Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

320 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999 Mrs EDMOND: We have provided an extra range of community health services. I am pleased that the member for Toowoomba South has indicated that, because we are very proud of all of the extra mental health community workers that we have on the Sunshine Coast and across-the-board. We have heard it all again about how there were no beds closed. However, the Premier and I were in Nambour and photographed the beds that were supposedly not closed under the previous Government. We photographed them; we took the TV in there, and the member for Toowoomba South was shown to be the hypocrite he is. Time expired. Goods and Services Tax Mr PITT: I draw the Treasurer's attention to media reports this morning that Queensland is refusing to sign off on the Federal Government's proposed tax reform package, and I ask: what is Queensland's position on the GST ahead of next month's Premiers Conference? Mr HAMILL: Queensland's position on the GST ahead of next month's Premiers Conference is the same position we had last year, the year before that and the year before that. We recognise that a GST will be only detrimental to Queensland's service-based economy. The economic modelling that has been presented to the Senate inquiry demonstrates the negative impact on jobs the GST will have. However, the substantive issue is whether Queensland is prepared to accept the patently unfair proposals of the Federal Government in distributing revenue which it wishes to raise through the imposition of a goods and services tax. That was the issue for us at the Premiers Conference last year when, after lengthy discussion, the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, sought to have State Premiers and Chief Ministers sign off on a heads of agreement. At that time, we made it clear that not only we did not support the GST but also we could not support an arrangement whereby Queensland taxpayers would face increased taxes and Queenslanders would not receive their fair share of the GST revenue that was being generated. In case anyone has forgotten, the magnitude of that figure was $465m, which is a very considerable sum of money indeed to our State Budget, even if it is not such a considerable sum to the Commonwealth. So we have continued to press our case on behalf of Queenslanders—Queenslanders who are being asked to pay 25% more tax under the GST than they do now. Taxpayers in Queensland are being asked to subsidise the removal of financial institutions duty and bed tax in New South Wales and Victoria and other States—taxes that we do not have now. We will continue to press this case and we will press it in every forum available to us, whether it is the Premiers Conference or whether it is before the Senate inquiry, because our position has not changed. While we do not support the GST, we certainly will not sign an agreement—any agreement—that robs Queensland of its fair share. The Commonwealth Government has said that the GST revenue pool should be distributed according to a Grants Commission formula. If that is the way that it should apply, then it should apply according to that formula from day one. Queensland should not be quarantined for three years and be denied our fair share of a revenue pool to which, after all, Queenslanders have been asked to make a considerable contribution. Premier's Department Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to the growing crisis in Queensland hospitals under his Government, including cost overruns and insufficient resources, and I ask: why did it cost Queenslanders $8.6m more—an increase of 70%—to run his department for the September quarter of this financial year? Why is the Premier's Department soaking up $8.6m more that could be allocated to hospitals and other core services in this State? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I guess I kept too many of those people such as Wendy Armstrong and Greg Goebel—all of those sorts of people—who, had the Leader of the Opposition been the incoming Premier and they had been Labor equivalents, would have been sacked. My department is run very efficiently. This morning, we have seen from the National and the Liberal Parties—and it is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition has asked his question towards the end of question time—an attempt to try to turn health into a political plus. Why are they doing this? For two reasons: one, they are trying to cover up their incompetence in the time that they were in office. An Opposition member: What a memory. Mr Schwarten: Well remembered.
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 321 Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. We have got to remember that we have been in office for just over eight months now. The Budget problems that we inherited from the previous Government are significant. While we are talking about money, since the Leader of the Opposition has raised it, I am happy to advise the House that the transition to Government costs between the different sides of politics are interesting. When the Borbidge Government came to office in 1996, it cost $4,732,768.98 for the transition to Government. When my Government came to office it cost $1,830,387. Mr Borbidge: You spent 70% more in one quarter. Mr BEATTIE: We saved taxpayers $3m. I am happy to talk about costs in the Premier's Department. When I became Premier, I found out that there was a weekly invoice for fresh flowers that arrived every week. That was $35 for each flower arrangement to the Premier's office. Over the time that the coalition and Mr Borbidge were in office, it cost almost $5,000 for those fresh flowers. So what did I do? I introduced some native flower arrangements and I saved $5,000. I know that the Leader of the Opposition may want to have fresh flowers every day, but I saved the taxpayers some money because that Scottish ancestry of mine would not allow me to have fresh flowers sent every day like the former Premier did just so that he could smell nice. The bottom line is that my Government has pursued tough administrative arrangements. I am quite happy at any time to talk about the sort of expenses that we had when the former Premier was in office. Mr BORBIDGE: I note that the Premier cannot explain to the House why he spent $8.6m more in one quarter. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer that question. That is the second question. Mr SPEAKER: Was that the second question? Mr BORBIDGE: I have not asked it. Mr SPEAKER: It was not a question? Was that the question to the Premier? Mr BORBIDGE: No. Mr SPEAKER: Could we have the question, please? Member for Fitzroy Mr BORBIDGE: My second question is to the Premier. I refer to the member for Fitzroy's stated intention to return to the Gordonstone picket, and I ask the Premier: is he aware of comments attributed to his colleague in the Rockhampton Bulletin where he claimed that the Emerald business community should be wary if it believed it would reap the benefits from Rio Tinto's proposed new work force? The honourable member was quoted as saying— "Rio Tinto will tell the community of Emerald anything they want to hear. Rio Tinto don't give a stuff about the people of Emerald. Their only interest is the deunionism of the mining industry." I ask the Premier, and I notice the support that the honourable member has receive from—— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will just ask the question. Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: will he now, at long last, publicly dissociate himself and his Government from this assessment of Rio Tinto's corporate credentials by his Government colleague the member for Fitzroy? Mr BEATTIE: Throughout this debate, I have made it absolutely clear that my Government welcomes investment in Queensland from Rio Tinto. More to the point, not only have I made it clear in Queensland but I went to London and also made it absolutely clear to Rio Tinto. Let there be no argument here or anywhere else about whether or not we want Rio Tinto's investment. Of course we want Rio Tinto's investment in this State. Having said that, it is appropriate for a member of Parliament to be concerned—and we have heard the Minister talk about these issues—about whether a work force will fly in or fly out. That is what this is about. There is an ongoing debate in Queensland about whether mining projects benefit the local community or whether the work force flies in or out. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Like the Federal member for Kennedy, the member for Gregory should be concerned about a lot of mining operations, particularly those in the north-west province. We have all heard the Minister talk about this and we are trying to do something about it. The member ought to be concerned about mining projects that do not deliver enough to the local community. The honourable member for Fitzroy has quite legitimately raised the concern about benefits to local communities. I say to all mining operations—whether it is Rio Tinto, BHP or Mount Isa Mines—that this Government wants as much benefit to flow to
Page 1 and 2: 9 Mar 1999 Legislative Assembly 299
Page 3 and 4: 9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 30
Page 5 and 6: 9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 30
Page 7 and 8: 9 Mar 1999 Parliamentary Criminal J
Page 9 and 10: 9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referend
Page 11 and 12: 9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referend
Page 13 and 14: 9 Mar 1999 Private Members' Stateme
Page 15 and 16: 9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice
Page 21: 9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice
Page 27 and 28: 9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Intere
Page 39 and 40: 9 Mar 1999 Motor Accident Insurance
Page 41 and 42: 9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Reco
Page 57 and 58: 9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribu
Page 73 and 74:
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribu
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 379 tri
Page 83 and 84:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 381 Tha
Page 85 and 86:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 383 whi
Page 87 and 88:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 385 doe
Page 89 and 90:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 387 com
Page 91 and 92:
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 389 The
Page 93 and 94:
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 391 ADJOURNM
Page 95 and 96:
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 393 developm
Page 97 and 98:
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 395 and lack
show all

Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?