contents department of tourism, sport and racing

CONTENTS

Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs . . . . . . . . . . 284

Department of Environment and Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Estimates Committee D 261 15 June 1994

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE DMr R. Welford

Dr L. Clark Mr D. SlackMr B. Littleproud Mr J. Szczerbanik

Mrs M. Rose Mr M. VeiversThe Committee commenced at 11.30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF T OURISM , SPORT AND RACING

In AttendanceHon. R. Gibbs, Minister for Tourism, Sport and

Racing

Mr David Williams, Director-GeneralMr Mark Peters, Executive Director (Policy and

Programs Division)

Mr Peter Phair, Executive Director (Regionaland Corporate Services Division)

Mr Peter Richardson, Manager FinancialServices Unit

Mr Laurie Longland, Executive Director(Regional and Corporate ServicesDivision)

Dr Bob Mason, Director (Racing Services)Mr Ken Rosebery, Chief Executive Officer,

Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation

The CHAIRMAN: I declare this meeting ofEstimates Committee D now open. This Committeewill examine the proposed expenditure contained inthe Appropriation Bill for the areas set out in theSessional Orders. The organisational units will beexamined in the following order: Minister forTourism, Sport and Racing between now and 3.30p.m., or such of that period as is necessary; followedby the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginaland Islander Affairs; followed by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage.

For the benefit of members of the Committeeand the Minister and his staff, I should note that thetime limit for questions is one minute, and answersare to be no longer than three minutes. A 15-secondwarning chime will be given prior to the expiration ofthese time limits, and at the end of the time limit twochimes will be given. The Committee has agreed thatit will seek to its best endeavours to confinequestions to matters which relate to the Estimatesand, in particular, the Estimates of expenditure in theBudget Papers. I will be encouraging members toconfine their questions in that way.

As set out in the Sessional Order, the first 20minutes of questions are to be from non-Governmentmembers and the second 20 minutes fromGovernment members, and so on in rotation. At theend of the 20-minute period, three chimes will begiven to indicate a change from Government tonon-Government, or vice versa. For the benefit ofHansard, I would ask that departmental witnessesidentify themselves before they answer a question.

Further, this Committee has sought to refine theoperations of the Estimates procedure by dealingwith departments in a more disciplined way both for

the efficiency of the operation of this Committee andto enable departments to plan their work for the day.For this purpose, the Committee has resolved to dealwith the first department according to program areasin the following order: firstly, the Tourism program;secondly, Racing; thirdly, the Sport and Recreationprogram; fourthly, Liquor Licensing; fifthly, Youth;and then Corporate Services. It is understood thatthere is a time limit on the period for dealing with thisDepartment, and so the Committee will work its waythrough the programs in that order so far as timeallows. The purpose of organising the questioning inthis way is to allow those departmental or agencystaff from a program area which has been dealt withto be able to depart the Chamber and return to thework of their department.

We have some non-Governmentnon-Committee members here to ask questions, andthey will be invited to put their questions in theperiods allowed for questioning by Oppositionmembers at the conclusion of the questioning byCommittee members of the Opposition, there beingno other questions from Government membersoutside those on the Committee.

So I declare the proposed expenditure for theMinister for Tourism, Sport and Racing to be openfor examination. The question before the Committeeis—

"That the proposed expenditure beagreed to."

I invite Mr Veivers to commence hisquestioning.

Mr VEIVERS: Does the Minister want to makeany statement before we start? You do not want todo that, Minister?

The CHAIRMAN: If Mr Veivers is happy, Iinvite the Minister to make any brief introductorystatement that he may wish to make.

Mr GIBBS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wouldsimply like to make a couple of points that theDepartment of Tourism, Sport and Racing embodiesthe surge in growth and confidence that has placedQueensland at the forefront of this nation's economicrecovery. 1993-94 was a record budgetary year forsport in Queensland, and next year's allocation iseven greater—a direct result of this Government'sfar-sighted decision to invest poker machine profitsback into the community. Sporting clubs haveunprecedented resources to channel back into theircommunity, as a result of the introduction of themachines, and this is enhanced by a sportingallocation of $49m, which is seven times the amountwhen the Goss Government came to office.

Taking out administrative costs and anunrequited transfer to Treasury, this leaves $32m tobe distributed from the grassroots through to ourexpanded programs for elite athletes at theQueensland Academy of Sport.

The 2000 Olympics offers athletes, the tourismand the general business sectors a once-in-a-lifetimeopportunity, and we will harness our efforts throughthe Olympic Task Force that this Budget establishes.The Government has also set, and will maintain,record funding to the economic powerhouse of

15 June 1994 262 Estimates Committee D

Queensland, the tourist industry. A debt-freeQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporation willcontinue to foster our State's leading generator ofjobs. It will do so with unprecedented cooperationfrom the private sector, which will contribute $5m tocooperative advertising campaigns. The QueenslandEvents Corporation will make the logical progressionto my Department from 1 July, allowing a closerworking relationship with the QTTC.

This year, Queensland will host the WorldMasters Games, the Indy and the One Australiachallenge, which obviously will enhance ourexcellent reputation as a vibrant and multifacetedtourist destination. The State's labour-intensiveliquor industry will generate more than $110m inGovernment revenue and employ 24 000 people. Ourfledgling wine industry will be supported byinnovative legislation, which will allow it to operate ina manner conducive to the expansion of its tourismpotential.

Finally, my Department's Youth Bureau willcontinue to refine its role as the Goss Government'slead agency for youth affairs, as it oversees theimplementation of the Government's first ever youthpolicy.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. I invitequestions from Mr Veivers.

Mr VEIVERS: Minister, one of the focuses ofthe 1994-95 Tourism program is to develop astrategic plan that identifies the policy issues that theGovernment needs to address to ensure the strongfuture development of the industry. At present, thereis a chronic infrastructure shortage, which has thepotential to halt tourism growth in the next few years.Has funding been allocated to prepare a strategicplan within the next financial year so that theseissues can be addressed?

Mr GIBBS: The strategic plan is a vital part ofthe tourism industry because it provides a frameworkfor the development of the industry. It identifies therole of Government in this development. A number ofthe things at which we are looking go right acrossthe broad spectrum of the Queensland touristindustry. Our strategy is aimed to do that. We arelooking, for example, at responsibilities and matterswhich affect regional Queensland. We are looking atissues such as research and statistics.

I am sure that you would be aware, as theOpposition spokesman, that a lot of the research andstatistics which have tended to come out in thisindustry over many years have probably tended, inmany cases, to inflate the progressive nature orotherwise of the industry. That has been one of theproblems, particularly since the recession. A numberof high-flying operators within the industry crashed.That has had a detrimental effect on finance houses,banking institutions and so on, and on their supportfor the industry.

There is a need to improve that performance.We are looking, obviously, at questions of productdevelopment, our marketing, investment and finance.We are looking at ecologically sustainabledevelopment within the tourist industry, which is aprogram being put together by a number of agencies

within Government at the present time. The programwill produce a full Ecotourism Strategy forQueensland. We have a responsibility to look at thesocial impacts that tourism has throughout the State.Cairns would be the logical place about which onecould say that the social impacts of tourism have hada fairly traumatic impact on the community. We havea responsibility to look at that issue. It goes withoutsaying that we must continue to have a broad look atprograms relating to education, training, employmentand industrial relations within the industry.

Industrial relations performs a vital part of theindustry. The Government is well on track withenterprise bargaining within the industry at this time.Our recent plan was released at the Whitsundayconference. We are looking at the broad issue of theprovision of infrastructure required in the future. Ourfirst study was on the Cairns and Whitsundayregions. In that area, we are well on top of what weare required to do in terms of a future strategy forthe industry.

Mr VEIVERS: The QTTC corporate plan setscriteria to measure the effectiveness of itsoperations. One of those is improvements inoccupancy and the utilisation rates of tourisminfrastructure. Will additional funding be allocated ontop of the QTTC's 1994-95 grant so thatinfrastructure needs can be investigated and met?

Mr GIBBS: Infrastructure needs, as I have justpointed out to you, are an ongoing process at whichthe QTTC obviously looks. More importantly, theimportance that Government places on the future ofinfrastructure is well reflected by the fact that withinthe recent Budget something like $3.4 billion was setaside specifically for infrastructure throughoutQueensland. It must be remembered that, when weare talking about infrastructure within the touristindustry, part of that infrastructure is reflected in theneed to provide, for example, better health servicesin the community. We would all be aware of theimpact that a lack of adequate health services has onmarkets. For example, in Bali, an inadequacy ininfrastructure has had a disastrous effect on itsmarket. Education performs a vital role in that area, asdoes health, which obviously brings in broad issuessuch as roadworks programs and so on.

Within my Department we have developed theTourism Policy Bureau, whose broad charter is tolook at infrastructure costs. As part of its charter, itholds discussions with international airlines and soon. So we have a budgetary amount which has beenset aside for the Tourism Policy Bureau within theDepartment, which this year will be $824,000. As Isaid, on top of that, there has been a commitmentfrom the Government working through all agenciesacross the Government through all departments tolook at infrastructure requirements.

Mr VEIVERS: The Department of Tourism listsamongst its significant achievements in 1993-94 asuccessful involvement with the 1994 Indy on theGold Coast, an event that it claimed had a 10 percent higher attendance and was $1m cheaper tostage than the 1993 event. That is on page 329 ofthe Program Statements, under the heading"Performance 1993-94". Bearing that success in mind,


can you explain what funding is provided in the1994-95 Budget specifically for funding assistance tothe 1995 Indy and the following years to whichGovernment has contracted or is going to contract?

Mr GIBBS: There is $5m provided in theBudget this year specifically for Indy. At thisstage—and I cannot give you a commitment as towhat amounts may be put aside in future years—theobvious intention of the Government is to work withall agencies who are a part of Indy to reduce costsand overheads at all times for the event.

Mr VEIVERS: I would presume that you arelooking for sponsorships to boost this event.

Mr GIBBS: Yes. Obviously, we are continuingto look for sponsorship. Recently, myDirector-General, Mr Williams, who is here today, andthe Chairman of the Queensland Events Corporation,who is technically in charge of running the Indyevent, have been in the United States to try toconclude final contractual arrangements with theIndy operators in the United States. Part of thatvisit—and it will be a part of a visit that I will makelater this year to the United States—is to have furtherdecisions with the CART organisation and majorcompanies in the United States with a view toattracting them here to support this event.

It is worth while saying that in the United Statesthe event that we now run on the Gold Coast isrecognised by far and away as the most professionaland the best event for Indy apart from the event onthe Indianapolis track itself. That augurs well for us. Ibelieve that this year will be favourable for us interms of sponsorships, owing to the fact thatGovernment made the decision early to go aheadwith it in 1995, and for contractual arrangements tobe finalised for a further three years beyond 1995.That in itself will have, and already is having, theeffect of ensuring far better support from oursponsors.

Mr VEIVERS: Are we cemented into thoseongoing contracts for the following years?

Mr GIBBS: We will be cemented in once thedocumentation is signed. There were a number ofissues there which, when I became Ministerresponsible for the event, I believed needed to bereviewed. I say that with the greatest of respect forthe people who made the decisions before me. Inthe first year of Indy, I think people had to makedecisions fairly quickly. One of the things, obviously,that we are looking at there will be a new contractualarrangement in relation to the television rights. I amon the public record as having said that it is not ahappy situation for me, where we have a marvellousevent, to think that we should be paying $1m to atelevision station for it to show the event. That is anamount which I believe will be certainly part of a newcontractual arrangement. There are matters thererelative to the transportation costs of the Indy carsto Australia for the event, and other matters which atthis stage I think it would be not quite proper for meto mention. There are some commercialconfidentialities around these until such time as thecontractual arrangements and discussions arefinalised. I am absolutely confident that those

contractual arrangements will be far better forQueensland than they have been in the past.

Mr VEIVERS: Do you believe that theGovernment is providing sufficient financial supportin 1994-95 Budget to permit the QTTC to operate atits maximum capacity?

Mr GIBBS: Yes, I do, most assuredly. TheBudget Papers, which obviously some in the touristindustry—and I am sure you—have perused at firstglance would indicate that there has been asubstantial cut in Government funding to the QTTC.That is not the case. The reality is that within theBudget Papers the amount is down by $5m. That isbecause in 1993-94 we had budgeted some $10m forthe Indy event. This year, we have only budgeted$5m for Indy. With the inclusion of the QueenslandEvents Corporation in my portfolio, this year we haveput into the Budget Papers something like $2.15m,which increases the figure somewhat. It should notbe forgotten that last year we increased the QTTCbudget by $5.7m specifically to allow the QTTC togo into a more aggressive mode of marketing, bothdomestically and overseas. The commitment was thatthe additional money allocated last year wouldcontinue for a period of three years prior to a reviewbeing undertaken.

I am confident that we have provided theQTTC with a budget that will enable it to remainahead of every other comparable agency in Australiathat is responsible for the promotion of tourism. Inaddition to that, as a result of other financialmeasures that have taken place within the QTTC, itnow finds itself debt-free for the very first time since1990. Coupled with what seems to be growingsupport from the QTTC for joint marketing orcooperative marketing efforts with the private sector,I am very sure that we have committed adequateresources to ensure the ongoing success of theQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporation.

Mr VEIVERS: The 1993 tourism programevaluation report by the QTTC says—

"A market analyst has been employed bythe QTTC to coordinate the sourcing andcommunication of statistical information."

Will this service be continued in 1994-95 and, if so,at what cost?

Mr GIBBS: Yes, the service will be continuedthrough 1994-95. One of the major roles for thatparticular person will be to work cooperatively withthe new agency established by Prime MinisterKeating in last year's Budget to address some ofthose anomalies. I refer to the Tourism ResearchForecasting Council, which was established by theFederal Labor Government to allow a more accuratereflection of figures and movements and othermatters that go on within the industry. It is importantthat as a State Government we play a role in thatorganisation, hence the establishment of thisparticular position down there. Approximately$50,000 has been allocated in the budget for theongoing performance of that person.

Mr VEIVERS: I note that the Minister and theDepartment have proposed the establishment of theOlympic Task Force Committee at a cost of


$287,000. Will this committee consist of presentdepartmental or QTTC employees, or contractedconsultants? Have you invited any communityorganisations or individuals to contribute to thiscommittee at no cost to the Government?

Mr GIBBS: It is not my intention that there willbe any contractual consultants drawn onto thisparticular committee. The committee will reflect abroad range of expertise throughout Queensland. Itwill reflect expertise from within the businesscommunity, people from within the tourist industryand people representing sporting organisations. As aresult of my attendance yesterday at the launch ofthe first ever State branch of the AustralianParalympic Council, it will be imperative that we alsoinclude a representative of that very august body onthe organisation. We tend to forget at times that ourparalympians have as high a profile and as keen aperformance edge as our able-bodied athletes do. Itmust be remembered that they will be a vital part ofthe games in Atlanta and in Sydney.

It will be a broadly representative committee. Ithink it is important that we have a representative oflocal government on the committee. I certainlyadmire the initiative taken by other people.Something like four committees have already beenformed throughout Queensland. We have acommittee in north Queensland, and the Lord Mayorof Brisbane has formed a committee. If we are tomaximise the benefits that we can all gain from the2000 Olympics, it is imperative that we have a teamwhich has overall responsibility for coordinatingthose efforts. That is what the job of the 2000Olympic Task Force will be.

Mr VEIVERS: And it will not be over the$287,000?

Mr GIBBS: That funding has been for one yearonly. After we get by Atlanta and as it starts to reallywind up over that final four years, if there is a need toput more resources in there, then obviously wewould have to look seriously at further funding for it.The allocation of $287,000 will provide funds for twofull-time staff; promotional advertising material;secretarial support for a task force consisting ofprominent Queenslanders; some travel by theQueensland task force; and general administrativecosts within that particular unit.

Mr VEIVERS: The Department's corporateplan for 1994 to 1996 says—

"A performance measure of theDepartment's promotion of a favourable tourismand investment climate in Queensland will bethe raising of tourism funding to a levelcomparable to that allocated to other exportearnings."

Do you believe that the $31m funding provided tothe QTTC in the 1994-95 Budget is comparable tothat of other export-earning industries inQueensland?

Mr GIBBS: I suppose it could be argued thatwe would always like more funding for theQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. I knowthat the manager of the QTTC, who is with me today,would certainly not disagree with me on that point.

However, there are financial realities that have to befaced when moneys are being allocated at Budgettime.

As to the export potential and value of thetourist industry—it already ranks No. 3 in this State'seconomy. As the Opposition spokesman, you wouldbe aware that by the year 2000 it is freely tipped byfinancial experts that the tourist industry willprobably be our No. 1 export earner of dollars inQueensland, ahead of the primary sector and themining sector. I return to a point I made earlier. Oneof the problems that exists—and I believe that thisproblem exists nationwide, regardless of whetherthey happen to be Labor Governments orconservative Governments—is that there has neverreally been a formula arrived at that allows one to putan export value or even a domestic value on theamount of marketing funds that are put aside in theBudget each year as against the earning capacity ofthe industry.

At present, there is a very close workingrelationship between QTTC and QueenslandTreasury to try to come up with a methodology and aformula that will equate exactly what tourism is worthto this State in terms of dollars as compared withwhat we spend on marketing, particularly overseas.When we arrive at such a formula, we will have astronger case in years to come to argue for an evenbetter deal for the tourism industry.

Mr VEIVERS: Grants to our 14 regional touristassociations for promoting tourism in various regionsare promised in the departmental Estimatesdocuments at page 37. Can you advise the specificamounts that have been allocated to each of those14 regional bodies in 1994-95?

Mr GIBBS: Off the top of my head, we give$100,000 to 13 of them each year for assistance inmarketing and usually some assistance in terms of astaff component. I believe we now allocate $135,000or $155,000 to the Brisbane Visitors ConventionBureau. Of course, we now have a performancerequirement built into those allocations.

Mr VEIVERS: Could you provide thosespecific allocations to me?

The CHAIRMAN: We might have to comeback to that in the next 20-minute batch ofquestions. That concludes the first 20 minutes ofquestioning from Opposition members. We now turnto Government members. Dr Clark?

Dr CLARK: I have some questions about themarketing operations of the Queensland Tourist andTravel Corporation. Could you please comment onthe effectiveness to date of the $5m marketingcampaign Live It Up in Queensland? Is it expectedthat this campaign will continue for the rest of thisyear and, if so, what allocations are provided forthat? What benefits do you anticipate from thatexpenditure in 1994-95?

Mr GIBBS: I think that the Live It Up campaignhas certainly been the most successful campaign thatany tourism agency in Australia to date has taken up,and I think that is reflected very much in the figureswhich have come up to date as a result of theongoing research through QTTC. I have some of the


figures here. For example, in February 1994 ascompared to February 1993, our Sunlover sales haveincreased by 69 per cent and our QueenslandGovernment Travel Centres have increased sales by45 per cent. In March 1994, compared to March1993, they were up 28 per cent and up 31 per centthrough the Queensland Government Travel Centres.In May 1994, we had an increase of up to 32.5 percent through our Sunlover sales and up to 29 percent through the Queensland Government TravelCentres. I think that goes to show, without anydoubt, that as long as we are out there aggressivelymarketing ourselves—and we have the funds there todo it—Queensland tourism will remain as No. 1 inAustralia. We expect to see these results translatedinto statistical evidence when the final end-of-yearfigures come out, particularly for the domestictourism market.

Of course, it must be remembered thatdomestic tourism is still the main nucleus of revenuefor our tourism industry in Queensland. It can betruly said that it is the bread and butter of theQueensland tourist industry. The Holiday IntentionsMonitor shows that Queensland has the highestadvertising recall of any State. In fact, theadvertising recall on that monitor in the latest surveysthat we did based around the month of April wassomething like 48 per cent recall for the Live It Upcampaign slogan. I think that overall, just on thosefew figures, you can see that it has in fact been anoutstanding success.

Dr CLARK: Will that Live It Up campaigncontinue for this year?

Mr GIBBS: Yes.

Dr CLARK: Or will that be superseded by anew campaign later this financial year?

Mr GIBBS: Every campaign and every slogan,regardless of whether it is in the tourist industry orwhatever facet of the advertising industry we may bedealing with, has a limited lifetime. Basically, it is upto the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation tomake a decision as to the useful life of the Live It Upcampaign. Last year, of course, we had a quitefamous campaign which caught people's imagination,but it outlived its usefulness after some nine months.As I said, this has a limited life, but it will depend onwhat our market surveys are showing as to how longthat campaign should continue.

Dr CLARK: I also have some questions aboutregional tourism. I think there is no doubt thatregional Queensland does offer a wide diversity oftourist experiences. Can you indicate how much ofthe direct grants to that Live It Up campaign areindeed spent on regional Queensland and whatbenefits regional Queensland can expect to get fromthat expenditure?

Mr GIBBS: Regional Queensland can expectto benefit quite handsomely from the Live It Upcampaign. I might make a point here that one of theproblems that we identified early in the days of ourGovernment was that it seemed to me that thoseareas which geographically, through no fault of theirown, happened to be located between the GoldCoast or Cairns seemed to miss out on a lot of focus

from QTTC. The attention given to Cairns and theGold Coast at some stage was probably properbecause they were the two biggest markets inQueensland, but as a result of a significant increaseand better product development—a broader range ofproduct to be able to choose from in the Queenslandtourist industry—it has been pretty important that weplay a more vital role in regional Queensland.

What we have done in conjunction with the LiveIt Up campaign is to try and encourage variousregions of the State either to use Live It Up or tocome in and use some totally generic theme relativeto their own particular area. For example, on the GoldCoast they have chosen the theme, "Everythingunder the Sun". Something like $460,000 has beenspent by QTTC on that campaign. The SunshineCoast has used the slogan, "Take Your Time"—acost of $520,000. The Brisbane area slogan hasbeen, "Sunshine City"—$400,000. CentralQueensland has used the Live It Up slogan at a costof $180,000. Townsville has used the slogan, "Havethe Time of Your Life", which has cost $233,000. Ithink you can see from that that there has been avery broad commitment from the Government andcertainly from the Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation to ensure that all of Queensland isreceiving its fair share of funding.

Dr CLARK: A major activity of the new TourismPolicy Bureau, which is highlighted on page 41 ofyour departmental Estimates document, is theenhancement of aviation services to Queensland tosupport the ongoing development of the touristindustry. The experience in Cairns demonstratesclearly that the provision of adequate internationaland domestic air transport services is essential forthe growth of the tourist industry in Queensland. Canyou indicate what resources are being put intoensuring that Queensland is well represented in anydecision-making on future airline services?

Mr GIBBS: The policy bureau, which has beenrecently established in my Department, now hasresponsibility for governmental activity in relation todiscussions and involvement and bilateralagreements with other Governments. Of course,there will come a time when that will come down to aGovernment-to-Government basis, but certainly theyare continuing the very excellent work that theQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporation hadpreviously had responsibility for.

It is worth while noting that, again, when wecame into office in 1989, for the first full year that wewere there, there were something like 4 760international flights into Queensland each year. Bythe end of this year, that will be close to 8 000international flights into Queensland on a yearlybasis. It goes without saying, I think, that there is aneed for us to be out there constantly, activelyencouraging, but at the present time the Departmentprovides a Queensland view into a number of veryimportant forums, and they include the TourismAviation Group, which is comprised of Federal andState tourism bodies. We have the International AirServices Commission, which is responsible for theallocation of various international air service rights toAustralian airlines and, of course, the Commonwealth


Department of Transport during the development, asI have said, of a national position on bilateralagreements and discussions with other countries.

We have received the very excellent news ofonly recent times, for example, with the opening ofthe new Kansai International Airport in Japan, of adaily service which will be provided by Qantas—thatis, seven services a week directly from Kansai intoBrisbane. Four flights have been announced byAnsett Airlines and three by Air New Zealand. Inaddition to that, I am confident that in the not-too-distant future we can probably expect someannouncement from Japan Airlines as well. Thosethings do not just happen. You must be out there,actively pursuing those operators, talking to them,showing what you have to offer and proving to themthat these services can in fact be profitable to theirairline. That is just a very brief outline of what we aredoing.

Mrs ROSE: I have a further question on theTourism Policy Bureau. One of the principal tasks ofthe bureau, as highlighted on page 41 of theDepartment's Estimates document, is thedevelopment of a Queensland Tourism Strategy.You spoke about the strategy before, but I wouldagain ask: what are the areas to be addressed, whatis the funding allocation and what is the overallpurpose of the strategy?

Mr GIBBS: The strategy is to ensure that wemaintain our role as the No. 1 destination bothdomestically and internationally in what is a verycompetitive area in Australia in the tourist industry.QTTC—and I must say even prior to thisGovernment coming into office—has an excellentreputation as being to the fore of both ourinternational and domestic promotions. That issomething which we have deemed very necessarythat we keep going, hence the need for a look at theQTTC some years ago.

The strategic plan has evolved as part of somerestructuring of the QTTC. I mentioned before thatpart of that strategic plan is to look at issues such asproduct development marketing, regional issues andthe social impacts of tourism. By doing those things,we believe that we still maintain a pretty good edgeon our opponents interstate. These were issueswhich were identified by the Department inconjunction with the tourism industry representativesand confirmed by independent consultants which,from time to time, are utilised by the QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation. I think that the useof independent consultants at times has the value ofbeing able to get away from what perhaps can beseen as a closed shop situation, or a closed mentalityperhaps, and to be able to broaden the visions of theindustry itself.

The strategy development allows allparticipants in the industry to critically analyse theirrole and goals and to ensure that our industryachieves its full potential for the benefit ofQueensland. Within the Budget Papers you will findthat we have set aside $320,000 this financial year forthe ongoing role of the tourism strategy. That will becompleted approximately by December 1994—thefull strategy itself.

Mrs ROSE: I have a question about theQueensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Thebulk of the Government's Tourism Program fundingof $28.5m is allocated to the QTTC. You havealready described the marketing program in somedetail. How else will the Budget allocation to theQTTC benefit the industry?

Mr GIBBS: The industry in Queensland isestimated to be worth something like $6 billion a yearto our State's economy. I think more important is thefact that Queensland is increasing its share of theholiday market. Basically, holiday travel is purelydiscretional—unlike people who travel on businessand visit friends and relatives. I guess that anindicator of the effectiveness of our marketingprograms can be reflected in the fact that interstatebusiness to Queensland grew by 16 per cent in1993. Queensland's share of our interstate holidaymarket grew two per cent to 27.4 per cent in 1993 atthe expense of other States.

I think it is worth while quoting some of thefigures here. As I said, we increased our market shareby 2 per cent. If you look at Victoria—their's wasdown 2.3 per cent; ACT was down 1.3 per cent; NewSouth Wales was up 0.6 per cent; South Australiawas up 0.8 per cent; and Tasmania was up 0.9 percent. Now, 63 per cent of all international holidaymakers who come to Australia visit Queensland.

Holiday spending by interstate and overseastourists reached something like $2.6 billion in 1992-93 in this State. I guess I repeat myself here, but itconstantly shows that here in Queensland we aredoing it better than the rest of them. Our allocation inthe Budget to the QTTC reflects, I think, thesuccessfulness of our ongoing campaign and ourcommitment to the tourist industry.

As to our hotel occupancy—I remember thatthe member for Southport raised some concernabout this in the Parliament and publicly recently. Tothe December quarter of 1993, Cairns averaged 80per cent hotel occupancy; the Gold Coast, 76 percent; Noosa Shire, 75.4 per cent; and Brisbane, 73per cent. It is a fact that, at the moment, Queenslandis leading Australia in what has been a hugeresurgence in hotel occupancies.

Dr CLARK: I think you are quite aware of myinterest in environmental matters. I wonder whetheryou might like to elaborate a little on the StateEcotourism Strategy. I think you are very muchaware of the need to protect our environmentalassets. I believe you visited far-north Queenslandand have seen at first-hand just how important it is.

Mr GIBBS: The Ecotourism Strategy is anongoing process. We have not yet finalised thatstrategy. Cabinet made a decision on this mattersome eight months ago, I believe it was. Inconjunction with my colleague the Minister forEnvironment, we are now working on this strategy. Infact, it goes back longer. We made that decision inCabinet in November 1992. My Department becameresponsible for it in the latter part of 1993. Theanticipated completion date is in December 1994.

I think this shows that we have a very importantarea to protect. Ecotourism is becoming an emerging


market throughout the world. I suspect that it hastended to become a bit of a buzz word. After all, foryears people have been coming to Queensland tosee the wonderful things that we have—ecologicallyspeaking—things such as the Barrier Reef, therainforests and the unique flora and fauna that wehave in this State. It is important that programs thatwe put together and a strategy plan ensure thatplanning for the future protects those very valuableassets of our tourist industry. That will be done. Weare speaking to a broad number of agencies and topeople within the tourist industry who are all havingan input into it. It has a high educational componentwhich can assist the wider understanding andadoption of environmental awareness andconservation values. In the Budget this year, wehave allocated $100,000, of which $65,000 has beencarried forward from 1993-94 for the ongoingpreparation of that strategy.

The CHAIRMAN: There are no furtherquestions at this stage. We have nearly completedthe 20-minute period. We will return to Oppositionmembers. I invite Mr Healy to ask questions relatingto tourism.

Mr HEALY: The 1994-95 Budget ProgramStatements refer to the increase in Sunlover Holidaysales in the 1993-94 financial year. Do you expectthe strengthening of Sunlover sales to continue in1994-95? What are the strategic plans to expand theSunlover program to international markets? Is itpossible that we can obtain a copy of that plan?

Mr GIBBS: The latter part of your question Iwill seek some advice on. Yes, I believe that it ishighly probable—not just probable, but I wouldconfidently predict that the ongoing success ofSunlover will continue into the next financial year,particularly as a result of the expansion of Sunlover.

As you are probably aware, we have takenSunlover offshore into new markets such as NewZealand, Singapore and Hong Kong. I might add thatthat has not been without some pain. There are somequestions being asked within the industry at themoment about the need to expand that market. Theyare matters which will be considered by the fullboard of the Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation in the not-too-distant future. I believewe have every reason to be optimistic about theongoing growth. In terms of the provision of theplan, are we able to provide a copy of that to themember?

Mr ROSEBERY: There are two parts to yourquestion; is that right?

Mr HEALY: Yes. What are the strategic plansto expand the program to international markets, andis it possible to get a copy of a strategic plan, if it isavailable?

Mr ROSEBERY: My name is Ken Rosebery. Iam the Chief Executive Officer of the QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation. The plan at thisstage—and this is how it reads in our corporate plan,which is freely available—in addition to otherstrategies, is to develop wholesale programs forselected international markets in order to exposegreater depth and variety of Queensland product

and, where practicable, distribute through theATLAS computer reservation system. This is to beundertaken in consultation with the Queenslandtourist industry. In short, it is a new venture toexpand our Sunlover operation offshore. Consistentwith that, it is being done in a measured way. Wehave entered the New Zealand market, the Singaporemarket, Hong Kong and Malaysia. I think we will seehow that performs over the next 12 to 18 monthsbefore we would consider any further growthbeyond that.

Mr HEALY: I refer you back to the OlympicTask Force Committee and the estimated cost of thatat $287,000. You have given us a breakdown ofexactly which areas that is going to, but is it possibleto get a detailed breakdown of exactly where thatmoney is going to be spent in relation to those areasthat you mentioned earlier? Can that be provided tothe Committee at all?

Mr GIBBS: I doubt if that is possible. I gaveyou the overall Budget, which was in fact $287,000.That is going to be used for the employment of twofull-time staff for promotional and advertisingmaterial, secretarial support for a task forceconsisting of prominent Queenslanders, travel withinQueensland for the task force, support of businesstourism events and sporting seminars associatedwith the Olympics, and general administration costs,such as postage, telephones, office equipment andaccommodation charges. I would not think that atthis stage it would be possible to give you abreakdown of exactly every part of that. There is asettling in process required. If you wish to comeback to me in six months, either through a questionin the House or a letter to me, I would certainly bewilling and able at that stage to provide you withinformation of how the costs were developing in thegeneral areas.

Mr HEALY: That is fine. I would have thoughtthat to that get to that figure of $287,000 there wouldhave had to have been some sort of breakdownavailable.

Mr GIBBS: If you are referring in some way toa breakdown per region in Queensland, I think that itwould be impossible to do that—as it will beimpossible to provide representation on the taskforce from every area of the State. Otherwise wewould finish up with a group that is the size of aPortuguese army. We do not want that; we want aneffective group that can operation professionally.

Mr HEALY: In relation to this subprogram, Irefer to Budget Paper No. 3, page 328 of theProgram Statements. In the 1993-94 Budget,allocation was made for six full-time employees in theTourism program. The 1994-95 Budget Papers revealthat there are only four full-time employees in thisprogram. I note that the Government intends to raisethat number to six over the next financial year. Whydid the Government budget for $280,000 to be spenton salaries, wages and related payments for sixemployees over the coming year, when $358,000was estimated for the same six employees in the1993-94 Budget?

Mr GIBBS: Certainly. I might ask Mr Peter


Richardson, the financial expert from the Department,to respond to that.

Mr RICHARDSON: I am Peter Richardson, theManager of Finance from the Department of Tourism,Sport and Racing. I cannot really explain the fulldetails of the initial allocation of that $380,000, that Ithink you said it was. I know that it was put togethervery quickly at a very late stage when the PolicyBureau actually transferred from the QTTC to thedepartment itself. I think that at that stage there weresome consultants who were going to be taken onboard and some funding was put into the salariesarea—incorrectly—at that point in time to fund thoseconsultants. That has been rectified now.

Mr VEIVERS: Getting back to that SunloverProgram, what will the cost be to go intointernational markets? How will you be able toevaluate the cost of that? Do you consider it fair todomestic and international agents to have the QTTCpackage selling in competition to them? Is not thisopposition really unfair when the Government-sponsored package could be exempt from taxes andlevies imposed on private operators?

Mr GIBBS: The evaluation process obviouslywould have to be made on a cost-incomecomparative basis. That is, the cost of having peopleinvolved in running the program in those internationalmarkets; although primarily they are being runthrough existing travel agents, anyway. I guess thatthe cost component can simply be measured onwhat business those people are, in fact, bringing intoQueensland.

The latter part of your question I touched onslightly before. I am aware, and obviously from yourquestion you are aware, that there has been concernexpressed to me by a large number of agencies. Ishall not go into the specifics of who they are. Therehave been a large number of agencies that make thepoint that you have made—should the Governmentbe out there competing in this market against privateenterprise? You will get two points of view aboutthat in the tourist industry. If you speak to thethousands of small operators, who really probablyare the backbone of the industry throughout theState, they will aggressively say to you that yes, weshould be. If you speak to some of the largeroperators, obviously they will take an alternativepoint of view and say: no. That is a matter which Ithink is a policy decision and one which I haveformulated a view on, but it is a matter which Iunderstand the full board of the Queensland Touristand Travel Corporation, which after all has thecharter and the responsibility for running thisindustry in Queensland, are to address shortly in aspecial board meeting.

Mr VEIVERS: The total program funding forthe Tourist Program last year was $34m. Under the1994-95 Budget, only $31m is allocated. That moneyhas to cover the same expenditure items as last year,plus the newly acquired Queensland EventsCorporation for $2.15m and the new Olympic TaskForce for $2.17m. If we subtract the fundingallocated to these new initiatives, we are left withfunding of only $29.351m, which is really a 14 percent reduction in real terms on tourism expenditure. I

ask: could you explain why there appears to be this14 per cent reduction in expenditure while sustainingand expanding the growth in this important industry?

Mr GIBBS: I guess it is easy. I suppose thatwere I in your position I would be trying to give thatsleight of hand appearance that there has in factbeen a reduction. But you know as well as I do thatthere has been no reduction. I have alreadyexplained to you the fact that we have reduced theBudget allocation for funding for the Indy event from$10m down to $5m. In addition, we then added tothat the funding for the operation of the QueenslandEvents Corporation, which is being transferred to myportfolio, of $2.15m. It must be remembered that theQueensland Events Corporation plays an integralrole in Queensland's tourism industry.

I would have thought that this initiative wouldhave brought high praise from the Opposition, in thatthe Queensland Events Corporation, which isresponsible for not just events like the Indy whichhandsomely benefits the very region that yourepresent in Queensland—that is, the Gold Coastand the seat of Southport—but also they areresponsible for the Gold Coast InternationalMarathon organisation. They are responsible for theOne Australia Challenge, which currently is underway or beginning to warm up on the Gold Coast.They are responsible for the bringing to Queenslandof the World Masters Games, which again are goingto have a financial benefit not just for the Brisbanearea but also for the Gold Coast. It must beremembered that people who go to World MastersGames tend to be the big spenders who havemoney. Undoubtedly, a lot of those people will go tothe Gold Coast to see the wonderful features andattractions that you have down there, of which youare one, of course, Mr Veivers.

Mr VEIVERS: I hope they are taking a videoof this, Minister.

Mr GIBBS: I would imagine that in the broadcontext of the tourist industry you would have seenthis as the wonderful initiative that it is.

Mr VEIVERS: I turn to ministerial anddepartmental expenses. As the Minister responsiblefor the portfolios of Tourism, Sport and Racing, youmade overseas trips during the 1993-94 financialyear. I ask: can you detail the number of staff whotravel with you and the total cost of that overseastravel for yourself, the ministerial staff andGovernment members of Parliament who have beenpaid for by the Department of Tourism, Sport andRacing?

Mr GIBBS: I can certainly detail for you—witha little thought; I cannot recall each one of my trips inthe particular financial year—but overseas travel in1992-93 approximated $33,000, which entailed a visitfrom 22 June to 5 July 1992 to Japan, Korea,Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore; in 1993,approximately $60,000 on overseas travel, whichentailed visits from 24 May to 29 May 1993 to NewZealand for the Youth Ministers Council andlicensing matters; 7 July to 10 July 1993 toSingapore to launch the Sunlover Holidays programand discussions with international airlines; 8September to 10 September 1993, to New Zealand


for the launch of Sunlover again. My latest trip wason 15 October to 1 November 1993, which was toHong Kong, Vietnam and China—obviously,particularly in areas such as Vietnam and China—toexplore the opportunities for Queensland of newmarkets in those areas.

Mr VEIVERS: Does that include ministerialstaff who travel with you?

Mr GIBBS: Yes, that does include theministerial staff who accompany me. I would pointout that, as I recollect, apart from one journeyoverseas, I think, in 1990, I make it a rule of practicethat only one member from my staff everaccompanies me on overseas travel.

Mr VEIVERS: You have not taken members ofParliament, Government members of Parliament?

Mr GIBBS: No, I have never taken anymember of Parliament, as I recall, on any overseastrip with me. I am always, of course, accompanied bymy Director-General on overseas travel and, in mostplaces, of course, I am usually linked up with thoseoverseas representatives whom we have in ourvarious international offices of the QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation.

Mr VEIVERS: You have plans for travelling inthe upcoming financial year, and I accept this. Whereis the allocation made for that proposedexpenditure? Does it come out of the Department?

Mr GIBBS: That allocation, again, as Iunderstand, was part of our departmental allocation. Ihave a proposal for, at this stage, one overseas tripover the next financial year, and the budget for thatwill be $30,000, and the possibility of another tripwhich, at this stage, certainly has not been confirmedin any shape or form. That money does, in fact, comeout of my departmental budget—I am sorry, out ofthe Ministerial Services Branch, where that allocationis made.

Mr VEIVERS: Can you provide a list of theconsultants and the purposes of their engagementslast year, which was paid? What is the amountallocated to your Department's advertising in the1994-95 budget? What amount is outlaid forcorporate staff seminars and training?

Mr GIBBS: For all agencies within myDepartment, including Tourism, the amount paid toconsultants was $588,993.

Mr VEIVERS: Right. That concludes theTourism part of it. I was wondering if I could turn toRacing now? Is that convenient?

Mr GIBBS: If you could give me one momentto go to my racing section? Certainly.

Mr VEIVERS: In 1992-93, $8m of the $23.6mappropriated under the Racing Development Fundfor funding to various clubs lapsed. The reasongiven in the annual report was lower levels ofapprovals of advances to racing organisations. In1993-94, $2m that was budgeted for the RDF wasnot spent. What has caused that shortfall, Minister?

Mr GIBBS: This financial year, I have beenvery wary about some of the applications made bysome of the racing clubs throughout Queensland,primarily because of the drought situation throughout

the State. It became obvious to me 12 months agothat, in a number of our major regional racing centresin particular, if the drought were to continue withoutany relief rain, obviously in order to keep racingactive and going in those areas we would have tolook at providing some financial assistance to them.Probably the best example would be Toowoomba,where in the latter months of the drought it wascosting the turf club quite a small fortune to cart andprovide water for track-related purposes. For us notto have stepped in and given that club some financialassistance, you face the distinct possibility whereracing may have closed down in that centre due tothe unsafe state of the track. If that hadhappened—my memory seems to recall that you arelooking at full-time jobs for something like 520people in Toowoomba directly related to the racingindustry.

It would have been foolhardy of myself as theMinister and certainly irresponsible, I think, to bemaking allocations for funding in other areas ofQueensland. Some of the applications are forphoto-finish equipment at places such as theBirdsville racetrack, and toilet facilities at a trackwhere they might race for three hours once a year.You are going to be spending huge amounts ofmoney on toilet blocks, etc. It has been a matter ofmaking some priority decisions.

Mr VEIVERS: Minister, despite youroutspoken criticism of the extent of doping in theracing industry that the budgetary allocation——

Mr GIBBS: I am having difficulty hearing you.

Mr VEIVERS: I beg your pardon. I did notthink that anyone would have trouble hearing me.Why is it that, despite your outspoken criticism ofthe extent of doping in the racing industry, thebudgetary allocation to the Racing Codes AdvisoryBoard, which oversees the Racing Science Centre'sDoping Control Program and reports to you asMinister on drug control for three racing codes, hasdropped from $31,000 in 1993-94 to only $8,000 inthe 1994-95 budget? Considering the importance ofthis Board, can you justify a decrease of almost 78per cent in that area?

Mr GIBBS: Certainly. The Racing CodeAdvisory Board is, in fact, becoming, I guess, anobsolete body within the industry. The mainresponsibility now for advice to me in terms ofmethodologies which may be required in the threeparts of the racing industry, that is the greyhoundracing, the thoroughbred racing and the harnessracing industry, now comes from the drug laboratorylocated at Albion Park. The drug laboratory, ofcourse, is responsible for the carrying out of testingon animals within the three industries. I understandthat there has, in fact, been an increase in the numberof samples taken from animals, again in those threeindustries. It should not be interpreted that theRacing Codes Advisory Board, in being wounddown, does in fact mean any less efficiency withinthe industry.

There have been, in fact, as a result of thereorganisation within my portfolio, new scientificmethods developed and brought into routinepractices to improve testing. There were 8 909


samples received in 1993-94 and 6 664 analysed, andthere were two new mass spectrometers purchasedat a cost of $150,000 each. The spectrometers, ofcourse, being very sophisticated state-of-the-artequipment, are used now to identify and to breakdown the various drugs which may be used whenthose people who, without some integrity, are tryingto drug an animal within the industry. What shouldnever be lost sight of is that this is an ongoing battle,and whilst some in the industry are critical, at times,of the amount of money that is used at the drugtesting laboratory at Albion Park, without integrity inthis industry we simply do not have an industry. Forexample, people will not punt on an animal at eitherthe TAB or the track if they do not believe that it isperforming on its own ability—not being given someassistance. This has been happening in other Statesof Australia, something which was highlighted inrecent trials.

The CHAIRMAN: That completes the timeallocated for questions by Opposition members forthe time being. I now invite questions fromGovernment members.

Mrs ROSE: The Auditor-General's report onthe Department of Tourism, Sport and Racingidentified $897,000 in unpaid fines, 93 per cent ofwhich were deemed non-collectable. What actionhas been taken to combat unlawful bookmaking andto collect outstanding fines?

Mr GIBBS: We inherited the outstanding finesissue when we came into office in 1989. Under theprevious legislation, it was impossible to collectdebts from people found guilty of SP bookmaking orother illegal bookmaking activities. At that stage,quite a deal of money was outstanding. Recently, inthe accounts of the Department we recordedunsatisfied debts as at 30 June 1993 totalling$897,691. We have taken on the services of aprofessional debt collection agency to try to collectsome of those debts. I have some doubts as to theeffectiveness of that, but we are obliged to attemptto collect those fines. If this is not successful, theDepartment will have no other choice than to wipeout the debts.

In order to ensure that that does not happen inthe future, I introduced legislation that now makes ita most serious offence to indulge in starting pricebookmaking. Heavy fines have been included in thelegislation. For non-payment of the fines, areasonably heavy gaol sentence will be applied.

Mrs ROSE: In the Department's statementsprovided to this Committee, the Racing ScienceCentre is shown to have estimated actualexpenditure for 1993-94 of $1.34m, with a projectedbudget for 1994-95 of approximately the sameamount. I understand that the contribution of theracing industry to the economy of Queensland wasthe subject of an exhaustive study undertaken byconsultants ACIL Australia Pty Ltd in 1992. Itestimated that the industry contributed $407.2m tothe gross State product. This is equivalent to about0.7 per cent of GSP. It also estimated the number offull-time employee equivalents to be about 5 760.The Budget Papers estimate that receipts fromtotalisator and betting tax amounted to $70m in

1993-94, and that these are forecast to grow by 4.3per cent in 1994-95 to approximately $73m. Couldthe Minister please inform this Committee of the rolethat the Racing Science Centre plays in industryintegrity?

Mr GIBBS: As I appointed out before, theRacing Science Centre is—and you used correctword—vital to the integrity of the racing industry inQueensland. Without that integrity, we simply do nothave an industry. It is worth while making the pointthat the Racing Science Centre in Queensland isnow recognised worldwide as being one of the mostprofessional bodies anywhere in the world in termsof its technology. At present, it employs some 17people—15 scientists, chemists, technicians andveterinarians, and two administrative staff.

For those who may not be aware of thebackground of the centre, I point out that it was setup after the catastrophic incident some years agowhen false caffeine positives were reported by thelaboratory previously run by the Queensland TurfClub. It is independent of the control of any of themajor bodies or peak councils within the racingindustry, which means that its staff cannot beinfluenced by clubs or participants in the industry. Ithas the responsibility for carrying out pre-race andpost-race testing of racing animals. It has thatresponsibility in all codes for the whole State,including regional Queensland.

As I said before, it uses modern technology andhas a highly skilled staff. At times, some of the staffand equipment are available at the centre 24 hours aday. The litmus test of the success of the RacingScience Centre has been the fact that bothon-course and off-course betting have increasedsignificantly in Queensland over the past four years.Betting with bookmakers has increased significantly.The incidence of drugs being used in racing animalshas dropped fairly dramatically. But, again, Iemphasise the point that that is a reflection of theefficiency of the Racing Science Centre.

Mrs ROSE: The Budget Papers show that in1993-94 actual expenditure on grants from theRacing Development Fund will be $11.66m and that agrants allocation of $12m is projected for 1994-95.Further, an amount of $8.944m is shown asexpenditure in servicing the racing industry debt.Could you please indicate the rationale for makinggrants, and what are some of the major grants madein 1993-94 and anticipated in 1994-95?

Mr GIBBS: It is hard to anticipate the moneythat will go out in 1994-95. Certainly, the question isa fair one. But that will depend on applications whichcome in and the importance that my Departmentplaces on those applications. Certainly, this year weprovided some $300,000 from the RacingDevelopment Fund for the marketing of theQueensland Winter Racing Carnival. Again, thewisdom of that is reflected in the fact that on-courseand off-course betting and crowd attendances at theWinter Racing Carnival thus far have exceeded therecords established last year.

There is $1.5m set aside each year for theRacing Incentive Scheme. Later this year, as of 1October, that will become known as the Queensland


Racing Incentive Scheme. There is $5m in 1993-94for the first year of funding for the developmentalrace clubs throughout Queensland. Thedevelopmental race clubs are those which we deemto be the smaller clubs throughout Queensland.These clubs have welcomed this innovation. We arenow able to make payments to them up front. Thishas obviated the need for them to borrow frombanks, and has helped to keep overheads andborrowings for those smaller clubs down to a bareminimum. That scheme has been well received.

Also, the Racing Development Fund has beenresponsible for the funding of the various race clubsthroughout the State. I have a list here, which willgive you an idea of the clubs involved. At times therehave been very blatant attempts by some people tosuggest that there has been some bias in thegranting of advances from the Racing DevelopmentFund throughout Queensland.

The list of trustees includes Albion Park, MountIsa, the Capalaba Greyhound Racing Club,Rockhampton, Beaudesert, Clifford Park, theRocklea Pacing Club, the Queensland HarnessRacing Control Board, the Greyhound RacingControl Board, the Gold Coast Turf Club, theWidgee Shire Council, the Lockyer Race Club, theDalby and Northern Downs Jockey Club,Toowoomba, Nanango, the Sunshine Coast TurfClub, and the Mareeba Turf Club. The list goes on.For those who wish to make the comment that thereis some bias in funding, I can assure them that suchcriticism is poorly placed.

Mrs ROSE: Turning to the QueenslandPrincipal Club—the Auditor-General in his secondreport on audits performed for the financial yearended 30 June 1993, at pages 24 to 28, reportedextensively on audits of the Queensland PrincipalClub. The audit identified certain broad financialmanagement issues which needed to be addressedby the QPC and noted that, for the year ended 30June 1993, the QPC reported an operating deficit of$742,087 before an extraordinary item. Would youplease explain to the Committee how muchassistance the QPC received from the RacingDevelopment Fund?

Mr GIBBS: A grant of $450,000 was made tothe Queensland Principal Club as a result of the quitedisastrous loss of moneys by the QPC in its first yearof operation. If we had not taken those steps toprovide that money from the Racing DevelopmentFund, it simply would have meant that those losseswould have been passed on directly to race clubs, tolicensees and to owners, all of whom would have hadto pay additional fees to the QPC to meet overheadsand to meet operational costs. I do not wish to gointo the personality issues, but simply say thatmatters were referred to me by the Auditor-Generalin respect of the QPC's conformity with theprovisions of the Financial Administration and AuditAct.

Although there was insufficient evidence toproceed with a criminal investigation, theAuditor-General's office did express concern at thegravity of the incidents involving the role of aparticular stipendiary steward in the handing over of

moneys to the Queensland Principal Club. Thatgentleman subsequently resigned for health reasons.There was a change in the chairmanship of theQueensland Principal Club and of the chief executiveas a result of the Auditor-General's report. I shall notcomment on a number of those matters, becausethey are the subject of legal action at present.Suffice to say, though, that since then theAuditor-General has given a glowing report on theoperation of the QPC in relation to the methods andthe action that was taken by the new committee ofthe QPC in putting in place more stringent financialcontrols and ensuring that a process was in place ofproper and full consultation with the full committee ofthe Queensland Principal Club.

The CHAIRMAN: No further questions? Wewill take one further question before we break forlunch, and I invite Mr Veivers to ask that question.We are still on racing.

Mr VEIVERS: The 1992-93 interim audit of theQueensland Principal Club disclosed a $742,000deficit attributable to a complete lack of budgetaryand financial controls within the Queensland PrincipalClub. You have covered that. We were assured thatbudgetary decisions had been revised to ensure asurplus this financial year. On 26 November 1991, onpage 3 189 of Hansard, you stated that all assetsheld by the existing five principal clubs would remainwith the new principal club. It is noted in thedepartment's annual report 1992-93 under "Notes todepartmental statements", item 10, property plant andequipment, that $25,638,000 worth of assets wereexcluded from the Queensland Principal Clubbalance sheet and fiscal bodies. I comment that ifthese assets were brought to account at thetakeover date, the cost of depreciation outlined inthe Queensland Principal Club income andexpenditure statement would be increaseddramatically. Therefore, I ask: what provision will youmake to adjust the deficit, before the extraordinaryitem of $742,087, to include the extra cost ofdepreciation in the 1993-94 financial accounts? Willthe funding of this extra deficit impede upon theability of the Queensland Principal Club to manageits activities? I ask that question because provisionfor depreciation has to be a cash expense fromconsolidated revenue payable to trust funds toprovide and replace assets at the termination of theirlife. That is a common commercial method that takesthe pain away from the taxpayer on a regular annualbasis. Would you provide the information on that,please?

Mr GIBBS: I will answer it to a small degreeand I will ask Dr Mason, who is with me, to expandon it a little further. Suffice to say that, as a result ofsome of the ill-informed and very deliberate politicalgrandstanding that took place during the time of theintroduction of some reforms in the racing industry inQueensland, when the QPC came into being, itprobably should have done so with considerablymore assets than it inherited at that time. In thecouple of months prior to the formation of the QPC,certain forces within the racing industry got aroundthe State and made sure that they divestedthemselves both of some properties and of somemoneys that were in accounts which were never


transferred to the QPC. That was an unfortunatesituation, because it may have got off to a betterfinancial start had that not occurred. However, I willask Dr Mason to expand a little more on the questionthat you have asked. If the answer provided by himis not totally what you require, I would be happy totake it on notice and provide you with furtherinformation.

Mr VEIVERS: I am happy with that, Minister.

Dr MASON: Bob Mason, Director of RacingDivision, Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing. Ithink the matter that you are referring to appeared inthe second report of the Auditor-General on auditsperformed for the financial year ended 30 June 1993.

Mr VEIVERS: Yes, it did, under "Operatingdeficit surplus", before the extraordinary item.

Dr MASON: Yes. On page 29 of that report,you will notice there is a section titled "Status ofmatters raised in previous reports". It states that oneof the problems with the audit of the QueenslandPrincipal Club at that stage was that—

"Information was not available tosubstantiate the cost of certain non-currentassets and it was necessary to issue a qualifiedaudit opinion on the accounts for the periodfrom the Club's inception on 1 March 1992 to30 June 1992, to the extent that—

certain non-current assets were broughtto account at written-down values; and

depreciation changes were based onasset values which included a landcomponent, contrary to AustralianAccounting Standard"——

Mr VEIVERS: I understand that, but therewas——

Dr MASON: The answer to your question, Ithink, lies in the fact that there was an error in themanner in which the QPC did its accounts at thatstage, which the Auditor commented upon. Theybrought the valuation of their land and theirbuilding—which they had acquired for $600,000—toaccount in an erroneous manner.

Mr VEIVERS: There are non-current assets inthe Queensland Principal Club's balance sheet as at30 June 1993 of $1,806,834. The operating deficit is$742,000. It seems that they are not there and theyhave not been depreciated at all.

Dr MASON: Undoubtedly the Auditor-Generalwill be checking on that again in his audit of thisyear's financial matters, but I am prepared to providefurther information to you if you wish.

Mr VEIVERS: If you could put that in writingand send it to me, I would be only too pleased.

Mr GIBBS: I take it that you will provide uswith a copy of the question that you have asked.

Mr VEIVERS: Yes, I would be only too happyto. I am the most easygoing Opposition member.

The CHAIRMAN: If there are no furtherquestions from Mr Veivers, that concludes thequestioning on the Racing Program. I thank DrMason and also the staff from the Tourism Program.Those two matters are now completed. We will now

break for lunch and return at 2 p.m. to commence theinvestigation of the Program Estimates in relation toSport and Recreation.

The Committee adjourned at 12.54 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 2.02 p.m.The CHAIRMAN: I will resume these hearings

of Estimates Committee D. We are currentlyconsidering the expenditure of the Department ofTourism, Sport and Racing. I understand that theMinister has a correction in relation to an answergiven previously. I invite him to make that correctionnow.

Mr GIBBS: This morning, I did say that wefunded the Brisbane Visitors and Convention Bureauto the tune of $135,000 a year. The correction is thatthat is actually $235,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN: We now return to thebalance of the 20-minute question period available tothe Opposition spokesperson. I invite Mr Veivers tocontinue with his questioning. We are now into theprogram area of sport and recreation.

Mr VEIVERS: An auditor's report ofassessment management practices of the Lang ParkTrust in 1992-93 found that the asset register wasinadequately maintained, giving a false financialpicture. Have you ensured that such accountinganomalies have been corrected as we enter the1994-95 financial year?

Mr GIBBS: Yes, I have. The understatement,as I recall, was in fact with reference to a propertywhich the Lang Park Trust owns immediatelyadjacent to Lang Park itself. From memory, in theirannual report, I think they valued the property atsomething like $33,000. They showed a valuation of$19,000. I am sorry. The building and the land is infact worth in the vicinity of $800,000 to $850,000. Inaddition to that, they own the land towards thenorthern end of Lang Park. The land immediatelybehind there is also owned by the trust. In additionto that, there is another small block of land, I believe,at the southern end of Lang Park which is alsoowned by the trust, but, yes, the assets will bereflected at their correct value in their next report.

Mr VEIVERS: On the same subject, hasprovision been made for the Lang Park Trust toinclude the land value in the 1994-95 Estimates? Youhave just supplied me with the valuation of land. I amtalking about the total area.

Mr GIBBS: As I understand it, the total assetsowned by the Lang Park Trust are approximately$3.1m.

Mr VEIVERS: The Department's 1992-93annual report asserted that the World Masters Gamesto be held in October 1994 would be fully supportedby the Department. What does "fully supported"mean and what financial implications will it have foryour Department?

Mr GIBBS: "Fully supported"—as theDepartment responsible for sport and recreation, andalso tourism, we have worked closely withQueensland Events Corporation in terms of ensuringthe maximum participation by Queensland Masterssportsmen and women in the event in terms of a


financial contribution from my Department. We haveput in approximately $230,000, which went to theemployment of a number of sports liaison officers.The responsibility of the sports liaison officers is tobe working Statewide, talking to various andnumerous sporting organisations with a view not onlyto promoting the benefits of the World MastersGames and the economic benefit that they can bringto Queensland but also ensuring that we get themaximum participation of people in the event itself,remembering of course the comment that I madeearlier this morning, that is, not taking away from therole of the Queensland Events Corporation in itspromotional role and its responsibilities overseas tobe liaising with international sporting bodies.

Mr VEIVERS: Just going back to the LangPark subject again, seeing it is State of Origin weeknext week, can you advise me of the cost of write-offs of the old grandstand and the capital costs ofthe new grandstand? What rate will be depreciatedand over what period? I ask that question because Inotice in a letter to you from the Chairman of theLang Park Trust, Mr Hatcher, on 30 July 1993,relating to the financial statements, he said—

"Additional revenue was received throughinterests on investments and increased rentalfrom the Queensland Rugby League andFerncave Pty Ltd which has developed abuilding on the trust property in CastlemaineStreet."

I do not know this company Ferncave and I am notsure what building on the trust property the chairmanwas referring to. Who is Ferncave Pty Ltd and whodo they represent? What is this building on the trustproperty and who owns it?

Mr GIBBS: I think, to the best of myknowledge, that would be the name of the companythat currently occupies the building which is ownedby the trust adjacent to Lang Park—the building thatis in Castlemaine Street. I believe that would be thename of the people who currently lease the premisesfrom the Lang Park Trust. I stand to be corrected onthat, but I shall make sure of that fact and conveythat to you.

Mr VEIVERS: The Estimates of receipts andexpenditure for the Sports and Recreation BenefitFund show that estimated receipts for 1994-95 total$34.596m and expenditure is expected to be morethan $43m, which is almost a $9m difference. In otherwords, we will have to either decrease proposedsports expenditure by 20.8 per cent or raise theamount of the sport and recreational benefit levyalready imposed on the hotel and club industry tocreate an extra 26 per cent in tax revenue, unlessyou utilise previous years' funding not spent. Canyou guarantee that the recreational benefit levy willnot be increased to fund your aims?

Mr GIBBS: As I understand it, to a largedegree, you are referring there to carryovers. Whatyou see reflected in the Budget——

Mr VEIVERS: The Budget Overview, page152.

Mr GIBBS: What you see reflected in therewould be a carryover of approximately $11m from

the previous year of moneys which have not yetbeen spent. A large amount of that obviously wouldbe due to the fact that there was a fairly protractedperiod of wet weather where projects to which fundshad been allocated could not be started. Obviously,those moneys will be taken up later in the year bythose organisations that have had to defer a start ona number of those projects because of wet weather.There can be other reasons as to why they do notstart, but primarily that would be the reason for thatcarryover.

Mr VEIVERS: In 1992-93, expenditure of$1.3m exceeded Budget allocation for grants fromthe Sport and Recreation Benefit Fund. The annualreport says that this excess expenditure was offsetby subsidies not claimed by other sporting bodies.Can you advise whether this is a usual practice foruncollected approved grants to be used to pay offexcess expenditure?

Mr GIBBS: I might ask Peter Richardson torespond to that.

Mr RICHARDSON: Basically, what occurredin that year was that we were given approval mid-year for additional expenditure for the BrisbaneCricket Ground and, I think, Ballymore. The normalprocedure in those cases is for us to go to Treasuryfor unforeseen expenditure. However, as we hadunused expenditure in that year as well because ofthese unclaimed grants, Treasury allowed us tooffset that additional expenditure against theunclaimed grants. In the following year, Treasurygave us the additional approval to increase ourallocation by $1.9m, which was the amount that wehad used to offset the grants in the prior year. SoTreasury gave us the additional money the next yearto fund those grants that had not been claimed.

Mr VEIVERS: Can you assure us that anyunclaimed grants in the 1994-95 year will beredistributed to some of the many clubs or groupswhose applications were not approved in the firstround of funding offers, rather than being used tobalance the books?

Mr GIBBS: No, I cannot give you an absoluteassurance on that, the reason being that it must beunderstood that people are not knocked back forfunding simply because we think it is nice to knockthem back. We would love to be out there givingevery community organisation that applies forfunding some financial assistance. There are criteriathat we have to apply on a Statewide basis to ensurethat people are receiving their fair share of revenue.On a regional basis throughout the State, money isdistributed as equitably as we possibly can. If thereis a further question later about that equity, I will behappy to respond to it.

The basis on which we make the decision aboutfunding has to do with population breakdowns intomale and female in the various regions throughoutthe State; the population of older adults, that is,people over 60; young people aged 12 to 25;Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; peoplefrom non-English speaking backgrounds;unemployed; and youth unemployed.


We try to put together a very broad picture todetermine how that funding should be allocated tovarious sporting organisations. If a club ororganisation has missed out, it may well be that,through our regional office, we could have a requestto have some reconsideration of that application, ifthat happens, and certainly we would do that.

Mr VEIVERS: In the 1993-94 financial year,the $10m set aside for major facilities developmentgrants was allocated before it was even offered tolocal clubs and sporting bodies. I think we allremember this. To which specific facility projectswas this $10m allocated, and can the Minister assureus that this will not be repeated in the 1994-95program?

Mr GIBBS: There are two programs here, ofcourse. The fact is that the major facilities programstands aside from the other programs within theDepartment. There were decisions made in terms ofcommitments to future years; for example, in relationto the funding—the improvements to the BrisbaneCricket Ground. It would be unreasonable to expectthat any contribution from the Sport and RecreationBenefit Fund would simply happen in one year, whenwe would suddenly grab a huge amount of moneyout of that and not leave moneys in there to be ableto spread around to other areas of the State.

The major facilities program of the QueenslandFacilities Development Scheme for the 1993-94financial year includes $3m to the redevelopment ofthe Gabba; half a million dollars to Ballymore for thedevelopment of the eastern grandstand; $5m to LangPark; a debt repayment for the McAuliffe Stand of$1.3m; the Community Use of Schools Project—thepilot project, which I have implemented in myDepartment, which will come to $870,000; theWillows Sports Complex in Townsville, half a milliondollars; Perry Park, half a million dollars; and SportsHouse, which will be $2m.

It is the intent, of course, to make sure—as Ihave said before—that we spread that as far andwide as we can. I believe that with the introductionof the Community Use of Schools Project—of whichfour are under way currently in Queensland—as weare able to evaluate the worthiness of thoseprograms, I am very confident that they will be aworthy pilot project which will ensure that probablyin the not-too-distant future we will be able to look atimplementing similar schemes in other areas of theState to ensure a broader spreading of that majorfacilities development program money.

The CHAIRMAN: I invite Mrs Gamin to ask aquestion on sport and recreation.

Mrs GAMIN: The 1994-95 Budget allocates$1.7m to minor capital works projects at theDepartment's 12 recreation camps in Queensland.This averages out at about $142,000 for each camp.Yet last year, you said that Tallebudgera RecreationCamp is in line for a $13m facelift. You recentlywrote to me and advised me that you expect a fullreport on that camp's requirements by the end of thismonth. As public expectation is running high inrespect of Tallebudgera, I ask when positive actionwill be taken to refurbish and rebuild particularlyTallebudgera and other recreation camps in

Queensland and how that is shown in this currentBudget?

Mr GIBBS: There is nothing shown in theBudget currently for improvements to Tallebudgerasimply because we have not allocated money in thisyear's Budget for improvements to Tallebudgera.

In spite of repeated assurances from me, it is anextremely distasteful practice to read from theOpposition at times in the paper of this ongoingcampaign to try to convince the public or others thatthere is some intention by the Government to shutTallebudgera. I reiterate—I hope in finality—that theTallebudgera Recreation Camp plays an importantrole in the recreation facilities of my Department andof this Government. Once again, I give the public anassurance that it will remain open.

Notwithstanding that statement, obviously thereis a need for us to look at Tallebudgera. It is beinglooked at at the moment in the context of a reportwhich is being prepared for me as to the effectivefuture use of recreation camps throughoutQueensland. The reality is that, when we came tooffice in 1989, the state of the recreation camps inQueensland was quite appalling. There have been alarge number of them which, but for the good graceof a number of local authorities throughout the State,could well have been condemned. There were holesin the floor, inadequacies in terms of ventilation in theaccommodation quarters, and some of the kitchensin these places were a disgrace to say the least. As aresult of that, the fact is that there will be a number ofthem which in my opinion--and I state at this stagethat it is my opinion--quite frankly, we will have toconsider the future. The money to which you havereferred is an ongoing expenditure to ensure thatthey are kept up to some minimal standard while theassessment is under way.

The CHAIRMAN: Opposition question timehas expired. There will be another opportunity afterGovernment members have a turn. I invite themember for Albert, Mr Szczerbanik, to commence hisquestions on matters relating to sport and recreation.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Improving the access toand equity in sport and recreation for allQueenslanders is highlighted in your departmentalEstimates. As you said previously, the Paralympicsfor the disabled are being funded by yourDepartment. What other groups are presently beingtargeted and what funding is provided for programsbeing put in place for these groups?

Mr GIBBS: There are a number of groupswhich we are looking at in the community in terms ofgiving assistance to them. You have rightly referredto the paralympions—the people in the communitywho have disabilities who wish to participate insport—whether it be at the competitive ornon-competitive level. It was with a great deal ofpersonal pride that I launched the QueenslandCouncil of the Paralympics yesterday. It wasacknowledged at that ceremony that Queensland outof all States in Australia leads the way in terms of ourencouragement that we give both financially andphysically to our disabled sportsmen and women inthe community.


We established within my Department theEquity Unit, which, obviously, looks at the inequitiesthat still exist, unfortunately, in terms of properfunding for sport for women in our community. Therole of the Equity Unit has been to ensure thatthroughout the State we have a program in place sothat when sporting organisations apply to us forfunding, unless the assurance is given in theirthree-year forward planning program, which they arerequired to give to us, that there will be equity interms of money for sportswomen, then we lookseriously as to whether we should fund them. I ampleased to say that that has been a great success.

We have been looking at programs. The ATSICprogram is a brand-new program partly funded bythe Commonwealth Government for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander people, through which weencourage the people from ATSIC to be out there inthe Aboriginal and Islander communities showingpeople how they can apply for funding andencouraging them to set up programs that will qualifyfor funding through the Department.

Of course, sport for elderly people in thecommunity plays a major role in the area ofpreventive medicine. We are currently ensuring thatprograms are being put together to ensure that theelderly people in the community are looked after in aproper professional manner to allow them toparticipate in sport as well.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: With the announcementof the 2000 Olympics being hosted by Sydney—andI place on the record my appreciation to the NewSouth Wales Government for that—the role of theQueensland Academy of Sport takes on even moreimportance in the future. As there is an increase infunding to the QAS, could you please provide anupdate on the development of the QAS and its newBudget allocation?

Mr GIBBS: The Queensland Academy ofSport, which this Government established, has beenan outstanding success in the short three or fouryears that it has been in operation. It is nowrecognised as the most professional of its type inAustralia. It draws that recognition from comparativeagencies in other States and also from the AustralianSports Commission. The concept of the QAS is thatit now offers support through squad programs andindividual scholarships to a large number of athletesin this State. We have developed an elite strengthand training facility within the academy to assistathletes maintain and improve their performance. Theacademy has held a number of seminars throughoutQueensland explaining its role and in having peopleout there looking for talented athletes to becomepart of the various programs that we offer.

We have had something like 48 Queenslandathletes and coaches who have been chosen in theirvarious fields of expertise for the 1994Commonwealth Games. To have 48 of the athletesand coaches who are going to the CommonwealthGames selected from Queensland is a great indicatorof the professional performance of the Academy ofSport. The true measure of success is in what thepublic see in terms of medals that come home fromthe Games. We have more athletes than ever before

selected in the Commonwealth Games swimmingsquad. We have more than held our own in terms ofthose who have been chosen for the athletics team. Iwill mention two things that are perhaps not knownpublicly. Queensland can boast the fact that we havethe fastest white man over 100 metres residing inQueensland today— perhaps the fastest person inthe world—as a result of the excellence of the qualityof coaching at the QAS. We currently have a youngwoman living in Townsville—she is 14 years ofage—who as a result of the excellent coachingprograms of the QAS is only one centimetre short ofqualifying for Olympic high jump selection. Ofcourse, by the year 2000 this young woman willprobably be one of the most exciting athletes thatQueensland will produce.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: My question relates to anarea that I am interested in and that is the finalisationof the Sports Insurance and Safety Strategy, as isobvious from the numerous reports in thenewspapers. What processes have been into placeto develop this strategy, and what is the costinvolved?

Mr GIBBS: The paper which addresses thisvery important issue only arrived on my desk somethree days ago. Obviously the Government has agreat need to look at the whole question of sportsinsurance and safety within the sporting community.This is highlighted, I guess, every season when wesee quite horrific injuries occur to athletes, whether itbe on the athletic track or in the games of RugbyLeague, Rugby Union, or in the sport that perhaps isnot recognised as having an extremely high injuryrate—in fact, I believe that it has that highest injuryrate in sport in Australia—that is, women's netball,which is notorious for its injuries to young woman inparticular. There have been a number of issueshighlighted by the report which has come to myoffice. There is a concern over the technical andlegal style in which a number of interpretations withinthe sporting community are made, or the way inwhich sports administrators have to interpret reportswhich come before them.

We need to look at the establishment of aminimum level of insurance cover for all peopleinvolved in sport. There are a number of ways inwhich the Government will have to address that. Weare putting into place strategies that will cover thefact that there has been a general lack ofunderstanding and ignorance of the issues related tosports safety and insurance, but, more specifically,to look at proper risk management policies, that is,ensuring that the people who are responsible forturning our sportsmen and woman out onto thevarious fields of participation each weekend ormidweek—the sporting administrators andcoaches—are aware of the risk factors involved inthose areas and take proper preventive measures toas much as possible ensure the safety of ourathletes.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I have no furtherquestions.

The CHAIRMAN: We might move toOpposition members. I understand that there areonly a couple of questions left on sport and


recreation before we move to liquor licensing. MrsGamin?

Mrs GAMIN: Minister, following on from ourprevious discussion, there seems to be insufficientfunding in the 1994-95 Budget to cover anysignificant capital works at any of the recreationcamps. The departmental Estimates on page 21 saythat capital expenditure on recreational camps hasincreased as a result of carryover funding forapproved projects in the 1993-94 year, and so I ask:how much of the $1.7m allocated for minor works inthis year's Budget is in fact already committed to1993-94 approvals, and what is the actual amountwhich will be spent on recreational camp work in1994-95?

Mr GIBBS: Of the $1.7m which has beenallocated in this year's Budget, $755,000 has in factbeen carryover. So in broad figures, you are lookingat something like $950,000 which will be used thisyear or, rather, in next year's Budget. I hark back tothe answer which I gave to you before: it would bequite irresponsible of me, I believe, to go makingrepresentations during our Budget ReviewCommittee hearings when we put forward ourprograms and our policies for funding until I am inreceipt of the final report as to the future. See, it isnot just our Department which is involved in this.You have this quite incredible situation where theEducation Department has been involved in a numberof these issues over the years, and as one comes tounderstand the workings of the bureaucracy, youwould be as aware as I am, I am sure, of the ratherprotective approach that some people take inrelation to assets held by their own departments. Isee a greater need—which is currentlyhappening—for a better working relationshipbetween officers of my Department and theEducation Department in trying to come up with afinal comprehensive report where we can actuallydetail what the future of these recreation camps isgoing to be. Once we can do that, then I believe wewill be in a far better position to be able to sit downand make a determination of those which perhapsmight be considered to be surplus to needs andthose which may be considered as deserving ofquite some upgrading.

I might give you a quick example. I was recentlyasked to consider funding for a community hall atSeaforth in north Queensland. When I saw that comebefore me, it quite amazed me, because we have awonderful recreational hall at the Seaforth camp,which my Department is responsible for, which isunderutilised, and which would be an idealcommunity or public hall for use by the public. Yetwe had an organisation wanting funding. Now, itseems to me that there is just one area that I can giveyou as an example of where we should be looking atmuch more multiuse—which has been one of myfavourite hobbyhorses in the sporting area—andensuring multiuse as much as we possibly can of anumber of these existing facilities.

Mr HEALY: I have a question in relation tostaffing levels and related wages and salaries in thisparticular program. I refer you to Budget Paper No.3, page 326. Despite Budget predictions that the

number of full-time employees in the Sport andRecreation Program will remain constant at 135, inthe 1994-95 Budget Estimates an additional $555,000is allocated in salaries, wages and related payments. Iwould like you, if you could, please, to explain whythere is that increase and why, when the Governmenthad budgeted for 142 full-time employees in 1993-94to receive $5.037m, the Government actuallyoutlaid—and this is according to the 1994-95Budget- $5.386m, which is a difference of $350,000,despite the fact that staff numbers actually declinedby seven to 135?

Mr GIBBS: I might ask you to put thatquestion on notice.

Mr HEALY: Sure.Mr GIBBS: I am quite happy to answer it for

you, but there is some detail involved in it. I cancertainly answer parts of it for you, but I rathersuspect that it would not be to your satisfaction.

Mr HEALY: In the Program Statements, page327, the outlook for 1994-95, there is mention of thedevelopment of training programs for women insports administration during 1994. Is it possible foryou to supply the costing for those programs?

Mr GIBBS: Yes.

Mr HEALY: Or the forecasts?

Mr GIBBS: We would not have here, I do notbelieve, the individual costings for those programs. Istand to be corrected. I am told that we have anumber of them. For example, within the Equity Unit,we are undertaking a series of training programs toassist women in sport in attaining the skills needed toaccess decision-making positions. In 1994-95, theprograms are planned to address assertiveness,conflict management, negotiation skills and careerdevelopment, and the 1993-94 expenditure was$4,000. The anticipated 1994-95 expenditure will be$7,000. We have a publication on child-careguidelines for sport and recreation organisations,which will cost in the vicinity of $6,000.

The unit has produced, for example, a reportwhich refers to coaching participation, management,sports medicine and dealing with the media. That willinvolve an expenditure of some $5,500. We have theinternational Women's Day Festival—perhaps not aninternational day every year, but a Women's DayFestival—where we encourage women rightthroughout Queensland to participate in a number ofprograms. That can be, for example, a fun run here inBrisbane or attending a number of seminarsthroughout Queensland, and the expenditure on thatin 1994-95 will come to about $12,500. We arecurrently working closely—and this is a veryimportant project—with the Queensland PoliceService to produce a flier on safety for womenwalkers and joggers to assist women who wish to beout on the streets participating particularly in sportstraining, that is, women who like to be jogging ortraining in the open field. The expenditure on that willbe in the vicinity of $7,500. There may be a numberof other programs there which I have not rattled offto you, but again I say that if you wish more detail onthem, I am quite happy to provide it for you.

Mr HEALY: Thank you, Minister.


The CHAIRMAN: Mr Veivers?Mr VEIVERS: Minister, the 1993-94 Budget

promised $10.8m to the Queensland SportsDevelopment Scheme, yet only $8.6m was actuallyallocated. Will this underspending result in a $2mcarryover to 1994-95? If, as the Minister informed mein the House last week, only $880,000 was allocatedto local sporting clubs under the scheme, can youdetail what the remaining $7.8m was allocated to?

Mr GIBBS: I think there is a misunderstandingthere.

Mr RICHARDSON: There is in fact a $2mcarryover this financial year in the Community SportsDevelopment Scheme. In terms of the $7.8m, thereare two parts to that scheme. Part of it is theCommunity Sports Development Scheme which is, Ithink, $1m, and the other part is the StatewideSports Scheme, which is $7m. So the balance of theallocations in that are basically the grants in theStatewide schemes.

Mr VEIVERS: If that $2m was appropriatedbut not spent, as you say occurred last year, whydoes the Tourism Program Statement say that1993-94 commitments are to be included in the $10mallocated to the QSDS grants for 1994-95?

Mr RICHARDSON: This financial year, theallocation for the Statewide scheme is $7m. There is$1m for the community, and $2m in carryovers.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thequestions on the Sport and Recreation Program. Ithank departmental officers who have madethemselves available for questioning on that programarea. We now move to the Liquor Licensing Program.I invite Mr Veivers to continue his questioning forthe balance of this 20-minute period.

Mr VEIVERS: Almost half a million dollars inunforeseen expenditure was taken from theConsolidated Fund and the Liquor Act Fund in1992-93 to meet compensation payouts of $1.02munder the Hotel Rationalisation Program and theEducation and Health Programs, totalling $1.84m. In1993-94, a special $1m allocation was granted tofund the shortfall in the Liquor Act Trust Fundbecause of a reduction in premiums received for thegranting of new licences. That was in departmentalEstimates document No. 8. Why were theseallocations necessary when the Liquor Act Fund wasestablished in 1992 with some $9m to be used forthese specific purposes?

Mr GIBBS: When your party was in office,liquor licensing fees were increased from 8 to 10 percent. I think Premier Ahern made the statement that 1per cent of the revenue gathered in the first 12months would be put into a special fund specificallyfor that purpose. That never ever happened. Therewas never, ever a particular fund within Treasury, oranywhere else, for that 1 per cent to be paid into. Asa consequence of that, we had to go back toTreasury——

Mr VEIVERS: Was there not a trust fund?Mr GIBBS: No. Based on the anticipated

number of hoteliers who may have gone into therationalisation program, we had to ask for that $1m tobe put into our Budget.

Mr VEIVERS: No allocation has beenprovided in 1994-95. Is this as a consequence ofabolishing the Hotel Rationalisation Scheme a fewmonths ago to prevent further expenditureblow-outs?

Mr GIBBS: Primarily, it is. A number of theselicences are still under some discussion. Currently,there are 12 applications outstanding. These are invarying stages of finalisation. Three applicationswere withdrawn from the total of 12. Six appealshave been lodged—that is, appeals against what theDepartment has determined the licences to be worth.Three applications are still pending. They are theonly ones eligible for a payout under therationalisation scheme. Currently, we have sufficientfunding available within the Department to satisfy theneeds of those people.

Mr VEIVERS: Evidently, there has been anincreasing decline in the amount being received inpremiums for the granting of new licenses since theGovernment introduced its new system of licensing.Obviously, there are problems with your licensingsystem, particularly for hotels. As to licensingfees—the top three hotels are reportedly all in thehands of receivers. Have you decided to increasepremiums or change the licensing system in the1994-95 financial year in order to protect thisdiminishing source of Government revenue?

Mr GIBBS: No. As you would be aware, ifthere was a determination to decrease licensing fees,we would have announced that in the last Budget.We have not done that. I believe that the industry issatisfied. We have been in Government for five yearsand there has been no further increase in liquorlicensing fees. I have heard comments that this hasbeen much appreciated by the industry.

The downturn in the number of licencesemanates from the fact that over the years a numberof licence holders have actively indulged in bottom-of-the-barrel, cut-price warfare. In past years, thathas been done very deliberately by a number oflicensees. Prior to their licensing fees being due,they have sold at any cost. Then, upon having themoney as a result of those sales, they have beenable to pay their licensing fees. Of course, a coupleof months later they realise that they are in deeptrouble. Last year the banking institutions financed anumber of hotels to a large degree to pay their liquorlicensing fees. This year, I expect that, when theysee that a number of these premises are no longerviable, a number of others will not continue to beplayers.

As you would recall, the whole idea of therationalisation scheme was to give those operatorswho for one reason or another were in a businessthat was not viable an opportunity to leave theindustry. Problems arose in places such as Childers,which has about seven hotels. All the hoteliersbelieved that the scheme was marvellous. But whenyou asked people to volunteer to hand in theirlicences, they said, "No, not me. It should be thefellow down the road." We have bent over


backwards to assist them. If there is a furthercleansing within the industry, it will be controlled bymarket forces—supply and demand—and not by theGovernment.

Mr VEIVERS: Can the Minister advise us whythe 1994-95 Estimates of Receipts and Expenditureshows no opening cash balance for the Liquor ActFund. As I asked before, is this a trust fund?

Mr GIBBS: No. The trust fund is a reference tothe money set aside for the rationalisation program.But it also refers to the moneys used each year topay for a number of programs in the otherdepartments. We give money to the TransportDepartment, the Education Department and theHealth Department. As I recall, the program in theHealth Department is for patron care. We paid$294,272 to the Health Department, $286,523 to theTransport Department, and $276,810 to theEducation Department. Those three departments usethose funds for conducting various programs foreducating drinkers, such as patron care. Transportuses the money for a campaign to discourage drink-driving.

Mr VEIVERS: Now that the hotelrationalisation scheme has beenabolished—prematurely, I might add—what will the$1.4m estimated to be received and expended underthat Liquor Act Fund in 1994-95 be spent on?

Mr GIBBS: For example, if the appeals by thesix people who disagree with the amount of themoney we believe their licences to be worth areupheld, obviously we will have to pay out money tothem. The other three licensees would have to bepaid out. I am advised that the average payment onthe surrendering of the licenses has been $95,000. Ifyou multiply that by nine—and add two, based onthe figures that I gave to you before; that is, for themoneys to go to the three various Departments—youwill probably find that that should pan out prettyequally.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes this bracketof questioning from Opposition members. We nowgo to questions from Government members. I inviteDr Clark, the member for Barron River, to ask herquestions.

Dr CLARK: I refer to you Budget Paper No. 3at page 323. Under "achievements" in 1993-94, I notethat there was the implementation of an after-hourson-call service for complaint resolution. Could youplease give me some information about theassessment of this service and indicate the costinvolved in the service for 1993-94? What are theplans this year in relation to that program, and whatmight its costs be?

Mr GIBBS: Prior to November 1992, no on-callservice existed. In other words, investigations aboutnoise complaints were usually conducted at a timewhen the noise and other problems perhaps werenot at the level that they were when the initialcomplaint was made. There was simply no service forimmediate response to those problems out of hours.We established the on-line service so that those whofelt aggrieved by noise complaints could virtually be

serviced immediately, or certainly within an hour orso of the complaint being made.

It has been a highly successful program thusfar. The 1993-94 budget for the on-call allowancewas $6,768. Overtime for servicing those calls was$9,161. Interestingly enough, we had 75 callouts forcomplaints. We had 14 calls on diminished orders;two cease orders were put forward; there were threeshow causes; and there were four prosecutions, twonot proceeded with and 20 non-substantiated. Theinteresting point is that on 25 occasions we wereable to negotiate with the responsible parties—whether it be a nightclub or a hotel operating into theearly hours of the morning—to ensure that thedisputes were settled in a proper manner.

Our licensing investigators are currently issuedwith a pager, so that they are on call virtually 24hours a day. The number of the relevant pager isgiven to our regular complainants, of whom there area few. After being called, it is up to the relevantinvestigator to take appropriate action and, if needsbe, he will inform the Executive Director of theLiquor Licensing Division, Mr Longland—who isbeside me today—on the basis that he may need toauthorise further immediate action. To date, theservice has been well received in the community.

Dr CLARK: Is that service providedStatewide?

Mr GIBBS: It mostly applies in the south-eastcorner, but I am advised that my department iscurrently looking at the possibility of extending thatservice.

Dr CLARK: That would be excellent. The otherissue on page 323 that interests me is the questionof the educational awareness programs. Youtouched on that earlier. Could you elaborate on that,and in particular how you are focusing your programson young people? I think we are all aware of theproblems associated with young people anddrinking, particularly under-age drinking, which hasbeen a significant issue. Could you outline thesuccess of the programs to date, what you areplanning to do in the future and the cost of thoseprograms?

Mr GIBBS: The education processesconducted by the Liquor Licensing Division havebeen very important. We are all aware that thisproblem is experienced Australiawide and not just inQueensland. There have been increased instances ofpeople, as a result of intoxication, not living up totheir responsibility. We are adopting a number ofmeasures to attempt to address that problem. Wehave introduced Card 18+, which is a program for theidentification of young people—primarily thosebetween the ages of 18 and 25—who want to enterlicensed premises. As a result of the introduction ofthe Card 18+ and the very comprehensive educationprogram that was undertaken, a person whose age isin question would find it very difficult to gain entry toa club or a hotel anywhere in Queensland without theproduction of a Card 18+ or a drivers' licence.

We now have a program in place titled Cut-outCrimestoppers. Under that program, figurines ofpolice officers are placed in the drive-in departments


of bottle shops to drive home themessage—particularly to parents and other groups inthe community that do not seem to accept theirsocial responsibility—that adults have aresponsibility not to provide alcohol to people under18 years of age. In many cases, parents are utilisingdrive-in bottle shops and other facilities to purchasedrinks for young people to consume at home. Thathas been a problem during Schoolies Week inparticular, but it is one that we have been able toclamp down on fairly successfully.

A "Know Your Rights" brochure will bedistributed throughout Queensland so that peopleare aware of their rights under the current Liquor Act.An MLA kit has been put together for all members ofParliament to ensure that they have relevant materialavailable to assist constituents who requireinformation on the Liquor Act. We will be spendingapproximately $5,000 on that. Of course, there arealso our annual programs which are aimed attargeting some of the problems that have beenencountered in the past during Schoolies Week. Ibelieve that those programs have had very positiveoutcomes.

The CHAIRMAN: I have some questions inrelation to liquor licensing. On page 8 of thedepartmental Estimates document under the heading"Investigations and complaints", there is a note that in1993-94 in excess of 300 complaints were resolvedacross the State and there were in excess of 1 700financial and compliance investigations. Could youplease outline the extent of these investigations inthe last year, the costs incurred in thoseinvestigations and whether any particular allocationhas been made for the forthcoming year, includingovertime?

Mr GIBBS: The past financial year gives anindicator of the broad requirements of the LiquorLicensing Division. A total of 2 665 investigationshave been undertaken by the division across theState. Of those, there have been 667 routineinvestigations; 576 complaint investigations; 1 347after-hours investigations; and 75 callouts throughthe on-call service. For the south-east corner of theState—and bearing in mind that I made the commentearlier that the on-call service is primarily a south-eastcorner service at the moment—an amount of $45,500has been expended in overtime for after-hoursinvestigations. In regional centres, $9,500 has beenexpended in looking at a number of thesecomplaints.

It should be remembered that other staff suchas regional managers, managers in the LiquorLicensing Division in Brisbane and the ExecutiveDirector of the Liquor Licensing Division haveperformed out-of-hours duties at no cost. I think thatfact should be placed on the record. Those peoplecommit a lot of their personal time to ensuring thatthe department is performing in a professional andproper manner.

It is expected that, in the coming financial year,there will be more investigations mounted in regionalareas as we place staff in places such asToowoomba—and I know that there are a number ofproblems there—Maroochydore, Maryborough and

Mackay. The regional services that we will beproviding for those sorts of complaint investigationswill be boosted by a further $400,000 allocation inthe budget.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 323 of the BudgetPapers in respect of the 1994-95 outlook, initiativesare outlined for training investigators and educatingthe industry, in particular, with a focus in theforthcoming financial year on monitoring licensedpremises. What is the cost of giving this training toinvestigators and what results have been achieved interms of disciplining licensees who are in breach?

Mr GIBBS: We conducted a training seminarfor some 20 officers from the Department earlier thisyear at the Griffith University for a total cost of$26,321. This was done specifically so that ourinvestigators could be more well-attuned to some ofthe problems within the industry. Numerous warningshave been given, for example, to licenseesthroughout Queensland by our investigators. In thelicence fee area, protracted warnings and cautionswere given. I might point out that there were largeamounts of outstanding licence fees when thisGovernment came to office. The fact that we havebeen able to have our investigators better trainedand better informed and out there explaining topublicans or to licensees their responsibilities—Ithink last financial year something like 99 per cent oflicence fees were in fact paid on time.

I might point out that prior to the introductionof the Liquor Licensing Division, it was rare that theprevious Licensing Commission would close anypremises in Queensland; it was rare that aprosecution took place. That sort of culture has nowchanged dramatically as a result of more professionaltraining programs that we have been involved in anda new management structure in the liquor licensingarea. It has resulted in 172 prosecutions in the lasttwo financial years against licensees and members ofthe public who have not abided by the Liquor Act,and in the past two years in excess of $45,000 worthof fines have been levied through these actions.

As a result of a number of complaints fromhonourable members and from councils throughoutQueensland, I can only say to you that the diligenceof the division is more committed than ever, and it ismy expectation that they will be out there in evenmore conspicuous force than we have seen in thepast. Currently, something like 53 prosecutions andfive further show-causes are pending.

The CHAIRMAN: As well as traininginvestigators, of course, an important focus isactually training licensees to be aware of theirresponsibilities under the Act. I note on page 8 ofthe Department's Estimates documents reference toa training needs analysis of some 3 900 licensees.What programs have already been put in place in the1993-94 year and what are the outcomes of thoseprograms and their costs in terms of whether thecommunity is getting value for money in thosetraining programs? What is contemplated in theforthcoming financial year to train licensees?

Mr GIBBS: As we mentioned to you before,we have introduced what is known as the IndustryDevelopment Unit within the Liquor Licensing


Division. There has also been a high degree oftraining and awareness that has been undertakenwithin the industry. Training has been aimed primarilyat licensees, their staff, club management andhospitality training institutions. I cannot emphasiseenough the importance of those courses at thehospitality training institutions where young peoplecoming into the tourism industry in its broader senseare aware of the responsibilities that they have inensuring that there is proper patron behaviour and,indeed, patron care exercised on licensed premises.In 1993-94, over 50 training sessions wereconducted involving more than 2 000 participantsthroughout Queensland, and that has been a first forthe Liquor Licensing Division. Most of the coststhere have been minimal, but they are included in thepromotional budget of some $31,000, which hasbeen allocated in the Budget.

In addition, the Industry Development Unit hasconducted a training-needs analysis of licenseesthroughout the State and is currently formalising aformal training program to be accessible by licenseesand staff throughout Queensland, particularly in ruralareas, during 1994 and 1995. There had beenspecific problems in rural Queensland, and I am surethat members would be aware of that. In fact,through the Department, we do provide quite a dealof information to a number of trade journalsthroughout Queensland, specifically the QHAReview, Club News and the Queensland Bowler.Without bias, these publications get a very broadpercentage of readers from "club land" throughoutthe State. Again, it makes a pretty importantcontribution to the knowledge of those clubmembers and of club management of theirrequirements under the Act.

The CHAIRMAN: I refer to page 8 of theDepartment's Estimates document and note that astudy is to be undertaken under the heading "MajorProgram Issues". That states—

"A study is to be undertaken to determinebase level of data on the economic value of theliquor industry to the Queensland economy andto determine the number of people the industryemploys."

Could you give some indication of the nature of thatstudy, what it is anticipated to cost and how it mightbe useful in future planning?

Mr GIBBS: The booklet which has been putout called The 1992-93 Year in Review, which is anexamination of the Queensland liquor industry andwhich has been put out by the Liquor LicensingDivision of my Department, has in fact cost in thevicinity of some $2,000. The booklet is one whichcovers a very broad range of issues and is meant tobe distributed to the industry as an indicator of,again, for example, such things as the goals of theLiquor Licensing Division, the structure of thedivision and how the Investigation and ComplaintsUnit works. Through this publication, we advise theindustry of the expectations of the industry. I mightjust hand over to Mr Longland to expand on that alittle for me.

Mr LONGLAND: Laurie Longland, ExecutiveDirector, Liquor Licensing Division. The Year in

Review document is only the beginning in the studyof statistical analysis of the liquor industry inQueensland. We are looking towards base level dataon which we may start to commence and base astrategic plan for the liquor industry into the future.That plan, which would start later on in this financialyear, would give some sort of idea of the number ofpeople employed in the industry, the sorts ofturnover in the industry, the importance of theindustry generally in the economic development ofQueensland, and would therefore give an indicationinto policy development and directions in whichGovernment may go in the future.

Dr CLARK: I have just one further question toask. On page 8 of your Departmental Estimatesdocument you have some information aboutlicensing administration. You indicated that last yearthe process of applications had increased from 2 510to over 4 500 and you have implemented acomputerised monitoring of all applications. Clearly,there is considerable growth occurring there. Whatkind of growth are you anticipating and planning forin the year ahead? Have you any idea of what wouldbe the expected time for the processing ofapplications? I realise they probably vary dependingon objections, but what would be the sort of timelines you are working to to actually processapplications at the present time?

Mr GIBBS: You have correctly identified thefact that there have been, I guess, almost a recordnumber of applications. During the 1992-93 financialyear, there were in fact 260 new licence applicationsand 2 250 other applications. This has come aboutbroadly as a result of the flexibility of the new Actand, I guess, some upturning in the economy bothQueensland and Australiawide where there is moreconfidence coming back into the market. We haveintroduced a system of computerised monitoring ofeach application. That computerised monitoring hasmeant that we have been able to dramatically reducethe amount of time that it has taken in the past toprocess applications, particularly now that we have aStatewide computerised network through ourregional offices which is able to do that.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes questionsfrom the Committee on the program area of LiquorLicensing. I thank staff from that division for theirassistance. We now move to questions fromOpposition members of the Committee on theprogram area of Youth. This will be the final bracketof questioning of this Department. I invite questionson Youth and Corporate Services from Mr Veivers,the member for Southport.

Mr VEIVERS: The 1992-93 report of theDepartment explains that $135,000 of the youthfunding allocated was unspent and lapsed becauseof delays in the approval and distribution of youthgrants. Have grant approval procedures now beenreviewed so that Youth Programs do not miss out onthe much-needed funding which is apparentlyallocated in the 1994-95 Budget?

Mr GIBBS: I might ask Peter Phair to answerthat.

Mr PHAIR: Peter Phair, Executive Director,Regional Corporate Services. The lapsed


appropriation of $135,000—I will give you somefacts to explain that. The Department actually had anapproved allocation of $4.4m. In the interim, revenueretention was approved for the Department in 1992-93, meaning that the Department could expend anyrevenues. One part of the Youth Program is theDuke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, which hadreceipts of $135,000 for that particular year.Therefore, as the Department had already receivedfull funding for the Duke of Edinburgh AwardScheme and subsequent approval to spend anyreceipts—in this case that was $135,000—the fundshad to be basically paid back. So in effect, the $4.4mallocation should have been $4.265m, which is the$4.4m minus the receipts of $135,000 which came inthrough revenue retention. Therefore, theDepartment was basically required to lapse theamount of $135,000, which was offset againstrevenue. So there was no actual decrease in fundingto the Youth Program.

Mr VEIVERS: Grants under the YouthProgram have continued to decline from $2.8m in1992-93 to $2.4m this year. Only $2.1m was allocatedin the 1994-95 Budget. The Program Statementappears on page 324. How does this trend correlateto the Youth Program goal of supporting youthparticipation in society?

Mr GIBBS: Your statement there does notmatch the figures that we have here. If you wouldlike to give that to me on notice, I will make sure youget the correct information.

Mr VEIVERS: No trouble. The Youth Bureauwas given $3.1m in 1993-94, an amount inflated by$530,000 carried over from the preceding year forcommitted youth grants. Does the $2.6m allocated tothe Bureau in 1994-95 include an amount carried overfor grants promised but not paid in the 1993-94financial year?

Mr GIBBS: It includes a carryover amount of$230,000 in that Budget allocation.

Mr VEIVERS: In 1993-94, the Departmentestablished a Youth Advisory Forum, supposedly tobring young people's advice to the Government. Willthese forums be continued in 1994-95, and at whatcost to the Government if they are?

Mr GIBBS: The Advisory Forums will becontinued in 1994-95. The youth policy, which theGovernment has put together, has, as you haveprobably become aware through the Budget Papers,given my Department lead agency status in terms ofbeing responsible for the coordination of youthservices right through all Departments. That is to saythat there are issues of youth effective on allDepartments.

There was a problem there in making sure thatwe were able to bring a number of those programstogether. My Department has lead agencyresponsibility for that. As part of putting together thedocument on youth affairs, we have introduced theYouth Advisory Forums. These have been held in anumber of areas throughout Queensland, particularlythroughout rural Queensland, to ensure that thevoice of youth is being heard. They have been veryproductive forums to date.

I believe that next month the major youthconference—the State Forum—which will berepresentative of young people from all thoseadvisory forums over the State, will meet here inBrisbane. They will sit down with me. We willobviously discuss the issues that are of concern toyoung people and take advice from those youngpeople on programs that they believe we should belooking at and should be considering implementing.That will form part of a report that I will take toCabinet to ascertain those areas that we should beacting on. The amount of money spent in holdingthose Youth Advisory Forums has been $150,000.That will continue in the coming years.

Mr VEIVERS: Does this amount come out ofthe $2.053m provided for youth grants andsubsidies?

Mr GIBBS: Yes. That is in the special Budgetallocation youth policy of $250,000.

Mr VEIVERS: How are the young peopleinvolved in these forums selected? How do you getin touch with youth? I mean, there is youth all aroundQueensland. How are they selected, and how do youget in touch with them?

Mr GIBBS: They are basically selected by ouryouth development officers who go throughout thevarious regions of Queensland talking to youthorganisations—to young people in the community. Iemphasise the point that none of them is selected ona political basis. It simply would not beproductive—if these forums are going to work—tobe stacking them with young people with aparticularly biased political point of view. It is doneon a basis of fairness and equity with young men andyoung women, bringing them together in thoseforums to make a contribution. It is worth whilenoting that there have been something like 500 to700 young people who have participated across theState in these Youth Advisory Forums, and 60 percent of those youth forums have been held in ruralQueensland.

Mr VEIVERS: Where are they held? Are theyheld in police clubs? Are they rural youth? What arethey?

Mr GIBBS: Broadly speaking, they have beenheld in different locations. It has been up to youngpeople themselves in the areas where we havedecided to hold the forums to select the venue.

Mr VEIVERS: Are they advertised in thepaper?

Mr GIBBS: Yes, they have been. I will askMark Peters, who has been coordinating theprogram, to give you a little more detail on that.

Mr PETERS: Mark Peters, Executive Director,Policy and Programs. The way the forums are set upin the regions is to work through our youthdevelopment officers who are in our regional offices,and other departmental youth workers from FamilyServices, Education, etc., who are working all thetime with local community groups. They are able toidentify particular needs of young people inparticular regions and to set up the forums. They areobviously held in venues and places that areconducive to young people being able to discuss


their thoughts. There is no set formula as to wherethey will be held; it is up to the young people inconsultation with those youth workers in the system.

Mr VEIVERS: What I was asking is: where dothese young people come from? I have had youngpeople asking me, "Where is it? What is on?" I am justasking you to explain this to me so that I can tellthem where to go to get into these forums. It wasannounced in the Bulletin the other day that therewere six or so chosen from down there to come toBrisbane for the competition or whatever they arehaving up here. Young people said to me, "I have notseen any of this. What is this for?" I was not nasty; Idid not say that they were just an ALP youth fundingrecruitment drive.

Mr GIBBS: I did not think for one moment thatyou were implying that.

Mr VEIVERS: It only crossed my mind for aminute. I thought I would ask how you go about it,because there are people who have not beeninvolved and want to be involved. Is it people frombroken homes, or is it everybody? It is a prettyrounded question, I know, but if you could explainwhere to go and what to do for those young people,I would appreciate it.

Mr PETERS: If any of those young peoplecontact our youth development officers or regionalmanagers in our regional offices and also through theregional networks of Family Services, they will beable to find out more about the forums outside ofwhen we are actually advertising in the community. Inrelation to the example that you used of a number ofpeople being selected to come to Brisbane, 800 ormore people were involved in consultations andobviously to bring them all to Brisbane for that Stateforum would be a little unwieldy. So during theforums that are held throughout the regions a numberof people are asked if they are willing to participatein a State forum and, at this stage, we will havesomething like 35 to 40 young people involved inthat State forum bringing the ideas of young peoplefrom those regions.

Mr HEALY: I notice in the 1994 BudgetEstimates that there will be no capital outlays, and Irefer specifically to page 324 of Budget Paper No. 3.Can you explain why that is when some $260,000was spent over the past two financial years oncapital outlays? Can we anticipate anotherunexpected amount of capital outlays comparable tothe last two years? What is the reason for no capitaloutlays estimated for 1994-95?

Mr GIBBS: There is a good financial reasonfor that. I will ask Peter Phair to fill you in on that.

Mr PHAIR: For efficiency purposes, we havenow amalgamated the capital works program thatoperates for the Sport and Recreation Program. Ithas been amalgamated with the Youth Program. It isa lot easier to administer regionally and it is a lotmore accessible for the community groups that wantto access that funding. It has been moved into thatarea with no reduction in funding.

Mr HEALY: In relation to the Youth ServicesInformation System, which is available now to some350 locations throughout the State and listing over

1 500 youth organisations and services, could I ask ifthere are figures available as to how much that costto establish? Are there funds available in the 1994-95Budget for any updates of that particular system?

Mr GIBBS: Our cost in 1994-95 will beapproximately $10,000. The CommonwealthGovernment put a fair sum of money into thisprogram and if you want me to be able to give youan absolutely correct answer on it, put it on noticeand I will give you the breakdown not only of Statefunding for the program but also of theCommonwealth contribution.

Mr HEALY: The other area that I would likeyou to explain is the performances in 1993-94 of thedelivery of youth sector training programs to severalhundred workers with young people in Brisbane andregional centres. I ask again: is there money set asidein the 1994-95 Budget for more of those trainingprograms and, if so, how much?

Mr GIBBS: There were three programs thatwere run in 1993-94 with approximately 50 youthworkers who were involved in that training. Thebudget for 1993-94 was $128,000, which includes a$20,000 carryover.

Mr WELFORD: That completes questions onthe Youth Division. There are just a couple of finalquestions from Mr Veivers in relation to CorporateServices.

Mr VEIVERS: The average annual salaries ofstaff in the Corporate Services sector of theDepartment have risen by $8,000—or 20 percent—over the past two Budgets. Considering thatone of the focuses for 1994-95 is the establishmentof systems and guidelines for enterprise bargaining,can we expect a further rise in the average salary inthe upcoming financial year?

Mr GIBBS: The Budget Paper that was givento the Estimates committee was, we believe, grosslyinflated in terms of the salary situation. The figurethat you have before you relates to CorporateServices?

Mr VEIVERS: Yes, for Corporate Services.Mr GIBBS: For Corporate Services you would

have the figure of $45,702. The reality is that thebasic salary there, or the average salary, is $38,023.We have included in our departmental figuresallowances for overtime, meal allowances, cashequivalent of recreation leave and all otherallowances. I understand that in the report that youwere given, it is fair to say that those were theadditions. They allowed in those figures that youwere given, for example, for payroll tax, FBT, cashequivalent of long service leave, eligible terminationpayments, superannuation payments, workers'compensation payments and members fees. So it didtend to grossly inflate the amount that those peoplereceive. I add that that applies throughout allsections of my Department.

Mr VEIVERS: That is fair enough. You shouldfind out who sent those inflated figures, Minister. Afocus of the program for 1994-95 is the—

"Rationalisation of outstanding licence fee


debts and SP betting fines in line with theAuditor-General's findings."

That comes from the Program Statements at page331. What is the exact amount of outstanding debtsand fines that will be written off, and will capitaloutlays of the Corporate Services Program beaffected by this loss of revenues? If not, whichprogram will be affected, because theAuditor-General said about $840,000 is about 93 percent of the total outstandings?

Mr GIBBS: I am trying to get the figures foryou. I think I gave you the amount of moneys thatwere outstanding from SP fines before. If I recallcorrectly, it is in the vicinity of $893,000 orsomething of that nature. SP fines outstanding as at31 March 1994 are higher than that amount that Igave you. As at 31 March 1994, they totalled$908,163.64. I gave you the answer in terms ofmeasures that have been taken to try to recoup thatmoney. I would be anything less than truthful if Iwere to say to you that I would be not too confidentof recouping that money. No, there will be nocutback on services as a result of not being able torecoup those moneys.

Mr VEIVERS: The Program Statements for1994-95 states that the focus will be on theestablishment of an executive information system,expanding the access by E-mail and office utilities byall regional offices and the conversion of departmentfiles to the Recfind system by the end of 1994. Howmuch will it cost to fund these objectives? Havesuch funds been allocated in the 1994-95 Budget tocater for them?

Mr GIBBS: I will ask Peter Phair to respond tothat one for me.

Mr PHAIR: The executive information systemwill be developed to provide key corporateinformation to managers to assist us in decisionmaking and planning. Typically it will extract keyinformation from the organisation's computerisedinformation systems and present the data in agraphical and spreadsheet format to enable quickanalysis of the key data. The information actuallyprovided will be financial status information, humanresource information, status of performancemeasurement, key statistical information—looking atcurrent licensing statistics and grants schemestatistics—and also information regarding thedepartmental utilities. The total estimated cost of theexecutive information system trial is to be $43,500,which will cover developmental costs, softwarelicence costs, training——

Mr VEIVERS: That is the trial period, you aresaying?

Mr PHAIR: We will be putting that in place. Wewould expect that to be fully implemented after thattrial, assuming it is successful.

Mr VEIVERS: Have the funds been allocatedin 1994-95 after the trial to go into the finishedproduct?

Mr PHAIR: It would be unfair at this stage toactually commit funding past the trial period in casethe system does need some modification, butcertainly our expectation would be that it will extend

beyond that period, and that is certainly in line withTreasury's financial management strategies.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the timeallotted for consideration——

Mr GIBBS: Mr Chairman, may I make astatement relating to the question that I was askedearlier in regard to the company named FerncaveInvestments Pty Ltd? I have had it confirmed thatthey are in fact the tenant of the property inCastlemaine Street owned by the Lang Park Trust.

The CHAIRMAN: As I said, that completes thetime allotted for consideration of the Estimates of theMinistry of Tourism, Sport and Racing. I thank theMinister and his portfolio officers for their attendanceand assistance here today. I now close this meetingof the Estimates Committee. We will take a five-minute break before we resume with the nextdepartment.



The Committee resumed at 3.38 p.m.DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES ANDABORIGINAL AND ISLANDER AFFAIRS

In AttendanceHon. A. Warner, Minister for Family Services

and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs

Ms Ruth Matchett, Director-GeneralMr Tony Stevenson, Office of the Director-

General

Mr Jim Wauchope, Acting Divisional Head,Aboriginal and Islander Affairs

Ms Jan Williams, Divisional Head, CommunityServices Development

Mr Tim Gleeson, Assistant Divisional Head,Planning and Policy Co-ordination Branch,Community Services Development

Mr Russell Loos, Financial Co-ordinator,Community Services Development

Mr Jeff Whalan, Divisional Head, IntellectualDisability Services

Mr John Parisi, Resource Management Co-ordinator, Intellectual Disability Services

Ms Helen Twohill, Divisional Head, ProtectiveServices and Juvenile Justice

Ms Majella Ryan, A/Assistant Divisional Head,Juvenile Justice, Protective Services andJuvenile Justice

Ms Carol Peltola, Assistant Divisional Head,Protective Services, Protective Servicesand Juvenile Justice

Mr Gary Clarke, Director Finance andOrganisational Services

Ms Di Platz, A/Manager, Budget Section,Finance Branch, Finance andOrganisational Services

Ms Carmel Finn, Director, Information ServicesMr Uri Themal, Director, Bureau of Ethnic

Affairs

The CHAIRMAN: I reopen this meeting ofEstimates Committee D. The next portfolio to bedealt with by this Committee relates to the Ministryof Family Services and Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. For the benefit of members of the Committeeand the Minister and her staff, there is a time limit onquestions of one minute, being questions from theCommittee. Questions are to be answered withinthree minutes. Fifteen seconds prior to the end ofany one-minute or three-minute period you will hear asingle chime, and at the end of the time limit you willhear a double chime.

As set out in the Sessional Order governingEstimates Committee examinations, the first 20minutes of questions are to be from non-Governmentmembers of the Committee, and the second 20minutes from Government members of theCommittee, and so on in rotation. For the benefit ofHansard, I would ask that departmental witnessesidentify themselves before giving their answer.

As I indicated at the start of today's hearing,this Committee has sought to refine the Estimatesprocess somewhat by organising its scheduling ofthe questions in a way which provides not only forthe efficient conduct of this hearing but also for theefficient use of departmental time, and for thatpurpose we will be dealing with different programareas of the department in turn. I simply indicate atthe outset the order in which we will be dealing witheach of the program areas within this Department.Firstly, we will deal with Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs; secondly, we will deal with CommunityServices Development; thirdly, Ethnic Affairs;fourthly, Protective Services and Juvenile Justice;fifthly, Intellectual Disability Services; and lastly,Corporate Services, in that order, depending on thetime available. We will work through the programareas of the Department in that order.

Material prepared by the research directorate ofthe Committee has been made available to theMinister. I now declare the proposed expenditure forthe Ministry for Family Services and Aboriginal andIslander Affairs to be open for examination. Thequestion before the Committee is—


At the outset, I invite the Minister to make any briefintroductory statement she may wish to make.

Ms WARNER: Thank you very much, MrChairman. Firstly, let me say that I am pleased to takepart in this Estimates Committee hearing. I believethat over time these hearings will have a mostbeneficial effect as they will enable members and thepublic generally to gain a greater appreciation of theestimated expenditure of Government departmentsand instrumentalities. I hope that through thisprocess Committee members will gain a betterunderstanding of the diverse range of services andprograms provided by my department.

Over the last four and a half years there havebeen significant reforms and enhancements in theservices provided by my department. I will not listthem all, but it is worth recalling the reforms in childcare and domestic violence prevention, the overhaulof the juvenile justice system, the Aboriginal LandAct, the enhanced disability services, the SeniorsCard and the forward plan on ageing. Many of theseinitiatives have been developed and implemented inpartnership with the non-Government sector andmany church and community groups that provideservices to individuals and families within ourcommunities. This partnership has meant that thecombined resources of the Government and thecommunity can be more effectively harnessed toaddress pressing problems such as homelessness,family breakdown, the effects of the drought on ruralcommunities, and so on.

In this year's Budget, funds have beencommitted for a comprehensive overhaul of theYouth Detention Centres that have simply outlivedtheir usefulness. New facilities and upgradedprograms will be provided. The needs of ruralfamilies will be further addressed through a packageof measures suited to rural communities. Services forpeople with an intellectual disability will be enhanced


through the progressive relocation of clients fromChallinor and the upgrading of services to clients inother residential settings. Many of the social issuesthat fall within my portfolio have no immediatesolutions—no simple answers. I believe that throughthe various program areas of my Department realprogress has been made over the past years thatadvantages the most disadvantaged members of ourcommunity who are getting a better deal as a result.

The CHAIRMAN: I invite the first questionsfrom Mr Littleproud.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Could I say at the outset,Minister, I congratulate you and your departmentalofficers on the preparation of the material that I havebefore me. It has made it much easier for me to get abetter understanding of where your priorities lie.Those congratulations go to you, Mr Ahern and MissReilly, for the assistance that you have given theCommittee as well. Could I say also, Minister, thatwith regard to some of the developments of policyon Aboriginal and Islander affairs, I support thosewhere you are handing over the responsibility ofhousing to the Department of Housing, and health toHealth. I support those. There are some issues,though, that I would like to get some explanationsupon. I will be working mostly from the prepareddocument, page 5, the Estimates Statements. Youare talking about the major variations at the bottom ofpage 5, and a carryover of unspent money of$2.491m for response to Aboriginal deaths incustody funding. Could you just tell me why that wasnot spent last year and what it will be spent on in thefuture?

Ms WARNER: The short answer to it is verysimple, and that is that we made an allocation fordiversionary centres to be built—I think it was fourdiversionary centres; one in Mount Isa, one in Cairns,one in Rockhampton and one in Townsville—and thatallocation was made in response to the Deaths inCustody Commission, which suggested that weshould be diverting people from watch-houses intowhat is broadly called diversionary centres. It was apolicy that was actually started under yourGovernment.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is right—Bob Katter.Ms WARNER: With that specific response,

one of the difficulties that we have had, and are stillhaving, with that is that in a number of the areaswhere we have been looking for locations for thediversionary centres there has been some difficulty,as you can imagine, in persuading local people thatthese are a good idea. We are indeed in a bit of acleft stick in respect of these things because thegeneral public complains bitterly if people are in apublic place in a drunken——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: A bit like toxic dumps.

Ms WARNER: It is a little bit like that, yes, but Ithink that is a fairly unfortunate analogy in someways.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, in terms of people notwanting it in their backyards, I mean.

Ms WARNER: I am afraid that most of thetoxicity that these people are involved in is mainlybrought upon themselves. It is a catch-22 and it is

something that we find right across our Department.People want us to provide the facilities but they havethe NIMBY syndrome—"Not in my backyard".

Mr LITTLEPROUD: You have listed them thisyear. I think that you have got the sites chosen?

Ms WARNER: No, we are having somedifficulty, and I would appreciate some support fromyour side of politics, in fact, in terms of trying topersuade people that this is actually a good measure,that we should be trying to find locations that areappropriate, and all putting our shoulders to thewheel. I have generally made the statement that I donot want to inflict services in areas where they arenot welcome, because it is our experience that thoseservices do not flourish. We actually do need adegree of community support to make them workand to advance them. One of the major problems Iam having at the moment is in Rockhampton, wherethe city council is basically saying that it does notwant any diversionary centre in any part ofRockhampton. I have approached the council for ameeting to try to iron out those difficulties and saywhere we can find some place which will beconvenient to everybody. The other thing that youhave got to remember is that you cannot put themtoo far outside of the city, because it would requiretoo much of police time, effort and energy totransport them there, and that would pose a problem.So that is the reason for the carry over of the money,and that is basically the issue in that respect.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Thank you. In the samearea, there is additional funding for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander infrastructure of $1.052m. Canyou give us some more detail on that, please?

Ms WARNER: This program has beenestablished to provide infrastructure and supportservices in remote and rural Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander communities. It is a QueenslandGovernment response to the endorsement of out-stations support. It was a decision taken by Cabinetin May 1992. I can explain further about the out-stations if the member wants?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I know what you are onabout.

Ms WARNER: The specific carryover issue isin relation to specific capital works projects, and it isin relation to the provision of water resources. I thinkthe particular program——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: At those out-stations orfurther than that?

Ms WARNER: Yes. That carryover relates tothe Palm Island Dam project, which is a jointCommonwealth and State funded program. You maybe aware that Palm Island has suffered considerablewater shortages, or fear of water shortages, becauseof the inadequacy of its existing system. For a longtime, a process has been under way to either get thatnew dam or, alternatively, other water resources forPalm Island.

From your time in Government, you wouldprobably be aware that, in conducting joint projectswith other arms of Government—and in this casewith ATSIC—you experience some delays in theimplementation of policy. The money is there. We


have also provided extra money for the upgrading ofthe sewerage system and general infrastructurewhich has been in disrepair for some time. It will be along time, obviously, before we get the infrastructurearrangements for Aboriginal communities up to date.So that is what that carryover is in respect of.

The other issue that is part of the capital projectmoney that we had left over from last year is thedevelopment of the policy on out-stations, which isgiving Aboriginal people the facility to be able to getbasic services in the more remote parts of theirareas. This is an attempt to prevent theconcentration of people in townships, where socialproblems become quite difficult to deal with. We aredealing with that problem by encouraging people togo back to the parts of the country with which theyhave specific identity. This is what the out-stationmovement does. It will take us some time to developthat policy in Queensland, because right up until wegot into Government the policy had been going inthe other direction.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is part of the correctionsystem, too, I understand.

Ms WARNER: That is one aspect of it. I willtalk about this further, if given an opportunity. It is animportant part of the change in policy from the policyof containment, which occurred over many years, toa policy of allowing people to follow their owninstincts and interests in using their own lands fortheir own benefit. In terms of corrections, it has avery useful function. Also, in terms of alcoholcontrol, it has a very useful function.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: On page 6, there is aheading "Support for Torres Strait Islander andAboriginal Communities". The material prepared forme by the Committee listed an incident atWoorabinda where the Department ran aCommonwealth Bank agency. It was found that therewas a cash shortage there in the past of $26,822. Iam informed that the bank has been paid out by theDepartment. There was an indication that the policewere investigating the matter. Could you inform mewhether any charges have been laid and whether anyrestitution has been made?

Ms WARNER: The short answer to that is thatthere have been no charges laid in respect of thatincident. In November 1992, the departmentalinternal auditor identified a shortage of $26,000 inbanking operations at the Woorabinda bank agency.The internal report identified that the breakdown ofcontrol and supervision by management over theoperation of the agency brought about by thewithdrawal of departmental officers from Woorabindawas a major contributing factor in that area. Youwould be aware that there is a policy in place to tryto remove departmental controls from communities.People have to operate on a policy ofself-management.

Indeed, your former Government followed thesame broad policy direction and was moving in thesame way. In fact, as I came into Government, it wasin the process of winding up the banking facilities inthe Torres Strait. There was a deal of work to bedone there. So that was not a new policydevelopment but simply a continuation of policy that

had existed in the Department for many years. Theshortage that was found was referred to theBlackwater CIB for investigation in November 1992.But I understand that they have not been able to getthe evidence. This is not a new occurrence. Weknow that a crime has been committed, but wecannot find an individual—

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is an example of asyndrome.

Ms WARNER:—to charge. This does not onlyhappen in Aboriginal communities; it happens in thegeneral community as well. It is called "unsolvedcrime". The CIB requested that an independent auditbe carried out to verify audit findings before the CIBinvestigated the matter. Evans, Edwards andAssociates, Chartered Accountants of Rockhampton,undertook an audit. The auditor's report of 20 Augustconcluded that they could not reveal any conclusiveevidence as to the reasons for the cash deficiencies.The report was forwarded to the CIB on 20September 1993, and CIB investigations areongoing.

The regional office at Rockhampton is regularlyin contact with the CIB regarding theseinvestigations. The Department has reimbursed theCommonwealth Bank for the shortages. As of 6September 1992, the Department divested itself ofits responsibility for the agency. The bank agency isnow privately operated by the Duaringa postal agent.The issue of banking services on Aboriginalcommunities is not just a problem at Woorabinda,which is actually a relatively non-remote community.As you can imagine, places like Kowanyama—

Mr LITTLEPROUD: They had a similarproblem, did they not?

Ms WARNER:—have very similar problems.But you can see the dangers of leaving bankingagencies with large amounts of cash in those remoteplaces. The further away that you get from cities andpolice forces, the greater is the opportunity formoney to go missing. Of course, one of thestruggles we have is to provide services for people,but to provide them in a way that is secure and safefor them. It is not easy to do that in a State asdecentralised as Queensland. Though, I would go sofar as to say that it is not a problem that would beunique to Queensland or unique to Aboriginalcommunities. It is a problem felt by all people wholive in remote areas. It is not normal practice forGovernment departments to move in and providethose sorts of banking agencies for people.

There is a fairly flourishing commercial trade inbanking, as I understand it, in this State. I do believethat the banking industry itself has to take someresponsibilities for a better distribution of services topeople across this State. It is not necessarily afunction of Government.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The Budget Papersmention a Financial Administrative Training Schemeto be launched in the latter half of 1994. Is this togive training to the community councils? In my mind,I remember an assurance that you gave towards theend of last year that training for the councils wouldstart in February 1994 after the Auditor-General's


report highlighted all of the deficiencies in themanagement of those councils. I draw your attentionto the fact that the Auditor-General first signalled thatthere would be problems in these council as far backas 1991.

Ms WARNER: It was a bit further back thanthat.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I refer to the report thatyou tabled in Parliament the other day—that is, yourreport to the Parliamentary Committee of PublicAccounts. You informed us that you would beamending the Community Services Act in future totighten up management methods. The firstsuggestions arose in 1991. In April last year, theAuditor-General pointed out deficiencies in themanagement of these councils. You said that youwere going to start the program in February. Nowyou are saying that it will be launched in the latterhalf of 1994. Is that all part of the same processabout which you are talking?

Ms WARNER: For some time we have beenlooking at the development of training packages andprocesses for councils. A number of schemes haveoperated over a number of years in relation to thetraining of those councils. Specifically for councilclerks, there has been a very strong effort to makesure that the issue could be addressed. One of theproblems that we face in respect of councils is thatpeople say, "If people were trained better, we wouldsolve the problem." That is probably true. But if youput all your eggs in the basket of training, I do notthink that you will get results quickly enough toaffect audits in the near future. However, we haveallocated money for training. We had hoped that thecouncil clerks' course would be starting at thebeginning of this year—in February, in fact. That wasthe TAFE course. I am reliably informed that that willdefinitely be starting in July this year. The amount of$373,000 has also been allocated to that trainingpackage. We were going to do that through theDepartment; but in consultation with the ACC andthe ICC, more recently we have thought that a betterway to have that money targeted would be to give itto those bodies, because they can attract funding fortraining from other sources, such as ATSIC, and theycan use that money in a package amount to providetraining facilities for councils.

Training is one aspect of what we should do inorder to deal with councils' inability or incapacity toprovide unqualified audits. The other elements areoutlined in the response to the PAC report, which Itabled in Parliament last year.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Last week.

Ms WARNER: Sorry, last week. A week is along time in politics!

I will talk about it later, and I would appreciate afurther question on this, but there is an allocation of$1.5m which you will not see in the Budget Papersnow, but it was part of the Treasury advance towhich the Premier referred in his response to similarquestions during the examination of his Estimates. Iwould be happy to give the Committee a breakdownof that money and how it will be spent. That is a fairly

comprehensive program which has been developedin full consultation with the councils.

For the first time, we have managed to attracteverybody's attention to this issue. People arebeginning to understand that the question ofaccountability is not only a question of accountabilityto the State Government but it is also a question ofaccountability to their own constituents, the peoplewho elect them. There is a great need for thedevelopment of understanding there—anunderstanding which is taking time to put in place,but I think that we are beginning to win the battle.You may have heard that of recent times I was fairlystrong in my statements to the councils.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I must press you furtheron that question, bearing in mind the severity of themaladministration highlighted by the Auditor-Generalin April last year. The crux of my question was withregard to how much time it is taking to put thisinitiative in place. You gave an assurance in theHouse that it would be put in place by February thisyear; now you are saying that it will not be starteduntil July this year. The report that you tabled inParliament the other day states that the developmentof the legislation to amend the Community ServicesAct may not be presented until next year. I must tellyou that there is public concern with regard toaccountability. Are you satisfied with the current rateat which this problem is being dealt with?

The CHAIRMAN: I would intervene there andask the member to keep his questions related to theEstimates procedure.

Ms WARNER: I am happy to answer thequestion. In broad terms, it relates to the forwardEstimates of the department.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It does, yes.

Ms WARNER: It does take a long time. One ofthe lessons that I think Governments learn slowly andpainfully in the area of Aboriginal affairs is that, if theydo not have the consent of Aboriginal people interms of the development of policy direction, it doesnot matter what policy direction they have; it will notbe implemented unless everybody is moving in thesame direction. That requires a lot of talking and a lotof consultation. It also requires a capacity tointegrate and ensure that Government programs arebased on what is practically possible in communitiesnot only in terms of the logistics of distance,travelling time, services and those sorts of issues butalso in terms of the sorts of issues that people areprepared to address and deal with.

I think that there is a view—which is quite awrong one—that Governments by themselves cansolve the audit problems of Aboriginal communities.That is not a view that I hold; nor do I think it is avery tenable view. After all, we are talking aboutAboriginal people's own capacity to run their financialand administrative affairs, which is something that wehave to work towards in a very educative andconsultative manner. You may recall the history inthis area. Over very many years, significant numbersof Governments—both conservative andLabor—went in the other direction, which was takingpower and control from Aboriginal people. We


realised that that was a wrong-headed strategyperhaps a little bit late in the day. Now, there is anattempt to turn that around and to try to ensure thatAboriginal people are adequately resourced to pickup the responsibility for their own affairs.

What we are actually living through at themoment is the rather mixed message that societygives to Aboriginal people. On the one hand, societysays, "We want you to stand on your own two feetand we want you to do it for yourselves; but at thesame time, if you do not do it for yourselves, we willdo it for you." I do not believe that that is a veryuseful policy direction to follow. In developingresponses to complicated problems—and I havementioned this in the House and I will mention itagain—we must move deliberately and effectivelytowards resourcing and empowering Aboriginalpeople to deal with these problems. We cannot do itby simply passing a piece of legislation in the House.We actually have to go out there and do the work onthe ground with Aboriginal people. We are in theprocess of doing that. Yes, it is long; yes, it is slow;yes, it is painful, but it is worth doing if we actuallywant to solve the problem rather than just passinglegislation in the House for political purposes andrather than actually dealing with the issues on theground.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the firstbracket of questioning from Opposition members ofthe Committee. I now invite Government members ofthe Committee to put some questions to the Ministerand her department, commencing with the memberfor Barron River, Dr Clark.

Dr CLARK: I would like to pursue the questionof accountability because, as has been indicatedtoday, it is a very important one. You have alreadygiven the Committee some indication of the nature ofassistance that your department will be providing tocouncils in the area of financial accountability. Couldyou please clarify the issue that you raised with theCommittee of the additional allocation of $1.5m inresponse to the Auditor-General's report, which Iunderstand is a further package of measures that willbe of value? Perhaps you might also indicate to theCommittee the role that the visit of theAuditor-General himself has played. This year, hevisited Thursday Island for the first time andconfronted the problems about which he has beenwriting and reporting to this Parliament.

Ms WARNER: Thank you for that question,because it allows me to continue where I left off withthe last answer. There have been a series ofmeetings and discussions over the last year. In actualfact, they have been occurring for longer than that.The discussions have been ongoing. Perhaps one ofthe most significant recent meetings was held on 24May with the Island Coordinating Council. Themeeting was called to address the issues of financialaccountability of the Torres Strait Island councils. Ihad previously spoken to the ICC about thesematters. I basically said, "There are a number ofissues that we have to deal with. This is a reallyserious matter. We must concentrate our minds." Ipointed out to them that if I found that there werereports of councils—not councils that were unable to

do it because of incapacity—that were floutingdirections that were given to them either by the ICCor by the department, those councils would bebrought to task for that.

The meeting on 24 May was attended by theAuditor-General, the Chairman of the ParliamentaryCommittee of Public Accounts, Mr Ray Hollis, andsenior officers from ATSIC, including the Statemanager and senior departmental staff. Many issueswere discussed which related directly to financialaccountability. There was unanimous acceptancefrom councillors that they were responsible foraccountability and that increased efforts would bemade to address accountability issues.

I commend the Auditor-General for the time thathe took to go to that meeting and for his willingnessto consult in this very difficult area. I believe thatmany chairpersons of councils were also encouragedto be able to meet face-to-face with theAuditor-General, who of course had been so criticalof a number of their performances, and they wereable to have an exchange about what the difficultieswere and what the problems were. I am sure that thatmeeting will go a long way to changing attitudes on anumber of sides, that is, island councils willunderstand what the requirements are and theAuditor-General will further understand what thedifficulties are in respect of these matters.

I think that there is an attitudinal changedeveloping all round as a result of those meetingswhich can only lead to improved accountabilityperformance in the long run, but I will say now, and ithas been said before, that you are not going to get a100 per cent report at the end of these processes,but what you will have is a process that is in train andthat is improving developmentally. With all thosediscussions, we have managed to come up with aseries of supports to give to councils and to theACC and to the ICC an amount of $1.5m.

Dr CLARK: Could you go on and elaboratethen on that particular page?

Ms WARNER: That is your second question?Thank you for assisting me to do that. The amount of$1.5m is available for several key initiatives which arerelated to accountability. It has been decided toallocate $500,000 for the appointment of key financepersonnel in Aboriginal councils, so that could bemoney that will be made available to them. We haveprovided $400,000 to be targeted towards theprovision of internal audits, because one of theissues is that when the Auditor-General's reportcomes out, the problem could be as much as 18months old before it is brought to the council'sattention. A process of internal audits will allow themto get on top of problems as they emerge rather thanwaiting until the problem is really old and then it istoo late to deal with it and to fix it. So that processof internal audits and related accounting supportservices to Aboriginal councils is to be coordinatedby the ACC. A further $600,000 will be madeavailable in the Torres Strait for the ICC, which isalso part of that new regional authority up therewhich is taking much more control in self-management terms and in terms of self-


determinations. So, that is the broad process that weare going through.

Any grants that we make in this area will havevery tight conditions for expenditure so that we aresure that the money goes to the provision of thatprofessional advice and support which Aboriginalcommunities lack so much. Of course, it is obviousto see that those communities like Cherbourg,Woorabinda and Yarrabah, which are near to urbancentres and can attract that professional support, donot have qualified audits, but it is in thosecommunities in the Torres Strait, where it takes daysto get there and where no professional person reallywants to live over a long period of time, that youhave the difficulties. It is not difficult to work out whythese things occur. I will just point out that the $1.5mdoes not appear in this Budget, but it will be part ofthe allocation of expenditure for this Departmentnext year, and that is because it was a late allocationas a result of the Cabinet process that had to begone through.

Dr CLARK: You have mentioned previouslythe TAFE community management course that will bestarting in July. How do you see that course linkingwith the measures you have just described?Presumably, there is some way of making sure thatthe staff involved in those internal audits that you arereferring to would also be able to work with thesepeople as they come off training?

Ms WARNER: The TAFE course is also relatedto the development of the Council ClerksAssociation. The TAFE course is to be able to trainpeople to be council clerks so that hopefully, withthe development of the association and the greaterinterest that the ACC and the ICC are taking in thisarea, there will be a development of a pool of peopletrained specifically in this area that will be availablefor councils to recruit their office staff from. Peoplewill have a piece of paper from the TAFE course sothat councils will then know that they have somequalifications in this area, and this is a first; it has notbeen available before. It provides a career structureand it provides a way forward in terms of training forAboriginal people and for career opportunities forAboriginal people and for Aboriginal communities tobe able to acquire the skills to be able to conducttheir own affairs. The way it is linked in is that itbecomes the passport, if you like, for the interviewthat takes place by the council of prospectiveemployees.

Dr CLARK: If I could move on to another areawhich has been touched on this afternoon, that ofout-stations. I understand there is some $524,000 inthe Budget—this appears on page 14 of yourdepartmental Estimates. Could you clarify how it isintended to spend that money on the developmentof out-stations and the benefits of that program bothfor the Aboriginal communities that will reside thereand also for the Government?

Ms WARNER: As I mentioned before, thedevelopment of the out-stations policy is, I think,intrinsic if we are to address a lot of the entrenchedsocial problems that exist on Aboriginal communities.Basically, what the allocation of expenditure is for isbasic provision of services. There are a number of

examples of out-stations which exist already withinthe State, out-stations where Aboriginal people quiteoften voluntarily take themselves to—they are areasof particular significance to them—and set up somekind of camp site.

We are now hoping to be able to use the capitalexpenditure to make sure that they have an adequatewater supply there, that there is an adequatesewerage system—and we are talking fairly smallfamily groupings here—that there is basic shelter,that there is somewhere to store food, somewhere tolock up, that there is some radio communication sothat there is access for medical emergency, thatthere is basic power and that there are some toolsand equipment just to enable and empower peopleto live in that more traditional manner but not in termsof the building of whole houses. Basically, what youneed is a cyclone-proof shelter, a good fresh watersupply, decent sanitation and communications withthe outside world—that is, a radio which works.

Of course, one of the things that is happeningin Aurukun at the moment, which I hope will move toother centres in Cape York, is the developmentwithin the Education Department of sending teachersto out-stations to where the kids are. You may haveknown that the attendance at school in Aurukun wasvery poor until the Department varied its teachingprogram and now there is, I think, a much increasedattendance.

Dr CLARK: They have separated the clangroups out.

Ms WARNER: That is right, so that peoplecould live in a more traditional manner which wassuited to them and which avoided this hothouseexperience that they have within the settlements andthe communities. It is a long and involved policy areaand issue, but we have allocated some money tofurther that out-station movement. It is supported byATSIC and I hope to be developing protocols withATSIC which will make sure that we do not overlapand that moneys are complementary in terms ofproviding those basic structures that people need tobe able to take advantage of living on their traditionalland, which of course also gives them back thatsense of identity that they felt they lost when theywere forcibly removed from those traditional lands.So, in all, it is a way of responding to a lot of thecriticism that Aboriginal people have had ofGovernment policies over a long period of timewhere they have been forced to live in suburbansettings, albeit in the remotest parts of the State, andthen being expected to behave like suburbanresidents in those settings, which of course has beenquite incongruous and why there has beensignificant difficulty in getting that to occur. So, theout-station movement is going to take a long time todevelop; it is going to take a long time for it to takeeffect. Also, not all Aboriginal people will want toavail themselves of it, but for those who do, I think itis a very healthy direction and, hopefully, it will beone measure that we can take to overcome theovercrowding that exists within the townships andthe social conflicts that exist within the townships,the alcohol problems that exist there and the factthat people do not like it.


Dr CLARK: I assume, too, that you would belooking to the Health Department and also to theEducation Department to supplement funding thatyou are providing for the out-station movementbecause it is not something you will be able to solveyourself in your own Department?** Ms WARNER: I have mentioned the Aurukunexperience. But also in terms of Housing and LocalGovernment—they are looking at ways in which theirprovision of accommodation can be dovetailed intothe needs on out-stations. As I said, ATSICobviously has a significant role to play in this area,and plays it in the Northern Territory.

Also, Water Resources is looking at alternativeways of making sure that you have clean watersupplies and basic alternative measures forsanitation. In Alice Springs, there is a centre foralternate technology, which has all manner of newand innovative ideas which are quite different fromthe kerb and channelling, bitumen and heavysewerage supports, which are very expensive andwould be quite out of place in the sorts of remotelocations that we are talking about. So thatunderstanding of out-stations and the sorts ofalternative technology and structures that areneeded there has to go across all Governmentdepartments. Believe me, that is going to be a slowbut worthwhile process.

Dr CLARK: My third question relates to theDiversion from Custody Program. I note that thereare funds allocated in the 1994 Budget for aDiversion from Custody Program as part of that$6.68m program which is the response to the RoyalCommission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody listedon page six of your departmental Estimates. Couldthe Minister please explain what funding is actuallyallocated to the Diversion from Custody Program?What are the objectives of this program? To whatextent has this program been implemented to date?What difficulties, if any, have been experienced inimplementing the program? You have touched onsome problems already. I am just trying to find anacceptable location within the community. Perhapsyou might expand if there are other kinds ofproblems. How successful do you believe thatprogram has been in meeting its objectives?

Ms WARNER: The sum of $3.65m has beenallocated to the Diversion from Custody Program in1994-95. The normal base of the program is $2m.Program funds have been augmented by carryoverof $1.65m in capital and operational funding from the1993-94 financial year. I have explained why that isthe case.

The objective of the Diversion from CustodyProgram is to reduce the incidence of death in policewatch-houses and to provide an alternative custodialoption for people who are inebriated. The specificobjectives are that Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people who are at risk to themselves orothers as a consequence of their inebriated statehave access to diversionary centres providingsobering-up support and related information andreferral services.

We must be careful that people do not get thatdiversionary function from watch-houses confused

with rehabilitation programs. Quite often, people willsay, "If you are providing the diversion, you shouldgo ahead and provide the rehabilitation." It is notalways appropriate that people who require diversionfrom custody be immediately forced into arehabilitation program, because they might not beready to accept that and, therefore, it will necessarilyfail.

The Department of Health is primarilyresponsible for the development of drug and alcoholrehabilitation programs. We are working to try tocoordinate the activities of diversionary centres withthe development of drug and alcohol rehabilitationfrom the Health Department to make sure that whenthe diversionary centres do have an individual who iswilling to take part in an ongoing and structuredprogram, there is a referral place where we can sendthem.

I have already indicated to the Committee thatthe regional centres also have a Watch-house CellVisitors Scheme, which is important in terms ofmonitoring the conditions of people in watch-houses, and this exists in Brisbane, Rockhampton,Townsville, Mount Isa and Cairns. Three arecurrently operating, that is, the ones in Brisbane,Cairns and Mount Isa. You are probably familiar withthe one in Cairns. We have some problems with thelocation of the ones in Rockhampton and Townsville,but we are working on it. It is worth while doing that.

There are a number of Aboriginal organisationswhich are picking up responsibility for the location ofindividuals who have been arrested because ofdrunkenness. They are the Murri Watch in Brisbane;the Juwarki Kapu-Lug in Rockhampton; the GurindalAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation inTownsville; the Balma Healing Centre in Cairns;Families and Prisoners Support in Cairns; and theArthur Petersen Special Care Centre in Mount Isa,which is a diversionary centre.

So there is a fair degree of work that is beingdone developing services, developing programs andgetting Aboriginal organisations targeting these areasthrough the response to the deaths in custodymoney that has come through.

Dr CLARK: Could I ask you specifically aboutthe Cairns situation, because obviously that is aparticular concern of mine? I was wondering whetherthere has been any time to do an assessment of theDe Balma Healing Centre, which is the Cairnsdiversionary centre. What other plans do we have todeal with the issue of public drunkenness and, asyou said, looking to that next stage and trying to getpeople ready to actually benefit from a rehabilitationprogram, and providing alternative accommodationfor people?

Ms WARNER: Again, there are two confusingissues here. One is that people believe that if youbuild a diversionary centre you will never see anotherdrunk on the street. Of course, that is not going tobe the case. The diversionary centres are diversionsfrom custody, not diversions from the streetnecessarily. There is a problem in terms of whatpeople think is the function of diversionary centres.


In Cairns, the old Alluna Hostel, which used tobe used for patients coming down from the cape andspending a short amount of time there, has beenrejigged to meet the needs of the Balma HealingCentre which runs that diversionary centre and whichhas received support from this Department of about$300,000. It is difficult to get an evaluation.

The other issue that is a problem in respect ofthat location, which is the Alluna Hostel, is that thatAlluna Hostel land is indeed old Aboriginal reserveland which is going to be available for claim bytraditional groups of Aboriginal people. It is by thegrace of those people who currently believethemselves to be that group that this service isrunning from that place. Obviously, in those placeslike Townsville and Rockhampton, where we did nothave that original assistance, it has been hard to getthe service going.

The other aspect of the problem in Cairns is notonly the diversion from the watch-house to thediversionary centre but the diversion from Cairnsitself of those people who may want to go back andlive on out-stations. My Department is doing somesignificant work——

Dr CLARK: That has been a problem. Youmight like to elaborate on what plans we have there.We have run out of time.

The CHAIRMAN: That completes the bracketof questions from Government members. We nowreturn to Mr Littleproud, the member for WesternDowns, who will continue questions in relation to theAboriginal Affairs program area.

Mr WAUCHOPE: Could I just make a minorpoint of clarification for the record? It does not reallychange things. The figure that the Minister quoted inrelation to the Woorabinda bank shortage wasactually the figure supplied through your researchpapers. The actual figure identified by the internalaudit was $23,104.38. The other figure was actuallythe amount calculated by the second investigationby the firm of chartered accountants.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you for thatclarification. Mr Littleproud?

Ms WARNER: Are we still on AboriginalAffairs?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Yes, the Land Programnow. I notice that the budget allocation this year isdown from $3.113m to $2.757m.

Ms WARNER: What page are you on?Mr LITTLEPROUD: Page 10.

Ms WARNER: Of the departmentaldocuments?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Yes. Page six lists theactual amount. Page 10 talks about the Land Programand the objective for 1994-95. I think I readsomewhere that something like 19 claims weretreated in the last year. Do you have some ballparkfigure of how much money it costs per claim that youhelp resource and prepare?**

Ms WARNER: They vary considerably

depending upon the size of the claim and the numberof people who are involved in the claim and,basically, the complexity of the issues.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: How many are expectedfor next year?

Ms WARNER: Pardon?Mr LITTLEPROUD: So there is no real pattern

that you can follow. How many are expected nextyear?

Ms WARNER: No, it is really dependent uponwhat is actually happening on the ground in terms ofthe number of descendants of the traditional people,the number of——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: How do you budget thisyear, then?

Ms WARNER: It is a very arbitrary allocation ofmoney, which is related to the amount of money thatis available from the Government for those grants.When that runs out, it runs out. There is assistanceavailable under the Aboriginal Land Act. The Budgetwas $2,599,000, which includes a grant of $824,000for claims and transfers. There are two kinds ofprocesses that can occur. One is that people make aclaim on land that is gazetted for claim, and the otheris that there can be transfers of title from the deed ofgrant in trust areas or from Aboriginal reserve land tothe traditional owners or the historical owners. Forty-four grants have been processed in 1993-94 to date,but a lot of those claims would not be finished yet.That would just be the allocation of the number ofclaims that we have been resourcing, which is apretty ongoing matter. The cost of the claims andtransfer vary considerably. I have just been told thatthat ranges from $60,000 to $300,000 for claims, and$5,000 to $70,000 for transfers.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Would you think aboutputting some ceiling on it if there is that big avariation?

Ms WARNER: No, you cannot really, becauseyou are dealing with varying sizes of groups ofpeople——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Sets of circumstances?Ms WARNER: Yes, sets of circumstances. It

really has to be adjudicated on the basis of thenumbers of people involved, the complexity of theclaim, whether or not there is another party involvedin a counterclaim, and the amount of information thatcan be brought to bear. These matters are actuallyvery complicated and quite difficult to pin downsufficiently for successful claims to take place.

The initial estimates of claims have proven to begrossly under-represented because what happens inthe process of the claim is that more and moreinformation comes to light about more and moreindividuals who may have some access or shouldhave some access to claim because of their historicalantecedents. In many cases they have been movedfrom the land and have been encouraged over manyyears to forget the country from which they comeand, of course, Aboriginal people are rediscoveringtheir roots and rediscovering their identities. Moreand more Aboriginal people are involved in thatprocess, which is a healthy and healing process after


the disruption that they suffered from being takenaway from the land. I do not know if you have readvery much from the anecdotes of individuals whohave done that.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I would rather go on toanother question. I appreciate your sincerity. I wouldlike to ask another question now.

Ms WARNER: The reason why you cannot putan arbitrary amount on it is that you are dealing withvery complex relationships between Aboriginalpeople and the land from which they have beensevered.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The next thing is not todo with land claims but it is a land matter. All the landhanded over to date has been group titles. Recentlyit came to my attention that on Badu Island, wherethere are new employment opportunities because ofthe lobster industry, there is a tremendous shortageof housing. It has been put to me that some of thesepeople would probably be able to fund their ownhousing if they could get access to funds from theHousing Department through Mr Mackenroth, but thelimitation is that there is no freehold land availablethat they can own as individuals. Has any pressurebeen put on you to address that sort of problem?You cannot get enough money through yourhousing program. These people could probablyaccess Housing Department funds through MrMackenroth.

Ms WARNER: I will ask Mr Wauchope toanswer that question.

Mr WAUCHOPE: My name is Jim Wauchope,Acting Divisional Head of Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. It is a very complicated question that youhave raised. As you might recall, your Governmentactually issued deeds of grant in trust. One of theprincipal reasons for doing it that particular way wasto make it so that the land could not be lost to thepeople who had the land. That will also continue tobe the situation with the application of the TorresStrait Islander Land Act. The issue that you areraising is that if people had freehold land they wouldbe able to raise money against that land and borrow.Although a lot of people have spent a lot of timethinking how they might do that, nobody has actuallybeen able to work out a means of doing it and at thesame time protecting the interests of the communityin terms of not losing the land in the process.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: But do you think it hasmerit? It is something you could probably look atmore closely.

Mr WAUCHOPE: It would be very difficult toresolve. People have been looking at it, obviouslynot just in Queensland but also elsewhere, andnobody has yet been able to find a solution.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Perhaps the other waywould be for the Housing Minister to make a moregenerous allocation of housing——

Ms WARNER: I do not think it is a question offunding. It is a question of policy in respect of whatthe nature of the title of the land is. YourGovernment decided that it should be a communaldeed of grant in trust held in title of the council. OurGovernment has decided that it should be inalienable

freehold title, which means that it is freehold in thatpeople have possession of it, but it is inalienable inthat they cannot sell it. We do that so that the land isprotected for future generations; so that it cannot bemortgaged out to other rich individuals within thecommunity who want to buy prime spots of realestate for tourism purposes or any other purposes,because that provides for a further alienation of theland from its traditional ownership. Once we havemade those sorts of policy decisions, it does notmatter how much money you throw at the problem;you are not going to be able to provide mortgagesfor people. But what you can do is provide housing,which is what the Department of Housing and LocalGovernment does, as does ATSIC as well.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: There is a special need atBadu that needs some sort of attention and that wasone way that you could approach it. The other waywould be through group funding.

Reading in the objectives on page 10, it statesthat the Department will contribute to theGovernment's consideration of the implication ofnative title legislation. Bearing in mind that yourdivisional head resigned with the protest that he wasin fact engaged to develop policy and give adviceand that was not the case, can you give an assurancethat it will be different in the year ahead—that adviceand policy will be coming from the divisional head?

Ms WARNER: As in all departments, when thedivisional head is not available—and he has notresigned, but he is certainly not available at themoment—one appoints an acting divisional head,whom you see here beside me at the moment givingme quite adequate policy advice.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: So it will come throughthere. On page 14 there is a notation which talksabout Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairstrading activities. There is an amount there of $14mand it goes down this year to $6m. Can you give mesome more detail on that, please?

Ms WARNER: The situation there is that thetrading activities through the Department will reducesignificantly over the next year, because the policydirection is to transfer the retail stores——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: There are about sevenleft, I think.

Ms WARNER: Yes. There has been a processof going down this track for some years and this isthe final step in that direction to transfer the storesby January, I think it is, next year. There are sevenAboriginal stores at the moment; you are correct. Butit is proposed to hand those over to Aboriginalcommunity control in 1994-95. The Departmentreceived supplementary funding of $0.297m forequipment stock and demolition in 1993-94 and$0.493m will be provided because of the losses inrespect of the Woorabinda fire.

The hand-over process to Aboriginal controlinvolves a discussion paper and brochures on theproposed transfer that have been widely circulatedto Aboriginal communities, consultation withAboriginal people affected by the transfer, andfurther consultation will also occur. There will be theupgrading of store buildings-—of course, we will not


need do that in Woorabinda; we will be replacingit—to repair those buildings prior to transfer,otherwise you just give a whole load of liabilitiesinstead of a usable asset. A business plan will bedeveloped for each store, and training will providestaff with the skills to undertake a greater responsiblein the area of retail stores.

The Department will be suggesting toAboriginal people that it is in their best interests tokeep the stores together in some form ofcooperative arrangement so that they get benefitsfrom bulk purchases, and also to get some kind ofcross-subsidy between the most remote stores andthe other stores. But as you can imagine, that is avery contentious issue. If it is a rich store operatingsomewhere at like Palm Island, it is a bit hard to getthem to share with more remote communities such asWujal Wujal, Kowanyama or Weipa, where the costsof transportation, and therefore the costs of theitems, are so much greater. That is an issue that hasyet to be resolved. In terms of the best benefit for allthe stores, but it is better that they are a largercooperative rather than operating as individualstores.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: There is no item in theBudget Papers, but you would be aware that a reportcame down on the old Aboriginal Welfare Funds andthere was an assurance given by you during the last12 months that if those people could come forwardand provide the necessary documentation, youwould seriously look at paying them out. In fact, Ireceived a deputation from three Aboriginal people,about whom I wrote to you, and you have been incontact with them yourself. Could you tell theCommittee: have any claims been made and howmany of those have been made by people who couldprovide documentation to prove that they in fact hadfunds held in the old Welfare Fund?

Ms WARNER: The Department is currentlyworking on about 20 to 30 people who have claims.The difficulty in this area has been to try andsubstantiate the legitimacy of those claims. What wenormally find—and probably what my predecessorfound in this portfolio—is that you can see thelegitimacy and there is no reason to disbelieveindividuals who say certain things have happened tothem. The difficulty has been—and I made mentionof this in a report to Parliament in 1990—that therecords in the department are very, very sketchy.They were not really big on keeping departmentalrecords in this area. A lot of them would be scatteredthroughout the State in police stations under the oldNative Protection Scheme. Also, many of the filesfrom the department have not been computerisedand have never been regularised. It has been anabsolute nightmare trying to get them together. Wehad a consultancy—which I assume is going to beone of your future questions—into trying to find outwhat information was available, only to find hugegaps—and I cannot remember the exactyears—throughout the 1940s. You cannot get anyinformation because the files are not in thedepartment.

You have got no reason to doubt the sincerityor the trustworthiness of the individuals who are

making the claim. I would be only too pleased to beable to pay out immediately those individuals whohave legitimate claims because, quite frankly, we arespending more money trying to trace enoughevidence for the claims than we would be if we paidthem out what they were asking. However, youcannot do that under Government policy in terms ofan equitable policy direction. It would be simpler tobe able to do that. It would be much easier on theindividuals who are making the claims, but theproblem is that you could, inadvertently, even withthe best of intentions, create a huge injustice.

We are in the process of consulting withAboriginal people to find a way of distributing themoneys—$5.6m—which are frozen. That is why youwill see in the Budget papers no mention of theWelfare Fund. There is this $5.6m which is gaininginterest—so the money is not eroding—until suchtime as we can find a way which is mutuallyagreeable between Aboriginal people and theGovernment to dispose of those funds to try torecompense Aboriginal people for the grossinjustices that were done to them in the name of theWelfare Fund over many years.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Page 14 refers to specialpurpose Commonwealth funding. My recollection isthat in the Budget papers in the past theCommonwealth gave funding through the RoyalCommission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, andsome of that was earmarked for housing. There is nomention of it now. Am I to take it that that fundingnow goes straight to the Department of Housing?

Ms WARNER: Yes.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Page 6 refers to supportfor Aboriginal communities. I refer to an answer yougave in Parliament yesterday to a question from themember for Barambah when he was talking about thebutcher shop at Kowanyama and you said that anarrangement had been reached with the LMAQ withregard to what was going to happen. When did youfirst become aware that this facility was not meetingthe standards acceptable to the community or, moreimportantly, to the LMAQ, and how do you think thatsome of the private-practice people out there wouldfeel when they think the department can make anarrangement when they have the heavy hand of theLMAQ on them?

Ms WARNER: It was in February of this yearthat we became concerned about the operation andwe actually asked the LMAQ to look at the situation.I understand that an arrangement was made with theLivestock and Meat Authority of Queensland by yourGovernment to allow Kowanyama to operate withouta licence. We became concerned about that and wethought that the facility ought to be brought up togeneral standards.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Is that both a slaughteringfacility and a retailing facility, or is it only a retailingoutlet?

Mr WAUCHOPE: It is an actual butcher shopand it is supported by a livestock operation, so theyhave a slaughterhouse. The butcher shop is adjacentto the retailing facility and the meat is processedthrough there.


Mrs ROSE: Minister, I would like to ask aquestion about Aboriginal retail stores. I understandthat the Woorabinda store burnt down earlier thisyear and note that you are planning to hand overstores to community control during the course of1994-95 and that Woorabinda will obviously need anew store before it can be handed over. Whatarrangements have been made by your departmentto establish an emergent retail facility as well as areplacement building for the residents ofWoorabinda, and what improvements are being madein retailing in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities?

Ms WARNER: After the fire at Woorabinda, atemporary store was established within two workingdays. The fire occurred at 12.30 a.m. on Saturday, 12February this year, and completely destroyed thecomplex, which included the supermarket, thebutcher shop and the bulk storage area. A temporarysupermarket was established on the ground floor ofthe community hall and commenced trading onWednesday the 16th. Replacement plant andequipment, including refrigerated display units, cashregister, customer trolleys, etc., had to betransported from Brisbane direct to Woorabinda.That arrived on the Tuesday evening. Departmentalorders were placed with Queensland IndependentWholesalers in Rockhampton for replacement foodstocks. The Woorabinda Aboriginal Councilconstructed at departmental cost the checkoutcounter and display shelving. Departmental staff andthe council deserve congratulations over the speedof the recovery operation.

The total value of trading stock and plant andequipment losses as well as the cost incurred by myDepartment for demolition is estimated to be$0.297m. The Department recovered this amountfrom Queensland Treasury. The depreciated value ofthe building at $492,000 was also recovered fromQueensland Treasury. The Woorabinda council hasdeveloped architectural drawings for a new shoppingcomplex, which will meet the service requirements ofthe community, and the construction cost isestimated to be $1.2m. The project shouldcommence in July, and it is expected to becompleted by December 1994. The Department willgrant the Woorabinda council an amount of $600,000towards the cost of constructing a new shoppingcomplex, and this complex is expected also to becompleted by December of this year. The balance ofthe construction costs, which is $1.2m, will beprovided by ATSIC. The retail store managerpositions are substantially filled with appointees whohave considerable private sector experience atmanagerial level, and usually with one of the majorfood stores such as Coles.

The Department is subsidising fruit andvegetables supplied to Aboriginal communities fromthe stores trading surplus to ensure that thecommodities are easily accessible to lower-incomeearners, because that is a really essential ingredientfor a proper and nutritious diet to be obtained. Amark-up of 20 per cent plus freight applies to all thestores compared with mark-ups of 60 per cent to 75per cent in the private sector supermarkets. So thereare some benefits in the stores. All the retail stores

are, with the exception of Cherbourg, economicallyviable, and that is probably because Cherbourg is soclose to Murgon that people can access goodsthere. A point of scanning equipment——

Mr CHAIRMAN: One further question from DrClark?

Dr CLARK: As I recall it, one of therecommendations of the first Public AccountsCommittee that investigated the financial affairs ofAboriginal communities was a suggestion thatperhaps alternative local government structuresneeded to be considered in those communities. Inotice that page 12 of the departmental Estimatesdocument talks about there having been guidelinesfor the Alternative Governing Structures Programthat has been developed, and submissions fromAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communitiesaround Queensland are currently being assessed. Ijust wonder, in this financial year, what are the plansto continue with that program, and are there anyfunds allocated for that? What kind of outcomes areyou hoping for?

Ms WARNER: We have actually allocated$450,000 for assistance to Aboriginal communities todevelop alternative governing structures. Basically,what the first Public Accounts Committee found in itsfirst report into auditing issues in Aboriginalcommunities in, I think, 1990, was that one of thereasons why councils suffered in terms of theirgeneral status and authority in communities was thatpeople did not necessarily recognise electedcouncils, which is very much a European democraticstructure. They were thought not to apply sosignificantly to Aboriginal communities and, indeed,people complained bitterly that the CommunityServices Act, which says that all councils should beelected by the community, cuts across familyrelationships and those sorts of ties which have moreauthority and more status than do elected councils.So the councils are actually finding it difficult to betaken seriously in their own communities.

The first PAC said that if people are to lookafter money on behalf of the whole community, thenthey ought to be part of existing and appropriateauthority structures that are accepted by thecommunity and that those authority structures maybe very different in different communities. What theysuggested that we do was to try, through a processof consultation that Aboriginal communities takeamong themselves, to develop different structures toreplace councils as their authoritative governingbodies so that those people would be in a muchbetter position to assert the natural authority thatelected councils, and/or State Governments, oranybody, has to assert in terms of making by-laws,regulations and then allocation of funds. It is verydifficult to do that if you have not got the consent ofthe people. So we tailored that recommendationfrom the PAC on governing structures into thethinking behind the development of the AboriginalLand Act in respect of the divvying up of the title ofDOGITs in transfers back to traditional land titlegroups.

In most Aboriginal communities, people knowwho they are. They know which family groups they


relate to. They know what the power structures are,but those structures have been buried by successiveEuropeanisation of those communities. So it is in aneffort to recover those old ties, which are stillinformally respected and appreciated by Aboriginalpeople, but have no outside recognition. We thoughtthat if we could deliver to Aboriginal people theexpectation that if they tell us what they are, andregularise them, that we would resource them to tryto retrace those historical routes to be able toprovide a more appropriate form of government thatwould be more accountable to Aboriginal peoplethemselves.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thequestioning in relation to the program area ofAboriginal and Islander Affairs. I thank the ministerialstaff who have been available for that period ofquestioning. We might just take a two-minute breakand then commence in the area of CommunityServices.

The Committee adjourned at 4.56 p.m.The Committee resumed at 4.57 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: We will resume. We nowmove to the program of Community Services, and Iinvite questions from Mr Littleproud.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Minister, page 16—youprobably will not need to refer to the book—is to dowith the International Year of the Family. In lastyear's Budget Papers, you mentioned $600,000mbeing expended over two years for the participationin the International Year of the Family. You then laterindicated that $100,000 of that will be made availableto community organisations to help with their ownpromotions for this dedicated year. Could you at alater date supply me with a detailed account of thosegroups that have received grants, and also abreakdown of the amount of money that has beenexpended by the Department for the variouspromotions that you are undertaking?

Ms WARNER: We are very pleased to becoordinating the activities during the InternationalYear of the Family. There has been a huge responsefrom members of the community who have displayeda significant commitment to supporting, promotingand celebrating family life.

The high level of involvement has beendemonstrated by the overwhelming response bycommunities to the grants program. A total of 366applications, seeking $1.8m, have been received.But, as is always the case in this Department, wereceive many more applications. But that is a healthysign. It shows that there is a degree of interest outthere.

As well as celebratory activities for theInternational Year of the Family, there were alsosome submissions relating to the problems that facefamilies, such as violence and abuse. The issues ofelder abuse and the protecting and valuing ofchildren has been made a theme for this year. It is animportant activity because it creates communityawareness, which can assist us to move ahead.

As to the allocation of grants—those will bepublished in the annual report later in the year. Theinformation will be available then.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I now refer to page 17and your major program issues. The first majorprogram issue is the further development ofaccountability of church and community serviceswith regard to both financial assistance and serviceprovision. I refer to the comments in last year'sAuditor-General's report. He was not verycomplimentary about the Department'sadministration—namely, those people responsible forsending out grants and looking over the auditedaccounts of organisations. What steps have youtaken since that report came down to improve thesituation? Have these groups who did not supply theaudited accounts at that stage now done so? If theyhave not, will they still receive grants?

I know that for purposes of convenience, forboth the Department and some of these communityorganisations, you allocate grants every threemonths as part of the ongoing funding of theseorganisations. Are you satisfied that this system hasenough built-in accountability factors?

Ms WARNER: You have raised a number ofsignificant and quite complex areas. As to theAuditor-General's report—I am advised that thecurrent position is very much improved. There are noservices still in receipt of funding that have notcomplied with their financial accountabilityobligations for the 1991-92 financial year. In otherwords, the 28 per cent non-compliance rate referredto in the Auditor-General's report is now down tozero. In respect of the 1992-93 financial year—andwe have not reached the end of 1993-94—thefinancial accountability requirements remainoutstanding for only 1 per cent of the funds thatwere allocated.

The departmental staff are working with the fewservices involved. There are reasonable explanationsin many of the cases—for example, that a member ofa committee was ill, and so on. Where reasonableexplanations have not been provided, fundingadvances have either been withheld or reduced.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I also asked aboutquarterly payments. Are you satisfied that they meetthe accountability requirements?

Ms WARNER: People are required to put in aquarterly income and expenditure statement.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: They are complying?

Ms WARNER: Yes. If they do not comply withthat, they do not get their next allocation of fundingadvance until they do so. There is a very strongincentive for them to comply with thoseaccountability requirements.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The other aspect of myquestion related to service provision. On occasions,people have made contact with me concerning thesort of service being provided by people in receiptof funds from the Government. What sorts ofpractices have you put in place to evaluate thequality of services being provided by those peoplewho are successful in getting grants?

Ms WARNER: We have taken a significantinitiative in the Community Services DevelopmentDivision. You may be aware that when we came intoGovernment there was very little in the way of


structured processes for grants to be administered.We now have very significant structures. Thecornerstone of that is our capacity for resourceofficers from each part of the Community ServicesDivision to negotiate with services something called"a service agreement". Basically, they say to aservice, "We will provide you with a grant for $X.You will be expected to provide these sorts ofservices." For example, they will ask how many bedsa service can provide.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Are you satisfied with thelevel of resourcing that they have now?

Ms WARNER: It is a very long andcomplicated process. I would prefer to dwell on theissue for a moment, because it is important. We aretelling the non-Government sector that there needsto be a fairly structured relationship between theGovernment and non-Government sector. We needto know what we can expect of them, and they needto know what they can expect of us. We need to beable to say, "This is a bargain." This is a contractualrelationship in many ways, but we expect them todeliver services. That really is the most importantaspect of accountability.

We pay them money to deliver specific servicesto the citizens of Queensland. We want to be surethat they are delivering those services. So we wantfeedback on the service agreement about whetherthose services are being provided and whether theyare spending the money that the Governmentprovides on appropriate services for the client groupthat they say they are paying attention to. It is animportant part of accountability. We have nowmanaged to negotiate with 90 per cent of theservices that exist in this State. I think we fund about1 400 separate organisations. Some 90 per cent ofthose have service agreements and have enteredinto this relationship with the Government.

It is a huge step forward in the development ofa coherent and rational non-Government sectorproviding services to the people of Queenslandutilising significant amounts of money. We havemoved away from the Department providing thedirect services to this model. There needs to be astructured and rational approach. One of the mostimportant aspects of this is the support, advice andcommunity development work done by this division,which is appropriately called the CommunityServices Development Division. These things do notjust happen by themselves. That has also been avery significant part of the beginning of theintroduction of services to country areas for the firsttime.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will move on to the areaof disability services, page 19. I note that theallocation has risen from $53.614m to $56.857m.There has been a substantial increase. No doubt youare very pleased about that. I will quote from twoletters that I received. The first one is fromSoroptimist International Toowoomba. It makescomments with regard to the Commonwealth-StateDisability Service Agreement of 1991. It states—

"The Commonwealth funding was to beprovided for five years and indexed for cost ofliving changes.

. . . Now, almost two years later, the small budgetavailable for disability services has made itimpossible to bring about any real expansion ofexisting services, despite a very real andgrowing need. For example, in the last twelvemonths, new applications were made to theOffice of Disabilities of the Department ofFamily Services for funding andaccommodation support for 372 people. Anorganisation applying for support funds for 200people was given funding for two; anotherwhich applied for funding support for 91 peoplewas given funding for half a person."

The letter continues. I will table it. I ask: in light ofthe increased funding, why should theseorganisations that receive your grants make thosesorts of comments about funds not being available,particularly when you have had an increase infunding this year?

Ms WARNER: This year's funding has notbeen allocated yet, so I cannot answer that now.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: We are talking about lastyear.

Ms WARNER: We fund about 300 services inthe disability services area, so it is not possible forus to find the specific information about thatparticular service right now. I hope you are aware ofthe scope and scale of the services that we fund.Therefore, you realise that it would be impossible forus to have that data with us right now. We wouldhave to import a small library.

In the area of disability services, there issignificantly more demand than there are dollars tofund the level of need in the community. It isregrettable that that is the case. It has always beenthe case. Queensland has historically spent less perhead of the population on disability services than hasany other State. We entered into aCommonwealth/State disability agreement in——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: 1991.Ms WARNER: Yes. In 1993-94, $30m was

applied for in terms of applications, and we were ableto provide $3.3m of new services.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Would you give me thosefigures again, please?

Ms WARNER: In 1993-94, $30m worth ofapplications was applied for. We provided $3.3m,which is a substantial increase in itself. An amount of$3.3m was spent on extra services in 1993-94 in thearea of disability. I can guarantee you that thedemand for disability services is substantial. You cansee from those figures alone that the answer to yourquestion is simply that we have to allocate thosefunds on the basis of priorities across the State,which is done on the basis of need. We look at thespread of existing services; we look at broadpopulation figures; we look at the capacity of theorganisation to deliver the service that it is offeringto deliver; and we focus on accommodation supportfor people with the most urgent and critical need.The funds give priority to people who otherwisewould require social admission to hospital or


institutionalisation. Those are the priority areas thatwe considered when we were distributing that$3.3m. That is the simple answer to the question.Because of the time limit, I am not able to explain toyou the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement,but perhaps I can do that later.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The next question refersto page 20 and developments at the Challinor centre.I note from the Budget Papers that during 1993-94the Sandgate centre was closed. You havementioned previously that the Challinor centre is tobe closed down over three years. I ask: how manypeople were moved out of that centre in 1993-94,and what specific services did you offer to thosepeople by way of support through the community?

Ms WARNER: I think that this issue comesunder intellectual disability rather than disability. It isa direct service that you are talking about withChallinor and Sandgate. You could ask that questionlater.

The CHAIRMAN: It is mentioned in theEstimates statement in the disability section, but MrLittleproud is happy to raise it when we discuss theintellectual disability section.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I turn to domesticviolence. Last year, you opened about five or sixservices across the State. At the centre at Ipswich,there were three professionals and only one caravailable to them. I ask: have the resources for thedomestic violence services been increased in thisBudget?

Ms WARNER: No, there has not been anygrowth funding in this Budget for the domesticviolence services. There are two types of domesticviolence services operating two programs. One iscalled the Domestic Violence Initiatives Program,and it has a budget of approximately $3.463m in1994-95. That funds 64 services. Forty-five servicesor 70 per cent of those services are based in non-metropolitan areas of Queensland. That is becausepeople living in metropolitan areas have access toadvice, support and counselling through hospitalsand social workers which people living in rural areasdo not have. We also fund a 24-hour domesticviolence telephone counselling and informationreferral service, which was an initiative of last year'sBudget. That is now up and running, and it isreceiving an average of 2 300 calls per month. Wehave a Statewide network of 11 domestic violenceservices linked to that 008 number.

The other area of domestic violence services issupported accommodation, which provides shelterfor women and children fleeing domestic violence.The budget for that is $8m. As you know, it is a jointCommonwealth/State funded program. It is part ofthe general Supported Accommodation AssistanceProgram. Huge advances have been made in termsof servicing the needs of people who are the victimsof domestic violence. The legislation which westrengthened and reinforced the year before last hasgreatly improved the situation. We are alwayslooking to improve those services and to improvethe level of funding to them.

Cars are a very expensive single item within anyof those services. We struggle to get one car intoevery community service that needs one. That iswhat we try to do rather than provide extra ones forparticular services. We try to achieve an equitabledistribution of resources across all the services.Queensland is a large, decentralised State, anddomestic violence is a problem that is probably mosthidden in country areas. That is the most compellingreason to have support services available in thoseareas.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: My next question relatesto page 15 and family community support services. Irefer to a group named Youth and Family ServicesLogan City Incorporated. I table a document writtenby a man named Gordon Whitfield. He states that hehas sent letters to that organisation, to you, to theState Ombudsman, to the Premier and to MaryCrawford, the Federal member. Mr Whitfield is thecaretaker of some premises run by the group namedYouth and Family Services Logan City Incorporated.I ask: how much money was given to thatorganisation last year?

Ms WARNER: It would be funded under anumber of programs. The group apparently employsabout 35 staff in programs which include theSupported Accommodation Assistance Program, forwhich it received $272,733 in 1993-94; the DomesticViolence Initiatives Program, to which I just referred,for which it received $136,384 in 1993-94; and theYouth and Community Combined Action Program,for which the group received $136,756 in the sameyear. The organisation also offers a youth legalservice, which employs a solicitor and youth worker,and a youth health service, which is not fundedthrough my Department but through other agencies.It also provides a weekly clinic. This particularorganisation is a key component in Logan City'snetwork of community support services. Theorganisation has established clear policies andprocedures in relation to its budget and its range ofspecialist youth services. The organisation's auditorhas just completed his quarterly review of the budgetof the organisation. All funds have beenappropriately accounted for. Was there some otheraspect to the question?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: You said that all fundshave been accounted for. It is my understanding thatan investigation of the organisation is under way, andyou became aware of it after receiving this letter. Areyou satisfied now that the accounts of theorganisation are in order?

Ms WARNER: The organisation's auditor hascompleted the quarterly review, and all funds havebeen fully and appropriately accounted for. In thelast 48 hours, staff of my Department have spoken tothe Logan police and to the director of theorganisation, and both have stated that there is nobasis to any rumour of misappropriation of fundswithin the organisation. That is the information I haveto date on that, but perhaps you can communicatewith me later about it.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes that bracketof questioning from Opposition members of theCommittee in relation to this program area. We have


some questions on this program area fromGovernment members of the Committee. I invite MrSzczerbanik to ask his questions.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: A significant amount ofmoney is allocated for people who are homeless orescaping domestic violence. I note from page 24 ofyour Estimates that more than 2 200 homelesspeople are accommodated each night in Queensland.However, we continue to hear about those numbersof people who have difficulty in finding crisisaccommodation. Would you advise this Committeehow you are addressing that problem?

Ms WARNER: The Supported AccommodationAssistance Program, which I referred to in thecontext of the domestic violence services, is jointCommonwealth/State program established in 1985. Itreplaced a number of different services which werebrought together under the same umbrella, that is,homelessness among men, families, young peopleand women. For those people who are in the know, itis the old GSAP and FISP services all broughttogether under this heading. SAAP assistance forthis target group generally involves just providing abed for the night. What they were trying to moveaway from was just this idea of the old dosshouseapproach to homelessness to try to intervene tosupport people to find accommodation or to providethem with the skills to fill their accommodation needs,which of course is a different thing than justproviding a bed for the night.

One of the things that the services that havebeen operating in this area have found is that forsome individuals and families it can become a chronicproblem that simply means that they move aroundfrom one shelter to another and that there is neverany breaking of what is a very damaging and difficultcycle. We are talking to the Commonwealth; we havehad a review of the whole program. The nationalevaluation basically led to a whole series of changesin the future program, but that is yet to benegotiated. Basically, it is to try to resolve thatvicious cycle from recurring by introducing a casemanagement plan approach to supportedaccommodation rather than it being focused on bedsor bricks and mortar. The major focus of the programwill be on support and assistance, because you canput people up in hotels. You actually do not need tobuild specific purpose-built shelters for people to beable to provide that sort of support. It will be muchmore about providing the support to people andencouraging people to break that cycle rather thanhaving your emphasis on the infrastructure and thebricks and mortar.

The program has to be renegotiated with theCommonwealth Government and with other Statesand we are hoping that we have between January ofnext year and July of next year to finalise that newprogram with the Commonwealth. As I say, SAAPhas been a very successful program to date in termsof making sure that both the Commonwealth and theState honour their commitments in the tragic area ofhomelessness, and I hope for another good programto be following from next year.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: My second question is todo with the Child Care Act of 1991. Your Department

has issued over 900 licences since that Act has comein. I believe that we do have the best Act here, butunder that Act we have put more standards ontothese facilities. Could you relate costs in otherStates to these programs and indicate how we areheading in relation to moneys?

Ms WARNER: There has been a lot of reformin the area of child care since we have been inGovernment. What we tried to do with theintroduction of new child care legislation, whichbrought all child-care services under the umbrella ofthe State Government in one Act, was to strike abalance between an assured quality of service thatwe provided, and affordability. I think that we havebeen relatively successful in managing to do thatbecause there has been a huge increase in thenumber of child-care places available over the lastfour and a half years. I will get the figures in amoment, but they are certainly increasing massively.

We have had the extension of theCommonwealth/State agreement in respect to theprovision of child care, which goes for four years,and we are into the second year of that. The numberof places that is provided not just by theGovernment but also the number of places in childcare provided by the private sector is just in a boomsituation. That is probably because of theCommonwealth's decision to introduce subsidies forthe private sector as well as the existing subsidiesfor the community sector. For example, in the 1993census of children's services undertaken by theCommonwealth, community-sponsored child-carefees in Queensland averaged $108 per week, whichwere easily the lowest in Australia and well under theaverage of $126 for community-sponsored centres.By comparison, the Victorian average fee was $132,the Tasmanian fee was $140 and the South Australiafee was $145. As far as private child care fees areconcerned, they average $122. We have the secondlowest fees in the nation behind the NorthernTerritory, and we are below the Australian average of$125 per week for private centres. So, we haveactually managed to introduce improved standards,we have upgraded the regulations and we havemaintained what we set out to do, which was toprovide affordability and some peace of mind forparents that there is a licensing system that isreliable—a uniform licensing system—that operatesacross the State and at the same time iscomparatively cheap in terms of the cost toindividual families.

Dr CLARK: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2,which provides an outline of the Government's RuralFamily Support Package, which is a significantcomponent of our Rural Communities PolicyPackage. Under this initiative, your Department willbe receiving $6m over three years to help people inrural areas. Could you clarify just how much has beenallocated for the Rural Family Support Package in1994-95 and what will be the scope of those servicesoffered under the Rural Family Support Package? Iparticularly would like you to provide me with detailsabout the new program to be set up on the AthertonTableland because, as you would be aware, there arestill people suffering the effects of the drought, andthe decline of the tobacco industry is of great


concern, particularly to the people in the Mareebaarea. I would also like to know how your Departmentinvolves local people in setting up those services.

Ms WARNER: I am happy to answer thatquestion. There has been a total of $2m provided inthe package for 1994-95. The package aims toimprove access for people in ruralcommunities—access for those people to the samesorts of community services which are taken forgranted in the metropolitan areas. The package willprovide funds to extend the duration of the eightexisting rural and social support services which cameabout as a result of the drought relief measures thathave been undertaken over the last few years. Thepeople in rural areas are very enthusiastic about theprovision of these services which, for the first time,go to the social issues that people confront in areaswhere, as a result of the drought, their economiclivelihood and further sustainability in those areascomes under threat. These people are very much inneed of support and counselling, and this programprovides that.

The services which currently operate fromCharters Towers, Moranbah, Middlemount,Charleville, Roma, St George, Goondiwindi andDalby will remain, and the new services, whoselocation has yet to be determined, will be located inareas of high need. Another feature of the packagewill be an extension of the Department's crossprogram initiative, which is basically to dodevelopmental work with the existing localcommunities. Rather than saying, "We will put adomestic violence service there", we will be talkingto those people about what service it is that theywish to have in their area, and maybe it will be a bit ofthis and a bit of that. So they will be very muchdeveloped for the local needs.

In respect of the Atherton Tableland, they willreceive $42,000 for the rest of this year—$60,000 forthe full year—and I understand that the MareebaShire Council has offered to sponsor the service andis willing to provide office accommodation andadministrative support. An adviser will work withGovernment agencies, community groups, trainingorganisations and industry bodies to coordinateexisting services, provide information on relevantservices and entitlements, assist in the developmentof new services and help people with retraining andin seeking alternative employment. The Departmenthas worked closely with regional staff from theDepartment of Primary Industries to ensure thatproducer organisations are involved in thedevelopment and operation of the service. A positiondescription has been prepared for the socialadjustment adviser position and it is hoped that theMareeba Shire Council will soon be able to advertisethe position.

There is an existing initiative which will helplocal people build a positive future in the AthertonTableland, and the success of the rural socialsupport workers in the cross-programs initiative isabsolutely dependent upon the involvement of localpeople and their commitment to make sure that theydirect the services that are needed within their own

communities; and we provide the financial supportand advice.

Dr CLARK: I think the Mareeba Shire will workwith the Mareeba Community Support Centre there,which has a very good reputation.

Mrs ROSE: I note from page 15 of yourDepartment's Estimates statements that, in the CSDprogram, $81.03m has been allocated to seniors'interests. How much will assist independent retireesnot receiving any form of pension, and how is thismoney allocated?

Ms WARNER: The sum of $81.03m has beenallocated to seniors' interests. That is basically theconcessions which are provided for under theSeniors Card, which include the electricity rebateand other concessions—and you can find a list in thisdocument, I think—and also the cost of the Office ofthe Ageing. There is also the administrative workaround the Seniors Card. Since the introduction ofthe Seniors Card in December 1990, an estimated40 000 independent retirees over the age of 70 havegained access, for the first time, to Governmentconcessions. So there is support for the over-70s inthat independent retirees package.

We have also allocated $850,000 for theextension of the Seniors Card for next year. A totalof 18 500 retirees aged between 60 and 69 willcomprise over half of this group and will becomeeligible for the Seniors Card and obtain concessionsand access to private business discounts for the firsttime. A total of 58 500 independent retirees are noweligible for a Seniors Card and can access thevaluable concessions in the area of ambulance,electricity, health, and so on.

The approximate cost of Governmentconcessions available through the Seniors Card forthe 58 500 independent retirees is $6m. So it is asubstantial amount of money. The major proportionof $78m of the $81m covers moneys for rail,electricity and rates. Those are the most expensiveconcessions that we provide to that group. It isdifficult to include all independent retirees in thecatch of the Seniors Card. There have beenextensions on next year's allocation to other eligiblegroups, but the independent retirees between theages of 60 and 69 have not been included becausewe do wish to target the most needy pensioners. Butonce people reach that magic age of 70, everybodyis entitled to support through the Seniors Card.

The CHAIRMAN: I have one final question inthis area. On page 16 of the Department's Estimatesstatement, it refers to the allocation of financial anddevelopmental assistance for community servicesprovided by community organisations, such aschurches, charitable and community-basedorganisations. You mentioned the difficulties ofallocating $3.3m in the disability program amongst$30m of applications. I am interested to know how,across the Department, you prioritise how you willspend your money. How do you make decisionsabout which organisations will be funded and whichwill not? How does that guarantee value for money interms of the community's expenditure of taxpayers'money?


Ms WARNER: For a start, I can tell you that itis not done on a whiteboard in my office. The mainpriority in the distribution of funds is fairness. Theterm that is generally used for that is "equity". We aretrying to make sure that there is a fair and equitabledistribution on the basis of need. Need is thecriterion that we are looking at here. So we havemoved away from a position that I think wasoperating in the Department when we got intoGovernment, which was that it was submissionbased; if you put in a good submission—and therewas the development of a fairly good industry inprofessional submission writers out there in the localcommunity—then you would get funding. We havemoved away from that and tried to locate areas ofneed based on demographic research, client groupsand existing services. We pool all that informationtogether and then say, "Whether or not the particularlocal group in this area is good at writingsubmissions, the fact is that the people who live inthis area need this service." That is why one of thejobs of our Department is to go out and help thosecommunity groups develop to the point where theycan deliver the service; so that across the State youwill get an equitable distribution of services.

In the past, you would get a concentration ofservices in a particular area, because services sort ofbreed services. You would get the submissionwriters, so you would have them all located andbunched up together. The Department puts out aState plan talking about the priorities on the basis ofneed. It tells people which programs have got somegrowth funds this year, where the priorities are interms of the development of the programs, and howmuch money in the quantum is available. It theninvites applications—rather than submissions—forthat process. So there is an attempt to try to get itdistributed across the State. The State plan givesthe community some idea of the way to go. Thecommunity itself also feeds back to the Departmentabout what are the needs that they see on theground in terms of the direction of future and newservices, so that we can begin to fill the gapsbetween the service programs that we have currentlyoperating.

One of the biggest areas that I am reallypleased about is that some of the smallestcommunities in our State are getting services for thefirst time. In terms of geography, people would say,"You are miles away from getting any service." Nowwe say, "Even though you might not have a hugepopulation or even a very vigorous communitygroup, nevertheless you need one." So we go outthere and do the developmental work that isnecessary to provide the service in that community.There is a further part of that process—if you wouldlike to continue the question.

The CHAIRMAN: We might leave it at that.That concludes the questions from the Committeeon the Community Services Development area. Wethank departmental officers for being available fromthat area. We now move back to questions fromOpposition members in relation to Ethnic Affairs. Iunderstand that Mr Littleproud has only a couple ofquestions on that area and will move straight intoProtective Services and Juvenile Justice.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Because of the timefactor, I will try to encompass all this into onequestion to deal with Ethnic Affairs. Knowing thatyou were going to appear before this EstimatesCommittee, the Refugee Week Committee saw fit towrite to me. They made a few statements, and thenthey posed a couple of questions. They made thepoint that they claim that the PSMC report declaredthat, in the case of the DFS, it was one of the worst-funded Government departments and, of that, EthnicAffairs was definitely the worst funded. So they aremaking their point. Whether or not it is right, I do notknow. They also go on to say that the translationservices are desperately deficient in that, in somecases, hospital cleaners and cooks are called uponto interpret for the medical staff and patients. Theysay also that, in New South Wales, it is notuncommon for grants to community organisations tobe as much as, say, $10,000. They say that thegrants to community organisations in Queenslandunder Ethnic Affairs have been $3,000 for quite sometime. They want to know: can you see a need toincrease the size of the grant to communityorganisations, and what part of your $2.114m Budgetallocation will go to translation services?

Ms WARNER: We have a referral service, butwe do not directly do any translation services.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Are there organisationsout there that do translation services?

Ms WARNER: Yes, there are organisations outthere that do them.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Do you have a breakdownin your budget relating to how much money you aregoing to give to that?

Ms WARNER: We do not provide the moneyfor translation services. They get money from theCommonwealth.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: What about theorganisation that is claiming that the maximum grantis $3,000 per organisation?

Ms WARNER: That is for the modest grantsthat are provided under this area. I do not know thatit is actually the province of the Bureau of EthnicAffairs to provide for all the needs in terms ofservices to the migrant community. It is very similarto Aboriginal Affairs in that you have a whole-of-Government approach. For instance, interpreters inthe health area would be paid for by the HealthDepartment and so on and so forth, rather than by acentral agency within the Government.

Basically, the grants are provided on a smallassistance basis for maintenance of multiculturalorganisations that exist in this State for theirpromotion and development, rather than for them todeliver services. For those organisations to which wedo deliver service, such as the domestic violenceinitiatives for the Vietnamese community, thoseservices are funded through the CommunityServices Development section of the Department.There is a developing cultural sensitivity to the factthat services need to be provided in culturallyappropriate ways for the different communities. Butthose services are not paid for out of this budget.These are, I suppose, for the maintenance of identity


and culture and to promote and encourage themulticultural nature of our society, and forcommunications for them with their member groups.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: We pass on now toProtective Services.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes EthnicAffairs. We move now to the area of ProtectiveServices and Juvenile Justice.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Page 44 refers to the careof children under State guardianship. I will relate anincident and then I will finish with a question. It hasbeen put to me that people sometimes voluntarily askfor their child to be taken into the care and control ofthe Department if there is some sort of dysfunctionwithin the family. The concern was put to me thatwhen the parents believe it is time for the child tocome back——

Ms WARNER: I am sorry, can you repeat thatlast bit.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The parents go voluntarilyto the Department asking to have their child takeninto care and protection because the child isdysfunctional in some way and then the parents andthe child feel that they would like to becomereunited. There is a court order giving you the careand control of the child.

Ms WARNER: You are talking about care andprotection, not care and control.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Care and protection,right. Is it correct that the power rests solely with theDepartment to go back to the Children's Court tohave that court order reversed?

Ms WARNER: The Director-General might liketo answer this question.

Ms MATCHETT: I am Ruth Matchett,Director-General. The Children's Services Actenables a parent to go back to a Children's Court toask for an order to be substituted or revoked. It alsoenables the Department to go back to the court.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: To revoke it if they wantto.

Ms MATCHETT: That is right. In thecircumstances that you are referring to, it wouldobviously be the parent who would go back to theChildren's Court, and the provision is there to dothat. I might add that when an application is made tothe Children's Court for a child to be admitted to thecare and protection of the Director-General, parentscan have legal representation and they can putbefore the court information that they wish to haveconsidered by the court as to why the child shouldnot be taken into care and protection. Of course, it isthe court that determines whether or not a child is inneed of care and protection—not officers of theDepartment. It is a decision of the court.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: But the parent can goback and protest?

Ms MATCHETT: Most certainly they can.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I turn to page 44 again.We are referring now to care providers andfoster-parenting. Firstly, has there been an increasein the allowance paid to foster parents and,

secondly, is it correct that the travel allowance paidto foster-parents when they have to take a childunder their protection backwards and forwards forcompulsory meetings has been reduced?

Ms WARNER: There is no increase in the baseallowance for foster-parents provided for in theBudget. There were some additional moneysinvolved for exceptional costs provided in the1993-94 Budget—1.5——

The CHAIRMAN: Is that $1.5m?Ms WARNER: What did I say?

The CHAIRMAN: 1.5.Mr LITTLEPROUD: With regard to travel

allowances given to those parents to take thechildren backwards and forwards to compulsorymeetings——

Ms WARNER: It is a standard rate. Theallowance is provided on a sliding scale according tothe age of the child.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Travelling allowance?Ms WARNER: Travelling allowance? My

Director-General would like to answer this one.

Ms MATCHETT: Foster-parents can bereimbursed for costs associated with taking a child toa particular appointment. They are reimbursedaccording to the actual costs involved. Say, forexample, if a foster parent has to come down fromRockhampton by train and has to have overnightaccommodation to take a child to a specialistappointment, they would be reimbursed on the basisof those expenses. As the Minister mentioned, lastyear there was a boost to the allocation for what wecall the exceptional costs associated with care ofchildren. There was a boost in that area from whatwas previously $750,000 up to a total of $1.5m. Thathas enabled the Department to respond to thoseexceptional costs associated with the care of afoster child. I am sure you would appreciate thatthere cannot be flat rates because the needs foreach individual foster-child and the family caring forthem are different. They might be coming fromCairns down to a particular appointment, or comingfrom Rockhampton. Of course, the costs vary.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: What about thecommonality, say, in the case of people using motorcars? Could you not use a criterion something likethe public service rate?

Ms MATCHETT: That is the rate that we use,in fact, for the cost of motor vehicle travel——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Horsepower and that sortof thing.

Ms MATCHETT: That is right. We use thesame rate that is applied to departmental officers.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Page 45 refers to juvenilecorrections and the number of officers working onsupervision of work orders. Can you tell me theaverage size of the workload of these officers? Is itcorrect that there is a burn-out factor and that veryoften some of these people do not last too long inthe service?

Ms WARNER: Ms Matchett would like toanswer this question.


Ms MATCHETT: The issue of burn-outamongst our officers is one that has been raised formany years. The point I would make is that being afamily service officer is a very stressful anddemanding job. We have 250 family service officersthroughout our 39 area offices and our variousspecialist units. There have been times when therehas been a fairly high turnover rate within theDepartment. It would be my feeling that the turnoverrate of family service officers has reduced somewhat.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Can you put that intopercentage terms?

Ms MATCHETT: It is very difficult to put it inpercentage terms. I do not think that we wouldactually have that information available. What I cantell you is some of the other myths about familyservices officers. A lot of people tend to think thatthey are very young people. I think you need tomake people aware that 55 per cent of our familyservices officers are 30-plus. We have a proportionof male and female staff—80 per cent of our staff arefemale, but 20 per cent are male. We are pleased tosee that sort of balance.

The workload, we believe, has been reducedbecause of the increased allocation that has beenmade, particularly to implement the community-basedorders as a result of the amendments to the JuvenileJustice Act. As you would be aware, there would besome significant enhancements in that area of totalallocation of $4m a full year to supportimplementation of the juvenile justice legislation.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will continue in that vein.I want to relate to you an instance with regard towelfare officers and Juvenile Aid Bureau police intheir operations under the Juvenile Justice Act. A15-year-old boy ran away from home. Within thespace of seven days, he appeared before the policeon three occasions for cautioning—the first timerelated to the illegal use of a car, the next timerelated to stealing and the next time he was inpossession of stolen goods and was selling stolengoods. The impertinent part is that two policeofficers spent four hours on the first cautioning, theyspent five hours of overtime on the secondcautioning, and two police spent another five hoursand a welfare officer spent four hours on the thirdcautioning. The word was that the boy would haveto go home and live with his parents again if hisparents were willing to have him home. The boy ranaway from the steps of the police station and now heis a missing person living without lawful means ofsupport. The impact on police is that they spent anenormous amount of time in the Juvenile Aid Bureaugetting this fellow up before the court to becautioned. Where is the incentive under this newsystem to go out and catch him again?

Ms WARNER: I think that the whole issuehinges upon the fact that it is entirely up to thepolice to make the decision about when they wish tocaution a child and how much time and effort theywant to put into that particular practice. That processof cautioning, of course, has been one that policehave used for some time, but we have recentlylegislated to recognise it as a formal sentencingoption. It was actually one of the better reforms

introduced by Terry Lewis. It is actually very much apolice matter about how much time and effort theyspend, and it is according to their discretion andtheir sense of judgment whether or not a caution isgoing to work in any particular individual case. Butthe reality is that approximately 85 per cent ofchildren who are cautioned never reappear within thesystem again. So obviously it is a measure that isuseful in terms of diverting children away frombecoming further involved with offending behaviour.Basically, it scares them enough for them to realisethe seriousness of what they may have thought wasa prank or whatever, because a lot of juvenile crimeis opportunistic.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: You can break thepattern.

Ms WARNER: It is not even a pattern at thatstage.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: You made mention beforeof an allocation of money for the training of thepolice to be better aware of the Juvenile Justice Actand how to implement it. Could I suggest that in partof that training you might reinforce the point of viewthat it is up to them to determine how muchcautioning they give on a case-by-case basis. At apublic meeting I attended, a superintendent of policesaid that one of the problems the police force washaving was coming to terms with a full understandingof the Act and how police could apply it. It wouldseem that there is some room for improvement there.

Ms WARNER: There has been significanteffort made, not only initially to introduce them to theconcepts and principles and philosophy of theJuvenile Justice Act but also after there was asignificant amount of complaint by individual policearound the State that they did not understand whatwas going on. As a result we went out and trainedthem again. I suppose if there are still some policewho have not yet understood, we might even haveto do it again.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: He said that progress wasbeing made, but more certainly needed to be done.

Ms WARNER: The other thing, of course, isthat the police themselves do have a duty to placethemselves under the pieces of legislation that theyare a part of administering.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I would not want todisappoint you, so I am going to talk aboutdetentions now. I see that you have allocated moneyfor a new detention centre. You are going to takesome inmates from Westbrook to the John OxleyCentre. In fact, some are already down there. That isa centre built to hold girls and boys from 10 to 15years of age. Earlier this week, I spoke in Parliamentabout the repeated escape through the samewindow that was always replaced by the same sortof glass. What has been done to train the staff intaking on what are potentially more dangerousinmates, and what has been done to date with regardto the upgrading of security at the John OxleyCentre?

Ms WARNER: Helen Twohill, who is thedivisional head of Protective Services and JuvenileJustice, will take that question.


Ms TWOHILL: There has been a range ofactivities the department has undertaken inpreparation for the transfer of all of the young peoplefrom Westbrook. In fact, in our other existing centreswe already have some of the boys who wereformerly at Westbrook. We have undertaken anumber of enhancements to security to ensure thatyoung people in detention are kept safe and secure.Many of those adjustments and enhancements tosecurity have occurred at John Oxley as they haveoccurred at our other centres.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: What sorts of things?

Ms WARNER: It is quite difficult for us toexplain in public in detail the security arrangements inparticular detention centres because you just alertyour client group to what the layout is to abscondingtechniques.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Could I say, Minister, thatsome of your staff are having difficulty identifyingthe changes, too, so it is really top secret.

Ms WARNER: I am sorry, are we talking aboutthe plan of John Oxley?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: We are talking about JohnOxley, yes. The report that has come to me is thatpeople were saying as late as Monday of last weekthat there have been no changes whatsoever and Iam still chasing real answers.

I turn now to Westbrook. Bearing in mind thatyou have spent an enormous amount of moneyrepairing the place after the riot and upgradingsecurity, as you have stated in Parliament, you thenmade a statement the other day to a delegation fromToowoomba that in fact the centre could well beused by another Government department. Have youand Cabinet discussed at departmental level whatother departments would be likely to use securedormitory blocks to any great advantage?

Ms WARNER: Let me set your mind at rest.The amount of money that was spent on the repairsto Westbrook—I will say it once—is $326,753.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: From Admin Services?

Ms WARNER: From Admin Services. It wasspent on refurbishing at Westbrook. Got the figure?You know why the repairs were necessary; it is stillan ongoing facility.

In terms of the further use of the centre, it ispossible—but I could not say exactly whether or notit will happen—that Corrective Services could wantto use it as, I think it is called, their western workcamp base which would use that kind of facility.There are also other possibilities in the area oftraining. I have also spoken to the Chamber ofCommerce from Toowoomba and to the Mayor andto a number of citizens who came and saw merecently at a meeting about other training, sportsactivities, conferencing facilities, and all those sortsof things that might be looked at down the track. IfGovernment departments, who have the first optionon the facility, do not wish to avail themselves of thatoption we can look at servicing the areas in anotherway. But it is not for us as a department to say whatexactly will happen with the disposal of that facility.Our job is to run a detention centre. When we close

Westbrook, that job will be over. The question of theappropriate disposal of Government buildings andland is with the Department of AdministrativeServices, not with my department. Our job will thenbe transferred elsewhere.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the bracketof questioning from Opposition members. We nowturn to Government members. We have a couple ofremaining questions on the Protective Services andJuvenile Justice Program areas. I invite a questionfrom the member for Currumbin, Mrs Rose.

Mrs ROSE: Minister, there is a lot of concernin the community about child abuse. We have all readabout horrific cases where parents have bashed ayoung child to death. On page 44 of thedepartmental Estimates statement there is mention ofa child protection strategy. I am aware that yourdepartment has been consulting widely on proposalsfor change to child protection legislation. How muchis earmarked for this child protection strategy?

Ms WARNER: My department has allocated$450,000 in 1994-95 to further develop the childprotection strategy. We have undertaken extensiveconsultation throughout the State as part of thereview of the whole area of child protection policyand legislation, and the development of theconsultation process was approved by theGovernment in 1993.

Agencies, Government departments,community members and a significant number ofpeople have wholeheartedly endorsed our proposalsfor reform in this area to update the child protectionservices. We have in place a solid system of servicedelivery to families that have problems. However,increasing knowledge, experience, research anddevelopment in other States and overseasemphasise the need to constantly review and updatepractices to better meet the needs of children.

Therefore, we have allocated $200,000 towardsupdating information technology— something thatwe have been doing progressively over a period oftime across the Department— improving theinformation systems, and $250,000 towards a projectto examine the current service provided to ensurethat the current funds are used effectively, toexplore in depth the needs of children who havebeen abused or neglected, their families and theservices required to meet these needs.

It is anticipated that for a period of about sixmonths, a worker will be employed by theDepartment and also in the non-Government sectorin three locations. The project will examine whatchild abuse preventive services are required to assistfamilies with parenting, what types of therapeuticservices are needed to assist children overcome thetrauma of abuse and neglect, to look closely atchildren and their families currently receivingassistance from the Department—including thereasons for my Department's involvement—what theirdetailed needs are, the services currently beingprovided to meet those needs, the areas of needswhich may not be being met at the moment and thetype of service required. So we will be getting thatinformation. We will also be examining the currentservice being provided to ensure that existing


resources of the Department and those within thecommunity are being effectively utilised. We will belooking at this in terms of what is happening in threespecific locations in Queensland. I do not knowwhere those locations are, but that is so we get anacross-the-State view of the needs in this area.

This is as a precursor to the introduction of newlegislation in the area of child protection, which I donot think has been comprehensively reviewed since1965. So after we have done that, we will havereformed every base piece of legislation within theDepartment since we have been in Government,which will, I think, be a significant achievement in avery difficult area of operation.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a coupleof general questions, Minister. I refer you to page 46of your departmental Estimates statement and, inparticular, to the last paragraph on that page relatingto training in the new juvenile justice laws formagistrates and for police. A matter of somecomment in the community has been of policeexpressing concern about the inadequacy, orreported inadequacy, of the new juvenile justicelaws. Of course, that receives some media exposure.Could you perhaps please indicate what, in fact, hasbeen done to train police and magistrates? Has therebeen a cost involved? Can you identify the cost?How effective do you think that has been?

Ms WARNER: I think Helen Twohill would liketo answer this question.

Ms TWOHILL: The provision of very high-quality training has really been recognised by theDivision as a significant issue, and there has beenrigorous training at a range of levels. Your specificquestion is in relation to police and magistrates. Inrelation to magistrates—there has been someextensive work done with key magistrates who havethen taken those issues back to magistrates forums.On an ongoing basis, our senior resource officers inour regions provide ongoing liaison and support tolocal magistrates and consult with them. That was asignificant strategy in that we had to ensure that wehad widespread understanding of the legislation,particularly when it became operative.

In relation to training concerning thepolice—we have had a senior officer recentlyparticipate in the Police Training Program, which hasbeen run throughout the whole State. The police hadalready organised their police training officers toconduct intensive training in relation to the JuvenileJustice Act to their own officers. Our officeraccompanied that team, and participated fully. Thatwas a very large commitment on behalf of theDepartment, and no additional funds were providedfor that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN: So the cost of that servicewas not separately budgeted for? It was just plannedas part of the work of officers of that section?

Ms TWOHILL: Yes, it was undertaken as partof the usual work that we would undertake.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 47, in theobjectives for 1994-95, halfway down it talks aboutmonitoring the laws and, in the second part of thatparagraph, increasing the availability of accurate

information in the community. Could you just clarifywhat information is being collected, and how it mightbe useful and whether there is any cost involved incollecting that information?

Ms WARNER: We have been upgrading ourinformation technology systems to be able toprovide more accurate data on a whole range ofissues that have not previously been available. Oneof the problems that I think we do suffer from in thisarea is that people have a lot of anecdotal andimpressionistic information about what the realsituation of juvenile crime is. For a start, if it is anunsolved crime, it is very difficult to know whether itwas committed by a juvenile or an adult. Yet it doesseem that there has been a propensity for a largenumber of people to assume that all break andenters, for instance, are done by children, which iscertainly not the case. There are adults actually outthere doing that sort of thing, too. So there has beenthat kind of impressionistic view that has been verymuch promoted in the media. One of the things thatwe would hope to be able to do over a period oftime is to get down to a real debate about what isreally happening rather than a debate which is fuelledby fear, innuendo, fabrication, wishful thinking, andall the other things that have characterised thedebate so far, certainly in terms of both theprevalence of the incidence of crime and also interms of the possible cures or preventions that mightbe implemented for stopping that crime in the future.

So on both of those counts, I would hope thatthe Department would be in a better position,utilising the knowledge and data that we have, to beable to make available to the community the realfacts—the areas that we can substantiate withquantitative and qualitative data that we can collectrather than leaving the debate in free fall. One of theissues, of course, Mr Chairman, that you must beaware of is that people quite often want to believetheir own opinion rather than the established data.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes questioningon this program area of the Department. I thank MsTwohill and officers of the Protective Services andJuvenile Justice Program for their assistance.Government members are still within theirquestioning period, and we now move to theIntellectual Disability Services section of theDepartment. I invite questions from, firstly, MrSzczerbanik, the member for Albert.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.My concern, and the concern of many electoratesaround this State, is the unmet need for supportedaccommodation for people with intellectualdisabilities and, in particular, the ageing parents whostill have their son or daughter at home. Could youexplain the amount of accommodation places thatwill be offered in the 1994-95 year for those people?

Ms WARNER: I am afraid that the answer isnegative, that there will be no additionalaccommodation places made available through thisprogram in 1994-95. The reason for this is simple: theaccommodation services for people in this Statehave been run down over a long period of time. Weinherited a situation that was simply unacceptable. It


was certainly brought out in the resources reviewthat was done by the PSMC into the Department.

We recognise that the demand is greater thanthe number of places available. I think that issomething I referred to earlier in relation to theCommunity Services Development DisabilityProgram. But there is simply no point in offeringmore accommodation if it is not of an acceptablestandard. If we are to be able to hold our head up,we really have to move to improve standards and thequality of care in this area. We have a very graveresponsibility to properly accommodate people withan intellectual disability. So the focus of theDepartment's activity has been to bring existingservices up to scratch.

We have made available 9.5 additionalresources, which have flowed to the area over thelast three Budgets. An injection of funding hasbenefited accommodation services, enabling theappointment of 39 additional direct care residentialstaff. The funds have also enabled the appointmentof 53 additional specialist staff who work with bothcommunity and residential clients. Again, in thisBudget we have provided substantial additionalfunding to increase the quality of care for people. Itis worth noting that, prior to the first injection offunds in the 1992-93 Budget, the number ofaccommodation places has begun to fall from about860 to 840. That figure has begun to rise again andpresently stands at 847. The fall can be attributed inpart to the long-term neglect in this area which leftinsufficient resources to maintain the number ofplaces.

For the first time, service standards will beintroduced progressively in this program from Julythis year. For the first time, both consumers and theGovernment will be able to monitor the standards ofservice rather than just accepting the propositionthat what was being provided was adequate. As partof the quality care initiative in this year's Budget—acosting of $2.2m in the full year—additionalresources are being committed in the area of stafftraining, which is very essential. Direct care staff willbe able to access training that they were formerlydenied because there were insufficient funds in thepast.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I know that the ChallinorCentre has been in existence for a long time. Manyyears ago, it used to be called Sandy Gallop. So thatis how long ago I knew about it. It is operated as aresident service for people all over Queensland. Inote in Budget Paper No. 2 that the cost of theChallinor Centre reform plan over the next threeyears will be $26.9m. Can you elaborate more on thatplan?

Ms WARNER: We are very pleased to be ableto take the opportunity that has been provided to usthrough the Building Better Cities Program initiatedby the Commonwealth Government to provide fordeinstitutionalisation. The Commonwealth funding inthis area will be $10.5m. The funding from myDepartment will be $8.9m, and there will be $7.5mfrom the Department of Housing, Local Governmentand planning. A figure of $26.9m will be provided

over three years. But over the next five years, therewill be $60m in State funding allocated to this reform.

The initiative represents a major milestone in thelives of the 172 people who currently live at theChallinor Centre. The reform plan enables them tomove from behind the fences of an institution andinto the community of which they are part. For fartoo long, these people have been regarded assecond-class citizens. The services have beenprovided to them in groups, rather than looking attheir needs as individuals. In other words, individualshave been expected to meet the criteria and needsof the institution, rather than the institution or theservice being tailored to meet the needs of theindividual. Historically, this has meant that clientshave been expected to perform at the lowestcommon denominator, rather than to explore their fullpotential as individuals.

For years there have been stories about thebenefits to individuals of deinstitutionalisation. Theimprovements in their quality of life and in theirpersonal capacities as a result of them being treatedas individuals rather than as a group of patients in aninstitution are significant. Those are the reasons whywe are committing significant resources. But we arenot only bringing people out of institutions. It usedto be the practice of the last Government to bringthem out of institutions and then spend the money inthe local community. But it actually costs more. Thisis not an economy drive. This is about providing aquality of life for individuals, and it is about theirrights as citizens. It is not about cost-cuttingmeasures.

When we move people out into the localcommunity, we will be spending more on theirsupport than is spent currently. For instance, we nowspend $8.1m on their support in Challinor. When thiswhole process is finished after the three-year period,we will be spending $13.5m on those same 172residents.

Dr CLARK: I think it has been recognised thathistorically intellectual disability services have beenlocated primarily in the south-east corner of theState. Although I recognise that it will take a longtime to reverse that situation, could you outline whatfunds have been allocated to far-north Queenslandfor the provision of services to people who have anintellectual disability? How does this compare withlast year? Has the Department carried out anystudies to identify the unmet demands that existthere? Certainly, I receive many inquiries at myelectorate office about that issue.

Ms WARNER: The honourable member is right.There has been a propensity in the past toconcentrate intellectual disability services in thesouth-east corner—namely, the institutions atIpswich and Wacol. Also, when we starteddeinstitutionalising clients from those areas, the otherservices were placed also in the south-east corner.So there was a movement of people who were inneed of direct services from the north to the south.For individuals, that means that they lose what linksthey have with family, friends and community. That initself is a penalty and an imposition upon them. Wereally do need to try to move the range of services


back to where people are living. There are two waysby which we are trying to do this.

Firstly, we have allocated $1.4m for theprovision of a range of services for people withintellectual disabilities who live in far-northQueensland—that is, in Cairns and areas north ofCairns. This allocation was used flexibly to fund anumber of service options through a variety ofmeans, including both direct service provision by theDepartment and financial support to communityagencies to enable them to deliver services. In1993-94 the disability program administered by theDepartment distributed a total of $1.34m to 18community organisations, delivering accommodationsupport, respite care, community linking andparticipation services for people with a disability infar-north Queensland.

While these organisations are funded toprovide services to people with a range ofdisabilities, the majority of people receiving theservices are people with intellectual disabilities. Afurther $106,000 was provided to fund direct supportservices for people and their families through theIntellectual Disabilities Service Program in Cairns. Iam pleased to inform the honourable member thatCairns is a priority area for the development ofservices for people with an intellectual disability andthat a multidisciplinary resource team will beestablished in Cairns during the next year.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the timeperiod allocated for Government questions. We nowmove back to questions from members of theOpposition. We are still in the area of intellectualdisability. There is only 15 minutes remaining, andthat will be for Mr Littleproud.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I also want to discussCorporate Services. Firstly, I take the Minister backto her answer to Mr Szczerbanik. You prefaced yourcomment by saying that, just as in other areas ofdisability services, there are not enough places forpeople with intellectual disabilities. It would followthat that was because there was not enough money.In your answer you said that putting people withintellectual disabilities out into the community wouldcost more money per person. Are you not being a bitfanciful by saying that you are really going to caterfor these people when it is going to cost moremoney per person and there is a shortage of moneyalready?

Ms WARNER: It depends on what you want todo. Do you want to pretend to provide services byproviding inferior services, or do you want toprovide real services that cost real money? You haveto acknowledge that it costs a lot of money toprovide services for people with incredibly highsupport needs. Those are the sorts of residents thatwe have at Challinor. They have enormously highsupport needs. We can approach that with a cost-cutting mentality, which is what has happened in thisarea over many years and which has not led to anenhancement of life for those individuals and,indeed, has led to a degree of community concernabout the previous processes ofdeinstitutionalisation. That is a trap that we do notwant to fall into.

If we are going to take people out ofinstitutions to improve their quality of life, then that iswhat we do. We take them out to improve theirquality of life, not to further underresource a programoutside of the institution that does not end upimproving their quality of life, does not give them thesort of support that they need and does not changetheir situation at all. That is reform in name only.Unfortunately, in this area, we have to do two thingsat once. We have to try to improve the number ofplaces and services that are available for people inthe way of support, therapy, accommodation andrespite, and we also have to improve the quality ofservice that is provided to them.

The reality is that in 1994 the public is veryconscious of individuals' rights, and rightly so. Thereis a growth of advocacy bodies in this area. We canno longer get away with the policy of the past, whichwas to put society's problems behind closed doorsand pretend that they did not exist, underfund themand treat them as second-class citizens. That is theold mentality. We must move on from there. It willcost us money to do that. We are honest and upfront in saying, "Yes, it is going to cost us money."As a society, we need to redirect our resources intothese much-neglected social areas. We have had 32years of the sort of mentality that says, "We willprovide a service—any service—and we will cut thecosts to fit the money that we have rather thanlooking at the service that we are providing."

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I note that the sameprocess was established in Victoria, and Iunderstand that the reality has not lived up to theideal. I want to discuss another matter with regard tointellectual disability services. I understand that somepeople take in a number of adults with intellectualdisabilities, but there is no licensing of thosepremises. Have you considered that licensing ofsuch premises may be necessary? There is arequirement that child-care centres operating undersimilar conditions must be licensed.

Ms WARNER: Are you are talking about thehostel situation?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Homes or hostels—as Iunderstand it, there are different sorts ofestablishments. A number of them are operating onthe Gold Coast, as I understand it.

Ms WARNER: Are you talking about thealternate living service?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: No. These people aresetting up a service without any program, and peoplewith intellectual disabilities go and live with them.There are concerns about the influence that suchpeople may have over the intellectually disabledpeople who pay to stay with them.

Ms WARNER: You seem to be suggesting anarrangement with which we are not familiar—thatthere is some sort of syndrome of individuals takingfour or five intellectually disabled people into theirown houses.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is correct.

Ms WARNER: If those people were purportingto run a service for people with intellectualdisabilities, we would have concerns about that. As I


understand it, we know of very few examples of thatsituation.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: One or two cases isenough to warrant concern, though, is it not?

Ms WARNER: People with intellectualdisabilities have rights to have relationships withother individuals in the community. If they choose tolive with them in their own houses, I do not knowthat that is a matter for State intervention. On theother hand, if you are talking about some sort ofarrangement which is undertaken for profit orcommercial gain, that is another situation, but it doesnot sound like that is what you are talking about.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I think I should provideyou with some details later.

Ms WARNER: Perhaps you ought speak to meafterwards if you have evidence of any widespreadactivity of that nature.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I can pass on suchinformation. I turn now to the Legal Friend. Theannual report of the Intellectually Disabled CitizensCouncil of Queensland shows an alarming escalationin the number of applications for assistance from theLegal Friend, rising from 192 in 1987 to 1 785 for lastyear. That is an enormous escalation. It is claimedthat in 1991-92 the Legal Friend had a budget of$58,000 and that that was reduced to $50,000 in1992-93. I imagine part of that allocation would go tothe Volunteer Friends Program, as well. The sameannual report indicates that the number of referrals tothe Volunteer Friends Program has diminished. In the12 months from 1991-92 to 1992-93, the number ofreferrals decreased by 25 per cent. Do you think thatthe allocation of funds to those two programs iscorrect, when one has a huge increase in referralsyet the Volunteer Friends Program has experienceda lesser demand?

Ms WARNER: Sorry, say that last bit again?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The number of referrals tothe Volunteer Friends Program is declining, but thenumber of people seeking help from the Legal Friendis increasing at an enormous rate. Do you think thebudgetary allocations are correct?

Ms WARNER: I am not quite sure of thefigures that you are quoting, but the figures are thatthe current budget for the council is $946,000.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Can you break it down abit more than that?

Ms WARNER: It has 24 staff, 13 councilmembers——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: What about the allocationfor the Legal friend? What is the budget for that?

Ms WARNER: Without the salary component,the administrative costs for the Legal Friend are$58,000; then he receives his salary on top of that.The costs for the volunteer friend system, notincluding salaries, are $70,000. We have increasedthe costs in the area of the activities of the LegalFriend because the number of people who areinvolved in assisted decision making within thecommunity is growing. That is because when yourGovernment framed this particular piece oflegislation, it was meant to catch only people with an

intellectual disability, but it was framed in such a waythat it included anybody who was unable, forwhatever reason of mental incapacity, to makedecisions for themselves. The IDCCQ—theIntellectually Disabled Citizens Council ofQueensland—has been dealing with a hugeexplosion of work in the area of Alzheimer's diseaseand in a considerable number of other areas aspeople seek to utilise the services of the LegalFriend more.

One of the problems that has created a bit of apolicy hiatus in this area for us is that we are waitingon the Law Reform Commission's report into thewhole area of assisted decision making so that wecan either reform the legislation or improve the levelof services available in this area. We really have beenwaiting for that report. I am just about getting to thestage where I do not think that we will be able to waitmuch longer, because we have waited too long. Wemust do something about the fact that a largenumber of people with Alzheimer's disease areutilising these services, which were never designedin practical terms to deal with that quantity of work.We must look at people in the Health Departmentsupplying these sorts of services for what arebasically their clients rather than ours.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: While you are on thatsubject, may I suggest that you have a close look atthe role of the Public Trustee in the handling offinancial matters and where he fits in with the LegalFriend?

Ms WARNER: That is incorporated in what theLaw Reform Commission is doing. It is having aglobal look at a cross-Government approach to thewhole area of assisted decision making and theappropriate social response. We are eagerly awaitingits recommendations so that we can implement somemuch-needed reforms in this area.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: So there is a need to lookat the relationship between the Legal Friend and thePublic Trustee.

Ms WARNER: Yes.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I have run out ofquestions.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes yourquestions? I thank the Minister——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I have not asked anyquestions about Corporate Services, have I?

The CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes inwhich to do so.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will move on toCorporate Services. The Auditor-General, of course,was once again to the fore there when he identifiedsome problems with administration in CorporateServices. Salary overpayments and their recoupmentand also unacquitted travel advances—in bothinstances, pretty substantial amounts of money havebeen identified. There has been some action taken toredress the situation, but in your documents you areindicating some sort of changes to the administrativeset-ups. Can you give an assurance to theCommittee that in fact you have practices in place


now where salary overpayments and travel advanceswill be under control?

Ms WARNER: What was the last bit of thequestion?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Can you give anassurance that you have an administrative system inplace now where these unacquitted travel advancesthat stood at $270,000——

Ms WARNER: Hang on, you are talkingabout——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Unacquitted traveladvances of——

Ms WARNER: Or the salary overpayments,which bit do you want me to answer first?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Both parts.

Ms WARNER: Well, it is very difficult to dothat, so I will take the salary overpayments first. Theissue here is that the human resource managementsystem does not match the shift workers' site rosterthat we have within our Department. That is what hascreated the basic problem for salary overpayments,and that is something that we are——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Why should that matter?

Ms WARNER: That is something that we arelooking at dealing with. The unrecoveredoverpayments as of 25 June 1993 were $59,000-odd,as reported by the Auditor-General. This amount of$59,454 has been reduced to $13,832 by recoveryaction to date, with the remaining balance beingrepaid regularly by the employees and formeremployees who are concerned. As I say, the reasonwhy this has occurred is because the system thatwas put in place as a result of the advice from thePSMC is not consistent with a shift work rostercycle. We will be looking at the recovery process. Atthe moment, the whole system is the subject of awhole-of-Government review——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Everything is going to behunky-dory.

Ms WARNER:—with the PSMC and theDepartment of Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: What, have you told thePSMC where to get off? Have you said that yoursystem would have been better?

Ms WARNER: I am explaining to you what thereasons are for the overpayments which occurredand I have explained to you the measures——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: You have not guaranteedthat it is going to be right in the future.

Ms WARNER: No. I have explained to you themeasures that we have taken to recover the moneyand I have also explained to you what theGovernment is doing about fixing that particularproblem.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: But you have not given aguarantee that it will be right.

Ms WARNER: No.Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will note that. Now can

we deal with the unacquitted travel advances—$270,404?Ms WARNER: The outstanding travel

acquittals as of 30 June 1993 were $270,750, and allof those have been finalised and have all beenacquitted, okay?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: But it still happens, it islike the nail in the wall, is it not, the mud is still there?

Ms WARNER: You will always have a smallproportion of accounts which are not acquitted. Atthe moment, we have $29,636 which have not——

Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is a lot less than$270,000.

Ms WARNER: Apparently, the system againwas changed from being given 90 per cent of theadvance, so there was a bit of an incentive foremployees to give you the acquittal so they couldget the other 10 per cent. That practice was changedto giving the 100 per cent advance and, of course,the incentive is not as great then to do thepaperwork.

The CHAIRMAN: Time has expired forquestions. That concludes the investigation ofEstimates for the Department of Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs. I thank the Ministerand her departmental officers for their cooperationand assistance here today. I also thank members ofthe Committee for their contribution to thisexamination of the Estimates and close the hearinguntil 7.30.



The Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE

In AttendanceHon. M. Robson, Minister for Environment and

Heritage

Ms Liz Bourne, Ministerial Policy AdviserMr Damian McGreevy, Senior Ministerial Policy

Adviser

Mr Barton Green, Ministerial Media Adviser

Dr Craig Emerson, Director-GeneralMr Tom Tolhurst, Deputy Director-General

Mr Graham Inglis, Cabinet Legislation andLiaison Officer

Mr Rod Arnott, Director of Corporate Services

Mr Paul Rafter, Executive Manager, FinancialServices Branch

Mr Davis Robertson, Management AccountantDr Ian Wilson, Director, Environment Planning

Branch

Mr David Miles, Director, Waste ManagementBranch

Mr Les Barkla, Acting Manager (Administration),Division of Environment

Dr Peter Nimmo, Director, PollutionManagement Branch

Mr John Gilmour, Executive Director(Environment)

Mr Jon Womersley, Director, Cultural HeritageBranch

Mr Bruce Gall, Director, Queensland NationalParks and Wildlife Service

Mr Chris Pattearson, Director, CoastalManagement Branch

Mr Paul Sattler, Acting Director, ConservationStrategy Branch

Mr Bill Dixon, Manager, Work and LabourMarket Program Unit

Mr Clive Hughes, Manager (Administration),Division of Conservation

Mr Ross Rolfe, Executive Director(Conservation)

Mr Des Boyland, Regional Director(Southeastern)

The CHAIRMAN: I declare open the resumedhearings of Estimates Committee D. The Committeehas previously dealt with two Departments today,that is, the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racingand the Department of Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs. Estimates CommitteeD now proceeds to conduct its investigation of theEstimates of the Ministry of Environment andHeritage.

Just for the information of members, theMinister and her departmental staff, I point out thatquestions from the Committee will be limited to oneminute, and answers are limited to three minutes.

Fifteen seconds before the end of any such timeperiod, you will hear a single chime from ourtimekeeper and a double chime at the expiry of thetime limit allowed.

In accordance with the Sessional Ordersgoverning the Estimates process, the first 20 minutesof questions will be from non-Government membersof the Committee on my left, the second 20 minutesfrom Government members on my right, and so on inrotation.

As I mentioned at the commencement of theprevious departmental Estimates today, for theefficiency of these proceedings and for the benefitof departmental staff, this Committee has resolved torefine the Estimates process somewhat compared toprevious days' Estimates hearings to try to deal withprogram areas of each Department in turn. Thisevening, we will deal with the program area ofConservation first, followed by Environment, andthen other matters such as Corporate Services.Although there will be some overlap in some of thequestioning, members of the Committee haveagreed, so far as possible, to separate theirquestions into those program areas.

We have had no notice of questions frommembers of Parliament who are not members of theCommittee, so the only questions will be from themembers present this evening. As I said, there havebeen no questions on notice, but any questionswhich the Minister seeks to take on notice we willprovide to you as soon as possible so that aresponse can be furnished to the Committee,hopefully by the end of tomorrow.

So I declare the proposed expenditure for theMinistry of Environment and Heritage open forexamination. The question before the Committee is—


Material prepared by the research staff of theCommittee has been furnished to the Minister andthe Department. I now invite the Minister to make abrief opening statement.

Ms ROBSON: Thank you. I welcome theopportunity to debate the Estimates for theDepartment of Environment and Heritage withmembers of the Estimates committee. As we allknow, this is a major reform of the Goss Governmentwhich is designed to further increase theaccountability of all Government portfolios.

Since becoming the Minister for Environmentand Heritage, I have sought to extend portfolioactivities gradually towards the "brown" issues ofpollution control and, in particular, improved air andwater quality and better waste management whilemaintaining the focus on the conservation of ournatural resources. A clear manifestation of this shift isthe huge amount of effort that is devoted to finalisingthis legislation, which will modernise environmentalmanagement in Queensland while at the same timestreamlining the approval processes. In this Budget,the Government has provided up to $4.8m toimplement the Environmental Protection Act.

In the area of waste management—members ofthe Committee will be aware that the Government


has released a draft Waste Management Strategy forpublic consultation. The Government has allocated$1.1m to implement the Waste Management Strategyin 1994-95. This increased emphasis on pollutioncontrol and waste management does not mean thatthe Government is lessening its commitment to theConservation Program; quite to the contrary. TheGovernment has approved major new initiatives inthe Conservation Program, and an amount of $4mhas been provided to the Department of Environmentand Heritage for the establishment of a RegionalOpen Space System in south-east Queensland aspart of the Government's response to the SEQ 2001planning exercise.

The Regional Open Space System is designedto ensure that south-east Queensland will remain oneof the best places in Australia in which to live and, inthe process, avoiding the prospect of a Los Angeles-style urban conurbation. Funding of $4.25m for theacquisition of the former Starcke Pastoral Holdingshas been provided in this Budget. In total, more than$136m has been provided in 1994-95, including newinitiative funding of around about $13m. I welcomequestions on these Estimates from members of theCommittee.

The CHAIRMAN: Questioning will be openedby Mr Slack.

Mr SLACK: I note that this year's Budgetallocation to Conservation is $115.3m, down $11.5mon last year's expenditure of $126.8m. It alsorepresents a fall of $15.2m on last year's Budgetfigure of $130.5m. Could you please explain thisdrop, when other Departments have receivedincreases?

Ms ROBSON: I think that members willunderstand that the nature of our ConservationBudget and, in fact, all the Budget of the Departmentof Environment and Heritage is not perhaps in thesame way comparable with the way that otherBudgets have run, simply because we run a lot ofprograms which may run for one, two or three years.

In the case of this particular Budget, there are avariety of reasons for change. I can go through them,if you wish. There is quite a lot of detail, but the netresult you have talked about is the winding up of theFraser Island package and the Wet Tropics package,which is obviously in the same position.

Mr SLACK: Could you indicate the figure thatis involved?

Ms ROBSON: I can give you all the amounts.There is a difference of $30,967,000, which is areduction because of programs winding up or insome way diminishing. There is also an addition of$20,000,864, which gives you the net effect that youare talking about. That is fundamentally the way thatDEH has actually costed its projects. I can give youmore details of these.

Mr SLACK: There is a carryover from the lastBudget. The allocation for the last Budget was notspent. There was a drop. In the previous Budget, theTreasurer allowed you to carry money forward. Whydid that not occur this time?

Ms ROBSON: Mr Emerson might like toaddress that particular issue.

Dr EMERSON: The carryovers have beenallowed to be taken forward. In fact, we have not lostmoney. You referred firstly to money that wasallowed to be carried forward from '93. There is noindication in the subsequent paragraph with respectto the carry forward from last year to this year. Themain reason for that is that we are still not at the endof the financial year. All you can do is estimate whatthe amount of carryover might be. We will be in a lotbetter position, as all departments would be, by theend of the financial year to say what the actualcarryover or underspend is. On that basis, we haveno reason to believe that we will not be allowed tocarry that over—quite the contrary.

Mr SLACK: In respect to moneys, if they weresurplus in a particular program, did you have theopportunity to transfer those moneys to anotherprogram?

Ms ROBSON: I think you would have toprobably be a bit more specific about whichparticular program you are talking about. If it iswithin——

Mr SLACK: I am just going on the Budgetfigures.

Ms ROBSON:—the same department——Mr SLACK: You have not used the full

amount..

Ms ROBSON: That happens for a variety ofreasons. Again, we would have to be a bit morespecific in terms of which particular moneys you aretalking about, for example, Jobs for the Environmentor for the Youth Conservation Corps. There mightbe a carryover because all of the positions have notbeen filled which may be because of a lack of supplyin terms of the Commonwealth Employment Servicesupplying us with the personnel that we are lookingfor or the correct personnel being supplied.

Mr SLACK: The Director-General would knowareas where a specific program may not have beencompleted or have used the full allocation within thelast Budget. Are there any of those situations?

Ms ROBSON: I think that he has indicated toyou that we are not at the end of the financial year,so at this point we do not have those final figures towork off. I think that is the most accurate answer thatwe can give you.

Mr SLACK: In the Estimates you referred tomoneys to come from a national park visit fee. It hasbeen flagged for quite some time. You have talkedabout it on air. At one stage you talked about whichparticular parks may be involved. In respect to acharge, have you determined that fee as yet? If so,what will it be?

Ms ROBSON: What we have done is look at amethodology that is workable. A lot of interestingissues were raised when we floated the idea of userpays—issues such as how it would be collected,what parks would be appropriate, whether we haveto put barriers up or whether it is a low-key or high-key initiative in terms of putting a lot of infrastructurein place. We explored a couple of models. MyDepartment is currently working up a model whichwe have agreed would probably be the most


workable model in terms of practicality and reality incollecting fees. It is still intended that it will betrialled on a limited number of parks.

Mr SLACK: With due respect, we werelooking at this when we were in Government. I amsure that the Department was looking at models atthat stage. We have been talking about it for sometime. When do you expect that this will beannounced? The public are asking me. You flaggedit in the Budget as an income item for this particularcalendar year.

Ms ROBSON: That is right. We have flagged itfor this financial year. Our intention is that we willstart collecting it at some time during this financialyear when we have determined the model that webelieve will work best. We are hoping that that will besooner rather than later. The other thing that youhave to be aware of is that it is no good our putting amodel in place which in the long term will not work.

Mr SLACK: Have you done any estimates onthe cost of collecting the fee?

Ms ROBSON: That is what I have said. We arecurrently working up that proposal based on the finalmodel that we have decided upon which we believewill be workable and which we have looked atoperating in other States.

Mr SLACK: Can you give me the current areain hectares in national parks within each region? I donot mind if you take that on notice.

Ms ROBSON: Within each region?

Mr SLACK: Within each regional area of theDepartment—the current area of national parks.

Ms ROBSON: I understood the question. I donot have that information in my head. I will wait forMr Rolfe to produce it. Mr Rolfe has just informed methat we have only the global figures.

Mr SLACK: And the number of national parks,if you could include those.

Ms ROBSON: We have actually got it bygeographic regions, of which there are 13. Is that asuitable response for you—by geographic regions?

Mr SLACK: If that is all that you can supply.

Ms ROBSON: We do not normally have themavailable in regions.

Mr SLACK: I will accept that. If you could putthe other question on notice in respect to the actualregions?

Ms ROBSON: If you want it broken down intothe five regions around the State, that is fine. Thetotal that we are talking about here is——

Mr SLACK: I suggest that the question beplaced on notice.

Ms ROBSON: I think that might be better andthen we can put it into the form in which you want it.

Mr SLACK: I turn to the management ofnational parks. I note that there is an allocation of$2.7m provided for capital works in this year'sBudget compared with $5.6m in 1993. Could youexplain what the $2.7m includes and the reason forthe fall this year in comparison with last year?

Ms ROBSON: The $2.7m, as you said, hasbeen provided for national park capital works.$2.234m will be expended on the redevelopment ofmanagement infrastructure—that is, fencing,firebreaks, staff accommodation, workshed andsupport facilities—and on national parks and otherclasses of protected areas throughout the State.New national parks acquired during this presentGovernment's term are included in this figure.$390,000 is to be expended on upgradingrecreational facilities in national parks and relatedreserves which are in need of repair or replacement.This will be primarily south-eastern Queensland,including Fleay's Fauna Reserve. Capital worksfunding to protect cultural resources on protectedarea estates involves $35,000 to continuepreservation works at St Helena, and $55,000 forrestoration of the beacon on Raine Island. Summaryof capital works expenditure in national parks, as Ihave just detailed to you, is $2.234m oninfrastructure. Recreation infrastructure is $0.39mand cultural resource protection on national park is$0.35m and $0.55m, which is a total of $2.719m. Interms of the difference between the existing Budgetand the previous year's Budget, we have a figure of$5.6m.

Mr ROLFE: The additional money that we gotfrom national park management in last year's Budget,which is a different thing to the capital worksprogram.

Mr SLACK: What would concern me, if I amallowed to comment on it, is that you have adecreasing amount, because the figure the yearbefore was higher than the $5.6m, and there areincreasing demands on national parks. Could I get abreak-up of that $2.7m per region?

Ms ROBSON: This is the estimatedexpenditure. There is a land acquisition budget of$7.7m and a separate SEQ 2001 land acquisition of$4m. The national parks development works—theregions are far northern——

Mr SLACK: No, no, I think you misunderstandme. The $2.7m that I am referring to——

Ms ROBSON: Can you just give me areference page in your papers?

Mr SLACK: The $2.7m is on every——

Ms ROBSON: Give me a reference and then Iwill follow that reference and we can take it fromthere.

Mr SLACK: It is mentioned in these papers asa $2.7m allocation.

Ms ROBSON: Right, but which page are youreferring to so that we are both working off the samefigures?

Mr SLACK: What I am getting at is that anoverall $2.7m that you referred to a moment ago isput down for management and capital works. It is notin these papers that I have, but what I am looking foris a break-up of that $2.7m per region.

Ms ROBSON: That is what I am about to giveyou. I was just about to read you that.

Mr SLACK: But you were talking about $4m; Iam talking about $2.7m.


Ms ROBSON: I just said that that is a separateone—SEQ. I will give you the breakdown of the$2.7m. It is national park development works and it isas follows: the far northern region, $495,000; thenorthern region, $495,000; the central region,$495,000; the south-eastern region, $525,000; thesouth-western region, $555,000; and the head officeis $154,000. That makes up the total that you aretalking about.

Mr SLACK: What is the estimated overalloperating cost of each region this year?

Ms ROBSON: For what?Mr SLACK: The budget for each region.

Ms ROBSON: For each regional office?Mr SLACK: Yes.

Ms ROBSON: We will have to put that one onnotice.

Mr SLACK: Put that one on notice. Can yougive me the cost for last year?

Ms ROBSON: Last year's documentation isavailable. It has been published and it is availablethrough the normal procedures.

Mr SLACK: Would you be able to also give methe breakup between wages and the component ofeach region and the other costs?

Ms ROBSON: The projected costs for 1994-95?

Mr SLACK: In each region.

Ms ROBSON: We will have a look. We willproduce what we can in relation to the regionalcosts.

Mr SLACK: And the same applies to thebreakup between administrative costs and directoperational costs of national parks within eachregion. Is there a figure available for that?

Ms ROBSON: It is very difficult to estimatedirect operational costs. Do you want each nationalpark or each region?

Mr SLACK: For national parks within eachregion. The whole of the national parks would have abudget for operational costs, I would imagine.

Ms ROBSON: That is right. That is theproblem. The regional offices operate on an overallbudget. There are estimated projections for what itwill cost for a year. We can give you those figures.We will give you as much of a breakdown of that aswe can.

Mr SLACK: What I am looking at are figuresthat should be within that cost structure for nationalparks, for argument's sake, for erosion control. Thatis one. Feral animal control is another. What will bebudgeted in each region for feral animal controlwithin the national parks in that area? What has beenallocated for weed control in national parks?

Ms ROBSON: What I am probably saying toyou is that there are programs that may be designedfor pest and weed control which will have a programfigure allocated to it. I think you have to accept thatwe have a multi-skilling approach to our operators,and whilst that program money may be allocated, it is

pretty difficult to determine exactly. The sorts ofsubprogram headings that I can provide you with willgive you an indication of what I am talking about. Forexample, in the far northern region there issubprogram funding for parks and wildlife, forconservation strategy, the cultural heritage programsand the coastal management strategy. Those are thesorts of figures that are submitted to the Treasurerfor approval without the finer breakdowns that youare talking about.

Mr SLACK: But within each region thereshould be some allocation, for argument's sake, forfire prevention and fire control. There has been thesituation with fires in New South Wales; it should bea priority of national parks to ensure that there isprovision of adequate fire control and prevention.

Ms ROBSON: Sure.Mr SLACK: Within the budget of a region,

surely it is not unrealistic to expect that there will bean allocation there for fire prevention and control. If Iam doing the budget for my property or whatever,the same would apply as far as a budget for erosioncontrol or feral animal control. That is what I amseeking.

Ms ROBSON: I think that is what I just said Iwill give you. I will give you that. I have said thattwice.

Mr SLACK: It is just an overall program thatinvolves so many things, you are not really giving methat figure.

Ms ROBSON: I will give you what figures wehave available to address that question. I think that isall I can offer you at the moment.

Mr SLACK: Is it possible to give me theallocation for new plant and equipment in eachregion?

Ms ROBSON: I will attempt to do that.

Mr SLACK: And the same as far as roads areconcerned.

Ms ROBSON: We will give you the totalbudget, which will include all those components.

Mr SLACK: No, that is not what I am asking.

Ms ROBSON: There is no additionalcomponent for them. There is a regional budget foreach of the five regions within which there arevarious components making up that total. We willgive you that detail.

Mr SLACK: And surely within that there arebreakups for these items that I mentioned?

Ms ROBSON: That is what we will give you.We will give you the program funding figures.

Mr SLACK: Is it the same for roads and roadmaintenance in national parks in each region? Surelythose people within that region, if they are not there,can give us the figures.

Ms ROBSON: Mr Slack, I have repeated thatwe will give you those figures within the programallocations.

Mr SLACK: I note that you have a provision toemploy 30 additional national park rangers. Howmany national park rangers are employed in each


region now and how many of those 30 additionalrangers will be employed in each region? There is areference on page 10 in the papers that I have.

Ms ROBSON: So you want it broken downagain at a regional level?

Mr SLACK: Yes. What number of rangers is ineach region?

Ms ROBSON: We do not have that here,apparently, but we can supply that to you.

Mr SLACK: I did mention to the Estimatescommittee in one of our meetings that I would belooking for breakups in regions.

Ms ROBSON: I do not know that that wasmentioned to me. That message did not get to us,unfortunately.

Mr SLACK: You referred to 512 rangersincreasing to 542 rangers. Do these figures includecadet rangers, and if so, how many are classed ascadet rangers?

Ms ROBSON: Do you want to know whattraining program they are going through, too?

Mr SLACK: Of course. Are they fully qualified?How long have they been in service? Are some ofthose people newly appointed?

Ms ROBSON: May I suggest that these areprojections for training programs which have to besubjected to the Treasury process before we evenget to the consideration of what their name, rank andserial number will be. I am informed that that increasefrom 512 to 542 rangers will occur across the Stateand will involve temporary officers, some of whomwill be employed in coastal management areas, forexample, Moreton Bay and Trinity Inlet. Others willbe employed on specific project work, for example,capital works Statewide.

Mr SLACK: The temporary officers, they willbe a contract-type arrangement? They will not bepermanent employees, I take it?

Dr EMERSON: A temporary employee doesnot in fact have a formal contract, it is a standardarrangement that is entered into with the Departmentof Environment and Heritage. Temporary employeesare just that. If you get new initiative funding, oneconsequence of that can be that you can put ontemporary rangers, or temporary employees.

Mr SLACK: How many of the 542 that you arereferring to in the projection for this budget figurewill be temporary?

Ms ROBSON: Of that, it is estimated that 59will be directly employed in relation to the coastalmanagement subprogram, as I alluded to before.They could be temporary for a variety of reasons.One of them could be that the program may only runfor 12 months or two years. It may be animplementation program. For example, it may be theimplementation of the coastal protection legislation,and it is estimated that they will only be required forthat period of time. That does not mean to say thatwhen those temporary appointments are completedthere will not be others to take their place for a newproject, and that would be future planning foranother year. This number does not include new

initiative coastal rangers to be employed in 1994-95.The number in that particular subprogram is actuallyfive. I think again it is a reflection, in terms of some ofthese temporary people, that they will in fact, as Ihave said, be employed for a year, two years, andthey are not taken on under the terms that we wouldtake on, say, full-time professional staff or rangers, orwhatever. There is a variety of categories that weactually put these people into. I mean, Dr Emersonhas just said to me that some of those 542 arepermanent but may just be filling a position on atemporary basis, as I have just explained to you.Again, it is the nature of the sort of program workthat we run.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the firstbracket of questioning from Opposition members.We now turn to questioning from Governmentmembers. I invite questions from, firstly, Dr Clark, themember for Barron River.

Dr CLARK: My first couple of questions relateto coastal management issues. If I can just refer topage 13 in the departmental Estimates, I would like toask some questions about management of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. This particular table onpage 13 refers to the Commonwealth funding for theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park and the estimate forthis year is $7.216m. I have not been able to findanywhere where our State contribution to funding isitemised. I was wondering if you would be able toprovide that for me. The decrease in Commonwealthfunding in this table from $8.378m down to$7.216m—I was just wondering what might be theimplications of that decrease in Commonwealthfunding?

Ms ROBSON: Again, as I referred to before, itis one of those issues where, as the funding packagemoves on, it sometimes decreases. In this case, theCommonwealth funding that you refer to in that$7.216m—$3.658m is Commonwealth and $3.558m isState. It is split that way. There is marginally morefrom the Commonwealth because of a standingarrangement with them. The further breakdown for1994-95 of their marine park budget is as follows: theState Treasury contribution is $3.058m; theDepartment of Environment and Heritagecontribution is $200,000; user-pays fees will generate$110,000; and asset sales and fines and receipts,$190,000. That gives our total of $3.558m. TheCommonwealth contribution there is $3.468m, plusanother assets or fines income receipts of $190,000,giving you the grand total that you talked about. Asyou have accurately said, that represents a drop inthe marine park funding from 1993-94 to 1994-95.That is because the 1993-94 budget includedfunding of $1.466m for the purchase and upgradingof vessels. Obviously, that is a fairly vital componentof their operations. So that figure for asset salesreflects that change of vessels. The 1994-95 budgetwill only include $500,000 in the vessel replacementprogram and does not involve major initial capitalfunding for the acquisition of new vessels. Soclearly, what has happened is that we have reachedthe point where there is not a requirement and therehas not been an allocation requested from thatauthority for any additional funding.


Dr CLARK: My second question on the coastalmanagement issues was in Budget Related Paper No.3, an amount of $150,000 was indicated as havingbeen provided for departmental activities associatedwith the new State marine parks for Wonga Beach,Marlin Coast and Trinity Inlet in far-northQueensland. I was hoping, Minister, that perhapsyou could explain actually how this money will bespent this year and give us a timetable for thegazettal of these new marine park areas.

Ms ROBSON: As you are very familiar, DrClark, we have been trying to accommodate this inour budget for the last year or so, and we are verypleased that we have been able to accommodate this$150,000 for these proposed new marine parks forthe Marlin Coast and the Trinity Coast in far-northQueensland. The activities associated with theproposed park will be indicated in the followingexpenditure: first of all, there will be an allocation insupport of the Trinity Inlet Management Program,and the Department will contribute 25 per cent ofcosts of running the TIMP office and staff for sixmonths—it is salary and program coordinator andsecretary plus office expenses—and it is proposedthat the Cairns Port Authority and two localgovernment agencies will contribute the balance ofthe funds for a further six months. There will be theemployment of two temporary planning staff for ninemonths to assist in the resource assessment andcommunity consultation process that is required inthe preparation of zoning plans for those two newmarine parks. There will be the purchase of a vehicleand office equipment to service those staff, and anoperating fund to cover vehicle running costs,printing distribution and the usual costs—communityconsultation and education, and general office costs.

The anticipated timetable is: close ofsubmissions on the issues document by the end ofthis month, June 1994; submission of a draft zoningplan to Cabinet should happen by late September1994; public release of the draft zoning plan, lateOctober 1994; close of public submissions,mid-December 1994; and submission of the final planto Cabinet, late April 1995. The final release in thegazettal, I would say, late May 1995. That is theprogram that we have planned.

Dr CLARK: Thank you. As a supplementary tothat—would it be the Department's intention thatthese State marine parks would just form onecomponent of a coastal management plan for theCairns area once we get the new legislation in place?

Ms ROBSON: Yes. Indeed, all of our marineparks form part of our total coastal managementstrategy. The intention is that we have standardswhich are as uniform as possible, given the diversityand the nature of our coastal areas and the marineparks that we will be zoning in the future. So yes, it ispart of that particular approach that we have taken.The coastal protection legislation will, of course,reinforce that. It will, as you are aware, collapsevarious procedures and existing legislation into onecomprehensive Act, which will, we hope, give morethan adequate protection into the future for all of ourcoastal areas.

Dr CLARK: Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: I now invite the member forCurrumbin, Ms Rose, to ask questions.

Mrs ROSE: Thank you. Minister, I am verypleased to be able to ask you about funding whichhas been allocated for the Tweed River Sand BypassSystem. There has been $1.5m provided as a firstinstalment of a three-year commitment to the TweedRiver Sand Bypass System. How will this money bespent? Can you please tell me how much the wholeproject will eventually cost?

Ms ROBSON: The Tweed River entrance sandbypassing project is the result of an agreementbetween the Premiers of New South Wales andQueensland, which has culminated in their signing anagreement on 31 March 1994. This particular project,which is very complex, involves the design,construction and operation of a permanent sandbypassing system at the Tweed River entrancetogether with the initial dredging of the entrance andnourishment of the southern Gold Coast beaches.The project is estimated to cost $53.4m intotal—sorry, in net present value terms, in 1990dollars, which is the estimation, with a projected costof $25.5m over the three years, 1994-1995 to 1996-1997. The New South Wales Government has agreedto meet 75 per cent of the initial capital costs of$23.5m, 50 per cent of the recurrent operation andmaintenance costs of $1.96m per annum and 50 percent of replacement costs estimated at $8.45m every25 years. Queensland will finance the remainder,which the Queensland Government and the GoldCoast City Council will share on a fifty-fifty basis.The State Government's commitment over the threeyears, 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 is, therefore,estimated at $2.94m for capital costs and $0.49m forrecurrent costs in 1996-1997 and thereafter, plusproject support costs of $0.25m per annum.

In 1994-95, $1.25m is estimated to be paid bythe Queensland Government as its part of the capitalcost of the initial dredging and nourishment. Thisinitial version of the project budget is based on initialnourishment in 1994-95, bypassing systemconstruction in 1995-96, and ongoing bypassingsystem operation in, and from, 1996-97. Obviously,the budget will be subject to review in consultationwith New South Wales as we move through theprogram. Under the terms of the head of agreement,all parties, including the Queensland Government,will be required to provide their share of actualproject costs as they occur.

Mrs ROSE: I would also like to address thesouthern Gold Coast beaches nourishment project.Budget Related Paper No. 3 refers to $267,000 tocontinue monitoring the southern Gold Coast beachnourishment project. Can you please explain wherein the Budget Papers or Budget Estimates thesefunds are provided? Could you tell us how thesefunds will be spent in the Budget year?

Ms ROBSON: The funds appear in the BudgetPapers as a Treasury "special", which is not to beconfused with a Woolworths special. The southernGold Coast beach nourishment project wascommenced in 1989 as a result of the Cabinetdecision to restore beaches in the area. As themember for Currumbin knows, that has been


something that the council has been pushing for along time. At the time, this was the largest beachnourishment program in Queensland. It involved theuse of new and innovative technology in a complexphysical environment, and therefore warranted closemonitoring to ensure its success.

The project involved the dredging of 3.6 millioncubic metres of sand from offshore and placing it on,or near, the southern Gold Coast beaches. As part ofthe project, there were to be beach stabilisationworks and project monitoring works. The totalproject cost to the end of 1994-95 will be $16m. Ithas been jointly funded, with 75 per cent from theQueensland Government and the remaining 25 percent from the Gold Coast City Council. The projectis due to be completed in 1994-95. The monitoringprogram for 1994-95 will include sand level surveys,both of the dredge-borrow area and the nourishedbeaches, measurement of wave and currentconditions, and aerial photography.

The data is interpreted to assess the beachnourishment technique used to improve the accuracyof estimates of sand movements in the area, a veryvital component of that program. Further work will beundertaken in conjunction with the Tweed RiverSand Bypass Project, which we have just talkedabout. Obviously, as I have said, this is a jointQueensland/New South Wales Government initiative.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: We have heard so muchabout the Cape Melville National Park. Can yououtline what measures you have taken in this budgetto improve management in that area?

Ms ROBSON: Obviously, we are all familiarwith the problems at Cape Melville. They are notrecent; they have been going on since the earlyeighties. In consideration of the recent Governmentaction to acquire the Starcke aggregation, which willeffectively extend the existing Cape Melville NationalPark, a decision has been made to dedicate a seniorofficer for a minimum of 12 months to develop, inconjunction with any board of managementconstituted under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991,some planning strategies that will consider thelong-term management and protection of natural andcultural resources within the area.

This planning strategy will include considerationof specific management requirements for the foxtailpalms. On-ground management is to be enhancedthrough the recent establishment of a QueenslandNational Parks and Wildlife Service district office inCooktown, with one AO4 district ranger and one R4park ranger based at that location. An additional parkranger position has been allocated to the CapeMelville National Park. This core group of three staffwill have responsibility for the day-to-daymanagement of parks north of Cooktown, includingCape Melville. There is provision in this budget fortwo vehicles.

The region has also created the position ofsenior investigations officer, AO5, who isresponsible to the regional director for allenforcement coordination in the region. The positionwill give the region the capacity for effective andprofessional surveillance in enforcement situationssuch as in Cape Melville. Base funding will be

redistributed in the region to meet operationalexpenses associated with the positions, with CapeMelville National Park sharing in the formulation ofthe Starcke aggregation and park plan. The budget is$156,000—$126,000 for wages and $30,000 foroperational expenses.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Can you outline in thisbudget how you intend to improve the managementof national parks in the far northern region? Can yougive me a breakdown of how many rangers you willbe appointing in that region. I know you haveappointed 542 Statewide. Can you give me abreakdown for that region?

Ms ROBSON: Taking your last point first—in1993-94, an additional 13 field-based ranger staffwere appointed to national parks throughout theregion. This new funding initiative is to become anaddition to base in the 1994-95 financial year, andpositions will become part of the regional work force.The Wet Tropics Management Authority will alsocontinue to fund an additional 16 field-based rangersthat have come on stream during the 1993-94 yearthroughout parks in the Wet Tropics district.

The regional focus is on the managementprocesses that threaten the integrity of the naturalsystems in the areas. It is essential to concentrate onspecies in communities that are threatened in theircapacity to sustain viable populations. In that regard,decisions are continually reviewed to ensure that themost appropriate allocations are made at all times.

User-pays allocations will be directed toimproving visitor infrastructure on a number ofnational parks, and capital works funds will contributeto both that process and the construction ofstock-proof fences, in line with joint agreementsreached with our park neighbours.

The budget for 1994-95 from ConsolidatedRevenue is as follows: salaries, wages and labour,including the 13 new staff, $1.824m; operating costs,$341,000; capital works on national parks, $495,000;the Wet Tropics Fund, salaries and wages andoperating project-based costs, $1.7m; revenueretention, $220,000; and Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander land interests has a special allocation of$450,000. That will all be spent in that area.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I know that you cannotbreak down the figure by regions, but can you giveme a total sum that you will be spending on bushfireprevention and controlled burning Statewide? Thatcould depend on whether it rains. Those problemscan occur.

Ms ROBSON: Yes. It is a bit hard to burnwhen it rains. In Queensland, we have alwaysundertaken a very rigorous campaign of prescribedburns. Clearly, that has been the reason that we havenot had the sorts of bushfire problems that Sydneyexperienced recently over the Christmas holidaybreak. I will outline to you a bit of our program.

We did a fairly comprehensive analysis of thesituation in Sydney, in as much as you can relate it toour situation. The result of that was that the majorityof those fires, we found, originated outside nationalparks and travelled into those areas. DEH officersrecently inspected some of the major fire sites near


Sydney and undertook detailed discussions with theNew South Wales National Parks and WildlifeService staff on fire management, and attended acourse on occupational health and safety relevant tobushfire fighting. Again, this is the sort of trainingthat we like to offer our staff that is relevant to thecurrent problems in this State.

Prescribed burning to both reduce fuel as a firehazard and to meet necessary ecologicalconsideration of the natural communities in parks iscarried out extensively in Cape York, the CentralHighlands and many coastal parks, particularly inheath areas. As staff and resources are placed innewly acquired western parks, prescribed burningregimes for these areas will be undertaken.Approximately $1.5m—which is salaries, wages andoperating costs—is expended on fire managementannually. This figure encompasses operations onparks such as prescribed burns and wildfires,purchase of fire equipment, training of staff in firemanagement—and that is fire behaviour andfirefighting, fire control, etc.—development ofwildfire response procedures and liaison with firemanagement authorities and park neighbours on firemanagement issues. Approximately $0.5m wasexpended on upgrading fences and firebreaks. Thesource of these particular funds is through capitalworks programs.

The Conservation Division's training office hasconducted several fire schools over the last threeyears, providing training for over half of the currentranger staff. 1994-95 will see similar figures—$1.5moperational and maintenance and $0.5m fences andfirebreaks—for further upgrading. The Queenslandbushfire strategy report undertaken by aninterdepartmental audit team and to be resubmittedto Cabinet in late June has addressed many of theissues central to fire management in our natural areas.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes questioningfrom Government members. We now return to afurther bracket of questioning from Mr Slack.

Mr SLACK: You seemed to be much morespecific in your answers to the member for Albert.Could I follow on from some of the questions that heraised in respect to national parks and theemployment of rangers? I have several questionshere—a couple of which I have asked you—inrespect to the break-up of the rangers employed ineach region. I also referred to the number of rangerswho were on renewable contract, to which youreferred in your last answer before the Governmentmembers of the Committee asked you questions. Ofthe 512 rangers who were employed last year, Ireferred to cadet rangers. Could you indicate to mewhether included in that figure were people whowere employed under the funding provided for theYouth Conservation Corps or the Jobs for theEnvironment Program, or were those 512 rangers allexperienced rangers?

Ms ROBSON: No, they are not part of theYCC or the Jobs for the Environment program; atotally separate set of figures covers those twoprograms. They are not included in my mainstreambudget.

Mr SLACK: But you did refer to programs thatrangers——

Ms ROBSON: Yes, of course. That is what Iwas trying to indicate to you. My budget is inflatedand deflated according to one, two, three or four-year programs that roll past. The YCC and the Jobsfor the Environment programs are a typical exampleof the sorts of programs to which I am referring, but Ido not include those costs in terms of what we weretalking about before; nor are those people part of mypermanent ranger structure. It may be that, havingbeen through those programs and having beentrained under those particular programs—both ofwhich are excellent training programs—people endup applying for and obtaining full-time jobs in somepart of my structure. However, they are not includedin the figures that I gave you.

Mr SLACK: To simplify that, if I place aquestion on notice to you, could you give me abreak-up of those rangers who have been employedfor over three years within the department?

Ms ROBSON: Again, could I suggest toyou——

Mr SLACK: In each region.Ms ROBSON: If we are talking about forward

Estimates, and we are talking about the current——

Mr SLACK: Your department can come upwith that.

Ms ROBSON: Let me finish my response. Iunderstood that we were debating forwardEstimates. Somebody may have progressed throughthe ranks from a junior officer cadet to a seniorofficer. However, I am not prepared to give you anhistorical breakdown of each individual category. Iam certainly prepared to give you future projectionsfor the categories—for example, AO4 or whatever itmay be, or the ranger categories under which we arecurrently employing people—but I am not preparedto provide an historical accounting of how long aparticular member of my staff has been on the staffand what they have been doing during that period.

Mr SLACK: Could you give me a break-up ofthose rangers who have been employed by theDepartment of Environment and Heritage for morethan three years?

Ms ROBSON: I will answer your questionagain. Perhaps I can do this more simply ordifferently.

Mr SLACK: No, you do not need to. Eitheryou will or you will not.

Ms ROBSON: I am trying to debate with youthe forward Estimates for 1994-95—what we aredoing now and what our planning for future staff willbe. I have given you those figures, and somequestions on notice will indicate the answers tosome questions, but I will not undertake an historicalanalysis of 500-odd staff for you.

Mr SLACK: Could you indicate how manypermanent rangers you have in respect to thenumber of national parks in each region? In otherwords, how many national parks have permanentrangers on them in each region?


Ms ROBSON: We can provide you with thosefigures, but I will not give you an employment historyof each one of them.

Mr SLACK: Referring now to Starcke——

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Using the informationthat departmental staff have, is the Minister able toanswer that question now?

Ms ROBSON: Mr Slack wants the number ofpermanent rangers. We have a variety of categories.It is really difficult to say how many permanentrangers we have, because they come in differentgrades and different categories.

Mr SLACK: I want to know the number ofpermanent rangers, not the number of rangers whoare just visiting.

Ms ROBSON: So you want the number ofpermanent rangers as compared with the number oftemporary rangers?

Mr SLACK: Can you give me a break-up ofthose national parks that have permanent rangers onthem?

Ms ROBSON: But compared with what? Thatis what I am trying to ascertain. Do you want themcompared with the number of temporary rangers, aswe referred to with our initiative programs? Thecategorisation is not as simple as saying——

Mr SLACK: Yes, where have you a ranger onall the time—a permanent ranger.

Ms ROBSON: You want full-time rangers inpermanent placement?

Mr SLACK: I want a break-up of those nationalparks within each region that have full-time rangers.

Ms ROBSON: I can give you some figuresthat may answer your question. The answer is thatthe resources necessary for the management of eachpark are those which are necessary for basicoperations; essential resource management such asfire management, weed control and feral animalcontrol; rehabilitation works; maintenance of visitorfacilities; and park interpretation and planningfacilities.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Chairman——The CHAIRMAN: Let the Minister continue.

Ms ROBSON: There is an average of 3.9positions per base across the State when allpositions are filled. Currently, there areapproximately 3.7 positions per base, as at least 25vacancies are currently unfilled. The majority of parkbases would have either 1.5 or 2 wages positions,which are rangers. The term "base" is used to refer toa range of management units. Bases varyconsiderably and may be an individual park, amanagement unit centre—and that can be an office intown—a district centre, a regional centre or a headoffice. Therefore, deriving an average figure for amanagement unit does not reflect the nature ofmanagement operations for the protected areaestate. Some park officers comprise half a position,regional officers up to 10, and there are 11permanent staff based in head office. In total, theNational Parks and Wildlife Subprogram employs 542rangers, as we have indicated, including those

rangers who are now employed on island parks.Some positions dedicated to park management havecross-program responsibilities—for example, regionaland district managers, who cover both QueenslandNational Parks and Wildlife Service and theConservation Strategy Branch. That is an indicationof why it is so difficult: we multiskill our people.However, we can offer you that advice.

Mr SLACK: I turn to Starcke. The member forAlbert asked a question in respect to that purchase.It has been indicated that $4.25m will be expendedon the purchase of Starcke. I note from the Budgetfigures that half of that amount—$2.125m orwhatever—is to come from the Commonwealth, so itis not all State money. Earlier, you answered aquestion in respect to the management of Starcke.The budget for the management of Starcke will beincorporated with the budget for the management ofthe Cape Melville National Park. I ask: is the CapeMelville National Park ranger to be stationed onStarcke and operate from Starcke, or will he or sheoperate from Cape Melville itself?

Ms ROBSON: I mentioned earlier in theanswer to the member for Albert that the threerangers who are currently there are based atCooktown, but it is very feasible that when Starckedoes come on-line, that we will probably facilitatethem there. That decision has not been made andthat decision is not necessarily in this year's Budgetforward planning.

Mr SLACK: I have a specific reason for askingthat question because the homestead where I wouldassume you would base them, if you were to basethem on Starcke, would be probably 14-hours' drivefrom Cape Melville over a pretty horrific road stretch,so in actual fact their operational capacity from theStarcke homestead—at the bottom ofStarcke—would be very difficult.

Ms ROBSON: I would suggest that isprobably why we have not taken a decision yet as towhere we will base them, and that is one of thereasons why we have not had a permanent base inCape Melville—well, it is one of the many reasonswhy we have not, but, certainly, it is a very difficultarea to access and it is a very dangerous area for avariety of reasons to place people in there on apermanent basis.

Mr SLACK: Minister, as you will appreciate, Iam aware of some of the conditions at Cape Melville.However, I am also aware that Customs' estimate ofthe foxtail palm seeds that went out of Cape Melvillelast year is about 700 000, which is quite a significantfigure in terms of their value—and that was for thesummer. I have been told that is conservative. Itwould seem to me that it would be a reasonableproposition to have a ranger there, even if onlybecause of the cost recovery factor. Maybeconsideration could go to some harvesting of theseeds to get some recovery for the cost ofstationing a ranger there, then that would ensure thatyou have some seeds regenerating within that park,rather than the situation at present, where it is openslather.

Ms ROBSON: I think I have probablyanswered your question by saying that there are


three rangers based at Cooktown. I am not preparedto discuss your estimate or anyone else's estimate ofhow many seeds have been removed from the parkin the context of an Estimates debate.

Mr SLACK: Because not all of Starcke isgoing to be used for environment and heritagepurposes, in other words it will be used for nationalpark, is there any likelihood of a contribution fromother sources towards the purchase of that particularproperty, apart from the Commonwealth? A certainamount of it is being used for other purposes.

Ms ROBSON: I think the details that havebeen presented by the Premier in terms of who iscontributing to the purchasing fund for the Starckeproperty have been fairly specific and that decisionis the decision that we have taken for the time being.Part of that funding that came through theCommonwealth was from ATSIC, and that was alsoannounced by the Premier at the time and, quiteclearly, there was a great willingness by the ATSICpeople to negotiate in terms of contributing to thepurchase of that property because it is seen by theAboriginal people to be of great significance to them.I would reiterate the fact that it is a joint package andit will be jointly managed in part. It is not just a simpletenure, as you would be aware.

Mr SLACK: In respect to the Starckepurchase, there is 380 000 hectares of land fornational parks this year. Is the Starcke land includedin that? I understand it is not included in the $7.7mthat is allocated for national park acquisition.

Ms ROBSON: No, it is not my understandingthat it is, no. It is a separate acquisition.

Mr SLACK: Could I just get clarification,because some people have drawn thatinterpretation?

Ms ROBSON: Well, I have presented twoseparate figures to you and one of them is theStarcke figure and one of them is the national parkacquisition, and that indicates also that the hectaresthat we are talking about are two separate figures.

Mr SLACK: They are two separate figures, andthe $4m is not included in the $7.7m?

Ms ROBSON: I am informed that the Starckeacquisition is 135 000 hectares.

Mr SLACK: So that is not included in the——Ms ROBSON: I just said that.

Mr SLACK: Is there any contribution fromprivate enterprise towards the employment ofrangers or the provision of facilities to environmentand heritage in any of the regions and, if so, in whatform and where and by whom?

Ms ROBSON: It would be lovely if there was,Mr Slack. I am not aware of any contribution thatprivate enterprise would make to that sort ofmanagement, and I would probably think it was notappropriate that they should.

Mr SLACK: Well, it has been put to me that,for argument's sake, there has been an arrangementwith Lindeman Island.

Ms ROBSON: If you could give me some sortof evidence or indication of who has put it to you

and in what terms, that would be useful to me,because I am not aware of it. I would love to have asupplementation to my Budget from privateenterprise.

Mr SLACK: Within the Budget allocation thereis a heading, "Specific Purpose CommonwealthFunding". The Budget for the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority was $8.7m in 1993-94; it hasdropped to $7.126m for 1994-95. Why was thisreduced when there was increasing pressure on thereef and I understand from a Senate Estimatescommittee that the people from the Great BarrierReef Marine Park Authority were unhappy with theamount of funding that was coming from theCommonwealth? Why was it reduced in thosecircumstances?

Ms ROBSON: Mr Chairman, I have alreadyanswered this for the member for Barron River, but Iwill answer it again, if you like.

Mr SLACK: Why was it reduced?

Ms ROBSON: It was reduced because the1993-94 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityBudget included funding of $1.466m for thepurchase and upgrade of its vessels, and the1994-95 Budget will include only $500,000 for thatpurpose.

Mr SLACK: But do other pressures within thatGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as far asdemands are concerned——

Ms ROBSON: Could you tell me what theyare?

Mr SLACK: They came out of that Senatehearing. There are specific instances of the extracosts to GBRMPA now where it requires extramoney while some of those programs may bereduced. It needs more money, but you still haveextra demands for increasing tourism, you have extrademands from litigation as far as Aboriginal claimsunder Mabo and all of these sorts of things. Theywere looking for extra funding rather than a reductionin funding.

Ms ROBSON: I explained to you what thatreduction was. Apart from that, the actual funding isnot being reduced and their Budget is beingsustained and maintained at that level. I do not knowwhere you get your information from, but theyapparently believe that funding to be substantial.

Mr SLACK: Are you aware, from argument'ssake, that the marine observatory in Townsville ishaving financial problems?

Ms ROBSON: I am aware of the financialsituation. I would not put it in terms of it havingfinancial problems. There are managementconsiderations going on about how it should be andwhere it should be, etc., but I again reiterate that thebasic maintenance funding for that body has notbeen reduced and there is no intention to cut it downat this stage.

Mr EMERSON: Perhaps if I can just add onthat because I am a member of the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority. Are you referring to theaquarium at Townsville?

Mr SLACK: Yes.


Dr EMERSON: We have had a good look atthat in terms of comparing it with other likeinstitutions around Australia and the level of costrecovery for that is far and away greater than for anyother similar institution—for example, the MaritimeMuseum in Sydney—and, yes, there is a shortfall thatneeds topping up from general consolidatedrevenue, but comparatively its performance in termsof cost recovery is very good.

Mr SLACK: The National Trust receivedfunding last year. Is it the intention of theGovernment to provide the same type of funding thisyear to the National Trust?

Ms ROBSON: Obviously, the level of fundingto the National Trust has changed and there is anagreement with the National Trust that because theywere doing a lot of the work that our HeritageCouncil is now doing for us and for the people ofQueensland, that their level of funding was higherand this year it was reduced. Dr Emerson was justsaying to me that we dropped it last year to $50,000.It will be maintained at that level, and that isfundamentally because we now have a HeritageCouncil in place which is doing, as I said, a lot of thatwork of identifying and acting upon the preservationof heritage places. I have spoken to them about it;they understand the situation. Quite clearly, theywould like to maintain a higher level of funding, butthey also understand that the additional cost to theQueensland people of running the Heritage Counciland its activities is going to have some impact ontheir level of funding. However, I would add to thatby saying that we place a very high value on thework of the National Trust around this State. It hasbeen invaluable historically and we will certainlycontinue to support them into the future.

Mr SLACK: That figure of $50,000—are yousure of that figure? I thought it was higher than that.

Ms ROBSON: It was dropped in 1993-94, andit has been maintained at that level. They had theirfirst reduced grant this year.

Mr SLACK: When would they expect to getthat?

Ms ROBSON: They got it in recent months. Icannot give you an exact date. It comes around at aregular time every year when the grants go out.

Mr SLACK: I understand that, last year, it didnot come at the same time as they always expectedit; that it arrived in December.

Ms ROBSON: It could have been a bit later ora bit earlier; it depends on the processing. Weactually had quite a record number of requests forgrants through the National Estate Program. Therewas quite a prolonged process of sorting throughthem. It is always very hard to make decisions aboutwho gets the money and how much they get. Itcould have been that that program was held up for aperiod. I am advised that they will get their moneysoon after the beginning of this financial year.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Chairman, I would liketo raise a point of order in relation to the questionsfrom the member for Burnett to the Minister. Heasked for specific information with regard to theemployment records of members of the Department.

The Minister made the comment that she was notprepared to give the information. I would beconfident that somewhere within the Departmentthere is information about the employment history ofall the employees. We are a Committee of theParliament. It was a fair question; he asked on noticethat this sort of information be made available. Is itright that the Minister should say that she is notprepared to provide that information to a Committeeof this Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee, while it is aCommittee of the Parliament, is also a Committee ofthe Budget Estimates. It is not a Committee with aroving brief to inquire into each and every element ofinformation in the Department. As I have indicated tomembers previously, questions need to be related tocurrent year or prospective Budget Estimates. So itmight be appropriate, for example, to ask questionsabout how many staff are employed, what categoriesof employment are involved and what the costs are.

I assume that the Minister is saying that it is notthat she refuses to give information but that shedoes not regard it as a valid question within theSessional Orders of this Committee. I am inclined toaccept that view, that the private employmentrecords of members of staff are not matters that goto the question of Budget Estimates.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It was not a matter ofinformation about the private matters of anemployee. It was a question framed to know howmany of the staff in fact had so many years'experience. Earlier today, when I was askingquestions of the Minister for Family Services, theDirector-General very quickly offered me informationwith regard to the length of service and age of manypeople tied up with Corrective Services andProtective Services within the Family ServicesDepartment. We are not asking for information aboutprivate individuals. We are asking about numbers andpercentages of employees of the Department andthe length of service they have within National Parks.I think we are having information withheld from thisCommittee.

The CHAIRMAN: Let me consider that for amoment. The Committee may have to adjourn toconsider this matter in private. Before doing so, Ioffer the Minister the opportunity to considerwhether she may wish to take on notice a questionwhich simply asks what number of park rangers havebeen employed for three years or more, and whetherthat information can be obtained conveniently.

Ms ROBSON: That is probably a questionthat, given that I have 542 of them, would consumean inordinate amount of my staff's very valuable time.This is the reason that I hesitated to offer it. I wouldsuggest that it is a question that is more properly puton notice in question time in the Parliament, at whichtime I would be happy to provide it.

Mr SLACK: That is an amazing answer.

Ms ROBSON: No, it is not. We are talkingabout Estimates. I have a very clear definition in mymind—and I do not know about you. I am nowtalking to this debate on Estimates for 1994-95. Theconvolution of how the history of the rangers on my


staff is relevant to that debate you have not madeclear to me. I do not accept your point that it isrelevant. But I am happy, as I have said, if you put iton notice in question time, and we will look into it.

Mr SLACK: With respect, the reason I askedthe question is because it is a budgetary item for anincrease in the number of rangers. I am trying toestablish the experience of those rangers you areemploying. That is a legitimate question, I wouldhave thought.

Ms ROBSON: If you want to talk about thedifferential between the currently employed rangersand the increment that is proposed, that is relevant,in my view. However, I do not find it relevant toanswer your question which you originally put aboutthe employment history of 540-plus rangers. That isthe point that I would insist upon in terms of thisparticular debate. The debate should be held in theParliament where it is more relevant.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: This is Parliament.

Ms ROBSON: This is not the Parliament. Thisis an Estimates Committee debate of the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN: I will hear one furthersubmission from Mr Littleproud or Mr Slack before Irule. Do you have anything further to say?

Mr SLACK: I just think that it is a legitimatequestion in respect of the rangers who areemployed—if we are going to look to what theirexperience is to do their job, and in respect to theregions and the numbers that are there. They areemployed in national parks. You will appreciate thatthere have been many questions asked in thecommunity about the management of national parks.There have been many questions about the length ofservice of rangers. It has been a current topic. It isnot a debate on the issue; it is purely a seeking ofinformation for this Committee.

Ms ROBSON: Which I believe I haveprovided, where it is relevant, to the 1994-95Estimates debate.

Mr SLACK: That is your opinion.

The CHAIRMAN: I am going to rule that thequestion, so far as it relates to past employees, is outof order. But the question would be in order if thequestion was seeking to obtain information about thelevel of experience which would be required of thenew employees to be employed to make up theadditional employees, which will lift the number to542. To that extent, the question would be in order,and I would ask that it be taken on notice. If thequestion is to extend beyond that, then I rule that itis not in order—relating to an Estimate of the Budget.

Mr SLACK: In respect of your ruling, MrChairman, I would point out that, if you are talkingabout 30 new rangers, it would not be expected thatthey would be departmental employees of threeyears' standing. I would assume they are going to beappointed from training programs or whatever; so thequestion then becomes relevant.

Ms ROBSON: They may not be. They may betaken from a variety of pools. There may bepromotions inside the current departmental structure.I do not know that. We determine the range of

positions and the categories that they will be slottedinto and paid and trained for. But where they comefrom is not predetermined and will be determinedwhen applications are called for the particularpositions.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I recall the Premier'scomments in Parliament last week when he wastalking about the goodwill of this new Committee. Ido not believe that the question asked by themember for Burnett was unreasonable. He was tryingto ascertain what level of experience was out there inthe staff who service the national parks ofQueensland. The refusal of the Minister——

The CHAIRMAN: I understand your point. Ihave made a ruling. The basis of the ruling is twofold.Firstly, the question of years of experience does notautomatically go to the question of Budgetallocations. It does not ask how much has beenallocated in the past year's Budget or in theprospective Budget for people at various levels. Inparticular, the reason I do not regard it as areasonable question for this Budget Estimate is thatit imposes on the Department an unreasonablerequest to determine information across more than500 staff, which information is not readily available. Ifit was readily collated or there was already someinformation collated to indicate how many staff in thevarious categories there were, then it might beregarded as a reasonable request. However, thatinformation would have to be obtained by going itemby item to each of the employment records of over500 staff. In those circumstances, I do not regard itas a reasonable question.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I would dissent from yourruling. From my background in the Department ofEducation, in which there were 25 000 teachers and35 000 employees, my understanding of thatDepartment was that it was pretty easy to ascertainthe history of the employment of those people. Youhave made your ruling, but I dissent from it.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you move a motion ofdissent?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I do, yes.

The CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn andconsider the matter in camera.

The Committee adjourned at 8.52 p.m.The Committee resumed at 9.01 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I call the resumption of themeeting of Estimates Committee D in relation to theEstimates of the Ministry of Environment andHeritage. The Committee adjourned to consider thedissent from my ruling by the member for WesternDowns, Mr Littleproud. The Committee deliberatedon my ruling and Mr Littleproud proceeded to put hismotion of dissent from my ruling. The motion was putand was resolved in the negative, four votes tothree. We proceed with questioning, and it is nowthe turn of the Government members to askquestions. I invite Dr Clark to proceed with herquestions. We continue in the program area ofConservation.

Dr CLARK: I would like to refer to BudgetRelated Paper No. 3 and ask some questions about


the Youth Conservation Corps scheme. Has anevaluation of this project been carried out—it hasnow been in operation for two years—and if therehas been an evaluation, what does that indicate?Secondly, how much of the $8.7m set aside for thatscheme is coming from the State Budget and howmuch from the Commonwealth? Finally, if this is thelast year of that Federal funding, will the YouthConservation Corps program be scaled down oractually phased out at the end of this financial year?

Ms ROBSON: I thank you for the question.The Youth Conservation Corps has been a uniquelysuccessful program, I believe, which was establishedin May 1992 as a joint initiative of my department andthe Department of Employment, VocationalEducation, Training and Industrial Relations. It is aprogram that is designed to provide employment andtraining for young people aged between 15 and 20years, with a view in our case to developing workskills in ecotourism in related areas whilst stillmaintaining their eligibility for Commonwealthbenefits. It is jointly funded by the CommonwealthDepartment of Employment, Education and Trainingunder the LEAP program— the Land Care andEnvironment Action Program.

The State Government's commitment to theprogram was approved by Cabinet on 27 April 1992and was to provide 1 500 places over a three-yearperiod at a total cost of $12m. In the period July1992 to June 1994, the Youth Conservation Corpshas provided 1 040 places for trainees in 80 projectsaround the State and it has involved youngunemployed people in accredited training throughTAFE and project work on the State's national parkand State forestry estate. Three months aftercompletion of the programs, some 65 per cent ofparticipants had found work or further education andtraining; 58 per cent are in employment and 7 percent are undertaking further training, which is anextremely high figure to be achieved compared withthe statistics of the rest of Australia.

Project work that they have done is estimatedto be valued at some $3m, and that would be costedat commercial rates for the same jobs. As I said, ithas been completed on the State's national park andforestry estate. Those figures are relative to the endof March 1994. In 1994-95, the program will providean additional 460 places in 35 projects, which iscompleting the Government's commitment to achieve1 500 places over three years.

To answer the other part of your question—thetotal State expenditure on the three-year program is$10.64m. In 1992-93, it was $2.88m; in 1993-94, itwas $4.212m; and in 1994-95, it was $3.64m. TheCommonwealth expenditure on the three-yearprogram is $10.93m, which is comprised over thosesame three years of $1.879m, $4.02m and $5.042m.There are 72 staff employed at regional level and twostaff at head office to deliver and administer theprogram. An independent evaluation of the programwill be conducted in the first quarter of 1994-95, thecurrent year, to make a recommendation on thefuture of the program.

Dr CLARK: My next question relates to theWet Tropics Management Agency. I am a little bit

confused about some of the figures that theCommittee has had before it. In Budget RelatedPaper No. 3 a figure of $10.2m appears as being theallocation from the State and CommonwealthGovernments. In your departmental budgetEstimates papers on page 4, an amount of $12.846mis set down as being available. Could you first of allclarify which of those figures is the accurate one andif there is an explanation of the difference, pleaseprovide it? Once again, if you have the figuresavailable, could you give the breakdown of the Stateand Commonwealth contributions, and if you areaware, could you perhaps identify some of the keyprograms for the Wet Tropics Management Agencythat they have planned for the 1994-95 year?

Ms ROBSON: The budget for the WetTropics Management Agency as presented in thepaper you referred to is made up of Commonwealthfunding of $5.855m and State funding of $2.891mplus in-kind funding by the State Government of$1.481m, which is a total of $10.2m. This in-kindfunding, which is the confusion, is the calculation ofthe provision of services to the Wet Tropics bymembers of the Queensland National Parks andWildlife Service, and it was part of the originalagreement that we made that existing staff andservices that were being provided throughout ourdepartment would be provided additionally to thatauthority. So an in-kind calculation was made.

The Budget Estimates papers includeCommonwealth funding of $5.855m, State funding of$2.891m and the Commonwealth Government's$4.1m for the Daintree rescue package, a total of$12.846m. The Commonwealth Government's $4.1mcommitment to the Daintree rescue package is notincluded in Budget Related Paper No. 3 under the"Wet Tropics" heading, it is included under the"Acquisitions" heading. What I am illustrating to youis that both figures are essentially correct. There is adifference in the figures in terms of the way theyhave been presented which has caused someconfusion. The principal activities to be undertakenduring 1994-95 include the finalisation of the WetTropics Management Plan, extension of the researchand inventory program, and establishment of severalregional visitor centres. In 1994-95, particularattention will be given to involving Aboriginal peoplein the management of the area with the appointment,hopefully, of several Aboriginal liaison officers.

Dr CLARK: Right. Perhaps I could just seek aclarification about the Daintree rescue packagebecause there has been, I think, some confusionabout that when the Treasurer indicated that it hadappeared too late to be included in the BudgetEstimates. I know that some people have interpretedthat—rather cynically, I thought—to mean that theyshould have less confidence in the commitment ofthe State Government in relation to that because ithad not been put into the Budget. From what youhave just told the Committee now, it appears that it isdefinitely in your departmental Budget Estimates. Sothere should be no doubt that that money is availableat all?

Ms ROBSON: There is no doubt, Dr Clark,that the money is available. The problem occurred


because of the Federal Government's announcementof their allocation, their part of that funding on adollar-for-dollar basis with the State Government,before they had actually notified us that they hadtaken that Budget decision. We were quitedelighted, obviously, that that decision had beentaken. It is obviously an issue of great concern to usthat land in the Daintree had been allowed to bebroken up and sold as freehold. We had beenworking through the Wet Tropics ManagementAgency and they had in fact prepared a paper forMinisterial Council and presented it, I believe, lastDecember—December 1993—and put up someproposals for land acquisition.

The Federal Government, as I said, made thatdecision and announced it prior to any formalnegotiation with the State Government. At the timeof that announcement, which was only a couple ofweeks before we announced our Budget, we hadalready locked our Budget in place. So weresponded by saying that we were delighted, butthat it was not locked into our Budget; however, wewould attempt to find the money over a period oftime, agreed with the Federal Government.Subsequently, I will be having discussions withSenator Faulkner, the Federal Minister for theEnvironment, to negotiate those terms andconditions and a time frame within which we will bothagree, hopefully, to proceed with the landacquisitions as presented in recommendations by theagency.

In terms of the amount, the Treasurer has givenan indication that he will accommodate, wherepossible, the time frame that we agreed. So I amsaying that those negotiations are currently underway, and I am sure that we will achieve it starting,hopefully, this financial year.

Dr CLARK: Thank you, Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: I now invite questions fromthe member for Albert, Mr Szczerbanik.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Recently, you announced$170,000 in grants to conservation organisations, yetthere is no reference to these in the Budget Papers.Is this another one of those red-spot specials?Where is the money provided from, and who isdetermined as eligible for these grants?

Ms ROBSON: No, it is not a red-spot special;it is part of the Department's base funding, which iswhy it is not indicated separately. That is theConsolidated Fund, and it operates specificallywithin the Executive Support Unit of theConservation Program. It is not itemised for thosereasons.

It is certainly proposed to continue this grantprogram, and an amount of $170,000 has beenallocated for this purpose. The procedure is thatadvertisements are placed—late September/earlyOctober 1994 this year—and application forms willbe sent direct to the State's peak conservationgroups so they can advise their affiliatedorganisations of the existence of the current grantprogram. Then completed applications are assessedin-house by a panel which is established specificallyfor this purpose. I am not on that panel, I might add

at this point. I distanced myself quite clearly from anyselection.

The criteria which are used when assessingeligible applications are briefly as follows: does theorganisation have the ability to self-fund itsproposals; does it have access to other grantprograms or corporate sponsorship; does the projecthave a conservation merit; does the projectcomplement the activities of the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage; and does the group havethe expertise to undertake the project that it isproposing. This project has now operated for fouryears—1994-95 will be the fifth year—and, generally,around 60 to 70 applications are received, of whichapproximately half are successful. The average grantis around the $2,000 to $3,000 mark.

The CHAIRMAN: No further questions?Mr SZCZERBANIK: No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN: I ask for any furtherquestions from the member for Currumbin, Mrs Rose.

Mrs ROSE: Minister, I make reference to theRAMSAR conference. Eighty-one thousand dollarshas been provided to coordinate the 1996 RAMSARconvention conference in Brisbane. Can you pleaseexplain what the RAMSAR conference is, where itwill be held, how it will benefit Queensland and whythis State Government is expending funds on it?

Ms ROBSON: Yes. It is a good question,because this particular convention is, I consider,something which will be quite a landmark forQueensland in 1996 if in fact we do get to host it,which we are very confident we will. The RAMSARconvention, or the Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance, Especially as Waterfowlhabitats, as it is formally known, is anintergovernmental treaty which provides theframework for international cooperation for theconservation of wetland habitats. The United NationsEducational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, orUNESCO, serves as depository for the convention.The secretariat or bureau, as it is called, is anindependent body administered by the WorldConservation Union, or IUCN, whose headquartersare located in Gland in Switzerland. Over 80countries throughout the world have signed aconvention and more are expected by 1996.Conferences are in fact held every three years.

The theme of the 1996 conference is coastalwetlands. At the fifth RAMSAR conventionconference held in Japan in June 1993, the AustralianGovernment successfully bid to host the sixthmeeting of contracting parties in March 1996. The1996 conference is, in fact, the twenty-fifthanniversary of the convention, and it will be the firstheld in the southern hemisphere.

The meetings of the conventions' contractingparties provide a focus for assessing progress onconserving the world's internationally importantwetlands and an opportunity for up to 1 200delegates worldwide to meet. Three othercities—Newcastle, Adelaide and Perth—have alsoexpressed an interest, but an important factor whichis taken into account by the Federal Governmentwhen selecting the host venue is the capacity of


each city to provide the complex facilities requiredby such an intergovernmental conference. Anotherfactor was the willingness of the host city and theState Government to enter into a cost-sharingpartnership with the Federal Government. Theproximity of a RAMSAR-listed site to a major citycapable of hosting the conference was also animportant consideration for the selection team. Asyou would be aware, Moreton Bay has recently beenadded to the list of wetlands of internationalimportance covered by the RAMSAR convention,along with Bowling Green Bay in Townsville.

Recent conventions have been widened toinclude the wide-use concept, which takes intoaccount the appreciable assemblage of rare orvulnerable species, such as turtles and dugongs,which inhabit the bay. In March, when theconference is scheduled, Moreton Bay is animportant area for migratory shore bird species,seven of international importance and nine of nationalimportance.

Just to give you a bit of a background as towhy we have bid to have it—I think certainly the Cityof Brisbane and the new South Bank ConventionCentre will well fulfil the organisational requirementsof that committee. As we all know, the bay is an idealvenue for people to explore their interest areas. TheRAMSAR meeting in 1996 will provide an opportunityfor showing off the day-to-day operations atfirst-hand. So we are very eager and very hopefulthat that will, in fact, be held in Brisbane in 1996.

Mrs ROSE: Thank you, Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: Are there any furtherquestions from Government members? Mrs Rose, doyou have another question?

Mrs ROSE: I have a question on the FraserImplementation Unit. Budget Related Paper No. 3provides only $637,000 for the FraserImplementation Unit. What happened to the GreatSandy rescue package that the Governmentprovided after it shut down the Fraser Island loggingindustry?

Ms ROBSON: The amount of $637,000 towhich you referred is the special funding provided tofinalise the implementation of the recommendationsof the Commission of Inquiry into the Conservation,Management and Use of Fraser Island and the GreatSandy Region and to meet the running costs of theFraser Implementation Unit in Brisbane and theFraser Implementation Centre in Maryborough.These funds will assist the Fraser ImplementationUnit with the development of the Great SandyRegion Management Bill, which will give legislativesupport to the Great Sandy Region ManagementPlan. The funding is additional to the funding of$38m provided to the Great Sandy Region throughthe growth and development package.

In addition to the $38m package, theCommonwealth Government has provided funding of$9m to meet taxation assessments on businesscompensation paid by the Queensland Government,giving a total package commitment by State andCommonwealth Governments of $47m. Funding of$7.88m will be available to the Great Sandy Region in

1994-95 from the growth and development packagetotal commitment of $47m. Projects andcommitments to be funded in that year from theamount of $7.88m include worker redundancymanagement, Maryborough heritage projects, parkmanagement projects, thinning of pine plantationprojects, miscellaneous employment creation andregional business promotion, business compensationand compensation to meet taxation assessments onbusiness compensation.

So the 1994-95 Estimate is based on thecarryover from 1993-94, which may vary prior toJune 30, as we indicated earlier. The total estimate ofexpenditure from the growth and developmentpackage is—and this is the figure for the 1991-92actuals—$12,239,932. In 1992-93, actuals were$18,819,383. And the Estimates for 1993-94— giventhat we do not have those figures as yet—are $9.5m.Funding available for 1994-95, as we have just said,is $7.88m. It is a total, therefore, of $48,439,315.Estimated overexpenditure will be offset byrecoupment in relation to the development at OrchidBeach of $1m; recoupment from sale of assets fromcompensated businesses, $730,000; and the sale ofBoral's Urangan mill site, $600,000.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes this bracketof questioning from Government members and thequestions on the Conservation Program. I thankthose members of the Department who have madethemselves available. I would ask that they remainavailable because, although we will now move intothe substantive area of the Environment Program, atthe end of this section the member for Burnett hasindicated that there may be some questions whichoverlap both program areas. So we now move to theEnvironment Program.

Mr SLACK: On page 3 of the documentssupplied to us there is an item for the EnvironmentTrust Fund—namely, $3.781m, which is itemised asbeing transferred to consolidated revenue. What isthe story behind that?

Mr GILMOUR: My understanding is that youare asking about the $3.781m. The true expenditurefor the Environment Program in 1993-94 is estimatedto be $16.336m. This figure is represented byprogram outlays of $15.769m, plus unrequitedtransfers of $0.597m. The remaining requited transferof $3.781m is a payment out of the StateEnvironment Trust Fund to reimburse theConsolidated Fund for payments made during theyear. This payment is a one-off payment to theConsolidated Fund from the State Environment TrustFund. It does not represent new or additionalexpenditure. In previous years, the expenditure waspaid directly out of the State Environment TrustFund.

This year it was decided, due to the anticipatedclosure of the State Environment Trust Fund, to payall expenditure out of that Consolidated Fund, withthe reimbursement to the Consolidated Fund fromthe State Environment Trust Fund at the end of year.This reimbursement will not reduce the expenditurecharged to the Consolidated Fund. Thus theestimated actual expenditure for total outlays in1993-94 of $20.147m includes an amount of $3.781m,


which is counted twice—firstly, when the originalexpenditure was incurred out of the ConsolidatedFund and, secondly, when the State EnvironmentTrust Fund reimbursed the Consolidated Fund fromthat expenditure.

Mr SLACK: I take it that that closes that fund?

Mr GILMOUR: Yes.Mr SLACK: And what was the purpose of that

fund originally?

Mr GILMOUR: The purpose of that fundoriginally was to take moneys collected from theClean Air Act, the Noise Abatement Act and theClean Waters Act for licence fees. Because thosefunds are generally collected in the fourth quarter ofthe financial year, that created problems in themanagement of our Budget. The funds came into theState Environment Trust Fund in the last part of thefinancial year. It was decided, essentially by theTreasury Department, that it would advance us fundsout of the Consolidated Fund and we wouldreimburse it from the State Environment Trust Fund.

Mr SLACK: As to the dollar per personenvironment levy being flagged by theGovernment—I understand that it is to be collectedby shire councils, and I also note that shire councilshave raised some objections to collecting it. Is thatprovided for within the $4.2m estimated income, asoutlined on page 25—licence fees and so on—tooffset the EPA introduction of the $4.8m?

Mr GILMOUR: Your question was aboutrevenue generated——

Mr SLACK: You have $4.8m allocated formeasures associated with the environmentalprotection legislation. On page 25, there is areference to just under $4.2m being raised in licencefees and so on. I take it that that would be offsetagainst the $4.8m for the environmental protectionlegislation. Is that $1 fee being flagged as included inthat $4.2m?

Ms ROBSON: No, it is not. I would like tostate at this point that that proposal is just that at themoment. As you would be aware, the WasteManagement Strategy is being floated in draft formfor comment. One of the suggestions for revenueraising for user-pays or polluter-pays principles wasthat we would put that charge on. As you have quiterightly said, there has been a reaction from thecommunity, from both local governments andindividuals, to the notion of paying $1 perhousehold, or $1 per person, or whatever is finallydecided. But the reality is that it is a draft strategy.

The user-pays principle, in terms of ourforward-thinking pollution policies, is one of the besttools for educating the community at large aboutminimising waste—and you would know about ourprograms of re-use, reduction and recycling, whichhave been very successful. This is a way to heightenawareness by saying that rubbish costs peoplemoney. It costs the State Government and localgovernment an inordinate amount of money to runlandfill and waste refuse facilities. It is being floatedunder that notion.

To us, it seems to be a very viable tool forrevenue raising for both levels of Government andalso for awareness raising for the community at largethat there is a cost attached to rubbish. It has notbeen included as part of that projected revenueincome simply because it is still in draft form. Wehave no certainty as to whether it will be acceptedand whether Cabinet will accept it.

Mr SLACK: So there still could be a figurethere, but it may not be $1; it could be a higher fee.

Ms ROBSON: Absolutely. It is all out there forsuggestion. The strategy outlines various ways ofrunning a waste management program, and that isone of the revenue-raising ideas that we havefloated. There will be a reaction to that, and with thatwe will receive some good alternative ideas on howwe can educate the public in waste managementissues.

Mr SLACK: Before you announced it, did youmake any inquiries as to what it was likely to cost tocollect?

Ms ROBSON: Of course we did. We referredearlier to user pays in national parks and the fact thatwe sought the best, most viable method of collectingrevenue. Quite clearly, we looked at the costimplications of collecting it—for example, the $1 thatwe are talking about through rates revenue, becausethat is already a facility that goes out to everyhouseholder or house-owner in Queensland— andthen an arrangement for the sharing with localgovernment of the proceeds of that revenuecollecting. Contrary to what many people are saying,there has been a very large amount of consultation inthe formulation of that waste management strategy.The relevant players in local government certainlyhave been inputting into that process.

Mr SLACK: It just strikes me that, apart fromany other arguments that may be put forward, $1would not cover the cost of collection.

Ms ROBSON: That is the cost that wasestimated for disposal of rubbish. I would suggest toyou that, if you look at the number of households inthis State, it will create a significant amount ofrevenue to deal with the waste managementproblems that we have.

Mr SLACK: I will take your word for it, but Inoted that in answer to a question this morning, onedepartment indicated that there was a charge of $18for writing a letter. Therefore, I was very surprisedthat you said——

Ms ROBSON: I do not think that is a faircomparison. I think that is comparing apples withcarrots.

Mr SLACK: You refer to $500,000 in grants toassist local authorities with licensing environmentalmonitoring and pollution activities. Is that the totalamount to be paid——

Ms ROBSON: What are you referring to?

Mr SLACK: The environmental strategydocument.

Ms ROBSON: Page?Mr SLACK: Page 5. It says—


"Waste and pollution management. $2m isbeing provided to continue funding forinitiatives announced in the last budget,including $500,000 in grants to assist localauthorities with licensing environmentalmonitoring and pollution activities."Ms ROBSON: Sorry, what was the question?

Mr SLACK: Will that cover the total cost oflocal authorities? Have they acknowledgedacceptance of that?

Ms ROBSON: We undertook a process ofdevolution to local government to encourage arealistic approach to the on-the-ground managementof the problems associated with monitoring variousforms of pollution. The local government response tothat clearly has had mixed elements. Because theyare already undertaking these activities, some localcouncils are very happy to take some money, and Ihave been handing out funding to them for a varietyof causes around the State. As I said, in 1993-94 weprovided $500,000 to local government to covertheir initial costs. Obviously, with noise monitoring,they have to buy noise monitoring equipment. Webelieved that we could go half and half in somecases, or whatever arrangement was made. Weoffered this to councils right around the State. Manyof them have taken it up.

At present, I think there are 130 local councilstructures. With amalgamations occurring, one losestrack of them. However, it is probably fair to say thatthere has been an element of resistance from somelocal government authorities. I have been workingwith the Local Government Association and withindividual councils to formulate how this can beimplemented. The reality of life is that local councilsare on the ground dealing with these problems andtaking phone calls, particularly relating to noise andair pollution problems. The State Government, ofcourse, is the regulating body that sets the standardsand provides an inspectorial service. Compliancemonitoring programs are in place, and they are beingincreased in the coming Budget. However, in realterms, local government is the hands-on, grassrootsGovernment that deals with irate ratepayers whensomething goes wrong in their backyard.

The other part of that philosophy is that localgovernments determine the zonings of the variousareas where these activities take place, so there is alogic in linking the outcomes of their decision makingto what their responsibilities will be. They will be ableto retain all of the revenue that they raise fromenvironmental licence fees on industries for whichthey are responsible under this devolution program.On the best estimate of each devolved industry, wepredict that more than $2.5m will be available eachyear for the ongoing management of these activities.

Mr SLACK: With respect to the costsassociated with the Environmental Protection Act, isthere a figure for what will be paid to the BrisbaneCity Council for its part?

Ms ROBSON: For what specific role?Mr SLACK: In the $4.8m allocated for the

implementation of the Environmental Protection Act,city councils and shire councils will receive money

for the part that they may play. Is the Brisbane CityCouncil——

Ms ROBSON: I might leave that to JohnGilmour to answer in detail.

Mr GILMOUR: Under the $4.786m initiative forthe environmental protection legislation, there is nospecific funding for any local government. There is arange of funding within that to provide a whole rangeof assistance to local governments throughout theState, which would include the Brisbane CityCouncil, but I would suggest that the Brisbane CityCouncil is not the one that needs the help; it is therange of smaller local governments throughoutQueensland that need help. In addition, there is anongoing initiative which has been mentioned by theMinister previously. Since 1992-93, we have beensetting up local government in Queensland toundertake this devolution. In 1992-93, $215,000worth of equipment was provided; in this financialyear, 1993-94, half a million dollars was provided toset up administrative structures to manage theenvironment; and, in the coming financial year, afurther half a million dollars will be provided to localgovernments to assist in establishing their datalicensing and management information systems toundertake the environmental protection legislationinitiative. Ongoing funding is also provided in theyear after that.

Mr SLACK: Minister, through you to MrGilmour—I refer again to the general reimbursementof costs to local government. I have referred to the$500,000 that was flagged in this environment andplanning booklet. What are the payments and whatwould be the total reimbursement provided this yearto city and local authorities?

Mr GILMOUR: As I just said—I am not quitesure whether I was clear—half a million dollars is thespecific funding that will be provided to localgovernment in the coming financial year to assist——

Mr SLACK: That is not the total amount?

Mr GILMOUR: That is the total amount.

Ms ROBSON: Half a million. It is based on ascale which was set up in terms of the population ofthe shire or the council, and it ranged from $500 to$40,000 in the form of those grants.

Mr SLACK: From E and H, that will be the totalamount for all programs?

Ms ROBSON: Sure; half a million dollars forthat particular program.

Mr SLACK: How much will go to localauthorities from the E and H budget for all programsinvolving local authorities?

Ms ROBSON: For what, devolution?

Mr SLACK: Yes, from E and H.Ms ROBSON: A half a million dollars.

Dr EMERSON: Perhaps I can add to that. Thedevolution program is to equip local authorities withinitial equipment and training in order to set them upfor the Environmental Protection Act so that theymight be able to effectively administer thecompliance, monitoring and enforcement of thoseactivities which are very much a localised activity. So


there is this $500,000 which has now been providedin each of a couple of years. To go back to the pointthat you raised earlier—last year, in 1993-94, theBrisbane City Council received $40,000 of thatfunding. That is one source of funding, but the othersource of funding—which will be quite substantiallylarger than that—is the ability of those localauthorities to apply licence fees themselves. That willnot be a direct transfer from the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage budget, but a capacity ontheir part to generate revenue from those licencefees.

Mr SLACK: What you are saying is that thereis the $500,000 plus the other incidental amounts,and that is the sum total, but they have a majorbenefit in that they can take the licence fees fromlicences that they may——

Dr EMERSON: That is correct. I think thedevolution program needs to be seen as a set-upprogram. As Mr Gilmour and the Minister said, someof these councils are not in a position to provide theinitial capital to buy monitoring equipment and so on.That is the initial set-up process, and that is what thedevolution program involves, in addition to sometraining. Then there is the ongoing contribution totheir budgets made available through the licencefees.

Mr SLACK: I will follow with another questionin respect to fees that may be charged tointernational parks or the dollar fee that you arereferring to. If you use your logic, you willautomatically expect to have a diminishing amountcoming from the Consolidated Fund to theDepartment of Environment and Heritage becauseyou have other means of income out of the systemthrough your introduction of user-pays.

Ms ROBSON: I do not know that I wouldextrapolate that.

Mr SLACK: There have been discussions withTreasury——

Ms ROBSON: I have heard the mediadiscussing it and I have heard people surmising.

Mr SLACK: It is the logic of it.Ms ROBSON: Well, it might be some people's

logic. I do not necessarily know that it is so becausewhat you have not put in there is a variable—anincreasing demand. You referred earlier to theincreasing demand for management funds fornational parks, which if you recall the original debate,was the reason that I raised the user-pays issueinitially. As soon as I did that, it was automaticallyextrapolated that I was doing that to offsetConsolidated Revenue funding, or our normalfunding base. I cannot draw that extrapolation,because we have consistently argued, and beensuccessful in arguing that, as we acquire additionalnational park and protected area estate, we requireadditional funding. Now, the Treasurer put it to usthis way: Treasury was happy to support thatphilosophy but we also had to help support theusage of those parks, and that user-pays was theway other States had gone. I totally agree. However,I think to extrapolate it out to the fact that, as weincrease our revenue from other sources, there will

be a withdrawal of support funding from the Statecoffers is not necessarily accurate. No evidence ofthat has been indicated to me by Treasury, oranyone else, and I take Treasury's word for itbecause it is the one I have to fight with for thefunding.

Mr SLACK: You say that it is not necessarilyso. Have you had any assurances from Treasury thatthat will not be the case? You can expect to get acommitment from the Consolidated Fund of a CPIfigure on what is being given now and you will nothave a situation where you will raise $Xm from feesand then Treasury will say, "Thank you very much,you can look after yourselves"?

Ms ROBSON: No, we have not had thatassurance. We have also not had it indicated to usthat that will be the outcome. I am not that much of apessimist and I can assure you that Treasury hasincreasingly, as has been indicated by our increasedBudget—which I think is something like three timesmore than when we came to Government——

Dr EMERSON: Give or take a dollar.

Ms ROBSON: Give or take a dollar—that thereis a requirement for sufficient funding to manage theState and to manage its programs.

Mr SLACK: You must have more faith inTreasury than I have.

Ms ROBSON: I do. I have an absolutelyincredible amount of faith in the Treasurer, and if Ikeep saying nice things about him, I will be sure ofgetting the funding.

Mr SLACK: Has there been an overallallocation of advertising, publicity, public relationsand public awareness programs by your Departmentand, if so, how much?

Ms ROBSON: We have a Corporate Servicesquestion here. I might flick that to Rod Arnott.

Mr ARNOTT: Could I seek your clarification,Mr Slack? Are you talking about advertising assuch—for instance, the Department advertises forjobs and that sort of thing—or are you talking abouteducation and information programs?

Mr SLACK: Has there been a collation of allthe advertising costs of the Department—publicity,awareness programs?

Mr ARNOTT: The advertising expenses for1993-94 were $300,632. That was for all advertising.

Mr SLACK: That is including your publicity,public relations and public awareness programs?

Mr ARNOTT: No, that does not include publicawareness programs.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes this bracketof questioning from the Opposition. We now go toquestions on the Conservation Program area frommembers of the Government. I invite questions fromthe member for Currumbin, Mrs Rose.

Mrs ROSE: Reference has already been madeto the $4.8m which has been provided to implementthe new Environmental Protection Act, and MrGilmour indicated that half a million dollars of thatwas to be directed towards local government. Couldyou clarify what the total $4.8m will be used for?


Ms ROBSON: It is a very important allocationin our Budget. Obviously, it is a major initiative and itis geared to significantly increase the protection ofthe environment in Queensland to meet theexpectations of the Government, the community andindustry at large. The funding will enable theprovision of adequate resources for theimplementation of the environmental protectionlegislation, which will shortly be introduced into theParliament and which provides the framework forenvironmental management within the State. Theinitiative will also allow for the appropriate licensingof premises in Queensland, including those whichwere not previously required to be licensed byexisting legislation.

Major activity will be to work with industry toensure that they have the ability to meet theenvironmental protection policies brought in underthe legislation through the development ofenvironmental management plans. This initiative willenable final development of air, water, noise andwaste policies and industry guidelines, support forany enforcement action which may be required,development of a comprehensive Statewidelicensing data base linked to local government,provision of an advisory service to local government,industry and the community, improved after-hourscomplaint investigations service, compliancemonitoring of all licence holders, staff training anddevelopment, provision of essential environmentalmonitoring and office equipment, publication ofmonitoring results and administrative and librarysupport. It is a fairly comprehensive program. That ismore or less just the bare bones of that initiative.

I can read out very briefly a list which illustratesthe significant segments of the implementation planfor which that funding has been allocated. Underpollution management, which is obviously a majorthrust of that legislation, it will cover issues likeprosecutions, appeals, warrants, support,environmental protection orders, on-the-spot fines,new licences, existing licences, environmentalmanagement plans, licensing data base, polluter-payspolicy, environmentally relevant activities, devolutionand delegation of support, noise monitoring,program auditing, etc. Under environmental planningit will cover regulations, review of legislation,preparations of the EPPs, local government support,devolution training, liaison, administrative support,and the Best Practice Environmental ManagementAdvisory Service. Under an infrastructure heading itwill provide for training and development,recruitment and selection, human resourcemanagement issues, support, library support,telephone/fax charges, and a geographic informationsystem, which is an extremely important componentof that legislation. So, it is fairly broad-based.

Mrs ROSE: As a follow-up question, does itprovide any money for extra staff and, if so, howmany staff and what would they be doing?

Ms ROBSON: Yes, it certainly does. I thinkBudget Paper NP3 indicates that the initiativefunding will provide for an extra 61.5 full-timeequivalent employees with salaries and on-costsestimated at $1.968m. As staff will be appointed over

the 1994-95 financial year, actual numbers of newstaff funded by the initiative will be over 80 actualpeople. Of these, some 50 staff, or over 60 per cent,will be allocated between the five departmentalregions to undertake licensing, monitoring,inspection enforcement and complaint handlingactivities. Other staff appointed will undertake policyand guideline development, training anddevelopment, licensed data base development andmanagement, legal officers and an auditing andquality assurance program. So, you can see thatwhat we have ahead of us is fairly comprehensive. Ihave a list of those positions and their levels hereattached to this, but it is a very thorough approachto the additional staffing use.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: In reading the document,$6.86m has been provided to establish a RegionalOpen Space Scheme in south-east Queensland and$1.07m for the SEQ 2001 related activities, which Iam most in favour of. Your Estimates paper refers to$4m for land acquisition and $400,000 for planningand water management. I would like to know wherethe rest of the money is coming from and how thesefunds will be spent.

Ms ROBSON: The $6.86m that you quotedfrom Budget Paper No. 3 is made up of $4m for theDepartment of Environment and Heritage and $2.86mfor the Department of Lands. The $4m to DEH hasbeen allocated for land acquisition under theRegional Open Space Scheme—or ROSS—and thatconcept emerged from the SEQ 2001 projectoutcomes, which recommended a world-class openspace system with recreational, conservation,cultural, social and economic benefits for residentsand visitors.

The ROSS program is a selection of parcels ofopen space land or water which is special in somerespect and which, separately or collectively, are ofregional significance. The network of the parcelsforms a system of non-urban land that is subject to acentrally coordinated, cooperative form of planningand development, and the core of ROSS willcomprise predominantly public land—whether openor closed to public access.

Budget Paper No. 3 further says that $1.07mhas been set aside for regional water qualitymonitoring and regional planning initiatives, includingthe identification of good quality agricultural land forsustainable use, regional environmental planning,development of strategies for the protection ofregionally significant industrial land, and regionaltransport planning. My Department will receive$400,000 of this, and the remainder of the moneyswill be shared between a number of otherDepartments, including Transport, Primary Industriesand Business, Industry and Regional Development.

This particular funding will allow DEH to moreeffectively participate in the development ofsubregional structure plans covering natureconservation, heritage and coastal protection, andenvironmental management. A total of $200,000 ofthis will further the Department's involvement in waterquality management in the region to ensure thatdevelopment is sustainable and that appropriatewater quality monitoring is implemented.


Mr SZCZERBANIK: You have alreadymentioned water monitoring. I know that the memberfor Currumbin and I are most concerned about this.What level of licensed discharge compliancemonitoring was achieved in south-east Queensland in1993-94, and what level of funding and staff will bedirected to this area in the coming year?

Ms ROBSON: The level of monitoringlicensed premises in south-east Queensland for1993-94 included some 100 premises. Of these, overhalf involved premises with a licence under the CleanWaters Act. It should be noted that, of the otherlicensed premises, particularly those licensed underthe Clean Air Act, the majority have a waste watercomponent and some controls for preventingdischarge to waters of the State. For the 1994-95year, the level of staffing proposed for the totalmonitoring function increased from 6 to 18. Thismeans that staff allocated to compliance monitoringfor the year will be increased threefold.

The total number of current licences issuedunder the Clean Waters Act is just over one-third ofthe total licences on the records. It is envisaged that,under the new legislation, the licensing process willinclude not only an increased number of premises tobe licensed but also many more premises with theneed for waste water and run-off control issues,which will be covered by the licence. The proposedlevel of expenditure for the financial year for thelicensed monitoring function in the south-easternregion is $1.15m. It is estimated that, by the end ofthe financial year, with full establishment on board,the rate of expenditure will be $1.7m per year.

The number of complaints recorded in thesouth-eastern region for 1993-94 was 1 284. Ofthese, 47 per cent related to air, 17 per cent to waterand 36 per cent to noise.

Discharge licence compliance monitoring is partof the environment program's strategy ofenvironmental management, and the objectives forplanned visits to premises include: to reduce wastewater and air, water and noise pollution; heightenpublic awareness of environmental and conservationissues and the Department's role in addressing them;promote the use of cleaner production practices inmanufacturing industries; and assist in monitoring thestate of the environment reporting capabilities.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I ask this questionbecause I represent an area of rapid urbanisation.Your Department has assumed the responsibility forrubbish tip approvals. Do you have adequatefinances to take on these responsibilities and thestaff to do it?

Ms ROBSON: I think that sufficient funds havebeen allocated in the first year to commenceimplementation of those responsibilities. The sum of$500,000 has been allocated for the second year. Atthis stage, funds for subsequent years will besourced through licence fees and the introduction ofa waste disposal levy—as we discussed earlier—ofapproximately $1 per tonne. As these responsibilitiesare new for the Department, existing staff within theWaste Management Branch with line responsibilitiesfor contaminated land and waste minimisation willoversee the initial implementation phase.

A total of 16 staff members will be employedduring the first year, with approximately half in headoffice, and the remainder will be stationed in regionaloffices. The initial task of regional staff will be toundertake an audit of all operational landfills in theirarea to identify operational maintenance andmonitoring practices and provide advisory services.Until staff are appointed to permanent positions,temporary staff and short-term consultancies will beutilised to ensure a smooth transition from theDepartment of Health and the development ofoperational procedures, guidelines and protocols.

The CHAIRMAN: I invite questions from DrClark.

Dr CLARK: The Department now isresponsible for the administration of theContaminated Land Act. I have had a first-handexperience of just what sort of resources can be tiedup in the Department when you are dealing with aparticular case. This one was illegal oil dumping. Iknow that a lot of officer time was taken up withcollecting samples and preparing reports. Then therewas legal advice that had to be sought. A whole lotof time and effort had to go into that. That was justone case. I was wondering what additional resourceshave been made available this coming year to dealwith matters in the contaminated land section. Willthose resources be devoted to increased staff orlegal challenges again? How will that money bespent?

Ms ROBSON: Again, the funding forcontaminated land activities will be comprised ofthese sources: the existing base funding of$536,000, which allows for the employment of sixpermanent staff and a new initiative allocation of$311,000. This will be used to fund an additionalseven permanent staff; and a supplementaryallocation of $150,000. This allocation isfundamentally revenue dependent.

The variable nature of this supplementary fundto which I have just referred reflects the need toappoint additional temporary staff to cater for theincreased number of searches or site contaminationreports, or to reduce staff numbers if the number ofsearches actually decreases. You would be awarethat, given that we have only recently inherited this,we have been trying to produce a database. That is afairly labour intensive, first-off initiative. Once that isin place, it will be a maintenance function. That iswhere our staff variations will come into it.

Other costs, for example, postage andtelephone calls are also variables depending uponrevenue. A revenue retention arrangement has beenreached with Treasury whereby additional revenueover $1.3m can be retained by the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage up to the value of $1.8m.In 1993-94, $222,000 was allocated for this purposeunder a similar arrangement, and the net extrarevenue figure of $461,000 combines both the newinitiative funding and the supplementary fund. Themoney for extra staff will significantly reduce the timeto assess contaminated site reports, deal with landpotentially affected by unexploded ordnance, andimplement a system to allow for registration of small


contaminated sites on otherwise uncontaminatedland such as agricultural land.

Dr CLARK: Is it possible to give a breakdownof the regional distribution of those additionalofficers, or will that again depend on where theworkload will be?

Ms ROBSON: Mr Gilmour might like to answerthat.

Mr GILMOUR: Contaminated landadministration is a central function at this time. It is afairly small unit and, for viability reasons, it is sited athead office. Staff do work in the regions as required.Given that contaminated land administration is verymuch about the administration of a register ofcontaminated land, which is a computer-basedsystem, that system is being expanded through ournetwork throughout the State. To avoidcontaminated land administration is one of thereasons for the initiative of the environmentalprotection legislation, because that will help to avoidenvironmental contamination in the first place.

Dr CLARK: I was trying to anticipate asituation in which the regional staff might have acouple of cases that they are dealing with and thatcould be tying up their resources and they are notable to carry out the normal monitoring or licensinginspections. I am wondering whether you haveanticipated a situation that might arise in which thereis a greater need for resources during a period. Youmight be able to send someone from head office toassist the staff when that situation arises.

Ms ROBSON: That flexibility is alwaysavailable. One of the problems with trying to allocatefunding for exacting tasks which are not necessarilypredetermined—for example, we have had to spendan inordinate amount of our resources ondetermining the cause of a fish kill in Paynter Creek.Hopefully, we have done that, but it took aninordinate amount of time—in fact, many weeks. It isvery difficult to assess how accidental happeningsand events will affect your resources. We have acontingency for that, which we build in. We arelearning as we inherit this new legislation, such as theContaminated Lands Act, to adjust that contingency.The reality is that there are many instances wherebystaff time is, if you will, wasted on issues that areraised either for political purposes or where there isan accident or whatever. I can have weeks of mystaff's time—people who have been allocated tospecific projects and initiatives—wasted on followingup and undertaking these activities. It is a littledifficult to anticipate and we do, as I said, have acontingency to try to cover that. You are quite right,you can find that one event will waste weeks andweeks of a staff member's time when that personshould be able to get on with his or her setprograms. It is very difficult to anticipate that.

Dr CLARK: I appreciate that answer. Iunderstand that there is an amount of $150,000allocated for a State of the Environment ReportingSystem in Queensland. Would you clarify for us thepurpose that that will serve and how it will benefit inbetter managing our natural resources?

Ms ROBSON: In my view, it is a veryimportant initiative because all of the programs thatwe put in place need to be assessed. We need toassess them in terms of their value in the bigenvironmental picture. I see the State of theEnvironment Reporting System as being an integralpart of that. That refers to a system of specificallycollecting, interpreting and reporting data andinformation relating to the condition of theenvironment. The ongoing monitoring of thecondition of the environment is used to identifychanges and long-term trends in the status orcondition of the particular variables that are beingmonitored. A trend of progressively deteriorating airquality, for example, provides valuable informationfor policy makers and decision-makers in determiningfuture programs.

The types of environmental attributes orvariables monitored probably would include, in ourview, areas of land under forest, areas of landsubject to degradation, concentration of airpollutants, concentrations of water pollutants, percapita consumption of energy, per capita wastegeneration, status of endangered species, areasunder national park and status of fisheries stocks.The purpose of monitoring the status of naturalresource stocks, resource consumption patterns andpollutant concentrations is to detect patterns ofchange. If change is detected, there may be eithercause for concern or the change may indicate animprovement in conditions. Either way, by detectingthe early signs of change, the effectiveness ofcurrent policy or management practices can beevaluated and policies adjusted and amended, ifrequired, to address what could be a potentialproblem. State of the environment reporting is,therefore, aimed at providing the Government andpolicy makers in the Government and the communitywith information relevant to managing naturalresources and the quality of the environment.

Dr CLARK: How often is it proposed toproduce those?

Ms ROBSON: Once every four years is whatwe are proposing currently.

The CHAIRMAN: That completes thequestioning from members of the Government. Wenow go into the final period of questions from theOpposition.

Mr SLACK: Earlier in reference to a questionfrom the member for Albert, reference was made toconsultancies. Could you provide a list ofconsultants, the purpose for which they wereengaged and the amount for each that has beenpaid?

Ms ROBSON: Is this for the projections for1994-95?

Mr SLACK: Can you provide a projection andwhat consultants were engaged last year and howmuch they were paid—who they were, what theywere and what they were paid.

Ms ROBSON: I think that I will get Mr Arnottto speak to this.

Mr ARNOTT: Last year the consultanciestotalled $1.177m and they were spread over the


following categories: information technology,management, financial, scientific and technical,human resources, and communications. If themembers would like them, I can give the individualamounts for those categories.

Mr SLACK: If I put it on notice, can you giveme the people to whom the consultancies wereawarded?

Ms ROBSON: Last year? Mr Chairman, again, Ido not think that that is appropriate. That informationis published in a certain form. I am happy to providethe figures for the future projections.

The CHAIRMAN: If it is readily available andconvenient to be read out, well, read it all out.

Ms ROBSON: I do not particularly want toread it all out. It is a very detailed piece ofinformation. I would suggest that the member forBurnett put that request on notice.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is on notice.

Mr SLACK: Will the Minister provide thefinancial details of all travel undertaken by herself,ministerial staff and Government members ofParliament which has been paid for by Environmentand Heritage?

Dr EMERSON: Zero.Ms ROBSON: Paid for by what, I am sorry?

Mr SLACK: By Environment and Heritage.Ms ROBSON: No, it is not paid for by

Environment and Heritage.

Mr SLACK: There is nothing at all out ofEnvironment and Heritage, or by the Minister'soffice?

Dr EMERSON: I will defer to the Director ofCorporate Services, but ministerial expenses arepaid for by Treasury.

Mr SLACK: That question was put earlier tothe Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing and heprovided details.

Ms ROBSON: You asked for the expensespaid for by the department. Do you want ministerialexpenses? They are paid for by Treasury throughthe Ministerial Expenses Unit.

Mr SLACK: Yes, the ministerial travelexpenses. My wording may not have been correct.

Ms ROBSON: As you would be aware—and Iam sure that the other Ministers, having been askedthe same questions, would probably have given thesame response—we have very clear guidelines as tohow costs for official activities are to be handled,both in Australia and overseas. The expenses fall intothree areas—those which are portfolio related, thosewhich are departmentally related and those which arerelated to the Government. I will briefly give you anunderstanding of what those are.

The CHAIRMAN: To save you some time, Ithink that the question was simply asking the extentto which there were travel related expenses incurredby you and staff. Can you separate it out?

Ms ROBSON: I would suggest to you thatthese are historical documents. They are not related

to forward estimates. I am quite prepared to provideto the member the forward estimate for 1994-95.

I think there is a published document which hasbeen tabled in the Parliament which gives you all theother detail that you want under the categories I wasjust about to outline. The expenditure for, if youwish, 1992-93 for myself as the Minister was a totalof $24,331. That is a document that has been, Iunderstand, tabled in the Parliament. I did notactually take any overseas trips in that particularfinancial year.

Mr SLACK: Will the Minister provide details ofall grants and subsidies paid to the various bodiesthat received funding from Environment andHeritage?

Ms ROBSON: Do you want me to read thatout to you?

Mr SLACK: When I talked about the NationalTrust before—all this funding.

Ms ROBSON: It is a very long list. Do youwant me to provide that to you separately?

Mr SLACK: If you could provide it to me——

Ms ROBSON: If you want to put it on notice,could you let me know?

Mr SLACK: I will put that on notice.

The CHAIRMAN: That question is on notice.Mr SLACK: Could I also ask: in respect to

grants and subsidies to various organisations, in theEstimates for this year have there been anyorganisations deleted from the list that you areproposing to give?

Ms ROBSON: For which grants?

Mr SLACK: Any grants and subsidies. Havethere been any dropped off the list?

Ms ROBSON: I explained to you when Italked about, for example, the Conservation GrantsProgram that we call for applications for funding at agiven time every year. We receive those applicationsand we process them, and the processing is done bya panel. I am not on that panel, as I said. The resultsof the panel's deliberations are shown to me whenthey have determined what they will be, and that isfor my information and record purposes only. I donot know if any organisations have been added on ordropped off. I do not do a comparison on a year-to-year basis because fundamentally we rely on thoseorganisations which apply. We get a list. The listactually shows me what organisations have applied,how much they applied for and how much they wereallocated according to our total budget for that area.They are conservation grants, and that applies alsoto the heritage program grants as well.

Mr SLACK: You satisfied the question inrespect of the National Trust before. My questionwas: are there any like that that you know are notgoing to be funded?

Ms ROBSON: There has been nothingbrought to my attention, and I certainly do not giveinstruction on these things, nor does any otherperson outside that panel. The panel determines,under the guidelines that they have set, how thosegrants will be allocated. I think it is done very fairly. It


is done according to those variables that I read outto you—whether they have complementary workprograms and so forth.

Mr SLACK: Have you made any provisionwithin your budget for prosecutions andlitigation—that sort of thing?

Ms ROBSON: Yes.Mr SLACK: Obviously you are introducing a

new Act.

Ms ROBSON: That is right. There have beenprovisions made. Mr Gilmour can talk about that.

Mr GILMOUR: In respect to the environmentalprotection legislation initiative, there is a range ofstatutory action that can take place ranging fromprosecutions to on-the-spot fines. We have allocatedthis year for prosecutions a nominal figure of$170,000 to assist in the legal work in that area. If wehave appeals against notices we serve on people,there is some $26,000 made available; to assist inserving warrants, some $3,000; in the serving ofenvironmental protection orders, $12,000; and toobtain evidence and document breaches of thelegislation subject to prosecution by on-the-spotfines, a further $26,000. That is just for theenvironmental protection legislation.

Mr SLACK: Turning to the 2001 program thatwas referred to by the member for Albert—youreferred to a figure of $4m being spent for landacquisition.

Ms ROBSON: This is the ROSS scheme youare talking about?

Mr SLACK: Yes. Have you got any idea whatsort of area you expect to be able to acquire underthat program?

Ms ROBSON: Are you talking about hectares?Mr SLACK: Hectares, yes.

Ms ROBSON: Land and water?

Mr SLACK: You can divide them up if you like.Ms ROBSON: I do not know how to measure

hectares of water yet. I do not think that we have gotto the point of actually determining all of the parcelsof land that would comprise that figure you arelooking for. Given that Lands has fundamentally beendriving this and part of that allocation has come tome, I am not clear at the moment as to how manyhectares. I do not know whether we have actuallydetermined that.

Dr EMERSON: The reason for that is thequestion of the valuation of the land. You canacquire large areas of land that is not very valuable,or there may be critical habitats or very importantrecreation areas that may even amount to one or twohectares that are very expensive. It would bepremature, really, to start making estimates of howmuch would be acquired under the ROSS.

As you may be aware, in addition to acquisitionthe intention is to set aside as large as possible areasof land through other mechanisms. Agricultural landremains open space, but it can still be used foragricultural purposes. The other mechanism underthe Nature Conservation Act, of course, is voluntarynature refuge agreements and those sorts of things

which in a sense can be a very effective way ofachieving an open space strategy because you donot have to buy it, you can enter into an agreementwith a landholder to preserve that area.

Mr SLACK: So there has not been an in-depthevaluation of the program. The land that is to go intothis program has been referred to in percentages;that is why I asked the question.

Ms ROBSON: There has been a lot ofpreliminary work done. That amount of funding hasbeen committed on the basis of a projected cost, butyou asked me how many hectares and I am tellingyou that I do not know.

Mr SLACK: Roughly.

Ms ROBSON: No, I do not even knowroughly. I think Dr Emerson has just explained to youthat there is a variety of tenures involved.

Mr SLACK: If there is Government-owned landwithin the region, what will be the situation with that?Will it be possible under that program that you couldacquire land from other departments?

Ms ROBSON: I suggest that is a possibility.We do that. We acquire land from Forestry, forexample, to add to our national park estate.

Mr SLACK: Part of the $4m could be paid toanother department as such; it will not all necessarilygo to private land?

Dr EMERSON: That would be a transfer withinGovernment. The $4m has been allocated out ofconsolidated revenue, so it would be shufflingmoney around from department to department. Ithink the reality of what you are concerned about isthat that $4m would be overwhelmingly devoted tothe acquisition of land from private landholders andobviously it would be focused on voluntary sales.

Mr SLACK: There was reference to watermonitoring before, and one of the complaints fromthe Esk people in respect to the radioactive dumpthere is monitoring of underground water. Is that acorrect situation? If not, what was spent on themonitoring of the underground system last year andis there provision to monitor the underground systemaround that area in this particular Budget allocation.

Mr GILMOUR: The responsibility for the Eskradioactive waste disposal is with the Department ofHealth and not with the Environment and Heritageportfolio.

Mr SLACK: There has been an ongoingtransfer of responsibility from Health to Environmentand Heritage, and while it may rest with the HealthDepartment I would assume that it would have someconcerns for Environment and Heritage. I gather thatas you have, for argument's sake, taken over theresponsibility of the treatment of hazardous waste atWillawong——

Ms ROBSON: There is a program, as youwould probably be aware, as a result of the PSMCreview of departments, to transfer the responsibilityfor all waste to our department. That is part of thereason why we have the Waste ManagementStrategy out for comment at the moment. Thatobviously will then be our responsibility in terms ofEsk. We have Gurulmundi, which we have inherited. I


might say that it is working extremely well. We arevery happy with the results of testing out there. Atthe moment we do not have Esk, as Mr Gilmour hasactually said. When we do get it, we will certainly beperforming our duties.

Mr SLACK: In respect of Gurulmundi andWillawong, is there an allocation specifically forthose areas for your monitoring programs?

Dr EMERSON: Could I just seek clarification?You are talking about the Willawong liquid wastedisposal facility?

Ms ROBSON: Which is run by the BrisbaneCity Council.

Mr SLACK: No, there has been considerablecontroversy, as you would appreciate, in respect ofthe hospital business disposal facility at Willawong.

Ms ROBSON: You are talking about AceWaste?

Mr SLACK: Ace Waste.

Ms ROBSON: Not Willawong?Mr SLACK: I understand that there is a

monitoring program going on. You have assured theresidents of that. Is there an allocation for that?

Ms ROBSON: I will get Mr Gilmour to answerGurulmundi and then we will do Ace Waste.

Mr GILMOUR: If I can just answer onGurulmundi—there is a figure of $20,000 available toassist in the environmental management of thatoperation. However, because the waste originatesfrom the Brisbane City Council operation—as youare aware, the wastes are fixed, encapsulated at theWillawong facility and transported toGurulmundi—the Brisbane City Council is theoperator of that facility and undertakes themonitoring and provides that to the LandfillManagement Committee at Gurulmundi.

Ms ROBSON: Have you finished?

Mr SLACK: Is there anything further thatanybody wants to add?

Ms ROBSON: I do not want to add to that,except to say that Gurulmundi is going extremelywell. I will talk about Ace Waste. We are all aware ofthe problems that we had out at that facility in recentmonths and the outcome, as you would be aware,historically, has been that we have insisted upon theoperator of that facility stopping the use of theexisting stacks that he had there and putting in a newincinerator facility, which has been commissioned,and which he is working through in terms of someproblems that have developed with the machinery.We have had compliance monitoring going on outthere ever since. I think it was mid- December lastyear that it was actually commissioned. We havecertainly allocated extra staff and resources. Theyare provided for in the 1994-95 Budget, and we havededicated a senior environment inspector to thatfacility.

We are obviously very conscious of the factthat there has been an agreement that hospital wastewill be burned in a facility of that nature and not atindividual hospitals, as was the case previously,which caused an enormous amount of problems. We

have regular contact at Dr Emerson's level, theregional director's level, the senior environmentalinspector's level and my level with the operator ofthat particular facility to ensure that he understandsthe concerns of the community and our Department.He has been very cooperative and he certainly istrying to ensure that he complies with the emissionsstandards that we have placed upon him. I amcomfortable that he is making that effort currently.

So under the new environmental protectionlegislation, as I said before, an additional 61 and ahalf people—full-time equivalent employees—will beengaged in the new financial year, and additionalstaff will have a focus on facilities such as AceWaste. There has been an additional increase, ofcourse, in monitoring that particular region, thesouth-east region, from 6 to 18 staff, which is quitesignificant and one officer, as I said, is totallydedicated to the Ace Waste facility.

Mr SLACK: Minister, my time is running out. Iwill put this on notice—unless you can give me thefigure—have you got a total figure for the amount ofmoney that you expect to get to the E and HDepartment through the various programs from theCommonwealth Government?

Ms ROBSON: A compiled figure?

Mr SLACK: A compiled figure of all funding.Ms ROBSON: Wet Tropics, Fraser Island?

Mr SLACK: Wet Tropics, Fraser Island, theStarcke acquisition—all of these——

Ms ROBSON: Anything is possible, Mr Slack.Commonwealth programs—Wet Tropics/Daintreerescue package, GBRMPA, rainforest conservation,Commonwealth grants, National Estate, YouthConservation Corps and job skills—$24,929,000 isthe figure that I have here.

Mr SLACK: That is the total amount within theE and H budget, which will come from——

Mr SZCZERBANIK: No cents?Ms ROBSON: No cents, I am sorry. I am sure

there is 64 cents somewhere.

Mr SLACK: Commonwealth sources?

Ms ROBSON: That is Commonwealth programfunding.

Mr SLACK: I refer to the Daintree again——

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes theOpposition members' bracket of questions. There areonly four minutes left in the time allocated. I amhappy to allow the member for Burnett one morepenetrating question to complete the day'sproceedings.

Mr SLACK: I do not know about the tone inwhich you said that, Mr Chairman.

Ms ROBSON: Very pure.

Mr SLACK: The Fauna Squad—obviously, youhave got proposals for increasing the size of theFauna Squad. Could you give a breakdown of whatwill be the representation from that squad in each ofthe regions? Are you going to have people stationedin each of the regions, or how many will be inBrisbane?


Ms ROBSON: There will not be a dispersionof Fauna Squad personnel around the State. Theyare based at Moggill, and that is their operationalbase. Clearly, they are a shared resource. I do notencourage my rangers to be police or cowboys. TheFauna Squad are people who are trained toundertake activities which are outside the necessaryskills of my rangers. So that is the structure atpresent. Two people based at Moggill is what wehave in our current Budget Estimates.

Mr SLACK: That is going to be the total FaunaSquad?

Ms ROBSON: At this point in time, that is whatis proposed.

Mr SLACK: To date?

Ms ROBSON: Based at Moggill, yes.Mr SLACK: So you are not going to have any

based in north Queensland?

Ms ROBSON: There is no real need to havethem permanently based in north Queensland. Imean, from Moggill they work all over the State.They do not go around looking for trouble. Theyactually follow up very quietly and efficiently oninformation that is fed through to them, and they arevery mobile. They are based in Moggill and theymove around the State.

Mr SLACK: That is my question.The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That concludes

the investigation by Estimates Committee D into theEstimates of the Ministry of Environment andHeritage. I thank the Minister and all departmentalstaff for their cooperation and assistance inresponding to inquiries. There are a number ofquestions on notice, the written form of which wewill get to the Department as soon as practicable firstthing tomorrow morning. This Committee now needsto deliberate on the Estimates of all threeDepartments considered today, and report to theParliament within the next couple of weeks. It wouldbe appreciated if departmental staff could respondto questions on notice promptly. The rules require aresponse within 24 hours, effectively, of tonight. TheCommittee wishes to commence its deliberationstomorrow, so we would ask that you make everyeffort to get responses to us by the close ofbusiness tomorrow so that we can report to theParliament in due course.

Ms ROBSON: We will endeavour to comply,Mr Chairman. Thank you for your very fair mediation.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. Thankyou members of the Committee. That concludes thishearing of Estimates Committee D.


contents department of tourism, sport and racing

Documents