert new sections 123A, 195A and 501A for perjury and like offences. These new provisions will ensure that when an offender has made two conflicting statements, each under oath or affirmation, and one of the statements must be a lie but a jury is unable to say which is the lie, the jury can still convict. For example, in a recent case of S, his defacto wife, O, was called to give evidence against him in reliance on her written statement given under oath to police and oral evidence given on oath at S's committal before the magistrate. At the trial, O became hostile and said under oath that she had made up allegations that he sexually abused her children and S was acquitted. O, to whom the taking of an oath obviously meant nothing, later admitted that she had lied at S's trial and was charged with perjury. These amendments would mean that a jury in a similar case could still convict for perjury if unable to say which of the statements given under oath was the lie when obviously one of them was a lie. A number of clauses will reform the laws relating to various sex offences. Clause 113 will replace section 632 "accomplices" with a new section titled "corroboration". This new provision and the repeal of parts of many other sections will do away with the present requirement that a trial judge must warn a jury of the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. Judges will no longer be allowed to tell juries that the law regards any particular class of complainant (such as women or children or complainants in sex cases) as unreliable witnesses. The requirement of corroboration will be retained for offences such as sedition,
perjury and like offences. Nothing will affect the ability of a trial judge to otherwise comment about the evidence as is appropriate in the interests of justice in any given case. Clause 21 will replace section 208 with "sodomy" and will not only protect children but also intellectually impaired persons so that the penalty will be the same whether the victim is a child or an intellectually impaired person. Clause 32 will replace section 222 (incest by a man) and section 223 (incest by adult female) with one offence of incest to ensure that the law clearly proscribes sexual intercourse and sodomy between people who are related as a parent, offspring or other lineal descendant or siblings by consanguinity, marriage, defacto cohabitation and all legal relationships including step, foster and adoptive relations. It will extend the law to cover grandparents, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces. The penalty will be the same whether the offence is committed by a male or a female, whereas at present it is life for a male offender and 3 years' imprisonment for a female offender. Clause 61 amends section 347 so that the offence of rape will encompass not only nonconsensual vaginal intercourse but also nonconsensual sodomy, and will protect both male and female victims. Since the advisory working group made its recommendations, a number of submissions have been considered from interested parties, such as the Office of Women's Affairs, concerned with anomalies between the penalties in some existing sections. An exhaustive review of the maximum penalties for all sex offences has been undertaken revealing a number of serious anomalies, in urgent need repair, between the penalties. A few examples will quickly illustrate the issues. compare unlawful carnal knowledge of a 12 or 13 year old girl (5 year maximum s. 215) and the sodomy of the same girl or a boy of similar age (14 year maximum s. 208). compare indecent assault of an adult (maximum 7 yearss. 337) with indecent dealing of a 12 or 13 year old child (maximum 5 yearss. 210); which begs the question (asked by a number of people in the responses to the consultation process): are our children less important or worth less? compare the penalties for incest (maximum lifeby a man in s. 222, maximum 3 yearsby a woman in section 223) an offence which exists not only to protect against pregnancy and deformity but also to protect the fabric of family structures and, perhaps more importantly, to protect the weak against the dominant sexual predator, person in authority, or care giver.
4872
Criminal Law Amendment Bill compare also indecent dealings with intellectually impaired persons (maximum 3 yearss 218) with indecent dealing with a child under 16 (maximum 5 yearss.210). The amendments will generally increase the maximum sentences for most sex offences, remove all anomalies and truly reflect the level of criminality which would exist in a worst-case scenario to which the proposed maximum would apply. It is also the Government's view that sentences being imposed and upheld by our courts for sex offences in general, and especially those related to offences against children are out of proportion to the criminality involved and out of proportion to the sentences in other cases such as offences of dishonesty. This Bill sends a clear message to the judiciary that existing lenient sentencing practices in these areas will need to be reexamined. It also sends a warning to would-be adult sex offenders not to expect sympathy. Of course, nothing being said here is intended to diminish the courts' independence and discretion to impose lenient sentences where they are called for by the facts of a particular case. The Government is maintaining the full range of sentencing options. An amendment to section 6 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (clause 4) will directly reflect the coalition policy which calls for an amendment "to prohibit civil actions by criminals who have suffered personal injuries where they have suffered those injuries during illegal activities". Section 6 will now provide that if a person has been found guilty, whether or a not a conviction has been recorded, of an indictable offence and that person suffered loss or injury in or in connection with the commission of the offence, that person shall have no right of action against another person in respect of the loss or injury. Further, section 267 of the Criminal Code will be amended by clause 36 to make it clear that it is lawful for any person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling and for any person lawfully assisting or acting by the authority of that person to use force in order to prevent or repel another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling, if the person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use such force, and that the other person is attempting to enter or to remain in the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence therein. Finally, section 419 "burglary" will be replaced by clause 72 so that any person who enters or is in the dwelling of another with intent to commit an indictable offence therein will be guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 14 years. If the person commits an indictable offence in the dwelling or enters the dwelling by means of any break or if the offence is committed in the night, or if the
4 Dec 1996
offender uses or threatens to use actual violence, or is or pretends to be armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument or noxious substance, or is in company with one or more other person or persons, or damages or threatens or attempts to damage any property, the offender will be liable to imprisonment for life. Clause 47 will amend section 313 "killing unborn child" by adding a provision to the effect that any person who, when a woman is pregnant with a child capable of being born alive, unlawfully assaults the woman and thereby destroys the life of, does grievous bodily harm to, or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth, will be guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for life. For the purposes of this new subsection, evidence that demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of 24 weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that the child with which she was at that time pregnant was then a child capable of being born alive, so that, it will therefore be possible as science and technology advance to prove viability at less than 24 weeks. This amendment is in accord with a recommendation by the advisory working group and is an appropriate response to the recent case in which a young pregnant woman was kicked in the abdomen, so that in future an appropriate charge is available to be laid by the police and by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Clause 51 will insert a new section 320A titled "torture". As the facts in the recent trial of The Queen v. David Keith Griffin revealed, there is no adequate offence in Queensland of deliberately inflicting severe pain and suffering. Griffin was convicted of one count of common assault. Griffin used a machine capable of producing 600 volts to administer electrical shocks to the toes and legs of his defacto wife's 5 year old son. One would imagine this would inflict severe pain and terror. The trial judge, Healy DCJ, commented that he would have preferred to impose a sentence in the order of 2 to 3 years' imprisonment but because the maximum for common assault was only 12 months that is what he would impose. This Bill will increase the maximum penalty for common assault under section 335 from 12 months' to 3 years' imprisonment. The charge of assault occasioning bodily harm was not laid because there must be a bodily injury as well as pain or discomfort. There are no other offences in the Criminal Code which deal with this form of torture unless the injury amounts to bodily harm, wounding or grievous bodily harm. The offences of kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, threats, desertion of children, endangering life of child by exposure and other offences have been considered but none of them cover the situation. In this case the boy did actually have severe pain and suffering inflicted. Severe pain
4 Dec 1996
4873
or suffering or something similar is not an element of any of those offences. This Bill will therefore introduce the new offence of torturedefined to be "the intentional infliction of pain or suffering on a person by an act or series of acts done on 1 or more than 1 occasion". During the consultation period, the Director of Public Prosecutions alerted the Government to the fact that no law in Queensland adequately copes with the socially harmful and disruptive mischief of making bomb hoaxes. Clause 53 will insert the new offence of "bomb hoax" which will attract a maximum penalty of 7 years' imprisonment. Clause 55 will amend section 328A which is currently headed "dangerous driving of a motor vehicle", and will achieve a number of important reforms. The aggravating circumstances of causing death or grievous bodily harm will be classified as crimes instead of mere misdemeanours; as well as conventional motor vehicles the term "vehicle" will encompass aircraft, vessel, train and other vehicles; use of the term "operate" is wider than "drive" and would include to drive, handle, run, use, conduct or work; the offence will also encompass a person who interferes with the operation of a vehicle in a dangerous manner such as pulling on the steering or pulling on a handbrake, for example, while another person is driving; and the offence will no longer be restricted to public places and it will catch those who endanger the lives and well being of members of the public in places such as school grounds and on private premises, unless it is a place being used to race or test vehicles and from which other traffic is excluded at the time.
Generally, for the offence of stealing without circumstances of aggravation the maximum penalty will be increased from 3 to 5 years' imprisonment and for the offence of stealing with circumstances of aggravation the maximum penalty will be increased from 7 to 10 years' imprisonment. This clause also introduces 3 new circumstances of aggravation. These are "stealing by looting" and "stealing firearms or ammunition" for which the maximum penalty will be 10 years' imprisonment and "stealing firearms for use in another indictable offence" for which the maximum penalty will be 14 years' imprisonment. The heading in section 408C was always a misnomer because appropriation (a dealing inconsistent with or usurping the rights of the owner of property) was never an element of the offence which requires the dishonest application of property. It is also different to stealing which requires a taking or conversion and a fraudulent intent, usually an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his or her property. Therefore it is appropriate to retain the distinction between stealing and the offence in section 408C, as opposed to fully adopting the recommendation of the advisory working group to substitute "appropriation" for "application", because there would have been no difference between the two offences. It is also appropriate to adopt the remainder of the advisory working group recommendation by adding further paragraphs to the section such as dishonestly gaining a benefit or causing a detriment, and to repeal the antiquated offence of obtaining property by false pretences or wilfully false promises. These new offences will all simply be called "fraud", a concept which the public and jurors will understand and be familiar with. One further paragraph has been added to those recommended by the advisory working group to cover making off without paying for goods or services to cover the loophole in the current law created by the legal concept that property passes at the time of delivery, for example by filling a petrol tank at the bowser or eating at a restaurant. That sort of behaviour, if carried out dishonestly, should not leave the proprietor with no other remedy than to pursue the wrongdoer for a civil debt. A new offence of "computer hacking and misuse" will be created in a new section 408D, which will firstly create a simple offence of gaining unauthorised access to a restricted computer with a maximum penalty before a magistrate of 2 years' imprisonment. If the person causes or intends to cause loss or damage, or gains or intends to obtain a benefit for any person, the person will commit a crime and be liable to imprisonment for 5 years. Similarly, if the person causes loss or damage or obtains a benefit for any person to the value of more than $5,000, or intends to commit an indictable offence, the person commits a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. The section will also catch those persons who
Section 364 "desertion of children", which carries a penalty of only 12 months' imprisonment, will be replaced in clause 63 by a new section 364 titled "cruelty to children under 16" which will attract a 5 year penalty. The existing provision which deals only with the desertion of children has become outdated. The new provision goes further and shows the Government's commitment to our youth. Any person having the lawful care or charge of a child under the age of 16 years, who causes unnecessary suffering to the child by failing to provide, or failing to take all lawful steps to obtain, adequate food, clothing, medical treatment, accommodation or care or by deserting the child and leaving the child without means of support will be guilty of a crime. In clause 65 the penalties for stealing with and without circumstances of aggravation are made consistent with the penalties for similar offences in the present misappropriation section (section 408C) and the new replacement of section 408C titled "fraud".
4874
Criminal Law Amendment Bill install, or cause to be installed, computer viruses. The amendment to the offence of receiving stolen property will overcome the difficulty of proving that a person had knowledge, at the time of receipt, that the property was stolen, and it will now suffice if the person had "reason to believe" that it was stolen. Sections 441 and 488 will be updated in accordance with the advisory working group recommendation to conform with the modernisation of these offences in the Western Australian Criminal Code. In 1931 the existing "secret commission" provisions (sections 442B to 442I) were introduced by the then Attorney-General, the Honourable Mr Neil Francis Macgroarty. It was done in response to an agreement reached at a Premiers Conference in 1918 which in turn had been arranged due to the results of a royal commission in 1905 into the dairy industry in Victoria, which found that corruption was rife. Queensland was the last State to comply with the Premiers' agreement. The penalty was then set at 1000 and still remains at the equivalent of 1000, that is $2000. The offences are summary offences which a magistrate may elevate to an indictable offence and commit for trial if he or she sees fit. The amendments will bring these sections into line with other States and make the offences crimes, carrying a maximum penalty of 7 years for an individual or 3400 penalty units for a corporation. These amendments will again show the coalition Government taking the initiative to stamp out corruption and to see that it is adequately punished when detected. It should be noted that the sections also specifically apply to corporations, Ministers of the Crown and local government members to name a few, further showing the Government's commitment to honesty in government. Section 469 "wilful damage" will be amended by clause 87 to remove the distinction between offences occurring in the day time (2 years' imprisonment) and in the night time (3 years' imprisonment) so that all offences will attract a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment. Further, there will be inserted two new circumstances of aggravation: graffiti: if the property in question is in a public place, or is visible from a public place, and the destruction or damage is caused by the wilful and unlawful spraying, writing, drawing, marking or other application of paint or other marking substance, or scratching or etching the offender will be guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 5 years or, if the offence involves obscene or indecent representations, to imprisonment for 7 years. The court will be empowered, instead of or in addition to imposing any penalty of
4 Dec 1996
imprisonment, to order the offender to perform community service work which may include removing graffiti from property, and to pay compensation to any person. educational institutions: if the property in question is any part of a school, education centre, college, university, or other educational institution, the offender will be guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
Again, the court will be empowered, instead of or in addition to imposing any penalty of imprisonment, to order the offender to perform community service work which may include cleaning and/or repairing any damaged property that is part of an educational institution, and to pay compensation to any person. There will be a new chapter 58A for the summary determination of indictable offences. Some 20 sections scattered all over the Code will be repealed to make room for this new short chapter. It will consolidate the law relating to the summary determination of indictable offences. Magistrates, practitioners and others will be able to quickly and easily find and understand all provisions in the Code on this subject. The types or categories of offences which may or must be dealt with by a magistrate will generally remain the same as in the current Code. The maximum penalty which a magistrate can impose will rise from 2 to 3 years' imprisonment, but if a lower maximum penalty is prescribed for the indictable offence then the lower penalty will still apply. Defendants will retain the right of election which they currently have to ask for trial by jury. However, as is presently the case, a magistrate will have to abstain from dealing summarily with any indictable offence if he or she is of the opinion that the defendant cannot be adequately punished and the person may then be committed for trial. The amendments will also reform the appeal aspects of summary determination. Both the defendant (in relation to conviction or sentence) and the AttorneyGeneral (in relation to sentence only) will be able to appeal on the ground that the magistrate erred in proceeding to determine a matter summarily. If such a ground of appeal is raised, the Court of Appeal will have jurisdiction to impose any sentence it sees fit, up to the maximum which would have applied had the matter been dealt with on indictment. There are a number of mechanical and procedural reforms also worthy of special mention. clause 100 will amend section 568 "joinder of several charges into one".
These amendments will reform the provisions which already allow the joining of several charges into one, so that where a person maintains a system or criminal enterprise over a course of time or offends against a number of different people's property the court and jury
4 Dec 1996
4875
will not be overburdened with a plethora of counts on an indictment. clause 102 will amend section 572 "amendment of indictments". This amendment will remove the problem encountered in a trial against Brian Maher wherein he was placed in the charge of the jury, further counts were added later to the indictment but he was not rearraigned and put into the charge of the jury on the additional counts. Provided it will not cause any injustice, the court may allow counts to be added at any time in the trial. clause 105 will replace section 590 with a section headed "bringing accused to trial". Reform is needed of the system which currently requires the DPP to present an indictment against a person by the end of the sittings to which the person is committed by a magistrate who has no control of the sittings in the superior courts. The indictment must be presented even if preparation is incomplete or the defendant will be entitled to be discharged. The reform will allow the DPP 6 months after committal within which to present the indictment or apply for an extension of time. clause 107 will insert a new section 590B "advance notice of expert evidence". As in the Court of Appeal decision in de Voss, it is thought to be desirable to the fair and efficient conduct of criminal proceedings that there be advance notice of expert evidence by disclosure of reports on either side. This full disclosure can only be of benefit to a jury whose only purpose is to try to find the truth. This will be made possible by the proper testing of experts by informed cross examination and, if necessary, by opposing expert opinion evidence. clause 108 will insert a new section 592A "pre-trial directions and rulings". Once an indictment is presented and the court is seized of jurisdiction, the parties or a judge will be able to arrange for pretrial directions to be given and rulings made about the admissibility of evidence. This will do away with the current practice of empanelling a jury and then sending them away or locking them up while questions of law are determined at great expense to the taxpayer. clause 109 will amend section 594 "pleading to an indictment" to settle once and for all the practice adopted by some judges and frowned upon by others by allowing a consenting accused person to be bulk-arraigned, that is asked to plead upon the whole indictment, instead of to every single count. This will be very useful if an accused intends to plead guilty to all or most of the counts upon a very long indictment. clause 112 will amend section 631A "plea of guilty during trial" so that it will no
longer be necessary to bring back a jury which has been sent away during legal argument when an accused wishes to change his or her plea to guilty during a trial. clause 118 will insert new sections 651 and 652 so that the Supreme Court and District Court may determine summary offences.
To save court time and costs to defendants and to the criminal justice system, a system has been devised to enable summary matters to be removed out of the Magistrates Court into the superior courts when an accused intends to plead guilty to those offences when being dealt with for other offences in those courts. At present the accused, and probably counsel, would have to return to a Magistrates Court on a further remand date. There are other logistical problems for the lawyers if the client is incarcerated by the superior court and there are still matters outstanding before the Magistrates Court, and often the courts may be in two different places. Clause 119 will amend section 669A "appeals by the Attorney-General". In a recent case a man was before the District Court charged with dangerous driving causing death (he drove over a woman laying on a beach towel) with a circumstance of aggravation (he was allegedly affected by alcohol). The judge ruled medical evidence about the rate of elimination of alcohol to be inadmissible and the man then pleaded guilty to the "lesser" charge without the circumstance of aggravation and was sentenced accordingly. At present the Attorney-General has no power to refer the point of law that arose while the more serious charge was being determined. This amendment will allow such a reference in future, without affecting the outcome of the case, so that wrong interpretations of the law do not become of general application. One further amendment will allow the Attorney-General to appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order staying proceedings or further proceedings on an indictment. The Evidence Act will be amended in some important respects. section 93A "statement made before proceeding by child under 12" will be extended to afford the same protection to a witness who is an intellectually impaired person. a new section 132A "admissibility of similar fact evidence" will be inserted to abolish the rule in The Queen v. Hoch and it will provide that in a criminal proceeding, similar fact evidence, the probative value of which outweighs its potentially prejudicial effect, shall not be ruled inadmissible on the ground that it may be the result of collusion or suggestion, and
4876
Nature Conservation Amendment Bill the weight of such evidence shall be a question for the jury, if there is one. The purpose of this provision is to overcome the usurping of a jury function by a trial judge. If there is a risk that a number of complainants have put their heads together and concocted an allegation, then that by itself will not be enough for the evidence to be ruled inadmissible and the weight and reliability of the evidence must be left to the jury to determine. Very important amendments to section 43A of the Mental Health Act are called for. This section will be amended to allow the AttorneyGeneral to appeal to the Court of Appeal regardless of the route by which the person came to be before the Mental Health Tribunal. It will overcome the absence of standing to appeal at the time of Ross Farrah's case. The Penalties and Sentences Act will be amended by inserting a new section 13A and by amending section 188. With these inclusions a court will be able to take into account, in passing sentence, cooperation with authorities by accomplices and others. The court will also be able to reopen the sentence, even after the usual appeal period, if the person fails to cooperate, or if the court has acted on a clear factual error of substance. I commend the Bill to the House.
4 Dec 1996
proclaimed in full, was amended by the then Labor Government by inserting two new clauses relating to recreational fishing in national parks. I am advised that prior to that recreational fishing would not have been able to take place on a national park when the Act finally came into force. One clause provided for recreational fishing to take place on those national parks specified in the Nature Conservation Regulation 1994. The other clause was a sunset clause which established that the recreational fishing provisions expired on 31 December 1999. The Act and subsequent regulation came into force on 19 December 1994. From that date, recreational fishing has been permitted in all Queensland national parks subject to the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1994. That capacity would cease on 31 December 1999. In other words, by the commencement of the year 2000, recreational fishing would have to cease in all Queensland national parks. On 20 September 1994, the Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, issued a statement that a coalition Government would move "to repeal that part of the State Labor Government's Nature Conservation Act which seeks to prohibit recreational fishing in National Parks by the year 2000 and remove all ambiguity in respect of any previous legislation". In order to move towards that outcome, the Nature Conservation Amendment Bill 1996 has been drafted to repeal the sunset clause from both the Act and the regulation. It is intended that the amendment to the Act come into force on assent, rather than establishing a later proclamation date. This amendment to the Act involves no cost to the community. Several meetings have been held with Sunfish, the peak recreational fishing organisation, and the Queensland Fish Management Authority (QFMA) with respect to recreational fishing in national parks. At these meetings, Sunfish has repeatedly objected to the sunset clause. Fishing has been a tradition in Queensland's national parks since the first declaration of a national park, and it is coalition policy that this recreational activity should not be taken away from the community. Labor tried to deny Queensland families their time honoured recreational pursuit, and this has resulted in substantial anguish within the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, adjourned. on motion of Ms Spence,
Debate, adjourned.
on
motion
of
Mr
Foley,
NATURE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Western DownsMinister for Environment) (11.37 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Nature Conservation Act 1992." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Western DownsMinister for Environment) (11.38 a.m.): I move "That the Bill be now read a second time." In September 1994 the Nature Conservation Act 1992, which had not been
4 Dec 1996
WorkCover Queensland Bill
4877
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 3 December (see p. 4826). Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (11.41 a.m.), continuing: I continue with my contribution to this debate by expressing the Opposition's concern for the disadvantaged position of workers under the definitions of "worker", "injury", "hearing loss" and "gratuitous care". I take a point of order. There is no Minister in the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the state of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming): Order! We have a Minister in the House. Mr CAMPBELL: The Opposition wants to protect the interests of workers. I am concerned that in three or four different cases there has to be a 25 per cent reduction to any claim if contributory negligence is proved and I am concerned particularly about injuries suffered while travelling to and from work and also some injuries suffered at the workplace itself. I feel that they are important issues. Mr Palaszczuk: Do you think he was out doing a bit of branch stacking? Mr CAMPBELL: I do not think so, not at this time. The Minister would not have done that. I am concerned that claims will be reduced by 25 per cent if contributory negligence is proved, especially if it is proved that the worker had taken some substance that could have affected the worker in some way. How will that apply to workers travelling to work and also to those at work? What happens if a worker is on a medical substance such as an antihistamine? If it is shown that the worker has taken such a substance and that that substance alters the worker's behaviour or reduces response times in some waysas some antihistamines dounder this Bill, because that substance has reduced the powers of the worker, any claim that worker makes must be reduced by 25 per cent. That concerns me. Mr Santoro: I'll have a look at that for you, but the sorts of things we are trying to catch there are the abuse of alcohol, drugs and those sorts of things. But we'll look at that. Mr CAMPBELL: I understand that, but I am concerned about that because antihistamines, even cough mixtures, can affect a worker. Ms Warwick: There are warnings on the medication.
Mr CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Barron River says that there are warnings on those medications. Although the warning is there, if the worker takes that substance it is even worse. Does that mean that, if a worker is suffering from hay fever and he or she takes an antihistamine, by rights his or her employer should demand that that worker does not work and that he or she goes home? Under this legislation, that would be the case. I am also concerned about the definition of "reasonable care". For example, statistics show that motor bikesparticularly bikes carrying pillion passengershave a much higher accident rate than cars. Does that mean that a worker who rides a motor bike to work and is injured on the way to work would contribute to any negligence? I also want to address the issue of selfinsurance. I am concerned that those employers with a very good recordwith a low claim ratewill take out self-insurance and that that will mean that all other employers will then see an increase in their premiums. I can see that occurring, and that will lead to an increase in premiums. In conclusion, the Opposition wants to protect the interests of the workers. We have to do that by looking at the definitions of "worker", "injury", "hearing loss" and "gratuitous care" and changing those definitions so that the interests of workers are protected. Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (11.46 a.m.): The Workers' Compensation Act of January 1916 actually brought in adequate workers' compensation to Queensland 80 years ago. It was first introduced into this Assembly in August 1915 under the T. J. Ryan Government when it was elected. T. J. Ryan gave an election speech at Barcaldine in 1915 which promoted the idea of workers' compensation. It was comprehensively introduced to all workers in Queensland, yet today we see an attempt to restrict and reduce that access to workers' compensation for the first time in 80 years. In 1881, an Act was introduced into this House by John Macrossan to Mr Stoneman: A great supporter of north Queensland, John Macrossan. He was the first one-eyed north Queenslander, do you realise that, even though he wasn't born there. Mr ARDILL: I thank the member for Burdekin for his advice. He is correct. John Macrossan introduced an Act to provide for workers' compensation. It was somewhat
4878
4 Dec 1996
restrictive, but it was the first attempt to provide for workers' compensation in this State. That was watered down by none other than the great Sir Samuel Griffith in 1886, and the responsibility was thrown back onto the employees to provide for their own compensation in most cases. We often hear praise of Sir Samuel Griffith for his great ability in the law, but we must remember that Sir Samuel Griffith certainly had some shortcomings when it came to considering access to the law by the lower orders and also protection of workers in this State. In 1905, a new Act was brought in to prevent access to common law, and in 1909 the access was limited to a compensation of 800, and in most cases that was for a death on the job. Of course, any attempt to make a common law claim to obtain that sort of compensation was most severely contested by the employers of the day so that many of the widows of workers who were killed on the job failed to get any compensation because of the restrictions which the law and the so-called justice system placed on employees, who were considered to be second-class citizens. All of that upset T. J. Ryan in his early days in Parliament. In 1915, he decided that the Labor Party, if electedand it waswould do something to redress the inequities and the inequality of life that employees suffered until that time. T. J. Ryan, of course, is credited with that, but what is ignored is the fact that he did not introduce the Bill into the House. That was done by John Fihelly, an Irish Catholic who had a very strong sense of the need for justice for the employees of this State. He was a great man who represented the seat of Paddington in this Parliament. He was called the Assistant Justice Minister. I believe that our present Justice Minister fails dismally when compared with John Fihelly and the matters that he put on the statutes of this great State. He was a great man who piloted that Bill through the House against tremendous opposition, not only from the employers' associations, the trade associations of the day and the private insurance companies that did provide some protection at extortionate premiums for workers but also from the authorities in Great Britain. We must remember that, in those days, we were still considered a colony and part of the British system of finance and economy. The Treasurer of the day, who was the great Theodore, did not support the Bill entirely and refused to take responsibility for it. John Fihelly put it through this House. Fihelly was a great sportsman as well as a great parliamentarian. He had played Rugby and eventually was the
manager of the Rugby League Kangaroo tour of England in 1909. When the Bill was proclaimed, what became the SGIO was established to handle workers' compensation. When it was first established, that was its principal aim. It was called the State Accident Insurance Office. It was set up in Parbury House in Eagle Street on 2 May 1916 amid great opposition from the business community and even some of the journals of the day. The Courier was the one exception that did give it some support. It was always under challenge. Because the insurance offices of the day took the matter to court and obtained an injunction to prevent that office from operatingdespite the fact that it had been set up by the Parliament of Queenslandit was decided that the State Accident Insurance Office would go into other sectors of insurance and immediately went into fire insurance and personal insurance and cut the premiums by 20 per cent. That forced other insurance offices to reduce the extortionate premiums of the day. There was vicious opposition at that time. Despite that, under the management of John Goodwyn and the protection of Fihelly and the Ryan Government, that office prospered. It started off with a grant of 20,000 pounds from the Parliament which was repaid to Treasury in a matter of a few years once a profit was made. The Legislative Council was violently opposed to that office and returned the first Bill twice to the Lower House and refused to pass it. It was put through again with an amendment. Eventually, because of a mistake made in the Legislative Councilup the other end of this buildingthe Bill got through with an amendment that was accepted by the Legislative Assembly. That was a mistake that members of the Upper House regretted very much and they tried to put an amendment through, which was rejected by the Lower House. From that date, the State Government Insurance Office prospered and so did the workers of this State through workers' compensation. The Governor signed the Bill and it became part of the law of this State. Another Act that was put through after the first insurance Bill was the Industrial Diseases Act, which was promoted by James Stopford the then member for Mount Morgan, which was the original name of the Fitzroy electorate, and David Gledson the then member for Ipswich. Their particular interest resulted from the problems that miners had with miners' phthisis and other diseases of that nature. The funding for that Bill came from the State Government Insurance Office.
4 Dec 1996
4879
By 1920, some American States actually adopted the Queensland model of a State monopoly for workers' compensation. The troubles over the establishment of workers' compensation as a State instrumentality were primarily responsible for the abolition of the Upper House in 1922 by the Speaker of the Lower House electing sufficient members into the Legislative Council Chamber as a suicide squad to eventually abolish that House. Workers' compensation was the trigger that brought the Upper House undone, because of its continued opposition to justice for the employees of this State. The SGIO was eminently successful and efficient and overcame the difficulties of the depression, two marine disasters, the closure of the Mount Morgan mine and the Mount Mulligan disaster. Its also overcame the disastrous public service policies of J. D. Storey. He was certainly a man who did great things for Queensland, but he was the forerunner of Coaldrake in that he reorganised the public service and reduced the number of those employed in it and also reduced their wages during the time of the depression. He was not very popular. The SGIO managed to overcome much of the industrial disputation that did and could have arisen out of J. D. Storey's reorganisation of the public service. In the 1930s, the main function of the SGIO was workers' compensation. It had difficulties in meeting the cost of the lead poisoning outbreak at Mount Isa when over 100 miners a year were totally incapacitated by lead poisoning. Of course, because of those difficulties and the others that I have mentioned, in a number of years during the depression, the SGIO made a loss. I think that is a lesson for the present Minister. He should be considering the fact that insurance does not make a profit every year. He should not lose confidence in the system just because the fund is in deficit at a particular time. In one year, it lost 100,000 pounds, which is probably something like $100m today. In other years, it lost 50,000 pounds and 66,000 pounds. Court action was also a costly problem because the benefits were not considered sufficient. Workers who were able to did take the compensation authorities to court under the common law on a number of occasions, and it was very costly. In 1936, workers' compensation premiums were raised by 90 per centanother lesson for the present Minister. That was the highest premium increase. In some industries it was 50 per cent. However, premiums had to be increased to cover the payouts for people in dangerous industries
who suffered injuries. Actually, even with those increases, the premiums were less than they were in New South Wales and Victoria, and certainly in other parts of the world which had adopted workers' compensation. A trading profit in the Workers Compensation Fund was again reached in 1938-39, and it continued to work effectively right through until 1978. In 1978, the SGIO was divested of workers' compensation when the Workers Compensation Board was set up with 322 employees. If I remember correctly, the Treasurer of the day who was involved in that was Sir William Knox, who recently did a hatchet job for the present Minister. Mr Schwarten: It didn't turn out to be a very successful one, either. Mr ARDILL: It depends on what side of the trading equation one is involved in. Workers' compensation is just one of the many innovations and initiatives that have spread from Queensland to many parts of the world. For instance, Forgan Smith's policy of kick-starting the economy after the Depression led Australia out of that depression, and here is a lesson for our present Treasurer. The rating system which is still used on the basis of land values was a philosophy of the Henry George League in Great Britain, first practised in Brisbane and transferred to New York and now to the world. The same is true of the BLIS system of traffic control in Brisbane, which was transferred to New York and is now used throughout the world. It brings in royalties to the Brisbane City Council which no longer uses it because the Liberal Party switched off that particular system. History shows that insurance and workers' compensation have their ups and downs and actuaries are required to be pessimistic as part of their stock in trade. Just as the late stages of the Depression showed alarming losses which were recovered in the next few years, the reduction in reserves in the first few years of the unions' switch to common law as a means of redressing the National Party's unfair ceiling on compensation payouts in many categories of injuries in the early 1980s has its parallel today. However, that matter was addressed during Labor's two terms and the number of cases actually tried, as distinct from initiated, will fall and have fallen. Even the pessimistic actuaries can see an upturn in fund reserves. This incompetent and inexperienced Liberal Party and its uncomprehending Minister do not know history, nor do they understand the lessons of the past. A reading of the history of workers' compensation in
4880
4 Dec 1996
Queensland will tell them that the worst possible thing they can do is fragment the system and allow cannibals into the system to pick off what is temporarily profitable. Insurance just does not work like that. This Bill is full of alarming innovations that take workers' compensation back over 100 years and could only be considered by someone totally out of touch with the realities of the risks of industry and the attitudes of today. While there are many unscrupulous employers out there, many employers will be aghast at the potential for disruption that this Bill presents to Queensland. No community is going to be satisfied with a system which fails to provide for those who are disadvantaged by injuries in the work force. The most glaring example of nineteenth century thinking is the definition of who is an employee. Anyone who is providing labour on an industrial site must be covered as a worker no matter how many words are used to justify the neglect which is proposed here. Not only will the worker be thrown on the scrap heap because of some failure to treat his or her contribution to society's benefit as being important, but the worker's dependants, both financial and those dependent on a family situation, will be disadvantaged because an uncaring Government or Minister wants to pursue an economic goal instead of first considering the welfare of human beings. This is typical of economic rationalism and it is the typical attitude of this Minister and the Liberal Party in general. The wording of this Bill relating to "the" major cause of injury instead of "a" major cause will severely restrict claims. The contributory clause is another radical provision with a quotient of 25 per cent which, if cumulative, could eliminate compensation through common lawin fact, eliminating common law by the back door. The provision relating to employees having to seek an internal review will have a detrimental effect. What does a worker live on or with what does he make his hire purchase payments while that is being considered? Workers in industries with inherent risk will suffer if their right to common law is restricted. Time expired. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) (12.06 p.m.): The matter of access to a fair and compassionate workers' compensation scheme is a central pillar for a caring society. During the first period of this Parliament there was a significant amount of debate on the financial condition of the Workers Compensation Fund. As a Parliament, we
placed on the fund a number of new conditions in order to "bring the fund back into a sound financial position". These measures included the 20 per cent irrevocable choice for common law claims; five-day excess payable by employers; and an additional levy and increased premiums for employers. It was rumoured that even at that stage there was a push to put a threshold on common law claims. Thankfully, that proposal never eventuated. At the July 1995 election and subsequently at the Mundingburra by-election, promises were made by the coalition to retain common law access. Indeed, for many in the electorate this was an important issue to consider because the Labor changes which were passed cut deeply into community and business. Having been present during the parliamentary debate and heard comments by both sides of the House, one gained an important insight into the workers' compensation scheme, its purpose and relevance in this State. We are now in a position where there is a purported overrun of $400m. This overrun has had all sorts of numbers attached to it from about $250m right up to quite excessive amounts. It is recognised that there is a stated need for significant action to occur. The result of those concerns was the Kennedy report recommendations. I believe, though, that those recommendations have to be looked at with the background of the Labor amendments, the coalition's opposition to those Labor amendments during the first session of this Parliament, and the coalition's July and Mundingburra promises. Kennedy made 79 recommendations. Many of these are quite intrusive and constricting. They include recommendations that the objects of the workers' compensation legislation should be to achieve these ends: "to provide an injury insurance system which maintains balance between benefit adequacy for injured workers and premium levels for employers". We would all support that. "To provide adequate and suitable cover for workers who suffer injury in the work place and for dependants of workers whose death results from such injury." We all support that. "To make provision for employers and injured workers to participate in an effective return to work program." That is a very positive thing. "To provide flexible insurance arrangements suited to the particular needs of industry", and then this one, "to protect the interests of employers in relation to claims for damages because of injury to a worker". Most people will accept that, provided the access to
4 Dec 1996
4881
appropriate damages is fair and reasonable for those injured workers. The idea is not to protect negligent employers by making mandatory non-access to common law when the success of a common law action is predicated on the employer being proven negligent. Another object was to establish and maintain a fully funded scheme that meets minimum insurance industry solvency and to provide for the efficient and economic administration of the scheme of injury insurance provided in paragraph A. Another recommendation of Kennedy was that the medical assessment tribunal be located independently from the WorkCover Queensland Brisbane office with its own secretariat and identity. That is a good thing. I think that most people are pleased to see that tribunal gain some autonomy. In the proposed legislation, there is still no reviewable status for the findings of the medical assessment tribunal. I have heard the Minister's argument that the buck has to stop somewhere and that it should stop on a medical basis. However, I say to the Minister that that is still going to generate a considerable amount of frustration. I have a letter from a resident of Geebung, which states "I was ruled by the workers compensation tribunal in March 1994 as having a permanent disability of 10% and paid $7,400. Since the tribunals ruling, I have had (1) diagnosis and ruling of 28% permanent disability by the Government medical officer . . . (2) private medical specialists diagnoses and assessments of 20%25% permanently disabled." I have had residents in my electorate come to my office talking about the assessment that the medical tribunal gave them and the actual impairment that they face as a result of the injury. Often, that impairment precludes those people from returning to the work in which they are trained. Another recommendation was that the workers' compensation scheme be reviewed in three years' time in the light of the requirements of the National Competition Policy. Then the recommendations go on to outline four of the areas that need to be reviewed. I fully support the need for a review of the fund; it is essential. My concern continues to beand I have raised this
concern with the Minister and he has answered it but it continues to be a concernthe connection of the review with the National Competition Policy issue. Once again, that indicates that perhaps part of the motive for the short time frame that was proposed to get the fund back into an acceptable condition was the attractiveness of the fund as a saleable commodity rather than its intended purpose, which was to provide compensation and a safety net to injured workers. Recommendation 20 was that Queensland replace the current premium rating system, including the merit bonus system, with a premium setting system based more on direct experience. That should always have been the case. It was an absolute contradiction that, during 1994-95, the basis for merit bonuses was changed. It had always precluded journey claims and hearing claims because it was deemed by the board that injuries in both of those areas were, in the case of journey claims, not contributed to by the employer or, in the case of the hearing claims, a multiple number of employers could have contributed to the hearing impairment. Therefore, those injuries were excluded from the equation when determining merit bonus. In about 1994, at least one of the criteria was removed from the equation, and I refer to common law experience. Presumably, merit bonus was paid to reflect a good claims history. The success of a common law claim was predicated on employer negligence. So to remove common law experience and to pay a poorly performing employer a merit bonus, discounting his common law experience, was an absolute nonsense. I am sure that that has contributed in some measure to the current state of the fund. Recommendation 29and I acknowledge that this is not now part of the Billwas that common law claims for damages be permitted only where the work-related impairment level exceeded 15 per cent of the work-related injury. Perhaps that was one of the most offensive recommendations of the Kennedy report. It not only proposed to remove all common law rights to injured workers whose injury was below 15 per cent but also it allowed the probability for negligent employers in the circumstances in which the injuries to their employeesor whoevertended to be of a minor nature to continue to be negligent. I can recall that when they were supporting the Kennedy recommendations, the Minister and, I believe, the Premier stressed that employers had taken their medicine and the Government had accepted its responsibility to forgo revenue as recommended by Kennedy and
4882
4 Dec 1996
that it was now time for the workers to share the pain. That sounded good and fair until one realised that the Kennedy report stated clearly that the premium levy and the Government's forgone revenues are only temporaryto last three yearsand that the denial of access to full common law would go on forever. I commend the Minister on the fact that the common law threshold has now been removed. Currently, a worker's injury is calculated in relation to whole person impairment. This clause, that is, the intention to remove common law, severely restricted the parameters within which an assessment is made to take into account only those circumstances, damage and impairment that was directly related to the single incident for which the claim was made. It has been raised on a number of occasions that the potential clearly existed for future common law liability to be artificially inflated. There has been a great deal of argument about that and, I think, as with a number of issues that will be discussed today, there will be more argument and counter-argument. Both of those arguments have validity and, therefore, it is difficult to see where common ground can be found. Recommendation 30 states that injured workers with greater than 15 per cent WRI should be required to make an irrevocable election within 42 days of being offered a statutory lump sum compensation. From my perspective at least, that recommendation was also intolerable. In discussions with the senior managers involved with workers' compensation, it was acknowledged that the main benefit of the 42-day irrevocable election was administrative ease. Efficiency is important; to place constraints on workers merely to tidy up the paperwork is not defendable. That 42-day irrevocable choice has gone from the Bill, and I thank the Minister for that. The actual implication of that 42 days was that it was going to be after the injury was stable and stationary, which could have been two years down the track. If a person was not involved in the accident, in theory that person could sit down and say, "That should not create any tension." However, for an injured person who is not really familiar with the workings of the Bill, the realitynot the potentialis that that person would be worried about missing out on an opportunity to claim because of a misunderstanding of that 42-day irrevocable choice. The community believed that it was 42 days from when the injury occurred. The feedback that I was getting was that people could still be seriously injured in hospital, there
could be other family complications and they might not get their claim in. The Minister rightly advised me that that was a misconception. But it is a very real misconception. If the 42 days was included merely for administrative purposes, then it is unnecessary. Another of the recommendations of Kennedy related to personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment where the employment is the major significant factor causing injury. I know that one of the major concerns that people have is that that clause is remaining in the Bill. I will comment on that matter later, if time permits. The other recommendation relates to the journey claims issue. I make this comment: the only journey where a clear case of nonemployer impact can be shown is the initial journey each morning, provided that no early call-out has been involved. Return journeys from work could be defended as potentially affected by the workplace, as can any subsequent call-outs once a worker's shift has been completed. Additionally, trainers and other employees who have significant distances to travel to an alternative workplace from the usual workplace should have a case for employer contribution given that that worker is travelling on behalf of the employer. With a total exposure of $17m in the stated preclusions, one could question the need for such a major shift from historic protection. I have received advice that the difficulty faced by employers arises from claims which come from incidents that have occurred out of normal public gaze, that is, an injury occurring on the back steps of a home. There was concern that some of those claims were mischievous in that perhaps the injuries occurred the day before at a footy match. It was stated to me by an investigator of those claims that the best way to address that concern was by allowing travel claims from the point of exit from the employee's house to the return point, that is, within relatively public jurisdiction. Mr Schwarten: What does that mean "within relatively public jurisdiction"? Mrs CUNNINGHAM: The possibility of there being a witness to an incident that occurred outside the property boundary is higher than there being a witness to an incident that occurred at the back steps of a property. Therefore, the ability to investigate the incident is much easier. I have a number of continuing concerns which, again, I have already discussed with the Minister. I remain concerned about the definitions of "injury" and "worker". I understand the clarity that PAYE
4 Dec 1996
4883
cover brings and that is a good thing. At least people know whether or not they are in the scheme. However, some valid points have been raised regarding PPS cover. Recently I spoke with the Minister who pointed out that a number of PPS employees will be covered as "other persons", which is at page 41 of the Bill. I thank him for that information. Concerns have been raised about the placement of workers' compensation employees into the statutory body. I note the Minister's comments about the need for professionalism and the fact that he has built in an additional protection for those employees as, instead of the normal one-year provision for transfer back, he has allowed a three-year provision. I ask the Minister to clarify whether, after the three-year period, the years of service in the Public Service of people who are made redundant will be recognised in the redundancy payout? I have received a lot of letters from my electorate. The Minister said that he has not received many, but this folder contains letters that I have received in one month from people who are for and people who are against the legislation. Over quite a number of months I have received such correspondence from folk. Almost without exception, those in favour of the changesthat is, those who have written, "Please will you support all of the Kennedy recommendations"were employers. Again almost without exception, those who opposed the changes were employees. Some concern has been raised about the introduction of contributory negligence. Following discussions with the Minister, I would have to concur that there have been situations where, following workplace health and safety provisions, an employer has advised an employee to wear protective clothing by saying, for example, "Put your steel-capped boots on", and the employee has continued to refuse to do so. The employer again says, "Wear your protective gear", and the employee refuses to comply. Subsequently, the employee has his or her feet hurt. In that situation, I believe that there is a case for the employee to carry some responsibility for not wearing the provided safety gear. I have no doubt that incidents will occur where the unfair use of this contributory negligence clause will come up. I ask the Minister to consider those when they are raised with him. As I have said, I have received many letters on this issue. I will not read all of them, but I will relate some of the issues raised. A
gentleman from Vincent, north Queensland, stated "The State Government have made known their intentions to alter the workers' compensation law which they promised electors, would not happen. ... We in the working-class, where most work related injuries occur, cannot afford to allow our children to be disadvantaged should the unexpected happen at work. ... It will directly affect the family as a unit, and it will assist in creating a new breed of disadvantaged poor." A woman from Southport writes "I have a personal concern and have been through a horrific situation whereby my husband was clinically dead, with out the laws as they stand now I would not have coped financially . . . The areas of most concern are: (a) Common Law Damages (b) Abolition of Journey Claims." Considering the number of letters that I have received in that vein, the question I had to ask is: who is least able to control the workplace? The answer is: the employees. They are the ones who are being asked to accept a 15 per cent threshold on injury claims, and I reiterate that that clause is not in the Bill now. I understand the Government's desire to fix the unfunded liability. I think everybody in this House is concerned that a viable and sound workers' compensation scheme remains. I share the concerns, but I do not believe that things like cutting into common law access rights and abolishing longstanding benefits like journey claims as recommended by Kennedy are justified. I retain concerns regarding the definition of "injury", the Public Service employee changes, the fact that people who are currently coveredthat is, PPS employeeswill not now be covered and the fact that that will need very effective education. Additionally, I am convinced that the Labor changes will go some way to fixing the problems. The actuaries have said that it is too early to tell and, under these circumstances, I believe it is wrong to deprive injured workers of all their rights. However, there are problems and for every issue raised on this side of House there is a counter-argument on the
4884
4 Dec 1996
other side of the House so that it is difficult to find common ground. The Minister must address the underlying problem that the fund is facing. However, I ask: if, in the medium term, there is a significant turnaround in the fundthat is, to a credit balancebecause of the depth of the amendments that are in the Bill, or if circumstances eventuate where the definition of "injury" in particular creates unacceptable problems for injured workers, at that time when a clear situation is known on the Workers Compensation Fund, would the Minister be willing to revisit these issues? Particularly if significant disadvantage is being faced by workers under the definition of "injury", will he revisit the legislation and revise the definition so that the fundamental tenet of workers' compensationthat is, to give safety and protection to injured workers and their familiesbe maintained? I ask the Minister to consider that question. Mr WELFORD (Everton) (12.26 p.m.): The previous speaker, the member for Gladstone, said that for every argument of the Government there is a counter-argument raised on this side of the House and that it is difficult to find common ground. Let us not beat about the bush about the amendments proposed to the workers' compensation scheme of Queensland by virtue of the Bill. The amendments are such that they are utterly incapable of finding common ground, simply because they represent a paradigm shift in the way that Governments of this State recognised the need to protect workers from injuries in their workplaces. The Bill does not only, as the Government pretends, act upon the Kennedy recommendations to finetune the actuarial position of the Workers Compensation Board; it also gives effect to the ideological obsession of conservative Governments in this State and throughout Australia to undermine the working rights of ordinary Australians. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about. It is not about rectifying the perceived actuarial difficulties of the fund; it is not about the socalled reform of the workers' compensation system in Queensland; it is not about simply implementing recommendations of an inquiry which from the outset was bound to fiddle with workers' rights as a way of topping up the fund. These changes are fundamentally about giving vent to the movement from the Federal Government down to the State Government to cut and wind back the working conditions of Australians, particularly those who are most exposed, least well off and least in a position to protect themselves from bad practices in
their workplaces. It is about winding back the level of compensation and financial redress available to workers which has been a part of the working lives of ordinary Australians for the better part of this century. Mr Ardill: For 80 years. Mr WELFORD: For 80 years, as the member for Archerfield says. Governments of this country must do better than that. This is an appalling admission by the Queensland Government that it no longer cares for the rights of workers in workplaces throughout the State, and that it no longer holds dearas has been part of the tradition of Governments in this State of all political coloursthe important responsibilities of Government to protect the compensation rights of workers in Queensland. The Government is prepared to kowtow to the extremism of the Federal Government, which is set upon a course to fundamentally wind back workers' rights and conditions to a standard not seen in this country since before the war. It is all right for members of the Government and for the member for Gladstone to thank the Minister for the minor concessions that have been made in the Bill. However, essentially, the concessions that the Minister has made have come about not because of any good spirit or goodwill on his part or that of the Government, but simply because the Government has been dragged, kicking and screaming by the member for Gladstone and members on this side of the House to retain some semblance of respect for workers' rights, particularly the rights of access to common law. After all, it was the Minister who, before the last State election, ran from one end of the State to the other promising to protect the rights of ordinary workers to common law access. He accused the previous Labor Government of unduly restricting the rights of workers under the workers' compensation system, as it then was, and went about spreading what have proved to be lies. Coalition members pretended that, when they got into officeas they now arethey would protect workers' rights to common law access. It is no thanks to the Minister that those rights are being preserved in this legislation. For that, we have to thank only the Opposition, which has defended the workers' rights in that respect, and the support that we have managed to secure from the member for Gladstone, who has had the nous to respond to the needs of workers in her electorate. The member for Gladstone appreciates that any winding back of common law rights would
4 Dec 1996
4885
have been an absolute travesty and a betrayal of the very promises that this Government made in the run-up to the last election. Mr Fouras: Now they are demanding truth in advertising. Mr WELFORD: Indeed they are. What an extraordinary state of affairs that this morning the Premier should parade himself as the promoter of truth in political advertising, when on the same day we are debating legislation which has been brought here in its present form precisely because the Government was dishonest in the way it represented itself to the electors at the last State election and in Mundingburra in relation to this issue. Government members are utterly without credibility in relation to their unequivocal political commitments to protect the rights of ordinary workers to common law access. As in every other instance, on this issue they simply cannot be trusted. The Kennedy inquiry was bound to bring down the recommendations it made. The inquiry was a compromise headed by an employer, for employers, representing employers and hearing from employers, which handed down recommendations based on what was essentially an employer's view of the world. At the end of the day, it was not the protection of workers' rights or the protection of the health and safety of workers that was paramount in the system. What was paramount was the notional or illusory financial credibility of an institution of Government which has been run effectively ever since it was established by Labor Governments and which has only become a problem over the past few years. It has become a problem because, over the last half of this decade, for the first time in the history of this system, workers have been standing up for their rights more than ever before. Never was there a suggestion that this system should operate with the same mechanisms of financial accountability as apply to every other insurance system in the country, namely, that the premiums paid reflect the level of risk incurred. That is the responsibility for financial accountability from which this Government is protecting employers. When people take out any other form of insurance, they pay premiums that reflect the level of risk and liability that their business incurs. However, by denying workers their rights to common law access, this Government was trying to shield employers from that direct financial responsibility. It is true that there is a small level of fraud in relation to claims for workers' compensation.
We have heard nothing from the Government or the Minister as to what they will do about that. However, the Minister is prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of addressing the problem of improper claims for workers' compensation, he simply excuses employers from that responsibility altogether. His proposal is that employers be excused from their responsibility altogether for common law claims, thereby excusing them from their real responsibilities for compensating workers to the full extent of their injuries. That is what the Minister had proposed. Maybe what is needed in the system is a bit of true financial accountability. The responsibility for workplace practices and safety should be driven home to where it rightfully lieswith the employers, the people responsible for proper workplace management. What would we have if we had a truly transparent and financially accountable system? We would have a compulsory system of protection from injury for workers and compensation for any injury. We would also have rights to common law access as exist with respect to every other form of negligence under our legal system. We would also have premiums that reflect the full value of the injuries and damage caused at the workplace. Then we would see the true cost of workplace injuries. But instead those costs are concealed by subsidies and by cutting back the rights of access to compensation. The true costs of workplace injuries are concealed by shoving people into the health system and restricting the responsibility of the insurance process and employers to cover such injuries. That is effectively what the Government is about. This is part and parcel of its ideological bent and reflects both its position and the position of the Federal Government, which is concerned in respect of its industrial relations and workers' compensation programs to effectively impose upon the working people of Australiathose people who have the lowest incomes in Australiathe burdens that flow from workplace change and workplace accidents. That is effectively what this Minister's position is. This Minister and this Government, in common with the Federal Industrial Relations Minister and his Government, basically take the view that whenever financial hardships are to be borne in the workplaces of this country, they will not be borne by the profit makers the employersand they will not even be shared equitably across the population of the country through the taxation system; they will be borne directly by those workers who are the
4886
4 Dec 1996
lowest paid and who are in the least effective position to protect themselves. That is what this Government is about. Its ideological and political position owes nothing to any nonsense about the actuarial security of the fund. It owes nothing to any nonsense about reform of the workers' compensation system. It is ironic that the Government should change the name of laws that have existed for 80 years to WorkCover. It is ironic that the Government should change the name of the laws to the very name of schemes which in other States have led to the collapse of the system and to the winding back of workers' rights. It is symbolic of where this legislation and this Government are heading that it changes the name of this system to that found in the very legislation which in other States has been designed deliberately to wind back the opportunity for workers to obtain fair compensation for their injuries in the workplace. Mr Ardill: Back to the nineteenth century. Mr WELFORD: It is indeed taking us back to the nineteenth century. The Labor Government of 1992 to 1995 brought about substantial reforms to workers' compensation. It was our Government which consolidated the law relating to workers' compensation, made it clear and brought it up to date. That was done only a few short years ago. The proposition that the law now required a substantial overhaul is simply without foundation and credibility. What the Government is proposing is not a change to the law to improve the system or bring it up to date; it was already up to date. This Government is proposing a change to the law that fundamentally shifts the balance and onus of protecting workers. It shifts the balance from employer income to workers' costs. It shifts the balance away from the rights of ordinary workers in favour of the benefits of employers and business. What they have effectively done is shield business and in particular larger businesses from their direct responsibilities to ensure that workplace practices are in place to protect workers from further injury. The Kennedy report recommendations are simply an alibi, simply a facade behind which the Government is driving through reforms or changes to give vent to what is at its very base simply a fundamental ideological position which sets workers against employers, which destroys the trust in workplaces between employers and their staff, and which is designed to impose upon workers the very real
costs in personal, family and financial terms that flow from negligence of employers in managing their workplaces. That is what this Bill is about. Let there be no misunderstanding. It is not mere marginal reform; it is not mere shuffling of the deck chairs; it is a fundamental shift, a paradigm shift, in the way that Governments acknowledge or assume their responsibilities in respect of protection of workers from workplace injury. Workers throughout this State will in the ensuing months and years be exposed to much greater risks, exposed to much more severe injuries, exposed to the uncertainties that flow from being laid off work and exposed to the suffering that their families will incurthe break-ups, the hardships their children will experienceprecisely because this Government, under the pretence that it is simply making minor reforms to ensure the credibility of the fund, is really about winding back rights. Mr Schwarten: And remember what they said they would do if they got a mandate. Common law will go if they get back. Mr WELFORD: Indeed, and I heard in this place today the member for Gladstone leave open the door for further changes, for further winding back of rights of workers, if the coalition is ever returned to Government after the next State election. Let that be a warning to the workers across this State, let it be an alarm bell ringing in the ears of every employee of every industrial enterprise in Gladstone: if Minister Santoro manages to be back in Government after the next State election, we can expect more of the same. We can expect more of a wedge being driven between employees and their employers; we can expect more of the responsibility and the load and the burden of workplace injury of negligent employers being cast upon the workers of this State. While the Minister stands there prattling on about how he cares for workers, we know that the reality of the matter is that his actions speak more loudly than his words, because in this Bill he represents what he really stands for, and it fundamentally means scuttling hardfought-for and long-held rights that workers have enjoyed across this State for many decades. The Government will rue the day that it moved to implement this fundamental change. In the long run it will not relieve employers of the costs of their negligence in the workplace. They will continue to suffer disruption to their business, disruption to their profit-earning capacity if they simply do not
4 Dec 1996
4887
take responsibility for the injuries that occur in their workplace, and no amount of meddling with workers' rights by this Government or any other will protect employers from the very real economic consequences that flow from their failure to protect workers from workplace injury. The one thing that workers' compensation laws in this State have done ever since they were introduced was to make sure that employers had driven home to them the very clear message that, while workers are required to act reasonably and responsibly in their workplace, the ultimate responsibility for proper workplace practices rests with management. That message is now being withdrawn by this Minister. Indeed, the message being sent out by this Minister is to the contrary. He is saying Mr Roberts: The QCCI thinks that workers are responsible for 97 per cent of injuries. Mr WELFORD: The QCCI would, because it shares with this Minister the view that employers have no role in ensuring that proper workplace practices protect their staff from injuries in the workplace. It is an extraordinary proposition that runs counter to the law, both the common law and the statute law of this State ever since its inception. But let that be remembered: the message being sent out by this Bill and this Minister today in this legislation is that every employer can now welsh on their responsibility to their workers; that we are back to the old system where workers will get protection only if they bargain for it and if they fight for it and if they strike for it, because no Government of the current political persuasion is prepared to stand up and ensure that a proper framework of protection is in place under the law as would occur in any civilised society. Time expired. Ms WARWICK (Barron River) (12.46 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the WorkCover Queensland Bill. I have been concerned for some time now about the disastrous state of the Workers Compensation Fund. I well remember when we were in Opposition the then shadow Minister, Santo Santoro, questioning the then Labor Minister, Wendy Edmond, about the state of the fund. I know for a fact that Minister Santoro has been very concerned about that matter for a very long time. As soon as we came to power, he was determined to do something about the problema problem which was not of this Government's making. Mr Ardill: There is no problem.
Ms WARWICK: That is the member's opinion. Minister Santoro had to take immediate action to fix up an inherited mess, and he did that. He did not hide from the reality; he did not shirk his responsibility. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr J. N. Goss): The member for Archerfield will come to order. Ms WARWICK: The Minister initiated an inquiry under the very able stewardship of Mr Jim Kennedy. I think it was the member for Everton who said that there was no consultation; that it was all employers. That is not true. The Kennedy inquiry consulted widely, in spite of claims to the contrary by some union leaders and Opposition members. The inquiry received 229 written submissions and held 13 public hearings Statewide. Maximum opportunity was provided for interested groups and individuals to have input. Written submissions were received from 10 employer organisations and from individual workers. A representative of three peak union bodies sat on the consultative committee to the inquiry. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and his staff on all the hard work which has gone into this legislation. I know of his dedication and his commitment to fixing this ailing fund. Since I have been a backbencher in this Parliament, I have voiced great concern for small business. I am committed to assisting wherever possible the plight of small-business people. I have stated this commitment several times in the Parliament, and I intend to see it through. That is why it makes me very angry that it is these very small-business employers who are now bearing the brunt of the problems associated with the Workers Compensation Fund. They are the ones whose premiums have gone up so dramatically that they are unable to put on extra employees. One of my constituents came to see me the other day and complained bitterly that small-business people are being victimised by the incredibly high premiums which they are being forced to pay. This particular constituent said that he would put on another employee if he did not have to pay such high premiums for workers' compensation. Under the present system, Queensland is the loser. Many people in my electorate are quite disappointed and concerned that the legislation has had to be altered. I was able to assure my constituent that we have made a commitment to not raising premiums for the next two years. Actuarial advice informs us that the fund could
4888
4 Dec 1996
be as much as $440m in the red. When the previous Labor Government came to power in 1989, the fund was in a healthy state. One of the stumbling blocks to the original legislation was the access to common law. I understand that other States have common law thresholds. I understand that the threshold in Victoria is 30 per cent and in New South Wales it is 25 per cent. I understand that there are some problems being experienced by the New South Wales fund. It appears that they may have to increase premiums because of the claims experienced there. Because of the 15 per cent threshold for common law which we wish to impose under our legislation, two groups of people targeted my electorate. One group was the local legal fraternity, and I will not comment any further on that; the second was the Workers Rights Coalition. Mr Schwarten: Don't you like the legal fraternity? Ms WARWICK: No comment. The Workers Rights Coalition letterboxed my electorate twice with leaflets with my name on them, self-addressed. These were just scaremongering tactics. Out of two rounds of letterbox drops I got 160 back. I took the trouble to contact a couple of these people and to ask them exactly what they were complaining about and they basically did not know. They said they filled them in and sent them back because they thought they should. I thought that was a little bit disturbing. Mr Schwarten: So they weren't worried about it. Ms WARWICK: They did not understand. They had no idea. They were doing it because it had been put in their letterbox. That kind of scaremongering tactic is very scary. The Workers Rights Coalition also ran half-page advertisements in the Cairns Post , and they appeared on at least five or six occasions. One of those advertisements states "Register your objection today with Lyn Warrick . . . or Naomi Wilson, MLA for Mulgrave." They could not even spell my name correctly, which rather upset me and amused me. If they are going to target me, one would think they would be able to spell my name. I received only two telephone calls about those advertisements. Thousands of dollars were spent on those scaremongering advertisements. I received two telephone calls. One call came from the tablelands, which is not even in my electorate, and that lady had
no concerns whatsoever. Again, because she had been told to call me, she did. The other person did have some genuine concerns which I attempted to address. I just mention that the advertisements were authorised by a D. Cleland. Mr Cleland is a Cairns city councillor and he is also a member of the ALP. Mr Schwarten: That's not against the law. Ms WARWICK: I did not say that it was against the law, but it is interesting where those advertisements came from. What the letterbox drop leaflets did not mention was that the proposed benefits for injured workers is the ability to remain on weekly benefits for up to five years after the date of their injury without erosion of their statutory lump sum benefits. This is a major benefit to more seriously injured workers. They did not mention that an extra $100,000 maximum benefit available to seriously injured spinal cord and brain injured workers is recommended for extension to all seriously injured workers for above 50 per cent work-related impairment. They did not mention that there will be an additional statutory benefit of $150,000 maximum for the attendant care of a worker in lieu of obtaining gratuitous care awards under common law. I have concerns about workers' rights, regardless of what speakers on the other side say. I also have grave concerns about the rights of small-business people. I was a smallbusiness person and I know what it is like. They work 12, 14-hour days, their workers work eight hours a day; their workers have lunch breaks, the small-business person does not. They pay workers' compensation premiums, they pay leave loading, the whole box and dice. I am sick and tired of hearing only about workers. Small-business people work just as hard, and for once somebody has to take notice of these people. If we did not have small-business people, we would not have jobs. They are the creators of employment and it is about time those opposite remembered that. For some industries, the hike last time was in the vicinity of 40 per cent, plus the levy, yet we are still seeing fraudulent claims and massive common law settlements. Common law claims increased 32 per cent in the 12 months to 30 June 1996, contributing significantly to the blow-out in the Workers Compensation Fund. Legal costs accounted for 57 per cent of savings to the fund which would result from the 15 per cent threshold. This threshold would have affected less than 2
4 Dec 1996
4889
per cent of Queensland's work force. Only 3 per cent of workers' compensation claims involve common law action. After introduction of the threshold, injured Queensland workers would still have better access to common law than all other States except Victoria. This new WorkCover Bill will establish WorkCover Queensland as the independent statutory body which will replace the current Workers Compensation Board of Queensland. WorkCover will be responsible for delivering workers' compensation insurance in a commercial manner and administering the regulatory functions contained in the WorkCover Queensland Bill. The major advantages of replacing the existing Workers Compensation Board with the statutory body to be known as WorkCover Queensland will be: creation of a board of directors fully accountable for WorkCover's commercial performance and responsible for overseeing the enforcement of its regulatory responsibilities; removal of scope for hidden political interference by requiring any Government intervention in WorkCover's commercial operations to be made fully transparent to the public; and separating the organisation from the Public Service to allow it to serve its clients as an efficient customerfocused commercial organisation. I applaud those initiatives. As the Minister has said, if the Labor Government had acted responsibly 12 months ago, when the deficit was only $114m, Queenslanders would not now be plunged into the $400m black hole that we have. One of the Opposition speakers spoke of improved workplace health and safety issues. I agree with that. It is very important. It is an aspect we must not forget. We must look into workplace health and safety issues. I have spoken to the Minister about that and have been assured that the current bipartisan approach will continue to take place and that a review is about to occur. I was talking to somebody on the plane when I came down to Brisbane for Parliament this week and this person told me that in the States workplace health and safety and precautionary measures are taken very seriously and that if people in the workplace do not adhere to the strict guidelines, there are then certain punitive measures that can be taken, such as warnings, etc. That is also important. Precautions must be taken by workers in the workplace. That will also help to reduce some of the claims that we now see. The political realities ensure that certain recommendations of the Kennedy inquiry will
not be included in the legislation before the House. The full reform package was designed to save $113m a year. According to actuarial advice, savings will now amount to only $59m, of which I understand the Government is contributing $35m. Queensland will now be one of the few remaining jurisdictions in the world giving unlimited access to common law, regardless of the degree of impairment. I commend this Bill to the House and I take the opportunity once more to congratulate the Minister on the hard work and dedication and commitment that has gone into this new legislation. Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.30 p.m. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton) (2.30 p.m.): I rise in opposition to the Bill before the House. In so doing, I draw the House's attention to a statement made by the honourable the Minister that was reported in the Courier-Mail this morning that the legislation that the Government has before this place is widely supported by workers. I say to the Minister: that is certainly not the case where I come from. I have here some 725 letters from constituents who have written to me about the proposed changes that the Minister is bringing forward, and not one of those letters supports them. I do not know to whom the Minister is talking, but certainly those people who wrote to memany of whom have been injured at work and have had access to the workers' compensation laws as they are currentlysimply do not want a change. Not too many of the workers to whom I have spoken, including one gentleman whom I just bumped into in George Street where he is working on a construction site, hold the same views as the Minister. So I do not know to which workers the Minister was referring in that statement in the Courier-Mail this morning. Clearly, they are not the workers to whom I have spoken. This legislation is based on a wrong premise. As other speakers have said, the review into workers' compensation was conducted by an employer. I might add that he is a gentlemen for whom I have a great deal of respect. Nevertheless, he is an employer and the report has been written from an employer's perspective. Had a trade unionist, for example, been in charge of the inquiry into workers' compensation it is reasonable to suggest that that person would have produced a different set of options from those proposed by Mr Kennedy. From where I sit, I see that the legislation is tackling the problem from the wrong end. In
4890
4 Dec 1996
his report, Mr Kennedy suggested that revenue lost to the fund amounted to $28m. He said that it could be more than that. Similarly, Wally Trohear from the CFMEU has stated on a number of occasions that, with his broad experience in the building industry, there is 60 per cent to 70 per cent noncompliance. If one were running a business and missing out on 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the market, one would do something about it. That is what I am suggesting to the Minister, who is the head of what is basically a corporation. He is neglecting his duties by not presenting the House and the people of Queensland with some strategies as to how to get hold of those employers who are not doing the right thing. The Minister acknowledges that non-compliance is a problem; the report that the Minister has acknowledges that it is a problem, yet we see that every change that the Minister wants to implement is tailored towards the workers giving up benefits. I believe that, from the outset, these amendments have no credibility whatsoever. Let us not forget that these are the amendments that the Minister could get away with. He was taken kicking and screaming by Labor members on this side of the House and by the member for Gladstone. I endorse the words of the member for Everton: the member for Gladstone can count. She knows that she represents a very large industrial electorate in this State whose workers would be disadvantaged as a result of the passage of the legislation that the Minister originally wanted to push forward. She understands, as do Opposition members, that those people would not have been too happy had she voted in favour of the original proposal. Considering such an option would never even enter the mind of Labor members on this side of the House. When the Minister sat on this side of the Chamber, he howled loud and long about the right to common law. He preached around the State that that right was cast in stone, that it was immutable, that we could not do anything about it and that we had to keep common law rights. If by some fluke he were to be elected to the other side of the House, he said that he would make sure that common law rights did not change. We all know that that is not what occurred. I had a wry grin this morning when I heard the Premier talking about truth in advertising. The hypocrisy of the Premier knows no bounds on a whole range of issues, but is particularly apparent in this particular case because members opposite went to workplaces around the State and said, "The Labor Party is trying to take away your
common law rights. We would never, ever do that." No doubt some workers were duped by that. In the context of the by-election, that was probably the case in Mundingburra. We all know that this legislation represents the minimum conditions that the Minister could get away with. Accordingly, he is not really satisfied. Judging by the Premier's statements that, if ever the coalition was returned to power with a majority in this State, it would go the whole hog he is not satisfied with the legislation either. If one reads, as I have, all the legislation on workers' compensation that has come into this place over the years right back to 1905 during the time of the Morgan Ministerialist Government, one will find one common thread, that is, conservative Governments and individuals who support conservative parties have always had preconditions on workers' compensation. That goes right back to 1916 when Ryan introduced the first workers' compensation legislation, when the Opposition of the time said that, although it was a good idea, it did not really believe that it should set aside 100,000 to set up what became the SGIO. They believed that workers' compensation should have been left to the marketplace. If my memory serves me correctly, the decision to establish that office was fought by industry groups in this State in the courts. Let us put aside all the humbug that the members opposite preach, that they are really taking this action to help the Workers Compensation Fund and to help workers. That is clearly not the case. They are in here doing the bidding of the bosses. When any solution needs to be found to problems raised by the review, it is always the poor old worker who is going to have to cough up. Honourable members should bear in mind the words of Clive Bubb, who said that the beneficiaries of workers' compensation should have to pay something towards it. The benefit that those people receive is that they get injured, many of them never to work again. At least under the workers' compensation package that was presented at the beginning of the year by our Government, workers received a fair go. This legislation is nicely and neatly wrapped up. It seems that fairly minor changes are involved. We are not talking about common law. The Minister's original proposal denied access to common law to those who suffered a disability of 20 per cent or less, which would have in effect put people as young as 20 or 30 on the dole. That means that, with no access to common law, the
4 Dec 1996
4891
taxpayer would have looked after them one way or the other. Leaving that issue aside, one aspect of workers' compensation that the Minister is attacking today is journey claims. I think that that is dreadful. That provision has survived all the ups and downs of the workers' compensation scheme for 80 years. It was in the original package proposed by Ryan. As the member for Archerfield pointed out, there were times in the thirties when the SGIO was in the red by 100,000 and figures of that nature. Journey provisions survived those times, but they will not survive this Government. Just as the name of the fund will change to WorkCover, so too will the conditions of journeying. If the changes that the Minister proposes are enactedand I notice that the member for Gladstone was referring to this issue earlierwhat would happen if a person became ill at knock-off time, could not drive home, and was dropped home via a route that deviated from the driver's normal route and the driver had an accident? How do those workers get on? The Minister might like to answer that in his reply. Mr Ardill: How about car pooling? Mr SCHWARTEN: Car pooling will certainly be out in this case because every time a different person drives, a different route to and from work will be taken. There will be no substantial route that will be able to be identified. In my electorate, meatworkers use car pooling all the time. Quite regularly they will use car pooling to drive up and down from Emu Park. This will affect anybody who has to travel some distance to workand bear in mind that every day about 3,500 people travel from Yeppoon, in the electorate of the member for Keppel, to Rockhampton and back. I do not think they will be too pleased when they get to see the fine print of what this is all about. The shadow Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think this aspect of compensation involves only about $13m worth of claims a year. That is really not a lot of money in the overall context of the damage that will be caused as a result of this legislation. This legislation will affect people who work shift work and who knock off at all hours of the day and night. These days, people work quite long shifts. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, one day, one of them will run a red light and be involved in an accident because they are tired from working hard. They are probably going to miss out on any form of workers' compensation as a result. They are the sorts of things that the Minister is
not telling the people of Queensland. I am sure of one thing: the workers he spoke about this morning who support these provisions would take a different view if they had that knowledge behind them. The next point I would like to address is the overall deficit of the fund. I do not knowand I do not think anybody else doesexactly what the nature of the deficit is. It was $200m; it was $100m. I heard the Premier say it was a billion dollars. I know that one of the union officials at the Trades Hall in Rockhampton had a barometer of the figures mentioned over a period of a couple of months, and every time someone in the Government made a statement, a mark was made on the barometer. It ended up a billion with the Premier's statement. At one stage the Minister said it was $600m. Other figures mentioned were $300m and $200m, and so it went on. Quite frankly, I think the true story is that the Cabinet submission suggested that the reforms that were made by our Government were in fact going to work and that by the year 2006 the scheme would be okay. The other point about the deficit and how it was going to be corrected according to Kennedy is that many of the things that he spoke about in the report were simply unfunded. Today I heard that the figure of $59m would be saved as a result of these provisions. I do not know how those figures are arrived at. It is a matter of some fascination how the Government can get to that point when in fact Kennedy does not price most of the things that he referred to. For example, how much of the $13m that is used for journey cover is intended to be saved? Will it be the whole lot? That is why I do not believe that the legislation has much credibility at all in the eyes of workers in this State. The next point, of course, is the definition of "injury", and that is clearly aimed at people who suffer with bad backs as a result of work. In my electorate, there are meatworkers who are currently working anything up to 12-hour shifts on concrete floors. They are young blokes who are lifting large slabs of meat, boning them out and so on. If anybody can convince me that they will not suffer degenerative back problems in the next 20odd years, then I will Mr J. H. Sullivan: Then you will be convinced. Mr SCHWARTEN: I was going to say something else. Then I will be convinced. I thank the member for the interjection. The fact of the matter is that some doctors would never
4892
4 Dec 1996
believe that a person would develop a bad back as a result of work. I have heard specialists and doctors say that from the day a person is born until the day he dies, his back degenerates. I believe that unless some of these people are able to be convinced that the work-related injury is the substantial cause of the problem, then the person who has suffered the injury will not receive compensation. It is a bit like the old "bad back" syndrome which has been suggested for many years. Let me tell honourable members that I know people who suffer with bad backs from working in the construction industry. I have a bad back myself from hard work in my young days. It is not a lot of fun. The more we see people work longer and longer hours, the more injuries of that nature we will see. The other point that needs to be made relates to the number of prosecutions. I mean, what are these people doing? In 1994-95 there were 105,000 claims, and guess how many prosecutions there were? There were 58 prosecutions. So the other 104,000-odd were all doing the right thing? Fair dinkum, what is the deterrent for some of these employers to indulge in the practices that they do of getting their employees to stay back an extra six or eight hours a day in some cases to do heavy manual labour? And thanks to the Government's Industrial Relations Bill, when it manages to get through this place, if those employees do not work those hours they will end up being sacked. As far as I am concerned, we will see more and more of this sort of behaviour. As a result of a whole host of inactivity in the area of workers' compensation itself, inspectors are not going out and targeting the unscrupulous employers who time and time again have made a number of claims. They do not even get a visit from anybody in the inspectorate area of the Workers Compensation Board. If something was done about compliance, I think the number of claims would be reduced. Make no mistake about it, there is nothing in this Bill that is a deterrent to employers to continue their practice of hurting their employees on the job. There is nothing in here that would entice employers to abandon unsafe work practices because the likelihood of them being prosecuted is seven-eighths of nine-tenths of nil. The likelihood of a check being made on them is at about the same level and the Workers Compensation Board continues to pay out. I know of no other insurance industry that operates in that way. There would certainly be questions asked in that regard and pressure would certainly be
brought to bear. But that never happens with workers' compensation. It just goes on undeterred year after year, with 100,000-odd people hurt at work costing the State some $3 billion every year. Yet all the Government can come up with is a bit of good old-fashioned worker bashing. In particular, I am not impressed with the member for Barron River with her ministerially written speech. She stated what she thinks about workers. I have to say that she is honest. At least she has the courage to stand up here and say what members opposite think about workers. I will certainly make sure that any worker I know from Barron River gets to read her speech. Mr Roberts: She should join the QCCI because they don't like workers. Mr SCHWARTEN: The QCCI is another group of people. Clive Bubb and his mates are not too impressed with workers, either. They think that the workers are to blame for all these injuries. Mr Ardill: He was a Liberal politician. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is right. He was, too. Mr McGrady: They call him two-Bubb each way, don't they? Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, two-Bubb each way. The other point I would like to address is contributory negligence, a matter about which the member for Gladstone spoke. Contributory negligence has already been recognised in the courts. As I understand it, the Government is not too happy with the findings of the judges in that regard. It is a nonsense to say that people can do as they please on the job and that if the boss provides them with protective clothing they can simply thumb their nose at it and not run the risk of losing out on workers' compensation. There are cases where that has occurred. Under the Workplace Health and Safety Act, the onus does rest with the employee in that regard as well. I believe that this legislation is a perfect example of what separates us from members opposite. If one looks at what we on this side did when we were confronted with the problem of the workers' compensation blow-out, as members opposite like to call it, it will be seen that we looked at both sides sharing the pain. What is the Government doing? It is tipping the balance on the backs of the workers as it has always done. From 1916 to 1986, it has been good to the last drop. The colleagues of members opposite who have predeceased them in this place would be truly proud of
4 Dec 1996
4893
them. Members opposite should read the 1916 debate and see what some of their colleagues had to say, and they should repeat it in here today because they are about as relevant today as those people were then. I am delighted to say that I am part of the Labor Party in this State which opposes this legislation. It is one of the reasons why, 27 years ago, I joined the Labor Party. I am proud of the fact that the Labor Party is the party of the workers in this State. Those members opposite will be back in their rightful positions sooner rather than later. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (2.50 p.m.) Moments ago I stepped out of the lift on the fifth floor and thought I had entered heaven. It appears that most of heaven has now entered the Chamber, and I would like to welcome the entrants in the Miss Australia Quest to the gallery. Can I say on behalf of all the Parliament how much we in Queensland appreciate the work that they do for the Spastic Centre. Before I commence to tell the Minister what I do not like about his legislation, I will tell him with great sincerity what I do like about it. In the seven years that I have been in this place, this piece of legislation is the first about which I can honestly say I really like its regulation-making powers. The Minister and his staff have brought this complex, comprehensive and, I might add, bad legislation into the Parliament. However, its regulation-making powers are terrific. I commend honourable members to have a look at those regulation-making powers. This Minister has brought to the Parliament a regulation-making power that many Ministers before him have said was impossible to do. Clause 530 of the Bill refers to the regulationmaking powers and states "A regulation may make provision for anything specified in schedule 1. That type of regulation-making power means that when we in this Parliament talk about what we are going to allow the bureaucracy to do in our namesand members should remember that the regulations that are made are our regulations, not the bureaucracy'swe are keeping very tight control. I commend the Minister and whoever else in his staff was responsible for so doing. It is nice to be able to say something nice about Mr Santoro. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming): Order! Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It is nice to be able to say something nice about the Minister. I have waited seven years to be able to do so, and I am pleased to do so on this occasion.
In respect of the WorkCover Queensland Bill, I have to say that the first thing that I do not like about it is its title. It is one of those very trendy titles that are dreamt up by power suit wearing, Saab driving, champagne swilling Liberal Party Governments down south. Why can we not talk about what it is? Why can we not refer to this Bill as the Workers' Compensation Bill? I guess the reason is that it is not a workers' compensation Bill Mr Harper interjected. Mr again. J. H. SULLIVAN: Mr Harper is on member: If I
An recall
honourable
Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Somebody wants to recall. A Government member: Didn't the Prime Minister drink champagne? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Mr Howard might well have done but I am not fully aware of his drinking habits. In respect of this legislation, we are seeing a definite diminution of the conditions enjoyed by workers in this State. It is a diminution from what? It is a diminution from internationally recognised standards. In my view, this legislation pays scant regard to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Surely in a State such as Queensland we should be aspiring to provide our workers with conditions that are more favourable than the internationally recognised minimum. Who is driving conditions for workers in this State backwards? It is the Government of the daythe National/Liberal/Gladstone coalition Government. Mr McGrady: mineworkers. They hate the
Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: They hate the mineworkers. Just a few moments ago in this debate we heard the member for Barron River state quite sincerely that she is sick of hearing about the workers. Obviously, she is not going to sit around listening to this debate because from members of the Opposition she is going to hear quite a deal about the workers. The conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organisation are the definitive statements of human rights in regard to industrial relations. A number of those conventions relate to workers' rights to compensation. Dr Watson: But they don't want freedom of association completely. You don't follow that?
4894
4 Dec 1996
Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Let me say to the member that I believe in free association, and that is about all that anybody would be prepared to pay to associate with him. I refer to the Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture) Convention No. 12, the Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) Convention No. 17, the Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention No. 18, the Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention No. 19, and the Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) (Revised) Convention No. 42 and 121. Those conventions of the International Labour Organisation relate to workers' compensation. Dr Watson: Selective quotation. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: If the member for Moggill wants to interject, I say to him that I have selectively quoted from the conventionsonly those that apply to the Bill that is being debated. However, if the member wants to talk about a few others, I shall. For example, why does this legislation pay little or no regard to ILO conventions, whereas the Workplace Relations Bill contains ILO conventions in its appendices? It has me beaten. On the one hand, the Government wants to play with them, yet on the other hand it wants to ignore them. This Bill is a disaster for human rights. Members have to remember that this issue is not all about economics. I can understand why the member for Moggill wants to think that it is all about economics; he wants to justify his existence. However, this Bill is not about economics, it is about rights Mr Ardill: It's about people. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It is about people and it is about their rights to be treated properly and fairly. Mr Roberts: If it was about economics, they would pay full market price for the insurance. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: That is absolutely correct. As the member for Nudgee said, if it was about economics, they would pay the full market price for insurance. As the member for Nudgee would be aware, this legislation before the House shifts the responsibility from the employer to the employee. Who is going to pay? The employee is going to pay. Honourable members would understand that it is always the worker who pays, anyway. The amount of money that an employer has to spend on workers' compensation cover is less money that the employer is prepared to outlay in
wages. I bet honourable members that no-one in this place would disagree with the statement that, if the employers did not have to meet high workers' compensation premiums, it is more likely that employees would engage in occupations or in activities that are more dangerous. If employers did not have to pay these premiums, as a matter of course they would place their employees in more dangerous situations because the more dangerous the activity, the greater the profit that can be made out of it. As the member for Moggill would well know, that is suboptimal economic behaviour. It is not the way that things should go. I know that many speakers have referred to this matter, but I want to talk about the definition of "worker" as it is contained in the Bill. It is a rather restrictive definition. That in itself is contrary to the ILO conventions, which state that workers' compensation should be available to all workers, not the smaller cohort provided for in this Bill. I wonder why we are removing workers' access to the compensation scheme? Is that how the Government is saving the money about which it speaks? Is the Government going to put the scheme back in the black by applying it to fewer and fewer citizens of this State? That is what the Government is about. If it is not, why has the Government defined, limited and restricted the definition of "worker"? Dr Watson interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No, I am not interested. I am not listening to the member for Moggill because he has not made any sense since 1989 and he is not about to start now. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am not going to discuss what Mrs Sheldon says about the member. The second important issue is the definition of "injury". I have read the rationale provided by the Minister for changing the definition of "injury" which changes from "a significant contributing factor" to "the major significant factor". Although in his secondreading speech the Minister's said "the major significant contributing factor", the word "contributing" will be omitted. Many aspects of this provision are alarming. One of the most important is that it does not take into account the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Minister would know, as I do, that a number of people in the work force perform with ease to the levels required of them, despite disability, illness or other injury which
4 Dec 1996
4895
does not affect their work. However, something that happened at work could consequently combine with the disability to prevent them from continuing to work. The definition in the Bill is capable of excluding those people from the system of compensatable payment. I would ask the Minister to look at that. I did not see any reference to a change in the amendments that the Minister will be moving in the Committee stages of the Bill. I am also concerned about clause 314, the contributory negligence provisions. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that for the first time a definition of "contributory negligence" has been included in the Queensland workers' compensation legislation. However, I could not find a definition in the definitions section or in any other section. This is a big Bill and we have had very little time to go through it, and that definition may be there. If it is, could the Minister point it out to me? If it is not, I ask the Minister to do what he intended to do and provide a definition in the Bill. Mr Ardill: Is it cumulative? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The issue of contributory negligence is cumulative, and it is cumulative in a dreadful way. We are arriving at a situation whereby judges will no longer look at cases in courts; administrators will be doing that. Under the section relating to reductions, because of contributory negligence the court must reduce award damages by a minimum of 25 per cent. There are six sorts of events that this legislation says are evidence of contributory negligence. For each that is found to have contributed to the injury suffered by the employeethe person who has very little control, because he does not buy the ladder which he has to climbthere is a minimum 25 per cent reduction in the payment. It does not matter if the judge finds that the contributory negligence under any of those provisions is very minor. Mr Lucas: It's plucked out of the sky. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: They have plucked the figure of 25 per cent out of the sky and said, "That's it; you're out." This is most dismissive of and threatening to the position of judges in our legal system. Surely a judge's job is to determine the level at which he or she should fetter any award about to be given because of the issue of contributory negligence. It is one thing to have that in the legislation; it is another thing to have it and to say, "Irrespective of the scale, the judge must reduce the award by 25 per cent." The Government should hang its head in shame!
That is not the way to treat workers fairly. This Parliament telling a judge what he or she must do in respect of certain events, no matter how big or small, is not the way to write legislation. I understand that the Opposition is going to be opposing these provisions and I shall do so with some pride, because they are bad provisions. Workers' compensation and the alleged blow-out in the fund are issues that have occupied a lot of media time since the July election. For the last 18 months, a lot has been said about these things. Sure, there are problems with workers' compensationthere are always problems with these kinds of schemes. I can tell the House about one of those problems, which is an administrative problem which the Minister may want to look into. In my electorate I carry a small policy to cover people whom, from time to time, I ask to work for me on a paid basis because, to be frankand the Speaker is not herethe Parliament does not provide me with the staff resources that I need. One year I was amazed to find that, having filled in my return for the following year, I got a refund cheque from the Workers Compensation Board. The premium that I paid in the first instance would not have covered the administrative cost of processing the payment. It was ludicrous to get a refund which would have doubled the administration costs, and then some, by actually giving me some money back. I carry only a small policy. I would have thought that, as I am the person paying that kind of policy, it should be fair that there be a minimum premium that at least covered the cost of the administration of the receipt of the money. I think that the Minister should look to see how much of that kind of activity is contributing towards some of the problems. Workers' compensation, of course, is a basic human right. Workers' compensation is not something that should be bandied about in terms other than the people's right to a safe workplace. The Minister's legislation provides employers with the opportunity to provide workers in this State with unsafe workplaces and for the workers to pay the cost by missing out on appropriate compensation because of that. I understand that this debate and the other debates that were scheduled for this week were to be among the Minister's crowning moments. However, I assure the Minister that there is no credit accruing to the him through the legislation before the House. In addition, I have no doubt that, were the Minister able to work without the delicate
4896
4 Dec 1996
balance of numbers in this Parliament, he would amend the legislation with glee and haste to provide for the loss of journey claims and to increase the injury level for common law access. I cannot trust the Minister and I know that the workers in this State cannot trust him. Because the member for Gladstone has been of a similar mind to the Opposition, the Minister has had to amend his proposals. Let us be fully aware that the Minister has done so under duress and that the legislation before the House today is not the legislation that would be the final form of legislation if a coalition majority Government were to take office following an election. Let us be sure that this legislation is not what the Minister intends to inflict on the workers of this State. This legislation in itself is bad enough, but the threat of what the Minister will do in the future is too horrible to contemplate. It is a disgrace. I do not think this is a crowning moment for the Minister; this is a moment when the Minister should be ashamed of himself and he should be man enough Mr Schwarten: You call yourself an Australian. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: As the honourable member says, he calls himself an Australian, but this is an un-Australian act. This is not worthy of a Parliament of this State and it is not worthy of a Parliament of this country. The Minister should be ashamed for bringing it forward. Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (3.10 p.m.): I rise in opposition to the proposed WorkCover Queensland Bill. It is a Bill of spite, double standards and division. If there is one silver lining in the debate that we have had in this Chamber today and yesterday it is the defeat of the Santoro plan to butcher common law access. This morning in question time, the Premier spoke about truth in political advertising. If there was ever a case of "convicted, guilty, go to gaol" for breaches of truth in political advertising, it was the sham and fraud perpetrated on the people of this State in the July 1995 election campaign by this Government when it told the people that it would not reduce workers' rights to common law access. It has only been through the intervention of the Opposition, with the support of the member for Gladstonesomething for which I give her creditand her opposition to the 15 per cent butchering by the Minister, that the workers of this State do not find themselves in an even worse situation.
Will the Nationals and Liberals cop this decision? Are they prepared to cop the will of the Parliament? No! On 2 November 1996, the Premier told the Courier-Mail that, if his Government wins the next electionGod help it, given the way it has been performingit will scrap common law. Government members did not get their way and they do not like it. If they gain power in their own right, in a fit of spite they will scrap common law. At least when the workers and the men and women of Queensland next go to the polls they will have a stark choice between a National/Liberal Party Government that has attacked workers' rights in this Bill and two other Bills that we will debate early next year, or a Labor Opposition that has consistently defended the principles and rights of those in society who are least able to defend themselves and who are deserving of our support. This Bill is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting my constituents in the term of this Parliament. It has a day-to-day impact upon them in their dealings in the community and as members of the work force. It is chock-a-block full of spiteful stings. Some of the Bill's provisions are not even in the Kennedy report and can only be interpreted as punishment. The classic example of the spiteful punishment dealt up in this legislation is the change to journey claim requirements that require journeys to be taken by the shortest convenient route. The WorkCover boffins will be out on the streets with their UBDs, pieces of string and pedometers measuring whether a particular worker took the shortest or longest way to work each morning. One of the most concerning things about the Government's policy in relation to the WorkCover Bill and its attempt to abolish common law is the fact that it divides society and treats workers harshly. One of the great things about Australian society is that we are egalitarian; everybody is given a fair go and is treated equally. In this country, I do not want to see us reach the stage at which certain groups of people are treated as second-class citizens. That is the way we are heading with this WorkCover legislation, not to mention other things that seem to be happening in this country. In future, there will be two classes of people in relation to accidents. For example, if a worker slips over because of a puddle of water at Woolworths, that worker will be treated differently from a shopper who slips over in that same puddle of water in the same circumstances. Why? That will be because this Government does not want to defend the
4 Dec 1996
4897
rights of workers. It wants to treat them differently and it does not wish to treat them fairly. The hallmark of this Bill has been the failure of the Government to consult with the union movement and other stakeholders. Government members are more than happy to talk to their matesthe employersbut when it comes to people who represent the other half of the interest group, they are not prepared to talk to them. I note that yesterday the Law Society called on the Government to adjourn the debate on this Bill until the new year to permit consultation and informed debate on its many provisions. But will that happen? No, we will have to have the entire debate today. In the Minister's ideological drive to cement his leadership prospects in the Liberal Party, he has ploughed ahead with this Bill, which is illogical on any assessment and not necessary. Mr Santoro's legacy to this session of Parliament will be the trifecta of shame: the WorkCover Queensland Bill, the Industrial Organisations Bill and the Workplace Relations Bill. In his eloquent speech, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out a number of important factors that the Government has clearly ignored. Only three of the 660 lump sum cases considered by the Workers Compensation Board from 1 January until 29 August 1996 have elected to go to common law. Even the Government's own advice indicates that, if the common law claims experience stabilises at the 1 January 1996 level, full funding would be achieved after June 2006. If a 10 per cent levy was maintained, then full funding would be achieved by the September quarter of the year 2000. It is important to note the level of our premiums in Queensland compared to those in other States. It is a furphy to say that our scheme is in trouble. It has $1.068 billion in reserves and earned $100m in income for the past 12 months. Its value grew by $180m last year. It was Labor's reforms which addressed the difficulties of the scheme. Those sensible, prudent and thought-out reforms achieved the turnaround and made this WorkCover Bill totally unnecessary and explicable only by petty vindictiveness. The Bill makes much of requiring the board to take a commercial approach. Since 1916, in this State workers' compensation has been conducted on a benevolent basis, with its primary aim being to advance the interests of injured workers and their families. But not content to put an economic
rationalist/commercialist requirement in the Bill, the Minister has then not seen fit to be consistent. Anyone with any familiarity with insurance principles knows that, in a true insurance market, the insurer has the right to set the premiums at the level it sees fit. But the Government is not prepared to do that and say, "Okay, employers, common law claims have increased. You are responsible for them because they are fault based and therefore the premiums will rise." The Government wants to treat this scheme differently from other insurance schemes but at the same time say it is commercial, because that gives it another excuse to hop into the rights of workers in other areas. The Government proposes to maintain the right to interfere with premium levels. Again, that is not what one would call a commercial-based control of an insurance company; it is a political control based on the Government's side of the political spectrum. As to laying any blame for common law claim increasesby definition, common law claim increases are fault based and claims must be paid only if the employer is negligent. However, under this legislation workers will bear the brunt of employer negligence. I will speak with respect to particular clauses in the Committee stage, but two clauses in particular are worth emphasising. One of the most disgusting clauses in the Bill is the contributory negligence clause, which adds 25 per cent, plus 25 per cent, plus 25 per cent for every perceived instance of contributory negligence, even if it is held partly to blame. This is a gross interference in matters traditionally decided by courts. It is ridiculous to state that any aspect of contributory negligence should automatically be set at 25 per cent. That seems to me to be a backdoor way of reducing workers' payouts in a cumulative way. That can lead to situations in which, where even if there have been only small items of contributory negligence, a worker will get nothing. Another area of particular concern is the journey claim clause that disqualifies claims where there is a breach of the Traffic Act. I hope members realise that, when a constituent of theirs has been working a latenight shift, a double shift, or is tired, has not been drinking, been foolish or careless but by mistake goes through a stop sign, has a car accident and is injured, that person has breached the Traffic Act, and that is it. That person is not eligible for a lump sum payment. That person would never have received a
4898
4 Dec 1996
common law payment, because he or she was at fault. This spiteful Bill says, "Sorry about that. You've have missed out. Sorry, Mrs Smith. You have gone through a give-way sign on the way home. You have become a tetraplegic. We know it's not your fault, but in any case you will get nothing, merely because you went through a give-way sign and breached the Traffic Act." That is disgraceful. When members have people in their electorates who are impacted upon when this legislation bites, they will rue the day that they allowed such a clause to be included. In conclusionthis legislation has no actuarial or financial basis. It is legislation that is designed to divide. It creates different classes of people in our society. Workers will be treated differently from people who are injured as motorists and people who are injured as shoppers. I do not want to see that type of society. I am more than pleased to oppose this Bill. Unfortunately, the member for Gladstone may not see the merit in a number of the arguments that the Opposition is mounting today, but I plead with her sincerely to think through the ramifications of some of the very nasty clauses in this Bill and reject it. Mr HARPER (Mount Ommaney) (3.20 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise today and speak in support of the WorkCover Queensland Bill. I want to start by commending the Minister on the actions that he has taken in regard to the problem of workers' compensation. Let us reflect on what the Minister has done since the coalition came to Government to rectify this problem, which was left to us by the previous Government. He took quick action. Given that there was a massive problem with the fund, one of his first decisions was to hold the inquiry. The Minister did not pussyfoot around or muck around; he got on with rectifying the problem, and that was one of his first steps towards a solution. After its establishment the Kennedy inquiry rightly ran for a number of months, as it had to deal with quite a large issue, address it fully and allow time for proper input from various groups. This process led to the recommendations contained in the Kennedy report, and following that came the crucial drafting of the necessary legislation. It is not a small Bill, as this is not a minor issue. The Minister and his staff had a significant task in drafting the appropriate legislation, yet what have we heard from the members opposite? Yelping and wailing about how little time they had to look at it. They have had quite a long time to consider the report of the Kennedy inquiry. It was available to them. Members opposite have to face up to the fact that the
Minister addressed the issues. He did not run away from them, as members opposite did when they were in Government. He knew that the fund would not fix itself. The problems were not just going to go away. The problem required responsible action, and that is what occurred. I turn now to the contribution by the Opposition Leader earlier in this debate. I want to respond to this statement that he made "Labor and my Government" would "manage the finances of the Workers Compensation Fund without resorting to harsh, draconian and discriminatory measures." When I heard him say that earlier in this debate, I thought, "My goodness, here they go again with more hypocrisy." What utter rubbish! If we look back but a few months to when members opposite had control of the Treasury benches, to when they had control of workers' compensation, did they take that sort of action? Not on your life! They kept on running awaythe typical head-in-the-sand approach. Members opposite denied that there was anything wrong, yet the Opposition Leader had the hypocrisy to stand up during this debate and claim that Labor would manage the finances of the Workers Compensation Fund in a certain manner. We saw how Labor managed the fund over the past six and a half years. We saw the mess that members opposite created. The scheme was ready to collapse, as it did under other Labor Governments in other States. The Opposition Leader must believe that he could turn that situation around without any action. What a load of rubbish! Mrs BIRD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the condition of the House. Quorum formed. Mr HARPER: As I was saying, all we saw from the Opposition Leader was hypocrisy. If we look at the true pictureunder the former Government the Workers Compensation Fund was out of control. Members opposite either did not know the true drastic position of the fund or they were deliberately misleading the people of Queenslandhiding the shame that they obviously felt, hiding the problem that existed so that they did not have to face up to the wrath of the people on that issue, among others, at the election. Either waywhether they were unaware of or were deliberately
4 Dec 1996
4899
hiding the problemthey are to be condemned. I want to refer to the pamphlets on this issue that were distributed in various electorates, including my own. In a certain famous black, yellow and white pamphlet I was accused of taking away workers' rights forever, as were some other members. I want to respond to a few of the items addressed in that particular pamphlet. The first statement was that "Over 70% of all workers' compensation court claims will be eliminated." The Bill which was introduced into Parliament does not change the limitations placed on common law access which were introduced on 1 January 1996. A further statement was that "98% of all workers' compensation claims will be decided by Government bureaucrats rather than by the courts." Why do people not face up to the facts concerning the history of the fund? Workers' compensation statutory claims have been decided by public servantsor "bureaucrats", as they call themsince 1916. Hence, nothing has changed. The next statement was "You will get no right of appeal against the decision of these bureaucrats." The response to that is: review and appeal rights for workers have been extended extendedin the Bill. The next statement was "If you are injured or even killed on the way to or from work that's toughyou have no claim and your family has no claim." My response is this: as we now know, journey claims have been retained in the Bill with minor amendments to limit claims where there is a clear breach of the Traffic Act resulting in injury and clarify where the journey starts and finishes. The next statement was "Compensation for carers for seriously injured employees, usually a close family member, will be restricted to unrealistically low levels." The response is that a gratuitous care payment of up to $150,000 has been introduced into the statutory scheme to ensure that all seriously injured workers who require ongoing, day-to-day care have access to this payment without the need to resort to the court. This payment is available not just to
those who can prove employer negligence, which is the situation currently. One may well ask who was responsible for these leaflets that were distributed in many electorates, including mine. I note that although the leaflet distributed in my electorate was authorised by a certain person, no particular groupno particular partyhad the fortitude to own up and take responsibility for it. I wonder why. Of course, a check on other electoral information that has been distributed in my electorate reveals that this particular pamphlet was authorised by a member of the Labor Party, and so that sheets home the responsibility to where it belongs. But of course that party did not have the fortitude to own up to that fact. I turn now to the assistance that this Bill provides to small business. This Government, unlike the previous Government, is well aware of the need to help small business. We well and truly recognise that this sector needs assistance to get back on top and to go ahead. If the small-business sector goes ahead, employment opportunities increase for the people who work for small businesses. I want to outline some of the changes contained in this Bill that will assist the smallbusiness sector. As to the excess buy-out situation changes introduced by the Labor Government effective from 1 January 1996 included the requirement for all employers to pay the first four days' compensation as an excess. This has been a significant impost on small business where to pay an extra four days' salary unexpectedly without any work in return has caused much financial hardship. The Bill introduces the ability for all employers to insure against any payments of an excess, which will reduce the uncertainty for small employers. As to the experience-based rating systemthe introduction of an experiencebased rating system will significantly reduce the volatility of premiums for employers. Under the Workers' Compensation Act 1990, a demerit charge exists for employers under which employers may attract up to 100 per cent penalty on their premium payments dependent on the claims lodged against their policy. This has had a large impact on small employers, as just one claim can easily cause the 100 per cent demerit. The experiencebased rating system, while making those employers who have a consistently poor claims experience pay higher premiums, will reduce the volatility of premiums for smaller employers.
4900
4 Dec 1996
I refer now to employer appeal rights against statutory claim decisions. The WorkCover Queensland Bill introduces the right for employers to seek a review and appeal against the acceptance of a statutory claim lodged by one of his or her workers. This will allow all employers to submit information relevant to the claim and ensure that only claims which should legitimately be allowed under the legislation are accepted against that employer's policy. Of course, the same privilege is extended to employees, too, which is important. I refer now to contributory negligence. The provisions relating to contributory negligence in common law damages actions will ensure that employers should not have to meet the unreasonable damages awarded to workers for injury which have resulted from a clear fault on the part of the worker. Decisions taken by the courts in recent years have gradually eroded any ability to gain some contributory negligence finding in common law cases. These provisions should assist in redressing this issue and protect small employers against unreasonable awards. It is important that we recognise that this Bill is addressing those issues and giving support to small employers. As I said, one of the very key and important issues is that, when we assist small employers, employment benefits flow on. I refer to the premium rises which have been occurring over the past few months. They are the Labor Opposition's premium rises. I want to make that quite clear. Those rises are hitting now and have been over the past few months and I have been approached by many people, as no doubt have the other 88 members in this Chamber, including those opposite, about those rises. Some of the rises are 125 per cent to 150 per cent at least. That fact needs to be sheeted home to those responsible for it, that is, our friends opposite. They brought in those surcharges, demerits and general rises when they were in Government. Let them not run away from the fact that they are the ones responsible for that. That was their one and only solution to fixing this problem. Labor failed to act in a positive manner. Their answer was to slug business, with no thought as to the effect on employment. They did not mind about that, yet they claim to stand up for workers. What a lot of rubbish! There is no use standing up for a worker if there are no jobs there. They have to give some consideration to creating employment. Did our friends opposite do that when they were in Government? No way in the world!
I want to turn to an issue that was raised by one of the Opposition speakers, that is, travelling to and from work and car pooling. Once again, they tried to create panic and the wrong impression about whether people will still be covered if they car pool. Of course they will still be covered if they travel in car pools. I would like those ill-informed members opposite to note that the provision in the Bill is unchanged in its effect from the current Act and that car pooling arrangements will continue to be covered. The practical route home, when car pooling is involved, obviously covers the fact that the driver has to drop off people. Once again our friends opposite are trying to create wrong impressions. They want to cause panic just to benefit themselves. I can tell them, as the people of Queensland told them back in July, that the people will not be fooled by this sort of rubbish. They were not fooled by their hospital postcard rubbish and lies and they will not be fooled by the rubbish they are coming out with now. Earlier, I referred to a pamphlet that was distributed in my electorate calling on people to ring, fax or visit my office. This is exactly the same. The people of my electorate woke up to what those opposite were up to. I received very few calls about that pamphlet. One Opposition member raised the matter of workplace health and safety, and that is being addressed by the Government. Why do they not face up to that fact as well? In fact, a review is presently being undertaken. This Government takes very seriously the need to strengthen workplace health and safety practices to make sure that workplaces are covered properly. We want to make sure that safe work practices are in place. The worker has that right. Let us not have any more of these illusory tricks from our friends opposite. They will continue down this track because they have no policies of their own. All they can do is try to cause panic and try to mislead the public as to what is really happening. Before finishing, I would like to turn to the contribution from the member for Caboolture. I would like to refer to some of the statements he made about my good friend the member for Barron River. Perhaps I need to reiterate for him what the member for Barron River actually said. The member for Caboolture obviously was not listening properly to her speech, but that does not surprise me. The member said, "I have concerns about workers' rights." Perhaps the member for Caboolture was not listening at the time but, as I said, that does not surprise me. The member for Barron
4 Dec 1996
Petroleum Amendment Bill (No. 2)
4901
River went on to say that she also has grave concerns about the rights of small-business people. This Government knows, but members opposite obviously do not, that small businesses are very necessary to create employment and that therefore their rights and concerns must be taken into account. As the member for Barron River said, small-business people work just as hard as anybody else whom our friends opposite tag as workers. They are all workers, whether they are the small-business people or the person who works for the small-business person. As the member for Barron River said, if we do not have small-business people, we do not have jobs. The member for Caboolture said that he was going to publish and distribute widely the speech made by the member for Barron River. I hope he does distribute it fully, and not selectively, because then the people to whom he distributes that speech will see what the member for Barron River was saying. I will finish on the matter of the running of the WorkCover board. It is important to note that the Minister has in mind an aim of strengthening the board's abilities. The activities of past years and the recent inquiry have shown us that we need to do that. We need to make sure that the board knows what it is on about. We need to make sure that it addresses matters as they arise and that it puts into practice a viable and effective system that runs on a proper commercial basis so that both employers and employees get the full benefit that both sides deserve. The Minister is well and truly addressing the matter of strengthening the board's abilities. He is also addressing the ability of the people who work on that boardthe management of the board. He is making sure that they have the skills and abilities to make sure that we have a fine and effective system that, as I said, gives a benefit to both sides. I once again commend the Minister for facing up to the situation and for not running away from it like our friends opposite did. He is bringing in some very effective legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Pearce, adjourned. PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands Minister for Mines and Energy) (3.37 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Act 1923." Motion agreed to.
First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Gilmore, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands Minister for Mines and Energy) (3.38 p.m): I move "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Petroleum Act 1923. Queensland's future in many ways depends on an assured supply of low cost energy. Energy provides the means for world competitive and efficient industries and the jobs and wealth they create. To that end, the Queensland Government is doing all that it can to assist the petroleum industry in the harnessing of the State's tremendous gas reserves and to encourage the development of infrastructure to provide for the efficient delivery of low cost gas. The primary aim of the Bill is to provide for the future use by the Government of competitive selection processes to facilitate the development of major gas pipelines. The Bill will also remove potential uncertainties about the integrity of commercial arrangements and statutory instruments flowing from the competitive selection processes that have been undertaken to date. The opportunity has also been taken to make a small number of minor amendments to the Petroleum Act to clarify the intended meaning of the legislation. In late 1994, following an extensive competitive tendering process, the Government of the day selected preferred developers for two major natural gas pipelines in Queensland. The two new pipelines, from Ballera in the State's south west to Wallumbilla near Roma, and from Ballera to Mount Isa, will extend the State's transmission grid by about 1,600 kilometres. The development of these two pipelines is essential to ensure an adequate supply of gas to the State's eastern seaboard markets and to the fast-developing Carpentaria/Mount Isa mineral province. Earlier this year, a preferred purchaser for the State gas pipeline was selected by the Government, also following a rigorous competitive tendering process. The sale of the pipeline was successfully completed in July 1996. As a consequence of those tendering processes, agreements covering various commercial matters and the approval of access principles, the granting of pipeline licences and associated matters were made
4902
4 Dec 1996
between the Government and the successful tenderers. Unfortunately, recent legal advice has raised concerns about the interaction between those agreements and the existing provisions of the Petroleum Act about approving access principles and granting pipeline licences. The problem arises because the existing processes prescribed under the Petroleum Act are difficult to integrate into the competitive selection processes used by the Government for the facilitation of major pipeline developments. The Bill before the House today is in response to that legal advice and seeks to amend the Petroleum Actfirstly, by inserting a new section 70A to enable the Government, in appropriate circumstances, to use a competitive selection process as an alternative to the processes presently prescribed under the Act; and secondly, to put beyond doubt the outcomes of the competitive tendering processes that have already been completed. The proposed new section 151 deals with the Ballera-Wallumbilla pipeline and the ex-State gas pipeline for which pipeline licences have been granted. The proposed new section 152 deals with the Ballera-Mount Isa pipeline for which a pipeline licence is yet to be granted. Section 151 is not intended to and will not have any effect on any native title rights or interests that might ultimately be proven to exist in respect of the land covered by the pipeline licences. Section 13A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 makes it plain that native title rights are only affected in so far as there is an express provision made in any Act. Most importantly, this legislation will in turn provide certainty to the major commercial contracts, with value totalling several billions of dollars, that have been made between pipeline developers, gas transporters and gas suppliers on the basis of the Government's agreements with the successful tenderers. The prerogative of the Government to facilitate major development, so that the energy needs of the State can be met and economic development encouraged, is clearly something which should be supported by all members. This Bill will ensure that the Government is able to move in this way, to the benefit of Queensland's people and industries. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McGrady, adjourned. PAPER Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Western DownsMinister for Environment) (3.43 p.m.):
As Minister for Environment I am a member of the National Environment Protection Council. I have a statutory requirement to table the annual report of the NEPC. I hereby lay upon the table of the House the annual report of the NEPC. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Solgoben Pty Ltd Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (3.43 p.m.), by leave: I refer to the ministerial statement made by the Treasurer at about 11.30 a.m. today at the commencement of Government business and add the following facts. On 2 October 1995 I signed and handed to the transferee the memorandum of transfer of 30 shares that I held in Solgoben Pty Ltd divesting myself of that shareholding. On 4 October 1995 I resigned as a director of Solgoben Pty Ltd. The annual return of that company lodged late January 1996 with the ASC records all those facts except that there is no provision in the form for the date of the share transfer, so apparently that was not included. I have no idea as to how the ASC chose the date which it has ascribed as the assumed date of that transfer of that shareholding, but it is incorrect. I am seeking a written explanation of how the wrong date was given on the search result tabled in the House today when no date for that transaction was recorded on the company's annual return. The existence of the said company and my wife's interest in it were detailed in the pecuniary interest declaration mentioned in the House earlier today. I therefore deny the scurrilous imputations made against me in question time here today. Furthermore, I inform the House that the chairperson of the Minister's Family Policy Advisory Committee had been informed of my previous interest in that company. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND BILL Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (3.44 p.m.): In joining this debate on the WorkCover Queensland Bill I express my opposition to and anger about this legislation. In particular, I am angered by the fact that the legislation was introduced only last week, which provided no time for Opposition members to sit down with key players. I believe that that was done on purpose, because that provided less time
4 Dec 1996
4903
for scrutiny of the legislation and less time to find fault with the legislation. This legislation is anti-worker, anti-family, and most definitely anti-mineworker. The comments that I will make in this debate today will be relevant to the coal industry simply because of my background, but the arguments that I put forward today impact on all workers, because all workers in Queensland come under this legislation. I also feel that it is important for me to reaffirm the uniqueness of the coal industry. Everybody in this place knows that coalmining is a high-risk industry and statistics prove that it must be treated differently. The coalmining industry generates more claims per 1,000 workers and more serious claims than any other industry. That is simply because miners are working in a changing workplace environment, using heavy machinery and working long hours. It is hard work. At times it is tedious and it is dangerous. Let us consider some of the figures that I received today. In New South Wales in the past financial year, 109 claims were made per 1,000 workers in the coal industry compared with 28 claims per 1,000 workers in other industries. In Queensland, the figures are significantly higher for the coal industry. In the 1995-96 financial year in the coal industry, claims for on-site injuries and claims for medical expenses arising from minor injuries resulted in 1,692 claims from a work force of 10,500 people, that is, 16 per cent of the work force. In all other industries, 77,357 claims were made, with a work force of 1.5 million people. That is about 5.1 per cent. That is a significant difference and a clear indication that the coal industry is a dangerous industry within which to work. In common with all other insurances, workers' compensation does not become relevant until it is needed. Members on the Government side can smart as much as they like because it is they whom the workers will remember. Workers will remember the changes that have been made and how difficult it will become to access workers' compensation as they know it today because of the legislation that is in this place. From the day that this legislation is proclaimed, every worker will feel the impact of legislation that will simply make the compensation process more difficult to follow. Some people cannot read or write and do not know how to fill out a workers' compensation claim. I deal with such people a lot and I know the difficulties that they have. Some of them do not even realise that they have to lodge the forms within a certain period. An education program must be
provided to all workers so that they understand this new legislation. On page 46, proposed section 37(1)(a) of the legislation refers to an event that happens when a worker is on a journey between the worker's home and place of employment. For proposed subsection (1) to apply that journey must be the shortest and most convenient trip, and the journey starts and ends at the boundary of the land on which the home is situated. I foresee major problems with this provision. I know that coal industry employees are most concerned about this as well. In fact, the miner's union will be meeting next week to discuss the new legislation. The Minister should not be surprised if industrial action follows. I will give honourable members an example of potential problems arising from this legislation. A worker walks out the front door on his or her way to work. The car is parked in the garage. It has been raining, the worker slips, falls and breaks an arm. No claim can be made because the event has occurred within the boundary of the worker's home. A more serious injury could take the worker out of employment for life. I have seen some argument about reducing the number of fraudulent claims in this area. That argument is unsustainable because a simple investigation of the accident could determine whether a claim was legitimate. Even though a worker has taken reasonable care on his or her journey to work, such an event could occur. We all know that that is the case. Proposed section 37(3)(b) states that a journey from or to a worker's place of work starts or ends at the boundary of the land on which the home is situated. The Bill is not clear as to where the journey to and from the place of employment commences. Is it the boundary of the land on which the employee is employed, or is it where and when the employee commences work? If it is the boundary of the land on which the employee is employed, it raises a number of concerns. Looking at a small enterprise, the employee could, on entering the land, thereby crossing the boundary, have a collision with another vehicle or machinery or be injured walking from the car onto the job site. Working in a mine, an employee may have to drive for several kilometres before getting to the workplace after crossing the boundary of the lease. In this particular case, the employee faces the same risk travelling within the boundary of the land as those driving on an open road. Once again, is the worker covered while moving between the parking lot and, say, the dressing sheds or the local office? The legislation is not
4904
4 Dec 1996
clear and, as a union organiser, I would be raising those points with my members. I turn now to the proposal that the journey must be the shortest convenient route. This part of the Bill would appear to rule out car pooling. I heard what the member for Mount Ommaney said. Although he may have the rhetoric, one has to look at what is in the legislation and the way in which it will be interpreted. That is a simple fact. Today, in the interests of the environment and traffic control, we strongly encourage people to take advantage of car pooling where the driver of a motor vehicle may pick up and drop off several workmates. This brings me to my point that the legislation would appear to rule out the driver's ability to claim compensation if the driver was not travelling on the shortest convenient route to home at the time of an accident. Car pooling may cause the driver to deviate several times from the shortest convenient route, placing the driver at risk for providing a service for workmates. Out in the coalfields, coalminers use car pooling extensively. I can foresee an angry reaction to this inability to pick up and set down workmates. Clause 38(3) offers some relief to my concern, but it would appear to me that this could only be accepted if the employer instructed the owner and driver of a motor vehicle to deviate from the shortest convenient route to pick up employees. Again, as a union organiser, I would be directing my members to formally ask their employer to put this request in writing. It is very easy to walk away from it after there has been an accident. This situation is clearly most unsatisfactory, and I believe that the member for Gladstone, while gaining some concession with the original recommendation of Kennedy, has been conned. I am most concerned about clause 38(2) which deals with an injury that happens during particular journeys. Again I refer to the coal industry. With enterprise bargaining and individual contracts, workers are working longer hours, taking fewer breaks and are required to be more productive. This means that employees work longer and harder than ever before, causing high levels of stress. Under clause 38(2)(a)(i), the injury of a worker en route to or from work may be taken not to arise if the worker "voluntarily subjects themself to a risk of injury". Long hours and minimum breaks mean a high-pressure job and an employee who is exhausted by the end of the shift. The legislation could be interpretedand I have had many arguments with people in the workers' compensation
section over the interpretation of the Billto read that should the driver be involved in an accident causing injury because of tiredness or exhaustion, then that person could be deemed to have voluntarily subjected himself to a risk or injury by driving the vehicle despite being tired and ready for bed. Do we really expect a tired and exhausted worker to have a half-hour kip before driving home? Or, alternatively, are we saying to employers who expect their employees to work long hours under stressful conditions that they should provide a transport service for their workers? Mr Ardill: There is a time limit, anyway. There is a delayed time limit in the Bill. If they stay too long, they may be outside the time. Mr PEARCE: That is right. They have to actually make sure that they are on the road within a certain period of time after finishing work. As far as I am concerned, those questions are not answered. What the Minister must understand is that it is a matter of interpretation by those administering the legislation when considering all the circumstances leading up to the time of an event that causes an injury to a worker travelling to and from work. I turn now to certificate injury and noncertificate injury. Under the legislation, workers have a choice if they have a work-related impairment of less than 20 per cent to access either an impairment lump sum or common law. But the injured worker cannot have access to both options; it is one or the other, and it is final. I am not happy with this part of the Bill, as it rules out access to common law where a person may have less than 20 per cent of full body impairment which means that he is unable to continue the work he is trained for and specialises in. I will cite an example. When a surgeon smashes the fingers on his operating hand, he damages the ligaments and this means that he cannot carry on with his profession. The injury could be seen as being less than 20 per cent full body impairment, and the choices available to the surgeon are that he can take a lump sum or take common law action if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the employer was responsible for the injury. If the surgeon chooses access to common law, there is no entitlement to compensation, and if the common law action fails, the outcome could mean no benefit at all for the injured worker. The same scenario could apply to any worker at any time. I refer to farm labourers, railway workers, public servants, coalminers, road workers, shop assistantsanyone who is a PAYE employee. The statutory payment
4 Dec 1996
4905
would deliver a benefit less certain costs. A common law claim could take years to finalise. In both cases, the worker and the worker's family suffer owing to a significant drop in usable income and uncertainty about their future. That again highlights the anti-family philosophy of the coalition Government. Under Chapter 3Compensation, Part 3 refers to the compensation entitlements of particular workers. Division 2 refers to miners and the disease silicosis and anthraco-silicosis. A mine worker will be entitled to compensation if the mine worker has been continually residing in the State during the five years immediately before the illness, incapacity or death due to the disease. The mine worker, during the residency, would have to be working in employment in mining, quarrying, stone crushing or stone cutting for at least 300 days. The following subclause expands the residency from five years to seven years but increases the number of days to 500. That is okay, but I will refer to something that I think the Minister fails to understand. Because of the uncertainty of the mining industry, a mine worker or a rock miner could find himself relocated between several States in a five to seven year period. The damage to the respiratory system could be caused while developing a new mine in central Queensland, say, this year, 1996, and the onset of symptoms and the disease could take several years. The damage could be done today but the onset of symptoms could take several years. Then the mine worker moves to a mine site in New South Wales after three years in Queensland. He works in the industry for five years in New South Wales and then moves back to a Queensland mine, where after 12 months he becomes seriously ill and dies. The way I read the legislation, the mine worker would not be entitled to compensation because he or she has not resided in the State for at least five years prior to the onset of the illness. The injury to the respiratory system which was the beginning of the disease happened eight years prior to illness and death in this State, and the worker is not entitled to compensation. It can happen. That is the history of that type of illness. It would appear that the Minister lacks some understanding of the mining industry and the disease silicosis, and workers will be disadvantaged by the Bill. It is leaving workers and families to fend for themselves on sickness benefits when the worker should be getting compensation benefits. Poor drafting means that this part of the Bill will be difficult to enact because of the nature of the industry and the disease itself.
I have had some problem dealing with the definition of "injury", which is a personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury. I have some problems coming to grips with this meaning of injury as defined under clause 34. What does "if the employment is the major significant factor" really mean? I have seen accidents in the coal industry in which the major significant factor causing an accident has been the actions of another employee. The injured worker could be an employee from another section of the mine site who is simply observing the work of a tradesman. The worker is not part of the specific jobhe is not part of the teambut receives an eye injury from a piece of flying metal. As a matter of interpretation, his employment at that mine site could be as a driver and he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. So his employment could be determined as not being a major significant factor because he was not doing his job. It opens up the field for more questions to be asked. I accept that I may be drawing a longbow, but when a worker is injured and the worker's future and lifestyle is to be affected by the scenario that I have put forward, I believe that I have a right to raise those concerns. I wish to comment on the role that the member for Gladstone has played in ramming legislation through the Parliament. Week after week for several months I have watched the Minister come up and whisper softly to the member for Gladstone and snivel to her. She has had the advantage of being part of the process of preparing this legislation. Obviously, she does not understand it; otherwise she could not truly support it. Ironically, the member for Gladstone represents a large industrial community where workplace accidents are a common occurrence. Her support for this legislation as their local member is a betrayal of the workers whom she represents and it is to the detriment of her constituents that she will support the Government to pass anti-worker, anti-family legislation. The outcome is that, under this legislation, injured workers will be worse off. The legislation that this Bill replaces was never given the opportunity to work. Of the member for Gladstone, Jim Kennedy, who was commissioned by the Government to head the inquiry into the State's workers' compensation scheme, said "Independent Liz Cunningham, sounding more and more like Senator Cheryl Kernot, puts forward her reasons
4906
4 Dec 1996
for opposing the reform package. Most of it is demonstrably wrong. Clearly, she could not have read the report to make such claims, but that doesn't worry an Independent with the balance of power. All authority, no responsibility and accountable only to her electorate. Good public policy can be rejected on serious grounds as long as the local politics looks right." My observations of the member for Gladstone are that she will only support the Labor Party to suit her self-interest. Her support for this legislation only confirms in my mind that she is a closet National Party member who, like the coalition, does not really care about the mums and dads and children who will be worse off under this legislation. I intend to make it very clear to the people in my electorate when they come into my office wanting help because of the failings of WorkCover Queensland that Mrs Cunningham chose to turn her back on workers and their families. Every time I see a worker lose out because of the Bill, I will mention the integral role that the member for Gladstone played in ensuring that this anti-family, anti-worker legislation was passed. She may be a softspoken woman who chooses her words opportunistically to obtain the maximum outcome, but she is a politician who, as an Independent, can make or destroy the lives of ordinary Queenslanders. She ignores the fact that Premier Borbidge has promised, on winning Government in his own right, to implement fully the recommendations of the Kennedy report. At the next election, there will be a Government elected in its own right and the member for Gladstone, if re-elected, will become a solitary voice in Parliament. My understanding of the Gladstone electorate is that workers want this legislation simply rejected and thrown out. Their elected member has the opportunity to support the Opposition in rejecting this Bill or lining up with the Government to make it law. We on the Opposition side know the payback load on the member's shoulders is too heavy to vote on the moral grounds that she so openly embraces. There is plenty in this Bill that is unclear and will cause the Government to come back to this place to seek amendments. The Opposition has given many good reasons why this Bill should be rejected. The member for Gladstone has listened, and the reason she has not heeded our concerns is that her mind
is made up already. That is her choice. Good luck to her, but my heart goes out to those people who will be destroyed by legislation brought about because of a Minister's ego rather than the delivery of a scheme that gives the injured worker and his or her family a chance to go on and live a reasonable lifestyle following a workplace injury. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove) (4.04 p.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to this WorkCover legislation. In common with the previous speaker, I want to speak about the timing of the debate of this Bill. Of course, there is no doubt that the provisions of the Standing Orders have been met. The Bill has laid on the table of this House for a full six days. Nevertheless, it is such complex legislation that will impinge to a large degree on the lives of workers and their families that the many interested groups, such as the Law Society, unions, the Opposition and others, are upset over the lack of time given to them to scrutinise the Bill. Of course, some groups are also concerned about the lack of consultation. Members opposite will find that they will have to pay the price for supporting this legislation not only in political terms but also in social and emotional terms. We all deal in our own electorates with many injured workers who have problems. Members opposite will have to defend the fact that this legislation denies the sort of protection that those people require. We in a progressive society have to make sure that workers and their families are covered against work-related injuries. When that cover is either difficult or impossible to get, then members opposite will realise the effect of the legislation that they supported. When that situation occurs, I wonder what they will say to those injured people and their families. When I was the member for South Brisbane, I was asked by a social worker to visit a Vietnamese family. The husband had been very seriously injured. For some reason or other, he did not want to be pushy and come and see me. However, his wife did and I went to see them. This family was living in abject poverty. As a member, I had to chase up and fulfil his workers' compensation requirements. If one of the anti-worker provisions that are contained in this Bill was in place at that time, that person could not get workers' compensation. What would have happened to that family? What would have happened to the children in that family? I also remember quite an amusing story told to me by Tom Burns who was, of course, a friend of the meatworkers. A meatworker
4 Dec 1996
4907
had injured himself at work. Of course, it is an area in which a lot of people sustain injuries. That meatworker went to Tommy and said, "Look, mate, I have borrowed from my mother-in-law, my brother and my sister and I am now broke. What is going wrong with that Workers Compensation Board?" Apparently, his file had been lost. Tom actually found out about that and, knowing how tough things were for him, was able to get his claim processed. In fact, Tom hand-delivered a cheque to him on the Thursday before the 1974 elections. On that day, Tommy was out the front of the polling booth thinking, "Things are not looking too good but I have this bloke." The bloke walks in and discards Tommy's how-to-vote card and picks up a Liberal one. On the way out of the polling booth, Tommy asked, "Wasn't I the member who helped you get your workers' compensation?" He said, "Yes, Tom, you're a great guy. I just voted against Gough Whitlam." I guess that that is a story to help some of us understand that even though we help some people sometimes, other circumstances come into play. I remember when the issue of common law was being debated and advertisements were used to promote the issue. As an exSouths Rugby League footballer who used to play against Norths at Bishop Parkand in those days we called it "Bash-up Park"; there were pretty tough boys around Bishop ParkI congratulate our former State of Origin skipper, Trevor Gillmeister, on having the decency to join Queensland workers to fight the excesses proposed by the Kennedy report. Like a true Queenslander, he understood that he had to stand up for the workers as he stood up to those Blues when we had that great win in the year he led our State of Origin team. As the shadow Minister said very simply in his speech, for which I was present, from the beginning the Government had only one agenda with regard to workers' compensation, and that was to reduce the workers' compensation premiums paid by employers as quickly as possible. That seems to me to be what this Bill is all about. It is anti-worker legislation. When the Goss Government was in power, I remember handing out some certificates to employers who, in terms of workplace safety, were doing the right thing and taking preventive measures. They were being rewarded by the Workers Compensation Board in the form of those certificates. I remember saying then, and I meant it, that in my view it is a two-sided argument. There
should be a common understanding and a common need for both the employer and the employee to get together, to give and take, and to achieve a situation in which both of their interests are met. In terms of common law access rights, the worker has gained, although there will be some impediments to overcome. However, this legislation does not look after the interests of the worker at all. As Mr Braddy has said, its primary purpose is to reduce the premiums paid by employers as quickly as possible. From all the concern raised about the premiums that employers pay, one would think that we would have very high rates, and it is argued that employment is a factor. It is argued that Queensland's premiums are either the lowest or the second lowest of any State in Australia. However, as we will be discussing later, the industrial relations sector constantly tries to bring the price of labour down, and that does not improve the unemployment rate. It only lowers the living standards of Australians, and in this case it will lower the access of Australian workers to compensation. The average premium in Western Australia is 2.61 per cent, which is 0.5 per cent higher than Queensland's, yet that State has the lowest unemployment rate in Australia. How can the argument about unemployment be validly used in this situation? Of course, the problem is that Minister Santoro is more interested in lowering premiums for employers and removing workers' rights to compensation. He has refused to initiate genuine plans to stem avoidance by industry groups. There are many objectionable aspects of this legislation and I will summarise them briefly. The legislation takes away workers' basic rights to protection following a workrelated injury. It excludes workers not paying PAYE tax; it redefines "injury" to limit and frustrate the access of workers to compensation; it attempts to deny workers' rights by giving employers the right of appeal; it restricts cover on journey claimsan issue which was very well covered by the member for Fitzroy in relation to his constituency; and it denies the Australian ethic of a fair go. This is a punitive rather than a beneficial response to a problem. When I was a public servant I was a member of the State Service Union Superannuation Board. When the board members met, we discussed one fundamental principle, that is, that we had a mandate to provide superannuation for our members. The board represented the Government and I was also a union representative on the board. We were very proud that we looked at every situation that
4908
4 Dec 1996
came before us in a positive rather than a punitive way. Our objective was, if possible, to ensure that rights to superannuation were upheld. Before the 15 July 1995 election, and particularly before the Mundingburra byelection, Mr Santoro and the Premier told Queenslanders that the former Labor Government was threatening common law rights and that they would support them come hell or high water. In my view, the issue of common law rights is not well understood because it is fault based, rather than being based on employer negligence. When an employer is negligent, why should people not have the right to sue? As the member for Lytton has said, somebody can slip over in front of K mart and be covered, but a worker who slips over in the workplace because somebody has left water on the ground is not covered. This ridiculous debate has been perpetrated for cynical political ends by the current Government. Three actuarial reports were made: Kennedy believed that the deficit was $290m; before long, Minister Santoro said it was $400m; and then Premier Borbidge went one better by increasing the deficit by two and a half times and saying that it was $1 billion. He is the master of hyperbole and misrepresentation and yet, today, he was piously spruiking about the need for truth in political advertising. Mr Ardill: They have been using that sort of argument for 80 years. Mr FOURAS: Exactly, and people are starting to wake up to it. Some concern was expressed about a rapid escalation of claims, but many people have said that the situation has now plateaued and that if the surcharge is maintained, the deficit will be solved by the year 2000. Therefore, why belt the workers? Mr Ardill: It's not the first time it's been in deficit. It was in deficit during the 1930s to a larger degree than it is now. Mr FOURAS: That is right. I am very pleased to hear someone say that this is not the first time. The legislation proposes a new definition of "injury". The current definition of "injury" requires that employment be a significant contributing factor in the injury. The legislation changes the definition so that employment will be "the major significant factor" causing the injury. The legislation is trying to exclude those injuries which have a lesser work-related component. As the Minister said in his secondreading speech, the new definition will require
a stronger link between employment and the injury, and that seems fair enough. However, let us look at the full impact of that change. People with a predisposition to stress could be denied compensation under the new definition of "injury". A friend of mine who is a doctor said that that is extremely unfair. It will have dreadful consequences, because it removes people's rights to workers' compensation. The family of a person who cannot work because he or she is stressed and has a predisposition to a psychological or psychiatric injury, even though that condition is out of their control, will be denied compensation. Mr Kennedy went to a lot of trouble to talk about the shams that can be involved with back injury claims. Many people with back injury have now been diagnosed with the aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disease. If the aggravation is work related, then the worker is looked after. However, the new definition could well deny those people compensation by ruling out all forms of aggravation. I am sure that Mr Santoro is indestructible right now, but as we get older we all suffer some degree of degeneration and we get weaker. Some of us are fortunate to sit here and sell bunkum and bluster, as the Minister is known to do from time to time. However, others have to work until they are over 60 years of age. What happens to them? A person can work hard all of his or her life and get some degree of back degeneration, which is natural. If that person's work is such that they cannot continue it, what will happen to them? Under the old definition of "injury" they were covered; under the new definition, they may not be covered. That is a very serious problem. Mr Robertson: Or in Mr Santoro's case, it may be as simple as a bruised ego. Mr FOURAS: Of course. He has been known to sulk with greater ease than those people would claim workers' compensation. The provision relating to experience based premium ratings highlights the fact that the Government intends to lower the premiums of employers and ensure that employees do not get a fair go. Where there is more than one business operating in the same workplace, the premium rate currently applied is that of the business activity with the highest rate. The premium rating is applied at the highest industry rate. People could not fudge the figures. Now there will be a replacement of the current merit bonus system with the experience based premium rating system, which is intended to quickly fix the premiums paid by employers at a lower rate
4 Dec 1996
4909
than is currently paid. I do not see any justification for that at all, because the bonus scheme was working well. Now there will be an adjustment according to an employer's claims experiencesomething which will result in lower premiums. That will mean that there will be less money in the pool and less money earning interest. That will have a very negative impact. In addition, this legislation will introduce self-insuring and self-rating. For example, what would happen if Mount Isa Mines decided to go onto the self-insuring and self-rating scheme? I would not have any complaint if it did that, but what would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the board office at Mount Isa would close and workers would be sacked. What would happen to a worker at Mount Isa who does not work for Mount Isa Mines? Who would look after that worker? Similar examples could be found in other places where big companies, such as BHP, operate. Importantly, that will lead not only to staff losses but also to a reduction in workers' access to claims. I also have concerns about the restrictions in respect of journey claims. What would happen in respect of somebody on medication? The legislation is not clear about that. Would being on medication disqualify a person? In my remaining minutes, I wish to speak about the corporatisation of WorkCover. When SGIO was corporatised, the experience in the public sector was that a lot of workers did not move across to the corporatised entity. Sadly, officers dealing with workers' compensation will be lost. A lot of those officers with vast experience and skills will leave. This is an example of insane micro-economic reform, globalisation, and cuts to staffing and costs. Not only will this mean a loss of services; it will also mean a loss of workers. A person's right to work is sacred. The dignity that comes with having the right to work is fundamentally important. The move to this corporatised entity will result in the loss of a lot of people from the Workers Compensation Board. People with a lifetime of experience will decide not to stay. It is unacceptable that this legislation will exclude workers not paying PAYE tax. The legislation will redefine "injury" and limit workers' common law access. It will deny workers their rights, because employers will be gifted a right to appeal. Other members have spoken about the restrictions on journey claims. In the end, the problem is that this legislation does not strike a balance between the interests of the employer and the
employee. The Government was not able to remove common law access completely, but we are still left with a great imbalance. Members opposite will rue the day that they passed this legislation. They will have to deal with people who will miss out and whose families and children will suffer because they are forced to live in abject poverty. We will pay a big price for shifting from a scheme that was beneficial and which protected the rights of workers. Time expired. Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (4.24 p.m.): I take pleasure in joining with my colleagues on this side of the House to oppose this legislation. Over the past two days, many members from this side of the House have spoken in opposition to the Bill, and for good reason. When members look at the past experience of some members on this side of the House, they will understand what many of us, as former union officials, bring to this place, that is, significant first-hand experience of how workers' compensation operates and has operated over many, many years. Although I do not wish to unnecessarily antagonise members opposite, I will highlight the contributions made by many members to this debate. For example, the experience that the member for Bulimba has in the construction industry is well known. The experience in the electrical industry of the member for Nudgee is also well known. So, too, is the experience in the mining industry of the member for Fitzroy, Mr Pearce. I, too, have experience gained from spending 10 years in the fire service industry. It is in relation to that industry that I wish to make some comments today about this Bill. However, before concentrating on the impact of this Bill with respect to firefighters professional, volunteer and auxiliaryI wish to express my concern that it would appear from the contributions of members opposite that their sole driving force behind this legislation is to somehow demonstrate to employers that over time the Government will reduce their premiums under the Workers Compensation Scheme. That is a hypocritical stance, because a few months ago we saw the presentation of a Budget which contained what is now known commonly throughout this State as the seven deadly taxes. While Government members wish to present themselves to the business community as being pro-employer by trying to introduce changes to the Workers Compensation Scheme to reduce premiums, nevertheless
4910
4 Dec 1996
they take with the other hand in respect of the seven deadly taxes. Let us be under no misapprehension that what this Bill is all about is a straight-out attack on the Workers Compensation Scheme, a scheme with a very proud history dating back to 1916. It was a scheme introduced by a Labor Government and improved throughout much of this century by successive Labor Governments in this State. With the return of the conservatives to power in this State, we now see an all-out attack on the scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, I bring to this place 10 years' experience as a union official in particular in the fire services, and I am gravely concerned that this Bill impacts so harshly on that group of workers. On about pages 34 and 35 in Chapter 1, the Bill contemplates the inclusion of volunteer and auxiliary firefighters, ambulance officers and counterdisaster employees. That is certainly appreciated and maintains the existing position. Interestingly enough, that is the position argued for by my organisation some years ago. That is probably instructive, particularly for the member for Charters Towers, who spoke earlier today about the contribution of rural firefighters to fighting fires over the past couple of days. This Bill takes away some existing rights of protection for the rural firefighters that the member was defending this morning, particularly in relation to the journey claims question. Mr Mitchell: Only the journey to their workplace. Mr ROBERTSON: Let me finish the argument. It might be instructive for Mr Speaker to know that I happened to be at the Kenilworth Hotel a couple of weeks ago. While I was enjoying a beer and the hospitality of the licensees of that fine establishment, the siren went off at the fire station. Of course, auxiliary firefighters ran from a number of places, including the pub. A couple of them were at the pub having a beer when they were called out to an emergency. Although I see the Minister's adviser shaking his head, my reading of the Act suggests that, if those people ran out of the pub to the fire station to answer a call, that would not constitute a journey for which compensation would be payable if, for example, while crossing the street they were run over by a car. That is a matter of real concern. I will again use the example contained in this Bill as it relates to activities by the worker that may somehow damage or affect that worker's right to claim compensation. For example, that auxiliary firefighter, sitting in that
fine Kenilworth pub as he was, may have had only one light beer, but technically he has and I just cannot find the words in the Act engaged in an activity and imbibed a substance which may affect his judgment. If this rural firefighter answered a call to a fire station by running across the road from where he was having a drink in the pub with his mates on a Saturday afternoonwhich happened at Kenilworthand that worker is injured, he may not be able to claim workers' compensation under the definitions contained in this Bill. That is my reading of it. I would be happy if the Minister could allay those fears, because this happens not only to firefighters but also to ambulance officers. I have another example. Mr Santoro: I will just answer that now. As soon as they are called out, they are on duty. In other words, as soon as they get a call to come out, they are on duty and they are covered under the journey claim provisions. Mr ROBERTSON: If that is the definition, I am happy to take the Minister's word for it, but Mr Santoro: Well, it is classified as work travel, so as soon as they get called out they are on work travel. Mr ROBERTSON: I suggest that perhaps that does need clarification in the Bill. I am happy to take the Minister's word for it and I am pleased with that, because there are a multitude of circumstances Mr Santoro: You must appreciate that there is no substantial change to that provision other than the contributory negligence provisions. Mr ROBERTSON: I appreciate that, but I still seek clarification because there are a multitude of circumstances that can affect volunteer and professional emergency service workers. I cite as an example the caseand it happened during my time with the firefighters unionin which an off-duty firefighter came across a motor vehicle accident. He did the right thing and stopped at that accident, assisted the occupants of the vehicle and injured himself. It was a classic back injury, from memoryit is going back to about 1986, so my memory is a bit dodgy on it as well. The practice traditionally has been that the Fire Brigade, as it was at that time, would retrospectively book the employee on duty Mr Santoro: What happens, if you have a lookand I will find some specific examples for youis that that person has put himself on duty by performing a normal duty at the site of an accident, so he would be on duty.
4 Dec 1996
4911
Mr ROBERTSON: Yes, but there is a requirement for reasonableness by the employer. Back in the old Fire Brigade Board days there were cases in which, because booking the officer on duty would incur overtime payments, the employer has refused to acknowledge that. Mr Santoro: I think it would be a very callous fire chief who would deprive somebody in those circumstances of reasonable access to workers' compensation. Mr ROBERTSON: It saddens me to inform the Minister that there have been cases of such fire chiefs being so callous. Mr Santoro: So your benign influence failed there too, did it? Mr ROBERTSON: Nowe succeeded in defending on each occasion, but I thank the Minister anyway! Another matter that pertains to firefighters is the classification of normal weekly earnings. The Minister may not know this, but firefighters have traditionally had what is called a composite wage, that is, they get paid the same amount week in, week out no matter what hours they work, the composite nature of the wage being made up of weekend shift penalties that are averaged out over the shift roster. So irrespective of whether they work two nights or a weekend during a particular week, their wage does not change. What concerns me about this legislation is that although I understand what "normal weekly earnings" meansand that would certainly protect the firefighters with their composite wage ratesubclause (3) states that "normal weekly earnings are calculated as prescribed under a regulation", in other words, without the scrutiny of this House. At this point in time I have to raise the concern that any regulation that somehow takes away the application of shift and weekend penalties will adversely affect the compensation that, in this case, firefighters receive. I imagine that this is happening more and more. It would apply to the police under their new enterprise bargaining arrangements with shift penalties. It would apply also to other shift workers where there has been a move away from getting the penalty at the time it is incurred to an averaged system. Any attempt to define in that regulation that "normal weekly earnings" does not include weekend shift penalties and other forms of regular penalties would have an adverse impact on the income of those particular workers. I can see that the member for Charters Towers is now having a second think about this Bill, and I predict that he is about to jump.
Mr Santoro: Can I suggest that that is detail that you can look into once the regulation comes in. If you're not satisfied with it, you're at liberty to move a disallowance. Mr ROBERTSON: Absolutely, but out of respect I am just advising the Minister that that is a potential problem, hoping that justice will prevail and there will be no attempt to in fact do that. The final matter that I want to talk about is the representation of workers at mediation conferences. I spoke briefly to the Minister about this matter earlier when he was sitting on this side of the Chamber. Throughout this legislation it is envisaged that at mediation conferences or other forms of hearing to determine compensation payouts or settlements, the worker will be represented by a lawyer. Part 6, which talks about the settlement of claims, refers to the lawyer advising the worker and in fact the mediator of possible or proposed costs incurred in representing that worker. What it does not contemplateand again I am using the example and experience of my former union, where we did so much of our own advocacy work without the use of legal representationis that a union, for example, would incur significant costs and would, through representing that worker, have a right to claim costs. Those costs can be quite significant. For example, the way that we used to operate in my former union was that we would engage expert medical opinion to support the worker and therefore be seeking expert medical reports, which would often run to hundreds of dollars. We would ensure that the worker was not disadvantaged in any way in terms of meeting appointments with those specialists. We would provide all sorts of other assistance, including advocacy and research, for that worker. Mr Roberts: We did all that for the price of their membership. Mr ROBERTSON: We did all that for the price of their membership, and I am about to come to that. Although it is a matter contained in another Bill before this House, it is worth advising the Minister that this is a real problem. This legislation should recognise that workers can get representation other than legal representation before medical boards, etc., and that those representatives, including the proposed worker's advocate, which is contained in the Bills to be debated early next year, will have costs and those costs should be part of the settlement reached in any claim by a worker.
4912
4 Dec 1996
The Minister may wish to change the term "lawyer" to "representative" or "accredited representative", or it may be suitable that the Minister make some statement in his reply to accommodate the concerns that I have raised. This is going to be a significant matter in the Industrial Organisations Bill, in which the Minister is proposing a whole range of small enterprise-based unions and that unions should go out and shop around more for membership by providing a whole range of services. They can only provide that range of services because they cannot charge the worker for them. They cannot charge at market rates the worker they are trying to represent. Clearly, they must have access to some costs in the Minister's deregulated industrial organisation environment that the Minister contemplates in his Industrial Organisations Bill. Mr Santoro: What about the membership fees that union members pay; don't you think that that's one of the reasons why Mr ROBERTSON: But they are subsidised. Mr Santoro: But do unions at the moment charge workers for other legal services? Mr ROBERTSON: I am giving the Minister the example of my union. In the last year that I was there, it charged dues of $285 a year. If a worker requires expert representation before the Medical Board, that worker would be provided with free legal advice, free legal representation or the time, research and resources of the union if the union chose to represent that worker directly. There is no way in the wide world, when adding up all of those costs, that that $285 a year in union dues that worker paid would have covered that. Mr Santoro: But a lot of people draw on the resources of the pool and those individuals that need it benefit from it. Mr ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and that has been our point in objecting to the Minister's industrial legislation all along because it is the Minister who is wanting to change that system. It is the Minister who is advocating that unions need to shop around more and become more client focused. They can only be more client focused if they can charge market rates and recover the costs that they expend. If they do not recover the costs they expend in that kind of environment, like any other business they are going to be out of business before too long. That is an absurd proposition. As I said, that relates to another
Bill before the House and I do not want to engage in too much detailed debate about it, but we are certainly going to return to this free market industrial representation in early 1997. For these reasons and many others, I oppose this Bill and look forward to the support of a majority of members of this place in the amendments to be moved by my colleague the member for Kedron. Hon. S. SANTORO (ClayfieldMinister for Training and Industrial Relations) (4.42 p.m.), in reply: I wish to thank all honourable members for their contributions. I will make a few introductory remarks and then address some of the specific concerns of honourable members who have spoken. As honourable members are aware, the financial difficulties experienced by the Workers Compensation Fund developed dramatically during the 1990s. There are clearly a number of factors which have contributed to these difficulties, although by far the predominant cause is the increasing number and costs of common law claims, and this has been acknowledged by all speakers in this debate. Those opposite refused in this place to disclose the full facts when they last opened up the Act, and the coalition, when in Opposition, made a commitment to holding an inquiry to discover the truth. Upon coming to Government, the coalition was presented with a bleak picture of the state of the fund by the Division of Workers Compensation. As the responsible Minister, I was concerned that the full facts be disclosed and a fair and lasting solution to the scheme's difficulties be found. The only way to achieve this was through a public inquiry, with terms of reference sufficiently wide to allow the technically complex and interrelated aspects of the workers' compensation system to be considered together in any reform process. The extensive review, conducted by Mr Jim Kennedy, resulted in recommendations for fundamental changes to create an equitable, viable and efficient workers' compensation insurance system for Queensland. It was the first ever public inquiry conducted into the Queensland scheme since its inception in 1916. There has been extensive consultation undertaken, both during the inquiry and since the report was handed to the Government. Numerous contributions were made during the inquiry by individuals and organisations who had an interest in ensuring that the report presented a balanced solution to the issues which needed to be addressed.
4 Dec 1996
4913
Since the Government received the Kennedy report, there have been numerous discussions with stakeholders and members of Parliament to resolve issues arising from some of the more contentious recommendations. As has been demonstrated in all jurisdictions, the path to a solution when workers' compensation difficulties arise is never an easy one. There are competing interests, and the real challenge lies with finding the appropriate balance between fair and equitable benefits for workers and reasonable premiums for employers. There are procedures and processes which must be implemented to assist in achieving this balance, but in the end it is the balance which is important. I wish to refer to the valuable comments which have been made by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I wish to thank the committee members for their contribution to the scrutiny of this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the issues of concern raised by the committee. The first of these relates to the definition of "injury". At paragraphs 2.4 to 2.7 of the committee's report, the committee raised a concern regarding the interpretation of the provision at clause 34 of the Bill in light of the explanation provided in my second-reading speech. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify for the House the precise intent of clause 34. The following statement should be read in substitution for that part of my second-reading speech that has been highlighted in paragraph 2.5 of the committee's report "The new definition will require the link between employment and the injury to be stronger. This is intended to ensure that employers are only held liable for an injury where their employment of the worker was the major significant factor causing the injury, and, in the case of an injury which consists of an aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing non-work related condition, where the employment was the major significant factor causing the aggravation or acceleration of the preexisting non-work related condition." As such, the Government's view is that the definition contained in the Bill should stand. Turning now to the next matter raised by the committee, dealing with clause 314, regarding comments on the potential overlap between provisions in clause 314(1), I advise that these provisions were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel on instructions from Mr Ian Callinan, QC, as special counsel assisting the inquiry and chair of the legislative working
group, in direct response to recommendations 58 and 77 of the Kennedy report. The committee's observations on how these provisions may operate are accurate and it is the intention of this Government that they operate in that manner. I would draw to the committee's attention the objects of the Bill in clause 6, which "makes changes to the law to strengthen workers' obligations for their own safety in employment." It is the Government's intention to change the law in this regard as reflected in the Bill. Turning now to the final point of concern raised by the committee, the committee's observations on further appeals from decisions of medical assessment tribunals are noted. I would like to point out that tribunals in most instances do in fact operate as an appeal mechanism against adverse decisions where medical issues involving the administration of the legislation are in doubt or are in dispute. However, where a decision regarding a claim cannot be made by WorkCover because of the complex medical nature of the issues, the matter is referred to a tribunal for its adjudication. I point out that the Bill does not attempt to change the current law regarding the finality of decisions of medical assessment tribunals. This is a comment that should be taken on board by all members in this Chamber, particularly those who contributed to this debate. Also, decisions made by the tribunals were the subject of detailed analysis by this Parliament during consideration of the EARC recommendations on electoral and administrative reviews. A parliamentary committee, chaired by Dr Lesley Clark, the former Labor member for Barron River, recommended that tribunals be retained in their current form, since the alternative proposed by the EARC report would provide "no greater level of expertise". As a final comment regarding the committee's report, I would like to thank the committee for its findings which commend the drafters of the Explanatory Notes and legislation and I would add my support to those comments. I also acknowledge the comments of the honourable member for Caboolture in this regard. I am pleased to give full credit to my advisers, the people within the department and, of course, the parliamentary draftsman for the very valuable contributions they have made to this aspect of the debate and the Bill. I now wish to turn to some of the specific comments made by honourable members
4914
4 Dec 1996
who spoke to the Bill. At the outset, on a light note, I should say that as those members opposite stood up and made personal references, I was very happy to be able to reflect on the dispositions of my mother and my wife and subsequently the honourable member for Gladstone and some members on my side, because otherwise I would have thought that I was the most wicked person into whom God ever put breath as I came into this place to bring this Bill before the House. Nevertheless, it is not my intention to be as personal as some other members became during the debate because I believe that, in essence, we all act in good faith in this place and we should continue to do so. The member for Kedron made several comments. He said that basically the changes to the definition of "injury" are immoral. My response to that is very simple. The changes to the definition of "injury" will in fact achieve what Labor's watered down 1994 amendments failed to do, that is, to provide benefits for injuries and aggravations where work is the major significant factor. I would suggest that Labor's changes will not work and in fact do penalise employers for injuries that are not sufficiently work related. In common with other members, the honourable member also made some fairly strong comments in relation to restriction of journey claims. Excluding in-home injuries is in keeping with the changed definition of "injury", which must be work related. It also removes the penalty currently applying to employers for injuries for which they are not responsible. As one honourable member on the other side of the Chamber suggested, it does reduce the potential for fraud, including the old and famous football injuries. It does provide protection for workers while going to and from work. Even without the strong representations made to me subsequent to the release of the Kennedy report, after receiving some input, I did see some merit in leaving some form of journey claim provision within the Bill. The honourable member opposite also requested that data be published on a monthly basis. The Bill provides for quarterly updates. I have already made ample commitment to keeping the House and the people of Queensland very well informed of any information that comes across my desk. I have demonstrated that through what we have done to date in this place. That will continue to be my practice, that is, keeping everyone, including the Opposition, informed of developments as soon as they occur, particularly via the Parliament.
I do not want to be too pointed in this regard, but I remind honourable members of what I have said previously, that is, when we were in Opposition, the Labor Government did not provide members of Parliament with access to the actuaries and did not provide information to the Parliament regarding the state of the fund. In contrast, the coalition has been a model of propriety in relation to making information available to all sides of the House and the general public, including stakeholders and other interested parties. In relation to the concerns expressed by the honourable member and other members on the other side of House about the removal of staff from the Public Serviceit is true that all staff are being transferred to WorkCover. As the honourable member for Gladstone and others have acknowledged, the staff will retain all existing conditions on transfer to WorkCover. The enterprise bargaining process will commence as soon as the statutory authority becomes operative. I assure the honourable member for Gladstone that if redundancies were necessaryand I said "were necessary" not "will be necessary"at the end of the period, those employees who were transferred out of the Public Service under WorkCover would retain all of the benefits that they have accrued during their time as public servants. I have confirmed that with the advisers. I am pleased to give the honourable member for Gladstone that assurance. As to the avoidance of the payment of premiumsit has been asked why the Government did not attempt to do something about non-compliance before moving in relation to common law. If members of the Labor Party were so concerned about avoidanceand they have made much of the avoidance issuewhy did they not introduce appropriate legislation as part of their 1994 amendments or as part of those amendments that were put in place at the beginning of this year? I respectfully suggest to honourable members that the definition of "worker" will significantly reduce the problem of premium avoidance by clearly defining who is a worker and allowing for greater auditability to stop employer rorts. Considerable mention has been made by all members about Kennedy's recommendation in relation to workplace health and safety. I again take up the point that was made by the honourable member for Mount Ommaney when he said that the inquiry has been initiated and we are proceeding as quickly as possible in relation to it. I reiterate to honourable members what I
4 Dec 1996
4915
have said previously in this place. When I became the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations I sat around the tables with the advisory committees, which are of a tripartite nature. During those meetings I was told by the likes of Bill Ludwig and Wally Trohear, the Clive Bubbs and the Paul Fennellys, and the experts in workplace health and safety that they thought that, under the previous Government, workplace health and safety was heading in the right direction. They favoured the non-prescriptive nature of the direction. I did not receive one complaint via the advisory committees, which were set up by the previous Government and which approached the issue of workplace health and safety in a tripartite fashion. When members opposite criticise what is happening in terms of workplace health and safety, they criticise their own legislation, the legislation which they introduced when they were in Government. They are criticising their own advisers. I have kept those advisers; I have not sacked anybody from the advisory committees. The record of those meetings will show that they were happy with the direction of workplace health and safety. What Kennedy recommended came to me like a bolt out of the blue. He said that the direction of workplace health and safety needed to be toughened up. He said that we needed to review the Division of Workplace Health and Safety. That is precisely what we are doing. We are proceeding with all due haste in relation to issues of workplace health and safety. Later this evening, particularly if the House is to rise, I will make a statement to the House that will show just how quick and how prompt we in this place are in accepting tripartite advice in relation to workplace health and safety. We should never muck around with workplace health and safety issues, irrespective of which side of the House we sit on. The honourable Leader of the Opposition also rose to speak. He repeated much of what the shadow Minister said. I will not go into all the points that he raised. I will make one comment in relation to one major point that he raised. He said that the Labor Party's reforms were working. I want all honourable members, particularly those opposite, to listen very carefully to this point, because it is very instructional about the underlying theme of this debate. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Labor Party reforms were working because three out of 666 claims for common law had been rejected compared with the 5 per cent estimated by the actuaries. In other words, he was saying that only three common
law actions had gone through. The suggestion was that 3,000 claims last year can be reduced to three claims this year, simply as a result of Labor's restriction on access to common law through its 20 per cent irrevocable election. I say that that suggestion is insulting to the intellectual argumentand I use that term looselythat has been running through the Opposition's entire debate of this issue. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that a transparent 15 per cent common law threshold need not be introduced because Labor's reforms knocked out all common law claims this year bar three. Can honourable members see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in that argument that the Leader of the Opposition and other people have used? The Government says that common law is the problem. The members opposite acknowledge that it is the problem but go on to say, "We have knocked out common law because only three have snuck through this year." I respectfully suggest to honourable members opposite that that is the biggest weakness in their argument. As I have said previously, I hope that members opposite are right and I hope that I am wrong in relation to the effect of Labor's reforms. We will see whether common law access has been reduced to the level at which the Leader of the Opposition boasted. If that is the case, his argument is our argument, that is, that common law is the problem. What he is saying is that he has solved the problem of common law because so few cases have snuck through. I do not want to be personal and I do not want to be too pointed, but that is the biggest weakness in the argument of members opposite. They cannot get away from that, because it is on the record. As to the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Oppositionhe made a very forceful contribution to this debate and again proved that, when it comes to people who wreak personal abuse on members, very few are able to match him. I will answer the various points that he made. Again I will do that in a civil and considered manner. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the Government was making changes to the process for lodging an appeal with an industrial magistrate. I can assure the House, as I did in my second-reading speech and elsewhere, that that is totally incorrect; there is no change. He also asserted that the information regarding whether workers are PAYE taxpayers is confidential between the employer and the Australian Taxation Office. In terms of the Australian Taxation Office
4916
4 Dec 1996
relationship, the honourable member is right; that information is confidential. However, his comment is still ill informed, because access to confidential taxation records is not required. The time and wages records required to be kept under the industrial relations legislation are accessible under the current workers' compensation system and will be accessible by WorkCover. Both the employer's report and the injured worker's application form will requestI stress "will request"the information regarding whether the worker is a PAYE taxpayer. The audits, I again respectfully suggest to honourable members opposite, will limit the potential for fraud on claims and premiums. The assertion of the honourable member for Capalaba that employers will appeal against every claim because they do not want to lose their merit bonus and workers will have to defend themselves against employers shows what a misapprehension he is under in relation to this legislation. The merit bonuses will no longer apply when the experience rating system is introduced; therefore, his comment about merit bonuses is irrelevant. It is absolutely irrelevant to the experience based rating system. However, I can assure the House and particularly those honourable members who asserted that employees would lose the benefits that workers, even when an employer has lodged an appeal, will be paid the benefits where WorkCover has accepted a claim. An employer cannot lodge an appeal unless a claim has been accepted, and only then can an employer seek a review. Employers must seek a review with WorkCover first before they can appeal to the industrial magistrate. During that time, the benefit is still paid. It goes without saying that if WorkCover does not support the employer's view and the employer chooses to pursue the industrial magistrate option, then WorkCover defends its decision at no cost to the worker. It can be seen that that provision is not anti-worker. The benefits are still paid. When the employer takes on the worker, the chances are overwhelmingly in favour of the worker being represented by WorkCover because WorkCover presumably has done its work, will stick by its decision and will look after the worker when he is before the industrial magistrate. Again, I can only assume that people do not understand what this legislation is about. There was also an assertion that there was a six-month time frame for lodgment with no appeal available. My response to that again is very simple. Section 100(1) of Labor's 1990 Act also states a six-month time frame.
The change relates only to the removal of the board's discretionary power to extend the time frame for lodgment. It was considered inappropriate for the board to have a discretionary power which related to decisions of a complex medical nature. That, I suppose, is what makes this Bill unique when it comes to the appeal mechanisms. We are dealing with issues that are not issues of simple debating points or matters; they are issues that strike at the heart of medical conditions and for that reason that particular provision has been inserted. I suggest that the appeal provision has been given to a more appropriate forum, the medical assessment tribunal. There was also an assertion that the reduction was from 60 to 28 days in which workers could lodge an appeal with the magistrate. The honourable member clearly has not understood what the changes of the review and the appeal process involve. A formal review process has been introduced to provide a prompt review at no charge to the worker and without the stress and rigours of going to court and the need for lawyers. A worker may still appeal to the magistrate. There is a 28-day period in which the worker may lodge a review. WorkCover then must advise of the decision within 35 days. The worker then has 28 days in which to lodge an appeal to the industrial magistrate. Honourable members on the opposite side those who can countwould appreciate that this means 91 days between the time of the initial decision and the lodgment of the appeal to the Industrial Magistrate, not 28 days. I turn now to the contribution made by the honourable member for Bulimba, Mr Purcell. I want to go on the record as saying that of all the members opposite who spoke, I do accept that he speaks in good faith and has a tremendous amount of knowledgeprobably far more knowledge than I or many others in this Chamber have when it comes particularly to his beloved building industryand I do believe that he speaks from the heart. I am sure that after those few words, if he ever had any promotion prospects within the Labor Party they are well and truly dead. His assertion was that because of the definition of "worker", 80 per cent to 90 per cent of workers in the building industry will not be covered and therefore that would lead to premium avoidance. First of all, I would like to thank the honourable member for availing himself of the opportunity to be briefed by the board. I simply say this in response: the PAYE definition of "worker" clarifies who is and who is not
4 Dec 1996
4917
covered by workers' compensation for both employees and employers. Some 95 per cent of people in employment are currently PAYE taxpayers. To come under the PPS payment, payment must be under a contract for services in a prescribed industry. The tax department says that a payment made to an employee as salary or wages is not a prescribed payment. Payment of salary or wages to an employee under PPS is a breach of the Federal tax laws, not a breach of Queensland workers' compensation laws. I suggest, with respect, to all honourable members that enacting laws that condone or promote breaches of another law would be a very bad practice indeed. If we acceded to that request, that is what we would be doing. I do not think that that is an acceptable legislative process. Cover can be provided, as the honourable member for Gladstone clearly understood and picked up, under WorkCover under the "other persons" provisions. I give an undertaking to the House and to the honourable member for Gladstone that a massive campaign will be undertaken to inform employees and employers in Queensland of the changes to the definition and the implication that the changes will have on PPS taxpayers. There are nine specific industries which are covered by the PPS taxation and these include the building and construction industry and the transport industry, but not the rural or the agricultural industry, which I think the honourable member may be under a misapprehension about. What I would respectfully suggest to honourable members is that the definition will limit premium avoidance and employer fraud will be significantly reduced. Again, particularly when we are drafting regulations, if the honourable member has any major concerns in relation to the way in which these provisions will apply, I will be happy for him to be consulted and for his advice to be provided to my offices. I turn briefly now to the comments made by the honourable member for Gladstone. One of her major points was that there was a need to ensure that all workers were well advised of their responsibilities and coverage under the new legislation. I have just given that commitment. We will seek to work closely with the Australian Taxation Office and other units of public administration in order to give effect to that intention by the Government. Also, the honourable member sought clarification of the retention of carried-over provisions for staff after the three-year period for employees moving across to WorkCover. That assurance is given. As I said previously,
the retention of carry-over provisions will in fact be maintained. The question was also asked of me: will the Minister revisit the Act when a better picture is available, particularly if it is demonstrated that injured workers are being penalised unfairly? I again suggest to the honourable member and to all other honourable members in this place that it would be a very callous Minister and a very callous Government who would not monitor the effects of any legislation that comes into his place. I think that any responsible Government needs to be cognisant of the impact of its legislation on peopleordinary employees and ordinary workers. Without any hesitation or qualification, I give that assurance not only to the honourable member for Gladstone but also to all other members within this place. The honourable member for Archerfield said that we were restricting rights for the first time in 80 years. I have made the point before that it was the Labor Party that first started restricting access to common law when it brought in its 20 per cent irrevocable provision. I do not want to labour the point or rub salt into the wound, but that is a fact. It was members opposite who in fact touched common law for the first time. In terms of the contribution made by the member for Everton that larger employers in particular will be shielded from their responsibilities associated with poor work practices, I point out that that point was made by other members. I again say that the new experience rating system will ensure that premiums paid are directly related to the cost of claims, and this will particularly affect poorperforming and larger employers. To those honourable members on my side of the House who had the insight to read the legislation and to understand its particular applications, I thank them all for their support. I think it is important that they have faith that what we are putting before the House is not anti-worker or anti-employer, it is a piece of legislation that seeks to strike a balance. I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. As I have said to the honourable member for Gladstone and others in here, we will continue to monitor the situation. In closing, and as I indicated in my second-reading speech, the changes which have occurred to the Kennedy recommendations have impacted to such an extent that in all probability the overall remaining package will be insufficient to arrest the haemorrhage of the fund resulting from the common law claims for mild injuries.
4918
4 Dec 1996
For the sake of so many Queenslanders, including not only those workers who are injured in the future but also those Queenslanders whose livelihood depends on the ability of Queensland business to remain cost competitive and continue to employ people in this State, I hope that the measures contained in this Bill will arrest or even reverse the decline of the fund. As I stated previously, I will be very pleased to have both Jim Kennedy and myself proven wrong and the optimists proven right if it means that the Workers Compensation Fund returns to full solvency based on the restricted reform measures I have introduced. I say that because I have not made the changes contained in the Bill lightly. The changes in the Bill are needed desperately because of the plight of the fund. I could have taken the soft option like Labor has done in the past: I could have imposed an excess on employers; I could have imposed a levy on employers; I could have increased premiums to employers by 53 per cent, as the Labor Party did. However, while that would have been the soft option, it would have been an unbalanced option as has been shown to be the case with Labor's soft option reforms. Governments are elected to govern and make decisions even if those decisions are hard decisions. This has been one of those decisions but it is one from which I do not resile since it is necessary for the sake of workers in the future. I would now like to thank those members on this side who have commended the Bill. They have clearly grasped the notion of what this Bill is all about. I again say "thank you" to them. Twice the former Government opened up the Act in failed attempts to address the financial problems facing the fund. However, Mr Kennedy in his report, after reviewing the actuarial advice, stated "It should be now clear that the Goss Government reforms have totally failed." Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition stated a number times that I have misled this House over the actuarial advice I received in light of the member for Gladstone's position on the Kennedy recommendations. I totally reject the slurs from the Leader of the Opposition and I challenge the honourable member to put up by referring me to the Privileges Committee, or shut up by not misrepresenting what I have said in this place.
Mr Kennedy's position was clear: his 79 recommendations were to be taken as a package to fix the problem within three years if they were implemented in full. What is clear from the contributions to this debate from the Leader of the Opposition is that the Labor Party has not changed its fundamental attitude to the workers' compensation problems. Labor's attitude to a funding crisis was to put up benefits for workers and to put up premiums to employers. When the member for Mount Coot-tha introduced Labor's 10 per cent levy, she said that it would apply for five years. So much for that promise to the employers in this State! Labor will cripple small business in this State with workers' compensation premium hikes. In all other Australian mainland States, Governments of both colours have accepted the reality that increasing premiums alone is not the solution. The solution to a funding black hole is to have a balance between reasonable benefits and reasonable premiums. Anything else is a recipe for disaster. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition says that he will promise the people at the next election. I hope he keeps that promise. The thought of more financial disasters at the hands of the Labor Party will be enough to guarantee the coalition another term in office to continue the task of fixing up six years of Labor's financial vandalism. I commend the Bill to the House. Time expired. Question That the Bill be now read a second timeput; and the House divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, DArcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
The numbers being equal, Mr Speaker cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative .
4 Dec 1996
4919
Committee Hon. S. Santoro (ClayfieldMinister for Training and Industrial Relations) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1 Mr BRADDY (5.19 p.m.): Mr Chairman Mr Lingard: Another Torres Strait Islander Bill. Mr BRADDY: It is up to the member. The Minister in his reply had a curious argument in relation to this legislation. He made the point that, merely because the Opposition disagreed with what he was intending to do in relation to common law actions, it was by some circuitous argument agreeing with him. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Clause 1 is the title. Mr BRADDY: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: I will restrict debate to the title. There will be ample opportunity right through the clauses to debate the Bill in detail. Mr BRADDY: Mr Chairman, in relation to this particular matter, as I was saying the Minister argued that the Opposition was somehow avoiding its responsibilities. What we have here in the very title itself is an indication from the Minister that he is not about being absolutely straightforward and truthful with the people of Queensland. For a long time we have had in Queensland a system of workers' compensation. It has been a simple, efficient system contained in legislation titled the Workers' Compensation Act. What we now see is a change to the legislation. By seeking to change the very title of the legislation to WorkCover Queensland Bill, we see a move towards smart alec type situations, as we have seen in other States, where the workers are affected significantly. Nothing in this legislation speaks more loudly and soundly as to why the particular legislation should not be supported than the very title itself. If we wished to pass legislation which the workers and the employers of this State could have confidence in, the title of the Bill would be the "Workers' Compensation Bill", because workers' compensation has an honourable history in this State. However, what do we see? If this legislation is passed, by changing the title of Act, and thus changing the very nature of the way the scheme will be operated in the future, we are moving into a new era. The title of the Bill substantiates the belief that the new era will be a move away from looking
after workers. It is a change so that, in future, only certain workers will be covered and other workers will be left wanting, both in terms of statutory rights and in terms of common law rights. Nothing speaks more soundly about the wrong way in which we are heading. I suppose in that sense at least, the title signifies some honesty. This is no longer workers' compensation legislation; it is WorkCovera fancy title to cover the fact that workers will be losing under the legislation in terms of their statutory rights and their common law rights. In his reply, the Minister sought to suggest that the Opposition somehow agrees with the Government's arguments about the changes which are symbolised by the very title of the Bill. Of course, we do not agree. We have made it very clear that we accept that, under the Workers' Compensation Act, problems with common law claims have been a significant reason for reviewing the Act. That is why we amended the Workers' Compensation Act, the title of which is sought to be changed. We believe that those changes are now starting to seriously reduce the number of common law claims. By bringing in the WorkCover Queensland Bill, the Minister and the Government are signalling a change of attitude which, we believe, is heralding the removal of workers' rights. The Opposition believes that Queensland would be better served by a continuation of legislation which honestly says that it is a Workers' Compensation Bill. The Bill before the Committee should have been introduced as a Workers' Compensation Bill to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. I believe that that would have been most significant and most honest. The Opposition opposes the title of the Bill. We believe that the title should be the Workers' Compensation Bill. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am totally opposed to the title of this Bill for a number of reasons. Government members: Why? Mr SCHWARTEN: If members opposite would just listen, they might learn something. In 1916 Mr Johnson: Where were you then? Mr SCHWARTEN: I can read, which is something that I advise the honourable member to take up some day so that he can read the debate that occurred in this place at that time. If ever there was a reason for keeping the words "workers' compensation" in the title of
4920
4 Dec 1996
the Bill, it is to be found in the 1916 debates. The sorts of issues raised in the debate today indicate how far we are travelling away from the basic reason why workers' compensation legislation was introduced into this State. In my view, the undignified name WorkCover says it all. We are moving away from a system that talks about workers' compensationin other words, compensating workers for any damage that they may suffer at workto a situation of WorkCover where the Minister will pick and choose those who are to be covered and those who are not to be covered. The Bill should be titled the Workers' Compensation Bill because then there will be no doubt as to whom it will cover. Mr Lingard: What about "Workers Cover"? That would be a good title. Mr SCHWARTEN: Compensation is just that; somebody who is injured at work is compensated. "Cover" does not imply that there is compensation to be paid to injured workers. We are currently talking about something that is entirely different; we are talking about covering people in a certain set of circumstances in which compensation arguments come later. Does the Government have any understanding of what it is that we are trying to achieve? Speakers from both sides of the Committee have talked about the rights of workers and their desire to look after workers. Let us spell that out in the title of the Bill, which is about compensating employees who are injured at work. It is not about some dubious flexi-covergoodness knows what it may end up being called! Events in 1905 were the precursor to the Workers' Compensation Act. At that time, people were talking about a workers' insurance scheme. I would contend that that is what the Minister is talking about todaya workers' insurance scheme in which he can pick and choose the areas to be covered. He either covers and compensates workers or he does not; it is as simple as that. The insidious part of this legislation is that the Minister wants to be in the business of saying to people who, for example, travel to and from work that he will pick out certain circumstancesby way of illustrationunder which he will cover them and in other circumstances he will not cover them. I agree with the shadow Minister that at least the Minister has been honest by changing the title of the Bill. He has moved away from the thought that people should be covered as they travel to and from work to a situation where he will pick and choose under what
circumstances those workers will be compensated. This afternoon I received a fax from the staff at the workers' compensation office in Rockhampton, who are very much opposed to changing the name of the Workers' Compensation Act for two very good reasons. The first is that they will cease to be public servants and will become statutory employees. They do not want that to occur for very obvious reasons. The title of the Bill is part of the enabling process for that to occur. As to the second point raised with me honourable members should consider how much this change of title will mean in this State. Motor cars, letterheads, stationery and buildings bearing the name "Workers Compensation" will have to be changed. The cost of doing that will run into millions of dollars. This is all being done simply because the Minister wants to put his stamp on the Bill. He has already said in this place on a number of occasions how proud he is that he is bringing in landmark legislation. It is a wonder that he did not want to call it the "Santo Santoro" Bill. An Opposition member: He did. Mr SCHWARTEN: He probably did. Changing the name will cost this State hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: They want to take "Compensation" out of the title of the Bill because they are on about everything bar compensation. They want to change the whole attitude in this State to compensation. Whereas now a worker has the right to be compensated if he or she is hurt at work, in future the Government will determine whether or not a worker has that right. The change to the title is insidious. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that he is truthfully being smart by changing its name or whether he lacks such creativity that he cannot think of a name for himself and has to borrow one from the basket cases in other States. Mr Pearce: We could buy a few rural bush fire brigades with the money he is going to waste. Mr SCHWARTEN: We could buy equipment for a few rural fire brigades. I am glad that the member raised that point; $4.5m would be very helpful at this point in time. Mr Veivers: That's very nice, Jimmy. You've got all the culture of a striking viper. Mr SCHWARTEN: Who is the Minister referring to?
4 Dec 1996
4921
An honourable member interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister was not making that remark about me. It is not too late to change the name back to "Workers Compensation". Mr Lingard: If it is "Workers Compensation", where do you put the apostrophe? Mr SCHWARTEN: I am pleased that the member raised that point. Let us have an argument about it. Mr Lingard: I am helping you. Mr SCHWARTEN: Being a schoolteacher, the member would know that in the singular the apostrophe would follow the "r" in "worker". However, in the plural form the apostrophe would follow the "s". I feel very strongly about this issue. This title has survived for 80 years. It has survived the SGIO being taken away from it and being turned into a freestanding scheme. It has survived multiple challenges over the years, including the SGIO at one stage being $100,000 in the red. It has survived a plethora of National Party Governments. Honourable members opposite should show a bit of thought for old "Chookie" Campbell. He would be turning in his grave if he knew that this Government was altering an Act that he had a fair bit to do with. An honourable father was in politics. member: When your
Mr SCHWARTEN: Indeed, and he was involved in the trade union movement. Members opposite are old mates of Fitzroy, who from time to time, as they would no doubt recall, had to access workers' compensation. They would not like "WorkCover" as a title. It does not have the same ring to it, for a start. It is a wonderful tradition. The Minister does not have any understanding of its tradition and the reason behind it. By changing the name, the Minister is showing contempt for the past, how and why we have workers' compensation in this State and why it was that in 1916 Ryan and Fihelly, who was the Minister at the time, introduced it. If we read that debate, we find that they did not like its title then, either. So there is a bit of irony in that respect. Mr then. Lingard: McCormack was Speaker
Mr SCHWARTEN: McCormack was the Speaker at that stage. He went on to become the Premier. Mr Veivers: That is terrific. We are having a history lesson.
Mr Beattie: You need a history lesson. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is exactly what I am trying to do; I am trying to oblige the honourable member. It is not too late for the Minister to change his mind. With the stroke of a pen he can change this Bill tonight. He can save the compensation fund probably $100,000 with the stroke of a pen. He talks about workers saving money. Tonight he has an opportunity to change the name of the Bill back to what it should bethe Bill that the workers in this State understand, the Bill that truly states what it is that we on this side of the Chamber believe, that is, it is about compensation for workers who are injured. I urge the Minister to consider that point. It is not too late. I will not think any less of the Ministerin fact, I will think a lot more of himif he accedes to my request. Mr BEATTIE: There is no doubt that the title of this piece of legislation is grossly inappropriate. The WorkCover Queensland Bill 1996 betrays the T. J. Ryan tradition that started prior to 1920. Mr Lingard: That's repetition. We just had that speech. Mr BEATTIE: No, it is not repetition at all. How would the member know? If he were not so rude, he would be educated, he would improve his standing and his mind would be much clearer. When T. J. Ryan introduced the first workers' compensation scheme to protect Queensland workers, in a very dignified way he gave it the title "Workers Compensation" so that workers understood that, if they were injured at work through no fault of their own, they would be properly compensated and would be able to rebuild their lives, both emotionally and physically, after the injury. "Workers Compensation" has had a meaning in real terms since 1916. What the Minister is seeking to do by imposing this title is remove a proud tradition that has been in Queensland for all of those years. I am not prepared to see the proud tradition of the title of "Workers Compensation" disappear without arguing for an amendment or a change to the title of this Bill. It is important that we in this Parliament respect those traditions. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection from the Minister for Emergency Services. Well may he interject; I know he has no appreciation of traditions such as the title "Workers Compensation". Let me make it clear that this is not just about the title of a Bill; it is the symbolism.
4922
4 Dec 1996
Mr Veivers: Who took the Queen's photos down here? Who took the flags down? Mr BEATTIE: If the member has taken down the photos, I suggest he return them. Mr McGrady: They think more about the Queen than the workers of this State. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. I suggest that the Minister return the photos he took down. What does the word "WorkCover" mean? It does not have anywhere near the same symbolism that "Workers Compensation" has. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection from the member for Mount Isa. In this Parliament, he represents a lot of decent, hardworking workers from Mount Isa. They have grown up with the proud tradition symbolised by the title "Workers Compensation". The word "Compensation" appears nowhere in the title. Government members are prepared to discard the word "Compensation". What is the Minister afraid of? What is he trying to do? Why has he taken the word "Compensation" out of the title? Now that the Parliament is sitting tomorrow, I am delighted to say that this title is still wrong, but we will not divide on it. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Exactly. I am happy to take advice from the Leader of the Opposition or from the Minister for Family Services or from anyone else, but the fact is that I mentioned this issue in my secondreading contribution and I actually feel quite strongly about it. Workers' compensation was introduced into Queensland before there was an international convention, but all the international conventions talk about workers' compensation. This State has a history and a traditionand a proud one at thatof workers' compensation. The change to WorkCover is a trendy Liberal phrase that has occurred in southern States under Liberal Party Governments. All I can say to the members of the National Party is that this shows just how much the Liberal Party tail is wagging the National Party dog in these sorts of matters. The National Party, which has as its history the old Country Party, has a proud history of recognising and understanding the rights of rural workers, and in fact the first international convention was in relation to the rights to compensation for agricultural workers who might have been injured.
Mr Bill?
Lucas: Was that like a farmcover
Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: That is precisely it; it was like a farmcover Bill. The issue for us and the issue for everybody is that "compensation" is an important word. It should be maintained in the title of the Bill. It reflects that the injured worker is to be compensated for an injury, not that he has some insurance cover in respect of something that might happen. The reason that the Minister does not want the word "compensation" to appear is that the word "compensation" is indicative of some blame. What this legislation has done is shift the blame from the employer to the worker. This legislation has shifted the blame to the worker so that the employer can feel quite comfortable about providing unsafe workplaces, and the title of this Bill is just part of that shift. I think the member for Everton earlier today called it a paradigm shift, and that is precisely what it is. There is no compensation for workers in this State, and I can see that the eventuality is that the State Government is going to take itself out of this business. Perhaps the State Government is going to sell its WorkCover Board off to the merged super bank or some other major insurance entity. Let us see just how well off the workers are then; let us see how well off the employers are then. Because I understand that circumstances have changed, I will leave my contribution at that. However, I thinkand I believe that the members on this side of the Chamber share this viewthat what has happened here in the name that is given to this Bill is that we are hiding Mr Purcell interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: My colleague adjacent to me is assisting me, and he has come up with the idea that this should be called the "I don't care for workers Bill", which I suppose is something that we could suggest. This ought to be named the Workers' Compensation Bill so that we in this State continue to have a Workers' Compensation Act, one that is enacted in 1996. A Workers' Compensation Act of 1996 I think sends a better message to the workers, it sends a better message to the employers and it certainly would present the Government in a better light. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesman has stated that we are going to oppose this name. Mr SANTORO: I would like to respond briefly. The debate took a very curious twist there for a little while, and I am pleased that one of the possibly great incidents of the
4 Dec 1996
4923
century has been averted as a result of some delicate negotiations. Mr Fouras: You should smile at that. Mr SANTORO: I was a champion longdistance runner at my school. I may not look as fit as I used to, but there is still a bit of endurance there and I would have been happy to have kept on going if necessary. I wish to briefly address the comments that were made because they were spoken with some passion and they do deserve some form of response. Honourable members spoke of the basket cases of other States. I simply remind honourable members that the basket cases that they are speaking of were the creations of Labor Governments. They also spoke about the title of this legislation. I remind honourable members that the title of this legislation reflects the titles that have been adopted by Labor Governments in other States, including the Labor State of New South Wales, which maintains a similar title. If members opposite are criticising this Government for taking on this title, they are criticising their counterparts who are currently in Government and who were previously in Government for doing precisely the same thing. That is the superficial rebuttal. The substantial rebuttal, of course, is that a title is simply a series of words. What is important is what is in the Bill and what legal provisions exist in the Bill in terms of safeguarding the interests of injured workers. In respect to that particular objective, we on this side of the Chamber are very proud to say that this is a balanced Bill and one which seeks to strike the balance between the rights of injured employees and the rights of employers. I have heard honourable members talk about their commitment to history, to symbolism and to tradition. I simply ask honourable members to take up in a more serious way the interjection from the Honourable the Minister for Emergency Services, Mr Veivers, when he said that honourable members opposite tore down the emblems of this place, they tore down the portraits of the head of the State of Queensland and basically did away with a lot of tradition and a lot of history. Irrespective of whether they agree with it or not, members opposite did not leave those things there because it was proper. The point is that members opposite have shown a far greater lack of support for history, symbolism and tradition than they are accusing this Government of showing.
The other point that I wish to address very briefly is the issue that somehow compensation is related to the concept of blame. When honourable members make that statement, they fail to acknowledge one of the underpinning fundamental principles of the workers' compensation system of Queensland: it is basically a no-fault system; it is basically a system that sees the vast majority of injured employees go through the system on a nofault basis, and it is only in a minority of situations where employees take employers to court for the purposes of negligence. If honourable members opposite are going to indulge in an exercise that has any intellectual validity, they should clearly acknowledge the way that the system works, that is, that it is basically a no-fault system. I have heard the arguments that honourable members have made in relation to the title. I thought that they were basically spurious, and I do hope that honourable members opposite show some commonsense and do not divide on this clause. Mr ARDILL: I intended to speak on clause 1 in any case. I certainly object to the change in name. The tradition of workers' compensation began right here in this Chamber. No matter what other States have done about it, regardless of whether other Labor Governments have changed the name, that does not excuse changing the name here, because we have that tradition behind us. On the subject of traditionsthe Minister talked about this ridiculous idea of flying a foreign flag on our flagpole. That has nothing whatever to do with tradition; that has something to do with ignorance. It has something to do with the fact that people do not understand that that flag does not represent the Queen. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not in order. Mr ARDILL: It was mentioned by the Minister and I have taken up the point. That has nothing to do with tradition, but the name of this Bill has. The Minister is taking away from Queensland the tradition of having the first adequate Workers' Compensation Act in Australia. The basis of that Queensland Act has been followed in America and in other places around the world. Obviously, the Minister knows nothing whatsoever about that. He does not understand it. He is putting forward a word which has nothing to do with workers' compensation. It probably has more to do with covering up what he is trying to do.
4924
4 Dec 1996
The Minister mentioned the fact that the workers' compensation system in Queensland was a no-fault system. Well, he has changed that in the Bill and, whether he realised that or not, he needs to understand that he has changed that with the proposal of fault and contributory negligence. He is going to take away 25 per cent The CHAIRMAN: Order! Clause 1 is on the title. There is ample provision Mr ARDILL: Mr Chairman, I am talking about the fact that this is a workers' compensation Bill and I am opposing the change to some other name. What I said was that the word "cover" comes into it only because the Minister is covering up the fact that this Bill does not provide the same tradition of workers' compensation that we have had in Queensland for 80 years. That original legislation was introduced by the first long-term Labor Government in the State of Queensland. This is not a satisfactory situation. The name should be changed back to represent what the Bill should be about, that is, workers' compensation with a no-fault system. The Minister is definitely trying to cover that up. That is the only reason the name "WorkCover" might be appropriate to this Bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3 Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (5.52 p.m.): I do not want to spend a lot of time on this clause, but I would like the Minister to tell me just how this provision works. I can understand that the Queensland Parliament can pass legislation binding all persons in this State, including the State. However, how do we define the legislative powers of this Parliament so that it can bind the other States, whether that relates to other State Government entities operating in this State or whether there is something other than that which I am unable to understand? Perhaps the Minister can answer my query? Mr SANTORO: I have just received some advice. I am told that there is no change to this clause from what exists in the current Act. I am told that it is a standard provision and, to that effect, we would like it to remain. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: With respect, the defence the Government has for the provisions of legislation it brings into this Parliament is that a provision is a pre-existing provision that is just being imported. With the greatest amount of respect that I can muster, that is no defence. Telling me that the
provision was there previously does not answer my question, nor am I comforted by the fact that it was there previously. It would seem to me that each provision of each piece of legislation ought to set out in the book of rules what it does and why it does it. I am interested to know how the Parliament of Queensland can bind entities of the Parliaments of the other States. I accept that it may well have been in the previous legislation. At that time it never occurred to me to question it, but at this time it has occurred to me to question it, and I am interested to know the answer. Mr SANTORO: The point that the honourable member raises is a point of some complex law and I can only refer him to the Explanatory Notes which state "Clause 3 states that to the extent that it is able, this Bill binds all persons in Queensland and Australia." Again, for the sake of the record and the honourable member, I say that this provision is used in most legislation. If the member is so concerned, perhaps the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of which he is a member may wish to look at a clause such as this and provide some recommendations to the Parliament. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12 Mr BRADDY (5.55 p.m.): Clause 12 deals with the definition of "worker", which has been substantially changed from the definition currently contained in the Workers' Compensation Act. That has been a source of deep concern to quite a few people in Queensland, so much so that the Opposition feels compelled to move an amendment to this clause. In a curious turn of events that occurred a few minutes agoand the Minister referred to this quite accuratelysome accurate things were said that were, I think, heartfelt. One matter raised was that there is a tradition in relation to workers' compensation in this State, one that should not be set aside lightly. I am talking about the type of people who ought to be covered by workers' compensation, that is, the workers of this State. In our estimation, the definition in the present legislation adequately and competently covers the people who should be entitled to workers' compensation. The current legislation is designed to cover people who do not, for example, pay PAYE tax. That includes people who for some industry reasons work on
4 Dec 1996
Performance of Coalition Government
4925
one level as contractors. It also covers the employees in the construction industry, for example, who sometimes like to suggest they are contractors but in reality they really are workers. They are workers who have their tax deducted under the prescribed payment system, or PPS. They are working under a contract of service rather than a contract for service. Indeed, these workers are well known in industries such as construction, as I have said, and transport. If the legislation before the Committee brings in the new definition of "worker", many workers will not be covered by workers' compensation. Of course, one effect of that would be that a lot of employers or workers will have to take out public liability insurance and, as a result, premiums will rise substantially. In our estimation, there is no good reason for changing the definition of "worker". There is a very good reason to keep the definition as it is, and I can assure the Minister that members of the Opposition have received many requests to oppose this change in definition. That is why we have amendments circulated before the Chamber. The Minister will find that our amendment omits the new definition of "worker" and inserts a definition that is entirely as it currently is under the present workers' compensation legislation. I believe the Minister has made a serious error by following the recommendation to change this definition. This change will have reprehensible effects on the workers of this State. I believe that the amendment should be carried. Progress reported. PERFORMANCE OF COALITION GOVERNMENT Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane CentralLeader of the Opposition) (6 p.m.): I move "That this House Notes that a complete lack of leadership by the Premier and Deputy Premier has resulted in Queensland ending 1996 with the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State; the lowest business confidence in the country; a stagnant economy with capital works and major projects stalled; dozens of broken promises in health, law and order, education and other services;
an excessive number of inquiries and reviews, now totalling 144; a Cabinet of non-performers incapable of providing leadership, vision and strong, decisive management for Queensland; seven new or increased taxes; government administration in turmoil; and Condemns the Borbidge-Sheldon Government for repeatedly breaking its Contract with the people of Queensland, leaving a litany of broken promises and a growing and dangerous economic malaise." At the outset of my contribution tonight, I table an end of year report on the performance of the 18 Cabinet Ministers in this Government from which all Queenslanders will see that this Government is not up to the task of governing. I table that report for the information of the House and signal that we will be distributing the report widely, because all Queenslanders need to know that this Government has to lift its performance. When historians evaluate 1996, they will report that it was a year in which Queensland turned back the clock. It was a year when business stagnated and month by month the unemployment queues grew. They have grown by an extra 12,200 people since this Government came to office in February, bringing the total figure to 176,000 Queenslanders without a job. It was a year when the biggest thing the Government created was a 10-month crisis. It was a year when a weak and ineffectual Premier actually boasted that he had no control over his Cabinet. It was the year the clock was turned back to the days when the National Party presided over a Queensland that was ridiculed for being the deep north of Australia. To mark this significant step backwards, the Union Jack was unfurled over Parliament House. It was the year that the Government made a right royal mess of trying to govern the State. The Queen referred to her bad year as an "annus horribilis". Queensland has had an "annus infamis", an "annus horrendus", an "annus fraudulentus". Government by fraud is what we have had in Queensland. The Premier made a bargain with Queensland last July. He said that in return for the keys of Government he would deliver a vast range of improved services and he gave his personal commitment that he would restore integrity and public faith in the processes of Government. He said that if he
4926
4 Dec 1996
failed to deliver he should be thrown out. But he is still there. He has forfeited his right to be there. At the first opportunity, Queenslanders will remove him from office. I will read honourable members a sentence from Mr Borbidge's Contract with Queensland. He said "It is my strong personal belief that no society can function properly if its institutions of Governmentand its Parliamentlose the faith and trust of the peopleand become unwanted and uncared forwhen trust is betrayed." The Premier himself has summed up here, in one sentence, why Queensland has ground to a halt under his Government. He is right: Queensland cannot function properly because its institutions of Government and its Parliament have lost the faith and trust of the people. The trust of the people in this Government has been totally and utterly betrayed. The self-evident truths of the facts outlined in tonight's motion are proof of that. However, to prove that to the Premier and his Government I will read what independent commentators are saying about this Government. In a column published in the Warwick Daily News and the Sunshine Coast Daily, the writer refers to the Government's "obsessional and bitter battle with the CJC that has overtaken this Government at the expense of its proper role, to govern". The writer states "No wonder only a third of our small businesses are confident about the year ahead compared with 78 per cent in the Northern Territory and 43 per cent nationally." And "No wonder a national newspaper headed an article with the words 'Queensland thrust deeper into corruption crisis'." Maroochydore Chamber of Commerce President Harry Burnett said that the past year has marked the worst trading conditions in 20 years. The Townsville Bulletin says of the Police Minister that he has been "dogged by one allegation of spurious behaviour after another". In another article, the Sunshine Coast Daily states "A Cabinet Minister abuses his position by pressuring colleagues to employ a former member of his own staff who had been discredited by a Criminal Justice Commission report, and declares it as being the sort of thing any decent human being would have done.
The same man misleads Parliament by declaring 'I did not arrange any job', only to contradict that statement a day laterand the incident is let pass as a misdemeanour of the most minor nature. That is the sorry state to which the conduct of Queensland Parliament has dropped." They are not my words, they are from a column in the Sunshine Coast Daily. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Their heartland. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. On Monday, the Courier-Mail stated "Traditional standards of Ministerial conduct are rarely encountered in Queensland politics these days." And "Some Ministers are underachievers; some are simply not good enough; others are accident prone." On 6 September, academic Scott Prasser said "I think it is the memorandum of understanding with the Police Union in February which to me has set the scene for the Government and has shown that the Government and the Coalition are politically inept, morally wanting and rank amateurs to go into that sort of arrangement. And it's tarred the Government and symbolised what's wrong with this whole Government." The Gladstone Observer states "It would be a fair bet to say that most Queenslanders are getting pretty fed up with the nonsense emanating from George St lately. The real issues of Government health, education, community safety and so onare being lost in the quagmire which increasingly surrounds this 'government by inquiry'." I stress "Government by inquiry". There is much, much more. It all demonstrates that this Government is not up to it. I remind honourable members of what the Premier said "It is my strong personal belief that no society can function properly if its institutions of Governmentand its Parliamentlose the faith and trust of the peopleand become unwanted and uncared forwhen trust is betrayed."
4 Dec 1996
4927
When the behaviour and actions of individual Ministers are examined, it is no wonder almost every media outlet is critical of this Government. I have prepared the report to which I referred earlier which examines the records of the Ministers as they have blundered through 1996. It is a record of which no Government should be proud. I also table for the information of the House the documents to which I referred. The reality is very simple: if this Premier goes through the Christmas period without sacking the Police Minister, Mr Cooper, without sacking the Minister for Public Works and Housing and without at least moving the Treasurer, Mrs Sheldon, and the Environment Minister, Mr Littleproud, this Government will be seen as inept, his leadership will be seen as weak, and Queenslanders will be betrayed. Queenslanders deserve better than this incompetent rabble who are masquerading as a Cabinet of Queensland. As I have said previously, if those people were in my Cabinet, they would have been either sacked or demoted. Two of them would have been sacked and three of them would have been demoted. In two cases they are not worthy to be Ministers and in others they are not worthy to hold the high positions that they currently hold. Daily we see the large number of reviews. Daily we see problems in terms of policing. For example, the assistant commissioner who heads up the Gold Coast region signed a performance contract that crime would be reduced. Now that crime has gone through the roof, his future clearly is in doubt. On the Gold Coast, crime has risen, police morale has dropped and they could not even get a police vehicle Mr McGrady interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right, a telephone squad. Owing to stress and other leave, they could not get even enough police officers to service a vehicle at Broadbeach, so that vehicle could not be provided. We have reviews. We have a Connolly inquiry costing $12m$50,000 a dayand we have people who are simply desperate for Government services. There is no excuse for the Premier not conducting a reshuffle. I had the courage to do it; the Premier does not. Any commentator who assesses this Government's performance over the past year and who ignores that fact does not do justice to political commentating in this State. The Premier will be seen as weak and inept if he does not do the reshuffle that is needed.
My Government will re-establish credibility in Queensland. We will return honesty and integrity to Government. We will provide services. We will set about providing the jobs that Queenslanders want. We will make certain that sufficient resources are allocated to police and law and order, education, health, the environmentall those services that Queensland wants. After 10 months, this Government is an abysmal failure. It is not worthy of the Government of such a proud State as Queensland. The Premier cannot even bother to participate in this debate, a debate related to his own Government. Time expired. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich) (6.10 p.m.): In seconding this motion, I draw attention to the fact that under this Government, business confidence in Queensland is now the lowest in Australia. The Yellow Pages Small Business Index tells a story of betrayal at the hands of a coalition Government that is simply not up to the task of managing the State's economy. With the change of Government earlier this year, the small business community was a bit optimistic. But it did not last for long. The Treasurer's failure to deliver the promised May economic statement and her Budget which broke so many of the coalition's promises, particularly in the area of taxation, undermined business confidence and drove up unemployment. Furthermore, the deceit that was perpetrated by the Premier and his Minister Santoro, who promised shorter trading hours when in Opposition but repudiated their undertakings in Government, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many small-business operators who feel betrayed by this Government. The sad state of the Queensland economy can be seen in the level of retail sales and turnovers. Real trend retail turnover in Queensland grew by 0.6 per cent in the June quarter and by 0.8 per cent in the September quarter, but when one considers that Queensland's population is increasing at the rate of 2.5 per cent per annum and inflation is running at around 3 per cent, one realises that real retail turnover is barely keeping pace with population growth. What is more, Queensland's recent monthly figures show an 0.9 per cent reduction in retail sales in October on top of a 3 per cent fall in September. And what is even more alarming is that businesses are now so pessimistic about their Christmas trading period at a time when they ought to have been most buoyant.
4928
4 Dec 1996
The record of this coalition is one of broken promise after broken promise. Do honourable members remember the then shadow Treasurer's proposal for major spending on an initiative which would deliver jobs for unemployed youth? I do. She also promised special payroll tax rebates to companies that recruited unemployed youth. In Government, neither scheme has materialised. Then there were the promises of tax concessions but no new or increased taxes. But the coalition Government failed to keep those promises. Little wonder Queenslanders are running out of patience with this Government. Allow me to remind the Treasurer and other members of her words in Parliament on 20 February. She stated "Rather than just tax, tax and tax again, Treasury should look to areas where the removal or lowering of a tax, charge or fee could actually help the community." She went on to say ". . . a coalition Government can directly attack Queensland's unemployment problem through genuine job creation by giving business, particularly small business, incentives to grow, expand and employ." But instead of no new or increased taxes, the September Budget hit the community with no fewer than seven new and increased taxes and charges, including a 35 per cent increase in the bank account debits tax, increased vehicle registration, new taxes on oil and tyres and, much to the horror of the tourism industry, which was already reeling under the 500 per cent increase in the Federal Government's reef tax, a new State tax on entry to national parks. Where was the promised $20m concession to land tax? Where were the payroll tax rebates for those employers of unemployed youth? The Budget did little for small business and now the State Government has gone on and broken another promise by doing away with the Queensland Small Business Corporation. And what of jobs? The coalition's record on job creation is appalling. Unemployment has increased each month that the coalition has been in office. Unemployed Queenslanders now comprise 10.1 per cent of the State's labour force. Instead of job-creation schemes, the Treasurer has implemented policies which have depressed economic activity and pushed up the rate of unemployment. First it was the decision to scrap the Accelerated Capital
Works Program, Labor's $745m initiative. Then it was the freeze on capital works spending. Then the Treasurer failed to honour her promises to ensure that departments spent all of their capital works allocations. They carried over $400m in the Budget, $200m of which was money that had been allocated for new schools, hospitals and roads. Little wonder the economy has stalled under this Government. When the coalition came to office in Queensland in February, the March quarter growth stood at 1.1 per cent. The June quarter growth had slumped to 0.4 per cent, half the rate for the rest of Australia. Although the Treasurer claims that growth will reach 4 per cent this yearbetter than Australia as a wholethe Budget papers reveal a different story, with Queensland falling behind other States. The Federal Government has revised its forecast downwards, while unemployment in Queensland is on the rise. In an admission of defeat, the Budget papers predict unemployment staying stagnant in Queensland at 9.3 per cent. But we know it is on the increase because the growth forecast is not being met. I ask: what is the Government doing about it? Nothing. The Treasurer and the Government sit on their hands. For the last 10 weeks the Treasurer has talked about cricket victories at the Gabba and going to opening nights at the theatre instead of managing the State's economy. It is indicative of a Government that is simply not up to the taska Government that has become so distracted by its inquiries, reviews and its own crises that it has neither the time nor the capacity to govern. Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers ParadisePremier) (6.15 p.m.): Tonight the Labor Party is once again reasserting its irrelevance in this place and to the people of Queensland. The problem with honourable members opposite is that they cannot accept that they are in Opposition; they will not accept that they are in Opposition and they will not accept the political reality. In the limited time available to me, I want to cover the achievements of this Government across key portfolio areas. I refer firstly to law and order. There has been the appointment of four magistrates, including the first additional magistrates in 10 years; the reintroduction of court services into country areas where court facilities were closed by Labor; approval for a $2m refurbishment of the Bundaberg Court House; $4m for the construction of the Cleveland Court House; the extension of the Gympie Court House; $12.9m on the Rockhampton Court Complex; $25.9m
4 Dec 1996
4929
on construction of the Southport Magistrates Court; the implementation of much-needed improvements to the Juvenile Justice Act; amendments to the Criminal Code; approval for a 10-year police staffing plan to deliver 2,780 extra police by the year 2005 Ms Bligh interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Brisbane will not interject from other than her correct seat. Mr BORBIDGE: Some $76m extra has been earmarked to implement Stage 1 of the police staffing plan to lift police numbers by 800 over the next three years; 139 additional police in 1996-97; 252 in 1997-98; 409 in 1998-99; an accelerated civilianisation plan to boost operational duties which will free 400 police over three years; 40 recruits began training at the Townsville Police Academy on 14 October with a further 40 to commence training in May 1997; 117 additional police officers sworn in on 29 November; the $3.5m Townsville Police Academy opened on 22 October with a $2m annual operational budget allocated for the next two years; legislation passed to outlaw designer drugs and enable rapid addition of new drugs to the list of dangerous substances covered under the Drugs Misuse Act; initiation of a comprehensive review of the Queensland Police Service with 197 recommendations made to improve policing; Queensland's Weapons Amendment Bill passed through Parliament on 30 October with legislation based on 11 nationally agreed principles; and an issued police directive in the first week of Government that no prisoner was to spend more than seven days in a watch-house. In respect of healthLabor's failed policy of regionalisation was abolished and replaced by district health councils; a 10-year capital works rebuilding program of in excess of $2 billion; the reopening of QE II Hospital; the Surgery on Time plan with $24.5m to improve the waiting lists of 25 Queensland hospitals; a $35m equipment replacement plan for hospitals; $1m in minor capital works to improve elective surgery times; 540 additional nurses and additional nurse training for the elective surgery plan; 80 new doctors; $37.4m for dental care plans with $10m provided for the Commonwealth Government shortfall; the rural incentive program for dentists at a cost of $470,000; $205.9m for a 10-year mental health plan; specialised community mental health services enhanced in 1996-97 by $2.9m; $150m to mental health facilities across the State; a $25m project with 300 people to be deinstitutionalised over three
years; establishment of a youth mental health unit at RBH; 177 new mental health positions throughout Queensland in 1996-97; the relocation of the Rural Health Unit to Roma; $50m for rural and remote capital works; $1m for outreach services; $1.5m for a rural training centre in Mount Isa; the Longreach Flying Dentist now servicing 18 communities; a fully funded rural scholarships program with increased funding; $435.7m for community health centres, with 142 new positions and a $1m boost for immunisation. In respect of educationthe Education budget increased by 9.3 per cent up to $3.1 billion. Capital expenditure is up by $101m or 43 per cent. The list goes on. There are pages and pages and pages. This Government has done more in eight months than Labor did in six years. Despite the Opposition's whingeing, complaining and negativity, portfolio by portfolio this is a Government of achievement. If we look at economic development and growth, we are leading Time expired. Hon. J. P. ELDER (CapalabaDeputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.20 p.m.): It is unbelievable! No-one believes it. It is worth repeating the comments that appeared in the Sunshine Coast Daily. The Treasurer loves quoting the Sunshine Coast Daily in Parliament and I think that it is worth repeating the comments of that paper. It is her daily paper and she would appreciate hearing what it has to say. After listening to the diatribe from the Premier, let us hear what the real people think. Mr Hamill: The Treasurer is not even here. Mr ELDER: Of course she is not. She is not even present in the Chamber to protect her own record. Let us hear what the real people say. The paper states "It is not only the fact that the business community, especially the small businesses, is crying out for action on job creation schemes and economic growth, that our unemployment has soared about 10 percent for the first time in 12 months; that country people feel they have been left by the wayside; that the public service are forever wondering who will be next on the hit list; that our tourism figures are down compared with other states that have less to offer than Queensland; and neither is it just the fact all the promises on law and order, eduction and health, once one of the best in the country seem to lurch from one crisis to another as they slide downhill."
4930
4 Dec 1996
The Sunshine Coast Daily states further "Once again we have a Coalition that is secretive and places no importance on honesty and integrity" and how true that is "in their determination to remain in power; the end entirely justifies the means. Once again we have returned to the preFitzgerald era. ... Our state" and this is the editorial in the Sunshine Coast Daily, which is circulated throughout the Treasurer's electorate "should be holding its head in shame." How great a comment is that"this State should hang its head in shame." Do members know why? I will tell them: the lack of leadership in this Statethe lack of leadership from the Premier and the lack of leadership from the Deputy Premier has manifested itself in just so many ways in this Government. The most spectacular has been the fragmentation, the constant infighting and, in many cases, the non-performance of this Cabinet. It all began in the lead-up to that election in 1995 when those opposite thought that they had no chance. So they simply promised everythingeverything to anyone to get into Government. Then in the lead-up to the Mundingburra by-election in February, as the prize came even closer, the levels of their desperation rose. The then Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Cabinet let it be known widely that they would do anything to get elected. Some groups in the community seized upon that, the most famous, of course, being the Police Union which drafted the memorandum of understanding in consultation with the Police Minister. When the Premier was presented with that document, what did he do? Did he read it? Did he ask any relevant or pertinent questions in relation to it or about its consequences? Did he not even ask anything at all about the concerns that he might have about the document? He would have us believe that he did not. No, it was not enough. In the end, the Premier just signed it. He had no sense of propriety. That has been repeated over and over again. When the document was exposed, what did the weak and ineffectual Premier do? He did nothing! Because of his lack of leadership, he was incapable of standing up to the Police Minister. So when the Police Minister threatened the Premier that he would not take
the fall on his own, the Premier meekly accepted that and walked awaydoing nothing but the Police Minister's bidding. When there was a conflict of evidence between the Police Minister, the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial Relations, what did the Premier do? Nothing! He sat on his hands. That is what he has done from day one. He has shown no leadership. He has done nothing in relation to leading this rabblean incompetent and corrupt Government. The conflict between the Government's Ministers arises time after time. One only has to look at the conflict between the Environment Minister and Minister for Small Business and Industry over whale-watching licences. One is saying one thing and the other is saying another. They got stuck into each other. Does the Premier show any leadership to resolve that issue? Mr T. B. Sullivan: No. Mr ELDER: None whatsoever. He shows no leadership. He just lets that slide. I refer to the Minister for Environment and the Treasurer and the issue of the oil and tyre taxes. The Treasurer walked into this place and said that she had the support of the farming organisations in relation to that matter. Of course, Mr Littleproud had to say, "Not quite, Treasurer." That is why she finds herself before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee to explain misleading the House. Did the Premier do anything in that case? Nothing! He has not intervened at any stage to try to show some direction to this Government. That is why this Government is incompetent. That incompetence manifests itself day after day after day. We have seen a weak Premier demonstrate time and time again that he has an inability to act decisively or do anything in relation to showing leadership. We have the hapless Minister for Public WorksI will not go on too long about him with only a minute left in which to speakwho just lurches from crisis to crisis. Will the Premier sack him? No! The Premier gets up in this House and supports the Minister. He gets up in this House and says, "He is doing a great job." He gets up in this House and says, "He will be here for some time." Why? Because the Minister for Public Works is the numbers man for the Treasurer. At the end of the day, the Premier is not going to actually sack the Minister. He cannot sack him. Instead, he has to jump up and defend him.
4 Dec 1996
4931
Mr Hamill: He can do it with his fingers on both hands. Mr ELDER: In the Liberal Party, well and truly. So on any reasonable measure, the Premier has just failed to display his leadership. Time expired. Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing) (6:26 p.m.): I am pleased to place on the record the excellent record of this Government in the past 10 months. What a pity it is to have to listen to this usual diatribe that we hear, especially from the Deputy Opposition Leader. Throughout the 10 months of this Government, all he has ever done is knock, knock, knock. He spends most of his time in the gutter dragging up negativity. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, who I thought might have been a bit more responsible, calling for people on this side to be sacked. Quite frankly, he should sack himself. He would be doing the people of Queensland a favour. Wherever one goes throughout the State, all one hears about the Leader of the Opposition is, "Isn't he a knocker, isn't he a whinger. What is that Beattie fellow really like? Is he the nasty, knocking, whingeing, whining character that he comes across as?" People are saying it across-the-board. They say that they are glad to have me in Government, that I am going very well and that we have achieved so much. The Premier outlined quite a deal of what this Government has achieved in the portfolios of Police, Corrective Services and Racing, as I have done on so many occasions. However, let us not forget the prisons infrastructure. A $151m expansion program has been approved by Cabinet to tackle the damage that members opposite caused with the chronic shortage of cells in the prison system. The former Government let the prison system run down and allowed prisoners to be doubled up in cells. This Government has had to put these measures in place. It has had to get the SEQ1 going at Wacol, which entails Wacol and Moreton gaols combining into a 600-bed high to medium security gaol. A new women's gaol will be located there as well. This Government is getting rid of it from Boggo Road. It should have been got rid of from Boggo Road long ago. The Government has put in the female annexe at Numinbah Valley for 25 female prisoners, which is a step in the right direction. The fine defaulters system will be implemented at Palen Creek so that those people can be placed and rehabilitated as
best we possibly can. We also have a wilderness camp for young offenders being implemented at Palen Creek . All of those initiatives are most useful and beneficial for the prison system. This Government is also putting in another 96 beds at Lotus Glen, again with the involvement of the Aboriginal people to try to get it right for them. The Government will probably put in another 100 beds up in the cape somewheresomewhere outside Cairns near one of the various communities. There will also be an increase in the number of outstations so that we can do it well. Bob Scott, who was a Labor member of his place, has also been doing a top job in that regard. This Government has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on making sure that we get it right. I wanted to refer to racing. This Government has put a phenomenal amount of money into the racing industry$3m into the QRIS scheme, $1m into harness racing through the harness breeding scheme, as well as $750,000 for the greyhound incentive scheme, which is brand new and the best in the nationnot to mention the fact that the Government is looking after the Matilda Highway Feature Race Series and the Fossil Trail series. The Government is also getting harness racing going in Townsville and a number of other activities that those members opposite closed down. This Government is getting them going again and assisting that industry. Members should remember all of the people who feed off those industries. This Government is getting things going again. Getting harness racing going in Townsville is going to make a phenomenal difference not just in Townsville but in many other areas throughout the State where racing is held. I refer to the Bingham report, which was absolutely vital. That report contains 197 recommendations. The Government wanted all of those reports that have been donethe PSMC, the CJC, the PCJC Mr Hamill: The MOU. Mr COOPER: And that, too. All of the issues in relation to that matter went to Bingham so that they could be dealt with, and they have been. They are perfectly legitimate items and they are all going to be dealt with. They should have been dealt with long ago by the Labor Party. We will deal with them to ensure that we adopt the 197 recommendations that we believe are necessary to get the Police Service right. That will certainly take some time and some doing. Therefore, we have kept on Max Bingham and
4932
4 Dec 1996
a number of other members of the overview committee to drive the reforms and ensure that they happen. We are committed to a Police Service that gives service to the people and deals with problems of crime. Those are the areas that are of prime importance Time expired. Mr BARTON (Waterford) (6.31 p.m.): I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, because Police and Corrective Service Minister Cooper is one of the best examples of this Government's failure to provide appropriate leadership and performance in his ministerial portfolio. Nobody more than he demonstrates this Government's desire to take Queensland back to the past. Nobody more than he demonstrates that this Government is simply not up to the task in front of it. Minister Cooper is a former Premier and a former Minister of the Bjelke-Petersen and Ahern eras. He should be capable of demonstrating appropriate leadership, but that is not what we are seeing. The Minister has had a cloud over his head from the very first day he was sworn in as a Minister in the Borbidge/Sheldon coalition minority Government. One needs only to look at his role in developing the inappropriate memorandum of understanding with the Police Union, his participation in the covert National Party campaign in the Mundingburra by-election conducted by his friend, selfconfessed liar and brothel keeper Matthew Heery, and his involvement with the Alice River branch of the National Party under the guise of the Concerned Citizens for Mundingburra. We should not forget that the Carruthers inquiry was told by counsel assisting, Cedric Hampson, QC, that sufficient evidence exists to consider charges against the Minister for corruption and electoral bribery. Nor should we forget the role played by the Minister as a member of Cabinet in setting up the Connolly inquiry to investigate the Carruthers inquiry, an inquiry headed by the man who provided legal advice to him as part of the defence of his actions before the Carruthers inquiry itself. He successfully participated in action to get Carruthers before Carruthers could get him. The Minister has the gall to defend his actions in Mundingburra publicly and in the Parliament, which demonstrates that he cannot accept that he has done anything wrong, whether the issue is considered legally, ethically or morally. This type of leadershipthe leadership style of Joh BjelkePetersenQueensland can do without.
However, that was just the beginning. The Minister has blundered from accident to accident, and almost daily demonstrates his incapacity to provide effective leadership and control of his department. Take, for example, the appointment to his staff of Patrick O'Connor and Matthew Heeryalthough he says, "I did not know about that" but, I repeat, I do not know how any Minister could say that he does not know who has been appointed to his personal staff; that proves he is simply not up to the joband, of course, Russell Grenning, who has since left his employment. We should not forget the Minister's role in obtaining a job for Patrick O'Connor in the form of a hidden consultancy laundered through former Liberal member of Parliament Ian Prentice with the assistance of his good friend the Minister for Public Works. We should not forget his refusal to initiate action against Patrick O'Connor, who he claims threatened and attempted to blackmail both the Premier and himself. We should not forget that the Minister allowed an exclusive interview of disgraced and gaoled former Police Commissioner Terry Lewis at the same time that a Courier-Mail journalist was being charged for interviewing another prisoner. We should not forget his refusal to accept Westminster tradition and answer questions during question time on important public issues raised by the Opposition and that his response to most questions contains outrageous personal abuse. What is his performance like in his mainstream portfolio activities? In prisons, escapes are so frequent that, frankly, we should arrange for zebra crossings outside all prisons with signs warning "Escaped prisoners cross here". Deaths in custody are occurring at an absolutely alarming rate. Prisoners at Lotus Glen were given access to a shipping container full of alcohol and a naked woman was found under a prisoner's bed in his cell at a Rockhampton prison. In relation to the Police Service, the Minister has created an expectation in the community about the provision of large numbers of additional police that simply cannot be met. His promises are big, but most of the increases will occur at the other end of his 10-year plan. Our analysis of the 1996-97 Budget is that the true increase will be in the order of only 20 new police officers, and that there will possibly be 12 fewer police than there are now. The Minister's figures do not add up, no matter how they are analysed. The police officers who are graduating now, of whom the Minister is so proudand I am proud of them, toowill largely meet only
4 Dec 1996
4933
current attrition levels. They are not genuine additional police as the Minister is trying to portray to the community. The 7.3 per cent increase in police spending is not reaching service delivery in the regions or the public. Regional budgets increased by only 2.5 per cent to 3 per centnot 7.3 per cent. Cost cutting in most regions is in the order of $300,000, with some areas being in the order of $600,000. Police overtime has been cut by several million dollars. Time expired. Hon. M. J. HORAN (Toowoomba SouthMinister for Health) (6.36 p.m.): Tonight we have seen a Labor Opposition absolutely devastated by the way that the public threw it out at the last election and the way it has seen the coalition Government deliver so many practical and important promises. An incredible list of achievements has come from the coalition Government in only nine months. As the Premier has said, we have done more in nine months than the Labor Government did in six years. In the area of health, the first thing that we did was to fix up the financial mess that we inherited from the Labor Party. We paid out the $52.4m budget overruns. We fixed up the $34m that the previous Government tried to hijack from capital works to cover up the black hole of budget overruns developing under its administration. In fixing the financial mess, we allocated $22.5m in this year's Budget to ensure that we paid EB1, because under the Labor Government EB1 had no cashable savings and no money to pay the nurses, doctors and other hospital staff. Within two months of coming into office, we had got rid of Labor's failed regionalisation program and its entire level of bureaucracy. That has resulted in multimillion dollar savings. In its place we have established 39 districts, which includes the Mater Hospital. Thirty-eight district managers have been appointed to each of those districts and they have already been through two training programs. They have real direction and they know exactly where they stand. They have been provided with district budgets and they now provide Queensland Health with monthly, year-to-date figures so that we can ensure that the financial chaos that existed under Labor no longer exists. We received 1,300 applications for 320 positions in the district health councils. Many people applied over and over again for different positions. That demonstrates how important it was to the public to get some genuine community input back into the way that health services are delivered.
We also cleaned up the Labor mess in capital works. There was a $1.2 billion blow-out in capital works. The Labor Government made promises without having the cash to pay for them. We have established a $2.1 billion program which will run over 10 years. A sum of $295m will be spent this year on capital works, information technology, specialist equipment and minor capital works. Two public meetings have already been held with the construction industry to show when the tenders come into force so that businesses can tender for work. We have put money into country hospitals, aged care and psychiatric institutions. Most importantly, we have started work on the QE II Hospital to bring it back on line after the Labor Government virtually destroyed it. The greatest achievement of this Government has been its Surgery on Time program. We are one month ahead of schedule. Category 1 patients are now able to have their surgery within 30 days. We have already reached the target of no more than 5 per cent long waits for Category 1 elective surgery patients. Confidence is being restored to the people of Queensland. If that is not enough, this morning I told the House about the increase in elective surgery procedures done during the first three months of the year as compared to last year. Some 2,080 more operations have been done than under the Labor Government in the same period. The figures for four months show that 3,532 extra procedures were completed under the coalition Government than were completed under the former Labor Government during a similar period. What a great achievement! Nothing so clearly demonstrates how practical and back to basics the coalition Government is. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the failure and the waste of money that occurred under the previous Labor Government. These are solid, up-onthe-wall achievements, shown in black and white. Members can look at the scoreboard: 3,532 more procedures have been performed than were performed under the Government of members opposite. In addition, in the budget we delivered an extra $312m, 540 new nurses and 80 new doctors. We introduced a dental plan that is already delivering results, and we put on extra dentists in places such as Rockhampton and Gladstone under our incentive programs. We have overseen magnificent achievements in mental health and have introduced a 10-year plan. We have provided extra money for staff at the Royal Brisbane, Nambour and Rockhampton psychiatric units.
4934
4 Dec 1996
We shifted the Rural Health Unit to Roma, where it should be. We provided a flying dentist at Longreach. We have provided $1m for allied health services in rural areas. We fully funded the Rural Health Scholarship Scheme. What about community health? We created 147 new positions. We put on seven additional child-health nurses. We provided an immunisation plan at a cost of $1m to look after our kids. In the Logan, Beenleigh and Townsville areas, we employed Government medical officers to look after women who have been sexually assaulted. That is something that members opposite could not do. We are practical; we get in there and do the job. Time expired. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (6.41 p.m.): In supporting this motion of the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to focus on the dearth of leadership in the Health Ministry. Over the past few months, as Queensland Health has reeled from crisis to crisis, with strikes, sackings, threats and bed closures, the bumbling, bullying Minister's sole response to any criticism or truth has been to order a cover-upanother review to shut up the critics. How does that fix the problem? The critics cannot always be bullied into silence. Yesterday, I alerted this House to the fact that the Gold Coast Hospital inquiry was yet another cover-up. The investigating committee decided that it was okay for the hospital to be underfunded, have duplicated services, poor management and limited resources, staff shortages in key areas and patient treatment delays. The attitude is, "Other hospitals are in the same boat, so it is okay." The Minister was proud of the fact that he forced the director of medicine to resign for whistleblowing. What will we see now that 22 others have backed him up? Will they all have to go? Will the Minister do what he did in Kirwan and push them all out? Will we see a massive purge of the Gold Coast Hospital just to shut up any criticism? Will that be the Minister's solution once again? This Minister will not give the hospitals their budgets. He refuses to give them their budgets and then he says that they have to stick to them. It shows the Minister's very unusual style of leadership that he will give them this year's budget after next year's State budget is brought down. Hospitals around the State are begging the Minister to come clean and tell them just what is going on. The Cairns Hospital has said publicly that it cannot provide the services that it has been providing with its present budget. It will have to cut services. The Cairns Hospital says that it has been snubbed by this Minister and Government.
The Mater Hospital is closing beds across the hospital in a bid to cut costs. That will mean a reduction in services and treatment levels for sick people. The PA Hospital is also cutting services. Today, ICU beds went. What will go tomorrow? We all know that, if the Minister keeps cutting services to patients, he can bring his budget into line. It is those jolly sick and injured peoplethey are the ones who cost the money. Get rid of them and the Minister will not have a budget overrun! The Minister keeps criticising us because we continued to treat sick and injured people and overran budgets. How dare we treat sick and injured people! Shame on Labor for treating sick and injured people! There is one thing that this Minister does well: he likes having his photo taken in front of Labor capital works projects. He does it over and over again. He practises it. The only thing he has done is delay those capital works projects. Now he has meddled in PA's planning so much that he has completely destroyed its plans for managing service delivery during the rebuilding phase, especially for the spinal injuries unit. Now that the Minister has meddled so much, it does not know what to do. As I have said, we have seen unprecedented industrial action throughout Health in the last six months, largely as a result of the Minister's arrogance. His refusal to discuss options with junior doctors led to the first ever doctors strikes at all of the teaching hospitals in Queensland. What a way to be written up in history! He wants to be the first Health Minister to be written up like that. His belated offer to negotiate was a useless joke and was treated as such. Nurses and allied health workers have very rarely taken industrial action. They have taken more industrial action over the last six months than I can remember. Why? It is because the Minister will not consult with them. He treats them as if they do not count. He refuses to listen to health workers and to include the major staff areas in budget briefings and discussion. What are the health workers speaking out about? They are concerned about the same things that we are concerned about: the missing hospital budgets, the missing increased nurses, the missing doctors, the missing beds that are supposed to have been opened but which noone can find, and the missing care for patients that no-one now has time to give. The workers who speak out are doing so at their own risk. This Minister keeps telling us
4 Dec 1996
4935
that he is taking us back to basics. He is taking us back to about as basic a health system as we could geta system where cockroaches are walking over patients in hospitals. Are we going to go back to the days under the National Party Government when maggots were found in the patients? Is that the sort of back to basics approach that the Minister wants? That is a National Party health system! I table that document. Time expired. Hon. R. J. QUINN (MerrimacMinister for Education) (6.46 p.m.): We have already heard about the outstanding achievements of this Government in eight months in respect of police and health services. We have a similar record in relation to education. Our first budget contained record fundingup 10 per cent. For the first time ever, the Education budget for this State was over $3 billion. The capital works budget provided a massive increase of over $100m for schools and refurbishments across this State. That is unprecedented. Not only was there increased funding; we got the funding that was already there on track. When we came into Government, the refurbishment program in schoolsBuilding Better Schoolswas at a standstill. The former Government had a budget of $44m. In the first eight months, it had spent a lousy $4m. We have cranked up the spending and real progress is being made. We are spending over $3m per month on refurbishing our schools. Under our first budget, almost 1,000 new teachers will come on line at the beginning of the next school year. That is more than is provided in any other budget in the State. Not only that, we are making real progress in respect of the conditions on which we employ our teachers. For over four years, there had been no progress in improving remote area incentives for teachers. The funding that the previous Government used to implement remote area incentives was contained in the 1989 Budget of the previous National Party Government. All the Labor Party did was use the $2m in its Budget. That is all it did. What have we done? Next year, the Remote Area Incentive Scheme funding will double. In the year after that, it will treble. In that way, we hope to attract and retain qualified teachers in remote areas in Queensland. Another thing we did was to improve behaviour management in schools. We allocated more funds$10m over three yearsfor alternative programs. We have put in place legislation to improve the school discipline regimesomething which members
opposite could not do in eight months. They went into the election campaign with very similar policy initiatives to ours in terms of behaviour management. The former Government had eight months to get the legislation in place, and not a skerrick of work was done in that time. Within eight months, we had the legislation through this House. We have allocated more money for students with disabilities. We have again focused on numeracy and literacy and provided more money in that area. We have introduced school-based constables, as we promised in our election campaign. We have introduced new accountability and reporting frameworks in schools. For the first time, airconditioning was provided in north Queensland schools. We will spend $65m on Cool Schools. Not only will we put airconditioning in State schools; we shared the funds with non-Government schools, which will get funding as well. We did all of those things in the State schools and we also put in place additional funding for non-Government schools. Whether parents send their children to non-Government schools or State schools, there are additional funds in the budget and they will share in all of the new initiatives. As well, we have tidied up many of the problems that the Labor Party left us. We have fixed up the problem of the Tannum Sands State High School, which was at an impasse under the previous Government. That is one of the reasons why members opposite are sitting on the Opposition benches. Members opposite were giving the people of Tannum Sands a lousy deal in respect of their high school. We have fixed up the problems with the high school at Wilsonton. For six years the former Government promised a high school at Wilsonton in Toowoomba but did not deliver. Now it is on track. It is the fourth high school to be delivered in Toowoomba. The high school in Kuranda is also on track. Right across-the-board this Government in eight months has done more in terms of police, health and education than the other mob did for six whole years. Is it any wonder that members opposite now find themselves on the other side of the Chamber? They offered six years of inactivity, six years of failure, six years of doing nothing, yet they whinge because they are now consigned to the Opposition benches. It ought to be quite plain to the people of Queensland that this is a Government of achievement. Health, law and order, police, educationcount them down, we have done it. Members opposite did nothing for six years but sit on their backsides. Time expired.
4936
4 Dec 1996
Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (6.51 p.m.): Over the past 10 months this Government has perpetrated a fraud on the people of Queensland, and nowhere has that been better evidenced than in the five minutes of diatribe that we have just heard from the Minister for Education. He got up and claimed credit for Labor projects; he claimed credit for things this Government has not done; he claimed credit for things that we put in place; and he refused to acknowledge any of the shortcomings which "Backdoor Bob"or "Backdown Bob", as they now call himhas perpetrated on the education community in Queensland. Let us talk about the school cleaners, to start with. Who will ever forget the day he held a press conference out here on half an hour's notice to the union and sacked 6,000 school cleaners6,000 ordinary battling Queenslanders thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment by this Minister and this Premier and this Government, who on 10 separate occasions gave them written undertakings that their jobs would be secure. He threw them on the unemployment scrap heap. It took this Opposition, in conjunction with a campaign by the Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, to secure their jobs. But it was not just the school cleaners and their union he refused to consult. He has refused to consult with parents, teachers and community groups the length and breadth of this State. Consider what he did with the parents and teachers in relation to the Education (School Curriculum P10) Bill. He brought out draft legislation and said, "We are throwing you off. You haven't got a contribution to make." It was only when the hue and cry went up that he was forced into yet another backflip, yet another backdown. "Backdown Bob" did it again! He started on the cleaners, then he started on the P-10 boards. He has announced numerous reviews: into OP scores, LOTE, the Donnelly review, school-based management, community education counsellors, regional offices, school support centres, the school uniform allowance and environmental education centres. This has been a Government of review. There is no end to the reviews and the inquiries. Not only are there the ones set up by the AttorneyGeneral and the Premier and the Cabinet; this Minister has had more reviews than Phantom of the Opera! What about the guidance officers? He went the length and breadth of this State last year
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will refer to the honourable gentleman as the Honourable "Minister for Education". Mr BREDHAUER: I have not referred to him as anything yet! He promised to double the number of guidance officers. We left them with 347 guidance officers. How many did the Government put on in this Budget? Eighteen1-8! How is that doubling the number of guidance officers? And he tries to weasel out of it when he comes in here. He talks about the massive increase in capital works. What did this Government do to capital works? It imposed a capital works freeze. How much did that cost Education? $33m! That is $33m in unspent capital works. Then he talks about what the Government did for students with disabilities. The people with disabilities will not forget what the Minister did to them. He said he was going to terminate the enrolments for special schools. He could not even get his act together. He is going to throw 236 students out of special schools. He could not get his act together in terms of postschool options; he could not get his act together in terms of anything else. He was just going to throw them out on the street and let them and their parents and carers fend for themselves. The Minister even abolished the Sunsmart Program. Hundreds of thousands of little kiddies out there used to get a hat and a bit of sunscreen and some education about the dangers of Queensland's sun. One would think he would know better, but he threw Sunsmart on the scrap heap as well. What about the school uniform allowance? He promised that he would send $29m back to the P & Cs. He reneged on his promise there, too, and he sent it back to consolidated revenue so that Joan could spend it on a motorway on the Sunshine Coast. What about the Remote Area Incentive Scheme? He stands up here and says we did nothing for four years to improve the Remote Area Incentive Scheme. He forgets that we actually implemented that scheme. In 32 years coalition Governments did nothing. For 32 years we campaigned up and down the length and breadth of this State for a Remote Area Incentive Scheme. A number of teachers in remote areas are actually going to be disadvantaged by the scheme this Minister has brought in. What about the fraud he perpetrated here last week with his behaviour management stuff? The list goes on and on. He has deliberately breached the AntiDiscrimination Act and he has thrown school principals at the mercy of the Anti-
4 Dec 1996
4937
Discrimination Commission. The Minister said that he would review student performance standards. What was the result of that? The Government has now established Queensland levels of student performance and another trial. It has not changed; there is just going to be another trial. The Government has also cut the funds for computers in schools. This Government is not up to it. This Minister is not up to it. Their eight months in office have been characterised by broken promises and backdowns and backflips by this Minister. The people of Queensland know it, and they will vote accordingly at the next election. Time expired. Question That the motion be agreed toput; and the House divided
AYES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, DArcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. NOES, 44 Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll
The numbers being equal, Mr Speaker cast his vote with the Noes. Resolved in the negative . Sitting suspended from 7.02 to 8.30 p.m. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND BILL Resumption of Committee Debate resumed (see p. 4925) Clause 12 continuing Mr ROBERTS (8.30 p.m.): I have a particular scenario to put to the Minister in terms of the coverage of particular types of workers. It involves an actual case with which I was involved a couple of years ago. It involved a worker who was looking for work at a time when jobs were quite scarce. The worker was in the electrical trade. The only job that was offered at the time was a position with a company that offered to pay on the basis of 20 per cent of the invoice total of the work that was completed every month. The worker
accepted the job in good faith and worked for the company for a number of months. He kept quite meticulous records, and at the end of a period of time, he checked the money that had been paid to him against award entitlements and discovered that he had received substantially less than he would have received if covered by an award. The case was ultimately taken to the Industrial Relations Commission. Under the contract provisions, the worker was deemed to be an employee and was paid entitlements in accordance with the award. The issue that I would like clarified is: under the proposed new definition of "worker", where would that person stand in respect of an entitlement to workers' compensation had he been injured prior to the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission which deemed him to be an employee? Mr SANTORO: Quite simply, what is important within the Act is whether or not there is a worker/employer relationship, and if that can be established once an accident or an injury occurs within the workplace, an employee who believes he is a worker can take his or her case to the board. The board then needs to make a decision as it becomes aware of the full facts. Mr Roberts: If they paid PAYE at that stage. Mr SANTORO: As the member knows, there are quite a number of workers at the moment who are not covered under the PAYE provisions who still get covered by the workers' compensation system. Mr Roberts: But not under this particular definition. Mr SANTORO: Under this particular definition, PAYE becomes the definition of "worker" and other people who do not come under the PAYE net will be able to be covered under other provisions of the legislation. Mr Lucas: But not mandatory. Mr SANTORO: That is correct; 95 per cent plus of employees will be covered under the PAYE provision. I am happy to listen to the contribution from the honourable member for Lytton and then make my substantive reply to what the shadow Minister and other members have said. The point I am making is that there are provisions under which all workers can be covered and those provisions will be very heavily advertised. I have heard what honourable members have said, that maybe the knowledge of those provisions is presently limited, and it is a responsibility of Government to ensure that a fair dinkum
4938
4 Dec 1996
education process is in place. I have given that commitment to the Chamber. We believe that this definition of "worker" will help prevent avoidance that currently is taking place and will in fact cover Queensland workers considerably. Mr ROBERTS: The key point in this particular instance was that the person believed genuinely that he was an employee. It was actually determined by the Industrial Relations Commission some months later that he was, but if that person did make a claim for an injury in the first instance under the definition that has been proposed, it would have been rejected by the board on the basis that the person was not receiving PAYE. I make the point and re-emphasise the fact that a lot of people find themselves in these circumstances. I am concerned that under that very strict definition, people who are caught in these situations where they need jobs and they take whatever is offered may in fact be genuine employees who should have been liable for PAYE deductions but were not. Those people will be rejected by the board in the first instance and they may not get a second chance. Mr SANTORO: I think that, rather unwittingly, the honourable member for Nudgee has in fact highlighted one of the advantages of the legislation. What he is doing is clearly criticising the deficiencies within the current definition of "worker". The member can shake his head, but that is what he is doing. He is saying that previously some people have fallen through the net. Mr Roberts: No, I'm saying under this definition they will. Mr SANTORO: I am saying that now, that will not be the case. There will be PAYE workers who will be covered by WorkCover and the rest will be covered under provisions contained elsewhere in the legislation which will enable them, if they wish, to insure with WorkCover, but that is not the case under the existing legislation. Mr LUCAS: I have a number of concerns with respect to clause 12. I wonder why it is necessary to change the old definition. At present, one of the greatest areas of avoidance of workers' compensation premiums is in the building industry, and it is also one of the greatest areas of injuries. Mr Harper: What would you do? Mr LUCAS: Certainly this is not the solution to it. This is going to make it worse. Frequently in the building industry people claim to be contractors when in actual fact
they are employees. They are subject to direction by the employer, they have to work in a set manner and really, for all practical purposes, they are employees but for various taxation reasons they are not. Under this definition, whether a person is covered in the building industry or not will depend on a number of factors that are largely beyond that person's control. Those people do not always have the power to determine their conditions of contract. It is not unlike the situation in which sales representatives find themselves. I work in a voluntary capacity at the Community Legal Service, and there we frequently see people who have a job, invariably in sales on a part commission/part retainer or a whole commission basis, and they tell us that they have been told, "Look, you are a contractor. We do not take any tax out for you", but in actual fact they are employees. By this definition, the Minister will create a whole class of people who will fall outside the net because they have not got the bargaining power to negotiate for themselves as an employee or, alternatively, to get the contractor or employer to pay premiums. The Minister might have thought the terrible case of the de factos of the Moura mine disaster missing out under the Workers' Compensation Act was bad enough, but under this definition there will be a stream of people who do not have proper bargaining powerthey might be young kids, they might be people who just want a job, any job, but they have to sign something that says they are a contractorwho will fall outside the scope of the workers' compensation net. I cannot support the clause as it currently stands. I am supporting the amendment foreshadowed by my colleague the Honourable shadow Minister. As well as responding to that proposition, I ask the Minister to clarify how many personsif he can give some estimatewho are covered under the old definition of "worker" would fall outside that definition under the new Act and how much money is expected to be saved? Mr SANTORO: I would like to address the substantive nature of the two previous members' remarks, including those of the shadow Minister, but one thing I would like to acknowledge right from the start is one of the points that the honourable member for Lytton made, that is, that under this legislation and under the previous legislation there is certainly potential for unscrupulous employers to take advantage of certain workers, and the member mentioned some categories. In this
4 Dec 1996
4939
legislation we are particularly concerned with minors and intellectually impaired persons who may not have a proper understanding of the taxation requirements. It is recognised that a worker could be unknowingly coerced into an illegal non-PAYE taxation arrangement. WorkCover would provide a safety net for those workers who have been forced into illegal taxation arrangements by their employer by considering an application for compensation from an employee if, in WorkCover's opinion, the employee should have been taxed under the PAYE system. It is matter of having those matters brought to the attention of WorkCover. I suggest that there will be considerable mechanisms and incentives within the system for that to occur. At that point, WorkCover will extend cover to those people, because that is the clear intention of the new Bill. However, the majority of the people in employment are PAYE taxpayers. To answer one of the honourable member's questionsthe Taxation Office indicates that 95 per cent of workers fit into that category. There are many reasons why that particular provision will help prevent non-compliance. The new definition will be closely aligned with the Commonwealth taxation laws. It will present employers with less opportunity for premium avoidance, because they will have certain obligations forced upon them by the legislation. Mr Lucas: But the Commonwealth taxation laws are not traditionally a test of whether there is a master/servant relationship. Mr SANTORO: The PAYE relationship is by far the most precise test. Mr Purcell: With respect, Minister, they don't mind. All they want is money. Whether they get the PPS system or PAYE, they don't care. Mr SANTORO: I am still to hear from the member what he thinks may be a more reliable test of a master/servant relationship. Certainly, in terms of the efficiency of a scheme such as that we are considering tonight, that is the definition that is acceptable and the one that I believe should be advanced. It will also allow for the more accurate monitoring and auditing of employers. In relation to what happens in the case of employees who are not on a PAYE arrangementclearly those people would be going onto other arrangements, such as the prescribed payment system. For honourable members opposite to suggest that that is a
system into which people will be coerced ignores the fact that one of the major reasons why people go onto the prescribed payment system is that they enjoy a range of benefits including a much lower overall taxation rate. Mr Purcell: Not at the end of the day. Mr SANTORO: They are choices that are made. Mr Purcell: They don't have a choice. They are told that is the systemtake it or leave it. Mr SANTORO: No, they are choices that are made, and there are advantages that accrue to the making of that particular choice. It seems to me that members opposite constantly play down the intelligence factor and the ability of employees to choose to enter into their own arrangements. Most of the people about whom members opposite are speakingtypical PPS peoplecan substantially reduce their net taxable income with a range of deductions associated with their business activities, including the deduction for tools of trade, car usage, phone, office and other business expenses. I would suggest that the vast majority of those people choose to go into that arrangement with those particular advantages very much in mind. We believe that the PAYE arrangement is one that will help to clarify who is a worker and who is not a worker. We advance that as the best way of defining the master/servant relationship and "worker". Mrs CUNNINGHAM: There has been a lot of concern about the fact that PPS workers will be excluded from the provisions of this clause. It has been stated in the secondreading debate that there are nine categories of work groups who are paid specifically under PPS. There has been a remedy offered for building workers, that is, a possibility of a workers' compensation fee being collected with the long service leave levy that is collected by local authorities. That is one category out of nine, and that is an achievable method of collecting premiums. If there was a remedy for the other eight, would the Minister consider reinclusion of those in the PPS system provided collection of premiums could be followed, guaranteed and be transparent? Mr SANTORO: I have taken advice on the point that the honourable member has raised. That particular proposal in terms of premiums collection for building workers has been put forward by the CFMEU. With respect, I would suggest to the honourable member and to other members that that particular proposal has a number of flaws. I have been
4940
4 Dec 1996
advised that there would be considerable compliance difficulties created because employers are operating across industry boundaries within that industry and that there would be premium avoidance due to the tendency to minimise wage declarations for work done in other industries by claiming that the majority of work was done in the building industry. There would also be collection difficulties since the collections currently undertaken by the Portable Long Service Leave Board are limited to certain building industry sectors. The important nexus between premiums paid on the basis of wages and benefits payable would be broken. There would be operational difficulties in determining the extent of cover for subcontractors as proposed by the CFMEU, which is the proposal that I think the honourable member is quoting. When I consider that proposalwhich, by the way, is the only tangible alternative that has been put to me by a union or anybody elseI think that I cannot accept that the collection mechanism would be an efficient one. Mr PURCELL: To move away from the definition that we have in the Workers' Compensation Act at the momentwhich is probably one of the best definitions of "worker" in any Act in Australiais to really sell out those workers who are least able to look after themselves. I talk from experience of about 18 years in the construction industry. When the Minister says that workers have a choice as to how they will be taxed, he shows that he does not know the industry. When I first worked in that industry, there were classes of people who had never received a pay packet in their lives or paid tax. I am talking about 20-odd years ago or a bit longer. Slowly but surely, those people in the commercial and semicommercial sectors were cleaned up by the unions and were given a pay packet, because the rate of pay that they had been receiving was mainly cash in hand and was well below that to which they were entitled under the Act that relates to their wages and remuneration as its still stands in Queensland. In the housing industry and those industries that relate to smaller jobs, which are not unionised, that still happens. It happens down to a man. There are people in those industries who can look after themselves and do something about setting up a company and about how they get remunerated, but they form a very small percentage. The majority of them are unable to do that. I would imagine that members across the Chamber from me would be very interested in
how labourers are paid, because a high proportion of labourers who work in the construction industry come from the country. I do not think anybody leaves school and aspires to be a builder's labourer. They come into the industry through necessity. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr PURCELL: That is rightnecessity to earn an income and as a stopgap measure. Their knowledge of the industry and how they get paid is very low. When they are working for somebody, they take it for granted that their workers' compensation will be okay. I have heard what the Minister says about an intensive campaign in the beginning to let people know that they will not be covered by workers' compensation if they are not PAYE taxpayers. He will have to do that every month and every year from here on in because of the high turnover in that industry. The Builders Labourers Federation has carried out exercises in relation to the high turnover of membership of that union and other unions, which is enormous. Static workplaces where people go year in and year out are a different kettle of fish. That is a much easier work force to educate about their rights. This is a work force that has a high turnover. Over 12 months, there would probably be only a small fraction of the 20,000 construction employees who work as builder's labourers still working as builder's labourers probably only about 5,000. What happens to those 15,000 builder's labourers who join and then leave the industry? I do not think that they will be covered by workers' compensation. They will certainly not get extra remuneration from their employers when they are on a PPS arrangement. The PPS arrangement screws down the employees for less money. It is an all-in payment. It means forgoing the awards rates of pay and paying an all-in rate that is less than the award. It is to the employer's advantage to do that. Those people do not know that they are getting screwed and that they are not getting what they are entitled to get. They will fall through the net. The Minister is abandoning those workers and their families to whatever system by which they can get money because they just will not be covered. For instance, the majority of concrete work, except in commercial areas, is contracted on a daily rate. Those workers bring to the job their hands and their backs and nothing else. Mr Davidson: And tools. Mr PURCELL: I can assure the Minister that they bring very few tools because builder's labourers do not get paid a tool allowance.
4 Dec 1996
4941
Under the award and under the Act, the contractors are required to supply the tools. A Government member: They've got a lunch box and a thermos. Mr PURCELL: That is about it. Because those people get an all-in daily rate, they are paid PPS and, of course, they are paid cash in handlarge amounts of cash in hand. Who is going to cover their workers' compensation? They are usually the people who work in the highest risk categories in the industry. They are the persons who really make the industry go round. Mr Davidson: Are they members of the union? Mr PURCELL: A lot of them are. That does not make any difference. They look on it as an insurance because after the bosses have robbed them for long enough, or they get into trouble with workers' compensation as John Hastie will probably attestI have to give him a ring or get them off the hook or sort something out because in a lot of cases they just do not know what they are entitled to. The same thing applies to brickie's labourers, steel fixers, scaffolders and riggers. Hoist/winch drivers are usually employed by a major company. However, a whole class of people in the building construction industry are going to be left out. If the Minister looks at all the bridges and roads, he would realise that the civil engineering field would have a similar amount of peopleactually, much larger numbers than in the building industry, as the Minister would realisewho would be in the same situation. I refer to some figures from the Government Statistician's Office in relation to the health and safety of workers in the construction industry. These figures are taken from the accident database. It is really very old information and the current numbers would be much higher. Mrs McCauley: What year? Mr PURCELL: The year is 1991. Mrs McCauley: They're very old. Mr PURCELL: They are very old. They are the latest figures that I could get from the library. I would like the Minister, if he could, to give me some idea of how many wage and salary earners for whom the Workers Compensation Board in Queensland collects money. While the Minister is getting that information, I point out that the construction industry has constantly had the highest rate of injuries per 100 wage earners of any industry. It has constantly had an injury rate that was substantially higher than all other industries
combined. That is a terrible statistic for Queensland, or for any industry. Those are the people that the Workers Compensation Board picks up. The injury rate over a five-year period from 1985 through to 1991and this is an averagewas 8.6 per cent. M r P e a r c e interjected. Mr PURCELL: I know that the coal industry has a higher death rate, but it does not have a higher injury rate. Also, the labouring side of that industry has a much higher average on the construction side than the other people who work in the industry, which really makes them vulnerable. They are the people who move in and out of the industry on a fairly regular basis and they will not have any coverage at all. Mr Ardill: But they have now. Mr PURCELL: But they have now. That is the argument that I have been putting up for probably two or three years. The department picks up the responsibility for those bodies and they receive compensation, yet the Government is not collecting the premiums. The Government is really going the wrong way. It is saying that it will just close it and do away with all of those bodies and just collect the premiums for one section. The Minister should be keeping the scope as wide as possible in order to keep the scheme as viable as possible and still collect those premiums from those employers. Mr LUCAS: In relation to this clause, I have a few issues that I want to emphasise. The Honourable the Minister talked about the right of people who are in a contractor's position to be able to negotiate coverage for themselves under the legislation. I have a problem understanding why the Minister has a problem with those people being covered by the legislation. Obviously, the Minister is going to take a premium from those people. If he is going to take a premium from those people, what is the problem with making it a mandatory premium rather than some sort of voluntary scheme that is going to get the Government into trouble? It would be like having a compulsory third-party insurance scheme that was voluntary instead of mandatory with registration. It just creates trouble. I refer to today's Courier-Mail , which I have in front of me. I will not table it, but an advertisement contained in it refers to a carpet cleaner that is required by a leading Australian company. It states that experience is desired but not essential, and that the person must be able to work flexible hours. The paper also refers to a courier subcontractor, requirements
4942
4 Dec 1996
being a late model white van with LPG, set areas, to be of neat appearance and willing to work. Arguably, the people who will fill those positions are employees, but they are intended to be treated as contractors. Those people are going to fall outside the net. We are going to have a situation in which more and more people and their families are going to be prejudiced and disadvantaged by this decision. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot amend the clause in line with what the Opposition is suggesting and take the premium from those people and insure them. I argue that that is a far better way. My colleague the member for Bulimba very eloquently referred to the situation that exists in the building industry, which he knows like the back of his hand. In relation to PPS and contractors, it is hard enough in the building industry. They have some industrial muscle because they see the sense in collective solidarity. What about the situation for those people who take up the jobs that are advertised in the paper, such as those which I just read out? They do not really have any muscle. Often people say, "I have just got a job. It is multi-layer marketing", or "I have just got a job selling aluminium siding." Those people are the smallest of small businesses. I would have thought that we would have all been interested in giving them some protection. However, as it stands the clause does not give them protection. It is fine to say, "They should get insurance." I am sure that, when those people bowl up to the employers saying, "I want a position selling whatever with your company but I am not going to take it unless you insure me under the WorkCover Act", they will receive very serious consideration. Unlike everyone else who does not ask for it, they will be relegated to the scrap heap. Mr ARDILL: I am appalled at the attitude of the Minister in relation to this clause. Many years ago when I worked in the building industry, I received cash in the hand and I did not have a clue whether I was covered by workers' compensation or not. However, I assumed that I was covered. Since 1916, the whole concept of workers' compensation in Queensland has been based on comprehensive cover and the unitary systemthe fact that everybody comes under the one umbrella. That is what has made the system viable. The Minister pretends that he is concerned about escalating premiums and at the same time he is fragmenting the system and reducing the ability of the system to provide reasonable premiums and a comprehensive service. The concept that the
employers and the insurance companies, including British insurance companies, all fought against way back in 1916 was the comprehensiveness of the proposal so that every employee who received a wage or salary was covered. In this Bill we see the dismantling and fragmentation of that system so that nobody knows whether they are covered or not. No longer will we have total coverage and the total payment of premiums. The Workers Compensation Board should know that it has a right to collect a premium from every employer of labour. Any fragmentation of the system must result in increased premiums and in a less efficient and effective system of cover for people who are injured at work. I believe that the Minister should accept the amendment that has been foreshadowed. He has not advanced any reason for not supporting the amendment, which would return workers' compensation to the comprehensive system for which Queensland was noted, and which other States and countries have copied. Mr DOLLIN: I seek an explanation from the Minister in regard to a similar case to those referred to by the member for Bulimba and others. Timber-cutters in the timber industry may own a four-wheel drive, a chainsaw, a crowbar and an axe. Sometimes they work as solo cutters. I have always thought of them as contracting with the sawmill to fell timber on a cubic metre ratepiecework, if one likes. Sometimes that rate is set by forest services. To complicate it even more, sometimes the timber-cutter will have a partnera mate or a cobber, call him what you willwho works with him in the bush. That person may own a chainsaw or may just supply his labour. Will these people be treated as subcontractors? The same situation applies in the harvesting industry. Sometimes mills own what are called skidders which pull the logs together. The sawmill owner owns the skidder, but he pays a contract rate per cubic metre for a man to pull the logs together. Often, such workers are not covered by an award and do not earn award rates. However, they are told by the industry that employs them that it is up to them: the more they do, the more they get; if they do not work hard enough, they do not earn the award. Where will that settle? Mr BRADDY: The Opposition has clearly put its case in relation to clause 12. I indicated on behalf of the Opposition that, in the event of clause 12 succeeding, we have circulated an amendment which would only then be moved. Of course, the amendment is that the current definition under the Act would be
4 Dec 1996
4943
inserted instead of the definition sought by the Minister's legislation. Mr ELLIOTT: A number of cases have been put to me. What the Opposition says sounds very plausible and, in many instances, it is correct. Unfortunately in the subcontracting area, particularly with some small companies which work for the bigger companies in the construction industry, employers not only not pay their workers' compensation premium but also take tax from the workers and do not pass it on. What the Opposition wants will put workers at the mercy of many companies which, quite frankly, are fly-by-nighters who bankrupt one company after another. What we really need is some sort of system under which people insure themselves, and there must be a guarantee that they have insured themselves. There has to be some sort of a hurdle to guarantee that they have insured themselves before they can start working in the industry. If workers are insured, it does not matter whom they work for. They can work for the greatest shonk in the world and they are still covered. I have seen plenty of instances in which companies have pulled the pin and employees, who thought that they had workers' compensation cover, were not covered because the company did not pay the premium. Mr DOLLIN: To add to what I said before, in my experience, timber-cutters cannot get cover from private companies. Private companies will not touch them with a 40-foot pole. If those workers are not covered by workers' compensation, they will have no cover at all. I imagine that that situation is the same for underground miners. This happens all the time in the timber industry. If this problem is not addressed, the families of workers who are killed will only find out afterwards that they have no cover. Mr SANTORO: In answer to the questions from the honourable member for Maryborough, presumably such people would be under some provisional tax arrangements. That is not a master/servant relationship. Those people would be able to cover themselves under the "eligible persons" provisions in the WorkCover Queensland Bill. As I have been saying throughout this debate, the Bill seeks to act as an umbrella so that maximum coverage for workers in Queensland can be achieved. Going back to the issue of PPS, as I outlined beforeand because there was agreement earlier that we will try to be as brief as possible this evening, I will not reiterate advantages are obtained by people who enter
into PPS arrangements. They receive benefits and they make a choice. When one enters into PPS arrangements, one makes a choice and there are benefits that are available. Therefore, there is an obligation on those people to take out their own insurance and that can be done under WorkCover. In the case of employers who do not cover employees where there is in fact a master/servant relationship, I recommend that honourable members read the Act as a whole. Under proposed new section 52, there is an obligation on employers to provide insuranceWorkCover or workers' compensation, whatever it is called. In other words, employers are liable at law whether or not they are paying a premium. If they are not paying premiums and if they are not covering their workers by insuring them, penalties will be imposed by the provisions within the WorkCover Queensland Bill. The Bill retains the previous penalties imposed on employers who are failing to insure, and the Bill also allows WorkCover to recover premiums, claims costs, damages paid and penalties from uninsured employers. This includes a penalty equal to 100 per cent of the employer's unpaid premium and a 50 per cent penalty on top of the cost of the claims paid. This Bill seeks to place the legal liability on employers to insure their workers. If they do not do so and a claim is made, employers are liable in a big way and penalties are involved. Mr DOLLIN: With all due respect, I think the Minister has missed the point that I am trying to make. For example, a sawmiller tells a timber-cutter to cut so much timber at a set price per cubic metre. No tax is taken out of the payment to the timber-cutter. The timbercutter cannot obtain cover privately. He has absolutely no hope of doing so. Insurers would not touch him with a 40-foot pole. These people are being left out in the cold. Mr Santoro: WorkCover. He can apply to
Mr DOLLIN: Under WorkCover? Mr Santoro: He can apply to Workcover, and he's not covered under the current Act. Mr DOLLIN: He used to be covered before as a pieceworker, but I think he misses out under this legislation. Mr Santoro: You've just changed the rules. Mr DOLLIN: I would consider him to be a pieceworker.
4944
4 Dec 1996
Mr Santoro: Under the current Act, he is not covered. Under this Act he will be able to apply to WorkCover for cover. Mr DOLLIN: I have employed many hundreds of timber-cutters in my time and they have always been covered. Mr Santoro: You missed the principle of the workers' compensation system. The workers' compensation system places the obligation on the employer to cover a worker, not a contractor. Mr Ardill: We can't hear what you are saying. Mr SANTORO: The case that the member is describing is not an employer/worker relationship. Mr DOLLIN: Where will he fit now? If he is a solo cutter, where will he fit? Mr SANTORO: He comes under the category of "eligible person" and he can apply for cover under the WorkCover Bill. Mr DOLLIN: Will he get cover? Mr SANTORO: Of course he will get cover. Mr ARDILL: Either the Minister is missing something or he is misinforming the Parliament. Proposed section 52 speaks about a "worker". Clause 12 describes and defines what a worker is. It says that anyone other than a PAYE worker is not a worker. It excludes people covered in proposed section 52. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to mislead the Parliament. I return to the point that the comprehensive system we have had in place covers all employees. The Minister is fragmenting that system. The Minister is taking people out of the system. As the member for Maryborough said, a lot of those people will not be able to obtain cover from any private insurers, and there is no way that they will be covered by workers' compensation. If the Minister accepts the amendment moved by the shadow Minister, he will cover that situation. We will return to a comprehensive system and all people who are legitimate workers will be covered, as opposed to what will happen under this phoney Bill. Mr SANTORO: I again refer honourable members to the relevant provisions within the Bill, even though we are not covering these sections now. For the clarity of the debate on this clause, I again refer honourable members to page 40 of the Bill, which defines "eligible person" as "An 'eligible person' is an individual who, other than as a worker, receives
remuneration or other benefit for performing work, or providing services as (a) a contractor; or (b) a self-employed individual; or (c) a director of a corporation; or (d) a trustee; or (e) a member of a partnership. Eligible person may apply to be insured WorkCover may enter into a contract of insurance for this subdivision with an eligible person." The entitlements of eligible persons are also defined. Under proposed section 28, there is also a provision for "other persons". For the sake of the clarity of the record, I will read that proposed section. It states "WorkCover may enter into a contract of insurance for this subdivision with a person (the 'insured person'), whether or not an employer, for injury sustained by other persons. The contract may cover a person who performs work or provides a service from which the insured person gains a benefit for the same entitlements provided to a worker under this Act. Cover under the contract must not exceed the cover available under this Act for (a) compensation; or (b) damages." I fail to see the point that honourable members are making. There are provisions within this Bill to cover workers such as those described by the honourable member for Maryborough and others. As I have said, the Bill before us this evening seeks to cast the net as widely as possible. It seeks to insure people who currently do not have access to cover under the current Act, and it also seeks to tackle the problem that honourable members opposite seem to be talking about constantly, and that is the problem of avoidance. This Bill puts the emphasis on the employer to insure all of the people whom he employs. If he does not insure all of the people whom he employs and with whom he enters into a master/servant relationship, he is legally liable. When a claim is put in and he has not insured that worker, he will be penalised heavily, as I have just mentioned. I do not know why honourable members refuse to concede the point that is clearly stated in the Bill and which I have now repeated several times.
4 Dec 1996
4945
Mr LUCAS: The Minister obviously is not in a position to understand the words of the Bill. "May" does not mean "shall" or "must". What my honourable colleagues asked was: in situations where no-one will touch them at the moment because they are perceived as being a bad riskthat is, they cannot get insurancethe Bill says that WorkCover "may" decide to do it. It may or may not do that. It does not say "shall" or "must". If it says "must", at least we have some comfort that WorkCover will take on the risk. For example, with respect to compulsory third-party insurance, insurance companies must take on the risk; they cannot refuse to insure anybody. Under this Bill, they may decline to do so. They might say, "You're a window cleaner on a high-rise building. Sure you can apply to us, but we don't want to take you on, because you're a bad risk." That is not what the Minister is suggesting. Mr SANTORO: The analogy that is again put forward by the honourable member just does not stack up. At the moment, they can either apply to workers' compensation, or they can seek to take out their own insurance. Under this Bill, their coverage is in fact expanded. Mr PURCELL: Is the Minister saying that he will guarantee that WorkCover will take on all comers that no insurance company will cover, that is, employees who cannot get insurance anywhere else? Mr SANTORO: Again, the honourable member fails to understand the major reason why workers' compensation, as it existed to date, and WorkCover, as it will exist from today onwards, operates. It is meant to cover workers who are in a master/servant relationship. Other provisions will apply to those who are not in a master/servant relationship, and they will be able to avail themselves of the other options under the legislation. My officers advise me that WorkCover will take on everyone. Mr Ardill: It's not in the Act. Mr SANTORO: I am acting on advice. That is the answer. Mr ARDILL: I thank the Minister for now adding clauses 25 and 28 to the equation, because that does assist somewhat. However, there is still a problem with the use of the word "may" and the definition of "worker". Despite anything the Minister said, the legislation means that a worker can believe that he is being covered by his employer and have absolutely no knowledge that he is in fact not covered. Therefore, he may not know that he needs to seek coverage for himself. In clauses
12, 25, 28 and 52 there is no compulsion for the employer to take that action if the employee is not a PAYE employee. There is no compulsion if the employee is not a PAYE worker. Again I state that it should be, as it always has been, compulsory for employers to cover their employees. There is no other effective way of getting sufficient premiums into the system. There is no other way of assuring workers that they are being covered unless it is compulsory. It has always been that way. This is fragmentation of a system that has worked well. There have been three years that I know of when there have been huge losses in the Workers' Compensation Fund, and it has always picked up, and it will pick up again, as most observers agree, from the present problems that exist. There is absolutely no justification for not continuing with this comprehensive system and compulsorily requiring employers to cover all of their true employees. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I hurried into the Chamber when I heard the Minister's previous response because, quite frankly, it is out of order. The word "may" permits the WorkCover organisation to enter into the kinds of contracts that are anticipated, but it does not require it to do so. This means that the wording that is contained in this Bill, despite what the Minister said a moment ago, allows WorkCover to pick and choose. It can occur that people will not be insured. There can be people out there who cannot get insurance through private industry and who will not be able to get insurance through this organisation. The words "may", "must" and "can" have particular meanings in statutory interpretation. Mr Purcell: "Shall". Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: "Shall" is another. The meaning is particular. It is clear. If the Minister's intention is as he states, he should move an amendment to the particular clauses that he says protect the people who are left out under Clause 12 which is being discussed now. The last time I took the dictionary off the desk in the Chamber I was subtly reminded by a Minister at the time that it was not the Macquarie Dictionary, which is the appropriate dictionary for statutory interpretation in Queensland. In fact, the Chamber still holds a Webster's Dictionary, and it would be nice if that were updated. If one picked up the dictionary off the table in this Chamber, one would find that the word "may" gives no protection whatsoever. If the Minister is genuine about his intention, he should agree
4946
4 Dec 1996
to make the appropriate amendment so that all people can be assured that they will be able to be covered. Mr Ardill: This amendment does that. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: As the member for Archerfield states, the amendment moved by the member for Kedron does precisely that, and the Minister should accept it. Ms BLIGH: When I looked at the amendment proposed by the member for Kedron, it seemed to me to be a comprehensive amendment that would remove some of the doubts that have been raised by previous speakers about the definition of "worker" and how it may operate in the proposed legislation. I asked myself what harm can be done by providing a more comprehensive definition. The only argument I have heard the Minister advance in opposition to the amendment of the member for Kedron is that, in the Minister's own words, it casts the net too widely and it may in fact provide cover to people who are not currently eligible for cover under the current Workers Compensation Act. For the benefit of myself and presumably other members in the Chamber, could the Minister perhaps point to areas of the proposed amendment which would provide cover to categories of workers who in his view are either not covered at the moment or whom it would be inappropriate to cover? Mr NUNN: Before I move on to something else, I want to make this point: when I first came into the Chamber tonight the Minister had with him two advisers. Now there is the Minister and four advisers and they cannot make head nor tail of it. How do they expect some poor battler out in the bush with a waterbag and a cut lunch to understand what the four of them cannot work out? Earlier, the member for Maryborough explained that the timber cutter was covered by workers' compensation under the old Act. If he wanted to get a bit of extra private insurance, he could not get it because no insurance companies would touch him with a 40-foot pole, neither would they touch underground contract miners and the like because the work they do is too dangerous. It has now been said that, under this legislation, they will be able to apply to WorkCover and WorkCover may accommodate them. Even if WorkCover was forced to accommodate them, what is the difference? Why is another set of circumstances needed before that poor worker can be looked after? Why can he not be lumped in with the rest? What is wrong with that? It is unnecessarily complicated. The
Minister should now retreat gracefully, accept the amendment and all of those workers will be caught in that safety net, the same as they used to be. Mr ROBERTS: I think the Minister has been skirting around the issue. I ask him to clarify this situation: if a worker is receiving a weekly payment from an employer and genuinely believes that taxation is being deducted and workers' compensation payments are being made on his behalf and he has an injury and makes a claim to the board and the board makes some inquiries with the employer who says that the person was not an employee but a subcontractor, is that person entitled to proceed with his claim and how will the decision be made as to whether he is in fact entitled to make the claim? In fact, is that person an employee or a worker in respect of the legislation? Mr SANTORO: In that situation, that worker is clearly covered. There is a master/servant relationship. The employer is liable for claims. The employer should be paying the premium, and if he has not been paying sufficient premiums, there are the penalties involved against an employer that I mentioned before. Mr PURCELL: I would like to take the Minister to task on a couple of points that he made in regard to employers with their obligations. That is a point that we have been belabouring for a long time. However, the obligations are there now for employers to do certain things under the Workers Compensation Act and they do not. I do not think a new Act will make any difference to them at all. It will not make one iota of difference. Employers will continue to skirt around paying their premiums. In addition, many people will not be covered by workers' compensation. Earlier, I asked the Minister whether he knew the number of wage and salary earners in Queensland for whom funds were collected. I did not receive an answer to that. The statistics I have indicate that in 1990-91 the number was 1,064,000. I think the reason that the funds are not being collected is fairly simple: I do not think there are too many insurance companies that do not take names of people they have insured and payments can be made in arrears. I would like to know of a motor vehicle insurance company that does not want to know what a person's name is and does not require the payment of any premiums but if a person prangs their car they can give the company some money and their name and receive payment. That is just crazy.
4 Dec 1996
4947
Mr Rowell: What did you blokes do up until eight or nine months ago about it? Mr PURCELL: What we were trying to do was to make the compliance rate much higher. I know how I would have gone about making the compliance rate much higher. It would probably be different from what actually happened. The other point that I have to make is that in dollar-driven industries where the lowest price is going to get the job or going to move the cargo from one area to another, they will be avoiding their obligations. If a few employers avoid their obligations, other employers have to do the same thing. That is why operators in the building industry and haulage companies and all sorts of companies are not paying their premiums nowand not only their workers' compensation premiums but also a lot of other taxes that legally they are bound to pay. While we continue to have industries that operate on the lowest price, a better collection method must be implemented. In the building industry, if an operator does not do what the others are doing, he will be sitting at home on his backside and not working. Those operators will not be getting any work because they do not offer the lowest price. So people have to skim their workers' compensation. They have to operate a few companies: one company pays the premiums, and in relation to the other two companies many statutory obligations are avoided. But if any employee of those companies is injured, that employee is said to be working for the company that is insured. Because no names are given there is no way that the Government is going to know the difference, and the workers' compensation system picks up the liability. That is the whole reason for this Bill: hundreds of millions of dollars are not being collected. Merely saying that employers have an obligation to do something because it is legal will not make them do it. They have not shown a tendency to comply fully in the pastthey have not done it for the last 20 yearsand I do not think they are going to start tomorrow if this Bill is passed tonight. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I want to raise two issues. One is the question of the obligation of WorkCover to take a contract of insurance. The Bill at the moment says "may". The Minister's comment was reassuring but contrary to that wording. WorkCover will become the insurer of last resort, and I do not have a problem with that. The wording in the Bill will have to be changed. I ask for the Minister's comment on that.
The second concern that has been raised is that the Bill changes the global cover of compensation to cover PAYE. That draws a clear line in the sand. The concern is that those who go up to an employer are not offered the option to go on PPS or PAYE; they are told that they can have the job if they are PPS. Will there be a statutory obligation on that employer to also advise the new employee under PPS that they are not insured and that they must arrange their own workers' compensation cover? Mr SANTORO: Just to clarify a couple of pointsfirst of all, there will continue to be avoidance within any industry for as long as a worker is not injured. When an employee or a worker is injured and that person puts in a claim, what will then happen is that that person will be hit with the heavy penalties that I mentioned before. The system that is in place at the moment is a lax system which encourages avoidance. The new system puts in place a clear legal obligation on the employer to cover his or her worker, and if they do not, when the injured worker puts out his or her hand under the workers' compensation system, they will have to then cough up the heavy penalties and the premiums that I outlined before. In terms of the category of eligible personsand most of the people who have been mentioned in the debate fall under the category of a contractor, a self-employed individual, a director of a corporation, a trustee or a member of a partnershipthose people at the moment have an option to be covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. That particular option has been preserved within this Bill. As to the reason for the word "may"the advice that I have is that WorkCover will be an insurance company of last resort, as the honourable member for Gladstone has said, but if we put the word "must" in there, we then remove the option that is available under the current Act. Mr Lucas: No, you don't. Mr SANTORO: Yes, we do, because at the moment those people have the option. On that basis, we will not accept the amendment because all that the amendment seeks to do is to put in place precisely the same arrangements. In terms of the figures that are required by the honourable member for Bulimbawe cannot give him the precise figures in relation to the coverage, but we can tell him that according to ABS statistics there are approximately 1,261,000 wage and salary
4948
4 Dec 1996
earners in Queensland at this point in time. The member can work on that. Ms BLIGH: There are a couple of issues that I want to raise with the Minister. First of all, I would have to say that it is appalling to hear a Minister stand in this Chamber and say, in relation to an Act and a scheme that he is responsible for administering, that in his view compliance will never be 100 per cent, that compliance will always fail and that there will not be any compliance until it has been breached. We have a new piece of legislation before the Parliament and the Minister stands here and says that it would require a breach to see compliance. Mr Santoro: What did you do about it? Ms BLIGH: It is not my responsibility; it is the Minister's, and it is about time he accepted it. I would like to deal with the PAYE issue. I once again refer the Minister to clause 12, because he has answered question after question by referring to the master/servant relationship. While I cannot see reference to those words in the Bill, I presume he is relying on the words "contract of service" when he gives that answer. But I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that two things are required. After "contract of service" is the word "and", and then it is followed by the requirement that to be a worker one must be a PAYE taxpayer. The member for Gladstone raised the question of whether or not there would be any statutory obligation on employers to warn people that in fact they might fall into some other category. The member for Hervey Bay has specifically asked the Minister how a worker will be dealt with who honestly believed that they were a PAYE taxpayer, who believed that they were having tax taken out of their salary, who believed themselves to fall into that category but found out too late that they did not. The Minister has failed to answer that question, and I ask him to address the example. I similarly ask the Minister to answer the question that I have already raised, that is, that he is criticising the amendment foreshadowed to the Committee on the basis that it simply seeks to put into place the same arrangements as currently exist. I do not regard that as a valid criticism unless the Minister can criticise the arrangements as they currently exist. If he has a problem with the width of the net as it is currently cast, could the Minister please explain to the Committee which categories of worker the current provisions provide for whom he does not
believe it is appropriate ought to be covered by WorkCover? If he is unable to answer that, then it is difficult for me to see the problem that he has with the current arrangements. Finally, I would like to address the question of "may". It is again in my view simply appalling for the Minister to administer an Act that clearly says a three-letter word, "may"and many speakers before me have addressed the meaning of the wordwhen he stands here and says, "Well, as the Minister I think it really means 'shall'." If in the Minister's view it means "shall" or "must", he should put it in the legislation. He should put his own amendment forward so that it says that. The legislation does not say that as it currently stands. The Bill is very specific. It says "may". "May" means "maybe", and the legislation does not offer to people the protection that the Minister is currently claiming it does. If the Minister could answer those specific questions, I would appreciate it. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member again raises the question of compliance. I have answered that question by saying that the current Act, which the member's party when in Government introduced, has certainly not tackled the issue of compliance in any significant manner, so much so that all honourable members opposite who have spokenif not all of them, the vast majorityhave complained how we have not tackled the issue of compliance. I refute that. I have stated now on three or four occasions how the legal obligation for insurance rests fairly and squarely on the employer and that failure to observe that legal obligation will in fact incur heavy penalties. We have significantly tackled the issue of compliance which the members opposite are complaining about and it is in existence because we are dealing with their Act, which is deficient and is clearly not leading to any significant compliance standard. In terms of whether somebody will be notified by the prospective employer that if they are on a PPS arrangement they need to take out their own insurance, I have again repeatedly stated that the Division of Workers Compensation or WorkCover, as it will be known, will undertake a very major advertising campaign to make people entering into certain work arrangements aware of what are their responsibilities in terms of insurance. I have said that three or four times and I do not know how many more times I need to say it. In terms of the words "may" and "must", as I have indicated, the provisions within the current Act reflect the same situation. To
4 Dec 1996
4949
change that word to "must" will in fact deprive people of the current ability that they have in terms of self-insurance. Mr NUNN: I would like to point out that under this proposed clause, and human nature being what it is, in the industries that we are talking about, where there is a fellow on his own being classed as a contractor, an employer is going to offer him only the PPS system and when the employer does that, the employee is wiped from compo altogether. He cannot then get accommodation from a private insurance company, so effectively the Minister has thrown him on the scrap heap. Question That clause 12, as read, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
The numbers being equal, Mr Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clause 13 Mr BRADDY (9.49 p.m.): Clause 13 is really part of the same debate as clause 12 and it is consequential to it. There is just one question that I would ask the Minister because I do not believe he made it clear. If a person is a worker by definition under the current Act, irrespective of whether the employer had paid the premium or not, the worker is covered for workers' compensation. The Minister made a lot of the point in the debate on clause 12 that if a worker should be covered, the employer would now be faced with very large penalties. The point the Minister failed to makeand I want absolute clarification from him on thisis that under this new legislation, and we are dealing now with PAYE workers, if a worker was not covered but should have been, is that worker covered for workers' compensation, irrespective of what penalty or liability the employer has to pay, and how is it determined
whether he is a worker or not if the employer argues that he is not? Mr SANTORO: That is a good question. It certainly is the intention that where an employee believes that he is a PAYE taxpayer he will be covered, subject to him of course seeking a ruling from the Australian Taxation Office. Of course, WorkCover would recover penalties from the employer. If honourable members read the Explanatory Notes on clause 13, they will see that WorkCover will cover those people while that ruling is in fact being received. Mr LUCAS: My colleague the shadow Minister very adequately pointed out the first problem with clause 13, that is, what if employees believe that they are PAYE taxpayers? Of course, the Minister pointed out that that employee would have to go through some convoluted process to establish whether he is a worker or not. Mr Bredhauer: You have to go to the tax office to find that out. Mr LUCAS: The member is right. That person would have to go to the tax office. Would he have to go and check with his fortune teller as well? Would he have to read the entrails of a chook? The Minister is talking about bringing in an Act which will streamline the administration of workers' compensation, yet we have all this backwards and forwards, toing-and-froing, before we can even decide whether a person is entitled to be paid. The worker is sitting at home, needing physiotherapy or medical treatment, and the Minister says the worker has to go to Canberra to have a talk to the deputy commissioner. How is that a sensible administration of an Act? My colleague mentioned the situation in which an employee believes that he is a PAYE taxpayer and the employer says that that is not the case. What about the situation in which, on any argument, the employee is a PAYE taxpayer but the employer does not remit the group tax, or treat him as a PAYE taxpayer? In other words, what is the situation when the employer is pocketing the money? The employee does not know that this is happening and thinks that he is receiving a net pay each week. The employee does not know that the employer is really pocketing that money. That happens. Mr FitzGerald: He is covered. Mr LUCAS: How is he covered? Mr SANTORO: Again the honourable member fails to understand the incentives contained within this legislation and that the
4950
4 Dec 1996
employer is liable. If avoidance is occurring, once an injured worker lodges a claim, that claim will be honoured by WorkCover once a very simple form is filled in. That form will be sent to the Australian Taxation Office. It is not a convoluted process. It is not complicated. That form seeks a ruling. During that time, the claim will be honoured by WorkCover. As I have stated before, because legal liability exists, from this point onwardsand this addresses a point that was made by the member for South Brisbanethere is real incentive for non-compliance to be stamped out across the economy. Members opposite complain about non-compliance. Mr Elder: How? Mr SANTORO: The honourable member for Capalaba asks the question: how? The legal obligation rests on employers to cover their employees whether they have taken out insurance or not. WorkCover will honour the claims and will cover the workers. Once that relationship between employer and worker is established, the employer will be hit with the penalties. That is the incentive to stamp out non-compliance. If the honourable member does not understand, I suspect that he is grossly deficient. Mr PURCELL: We are talking about the Taxation Office. I know that nobody has any love for it. I would like to tell a story that illustrates how it deals with employees and what it thinks about collecting tax from the building industry. When Howard was the Treasurer under Fraser, the then Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation, Vince Dobinson, and I had a meeting with Howard on the Gold Coast. The coast was absolutely cracking. It was the start of the boom in the early seventies on the Gold Coast, and there was work everywhere. I can assure honourable members that the Government collected no workers' compensation premiums from anybody, because everybody was working cash in handthe whole lot of them. We were concerned because large numbers of members were coming to us because they were not getting paid holiday pay, sick pay, wet pay or Mr FitzGerald: Is this a confession, is it? Mr PURCELL: No. I am just pointing out that Howard, who was Treasurer of this country at the time, was not concerned. We had a meeting with him. At the time Australia was negotiating to buy a couple of flat-top boats from Maggie Thatcher, because she did not want them until she was involved in the Falkland Islands war. Australia could have
bought half a dozen of those boats if it could have got the tax that was not being paid down on the coast. If the Minister thinks that officers in the Taxation Office will help him, he should realise that they do not care. As long as they get their PPS tax, which in our industry is 20 per cent across-the-board, they do not care about the other 2 per cent. They will not be worried about whether or not a person receives workers' compensation in Queensland. They will not care. This clause will hunt employees into the PPS system. This will provide an incentive for an employer to put that person there. Paying a workers' compensation premium will be one obligation fewer for employers to have to meet. I have not yet met too many employers who like parting with money. If they can get out of an obligation, they will. This clause will make it easier for them. They will just put their staff on PPS and they will not have to pay workers' compensation. I can see the Workers Compensation Fund in Queensland going down to zero, because other sections of the legislation allow large employers who have good safety records to opt out. Myer and other large employers will get out. Currently, that is jam for the Workers Compensation Board in Queensland. They collect a lot of premiums for very little outgoing. If we are going to end up with a scheme that is made up of all the highrisk industries such as the building industry, the timber industry and the mining industry, we will be back here in a few years' time in a worse position than that in which the Minister thinks we are presently. I do not think that we are helping the workers in this State. In a couple of years I will remind members opposite about this. People they know will come to Brisbane from the country and they will work in the building industry, because they will have nowhere else to go if there is no work for them in their country area. They will be here for a period and if they are injured they will be put on the scrap heap. That happens to enough of them already. It is an industry that attracts people who do not have many skills. They have the ability to work and they work hard, but they cannot hand over a piece of paper and say, "I've got a degree," or "I've got a trade." Those people end up in the building industry out of necessity. As I said earlier, not too many people leave high school and say, "My ambition is to be a builder's labourer." They do it out of necessity. The money is good but the work is hard. The accident rate is very high. It has probably the second-highest rate for accidents, following the mining industry. Around seven persons in every 100
4 Dec 1996
4951
who work in this industry have accidents and need workers' compensation at some point. Mr ARDILL: I would like to support what my colleague has said. I return again to the subject of the non-comprehensive nature of what is going through this place tonight. The legislation is watering down the ability of WorkCover to receive sufficient premiums to keep the business going. That is what it is all about. Any employer who does not have a risk industry will not go into WorkCover if they can go somewhere else. They will encourage their employees to take out their own insurance through a private company offering lower premiums than WorkCover will be able to offer. That is what the insurance industry is about: it is about managing risk, assessing risk and receiving premiums from people who will not claimon the off-chance that they might have a problemto pay for those who are certain to claim. That is what the industry is about. I will go back to that same subject: the whole workers' compensation concept of 1916, which has been in operation for 80 years, has been based on a comprehensive scheme. That is what the Minister is taking away; he is taking away that ability to obtain premiums comprehensively across-the-board. It will mean the destruction of the system. It will get to the stage at which Ministers, such as this Minister and other Liberal Ministers, will say, "The whole system does not work. It is too expensive. We cannot afford it. We will abolish it or we will hand it over to private enterprise to run some sort of bastardised scheme." The ordinary worker will suffer. The whole community will suffer because of the problems, as will the health system, but the ordinary workers, particularly those working in a high-risk industry, will suffer the greatest from what we are going through tonight. The Minister, by his refusal to accept the Opposition's amendment to clause 12, has conned the Chamber. He has given us all sorts of excuses about there being other ways of picking it up and that the workers will be covered. That is despite the fact that clause 12 was defining the difference between those whose employers will have to pay the premium and those whose employers will not have to pay the premium. That is what clause 12 is about. The Minister has conned the Chamber by trying to tell us that these people will still be picked up under clauses 25, 26, 28 and 52. They will not. That is what clause 12 was about. Similarly, clause 13 separates the sheep from the goats. That is what it is all about. The goats will be the poor people who will not be able to get adequate coverage anywhere else.
Also, the Minister has fed to the member for Gladstone the ridiculous story that employees will be able to go to WorkCover as a company of last resort. That is absolute nonsense. The Minister has conned the member for Gladstone. He certainly has not conned the Opposition because it knows that that system will not work. How many insurance companies does an employee The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member is debating the previous clause again. This clause refers to the definition of a PAYE taxpayer. Mr ARDILL: It is separating PAYE taxpayers from others, those who will not be covered. Those people who are being singled out by this clause as well as clause 12 will have to go around umpteen insurance companies trying to get cover before they can then go to WorkCover to try to get insurance cover. The Minister said that it was a matter of last resort. That means that, in the interim, those people will not be covered because they will be going around the world trying to get cover. That is not satisfactory. Mr MULHERIN: The honourable Minister said that there was protection in the definition of "pay-as-you-earn taxpayer". On reading the Explanatory Notes, I see that there is a clause that refers to employees who do not have a proper understanding of their tax arrangements and, if they get injured, that WorkCover "may" consider a claim. WorkCover is not compelled to consider a claim. I believe that this clause will hold up the processes and that there will be a lengthy delay. The Minister said that those people could apply to the Taxation Commissioner for a ruling. If a person applies to the Taxation Commissioner for a ruling and the Taxation Commissioner rules that that person is not a pay-as-you-earn taxpayer, even though at the time that person in all honesty thought that he or she was being employed as a pay-as-youearn taxpayer, once the Taxation Commissioner rules, even though that person might have started receiving payments, WorkCover is then compelled to recoup those payments from the injured worker. There is no right of appeal. It is really up to an officer at WorkCover to determine if the claim should go ahead in the first place. So I believe that there is not a safety mechanism there. There needs to be an appeal process for an injured worker. This point was sheeted home to me today when a constituent, a Mr Thompson, rang me about his 16-year-old son who had a job in the Northern Territory. It was that boy's first job and he was severely injured. This poor 16-
4952
4 Dec 1996
year-old kid did not know if he was a PAYE taxpayer or PPS. This poor kid was paid under PPS. Now he is maimed; he will never work again. He has no right of appeal. He has just been wiped. I really believe that there has to be an appeal mechanism. Mr Schwarten: That's what they want to do. Mr MULHERIN: Yes, that is right. The appeal mechanism contained in this Bill is the Taxation Commissioner. Whatever the Taxation Commissioner rules, WorkCover will stand by it. The Minister has four advisers all trying to work out this clause. Mr SANTORO: I heard an interjection before from the honourable member for Lytton asking how WorkCover will advance benefits to a worker who is seeking a declaration from the Australian Taxation Office. The answer to that is on page 110 of the Bill under the heading "Weekly payment of compensation", "Advances on account". So there is a very specific provision in the Bill for that. Again, honourable members keep on talking about the issue of non-compliance. I think that I have spoken until I am almost blue in the face about the way in which the legislation seeks to put the incentive back into the Ms Bligh: It's still inadequate. Mr SANTORO: If we did nothing, the honourable member for South Brisbane would complain that we are not tackling the noncompliance which is currently taking place under the current Act, which was the Labor Party's Act. I have stated how this Bill will provide the incentive to employers to insure by placing the legal responsibility on them to do so in addition to the penalties being applied to those who, in fact, do not pay their insurance. Mrs Bird: But it still doesn't work. Mr SANTORO: It will work because there are sanctions in the legislation. Mrs Bird: It won't work. Mr SANTORO: Obviously the honourable member does not understand the legislation. Ms BLIGH: I would like to raise a couple of issues in relation to this clause. Firstly, I want to address the comments that have just been made by the Minister. The Minister is saying that there are two things in this Bill that will increase compliance. The first is that the Bill places a legal obligation on employers to become insured; the second is that, if employers fail to insure when they are obliged
to do so, there will be a penalty if there is a claim made against them. What has been established in the debate so far is that, firstly, the legal obligations that currently exist on employers will be reduced. There will be fewer employers obliged by a piece of legislation of this State to insure. So the Minister's argument on that one is another attempt by him to perpetrate a fraud in this Chamber. Secondly, the Minister says that the penalties in this legislation provide incentives for employers to insure. I have never heard so much codswallop in all my life. In the circumstances that have been outlined again and again in the real life examples given by members on this side, we will find that a dispute will arise. An injured worker will turn up at WorkCover seeking compensation. WorkCover will go to the employer who says, "That person is not a PAYE taxpayer. That is why I didn't take out insurance for them for compensation." In that situation, the employer will have every incentive to prove that the worker was not a PAYE taxpayer. Under the Minister's scheme, the employer will have every incentive to go to every length to demonstrate that he or she was not required to take PAYE tax deductions from the employee, because the minute it is proved that there was a requirement to do so, the employer is liable for a penalty. The Minister regards this penalty as a disincentive. In my view, it provides an incentive for employers to employ people outside the PAYE tax system and, if they cannot get them that way, when a claim is a made against them and they are uninsured they will find ways to evade the responsibilities of both the claim and the penalty that the Minister heralds. That is an absolute disgrace! It is an attempt to hoodwink people. As the honourable member for Archerfield has said, nobody on this side of the Chamber is in any way hoodwinked by the proposal. The Minister is seeking to limit the number of workers who will be eligible for workers' compensation as a way to save money. That is an absolute disgrace and the Minister should have come clean about it. The shadow Minister has asked a very clear question: which provisions of the Bill will ensure that an employee on whose behalf PAYE tax should have been deducted but was not, or who was not supposed to be in the PAYE taxation system but who honestly believed that to be the case, will that employee be protected? The member for Mackay has correctly drawn the attention of the Committee to pages 12 and 13 of the
4 Dec 1996
4953
Explanatory Notes and the pathetic attempt to deal with these circumstances. Under this provision, a claimant in the circumstances that I have outlined will be required to provide evidence that they personally applied to the Taxation Commissioner for a ruling as to whether or not they should have been taxed under the PAYE system. If the commissioner rules that they should not have been so taxed, WorkCover will recover the compensation payments made to them. What a generous approach! Take the example of some poor coot who injures himself at work. He thought that he was a PAYE taxpayer; he was getting a wage every week, so he thought he fell into the "employee" category as most people understand it. Through that injury, his life is wrecked. He goes to WorkCover and is told, "There is a technicality. There's something wrong with the way that your tax has been paid. You're not actually in this category." The person says, "What can I do about these circumstances?" He is told, "Well look, here is this complicated application you can make to the Tax Commissioner but, don't worry, while he is ruling on this, we will pay you compensation." In 12 months' time, the Tax Commissioner rules that the person was not a PAYE taxpayer and, while the person is in rehab, WorkCover comes along and says, "You owe us $30,000. We'll take it out of your wages; we'll garnishee your wages if you are a public servant." With that kind of care, workers of this State have nothing to fear from the Minister. Mr FitzGerald: You have given public servants as an exampleget real! Ms BLIGH: The Government cannot garnishee the wages of other people, but that is what it will have to do. Otherwise, what will happen? Will the Government sue them in the civil courts? Is that how it will get the money back? Mr FitzGerald: How many public servants don't pay PAYEcome off it! Ms BLIGH: What if they have a new job? The honourable member should relax. I think I agree with everything that the member for Bulimba has said in this Chamber tonight, with the possible exception of his remarks about the tax department. As someone whose livelihood is dependant on a healthy public purse, I harbour certain affections for the activities carried out by the tax office. Mr FitzGerald interjected.
Ms BLIGH: For the benefit of the Leader of Government Business, I inform him that people sometimes undergo rehabilitation following injuries during which they get other jobs. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Ms BLIGH: Yes, they might have got a job in the Public Service, but the Minister and WorkCover will go after them for the period that they were compensated for from a previous occupation. They are the circumstances and they do exist. For all the affection that I harbour for its activities, the tax office is not known for anything other than a financial analysis of a situation. It is not the role of the Australian Tax Office to work out the workers' compensation problems of the Queensland Government. This Bill should address the difficulties outlined by the examples given here tonight. The Minister has yet again failed to answer the question of the shadow Minister. I do not believe that it is a difficult or an unreasonable question. Again I ask: where in the Bill is the Minister providing for the circumstances that have been outlined? Mr SANTORO: Again I refer the honourable member to proposed new section 170(1). In answer to the question of the honourable member for Mackay as to whether there is an appeal mechanism, I inform the Committee that, if a claim is rejected on the basis of a person not being a worker, that decision is subject to appeal to a magistrate. For the benefit of honourable members, I reiterate that, where there is a dispute, it is not a difficult proposition for a worker to seek a ruling from the Australian Tax Office. At that point in time, the worker will be protected. If the employee is not able to prove to the satisfaction of the WorkCover board that he is a worker, he has a right of appeal to the magistrate. That is not a complicated process under this Bill. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15 M r P E A R C E : (10.16 p.m.): Clause 15(3) applies to injuries sustained by volunteers engaged in counterdisaster operationsrural fire brigade workers, volunteer fire fighters and the like, "only while engaged in a counterdisaster operation or an emergency related function, or participating in an activity arising out of, or in the course of, a counterdisaster operation or an emergency related function, including training".
4954
4 Dec 1996
However, those people are not covered while travelling to a meeting place where they commence their duties as a member of one of those organisations. The Minister must take into consideration that a lot of those people travel long distances. For example, recently rural bush brigade people travelled as far west as Tara. They often travel in haste and in dangerous weather conditions such as cyclones, floods and storms. Those people are dedicated volunteers and I believe they are the least likely to attempt to defraud the system. If we do not ensure that they are covered when travelling between their homes and the places where they gather with the others in their organisations, we may lose very valuable volunteers. Mr SANTORO: Those people would qualify for cover under the journey claim provisions within the Bill. Mr SCHWARTEN: I do not think that the answer of the Minister has suitably clarified the situation raised by the member for Fitzroy. This question requires a definitive answer and that answer has not been forthcoming. The fact of the matter is that rural fire brigade workers do not quite fit into the mould of journey claim provisions. The travelling time issue is a real issue for them, especially as they car pool and pick people up. There is no conclusive way of defining that situation. Those people are very concerned that the legislation talks in terms of "may" and not "will". The Minister must clarify this point. While this debate has been going on, I received a fax in my office seeking some clarification of the point. I suggest that the Minister spells the answer out here and now, so that some guidance is provided for the courts when, ultimately, such a problem arises, because it sure as hell will. Mr SANTORO: As honourable members would appreciate, this is a very complicated Bill and it does Mr it. Mr SANTORO: Let me say to honourable members that I do not mind admitting that this is a very complicated Bill that cross-references to many other Acts. I draw to the attention of honourable members Schedule 2 of the WorkCover Queensland Bill and the various Acts to which it crossreferences. Page 313 of the Bill refers to provisions which interact with the State Counter-Disaster Organisation Act. In answer to the honourable member for Rockhampton, I point out that the Bill states Mulherin: And you don't understand
"The chief executive must enter into a contract of insurance with WorkCover or another insurer for insurance for members of (a) a body acting under the authority of the organisation; or (b) the SES; or (c) a local emergency service; while the members are engaged in a counterdisaster operation or an emergency related function, or participating in an activity arising out of, or in the course of, a counterdisaster operation or an emergency related function, including training, under the control of . . ." The authorities are then specified. Under the provision which states that the chief executive must enter into a contract of insurance, those types of journey claims are covered. Mr SCHWARTEN: I accept what the Minister is saying. I note that it is a complicated piece of legislation and requires a lot of cross-referencing. If we and rural firefighters had had a bit more time before this legislation was debated, perhaps we would not need to take up extra time now to find out about this. I wish to know where rural fire brigades will stand when their members have to car pool on their way to fires. From what point will they be covered? Will it be from the time that somebody rings them and they get into the vehicle to pick up their mates? Would a journey to work include a trip to a fire, and would it commence from the moment the phone rings? Those are the sorts of questions that must be answered. The Minister for Emergency Services is in the Chamber. He would have had those sorts of questions asked of him. It is important that the Minister clarifies that point. Mrs BIRD: I, too, received queries about this legislation today and yesterday, particularly in relation to the lifesaving organisation, which had special arrangements of which the Minister would be aware. Can the Minister explain to me the situation concerning lifesavers? Mr SANTORO: The arrangements in relation to lifesavers are preserved as within the current Act. As to the answer to the honourable member for Rockhampton, who again referred to journey claimsfrom the time that they get the call they are covered. If they are travelling to a place of work, if they are picking up people or attending the scene of a natural disaster, they are covered.
4 Dec 1996
4955
Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clauses 16 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23 Mr SANTORO (10.24 p.m,): I move the following amendment "At page 38, lines 25 and 26, 'in relation to an activity or program that is not performed under a detention order' omit, insert 'other than an activity or program performed while in the custody of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission'." This amendment is a very simple one which seeks to clarify that juveniles who are placed on part detention and part community release orders are covered for workers' compensation benefits while on community release orders. It is an amendment which instils more fairness and equity into this already fair and equitable Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 and 25, as read, agreed to. Clauses 26 Mr SANTORO (10.25 p.m.): I move the following amendment "At page 40, lines 15 and 16 omit, insert '26. WorkCover must enter into a contract of insurance for this subdivision with an eligible person who wishes to enter into a contract of insurance with WorkCover for this subdivision.' " During the debate on clause 12, there was some discussion as to whether or not under the Bill WorkCover had a definite obligation to enter into a contract of insurance for the subdivision of an eligible person. The Government took note of some of the points that were being made by honourable members opposite. Being the reasonable people that we are on this side of Chamber, we thought that it was a point that could be incorporated within the Bill, and we are pleased to move that amendment. Mr ARDILL: I am pleased that the Minister has moved this amendment. It is better than that which he suggested originally and is better than I had hoped for. However, I ask whether it should also be included in clause 28? Mr SANTORO: It is the opinion of the Government that employers should have the choice and, as a result, we are not conceding that clause 28 should be amended also.
Amendment agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34 Mr BRADDY (10.28 p.m.): This is another very important definition, one that was canvassed at some length during the secondreading debate. It is very important that we look at the issue very carefully in the debate on the clauses. Clause 34(1) states "An 'injury' is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury." This has been a very significant change from the current legislation. The current legislation provides that it has to be "a significant" injury rather than "the major significant" injury. The change is very significant. We in the Opposition believe most strongly, as do the Queensland Law Society, the trade union movement and objective observers across the State, that this will have a very detrimental effect on the right of workers to claim damages. We believe that it has been brought about partly because of wrong ideological approaches. The Law Society believesand I think with some degree of accuracythat the new test is clearly intended to eliminate all back claims and most aggravation injuries from access to statutory benefits and the common law remedies, because the worker will not be able to discharge the onus of proving that the injury sustained in the course of the employment was the major significant factor causing the incapacity. To bring about a change in the definition of "injury" in this way in order to cut out back claims and other claims which cause a lot of debate in the medical field and in the insurance industry is, of course, totally unfair. We have a society which rightly says that if a person does have some form of back problem and then aggravates that injury at work, that aggravation should be sufficientwhich it is under the current definitionto make a claim upon. Back claims, of course, are just examples of what can occur. But the Law Society says that these are the ones most likely to be affected. I think the community believes that, too. The community accepts that if someone has a pre-existing condition which is aggravated by what occurs at work, that person should be paid compensation. The community acceptsand rightly sothat we are people and that we do not arrive each day at work in some pure or pristine physical condition. Such things as bad backs are
4956
4 Dec 1996
common to human beings right around the world. To bring in this definition, which we believe was suggested by one of the employer organisations without any real prospect of it being accepted, has been a real shock to the people of Queensland and to those people who are aware of the seriousness of what the Government is doing. We adamantly and strongly oppose the new definition of "injury". We think it is a disgraceful change. We have proposed an amendment which would be to keep the current definition of "injury". We will therefore oppose the new definition in the Bill. We will divide the Committee and, if we are successful in dividing the Committee, the amendment we will move will be to retain the definition in the current terms, a definition which is fair and just to the workers of this State and to the employers of this State. Mr ROBERTS: I support the retention of the current definition, but I wanted to raise a specific matter about the wording of the proposed definition, and it relates to the use of the termand this has been flagged by the shadow Minister"the major significant factor". The Explanatory Notes point out very clearly that the reason for the new definition was to exclude those injuries which have only a minimal work-related component. The issue that I wanted to draw to the attention of the Minister was this: if, for instance, a worker had a congenital condition and he suffered at work an injury which was totally unrelated to that particular congenital condition, but in an analysis of the contributing factors to the particular injury, which might have been a cut on the hand or the loss of an arm or whatever, it was determined that the work-related factors contributed 49 per cent of the blame towards the injury and the congenital condition suffered by the worker, 51 per cent, under this definition there is no discretion at all offered to the court because the major significant factor was a congenital condition suffered by the worker and therefore that worker is not eligible for compensation. My question is: would the use of the word "a" instead of "the" at least allow a worker who possessed a major condition such as a congenital factor to claim compensation? Mr PURCELL: I agree with the two previous speakers in relation to the effect that this provision will have particularly on people who work in the building industry. The State Statistician's figures for 1991 show that injuries such as strains and sprains in the building industry accounted for 65.1 per cent of all injuries. That will make it near impossible for those people to claim workers' compensation if
they are PAYE employees. Back injuries accounted for 25 per cent, or 2.5 per cent of the total injuries for workers' compensation. On numerous occasions, I have appeared on behalf of members before medical tribunals and boards whose attitude is that from the day you get up on your hind legs and start to walk, your back starts to deteriorate until the day you die. I think the shadow Minister put it quite eloquently when he said we are really going to throw all those people out and not care about them. People get certain wear and tear in their body just being alive. It is crazy to suggest that people will not be covered by workers' compensation if they take those sorts of injuries to work. Whether one is working for an employer and suffers some sort of dramatic back injury Mr Veivers: You will end up with a crook back. Mr PURCELL: I will. This microphone is not tall enough. I should stand up straight. Mr Veivers: candidate. You will be the first
Mr PURCELL: That is right. I am giving myself a bad back. Throughout their working life, people use their hands and their back, but those in the labouring and construction areas in particular use their back more than others. It may not happen while they are working for their present employer, but over their working life most people will suffer a bad back. I do not know how it can be said that that particular injury is assessable at a certain percentage. Mr PEARCE: During the debate this afternoon I raised an issue on which I may have been a long way off the mark. I would appreciate it if the Minister gave me a couple of minutes, and then if I am off the mark he will set me straight. This clause refers to "or in the course of, employment if the employment is the major significant factor". The scenario that I put forward is that of a welder or a boilermaker and an offsider doing a job in a workshop and a truck driver who is standing by observing, and who is not part of that actual job that is taking place, is hit in the eye by a bit of flying metal and he becomes an injured worker. Because he is not participating in that particular activity, will he be covered by workers' compensation? It is not very clear; that is the point I am trying to make. Mr SANTORO: The advice is that because work is the cause of that injury, he would in fact be fully covered. That is the assurance that I can give to the honourable member.
4 Dec 1996
4957
We have really come to another crucial point of the debate, as the honourable member for Kedron has stated. He calls it a point of ideology; we just call it a point of what is fair and what is just within a system that seeks to compensate injured workers for injuries incurred as a result of an activity at a work place. I suppose if the honourable member wishes to define that as one of the big divides between the Opposition and the Government, then clearly it is a major one and we think it is fundamental to the validity of our Bill. However, let me repeat for the benefit of all honourable members that we do not intend to introduce an Act like this, which does go into fundamental issues of workers' compensation, with a view to introducing it and forgetting it. We will be very pleased, as the Act does come into operation, obviously to have a look at any examples which the Opposition or anybody else can bring up which show any deficiencies within the Act. The honourable member quoted the objections of the Law Society. I remember that the arguments put forward by the Law Society in relation to this amendment are in fact the very arguments that were put by the Law Society to the previous Government when it put in its tougher and changed definition of "injury". If we in some way or another toughened up this definition of "injury", one could expect from the Law Society roughly the same letter with the same arguments as we toughened up the definition further. I am not saying that that is going to occur, but I am simply trying to say to the honourable member that the Law Society is pretty single-minded and one-eyed in terms of this particular point. Clearly, the new definition does require employment to be the major significant factor causing the injury. I think that this is important because this definition does strengthen the link between employment and the injury. Honourable members are very fond of quoting experience, and I do appreciate and value their experience in their various industries, but what experience in our mind has shown is that, with the current definition, in some cases where aggravation of a pre-existing injury has occurred from a minimal work incident, compensation has in fact been paid for extended periods relating to an underlying condition which is not related to work. I suppose that is where the big divide between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber occurs, in that we do not believe that that is fair. We do not believe that an employer should be liable to pay for that
component of an injury which is not work related. I have sought some advice to answer the matter raised by the honourable member for Nudgee, who asked a question that he has asked of me outside. Outside I was confusing what he was saying with the Kerkemeyer rule, which undoubtedly we will discuss later on. Under this particular clause, the 49 per cent will be assessed as work related and will be compensated as a work-related component of the total injury, and the 51 per cent in the member's example will not. Clearly, the decision as to whether a worker has suffered an injury as defined in the Act is an administrative decision which is based on medical evidence. Perhaps later on the argument will be put, "Well, to whom can you appeal in relation to these complex medical issues?" For those honourable members who are worried about the initial decisions of the new WorkCover Board, I point out that the Bill does provide for a formal internal dispute resolution process whereby a worker may apply to have the decision regarding their injury reviewed. That is a formal but also an informal type of mechanism. However, injured workers do have the right of appeal to a court if aggrieved by the review decision made by WorkCover, and if the issue really becomes a very complex one, WorkCover may in the end refer a claim to a medical assessment tribunal for determination. In relation to that appeal mechanism to the medical assessment tribunal, this Bill does not change the provisions within the current Act that we are tossing out tonight. In terms of whether one should be appealing against the decisions of a medical assessment tribunalas I explained in my summing-up to the second-reading debate, even the now defunct EARC committee, which was chaired by a Labor member and had a majority of Labor members on it, concluded that to provide for an extra appeal mechanism against the final decision of a medical assessment tribunal would in fact not be a good mechanism because we would not be able to get a fairer appeal system than the one which has been established within the legislation that we are discarding tonight, if this Bill is passed by this Parliament, which is in fact maintained within this particular Bill. Mr McGRADY: When this legislation was first mooted, as a member who represents an area which has a large manual work force, I convened a number of meetings and attended a number of meetings of
4958
4 Dec 1996
interested parties. There was grave concern about the implications of some parts of this legislation. The one which came out loud and clear was this particular clause. Whether it be solicitors, union representatives, rank-and-file workerseach and every person I spoke to or met with expressed grave concerns about this clause and, in particular, the recommendation in the Kennedy report. I came a bit late into the Chamber, but the definition that we are referring to now of "injury" means a personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment where employment is the major significant factor causing injury. It is generally believed that there has been no costing or calculation of what monetary benefits would accrue to the Workers Compensation Board as a result of the inclusion. What I am saying is that it is the manual worker who is going to suffer most under this clause. There is grave concern in my community, because in the mining industry people have accidents or they suffer wear and tear on their spine and it is many, many years later before the full impact of these injuries becomes evident. That is one of the major concerns held by the people whom I represent. We have to think about the people who work in these occupations, because the mining industry, as the member for Fitzroy mentioned today, is one of those industries in which there is a tremendous potential for accidents. In this State alone, we have had the terrible accidents at Moura; we have had three fatalities at Mount Isa Mines in the past 12 months. That is one of the concerns I had with the change of name of this legislation, where the word "worker" was removed and the word "compensation" was also removed. That is why, on behalf of the people whom I represent, I have to oppose and oppose vigorously the meaning of this particular clause. Mr ROBERTS: I believe the Minister did not get the point that I was making. I might just state it again in order to get some further clarification. If I could just put this situation to the Minister again: it is determined that there are two major significant factors which contributed to a particular injury. One is considered a non-employment factor; the other is considered directly an employment factor. The non-employment factor is determined to be 51 per cent of the cause; the employment factor is considered to be 49 per cent of the cause. Under the definition, there is absolutely no discretion for the court, because it says that an injury must be the major significant factor. So therefore the non-
employment, being 51 per cent responsible, fits into that category. Therefore, under this definition, the worker would not be entitled to claim. There is no point in saying that the worker could appeal, because again the Appeal Court would have no discretion because the major significant factor contributed 51 per cent, and with a 49 per cent contribution a worker has no eligibility at all to a compensation claim. That is the point that I am trying to make, and I do not think the Minister addressed it. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member is using an abstract example. The Bill seeks to cover the aggravation caused by a work-related incident. As to the queries raised by the honourable member for Mount Isa, I am advised by my officers that in fact there is no change to the provisions in this Bill compared to the existing Bill. Mr PURCELL: This is probably one query for the employers. It may also be a clarification of the present Act and how this Bill will change it, or if it will change it. I will use a back injury as an example. More and more, employers are screening employees because those employers do not want to employ anybody with a back injury or any sort of injury at all because they are concerned that in the not-too-distant future those employees will end up on workers' compensation for that injury. Under the present Act, if an employer employs an employee with a pre-existing back injury, if that employee is off work for a period of time until that injury settles down and then comes back to work, will that come off that employer's workers' compensation or off the previous employer's workers' compensation? Also, what would be the answer to that scenario under the new Act? Will that be the same as it is under the old Act? I know an employer with that problem, and John Hastie is going to get it shortly. Mr SANTORO: The member will not be getting into any trouble because the advice is that the current employer will cover for the injury. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I seek just one further clarification. Two scenarios have been raised tonight. I have had these circumstances clarified to me, but I ask the Minister to confirm it, if he will. A person has a degenerative condition. This clause says "An 'injury' is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury." Let us use the example of a back injury. The degenerative condition is existent Monday
4 Dec 1996
4959
morning when the employee comes to work. At 10 o'clock, that worker falls and aggravates that condition. Is the measurable amount for which he will be compensated what can be directly attributed to the work? The second question: how will that distinction be made? Earlier, a member used the example of a person who played football. Say a person plays football on the weekend and it is a pretty rough sort of a game. The probability is that some injury to the person's back could have occurred. However, that person went to work on Monday and genuinely had an accident which incurred back injury. How will WorkCover distinguish between the injury that may have occurred on the Saturday and the injury that really occurred on the Monday? Will a distinction be made or will the temptation be to relegate it all to the event on the Sunday? Mr SANTORO: I thank the honourable member for her questions. She asked first whether we recognise only the aggravation and compensate for the aggravation. The answer to that question is: yes. She then asked who determines what is aggravation and what is pre-existing. The answer to that is as it has always been, that is: a medical officer or a medical tribunal. The honourable member and I have had previous discussions, as I have had with other honourable members, as to whether or not there should be an appeal right against the decision of a medical tribunal. I would not want to have the power to review the decisions of a medical tribunal because, clearly, myself and perhaps anybody else other than members of a medical tribunal would not be technically competent to do that. Mr Purcell: A compassionate man would be handy. Mr SANTORO: Those words are very easy to utter but far more difficult to implement in the context of what we are discussing. In terms of the football injury example, the advice is that, obviously, investigations would be undertaken. Doctors obviously would ask questions and undertake investigations. I do not see those investigations being traumatic. Obviously, doctors would ask questions and they would be relying considerably on the honesty of the person they are interviewing about the injury. I hope that that satisfies the honourable member's queries. Question That clause 34, as read, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard,
Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
The numbers being equal, the Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36 Mr LUCAS (11.01 p.m.): I ask the Minister: is this clause the same as that which appears in the legislation as it is currently drafted? If it is not, are any savings proposed to result from this clause? Mr SANTORO: There are no substantial changes to the 1990 Act. This clause is being changed to be updated according to current drafting practices. It outlines specific instances that are considered to be work related, for example, when an injury is taken to arise out of or in the course of employment, and those instances also include recess claims at or away from the workplace. I can assure the honourable member that there is no substantial change from the current Act. Clause 36, as read, agreed to. Clause 37, as read, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 38 stand part of the Bill Mr LUCAS: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I indicated to you that I wished to speak to clause 37. The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I did look towards the member. I would appreciate it if honourable members would rise when I call the clause to which they wish to speak. I will recommit that clause. An Opposition member: Give him a go. The CHAIRMAN: I am giving him a go. The question is that clause 37, as read, stand part of the Bill. I call the member for Lytton. Clause 37 Mr LUCAS (11.03 p.m.): Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chairman. The clause as it is drafted is not consistent with the Government's stated aims of reducing
4960
4 Dec 1996
complexity and time-wasting disputation. Of course, this clause will increase it. The most ridiculous aspect of the drafting of this clause appears in subclause (3)(a) which states that, for the journey to be covered, it must be by the shortest convenient route. That introduces an aspect of possibly great contention and disputation. If a person lives in Wynnum and works in the city, that person can travel via Wynnum Road or via Lytton Road. The WorkCover authority will be out on the roads with the UBD or with a pedometer measuring distances. Perhaps the Minister will say that that clause does not relate to distance by road and that it relates to distance by time. Why does that subclause have to be in the legislation? Mrs McCauley interjected. Mr LUCAS: If the honourable member were making sense rather than sleeping, I would attempt to answer her interjection, but as she is not, I am sorry that I cannot. An honourable member interjected. Mr LUCAS: Exactlywhere she is making more sense. The problem is that that subclause is not capable of rational assessment. A situation could arise in which a worker is on the way to work and the petrol is a bit low in the tank and that person wants to drop off down the road to fill it up. That is not the shortest convenient route. I think another form of words could be chosen to convey the desired impression quite adequately. Mr PURCELL: I raise a question that the Minister could probably answer when he is answering the question of the member for Lytton. I am asking this question for the sake of the country bods on the other side of the Chamber who are asleep and have not yet woken up to the fact that some of their constituents will get done. Subclause (3)(b) states "for a journey from or to a worker's homestarts or ends at the boundary of the land on which the home is situated." When I was a kid, I was an altar boy. There were 22 gates from the homestead to the boundary. That was a fair distance. I am thinking of workers who live in the country. The legislation refers to "the boundary". Could the Minister be more definitive and perhaps relate that boundary to a certain distance from a person's home? A person who is going to work with somebody else may drive 30-odd kilometres through a property on the way to work. When the Minister is answering the member for Lytton I believe that he should
define "boundary" to be just a little closer to the event. Mr PEARCE: I think that the issue of car pooling in relation to the subclause that relates to journey provisions was raised on a number of occasions this afternoon during the secondreading debate. The legislation states "by the shortest convenient route". On the coalfields, mineworkers will travel all around a town to pick up their work mates to take them to work. Car pooling is the way to do that and we encourage that. That issue must be clarified. It should at least be recorded in Hansard so that we have some understanding of it. I know that mineworkers are meeting next week. They will be discussing this issue. Another point needs to be clarified. When the legislation refers to "a journey" does it mean travel by any type of transportbike, on foot, roller skates or whatever? I cite the example of a person who may be walking from his or her home to a pick-up point three streets away when that person is attacked by a dog. Is that person entitled to compensation? Another concern for mineworkersand the Minister will be hearing from me about thisis the fact that the boundary is being used as the place of commencement for the journey. Mineworkers believe that they should be covered once they walk out their front door with their lunch box under their arm, heading off to work. I would like the Minister to clarify and to record in Hansard where a workplace begins. Does it begin at the boundary of the property where the workplace is, or is it when the person actually starts the job and sits down in front of a typewriter or picks up a welder or does whatever is required in that person's occupation? The legislation is not clear and it needs to be made clear. Mr SANTORO: Of course, we are talking about journey claims and we are talking particularly about the concept of "boundary". In terms of the prescriptiveness of the definition, if it is made as prescriptive as some members are suggesting, by definition that will exclude certain situations that would otherwise be covered by a looser definition that refers to the "shortest convenient route". In the end, if people are in dispute as to whether or not that definition should be applied more fairly to them, all they need to do is go to the review mechanisms that are provided for in the Bill or go further and more senior Mr Lucas: Less complexity? Mr SANTORO: Becoming prescriptive in this case is almost like the Bill of Rights situation. One of the reasons I oppose a Bill of
4 Dec 1996
4961
Rights is that once we try to define all our rights we will, by definition, exclude many other rights that, under common law or any other head of power, we have and take for granted. I think that this definition is a good definition. It provides people who are seeking to make an assessment of what is the shortest convenient route a reasonable judgment. If that judgment is not deemed to be reasonable, that judgment is then appealable. I must admit that I had not thought of a mode of transport other than motor vehicle. However, the advice that I have been givenand this may come across as a bit flippantis that they even cover pogo sticks. So I suppose that any reasonable means of transport is, in fact, covered. An honourable member raised the issue: what is a "boundary"? Does it mean the front steps of a house on a property as opposed to the fence of a property? That means the fencethe boundary of the property upon which an individual resides. It means from the boundary of the workplace to which the worker is travelling. In terms of a car pool, people are covered if they regularly travel that route because it is the shortest convenient route. I hope that those points have answered the members' queries. Again, in my view, if those definitions are made prescriptive, that will in fact lead to argument. It will lead to the exclusion of people who otherwise would be and should be covered. Mr LUCAS: I will not labour the point, but the Opposition is not seeking, in fact, to make the definition prescriptive; it is seeking to make the definition more lax for the simple reason that we do not have dispute procedures for something that we probably all agree is a fair enough claim. I would have thoughtand I am not here to be the drafter of the Billthat it should have been "must be by the shortest convenient route in all the circumstances" or something like that which takes into account those subjective factors. I have made my point. Mr SANTORO: The words were chosen very carefully. One would not want a situation arising where somebody regarded the shortest convenient route to work to be past a popular beach. Those words have been chosen to give a clear indication of the intent of the legislation. People have to travel to work in the shortest route that is convenient. If that includes car pooling situations, that is well and truly catered for within the Bill. Again, I stress that if people are not happy with a determination of what is the
"shortest convenient route", they have very reasonable appeal mechanisms contained in the Bill. Clause 37, as read, agreed to. Clause 38 Mr SANTORO (11.13 p.m.): I move the following amendment "At page 47, lines 18 to 21 omit, insert '(ii) while in control of a vehicle, contravenes the Traffic Act 1949 , section 16, if the contravention is the major significant factor causing the event; or (iii) contravenes the Criminal Code, section 328A; or'." This relates to a drafting error that was picked up by the honourable member for Lytton. We are pleased to take the advice that the words "Traffic Act" should, in fact, be omitted and that the wording as circulated be included. Mr LUCAS: The amendment as moved in the name of the Minister certainly does reduce significantly the very harsh effect that the clause had previously. As I indicated during the second-reading debate, the clause had the effect that a person who was a diabetic and took too much insulin and had an accident as a result or a person who went through a give-way sign owing to tiredness would not be indemnified. So I commend the Minister for listening to that point and adopting the amendment. I still have difficulties with the clause as it is. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr LUCAS: That is fine. I want to express those difficulties. I am aware of my rights in relation to the clause, and I am exercising them. I still have some difficulties. Mr FitzGerald: I am aware of certain undertakings. You mightn't be aware of those. Mr LUCAS: I am not aware of any undertakings. I will inquire into that. The difficulty is that the traditional view as to workers' compensation cover was no-fault lump sum cover. The problem with this clause is that, albeit in a small way, it is increasing that tendency to move away from lump sum cover. Mr ELDER: In relation to that amendmentand I know the undertakings that have been madethe member for Lytton raised an important point in his secondreading speech. It was one to which I also
4962
4 Dec 1996
alluded. I am pleased that the Minister has actually picked up the points that were raised. As the clause was framed originally, it was a very broad interpretation indeed and it would have actually impacted on a range of people who took medication for a range of medical reasons. The Minister is right: the Opposition can vote against the amendment and I believe that the shadow Minister will be putting the reasons for that. At least the Minister did see some commonsense in relation to it. Mr BRADDY: Certainly, the amendments proposed and negotiated are appreciated. They bring about a clause which is preferable to the clause which is contained in the Bill. Although, as a second best, the Opposition will support the amendment, it will be opposing the clause even as amended. Obviously, this clause has come about because the member for Gladstone, in negotiations with the Minister, indicated that she believed that journey claims should be protected. So the Minister, through this legislation, has put journey claims back on the agenda. However, he has made it a fairly harsh provision. Unlike injuries at work where people can recover compensation even if it is substantially their own fault, in the context of the drafting of the original clause the major significant factor is that the Government is trying to take out a lot of the journey claims. The Bill states "The injury to the worker is not taken to arise out of, or in the course of, the worker's employment if the event (a) is completely or partly caused by a worker's action in which the worker (i) voluntarily subjects themself to a risk of injury."
That is a very broad clause, particularly as it uses the words "or partly caused by a worker's action". The Opposition believes that people on journey claims should be in the same position in relation to compensation and recovery of common law damagesno better and no worseas people who are injured at the workplace. In those circumstances, although the Opposition will certainly support the amendment, which is an improvement, its overall objection still remains that journey claims should have been restored to the condition that they are now and, in terms of compensation or common law damages, no distinction should be made between them and injuries which occur at work.
Mr SANTORO: The honourable member for Gladstone and I have had many discussions about the issue of journey claims. I should be able to inform the Opposition that, in fact, very early in the piece the Premier and I had discussions about journey claims. We received some very significant representations, particularly from the firefighters, the police and several other groups involved within emergency services in this State. I must be honest with the Chamber and say that we saw a lot of merit within the representations made not only by the member for Gladstone but also by the unions involved. In particular, the Nurses Union came to us with some very graphic cases of examples where journey claims were, in fact, justified. Very early in the piece we accepted that there was some validity within those representations. That is one of the reasons why the Government has not fought the inclusion of journey claims to the extent that perhaps it is being credited with by the Opposition. However, there is no doubt on this side that the issue of contributory negligence is a fundamentally important one. It applies to injuries incurred within the workplace and also to injuries which are incurred on journey claims to and from work. I suppose that is a major point of difference between the Opposition and the Government. Although the Government is happy to accommodate an amendment which it thinks is a useful one because it helps to clarify and incorporate within the Bill some of the points made by members opposite, including the honourable member for Capalaba, it still endorses the concept of contributory negligence and, obviously, will support the amended clause. Amendment agreed to. Question That clause 38, as amended, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
4 Dec 1996
4963
The numbers being equal, the Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clauses 39 to 97, as read, agreed to. Clause 98 Mr BRADDY (11.27 p.m.): Part 5 of the Bill, headed "Employer's Self-Insurance" is of deep concern to the Opposition and it should be of deep concern to all the people of Queensland. Clause 98, which we are debating and on which we will divide the Committee, is about the right of self-insurance which allows employers, under a licence under this part, to provide their own accident insurance cover for their workers, instead of insuring with WorkCover. We believe that the provision of self-insurance will have a diabolical effect on workers' compensation, or WorkCover, in this State. The experience in Australia and elsewhere is that allowing people to opt out of a workers' compensation schemewhere there is not a monopoly in workers' compensationhas a diabolical effect on the scheme that is left. Good employers, in the sense of those whose industries produce very few injuriessuch as grocery stores, Myer or solicitors' or accountants' officescan get extremely favourable, as distinct from fair, premium rates. They opt out and become selfinsurers, and the companies which are left in the scheme are a great drain on the fund. Also, the economies of scale are such that, where self-insurance applies, it will undoubtedly lead to the closing of offices in regional Queensland. The combination of those two factors is, we believe, not in the interests of the community. When we were in Government we rejected this suggestion. We had the sense to look at it carefully and we knocked it back. As I said before, the genius of Government is in not accepting every recommendation, even when they come from an astute and sensible person like Jim Kennedy. Governments' decisions must be their own. When a person like Mr Kennedy gives 79 recommendations and the Government says, "We will adopt them all lock, stock and barrel", the State is almost certainly bound for disaster. We believe that this clause will create a disaster. Everybody should be kept in the tent together in order to organise the scheme across the State and to ensure that regional Queensland is covered in terms of staff and other resources. The Government also needs to ensure that the premiums and the fund are in good health. We believe that this provision
will lead to the ill health of the fund. We therefore oppose it. We will be dividing the Committee on this clause. Mr PURCELL: I concur with what my colleague has said. The Minister must think seriously about privatising the workers' compensation scheme as it is today. If he removes the profitability of the Workers Compensation Fund, as have I said earlier in relation to another clause, we will be back here debating this provision. If employers with low injury rates leave the fundand it will be in their interests to do sothe fund will be left with those industries which no company wants to insure. They will be the industries with high accident rates which are, indeed, the industries which drive this State such as the mining, construction and rural industries. The fund will comprise such industries and few others, because the others will opt out. Therefore, this provision allows for the privatisation of workers' compensation and, within a few years, workers' compensation will cease to existthe State Government will have no involvement in it at all, and I think that that will be a crime. Mr ARDILL: I also support what the shadow Minister is saying. My theme since first speaking to the Bill this morning has been the non-comprehensibleness of the Minister's proposals. I cannot imagine who on earth gave him this sort of advice. I certainly cannot imagine anyone involved with the insurance industry or the Workers Compensation Board giving this advice to the Minister. It is absolutely incomprehensible that anyone would put forward this proposal. It will destroy the whole system. It is only a matter of time before this provision will lead to the total demise of workers' compensation. By leaving this provision in the Bill, the Minister has been derelict in his duty. This is something on which the entire system of workers' compensation was founded in 1916. This is what has sustained the legislation ever since. We are seeing the end of an era. This provision will mean the end of workers' compensation as we know it. It is a ridiculous situation. Not only should the Minister be criticised; his committee and the entire Government should also be criticised for allowing this provision to remain in the Bill. Whoever brought this provision forward in the first place, whether it was Jim Kennedy or somebody else, did not know what he or she was doing and had no expertise to put forward this sort of provision for inclusion in the Bill. Mr SANTORO: I ask honourable members opposite to recall some of the main
4964
4 Dec 1996
arguments that they put forward during the second-reading debate, particularly in relation to negligent employers paying premiums. In relation to this point, their main thesis was that the employers who have the worst track record in terms of unsafe workplaces should be penalised by paying higher premiums. Opposition members interjected. Mr SANTORO: No, I am just paraphrasing members opposite, but I think I am reflecting their views accurately. Members opposite say that those employers who do not have unsafe workplaces should be enjoying the incentive of a lower premium. An underlying thesis of members opposite is that unsafe employers should be penalised by paying a higher premium. Members opposite are now saying that they want employers with a safe record to subsidise unsafe Mr Nunn: No. Mr SANTORO: That is what honourable members opposite are saying. Members opposite should listen to what they have just said. With respect, they need to just reflect for a minute on what they have said. They have said that, if we take out of the pool those employers who do not make big claims on the board but yet pay big premiums because of their size, the insurance pool is being subsidised. I understand that that is the way that insurance works. But the argument of members opposite in relation to this clause runs counter to some of the other arguments that they have put up. Mr Elder: No, it doesn't. Mr SANTORO: It does. Mr twisted. Elder: It doesn't. Your logic is opposite
Mr SANTORO: Members cannot have it both ways.
I refer the honourable member for Bulimba to the very good questions he askedand I am giving him a lot of credit; I believe he has a far better understanding of this Bill than do other honourable membersduring the Estimates committee hearings. The member asked: "Who pays the big premiums and who makes the big claims?" The honourable member will recall that I answered that it is big employers who, because of the size of their work force and the complexity of their workplaces, have the majority of injuries and, therefore, make the greatest number of claims. I think 30 per cent of employers claimed 30 per cent of injuries and pay 30 per cent of the premiums.
Mr Purcell: They're the ones you're going to end up with. Mr SANTORO: Under this criterion, a lot of them can get out if they wish to. One of the things that members opposite have not addressed in their comments is the eligibility criteria that will enable people to self-insure. Perhaps members opposite should be reminded of that, because they have missed the point about the criteria for self-insurance. Employers must satisfy certain criteria in order to be licensed as a self-insurer. The employer must be of sufficient size to be able to put in place the infrastructure that will enable it to effectively administer its own claims and injury management. It must have a minimum of 500 full-time Queensland workers to ensure that these needs can be met. To ensure that the employer has the financial ability to meet its own claims costs, the employer must hold at least $100m in net tangible assets and satisfy WorkCover of its long-term financial viability, and a self-insurer must provide an unconditional bank guarantee or cash deposit at the greater of 150 per cent of estimated claims liability or $5m to ensure sufficient funds are available to cover claims in the event of insolvency of the self-insurer. I could keep reading the very strict criteria that apply. Local government in particular is very keen to self-insure, and for good reasons. It believes that it can manage its own risk, given its own assets. The point that I am making is that this provision is not inconsistent with much of what members opposite have said and it is not inconsistent with the principles that should underlie a WorkCover system, that is, that the people who incur the greatest risk should pay the greatest premium. If that means that they have to pay higher premiums because their workplaces are relatively unsafe, the new corporatised structure, WorkCover, will in fact pitch those premiums at a commercial level so as to cover the risk. That will provide an incentive to achieve what I would hope all honourable members in this place want to achieve, and that is safer workplaces for Queensland. I do not accept the logic of the Opposition. I understand where it is coming from in terms of the insurance pool argument, but I again say that it is not inconsistent with the objects of this Bill, and that is to help create safer workplaces and to place the burden for insuring unsafe workplaces on those people who control uninsured workplaces. Mr LUCAS: I have three points to make about this clause. Firstly, I thought that
4 Dec 1996
4965
community rating, for example, in private health insurance was a bipartisan view shared by both sides of the political spectrum. For the Minister to attempt to argue that in respect of benevolent types of insurance, such as workers' compensation or private health insurance, there is no place for that considerationand I am not suggesting that we go down the community rating path in this legislationis spurious. The other thing is that, under the Motor Accident Insurance Act, to get around the problems that they have in New South Wales with competition from insurers that was negative and not in the best interests of the scheme, they had constant fees. There was no attempt to undercut because, if people undercut, by virtue of the provisions of the legislation, they would end up falling back on the WorkCover authority. The final point I wish to make is that the Motor Accident Insurance Act has very detailed reporting requirements in it that require insurers to provide detailed information to the Insurance Commissioner. I cannot see in this Billand I am happy to be correctedprovisions that require self-insurers to report to WorkCover about how they handle their claims. There are very detailed provisions about claims management. Those members who read the annual report of the Motor Accident Insurance Commission would have seen the excellent material that it provided. The Minister has a responsibility to protect workers who are claimants against selfinsurers. What supervisory requirements does the Minister have vested in WorkCover along the lines contained in the Motor Accident Insurance Act? Mr SANTORO: In terms of the bipartisan approach to this issue of selfinsuranceI can inform the honourable member that before this matter was raised here this evening, to the best of my knowledge we had not received representations against this concept. The first that I have heard of this argument is in this Chamber this evening. I am prepared to accept that it is coming in good faith. However, we have not been bowled over with opposition in relation to this particular provision. In terms of what supervisory role WorkCover hasI stopped reading the criteria and the mechanisms that are in place in terms of the control of matters such as claims, for example, and I will continue to read the provisions that are contained within the Bill, for the benefit of the honourable member and others. It has just been drawn to my attention
that clause 121(1) on page 88 of the Bill states "WorkCover may, by written notice, ask a self-insurer to give WorkCover the documents, copies of the documents or details from the documents, mentioned in section 120." And so on it goes. So there is within the Bill, soon to be the legislation, considerable power vested within WorkCover to undertake the supervisory and inquisitorial functions which the honourable member believes should be contained within the Bill. There are other criteria in relation to self-insurers that in fact touch on the concerns that have been expressed by all members, including the honourable member for Lytton. For example, self-insurers must meet certain workplace rehabilitation standards. It is not just in relation to claims management, for example, which is the example that the honourable member for Lytton has raised. But there are workplace rehabilitation standards which need to be in place and which need to be maintained. There are a lot of aspects to this Bill that seek to satisfy the concerns of honourable members opposite. Mr ARDILL: I take issue with the Minister when he claims that there has been some inconsistency in our argument. There has certainly been no inconsistency in my argument. I have consistently said that this is the greatest fault in the Bill other than the callousness of the Bill in its treatment of some of the victims of these new provisions. The greatest problem in the Bill is the inconsistency of the attitude of the Minister. In point of fact, we have not said that there should be anything different from what is there now as far as premiums are concerned. Safer industries already pay a lesser premium than do the hazardous industries. I think that what has been said is that where an employer of his own volition is operating in an unsafe manner, then there should be some penalty imposed on that person. The Minister is also oversimplifying the issue. There are matters such as economies of scale which would make a vast difference to this Bill. I reiterate what I said before: this is the demise of the Workers Compensation Fund as we know it. The Minister is taking away all of those things which made that work for the past 80 years. It is not something that has failings in it. It has the inherent problem of not being able to make a profit every year. The Minister has taken that to mean that there is something wrong with the whole philosophy of it. There is not. There will be yearsand have been
4966
4 Dec 1996
yearswhen because of various situations such as natural disasters The CHAIRMAN: Is the honourable member speaking to clause 98? Mr ARDILL: I am. I am saying that there is no inconsistency in our argument as the Minister claims. In point of fact, we are saying that this is the way it should work, and the fact that the Minister is allowing these people to opt out means that it must in time fail, and that will be the reason for the failure, not the system itself. Question That clause 98, as read, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, DArcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
The numbers being equal, the Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clauses 99 to 125, as read, agreed to. Clause 126 Mr LUCAS (11.52 p.m.): Clause 126 covers the situation in which functions are transferred to WorkCover after a self-insurer goes out of existence for whatever reason. I could not find the Nominal Defendant-type provision in that clause. I ask the Minister to point out the provision in the Bill that provides that where the employer, for whatever reason, has not remitted payments WorkCover will still stand behind the employer to make payment to the individual worker, notwithstanding the fact that it is going to chase the employer for the premiums and the damages. Mr SANTORO: I thank the honourable member for his query. I am advised that transfer to WorkCover after cancellation in terms of what the honourable member is asking is covered by 126(d) and (e). I will quote it for the benefit of honourable members
"WorkCover replaces the self-insurer for any proceeding being taken, or that may be taken, by a worker or claimant against, or by, the self-insurer as an insurer; and WorkCover has the rights, and assumes the obligations, of the selfinsurer under the contract of reinsurance." I think that that particular section should satisfy the honourable member's queries. Mr LUCAS: I must not have made myself clear. I understand that for the selfinsurers, but in situations where the employer has not paid the premiums, where does the legislation say that they will be covered notwithstanding that the employer has not paid the premiumsnot necessarily a selfinsurer situation? Mr SANTORO: I am not sure that the honourable member's question is relevant to the clause that we are now debating. I think that was a matter that could have been raised earlier on. But we will find the exact provision for the member, and during the debate on another clause I will do my best to enlighten him. Clause 126, as read, agreed to. Clauses 127 to 131, as read, agreed to. Clause 132 Mr PURCELL (11.55 p.m.): My comments will relate to both clauses 132 and 133. As the Act stands, those people who earn over the award rate have their normal weekly earnings calculated on a weekly basis, so overtime and so forth is included. This relates particularly to meat workers, who used to be under a minimum tally. I think the Minister will remember that argument. The minimum tally I think was about $300 a week. No meat worker who does a full week would take home that amount; they are up around the $600 or $700 mark. There was a long and involved case in regard to that and some barristers gave their interpretation of what was the award rate and what was not the award rate. I seek clarification on the precise definition of "normal weekly earnings". Does that include other allowances that are paid to, say, a construction worker? Is Mr Hastie straining to hear me, or is the Leader of Government Business annoying the Minister's advisers? Mr FitzGerald: No, the advisers weren't sure which clause you were on, and I am just having to tell them. Mr PURCELL: Clauses 132 and 133my comments relate to both. In the
4 Dec 1996
4967
construction industry, nobody works 38 hours a week or 40 hours a week; the minimum is about 58 hours a week. So when workers in that industry go on workers' compensation they take a very savage wage cut. In addition, they are usually paid superannuation of $50 a week and BIRT of $50 a week, so there is another $100 there. I want to know whether those items are going to be paid while a worker is on compensation or whether the employer will have to pick them up. We used to call them side allowances, but I imagine that these days they are registered agreements which are over and above the award. I ask: are those amounts paid and is overtime paid? Mr SANTORO: If the member reads the Explanatory Notes he will note that explanations are provided for the various provisions of the Bill. The explanation for this clause states "The calculation of normal weekly earnings is prescribed under the regulation. Normal weekly earnings takes into account amounts paid to a worker by the employer immediately prior to the injury by way of overtime, higher duties, penalties and allowances of a regular nature, required by the employer and that would have continued if not for the injury. It does not include" to answer the honourable member's question more specifically "one-off periods of overtime. Where the worker has been employed by different employers at different times over the 12 month period, only the amounts paid by the employer at the time of the injury are used in the calculation." The honourable member may also be interested to know that a specific provision related to seasonal workers also exists. Where there is a reference under the award or industrial agreement to seasonal variations in employment conditions, the calculation of NWE should reflect the appropriate season under the award or industrial agreement as if the worker were at work and the injury had not occurred. I believe that the provisions for compensation within this particular section are equitable, and they do seek to maintain a level of compensation commensurate with Mr Purcell: What about superannuation payments? Mr SANTORO: The advice is that the employer is liable for superannuation payments. Mr Purcell interjected.
Mr SANTORO: Can I make a suggestion to the honourable member? As I said at the beginning of my explanation, the calculation of normal weekly earnings will in fact be governed by regulation. I will take the member's point on board as we go about drafting the regulation, but again, just for the latest information of the honourable member, the advice is that there is no change in this part of the Bill to the existing provision in the current Act. Clause 132, as read, agreed to. Clauses 133 to 140, as read, agreed to. Clause 141 Mr LUCAS (12.01 a.m.): I have one concern about clause 141. The clause says that entitlement ceases if a worker receives compensation under a corresponding law of the Commonwealth or a place other than Queensland. We might have a situation where a worker applies for and receives a lesser benefit in another State. If that is the case, that worker is then not entitled to apply for a benefit in Queensland, notwithstanding that the benefit in Queensland is a better benefit. That worker may have been poorly advised or may have not had the full information before him or her. I just wanted to make that observation in relation to the clause. Mr SANTORO: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. In relation to clauses 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, there is no substantial change. Mr Lucas: I realise that. Mr SANTORO: I appreciate that, but I just wish to stress that there is no substantial change from the existing Act. In answer to the honourable member's previous question which related to a much earlier clause, proposed section 135 will provide him with the answer. Should the member require further clarification, I ask him to say so. Clause 141, as read, agreed to. Clauses 142 to 157, as read, agreed to. Clause 158 Mr BRADDY (12.03 a.m.): This point has been drawn to the attention of the Government and the Minister, yet they persist with this clause. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to register our opposition to 158(2) in particular, which states If an application is lodged more than 28 days after the entitlement to compensation arises, the extent of WorkCover's liability to pay compensation starts on the day the valid application is lodged."
4968
4 Dec 1996
This is a new and harsh interpretation. It is much harsher for employees and workers than the previous legislation. Although there is provision for special circumstances in relation to medical matters, as I understand it, if special circumstances exist, that is, not only medical circumstances, I believe that the payment of compensation should be from the day the injury occurs, if it is a valid injury. Clause 158(1) provides that there is no discretion now if it is claimed outside a sixmonth period. We believe that that is wrong and too harsh on workers and we oppose the 28-day period that is provided in clause 158(2). The CHAIRMAN: Is the member moving his amendment No. 6 on that clause? Mr BRADDY: I formally move the following amendment "At page 105, lines 19 to 23clause 158(4) and (5) omit, insert '(4) In relation to a particular application, WorkCover may (a) waive subsection (1), if WorkCover is satisfied that failure to lodge the application in the prescribed period was due to (i) mistake; or (ii) absence from the State of the claimant; or (iii) a reasonable cause; and (b) waive subsection (2) for any cause WorkCover considers to be reasonable.'." Mr LUCAS: I rise to endorse the sentiments and the amendment moved by my colleague the shadow Minister. Earlier during the Committee stage, the Government graciously acceded to amending the clause that related to journey claims. I really thought that this would have been another clause which, if they put their heads together and had a think about the issue, they would have wanted to amend. I ask the member for Gladstone to pay particular note to the amendment moved by my colleague. First, I would like to know how much money is expected to be saved by cutting down on the proviso here, and if the only suggestion is that it is to reduce fraud, then there are other ways to deal with it besides this clause. As the shadow Minister pointed out, WorkCover must act according to law; it can only waive when there are special circumstances of a medical nature, not for any other special circumstances. So this Bill ties
WorkCover's hands. I find that quite amazing in remedial legislation such as this. It would not be so bad if the Bill stated that special circumstances existed. If they were not only of a medical nature, they would also go off to the medical assessment tribunal. What happens if a worker from the country does not know that he has to lodge a claim within a certain time limit? Sometimes the injury itself might not manifest itself until six months after the event. There is no proviso here for that. If the injury does not manifest itself until six months later, this Bill says, "Tough luck. You are not really educated; you are not really aware of the issuesyou miss out." WorkCover might say, "Fair enough, we are very sympathetic. We know there is no fraud, we know there is no prejudice, but this is not of a medical nature, so you miss out." That is terribly sad and terribly harsh. I think the Minister should give consideration to agreeing to our amendment. At the very least, if he does not agree to our amendment, he should ameliorate the very harsh consequences of that clause. Mr ELDER: I do not want to labour the point because it has been raised in speeches during the second-reading debate by myself, the member for Lytton and the shadow Minister, but this is one section about which we did have concerns for that same reason. If the Minister is going to have circumstances that he says are now needed because legislative principles allow the board not to have the dispensation that it had to make consideration of late lodgements, then it is important that the Minister spell out what those circumstances are. He is not spelling them out. We say to the member for Gladstone that this amendment at least starts to spell out those circumstances and gives those who are late in their lodgments or those with other special medical reasons at least the ability to seek workers' compensation and have that cover. Mr SANTORO: One of the major criticisms of the current workers' compensation system is that it is slow and cumbersome. Some people complain about the bureaucratic way in which some claims and issues coming before the board are in fact dealt with. The intent of this clause, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, is to ensure that applications are lodged in a timely manner to allow the proper management of the claims. Clause 100 does not provide adequate ability to control the applications which are lodged outside the time frame where the circumstances underlying the application are doubtful. I suppose one of the underlying themes of the legislation is to make
4 Dec 1996
4969
the whole system of claim handling and consideration of claims and compensation payable a lot more efficient than it is now. I do not necessarily condone the comments made about the people who administer the current laws. What I have said now should not be a reflection of the professionals within the Workers Compensation Division of my department. The law seeks to give them the ability to better manage the claims before them. I think that, with better management, Queensland workers will be better off. Mrs EDMOND: The concern about the delay between when claims are lodged and when payouts are made is about when they are lodged and when payouts are made. That is where the concern about delays presently exists in the system. This clause as it stands does not benefit workers who have actually put in a late claim for whatever reason. It gives no discretion; it does not spell out what conditions apply. The Minister has stated that there is room for discretion; yet, in his explanation, he makes a statement that is contrary to that. The Opposition is not talking about the delay between when the application is lodged and when it is dealt with by the Workers Compensation Board. We are merely trying to explain that, in some instances, there will be occasions when workers who are seriously injured through no fault of their own will be debarred from making workers' compensation claims to which they are entitled. The Minister is refusing a reasonable amendment that would give them that right. Mr SANTORO: I doubt that a seriously injured worker would be waiting six months to lodge a claim. Amendment negatived. Clause 158, as read, agreed to. Clauses 159 to 210, as read, agreed to. Clause 211 Mr BRADDY (12.11 a.m.): I move the following amendment "At page 131, line 4, '50%' omit, insert '15%'." The purpose of this amendment is to do what I understand Mr Kennedy recommended in his report. I refer particularly to clause 211(2) which refers to a WRI of 50 per cent or more. I understand that the recommendation in the Kennedy report was for 15 per cent. Of course, that is the wording of the amendment
that the Opposition has moved. We find it extraordinary that the Government could increase that percentage to such a high level, when in his report Mr Kennedy stated that that section should apply if a worker sustains an injury that results in a WRI of 15 per cent or more. We believe that that would be the appropriate payment that should be made for a lump sum compensation for carers, which is what this clause is about. In our opinion, the Government is being excessively harsh in moving that figure to such a high level. The Opposition believes that the appropriate course to adopt is the one recommended in the report. Accordingly, we have moved the amendment. Mr SANTORO: The response need be only very brief. Mr Kennedy has endorsed the new 50 per cent threshold. Mr Braddy: He didn't in his report. Mr SANTORO: No, but I can assure honourable members now that, in the new circumstances that have developed, Mr Kennedy has endorsed the 50 per cent level. Mr wisdom. Elder: He's not the font of all
Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Capalaba. The member quoted Mr Kennedy's support for 15 per cent as the reason why that figure should remain in the legislation. I am assuring the Committee that he now believes that, under the new circumstances, 50 per cent is the more appropriate figure. Amendment negatived. Clause 211, as read, agreed to. Clauses 212 to 216, as read, agreed to. Clause 217 Mr LUCAS (12.14 a.m.): To pre-empt the Minister, I point out that I understand that this clause does nothing but replicate the current law. However, it has been a sore point with a number of families whose loved ones have been killed in either motor vehicle or work-related accidents. They would not have State administration expenses were it not for the death. I think it is unfair that State administration expenses, which can be expensive, are not covered by the existing law. I know that the law does not currently cover those expenses; however, as a general policy, that is something that we should be working towards. Just because those expenses are not covered by the current law does not mean that the Minister cannot better us. We will not be offended.
4970
4 Dec 1996
Mr SANTORO: We'll take the honourable member's comments on board. Clause 217, as read, agreed to. Clauses 218 to 313, as read, agreed to. Clause 314 Mr ROBERTS (12.16 a.m.): I will raise some problems associated with this clause, which deals with contributory negligence. If one considers the way that the clause is constructed, one sees that six circumstances are listed. If a worker fails to comply with those circumstances, the court is required to reduce the amount of damages that are awarded by at least 25 per cent for each of those circumstances. The major difficulty that I have with the circumstances that are listed is that they say absolutely nothing at all about the appropriateness under the circumstances of the measures that are provided or put forward by the employer. For example, an employer may provide protective clothing and equipment to workers to perform a particular job, but it may be that the workers are working in an outdoor situation in 40-degree temperatures as welders or cutting metal. The employer provides them with full-length overalls and face masks, etc., but, under the circumstances, it is totally inappropriate for the workers to wear that particular clothing due to the prevailing temperatures. If the workers take them off for a short period to recuperate from the heat and during that short period sustain an injury, the court would have no discretion in a claim for compensation for damages. It is required to reduce the damages by 25 per cent. Another problem relates to subclause 314(1)(e) which states that at the relevant time the worker might be affected by the intentional consumption of a substance that induces impairment. An employee may have deliberately taken a cough mixture or an antihistamine as medication, which certainly might impair his or her motor skills. If that consumption, which might be quite legitimate under the circumstances, contributed to an injury during work, the court is required to reduce the damages by 25 per cent. Subsection 314(1)(f) refers to failure to attend a safety course. The tenuous nature of this circumstance is that if such attendance probably would have aided the worker to avoid or minimise the effects of the event, the court is required to reduce damages by 25 per cent. These are extremely harsh measures. I do not think that they are entirely appropriate. They do not take into account the circumstances that actually exist on the job. As a result, workers will suffer quite severe detriments.
Mr BRADDY: I believe that the provision in clause 314 is fundamentally flawed and, indeed, is immoral. In this country, courts are well able to administer a system of common law. Within that common law system, they are very familiar with the principle of contributory negligence. Subsection 314(3) provides as follows "For subsection (2), the court must reduce the award of damages by at least 25% for each of the circumstances causing or contributing to the injury." The Government's inclusion of such a provision is immoral and totally uncalled for in our system of administration of justice. I know that insurers and their supporters say that judges are not finding contributory negligence. When I was practising law, I certainly saw many instances in which judges were quite capable ofand frequently did making findings of contributory negligence in relation to injuries caused by either motor vehicle accidents or accidents in the workplace. So to take the power out of judges' hands and to tell them what they have to do is as objectionable to me as is the provision of minimum sentences whereby judges are told that they have to impose minimum sentences. I think that judges should be left entirely to their discretion. I think that this clause is entirely wrong and that that whole section of the Bill that relates to the reduction of damages because of contributory negligence should never have been put into it. It should have been left where it lies currentlywith the courts to carry it out. Mr LUCAS: This clause is certainly one of the most outrageous provisions of the Bill. It is a total abrogation of the court's role. It is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to reduce workers' damages payouts in a way that is most unfair. I concede that there has been an increasing tendency in the courts to not pay much heed to contributory negligence findings any more. Some people say that finding contributory negligence is getting harder and harder and that master/servant actions are now approaching strict liability. However, that does not mean that, having identified a problem, the Government throws out the baby with the bathwater and adopts this incredibly draconian procedure. It would have been bad enough if it was made 25 per cent, but to make it 25, plus 25, plus 25, plus 25 means that the situation could arise in which there are four items of contributory negligence, each of them on ordinary common law principles being worth 2 per cent or 3 per cent if they are very
4 Dec 1996
4971
minor. However, because the Bill specifies 25 per cent and because the Bill specifies that it is cumulative, we could end up with the situation in which the worker gets nothing. That is really unfair and harsh. Mr Purcell: They'll be paying them compo next. Mr LUCAS: That is right. At the rate we are going, the worker will have to give WorkCover a donation. As well, the clause treats injured workers differently from anyone else who has a common law action. Again, as I indicated before, if a worker at Woolworths slips over when he or she should have been looking out, that worker gets 25 per cent off the top. If that worker was wearing shoes that were not the best, 25 per cent is taken off the top of that. However, if a shopper who was walking next to that worker slips over in the same puddle, the court gets to assess contributory negligence in that case, and I can tell members that it would not be 50 per cent. So it is most unfair. The Government has not only whacked on a mandatory 25 per cent but also gone far worse than that horror and put 25, plus 25, plus 25, plus 25, et al. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I raised issues relating to this clause during the secondreading debate. I would like to endorse everything that has been said by the member for Kedron and the member for Lytton. However, I must admit that, being a nonlawyer, I did not understand the initial part of the contribution of the member for Lytton in which he started to talk about the law of torts. To me, I see this as an attempt by the Minister to deal with an issue about which he has spoken publicly on a number of occasions, and that is the quantum of awards that are being granted by the courts. The Minister has also blamed some of the alleged blow-out on the increased activity of lawyers in the field. It seems to me that the Minister, not being one who has been complimentary to lawyers terribly much, cannot blame lawyers for representing workers who are injured at work as a consequence of the employer's negligence. The Minister cannot blame the courts if they are going to recognise the employer's negligence and grant an award to the worker. Simply, on my understanding, the court is not able to grant an award unless there has been some negligence. I can understand that the Minister sees this clause as a means of capping or reducing the amount of those payouts and, in his mind, reducing the call on the fund from common law claims. However, it seems to me that it is most objectionable to say to a judge that, if he
or she finds the slightest evidence of the smallest little bit of contributory negligence, he or she must reduce the award by 25 per cent. Heavens above, we are going to end up with a bench made up of administrators, not of judges. It is their role to work out to what extent the award should be diminished by contributory negligence and not the Minister's. I think that it is possibly a worthwhile exercise for legislation to spell out the kinds of events that a judge should be considering. However, I agree with my colleagues that common law recognises contributory negligence quite well. If the Minister wanted to do that, that is one thing; to take it the extra step and to have a mandatory 25 per cent is extremely objectionable. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his stand on this point. Mr PURCELL: I want to reiterate what my colleagues have said. Really, this issue gets back to what we were talking about, which is the common law threshold of 15 per cent. By this clause, the Minister is making the worker a second-class citizen. The worker gets treated differently from anybody else. As the member for Lytton said, if a worker is injured at a shop at which he or she is employed and there is an element of contributory negligence, under common law that worker will be treated differently from the situation in which that worker knocked off work, went home, got changed, went to the same shop and fell over. The Minister is really making two laws: one for workers and a better law for those who are not workers. Ms BLIGH: I would like to draw the attention of the Chamber to clause 314(1) and 314(3) and to the use of the word "must". Members will recall that earlier this evening we had quite a lengthy debate about the use of the word "may" in relation to the discretion open to the WorkCover board in relation to the possible denial of compensation to employees whose tax status may be questionable. The legislation before the Chamber provides significant discretion to WorkCover and the board of WorkCover to determine on the basis of the facts of individual cases whether or not an employee may be entitled to compensation or whether, in fact, under the definition of the legislation, that employee is a worker. Despite what I believe were very sound arguments against the use of the word "may", the Minister has insisted on the use of that word in this legislation thereby granting a greater discretion to the WorkCover board than he is prepared to grant to the courts. This clause will remove from the courts the
4972
4 Dec 1996
discretion to judge each case on the merits of the facts of the case. I am not arguing against a reduction of damages where there is some contributory negligence. However, I believe that the mandatory nature of this clause removes the discretion from the courts that the Minister, in this legislation, has given to the WorkCover board. It seems to me to be a funny old system of justice when a statutory authority, subject to the operation of the Public Service Act and the lack of independence that that will bring, has a greater discretion over the lives of workers and the judgments about their accessibility and eligibility for very significant compensation and has a much greater discretion and power than the independent judiciarya very funny old system indeed. In my view, the Minister is proposing a very blunt policy instrumentan instrument that is so blunt that it will disadvantage many people. Very clearly, it is an instrument that is designed to try to take away entitlements from people who would otherwise be entitled to them. The combined effect of 314(3) means that if three or four of those circumstances were found to exist at the one time, the courts would have to impose a 100 per cent deduction on the damages. It is an absolutely ludicrous situation. What, in fact, if all six circumstances were found to be satisfied? It is not a fanciful notion being proposed by the member for Bulimba. It is quite possible that it could be the case of WorkCover sending people an invoice. It should also be drawn to the attention of the Committee that the reduction of the damages is at least 25 per cent, so it is actually possible for the courts to make it greater than 25 per cent in each case. The Minister ought to reconsider this clause. In my view, it is unworkable. It will not stop the courts from exercising the discretion that they have at common law. Many people will find themselves subject to absolutely onerous and unreasonable deductions in their entitlements. Mrs EDMOND: In one way, this clause is very prescriptive and, in another way, it does not define what it is prescribing. It says that the court must make a finding of contributory negligence, but it does not define what it means by "contributory negligence". Does this mean any form of negligence, does it mean significant negligence, or what? No indication is given in the Bill. Even in cases of the most minor negligence, the Minister is prescribing a 25 per cent deduction in the compensation award. At the very least, the Minister must see
the sense of inserting "significant contributory negligence" into the clause. Surely even the Minister can see that. Without that amendment, this clause will be used to deny workers fair compensation. Mr SANTORO: This clause is at the heart of the recommendations proposed by Mr Jim Kennedy. Mr Elder: Who made him the font of all wisdom? Mr SANTORO: I can tell the honourable member for Capalaba that nobody is the font of all wisdom, but some people make better sense than others. In this case, Mr Jim Kennedy makes better sense than the people opposite, who practically bankrupted the workers' compensation system when they were in Government. However, we have managed to keep the debate fairly much on track and we should continue to do so, even at this early hour of the morning. One of the objects of the WorkCover Queensland Bill is to protect employers in relation to damages claims. Bearing in mind that underlying the whole Bill is the concept of balance, the Bill seeks to achieve a balance between the responsibilities of employers towards the safety of their workers and the responsibility of workers towards their own standards of safety. Mrs Edmond: It does not say that there has to be 25 per cent negligence to be a 25 per cent reduction. Mr SANTORO: I will come to the specific clause in a moment, but I am simply referring honourable members to one of the objects of the Bill which states that it provides for the protection of employers' interests in relation to claims for damages for workers' injuries and it makes changes to the laws to strengthen workers' obligations for their own safety in employment. Even the honourable member for South Brisbane, who seems to want to oppose practically everything that is in the Bill, admitted Ms Bligh: I have only spoken on two clauses. Mr SANTORO: I think that the honourable member spoke on more than two clauses. However, if that is the case, she has certainly opposed the other two clauses, so my statement that she has opposed 100 per cent of everything spoken to is still correct. The object of the clause is to instil a sense of balance in the spirit of the Bill. Clause 314 is one of the fundamental recommendations of Kennedy. If honourable members have a close look at the discretion
4 Dec 1996
4973
that is provided for the courts in the Bill by words such as "relevantly failed", "so far as was practicable", "at the material time", and so on Ms Bligh: Can't you see the case law on this! Mr SANTORO: My point is that there is discretion. Ms Bligh: The lawyers will make money out of this clause. Mr SANTORO: I can go on all night, and if the member wants to keep interjecting, I will do so. The important point is that this is a balanced clause. It gives the magistrate the discretion that we believe he or she should have to entrench a sense of balance, which has been lacking within the workers' compensation system of Queensland. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The answer that the Minister has just provided to the Committee does not go any way towards answering the questions of a number of us in the first instance, and particularly that of the member for South Brisbane in relation to the issue of the discretion provided to the courts. It seems to me that the Minister is indicating that he allows a discretion by setting out what contributory negligence is, rather than by setting out the amount by which a magistrate may seek to reduce the award as a consequence of contributory negligence. If the Minister is right and if the discretion does exist, a fair-minded member of the Queensland judiciary assessing these principles may say, "If I was to consider contributory negligence to have occurred at all, then I would consider it to have occurred to the extent that I should reduce the award by 5 per cent. However, I am told that I must reduce the award by 25 per cent. Further to that, there is some discretion for me to decide that contributory negligence has not occurred." Therefore, in the interests of fairness to the injured worker and in the interests of saving the 25 per cent which would otherwise be thieved from the injured worker, the judge would say that contributory negligence has not applied and he would grant the full award. In effect, if the discretion exists as the Minister says, the operation of this clause will have quite the opposite effect to that which the Minister intends. We on this side agree that contributory negligence is a factor that should be considered and it is a factor that should reduce an award, but only to the appropriate amount. We do not see an arbitrary 25 per cent as being the appropriate
amount. We believe that a judge ought to be able to find for contributory negligence in the amount that he believes is appropriate. If the Minister's answer covers the situation as he sees it, the practical operation of the Act will have quite the opposite effect to that which he is trying to achieve. In the interests of fairness and in the interests of the rights of the person appearing before them, I do not believe that judges will find that contributory negligence has occurred if they believe it played only a small part in the injury. Simply because the Act states that it is mandatory for a judge to reduce a claim by 25 per cent, the judge will not necessarily do so. I think that the Minister will be defeated in his purpose because of his insistence on this most onerous 25 per cent reduction in every circumstance. I believe that what the Minister wants to achieve needs to be stated, but this clause will not achieve that purpose. As the member for South Brisbane said, this clause will create all sorts of interesting case law. It will be appealed by the Minister and the WorkCover board time after time after time. The Minister is creating lots of work for Liberal lawyers. Mrs EDMOND: In reply, the Minister said that he was trying to establish a fair balance. That is exactly what he is not doing with this clause. He is removing fair balance and he is also removing what he says gives the courts their discretion. This clause removes the court's discretion to find lesser levels of contributory negligence. It may be found that there is a 5 per cent contributory negligence, yet the court is still compelled to sacrifice 25 per cent of a worker's fair compensation. I cannot see how anyone can claim that that gives a fair balance. To me, that gives an absolute imbalance, and it takes all the discretion from the courts to give a fair finding. Question That clause 314, as read, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts,
4974
4 Dec 1996
Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
The numbers being equal, the Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clauses 315 to 332, as read, agreed to. Clause 333 Mr LUCAS (12.46 a.m.): One of my concerns about this clause was raised by a number of my colleagues in the debate on clause 1. I refer to the Government's general philosophy behind this Bill's reference to WorkCover Queensland rather than the Workers Compensation Board. It is a bit like the Federal Liberal/National coalition wanting to remove full employment from the Reserve Bank charter. The prime focus of this Bill should be the protection of workers and compensation to injured workers. It is extremely disappointing that in subclause 333(2) there is nothing about looking after the interests of injured workers. Sure there is mention of that in the objects clause, but I would have thought that in performing its functions WorkCover should pay heed to a fair, just and reasonable outcome for workers. Clause 333, as read, agreed to. Clauses 334 to 382, as read, agreed to. Clause 383 Mr LUCAS (12.48 a.m.): Clause 383 is headed "Regard to particular ability in appointment of directors". I wish to contrast this provision with what is contained in the current Workers' Compensation Act. Workers' compensation in this State has been carried on in a tripartite manner since 1916. The current Workers' Compensation Act provides for two representatives of employers, two representatives of unions and also Government appointments and the chairman. It has carried on in that benevolent tripartite fashion in the interests of the work force. Now there is no automatic guarantee that major stakeholders will be involved. It might be fine to say that the Minister will consider them, but I believe that in legislation such as this it is fundamental that the union movement and the union of employers' movement have full faith and confidence in it. I have no problems whatsoever with looking at the commercial qualifications of a number of directors of WorkCover. That is important. But it is also important to look at some sort of guarantee for the right of all of the different stakeholders to participate in the process. Clause 383, as read, agreed to.
Clauses 384 to 398, as read, agreed to. Clause 399 Mr BRADDY (12.49 a.m.): This is the first clause in Part 6, which is the Part which deals with converting Workers Compensation staff from members of the Public Service to a new statutory organisation. We in the Opposition wish to register our objection and protest to that provision. Subclause 399(3) states "The chief executive officer is to be appointed under this Act and not under the Public Service Act." It is that particular provision to which we object. Therefore, I move the following amendment "At page 225, lines 21 and 22 clause 399(3) omit, insert '(3) The chief executive officer is to be appointed under the Public Service Act 1996.'." The purpose of this amendment is that the chief executive officer is to be appointed under the Public Service Act. What we are about is very plain. We disagree with the conversion to a statutory organisation. Because we raise that point at this stage, I indicate now that I will not similarly raise it for analogous situations in clauses 404 and 405, in relation to which our intention to raise this matter had been circulated. There was to be a reference to people employed under the Public Service Act. The point is the same. The point we make is that they should remain, and we oppose the change. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise on behalf of my constituents. I note that today the Ministerand I referred to this in the secondreading debatesaid that the workers of this State are in agreement with the proposals that he is putting before the Parliament today. The fact of the matter is that I have received from the staff at the Rockhampton Workers Compensation Board district office a fax which indicates that they in no small way oppose this particular part of the Bill. They state that under the legislation presently before the Parliament for the creation of WorkCover they, the current employees, would lose their Public Service status. At the present time, they do not have any award or industrial agreement to ratify future employment conditions or tenure. I think that is a very important point. Tonight the Minister is thrusting these people into oblivion, as it wereinto an area where they will have no award coverage whatsoever. They have no idea what they are going into. I can well understand their concern. The member for
4 Dec 1996
4975
Fitzroy, Mr Pearce, has similarly received this plea from the workers at our office in Rockhampton. We in Rockhampton have had a lot of experience with corporatisation, and every time it occurs we lose services from Rockhampton. That is another point that those people made. These workers believe, as indeed do I, that that will result following the passage of this Bill tonight. Therefore, I join with the shadow Minister in saying to the Minister that this particular clause of the legislation is simply not on as far as his own workers are concerned. If he wants to have a vote of confidence from his own workers, the people whom he as Minister should be looking after, he should desist from what he is about to do and accept the amendment that the shadow Minister has moved. The Minister has made a big noise about how he wants to protect workers' rights generally. Well, let us look after some workers' rights specifically, and they are the workers who are in the Minister's own department as we speak. Obviously, the level of consultation that has taken place has not been adequate. These people do not know what their future holds for them. They do not even know what award provisions they will have. I think it is a pretty poor effort. These people in Rockhampton deserve a little bit of respect from the Minister. I want to say here and now that if there is any vindictive action by the Minister or any of the officers in the Workers Compensation Board against these people who have brought their concerns to my attention, then look out. They have every right to have their elected representative take up their case here tonight, and I do so with a great deal of pride because as a member of Parliament I have been particularly well served by these people, to which the member for Fitzroy and, I dare say, the member for Keppel would be able to attest. The fact is we have a great deal of respect for these people. Anything that the Minister is doing here tonight to undermine the confidence that those people have in their employment conditions needs to be redressed right here and now, and if the Minister can redress that we would be very grateful. Mr SANTORO: Right from the word go, let me put on the record of the Committee that during my six years as the shadow Minister for this area of Government policy, and since in fact becoming the Minister, apart from the occasional bitter and twisted nut who is always dissatisfied with his or her dealings with the Workers Compensation Boardand they are in the minorityI have never had anybody
criticise the professionalism and the dedication of the people within the Workers' Compensation Division. I say that for one very simple reason, and that is because it is true. I say that in the context of the current debate because I believe that, in terms of workers' compensation, we are embarking on a very exciting path. Mr Schwarten: I don't think it is exciting. Mr SANTORO: I can understand where the honourable member is coming from. Mr Schwarten: Where they are coming from. Mr SANTORO: Those people also wrote to me. I am about to come to the point of the people from Rockhamptonin fact, all of the staff. The one thing that I have always adopted with the staff in my division is I have always spoken directly with them. I have made myself available to the people in Rockhampton and Gladstone. Ms Bligh: That would have been a big thrill. Mr SANTORO: I do not know if it is a big thrill, but they tell meand the record will not contradict thisthat there has never been a Minister who has travelled and spoken to as many staff in his department as I have, particularly in the area of workers' compensation. We meet with them and we address their concerns. I have been discussing very clearly and very directly with them their concerns in relation to the Kennedy inquiry and the subsequent deliberations that took place from that point onwards. My view is that they have approached the change that is coming in a most Mr Elder: You didn't tell them this was coming, did you? Mr SANTORO: No. It was a Kennedy recommendation. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member should stop gibbering. It was a Kennedy recommendation which the Government endorsed from day one. All the staff within the Workers' Compensation Division knew that we would be heading down the way we are heading tonight. Nobody sought to hide it from them. I discussed it quite openly. In fact, the level of concern was quite minimal. It is my view that the vast majority of the people working within the Workers' Compensation Division of my department will be working for the new WorkCover authority at the end of three years. I say that because
4976
4 Dec 1996
their professionalism, their skill and their commitment to a WorkCover system in Queensland is something that will be enduring, and they are the skills, professionalism and commitment that will in fact be needed by the new WorkCover authority. I have absolute confidence in that statement I am making. However, this Government has listened very, very carefully to their concerns and I can inform the Chamber that all staff from the board will transfer to WorkCover on their existing employment conditions. In fact, they were in the process of finalising an agreement with the involvement of the SPSFQ, and that agreement has been put on hold pending the passage of this legislation this evening. There are no uncertainties. There are processes that are in place that seek to undo the uncertainty which some irresponsible elements of the union movement are seeking to engender. I am not union-bashing. However, there have been some incredibly alarmist statements made such as those suggesting the closure of regional offices. In a State such as Queensland, which is a growing State, it is laughable to suggest that workers' compensation regional offices will be closed. I take this opportunity to remind honourable members of their own track record in terms of closing down offices and facilities within rural and regional Queensland. That is not a practice that this Government intends to accept or endorse. The other point I would make is that all staff are to be transferred to equivalent positions in WorkCover. As I have said, the skills and experience of all staff will be required to ensure that the new organisation can operate successfully and efficiently. In addition to that, for a period of three years all transferred staff will be able to retain the following Public Service entitlements: the appeal rights in relation to appointments to the Public Service; transfer arrangements applying in the Public Service at the time; and access to the same redeployment arrangements, in other words, access to the Public Service redeployment pool and eligibility for placement to a Public Service position. Of course, they will be accountable to the board's directors, which is as it should be, under the new management arrangements. I have the greatest confidence that the staff will come to accept these changes and that they will in fact continue to be of tremendous service to the people of Queensland and particularly to injured employees who will seek to avail themselves of the services of WorkCover. I reiterate the
assurance that I gave to all honourable members towards the conclusion of my second-reading speech, that is, that should and I use the word "should" very advisedly any redundancies occur at the end of the three-year period, they will in fact be entitled to all of the accumulated benefits that they have accumulated as public servants. I make that point not to qualify any statement but purely to say that everything possible has been done for the good staff within the Workers' Compensation Division of my department in terms of maintaining them as valuable employees within the public sector of Queensland. Mr SCHWARTEN: I heard what the Minister said, which was a load of nothing, quite truthfully. It is no wonder that the 25 employees who took the trouble to write to me and the member for Fitzroy today took that action. Quite clearly, the grave concerns that these people hold have not been stemmed by what the Minister has just said. In fact, once they get to read about that tomorrow when I fax them his speech, they will probably have more to worry about than they had before. As for his remarks about scaremongeringI know most of the people whose names are on this list. I do not believe they listen to scaremongering stories. They are genuinely concerned about their jobs. They genuinely pride themselves on the level of service that they provide to the Rockhampton community. They genuinely have the view that they will be worse off as a result of this Bill being passed by the Parliament. Nothing that the Minister has said allays those fears as far as I am concerned. As for the Minister's remark about travelling around the State talking to these peopleif they understood what was going to occur, they certainly would not have been writing to me today. Mr Santoro: Why do you always put workers down by saying that they don't understand? Why? Why do you do that? Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection and I am glad that it is on the record Mr Santoro: You betcha! Mr SCHWARTEN: What did the Minister call me? Mr Santoro: I said, "You betcha I put it on the record." Mr SCHWARTEN: I am glad, because it will reinforce the view that the workers up there have that the Minister is a goose and that he is about as trustworthy as a snake in a fowl house. The truth of the matter is
4 Dec 1996
4977
Mr Santoro: Maybe I should have called you one of those names. Mr SCHWARTEN: The Minister can call me whatever he likes, but he will not deter me from standing up for these workers whom he is trying to belittle here tonight. I am not for one moment suggesting that these people do not have the mental capacity to understand. They are very, very good operators, and they would put the Minister to shame any day of the weekor those advisers that he has sitting in the monkey seats over there. The fact of the matter is this: these people are workers; these workers are concerned; they have conveyed their concerns to me as their representative; the Minister has not allayed their fears. It is little wonder that those workers have the contempt that they have for the Minister. He thinks that he has been around the State big-noting himself. Every Minister that we ever had has visited that workers' compensation office in Rockhampton and sat down and talked with those people. Indeed, I believe they had some faith in those people because they knew that they would not have got up to the grubby little deal that the Minister is putting forward here tonight. The Minister need not worry: I will make sure that every single one of those people knows exactly what he had to say here tonight. If he thinks that his arrogance will go unnoticed in my electorate, he is mistaken. He had the opportunity to set the record straight tonight, and I will belt him every inch of the way around my electorate as a result of what he said tonight because he has given those people no guarantee whatsoever; in fact, he has given them more to be frightened of than they ever had before. Ms BLIGH: What we have completely failed to hear from the Minister in this debate so far is any rationale whatsoever for his Mr J. H. Sullivan: Don't qualify it"any rationale whatsoever" will do! Ms BLIGH: We have heard no rationale for his intention to move these employees out of the Public Service. Generally speaking, when Governments seek to move public sector functions or employees out of the Public Service they use the rationale that they are looking for more flexibility, that they are looking for the flexibility to create efficiencies. The Minister has not used that argument and I am not surprised, because in fact the Workers Compensation Board of Queensland enjoys the enviable reputation amongst almost every other State in Australia of having one of the lowest running costs of any workers'
compensation organisation. It is a testament to the current management and employees of the board that they have such administrative efficiencies, and I know from personal experience that that is because many of the officers concerned have worked very hard over the last decade, systematically using the wage-fixing systems that were available to them at the time, to achieve efficiencies and to pursue excellence in the work that they do. Their efforts have paid off and they are one of the most efficient workers' compensation organisations in this country. So the Minister would be on very rocky ground if he tried to argue that the new statutory authority needed increased flexibility to pursue greater efficiencies. Even if the Minister did try to argue that, it begs the question: what possible flexibilities could the Minister be seeking that he could not already get under the new Public Service Act? As was demonstrated when the Public Service Act was debated at length in this Chamber, the new Act provides extensive flexibilities to the Government which did not exist in the previous legislation covering the public sector. As I said, it begs the question: what flexibilities could the Minister be seeking which are not already available under the new and extended powers of the Public Service Act? Those questions, unanswered as they are, are the basis for the fears that many employees of the organisation have expressed to members of this place. Having expressed those fears, what happens? The very genuine efforts of employees to raise legitimate concerns with the people who represent them in this place have been vilified by the Minister. The member for Rockhampton, the member for Cleveland, me, the member for Kedron and others who have raised these concerns over and over again have had accusations thrown across the Chamber that we are scaremongering. I remind the Minister that when members of this Opposition raised many genuine concerns about the Public Service Act the Premier said over and over again that we were scaremongering, we were politically motivated, we were ill-informed and we did not know what we were talking about. I remind the Minister that the Premier was forced to eat those words, and I predict that the Minister will be forced to eat the words that he has been flinging across the Chamber tonight. Mr Schwarten: Garnished sauce of his embarrassment. with the
Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Rockhampton for his interjection.
4978
4 Dec 1996
For example, the Minister has said that it is an absolute furphy and unnecessary scaremongering to claim that there might be any danger to the operation of regional offices and that staff have nothing to fear. This is the Minister who has sacked staff in the employment programs in every regional office in this State. The Minister may not realise it, but those staff worked side by side in many regional offices with officers of the Workers Compensation Board. So officers of the Workers Compensation Board saw their colleagues get a redundancy notice out of the blue and saw the programs in which they were employed wiped out by a single Budget decision. For all of the platitudes that had been mouthed by this Government when it came into office, they saw their colleagues lose their jobs overnight. No wonder they are worried! Is it any wonder that they are not calmed, that they are not pacified by the Minister's platitudes? I think that the fears that they have are very justified. When they see the other statutory authorities being created by the mega bank and the job losses that will happen there, it is no wonder that they have concerns. Those concerns are genuine, and the Minister should be making every effort when he gets up on his feet to at least put some kind of heart into the tone of his replies on this issue rather than vilifying the members who are raising the concerns on behalf of those people. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee not only to this clause but also to the combined effect that it will have when it operates in conjunction with clause 539. Clause 539 relates to the transfer provisions and it is these provisions to which the Minister turns every time he tries to justify his desire to remove the Public Service rights of the employees of the Workers Compensation Board. The first part of clause 539 provides that the conditions of the employees will be preserved upon transfer. Further on, in clause 540, certain conditions are preserved for three years. There is in fact a passage in the middle there, and the Minister continually and conveniently jumps over it. That passage states that individuals' conditions will only be preserved until an employment contract between the person and WorkCover is made or an industrial agreement or by WorkCover, subject to any applicable industrial instrument. There is nothing in that clause which would give anybody any comfort. That clause provides for no minimum employment conditions. It provides not even the bare minimum that the
Minister is suggesting for Queensland workplace agreements in his industrial relations legislation that is currently before the Parliament. Anybody reading that would have a legitimate reason to be concerned and to be alarmed. In the absence of any rationale and in the presence of the many fears that have been raised, I urge the Minister to reconsider his position and support the amendment that is before the Parliament. Amendment negatived. Clause 399, as read, agreed to. Clauses 400 to 405, as read, agreed to. Clause 406 Mr BRADDY (1.12 a.m.) The amendment that we move to this clause is again an attempt by the Opposition to ensure that the public servants who will be transferred to this new statutory organisation are dealt with fairly. It is apparent from the legislation and from what those employees have been told by the Government that new conditions will apply and that there is no guarantee that the public servants who will go across to WorkCover as a statutory organisation will be treated as public servants. The Opposition has therefore suggested that this particular clause be removed. If we were to succeed in that, we would then seek to provide the following amended clause 406 "If the employment conditions of a WorkCover employee are subject to an applicable industrial instrument, the industrial instrument must provide salaries and employment conditions as provided by the industrial instrument that determines salaries and employment conditions for officers of the Public Service employed under the Public Service Act 1996." The Opposition has no confidence that the salaries and conditions, including superannuation, to which original section 406 applied, offered to the employees in these situations will be as good as and equivalent to the salaries and employment conditions for officers of the Public Service. We do not have that trust and we therefore wish to place this amended clause in the Bill in order to protect the people about whom the Minister has been very lyrical. The Opposition certainly agrees strongly that those employees have rendered good service over a long period in a very professional way. Clause 406, as read, agreed to. Clauses 407 to 488, as read, agreed to.
4 Dec 1996
4979
Clause 489 Mr SANTORO (1.15 a.m.): I move the following amendment "At page 266, line 8, '7 days' omit, insert '14 days'." This amendment increases the time that WorkCover has to notify an employer of the review decision. Some concerns were raised with me earlier on in the eveningin fact, yesterdayin relation to the shortness of that time and the Government has agreed to in fact extend various times for notification of appeals and reviews not only in this amendment but also in subsequent amendments. Amendment agreed to. Clause 489, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 490 to 503, as read, agreed to. Clause 504 Mr BRADDY (1.16 a.m.): The Opposition finds it somewhat extraordinary that under this particular clause, an employer is given the power to apply to have a decision reviewed in the internal review process and, similarly, that applies in some following clauses in the Bill. I refer particularly to 504(4), which currently states "A claimant, worker or an employer aggrieved by the decision may apply for the decision to be reviewed." It seems to us that natural justice requires that a claimant or a worker who is aggrieved may apply for a decision. We are talking here about compensation and the decision to allow or reject an application for compensation and entitlements and so forth. It does not seem to us to be appropriate that the employer should be given this particular power to call for a review. It is therefore in these circumstances that I move the following amendment "At page 273, lines 6 and 7clause 504(4) omit, insert '(4) A claimant or worker aggrieved by the decision may apply for the decision to be reviewed.'." Amendment negatived. Clause 504, as read, agreed to. Clause 505 Mr SANTORO (1.18 a.m.): I move the following amendments "At page 273, line 16, '7 days' omit, insert '28 days'.
At page 273, line 28, '7 days' omit, insert '14 days'." Amendment No. 3 extends the time from 7 to 28 days for a worker to ask for reasons for a decision regarding his or her claim if no reason was originally given. In most cases the reason must have been given in the first instance, as this is a requirement under judicial review. Amendment No. 4 extends the time that WorkCover has to notify the worker that an application for review has been received. Amendments agreed to. Clause 505, as amended, agreed to. Clause 506 Mr SANTORO (1.19 a.m.): I move the following amendment "At page 274, line 17, '7 days' omit, insert '14 days'." This amendment also extends the time for WorkCover to notify of reasons for a review decision. Amendment agreed to. Clause 506, as amended, agreed to. Clause 507 Mr BRADDY (1.19 a.m.): This clause relates to the proper process that we believe should apply in relation to reviews and hearings by industrial magistrates. It is in those circumstances that I move the following amendment "At page 274, lines 22 and 23, '(other than a review decision made about a decision under section 158)' omit." Amendment negatived. Clause 507, as read, agreed to. Clause 508, as read, agreed to. Clause 509 Mr SANTORO (1.20 a.m.): I move the following amendments "At page 275, line 16, '7 days' omit, insert '28 days'. At page 275, line 23, '7 days' omit, insert '14 days'." These amendments extend the time for a person to request the reasons for a decision regarding a review if the reasons have not
4980
Adjournment
4 Dec 1996
already been given. They also extend the time for WorkCover to notify the person that an application for a hearing has been received. Amendments agreed to. Clause 509, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 510 to 537, as read, agreed to. Clause 538 Mr BRADDY (1.21 a.m.): I will indicate at the outset that this is the last matter that the Opposition wishes to raise and it relates to clauses 538 and 539. In raising this particular matter and in dividing as we will, Opposition members wish to make it clear that we are fundamentally opposed as a matter of principle to the transfer of staff to WorkCover. As honourable members will see, those are the operative clauses in relation to the matter. To reinforce that, we oppose this provision and we believe that the staff should remain as officers in the Public Service in the Division of Workers' Compensation in the Department of Training and Industrial Relations. We indicate our opposition to it. We indicate that we will divide the Committee. Question That clause 538, as read, stand part of the Billput; and the Committee divided
AYES, 44Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll NOES, 44Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, DArcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.
'551.(1) This section applies if a worker sustains an injury before the repeal of the repealed Act. '(2) The repealed Act applies in relation to the injury as if the repealed Act had not been repealed.'. At page 296, line 10, 'the former Act' omit, insert 'a former Act'." Amendment No. 8 clarifies that the WorkCover Queensland Bill applies only to injuries sustained after the proclamation of the Act. Amendment No. 9 clarifies that injuries occurring prior to the proclamation date will be dealt with under the Act relevant at the time of the injury. Amendments agreed to. Heading and clause 551, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 552 to 558, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Mrs BIRD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the condition of some of the members on the Government side of the Chamber. The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Santoro, by leave, read a third time. ADJOURNMENT Mr FITZGERALD (LockyerLeader of Government Business) (1.31 a.m.): I move "That the House do now adjourn." Western Suburbs CYSS Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove) (1.32 a.m.): Over the past seven years I have been President of the Enoggera Skillshare program. I have been privileged to work with the local management committee of 11 community members who have volunteered their diverse skills and have shown keen enthusiasm to supervise arguably Brisbane's best Skillshare program. However, there are no volunteers in the management committee of the Western Suburbs CYSSanother Skillshare program. Western Suburbs CYSS is supposedly a
The numbers being equal, the Chairman cast his vote with the Ayes. Resolved in the affirmative . Clauses 539 to 550, as read, agreed to. Clause 551 Mr SANTORO (1.28 a.m.): I move the following amendments "At page 296, lines 1 to 8 omit, insert 'PART 4INJURY BEFORE REPEAL OF REPEALED ACT 'Injury under repealed or other former Act
4 Dec 1996
Adjournment
4981
community-based, non-profit organisation. Three years ago, Western Suburbs CYSS held public meetings and had a local management committee of nine people. Today, it has only six members and four of those members are representatives on the management committee. It does not conduct public meetings and there has been no attempt by the present committee to rectify this untenable position. When it comes to elections, the only people who are given the nomination forms are those on the committee. A recently amended constitution excludes new members and gives the present incumbents veto over any increase in membership. Why is that? Under the new constitution, payments are authorised. However, that must be passed at a general meeting. The following amounts have been allowed for this year: president, $12,000; vicepresident, $5,000; treasurer, $5,000; and secretary, $5,000. This has not been authorised by a general meeting and it is a breach of the law. We also have a conflict of interest in that the members of the present committee, who must now believe that they are entitled to board fees, should not be able to charge fees to provide a service to the Western Suburbs CYSS. For example, the treasurer has charged $100 per hour for services rendered. Recently, he put in a bill for doing the books for $1,500 for 15 hours' work. The chairman expects to sell clothing and uniforms to the staff and the vice-president has charged fees for staff recruitment. I believe that that is against corporate law. When he raised concerns about the legality of the board fees and charges the manager was summarily sacked. That was the final straw for the manager who had, over the past three years, attempted unsuccessfully to get members from business and the education community to join the membership of that Skillshare program. The recent activities of the Western Suburbs CYSS breaches the Associations Incorporation Act. Western Suburbs CYSS is not eligible for incorporation and has to be conducting its affairs in a legal manner if it is providing financial gain for its members. An association is not eligible for incorporation under the Associations Incorporation Act if it has a membership of fewer than seven members. As I said before, the Western Suburbs CYSS has six. As I stated earlier, the Western Suburbs CYSS has only six members and has been vetoing any other people from joining. The
original association required a quorum of the executive times two plus one. That meant that it required nine members to change the rules. That was not achieved at the meetings to determine the change in the association rulesanother set of rules broken. The decisions of the March and May 1996 meetings which, among other matters, passed the board fees did not meet the requirements of the association rules and consequently these decisions are not valid and cannot be implemented. On 2 August 1996, the manager, as the chief executive officer, wrote to the committee to rectify the problem of lack of membership suggesting two major players who are supporters of the organisation, Mr T. Owens of the Baptist Union and Mr A. Hadden of Wesley Central Mission. They were refused membership. A written response to the manager stated in part "Our brief is not to conduct our affairs in the interests of the community." What a joke! The manager stated to me that it became very clear to him that the present executive had little interest in being accountable under the Associations Incorporation Act and the Charitable Funds Act 1958. The manager further stated "This approach has possible ramifications about the status of the organisation under the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act and the Bank Account Debits Tax Act." Over the past two years, the Western Suburbs CYSS has received over $400,000 of funds from the Queensland Government for training workers. Surely somebody should investigate this matter. However, the interesting thing is that one of the six members of that committee is Denver Beanland, the Attorney-General of this State. One would think that the Attorney-General of this State would make sure that these people did not charge fees for providing services and operated under the terms of the Associations Incorporation Act. The Attorney-General is like Pontius Pilate; he has washed his hands of the matter and has allowed a very good manager to be sacked. He has sat back while this particular Skillshare program is breaking all the rules in the book. I think that Mr Beanland should be accountable to the community that he represents. He should have the interests of that community at heart and make sure that we do not have a Skillshare program that pays its management committee and allows it to charge for providing services. My committee has never, ever done that. I think that is
4982
Adjournment
4 Dec 1996
ludicrous. I am not aware of any Skillshare program that allows that situation to occur; however, this program has received $400,000 from the State Government. Cyclone Research Mr MITCHELL (Charters Towers) (1.37 a.m.): There is no doubt that this Government is completely committed to the improvement of all forms of emergency service delivery throughout the State. In line with this commitment to improved emergency service delivery, I am pleased to advise the House that three research projects being carried out in Townsville have been recognised by the Government for their importance to the improvement of emergency service delivery. Last Monday, the Minister for Emergency Services, the Honourable Mick Veivers, provided $60,000 in funding to these three important research projects in Townsville. These three projects being conducted are important owing to the fact that all three are involved in cyclone research. Cheques were provided by the Minister to the James Cook University cyclone testing station and the Centre for Disaster Studies, with additional funding to the disaster centre for general flood and storm surge research. There is no greater destructive force in nature than cyclones, and we all know that the north is prone to these unmerciful forces of nature. Adequate planning for any cyclone situation requires all the data that can be possibly obtained on the likely effects. There is no doubt that, with all the available data and research, lives will be saved. The JCU cyclone structural testing station received $30,000 and a commitment to continued funding for three years. This funding is in addition to $50,000 funding provided by the Premier, Rob Borbidge, and the Minister for Public Works and Housing, the Honourable Ray Connor. The State Government funding fills the gap that has been left by the Federal Government decision to withdraw funding. The role of the testing centre is to provide safer low-rise building designs for communities affected by tropical cyclones. The Government funding will provide vital research into wind risk to housing in Townsville and Thuringowa. Research in this area has provided valuable information, with the establishment of a substantial database of the housing stock of the area, and facilitated the analysis and identification of problem areas. Most importantly, the research has provided a base for the development of a computer model to estimate damage from incoming cyclones.
The export potential of the research conducted by the cyclone testing station has been recognised by this Government as there is no comparable facility available anywhere else in the world. There is a growing demand from our Asian neighbours for such technology and research exports. The university's centre for disaster studies received $20,000 and also a three-year funding commitment. The centre conducts research into storm surge vulnerability and response options in Cairns. Such research has established methodologies for and identified major impediments to evaluation by road, critical community attitudes and issues, suitability criteria for and locations of evacuation shelters, and applications for using census data for risk assessment. A further $10,000 in funding has been provided to the centre for general flood and storm surge research, with a commitment to continued funding for five years. Research in this particular area has facilitated the development of linkages between researchers and clients, particularly local government, identified relationships between existing and future projects, and identified new avenues for investigation. It will be through pro-active initiatives by the Government and the promotion of research of this kind that we will be more prepared for any cyclone disaster situations which may threaten the State, and at the same time we will create the opportunity for a growing export market. There is no doubt that if the work of the centres was restricted Queensland's cyclone-prone north would be not as well prepared to cope with the effects of the impact of any cyclones. The Government is serious not only about being able to respond to disasters such as cyclones and severe storm surges with our emergency services, but also about better preparing communities to cope with such disasters. For the last time this year, I congratulate the Honourable Ministers for providing the funding and continued commitment to funding to ensure the supply of information on how to better prepare for cyclones and other disasters. Use of Credit Cards Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (1.42 a.m.): I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a matter which should be of concern to every Queenslander who regularly uses a Visa card, Bankcard or Mastercard. In explaining this issue, it may be of assistance if I highlight the case of a constituent of mine
4 Dec 1996
Adjournment
4983
who brought the matter to my attention in the first place. Earlier this year, the constituent in question attended a wedding in a central Queensland town and booked into a room at a local motel. On her arrival, she was asked how she wished to pay for her account and she advised that she would pay by Visa card. An imprint of her card was taken on the understanding that, should she leave without settling her account, the imprinted slip would be submitted for payment. On her departure the following morning, my constituent visited reception and signed for her billa total amount of $66. The next week, during attempts to withdraw money from her personal account, she was advised that she had a balance of only $30 left in the account. I am informed that my constituent had budgeted for the cost of her stay at the motel and therefore had no idea where the remaining funds had gone. As a single mother, this left her with only $30 with which to support herself and her child for a week. Upon investigating further, my constituent was surprised to learn that the motel where she had stayed had frozen $200 of her funds in order to cover itself in the event that she left the town without settling her account. She was also advised that it was apparently standard procedure in the motel industry for motels to hold a freeze over funds in customers' accounts for a period of up to 10 days. Following many phone calls from my constituent and her distressed parents, the motel manager was finally forced to contact my constituent's banking institution to have these funds released. Upon learning of this incident, I was deeply concerned as to whether, in fact, this was a legitimate practice within the motel industry and, if so, whether or not consumers are aware of such a practice. My inquiries through the Office of Consumer Affairs and the Department of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice have revealed that this is, indeed, a common practice within the accommodation industry. In the motel industry, an operator apparently estimates an amount which it believes will cover the cost of accommodation and other services. A call is then made to the Merchant Authorisation Centre which records the amount and advises the cardholder's financial institution. A hold is then placed on those funds until such time as the actual transaction record is presented. The hold automatically lapses after a nominated period
of time if the transaction record is not presented. This procedure is obviously used by motels to cover instances where guests depart without paying. In the case of my constituent, she presented a Credit Union Australia Visa card, which is a debit card rather than a credit card and is linked to the consumer's savings account. Obviously, problems arose due to the amount the motel determined to put on hold which led to the hardship experienced by my constituent. The Minister has advised me that, at the present time, there is no legislation to prevent such usage and it is not seen by merchants as being fraudulent as the money is put on hold rather than being taken from the consumer's account. While both the existing and proposed credit legislation regulates continuing credit contracts such as credit cards, the practice of the freezing of funds is not covered by the legislation. As a consequence, there is no obligation on a credit provider to inform a cardholder of such a practice. I have no doubt that most motel operators are genuine, hardworking people who use this practice in a responsible manner to cover themselves in the event of a customer skipping town before paying the bill. Motel operators need to cover themselves against such losses, and I respect that right. However, I am concerned about the fact that, because most consumers do not appear to be aware of this practice, they do not have the necessary information to make an informed decision as to how they wish to pay for their accommodation. Looking again at the case of my constituent, a young single mother with limited funds, she had budgeted to ensure that she had enough money to cover the cost of her accommodation. However, had she been aware of the motel's practice in freezing an amount of up to $200, I am certain she would have chosen to pay her account in cash, thus saving her the distress and embarrassment which this incident caused. I trust that by raising this matter in the House, I will at least give Queensland consumers the opportunity to make an informed decision next time they check into a motel. Mrs C. Bashford; Kampman Family Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) (1.46 a.m.): Initially, I would like to clarify a matter that I raised during the debate on the Transport (Gladstone East End To Harbour Corridor) Bill 1996. During the debate, I made reference to two property owners affected directly by the Bill, Mrs McInally and Mrs
4984
Adjournment
4 Dec 1996
Bashford. In my contribution to the debate, I stated that both women had been approached by the Minister for purchase. However, Mrs Bashford's representative, Mr Hos Bardell, has subsequently rung me and stated that neither Mrs Bashford nor he had been approached formally for that purpose. I apologise for my error in that matter. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to a family from my electorate who have faced a great deal of sadness during the past 12 months. By bringing this family forward, I acknowledge that many families throughout Queensland have also experienced intense sadness or personal tragedy. Mr and Mrs Kampman senior live just down the road from me, as did Lou and Jan. Almost 12 months ago to the day, Mr and Mrs Kampman senior had the pleasure of having their daughter-in-law and grandchildren stay with them for Christmas. Their son remained overseas to join them later. After only a short time, the Kampman's house was engulfed by fire. Mr and Mrs Kampman managed to escape and were endeavouring to assist the children out of the home with their mother's help. Sadly, they could not escape. Along with their son and their other children, Mr and Mrs Kampman were left to cope with the grief of losing their daughter-in-law and the children. The funeral was a tragedy, seeing the tiny caskets resting in the chapel alongside that of the children's mum. The whole community of Calliope and Gladstone grieved for the family. Mr and Mrs Kampman senior subsequently sold their property and moved south, away from such sad memories. The family now has to cope with the death of another family member, this time after the complications of a stroke. Jan was only 50 years old. I pass on to Lou, her husband, sincere sympathies in this sadness almost 12 months to the day. I again acknowledge that each member could possibly relay similar sadness. However, I raise this matter tonight as we are preparing for the Christmas recess, to assure people in our community that our thoughts are with them during this time. Some members in the House are facing their own difficult times as they support and encourage loved ones during illness. I am sure all here wish a speedy recovery to those who are sick and the happy Christmas gift of recovery. I also record our thoughts for all families across the State as they plan to meet together for the Christmas period. I wish each one safety as they travel and a warm and happy time together as families. To those who will
spend this special time with a loved one in hospital or, indeed, if they themselves are in hospital, I take this opportunity to pass on the thoughts and prayers of the House as we celebrate such a blessed and holy time. Again, my special thoughts go to the Kampman family. May they be able to manage their grief and may the family be strengthened together. Mr T. Kellner; Senior Citizens, Mount Isa Electorate Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa) (1.50 a.m.): I have been approached by a number of Aboriginal people expressing their concerns about the activities of an organisation and individuals within that organisation who they believe are ripping off members of Aboriginal groups around Queensland. I refer in particular to a group known as the National Indigenous Advisory Group Aboriginal Corporation, which is an organisation which purports to organise seminars, workshops and training sessions for Aboriginal people and in particular those people from organisations who aspire to become directors or hold other executive positions within Aboriginal organisations. The person who appears to be the leading light in this activity is a Mr Thomas Kellner, who was a consultant with the National Indigenous Aboriginal Group. Following my inquiries with various people in Canberra and Sydney, I understand that the National Indigenous Advisory Group and Mr Kellner have gone into liquidation and that Mr Kellner was previously engaged as a consultant with Koori Wholesale Supplies, which purported to assist Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. One of my constituents who is very much involved in Aboriginal affairs has brought to my attention the fact that Mr Tom Kellner has resurrected himself and is now trading with an organisation known as Far North Communications Pty Ltd. This organisation is again offering workshops, seminars and training sessions to Aboriginal groups. The activities of this gentleman and his involvement in Far North Communications Pty Ltd would have gone unnoticed except for his failure to change his post office box number, which is post office box 2389, Cairns, north Queensland, which just happens to be the same post office box number for Far North Communications Pty Ltd. All of the information which I have gathered from Government sources indicates that this gentleman is involved in a sham, that he is making a
4 Dec 1996
Adjournment
4985
lucrative living off the backs of Aboriginal people. I warn the Parliament tonight, and through the Parliament hopefully the people of Queensland, that they should have no dealings whatsoever with any organisation with which Mr Tom Kellner has any association. I commend the Aboriginal people for bringing this matter to my attention so that I can warn the people of Queensland about this obviously shonky gentleman. Many organisations around our State rely on volunteers to assist them. All too often we accept these services without giving much attention or thought to who runs them. I refer to Meals on Wheels, the Blue Nurses, the Endeavour Foundation, the Skillshare group apprenticeship schemes, P & C committees, guides, scouts and many, many more. One of the great initiatives of the Goss Labor Government was the establishment of the HOME Assist/HOME Secure scheme. Again, volunteers are relied on to run the committee and to ensure that the scheme works. In my home City of Mount Isa, we have had a local board which has been working long and hard to ensure that this organisation delivers a service to senior citizens. Since the change of Government, they have been living from month to month not knowing whether the organisation will be funded. I understand that the Minister requested the Community Housing Grants Board to make recommendations to him regarding the future funding for this body, and I further understand that this body recommended that the organisation in Mount Isa be funded until the end of the 1997 financial year. However, the Minister has now decreed that funding will apply until only February 1997. I ask the Minister: can he understand the frustration which members of this committee and members of the community feel when a body is set up to make recommendations and the Minister does not accept the recommendations which the committee comes forward with? This again highlights to me the lack of real concern by this Government for community organisations and for senior citizens. I certainly hope that the Minister in question could give my local group an assurance that funding will continue to enable these volunteers to provide the service which is required and needed in my City of Mount Isa. Papaya Fruit Fly Mrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (1.54 a.m.): For many months now, horticulture farmers have been under threat and have spent many
hundreds of dollars on their fruit to protect their crops from further disaster. The papaya fruit fly is a major threat to horticulture not only in north Queensland but in the whole of Australia. The Queensland Government is committed to the eradication of the papaya fruit fly, and has secured Commonwealth/State cost-sharing arrangements to partly provide the necessary funding. The total cost of the eradication program this year is expected to be $12m. Queensland's share of this funding is $1.8m in 1996-97. The Queensland Government has also provided an additional $1.2m to assist growers by waiving fees for the departmental inspections required to comply with the quarantine protocols of their fruit. A further $3.4m has been provided to establish a research and operational headquarters for the papaya fruit fly campaign in Cairns. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Trevor Perrett, advises me that occupancy of this major facility is expected in August 1997, which will significantly boost our capacity to manage the fly. A major part of this facility will be devoted to post-harvest disinfestation research, which directly benefits industry by developing market access protocols for fruit fly host produce. The eradication campaign is proceeding well and papaya fruit fly numbers have been greatly reduced. Only three male lure traps in the whole of the pest quarantine area were positive for the papaya fruit fly in the last week of November. An intensive fruit collection program is being used to supplement trapping, since rearing fruit flies from fruit is now providing a more reliable method of detecting the fly. Over 500 samples are being taken weekly in this program and, in the last week of November, only eight samples were positive for papaya fruit fly. Seven samples were positive in the week before. But we cannot rest on our laurels. The hot months are starting and only time will tell. The decline in papaya fruit fly numbers in traps and fruit samples demonstrates the success of the extensive blocking and protein bait spraying operations being carried out in the pest quarantine area. National and international scientists have congratulated the project team on the success to date. However, the fruiting season has now started again in earnest, and vigilance must be maintained in respect of increased levels over the summer months. This year's mango crop promises to be a bumper one, and backyard and wild trees may provide a
4986
Adjournment
4 Dec 1996
breeding haven for the papaya fruit fly. Such trees have been targeted in a concerted baitspraying exercise in an effort to limit breeding. Cooperation is being sought from property owners by clearing away fallen fruit which may otherwise provide a breeding source for the papaya fruit fly and other fruit flies. The banana industry is a good example of how the industry has supported the efforts of the department through the papaya fruit fly campaign. The "hard, green" protocol for cavendish bananas negotiated between the industry and the DPI is an excellent example of the way in which the impact of the pest on industry and reliance on chemical treatments can be reduced. My colleague Marc Rowell, the member for Hinchinbrook, has been working with me and the banana industry in negotiating with the department for further research work to be done to extend the "hard, green" protocol to lady finger bananas. Growers of lady finger bananas have been very keen for research to take place. We have also been able to organise with the department for the monitoring of fruit flies to be carried out on a number of lychee growers' properties in the southern part of the quarantine area to establish area freedom for those properties. However, the majority of lychee growers in the quarantine area are still required to dip fruit prior to shipment. Honourable members can see how important it is to maintain a campaign to eradicate this pest. A key development to assist growers has been the introduction of certification assurance as an alternative to departmental supervision
of quarantine treatments for fruit. Banana growers are among the leaders in adopting certification assurance. Despite early and some continuing problems, I am advised that more than 75 per cent of growers have adopted certification assurance, which is an excellent example for other industries to follow. Certification assurance is ideally suited to larger growers and for crops which produce for most of the year, such as bananas and pawpaws. In these circumstances, the volume of produce being handled warrants the necessary investment in establishing and documenting certification assurance systems and training staff in its operation. However, I am advised that DPI will maintain inspection services for smaller and/or seasonal growers where inspection of produce provides a more economic alternative than certification assurance. Another development in the campaign against the papaya fruit fly is the appointment of consultants to develop initial plans and costings for a sterile insect facility for the papaya fruit fly, just in case this additional weapon is needed to finally eradicate this pest. The release of sterile papaya fruit flies is an environmentally friendly technique that could be used if it became necessary to control the papaya fruit fly in the World Heritage areas. However, current evidence from over 7,500 rainforest fruit samples is that the control program to date has prevented the papaya fruit fly from establishing in rainforest and other environmentally sensitive areas. The House (Thursday). adjourned at 2 a.m.

Ministerial Statement Announces Women's Council for Rural Communities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministerial Statement Announces Women's Council for Rural Communities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Dec 1996

WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 1996

Private Members' Statements

Private Members' Statements

Private Members' Statements

Private Members' Statements

Private Members' Statements

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Questions Without Notice

Criminal Law Amendment Bill

Criminal Law Amendment Bill

Criminal Law Amendment Bill

Criminal Law Amendment Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

Petroleum Amendment Bill (No. 2)

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill

WorkCover Queensland Bill