Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 11 MARCH 1986

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Petitions 11 March 1986 3949

TUESDAY, 11 MARCH 1986

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Waraer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Criminal Code Amendment BiU; Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill; Legal Aid Act Amendment Bill; Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment BUl; Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Board Validation Bill; Stock Act Amendment Bill; Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Bill.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Australia Acts (Request) Act From Mr Henderson (17 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will repeal the Australia Acts (Request) Act and aUow a referendum in terms of the Queensland Constitution, State Secondary School Facilities, Cooktown From Mr Powell (195 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to extend existing State secondary school facilities at Cooktown, Elecfricity Concessions for Pensioners From Mr Braddy (182 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide for concessions on electricity costs for pensioners. Griffith University Course in Family Relationships From Mr Henderson (16 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will establish an inquiry into the Griffith University course in family relationships. Environmental Park, Lindeman Island From Mr Casey (3 662 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will have Lindeman Island approved as an environmental park. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. I seek a mling by the Chair in respect of the petition relative to Lindeman Island that has been lodged by me on behalf of 3 662 residents of the Mackay district. Standing Order No. 238 states clearly that when people feel aggrieved—and those people feel aggrieved about this issue— "... the matter contained in the Petition may be brought into discussion immediately ... ". I seek a mling on whether that provision would apply in this instance. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I bring to the attention of the honourable member that the petition must complain of a personal grievance. Standing Order No, 237 states— "A Petition having been presented a Question shall be put, 'That the Petition be received,'" 3950 11 March 1986 Ministerial Statement

I repeat that the petition must complain of a personal grievance, which is not so in the petition referred to by the honourable member for Mackay, Therefore, I cannot allow a debate on the matter. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Rockhampton Harbour Board for the year ended 30 June 1985. The following papers were laid on the table— Queensland Government Gazette Extraordinary of 6 March 1986 containing a proclamation by His Excellency the Govemor notifying and declaring that in respect of a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly of Queensland intituled "A Bill to provide for the protection of the environment by regulating the dumping into the sea, and the incineration at sea, of wastes and other matter and the dumping into the sea of certain other objects, and for other purposes" and assented to by His Excellency on 20 December 1985, Her Majesty has signified Her pleasure that the Act may come into operation. Orders in Council under— Explosives Act 1952-1981 Industrial Development Act 1963-1981 and the Local Govemment Act 1936- 1984 Acts Interpretation Act 1954-1977 Fire Brigades Act 1964-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Fire Brigades Act 1964-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Fire Brigades Act 1964-1985 Acts Interpretation Act 1954-1977 and the Fire Brigades Act 1964-1985 Harbours Acts 1955-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Regulations under— Builders' Registration and Home-owners' Protection Act 1979-1983 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Clean Afr Act 1963-1984 Fire Brigades Act 1964-1985 Fire Safety Act 1974-1985 By-laws under the Fire Brigades Act 1964-1985 Rules under the Hospitals Foundations Act 1982.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Bill of Rights; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.8 a.m.), by leave: Honourable members would be aware that two particularly obnoxious pieces of Commonwealth legislation have reached the Committee stage in the Senate after their passage through the House of Representatives late last year. 1 refer to the Australian Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Ministerial Statement 11 March 1986 3951 For weeks now we have had to endure the unseemly spectacle of horse-trading between the Federal Govemment and the Australian Democrats as various factions in the ALP argue with Democrat senators in an endeavour to make the States subject to the articles of the proposed Bill of Rights. AU Australians with any concem for our Australian system of democracy must now do all in their power to oppose the BUl of Rights. Honourable members would have read statements by the Commonwealth Attomey- General (Lionel Bowen) that he is opposed to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. What utter mbbish! Part 5 of the Bill dealing with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission already applies to the States. But this is not the end of the matter. Mr Bowen made it absolutely clear when introducing his legislation that, if the States do not comply with the directions of the Human Rights Commission and amend or repeal any legislation which that Star Chamber type of body considers offensive, the Commonwealth will enact specific overriding legislation and will extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to the States. How embarrassing it must have been for the Labor Party to hear Premier Burke publicly state in the clearest of terms that he is responsible for electoral legislation in Westem Australia and that he does not want, and will not accept. Commonwealth interference in his State's affairs. If a Bill of Rights is so important, why does the Commonwealth Govemment not draft a Bill appropriate to Australian society and then submit it at a referendum for the approval of the electors of Australia? Instead, it has adopted a back-door method by relying on a United Nations covenant that was drafted with a view to correcting grave abuses of human rights and civil liberties that occur in Nazi, fascist and Leninist countries. The Commonwealth has relied on the discredited external affairs power of the Constitution to give it a constitutional head of power on which to legislate. The founding fathers will tura in their graves at such an abuse of the Australian Constitution. The Australian Bill of Rights will sound the death-knell of democracy in Australia. Parliament will no longer be supreme and responsible for determining issues of major social, cultural and political importance. This Parliament's legislation will be subjected to approval by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If the civil liberty radicals have their way and the States are subjected to the Bill of Rights, our legislation will be open to interpretation in the Federal courts by federally appointed judges. What can be justified will be determined not by Parliament but by the courts. Let me draw the attention of honourable members to some examples of what has happened overseas as a result of judicial interpretation of legislation— American State laws requiring citizenship as a prerequisite for civil service appointments have been stmck down. Legislation providing for mandatory maternity leave for teachers has been declared invalid on the basis that it discriminates in favour of females. Provisions in overseas human rights instmments relating to freedomo f expression and freedom of the media similar to the provisions of Article 7 of the Australian Bill of Rights have resulted in chaos and uncertainty regarding the laws of defamation. The freedom of religion provision has been used in the United States to enable violation of a State law requiring compulsory school attendance. A claim that any belief, however incredible, is a religion has been upheld. The European Commission on human rights has mled that a law rendering all homosexual conduct illegal is in breach of the privacy article. Privacy has also been held to create a right to abortion on demand. 3952 11 March 1986 Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

Obscenity and pomography laws have been declared invalid, also under the privacy article. In Canada and the United States, the right under Article 23, stating that an accused must be tried within a reasonable time, leads to the automatic dismissal of a charge if the court decides, in its opinion, that any delay that has occurted is unreasonable. Mandatory prison sentences have been held to be cmel and unusual and therefore invalid, if the judiciary believes that the legislature prescribed a disproportionate penalty. The examples are endless, but I want to make the point that courts overseas have overturned parliamentary legislation on citizenship, sexual offences, electoral laws, defamation, education, homosexual activities, abortion, obscenity, pomography and dmgs. Surely we do not want all these precedents imported into our Australian legal system, but they wiU be if we are unfortunate enough to have the BiU of Rights legislation brought into operation. Not only will the courts be able to overtum legislation passed by Parhament, but also the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission wiU have the power to examine, report and recommend action to be taken in regard to State and Commonwealth legislation, even before it is introduced into Parliament, The commission is empowered to hold inquiries in such a manner as it thinks fit, and it is not bound by the mles of evidence. Parties appearing before the commission may be denied legal representation. The decision is solely in the hands of the commission. If we are to have a Bill of Rights, the first article it should contain is one protecting the rights of all citizens from the jackboots of the Human Rights Commission, Honourable members would be aware that the two main bastions of our democratic system are Parliament and the judiciary, I have shown how the sovereignty of ParUament will be eroded. The BiU of Rights will also severely weaken the power and authority of State courts. Clause 18 disfranchises State courts of any review function conceming the BiU of Rights, That means that any matter before a State court in the exercise of its review jurisdiction may be removed to the Federal Court at any stage of the hearing before a final judgment is given. An application by the Commonwealth Attoraey-General for removal of an action to the Federal Court will automatically be granted. That is a typical Commonwealth Govemment grab for power. I call upon the people of Australia to rise against the threatened tyranny and oppression of the Bill of Rights and Human Rights Commission legislation and to overthrow them and the Goverament that has sponsored such objectionable nonsense.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving forthwith without notice— "That this House notes the public outcry against the proposed revocation of national park lands on Lindeman Island and asks the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts to withdraw, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54, the notice of motion dealing with the revocation of the said lands which he tabled in this House on 27 Febmary 1986." Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, as you know, this matter is set down for debate next week. Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 11 March 1986 3953

Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, I am seeking leave. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 36 NOES, 43 Braddy Scott Ahera Lester Bums Shaw Alison Lingard Campbell Smith Austin Littleproud Casey Underwood Bailey McKechnie Comben Vaughan Bjelke-Petersen McPhie D'Arcy Veivers Booth Menzel De Lacy Warburton Borbidge MiUer Eaton Wamer, A. M. CahUl Muntz Fouras White Chapman Newton Goss Wilson Clauson PoweU Gygar Yewdale Cooper Randell Hamill Elliott Row Innes FitzGerald Simpson Knox Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kmger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Hartwig Wharton McEUigott Harvey McLean Henderson Milliner Tellers: Jennings Tellers: Palaszczuk Davis Katter Kaus Price Prest Lane Neal Resolved in the negative.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah): Under the provisions of the Standing Orders, I seek leave to move the following motion without notice— "That notwithstanding the notice of motion in the name of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts for the revocation of a large portion of Lindeman Island national park "

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is leave granted? Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 36 NOES, 43 Braddy Scott Ahem Lester Bums Shaw Alison Lingard Campbell Smith Austin Littleproud Casey Underwood Bailey McKechnie Comben Vaughan Bjelke-Petersen McPhie . D'Arcy Veivers Booth Menzel De Lacy Warburton Borbidge MiUer Eaton Wamer, A. M. Cahill Muntz Fouras White Chapman Newton Goss Wilson Clauson Powell Gygar Yewdale Cooper Randell Hamill Elliott Row Innes FitzGerald Simpson Knox Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kmger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Hartwig Wharton McEUigott Harvey McLean Henderson MiUiner Tellers: Jennings Tellers: Palaszczuk Davis Katter Kaus Price Prest 1 Lane Neal Resolved in the negative. 3954 11 March 1986 Questions Upon Notice

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr PRICE (Mount Isa) (11.33 a.m.), by leave: On 27 Febmary, the Minister for Education (Mr Powell) stated that, in saying that the retaU price of petrol in the United States was 51c a litre, I was "totally out of touch with the intemational oil scene". Based on a petrol price reported in The Australian on 24 Febmary 1986, the Minister then calculated that the retail price of petrol in the United States was A15.17c a litre. That is yet another example of the Minister's putting his mouth into overdrive before checking his facts, I am advised by the office of the Federal Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Evans) that, on the most up-to-date figures avaUable, at the end of January this year the price of petrol at the pump in the United States was equal to A53c a litre. That is nowhere near the 15c claimed by the Minister. However, it is very close to the figure that I used, which was 51c, Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is not making a personal expla­ nation. The matter is being tumed into a debate. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member establishes the manner in which he has been personally affected or misrepresented, I will allow him to continue. Mr PRICE: The Minister was allowed to make a personal explanation along the same lines. In effect, the Minister accused me of being totaUy out of touch with the oU scene. Senator Evans's office advised me that his department's figurei s based on information supplied by Australian diplomatic posts in the United States, drawing on United States price reports which are based on surveys of up to 80 cities. It is not sufficient for the Minister for Education to claim that he is basing his information on the report in The Australian. Had the Minister read it with reasonable care, he would have clearly noted that the article was not about prices at the pump at all. The article was about the price of United States cmde oil on the world market. The paragraph he quoted, which referted to the price for regular leaded gasoline breaking through the US40c per gallon mark, had nothing to do with prices at the pump. The price that the Minister converted to 15.17c a litre is that which would apply to a cargo before freight charges. State and Federal taxes and wholesale and retail mark-ups were added. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The hon member has made his point. I cannot aUow him to continue.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice were answered as foUows—

1. Reinforcement Power Line, Roma-St George Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the proposed 66 kV reinforcement power line from Roma to St George via Surat— (1) Is he aware of a petition protesting against the line passing through the town of Surat and of the Warroo Shire Council's support for that petition? (2) Is he aware that the Warroo Shire Council has submitted an alteraative route bypassing the town? (3) WiU he have serious consideration given to such a proposal? Questions Upon Notice 11 March 1986 3955 Answer— (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The South West Queensland Electricity Board's contractor has pegged a line route passing through the town area of Surat. This is currently an initial proposal only, and no submission to the Warroo Shire Council seeking its agreement has yet been made. The board will certainly consider altemative line routes in that area, including the proposal suggested by the Warroo Shire Council. Prior to any constmction taking place, the board, in accordance with its usual practice, will submit detailed drawings of the line route to the Warroo Shire Council, seeking its agreement to the location of any sections on roadways under control of the shire.

2. Long-distance Coaches Mr MILLINER asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to long-distance intrastate and interstate express coaches for the two years ended 31 December 1985— (1) How many spot checks (that is, excluding half-yearly mandatory inspections) were carried out by motor vehicle machinery inspectors (a) in bus operators' depots or terminals or (b) on the roadside? (2) How many vehicles so inspected were found to be unroadworthy? (3) What are the names of the owners of the vehicles found to be unroadworthy and on how many occasions have their vehicles been found to be in an unroadworthy condition? (4) Will he advise the amount of road tax paid individually each month since the number of Brisbane to Caims licences was increased to five from January 1985, the present licensees being Greyhound, Pioneer, VIP, Deluxe and McCaffertys? (5) Is one of these licensees delinquent in paying its road tax fees and, if so, which licensee? (6) Did VIP Coaches, one of the licensees on the Caims to Brisbane service, have up to seven of its coaches grounded in Brisbane on one day in January 1986 because of mechanical defects? (7) Did VIP Coaches also have one of its coaches grounded in Rockhampton recently because it was unroadworthy? (8) Will he give an assurance that VIP is fully covered by insurance to the satisfaction of the Transport Department according to the Transport Act relating to passenger cover? (9) Will he give an assurance that VIP is a reliable operator on the Brisbane to Cairas service and meets with his approval in all respects of the terms of the licence? Answer— (1) On 17 occasions, spot checks were carried out by transport inspectors on long­ distance buses at various locations between Brisbane and Cairas. (2) Fourteen repair orders were issued on defective vehicles as a result of those spot checks. (3) VIP Express coaches were found to be in an unroadworthy condition on 14 occasions. As a result of orders to present vehicles for inspection, six inspections were carried out at depots, and another six at Transport Department inspection centres. One inspection was carried out on the roadside at Rockhampton and another one at the Brisbane terminal. (4) The amount of licensing fees paid by the individual licensees on the Brisbane to Cairas route reflects the patronage on each of the services. Consequently, the confidentiality of the extent of each licensee's business needs to be preserved. However, 3956 11 March 1986 Questions Upon Notice if he so desires I will convey the information to the honourable member for Everton by letter on a confidential basis. (5) Yes, VIP fees are outstanding for October, November and December 1985. Firm undertakings have been obtained from the licensee for payment of all outstanding fees, and the matter is being pursued by the department. (6) Departmental records do not show the suggestion to be correct. However, during November 1985, six VIP coaches were inspected and ordered off the road. Those vehicles were subsequently repaired and represented for further inspection. (7) Yes. On 9 December 1985, a VIP Express coach was intercepted by a transport inspector at Rockhampton and ordered off the road. (8) Vehicles approved for providing and carrying on the licensed intrastate service are appropriately insured. Interstate operations are not subject to State licensing requirements. AU buses registered in Queensland in the name of VIP and its associated companies are covered by the appropriate class 6E insurance. (9) Some difficulties have been experienced in ensuring VIP comphance with the terms and conditions of its licence. Appropriate action has been and will continue to be taken to ensure that a safe and reliable service is provided, and departmental inspectors are active in the regard.

3. Railway Television Advertisements Mr MILLINER asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the "Moving Ahead, Moving Queensland" television advertise­ ments appearing on commercial stations in recent months promoting the RaUways Department and himself as Minister, which was the subject of a question in this House on 27 November 1985— (1) When did screening of the advertisements begin? (2) On which Queensland commercial television stations are the advertisements screened? (3) Which advertising agency produced the advertisements? (4) What was the total production cost for the series of advertisements? (5) What has been the total placement cost for the advertisements to date? (6) Which Govemment department is bearing the cost of production and placement of the advertisements? Answer— (1 to 6) The advertisements to which the honourable member refers have been screened from time to time on metropolitan and regional channels since they were produced in October 1985. They were produced by the Railway Department's advertising agent. Ken CambeU and Associates Pty Ltd, who, as was indicated in an answer to a similar question in November last year, have won three awards, namely: the Colour Screen Award, for the best set of posters; the Goldie Award, for the best Govemment commercial; and second place world-wide in the Creative Excellency Award from the Intemational Federation of Advertising Agencies. Those awards were won for advertising in connection with Queensland Railways. The honourable member is only one of the many people whose attention has been attracted by the high quality advertisements, among them many potential new clients of Queensland Railways, As the House is aware, last financial year, Queensland Rail made an operating profit of about $107m, and is probably the only railway system in the world that is operating in the black. The Queensland Rail advertisements have contributed greatly to this success, Questions Upon Notice 11 March 1986 3957

and no doubt the latest one, because of its professionalism, will assist fiirther in the proper economic management of the department.

4. Sale of Lindeman Island to East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— With reference to the proposed land dealings in relation to Lindeman Island with East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited— (1) As the responsible Minister and custodian of the Crown estates, what part has he played in the negotiations to alienate all or part of land on Lindeman Island from the Crown? (2) Who first approached him or his department in relation to the proposition and when was the approach first made? Answer— (1)1 participated in conferences and discussions with the Honourable Premier and Treasurer and other Ministers conceming the proposed sale of leases on Lindeman Island from State Goverament Insurance Office (Queensland) to East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited, and also conceming what action, if any, would be taken in relation to the national park on Lindeman Island or cancellation or amendment thereof With the honourable Premier and Treasurer and other Ministers, I attended conferences with representives from East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited. (2) On about 22 November 1985, East-West Airlines approached the Chairman, Land Administration Commission, inquiring whether it could obtain a map of Lindeman Island showing contours and other similar details. The Chairman, Land Administration Commission, got in touch with the Surveyor-General's department, about the inquiry. The Surveyor-General's department arranged for a private consultant who had the capacity to undertake the preparation of the map over the week-end to prepare the map for East-West Airlines. At that time, the inquiry by East-West Airlines was only in respect of such a map of Lindeman Island. Also in November 1985, a solicitor from a firm of solicitors inquired from the Registrar of Dealings, Department of Lands, conceming departmental requirements in relation to Lindeman Island leases and tenure matters. He was informed of the normal procedures in respect of such a transfer of leases. This inquiry was only in respect of procedures and tenure matters, and no specific transferee was referred to or identified. On 24 January 1986, East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited had a deputation to the Chairman of the I^and Administration Commission, officers of the Department of Lands and a representative of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. The chairman of the commission identified the relevant leases involved on Lindeman Island. The company's representatives advised that a conditional contract had been entered into with the State Govemment Insurance Office to acquire the State Govemment Insurance Office leases of Lindeman Island. Matters, including a conceptual proposed development and tenure-related matters, were generally discussed, and the Chairman, Land Administration Commission, informed the deputation of procedures that should be foUowed, and arranged that departmental officers would inspect the island. On 7 Febmary 1986, solicitors acting for State Govemment Insurance Office (Queensland) applied for ministerial consent to transfer. The contract for sale bears date "29-1-1986". The above sets out the initial approaches made to me or my department in relation to Lindeman Island or such proposed land dealings or persons associated with such proposed land dealings. 3958 11 March 1986 Questions Upon Notice

5. Housing Co-operative Funds Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Premier and Treasurer- Why has the Queensland Goverament refused to give the Goverament guarantees in relation to funds available to the housing co-operatives of $5.7m at 13.5 per cent, thereby depriving Queensland families, particularly those on low or modest incomes, from obtaining housing finance at a time of scarcity of such funds? Answer— The honourable member is confusing the facts. Section 58 of the Co-operative Housing Society Act provides for the Treasurer to guarantee borrowings by co-operative housing societies. The current policy, which has applied for many years, is for such guarantees to be given only when the lender provides the funds to the society at an interest rate of 0.25 per cent per annum below the normal savings bank lending rate. Savings Bank lending rates are controlled by the Commonwealth Goverament and are presently set at 13.5 per cent. It is the Commonwealth Goverament that has consistently refused to raise this ceiling to a level comparable with other interest rates, and it is this factor which has led to the drying up of savings bank housing funds. The reasons for the state providing a guarantee on the terms set are— An interest rate of 0.25 per cent is a fair and reasonable value of the guarantee to the lender. The lower rate benefits the ultimate borrower. The guarantee reduces the lender's credit risk. The lender's administrative costs are reduced substantiaUy through administering fewer large loans to co-operative societies as against a large number of small individual loans. If the 0,25 per cent reduction is not applied, borrowers would pay more and lenders would get a State Goverament guarantee at no cost. If the honourable member can take his eyes from the newspaper and hsten, he will hear me point out that the Goverament is doing exactly what he did when he was Treasurer. I suggest that the honourable member wake up to that fact. The honourable member also accuses the Goverament of depriving those on low or modest incomes from obtaining housing finance. That is not borae out by the facts. In 1984-85, the Goverament provided $106m through the Queensland Housing Commission for home-ownership schemes. In 1985-86, the Goverament has increased that figure to $ 145m—an increase of 36 per cent. Approximately 65 per cent of those receiving the benefit of that fiinding through the State Goverament home-ownership interest subsidy schemes are earaing $300 per week or less,

6. Mr R. I. SmUh Mr SCOTT asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— (1) Why has a campaign seemed to have been conducted against a timber-hauling contractor, Mr Roy Ivor Smith, by an officer of the Forestry Department to the extent that Foxwood timber company of Mareeba would no longer engage Mr Smith as a logging contractor? (2) Is it legitimate Forestry Department policy for more than 30 softwood logs to be seized at the whim of a departmental officer for such a long period on the spurious ground that the logs were rendered useless by timber borers? (3) Further, is it policy for a Forestry Department officer to hold from sale a quantity of cut ironwood on the unlikely ground of its being suspected of having been stolen, when the logs were cleariy branded and numbered and obviously the property of Mr Roy Ivor Smith? Questions Upon Notice 11 March 1986 3959

(4) Is he aware that what appear to be intentionally vindictive actions of a particular officer have caused severe financial problems for Mr Smith, resulting in the loss to him of logging equipment and also deep personal suffering? (5) Do the actions taken by the officer against Mr Smith conform to departmental policy or are they even legal? (6) Will he consider a level of compensation to Mr Smith, which would be appropriate to the value of timber that he considers to have in fact been dishonestly removed from his control and benefit and for departmental pressure on Foxwood, which caused that company to refuse to purchase timber from Mr Smith? Answer— (1) No campaign has been conducted against timber-hauling contractor Mr Roy Ivor Smith by any officer of the Department of Forestry. On one occasion only was the attention of Foxwood Limited drawn to Mr R, I, Smith, On 15 March 1982, under the provisions of the Forestry Act, an officer of the Department of F(?restry seized in Foxwood's millyard, five logs which were suspected of being removed from timber reserve 165, parish of Monkhouse, adjacent to the property owned by Mr Smith. When interviewed in regard to a suspected breach of section 39 of the Forestry Act 1959-1982, Mr Smith claimed that those logs had been cut from his property, portion 260, parish of Clerk. However, as no claim for the logs was made in the Magistrates Court, they were deemed to be the property of the Crown and were subsequently sold to Foxwood Limited. (2) This question apparently refers to a case in which on 12 March 1982, an officer of the Department of Forestry seized seven logs at stump on timber reserve 165, parish of Monkhouse, and a fiirther two logs at ramp on portion 26V, parish of Monkhouse, Mr R. I. Smith was subsequently interviewed in regard to a suspected breach of section 39 of the Forestry Act, As no claim for the logs was made in the Magistrates Court, they were deemed to be the property of the Crown and were subsequently offered to N, S, Simms and Sons for sale. However, owing to the time involved in investigating the suspected breach and arranging the sale, the logs became useless for sawmilling purposes. Responsibility for the delay in this case does not rest solely with the Department of Forestry. In seizing logs suspected of having been cut from Crown lands without authority, my department seeks to operate in full accord with the provisions of the Forestry Act. Every effort is made to ensure that as soon as possible any seized logs determined to be the property of the Crown are made avaUable to industry for utiUsation, 1 reject any suggestion that the action taken in this instance was at the whim of a departmental officer, or that there were any spurious grounds involved. (3) The Department of Forestry had received reports of a suspected breach of the Forestry Act in regard to the sale of ironwood from Cape York Peninsula. An officer of the department, acting on those reports, seized a parcel of ironwood in Cairas. He contacted Mr Smith, who convinced him that the logs had been obtained from freehold property. The logs were immediately released, (4) Answers to the previous questions indicate that no intentionally vindictive actions have been taken by any officer of the department, (5) All action taken in respect of the investigation of suspected breaches is in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Act, (6) As indicated in the answers to previous questions, there are no grounds to consider any level of compensation to Mr Smith. 7. Benefits for Crown Employees in Remote Areas Mr SCOTT asked the Premier and Treasurer— (I) Does the Public Service Board acknowledge that there is a difference in the benefits applicable to various public servants or Crown employees in remote parts of 3960 11 March 1986 Questions Upon Notice the State in that some Goverament employees receive concessional emergency leave and air flight provisions between their place of employment and a major centre, for example, Cairas, Townsville, Mount Isa and Brisbane? (2) Will he specify which concessions in this regard are extended to, for example, employees of the Department of Community Services employed at Thursday Island? (3) Why are these concessions denied to Health Department employees at Thursday Island and other remote centres? Answer— It has been long-standing practice for officers of the public service, including teachers and members of the police force, who have been transferred to certain isolated centres, to be allowed leave and travel concessions to undertake business that cannot be conducted at the centre of appointment. The arrangements were last reviewed in 1983, and new conditions were implemented from 1 January 1984. The amount of leave available to officers who rQpeive such benefit is a maximum of five working days. Public servants, including teachers and police officers, who are stationed at specified isolated centres, are curtently allowed one retura air fare per year for the officer and dependent family to a designated major coastal centre, plus one retura air fare to Brisbane, or equivalent fares to any other centre within the State, for each year that the officer is stationed in an isolated centre. These arrangements apply only to officers who are subject to transfer to these remote centres, and do not apply to employees who are specifically engaged to work at a particular centre. As Crown wages employees and employees of hospitals boards are not subject to transfer, the arrangements have not been extended to these categories of employees. Having regard to the above arrangments, the answers to the questions are— (1) There is a difference in the conditions apphcable to public servants and Crown and hospital boards' employees, and it is based on the particular terms of engagement for public servants serving in any part of the State. (2) The approved concessions are extended to public servants employed in the Department of Community Services at Thursday Island. (3) The concessions are allowed to public servants employed by the Department of Heahh, but, for the reasons earlier stated; Crown and hospitals boards' employees do not receive the benefit.

8. Industrial Disputes, Export Meatworks Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Minister for Primary Industries- Have industrial disputes by Commonwealth meat-inspectors in export meatworks threatened domestic meat supplies? Answer— Although such industrial disputes have not yet resulted in meat shortages in butchers' shops, the regular, unchecked industrial action by meat-inspectors over the years has threatened the profitability of many processors, both domestic and export. It is the irresponsible nature of their industrial actions that is of most concera. They seem to have no regard for the serious consequences that are caused by their actions. For instance, during the Mudginberri dispute, they twice walked off the slaughter floor at Cannon Hill shortly after production had begun. The deliberate tactic of caUing the strike after production had begun left a large number of meat-workers without jobs for the day and imposed a huge unnecessary cost on the abattoir. During their support of sacked SEQEB workers, they refused to break seals on tmcks carrying meat and seemed quite prepared to let valuable meat rot in the tmcks Questions Without Notice 11 March 1986 3961

or to dismpt the marketing of meat totally by involving industry people not involved with the dispute. Much of their industrial action has been directed at meatworks by drastically reducing production in the name of working to regulations. Abattoir-owners are reluctant to speak out on this practice for fear of serious reprisals. The Queensland Govemment abhors the pernicious nature of MIA industrial action and the exhorbitant cost that it places on industry. I can assure Queenslanders that, while we retain our domestic abattoirs staffed by State meat-inspectors, the MIA will never be able to hold domestic consumers to ransom or to deprive them of their meat over some petty issue totally unrelated to meat inspection, I appeal to the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), to abandon his appeasement approach to aU the MIA's demands and to help ensure that our meat industry survives. The Hawke Govemment could show that it cares for our rural-based industries by dramatically improving the pitiful industrial relations record of its meat-inspectors.

9. Vasectomies Mr GOSS asked the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General— With reference to the continuing uncertainity as to whether patients and doctors undertaking a vasectomy operation are liable to criminal prosecution, and to the statement made by him and published in the media on 4 June 1985 to the effect that this area of the law was a grey area and that he was looking to amending the Criminal Code to "clarify whether a vasectomy is an illegal operation"— (1) When does he propose to amend the law to clarify this grey area? (2) Will that clarifying amendment make the operation legal or illegal? Answer— (1 & 2) I do not intend to amend the Criminal Code in this area at present.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Sale of Lindeman Island to East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited Mr WARBURTON: In asking the Premier and Treasurer a question, I refer to the Lindeman Island issue and point out to him that one of his Ministers was reported today as saying— "It is hard to sell anything that Lyons is involved in. That would be the view of half the Cabinet." Another Minister very correctly questioned the competence of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, I now ask: Are not these extraordinary, derogatory and damaging remarks indicative of the mess that the Cabinet and the National Party Goverament are in, and why does the Premier and Treasurer continue to nurture his little mate. Sir Edward Lyons, to the detriment of his National Party colleagues, and, more importantly, the people of our State? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition and his party are well known knockers. He knocks anything to do with employment—everything relating to employment. He is a complete knocker. I assure him that the situation on this side of the House is entirely different from that obtaining on the Opposition side. The Leader of the Opposition has great difficulty in maintaining his position. He can be tipped out at any time. There is a great deal of division between the different factions within his party. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that there is complete solidarity in Cabinet. Every Minister supports me. 3962 11 March 1986 Questions Without Notice

Opposition Members interjected. Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I will guarantee that. Mr Hamill: What would Mr Hinze think of Sir Edward Lyons? Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: No problem. It will be very interesting to witness how negative Opposition members are when the matter is debated in the House. It surprises me greatly that, in days gone by, the leader of the Liberal Party, who is now in the group at the back of the Chamber, gave support to the proposal to revoke Hayman Island land from national park status. I do not know why he has turned a somersault. He has probably joined a new party. When the lease was changed to allow the people on Hamilton Island to do the same thing as they are doing on Hayman Island Sir William Knox: Nothing wrong with those. Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member cannot get out of it that way. He is a hypocrite; it is as simple as that. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition—he does not need to worry in the slightest. We will debate this matter. If he has the same loyalty as I have, he can be a very happy, relaxed man. Mr NEAL: I have a question upon or without notice for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. If he so desires, I will put it on notice. It relates to the drop in the world price of oil and the announced intention to reduce the price of fiiel. Can the Minister advise what benefits motorists can expect from the reduction, in both the short term and the long term Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the honourable member's question upon notice or without notice? Mr NEAL: It is up to the Minister. He may have the information and be able to answer the question now. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will put his question upon notice or without notice. Mr NEAL: Mr Speaker, I clearly said that if the Minister wanted to answer it now, it is up to him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the honourable member for Balonne that I will decide those issues. I have asked him to put it upon notice or without notice. Mr NEAL: On notice, then.

Seizure of Patient Files from Fertility Control Clinics Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General, 1 refer to the widespread public concera over the seizure, in May of last year, of patient files from the fertility control clinics in Brisbane and Townsville. I ask: In relation to those files that were seized and later returaed, will the Minister give a clear assurance to the House and to the thousands of women involved that, firstly, those files have not been photocopied, apart from those copied in connection with court proceedings, and, secondly, details of the information recorded on those files have not been kept by any Goverament agency either in documentary form or on computer records? Mr HARPER: Previously I have answered the questions asked by the honourable member. If he wishes to place the question on notice, I will give him written confirmation of the facts that 1 have already indicated to the House. Mr GOSS: I do not recall those being given, but I will place the question on notice. Questions Without Notice 11 March 1986 3963

Mr GOSS proceeding to give notice of a fiirther question— I table my letter to the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying dated 30 October 1985, and his reply dated 1 November 1985. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. Pefrol Prices Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services: Will he further advise the House what effect the cmde oil levy adjustments announced recently by the Federal Govemment are having on the people of Queensland in general, and on those living in remote areas of the State in particular? Mr KATTER: No self-respecting Minister on the Govemment side of the House would come into Parliament without having prepared a few thoughts on petrol-pricing. The honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper) has been a hard worker and a fighter for the people of the outback, and the Parliament is very lucky to have him as a member. The people of Australia accepted world parity pricing in the hope that they would be able to take advantage of decreases in prices. Of course, they have been cheated by the present Federal Govemment, because, although they accepted price increases, when the prices came down, the Federal Govemment, not the consumers, picked up that money. It is important to point out to the House that people outside Brisbane have no commuter transport available to them. The honourable members representing Townsville should be ashamed of themselves because they have not spoken on this issue. When the people of Queensland go to work, they are taxed at the rate of 100 to 140 per cent. The taxation rate on fuel at the moment is 140 per cent. When people go to work in Townsville, or when shearers in Richmond or Julia Creek go to work, they pay 100 per cent tax on their vehicles and 140 per cent tax on their fuel. That is an extraordinary imposition and a very discriminatory tax. About 50 000 people in Queensland are not connected to grid-system power and have their power provided from diesel generators. That means that those people are paying a tax on their electricity. So the only people in Queensland who are paying a tax on electricity are those .who are unfortunate enough not to be connected to grid-system power. I inform the House that the Govemment will be making representations on behalf of the people in Aboriginal communities, and also on behalf of the cattlemen who are beyond present grid-system power, requesting that that tax on electricity be removed because it is a gross discrimination and anomaly. Every ALP State Govemment in Australia has imposed a petrol tax, and in New South Wales that petrol tax brings in $229m in revenue each year. That is an additional $229m that the Queensland Goverament is forgoing in trying to do something for people living beyond the metropolitan areas and who have to go to work in their cars every moraing of their lives. I point out also that the deregulation of road transport by the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) has been excellent for all country areas of Queensland, particularly for north Queensland, in which in many centres 6c a litre will be chopped off the price of fuel. Regulations that were introduced by the Labor Goverament are now being removed by enlightened administration, which should chop a further 6c a litre off the price of fiiel. The removal of the petrol price equalisation by the Federal Goverament imposed an additional 6c a litre throughout most of country Queensland. Whereas the ALP Federal Goverament imposed an additional 6c a litre, deregulation by the Minister for Transport probably will assist the people of Queensland to the tune of 6c a litre. Mr Price: You do not know anything about it. 3964 11 March 1986 Questions Without Notice

Mr KATTER: When the honourable member for Mount Isa says that I do not know anything about it, I point out that I hold documents showing contractual obligations by road hauliers to cart fuel at 6c a litre less than the current price charged by the Railway Department. Those documents are on file at Charters Towers, and I can produce them to this House. I can certainly obtain a statutory declaration from the people conceraed. A vitally important point is that Federal Government taxation on fuel has gathered revenue of $ 18,744m. The Federal Goverament has netted almost $20 billion by imposing this petrol tax. Twenty per cent of the overall costs of the export industries of this nation are taken up in the purchase of motor vehicles and fuel. In addition, that 20 per cent is taxed at a rate of between 100 per cent and 140 per cent. How can the Federal Goverament possibly expect any export industry that operates under those handicaps to compete against the rest of the world? If the Federal Goverament believes in that, it believes in the tooth fairy. The net result of the Federal Goverament's policies is that the nation's exports are falling, Australia's export industries can no longer compete, the value of the dollar is falling, and the standard of living in this nation is also falling. One of the greatest factors in that is the imposition of the petrol tax. Fire Services Levy Mr SMITH: In asking a question of the Minister for Corrective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation, I refer to the report in today's Telegraph of the loss to State revenue as a result of big businesses insuring off shore to avoid the State fire services levy. I now ask: What action does he propose to take to ensure that those corporate cheats pay their proper share of maintaining the fire services of the State? Will he move to cover the cost of levies deliberately avoided? Mr MUNTZ: Obviously, the honourable member has not done his homework. He has not followed the steps that have been taken by my predecessor and by me. Under the previous system, fire levies were collected by insurance companies. Because of that, the Govemment decided to introduce a system of collection of those levies directly through local authorities. As the honourable member intimated, when insurance com­ panies were collecting fire levies, some big companies and other businesses were insuring overseas and thus evading payment towards the provision of fire services. They were not meeting their responsibilities. The present system provides an equitable base so that all people—those who are underinsured and those who previously were not insured at all—will make a contribution towards the fire services levy. Some problems have arisen with the implementation of the scheme. In residential areas, the scheme has been of advantage to the very large majority of families and, therefore, has been well accepted. However, I seek the co-operation of industry and commerce and all local authorities with the levy that applies to business. As the notices for the fire services levy are forwarded to businesses and any anomalies or problems become apparent, I ask those mnning the businesses to immediately fill in a form of objection and retura it either directly to the State Fire Services or indirectiy through the local authority. 1 assure all businesses that object that their fire services levies will be reassessed immediately and that, provided they were insured adequately prior to the introduction of the system, they will pay no more than they did under the previous scheme.

Sir Frank Moore; Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Purchase of Former Commercial Bank of Ausfralia Building Mr SMITH: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: In view of the sudden resignation of Sir Frank Moore as a director of the now failed Bartlett group of companies, does he retain full confidence in the financial judgment of the head of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation? I also ask: How can he Questions Without Notice 11 March 1986 3965 continue to justify the purchase of the former Commercial Bank of Australia building, situated at 239-249 Queen Street, for $3,051,500 on 13 May 1984 by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, headed by Sir Frank Moore, when an independent valuer estimated that, at about the time of the purchase, the maximum potential monetary retum on the investment would be only 3 per cent and when, in fact, the building now has no tenants, nor have there been any tenants for some considerable time, and the cost of the interest and standing charges of the property account for more than half a million dollars per annum of the budget of the Tourist and Travel Corporation? Mr McKECHNIE: Of course I have confidence in Sir Frank Moore. The Opposition always tries to knock somebody who does something for the State. That is its stock-in- trade. During this session of Parliament, I have not heard one positive suggestion from members of the Opposition. They have only muck-raked and made innuendoes. I repeat that Sir Frank Moore has my complete confidence. As to the second part of the honourable member's question—I think that he has tried to sneak in a third question—the matter is in the hands of Govemment departments, which will see that the building comes into operation as soon as possible. Universities Mrs HARVEY: As the Minister for Education will be aware, the latest edition of The Bulletin stated— "The results of more than a decade of gratuitous Federal control has crippled the intellectual and physical resources of Australian universities." I ask: Is the Minister aware of the extent of the decline and the decay that has characterised Australian universities over the last decade? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for her question. Opposition Members interjected. Mr POWELL: Honourable members opposite would not be interested in the articles that have appeared in The Bulletin. I am aware of the one to which the honourable member referred. It indicated that, over the last decade, universities have declined considerably. It is coincidental that, in the same decade, tertiary education in Australia has been funded totally by the Federal Govemment. The history of the take-over of tertiary education by the Federal Govemment shows just how bad centralised control really is. On a number of occasions, Govemment members have slammed the centralist policies of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, and have called repeatedly for more decentralised control federally, particularly in educational matters. As a result of the Whitlam take-over of education in 1974, aU tertiary institutions are now so squeezed for funds that only about 66 per cent of students who apply for tertiary education places obtain them and, therefore, a large number of potential students are just not getting there. The proportion of 17 to 19-year-olds participating in tertiary education in Australia today is now below the 1975 level. A nation such as Australia should find that figure lamentable. The ratio of staff to students in unversities today is far worse than it was in 1975. Of course, prior to 1975, the States funded tertiary education. It is high time that the people of this country, including those in tertiary education, started crying out about the way in which tertiary education is funded. It is high time Mr Hamill: You didn't complain when Fraser was Prime Minister. Mr POWELL: Of course, the honourable member for Ipswich was not a member of Parliament at that time. He did not know or did not take any notice of what was said from this side of the Chamber. Govemment members criticised the Fraser Gov­ emment quite strongly about its fiinding of tertiary education, just as we criticise the present Govemment in Canberra. The Federal Govemment has no knowledge of what education in the States is about. 3966 11 March 1986 Questions Without Notice

The 1984 report on university councils showed that staff morale is declining and that key research is either underdeveloped or neglected. I do not think that many people understand that, for a university to be recognised and accepted academically throughout the world, key research must be undertaken at that university. If it is not, the quality of the teaching within that institution is not as high as it could be. The report shows also that the buildings of the universities are overcrowded and, in some instances, unsafe; that the capacity to purchase new equipment has been reduced; and that insufficient funds are available for maintenance. Overall, this is a classic example of Federal intervention, again costing the tax­ payers of Queensland large sums of money and reducing their benefits. It is something that Govemment members and Opposition members ought to be hammering home whenever they speak to Federal members of Parliament, whether they be members of the Liberal, National or Labor parties. The Federal Govemment is taking the money of Queenslanders through taxation, but this State is not receiving a proportionate amount in retura. It is high time that State Goveraments stood up for themselves and ensured that the correct level of income tax is reimbursed to the States. If that occurred, tertiary institutions would improve and would be able to provide the fully trained young people that this country needs. Human Rights Commission Study Kit Mrs HARVEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I draw his attention to reports in the Sydney media that a Human Rights Commission study kit entitled "Teaching for Human Rights" and containing what has been described as hard­ core communist propaganda is being used in some New South Wales schools. The study kit states— "The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted mUhons the world over through the exploitation and the mis-development of global resources." I now ask: Can the Minister state Queensland's attitude to the study kit? Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. In regard to the question asked by the honourable member for Greenslopes, I refer to the guide-lines issued by the Queensland Legislative Assembly to all members, which state that no member shall ask whether statements made in the press or by private individuals are tme or accurate. That is contained in the guide-lines issued to members of this Parliament. I seek your mling, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for Greenslopes for her question. Obviously, it has upset the honourable member for Brisbane Central because he is in concert with the president of the Queensland Teachers Union, who recently criticised the Govemment for allegedly removing from schools politically motivated material. The honourable member for Greenslopes has drawn to the attention of the Parliament a kit that is available in New South Wales schools. Its innocuous titie suggests that it is something to do with human relationships. One would imagine that such a document could be used in schools. However, fortunately, the Queensland Education Department very carefully scmtinises all documents and all kits that come its way. The study kit referred to by the honourable member for Greenslopes has been banned from use in Queensland schools. Because of the political activities that it suggests and the political nature of the document, it was banned completely from use in Queensland schools. I am quite happy to be part of a Goverament that ensures that children are not used in any political compaign by individuals who would seek to destroy the basis on which their parents are bringing them up in society. That is why that material is banned in Queensland schools. As long as the Human Rights Commission attempts to include Questions Without Notice 11 March 1986 3967 material such as that referred to by the honourable member for Greenslopes, it will continue to be banned. Appointment of Nursing Superintendent, Royal Brisbane Hospital Mr McELLIGOTT: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer to the fact that Miss E. A. S. Abell, the Chief Nursing Officer, has overridden a decision by the board of Royal Brisbane Hospital to appoint Miss Cecilia Brazil to the position of nursing superintendent at that hospital. I now ask: Can the Minister tell the House the reason for Miss Abell's overturaing a decision of the properly constituted board of Royal Brisbane Hospital? Does that action represent a vote of no-confidence in the board? As Miss Abell is a close friend and live-in companion of the Premier's pUot and confidant, Ms Beryl Young, are there any political overtones in Miss Abell's decision, especiaUy as Miss Brazil has acted in the position for more than two years and her competence is not in question? FinaUy, as a responsible Minister, how does he condone Miss Abell's having total power in these matters although there is no avenue for appeal against her decision? Will the Minister be taking steps to amend the Hospitals Act to remove the Chief Nursing Officer's absolute discretion over appointments? Mr AUSTIN: I shall answer the last part of the question first: no, I will not be taking action to amend the section of the Act to which the honourable member refers. Although I am not sure whether the honourable member spoke to the clause that relates to this matter, I understand that he was in the Committee when the Bill was debated. Mr McEUigott: I was not here. Mr AUSTIN: I think the honourable member might have been. The powers that vest in the Chief Nursing Officer are exactly the same powers as those that vest in the director-general in relation to medical appointments. Those senior departmental officers ought to have discretionary rights in the appointment of senior officers who manage very large public health institutions. Mr McEUigott: Are you saying that the board is not competent? Mr AUSTIN: It is not a question of whether the board is competent or not. On the contrary, it is a very competent board. Miss Abell is equally competent. Miss Abell has a legislative and statutory responsibility to make recommendations relative to the matter of appointments, and I believe that she carries out her duties correctly and properly. Babinda Sugar-miU Mr KRUGER: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer to a feature article on the Babinda sugar-mill that appeared in The Cairns Post on Saturday, 1 March 1986, which quoted a long-term Babinda farmer/resident as saying— "The mill really died during the late 1970s and early 1980s. That's the time when all the money we had was wasted. The mill could have survived the cyclone and the poor sugar prices if it hadn't mn up such massive debts. It couldn't come good because of the position it was put in in 1982," Could the Minister advise the House who was the chairman of the Babinda miU during the period of this alleged mismanagement, from the late 1970s until 1982? Mr TURNER: I thank the honourable member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to indicate what is happening in the sugar industry and what action the State Govemment is taking to rectify the position in Babinda. The honourable member mentioned a Cabinet meeting that was held in the Babinda area. I inform the House that the State Goverament has had meaningful discussions with the cane-farmers 3968 11 March 1986 Questions Without Notice in that district and with the Babinda Mill Suppliers Committee. The State Goverament is taking initiatives that will rectify matters. The honourable member has mentioned a period from the 1970s untU 1982, I am sure that he would be well aware that I was not then the Minister responsible. Notwithstanding that, I again point out that over a lengthy period the Queensland Goverament has provided a significant amount of assistance to the sugar industry. Only yesterday, following a Cabinet meeting, an announcement was made of an increase in the amount of State Goverament assistance to the sugar industry, which has been recognised and acknowledged by all sections of the industry. Moreover, the Queensland Cane Growers Council, millers and people involved in other sections of the industry have now begun to caU on the Federal Goverament to honour its pledge or commitment to providing price support to the industry. On Friday, I will meet the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and ask him to honour the commitment made by the Federal Goverament, The way to rescue the sugar industry is to provide assistance for the people involved in it who have faced difficulties recently, whether at Babinda, Proserpine or any other sugar-growing area. I hope that the Federal Goverament will see fit to honour its commitment. It is a pity that the "world's greatest Treasurer" has got this country into such a mess. It is always more difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube than it is to squeeze it out, and I believe that the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) has made a real mess of things. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr TURNER: I hope that the Federal Goverament and members of the Australian Labor Party in Canberra—friends of the honourable member for Cairas—honour the commitment to do something constmctive to help the sugar industry at last. They should come into line and do something to help the industry. Mr De Lacy: Who squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube in 1980? That is what we are asking. Mr TURNER: People can see what is happening at the present moment. The Queensland Govemment is aware of the attitude of the honourable member for Cairas and members of the Australian Labor Party. The Federal Labor Goverament has expressed its attitude towards primary industry; indeed, in 1983, the Deputy Prime Minister, Attomey-General, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Rela­ tions (Mr Bowen) made a speech, which has been tabled in this Parliament, to the effect that the primary producers of this country ought to wake up to themselves and realise that they are not needed; that sugar and wheat could all be imported; and that the sooner that primary producers woke up to that fact, the better. We know the attitude of the honourable member and his party. We are appealing to the Federal Govemment to do something. It is a pity that the Federal Govemment does not acknowledge the tremendous contribution that primary industry makes to the Australian economy. I hope that the Commonwealth Govemment honours its promise and does something on Friday.

Temperature of Milk Transported in Bulk Containers Mr KRUGER: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: What is the highest acceptable temperature for milk transported in bulk containers? Is the Minister aware that milk has arrived at the Logan and Albert Co-operative Dairy Association premises at temperatures ranging between 12 and 18 degrees Celsius? Can he advise the House of the use to which that milk has been put? Mr TURNER: I thank the honourable member for the question, because once again it allows me the opportunity to talk about the dairy industry and what this Goverament Questions Without Notice 11 March 1986 3969

is doing in that area. The Goverament has acknowledged the problems that the dairy industry is having and has requested Mr Kerin to do something constmctive about them. I do not think that the honourable member would be aware of the correct temper­ ature, but if he likes to put the question on notice, I will answer it in detail. Mr KRUGER: I do so accordingly, because I understand that the temperature should be under eight degrees Celsius.

Queensland Cane Growers Council Resolution Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Can he inform the House of the content of the resolution at yesterday's meeting of the Queensland Cane Growers CouncU, which I understand fully supported the State's financial package for the industry and identified price support as purely a Commonwealth responsibility? Now that the sugar industry is firmly united behind the State Govemment's stand, is the attitude of Mr Kerin and his Canberra colleagues the only thing standing in the way of agreement by the two Govemments on a realistic financial assistance package? Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: This Goverament has always been very supportive of and generous towards the sugar industry. As honourable members would know, the Goverament has today reached full and complete agreement with the industry, Cane­ growers from one end of Queensland to the other unanimously support this Goverament. The other day, in north Queensland, the honourable member for Mourilyan (Mr Eaton) stretched the tmth considerably. I will be very interested to discover whether the $150m is lying on my desk and whether the Commonwealth Govemment will perform. It wiU be interesting to discover whether the honourable member for Mourilyan and a large number of other characters were telling the tmth. I am certain that the honourable member will have to stmggle very hard before he can get his colleagues in Canberra to hand over the $ 150m. In answer to the honourable member's question—the resolution agreed to by the Queensland Cane Growers Council stated— "That the Queensland Cane Growers Council express its appreciation of the State Govemment's adoption of the council's position on stmctural change and: That the financialpackag e submitted by the Queensland Govemment is accepted and supported by the Q.C.G.C: and That the councU believes it is the Commonwealth's obligation and responsibility to provide the price support necessary to lift No. 1 pool cane price for the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons to a level based on $240 per tonne net litre sugar and caUs upon the Federal Govemment to make good its commitment to inject a $150 million grant for price support over the period. The Q.C.G.C. accepts that the State offer is conditional on the Federal Gov­ emment's commitment to the total package of assistance over the 3 years period." Now we will see just how good the honourable member's colleagues are relative to that $150m. Mr Casey: They have been waiting for your commitment for a long time. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member and all his coUeagues opposite will now be running for cover. They will be ashamed of themselves, because it will be a long time before they see the $150m that was supposed to be lying round ready to be put into the industry. Mr Casey: It is sitting there waiting for you. Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, sitting there waiting—Opposition members will be waiting a long time for it. 3970 11 March 1986 Director of Prosecutions Act Amendment BUl Stocking of Dams with Sporting Fish Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: As the Burdekin Falls Dam is now more than 55 per cent completed, and given the need to stock, with sporting fish, the lake that will be formed by the dam as weU as other dams and streams throughout north Queensland, can he inform the House of proposals to introduce Nile perch and other species to fill that need? Mr TURNER: Initially, the objective was to bring Nile perch to Queensland. It is a species similar to barramundi. The intention was to stock dams and catchment areas with this sporting fish, which is so popular in other parts of the world. In recent times, the Govemment has received information that the fish is a very savage predator, which destroys other species when it is placed in dams and streams. Recently, I sent a senior officer to Africa to look at Lake Victoria and some of the streams into which Nile perch has been released. It could live in the Murray River but, unfortunately, it would be able to travel right down the Murray River system. It could do the same in northem streams. Unfortunately, it is a savage predator. Bearing in mind that the Goverament is conservation-minded, it would be irtesponsible for it to proceed with the scheme. The Goverament has no desire to harm Opposition Members interjected. Mr TURNER: As I said, as the Goverament is conservation-minded, it has no desire to cause harm to native species. Through the facilities for breeding fish at Walkamin and other places in the State, the Goverament has embarked on an intensive program of breeding native species and releasing them into catchment areas and dams such as the Burdekin Falls Dam. My officers have been successfiil in breeding large numbers of barramundi. Barramundi were released recently in the Tinaroo Falls Dam, Prior to that, species such as perch, sooty gmnter and cod had been released. The Goverament intends to proceed with the release of those fish in future years. It realises the tremendous potential for an ongoing program of breeding particularly barramundi. It is intended to step up that breeding program for the stocking of rivers and streams. At present, the Govemment has abandoned the scheme to introduce Nile perch because of the obvious environmental problems that would be created. The Govemment would not like to be responsible for them. Government Payment to Lone Pine Sanctuary Mr CAMPBELL: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: Is it tme that, in 1985, Lone Pine Sanctuary was paid $40,000 by the Queensland Goverament, through his department? Will he inform the House whether that payment was for the four female koalas that he presented to Japan on his visit for that specific purpose in May 1985? Mr McKECHNIE: The Queensland Goverament has not bought any koalas from the Lone Pine Sanctuary. That was not the arrangement. However, there was a fee for service. If the honourable member places his question on notice, I will give him a detailed answer tomorrow. I repeat that there has been no sale of koalas and that the Goverament has not purchased koalas. Mr CAMPBELL: I put the question on notice. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 20 Febmary (see p. 3713) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (12.36 p.m.): In the absence of the shadow Minister, who has another engagement, I have been asked to indicate to the Minister that the Director of Prosecutions Act Amendment BiU 11 March 1986 3971 Opposition supports the proposed amendments to the legislation. Along with the people of Queensland, the Opposition regards the setting up of the office of Director of Prosecutions as a very important step in the administration of justice in this State. Therefore, any amendments to the legislation that will assist the Director of Prosecutions and his staff in carrying out their important functions are welcomed by the Opposition, the supporters of the Labor Party and the people of Queensland. It is important that any doubts about the role to be carried out by the officers in the director's office be clarified. It is certainly important that they have no doubts about their duties, their rights on seniority and the right of the Minister to dismiss them from their important offices. It is clear that the Govemment has seen the need to clarify the position on those matters. The Opposition has no objection to the legislation that the Minister has put before the House. Indeed, the Opposition supports it totally. Each amendment should be supported, and the Opposition will give its support to each of them. The offices of the Director of Prosecutions and his staff are very important to the people of Queensland. By and large, it appears that the procedures that set up the offices have worked very well. However, there has been some disquiet among some members of the legal profession that all has not proceeded as smoothly as, I am sure, the Minister, his department, legal practitioners and the Queensland public would have liked. There is a need to ensure that the people working in this office are sufficiently senior to be able to carry out their roles. The senior officers are certainly very able and qualified people. There is disquiet that perhaps, at this stage, there is not quite the experience at the junior levels that one would ideally like to have. As I understand it, the Govemment has discontinued the practice of briefing out to the private bar. The Minister indicates that that is not entirely correct. I am relieved to know that, because prosecutions in important cases need to be watched carefully. It is important to ensure that the prosecutor in a particular case has the experience and qualifications required. It is important for the Govemment to review the staff at all times. If the occasion arises, experienced prosecutors from the private bar should be briefed to ensure that prosecutions proceed efficiently and expeditiously. This is not intended to be severe criticism of the staff of the Director of Prosecutions, but members of the profession are concemed that, on occasions, the people who are carrying out a particular role may lack experience. That is the only criticism that has been levelled. The criticism is not of their basic ability or their basic desire to perform a real and efficient task. As in other walks of life, experience is important, I urge the Minister to ensure at all times that, when decisions are being made in particular instances, efficiency, which arises from experience, be kept in mind. Generally, the task of the Director of Prosecutions appears to have been carried out well by the members of his staff, and those in important senior roles have received the support of the community. There has been some disquiet about obtaining records under warrant in the Bayliss and CuUen case. That has been the only real criticism levelled at the most senior level of the Director of Prosecutions and the way that that particular task was carried out by the Director of Prosecutions. However, these matters have to be reviewed from time to time and no doubt there will be other occasions on which members of Parliament and members of the legal profession will not always agree with the way that the Director of Prosecutions carries out a particular task. By and large, the legal profession and the public have welcomed the service that has been provided by the institution of the office of the Director of Prosecutions and the officers who serve under the Director of Prosecutions. Therefore, the Opposition welcomes the legislation and agrees to the amendments proposed by the Minister. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (12.44 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation, which operates in a fairly restricted area. The legislation does not deal with any of the basic principles behind the Director of Prosecutions legislation. 3972 11 March 1986 Director of Prosecutions Act Amendment BiU There is an interesting consequence of the somewhat circumscribed powers of the Director of Prosecutions in this State as compared with those of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom or the Director of Prosecutions as it exists in other parts of Australia. In a criminal case, it is quite proper for the legal advisers of the accused, or the person who has been committed following committal proceedings for an indictable offence, to make representations calling upon the prosecuting authority to look carefully at the evidence before deciding whether or not it should proceed. Every prosecution acquires a certain momentum. After the committal proceedings, it is quite easy for a prosecution to roll on to the inevitable trial. Sometimes committal proceedings do not look at the totality of the weight of the evidence, or perhaps do not consider all matters. That is not a reflection on the magistracy; it happens to all people in judicial office from time to time, which is why there is an appeal system. It can happen that there is some flaw or some insufficiency in evidence or some other factor that has to be taken into account. Previously, it was quite clear to whom representations were made. They were made to the Minister. I understand that a certain amount of uncertainty now exists as to whether the submissions properly made on a legal basis—I am speaking of legal submissions; I am not speaking of those that ask for grace or favour or seek, shaU I say, any political answer to a legal problem—suggesting that if the matter was scmtinised by an objective person with prosecution training, it would be found that there is insufficient evidence, should be made to the Minister or to the Director of Prosecutions. I would be interested to leam from the Minister his opinion on that matter. There is no question that, formally, the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General will have the overriding decision. So that the profession can be properly advised, I want to know the operational reality. If the initial representation is to the Minister, is there a cross- reference to the Director of Prosecutions? If that is so, what weight is given to the advice from the Director of Prosecutions? That is a matter of some interest, particularly to those who specialise in the practice of criminal law. A move has been made to appoint members of the private profession to the directorate on contract. I understand that at least two members of the private profession have been so contracted. That is perfectly proper; it was envisaged at the outset. I understand, too, that there has been a reduction in the number of members of the private bar who have commissions to prosecute and receive instmctions to prosecute. My experience was that I gained psychologically and in a legal sense from prosecuting in criminal trials. To have people who have, in an active sense, some experience of both sides of the fence—those who both defend and prosecute—is beneficial to the legal system. There is definitely a different mental and psychological frame between the prosecution and defence modes. It is very constmctive for members of the private profession to have some experience in prosecutions and to understand the differences between prosecuting and defending. I am not seeking to call for an underwriting of anybody's income. As a matter of practice, it was a good move. If I could use a word that will bring howls from the Opposition in this place, it was an interesting move in privatisation. Of course, privatising in the area of the law has occurred regularly over the ages. Mr De Lacy: We hope you keep using it; we have nothing against that word. Mr INNES: It is the realities that are of interest. In this case, the reality is that privatisation operated very successfully. I am sure that members of the Opposition would know members of the profession who support the Labor Party who nevertheless believed that it was a useful and beneficial exercise. Significant aspects of the other side of the law are privatised. In country areas, the Public Defender's Office could not operate without the services of legal practitioners, who subsidise the process at enormous cost. However, that is a different matter from the one now under discussion. Director of Prosecutions Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3973 I would be gratefiil if the Minister would deal with the substantial but practical issue that I raised. The members of the Liberal Party rely on the advice obtained by the Minister from his department on the provisions that properly secure the interests of members of the public service who transfer out and who may want to transfer back in the future. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (12.50 p.m.), in reply: 1 thank honourable members for their support for the legislation. As to the comments made on behalf of the Opposition Justice spokesman by the honourable member for Rockhampton (Mr Braddy)—I confirm the indication that I gave to the honourable member that briefing-out will continue, as necessary. I believe that it is to the credit of the Director of Prosecutions and to the efficiency of the directorate that has been built up that it has been found that, with fewer Crown Prosecutors, the directorate is able to cope with the work-load without the degree of briefing-up that was previously necessary. Of course, that has advantages. I assure honourable members that there is no intention not to brief out as necessary. As to the remarks made by the honourable member about experience—I believe that all honourable members realise that, in all professions, one gains experience with the effluxion of time. The legal profession is no different. The Director of Prosecutions has my full support in training, as potential prosecutors, young barristers—people who are qualified. I understand the direction in which the honourable member's remarks were aimed. Advantage is being taken of a process to train young people, particularly the three young female barristers to whom I referred previously, and there is no intention to do so at the expense of the ability of the officers who are Crown Prosecutors. Nevertheless, I am mindful of the honourable member's comments. It is not fair to criticise the Director of Prosecutions about a mling of the court on the validity of a form of warrant that had been in use and had gone unchallenged for many years. Like the honourable member, I do not wish to make a great noise about that. I answer the query raised by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) by saying that questions of the type to which he referred should be directed to the Attoraey- General or, as appropriate, to the Director of Prosecutions, who, under the Act, is responsible for the conduct of criminal proceedings in the name of Her Majesty. As the honourable member well knows, during the course of a trial a prosecutor has the ability to enter a nolle prosequi, particularly when comments are made by the court. Likewise, at that time, the Director of Prosecutions has that ability. The weight given to the advice given by the Director of Prosecutions is a matter of judgment for the Attoraey-General at the time, I make it very clear that nothing has changed the responsibility of the Attoraey-General as the first law officer in the State. When time permits, the Director of Prosecutions usually refers any such matter to the Attoraey-General for final determination. But, as the honourable member for Sherwood recognises, there are occasions when impromptu decisions have to be taken. When that action can be taken legally by the officer who has responsibiUty for the conduct of the criminal proceedings, it is taken. Again, I thank honourable members for their support. The Director of Prosecutions is working extremely well. Provision has been made for appointment of members of the private bar to the directorate for short terms and, if they choose, for longer terms. 1 believe that I have previously indicated a desire to expand this principle to enable those officers who have commissions in the Directorate of Prosecutions to move into other spheres, some in the short term and others in the long term. As time goes on, I hope to develop a system under which prosecutors will be able to gain experience in other spheres of the law. That is the way in which the Govemment is heading. I believe that the system will work even more efficiently than it does at present, to the advantage of both Crown employees and those in the private sector. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. 3974 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill

Committee Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2.15 p.m.

CITY OF BRISBANE ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 25 Febmary (see p. 3818) on Mr Wharton's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (2.15 p.m.): The BUl will have the effect of giving a great deal more power to the Lord Mayor of the city of Brisbane. Other matters are dealt with by the Bill, but it is fair to say that the most important is the increased ability of the Lord Mayor to delegate responsibility to people who are either employed by the Brisbane City Council or form part of an organisation outside the council. I raise this matter at the outset in the hope that the Leader of the House (Mr Wharton) might give an answer to it in his reply. According to the provisions of the Bill, powers will be delegated to people who are referred to as employees, who could be in any category other than temporary employee. Although I am not able to deal in detail with the clauses at present, I raise this matter now because it is very important. Would the definition of employee include somebody who is employed on a contract basis by the council, that is, a person who is not actually a permanent employee in the terms with which honourable members have become familiar, or, only a person who has been appointed by the council as a permanent employee within the terms of council ordinances? It would appear that the latter would not be so; that the Lord Mayor would be able to delegate powers to a committee or to a body which was constituted by, for instance, subcontractors which did not form part of the council administration as it has come to be known over the years. Because these matters have been raised with me, I would appreciate the Minister's answering them in his reply. The House has been informed that the amendments have been sought by the Lord Mayor. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that they have been sought by the Liberal Party and officers who represent that party in the administration of matters at city hall. I believe that the amendments have been sought on advice that has been given by people who have had long experience in local govemment administration, and that they have been sought for what might appear to be good and suffient reasons. However, I am not convinced that the reasons that have been advanced are sufficient. For example, it has been postulated that the changes to the Act will give the Lord Mayor more free time to devote to public appearances by delegating to some other person those powers and responsibilities that have been exercised traditionally by the Lord Mayor. As I read the provisions in the amendment, the opportunity for that to happen would certainly be presented, although whether or not that is the intention remains to be seen. It has been claimed that the amendments will overcome the problem of power flowing to the bureaucracy rather than being concentrated in the hands of elected representatives. By virtue of this legislation, I think it is fair to say, the opposite will occur. What will happen is that the concentration of power will be held by the back­ room boys and girls—the party officials—instead of by the paid officers of the council. Many people are fearful that the two categories of people I have mentioned—back-room party officials and professional officers—will become one and the same. If that occurted, it would be a retrograde step because the people who would be making the decisions City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3975 under the provisions of the Bill would not be answerable to the general public and would not be approachable by the general public. One of the strengths inherent in the Greater Brisbane system is that, despite its size—it is the largest local goverament body in Australia—the rights of local citizens to approach the Brisbane City Council on matters of personal and property interests have been retained. I cite as an example a person who, because of the provisions of an ordinance, is precluded from, say, erecting a car-port. Even though it seems to be quite reasonable for him to erect such a stmcture on the basis that it wiU not affect his neighbours and wiU not have any real problems associated with it, strictly speaking it does not comply with the ordinance, so he is prevented from erecting that stmcture. At present, however, such a person has the right to go to his alderman and point out that he has made apphcation to the council and that the buUding inspector has quite rightly refused to allow the erection of the stmcture. The alderman then goes through the committees and has the full council, in full public view, debate the rights and wrongs of the question. His system has enabled people to make an input, and has worked very well. One point is being overlooked by those people who say, "Let's stop all this nonsense of having these long, drawn-out procedures. Let's have the building inspector or somebody make a decision on the spot." If the building inspector makes a decision on the spot and it does not suit the citizen, the citizen has nowhere else to go. He could not have the same access as he has to his alderman. So there are a number of costs as well as gains inherent in having a strong Lord Mayor or a strong central govemment in local authorities. The rights of people are very much threatened by the system outUned in this legislation, which introduces what is virtually a presidential type of govemment. In many ways, it is possible that the substance of a well-proven system, which has served the city well over the years, is being thrown away to gain the shadow of possible gains in faster development, particularly when such faster development might not be very good development. As I said, it is being argued that these changes are necessary to overcome delays when developers apply to the Brisbane City Council for permission to begin a development project. I have already said that I do not believe that such delays will necessarily be overcome. In some instances in the last 12 months or so, there have been increased delays. I do not lay the blame at the feet of the Liberal Party in office. I believe it is a fault of inexperience and of not appreciating what can happen when what are apparently advantageous changes are made. That is important to remember, because a similar sort of change is being dealt with here today. As I have already outlined, many problems arise when power is given to the bureaucracy to make decisions. I find it very difficult to come to grips with the fact that very many people round the city are saying, "We are taking away the power of the bureaucracy to fmstrate the aims of the elected representatives to carry out the policies on which they were elected." If that were so, it would have my total support. Although that might be the aim, I do not believe that it will be the ultimate result. It will not, as has been suggested, eliminate delays. Although it is being said that this legislation wiU be the panacea for all ills, will eliminate unnecessary delays, will eliminate inefficiency in the council and will even eliminate the problem of staff who are mde on the telephone, quite clearly it is not realistic to expect such a result. The suggested improvements in the legislation are not new. They were put forward a number of years ago by the then Lord Mayor (Clem Jones). It is notable that, at that time, the suggestions were refused. In those days, this same Govemment said that it was not in the city's interests to make the sort of changes that are now being made in this legislation. 1 confess that I was more sympathetic to the Govemment's view than to that of the then Lord Mayor, because I realised that there were many arguments in favour of it. Clem Jones had particular qualities. At the time, my objections were not based on 3976 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU the giving of those powers to him. He had the ability to administer them wisely. However, I believe that it was wrong to provide powers that could be used by people who did not have a measure of experience and knowledge equal to that possessed by Clem Jones, With due respect, I am really saying that Lord Mayor SaUyanne Atkinson is not a Clem Jones. Although I have a great deal of respect for her—she is a likeable person with many good qualities—she has not had training and experience similar to that of Clem Jones. As a Lord Mayor, Clem Jones was unique. We have not had, and probably never will have, another Lord Mayor able to administer those powers as he did. In passing on the powers to fiiture Lord Mayors, the Goverament is surmising that they will fully understand their job in local goverament, and that the pohtical parties wiU select their lord mayoral candidates because they have the necessary qualities, A Lord Mayor should have an understanding of legal problems, a background in engineering problems, and an understanding of the day-to-day problems in an undertaking as large as the Brisbane City Council, It would be very good if that were so; but, in practice, all political parties will select a candidate who, they believe, will be able to win the election. They will not be on the lookout for a practical person with such a background; they will choose an election-winner. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life, that if they do not do that, they cannot win. The chances of getting candidates with experience similar to that of Clem Jones are remote. The chances of getting a candidate who has served as an alderman for 10 or 15 years, with the technical background and training of Clem Jones, are lessened by the election of a Lord Mayor at large rather than one elected by the aldermen. It is quite hkely that never again will a Lord Mayor have the same qualities as those possessed by Clem Jones, The BiU is pattemed on the needs outlined at the time to suit a Lord Mayor with his quahfications. The changes are tailored to the quahfications he exemphfied. We could have a Lord Mayor with an ability to win elections, a man who can talk to people, but a man who does not understand the limitation of nis powers under this legislation. In the past, the system involved a differentiation between the powers exercised by the professional staff and those exercised by elected representatives. The difference wiU become very blurred, if not completely overshadowed. The Lord Mayor wUl have the power to override recommendations made by the chief engineer on the siting of a bridge. That matter involves both political and engineering considerations. It is correct that politicians should decide the political considerations, that is, the siting of a project where it will have the greatest economic benefit for the people, but politicians should not be able to override engineering recommendations. If a Lord Mayor cannot recognise that difference, and wrongly exercises his or her power, a bridge could be buUt in an area in which the earth is not suitable for foundations or in which simUar problems cotUd arise. As a result of these changes, a number of difficulties could arise, and those difficuhies have not been properly canvassed at this stage. The Lord Mayor visited the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, who, unfortunately, is not able to be present to give us the background to the changes that have been introduced into the Chamber. These experiments could create a number of problems. The Bill, in effect, makes Chapter 2 of the Brisbane City Council ordinances redundant. I think that it is timely to look back at the history of those ordinances. They were introduced at a time when the Brisbane City Council was accused, for good reason, of being cormpt. It was accused of indulging in patronage, of granting contracts to people in retum for payments. It was also accused of gross inefficiency and of wasting a great deal of public funds. The position became so serious that the Goverament of the day, under the guidance of a man who I believe was one of the greatest experts in local goverament matters in this State, carried out a great deal of research and introduced what became known as Chapter 2 of the Brisbane City Council ordinances. Those ordinances introduced procedures that protected the rights of the citizens. They outiined the duties that the professional officers had to carry out. That prevented City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3977 aldermen from giving approval to people to whom they owed favours. It has been a very good system. Since those ordinances were introduced, a serious accusation of graft and cormption has never been levelled at the Brisbane City Council. At times, people have said, "You get approval if you pay the money." Nobody has ever been able to substantiate such a charge. A serious charge has never been considered by a court. Any charges that have been made have been shown to come from people who had a grievance. Any person who is educated in the system of local govemment would have to agree that the ordinances introduced at that time were very good in eliminating any suggestion of cormption in the granting of approvals. The difficulty is that a price has had to be paid. There have been delays. I admit that not all of them have been justified delays. At times, I could point to a case and say, "This has taken a year to be dealt with and there is no excuse for that." In those cases, the Govemment should be looking at the circumstances that have caused the delays and remove them, not throwing over a system that has served the city of Brisbane well for so long. The Govemment should not be introducing a system which, historically, has resulted in the levelling of charges of cormption. As I have said, that system creates the risk that approvals could be given to people who have money to pay. I hasten to add that I am not saying that that is the reason why these changes are being introduced; I am only saying that that risk is created by the changes that are being made. In recent times, much publicity has been given to the fact that the rights of citizens should not be diminished. Changes have been introduced to take away the rights of objectors under the town plan. The Liberal Party, both in this House and in the council, has said that those rights should be sustained, yet the amendments before the House today at the request of the Brisbane City Council take away the rights of citizens to protect their property. Sir William Knox: You do not need to have it twice. Clem Jones tried to get rid of it, too, and it was put in at that time. You do not need to have the right of appeal twice. Mr SHAW: I am not talking about the specifics of that instance. Sir William Knox: You get one appeal; you do not get two appeals. Mr SHAW: Philosophically, the Liberal Party says it believes in people having that right of appeal. These changes are taking away the rights of people to appeal to somebody—whether it be to the elected representatives or anyone else—when the bureaucracy makes decisions that they do not hke. It is clear that is what wUl happen. People have fears that there will be a political form of govemment along the American lines in which, when there is a change of goverament, the new goverament appoints its professional staff. That fear has been greatly increased by the recent mass exodus of senior management staff from the council, and now the sacking, with no apparent reason, of the Brisbane Town Clerk. That has given a great deal of substance to the fears of the people that this is the system that both the Goverament and the Liberal council are seeking. A spokesman for the Cabinet said that Cabinet supports this act. If Cabinet supports it, it must know why the Brisbane Town Clerk was sacked. Surely, it would not support the sacking without knowing the reason for it. Mr Milliner: The Minister owes us an explanation, if that is the case. Mr SHAW: Of course the Minister owes us an explanation. The Goverament owes the people and the Brisbane Town Clerk an explanation, Mr Mackenroth: Ministers in charge of this Bill are making the quickest changes that I have ever seen. We now have the third one in two minutes. Mr SHAW: It is very difficult to know who is controlling this Bill. I hope that somebody on behalf of the Local Goverament Department is listening to the questions that are being raised and will advise somebody to give some answers.

70591 — 135 3978 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU

Mr Milliner: It just shows that the Cabinet cannot handle your stimulating debate, Mr SHAW: That could very well be tme. Cabinet has said that it supports the sacking. I am asking the Govemment to tell the House why the Brisbane Town Clerk was sacked. Is it part of the move to remove all previous incumbents of senior positions? I say deliberately that I am not referring to Labor people, because there is no way in the world that Mr Philbrick would be considered a supporter of the Labor Party or as a Labor appointee, even though he was appointed by a Labor Lord Mayor. Mr Philbrick's appointment was certainly not political. At the time, the Labor Party probably viewed his appointment with some concem, because it felt that he was very much opposed to the Labor Party's political persuasion and it had fears that perhaps he might act contrary to the Labor Party's interests. It is to Mr Philbrick's credit that he has never done that. He has acted as a professional public servant should and has carried out the instmctions and the lawful decisions of the council or the Govemment of the day. Because Mr Philbrick's sacking has become very much a part of the fears resulting from the introduction of these ordinances, I call on the Goverament to give this House the reasons why the Brisbane Town Clerk was sacked and to assure this House that it has nothing to do with a move to change the senior staff, and even some of the junior staff, of the Brisbane City Council. A number of what I call the junior staff in the Brisbane City Council are fearfiil for their jobs. When I say "junior staff', I am speaking about senior clerical staff at submanagerial level and professional engineers. They fear that, if the American system is introduced, mass changes of staff will occur. I have very often said that that American system, which is being advocated and praised as being the only way to go, has been proven to bring with it cormption. The amendments need much further explanation. Some of them appear to be quite benign. One of the amendments changes the title "Vice Mayor" to "Deputy Mayor". If there is some deep reason for that change, I have to confess that I have not been able to see it. As some of the aldermen on the Liberal side of the council have pointed out, perhaps it is because of a desire for a presidential style of govemment in the council and a wish that the position of Vice Mayor could carry with it similar powers to those of the Vice President of the United States of America. That is not what is required. The Deputy Mayor has very much reduced powers. He does not have the same sorts of powers as the Vice President of the United States. I hope that the Minister—whichever Minister it might be—who replies to this debate will give an explanation of some sort for the change. I know that it is not a new idea. In fact, to my recollection, it has been mooted for 15 or 16 years. Although for that period people have been trying to make the change, the reason for the change is not clear. The most important concem of the Opposition about the Bill is the power of the Lord Mayor to delegate. I have at some length dealt with the increased powers to be given to the Lord Mayor, but the most important point is that those powers are not necessarily retained by the Lord Mayor. She could delegate them to a council officer, to a council committee or to some other person. As an elected representative, the Lord Mayor must have some responsibility to the electors. However, the persons to whom the powers are delegated will probably have no responsibility to the electorate whatsoever. That is the cmx of my opposition to the amendment now before the House. The Opposition requires an explanation of how that will operate. What protection will be offered to ensure that the citizen's rights will be maintained? If that explanation is not forthcoming, the Opposition will be forced to oppose that clause of the Bill. Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (2.43 p.m.): I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the Bill. As has been mentioned by the Opposition spokesman (Mr Shaw), essentially the Bill deals with the powers of the Lord Mayor and the powers of the council. In the deliberations on this Bill, honourable members have to remember that City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill H March 1986 3979

the rights of local citizens must not be diminished in any way and that, in fact, they need to be reinforced. My contribution to the debate will be to consider an example of council activity and to pose the question: Are the rights of citizens being protected? My question centres particularly on the Lord Mayor, who last night attended a pubhc meeting over the possibility of the council's establishing a mbbish dump off Cavendish Road at Mount Gravatt East. There is no doubt that the citizens of Mount Gravatt East and Holland Park are extremely anxious and deeply concemed about that issue. They leamed only recently that that was the council's proposal and that the waste dump would be adjacent to the Mount Gravatt CoUege of Technical and Further Education. I am sure that all honourable members will understand the distress of the citizens at the prospect of peace, cleanliness and the basic values of the neighbourhood being shattered by the imposition of such an obscenity. Mount Gravatt East is a fairly old residential area in which many old people live. It is a residential area that is characterised by a great deal of civic pride. I live exactly three streets from the proposed dump. I am speaking in this Chamber not only as a member but also as a local resident who has lived in the same street and in the same house for 31 years. I do not intend to allow the proposal to proceed without the residents putting up a good fight. Such was the haste, apparently, in which the decision was taken by the council that the residents of the area found out about the proposal only through a small item in The Courier-Mail. No local residents were given the courtesy of an approach seeking any reaction, positive or negative. I assure the Lord Mayor that feelings among those residents likely to be affected is mnning extremely high. They feel that, before a decision was taken, they should have been consulted, instead of being treated in such a cavalier fashion by a council that is supposed to look after their best interests. I shall outline the citizens' objections to this dump. First, in what must seem an incredible tum of events, the Brisbane City Council recently subdivided and sold a large property adjacent to the proposed dump site. It is ironic that the council should have done that. The area was subdivided and many houses have been or are being constmcted. However, not one of the potential buyers or house-holders was advised in any way by the Lord Mayor or anyone else of the decision to establish a dump off Cavendish Road in Mount Gravatt East. The second objection raised by the residents is that Cavendish Road is an extremely busy thoroughfare providing access to the south-eastem suburbs. Access to the proposed dump is on what must be one of the most dangerous comers on the south side of Brisbane. Previously, when gravel tmcks entered and left the quarry, which is currently on the site, many serious accidents occurred. The residents are rightly concemed that, unless the proposal is stopped, the traffic problems will retura and perhaps be worse than they were. Last night, at a public meeting, I was advised that in peak times about 40 tmcks an hour have passed in and out of the quarry and up and down the street. The third objection raised by the residents is that the very nature of the dumping industry itself would create noise, pollution and consequent health hazards. I doubt whether any community-minded citizen of this city would relish the appearance of such a neighbourhood. I assure the Lord Mayor that the citizens of Mount Gravatt East are determined that the dumping industry will not be located in their neighbourhood. A further objection is that, although assurances have been given that the dump will not be a repository for industrial or noxious wastes, no guarantees have been given to the citizens that that will be so. How will the dumping be policed? It will not be of great consolation in the future when an accident occurs for the council to say simply, "Oops, sorry, we did not realise that was happening.", particularly if any insidious poisons escape from the dump. The next consideration is extremely important and shows how often council decisions are made without a full consideration of the area. The site was previously a quarry. One 3980 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU of the characteristics of the quarry was the blasting that was carried out frequently. The blasting has shattered the foundations of some of the homes and cracked walls and ceilings. It must not be overlooked that the area is underpinned by sedimentary rocks. One of the most important consequences of the blasting is that the sedimentary rock strata has been fractured and many strata have moved along their bedding planes. If material is dumped in that area, one of the most obvious adverse effects is that in wet weather moisture will penetrate into the dump and various sludges wiU form that will penetrate into the rock strata. Of course, to add insult to injury, a small underground stream—a subartesian basin—exits in the vicinity of the Salvin Park nursing home on Creek Road. The material from the dump will impregnate the underlying strata and will be carried miles away into surrounding watercourses. It is believed that that will have a profoundly adverse effect on those watercourses. Apparently that has not even occurred to the council officers. Last night, it was pointed out at a meeting with the Lord Mayor. One of the most important characteristics of the whole area relates to its geography. The fact is that the dump is in a basin, which has several characteristics. In winter, temperature inversions are extremely common in this area. As I live on the top of a hill, I can stand in my back sun-room and look at the wall of the dump. The fact is that these temperature inversions prevent odour, smoke and so on from escaping, and they settle in all the neighbouring valleys round Carrara Street and others. These temperature inversions will present a major problem in the area because people could have to put up with pollution from the dump for several days. In addition, the most important prevailing winds come from the north-east. The dump is only a matter of metres from Cavendish Road and the smeU, the smoke and so on will blow right over the neighbouring suburbs. In fact, as I said before, I can open the windows of my back sun-room and look straight at the dump, and that is exactly where the smeU will come from. In summer, that area also gets the south-easterly winds. That will blow the smell over other areas. In winter, the south-westerlies and the westerlies will cause the smell to move right over in the vicinity of Creek Road. On environmental grounds, I just cannot understand how a council could make such a decision. It is naive in the extreme. It shows the total inadequacy of the council research into the area. Of course, the residents know that the dump is to be established there purely and simply as a result of a deal made with the local quarry-owners. It is to save money. The rights of the residents were trampled on and not seriously considered. As I have said, the natural watercourses will be affected. It is believed that the possibility of flooding will increase. I point out also that the site of the dump is bounded by the campus of the Mount Gravatt College of Technical and Further Education and Seton College. Mount Gravatt East State School is down the road. Mount Gravatt Special School is just down the road. Cavendish Road State High School is just up the road. Carindale Nursing Home is only a couple of hundred metres away. Salvin Park nursing home is south-west of the site. Belmont Private Hospital is not very far away, and Greenmeadows Nursing Home is also quite close. Surely anyone wanting to establish a dump in such an area would have to think very carefully, because of the possibility of airbome pollution aggravating many of the conditions already suffered by elderiy patients in many of these homes and schoolchildren. It is not unreasonable that residents should object to the dump in the most positive and strong terms. The objections are not unreasonable, and the residents do not seek the impossible in wanting the decision reversed. However, to ensure that that happens, I will be seeking urgent talks with the Director-General of Health and Medical Services. I will be taking a deputation of local residents to see him. The Director-General of Health has the sole statutory responsibility to decide on health matters in relation to the dump. I am absolutely determined that the dump will not go ahead. I will approach City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU 11 March 1986 3981

the Director-General of Health to try to obtain his assistance in ensuring that the dump does not proceed. Finally, in relation to the objections raised by the local residents, I point out that, recently, the decision to site a quarry at Femy Grove was stopped by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane on the ground that it would create pollution, noise and so on. Perhaps the most important statement of all appeared in yesterday's Courier-Mail under the headline, "Beanland plans try for State seat." The article states— "Alderman Beanland said he had recently witnessed several blatant examples of the State Govemment riding roughshod over the interests of the individual, the householder and small business." If they are the criteria upon which people nominate for public office, 1 can only say that hundreds of Mount Gravatt residents should nominate at the next Brisbane City Council election. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (2.55 p,m,): Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr Wharton interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chair will decide who has the call. The list of speakers given to me does not include the honourable member for Chatsworth. However, I will endeavour to fit the honourable member in. I regret any inconvenience. Mr BAILEY: The Bill contains machinery provisions, basically, but in its own way it is an important piece of legislation. It is yet another example of the ongoing co­ operation between the State Goverament and the Brisbane City Council, and I hope that that kind of interaction can continue. The most notable previous example of that kind of co-operation was legislation introduced to control problems associated with garbage collection services in Brisbane. Such legislation was imperative not only for the efficient mnning of garbage collection services but also for the health and benefit of the people of Brisbane. That level of co-operation should be welcome and should be contrasted with the cheap political point-scoring that is engaged in by those who attempt to further their own selfish political interests by painting a picture that is vastly different from the reahty. I share the concems of the Leader of the House (Mr Wharton) and the Govemment about the vital need for such constmctive co-operation to continue. The committee of which I am chairman has been disparaged in some quarters, but it is very much part and parcel of the co-operation to which I have referted and forms part of the stmcture that ensures a good relationship between the State Goverament and the Brisbane City Council, particularly in matters that affect the town plan, Mr Milliner: What does the committee think about the sacking of Mr Philbrick, the former Town Clerk? Mr BAILEY: I could not speak for my committee on that matter, Mr Milliner: What about you? Mr BAILEY: Quite frankly, I was very much disturbed not so much about the right of the Lord Mayor to sack the Town Clerk, but rather about the Lord Mayor's justification for the sacking. I believe that the Lord Mayor will need to justify the sacking of a person who appears to have been an extremely competent officer and who served under Labor administrations with the same kind of attitude that he adopted in serving the new administration, that is, without any fear of political interference or favour. I find it quite extraordinary that a man of such a high ethical calibre and, one would have thought, a great deal of capability would have been dismissed in a way that has 3982 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU destroyed, to a degree, his reputation in the eyes of many people and has resulted in his resorting to court action in an attempt to restore his reputation. Mr Milliner: It is shocking. Mr BAILEY: It is shocking. Moreover, it will ultimately cost the rate-payers of Brisbane a great deal of money for what appears to be, at this stage, a matter of chagrin or a lack of abUity on the part of the Lord Mayor to get along with a competent man. The decision is one that has been made by the Lord Mayor, and I am afraid that she will have to wear it. It is the people of Brisbane who will have to pay for it. Several other senior officers in the council administration have also disappeared, and there is no doubt that a feeling of insecurity pervades the senior levels of the Brisbane City Council. It is to be as expected that, as a result of moves that have been made in recent weeks, a number of public servants would be feeling shaky and morale in the council would be very low. One of the features of this practical piece of legislation is that the Lord Mayor, as the leading citizen of Brisbane, will be a member of each of the committees that constitute the council. It is fitting that the Lord Mayor should be involved in the day-to-day mnning of the council. Mr Cahill interjected. Mr BAILEY: The honourable member for Aspley has said I am being unchivalrous, but I am being neither unchivalrous nor sexist. I think it is important that the Lord Mayor should sit in judgment on or form part of the role played by committees of the council. I am a little amused by the comments made by the honourable member for Wynnum (Mr Shaw) about cormption in the earlier days of the council. It stmck me how appropriate it is that the existing reference to "Vice Mayor" should be replaced with "Deputy Mayor". It is probably a more appropriate title, when one has regard to stories that circulate about cormption in the council. It is desirable that the deputy leader of the council should lose the "Vice" title to remove any possibility of its being misinterpreted. Once again, it is one of those small machinery matters that needs to be covered. The Bill is basically a machinery measure, and even though the Vice Mayor, or the Deputy Mayor as he soon will be, is to leave the council, one would hope that not all the councillors will do the same thing and stand all over Brisbane. This moming, I saw an interesting editorial in the Daily Sun that I would like to read into Hansard, if not for the edification of members, then at least for their entertainment. It was headed "Sally's crew bailing out", and it stated— "Brisbane's Lord Mayor SaUyanne Atkinson obviously doesn't feel short of friends, having allowed two of her closest colleagues to bid for State seats." Mr Henderson: Aren't there four of them? Mr BAILEY: I have not heard about the others yet. Mr Milliner: Name them. Mr BAILEY: I have not yet heard who the four are. The editorial continues— "If they get up she will soon be without two intimate council counsellors as well as a Town Clerk with solid local experience. Mr Philbrick, recentiy sacked after five years, is unhkely to retum to the job," I think it can definitely be said that he will not retura to the job. The chances of that happening are certainly highly unlikely. The editorial continued— "Vice Mayor Denver Beanland has nominated for the Liberal spot in the contest for Toowong—" City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3983

that makes it appropriate for me to have a bit of a chat about it— "formerly a Liberal enclave—" I am glad that that was mentioned— "now held by the Nationals' Mr Bailey," I am sure that all members will be interested in the next paragraph— "Aid Atkinson's executive assistant Mr McLeay also wants Liberal endorse­ ment—this time for the seat of Aspley, now held by the Nationals' Mr Cahill," Mr Milliner: I hear that that's only a blind. I hear that he is going to nominate for Nundah. Mr BAILEY: That is likely; I do not know. It depends how many more secret listening devices have been placed round the city hall to pick up all the information that members need. I will retura to the editorial, which is slightiy interesting and quite entertaining, even if it has been written in a tongue-in-cheek fashion— "Whatever the quality of advice these two men gave the Lord Mayor, their support would have been vital as she took over from 24 years of Labor mle." There is no doubt about that. Members opposite might not be very pleased to know about that aspect. However, I am sure that most people in this State are absolutely delighted that Brisbane has a Liberal council. The editorial continued— "Their attempts to move to the State field are perhaps an indication of how the Liberal Party has little more than the Brisbane City Council to give it authority in Queensland. For the moment the council will be seen as a springboard for the much- promised Liberal revival and a spawning ground for future party big fish." I thought that that editorial might be of interest to those members who have not read the Daily Sun. Sir William Knox: We read the front page this moming. Mr BAILEY: The honourable member has been reading the front pages? It is very nice to know that. Is that what the honourable member was reading this moming when the Premier was answering a question from him? Sir William Knox: Your friend top-level Ted got a big mn today. Mr BAILEY: Yes, he did get a big mn today. That will probably be discussed later. Mr Lee: You were being given a bit of a mn there today, too. Mr BAILEY: That is very interesting. It is nice to see that three members of the Liberal Party are listening to my edifying speech this aftemoon. They were very perceptive not to have missed it. Mr Lee: Only two of your lot are listening to you. Mr BAILEY: I thank the three Liberal members who are here listeiung to me. I commend the Bill. It is an important part of the machinery needed to keep the council mnning. Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (3,3 p,m,): I join with the member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson)—it is probably the only time we will ever agree on anything— in opposing the establishment of the proposed dump in Cavendish Road, Holland Park, which is in my electorate, I know that the smell that will come from the dump will affect a great part of the honourable member's electorate, and probably after the next 3984 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BUl

election it will affect the electorate of Mount Gravatt—I will not say "his electorate"— more than it will affect people living in my electorate, even though it will be situated in the Chatsworth electorate. I am concemed about the way in which the Liberal Party council has gone about making the decision to place the dump in that area. Last Sunday week, 300 to 400 local residents attended a public meeting to voice their concem about the council's placing a dump on the proposed site. The first those people heard about the dump was when Alderman Brian Walsh circulated a letter advising them of the decision that had been made by the Brisbane City Council at a meeting the week before when the local alderman (Alderman Chiconi) seconded a motion to place the dump on that site. Last year, the Liberal Party ran on the slogan that it would consult local residents, bring the council to the people and allow local people to make an input. Yet that decision went before the council and was voted on by the council before any of the local residents knew about it. Last night, a second public meeting was called by the Liberal aldermen and the Lord Mayor so that the Lord Mayor could gauge the reaction of local residents—almost a month after the council made a final decision to site the dump. Any decision will not have to go before the full council. The decision has been advertised for objections. The matter will go back to the members of the registration board, which means that the people who voted on siting the dump will make the final decision. The Liberal Party is conceraed about the number of protesters. About 250 people attended the meeting held last night. The Liberal Party distributed the leaflets. Half the houses in the local area did not receive a pamphlet, so that half of the local people did not know the meeting was to be held. At the meeting, the Lord Mayor said that the decision had been made in 1984 by the Labor council. That was quite incorrect. Brian Walsh, the leader of the opposition in the council, in whose ward the dump is to be situated, was able to correct the lies that she told the meeting last night. In 1984, when the proposal came before the Brisbane City Council establishment and co-ordination committee, it was knocked back. When the Liberal council was elected in 1985, once again the owners of the quarry (BMG Resources Ltd) submitted the proposal to the council. In May 1985, the council's establishment and co-ordination committee decided that the dump proposal would go ahead. The council decided that in May 1985 but it was not untU Febmary 1986—10 months later—that the local people were told about it. Despite all the talk about consultation and open govemment, it took the Lord Mayor 10 months to tell the people that a dump would be sited in that locality. It is disgraceful that the council should conduct its business in such a way. I do not want the dump there, the member for Mount Gravatt does not want the dump there, and Brian Walsh, the local alderman, does not want the dump there. After the meetings held last Sunday and last night, I should think that Alderman Chiconi is having second thoughts about seconding the motion. I should be surprised if the council were to go ahead. Alderman Chiconi was elected on a slender majority and, in the main, the people who would be affected by the dump live in her ward. As a political novice, I do not think she realised that people would object so strongly to a dump being placed virtually in their back yards. I predict that, if the council is stupid enough to proceed with this decision, the Labor Party will win the Holland Park ward at the next council election, because of the large number of people who are disturbed and are likely to change their votes. In the last election, the people in the area that will be affected voted 60 per cent for Alderman Chiconi. If a poll were to be held in that area today, she would be flat out getting 6 per cent of the votes. The problems associated with a dump are known to all, but this site has its particular problems. The member for Mount Gravatt spoke about the lie of the land. On examining the site, it can be seen that, although it is a hole in the ground caused by the removal City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU 11 March 1986 3985

of a hill and the digging of a hole, it is still in a valley. If a dump is sited there, stench, and smoke when the dump is alight, will drift up the valley through a closely settled surburban area. Whether or not there are temperature inversions, the stench and pollution from that dump will always pass through the valley into the Carrara Street area and throughout the Mount Gravatt East and Holland Park areas. The member for Mount Gravatt spoke also about pollution. The council has stated that it will be a general dump. What is a general dump? If we were to look at the council's files we would find they stated that this would be an excellent area for the dumping of hazardous wastes. Because of the blasting that has occurred in that area, any hazardous wastes dumped would seep into the small creek that mns into Bulimba Creek, which passes right through the Carindale estate. It is not just the Mount Gravatt area and the Holland Park area that would be affected; Carindale also would be affected. The member for Mount Gravatt referred to the Salvin Park nursing home. Further along, the Lutheran Church-has built the Carinya retirement village on the bank of Bulimba Creek. Perhaps we should speak to someone in authority in the Lutheran Church about convincing the council not to establish a dump in that area. That retirement village would be affected by any pollution flowing into Bulimba Creek. Enough is enough. Over the past 20 years, the people in the Holland Park area have experienced pollution problems from tmcks. They have been affected by the blasting from the quarries and by the dust that is raised by tmcks travelling along their streets. They can look at the quarries and think that perhaps in the very near future the quarries will close down and they will start to get some peace. Now, the council has come along with this great idea of establishing a dump in that area. Further down Bulimba Creek, in the Carindale and Greenmeadows estates, people have had to endure the stench from the sewage treatment plants. They have been looking forward to the day when those plants were closed down. Before the last Brisbane City Council election, the Labor council commenced work on a new sewage treatment plant. The Liberal council is continuing with the work; so the time is not very far away when the sewage treatment plant affecting those estates is closed down and the stench disappears. But, no, the Liberal council wants to establish a dump in that area. When the sewage treatment plant closes down, stench will continue to emanate from the dump. One needs to look at the reasons for the establishment of this dump. Why is a dump needed in that area? Two reasons have been advanced. The first is that the garbage tmcks would have a shorter distance to travel. Two years ago, when the Brisbane City Council contracts were let, the Liberal Party objected to a particular company getting the contract. Hunter Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd took the council to court and won the right to have the tenders reopened. At that stage, the company knew the bid of the person who had been awarded the first contract and it knew what it had to beat. It was very simple for Hunter Bros to submit a further tender and undercut the price of the company that won the contract in the first instance. Now, Hunter Bros wants a dump closer than the one at Chandler to which it has to cart its mbbish. Too much time is wasted with the tmcks travelling down to Chandler and back again empty. That is not our problem, it is not the problem of the Brisbane City Council and it is not the problem of the people who live in that Holland Park area. If Hunter Bros submitted a tender too low and finds that it cannot make the profit that it wants to, the company should not have submitted that low price in the first place. Hunter Bros wants this dump established at Holland Park. Secondly, BMG, the company which mns that quarry at Holland Park, knows that the quarry is coming to the end of its commercial life and it does not know what it will do with the land. Under its ordinances, the Brisbane City CouncU requires any developer to give 8 per cent of fair and reasonable land to the State Govemment, which is then held in tmst for the council for parks and recreational use. A hole cannot be considered to be fair and reasonable land. BMG is suggesting that it lease the land to the councU. It wants the council to pay it for the use of the land. The council will lease the land from BMG and fill the land with mbbish that Hunter Bros will dump there and, at the 3986 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill end of that time, the council will rehabUitate the land. That land will then be considered fair and reasonable land, and BMG will be able to give that 8 per cent to the council for parkland and save 8 per cent of any of the existing land that it will be able to subdivide and make a larger profit. Frankly, I do not think that members should be conceraed about whether BMG wants to be able to subdivide an additional 8 per cent of its land. That is its problem. BMG dug the hole too deeply; let it worry about it. It should not be the councU's responsibihty to fill the hole so that BMG can make extra profit. That company has already made massive profits from taking the dirt out of the hole. The council should not have to fill the hole with mbbish so that BMG can make a profit when it subdivides its land. The local residents have made their opinions on this dump very clear. I have been to two meetings, one with 300 to 400 people present and one with 250 people present. At both of those meetings, I did not hear one person, other than the Liberal aldermen, say, "WeU, this is a good idea. I think we will have a dump there," AU of those people stated that they do not want the dump there and that they want the council to change its mind, I hope that, as a result of last night's meeting, at which she was present, the Lord Mayor will take heed of what the people of Holland Park and Mount Gravatt East have stated to her, and will reverse her decision. She stated that she was at the meeting to consult with the local residents and wanted to know their opinions. Their opinions were made very clear to her. Last night, I asked her to give a "Yes" or "No" answer. She said that it would be difficult to do that last night and that she would have to go away and think about it. She stated that she was having a meeting today. However, she was unable to say whether that decision would be made today, next month or next year. I suggest to the Lord Mayor and the Liberal aldermen of the Brisbane City Council that they make their decision in a hurry and let the people know before there is a revolt in that area against the Liberal Party because, certainly, I can see that happening. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (3.17 p.m.): Some aspects of the City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill have been referred to by the Opposition spokesman. The amendments at one level are not minor, but they are not of great controversy. They are certainly important. Their importance relates to the abUity of a new administration, one that has recently received a mandate, to overcome the problems that it saw before the election and which a period in office has confirmed; in other words, the new administration's wish to set its stamp of a new direction upon the city administration. A significant part of the proposals comes out of an intemal review of the operations of the city council. It is no disrespect to people who performed their duties under previous administrations, some for long periods, to say that each administration acquires its own individual stamp. Some of the senior officers became immensely powerfiil. It would be tme to say that the names of some of the heads of the city councU departments became bywords. Some of them had nicknames, which would be heard as part of the currency on the tongues of anybody who had anything of significance to do with the development of this city—people involved in building, people involved in subdivision and real estate agents. Certain individuals had reputations, styles and power which were well and tmly recognised. One of the problems and responsibilities of the political process, of the elective process, is to set its stamp—its policies and sights—on the administration and to ensure that the people within the administration mn the council according to the policies and the principles that the party declared prior to the election, particularly when a change occurs, which indicates that the people do want a change in the administration. So it is not surprising—and I say this with no disrespect to the long- term service of individuals—that some employees, towards the twilight of their careers, wish to take their superannuation and retire rather than go through the period of change. I am a littie surprised by the statements of the member for Toowong (Mr BaUey) about change and a lack of morale. That is certainly not the effect of reports coming to City of Brisbane Act Amendment BUl 11 March 1986 3987

me or of statements that have been made spontaneously in my presence. Certainly, some individuals might find it difficult to adjust to a new administration; but every new administration is entitled to the total support of its public servants, particularly in the key areas, and to the change of tempo required. I am not saying that employees will not continue to attend to their jobs and continue to do a day's work; but in those key areas in which people voted for change, there must be change. It is the responsibUity of the political process to ensure that that change occurs, because that is what people voted for. The amendments to the City of Brisbane Act involve the definition of the position of Lord Mayor. Honourable members will recall that it was not the Liberal Party that called for the change in the composition of the city of Brisbane at the council level. On the contrary, that change was imposed. If the Govemment imposes upon the city of Brisbane an elected Lord Mayor and distinctly rejects the sugggestion—it was rejected in this House—that the Lord Mayor is merely the person having the majority support of a particular political party in a local authority, this is a vote for something different. Quite clearly, the logical consequence of that system, which was imposed on the Liberal Party against its vote, is that the new position of Lord Mayor requires new definition. That is exactly what is happening. The definition does not vary a great deal from definitions of similar positions in other local authority areas in which the system is operating. There is a recognition of the position, and there is a recognition and statement of the powers and duties of the Lord Mayor. The powers and the duties of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane would not come as any surprise to anybody over the length and breadth of Queensland involved in local govemment. The main difference between the Brisbane City Council and other local authorities is that Brisbane has full-time aldermen. I am not sure whether that is now mirtored on the Gold Coast City Council, where part-time payment is for fiiU-time responsibility. Certainly, shire chairmen and the mayors of other cities expect to have the dominant control and responsibihty in their local authority area. A review was conducted of the administration of the city of Brisbane. It is accepted as a tmism that that administration is bigger than that of the State of Tasmania, It is overwhelmingly the biggest in Australia, It was an organisational review of a very large bureaucracy—a multimillion-dollar bureaucracy. Nobody has been able to substantially condemn that review, which proposed increased flexibility.On e would have thought that is a perfectly reasonable thing for a review to propose, and a perfectly reasonable thing for a Liberal administration to be able to carry out. The ordinances of the city of Brisbane are in a volume three quarters of an inch thick, if I may use the old imperial measure. Anybody who has tanked with them and the policies of the city of Brisbane would realise that there is significant inflexibUity. It is proposed to break down the departments and branches that are frozen in legislative marble. Why should the minute details of administration be reduced to legislation? It is the sort of thing that can change and should change. One is gratefiU that the Govemment has adopted the proposals of the review committee and the new councU, which accepted, as it had to, the stmcture of Lord Mayor imposed upon it. The proposals contained in the Bill are reasonable. Resolutions shall be made by the council on the organisation and the break-down into departments, branches and other units of the council. They will be reduced to a permanent, booklet form that will be avaUable so that people dealing with the council can see where they are at that time. The obligation is statutory, A booklet of the resolutions that re-organise the councU must be produced and it must be available. The proposal seems completely logical and reasonable. I can understand why the Department of Local Govemment accepted it. The council will have power to delegate fiinctions of the council by resolution. For instance, under the new section 34AA of the Local Government Act, it was found that the full council had to give approval for right-of-way easements. In a city the size of Brisbane, one could imagine the potential diversity and volume of decisions that had 3988 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU to be made on matters such as licences for flammable and combustible liquids. Surely it is reasonable, as this legislation would suggest, for such decision-making to be delegated, provided that it is done publicly so that people know to whom the matters are delegated and provided that it is done by resolution of the council. That is something that can be identified, Mr Shaw interjected, Mr INNES: This is validating legislation. It streamlines the procedure to allow the delegation of a variety of powers. The safety valve is that these resolutions must be consolidated and available for public scmtiny. There would not seem to be anything wrong with that. The BUl contains a provision that the Lord Mayor shall be the ex officio member of all committees of the aldermen of the councU. One would have thought that that would have been completely reasonable. The Lord Mayor has the responsibility of formulating general policies relating to the govemment of the city. The policies that are implemented must be the policies enshrined by the council itself I do not think that the generalised policies formulated by the Lord Mayor would have the force of law in themselves. They would need to be translated in a statutory way into official policies of the council and be available to the general public in the usual way. Part of the streamlining deals with appointments to the council. Reference has been made to the termination of the appointment of the Town Clerk. The leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Nundah (Sir WiUiam Knox), will deal with that issue in his contribution. One matter is misunderstood and deUberately sown about the city and the State. The chief executive of the city of Brisbane is not the Town Clerk; it is the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor, quite properly, carries the can and is the chief executive, not the Town Clerk. One would have thought that it is essential as a matter of administration at every level in this country that the Lord Mayor, as the chief of the bureaucracy, work with a Town Clerk who is in full sympathy and co-operation with the Lord Mayor. Mr Davis: It's amazing how you people change. It was the same sort of situation back in 1973. Mr INNES: The one thing that I can say about the member for Brisbane Central is that he does not change. His mindless gmmblings and inteijections are predictable in debates in this Chamber. A sensible proposal is made for the appointment of persons to the councU. At the moment, two steps must be taken in making an appointment. It must be advertised inside the council and then advertised outside the councU, As I understand it, the present administration does not propose to advertise extensively extemaUy, However, on occasions, it will want to do so. As a result of this sensible amendment, the council will have the power, when it is deemed necessary or appropriate, to advertise vacancies simultaneously inside and outside the council. The council goes along with a proposal to amend the provision relating to employees' superannuation to accord with Govemment policy. The council has no objection to that. The Bill removes some obsolete provisions, such as the definition "Victoria Bridge Act", which has ceased to exist in its old form. The Bill contains a provision dealing with differential rating. It is tme to say that that provision will have to be approached with some caution. I understand that that is the official point of view of the Local Govemment Department. Perhaps it will be triaUed in a few places in Queensland to see how effectively it operates. It is sensible to countenance the possibility of differential rating. However, of course, it is something that will have to be approached with considerable sensitivity so that higher rates are not unfairly imposed on sections of the community. It is probably an instance of having to hasten slowly. It is reasonable to embody differential rating in the Act, because circumstances can be envisaged in which it would be equitable and justified. City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU H March 1986 3989

The BUl proposes to aUow the streamlining of the administration of the city of Brisbane, If there is one constant complaint about bureaucracy, it is that it is too unwieldy, too unresponsive. Mention has been made today of a proposed garbage dump. Thank goodness the Lord Mayor, within the present stmcture, has found time to go out and speak to people in areas such as Mount Gravatt East, Mansfield and the electorate of Chatsworth, The Lord Mayor has the courage and makes the time to deal with a problem, to listen to the people and to take that back for the consideration of the council. Of course problems wiU arise. I am sure that the honourable member for Wynnum (Mr Shaw) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) know that, when one is considering the total interests of the city, it is easier to arrive at one conclusion. Having had experience on both sides, I know that, when a proposal is made which will clearly be in the interests of a larger group, an adjustment must be made—a balancing act— between the rights of those who will be most closely affected and the rights of others who will benefit. Nobody suggests that decisions are made maliciously. Peripheral matters arise under any administration. A Lord Mayor who can make the time and who has shown the willingness to front up to the problems is to be congratulated. If reorganisation and delegation of responsibilities leave the Lord Mayor with sufficient time to attend to administration and consult, the city of Brisbane will be a better place, which is what the people voted for. That is what the people thought they would get. Mr Davis: What about that policy of letting people ask questions for 30 minutes after each council meeting? Mr INNES: What about that policy? Mr Davis: It hasn't been implemented yet, has it? Mr INNES: The Lord Mayor has certainly implemented a policy of consulting people before trouble arises. I think that she spoke to a conceraed group in the electorate of the honourable member for Windsor (Mr Comben). The Lord Mayor has shown a wUUngness in my area and in other areas to consult people who are concemed about decisions that have to be made. Of course, they are usually major decisions in regard to matters such as sewerage works and dumps, which will clearly be of significant benefit to a large number of people but will cause problems for the people living nearby. That is as it will be. These sensible and beneficial proposals are to be welcomed. They will make the present Liberal administration in Brisbane, which is being applauded by tens of thousands of people, work even better. Mr MILLINER (Everton) (3.35 p.m.): I endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Wynnum (Mr Shaw) relative to the proposed amendments to the City of Brisbane Act. The honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes), who preceded me in the debate, mentioned the review that was undertaken by the new administration of the Brisbane City Council. Along with many of my colleagues in the Opposition, I am unable to argue with the proposition that a new administration should examine previous practices and procedures, and that, in many cases, undertaking a review is the appropriate way in which to approach the task. However, in undertaking a review and receiving a report in whatever form it takes, one must be careful to avoid implementing change for the sake of change. In many cases of reviews undertaken by management consultants, change will be recommended simply to justify the decision to review. Approximately 10 years ago, the North Brisbane Hospitals Board conducted a similar exercise and brought in management consultants to review the operations of the board. The final outcome was the redefinition or reclassification of a number of positions. The people who occupied those positions then had to reapply, and the end result was 3990 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU

that many of them regarded that as a personal affiont and therefore did not reapply. One must be careful to avoid the recurrence of such an outcome. Recently, following such a review, the Brisbane City Council lost a number of its senior officers. That observation was made previously by the honourable member for Sherwood. However, the ramifications of that review flow further than the senior level of administration in the Brisbane City Council. Recently, I had the opportunity of talking with many of the people who work for the Brisbane City Council at the lower levels, and I assure the honourable member for Sherwood that morale is at an all-time low. I cite an example of a change that has been effected as a result of the review conducted by the new administration; it is an example of change for the sake of change, and without apparent reason. In my electorate, a gentleman had been responsible for parks in the northem suburbs for a considerable number of years. He had an intimate knowledge of all the parks and gardens in that area, but for some unknown reason he was transferred to another area. His place was taken by a person who had an intimate knowledge of parks and gardens in another area of Brisbane. No logical reason can be given for such transfers. I believe that the new administration at City Hall has an obligation to furaish an explanation as to why such changes are being made. The honourable member for Toowong (Mr Bailey) expressed his point of view about the recent dismissal of the Town Clerk. In that matter also, I believe an obligation rests on the Lord Mayor to explain the reason for terminating the services of the Town Clerk. To preserve the future prospects of employment for the former Town Clerk, such an explanation is essential. The honourable members for Chatsworth (Mr Mackenroth) and Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) have mentioned problems associated with tip sites and mbbish dumps, and that is an aspect of the debate that I also wish to canvass. In my electorate, for approximately 15 years, the residents of Femy Grove and Keperra have had to put up with mbbish tips being situated very close to residential properties. The mbbish dump that would be well known to most people is the one that was situated at Femy Grove, on the comer of Upper Kedron Road and Samford Road, about two or three years ago. Another tip was situated fiirther along Upper Kedron Road. The former Lord Mayor (Alderman Harvey), whose ward was very close to that area, gave the residents an undertaking that no further tips would be established in the area. He said that the residents had had enough mbbish dumps and that it was only fair that the council look for altemative sites. If any member has Uved near a mbbish tip, he will know that, when they catch fire or mbbish being taken to the tip blows off vehicles, conditions can become quite uncomfortable. When the new administration came to office, it realised that the existing mbbish tip in Upper Kedron Road was nearing the end of its useful hfe and that another mbbish tip would have to be established in the northera suburbs. It purchased a site very close to the original dump on the coraer of Samford Road and Upper Kedron Road, Feray Grove. The new area is situated in Levitt Road, only a few hundred metres from the first dump, I am reliably informed that the council paid approximately $100,000 for that land. The approval of the Health Department and the Local Goverament Department must be obtained before a mbbish tip can be established. As members can imagine, local residents were irate at the prospect of another tip being estabUshed and, through the local progress association, they mounted a campaign to oppose its estabhshment. The progress association wrote to the Lord Mayor, who undertook to talk to them. In the meantime, however, the progress association had also written to the Local Goverament Department. The Lord Mayor did front a meeting of the progress association, which was attended by approximately 130 people. To the amazement of the people who attended the meeting, the Lord Mayor said, "I don't know what you're complaining about. As a matter of fact, I lived opposite one for a number of years, and I quite enjoyed it." Members can imagine the sort of response Mr Davis: The woman is obviously a half-wit. City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3991

Mr MILLINER: I agree that it was a rather remarkable statement. The Lord Mayor was not properly briefed and certainly the announcement anticipated by the assembled residents was not forthcoming. Then one of the residents read a letter that he had received from the Local Goverament Department, stating that the Health Department had not granted approval for the establishment of the mbbish dump. That left the Lord Mayor really high and dry, because she was not aware of that letter. The residents seemed quite happy with the outcome of the meeting. The Lord Mayor gave no indication that she contemplated taking any further action so, two or three days later when the local residents read their newspapers, they were amazed to read that the Lord Mayor intended to appeal to the Premier to have a dump established in the area. Although the Health Department had, for health reasons, knocked back the proposal the Lord Mayor intended to appeal to the Premier to have the decision overtumed. That indicates quite clearly how insincere the woman is, I want to place on record the appreciation of many of the local residents for the way in which the member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers) pursued this issue. Quarries in my area are also causing a number of problems. One quarry situated at Samford Road, Keperra, is causing grave concera to many residents. That clearly indicates the problems that arise when residents do not consent to the siting of certain activities in their area. Because a median strip has been placed outside the quarry, massive tmcks laden with gravel find it impossible to tum right to proceed down Samford Road. They have to proceed further west along Samford Road and then do a U-tura. I compliment the Mitchelton police on their attitude to the problem. They have been very understanding. Obviously they do not want to book tmck-drivers left, right and centre. They want the problem resolved. However, the quarry was worked for a number of years and, not long ago, was allowed to reopen. The quarry in Samford Road, Keperra, is causing grave concem. I ask the Minister for Local Govemment to examine the situation as soon as possible with a view to having something concrete done to relieve the problems created by this quarry. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (3.46 p.m.): I am happy to support the legislation, which stems from the very healthy, new approach in the Brisbane City Council. It is not to be expected that the policies of the new city council will be supported by members of the Opposition. However, they must respect the abUity with which Lord Mayor Atkinson and her team have gone about their duties. They have certainly effected enormous improvements in the administration of the council, in speeding up procedures and in dealing with the matters of importance that arise daily. One of the difficulties in the Brisbane City Council stems from the Lord Mayor being elected at large. That was the case with Alderman Jones until the law was changed to empower the aldermen to elect the Lord Mayor from their number. The election of a Lord Mayor at large creates intemal difficulties in the city council. It is obviously necessary to change the procedure under the City of Brisbane Act so that the Lord Mayor may retain authority in the various administrative units of the council. The Lord Mayor elected at large should not be a Lord Mayor detached from the administration of the council. The proposed amendments put the Lord Mayor very much back into council affairs as an ex officio member of the various committees and as being responsible for delegating authority. That is being entrenched by this legislation. Some changes must be effected. Possibly, they should have been done when Clem Jones was Lord Mayor. However, he did not seek the changes. His sheer force of personality was such that he used to mn over the top of his own aldermen. It should be remembered that he had only one opposition alderman in the city council. Some people forget that only one Liberal member was in the city council. Lord Mayor Jones had a free ride, even over his own aldermen. I am sure that the member for Wynnum will recall vividly some of the circum­ stances Mr Lee: In trying to mn over people, in 1972, he met his match when he ran against me, didn't he? 3992 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill

Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: I would not say that that was all due to the honourable member's efforts. It was due to the great support that the honourable member had from the Liberal voters in the area, the people who recognised the qualities of the established member. Lord Mayor Jones also ran for Federal Parliament and was mn over by Don Cameron. Mr Davis interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I knew that the honourable member for Brisbane Central would very soon wake up. The point is that the Lord Mayor was elected at large during the time of Lord Mayor Jones, and changes that should have been made to the legislation were not made to bring the Lord Mayor more into the administration of the council. Reference has been made to the sacking of the Brisbane Town Clerk. This Parliament provided a right of appeal for a Brisbane Town Clerk who was sacked. There was no such appeal for a Brisbane Town Clerk when he was dismissed in 1973, in the time of the honourable member for Wynnum. On that occasion, the member for Wynnum voted for the sacking of the Town Clerk, and no reasons were given. It took about two minutes for the sacking to be formalised in the Brisbane City Council meeting. There was no debate. At least, on this occasion, a debate took place on the dismissal of the Town Clerk. Mr Shaw: There were two years of troubled times leading up to that. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I am not doubting that for a moment, I am not disputing the authority of the Brisbane City Council to dismiss its Town Clerk, It is not unique. This is the third occasion on which a Town Clerk has been dismissed. That is one of the hazards of that office. Mr Innes: What were the sorts of things said at that time? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: At that time, the Lord Mayor said that he could not work with the Town Clerk, That was the only thing he ever said in pubhc about the dismissal, Mr Shaw: He probably had the same legal adviser. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That could easily have been so. I am not denying the right of the Brisbane City Council to dismiss its Town Clerk, On that occasion, in 1973, there was no right of appeal. To his credit, the then Minister for Local Govemment recommended to Parliament that there should be a right of appeal. That provision was included in the City of Brisbane Act and was made retrospective to apply to the dismissal of McAulay. He had a right of appeal against dismissal. A similar right of appeal apparently will be exercised by the person who was recently dismissed by the Brisbane City Council. Although different personalities were involved, history is repeating itself It is something that occurs from time to time, and it has to be dealt with when it occurs. I do not think that the Lord Mayor has to give any explanation to the community at present about the dismissal of the Town Clerk; nor should she have given any explanation to the Brisbane City CouncU meeting. The time for that is when the appeal is heard. At that time, the information will be put before the appeal tribunal. Mr Innes: How do you think Alderman Walsh would have worked with the Town Clerk? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I understand that Alderman Walsh had not spoken to the Town Clerk for three years. His relationship with the Town Clerk was very poor. If Alderman Walsh had become the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, just imagine what sort of relationship would have existed between him and the immediately retired Town Clerk. City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3993

The other matter that has been raised in the debate relates to the proposal for a dump at Holland Park. It is a vexed subject. It is a matter of community interest. To her credit, the Lord Mayor held a public meeting last night to hear all the complaints. She advised the people at that meeting that she would take all of their observations into consideration in determining the fiiture of the dump. Nobody wants a mbbish dump close to his home. For the whole time that I have been a member of this Chamber, Brisbane City Council mbbish dumps have been situated in my electorate. None of the active dumps has been tremendously popular. All I can say is that people should look at the magnificent playing-fields and parks in the Nundah electorate. Those facilities could not have been provided if the areas had remained as swamps and cesspools of mbbish that had been dumped by unauthorised people. All of those areas, including the present dump, are beautifiil areas. The present dump is well managed. Unfortunately, mbbish falls from vehicles travelling to the dump, and that is a nuisance. That matter should be attended to more frequently by the people charged with supervising it. The Northera Suburbs Leagues Club has built its playing-field on one of the reclaimed areas. All of the land on the eastera side of the airport has been reclaimed. The Northgate primary school was built on reclaimed land. As a result of the reclamation of those areas, the community has facilities, which have improved enormously the value of the community's property. I understand the position perfectly. Honourable members have approached me when dumps have been established in their electorates. I understand the feeling of the community. Material that is being taken to the dump has fallen on the road outside my own property. However, when the dump is filled and the area is reclaimed, beautiful areas become available to the community; so there is a balance. There is a different side to the story, which has to be taken into account as well. As the urban area expands within the city limits, more and more people find that dumps are offensive, particularly in an age when people are more aware of clean air, environmental management and things of that nature. Urban areas such as Brisbane are probably reaching the stage at which they should be looking very closely at recycling waste and using it more profitably than they are at the moment. Overseas, particularly in crowded areas of the world, recycling of waste has been a magnificent achievement. In Brisbane, waste could now be recycled and used for compacting and reclaiming land, which could be subdivided into building blocks. That method is completely odourless. The material can be used as a soil-improver and as a fertiliser. In the ordinary course of recycling, a certain amount of waste material is indestmctible. That indestmctible material still has to be disposed of, either by being buried or by being taken out to sea, as occurs in some countries, to form artificial reefs and the like. Indestmctible material requires special treatment. People become very upset when a dump is established in their area for the disposal of noxious material. Willawong is such an area. The waste disposal there is an enormous operation. In the future, noxious waste will have to be treated differently. In a big city such as Brisbane, the disposal of waste is an enormous task. People should not be mnning round saying, "We don't want dumps", without looking at the better side of the story. The Lord Mayor has listened to the complaints. Mr Davis: And she does nothing. She only comes to the meetings. You tell me any of the meetings that she has come to and she has Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir WILLIAM KNOX: To the gratification of the people affected, the Lord Mayor has already indicated at a number of public meetings that she has attended in Brisbane the changes that will be made, and that in fact have taken place in some areas. The honourable member for Brisbane Central should not get excited about it. The Liberal 3994 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU council has brought the administration to the people of Brisbane. Lord Mayor Jones denied his own council aldermen the opportunity of discussing the matters with him, to the extent that for weeks he even boycotted his own caucus. That shows how much contempt he had for the ALP aldermen. One of the major amendments reduces the unnecessary procedures of the Brisbane City Council which, in the past, have required ordinances but should have been dealt with by delegation or by administrative means. The power to delegate functions by resolution, which the Bill provides, is a new departure, which will help immensely in the organisation and the mnning of the council. The Brisbane City Council should have the power to arrange and rearrange its affairs without adopting lengthy procedures. What is proposed is the publication of a booklet setting out what will become entrenched as the procedures of the Brisbane City Council. That will be not unlike the State Financial Administration and Audit Act, which contains procedures, through the Treasurer's Instmctions and, where necessary, through ministerial instmctions. Those procedures are entrenched in manuals that are observed by public servants and Ministers. The procedures for the Brisbane City Council are quite similar and, should be welcomed. As long as everybody understands the procedures, there can be no misunderstanding. Because of the publication of those procedures, there can be no opportunity for misunderstanding. A number of obsolete provisions in the existing legislation are to be removed. I will not dwell on them. The Bill provides for the simultaneous advertising, both within and outside the council, of vacancies in the council. Until now, vacancies had to be advertised within the council before advertising outside. That the council was not allowed to advertise vacancies simultaneously both inside and outside seems ridiculous. The council should be able to consider all applicants at the same time in exactly the same way as the State Govemment, the Public Service Board and other instmmentalities consider applications from applicants both within the public service and outside it. That change will be an enormous improvement. Overall, the legislation will assist the council considerably in mnning a more efficient system and will, of course, be of benefit not only to the aldermen and the administration but also to the people of Brisbane. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (4.2 p.m.): I have great pleasure in speaking to the debate this afteraoon. I am somewhat surprised at the low-key nature of the contributions to the debate so far. All that the House has heard about has related to mbbish dumps, quarries and similar things. The Bill defines the powers of the Lord Mayor. I was always of the opinion that the holder of that office had the power to control his or her council. The Lord Mayor is duly elected by the people and for the people. I would not have thought that it would be necessary to put those powers into the City of Brisbane Act or other legislation. The Lord Mayor must be able to work in very close harmony with the Brisbane Town Clerk and the other executive officers of the council. Until recentiy, the Brisbane City Council was the most progressive and best administered local authority that one would ever wish to find. Today, it is a divided council. In fact, the morale of the chief officers of the council is at an all-time low. That has been brought about in a matter of months. The administration of the Lord Mayor (Mrs Atkinson) was elected about 12 months ago. Because of her lack of knowledge of administration, she chose to engage a firm of consultants, namely, John White and Associates, to advise her on how to mn the councU. In conducting that survey, the only people to whom the consultants could speak were the executive officers. That study cost the rate-payers of Brisbane a pile of money. It was not at all necessary because the Brisbane Town Clerk (Mr Philbrick) was a very experienced and City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU 11 March 1986 3995 highly qualified person. Because of his qualifications, he won the position hands down from a team of applicants. In a short space of time. Lord Mayor Atkinson dismissed Mr Philbrick. The morale of the executive is at an all-time low and the employees do not know where the axe wiU faU next, which is a possibiUty under the present administration. When the present team took office in the Brisbane City Council, the Labor Party was well known for its wonderful effort in providing facilities for the staging of the Commonwealth Games. At that time, the proposal for the BoondaU complex was on the drawing-board. Recently, many thousands of people attended that complex to view an ice-skating performance. Brisbane has wonderfiil complexes, which have been used to promote its bid to stage the Olympic Games. Since her election as Lord Mayor, SaUyanne Atkinson has toured the world seeking support from other countries to stage the Olympic Games in Brisbane. She was accompanied not only by a team of other persons but also, on one occasion, by the Town Clerk. On that tour, the Lord Mayor must have found out that she and the Town Clerk were not compatible or that she did not get on very well with him. The Opposition believes that the former Town Clerk is a very dedicated and capable officer who was worthy of his position and who carried out his duties with the interests of Brisbane in mind. The events that follow may teU the tale. It is terrible that a man of such capability, with the highest position in local authority in Queensland, can be dismissed without a reason being given by the Lord Mayor. I think that the people of Brisbane realise now that they made a very grave mistake in electing SaUyanne Atkinson as Lord Mayor of the city of Brisbane. If SaUyanne Atkinson were to be given a position, it should be as a weather girl on television. She has a good appearance on television and she plays the role of a Sir William Knox: That's a sexist remark. Mr PREST: It is not a sexist remark. I believe that SaUyanne Atkinson is a PR girl. She does not have a clue about administration. That is why she brought in John White & Associates. She got rid of Mr Philbrick because he could expose her weaknesses. In the past, Clem Jones, Frank Sleeman and Roy Harvey brought the city of Brisbane from not being recognised to being recognised throughout Australia and the world. In the 12 months that SaUyanne Atkinson has been at the helm of the Brisbane City Council, nothing has appeared on the drawing-board indicating what she has done or intends to do. She has stated only that we should take cognisance of what we have in the city of Brisbane, such as sporting facilities, and try to obtain the Olympic Games for Brisbane. However, that is a long way down the track. The honourable member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) said that the Brisbane City Council is carrying out its duties in a very efficient manner. However, I did not hear him pin-point any area in which council officers have shown any great ability. Two council officers, namely, the Vice Mayor (Denver Beanland) and the chief executive (Mr Digby McLeay), will oppose two members of the National Party at the coming State election. On Digby McLeay's performance when he was a promotions officer, I should say that even the honourable member for Aspley (Mr Cahill) need have no fear of losing his seat to him. Mr Cahill: Thank you very much. Mr PREST: That is for you, Brian. Just prior to the sacking of Mr Philbrick, the Lord Mayor brought in a security firm to check her office for bugs. Of course, that firm had no trouble in coming to the conclusion that the office was being bugged and that the device was located in a 12- square-inch area, but the firm said that it could not find it. So the chief executive said, "Well, come back tonight." I will not say who the chief executive was. However, on the Tuesday prior to the Friday when the news hit the press that the Town Clerk was to be sacked, the chief executive said to the security officer, "We're going to get rid of the 3996 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU

Town Clerk." Those are not my words. During the past week, on State Affair, the security officer repeated those words. He said that he does not yet know why the executive told him that Philbrick was to be asked for his resignation on the Friday, and that if he did not resign he was going to be sacked on the Monday. The security officer was not at all interested in the dismissal of the Town Clerk. He was more interested in finding the bug that was located in a 12-square-inch area of the ceiling. He could not find it at, say, midday, but he could find it at 7 or 8 o'clock at night when he returaed. I believe that the council tried to imply that the bugging incident is a reason why the Town Clerk was eventually sacked. 1 will retura to the BUl. One of the amendments will allow the Vice Mayor to be retitied "Deputy Mayor". I do not think that that is a bad thing, because according to the dictionary, the word "vice" means "depravity or cormption of morals, evU, immoral, wicked habits or conduct, indulgence in degrading practices or pleasures". The dictionary states that the word "deputy" means "one who acts in the place of another, a substitute", I suppose it would be much better to be called a Deputy Mayor than a Vice Mayor, Mr Innes: Be honest, you didn't have to look it up, Mr PREST: Did the honourable member for Sherwood say that I did not have to look it up? If he said that, I was not listening. I expected to hear some very rousing debate about the recent Labor Brisbane City CouncU from members of the Liberal Party and also from some concemed members of the National Party, but that did not occur. When the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) is fuUy recovered and returas, he will have to make many radical changes not only to the City of Brisbane Act but also to the Local Govemment Act. Today, many people are not in local govemment for the benefit of the people; they are empire-building. All those people are doing is spending the rate-payers' money willy-nilly on publicity, and so on, for their own benefit. The matter goes further than empire-building and seeking publicity that can be used at some future time. These people were elected to work for members of the community, and they should do so. One only has to examine statements made in the press over recent years about problems associated with payments and allowances, not only in the Brisbane City Council but also in many other local authorities. AU honourable members would remember that, when amendments were introduced to amend the Local Govemment Act, the Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) said, "If these people don't watch themselves or if they get out of hand, we'll puU the mg out from under them." I can assure the House that the time for reform has long since past. Some of the lurks and perks that local authorities have given themselves ought to be stopped. Some of the local authorities are overdue for having the mg pulled from under them. Not only do officers of Queensland local govemment authorities enjoy lurks and perks but, through the Local Government Association, they also ask the Federal Goverament to make the lurks and perks tax free so that relativity in income will be left behind completely. 1 point out that those officers are supposed to be working in an honourary capacity. Instead, they are receiving payment for a full-time occupation and allowances and, in addition, receive lurks and perks, such as motor cars and entertainment allowances. These people do not believe that entertainment allowances and the like should be taxed, but I believe that it is time that the Minister for Local Goverament, who is the Minister responsible for the Local Govemment Act and the City of Brisbane Act, did something about this burden on the tax-payer. I support the Bill that is presently before the House. However, I also believe that there should have been more serious debate about administration and, in particular, the effects of the loss of senior officers. When anyone is dismissed, a reason should be given. City of Brisbane Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3997

With those comments, I conclude by saying that I have pleasure in supporting the BUl. Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House) (4.17 p.m,), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate today. I appreciate the fact that support has come from both sides of the House. As was pointed out during the debate, Brisbane has the largest metropoUtan local authority area in Australia. It follows naturally from that that there should be provisions in the City of Brisbane Act that address that and related factors. It should be stated again that the principles incorporated in this Bill were requested by the Lord Mayor and were carefully considered by the Govemment before their introduction. I reject the contention by the honourable member for Wynnum (Mr Shaw) that these new provisions have been introduced hurriedly and without proper consideration. Despite that, I thank him for the good points that he made. The honourable member for Wynnum raised the question as to whether the Lord Mayor may delegate her powers to a consultant to the council. The answer is, "no". The Lord Mayor may not further delegate any powers or duties that have been delegated to her. There is no provision in the Bill to this effect and, in fact, the Bill provides otherwise. With regard to the provisions of the Bill that will enable the council, by resolution, to delegate any of its powers, functions or duties to the Lord Mayor—it should be noted that the council already has this power of delegation, which may be exercised by way of ordinance. Ordinances have in fact been made delegating certain powers and duties to the Lord Mayor. The new procedure requested by the council will eliminate the rather cumbersome procedures that are presently necessary to allow the council to delegate a particular fiinction to the Lord Mayor or to change a current delegation. It should be stressed that a decision of this nature will be a matter for the council as a whole to resolve. The honourable member for Wynnum questioned the aims of the Bill that seek to eliminate inefficiences. As far at those provisions of the Bill provide for the reorganisation of the council administration—I am advised that moves in this direction were initiated prior to the March 1985 Brisbane City Council elections, and I doubt whether these provisions, in their present form, date back to the Clem Jones era. Following the election of the new council and the report commissioned by that council into its administration, the proposals that had previously been under consideration were refined and a reorganisational stmcture settled upon by the new council. This stmcture is provided for in the Bill and, as I have indicated, has been designed to meet the wishes of the new council. I have been advised that the proposed new arrangements will provide for a more efficient method of operation of the council's affairs, and aU honourable members would agree that that is desirable. The new provisions will make redundant many of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the council's ordinances. That is the whole purpose of the exercise—to enable the system to be freed up and not require time-consuming amendments to ordinances each time some minor changes in delegations are required. Protection is afforded by the requirement that the council maintain a register of delegations and of the decision-making procedures. I assure the honourable member for Wynnum that requests for alteration of the title "Vice Mayor" to "Deputy Mayor" have been raised over a long period and most certainly were not raised initially by the present council. The prime purpose for the change is to bring the title of the position into line with the title in all other cities in Queensland that have a deputy mayor. Many honourable members on both sides of the Chamber are conceraed about the dismissal by the Brisbane City Council of the Brisbane Town Clerk (Mr Tony Philbrick). 3998 11 March 1986 City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU

The Goverament has very properly adopted the view that employment and dismissal of officers by the Brisbane City CouncU is a matter entirely at the discretion of the council in the first instance. It would not be appropriate to say anything beyond that as, under existing provisions of the City of Brisbane Act, Mr Philbrick has a right of appeal to an appeal Board, and those existing provisions are not affected by this Bill, The honourable member for Mount Gravatt referred to the proposal by the council to establish a refuse disposal area at Mount Gravatt. I am informed that, when the council acquires land, by whatever means, for a proposed site, approval to use such a site for refiise disposal is required from the Director-General of Health. I understand that the Director-General of Health has not given his approval to the site in question, and I can assure honourable members that full consideration will be given to this matter before any final decision is taken. I can assure the honourable member for Mount Gravatt that the various matters he raised will be thoroughly examined. The honourable member for Chatsworth supported my coUeague the honourable member for Mount Gravatt in objecting to the proposed refuse site at Mount Gravatt. I assure him that the matters he raised in this regard wiU no doubt be taken into consideration by the Director-General of Health. The honourable member for Everton mentioned the refiise tip at Everton Park, which the Director-General of Health refiised to approve. The honourable member's comments reinforce the remarks made earlier on that subject by the honourable members for Mount Gravatt and Chatsworth. In conclusion, I thank the honourable members for Toowong, Sherwood and Nundah for their contributions to the debate and support for the Bill. They certainly understand the legislation. I assure the honourable member for Port Curtis that his comments wiU be taken on board. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) in the chair; Hon. C, A, Wharton (Bumett—Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill, Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18—New ss. 39A to 39C— Mr SHAW (4.23 p.m.): I wiU not take up too much of the time of the Committee. However, on behalf of the Opposition, I reiterate that it is the power of delegation that causes us some concem. As the Minister pointed out in his reply, in the past the council has had the power to delegate. However, it wiU now have the power to do so simply by resolution of the council. The Opposition believes that that power, if taken too far, could have the effect, as I outiined in my speech during the second-reading debate, of removing from the elected representatives responsibUities that should rightly be their province, and placing those responsibilities with somebody who is not an elected person. The proposed new section 38B states— "(1) The Council may by resolution delegate any of its powers, functions or duties, under this Act or any other Act (including an instmment of subordinate legislation thereunder), specified in the resolution, exofept this power of delegation, to— (a) the Mayor; (b) a committee appointed from among its aldermen; (c) any officer of the CouncU or a board consisting of officers of the CouncU,". As other members have said, there are occasions on which it is in the best interests of the city to delegate certain powers either to committees or to non-elected officers. This clause causes members of the Opposition a great deal of concem. I place our concem on record and emphasise that we are opposed to the idea of delegating those Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 3999

powers and removing the limited protection that exists by requiring the council to allocate those powers by a change of ordinances. Mr WHARTON: The ordinances already provide what the honourable member requires. Notwithstanding the provision of an ordinance, the council may by resolution change the administration of council business by establishing or altering units or subunits of administration, the matters to be administered by them, etc. Therefore, what the honourable member is really seeking is covered by the ordinances. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 to 23, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Thfrd Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wharton, by leave, read a third time,

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS General Business—Notice of Motion No. 16 Mr BURNS (Lytton): Mr Speaker, I move— "That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that Notice of Motion No. 16 in relation to a select committee being appointed to make recommendations on the implementation of an integrated plan for Moreton Bay, standing in my name, be debated immediately." Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 48 Braddy Wamer, A. M. Ahem Lee Bums Wilson Alison Lester Campbell Yewdale Austin Lickiss Casey Bailey Lingard Comben Bjelke-Petersen Littleproud D'Arcy Booth McKechnie De Lacy Borbidge McPhie Eaton Cahill Menzel Fouras Chapman MiUer Goss Clauson Muntz HamiU . Cooper Newton Kmger Elliott Powell Mackenroth FitzGerald Randell McEUigoU Gibbs, I. J. Row McLean Glasson Simpson Milliner Gunn Stephan Palaszczuk Gygar Stoneman Price Harper Tenni Scott Harvey Tumer Shaw Henderson Wharton Smith Innes White Underwood Jennings Vaughan Tellers: Katter Tellers: Veivers Prest Knox Kaus Warburton Davis Lane Neal Resolved in the negative.

TOOWONG RAILWAY STATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 Febmary (see p. 3912) on Mr Lane's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr MILLINER (Everton) (4.35 p.m.): The Opposition does not oppose the amend­ ment proposed by the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) relative to the Toowong Railway 4000 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment BiU

Station development project. The amendment allows access to the project at 18 Benson Street, which is adjacent to the previously nominated access to the property. The Opposition regards it as a machinery amendment and does not oppose the legislation. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (4.36 p.m.): I support the amendment, which is very simple but part and parcel of the very successful development at Toowong village. A number of people have been extremely critical about the development. That criticism is unfor­ tunate, because the development has been designed and devised to improve the life­ style of residents in the westem suburbs. In particular, it will provide facilities that do not presently exist. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the development had to be put together, the former Labor city council objected to the project. As a result of that, legislation had to be enacted to facilitate the project. The council decided not to allocate any money at all to the road system in the vicinity of the development. As a result, the developers themselves had to find approximately $4m to build a new bridge, expand the roadworks, install traffic lights, constmct underpasses, and build a pedestrian overpass in Benson Street, which is dealt with in the Bill. The overpass was included at the request of the local community. I was very happy to take on board objections from the community about the original concept, which was a pedestrian overpass with steps. On the other side of Bennett Street, in the Archer Street area, are very many elderly citizens of the Toowong community, some of whom are invalids. It does not matter how strong one is, when one is carrying a shopping bag or parcels, it is much easier to use a ramp than to use steps. After encountering problems with a resident who really wanted to sell but whose price became too exorbitant, the developer bought an old house that was almost opposite the site. It was cheaper and was a property owned by a doctor who has other investments in the area. As a result, the ramp will be built fairly soon. It will make a great deal of difference to the people who live in that very busy area to be able to cross that road without having to worry about traffic lights or getting knocked down by traffic. The development itself is progressing very rapidly. People travelling from the westem suburbs, who have to pass it, would be quite surprised at its progress. A number of matters should be discussed, apart from the magnificent shopping centre complex. The development will provide a shopping centre that has direct access, underaeath it, by rail. That will benefit those who work there, those who wish to shop there and those who wish to park there and commute to the city. Traffic flow will be improved in the area, especially if future developments I have advanced are agreed to. I hope to convince the Govemment that the monorail that is to be used at the Expo site should be moved across the river and used to transport people from Toowong to the university. The traffic problems in the westem suburbs would be ameliorated enormously. I do not know whether any other honourable members have had the privilege of shopping at Toowong, but, in case they have not, I will tell them that a person bom on one side of High Street finds it almost impossible to get to the other. The development has resulted in the installation of two co-ordinated sets of traffic lights that will not impede traffic flow. Those lights will remove the problems that face those who wish to shop on each side of High Street and in the Sherwood Road area. Once again at the developer's cost, an underpass under High Street will provide access to the shopping mall. The constmction of a project of such a size in a high-density urban area such as Toowong has caused some inconvenience and many problems. In many ways, the developers have tried very hard to resolve those problems. Girvans, with whom I have deah almost daily in relation to many of the problems that have arisen, have been very co-operative. The BiU before the House is but one indication of how far that firm is prepared to go to provide facilities that are in keeping with the project. It is also an indication of the co-operation that that company has displayed from the beginning of the project in working with the State Govemment. To constmct a ramp instead of the usual stairway across the road has cost the company almost $200,000 more. Toowong RaUway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4001

One must sympathise greatly with the small shop-keepers who are very close to the development. Because of the noise and dust and the inhibiting effect that 16-tonne lorries roaring round the place have on intending shoppers and patrons of the area, shop­ keepers have suffered a loss of income during this period and one sympathises with them over that. Mr Davis: They will suffer more when it is finished, too. Mr BAILEY: The member for Brisbane Central was probably against the establish­ ment of the Queen Street Mall when it was first mooted. It proved to be a success. That is the sort of mbbish one expects from the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have no idea of progress. I am disturbed that the honourable member could say things like that. He knocks all the time. I ask the honourable member whether he has had a look at the development. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BAILEY: I will not even bother to pause to listen to the mbbish that will emanate from the honourable member. Mr Casey: I suppose you will be hoping that Sir Frank Moore does better out of this than he did out of Bartlett's Bam. Mr BAILEY: The member for Mackay will be quite interested to leara that Sir Frank Moore no longer has anything to do with this project. If members of the Opposition would do their homework, they would be in better shape. There is no doubt that the project has created problems for local residents. Those who live in the blocks of units next to the railway line have had to put up with a great deal of irritation from noise that has caused sleepless nights. As much of the work on the project could be done only when electricity was not flowing through the overhead power lines for the railway, and as a decision was made that the fewer people incon­ venienced the better, much of the work on the project was done between midnight and 4 a.m. That has been absolute purgatory for many of my constituents in the Toowoong area. Fortunately, that era has basically come to an end and most of the residents are now getting a good night's sleep. 1 sympathise with those people. During that period, a number of suggestions were made. After discussions with the company, work was reduced from two or three nights a week to one or two nights a week. Work on Sundays was another source of irritation to local residents, I commend the people of Toowong for their attitude, for their tolerance and for their growing understanding of just how important the project will be to the people of the area. In the initial stages of the project, a car-park was constmcted. That building amplified the noise from railway traffic and reflected it to a block of units in Bennett Street. The architects who planned the car-park did not envisage that that would happen. After an approach to Girvans—and, once again, at that company's expense—the company has agreed to close in the walls of the car-park so that the noise will no longer be an irritation to the residents of Bennett Street, once that street has been widened. Honourable members will have to admit that the developers have taken into consideration the concems and the problems of the community. The developers have also been willing to admit that they have caused unavoidable problems; but, on most occasions on which they have been approached by me or by the Minister, they have come to the party as much as they can, in every case at their own expense. I have a couple of concems. One relates to a flame tree that was transplanted about eight feet away from its former position to allow for the roundabout where the bus and taxi intersection will be located. The tree seemed to get a lease of life and burst forth in a profusion of new, green shoots. However, two weeks later, it appears to be dying. I have been assured that the tree is suffering only from trauma. I would suffer a similar trauma if a bulldozer was working round my base. 4002 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill

I assure the members of the local community that the project will be not only one of the most successful projects built in Queensland but also one of the most attractive and most beneficial to the people in my electorate and to the people in the whole of the westem suburbs. I am surprised that members who represent adjoining electorates and local aldermen are so critical about what the project will achieve for the community and how much benefit it will provide. I support the Bill. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (4.45 p.m.): The honourable member for Toowong referred to Toowong Village, Because of the size of the stmcture associated with the development, one would have to say that the term "Toowong Village" is finished. The area will no longer be a village; it will have, as its centre, a massive new commercial building which would not have the proportions or the activity that one would associate with a village. The project is certainly a major stmcture and a major development. My reservations relate to the size of the development. Following the meeting held by the National Party last week-end, it has been decided not to allow proliferation of shopping centres of a size that would affect adjacent small businesses. Those honourable members who travel daily through the westera suburbs are aware of the profound traffic problems associated with Toowong. The problem is acute not because of the necessity for Toowong to use its roads but because of the volume of through traffic. To understand reservations that are not just knocking or antidevelopment, one has to look at the genesis of the Toowong project. One needs to be reminded that the project began with discussions between Alderman Beanland and Mr Tomkins, who was Minister for Transport. They talked about the problem of providing parking in an old, closely developed area where, because of the extent of development, there was little space for parking. The proposal that emerged, and was adopted by the present Minister and supported by Liberal members, was for the development of space over the railway station, with commercial development on top. If one is to obtain underwriting support from private enterprise, a certain intensity of development is needed. At the base of the commercial tower, a handful of specialty shops was proposed. The Toowong site is one of the two sites in Brisbane at present zoned for suburban commercial. It has been developing rapidly and successfully on the basis of the suburban commercial zoning. That zoning and development was compatible with the development over the larger-than-normal site, because it included the siding that serviced the sawmill beside it. The railway property was unusually wide. The suburb of Toowong had an acute parking problem, as existed in Chelmer, Graceville, Sherwood, and IndooroopiUy, where the problem still exists. In 1982, according to the Government's documents, the proposal and the Government's acceptance of the conceras that existed in Toowong underwrite and validate absolutely the problems that are now being aggravated by the proposed development. I refer to the Railway Department's own 1982 document on the Toowong Railway Station development. It called for expressions of interest. Page A5, subparagraph (d) states— "Car parking provisions shall comply with Ordinance requirements and further car parks shall be separated for residential and non-residential components." Parking was, and still is, an acute problem in Toowong. Unhappily, because of the intmsion by the State Government, which has set itself up as the planning authority, parking problems will persist and will be aggravated by the development. The document addressed the problem of through traffic also. The traffic generated from St Lucia, which, in itself, is the equivalent of a medium-sized country town, is enormous. It has to travel along Coronation Drive, immediately adjacent to the High Street bridge. Of course, the enormous reservoir of traffic from the western suburbs has three options. That traffic can take the Toowong cemetery route or, at the Brisbane Boys College, choose between the Jephson Street and the High Street-Coronation Drive streams. Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill II March 1986 4003

The traffic that chooses the Jephson Street course integrates with Moggill Road traffic. The traffic generated by the growing westera suburbs of Brisbane is a massive problem. Page A5, subparagraph (e), states— "Any development proposed shaU incorporate a High Street/Bennett Street connection ... for inbound traffic from Moggill Road to Coronation Drive (via Sylvan Road and Land Street)." For those honourable members who do not follow that, I will describe it. Presently, aU traffic inbound and outbound on Coronation Drive wishing to go to the westera suburbs has to travel over the High Street bridge and the old High Street of Toowong. The problem with the intersection of Coronation Drive, Bennett Street and High Street bridge is the merging of the enormous amount of traffic that goes to the university. The proposal was for outbound traffic to go along Coronation Drive, and for inbound traffic to go straight down High Street; not over the the railway hne and down Coronation Drive, but along the northera side of the railway line and then into Sylvan Road, joining Coronation Drive round the dog-leg created following the slip into the Brisbane River. A complete separation was proposed. The Goverament's own document recognises the problem of which everybody who knows the Toowong area is aware, that is, an acute undersupply of parking and an enormous amount of traffic. Large volumes of through traffic are mixing with the local suburban and retailing traffic. Subparagraph (e) of the document states also— "Development requirements must also include: Widening and upgrading of Bennett Street with the design to ensure no introduction of extraneous traffic into nearby residential streets, particularly Lissner Street." Lissner Street has suffered, which I will mention shortly. Subparagraph (e) of the document continues— "No increase in existing levels of traffic congestion at adjacent and nearby intersections and in particular satisfactory agreement regarding treatment of the High Street/Sherwood Road intersection. Satisfactory ingress/egress provision with left in/left out only for that part of the site facing Coronation Drive." There was tremendous preoccupation with the parking and traffic problems. An interested group with whom I think Sir Frank Moore was associated saw the possibility of extending the development from the railway across that proposed road, from High Street into Sylvan Road, across into the old sawmill and even into adjacent properties. The development was converted from seven specialty shops below a tower of high- rise office space into a regional shopping centre half the size of IndooroopUly Shoppingtown. With the Goverament as the statutory planner instead of the local authority, it did not mn the gauntlet of the full requirements of a local authority. There was a great intensification of development. The highest traffic-generator use—that is, a shopping centre—was put into an area that has an acute undersupply of parking and an acute traffic problem. When one examines the number of parking spaces for the high-rise building, what does one find? Members of the Liberal Party would not be prepared to fight the attitude of the former Labor council administration if it had imposed these conditions for the purpose of pursuing the requirements laid down in the Brisbane City Council ordinances; indeed, some sympathy can be found for such an attitude if it is expressed having regard to the public interest and is the basis of a decision made properly and reasonably, bearing in mind the parking that is available and the traffic that flows through that area. In such a case, its failure to accede to the requests of the developer would be justified and proper. The situation would be very different, however, if conditions were imposed with a view to simply obstmcting the development. 4004 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment BiU

The number of car-parking spaces to be provided has risen from 1 200 to I 600, but even that is 1 400 fewer than the development demands or that which is required by the City of Brisbane Town Plan. Such a situation should be examined in free enterprise terms. Is it right to introduce competition for local shops and small shop-keepers of Toowong, Taringa and St Lucia? Is it right for Westfield IndooroopiUy to compete with this development when Westfield had to comply with the relevant ordinances? Is it right that, simply because the development is being carried out by Queensland Railways, town-planning should go out of the window? What a marveUous bonanza it would be if a developer could get away without providing half the car-parking space that is requfred. What a bonanza if a developer did not have to comply with the reasonable demands and preferred stipulations that relate to traffic, or if the traffic from High Street did not have to be separated so that inbound traffic would flow through Toowong north of the railway line and outbound traffic would flow south along Coronation Drive. In this case, the developers got a windfall. The question is: Who benefited from the windfall? I do not know what Girvan Bros paid the group that put the development together, so perhaps they did not get a windfall. But, depending on the profit margin paid to the group in the middle, the windfall could have been great if approval that was not available to anybody else could have been obtained, thereby reducing costs. That is the feature of this whole exercise that worries members of the Liberal Party. If Queensland RaUways had overcome problems that arose as a consequence of the competition that the development presented to other retaU faciUties, and if the development otherwise stacked up in its several aspects, the development could be accepted. However, if a development has been constmcted merely because the Govemment has the power to put a proposal into effect, thereby aggravating major problems and hassles for retailers, shop-keepers and owners of commercial premises in Toowong by increasing the demand for parking space and by attracting more traffic into an area that already has a traffic problem, the Govemment is not doing anybody a service. The Goverament may be doing Queensland Railways a service but, until such time as the Queensland RaUways becomes a planning authority in a proper sense, the Goverament should be carrying out other responsibilities that relate to a wider community of interest. As the project stands, the developers will create problems. The honourable member for Toowong (Mr BaUey) mentioned other problems, although perhaps in an understated way. On the last occasion that this matter was debated, I took up the cudgels on behalf of the Gibson family, whose property had been included in the development without their agreement having been obtained. The State Goverament provided an explanation of how that occurred and offered an undertaking that the Gibson family would not be compelled to stay if they were unable to sell their property. The point I wish to make is that their property was included and, on the face of it, their rights in relation to it were affected. On this occasion, the property rights of somebody else are affected. The questions must therefore be asked: If the Goverament does not look after little people, will it really look after the majority of people? If the Goverament does not protect the rights of individuals, will it really look to the best interests of the majority of people? Mr Casey: This is an important matter. Does the honourable member think that Beanland will beanpole Bailey? Mr INNES: I do not think it will be a question of Jack and the Beanstalk. I think Alderman Beanland will be very well positioned in the next election. I tum now to examine the case of another individual who has been caught up in this organisation by the giants who are taking part in this enormous development. Mrs Mary Gill is the owner of a small property that was included in this development. She received a number of visits from people who acted on behalf of the developers. She owned a little block of land across Coronation Drive that was going to be the other end of the foot-bridge across to the railway station. She was approached over a Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4005 period and told, in effect, that her property was needed for a foot-bridge access that would be required for the development and that she should sell. Heavy pressure was applied and representations were made that it would become the subject of a Govemment- sponsored development. On 18 January 1985, she signed a $5,000 option to sell her property for $160,000. It was not an idle option; it was supported by a caveat taken out in Febmary on behalf of the developer. The caveat was taken out to protect that option. At a later point, somebody made a better proposal to the developers. I can understand that the Minister will put forward what sounds like a reasonable argument, that is, that the block next door to hers became available and it happened to be adjacent to a laneway. If it had started off even Stephen the Minister could well have said, "That is a better position." But it did not start off even Stephen; it was not that block that was in the Act. In fact, the proposal now is to change the plan to the block next door. However, because that was in an Act of Parliament, because Mrs Gill had an option protected by caveat, she reasonably entered into a financial arrangement—to protect her situation, to protect her residential future—on another piece of property. However, the Govemment and the developer changed their minds, notwithstanding the Act, the option and the caveat, and the matter was left in limbo—a limbo that the Govemment has recognised and has taken some steps to attempt to overcome. Mrs Gill was left with bridging finance troubles. In fact, her sister moved out of her own property into Mrs Gill's new residence to attempt to accommodate the financial predicament that had been created, one would have thought, not because of any negligence on her part but as a result of reasonable actions by her in the face of statutory provisions affecting her property, an option and a caveat. The proposal that was put to her was not that she be paid out at $160,000; it was a change of pace. The letter said, "Oh, we believe that you should be compensated by the sale of your property at an independent valuation." She had entered into an option for $160,000; she had made other financial commitments on the basis of $160,000. That was not what was being proposed to her or secured for her and, of course, she has been in limbo and remains in limbo to this day. The Govemment has expressed some concem for her predicament, or for the embarrassment of the situation in which it finds itself because of its action with the developer. However, another little person has had very significant worries and problems as a result of this proposal. Because there is now an island block between a foot-bridge and another local business zone, fronting onto Coronation Drive, which has an intense traffic problem, aggravated because of the development of this half-regional shopping centre, the Govemment is calling on the Brisbane City Council to attempt to overcome the aggravated situation, with all the worries and problems that have been created for Mrs GiU. Perhaps it believes that it does not matter. I believe that it does, particularly when the Govemment acts in very special ways for very special developments, and the Brisbane City Council now has to come to the party by looking at the relaxation of zonings—something to help her out. Alderman Beanland has been very to the fore in appreciating Mrs GiU's predicament and attempting to get something through the council that looks after the interests of a little person. Bigger persons have been affected by this development. One hears the saying, "It's safe as a bank." The National Bank did not find that it was safe. It had erected a very sound building adjacent to the Gibson block. Mr Davis: 1 said before that the shops at Toowong would be affected. Mr INNES: Certainly people at Taringa, St Lucia and Auchenflower beheve that they will be affected by it. Because of the consequences of the present constmction pattem, some shops are not getting a customer a day. As is to be expected, the National Bank built a sound building. It was a modern building, built on a slab and underpinned. It was so substantial that when the block was undermined, the whole building on the block tipped 7 inches. It had be evacuated at very short notice. 4006 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill

The problems experienced by the Gibsons have been solved, but they had their moments of worry. The problem experienced by Mrs Gill is stiU not solved. There was no offer to buy her out for $160,000, which was the original deal, on the basis of which she made her commitments. The main predicament here is that the Goverament and the developer changed their minds. Mr Lee: How do you ignore a contract? Mr INNES: That is easy with legislative powers. The better thing to do would be to say, "We will buy you out for $160,000.", which would be full compensation. But an attempt was made to save money, and other people had to come to the party to help. Then there is the matter of the effects of the project on the people in Lissner Street. I understand that, as one would expect, more of those people are selhng out. It was a suburban residential street. Certainly, some B development by way of units had taken place, but now those people face four-storey or five-storey concrete waUs. Because this constmction has been taken under the wing of the State Goverament, not the local authority, it has no set-backs. Solid concrete waUs are being buUt to the absolute edge of the boundary alignment. No little or big person can do that. That is an advantage that this development has that nobody else has. It does not behove a free enterprise Govemment to favour one person more than another, even if it is involved in the development in a partial way. The view is totally destroyed for the people in Lissner Street, the movement of air is affected, and traffic is affected and will be affected much more before the job is completed because the service area to the large shopping centre is along what was a tiny, narrow back street. Because of all the compounding effects, people are rightly concemed about the way in which the development is being carried out. I understand that Girvans are big, substantial developers in other parts of Australia. Rather than insensitivity, there has been disregard. In part, development is being built from the road—from the outside in. The usual requirements of the Brisbane City Council are that the development must be developed on site, but Girvans close two lanes on Coronation Drive at a time. At aU times of the day and night, mobile cranes are working from the outside. The work is being performed so that the footpaths are denied completely to pedestrians, and traffic lanes are denied on one of the busiest, most congested roads in Brisbane. Adjoining retail facilities have been cut back to literally one customer a day. If a Govemment is to move in on local authority, the lawfiil and properly responsible planning authority, it must take steps to protect the people in the way in which the local authority would protect them. Honourable members have witnessed not only a disregard of the planning laws, the parking requirements, and the traffic requirements— those accepted and adopted by the Govemment earlier—but also a lack of neighbourUness towards people. The tunnel effect created by the new stmcture, which totally envelops the railway station, apparently creates enormous noise for the people in Lissner Street. A sound- tunnel effect disturbs the people who still live—perhaps not for long—in Lissner Street. Pile-drivers have worked all night. The member for Toowong said that, on a number of occasions, he has had to intercede. There is no doubt that he has had to intercede. The leopard tree, which was a feature of the littie island in front of the post office where High Street swings round over the bridge, has been moved. Most people fear that the tree is suffering not from trauma, but is dying. People say that trees will grow again; but Toowong will never retum to the sort of suburb that it was. Buildings cannot regenerate themselves in the way in which trees can. The traffic pattems have been affected. There were other possibilities. There was a possible division of traffic along the north side of the railway line. If one had been imaginative and had been prepared to put one's money where one's ambitions were, one could have directed the traffic down along the railway line to the cutting behind the Royal Exchange Hotel and straight through from the Brisbane Boys College, and so avoided the shopping centre completely. Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4007

This proposal was rammed through Parliament. There was a state of acute agitation in the week before the Brisbane City Council elections. I remember the words well. A call was made to the Minister to delay. It was pointed out to him that there was no need for the msh, that in three days' time he would have a friendly council that would talk turkey, and that if there were any objections it would not be on the ground of antagonism towards development at large. The reason the Liberal Party objected to the legislation was that valid planning objections had not been overcome and perhaps they could have been overcome. I understand that even the parking position will be aggravated, not because provision is being made for only half the number of parking spaces that should be there, but because people will have to pay for it. I understand that that is the proposal. The finances of this whole deal are getting worse all the time. It was an overdevelopment of the site. Too much had to be paid to the people whose properties were involved, I do not know who got the approval—whether it was Delta or Girvans—but there was a certain profit factor. Before the development was commenced, the initial costs had gone up. Then trouble occurred as the development took place. More money was needed for the ramp and the footbridge. The bank was knocked over, and no doubt some legal action is pending. Up goes the price and what has to be got out by the developer. It is not a case-study for Govemment intervention into what involves very strong town- planning factors. There was nothing wrong with the original proposal. I had no reservations about high-rise offices and a handful of speciality shops over the railway station development itself But once the development jumped through the sawmill and took other sites, it became three or four times as big in potential. Once it was converted from several speciality shops into a regional shopping centre half the size of IndooroopUly Shoppingtown, everything changed—the impact of the development on the area, the traffic that the development generated and the contributions that the development has made towards acute parking problems. Mr Lickiss: Mr Bailey believes that this is a good development. Mr INNES: The member for Toowong has to say that it is a good development because he went for it hook, line and sinker. The worst of all worlds is a development that aggravates the predicament of existing traders, that does not work itself and that causes trouble for anybody who goes into the development. The only part of the development that will work is the railway station part. The new railway station and the parking associated with it are fine. The Minister for Transport, by supporting this legislation, has made himself some­ thing else. He has made himself a planning authority in the city of Brisbane for something more than just roads and transport—for shops, commerce, parking and suburban traffic. If the Goverament does that, it has to be mindful of the sorts of things that are taken care of by planning authorities and reflected in their planning ordinances. There is still strong concem, and all attention must be kept on this development by the Govemment, because it has intmded and it has a responsibility. The Govemment cannot blame the developer, because the situation was created in which the developer must do these sorts of things. In view of the history, every attempt should be made, and one would hope that the Govemment will do everything in its power to ensure that Mrs Gill is put into or left in her original financial situation. She will never be in the same residential situation. Time expired. Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (5,16 p.m,), in reply: In my second-reading speech, I outlined the reasons for the Bill. They are quite clear. They are to change the nature of the zoning that exists on the piece of land owned by Mrs Gill in Benson Street so that it will revert to the normal use that she had before the enabling 4008 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill

Act went through this Parliament. That is what is being done today. With this legislation, Mrs Gill will enjoy the same rights as she enjoyed before the development was proposed. It has been interesting to listen to the Labor Party Opposition and discover that it had no thoughts on the matter at all, and then to listen to the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) and hear him say now that he is opposed to this development. It is interesting to have that on record. One wonders why he is opposed to the development at the moment. One wonders whether he sees in it, with an election coming later this year, some political opportunity that perhaps he did not see when the original Bill went through the House. Judging by his opposition to this Bill and the type of speech he made, it is quite apparent that, if the Govemment were made up of people like the honourable member for Sherwood, who has so many qualifications and so many reservations about everything that comes before the House, nothing would ever be done. It seems that everything is examined and re-examined and no decision is ever made. That has been demonstrated to honourable members tonight. Perhaps some of the new members on the Govemment side have seen the sorts of reservations experienced with the honourable member for Sherwood when he was in coalition before the last election, and now understand why everything took so long and became such a nuisance. I would like to discuss the development on its merits. Mr Lickiss: Which side were you on in the coalition? Mr LANE: I was on the right wing of the Liberal Party and now I am on the left wing of the National Party. I could make a few comments about where the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha stood in his day—almost everywhere. I could go into quite a deal of detail about him any day he wants to have a debate in this House. I am sure that he would be ashamed at the end of the day, but I will not waste time on him today. I would like to deal with a few points raised by the honourable member for Sherwood, just in case they are given any credence outside this Chamber. He mentioned the effect of this development on the retail neighbours. It is a common experience that, when major shopping centres are developed, the people who make up the smaller shopping centres and retail developments in their vicinity usually collect a spiU from the major development, and the volume of their business increases. Mr Davis interjected, Mr LANE: That has been so with the shops in the vicinity of the Chermside shopping centre and with those in the vicinity of IndooroopiUy Shoppingtown, The occupants of nearby premises all enjoyed some enhancement from the developments. The same will occur at Toowong when this development is completed, I can understand that while the development has been under constmction some trauma and nuisance have been caused to local shop-keepers; but, upon its completion, their businesses will be enhanced. Perhaps some of those who are trying to spread fear at the moment will be man enough to apologise when that happens. Honourable members have commented on the nuisance to the traffic flow in that vicinity. The developer was required to make a considerable contribution towards alleviating the area's traffic problems by a contribution of no less than $ 1.9m towards roadworks. The new bridge over the railway line at High Street will have six lanes instead of the existing three lanes. The foot-bridge with ramps over Benson Street will make it easier and safer for people to cross that street. The subway beneath High Street from the present location of the post office across to the Royal Exchange Hotel is another enhancement. In addition, general road-widening will take place in Benson Street, Sherwood Road and Bennett Street. The developers purchased property at the comer of Sylvan Road and Bennett Street and at the coraer of Bennett Street and Lissner Street to provide further enhancement to traffic flow. As I said, the developers are spending $1.9m towards solving the traffic problems exteraal to the development. Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4009

The suggestion has been made that the number of car-parking spaces provided within the development is insufficient. In fact, the development provides for 1 600 car- parking spaces in the basement and in the car-park adajacent to Bennett Street, with vehicle access from Sherwood Road, Bennett Street and Benson Street, That is a very large provision for parking. The developers have an agreement with the Goverament that, if required at a later date, further car-parking can be provided, A new undercover commuter car-park, which will be entered from Coronation Drive opposite the ABC studios, will be provided for commuters who wish to park there and ride on the new electric trains to the centre of the city. New post office facilities will replace the existing post office. New railway station facilities on the first level above the platforms wiU have access from Benson Street, Sherwood Road, Bennett Street and Lissner Street via exteraal walkways through the retail complex. There will be three floors of retail shopping, including a major discount store, a fashion department store, a supermarket and numerous speciality shops, and 12 floors of commercial office space. The value of this large development, which covers 3.08 ha of land, is $52m. The road has been widened for taxis, kiss-and-ride facUities adjacent to the station and to allow Brisbane City Council buses to leave the main stream of the traffic flow at that point so that people can alight from them. More important to me—it probably does not worry the honourable member representing Jindalee and some of those other suburbs—is that at the moment up to 400 constmction workers are employed on the site. If it were not for this development, those 400 people may very weU have been unemployed and unable to take home a pay- packet to their families. Upon the project's completion, it is expected that more than 600 people, such as cleaners, shop-keepers and office workers, will be employed permanently in the complex. I am afraid that I hang my hat for the justification of the development on its employment- creating capacity. If people who procrastinate on everything were involved in the decision­ making process, employment would not be created. To retum to what the Bill is all about—it is tme that Mrs Mary GiU entered into an option with the developer to sell her property. In the first instance, she received a cash payment of $5,000. I would have thought that the lawyers in this Chamber would at least understand that there is a very clean distinction between an option and a contract. As it turaed out, the developer did not choose to exercise its option, but decided, on good commercial grounds Mr Innes: What about the Act of Parliament? There is even an Act of Parliament. Mr LANE: I am getting to that. I listened very patiently to the honourable member. He should show some courtesy in this Chamber. Mr Innes: Deal with your own terms. Deal with your own currency. Mr LANE: The honourable member should go back to his role of playing a toffee- nosed lawyer. That suits him much better, and he is much more comfortable with it. The option was for the developer to continue to purchase the property for $160,000. Mrs GiU received a payment of $5,000 up front. The developer did not choose to exercise its option. Of course, in terms of the option, the developer left Mrs GiU with the $5,000. The developer chose to purchase the adjoining property from a Mr De Gmchy for about $72,000 on the grounds—I suppose that it was a reasonable commercial judgment—that it was obtaining the property more cheaply and, more importantly, because it gives access to a laneway adjacent to Mr De Gmchy's property and because all the people who lived behind Mrs GiU's property would obtain direct access through that block to the foot-bridge that led to the railway station and to the shopping centre. It was not unreasonable that the developer should decide to give the public better access to the property through the laneway, which it did. In the developer's original advice to the Goverament on the land that it intended to use in the development, Mrs Gill's property was nominated. In good faith, that

70591—136 4010 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment BiU property was included in the plan that was attached to the original BUl. I felt that I had an obhgation to assist Mrs Gill to sort out her problem with the developer. She had no legal claim over the developers and they had no obligation to her. As I said, I felt that I had a moral obligation to help out the lady, I had many meetings with her at Parliament House and in my city office, I was approached on her behalf by a number of people. It is interesting that, in the final analysis, she went to the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes). I do not know why she would waste her time doing that. Perhaps the lady's judgment in that regard is not as good as it could be. With Mrs GiU, I hammered out three alteraative solutions. I made it clear to Girvans that they should try to settle with her in some adequate way. At first, they offered her fair market value for her property, which was a reasonable thing to do, I know that fair market value for her property was about $72,000, because that is what the developers paid for the De Gmchy property. After fiirther discussions with me, Girvans raised the price and said, "We will offer her $120,000 and purchase her property on the basis that we could sell it off at a loss to someone else, perhaps to the developer who wishes to develop the old shops next door," She decided to accept the third option, which was a two-metre strip of land from the De Gmchy property, which would effectively increase the frontage to her land by 20 per cent, giving her a 12-metre frontage to the street instead of a 10-metre frontage, Mrs GiU had 16 perches or 390 square metres, and the developers offered to give her—in fact they were in the process of transferring to her—78 square metres, a 2-metre strip along that alignment, to enhance her property so that she woiUd have a total usable area of 468 square metres or approximately 19 perches. Mrs GiU opted to pursue that strip option, that is, getting the 2-metre strip of land. With some assistance, she began to negotiate with the developers of the adjacent shops. I might say that those people are not concemed about the impact on adjacent retaU land, as portrayed by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) in relation to the other shop-keepers. These people think that another retaU development nearby wUl work, so they are building next door to it. In fact, constmction is beginning now. Mrs GiU approached the developers of the adjacent shops and offered them her enhanced property, that is, her 19-perch property. The name of those developers is Benson Developments. I understand from Mrs Gill that Benson Developments offered her $120,000 for her 19 perches of land. The value of the land was about $72,000, but Benson Developments offered Mrs Gill $120,000. She could have taken that and walked away. Mrs GiU has said that she refiised that offer because she still wants $160,000 for her $72,000 property. A condition attached to it was that, in co-operation with the Railway Department, which was trying to help her, the developers, Girvans, would approach the council and seek a rezoning of the property so that it could be joined with the property next door, that is, the property owned by Benson Developments. Mrs GiU went to see her local alderman, Alderman Beanland, who happens to be the Vice Mayor, and will probably be known as the Deputy Mayor in future. Mrs GiU asked her local alderman for assistance. What did he say to her? He said that he would not agree to the rezoning because she did not have access to the land other than via Benson Street, So it was Mrs Gill's local alderman, the Vice Mayor of the city, who inhibited her rezoning and denied her any future use of the land, I understand tiiat, in desperation, Mrs Gill then went to see the honourable member for Sherwood Mr Innes: She didn't, Mr LANE: WeU, Mrs GiU said that she did. She said that she had been to see the honourable member for Sherwood and that he had since approached the Vice Mayor and asked him what he could do to help, and that he knocked the honourable member back too, Mr Innes: No. Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4011

Mr LANE: Well, that is what was said by the lady for whom the honourable member for Sherwood speaks. I can only repeat what I have been told, just as the honourable member for Sherwood has repeated the story he was told. Mrs Gill is in the predicament of being able to accept $120,000 for her property or, altematively, staying on it, with a frontage enhanced by Girvans from 10m to 12m, Of course, she already has $5,000 in her pocket. When all is said and done, Mrs GiU is not really doing too badly. The RaUway Department approached the council and sought a rezoning on behalf of Mrs Gill, but the friend of the honourable member for Sherwood in the councU, Alderman Beanland, knocked her back. Mrs GUI says that Alderman Beanland said, "I'm not going to help you with this rezoning. This is a situation that has been created by the State Goverament, I'm going to get one of my mates to get up in Parhament and tip a bucket all over the Goverament by making some allegations when the matter comes before it, I don't care about you." That is what Alderman Beanland said to a person living in his ward. An Opposition Member: Do you believe that one? Mr LANE: It sounds reasonable to me. Of course, I wondered why all this was so. Mr Innes: Is this called verballing? Mr LANE: Honourable members put up with 20 minutes of the legal claptrap of the honourable member for Sherwood, and he cannot be quiet whUst I am speaking. That is not very courteous, is it? Mr Eaton: Just a poor, humble navvy. Mr LANE: That is right. Mr Innes interjected. Mr LANE: I thank the honourable member very much. The tmth probably hurts a httie. In any event, that lady's financial predicament—which is all it amounts to—has been brought about because Alderman Beanland refiised to help her with a rezoning application. The other option open to the lady is to seU the property for $120,000, and it should also be remembered that she has already received $5,000 to walk away from it. By bringing this legislation back before the House today, the Goverament is doing all it can. The effect is that her property is removed from the plan that was depicted in the original legislation. In other words, her property reverts to exactly the same legal state as it was before the Act. If that lady wishes, she may continue with her business practice on the premises. She may also continue to live in those premises without inhibition being created by the Queensland Railways or anybody else, A wide range of choices is available to her at present. Condemnation of the development by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) shows little consideration for today's unemployed or the people who work on the site. The attitude of the honourable member is unfortunate, and it is a shame that his condemnation becomes part of the record of the proceedings in Pariiament today. I will not waste any more time of the House on this matter, save to say that the sooner the Bill is passed, the better it will be. Motion (Mr Lane) agreed to. 4012 11 March 1986 Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill

Committee Mr Booth (Warwick) in the chafr; Hon, D. F, Lane (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) in charge of the Bill, Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2—Amendment of s. 5; Transfer of property— Mr INNES (5,37 p,m,): The provisions of clause 2 relate dfrectly to the land owned by Mrs Mary GiU, It is a rather audacious contribution by the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) to suggest that, after a piece of land has been included in a plan and has been given a special statutory zoning, in effect, the land wiU not be affected and neither will the property rights of the owner. That is absolute nonsense. That piece of land is included in Goverament legislation as part of a specific development. Moreover, to suggest that the Goverament wants to put things back to the way they were in 1984 is also absolute nonsense. The past year—during which the land was included in a special statutory rezoning, inevitably causing Mrs Gill to take certain steps for the preservation and security of her fiiture—cannot be wiped out. It is tme that an option was preserved and that a caveat protected that option, which is unusual. However, it must be remembered that, very shortly after that caveat was effected, the land was included in a statutory plan which was part of an Act of Parliament. The Act reserved that piece of land for the tail-end of a foot-bridge. What a magnificent zoning! The consequences of action taken by the Govemment were that the saleabiUty of the land on the open market was affected. Mrs Mary Gill was therefore forced to accept the inevitability of the Goverament's action and to take steps to preserve her future. That action taken by the Govemment to include her land in a plan that became part of an Act of Parliament involved a major commitment by her. It involved an option as weU as a very large financial commitment. All in all, Mrs Mary GiU has suffered worry and consequences that flow not only to her but also to other members of her family. . It was completely proper for the Minister, having received representations from Mrs GiU and her legal advisers, to take account of the predicament into which she had been placed not only because of the actions taken by Girvan Bros but also because of action taken by the Queensland Goverament. It would have been outrageous to suggest that the Goverament was not conceraed about her predicament. It placed her in it, and reinforced it. It was the Goverament's action that was causing her property to be the taU-end of a foot-bridge. So there was every reason why the Minister should have been involved, and should stiU be conceraed, and for Alderman Beanland to be approached and to be conceraed. I have not dealt with Mrs Gill personally; I have dealt with people acting on her behalf The problem certainly involves the city council. It did not ask for this proposal exactly the way it is. It said that the proposal did not comply with the ordinances. So it is reasonable for the council to secure what is in the best interests of the overall zoning and the requirements of the ordinances, whilst at the same time trying to get Mrs Gill out of her predicament. I assume that the Goverament's co-operation will be required to give her the best deal through the transfer of the additional couple of metres of property. After all, what is she facing now? She is next door to a foot-bridge and another development. Life is not static. The world in which she had a piece of land and a house in December 1984 has totaUy changed, and changed through the actions of the Goverament and the developer. So it would be heartless and unthinkable for any Goverament to ignore her and cast her off, saying, "Oh, that was just an option. It didn't mean anything. It just happened to be an option that was part of a proposal of this Goverament that then became incorporated in a plan attached to an Act of Parliament, a special purpose rezoning." So one just cannot put her back and say, "You go back to where you were with this low-grade $72,000 house in December 1984." Toowong Railway Station Development Project Act Amendment Bill 11 March 1986 4013

Rather than doing justice to the merits of Mrs Mary GUI's case, the Minister was perhaps using his tum of phrase to get back at me because I have been a little harsh. I hope that, in quieter moments, we would both accept that her situation has very much changed, and that her predicament with regard to bridging finance came as the result of that change, to which the Govemment contributed. This Assembly now has to work out the best way to get her out of the problem. That requires the Govemment's pursuit of one of the altematives and it requires action by the Brisbane City CouncU, I understand that the planning policy advisory committee had the matter before it oiUy within the last week, I hope that certain proposals wUl come out of that, depending on how the person who wishes to purchase from her can arrange his affafrs. The council wants the best thing for itself In putting the three proposals to her, obviously the Goverament was looking to the best things for itself However, nobody can gainsay that the action of this Parliament cannot be wiped out. It forms part of the circumstances that caused her situation to change, her property values to change and her financial commitments to change. So let us forget the mutual antagonism that appears to have arisen in the course of this debate; let us think of Mrs Mary Gill and realise that there is stiU some way to travel. With as much assistance from the Queensland Goverament and the city of Brisbane as is possible, she has to be placed in the position she thought she was in and in which she ordered her affairs. Mr LANE: I thank the honourable member for his latest comments. I remind him quietly that I was not the one who began the antagonism here this afteraoon. However, I take his words in the spirit in which I hope they were meant, and indicate to the Committee that the Goverament will certainly be proceeding with its negotiations. Whatever my personal feelings might be, I still have a public responsibility to see that justice is done. I instmcted my officers long before today, and I will reinforce those instmctions after today, that they will continue in the negotiations with the Brisbane City Council to see what can be done to rescue Mrs Gill from the unhappy predicament in which she finds herself at the moment. I remind honourable members that it is a predicament brought about by some bad commercial judgment on her part. She exercised very good commercial judgment when she secured an option from the developers, Girvans, for $160,000 over a property that is probably worth $72,000. Top marks to her for that. She got $5,000 cash up front and that was a very good commercial judgment, too, because she has retained that. Later on she decided too soon to make other arrangements for herself for housing—before she had ensured that the developer would exercise his option and pay out $160,000. That was her first bad commercial judgment, and it is really the basic reason for her present predicament. She did not wait for the developer to take up the option. She may have been encouraged to act in haste—to start to spend the money before she received it. That may sound cmel, but I have to say it today because it is a fact. She may have been encouraged to act in haste because of the Goverament's activity in the area and because her land was included in the provisions of the original enabhng Act. Although 1 was present at all of the events at the time, I do not remember Mrs Gill's being acutely aware of the inclusion of her land in the Act's provisions and the effect that the freezing of the use of her property at that time could have on her. I do not think she looked at that carefully. In all honesty, I do not thmk that that had much to do at that point in time with her starting to spend the $160,000 that she expected to get. Her acting too soon was bad commercial judgment. I have done everything I can to extricate her from her predicament. In fact, on more than one occasion she has told me that she is very happy with what I have done for her so far. I could have stood aside and let her fight it out with the developers, but I did not do that. The officers of my department have spent many hours, even many days, with her and professional people to try to find a solution. She would not have been offered the $120,000 by Girvans for the property had I not pushed them into it. I venture to say she would not have been offered the $120,000 by Benson Developments 4014 11 March 1986 Scartwater Station Tmst Extension Act Amendment Bill had I not encouraged them, through my officers, to make her an offer. The time is coming when she will have to make another commercial judgment to get herself out of the predicament. I have done almost everything I can do for her. I will pursue the discussions with the council. I hope that they will be more productive than they have been so far. I do not think I am betraying a confidence when I tell the House that I have discussed the matter with the Lord Mayor in an attempt to help Mrs Gill over her problem, and to ensure that she does not suffer from the apparent beligerence of the Vice Mayor, I have appealed to the highest authority in the council, that is, the Lord Mayor, and she has undertaken to look at the matter, I know that she has regard for Mrs Gill. I feel confident that the matter will be resolved. My officers will be available with aU their technical know-how and wiU take any necessary action to get the matter resolved. The developers will be encouraged with all my might and power to facilitate the matter. The subject has been well aired and I would only be wasting time if I were to take it further. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Lane, by leave, read a third time,

SCARTWATER STATION TRUST EXTENSION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 Febmary (see p. 3913) on Mr Glasson's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (5.50 p.m.): The Opposition has thoroughly discussed the Bill and found that it has no objections to it. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, the reasons for introducing the amendments are genuine. This is happening with many tmsts that were set up after World War II. I do not know the background of this tmst but obviously the benefits flow to veterans of World War II. Therefore, the Opposition cannot suggest that the assistance should be extended not to the grandchildren of those veterans but to the children of ex-servicemen from the Korean or Vietnam conflicts. The Opposition sees nothing wrong with the Bill. It wishes the tmst well, and supports the Bill. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (5.52 p.m.): I am pleased that the Opposition fully supports the amendment. It would be very easy for honourable members to pass the Bill very quickly, but I think it is only proper that due credit be given to the Cunningham family, who set up this tmst so many years ago. I understand that the members of the Cunningham family are descendants of a pioneering pastoralist family. In 1941, at a time of high emotions in the nation, they saw fit to give something to the people of this nation who were fighting to save Australia. They were mindful also of the efforts of people in World War I. Obviously, they had a great love of north Queensland and a belief in the people of north Queensland. From reading the original legislation and the amending legislation that has been introduced at various times, one sees that the area in which the benefit from this tmst would apply has had to be redefined. Originally, it applied to people in the electoral districts of Bowen, Townsville, Mundingburra, Charters Towers, Queenton, Kennedy, Flinders, Herbert and parts of Gregory and Leichhardt. With the passage of time, those electoral districts have changed. In 1981, the legislation was amended to redefine the area as that part of Queensland north of the Tropic of Capricom, Scartwater Station Tmst Extension Act Amendment BiU 11 March 1986 4015

What the Govemment is doing this time round is amending the legislation, in accordance with the wishes of the managing tmstees of the tmst, to include the grandchildren of qualified ex-servicemen. The member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis) mentioned that ex-servicemen from the Korean campaign should be eligible. I believe that they are ehgible, I am not sure about ex-servicemen from Vietnam, and I will leave that matter to the Minister, The Cunningham family has made a great gesture, Scartwater Station is quite large in area, and the proceeds from it benefit ex-servicemen and thefr widows, children and other dependants. Provision has been made for an aged people's home for ex-servicemen. That is to be commended. Many similar homes have been established throughout Queensland, but I imagine that the Scartwater Station Tmst was the first to go ahead with that sort of a development. I support the Minister in the passage of this Bill through the House. As Queenslanders, we should be thankful that there are people in the community who are prepared to give so generously to those who have served this country in time of war. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (5.54 p.m.): The Liberal Party has thoroughly pemsed the Bill, and supports it. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Condamine (Mr Littleproud). What he said was quite factual. Mr CLAUSON (Redlands) (5.55 p.m.): I endorse the comments of other members on this Bill. The amendment is sound. I am pleased that the Opposition endorses the Bill as it stands. The tmst was set up to show gratitude to the offspring of servicemen. This amendment will extend the benefits of the tmst to the people mentioned in it. I support the Bill. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (5.56 p.m.), in reply: I am grateful to the honourable members who have made contributions. The Bill is very short, but it fiilfils a very important role. Under it, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Condamine in his contribution to the Bill, the benefits derived from the Scartwater Station Tmst can now be passed on to the grandchildren of ex-servicemen who served in both world wars and in the regions defined. Honourable members should reflect and pay a tribute and thanks to a patriotic gentleman who, by virtue of his standing in life, provided a tmst for retumed soldiers from World War I, World War II and the Korean war. The history of the Scartwater Station Tmst records a great achievement by the tmstees. Originally, the funds were derived from Arthur Henry Wickham Cunnin^am, who was the father of Mr Ted Cunningham, who also is very supportive of the tmst, I thank all honourable members for their contributions, I again pay tribute and give thanks to the people who, over a period of years and by virtue of that tmst, have made life much easier for wounded retumed servicemen, their widows and, originally, their children, and now their grandchildren, who will benefit by way of education. Motion (Mr Glasson) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Thfrd Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Glasson, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m. 4016 11 March 1986 Credit Societies Bill

CREDIT SOCIETIES BILL Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the formation of credit societies and related bodies, for the regulation of credit societies and related bodies formed in the State, for the registration of certain other credit societies, for matters related to credit societies and related bodies; to amend the Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978 in certain particulars and the Money Lenders Act 1916-1979 in a certain particular; and for other purposes." Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubura—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General) (7.16 p.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Based upon the principles of a co-operative organisation, in a financial context, credit societies first began in Germany more than 130 years ago. Credit unions were first estabhshed in Queensland in the early 1940s by two unions, and the number grew to more than 70 at the beginning of the 1970s. As an example of sound growth, I cite the Australian Post and Telecommunications Credit Union, now Credit Union Australia, which commenced activities in Queensland on 10 Febmary 1966, 20 years ago, with $600 capital and 60 members. Credit Union Australia now has assets in excess of $ 100m and over 60 000 members. The term "credit union" has been adopted in Queensland over the years, no doubt because of trade union influence. However, these financial institutions have tended to expand their membership and services beyond the area of particular trade union membership, so that the connotation of the name "union" can now be somewhat misleading. In other States, the co-operatives operate under various descriptions, and in Queensland, in future, new co-operative groups covered by this legislation will be known as credit societies. Existing co-operatives have a choice of changing to "society" or retaining their established identity as a "credit union". In recent years, although the total membership has continued to grow dramatically, the number of separate credit societies has been reduced by amalgamations and other processes, untU today there are approximately 50 credit societies having a membership in excess of 294 000 and an associate membership of 77 000 with $782m in total assets. There are two societies with assets of over $100m, nine with assets of between $20m and $lOOm, eight with assets of between $5m and $20m, 16 with assets of between $lm and $5m, and the balance have assets under $lm. Presently, credit societies in Queensland are registered under the Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978. As part of a consumer credit package, it was considered desirable that credit societies in Queensland be subject to separate legislation to meet the needs and aspirations of the industry as well as to serve the best interests of the members of credit societies. The Credit Societies Bill is designed to create a comprehensive legislative stmcture for the establishment, management and control of credit societies and associations of credit societies in Queensland, It will therefore replace those provisions dealing with credit societies contained in the Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978. Credit Societies BiU 11 March 1986 4017

In drafting the legislation, regard has been had to the fact that credit societies are largely in competition with building societies in obtaining investment support. In view of the vast sums of money presently invested with credit societies, it was considered reasonable that the BuUding Society Act should become the comer-stone to the Credit Societies BUl. The overall drafting policy of the Bill was to introduce, as far as possible, management responsibility similar to that which the Companies Code places on corporations and which the Building Societies Act casts upon the building society industry. The similarity in the law in these related areas should assist management, because similar requirements are required across the board. Part II of the Bill sets out the manner of formation and registration of credit societies or associations of credit societies and their position in regard to the existing credit societies. Part III sets out in detail the objects and powers of credit societies or associations of credit societies. It places heavy restrictions upon the use of management contracts. Breaches of these restrictions attract heavy penalties. This part is designed to ensure that credit societies are controlled by their members and not by outsiders interested in syphoning off funds by utilising such contracts for their personal gain. It is flexible enough to permit the use of all the ordinary contracts desirable in mnning a substantial business, for example, contracts of service with bankers, auditors, legal representatives and computer specialists. There are exceptions to the mle of flexibility, but the overall effect is to provide a statutory basis to prevent persons who have not the best interests of members in mind from exercising effective control of the credit society or association. The rationale behind this approach is the co-operative nature of credit societies and the philosophy that money deposited with them is for the benefit of their members and not for the benefit of management. Part IV provides mles goveming the membership of credit societies and the share capital. Fund investment is generally heavily restricted to secure investments, but flexibility is allowed by permitting an extension of those approved investments. Investment by credit societies in the secondary mortgage market has been anticipated, and clauses have been included in the Bill to allow their effective participation in that market. Liquidity and reserve funds are carefully controlled, with provision for variation of the prescribed percentage of liquid funds which must be held. In line with building societies, under Part IX of the Bill a fiind, called the Guarantee Fund, has been established to provide security for the investing public in credit societies. In order to allow credit societies to slowly bring the fund up to an acceptable level, the percentage of funds that they must invest has been spread over a number of years from 0.1 per centum in the first year, increasing by 0.05 per centum each year until it maximises at 0.25 per centum per annum. As with buUding societies, the Guarantee Fund will have the ability to give financial assistance to a credit society that may be experiencing financial difficulty, as well as reimbursing members of the credit society in respect of loss of share capital and moneys deposited with credit societies, or persons, or bodies of persons whether corporate or unincorporate, who deposit money with credit societies should a credit society be placed in liquidation. Other parts of the Bill deal with membership, management, disputes, amalgamation and transfer of engagements, administration, evidence, offences as well as foreign credit societies. As honourable members would no doubt appreciate, the Bill is a comprehensive document designed to facilitate ongoing growth by credit societies in Queensland. It 4018 11 March 1986 Adjoumment recognises their increasing sophistication, but it also recognises the need to protect depositors in credit societies by ensuring good management and sound fiscal policies. Four Attomeys-General have given consideration to legislation of the type now before the House. During the past two years, I have reconsidered the aims and objectives, consulted the industry and brought together a set of mles for the conduct of these co­ operative financial institutions which realise the Govemment's responsibihty to societies' members as well as to the societies themselves. Without unnecessarUy intmding by over- regulation, we have produced legislation which should not discourage the growth of credit societies but which should, at the same time, protect the interests of aU members of the public who deal with them, I commend the BUl to the House, Debate, on motion of Mr Goss, adjouraed.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Buraett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjoura." Road Toll Mr MILLINER (Everton) (7.25 p.m,): I am sure that aU honourable members would agree that, currently, one of the most pressing problems facing not only Goveraments but also the community at large is the ever-increasing road toU, One only has to pick up a newspaper or tum on the television news reports to see twisted bodies in wrecked motor vehicles. It is a tragedy. Obviously, the road toll does have a tremendous effect on the community and the cost to the community of the ever-increasing road toU and its ramifications is enormous. I was interested to note, in today's newspaper, an instance of the cost of the road toU. The article to which I refer concemed a young English woman who was involved in a motor vehicle accident in the Caims area. It left her a quadraplegic, and she had to be sent back to England. As well as the cost to the Govemment of the hospitalisation of that road accident victim, a tremendous cost burden feU on the community because the local service clubs had to raise sufficient funds to send her and her family back to her native land. It is obvious that the cost to the community of the road toll is tremendous. Unfortunately, the Queensland Goverament cannot come to grips with the problems of the mounting road toll. It is obvious from aU the evidence available in other States and other countries that random breath-testing does play a significant role in reducing the road toll. A recent report compiled by the medical profession in New South Wales indicated clearly that the introduction of random breath-testing resulted in a reduction of approximately 30 per cent in road deaths. I firmly beheve that we, as legislators, should immediately consider the introduction of random breath-testing as an effective means of reducing the road toll. I must admit that random breath-testing is not a panacea. Other measures should be considered in an endeavour to reduce the road toU, Road designs plays a part, I must pay a tribute to the Main Roads Department and its engineers because they are making a valuable contribution in improving road designs. Driver education is another avenue that must be further considered with a view to reducing the road toll. Vehicle safety obviously plays a significant part. All honourable members would be aware that a system operates in this State under which a person selling a car must produce a roadworthiness certificate. That certificate sets out to ensure that the vehicle that is being purchased is roadworthy. I was very conceraed to receive an information bulletin dated Febmary 1986, issued by the Department of Transport, Engineering Services (Special), which states— "The following will no longer be a mandatory requirement:— (i) the removal of a wheel and brake dmm Adjoumment 11 March 1986 4019

(ii) the inspection of brake linings and disc brake pads (iii) the inspection of a brake disc or dmm." I am very concemed at the likely ramifications of that directive. At present, when a vehicle goes in for a machinery inspection, it is put on a hoist and the mechanic has a quick look round the wheels. If no brake fluid is leaking, everything is OK. The mechanic then takes the car out to test it. That does not mean that he physically takes the wheels off and inspects the braking system of the motor vehicle. That standard of testing can lead to an extremely dangerous situation because, already, I have had reported to me instances in which vehicles with wora brakes have been inspected by authorised mechanics and a roadworthiness certificate had been issued. The end result was that, according to the certificate, the vehicle was roadworthy. I am reliably informed by mechanics who have undertaken inspections that, in some cases, brake linings and disc brake pads are wora out. In one case, I was told that the vehicle would not have been able fo travel from Brisbane to the Gold Coast without metal to metal contact. When a Goverament attempts to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy prior to resale, it is an extremely dangerous situation for brakes not to be fully inspected by mechanics. It should not be allowed to continue and the Minister responsible should take all steps necessary to ensure that every vehicle that is resold has a certificate of roadworthiness that will give the purchaser confidence in the braking system and ensure that the braking system is in fact in Al condition. Time expired.

Ausfralia's International Debt Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (7.30 p.m.): All thinking Australians should be deeply conceraed about reports that appeared in the week-end press. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has released figures that indicate that Australia is rated as seventh on the world debt list. Mr De Lacy: You ought to be more concemed about Lindeman Island. Mr BORBIDGE: I will come back to that matter later, if the honourable member will be patient. I can understand the sensitivity of honourable members opposite, who do not wish to acknowledge the very severe economic situation for which the Federal Govemment is responsible. Mr McPhie: That debt listing places us seventh, but on a per capita basis we are about third. Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourable member for Toowoomba North has said, on a per capita basis Australia is almost the prime debt-owing nation in the world. It is interesting to note that Australia's debt is greater than the debts in South Africa—despite the massive difficulties faced by that country—Indonesia and Algeria. The report shows that Brazil owes most, with a net foreign debt of US$108,906m. Mexico is next with a debt of US$ 103,328m; then follows Korea, with a debt of US$46,169m; Argentina, with a debt of US$41,481m, and Venezuela, with a debt of US$41,409m. In the next category, the Soviet Union has a debt of US$37,832m, foUowed by Australia, with a debt of US$30,543m, South Africa, with a debt of US$29,397m, Indonesia with a debt of US$23,337m and finally Algeria, with a debt of US$22,29lm. It is of great concera to me that recent studies indicate that Australia's foreign debt is increasing. According to figures released last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Austraha owes various foreign nations $A52,635m. Sir William Knox interjected. 4020 11 March 1986 Adjoumment

Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Nundah is very excited, but I understand that he was unable to attract much of a crowd on the Gold Coast on Friday night. In 1982-83, Austraha owed $A23,025m, which means that the foreign debt has more than doubled in three years. Approximately 60 per cent of Australia's debt is owed in United States currency and, as such, Australia has to repay in that currency. That means that, as the Australian dollar decreases in value, the foreign debt rises. All honourable members would be aware of the sad and sorry state of the Australian doUar and of its decline in value by something of the order of 25 per cent in the last 12 months. So much for the "worid's greatest Treasurer"; so much for the so-called economic expertise of the Australian Council of Trade Unions/Australian Labor Party Govemment in Canberra that controls Australia! Mr Casey: Is that why there are more tourists coming here to the Gold Coast, Mr Borbidge? Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Mackay is more than a little excited. I am sure that he will be very interested to hear just how well the State's economy is doing, particularly when those alarming intemational figures are taken into account. The State Goverament finished the half-year to 31 December with a $898.7m surplus. That is an impressive achievement. It is interesting to note that in the history of goverament in the State of Queensland and during the hfe of the 44 Parliaments since self-goverament, the accumulated deficit of the State of Queensland is under $lm. I suggest to honourable members opposite that if their colleagues in Canberra were prepared to pursue more of the policies that have been pursued by this Govemment, Australia would not be in the desperate plight that it is in today. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Opposition members do not hke hearing those facts, do they? I remind honourable members opposite that this State does have an Al+Pl credit rating in the United States of America—the highest credit rating that can be achieved. This State has a AAA credit rating in Japan—the highest credit rating that can be achieved. I suggest that the Liberal Party, which seems to be embarking on a massive onslaught against the Queensland Goverament, would be better off directing its efforts to the very parlous state of the national economy. Time expired. Violence at Yarrabah Aboriginal Community Mr De LACY (Cairas) (7.35 p.m.): I want to speak tonight about the problems of violence at the Yarrabah Aboriginal Community outside Cairas, in my electorate, and also about the administration of police at that community. The problems of violence are not new; they have been bubbling for some years. However, on New Year's Eve they reached a peak, giving rise to two or three days of quite serious violence and rioting. At that stage, many people were advising me about what was happening and what the police were doing. For a while I kept out of it, hoping that the police would be able to resolve the problem. On 6 January, the police did convene a public meeting. I thought that was a good idea, and I supported it. About 30 people attended the meeting, which was hardly a representative gathering. The meeting was written up in The Cairns Post as showing that the community of Yarrabah supported the police and that the problems at Yarrabah were really being caused by a single family, namely, the Neals. People continued making representations to me, and I became increasingly conceraed that the police were not really helping to resolve the problems at Yarrabah, and that, in fact, they were contributing to and exacerbating those problems. Adjoumment 11 March 1986 4021

Finally, on 21 January, I wrote a letter to the superintendent of the Far Northera Region pointing out my conceras and saying that I had no intention of making any public statements on the issue because that would probably not be in the best interests of Yarrabah. The residents of Yarrabah find it very easy to get unfavourable publicity but they have a great deal of trouble finding solutions to their problems. I said that I was conceraed that eventually if events continued to go as they were going, something far more serious would occur, I regret to say that on 7 Febmary a James Ambrym was shot dead, I understand that a person has since been charged with his murder, I would have then been in a position to say, "Well, I told you so,", because I did teU the police that that would happen, I was invited to a meeting of refugees from Yarrabah, I was surprised to find out how many people had in fact left. At the meeting, a list was submitted to me of the names of 63 people who had left Yarrabah and were frightened to retura. That did not tie in very well with the police information that the problems were caused by only one family. The meeting was attended by members of the Neal, Yeatman, Underwood, Bums, Harris, Patterson, Stanley, Kyuna, Nicholas and Gordon famihes, I believe that they represent more than half the families at Yarrabah and so can speak on thefr behalf Consequent upon that meeting, I requested a meeting with the police, I was very pleased that they were prepared to meet with me and other members. However, that meeting was not at all productive. The police were very defensive. They were not prepared to admit that they were wrong or that they had been contributing to the problems which existed. It is to be regretted that, tonight, I have to call on the police to take action urgently. Calls have been made for inquiries, but I do not believe that they would get very far. The local police sergeant should be transferted. He does not seem to understand the problem. Deep divisions have occurred in the Yarrabah community. The local police sergeant has aligned himself with one side. All of the community police are selected from that side, so half of the community do not see the police as representing law and order or administering justice without fear or favour. They see the police as representing one side; it is a matter of them against us. It is certainly not good enough that the very serious problems wiU not be resolved. It is reprehensible that old Alf Neal, who has lived there for 42 years, is not game to go back to the Yarrabah community. The police cannot guarantee the safety of these people. They continue to say that the Neals are causing the problems. Last week, the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services attended a meeting at Yarrabah. Alf Neal and his wife went back to the community and were attacked. The local European police sergeant was there. He saw the assault, but so far no charges have been laid. Time expired. Problems Confronting Rural Indusfries Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (7.41 p.m.): I intend to speak about some of the problems facing mral industries throughout Australia. I am sure that aU honourable members are aware that the Labor Party, prior to coming to power and on coming to power, said that primary industries in Australia must meet the competition on world markets. The Hawke Govemment has continued to pursue that policy. Primary producers must meet competition on exports, but that is not what happens with imports and production inputs. It is far from that. The primary industry sector is so burdened by tariffs and unreal wage levels that it is in a parlous situation. I will now list some of the problems facing mral industries today: record high interest rates that are attributable to the "best Treasurer in the world"; high fuel prices and the virtual scrapping of the fuel freight subsidy; increased costs and charges, with meat inspections up 200 per cent; automatic full wage indexation being forced onto farmers when their net incomes are steadily declining and are curtently forecast to 4022 11 March 1986 Adjoumment average below the poverty line; automatic indexing of excises to the CPI, and that includes the new excise on fuel; the assets test, which is still having drastic effects; inconsistency with tariff and bounty policies; failure of the devaluation of the Australian doUar to significantly boost our exports; increased costs of farm machinery and parts due to the depreciation of the dollar; and interaational market conditions. To add to that, I cite some problems that will arise in the immediate future: continuing high interest rates, as set by the Federal Goverament as the only way to attract money into the country; faUing land values, which are forecast to decline by 20 per cent; increasing farm indebtedness with the growing risk of bank foreclosures—in Westera Australia, banks are foreclosing on grain-belt farmers; the 3 per cent productivity- based ALP/ACTU superannuation deal, which is a real con and is designed to pass on any benefit from productivity direct to the wages sector; continuing automatic fiill wage indexation, which once again makes our wage costs uncompetitive; new taxes such as the capital gains tax, which, of course, represents bogus death duties; the quarantining of farm losses, which is a principle that does not apply to other sections of the community; the fringe benefits tax on farm employees' housing, meat, fuel and so on; and the abohtion of the immediate write-off provisions for on-farm water storage and conservation. Those problems, many of which are a direct result of Labor policy, are set against the background of the latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics released at the Agricultural Outlook Conference in Canberra at the end of January. It was pointed out at the conference that the average farm income in 1985-86 wiU fall by 66 per cent to $6,700, that more than a third of farmers will not eara any income this year, and that more than 12 per cent of farmers wiU have a negative income of $25,000. Mr Kruger: What was your income last year? Mr LITTLEPROUD: That would hardly be relevant. I shall list some of the matters that have caused a lack of understanding by the Federal Labor Goverament. Time and time again, the Federal Labor Goverament has displayed enormous ignorance of the needs of Austraha's farming and fishing industries. In August 1983, despite strong calls from grain-growers, it accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation to impose a 15 per cent tariff on imported grain-harvesters. Finally, in August 1985, the Federal Labor Goverament realised that a bounty was better. In August 1983, the Federal Labor Goverament imposed an excise tax on fortified wine. In July 1984, it scrapped that excise tax. In August 1984, it introduced a sales tax on all wine. The Federal Labor Govemment massively increased export inspection charges, and previously I referred to the 200 per cent increase on export meat. It wrecked the income equahsation deposits scheme and tax-averaging. It reduced general depreciation aUowances and abolished the special depreciation allowance for fiiel storage on farms. The list goes on. There are some solutions to those problems, and I shall mention some of them. These are some of the things that the Federal Labor Govemment should do to put productivity back into the mral sector. It should— Pass on the full benefits of lower oil prices to the farming, fishing and timber industries. Abolish fuel price indexation, which is tied to inflation. Remove sales tax on the fuels and lubricants used in the farming and fishing industries. Restore a proper fuel freight subsidy scheme for country Australia. Scrap the quarantining of farm losses, the capital gains and fiinge benefits tax, and the abohtion of the immediate write-off provisions for on-farm water conservation. Allow a clean float of the Australian dollar. Adjoumment 11 March 1986 4023

Change its tight monetary policy to ease interest rates. Drop the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal. Time expired. Bartlett Property Trust Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (7.46 p.m.): Tonight, I refer to one of the most important and singularly scandalous things happening in Queensland at present. On many occasions, in this Parliament, I have spoken about property tmsts. I have spoken about and condemned the Bartlett Property Tmst. Presently, that tmst is Usted on the Brisbane Stock Exchange with a sole director, who the press say is uncontactable. It says that Mr Bartlett is uncontactable. Last week, three directors of the tmst resigned. They were Sir Frank Moore, Sir Thomas North and Mr Kootsookos, Previously, Mr Jim Kennedy had resigned from the tmst. Those directors resigned, leaving the tmst with serious hquidity problems. Its companies are now in the hands of receivers. The Govemment has continued to support the tmst with finance from its superannuation fiinds. Some time ago, I raised this matter in the Parliament and said that the tmst was in serious difficulty in paying its debts. From the inception of the tmst, the Queensland Corporate Affairs Commission has been answering questions from the National Companies and Securities Commission, The NCSC was not happy with the results. When I raised this matter, the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr I. J. Gibbs) said— "The member for Woodridge spoke a lot of waffle and codswallop. If he knew what he was talking about he would be a little more knowledgeable. Perhaps I will give him some knowledge now. The superannuation board does an exceUent job. It has an excellent staff. Its investment has been superb. What the member for Woodridge spoke about was the share portfolio, which is not handled by the board. It is handled by two of the best investment companies in the world ..." That company is now in liquidation. What is happening? Not only did the directors, including Sir Frank Moore, desert a sinking ship but also they did so on the day on which the liquidity problems were announced. Surely Queenslanders should be asking the Govemment, the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Minister What the hell is going on? We have no idea what is going on, and investors in Queensland do not know what is going on. For two years, I have been speaking in this Parliament about the Bartlett Property Tmst, Since its inception, it has been under a cloud. It was organised by the Govemment and its friends. Nearly every week the man who is involved, John Bartlett, has been seen mnning in and out of Parliament House and talking with Miiusters. The fact is that Sir Francis Moore and the other people were put on the board at the Goverament's insistance. They are the people who have deserted the public. Mr Borbidge interjected, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The House will come to order, Mr D'ARCY: Honourable members would not believe the hst of creditors. They can forget about Sir Edward Lyons and Lindeman Island, The Goverament itself is one of the biggest creditors, and it has not made a squeak about the whole thing. Where are Bartlett's licensing fees? When I last asked the Minister in this House how much money was owing in licence fees, he said that it was more than $500,000, I am told that the amount owing is closer to $lm. The Goverament and the people of Queensland will go down the drain. Not only do I question the Goverament's malad­ ministration in this matter, but also I point out that this company has been on the rocks for a long time, I read a report that Mr Fred Lippiatt, a solicitor who appeared for Penfolds Wines, said that Mr Cole from that company had told him of a conversation on Thursday— almost a week ago—with a representative of the Bartlett group. The report says that the 4024 11 March 1986 Adjoumment representative said that there was a cheque in the post for about $20,000. Honourable members have all heard that before. The representative said then that the debt was $50,000, The report says that the cheque arrived and that it was dated 17 December 1985. That cheque arrived on 7 March 1986. What is the Corporate Affairs Commission in this State doing about the Bartlett group? It is totally responsible for what happens to the investors of Queensland. Everyorie knows that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark, and the Goverament is doing absolutely nothing. The people of Queensland do not even know what investigation is taking place. The reason I exposed the Telford group in this Pariiament is that the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission Mr Borbidge interjected, Mr D'ARCY: The New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission has on 96 charges, most of which are criminal, the friend of the honourable member for Surfers Paradise from the Telford group. The Opposition knows about the honourable member dining with that person at the Gold Coast. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Woodridge has suggested that friends of mine are on certain charges, I assiu-e you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that that claim is quite untme. I find it offensive, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Surfers Paradise has made his point. There is no point of order. The time of the honourable member for Woodridge has expired. Cyclone Winifred Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (7,53 p,m,): I rise to speak on a matter of pubhc interest and of deep concem to members on both sides of the House, Mr Casey: Lindeman Island, Mr RANDELL: No, it is not Lindeman Island, Mr Kruger: Sugar. Mr RANDELL: No, it is not about sugar, because I know that members on the other side of the House will not support the Goverament on the matter of sugar. Friday will be the day of reckoning for the blokes on the other side of the House, They wiU have to stand up and be counted, and we will see whether they are fafr dinkum. Not one of them will stand up for the sugar industry. Mr Casey interjected. Mr RANDELL: You can talk all you Uke; but I challenge you now to get up and talk- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr RANDELL: I am sorry about my diversion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Mirani has issued a challenge. It was not until 1 April last year, 11 months ago, that this Govera­ ment Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order, Mr RANDELL: I wish to refer to cyclone Winifred, which left such a trail of destmction in its wake in northera Queensland when it crossed the coastline 15 km south of Innisfail on Saturday, 1 Febmary, I express my sincere concera to aU those people who suffered losses in that tragic incident. Adjourament 11 March 1986 4025

This Govemment's Department of Local Govemment, which, as all honourable members know, does such an excellent job for this State, reacted quickly, along with all other State Goverament departments, in taking some action. Honourable members are aware that cyclone Winifred caused major damage over the coastal area north to Cairns and the Atherton Tableland and south to Ingham. Officers of the Local Goverament Department were despatched immediately to conduct a survey of storm damage. Those inspectors found that damage to buildings varied from minor roof and waU cladding failures to total stmctural collapse. The major stmctural damage, as honourable members know, was centered on Babinda and Innisfail. The purpose of the survey by officers of the Department of Local Govemment was to determine whether the provisions of the Building Act regulating the standard of constmction of buildings throughout Queensland were adequate. It was an opportune time to study it. More specifically, inspectors studied houses built in accordance with appendix 4 of the Act, for stmctural damage. Mr Deputy Speaker, for those among us who are not as well informed as I am on these matters, I point out that appendix 4 provides specifically for the design of single- family residences and came into effect from 1 July 1982. The appendix was another excellent innovation of the Department of Local Govemment, of which I am proud to be a member. I am pleased to be able to tell honourable members that the survey determined that not one building designed and constmcted in accordance with appendix 4 sustained any structural damage. The survey uncovered the cold, hard fact that stmctural damage to housing was restricted to those dwellings built before the introduction of appendix 4. That was most evident in Babinda and Innisfail, where modem buildings constmcted in accordance with the relevant requirements sustained little or no damage, despite the intense strength of cyclone Winifred. Mr Casey: A lot of that resulted from the good work of the James Cook University. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member could be right in saying that. Unfortunately, in some cases neighbouring, older-style houses were substantially damaged. My major point is that the building amendments that came into effect on 1 July 1982 have proved to be mighty effective. No-one can contradict that. They are a model for other States to follow. Because of the amount of damage that can be caused by high winds, as was instanced last Sunday in Brisbane, I hope that local authorities in other States follow Queensland's example in this matter. This is one isolated example of how good, commonsense legislation, properly executed and thought through, can ultimately prove to be of inestimable value to the people of this great State. Although we must all feel sorry for those who suffered damage and loss in the cyclone, we must feel some satisfaction from this positive side of a major catastrophe. Such examples of good legislation should be mentioned occasionally—they are never mentioned by members opposite—for that is what this Govemment is all about—good, sensible legislation. The Goverament cares for the people of Queensland and is always on the alert to ensure that sensible legislation is brou^t forward for the benefit of aU citizens. All honourable members know of the great damage to the sugar-cane crops in that area. With those farmers already reeling from the slump in world prices, I am pleased that the State Government has recognised their plight and, supported by the Queensland Cane Growers Council, has taken positive steps. Mr Prest interjected. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Port Curtis claims that the Queensland Goverament has done nothing. He knows very well that, on this issue, the Federal Goverament has procrastinated. For three years, the Federal Goverament has wanted investigations, reports, deregulation and everything else. It has tried to use any excuse 4026 11 March 1986 Adjoumment to stop giving the farmers the money. As I have already said, Friday is when the moment of tmth will arrive. Time expired. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjouraed at 7.58 p.m.