Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 4 MARCH 1982

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

4420 4 March 1982 Papers

THURSDAY, 4 MARCH 1982

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Muller, Fassifern) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:— Report of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority for the year ended 30 June 1981 The following papers were laid on the table:— Proclamations under the Forestry Act 1959-1981 Orders in Council under— The Newstead House Tmst Act of 1939 Land Act 1962-1981 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1979 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1976 Forestry Act 1959-1981 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1976 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1979 Forestry Act 1959-1981 Regulations under— Land Act 1962-1981 Sawmills Licensing Act 1936-1979 Forestry Act 1959-1981 Ministerial Statement 4 March 1982 4421

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT "Nationwide" Program, Allegations against Police Force Hon R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police) (11.3 a.m.): Last night the ABC television program "Nationwide" saw fit to broadcast a one-sided and obviously prejudiced attack against the Queensland Police Force. Anyone who bothered to watch that program last night would have been stunned and surprised by the attempted smear of honest and hard-working members of the force by two former officers. This House should be aware that last night's program went to air without any opportunity being afforded to the Queensland Police Department to put its case. I think this is a reflection on the motives behind the entire "Nationwide" segment. The program was based on allegations made by Messrs Bob Campbell and Kingsley Fancourt. This morning, prior to the House sitting, I discussed these allegations with the Commissioner of Police and his senior officers. I am satisfied that there is no truth in these accusations and that both men have deliberately set out to destroy the credibility of their former colleagues. By their admissions on "Nationwide" last night they have in fact destroyed their own credibility. To set the record straight and in an attempt to determine why they decided to smear the Queensland Police Force it is important to examine the background of both Campbell and Fancourt. Senior Constable Robert James Campbell, who is 30 years of age, was sworn in on 10 December 1968 and resigned from the Queensland Police Force as of last Sunday. During his service he began university studies in his own and departmental time, and on at least two occasions indicated to the administration that once he had obtained his degree he would leave the Police Force. Colleagues of Campbell have openly described him as a malcontent, both in his attitude to the administration of the Queensland Police Force and his position in the force. He even took the unusual action of refusing to remain a member of the Queensland Police Union. This, of course, is not the first time the activities of Senior Constable Campbell have been brought to the notice of senior police. On 22 December 1981 the officer in charge of internal investigations. Detective Superintendent A. T. Pointing, together with Inspector Summerfield, interviewed Senior Constable Campbell in relation to allegations of cormption within the force. It is on record that, at that interview, under questioning from Detective Superintendent Pointing and Inspector Summerfield, Senior Constable Campbell assured both officers he had no knowledge or suspicion of any criminal cormption within the police force. He informed both officers that his original allegations of corruption centered around his disquiet relating to an unrequested transfer. I am sure all honourable members find it amazing that Senior Constable Campbell, as recently as four months ago, was provided with an opportunity to expand on allegations of corruption within the force. For the benefit of the honourable member for Archerfield, I repeat that Campbell assured both Detective Superintendent Pointing and Inspector Summerfield that he had no knowledge or suspicion of any criminal cormption within the force. I think this admission by Campbell only three months ago offers a true reflection of the sincerity of his remarks on "Nationwide" last night. Throughout his service Campbell appeared obsessed with the attitude of other police officers and what he regarded as corrupt activities within the department. In fact, his colleagues were well aware of his attitudes and resented Campbell's lack of interest in his police duties. He was characterised by his colleagues as a bludger and a professional student. I am reliably informed that Robert J. Campbell is the author of an underground newspaper known as the "WooUoongabba Worrier" This grubby little rag, which has seen three issues, was published anonomously and clearly expounds philosophies that were repeated in last night's scurrilous attack on "Nationwide." Last night allegations were also made by Kingsley Fancourt, a former Licensing Branch detective who resigned from the police force no less than six years ago. What I would like to know is why it took Mr Fancourt approximately six years to summon the courage to come forward with his allegations. As all honourable members would know, Mr Fancourt left the police force before the present Commissioner, Mr Lewis, was appointed. 4422 4 March 1982 Personal Explanation

Between the date of his resignation and the present, numerous opportunities were available to him to voice his allegations against the Queensland Police Force. These have included numerous committees of inquiry and royal commissions. Whilst in the police force he was the mining warden in Anakie and used this position to obtain some of the best mining leases available. Mr Hooper: What a filthy smear. Mr Burns: What did you do about it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bums: He did nothing, only tip the bucket over him six years later. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Lytton. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I will hear the Minister in silence. Mr HINZE: As I said, he used his position as mining warden in Anakie to obtain some of the best mining leases available. Mr Vaughan: So have some of you Ministers. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn all members of the Opposition. I am not sure who made that remark, but I will be watching Opposition members very carefully from here on, Mr HINZE: These leases were recorded in the names of his wife and children. He also attempted to induce other people to take out leases for him in their names for a monetary consideration. He would be well aware that the Scognamglio case mentioned by him on "Nationwide" did not disappear into thin air. He gave evidence in the committal proceedings. He would also be well aware that the defendant was committed for trial and that the Crown later entered a nolle prosequi because of insufficiency of evidence. My office has been informed that both Campbell and Fancourt were propositioned by the honourable member for Archerfield to undertake the "Nationwide" interview. Both Campbell and Fancourt have made no secret of their association with the honourable member for Archerfield in recent times. I believe the honourable member for Archerfield has used both Campbell and Fancourt to mouth for him a deliberate smear against the entire Queensland Police Force. If Campbell and Fancourt are sincere in their allegations I challenge them to reproduce them by way of sworn affidavits so that they may be accountable for the truth of same.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr HARTWIG (Callide) (11.11 a.m.): This morning my attention was drawn to an article in "The Australian" under the name of Max Jessop. Mr Jessop rang me at my office in Yeppoon Mr JONES: I rise to a point of order. I draw attention to the fact that the House has not given leave for the honourable member to make a personal explanation. If he is going to make a personal explanation, I think that he should seek leave. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take the point made by the member for Caims. The member for Callide rose and I was waiting to hear his comments. If he wishes to make a personal explanation, he must seek the leave of the House. Mr HARTWIG: I seek the leave of the House. (Leave granted.) Mr HARTWIG: An article headed "MP alleges massive cormption over casino" appeared in "The Australian" on Monday of this week. I was rung by Mr Jessop as a result of articles that appeared in the week-end newspapers, in which I was reported as saying that the delay in granting the casino licences was causing all sorts of rumours, Questions Upon Notice 4 March 1982 4423 even to the extent that somebody was going to get a rake-off—$lm was mentioned—if a particular applicant got the licence. That appeared in Sunday's newspapers. It was a rumour. I think that every member in this House has heard those sorts of rumours. I take exception to the use of the word "corruption" in "The Australian" article. I do not use the word "corruption". I stand by what I said. I did not accuse the Govemment or Cabinet of being involved in corruption. I find that very offensive. I do not mind journalists quoting what I say. but I do not want them ringing me on the telephone and then writing an article that does not look good. The arricle quotes me as saying— "But knowing this Govemment there could well be yet another cover-up to deny the people the facts." Those are pretty strong words. I was asked about the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation on the television program "Today Tonight" I categorically denied that I had any knowledge of whether these applicants had contributed to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. I still do not know, and I do not care much. Some of the statements in that newspaper article are not correct, and I wish the House to note that fact.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Beams/Handford Roads Intersection From Mrs Nelson (269 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will alleviate the dangerous traffic situation which affects both pedestrians and traffic flow at the comer of Beams Road and Handford Road, Zillmere.

Federal Govemment's Education Funding From Mr Hooper (44 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will restore education funding to 25.6 per cent of the State Budget and endeavour to increase the Federal Government's commitment to education.

Electoral Redistribution From Dr Lockwood (82 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will amend the Electoral Districts Act 1971-1977 to provide a uniform electoral quota for all electoral districts.

Prawn-trawling, Torres Strait From Mr Scott (401 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will either ban or control prawn-trawling in Torres Strait waters. Petitions received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows:— '• Prosecutions for Trading Outside Normal Trading Hours Mr Prentice asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations— (1) How many shops have been prosecuted for trading outside the normal trading hours in the last six months? (2) How many of those prosecutions were successful? (3) What was the average fine imposed on those convicted of such a breach? Answer:— fAr ^'? ^1°"^ ^ September 1981 to the present date 33 occupiers of shops were prosecuted lor a total of 345 breaches of the trading hours orders. 4424 4 March 1982 Questions Upon Notice

(2) Prosecutions against 25 occupiers for 276 breaches of the orders were successful. (3) The average fine imposed for each breach of a trading hours order was $23.

2. Upgrading of Bruce Highway Mr Muntz asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police— With reference to his second inspection within six months of the Bruce Highway from Mackay to Townsville, in company with the Federal Minister for Transport, Honourable Ralph Hunt, myself and others, what arrangements have been made between State and Federal departments to ensure that a definite plan for upgrading this highway is implemented? Answer:— The honourable member would be aware that, during the inspection, no opportunity was lost by organisations, local authorities, and myself to impress on the Commonwealth Minister for Transport the need for more Commonwealth funds for the Bruce Highway, and for all classes of roads in this State. I believe that Queensland has particular problems not encountered in other States, and the Bmce Highway is typical of these problems. The Commonwealth Bureau of Transport Economics agrees that Queensland is getting a poor deal from the Commonwealth, and I would hope that this is rectified when the Commonwealth allocations of 1982-83 road funds are being decided. At the ATAC meeting last Friday, I again put the case for more road funds and for Queensland to get its fair share of those funds. I also confirmed that the joint study of the Bruce Highway by Commonwealth and State officers would proceed. This study, which has already commenced, will determine the funds required to bring the highway to an acceptable standard within 10 years. It will then be up to the Commonwealth Government to demonstrate its commitment to roads by agreeing to provide additional funds for a realistic works program on the Bruce Highway. The Commonwealth Government states that national roads, including the Bruce Highway, are eligible for 100 per cent funding from Commonwealth sources, but, as in the past, I would be prepared to consider including some State funds in the program.

3. Teacher Accommodation. Bowen; Schools and Pre-schools. North Mackay Mr Muntz asked the Minister for Education— What arrangements have been made to (a) alleviate the shortage of teacher accom­ modation in Bowen brought about by accelerated industrial development in that area, and (b) provide for future primary schools and pre-schools in the expanding urban areas of North Mackay particularly Bucasia and the North View area?

Answer:—• (a) My department has taken steps to provide adequate housing for this year's requirements, by purchase and leasing of suitable accommodation. Future housing requirements are the subject of ongoing investigations. (b) Action is proceeding to acquire sites for new primary schools at Bucasia and the North View area of Mackay. Growth in the North View area, and indeed in all areas, is being closely monitored by my officers, who are aware of enrolment trends in existing schools. Provision of State pre-school centres in those areas will be considered simultaneously with the establishment of new State schools. However, priority of constmction must be determined in the light of needs across the State.

4. Marking of School Pedestrian Crossings Mr Gygar asked the Minister for Transport— (1) What is the exact position regarding the marking of pedestrian crossings within the city of Brisbane? Questions Upon Notice 4 March 1982 4425

(2) Does the Brisbane City Council have a discretion in the way school crossings are marked? (3) How is the Brisbane City Council exercising this discretion?

Answer:— (1 to 3) I have recently received a number of representations from members about school crossings, asking who is responsible for their physical construction, their placement, and the selection of the actual type of crossing used. The Brisbane City Council and other local government authorities have been endeavouring to disclaim their responsibility in this area by suggesting that school crossings are the sole responsibility of the State Government and are strictly governed by a publication of the Main Roads Department called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The proper position is as follows:— In the Brisbane area the decision regarding the erection of traffic signs and traffic control devices, including those in the vicinity of schools, is delegated to the Brisbane City Council under section 12B (ii) of the Traffic Act. The physical constmction of pedestrian crossings is also the responsibility of the Brisbane City Council and is carried out by the Traffic Planning Branch of the Department of Planning and Co-ordination. In the outer metropolitan areas these responsibilities lie with the relevant local city council or shire council. The exception to these rules is where the signs or crossings are on a declared main road, and in these cases the Main Roads Department of the State Govemment is the constructing authority. These cases are few and far between, and in the greater Brisbane area are situated on main arterial and tmnk roads which are specifically declared under the Main Roads Act. To ensure a degree of uniformity, and for safety's sake, all local government authorities are expected to follow the guide-lines set out in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Obviously no set of guide4ines can accommodate every individual situation. Some traffic areas or school precincts have specific problems and circumstances which must be taken into account if sensible and safe traffic control is to be attained. Therefore it is specifically written into the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (under the section headed "Application of Warrants") that— "Even if a formal warrant is satisfied in a particular instance, it does not necessarily follow that the relevant traffic control device should be installed on that basis alone. The justification for the installation of a particular device often involves a number of elements; some incapable of being expressed in quantitative terms. There will occur in practice many cases where a particular form of control would be best suited to the local conditions, although the requirements of the formal warrant may indicate otherwise. In all cases, engineering judgment must be used in assessing the need for treatment at any location. However it is emphasised that warrants have been established after long exper­ ience and careful study, and should not be departed from unless the necessity to do so can be fully substantiated." Thus the situation is clear. Whilst the manual provides the guide-lines, common sense and road safety should prevail. The Brisbane City Council has the ultimate discretion to use whatever type of crossing it thinks fit and to use what type of marking it thinks best suits a particular type of situation. It is indeed regrettable that the Bris­ bane City Council and certain other local governments have, over the years, refused to exercise their discretion in providing the safest form of traffic indicators and crossings pertinent to a particular situation. After all, it is people's lives that are at stake. It is my belief that the present Labor council is discriminating in the placement of zrora and school crossings and is denying crossings at schools which have dangerous pedestrian situations and then blaming the State Govemment, saying that the Department of Transport or the Main Roads Department is hindering its efforts. I have evidence 4426 4 March 1982 Questions Upon Notice

that the present ALP City Council is more inclined to put level crossings in Labor-held wards than in those held by Liberal aldermen, and I think this practice is ateolutely despicable. It is evidence against the council that it is prepared to play politics with children's lives and I have with me today a photograph of a crossing at Enoggera which proves this point, showing where the manual is departed from in a Labor ward. However we know that in Liberal wards a refusal is made to adjust crossings to suit local circumstances. Mr Davis: Why don't you table it? Mr LANE: I will table the photograph.

Answer (contd):— The council has tried to shirk its responsibility in this area; but as far as the Government is concerned, there is a degree of flexibility that does allow for correct crossings to be established at school intersections in the interests of road safety and the safety of our children who attend school, despite the filthy politics played by the Labor Party against our schools and our children.

5. Free Dental Care, Harristown and Concordia Primary Schools Mr Warner asked the Minister for Health— When will children attending the Harristown Primary School and the Concordia Primary School in Toowoomba have free dental care available to them through mobile clinics? Answer:— The school dental service will ibe introduced to Harristown State Primary School and Concordia Primary School during the first school semester in 1982. The precise date of introduction to Harristown school wiU be determined by the delivery of new mobile dental ohnics now nearing completion while precise timing of introduction to Concordia school will he determined by the progress of an existing mobile clinic through the school where it is presently located.

6. Definition of Persons Claiming to be Aborigines and Islanders Mr Harper asked the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs— (1) Does his department adopt a particular definhion in determining whether a resident of Australia is entitled to claim rights which are afforded to Aboriginal or Islander people? (2) If so, is it similar to the reported definition of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Department which specifies that (a) the person must be of Aborigmal or Torres Strait Islander descent; (b) he must be accepted by the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities as an Aboriginal or Islander; (c) he must identify as an Aboriginal or Islander? (3) As is the case with the relevant Commonwealth department, is a claimant accepted merely because of a claim that he identifies himself as an Aboriginal or Islander?

Answer:— (1 to 3) My department relies upon the definition of Aborigines and Islanders stated in section 5 of each of the Aborigines Acts 1971-1979 and the Torres Strait Islander Acts 1971-1979. To identify Commonwealth Govemment definitions, the honourable member should make representations direct to that authority. It is known that some sponsored organisations, and more particularly incorporated bodies, such as housing co-operatives, have quite widely varying identification criteria which generate, in the general populace, serious reservations of identification. Questions Upon Notice 4 March 1982 4427

While federally funded programs appear to be directly on the basis of race, it should be said that Queensland policy is to assess not only the applicant's identity but more particularly the need for the free supply of benefit. In effect, benefits from this Government relate to the particular need of the applicant and lack of ability to cope within their own resources. The long history and experience of the department in supporting and developing the Aboriginal people of this State has demonstrated the desirabiUty of this policy which maintains the dignity of the individual.

7. Abolition of Permits for Movement of Livestock Mr Harper asked the Minister for Primary Industries— Is consideration being given to the abolition of the requirement for stock permits for the movement of livestock in Queensland? Answer:— The stock permit system is now under review. The objective is to retain permit control of disease risks (including cattle ticks) and to deregulate other movements. It is anticipated that the latter may require only a way-bill properly completed by the owner.

8. Jojoba Intemarional Pty Ltd Mr Harper asked the Minister for Primary Industries— With reference to the continuing interest in Central Queensland m the crop jojoba and its promotion by private companies encouraging investment through these companies— (1) Is there any reason to alter his warning of August 1981 that potential investors should carefully evaluate promotion by Jojoba International in relation to other published information on the crop? (2) Is the Raglan estimate of crop yield at the fifth year still six times that of the potential yield estimated by the American authority referred to by him? (3) Does Australian experience so fax support that American's estimated yield of 350 lb an acre as against the Raglan esrimate of 2 160 lb an acre? (4) Do market trends justify an expectation of the financial returns being sueeested by the company? Answer:— (1) No. . ^2) I have been personally informed by directors of Jojoba International that tneir estimates of yield are now more in line with the American estimates tabled by me in the House on August 18 last. I have not seen recent promotional literature trom the company. to oSlnlSi' •*'" "'' commercial plantation experience of fifth-year stands relevant 10 Queensland environments.

markel S^nf f "^i ""^ ^""T-^^ ^^*"'°' '^^P^"^ **" ^ """^^^ of factors of which Sence Wr!rf f?^-"""^- -V' "^ *^ ^^f^''^^ '"^^'^"""^ '^ ^^^8^ carefully all relevant Seof iSl r™"^ ^ r.^^'°f"' °" ^*^'y fi"^"'^'^' ^^*"™^- Market trends at this for the cimmSdit^ '" development are an uncertain guide to the long-term prices

Venison Imports Mr Stephan asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts- some^?niL!!^ ^^^l'' ^^^- ''^"''°" ^P^'** ^'^ beginning to flood the home market, in some instances with choice cuts only, at what can only be described as dump prices?

some^^Sen'lfeTfr^'' f°J°°^^'. *° """'' *^^ ^""^ °^ ^^' P^"^"'^ ^"d so renew effects oTrtflL V u lo^fl deer farmers, as this dumping will have disastrous cneus on the fledglmghom e industry? 4428 4 March 1982 Questions Upon Notice

Answer:— (1 & 2) I acknowledge the member's interest and his representations on this subject. The venison industry has the potential to become a significant contributor to the economy of this State. The control of venison is the responsibility of my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Primary Industries. Nevertheless, I wiU give my full support to any moves that protect Queensland deer farmers from unfair trading practices. I look forward to the assistance of the honourable member, in conjunction with the Minister for Primary Industries, in trying to achieve that goal.

10. Freeholding of Miners Homestead Perpetual Leases Mr Stephan asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— (1) Is he giving consideration to enabling miners homestead perpetual leases to be converted to freehold on the same reasonable terms as exist for freeholding perpetual leases under the Land Act? (2) If so, what progress has been made in discussions so far? Answer:— (1 & 2) This matter has been given consideration. The Mining Titles Freeholding Act 1980 provides a simple method of converting miners' homestead perpetual leases to freehold and an equitable means of determining the price to be paid to the Crown for such freeholding. The Wardens Court determines the purchase price after receiving a valuation made on behalf of the Minister and the opportunity exists for the applicant for freehold to present his own evidence as to the valuation of the land. In addition, the court may inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit. is not required to conduct the proceedings in a formal manner and is not bound by the rules of evidence. The applicant has the right of appeal to the Land Court. The Crown has no such right. The applicant has the right to pay the purchase price of the land, discounted to 51.24 per cent of the determined price, or may pay the land off at any time over 30 years at a pro rata discounted price. No interest is charged if the price is paid off by instalments over 30 years. These advantages would place a successful applicant for freehold in a favourable position in the market-place, if he chooses to realise on his purchase, and the Act is regarded as generous in its provisions. It is not considered feasible, because of the different method of valuation of miners' homestead perpetual leases for rental purposes, to use such a valuation at any point of time as the basis for conversion to freehold.

11. Bulk Sales of Electricity Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the 1981 (Queensland Electricity Generating Board Annual Report wherein it indicated that in 1980-81 the board received $15,672,000 from sales of electricity to "other consumers supplied in bulk", which amount represents a sub­ stantial increase on sales to the same category of consumers in 1979-80, and as the report shows that in 1980-81 532 GWH (gigawatt hours) of electricity was sold to Queensland Alumina Ltd— (1) What was the value of sales of electricity to Queensland Alumina Ltd? (2) What are the names of other consumers who are supplied in bulk? (3) What was the value of sales to each of these consumers? Answer:— (1 to 3) The detailed information sought by the honourable member relates to electricity sales made under special agreements with large consumers of the Queensland Electricity Generating Board. As the honourable member should know by now—he has been Questions Upon Notice 4 March 1982 4429

told often enough—these agreements are confidential between the companies concerned and the Queensland Electricity Generating Board. This Govemment respects such confidences and I have to advise the honourable member yet again that the information he seeks will not be made available.

12. Mining Lease Applications Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— (1) How many applications for mining leases were received by the Mines Department in 1981? (2) How many applications for mining leases were processed by the Mines Department in 1981? (3) How many mining leases were granted in 1981? (4) How many applications for mining leases are currently waiting to be processed?

Answer:— (1) 820. (2) All applications for mining leases received were processed as far as possible during 1981. (3) 183. (4) None.

13. Gateway Bridge-Bruce Highway Road Link Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for Local Government. Main Roads and Police— With reference to the serious traffic bottlenecks that currently exist in the Nundah, Northgate and Virginia area at peak periods in particular, and as the Gateway Bridge which is scheduled to be completed in 1985 will generate substantially more traffic, including heavy transport vehicles, in these already congested areas— (1) Is the Main Roads Department planning to construct a main arterial road to link the Gateway Bridge directly with the Bruce Highway via Northgate East, Banyo, Nudgee and Boondall? (2) If not, will be undertake an investigation of such a road as a matter of urgency? (3) If not, what is the reason? (4) What definite plans are in hand to cater for the huge buildup in traffic on the northside that must eventuate as a result of the construction of the Gateway Bridge and the new Brisbane airport? Answer:— (1 to 4) At the present time, the Main Roads Department is not proposing to constmct a road in the location mentioned by the honourable member. However, the Main Roads Department is aware of the potential increases in traffic in the northern suburbs and particularly in the suburbs mentioned, and is currently undertaking the necessary planning to cater for this increase. Investigations are in hand for a link from the Bruce Highway to the Deagon deviation, for an interchange at the intersection of Sandgate Road, Toombul Road and Winbin Street, and for a link from Nudgee Road to Sandgate Road, along Schulzs Canal. Funds have been tentatively set aside with a view to commencing construction of the finally approved scheme at the earliest possible time. It is intended to constmct a link from the South East Freeway, at a point near Springwood, over the new Gateway Bridge and north to the Bmce Highway, thereby bypassing the city on its eastern side. I have flown over the proposed route many times. It traverses land that is well suited for the purpose and much of it has already been acquired by the Main Roads Department. The whole project depends, of course, on funding. Nevertheless the honourable member will see the construction of that link. I know exactly what he refers to. Again I say that it is a matter of allocating sufficient funds to the job to which he refers. 4430 4 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Applications for Casino Licences Mr CASEY: My first question is directed to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. No doubt he is aware of my acceptance yesterday of the offer made by the Minister for Police to view the files that he held relating to police investigations into the Gold Coast casino applicants. Such information will remain confidential to me. I now ask: Is the Treasurer prepared therefore to make a similar offer to me, on a confidential basis, regarding the information that he obtained from police files during his recent visit to Victoria? Dr EDWARDS: I will not be making available to the Leader of the Opposition or, for that matter, any other person information that was made available to me on a confidential basis. The Leader of the Opposition is placing great emphasis on police reports. We, too, placed great emphasis on them. However, other factors must be considered. This morning I was interested to learn of his denial of previous statements that had been made. I am not quite sure of the background to his denial. However, the Leader of the Opposition should have checked his facts before he entered the House on Tuesday moming. One wonders what influence Mr Hawke has on the Queensland Branch of the Labor Party. Obviously it is much greater than we think. As I have said, I will not be making any confidential information public to any person other than the Premier, with whom I have discussed the matter in full. I will be sharing confidences on this matter only with him. Mr CASEY: Just to clarify the situation, I mention that the statement I made this moming was in clarification of what I viewed yesterday and only that. The other day I made no statements regarding the police reports. I now ask the Treasurer a supplementary question. In view of his refusal to allow me on a confidential basis to view this information, an attitude that is in stark contrast to the preparedness of the Minister for Police to lean towards open government on this very delicate issue, I ask: Has the Treasurer withheld any information from his ministerial colleagues, namely, the Premier, Mr Elliott, Mr Hinze and Mr Sullivan, in relation to this matter and. if not. what has he got to hide? Dr EDWARDS: I am amazed that, once again, the Leader of the Opposition should concentrate on this particular issue, when I have made the position clear. If he thinks that I will discuss this issue with him, of all people, after his having betrayed confidences in the past and misinterpreted them, he is sadly mistaken. I have given all of the information. Some of it is of an intelligence nature. There is some other information that cannot be correlated at this stage. I have given to the Premier any information on this matter that has come into my hands. The matter is well known to both of us. I do not intend to give to the Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, any person, any information that is on a police file in this State. The day that a Govemment opens up police files on innocent people, there will be great difflculties. The police would not be able to undertake their operations in a proper manner for the security Mr Casey interjected. Dr EDWARDS: What the Police Minister does is his business. My integrity in this area is well known. I have no intention of giving the Leader of the Opposition the information that he seeks.

Applications for Casino Licences Mr CASEY: I direct a further question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. Can I assume from his comments, in which he referred to his integrity, that he believes the Minister for Police acted very poorly in making the offer which he did in this Parliament the other day to make the police files available as well as in confidentially showing me those files yesterday? Dr EDWARDS: The Leader of the Opposition is again raising matters that were dealt with fully in this House on Tuesday. The Leader of the Opposition may shake his head; because of its instability, it will fall off. What the Police Minister does in the Questions Without Notice 4 March 1982 4431 administration of his department is his responsibility and he is answerable for his actions. My decision is quite clear. I have made it clear to the House and the Press, and everybody knows the position. Mr HINZE: I rise to a point of order simply to give some information that I think should be placed before the House. I hope that I am in order. I was trying to emphasise that a man's name had been smeared in this State; so, in confidence, I made the police files available to the Leader of the Opposition. That was the only reason. What the Treasurer has said is entirely correct. There is no way in the world that we can put the police files on the table. If we did so, how could the police in future go to someone and say, "We have certain matters to look into under the law of this State. Will you confide in us?" The person would say, "No. I am sorry. If I do, the information will be put on the table and, whether it is right or wrong, it will be subject to the attentions of the media." That is why I did it. If I was wrong in doing it, I accept the responsibility. It was done purely for that reason.

Concessional Valuations Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services: In the light of his statement in the House the day before yesterday regarding concessional valuations wherein he said— "Whilst Queensland has introduced measures to safeguard existing land use ", is he aware that the Land Court has found in favour of much higher valuations because of an assumed higher primary producer land use than the existing grazing use which had been in existence since the turn of the century, which clearly does not safeguard existing land use. Is the Minister aware of this?

Mr HEWITT: The honourable member referred to a number of Land Court cases that have been brought to my attention, with specific reference to one on which we have entered into extensive correspondence. I think that in fairness to the honourable member I would prefer to have the question placed on notice so that I can give him a reasoned reply. Mr Simpson: I am only too happy to do so.

Mopeds Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Minister for Transport: What is a motorped, and what are the present regulations relating to them in Queensland? Is the Minister's road safety committee examining the wider use of the economical motorped in Queensland in future? Mr LANE: I am sure that the honourable member is referring to mopeds, and I am very pleased to say that a number of members turned up this moming for a demonstration of these vehicles in the grounds of Parliament House. We were able to show members the potential of these small, fuel-efficient motor cycles. What are generally described overseas as mopeds are motor-assisted pedal cycles. We demonstrated those vehicles this morning as well as a number of low-powered motor cycles of up to 50cc capacity. The demonstration was a huge success, and I am hoping we can encourage more Queenlanders to resort to this sort of fuel-efficient transport. A system of graded motor cycle licences is proposed, and we are currently reviewing the provisions of the Traffic Act and Regulations to achieve just that. It seems patently ridiculous to me that the same motor cycle licence should be required for a 50 cc moped as is tequu^ed for a motor cycle with the 1 500 cc capacity of police motor cycles. In due course ne Government intends to grade licences into several capacities with, of course, the large motor cycles being at the top and mopeds at the bottom. I hope we can relax some of the licence requirements for these small cycles. This morning members had no problem th P *r *'^°"'"' ^^^ grounds safely. I am sure that there will be a lot of support in •s Parhament for the relaxation of some of the regulations to encourage housewives Mr Frawley: How did you get the member for Murrumba on one? 4432 4 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

Mr LANE: I am sorry to say that none of the Opposition turned up this morning to watch the demonstration. It just goes to show what interest they have in positive, practical things. They are very happy to come into this House and make negative comments all day and to make wild and unfounded allegations against the Government at all times; but when it comes to doing something positive for the State of Queensland, we never hear a peep out of them. Not one member opposite turned up for the demonstration "this morning, and I was very disappointed about that. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister for Transport is, as usual, telling untruths. Government Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr DAVIS: No, he is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know that the honourable member is well-meaning, but there is no point of order. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a further point of order. Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. I can vouch for what the Minister said. I was there, and there were no Opposition members there. Mr DAVIS: Mr Speaker Mr LANE: They are at it again. That is what I was talking about—negative politics. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister for Transport accused the Opposition, of which I am a member, of not turning up. We did not even receive an invitation, and that is my point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LANE: Obviously the honourable member does not read his mail, nor does he respond to invitations issued in good faith. Getting back to mopeds—I think that they will do a lot for Queensland. Mr BURNS: I rise to a point of order. I did not receive an invitation either. Honourable Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. That is the most futile point of order that I have heard since I have been in the chair. Mr BURNS: I rise to a further point of order. We have listened to the Minister for Transport deliberately mislead the House. No-one on the Opposition side received an invitation. The Minister rose in this Chamber to parade before the Press the fact that we did not go to the demonstration. An invitation was extended only to the Tories on the other side of the Chamber, and that ought to be made very clear. Mr LANE: The honourable member for Lytton has had to come out and save the Opposition once again. He must be about to make another run on the leadership over there. An invitation was extended to the members of the Opposition. Mr Prest: I did not receive one. Mr LANE: If the honourable member did not receive an invitation, he must have arrived here too late to get it. I am sorry about that. He should have got out of bed earlier. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister for Transport to resume his seat. I shall take no further i)oints of order about that question. Questions Without Notice 4 March 1982 4433

Allegations of Police Corruption Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the alarming allegations of police corruption made on the television program "Nationwide" last night by two former members of the Queensland Police Force and others. Despite the character assassination of the officers concerned by the Minister for Police in the Chamber this morning, I ask: In view of the serious nature of the charges, will the Premier order a complete and independent investigation of the Queensland Police Force in the form of a royal commission to clear the reputations of honest police officers and to restore public confidence in the Police Force? If not, what action, if any, does he intend to take? Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: The answer is no. If the honourable member listened to the Police Commissioner he should know that he is stretching the bow rather far when he refers to these two former police officers as honest policemen. Their close association with the honourable member for Archerfield should indicate their standing. That clarifies the situation very clearly. If the honourable member adds up the three of them he will get the answer. The answer is no, there will be no inquiry.

Appointment of Chief Justice Mr R. J. GIBBS: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: With reference to the recent vacancy in the office of Chief Justice of Queensland— (1) Did the Minister make public statements to the effect that he would resign if his nomination for the position was rejected; (2) Was his nomination for the position of Chief Justice Mr Justice Douglas; (3) Is Mr Justice W. B. Campbell now the Chief Justice; and (4) When can this House expect the Minister to stick to his word and resign from the tyrannical one-man band that passes for the Govemment of this State? Mr DOUMANY: First of all, I did not make any public statement to the effect that I would resign. In fact, I clarified that many times but the media did not want to clarify it. The matters of the appointment of the Chief Justice and the other appointment to the Supreme Court are closed. It is time to allow the court to operate in the interests of the State and its people. Frankly, at this stage I see no use whatsoever m pursuing the matter further.

Collections for Charity Mr MENZEL: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: What are the conditions prevailing when commercial organisations or individuals make door-to-door appeals for charities by selling articles or collecting rags? Are such appeals permitted at night­ time? Can children be so employed? Mr DOUMANY: The collections regulations provide that a charity shall not permit an appeal for support to be made on its behalf for a commission or a fee unless a vratten agreement has been entered into and approved by the Attorney-General. Any leaflet or advertisement about such an appeal must contain the names and addresses of persons who are conducting it and of the charity or the organisation that is sponsoring it. The hnancial arrangement between those persons and the charity must be approved by the under Secretary, Department of Justice. No visits are permhted after 5 p.m. Children under the age of 15 years must have ttie written consent of at least one parent or a guardian before they can be engaged m such activities.

Associations Incorporation Act to bri^n '^^A' ^ -^^ *^® Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: When is it proposed and ch :p^,^^s°'='ations Incorporation Act into operation? As the Religious Educational new S r '^°'^'^"*'°'^s Act will fee repealed at that time, will the promulgation of the old Act' ^ ^^^ activities of organisations incorporated under the provisions of the 4434 4 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

Mr DOUMANY: It is hoped that by this May the new legislation will be in operation. Obviously, that has been subject to the procurement of staff and the formulation of suitable systems and procedures. Present indications are that early May will see the Act in operation. Although the Religious Educational and Charitable Institutions Act will be repealed on the promulgation of the Associations Incorporation Act, letters patent issued under the repealed Act will continue in force and be subject to the provisions of the old Act as though the new Act had not been passed. In other words, the old arrangements will be deemed to continue.

Managing Agents Agreements Mr TENNI: 1 ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-

Increased Quantum Jurisdiction for Courts and Tribunals Mr TENNI: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: In view of the recent announcement in the Press that the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Qaims Tribunal is to be increased to $1,500. will consideration be given to effecting corresponding increases in the jurisdictions of the Magistrates Court and the District Court? Mr DOUMANY: The answer to that question is. "Yes." The effect of inflation on the quantums of the various jurisdictions is very real. We are in the process of increasing the level of jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal to $1,500. Obviously we need to look at commensurate increases for the various jurisdictions within the court system. That is being done at the present time.

Meat and Pork Imports from New Zealand Mr HARTWIG: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I draw the attention of the Parliament to the flood of imported meat into Australia when primary producers are battling to make ends meet. In 1980 Australia imported J1.4m worth of meat from New Zealand. Last year that increased to $4.04m. Australia's pork imports increased from a few thousand dollars in 1978-79 to $1.3m in 1979-80. The value of canned meat imported during that period was over $2m. Will the Minister, on behalf of Queensland cattlemen and meatworkers Mr Jones: You're giving information; you're not asking a question. Mr HARTWIG: I do not need any help from the honourable member. Mr Prest interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not permit cross-fire in the Chamber. I warned the member for Port Curtis on numerous occasions yesterday and I have wamed him again today. I now warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr HARTWIG: Will the Minister, on behalf of Queensland cattlemen and meat- workers Honourable Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Caims under Standing Order 123A. Questions Without Notice 4 March 1982 4435

Mr HARTWIG: Will the Minister, on behalf of Queensland cattlemen and meatworkers, protest vigorously to Canberra and the Australian Agricultural Council against the flood of imports, particularly because the Australian meat industry depends on overseas markets for its existence? Mr AHERN: The importation of beef and pork from New Zealand has been the subject of discussion under the umbrella of the CER (closer economic relations) discussions with New Zealand. I understand that at this stage the Queensland meat industry is not gravely concemed about the level of imports. However, the matter is being discussed under the umbrella of the CER discussions and I shall monitor the situation closely. Last year considerable concern was expressed in relation to the importation of canned ham from Scandinavian countries. The honourable member will recall that that matter was referred by us to the Federal Government for consideration. The Federal Govemment sought advice from the Industries Assistance Commission and some measures were taken to protect Australian industries. The matter will be kept under review. At this stage I am not concerned about the level of imports, nor have I had concern expressed to me by the industry authorities in Queensland.

Tinned Corned Meat Imports from Brazil Mr HARTWIG: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: What assurance can he give the cattlemen of Australia that the contents of tins of corned meat imported from Brazil, such as I have here, meet Austrahan health requirements and are not likely to introduce into Australia the foot-and-mouth disease virus? This product comes from Brazil, where foot-and-mouth disease is rife.

Mr AHERN: I am advised that no risk exists in relation to the imports described by the honourable member. However, I shall ascertain the technical poshion and advise the honourable member of it by letter.

Valuation Averaging for Rating Purposes Mr FITZGERALD: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Police, I refer him to today's "Courier-Mail" in which Alderman Harvey is reported as promising rate moderation. Is it true that valuation averaging for rating purposes was an option given to local authorities by this Government?

Mr HINZE: There is no doubt that, in the past year, the Government gave consideration to the problem that had arisen because of steeply increasing valuations in some areas. The Govemment decided to give to local authorities the option of splitting valuations for rating purpostes. Whether Alderman Harvey wishes to take advantage of it or not is up to the Brisbane City Council. Some councils have applied to the Government to avail them­ selves of the benefits flowing from that decision of the Government. I believe that they are quite happy with the results. If the Brisbane City Council wishes to do likewise, the matter is entirely in its hands.

FORM OF QUESTION Dr LOCKWOOD (Toowoomba North) proceeding to give notice of a question—

Mr JONES: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Toowoomba h u ^^^^ ^^-'^ *^'^ previously about other members—is making statements. Questions Should not contain statements of fact, names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, argument, inferences, implications, pwaphs, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. Questions containing those matters re being asked. I suggest to honourable members that we get down to asking questions mstead of making statements.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take the honourable member's point. 4436 4 March 1982 Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

The time allotted for questions has now expired.

PROPOSED MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT Applications for Casino Licences Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to report that I have received the following letter from the Leader of the Opposition— "Parliament House, Brisbane, 4000. 4th March, 1982. Dear Mr. Speaker, I beg to inform you that in accordance with Standing Order No. 137, I intend to move that this House do now adjourn. I move this motion to give this House the opportunity to express its grave concern about the propriety of the Govemment in assessing applications for Casino licences in Queensland. Yours sincerely, Edmund Casey." The purpose of Standing Order No. 137 is to give the opportunity to discuss a matter of urgent public importance which has suddenly arisen and on which no opportunity for debate has presented itself previously or will present itself in the immediate future. As all honourable members would very clearly remember, the subject-matter of the letter from the Leader of the Opposition was debated at length in this House on Tuesday last. I therefore cannot accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. There have been incredible events in the last two days since there was some debate in the House on this subject. The subject-matter of the letter we have placed before you, Mr Speaker, was not fully debated on Tuesday. We have now had major changes with the Queensland newspapers group's withdrawal from a consortium applying for a casino licence and a suggestion that the Genting Behad group will change its allegiance from the Paradise Corporation group to the Majura-Robina consortium. There have therefore been some very grave changes Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CASEY: Just on that point, I believe the Parliament should have this opportunity— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have informed the Leader of the Opposition that in the circumstances I cannot accede to his request. The matter is therefore closed.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr CASEY (Mackay—Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to move the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as is necessary for me to move a motion to give this House the opportunity to express its grave concem about the propriety of the Govemment in assessing applications for casino licences in Queensland. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— Ayes, 24 Blake Jones Vaughan Bums Kruger Warburton Casey Mackenroth Wright D'Arcy McLean Yewdale Davis Milliner Eaton Scott Fouras Shaw Tellers: Gibbs, R. J. Smith Hansen Hooper Underwood Prest Margarine Act Amendment Bill 4 March 1982 4437

Noes, 49 Ahern Harper Powell Akers Hewitt Prentice Austin Hinze Randell Bertoni Innes Scassola Bird Jennings Scott-Young Bjelke-Petersen Katter Simpson Borbidge Kaus Stephan Doumany Kyburz Sullivan Edwards Lane Tenni Elliott Lee Tumer FitzGerald Lester Warner Frawley Lockwood Wharton Gibbs, I. J. McKechnie White Menzel dasson Tellers: Goleby MUler Greenwood Muntz Gygar Gunn Nelson Moore Pair: Knox Wilson Resolved in the negative.

PILLED MILK ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—'Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Dill to amend the Filled Milk Act of 1958 in a certain particular." Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Primary Industries) (12.28 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Filled Milk Act was originally introduced to control the sale of milk the butter fat of which had been replaced by other fats such as vegetable fats. The purpose of this control was to ensure that milk could ^be marketed as a distinct product, the composition of which was completely natural. At the time of the passing of the 1958 Act the only envisaged use for filled milk was as milk for human consumption. However, over the years the use of filled milk as an animal and pet food has developed and increased. It is now appropriate that the Act be amended to cater for this changed situation. The Bill itself is brief. It involves only one change to the definition section which will, m effect, validate the production and sale of filled milk for other than human consumption. Debate, on motion of Mr Blake, adjourned.

MARGARINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—^Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Margarine Act 1958-1978 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. 14618—146 4438 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

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

Second Reading Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Primary Industries) (12.30 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Margarine Act provides for control over the manufacture and sale of margarine in this State. It also provides for labelling of packages of margarine, the registration of marks on packages and the standard of margarine sold. The amending Bill does not alter the basic principles of the legislation but makes several amendments to tidy up definitions and provide greater flexibility. Honourable members will appreciate that the margarine industry is a major user of vegetable oils and edible tallow. Queensland is the main producing State for both of these products and it is desirable to remove any unnecessary restraints on the margarine industry. The present margarine-labelling provisions are considered to be too restrictive and it is proposed to amend them to provide for the Minister to approve words, expressions, marks and designs on margarine labels. Guide-lines to assist manufacturers will be prescribed by regulation. The amendment will not alter present requirements regarding information that must be included on a pack. The words "cooking margarine" or "table margarine", the name and mark of the packer and the weight of the pack will still have to be shown, but there will be greater flexibility regarding expressions or designs associated with promotion and advertising. Manufacturers will be able to obtain quick approval of proposed new packs, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs. The present requirement for statements on packs relating to vitamins will be omitted. Statements such as these are adequately covered in the Food and Drug Regulations and there is no need for dupUcation in the Margarine Act. It is also proposed to vary the permitted proportion of the fat content in manufacturing margarine comprised of edible tallow. Following representations from margarine manufacturers, it has been agreed that the proportion of edible tallow in manufacturing margarine be reduced from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. This proposed reduction is supported by the cake and biscuit manufacturing industries, which are the main users of manufacturing margarine. This margarine will be sold only in lumps of 10 kg or more. A further change to the composition of manufacturing margarine which is to be permitted is the deletion of the requirement for starch to be included in the product. This requirement was originally inserted to facilitate analysis in cases where margarine was suspected of being sold as butter. Modern analytical techniques now make this requirement unnecessary. The Bill will also remove the requirement for shops selling margarine to display a sign reading "margarine sold here" and the requirement for the display of the word "margarine" on every container of margarine displayed in a hotel, cafe or restaurant. These restrictions are outmoded and are no longer considered necessary. The Bill is only a short one and. as I have indicated, its main purpose is to update existing provisions and to provide for greater flexibility. Accordingly. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Blake, adjourned.

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 1 December 1981 (see p. 4208) on Mr I. J. Gibbs's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (12.34 p.m.): As the Minister indicated when he introduced this Bill on 1 December last year, this legislation complements similar legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament covering the exploration for and the exploitation of petroleum resources off the Australian coast, and is similar to legislation that has been Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4439 or is being introduced into other State Parliaments and the Northem Territory. Such legislation reflects the settlement reached at the Premiers Conference in 1979 following lengthy discussions between the States, the Northem Territory and the Commonwealth regarding resources in the offshore area. This Bill will replace the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, which was also introduced as a result of a similar agreement reached at a meeting of Mines Ministers and Attorneys-General from all the States and the Commonwealth in Brisbane in April 1965. Whereas this legislation is being introduced to resolve the position of the States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth in respect of resources in the offshore area following the passage of the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 and the subsequent decision of the High Court in 1975, the 1967 legislation was introduced for similar reasons following the signing in 1958 at Geneva of the convention of the continental shelf. As a resuh of that convention, in 1960 the question arose as to whether each State in its own right, or the Commonwealth in its own right, had sovereign right over the continental shelf beyond the limits of Australian territorial waters for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf. The Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 established, and the subse­ quent High Court decision confirmed, that Commonwealth sovereignty extended right into low-water mark. In accordance with the agreement reached at the Premiers Conference in 1979, which is now reflected in this legislation, the mining of petroleum within the three-mile limit will be a State responsibility covered by the contents of this Bill. That is, the State will continue to grant prospecting and mining titles within the three-mile limit. Beyond the three-mile limit. Commonwealth legislation will apply, but the day-to^ day administration of the Commonwealth Act will continue to be the responsibility of the State Minister for Mines. The Commonwealth Act has established a statutory joint authority comprising the Commonwealth Minister -and the State Minister to deal with major matters outside the three-mile limit. However, in the event of any disagreement on such matters, the views of the Commonwealth Minister would prevail. As has been indicated, the agreement reached at the Premiers Conference in 1979 was that each State would pass similar legislation to that which we have before us. The Minister has stated that this Bill forms part of an "agreed legislative package". I have also noted that when he introduced the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill in 1967, the then Minister for Mines (Mr Camm) made it quite clear that that Bill could not be amended. Mr Camm said— . the agreement provides that the joint legislation will not be varied except with the unanimous consent of all the States and the Commonwealth. Having regard to this situation, the Bills have been drafted with great care and the provisions are worded very precisely; consequently, the Bills (Commonwealth and State) do not permit amendment without the agreement of all the States and the Commonwealth." Although the Minister has not indicated as clearly that that is the position as far as this Bill is concerned, I assume that we have to either accept this Bill or reject it. In view of the history associated with the issue of exploration and exploitation of offshore resources, the agreement that has been reached following lengthy discussions between the States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth and, as the basic content of both Bills is the same, the Opposition will not be opposing this Bill. However, there are some comments I want to make about matters referred to by the Minister. The Minister stated that the Commonwealth offshore petroleum legislation has been extended to the continental shelf in the Coral Sea area and that the Commonwealth would iia?^ fif • ^^^ ^^ ^° whether drilling was allowed in that area. The Minister also on th r "^ ^^'^°'^^^^'^ with the Govemment's stated policy that drilling will be prohibited reef Lanier Reef, no drilling or mining will be allowed which could damage the

Although this is a plain straightforward statement, the fact is that four offshore oration permits are held covering the Great Barrier Reef from Caims to Bundaberg, IS worth noting that at present operations in those permit areas are only suspended. 4440 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

In all, nine offshore exploration permits are held. Besides the four covering the Great Barrier Reef area, there is one in the Torres Strait and four in the Gulf of Carpentaria which were issued only in recent years. Notwithstanding the Government's stated policy and the present Minister's statement in relation to that policy, I believe it is important to note what the then Minister for Mines Mr Camm, said in relation to drilling on the Barrier Reef during the second-reading debate on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill of 1967. Mr Camm stated that the Barrier Reef should be exploited as intended by the 1967 Bill. He commented on the clauses in the Bill providing for the construction of pipelines from the reef to the coast. In fact, when he was Minister for Mines, on numerous occasions Mr Camm indicated that he was in favour of oil-driUing on the Barrier Reef. The Premier, of course, has come out strongly in favour of exploratory drilling in the offshore area, and I recall that in February 1979 it was reported that he had initiated moves to regain control of State territorial waters which were taken over by the Commonwealth as a result of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. Such moves were, of course, the foremimer to the agreement reached at the Premiers Conference in 1979 and the Bill we have before us today. Therefore, despite what the Minister said, I am apprehensive that with the passage of this legislation it might not be long before drilling is allowed on the Barrier Reef. However, as I have indicated, the Opposition will not be opposing this Bill but will certainly be watching very closely any future developments in regard to offshore exploration. Mr KATTER (Flinders) (12.41 p.m.): I rise to make a few observations of a constitutional nature. Prior to 1901 Queensland was a sovereign, self-governing State. I do not know of any assumption in constitutional law and international law to the effect other than that a sovereign, self-governing State has control of its territorial waters, that is, the waters surrounding and contiguous to that State. The intriguing aspect is that in 1901 Queensland, the former sovereign, self-governing State, ceded to the Commonwealth certain rights as were laid down and fairly clearly delineated in the document known as the Australian Constitution. It is a fairly small and succinct document, and it gave a series of powers to a then new organisation known as the Federal Govemment. Federation did not go as far as the imitary-type system that exists in England and completely destroyed the economy of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. However, it did go further than the system in what is now the European Economic Community which has very strong political overtones. There is now a European Parliament. As the Australian Constitution makes no reference whatever to powers over contiguous seas and beaches, we must assume—it is not an assumption; it is a clear statement—that as those powers were not stated as being ceded to the Federal Govemment they must reside in the State Govemment, in this instance, in the Queensland Government. I was more than astounded, as were many legal commentators throughout Australia, when the High Court decided that somehow those seas belonged to the Federal Government. It was an incredible decision. I do not want to go into the details as to how the High Court arrived at that decision. All I can say is that it was a most extraordinary one. Any sane, ordinary, thinking person, let alone a legal person, must regard it as an incredible decision. Since that time the then Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, has made certain public statements to the effect that the decision was a wrong one. However, as the High Court had made it and cannot be seen as making a mistake, we will be left with the new situation and it can never be rectified. I do not want to go into the arguments as to whether or not it should be rectified. I should like this Parliament to reflect upon the fact that we have a High Court. I am a simple Cloncurry boy. He who pays the piper calls the tune and as long as High Court judges are appointed and employed by the Federal Government, we will constantly get decisions that have no logical basis, certainly with no legal basis, and can be regarded by an ordinary, average, rational man as being quite incredible. They will keep arriving at those decisions while we continue with the present situation. Mr Vaughan: What you are saying about the judges is an amazing statement. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4441

Mr KATTER: The honourable member is not questioning in any way the veracity of what I am saying. No-one in the House would deny that, prior to 1901, Queensland was a sovereign self-governing State. At that time the State ceded certain powers to the Federal Govemment. The only powers that the Federal Government has are those laid down in the Commonwealth Constitution. Of course, it has helped itself to a few more since then, but I will not go into that today. It is most extraordinary that the High Court could decide that the Federal Government has some sort of policy-making powers and governing powers with respect to the seas surrounding the State of Queensland. Having said that, let me reflect upon the significance of this legislation. Whether we like it or not we will have to pass it. But we are being forced into this situation by the Federal Govemment because of the continuing situation with the High Court, whose judges are appointed and employed by the Federal Government. While that situation continues, we will get these most incredible decisions. The Government must have the will-power and drive to get the other States to agree that appointments to the High Court be made not only by the Federal Government but also by the States on a one-for-one basis. Mr HANSEN: I rise to a point of order. Is this a reflection on the judges? Mr Moore: Of course it's not. Mr HANSEN: Of course it is. The honourable member is saying that the judges are making decisions in favour of the people who pay them. As an Australian, I pay them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! This is not the time to bring up whether or not it is a reflection on the judges. The point of order is invalid. Mr KATTER: The House should note that it is the honourable member for Mary­ borough who makes the claim that what I am saying is a reflection on the judges. I am merely criticising a decision made by them. I say that similar decisions can be expected and I have given the reasons for saying it. At no stage have I cast a reflection. If the honourable member reads that into what I am saying, then he is saying it. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr KATTER: It is obvious that members of the Opposition do not want the State Government to appoint Federal judges. I am saying that we should. They are interjecting and arguing against me. If they want to continue having the Federal Govemment appointing the members of the ultimate court in Australia, it must be Labor policy. It is typical centralist policy under which States do not exist. They display a certain amount of hypocrisy when they take their pay cheques as members of this Parliament because obviously they do not believe in State Governments. Mr McKechnie: Several of their Federal colleagues will not take the oath of allegiance. Mr KATTER: I would not be surprised at that. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr KATTER: The minute I suggested that High Court judges be appointed by the people themselves Mr Hansen: You said "paid". Mr KATTER: I will take the interjection. He is saying that we should not employ or have any say in the appointment of these people. Mr Vaughan interjected. anvfh^"^ ^^^"^^^ ^°'' ^^^^^ ^ ^ background, and if the honourable member reads dnytnmg about the judicial system in the United States he will find that whenever a Court -ir ^^^®™ment gains power m the United States it will try to load the Supreme that r^^'® ^''^ ^ conservative bias. They are called strict constructionists, and whirk „?°v.» ,f^ }^^^ ^^^'^^ ''^^ mu'^h to the Constitution and give to the States the powers wmch nghtfuUy belong to the States. 4442 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

I am saying that when a Federal Government appoints judges it does so using the American system. It appoints judges who naturally have a record of decision-making that is centralist or federal-oriented. I am not saying that these people are biased in any way- all I am saying is that that is what the men appointed to the High Court believe, and I think that is one of the reasons why the Federal Govemment would appoint them to that position. It would check to ensure that they are federal-oriented before it would appoint them. I suppose if any of us were in the Federal House we might adopt a similar position although I like to think that I would not do so. I am not saying that these men are pressured, forced or leaned on; all I am saying is that there are bases of selection, and one of these would be the appointee's affinity for, and a history of a close working relationship with Federal authorities. I do not think that that is unreasonable or something for which we should criticise those men, but the same sort of selection bases should be adopted by the State Government. I hope I have made my point clear. I would again make the point that the minute we strengthen our hand constitutionally is the minute the Labor Party members begin interjecting in an attempt to cut down any person who puts up such a proposal. The Bill is a reasonable one. There are obvious dangers in having a body that is controlled by both the Federal and State Governments, because in the end there could be an independent bureaucracy in control with neither the State nor the Federal Government having sufficient power to restrain the decision-making of that bureaucracy. Such a problem could arise under this legislation. Many members of the Minister's legislative com­ mittee had similar worries about a tribunal set up under the Companies Act and about the setting up of various other tribunals similar to the one proposed under this legislation. So I would urge the Minister to ensure that, where possible, we do not create an independent bureaucracy. Any bureaucracy that is created should be answerable to both the State Govemment and the Federal Government.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (12.53 p.m.): I enter this debate not so much to canvass the points raised by the legislation itself as to cover another aspect of the petroleum industry that actually affects the consumer. I am looking at the end consumer, and my comments relate to a number of State departments and to the Commonwealth Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, specifically the customs section of that department. Members might know that there have been problems for some time over what are known as jobbers, independent transport companies that are able to purchase petrol at very low cost from the petrol companies and sell it in different places throughout the State. I am appealing now to the Minister for Mines and Energy to intervene because of the effect that this practice is having on Queensland and Queenslanders. I endeavoured to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Transport, and I noted that he did say he was going to order a crack-down on the practice. Regrettably, this has been going on for too long, and although the Minister now says that he will crack down, evidence presented to me indicates that this matter has been before members of Parliament, and even before the Premier, for almost two years. I have here a copy of a letter from the Premier, signed toy his private secretary, dated 24 March 1981. It advises that the matter was being looked at. I shall not go into the full details because I do not want the name of the person mentioned in this letter recorded in "Hansard" He is an elderly gentleman who is rather concerned about getting any sort of publicity. He has come out in desperation. He has one of the many retail outlets for petroleum products that are going to the wall in this State because of the uncontrolled situation whereby petrol can be bought from petrol companies at a very low price and then transported throughout Queensland, breaking the Queensland laws. That ought not to happen. I shall give a typical example. Mr McKechnie interjected.

Mr WRIGHT: I am glad that the honourable member for Carnarvon has interjected because he raised this matter a long time ago. I do not want to break any confidences, but I was told by a senior officer in a Federal department that the member for Carnarvon had tried to resolve the matter. Nothing has been achieved. So this matter concerns not only me, an Opposition member, but also Government members. We have a right to know why this situation has been allowed to continue. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4443

I shall give an example to explain the shuation. There is a place near Mackay called M»v Downs It is in the Dysart area, so honourable members will understand the geo- !raDhical area of which I am speaking. There is another May Downs riear Mt Isa^ There is a place called Durham Downs on the South Australian/Queensland border. There is also a Durham Downs some 80 km from Roma. Mr Lee: Near my property. Mr WRIGHT: I thank the honourable member for giving this some sort of credibility. I ibelieve it to be the truth. I have not been to the place and I have not been alble to find it on the map, but my advice is that it exists. If we take those two examples we see that we have two places in Queensland of the same name but in different areas. The significance is that the Federal Government has listed these places in its Commonwealth register of places receiving the petroleum equalisation subsidy. May Downs near Mackay receives a subsidy of about 2.3c a litre. May Downs near Mt Isa originally received a subsidy of 6.1c a litre, but h has been reduced to 5.9c a litre. The subsidy for Durham Downs near the South Australian border is 11.1c a litre, and the subsidy for Durham Downs near Roma is 3.9c a litre. The significance is that transport operators allegedly take fuel suppHes to Durham Downs or May Downs, but they claim the one furtherest away. They take fuel to Durham Downs in the Roma area, for which they should legally claim a subsidy of 3.9c a litre but. because they simply put down the name "Durham Downs", they claim 11.1c a litre. The transport operators allegedly take fuel supplies to May Downs outside Mackay. for which they can legally claim a subsidy of just over 2c a litre, but they claim the subsidy for May Downs near Mt Isa. One of the transport companies has been carting 70 000 litres of fuel on each trip. For the month of November 1981, using May Downs near Mt Isa as the centre for claiming, it was able to make some $300,000. Mr Gygar: They should be put in gaol. Mr WRIGHT: That is right. It is criminal. Strangely enough, I am told by the Customs Department officers that it is also legal. I talked to the Customs officers for about 13 hours. They told me that the reason why it is legal is that the transport operator simply has to say that he sold the fuel at May Downs or Durham Downs. I have many other examples. They include Thallon, Bondarry, Aroa Downs, Carfax, Kosmos, and Bombamba. Mr Innes: Surely he makes an application for a subsidy. Mr WRIGHT: That is right. Mr Innes interjected. Mr WRIGHT: It is not geographically explained under the Commonwealth Act. It simply says, "You must name the place of sale." [Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.] Mr WRIGHT: Before the luncheon recess I was endeavouring to explain to members the illegality of activities involving the transportation of fuel in Queensland. Some Govem­ ment members could not understand that what I was putting forward had not been acted upon. Mr Moore: You were talking about keeping a high price. If someone carts petrol around the place so that John Citizen can buy it for 5c cheaper, well and good. There is nothing wrong with that. Mr WRIGHT: I do not think the honourable member listened clearly to what I said before the recess. Mr R. J. Gibbs: He wasn't here before lunch. Mr WRIGHT: Yes, he was here at 1 o'clock. Mr Moore: Of course I was here, you fool. I have been here all day. ,. ^ WRIGHT: With comments such as those, it is no wonder that the Press attacks Assembly. That sort of remark is not necessary, but I suppose it is to be expected. 4444 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) BiU

What I speak of is not a matter of persons transporting fuel to make it cheaper for consumers. If that were the case, many members would support that contention. The issue here is that fuel is transported to a country area and the claim for subsidy is made falsely and fraudulently by using the name of a place such as Durham Downs, which is on the South Australian border, when in actual fact the fuel has been carried to a place 80 km from Roma. Alternatively, the invoice can be marked out to May Downs, which is only a few miles from Mackay, when the actual claimant point is May Downs, north of Mt Isa. Honourable members must realise that many of these transporters carry about 70000 litres per load. In this instance the operators are able to make 8c per Utre just on subsidy, so that on subsidy alone they are making $5,500 per load. Added to that is the fact that these carriers go to various oil companies—I intend to name some of them later on—and purchase bulk fuel for cash at 5c a litre cheaper, anyway. The fuel is then taken to the areas I have mentioned and flogged off. The operators pass on a discount of some 2c or 3c a litre to either a grazier or retail outlet. Because of the price at which the fuel has been purchased, the operators make another $1,500 or $1,600 per load. That is apart from the original profit margin in the price. It is not uncommon for some of these operators to make $10,000 a day for one load of 70 000 litres of fuel. My reason for raising the matter in the Parliament is that the practice could be stopped. I have already mentioned a letter from the Premier's Department of 24 March 1981 signed by the private secretary. I will leave out the person's name, but it states— "Mr. Bjelke-Petersen has asked me to write to you in further reference to your letter of 6th January, 1981. concerning the alleged unauthorised carriage of fuel to Goomeri by road. Mr. Bjelke-Petersen has now had an opportunity of discussing this matter with his Cabinet colleague, the Honourable the Minister for Transport and I am to inform you that in August, 1980—" I ask members to note that date— "Cabinet decided to re-affirm present policy which provides for the limhation of road haulage of bulk and packaged petroleum products by the Commissioner for Transport. Subsequently, the Commissioner arranged for an active enforcement pro­ gramme to be carried out by Police attached to the Department of Transport. Breaches of the State Transport Act have been detected by these officers in south eastern areas of Queensland and prosecution action is being taken against the operators involved. Finally, the Minister informed the Premier that special attention is being given to the illegal road carriage of petroleum products to the Goomeri area and arrange­ ments have been made for Transport Police to interview you in regard to this matter." That letter was written in March 1981. A year later the issue is still unresolved: those operators are still doing exactly the same thing in the same town in Queensland. Yet, that letter contains an undertaking by the private secretary in the Premier's Department that the practice would be stamped out by the Minister for Transport and his transport police. Obviously that has not been done. Not only in the Goomeri area but also in Maryborough, Gympie, Nambour, Mackay and right throughout the length and breadth of the State, businesses are being placed in jeopardy by these illegal activities, which seem to be condoned by the Transport Department or by persons in authority in the State. They have to be stopped. It is not just a matter of illegal and fraudulent claims for subsidy through the Customs Department. The operators would not be able to get to these places if the Transport Department was doing its job. I was told that although at one time seven police cars were on the Brisbane-Goomeri Road, there were no prosecutions. I would like to know—and I ask the Premier to tell this Assembly—exactly who was prosecuted. To whom was he referring in the letter dated 24 March 1981? What prosecutions in fact proceeded? I am sure that the member for Carnarvon would like to know, because he also was concerned about what was happening in the south-western parts of Queensland and the way in which operators in those areas were being wiped out financially. The member for Maryborough would like to know, because what is happening is that a firm called Centenary—the main offender—is able to take fuel to Goomeri, sell it to a company with the same owner and stay within the law. That fellow is then able Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4445 to transport it to Nambour, Gympie, Maryborough or Bundaberg—anywhere he likes— and sell it at a special discount rate. In many ways, that then harms the legal and honest operator. The practice ought not to continue. It must be stopped. One begins to wondet when it will. The Premier stated that in August 1980—not in March last year, but in August 1980—the Cabinet discussed it. That is a period of almost two years. I wonder how many litres of fuel have been transported illegally and sold illegally. People say to me "Look, you can't put a stop to it because these operators are using the Constitution." I have had discussions with the Customs Department. From those discussions and from my own inquiries I find that there are two main points. In New South Wales there is a town called Legume and. just over the border, Wallangarra. There is an operation called the Wallangarra track. Operators allegedly go to Wallangarra, buy the fuel there, bring it across the border and then take it anywhere they like in Queensland. Mr McKechnie: Wallangarra is in Queensland. They go over the border. Mr WRIGHT: They buy it over the border from Wallangarra. I thank the meniber for Carnarvon for putting me right. Legume is the one that I wanted to mention. Mr Hewitt: I can't understand how they could claim section 92 protection. Mr WRIGHT: They are, because they are purchasing in New South Wales. Mr Hewitt: But they are still fiddling on subsidy. Mr WRIGHT: It does not matter. They are getting away with it. I want the support of the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. I also want everybody else's support. Mr John Moore, the Liberal Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, was going to take me on publicly when I first raised this matter. Then he quickly changed his mind. I was sitting in my office with Customs Department officers when a call came through from Canberra that they would do what they could to stamp it out within 48 hours by changing the geographical designation of May Downs. They were going to make sure that the person who sold it had to clearly say which May Downs. However, that would not stop it at Durham Downs, and it would not stop it throughout the rest of this nation. It is not happening only in Queensland; it is happening elsewhere. The reason is that the law says that as long as the fuel is taken to a certain place and sold there it comes within the Commonwealth Act. The consumer is told that the end user must get the benefit; that the retailer must pass it on to the consumer. However, that is not what is happening. In fact, the consumer is paying twice: through his taxes he pays for the subsidy; then that same amount of money is built in to the retail price, because there is no discount in country areas. It is alleged that at Emerald petrol should cost less than an additional 2c per litre; but in some instances it costs 7c or 8c more. The subsidy is not passed on. There are two aspects to this, and one is a matter for the Commonwealth. The Act must be changed. I have asked Mr Moore, through the Customs Department, to change it forthwith because it is a rort. The second aspect is a matter for the Queensland Department of Transport. It is unbelievable—it simply cannot be accepted as rational— that the Department of Transport has not known of this happening. The Premier admits that it was discussed in Cabinet back in March 1981; yet up to three weeks ago it was still happening in Mackay and on the Darling Downs. Petrol was being taken to Toowoomba, allegedly taken to a small town outside Toowoomba and then brought back to Toowoomba and sold at a special discount to a number of retail outlets, causing havoc to their competitors. It must be known that there are night-time jobbers travelling around the State. It the Govemment wants to put a stop to the practice, it must make the operators prove, firstly, the sale point. Secondly, they must prove where they bought it, and they must prove that they had a permit to do that, because they were travelling on non-permitted roads. It is not good enough for the Minister for Transport or anyone else to say by way of a public statement—and I have a copy of the statement that was published in a Central Queensland paper—that he was going to crack down on the jobbers. He is two years too late; he is millions of dollars too late. The consumer is paying for it and the small businessman is suffering. 4446 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

Part of the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Energy is to ensure that we are good stewards of the energy resources available to the people of this State and to act in some way, if only as a member of Cabinet, to investigate what is going on to have discussions with the Minister for Transport and the Treasurer, who is the Queens­ land link with the Customs Department, and with the Premier, to find out exactly what is happening with the jobbers and how they are able to get around the law. Because of the blindness of certain officers, or because of the condoning of that practice at a high Government level, it is continuing. Every operator ought to be asked to indicate the point of sale, the transport area and the place from which it was purchased. In Toowoomba, at a place called Blacksoil, a company depot has been established where an operator is able to take the fuel, travel back to Esk or to the Darling Downs, and then travel to any place in Queensland. There is another typical example at May Downs. I have spoken to people who know the May Downs area very well. There are some Main Roads huts and tanks in that vicinity. A representative of a firm was going there and asking the various purchasers to meet the operators virtually under the gum tree. That is how they keep within the law. They simply go to May Downs outside Mackay, where they are met beside the road. They sell the fuel and go off happily, knowing that they have received a good deal. The operator is then able to claim the subsidy. The allegation has been made to me, and the evidence is now available to the Customs Department, that Amoco is one of the worst offenders. The Amoco company based in Mackay has been saying to its workers, "Invoice it out to May Downs." I have it on good authority from the Customs Department that one operator said that he went to May Downs five times. Tens of thousands of litres of fuel are involved on this small property. How one property could use so much fuel in one month is beyond anybody's imagination. The person to whom I have referred was challenged by the authorities. He was apprehended with his invoices and he was asked why he was at May Downs most of the time. He said he was tree-felling in that area. How ridiculous! Surely there is a responsibility on the Customs Department, as the steward of the taxpayers' money and because it is paying a subsidy, to carry out a regular canvass. I have spoken to people in Western Australia and members of Parliament in New South Wales. I have been told that it is nation-wide practice. It is costing AustraUan taxpayers millions of dollars, and it is legal. It must be stopped. It can be stopped by the Queensland Transport Department getting its finger out and cracking down on the operators as the Premier promised would be done. Mr Moore: Finger out of what? Mr WRIGHT: Probably out of his ear, because he does not seem to hear the pleas for the change. I will not take the connotation placed on that saying by the member for Windsor. No doubt the honourable member's question indicates to everyone the level of his mentality. The Minister for Transport should take his fingers out of his ears so that he will hear the pleas of members of Parliament from all sides of the House. I make the point that the member for Carnarvon raised—how long ago, Mr McKechnie? Mr McKechnie: Twelve months. Mr WRIGHT: What was done? Mr McKechnie: They brought in a new Act. Mr WRIGHT: But what was done? Mr McKechnie: I have it here. Mr WRIGHT: "I have it here"! What is the use of a law if it cannot be enforced. It is similar to the Customs law at the Federal level. Laws exist that are supposed to protect subsidies, but nothing has been done about enforcing them. Having spoken to Brian Jackson on a State basis, I am confident that something will be done in the future. An investigation ought to be conducted forthwith into the Centenary company. It is the main offender in Queensland. Many other companies are involved in similar activities. A Senate inquiry should be conducted into this matter. Through my colleagues in the Federal sphere I will be calling for a Senate inquiry into Amoco. However companies other than Amoco are involved; Total and Caltex are also involved. They are rorting the system. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4447

If they can sell to jobbers at a discount of 5c a htre and still make great profits, why cannot they sell all the time to the ordinary consumer at a discount of 5c a litre? Why is it that this nation has such a false pricing arrangement for fuel? Mr Powell: Now you're getting down to it. Mr WRIGHT: We are getting down to it. It is not a matter of a few persons' realising that they could get around the law with suibsidies. These fellows work within the law and are able to make money. In some instances they are making tens of thousands of dollars and in others as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, when allegedly reputable oil companies tell their operators to invoice their sales out at places that they know to be illegal, it is apparent that the whole ship is on the rocks. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Obviously they have been protected in the past. Mr WRIGHT: I do not know why they are being protected. To use the expression used recently by the Leader of the Opposition—something smells. Members may know how the system works. The way in which a subsidy through the Customs Department is established is that the oil company that transports the fuel sends to the Customs Department on a regular basis—^I think it is every six months—a restructuring of its transportation costs. The Shell Company, which transports from May Downs north of Mt Isa or to May Downs, sends in an assessment of its costs. That would have been known by everyone. Every oil company would have known that the May Downs that the Government meant was the May Downs north of Mt Isa. It is unbelievalble that these companies would have thought that May Downs near Dysart, which has a subsidy of just over 2c a litre, and near Moranbah, which has a similar subsidy, would have a subsidy three times that amount. They would have seen the Shell company's report and would have known that the May Downs was in fact the one north of Mt Isa. However, the Amoco company was the one instructing local Mackay operators to invoice fuel falsely and fraudulently. What will be done? I challenge the Federal Government and the Federal Minister for Consumer Affairs, John Moore, who is a Queensland Liberal parHamentarian, to prosecute Amoco and then get down to Total and Caltex. The system has to be cleaned up. Again I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy to meet with the Minister for Transport forthwith to clean up the jobbers. I am concerned not only about illegalities and the breaking of the transport rules but also about the suffering caused to retailers in the petrol industry. Some are being wiped out. They cannot compete. With the full agreement and support of certain oil companies, some operators are able to transport fuel into their area and sell at a massive discount to individual retailers. They then cut the price further, with the result that the other fellow simply cannot compete. This is happening throughout the State. It is happening at places such as Bondarry, Carfaix, Kosmos, all over Goomeri, in Namlbour and in Gympie. It is happening on the Darling Downs. It is taking place all over Queens­ land. I may not have all the intelligence that I desire, but I simply cannot accept that the Transport Department does not know about it. Mr R. J. Gibbs: It is more than coincidence that all those places happen to be in National Party electorates.

Mr WRIGHT: That may ibe a coincidence; I do not know. No reasonable person could believe that the Transport Department has not been aware of the situation. I suggest that fraud is being perpetrated on a massive scale. It ought to be stopped. The Minister for Mines and Energy should do his part to stop it.

Mrs KYBURZ (Salisbury) (2.34 p.m.): I have pleasure in supporting this legislation, which is of importance to Queensland and to the whole of Australia. A previous speaker, who criticised the leglisation, misunderstood the thrust of the legislation. He was misinformed. One of the most important paragraphs in the Minister's speech reads as follows— "This Bill forms part of an agreed legislative package between the Commonwealth and the States. The agreed package will result in a return of the territorial sea to the adjacent State for administration covering the exploration and exploitation of its resources without derogating from the Commonwealth's responsibility in matters of overriding national or international importance." 4448 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

I do not think "derogating" is the correct word. The Minister went on to say— "As part of that package the Commonwealth Parliament has passed legislation to give each State, subject to certain agreed constraints, the same powers with respect to the adjacent territorial sea (including the sea-ibed) as it would have if the waters were within the Umits of the State." Nothing could be fairer. I am sorry that a parochial attitude has been expressed in this place, because it is mirror legislation that will be passed in every other State. If the people criticising this legislation read the Bill they will see that, under clause 10, the Minister is a member of the joint authority; that, under clause 11, authority is designated to the Minister of this State; that clause 12 deals with delegations under the Commonwealth Act; and that clause 15 deals with the jurisdiction of State limits. Our own public servants have functions to perform under this legislation and our Minister has great powers under it. I repeat that it is mirror legislation and that it is being enacted in this State in a spirit of co-operation. I congratulate the departmental officers. They explained the legislation fully, as I am sure the Minister will agree. For those of us who have not been on the committee very long, it was very good to see that there is a lot of co-operation between the departments of all States and of the Federal Government. I am particularly concemed about the phrase "in matters of overriding national or international importance" I would hate to see the fragmentation of Australian offshore oil exploration or of any other matter when it is of "overriding international importance" Such matters, particularly areas such as national defence, should be within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Govemment. I am sure that every other honourable member would agree that some matters are best left to the Commonwealth Government. The Minister mentioned that the Commonwealth Govemment sought agreement from the States in relation to the Commonwealth-established responsbility, and he explained the whole situation quite fully in his speech. It is not, as has been claimed, a fait accompli; it is in the interests of offshore oil exploration that this sort of legislation should be introduced. After all. State Ministers will continue their active role in administering offshore exploration and exploitation of petroleum and minerals; in other words, they will make the determination on where, how and when. It is obvious that the people who have been criticising the legislation have been doing so on a false basis. It is obvious that we are now entering a very busy phase in oil exploration in Australia. We have entered a stable period. The exploration in Australia has at last got a long-term sense of direction. In its survey of 72 companies, the Austrahan Petroleum Exploration Association recently estimated that at least $460m will be spent by the industry in the first half of this year. Indications are that exploration will boom as new ventures move into seismic survey and drilling phases. The figures speak for themselves. According to that association the dominating view of the industry is that there is more oil to be found in Australia, but that it will be hard to find and will be found mainly in small pools. China has now gone into joint ventures with rather large companies for offshore oil exploration. In fact, two companies in Australia were invited to join with the Chinese Government in those joint ventures. I hope for China's sake that that oil exploration is successful, because she desperately needs the resultant income to boost her level of development. When we were in China we heard a lot about offshore oil exploration and the fact that Australia has been a leader in that industry. I am very pleased to see that China has at last signed the contracts with various companies. The prospects are good for a great deal more natural gas being found in Australia, but it seems likely that the best fields have now been found in Bass Strait and on the North West Shelf. Of course, the fifteenfold increase in onshore oil exploration costs, and the crude oil price in the last decade have dramatically changed the prospects for the small, remote onshore oil fields. However, offshore development costs have risen so steeply that only big oil fields can be economically developed for production unless there is already a great deal of existing infrastmcture, such as in Bass Strait. In a moment I will cite some facts from that industry association survey, including how much money is being spent, and where. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4449

There are many factors which have encouraged the present boom in offshore and onshore oil exploration. I think some of the facts bear mentioning in relation to this Bill, because obviously the provisions of this Bill will facilitate that exploration, and I believe it is in the interests of Queensland to encourage as much exploration as possible. The first factor would be the provision in the 1968 Commonwealth-State common code governing offshore exploration permits that permit holders had to surrender half their areas every five years. This greatly increased the possibility for new venturers to obtain offshore exploration acreages, and that has been particularly evident in Western Australia. The second factor is the sensitivity and reliability of seismic technology in 1981 and 1982. Seismic technology has increased enormously over the past decade, as every member would know, just as technology has improved in almost every other sphere. The third factor has been the good oil and gas prices and a period of share price buoyancy not only in Australia but in other countries throughout the world. The fourth factor has been the experience gained over the last 20 years, and this has greatly benefited AustraUan hydrocarbon geology. The fact that we have so many geologists who are now speciaUsts in this area has meant that many companies are employing them only in the oil exploration sphere. The fifth factor is that there has been a major advance in Australia in geochemistry, along with the major advance in geology. This has allowed assessments to be made of whether particular target areas wiU be gas prone or are likely to contain predominantly oil. The last factor is that Australia itself is a political plus for oil and gas exploration. We have a stable, westem-style democracy and this is, after all, a very pleasant place to live, no matter what some people might say. I am comparing exploration in Australia, particularly whh places such as Alaska and remote equatorial jungles. As I said. AustraUa is not a difficult place in which to work. I now want to cite some figures relating to developmental drilling. In 1981. for example, there was a total of 15 developmental driUings taking place in Victoria, 18 in Queensland, 24 in South Australia and 23 in Westem Australia—a total of 80. To break those figures down, in Queensland there were 18 onshore developmental drillings. 24 in South Australia and 23 in Westem AustraUa. There were no offshore developmental drillings in Queensland or South AustraUa. It is estimated that next year there wiU be 22 offshore experimental driUings off Queensland and 26 offshore experimental driUings off Western AustraUa. I think that those figures speak for themselves. The estimated expenditure of the 72 companies that make up the AustraUan Petroleum Exploration Association is very interesting. The association estimates that $222m will be spent on experimental driUings on shore and $238m wiU be spent on experimental drillings off shore, making a total of $460m for oil exploration. Those figures alone indicate that a lot of risk caphal is being invested in oil exploration. A lot of that capital is being invested by large and small shareholders. Therefore, the legislation is extremely important. The people in this industry deserve not only a stable economic base for the industry but also the fullest co-operation from this and every other State Government. I have pleasure in supporting the BiU.

Mr MCKECHNIE (Camarvon) (2.46 p.m.): I support the Bill. I am prompted to speak in the debate because of the comments made by the honourable member for Rockhampton. This subject is very dear to my heart. I have had quite a lot to do with it and quite a lot to say on it over the last couple of years. I think it would be fair to say that the fuel industry in Australia is in a mess. Some of the anomalies in the industry are absolutely frightening. When the problem with the jobbers became bad in my area I urged the Minister to have greater policing of the roads. I am confident that he endeavoured to do that. But, on a legal challenge, it was proved that there was a defect in the State Act. Last session this Parliament passed a BiU to close the loophole and to increase the penalties provided under the Act. Personally, I would like to see higher penalties imposed. I would like to see the penalties such that if a person was caught and convicted he would not think about engaging in the activity again. Perhaps in that regard I have an opinion that is different from that of other members of Parliament. 4450 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

I have spoken to the senior officers of different oil companies but I have not been convinced by them that they are doing everything possible to overcome the problem with jobbing in this Slate. An official document of the Queensland Motor Industry Association shows the prices that the oil companies are charging jobbers. Mr Yewdale: Did I hear you say a moment ago that you tried to do something about this for two years and that the State Government has done nothing about it?

Mr MCKECHNIE : No. It is true that I have been trying to do something about it for two years. It is not true that the Government has done nothing about it. I am trying to point out that the Government tried very hard to do something about it, but there was a defect in the law. In the last session this Parliament saw fit to remedy that defect. I know that the Minister has told the transport officers to get on with the job of trying to make the amendments to the Act work. I return to the multinational oil companies. An official QMIA document shows that on 5 February 1981 the jobber price was 29.25c a litre and the maximum Prices Justification Tribunal price ranged from 33.37c to 34.57c a litre. Mr Wright: They are making 5c a Utre. Mr McKECHNIE: Very close to 5c a Utre. Mr Wright: That is worth thousand of doUars. Mr McKECHNIE: I would agree with the honourable member for Rockhampton in that regard. The oU companies cannot pretend to be the friends of the service station proprietors or of the lessees of company-owned sites. They are selling petrol to jobbers at 4c to 5c a Utre less than they sell it to their own lessees or to the service station proprietors selling their particular brand of petrol. I support the honourable member for Rockhampton in his contention that if oil companies can afford to sell to jobbers 5c cheaper, they can afford to sell to many other people at the same price. It is time that all members of Parliament came together in some way to try to bring the multinational oil companies to heel on their treatment of consumers, lessees of company-owned service stations and freehold service station proprietors, who generally are not getting a fair go in this or any other State. Consumers have to learn to be reaUstic. Even some farmers, for whom this subsidy Ischeme was introduced, will have to look very carefully at the future of the scheme if they continue to buy fuel from jobbers. Only recently I was visited by an employee of a primary producer organisation who was doing a survey on whether members of Parliament supported jobbers. That organisation felt that it would be of some advantage to its mem- ibers if the jobbing industry continued. Although that person was a friend of mine, I told him very bluntly that I supported Government moves to drive jdbbers off the road. If farmers wish to retain the freight equalisation subsidy scheme, they should not abuse it. If they do, I do not think that the Federal Government will be too keen to continue it. The scheme is a very useful one and everything possible must be done to see that it works fairly, as was intended. I say to the honourable member for Rockhampton that I would not be quite as definite as he is in saying that no legal action can be taken against those who are using the two Durham Downs. During the luncheon recess, I made inquiries of the Bureau of Customs in Brisbane and in Canberra. I spoke to three or four different people, and there seems to be a difference of opinion. One person told me that if a genuine mistake has been made and what we are saying here today is borne out, the Government can go back two years. Mr Wright: I accept your point. I am not a betting man, but I will bet you any money you like that Amoco will not be prosecuted. WUl you take me on? Mr McKECHNIE: No, I am not a betting man. I did not think the honourable mem­ ber for Rockhampton was, either. It is not an open and shut question. The illegal operators cannot thumb their noses at the intention of the law and be quite confident that they wUl not be prosecuted. If it can be proved that the operators had a fraudulent intention, the Government can go back further than two years. Although I am not as adamant as the member for Rockhampton on that point, I agree with him that the Federal Minister should bring to a speedy conclusion Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4451 the inquiry into customs that is presently being held in Canberra. If documentation proves that a multinational oU company has been in cahoots with jobbers to deliberately avoid the intention of the Act, something should be done about it. Of course, it is always very difficult to prove points of law. One thing that worries me in this Chamber is that when a Bill is being processed members of the Government and the Opposition are very keen to protect the rights of individuals and, in endeavouring to do that, leave loop-holes through which a bulldozer could be driven. Sometimes the benefits to the majority should be considered above the one chance in one thousand that somebody is not sufficiently protected. We must give greater consideration to the majority than to the one person, because while we are perhaps protecting the one genuine case, one thousand are using the loop-hole that was placed there for the innocent man's protection. Mr Prest: The Government has to realise that it represents all, not just some. Mr McKECHNIE: That is right. Mr Wright: Do you think the oil companies ought to be able to sell at such a high price when they can discount it at other times? Mr McKECHNIE: I said a moment ago that they should be able to drop the price to everybody if they can sell at 4c to 5c per litre cheaper to jobbers. Mr Wright: Across the nation? Mr McKECHNIE: Yes. Service station proprietors in my electorate have told me that the multinational companies could stop jobbing tomorrow simply by not selling to jobbers. Last year in particular there was a glut of fuel and the companies were as keen as anybody to get rid of some of the excess. However, in my opinion the way they did it was immoral. It is time they put their house in order. I am told that one particular jobber—— Mr Moore: Who told you? Mr McKECHNIE: The honourable member for Rockhampton; I do not mind admitting it. On this issue I agree with him generally, though not in every detail. He feels that one person on the Downs has taken 10 million litres of fuel, paid cash for it and obtained it 5c a litre cheaper. I was pleased that the honourable member for Rockhampton spoke in this debate, because nobody in my electorate has been able to come up with the facts given by him. Mr Moore: They are not facts; they are aUegations. Mr Wright: They have been proven. Mr McKECHNIE: I have spoken to Customs officers. There is some validity in what the member for Rockhampton is saying. When people in my electorate come to me with accusations, that is all they are— accusations. There is never any hint of how their accusations should be followed up. They might say that such and such a company is doing it, but they will not say how, when, where or why. I noticed that all members listened carefully to the accusations made by the member for Rockhampton, which bore out what I have been saying for a long time. It is time that members of aU parties came together to urge the Federal Government to take some action to bring its inquiry to a speedy conclusion so that the wonderful scheme that the Federal Govemment introduced to help people in the bush can be made to work as was intended, rather than in a way that allows unfair profits to be made out of it. Mr Moore: If you want it to work, you do it at the retailing level. You pay the subsidy to the retailer. Mr McKECHNIE: The honourable member could be right. One group of proprietors m my electorate said that if we could bring about some rationaUsation of the fuel industry m Queensland, they would be prepared to keep records of where they bought every load ol fuel and make that Ust available. That is not something dreamt up by someone in the Labor Party or by a motor vehicle organisation. Mr Moore: The subsidy should be paid on the petrol that goes through a pump at a particular place, not to the feUow hawking it. 4452 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

Mr McKECHNIE: Some time ago I treated rather severely in the House—and I make no apologies for doing so—^the service station proprietors in Goondiwindi, because at that stage I felt that they were ripping off the public. Mr Vaughan: An awful lot of them in the West are. Mr McKECHNIE: Perhaps that is so. However, in my electorate I had a discount problem at one end, and at that stage—I am not necessarily speaking about now I felt that the service station proprietors in Goondiwindi were applying excessive mark-ups. Mr Frawley: What are they charging a litre? Mr McKECHNIE: I am speaking about some time ago, but it was 41c then. I met those proprietors and they were quite upset that I had chastised them in pubUc. They did not Uke me very much for it. They were so concerned about jobbers that they agreed with me that if the jobbers could be stopised, the price of petrol would faU for the average service station proprietor in the area. They said that, if required by law, they would be prepared to keep documentation of the source of each purchase of fuel. If the jobbers are to be stopped, that is the only way to do it. Some persons might say that that would be imposing too much Govemment control. However, the fuel issue is a very emotional one and and it is time that the Government found better ways of overcoming the problem. Ministers for consumer affairs have recently attended meetings in an attempt to attack the problem on an Australiawide basis. Because the Federal Minister and the various State Ministers are members of different political parties, I hope that they can meet in a non-party-poUtical atmosphere at conferences to find some way Mr Frawley: You are joking! Mr McKECHNIE: No, I am not joking. I do not usuaUy sit down and talk to the Opposition about matters to the degree that some people would like, but there is a definite reaction in the community to the fuel issue. The public wants uniformity so that people wiU sit down and solve the problem. They do not want the price of petrol to be exactly the same in every town, but they want protection from violent fluctuations in fuel prices. Six weeks ago Stanthorpe was the cheapest place in Queensland in which to buy petrol. When the price of petrol in Brisbane was 35.5c or 36c per litre, it was 32.5c a litre in Stanthorpe. Mr Moore: It is 39c a litre in Brisbane, and I pay 32c a Utre just over the range. Mr McKECHNIE: That is what I am getting at. Petrol-pricing is in a complete mess. The problem of border hopping is insoluble. No-one can be stopped from bringing fuel into the State. If people want to take fuel over the border to WaUangarra. that is their legal entitlement. I wiU not comment any further on that. What is happening in some areas is that people are saying that they are taking it over the border. That is the point that the member for Windsor was going to make. We must find better means of detection to prevent that happening. I agree with the member for Rockhampton that the introduction of a freight docket would be by far the most sensible way of keeping a check on whether people are avoiding their responsibilities under the State Transport Act and traveUing without permits. The integrity of the Federal Government's freight equalisation scheme should be preserved. They are two most important things that must be done. The subsidy scheme must be maintained because it means so much to the people in the west. Similarly, the Govemment must do everything in its power to ensure that only a smaU amount of fuel is transported by road. Road transport of fuel means a loss of railway revenue to the State. Tmcks carrying fuel are travelUng timebombs. I am very concemed about the quantity of explosives transported through Goondiwindi. I know that responsible people in various departments are concerned about it. The tanks used by jobbers are sometimes dangerous. The standard of the tankers owned by the jobbers is lower than that of the tankers owned by the oil companies. If people race round the State iUegally in vehicles that are not of a high standard, the chance of accidents is greater. I am pleased that this matter has been raised. It is a matter on which I hold strong views. I hope that we can do more to solve the problem. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4453

Mr INNES (Sherwood) (3.5 p.m.): One hesitates to drag this debate back to what it is aU about—the resources that He submerged under the ocean. This is important legislation. Malcolm Fraser is often likened to the stone images that are found on Easter Island. In relation to this legislation, he can be likened to Santa Claus. In 1973 an ALP Government in Canberra passed legislarion that caused previous understandings and settled situations regarding the control of territorial seas to be questioned. That question was eventually resolved in favour of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth's right to legislate and to have exclusive jurisdiction to the low-water mark was declared. This Bill is the end of the long, hard road back. Through negotiation, the State can now claim rightfully some areas of jurisdiction. This package of legislation, of which this BiU is one part, has been described as a major achievement of the policy of co-operative federaUsm. Mr Moore: They nearly threw John Gorton out because he introduced it. Mr INNES: That is true. In 1979 political agreements were arrived at and they set in train the scheme by which this legislation is before Parliament. The arrangements that were agreed to at that time by aU the States and the Commonwealth can be summarised as follows:— The Commonwealth Parliament was to pass legislation to give each State the same powers with respect to the adjacent territorial sea, including the sea-bed, as it would have if the waters were within the limits of the State. In other words, the jurisdiction of the State was extended back to what had previously been thought to be its territorial waters. The Commonwealth Parliament was to pass legislation to vest in each State proprietary rights and title in respect of the sea-bed of the adjacent territorial sea; The Commonwealth Parliament was to make consequential amendments to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973. That was the Act that was upheld in the case brought by the New South Wales Government, a case that came to be known as the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case. The Commonwealth was to make consequential amendments to ensure that State laws passed with respect to the adjacent territorial sea would not be invalidated by that Act. Off-shore petroleum operations outside the territorial sea were to be regulated by Commonwealth legislation alone consisting of an amended Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, although the day-to-day administration of that Act was to continue in the hands of the State; The offshore petroleum operations in the territorial sea were to be regulated by State legislation alone, although the common mining code—that is, a mining code common to each State, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth—^was to be retained as far as practicable, and appropriate arrangements were to be made for transitioning existing permits to the extent that they fell within the outer limit of the territorial sea. In rough terms, that means beyond the 3-mile limit. Finally— Arrangements for the mining of offshore minerals other than petroleum were to be the same as for offshore petroleum; The Northern Territory was to be treated as a State. The Commonwealth Parliament has passed numerous Acts to give effect to that agreement. Most of that legislation is awaiting proclamation and the introduction of legis­ lation by each State and the Northern Territory in playing their part to bring the legislation to a finality. Of course, there had to be extensive consultation between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory, and a model Bill was drafted. We see substantially those drafting efforts today. When that agreement of 1979 is perfected, it will supersede the Commonwealth/State agreement of 16 October 1967 relating to offshore petroleum. Of course, this legislation bears precisely the same name as the Act that it will supersede, which was passed as a result of the agreement in 1967. 4454 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

In accordance with that agreement and the good will of the present Federal Govemment to act co-operatively in a Federal sense, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the following legislation— Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exporation Permit Fees) Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Act 1980 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Act 1980 Fisheries Amendment Act 1980 Navigation Amendment Act 1980 Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Act 1980 That is a very active and extensive legislative program to achieve this exercise in Commonwealth federalism. The Acts referred to are to overcome the practical consequences of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands case, which upheld the vaUdity of sections 6 and 10 of that Act. Those sections provide that sovereignty in respect the territorial seas and of internal waters was vested in and exercisable by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. In confirming the validity of those sections, the majority of the court decided that the seaward boundaries of the States were represented by the low-water mark. The result was that the territorial seas—that is, the seas up to the three-mile limit (and in the cases which have decided in the exercise of certain constitutional powers even beyond that limit)— lay outside the jurisdictional boundaries of each State. The broad objective of the 1980 Commonwealth Waters (State Powers) Act, together with the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act and the Seas and Submerged Lands Act Amend­ ment Act, was to place the States as nearly as possible in the same position regarding their coastal waters as if those waters lay within the State's jurisdiction; in other words, back to the old situation, but without altering the territorial limits of the States as declared by the majority of the High Court in that case. I shall make a few comments about the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act, because they are important. We are seeing a new departure and the exploration of a new power under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act was intended to confer legislative power on each State with respect to the coastal waters of that State. The coastal waters of a State are defined to mean such parts of the territorial sea of Australia, together with internal waters, as fall within the adjacent area in respect of that State. The adjacent area is described in the Petroleum and Sub­ merged Land Act of 1967, prior to its amendment by the 1980 Act. In general, coastal waters were to extend three nautical miles seaward from the base lines used to measure Australia's territorial sea, as a matter of international law. In essence, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act declares that the legislative powers of the States exercisable under their Constitutions extend to the making of laws regarding their coastal waters, together with specified matters beyond those coastal waters. The Act thus adds to the legislative powers of the State Parliament. Anybody who, for whatever purposes, suggests that the Commonwealth of Australia, under the Fraser Government, has not given away things to which the Commonwealth is legislatively entitled, is wrong and is being unfair, uncharitable and untmthful. It is right, however, in my view, that the powers have been given back by this somewhat tortuous and difficult legislative process which, of course, is to avoid the possible lack of success of an exercise which involves changing the Commonwealth Constitution, with its history of almost unparalleled rejection. In passing the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act the CommonweaUh ParUament relied on section 51 (38) of the Constitution, which is in the following terms— "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxxviii.) The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) BiU 4 March 1982 4455

concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the ParUament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia." That placitum was inserted principally at the urging of Sir Samuel Griffith, who was then the Premier of Queensland, and probably the most iUustrious Liberal member ever to sit in this House. He insisted that the Commonwealth of Australia be put in the same situation as the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and if the States wanted to come together and ask the Commonwealth to legislate then that power should be there, as indeed they could have petitioned the United Kingdom ParUament to act on their behalf. We have seen the deficiencies of the Canadian Constitution in the recent fight over legislative powers in which, I think, aU the provinces came together to petition the West­ minster Parliament to object to something which the Canadian Federal Parliament wanted to do. But our constitutional forefathers, in particular Sir Samuel Griffith, had a little more foresight. In 1979 or 1980 all the States enacted legislation requesting the passage by the Common­ wealth Parliament of legislation in terms similar to the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act. One of the problems—this is a comment on which I will elaborate a little later—about these exercises in co-operation is that they are complicated. They involve steps being taken in a disjointed sense, and I am sure that some members of this Parliament who were parties to that decision wiU have forgotten about the decision they made in relation to the request to the Commwiwealth Pariiament to act in relation to this matter. In fact, it was the first (occasion that the Commonwealth Parliament had made use of section 51 (38) of the Constitution. That was partly because of some ambiguity. One has to say that constitutional lawyers have raised some doubts as to the constitutionality of the use of that provision and the edifice of laws which has now been built upon it, and one could not say, until it was questioned finally, that this legislative package is beyond all question. But on the best legal advice, and having regard to the situation the Commonwealth found itself in, and the legitimate request by States to reassert some control, it is the best that could be achieved, and it appears to be sound although it is not absolutely beyond question. There is a question which arises, of course, and that is what would happen if a Labor Government repealed the Acts on which this whole exercise is based. On the best view, it seems likely that that would involve the Commonwealth in an exercise which would leave it open to compensation, because the Commonwealth cannot acquire property from a person or from a State without giving just terms. "Just terms" cannot be made equivalent precisely to compensation, but it is something of that order, so perhaps one of the very powerful sanctions which we have available, and we know that the Commonwealth could purport to repeal the Act, is a question of just terms. There is a more basic constitutional question of whether the Commonwealth can constitutionally repeal legislation that is passed at the request of aU the States. Perhaps initially there is a constitutional point and, secondly, there is the fear of being required to give just terms of compensation, which could be of such magnitude, particularly in relation to assets such as petroleum or minerals, that it would daunt any Government that was considering embarking upon such a course. When we pass this legislation I think we have to note that it is the culmination of a completely novel action in the use of a provision of the Australian Constitution that was put there at the request of the States for the benefit of the States and for localised decision­ making. It is the culmination of a remarkable exercise in co-operation and what the Fraser Government has correctly caUed co-operative federaUsm. It goes most of the way— probably all the way—to restoring the situation which was set at sea, one might say, by the High Court decision on the Seas (Submerged Lands) Act. I wish to make a couple of comments about the legislation. EarMer, I passed a couple of remarks about the complicated nature of this exercise. The honourable member Salisbury commented that honourable members may not have read the legislation. One of the consequences of this exercise for members of State Parliaments—there have been other exercises involving the companies legislation and the securities legislation—^is that they are presented with a fait accompli. It is difficult enough to keep up with complicated legislation, out when members of State ParUament are engaged in an exercise which they know is endorsing something that was agreed upon by specialist consultative bodies, their role as members of State ParUaments is diminished so much more. There is a feeling of inevitabiUty 4456 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

that something that has been decided by co-operation and after serious and long negotiations cannot be stopped. So, why bother to read the legislation. It is ail predicated; the path is set. Those of us who try to read parts of the legislation see reasons why modern pariiamentar- ians in State Parliaments might not bother to read the legislation. If one starts to read the legislation one has problems over comprehension, not ibecause the legislation is written badly but because it deals with such specialised areas of activity that they are really incapable of being fuUy understood, save toy the specialists who work in the particular area. Mr Vaughan: That applies to a lot of legislation. Mr INNES: Yes. I have had a look at the legislation, but I cannot say that I totally comprehend some of the very fundamental bases that are involved. Clause 8 deals with the very important question of what is the territorial sea; from where one measures the three- mile Umit. I do not propose to trespass on the clauses, but just as an illustration of some of the difficulties facing legislators today I shall refer to clause 8 which dejds with how one ascertains specific points. When one is imposing permit areas or licence areas on maps, it is important to get them right. Failure to do so might result in costly legal disputes involving millions of doUars. Clause 8 reads— "(1) Where, for the purposes of this Act or the regulations, or for the purposes of an instrument under this Act or the regulations, it is necessary to determine the position on the surface of the Earth of a point, line or area, that position shall be determined by reference to a spheroid having its centre at the centre of the Earth 100 and a major (equatorial) radius of 6 378 160 metres and a flattening of and 29825 by reference to the position of the Johnson Geodetic Station in the Northem Te^ ritory of Australia." Mr Moore: That makes sense. If they don't, a sandbank could build up and the low-water mark could be miles different. Mr INNES: The honourable member for Windsor is perfectly right in saying that there has to be certainty. Obviously that certainty comes by reference, but the technology involved in achieving that certainty is absolutely incomprehensible—at least to me, and I have no doubt to other members. Mr Ahern: But it is certainly achievable. Mr INNES: Yes, it is achievable. I do not say that it is spurious or unnecessary, I merely say it is almost incomprehensible to the average member of Parliament doing the best he can with the resources he has. The third schedule of the BUI deals with the area included in the territorial sea. It lists established points of latitude and longitude. By the end of the first page the eastern coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria has been reached; by the end of the second page it has covered to somewhere along the coast of North Queensland; and at the end of 3i pages it finaUy gets to Point Danger. Even as somebody who tries to keep up with legislation, I have to confess that I have not checked all those points of longitude and latitude. If it happens to be out by a couple of kilometres, then this man does not know about it and has no reasonable way to check. In other words, the legislation is complex. All members of Parliament have an obligation to check legislation, no matter how complex. But when we are faced with co-ordinated legislation, which has been agreed in principle beyond here, the impetus to check what is already almost incomprehensible is greatly reduced. So we place our faith in the Minister and his technical advisers—^we have to. Therefore, the responsibility lies all the more upon Ministers and their professional staff to make sure that this legislation is correct, because there is no human way that other members of ParUament can check. Of course, some other provisions are more understandable to members of Parliament. One which is of interest relates to the provision of stamp duty. I have spoken in the House about the effect of the incidence of stamp duty on individuals and smaU businesses. Last year I gave an instance of an acquaintance of mine who took out figures on stamp duty which showed that 5 per cent of the overheads of his fairly smaU retaU business with four letail outlets comprised stamp duty. In recent times we have seen that it falls very heavily on the housing industry and on people who are struggling to acquire a house. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4457

As a resuU of co-operative federaUsm, one of the provisions of the Bill contains a complete exemption from stamp duty in relation to any transfers of permits, licences or pipeline agreements that are negotiated or executed under the terms of the Bill. Whereas the burden of stamp duty falls automatically and, for no Government service, heavUy on the shoulders of small businesses, no doubt because of the sometimes astronomical sums involved in pipeline agreements, permits and licences, in these cases the burden is specifically relieved by a proposed provision in the Bill. We cannot do anything about it. We cannot go back and undo this exercise in co-operative federalism. Perhaps when people are engaged on these exercises they should bear this in mind. It is how the rich get richer. If it is fair to impose stamp duty in the first place, why are those who are most capable of paying their whack relieved of the duty? In broad terms I applaud the passing of the BiU. I think it is right and proper that the jurisdictional rights of the States are virtuaUy returned, particularly whh regard to the three-mile Umit. In this State, of course, we have to recognise that areas declared as marine parks under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will be excluded. However, the legislation virtually restores to us our jurisdiction up to the three-mUe limit. Beyond the three-mile limit our State Minister has jurisdiction and our State laws will apply—in fact, right out to the limits of the COral Sea. For any oil found in that area royalties will be shared on a 60/40 basis between the State and the Commonwealth. That is to be applauded. It would be totally ungenerous of members not to applaud the Commonwealth and the Fraser Government for setting up something that is so fair, having regard to the jurisdictional realities. I make the comments, therefore, applauding what has been done, showing to some extent that the sense of futility which faces a State Legislature addressing this Bill or any legislation of its type, and also referring to the extraordinary complexity of modern legislation, with the further limits and burdens that that places upon State members. Mr POWELL (Isis) (3.31 p.m.): I am very happy to support this legislation, for most of the reasons that have already been stated. It is important that the State retain its rights over the area of land that it has control of. It is important that this type of legislation be passed unanimously by us. However, I would like to refer to comments made earlier in the debate by the member for Rockhampton. That gentleman was doing a considerable amount of grand­ standing and acting on the issue of petrol-pricing. It might be remembered that the member for Camarvon raised this issue in the Parliament probably 12 months ago. On 28 October last year I brought the matter to the notice of the House in the Matters of Public Interest debate. On 26 November last year the Parliament passed amendments to the Transport Act to "control", as it was then termed, jobbing activities. However, it is quite clear that it is not the jobbers who are the problem in this issue in Queensland. The accusation that the member for Rockhampton made against the Centenary company is misplaced indeed. That company is merely acting in accordance with the rules that it finds it can use. Two groups are at fault. On the one hand there is the Federal Government and, on the other hand, the fuel companies themselves. I made that point on 28 October. I have made it a number of times since. However, for some obscure reason, the Federal Government is reluctant to act. The Prices Justification Tribunal receives applications from various fuel companies to raise the price of fuel. It very readily acquiesces to that request. The companies then sell the fuel at a lower price than has just been granted to them by the Prices Justification Tribunal. The consumers of Queensland—and, for that matter, the rest of Australia—should not be duped any longer. I do not see why the Australian taxpayer should be fleeced any longer. It is high time that the Federal Treasurer, who is forever carping about gathering unpaid taxes and passing ridiculous retrospective legislation, got off his tail and examined the activities of the fuel companies, which are making a mockery of the Federal Government's fuel equalisation policy. The jobbers—the Centenary company and others—have indeed taken cheaper fuel to a large percentage of consumers in Queensland. If they can do it, why can't the others? That is the question I asked on 28 October. The media, of course, did not bother taking it up then because I did not run off to them with a prepared script. Mr Vaughan: You should have done. You should have taken the trouble to do it. Mr Miller: It wiU be interesting to see whether they take it up today. 4458 4 March 1982 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

Mr POWELL: I can see that the only way to do it is to give them a prepared text. Without that the matter does not get mentioned by the media. However, in my own electorate, thankfully, there are some newspapers that do take a bit more notice of what goes on. Certainly the publicity was given there. However, that is not the important thing. In my view, the Federal Government just has to come to grips with this problem, ft is not something over which the State Government has total control. It is possible to stop the cartage of fuel on main roads in competition with the railways. It is not desirable to have large fuel trucks speeding along our highways. The Federal Government must come to grips with that problem. It is its problem. It is losing money and allowing the system to be abused. Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy) (3.35 p.m.), in reply: The Opposition spokesman on Mines and Energy (Mr Vaughan) has indicated that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. He made a reasonably sensible contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, he could not resist making an attack on the Government. He did not choose the right time to make his attack. He fired a broadside at the possibility of driUing on the Great Barrier Reef. In July 1979 statements were made by the Premier and the Prime Minister that their Governments would prohibit any driUing or mining that would damage the reef. Those statements were verified at the World Wilderness Conference, which the Prime Minister and Queensland Premier attended. They indicated that that would be their attitude for as long as their Governments remained in power. Of course, we cannot look ahead 50 or 60 years when the Opposition may be in power. We do not know what would happen if that eventuated. The BiU replaces an Act that is already in operation. The 1967 agreement was nullified by subsequent legislation and the member for FUnders referred to the High Court challenge. He spoke about centralism so far as that court was concerned. He referred to permits to explore areas within the Barrier Reef region. The history of those permits dates back to the days when the Labor Party was in office in Queensland. Following a royal commission, the Government acted responsibly. The Great Barrier Reef in the Capricornia area has been set aside as a marine park. Parts of two permits in the Capricornia section have been surrendered. Progress has been made on that score by the Govemment. I thank the member for Flinders for his support and his constmctive contribution to the debate. The member for Flinders referred to many constitutional matters, including the centralist move relative to offshore mining in the days of John Gorton and since that time. Potential dangers to this State have existed in those areas. There is no doubt that the Federal Government has been quite generous and co-operative. The Queensland Government is pleased with the present result. AU States have arrived at a common understanding and have introduced complementary legislation which reflects what the Commonwealth has done. The honourable member for Rockhampton uncovered something that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. However, I did not object to his doing that. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, allowed him to proceed because of the importance of his remarks. The matter to which he referred concerns a large number of members. The Minister for Transport primarily is responsible for that matter and he has acted properly in relation to it. However, as the honourable member for Rockhampton said, 1, too, should accept some responsibility for it. As Cabinet's responsibility is a collective one, I do accept it. A good deal of the responsibility for fuel is mine. However, the major points made by the honourable member for Rockhampton do not come within my portfolio. On 28 October 1981 the honourable member for Isis referred to this very matter and forcefully put forward his case. Other members, including the honourable member for Carnarvon, have done likewise. The honourable member for Salisbury followed a very proper and sensible Une. Her case was well researched. I congratulate her on her contribution to the debate. She went to a great deal of trouble to review the expansion that is taking place in oil exploration. Much of that expansion is due to encouragement given by the present Government in Canberra and also to encouragement given by the Queensland Government. The oil exploration companies were chased away by the Whitlam Government; no honourable Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 4 March 1982 4459 member could deny that. They left the country like rats deserting a sinking ship. They either sold their oU rigs or removed them to other parts of the world, where they then carried on exploration. That put Australia 10 or 15 years behind in its oU exploration program. Of course, if other circumstances had prevailed at that time, Australia would not now be behind in its oil exploration program. Since the late 1800s approximately 1050 exploratory holes have been drilled in Queensland. In contrast, in some of the Canadian provinces as many as 9 000 holes were drilled last year. That shows that we have a long way to go. My department and the Government as a whole are trying to create the scene for oU exploration. Mr Moore: Canada is right beside the United States, and it is easy to wheel something across the border. That is totaUy different from coming across the sea.

Mr I. J. GIBBS: That is quite so. It is good to see that oil rigs are being brought from Canada to Australia. Our scene is the best in the world for oil exploration companies. The recent find at Jackson has been most encouraging. It is not a very big find compared with those in other parts of the world; nevertheless, it is important. Reference has been made to Alaska and to risk capital. Oil exploration is indeed a very intensive risk-capital operation. Seismic technology has certainly improved the chances of finding oU, as has computerisation. So, to some degree, the risk has been taken out of oil-drilling. The honourable member for Carnarvon referred to jobbing. The Federal Government has introduced a scheme to replace that of fuel equalisation, which was destroyed by the Whitlam Government. The scheme has been reintroduced in a different form. It is a good scheme. It is a pity that, in some instances, it is being abused. No-one likes to see that. We should aU accept some responsibility in making it work. The honourable member for Sherwood spoke about good relations with the Common­ wealth. He said that this Bill is a major achievement. It covers various pieces of legislation introduced in Canberra concerning this very complex issue. The Bill is a fait accompli. It has been introduced on a proper basis. Basically it replaces existing legislation which was working satisfactorily. The amendments have been introduced solely to match the legislation of the other States and the Commonwealth. For the first time in a long time we all understand what it is aU about. The honourable member mentioned exemption from the payment of stamp duty. The renegotiated co-operative federalism allows for exemption in certain circumstances to encourage those groups of people that wish to operate off shore from Australia. People, when thinking of anything off shore, think only of the Great Barrier Reef. Australia has a tremendous length of coastline that is not adjacent to the Barrier Reef. The offshore area that is under the responsibility of the Commonwealth as a joint management program is weU away from the reef. In time to come, depending on the world fuel situation, we will all be glad of any fuel produced in Australia. The honourable member for Isis dealt with some aspects of fuel distribution, which is not related to the BUI. However, it was mentioned by other members. He voiced his concem previously on 28 October 1981. I thank members for their contributions. I repeat that the Premier and the Prime Minister made a very clear and precise statement in 1971 concerning their attitude to drUling on the Great Barrier Reef or any­ where else that would affect it. They reiterated their attitude at the World WUderness Conference in 1980. They said that they would definitely not allow driUing on the Great Barrier Reef or anywhere else that would affect it, irrespective of the findings of the royal commission held some years ago, which set the scene for some sort of activity in that area. The Premier and the Prime Minister have adopted a very dedicated attitude towards the future of the Great Barrier Reef. I have no doubt that the BiU wiU work as it is intended to work. Motion (Mr I. J. Gibbs) agreed to. 4460 4 March 1982 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Bill

Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Miller, Ithaca) in the chair; Hon. I. J. Gibbs (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy) in charge of the BiU. Clause 1—Short title- Mr I. J. GIBBS (3.50 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 3, Une 11, omit the expression— •1981' and substitute the expression— '1982'." This BUI was introduced in 1981 but is passing through the Assembly in 1982. The amend­ ment is necessary to ensure that the Bill contains the correct date. Amendment (Mr I. J. Gibbs) agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2 to 153, schedules and preamble, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr I. J. Gibbs, by leave, read a third time.

FISHING INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION AND MARKETING BILL Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—^Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to provide for the management and control of the supply and marketing of fish throughout the State and for other purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Ahern, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—^Minister for Primary Industries) (3.55 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." As honourable members will be aware, the fishing industry in Queensland, indeed the industry throughout Australia, has been experiencing a difficult time. Despite a popular belief to the contrary, Queensland waters are not as abundant in fish as are the seas surround­ ing many countries of the world. Consequently, any disruption to the fishing industry tends to have a greater impact in Queensland and other Australian States than it would in other countries. The fishing industry in this State is, in reaUty, made up of a number of fisheries. Each requires specialist knowledge and equipment and each is subject to different influences. In recent years, poor seasons, competition from imports, rapidly escalating fuel costs and interest rates, and general uncertainty on world markets have led to a shuation where many of our fishermen are now struggling to survive. The impact of these influences is probably best reflected in the fortunes of the Queensland Fish Board. The board, like most other sections of the industry, went through a period of relative prosperity in the 1970s and invested heavily in the industry. However, circumstances in the industry have changed quite rapidly, in most cases due to factors largely outside the indus­ try's control. As a result, many sectors of the industry are now heavily overcapitalised, thereby placing the long-term future of the industry in jeopardy. It is the intention of the BiU to establish the machinery to aUow direct industry participa­ tion in determining its future course. To achieve this result, the Bill proposes an entirely new management system for the fishing industry in Queensland. The measures envisaged Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Bill 4 March 1982 4461

,re auite substantial and, in order adequately to explain the proposals, I shall give a brief reLme of the overall management system and then deal in detail with the various aspects. Of necessity this wiU result in a longer second-reading speech than is usuaUy the case. I apologise in advance to honourable members for this situation but, hopefuHy, a more complete explanation at this stage may save time later. In the first instance, the present Fish Supply Management Act will be repealed and replaced by a Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act. Some sections of the Fisheries Act will also be repealed and the relevant provisions brought within the ambit of this new Act. The new management system involves the creation of an authority to be called the Queensland Fish Management Authority. Basically, the functions of this authority will be to co-ordinate and control the harvesting and disposal of fish throughout Queensland. Up to the present rime, the approach to management of Queensland fisheries and the marketing of fish generally has been rather fragmented with various departments and author­ ities administering various aspects. The setting up of the Fish Management Authority will enable all aspects of the fishing industry to be co-ordinated through the one ibody. The intention is that all regulatory aspects of the industry, including licensing of fisher­ men, vessels, processers, wholesalers, etc., would in future be a function of the authority. The authority would also be expected to recommend on various management and control measures necessary to protect and preserve Queensland fisheries. Memlbership of the authority wiU include representatives of fishermen, proprietary interests, the Fish Board and Government. The Queensland Fish Board is to remain but its role in the industry wiU be revised. Instead of being the regulatory authority for the industry, as weU as a trader, it will now operate solely in the role of a trader. The board wUl continue to provide a market outlet for producers. This is considered essential, as otherwise there would be areas where no alternative outlet for fishermen would exist. The board wiU in future operate as one of a number of marketing agencies in the industry. It will no longer have the regulatory role it has had in the past. I beUeve aU members will agree that this change is desirable, since otherwise we would have a situation where one operator was responsible for poUcing its competitors. The changes embodied in the BUI are designed to aUow the board sufficient flexibility to operate in a highdy competitive market whUe at the same time fulfiUing a basic requirement of fishermen and buyers. Under the proposals contained in the Bill, the board will be operating on a footing equal with that of private-enterprise sectors of the industry. The board will no longer be in a monopoly position. The aim is to achieve the best blend of private enterprise and orderly marketing. I believe that at this point I should say that both the Fish Board and its management have had a most unenviable job during the past few months. They have approached proMems that have arisen in a practical way and I believe that they should be con­ gratulated on the manner in which the board's affairs are now being managed. The Bill also provides for the introduction of an appeals tribunal to hear appeals from persons claiming to have been disadvantaged by decisions of the authority. Similar industry appeals tribunals have operated successfully in a number of other industries and the establishment of an appeals tribunal for the fishing industry should provide comparable

A further innovation is the application of the provisions of the Farmers' Assistance Act to the fishing industry. The successful application of the Act to the industry will, however, depend on the extent to which the Commonwealth Govemment is prepared to support the industry by way of injection of Commonwealth funds. Honourable members wiU recall that this Government has already made carry-on finance avaUable to the fishing industry through the State's Agricultural Bank. 1 rt p Queensland Ck)mmercial Fishermen's State Council wUl be renamed the Queens­ land Commercial Fishermen's Organisation and be brought within the ambit of the new Act rather than the Fisheries Act as at present. This will ensure that the whole organisational side of the fishing industry in Queensland comes under the umbreUa of the one Act. 4462 4 March 1982 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Bill

I have briefly outlined the main objectives of the BiU. The detailed clauses of the BiU are designed to achieve these objectives but, of course, the Bill also contains the normal machinery provisions regarding savings, definitions, financial matters and regulation- making powers which are part and parcel of most legislation. Members will appreciate that the Bill is a very substantial one and in the time available it would not be iwssible for me to cover all the clauses in detaU. Never­ theless, there are a number of aspects which I consider are so important that additional details should be provided at this stage. If, during the debate, any other aspects appear to require further explanation, I shall be pleased to deal with them at that time. Honourable members will see from the BiU that Part I contains provisions relating to commencement, arrangement, repeals, savings and definitions, etc. These need no further explanation. Part II of the Bill deals with the proposed Queensland Fish Management Authority. The authority will consist of six members including: A chairman nominated by the Minister The Director-General of my department or his nominee One representative of the Queensland Fish Board One representative of fish processers One representative of fish wholesalers One representative of fishermen. It will be seen that this will provide representation from a good cross-section of the industry and still keep numbers down to a workable level. Tlie combination of fishermen, proprietary interests, the Fish Board and Government should ensure that aU interests are considered. Members wUl be appointed for three year terms by the Governor in Council. Part II clearly spells out the procedures relating to the authority and its functions and powers. Regarding the latter, I would draw members' attention to clause 27 of the Bill which sets them out in detail. It would take too long to enumerate them at the moment, but members will see that they are wide-ranging and cover aspects relating to supply of fish, including harvesting, quality and hygiene, promotion and associated research and development. Generally the authority will have an overaU supervisory role for the industry. The authority's powers in relation to licensing are set out in detaU in clause 31 of this part and cover processers. commercial buyers, master fishermen, community fishermen, assistant fishermen and fishing vessels. It is intended that fisheries management will in future be achieved to a substantial degree through the exercise of these licensing powers. Provision is also made for the registration of vehicles used in the commercial transport of fish. This is considered essential in view of the highly perishable nature of the product and the poor conditions under which fish is presently transported in some instances. Division III of this part provides the powers of inspectors. In this regard, it should be noted that no inspector can enter a dwelling without either the occupier's consent or a judicial warrant. Clause 41 of this division covers offences. Various machinery matters are dealt with and clause 45 prohibits the sale of unwholesome fish. Part III of the Bill provides for the setting up of an appeals tribunal to be chaired by a person with legal qualifications. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the authority shall have a right of appeal to the tribunal. It is expected that the majority of appeals will relate to refusal of licences. Similar tribunals have operated very successfuUy in other primary industries and I confidently expect that this will also be the case with the fishing industry. Part IV of the BUI deals with the Queensland Fish Board. It wUl be noted that the board wiU no longer have any regulatory functions and will be concemed purely with the marketing of fish. In the marketing area, however, its powers will be wide enough to enable it to compete in the open market with proprietary processers and wholesalers provided it can operate with similar efficiency. It would be quite unacceptable if tbe board were to be fettered in its trading and at the same time have to compete in the market-place with others not so fettered. The abiUty of the board to compete will depend very largely on measures currently being taken by it to streamUne its operations and reduce its debt burden through the disposal of certain assets. Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4463

Although the board is in the process of disposing of a substantial number of depots, it is nevertheless intended that it should continue to maintain a strategic market presence in key areas. It is hoped that wherever fishermen groups or co-operatives are established arrangements can be made for agencies or joint ventures between them and the board. Part V of the BiU sets out in detail the financial provisions for both the authority and the board. These cover borrowing and investment powers and funds and accounts. It will be seen that the controls provided are very specific and quite stringent. Both the authority and the board will be required to submit a detailed budget to the Minister for Primary Industries and the Treasurer and will be required strictly to observe these budgets. In order to overcome past problems experienced by the board in obtaining operating funds, it will be empowered to establish a working account reserve fund. Naturally it will take some time to build up sufficient intemal working capital. The establishment of such a fund is sound business practice at any time, but particularly so in the present climate of high interest rates. Both the authority and the board wUl be required to furnish an annual report to the Minister for tabling in the ParUament. The report will have to include full financial details, which will be audited by the Auditor-General. Part VI of the BUI is particularly important for fishermen. In essence, this part extends the provisions of the Farmers' Assistance Act to the fishing industry. The Farmer's Assistance Act as it presently stands covers only land-based rural industries. The provisions contained in Part VI of the Bill will enable fishermen to avail themselves of reconstruction benefits as soon as the necessary funds become available—and I emphasise that: as soon as the necessary funds become available. This wUl depend primarily on whether and when the Commonwealth Government agrees to provide finance on a basis similar to that applying to the agricultural industries. Approaches have already been made to the Commonwealth in this regard and we await a decision. Part VII of the Bill covers an assortment of miscellaneous provisions upon which I do not propose to comment. On the whole I believe the BiU provides a rational and co-ordinated approach to fishing industry organisation and management. In it I have endeavoured to balance the interests of fishermen and consumers and to provide a blend of private enterprise and orderly marketing. At the same time, I have been very mindful of the paramount need to ensure the continuation of our fisheries resources on a viable and permanent basis. I have no doubt that we shaU find that additional aspects need to be covered in future. In this regard, I shall in future be relying heavUy on the Fish Management Authority which the Bill seeks to establish. I shaU also be relying on the advice of the Queensland Fishing Industry Advisory Committee, which I recently estabUshed. I need say no more at the moment, but I am prepared to respond to any questions which honourable members may ask about the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Blake, adjourned.

COMMONWEALTH GAMES BILL Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 25 November 1981 (see p. 3970) on Mr Hinze's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (4.9 p.m.): In presenting the Opposition's view of this piece of legislation, I open my comments by saying that not only the Opposirion but also many members of the community and, indeed, groups within the community, a number of which I shall refer to during the course of my speech, are vehemently opposed to the legislation. It could rightly be stated, firstly, that the Bill is deliberately designed to be highly provocative and, secondly, that it denies the basic rights and principles of freedom of ^ ovement and peaceful assembly, which are so essential in a democratic society. It will en '*° JT °^- ^^^ ^^^^ *° assemble under peaceful conditions and, because of hs implications, nsure that it wiU be impossible for people, even if they start out with the very best of 4464 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill intentions, to demonstrate in a legal and peaceful manner. Thirdly, I regret to say that the BiU affords the opportunity for a minority—I stress the word "minority"—of members ,of the Queensland Police Force to allow themselves to be politicised and, acting as a further arm of the Government, again use some of the bludgeoning and thug tactics that unfortunately, Queenslanders have seen used in crowd control in the past when the Queens­ land Police Force has intervened. I was interested to read an extract from "The Age" dated 24 February 1982. It states— "When I became Police Minister, people said I would tum Queensland into a police State. It hasn't happened and it couldn't happen. How could I alone turn this mto a poUce State?" That was a statement by Queensland's PoUce Minister, Mr Hinze, in an "Age" interview in June 1981. The arricle further states that, with the introduction of this legislation, Mr Hinze seems finaUy to have solved his own riddle. I would totally agree with that summation by Mr David Broadbent of "The Age" Regrettably, with the introduction of the BiU, the Minister's reputation as a responsible Minister, supposedly having the interests of the majority of Queenslanders at heart, has slipped even further. The remarks of the Minister when he introduced this legislation make interesting reading in Parliament. His second-reading speech contained 22 small pages of typescript. Eight pages were taken up in a heavy attack on the Queensland media, and they certainly contained personal remarks about and references to Queensland joumaUsts. Ten pages tried to justify certain aspects of the legislation and skated round the overall effects on the every-day lives of the people of this State. The Minister tried to give the impression that the Bill is not as severe as it obviously is. Four pages of the speech were spent dealing with the Bill and the implications of various clauses of it. A number of the matters contained in the Minister's introductory speech are pertinent and relevant to the legislation. He said— "It is not difficult to recount numerous terrorist acts committed in Australia over recent years: the bombing of the Hilton Hotel during the regional conference of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1978; the September 1977 abduction of the miUtary attache to the Indian Embassy, and the stabbing of an Air India employee during October 1977 in Melbourne. During December 1980 two members of the Turkish diplomatic delegation in Sydney were assassinated—one being the Turkish Consul-General. Last June, in England, a youth fired six blank shots at the Queen. In February this year, six members of the Croatian community were convicted of offences of plotting to bomb Sydney clubs, theatres and a major water supply dam." He continued— "It is possible to list more_ overt acts of terrorism but it is impossible to list the far more numerous concealed acts." If there were such concealed acts, or if such acts were posing a threat, the Minister should have gone into a little more detail and explained them to this Parliament. Although the Opposition would readily concede that the instances he outlined in the opening comments in his introductory speech are certainly alarming and indicate that there may be some security risk to certain groups and certain people throughout Australia, they are not sufficient to justify the liberty-robbing type of legislation that he has introduced. The Minister went on to say that many of the provisions in the BiU have been formulated at the request of and in direct consultation with senior officers of the original Commonwealth Games Foundation and with staff of Griffith University, which is one of the main accommodation centres for the Games. I challenge the Minister to prove that assertion. On information that I have received, I believe that the majority of the senior officers of the Commonwealth Games Foundation were opposed to the introduction of this legislation and could not see the necessity for it. Because of the poUtical implications of this legislation, one might not expect them stiU to be vehemently opposed to it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that they stiU see no necessity for it. Opposition members, together with many representatives of the legal fraternity and the Queensland Police Force, believe that the provisions of the Criminal Code, and the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act and the Traffic Act ensure that the Govemment and the police have power to cast a highly sophisticated security blanket over the CommonweaUh Games. Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4465

The Minister went on to say that many of the Bill's provisions are based also on a lengthy and detailed report compiled by Inspector Ron Redmond, who was the Queensland Police Department's official observer at the last Commonwealth Games, at Edmonton in 1978. A short time ago I noticed Inspector Redmond sitting outside the Chamber. He is one member of the Queensland Police Force for whom I have the highest regard. However, I regard the Minister's comment as being a gross misrepresentation of Inspector Redmond's recommendations. It was sound common sense to send Inspector Redmond to Edmonton as a police observer and to have him compile a report on what he saw at those Common­ wealth Games. I would hazard a guess that he recommended that certain measures be introduced for the forthcoming Commonwealth Games. However, I very much doubt whether he suggested that special legislation be introduced to implement those measures. Mr Burns: They didn't have special legislation in Edmonton. Mr R. J. GIBBS: That is totally correct. There was absolutely no need for special legislation to be introduced for the Edmonton Games. I doubt whether any country has seen the necessity for introducing special legislation to cover Olympic Games or Common­ wealth Games held in that country. As I have referred to Inspector Redmond, it is pertinent for me to refer to an article that appeared in the "Telegraph" on 24 October 1981, wherein another senior police officer in Queensland, Assistant Commissioner Syd Atkinson, was reported as saying— "I honestly do not think the Games pose any security threat." It has been noted that many senior police officers in Queensland have denied that there is a need for the measures included in this BiU. They have also denied that there is a need for this legislation. They claim that they already have adequate power under existing legislation to implement security measures. Mr Bums: Atkinson said that after the SGIO Games here in Brisbane, after he had tested our security. Mr R. J. GIBBS: That is true. I agree with the honourable member for Lytton that he did make that statement after the SGIO Games. One cannot help remembering that both the Minister and the Premier have commented in the Press on what took place at Olympic Park in Melbourne some weeks ago. I have already gone on record as saying—and I reherate it today on behalf of the Opposition— that the Opposition does not condone behaviour such as that of the Aboriginal groups in Melbourne who ran onto the track and actually interfered with the performances of the athletes. We want no part of that. We wUl not condone or support action of that type at the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. However, we do believe that, in a democratic society, people, whether they be black or white, have a right to peaceful demonstration, if they so desire, outside the Commonwealth Games site. There is absolutely nothing to stop a progressive-thinking Government from adopting the practice in Germany, the United Kingdom, France and many other westem countries, where the police and the demonstrators work well together by sitting down and sensibly discussing the problem and allowing a certain area to be set aside for peaceful demonstration to take place. If the people demonstrating go outside that area, the police are right m taking action to ensure that the demonstration is queUed to a certain degree, l-eople have the right to peaceful assembly at the Games site. _,,.? ^,?""^^ ''^'P wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker. Investment by foreign powers and multinational corporations seems to depend on the hang-up they have about the police power, the security and the show of strength that Governments are able to display. Perhaps over« "^* °^ *^^ '^^^^^^ *° ensure that Queensland keeps attracting its fair share of verseas money that these very draconian measures have been introduced. courw^^'fh^^^i^-^*-*^ ^^* ^^^^^ *^^ "® °^ 'I"'*® ^ number of respectable organisations. Of and ref * u ^*®'" ^""''^ ^°^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^y ^^^ respectable. He usually attacks them be veil TT ^ ^""""P^ °^ radical. Left-wing people, but by and large I find them to comnrkl '"^^P°"^°'®- They include the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, which profusion "^"^ "^^ responsible members of the community and members of the legal 4466 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

One would never consider that the Queensland Law Society is oriented towards Labor Party politics. It is a competent group of people. I have met with those people and I have the utmost respect for them. It is certainly a very conservative group, and it is also extremely alarmed and upset about the implications of the legislation. I believe that the society has written to the Minister and outlined its fears about what is contained in the legislation. As I wiU point out at the Committee stage, I beUeve that this BiU is a deliberate attempt to try out various measures that are decidedly more oppressive than the present laws, with a view to getting the people used to them so that those measures can be included permanently in legislation at a later date. This is only too tme in the area of fingerprints, when the provisions are compared with the present provisions of the Criminal Code. What is contained in the Bill could be covered adequately by the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, the Criminal Code and the Traffic Act. People should have a right to non-disruptive political assembly, which is a right in most western countries. Because I beUeve them to be extremely disturbing, I want to refer to certain parts of the Bill. Clause 5 appUes the provisions of the Traffic Act to any notified areas and the bound­ aries and extent of a notified area wiU not be set out anywhere in the Bill. What will in fact be a notified area will not be described. Where wiU the notified areas be? This will be decided by the Governor in Council months after this legislation has been passed. I see the inclusion of the provisions of the Traffic Act as a deliberate move by the framers of this Bill to use the move-on provisions of the Traffic Act in a political sense, thus stifling the right of the people to peaceful assembly. Clause 8 refers to an authorised person, and I would point out that he wiU probably be an employee of a private security firm or someone from the Commonwealth Games Founda­ tion, perhaps an official. The clause states that an authorised person may use such force as is necessary to carry out his or her functions. That is a very broad provision in this type of legislation, and we have very grave doubts about it. I say here openly that a number of the people employed by security firms to carry out this type of work will have no expertise or formal training in crowd control or in dealing with the pubUc. I have had some experience with a number of people from private security firms and, frankly, I very much doubt their ability to peacefuUy handle a crowd control situation. I query the suitability of a number of those people to have that sort of authority in crowd control. Who is to define the words "may use such force as is necessary"? Who can give me a definition of "as is necessary"? Does it mean putting an armlock on a person and twisting his arm up behind his back, putting a headlock on him, kicking him on the ground or whacking him over the head with a baton? I am aware that the Liberal Party, in another desperate bid to appease a certain section of the Queensland public and appear to be not totally under the control of the National Party and its Ministers intends to move an amendment to that clause to remove the term "as is necessary" and replace it with the term "reasonable force" Can anyone give me a definition of "reasonable force"? Does the term "reasonable force" really mean anything different from the term "as is necessary"? Does it mean the right to bludgeon people, kick them while they are on the ground or hit them over the head with a baton? The honourable member for Sherwood will dbviously make a comment about that, and I will be very interested to hear it. The use of the term "reasonable force" would still not be accepted by the Opposition because its meaning is far too broad. Clause 12 makes it an offence to be in or near a norified area. Again, I believe the Liberal Party intends to move an amendment which has been accepted by the Minister, but it has very little effect on the overaU ramifications of the Bill because, as I have pointed out, the words "in or near" will have the effect of extending the use of the wide new police powers in this legislation to areas far removed from the Games site. Not only should that phraseology be removed from the clause, but the entire clause should be removed. A person who is 10 or 12 miles away from the Games could stUl be classified as being in or near the notified area of the Games. The use of the phrase "otherwise interfere with" in the legislation is also disturbing to the Opposition. It could encourage police to swoop on people who are handing out political leaflets 12 miles away from the Games or a person holding a placard above his head in Kingsford Smith Drive. That person might not be committing any offence or causing any harm to any other person, but he could be arrested. That clause could be Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4467 used to justify the arrest of anyone standing along the marathon route, which will extend some 20 km from the Games site. That person could be arrested for shouting out something or for holding a demonstration. One of the most disturbing aspects of the legislation is clause 16, which refers to prohibited items in notified areas. I shall read the clause so that all honourable members are au fait with its fuU ramifications. It reads— "(1) The Govemor in Council may, by Order in Council, declare any thing specified in the Order, to be a prohibited thing in respect of any notified area. (2) A person shall not be, within a notified area, in possession of anything declared to be a prohibited thing in respect of that notified area. (3) Where a member of the PoUce Force finds any prohibited item in such circumstances that he suspects on reasonable grounds that the provisions of this section have been contravened, he may seize and take away or cause to be seized and taken away that prohibited hem." What exactly wiU be a prohibited item? We accept that a bomb or a firearm would be a prohibited item but, after this legislation is passed by the Pariiament, the Governor in Council wiU have the right to say what is a prohibited item. It could be anything. It could be an offensive slogan on a hat that somebody is wearing along the route of the marathon. Going to the ridiculous extreme, it could be a slogan on a pair of underpants or an anti-uranium T-shirt or a land rights badge. The extremely disturbing aspect of this matter not being spelt out in the legislation is that the Minister and I know that the majority of people in Queensland never read the Government Gazette, and they certainly wiU not be aware of what the prohibited items are. The legislation also defines the rights of police, security guards and officials of the CommonweaUh Games Foundation. They wiU have the right to deny any person entry to the Commonwealth Games site, basically on any grounds that they choose. Under the broad terms of this legislation, entry may be refused to a person who purchases a ticket and then quite innocently walks up to the front gate with a slogan on his shirt that is offensive to a particular police officer or security guard at the entrance to the Games. Because of the irresponsible actions of Haydn Sargent on 4BC this morning, he is long overdue for a bit of a touch-up. Some months ago when the Printing and Newspapers BiU was introduced to the ParUament I forecast that is was virtually complementary legis­ lation, if I can use that terminology, which would dovetail with what the Opposition then believed would be in the Commonwealth Games BiU. How right I was! This Bill has adequate powers to stop the dissemination of political leaflets at a Games site. I would be very surprised if any demonstrator gets to within even 5 km of a Common­ wealth Games site. The moment such a person walks out of his house with the intention of demonstrating, he vsdU have virtually committed an offence. The provisions of the Printing and Newspapers Bill also prevent any person disseminating a legitimate leaflet of dissension or approaching an overseas visitor to hand him something of that nature. Clause 18, which refers to hawkers, etc., in or near notified areas, is an indication of the total ridiculousness of the legislation. I can see that the Minister's intention was to protect the rights of the Commonwealth Games Foundation to sell various items relevant to the Commonwealth Games. I remember when the franchise for the manufacture of the kangaroo Matilda went to an overseas firm, the Endeavour workshop on the Gold Coast, which works for the benefit of crippled children, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that It could manufacture the items far better and that it could compete on the open market and seU the items cheaper. That provision in the legislation is deUberately aimed at those sorts of organisations to ensure that they cannot sell the items that they have made. The matter becomes even more ridiculous when one considers a local pieman who might Wish to park his vehicle beside the road and seU pies and peas. He will not be able to do that without the special permission of the Commissioner of Police. How stupid and ridiculous can the Government be? However, members opposite are prepared to sit back and see that type of provision included in the Bill. How heartless it is of those opposite "°' '° ^'low a society that works for the multiple handicapped to produce items such as the kangaroo Matilda and seU them at Commonwealth Games venues. 4468 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Clause 19 makes it an offence for a person to fail to supply his name and address to a police officer if that person is about to commit an offence against the BiU. One wonders how a police officer or anybody else wUl be able to decide whether a person has an intent or desire to commit an offence against the BiU. I notice that among the amendments that have been circulated by members of the Liberal Party one provides for the deletion of certain parts of this clause. Although it is one of the few amendments that make sense, the Opposition wUl not support it. Because of the other ramifications of the clause, the Opposition does not support it per se. Clause 20 is very disturbing. It is headed "Search of notified areas, etc." and reads, "If a member of the Police Force suspects on reasonable grounds"—and again there is that term that hangs Uke a putrid smeU in the air, "on reasonable grounds" Again I say that I hope honourable members on the other side of the Chamber will give us an explanation of what "reasonable grounds" entail. Continuing, it says that if he suspects on reasonable grounds that there is— "(a) in any place, building, structure or vehicle within or near any notified area;" I repeat: what is a "notified area"? It can be anything up to 12 km away from the Games. This provision wiU give the police the right to go into a place 12 km from the Games for no reason other than that they suspect "on reasonable grounds" that there is something in there which perhaps is going to be used to "endanger, obstruct, hinder or otherwise interfere with any person", or "destroy, damage or otherwise interfere with any property", or "dismpt the peaceable and orderly conduct of any event, entertainment or gathering, or any training, preparation or rehearsal therefor". I repeat what I said before. Of course we share any concem that there may be maniacs or terrorist groups who may have in their possession weapons, firearms or something else that may be used to cause damage. We would respect and support the right of the poUce to make sure that such things are confiscated; but it is going to ridiculous extremes to include a provision in the legislation that allows the Queensland PoUce Force, virtually on a whim, to enter a house 12 km or perhaps 15 km away from the Commonwealth Games site and confiscate a placard, a T-shirt, a land rights badge, an anti-uranium badge or leaflets as "prohibited items" Other provisions in this legislation are extremely disturbing. Earlier I mentioned the right of officers of the Police Force, employees of the Commonwealth Games Foundation or a security guard to refuse permission for any person to enter a notified area. I have already brought to the attention of the House how that provision could be abused. I accept that the Opposition wiU not be able to defeat the legislation or to amend it to any degree that would have a significant effect on the BiU's impUcations. However, I emphasise that it is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation to be allowed to pass through the Pariiament, because it wiU lead to the singling out and deliberate banning from the site of people who have perhaps had a record of participating in some way in poUtical demonstrations. If one were to use the imagination—and it would not really be imaginative—one could see checks being made of files and records kept within the Special Branch on people who over the years have taken part in such things as the Vietnam War demonstrations or the Springbok raUies of a decade ago. I have no doubt that the very things kept in those files will be used to single out those individuals when they go to the Commonwealth Games—if they get there. I have already expressed pubUcly on television and in the Press the Opposition's concem about the computerisation of the applicants for tickets to the Commonwealth Games. The Minister cannot deny that that is taking place. These people are being subjected to security checks or screening by members of the Queensland PoUce Force. Certainly there are better things for members of the Queensland Police Force to do than that. Clause 31 refers to the power of poUce with respect to a situation of emergency. What a lulu this clause is. If ever there was a clause in a piece of legislation introduced into this House that deserves the strongest condemnation of all members of this Pariiament, this one does. Although one would expect from some members of the Liberal Party strong condemnation of that clause, one would not expect it from the National Party. It wUl allow an officer of police to declare a state of emergency on any site or in any notified area of the Commonwealth Games. This legislation comes into operation two weeks before the Games are due to commence, so a farcical situation could develop if a police officer took it upon himself to declare a state of emergency before the beginning of the Games. That state of emergency would be effective for two weeks before the commencement and during the entirety of the Games. Commonwealth Games BUI 4 March 1982 4469

The Liberal Party proposes to move a number of amendments. It will be interesting to see what support is forthcoming for the amendment to provide that a person should be answerable to the Minister or the Governor in Council. As it stands, the clause means we could find ourselves in the situation where the whole of Queensland would operate on a day-to-day basis, under the control of the governing party of the day. Every Commonwealth Games site would be completely under the control, power and authority of the Queensland Police Force without its being answerable to the Parliament; there would be no recourse to a court of law to have those emergency powers reversed and no right of members of this ParUament assembled to make a decision in this House that that state of emergency should not be declared or should be terminated. It would be left to the Queensland Police Force to totaUy control the Commonwealth Games site for one month. This is the most dangerous piece of legislation I have ever seen. Total authority is being placed in the hands of a police force. It does not matter what police force it is—the Queensland Police Force, the New South Wales Police Force or any other police force—the comment applies across the board. It is a horrendous clause to have included in the legislation. Between now and the Committee stage I will be giving serious consideration to the matter. The Opposition cannot win a vote to defeat clause 31. I find myself bound to at least advise my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that we may have to support the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. At least that will ensure that total authority is taken out of the hands of the Police Force, and that the Minister, the Governor in Council or the Cabinet will have the responsibility of deciding whether the state of emergency should continue. Mr Warburton: There should not be any need for amendment. Mr R. J. GIBBS: There should be no need for amendment because there is no need for the legislation. Clause 32, which deals with the powers of police during a situation of emergency, gives additional powers to the police. There are people in the community who are still naive enough to believe that the provision of more power to the police will ensure increased security measures and enhance their prospects of safety or guarantee reasonable surveillance. In fact, the opposite applies, because the more authority that is conferred upon the Queensland Police Force the more many people in the community see the slow erosion of their long-held rights. Clause 36 deals with the power of arrest, and in subclause (5) provides— "Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a person arrested under the provisions of this section shall be taken as soon as practicable to a Police Station, there to be detained (unless he is sooner released on bail) until he can be brought before a Court to be dealt with according to law." What is the definition of "as soon as practicable"? That clause could mean that if a person is arrested on the first day of the two-week period prior to the commencement of the Games, that is, on the first day of the period during which this legislation operates, he can be thrown into the back of a paddy-wagon and left there for a month before he is taken to a police station. Mr Innes: Rubbish! Mr R. J. GIBBS: It could mean that. The clause says "shall be taken as soon as practicable to a Police Station" The clause goes on to say— there to be detained (unless he is sooner released on bail) until he can be brought before a Court to be dealt with according to law." Assuming that he is taken as soon as practicable to a police station, there to be detained, he can be held there until he can be brought before a court of law. When will he be brought before a court of law? Will it be next morning, or will it be a week later? No guarantee is given under that clause. Clause 39 refers to fingerprints, etc. Section 43 of the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other uttences Act, provides as foUows:— Where a person has been arrested on any charge in respect of which a person may be arrested under this Act, or is in lawful custody for any offence punishable on indictment the officer in charge of police at the police station to which he 14618—147 4470 4 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

is taken after arrest or where he is in custody, as the case may be, may take or cause to be taken all such particulars as may be deemed necessary for the identifica­ tion of such person, including his photograph and finger prints and palm prints." In this Bill we see a vast extension of that provision. I have grave fears that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge, that if it is passed some attempt wiU be made in the near future to extend its provisions into the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act. The BiU allows for taking of fingerprints, voice prints, photographs, palm prints, footprints, toe prints and handwriting specimens after an arrest is made. Clause 39 contains a curious new provision. Upon conviction of a person of an offence against the Bill the police prosecutor wiU be allowed to apply to the court for an order that the person be put into the custody of a member of the Police Force for the taking of fingerprints, footprints, palm prints and so on. In other words, a person who is charged under this legislation with quite a minor breach of the law, such as holding up a placard at the Games site or handing out a land rights badge, and who is taken to court and convicted can, at the request of the police prosecutor, be ordered into the custody of the police so that his fingerprints, palm prints and so on can be taken. That is a shocking infringement of a person's civil rights and liberties. It is another aspect of the Bill about which the public should be greatly alarmed. Another extremely disturbing provision of this BUI is the unheard of maximum penalties of $2,000 or two years' imprisonment or both. Mr Moore: Maximum. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Of course, but the provision of such high penalties for so many minor offences could be interpreted as being deliberate encouragement to a magistrate to impose very heavy fines. Why should that be so? Why should a person be liable to a fine of $2,000 or two years' imprisonment or both for daring to walk down the street wearing an anti-uranium T-shirt, if that is prohibited? Clause 42 at present reads— "LiabUity at law shall not attach to the Crown, the Minister, an unauthorised person or any other person on account of anything done for the purposes of this Act or done in good faith and purporting to be done for the purposes of this Act." Are we to believe that if a person at a demonstration is shot or severely injured by an inexperienced police officer or when he is watching the marathon is injured by a police car that swerves whUe traveUing along Coronation Drive, no civil or criminal action can be taken? How will the Bill affect a person's right of compensation? What consideration has been given to that matter? I have outlined what I believe to be gross inadequacies in the Bill and what I think is totally wrong with it. I reiterate my opening comments—there is absolutely no need for this legislation. At present, the Queensland Police Force is sufficiently well- equipped and, although it is undermanned, certainly has sufficient officers to ensure that adequate security checks or observances can be made at the Games. It is regrettable that the Government has deemed fit to introduce this type of legislation, which I described at the beginning of my speech as being deliberately provocative and so designed that no person, no matter how well intentioned, will be able to legally demonstrate in a peaceful manner at the Games. I hope that, between now and the opening of the Games, the Government will consider the ramifications of this legislation and be prepared to allow accredited legal observers on Games sites to observe the behaviour of certain elements in the Police Force and the people from private security firms who, in some ways, cause me more concern than officers of the Queensland Police Force. We are totally opposed to the BiU. We wUl voice our opposition further when the clauses are debated. I urge even the Liberal Party, probably in its dying hour, to show some semblance of respectability by siding with the Opposition in rejecting this iniquitous legislation. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (5 p.m.): Even the corpse of the Liberal Party could raise more life and enlightenment than could the remnants and rabble of the Labor Party in this State. The problem presented by this legislation and by the Commonwealth Games is the question of what might happen. If there are reasons to believe that the way things Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4471

happened and the way events were conducted in the past might not be the way of the future- if one has reason—facts and information—which cause one to believe that things might be different in the future, then one is foolish, even negligent, not to review the situation and take steps to combat the possibilities. I am not scaremongering, and I am not one of those who believe there is a probability, a likelihood of violence or trouble at the Commonwealth Games. Of course, one hopes and expects that the Games will go ahead and be the friendly, happy Games. We hope that everybody in this State, irrespective of their poUtical persuasion and interest in life, will allow the Games to go ahead with co-operation, friendliness and hospitality to our visitors, whether they be from interstate or overseas. But that is not to say that the Govemment, in reviewing the situation, having in mind its responsibility and the fact that dissension has been manifest throughout the world and that some people are organised together for the destruction of other people, other causes, other places or other Governments, should not have them in mind when directing itself towards the discharge of its responsibiUty to the law abiding and to those who have dedicated their lives, or significant periods of their lives, in preparing themselves to compete in the Commonwealth Games or are prepared to spend very large sums of money to come to this city to watch the competing in the Games. The question of what is a reasonable balance in anything that involves personal rights will be anxiously explored in this debate and, we hope, whenever legislation on any subject is brought before this Assembly. We are faced with the traditional problem of looking at the balance between personal freedom and the right of each person to be protected from the action of others when it impinges upon his freedom. If the Government can say that its population or its visitors—anybody within its jurisdiction—can be affected in an unwarranted or unreasonable fashion, it is reasonable to take preventive action. Part of that action will be legislative, but the most important part wUl, of course, be administrative and organisational. The police, the Commonwealth Games Foundation officials and the volunteers who wiU take part are preparing themselves in an administrative way to fulfil whatever role they have in the Commonwealth Games. The legislation is only part of the backing for what is necessary for the despatch, in an efficient, friendly and expeditious manner, of the Games. The honourable member for Wolston is leaving the Chamber before he gets a little lesson in the law that he should have had before he made his comments. As I said, everything depends on the point from which one starts. The police start in one corner. They see the rare occasions where they beUeve that if they had had a bit more legislative arming they could have taken action which could have prevented a situation getting out of control. From the other point of view, the concemed citizen, the lawyer —people such as myself who have reason to know both sides—sees the occasions on which power can be abused or actions taken in a misguided fashion, that is, actions which are undesirable and which are antithetical to that very freedom that the police exist to protect. We have here an exercise of that balance. The honourable member for Wolston has just demonstrated the myopia of one approach, tha.t is, to suspect the worst, to believe that everything is being done in bad faith. I do not believe that everything is being done in bad faith. The honourable member's questioning of the phrases "reasonable man", "reasonable doubt", and "reasonably necessary" shows the very flaw in his own psychological approach to this legislation. The expressions "reasonable force" and "reasonable doubt" are the very essence of the law in respect of which he is the spokesman for the Labor Party in this House. J^^ '"^'•d "reasonable" is one of the most commonly used and understood words in the law. It is used as one of the most frequent tests that are applied in the law. Before the members of a jury determine whether a person is guilty or not guilty they are instructed to decide whether they have a reasonable doubt, a doubt based on reason. The word reasonable" imports an objective test, not a subjective test; not what a policeman "jinks IS necessary, but what a reasonable man thinks is necessary. The test is objective, iiiat instruction is given to a jury before anyone is convicted of a serious crime. The members of the jury are asked to determine whether they have a doubt based on reason; not fh •'eason that would be entertained by the average man, not the average paranoid. Lib 1 p^^"^^® demonstrator, not the average active member of the Labor Party or the 4472 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

I was so surprised by the concentration of the member for Wolston on that phrase and the real key that it gives to his whole approach to the Bill that I went to the back of the Chamber and picked out a couple of the most frequently used Acts in the criminal law which is the very centre of the portfolio for which he claims to be the shadow Minister.' I look, firstly, at the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act. I carried out no special study; I just flicked through the pages while I was listening to the honourable member's speech. This is the very phrase that the honourable member claims he does not understand. This is the very phrase that he asked me to explain to him. This is the very phrase that he claims he does not know anything about. This is the phrase most commonly used in the two Acts that are so central to his shadow portfolio. Under section 8 we find what an owner may do to evict an occupier of a house. It reads— "If any owner of a house, room, or other place has reasonable grounds to suspect that the same is used in contravention of this section, he may serve on the occupier a notice to quh." Section 31 of the Act deals with the use of electric batteries on racecourses. It provides that a police officer may stop, search and detain any person whom he reasonably suspects of having an electric battery or similar appliance in his possession. That does not refer to suspicion based upon the paranoia of a policeman; it is a suspicion that he reasonably holds. It has been judged and tested by the courts as being the standard of the average man of reasonable sensibility. Section 34 of the Act provides penalties for persons practising frauds on the Commissioner for Railways. It refers to any person who "without reasonable excuse" does certain things. Section 35 refers to the protection of a chairman from a disturbance at a public meeting. Subsection (3) reads— "The Chairman, at any time during the continuance of such meeting, may order a police officer to arrest any person whom such chairman believes, upon reasonable grounds, to be committing or to have committed at such meeting an offence against this section." I look now to some of the provisions that are most frequently used in the Criminal Code. Section 271 refers to self-defence against unprovoked assault. This is the law that is in favour of a person who has been charged. It reads— "271. Self-defence against Unprovoked Assault. When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, provided that the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm. If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, " Section 272 covers self-defence against provoked assault and provides for reasonable grounds that are reasonably necessary. Section 280 covers domestic discipline and provides that it is lawful for a parent or a schoolmaster to use such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. Section 282 relates to doctors and states that they must use reasonable care and skill. Mr Burns interjected. Mr INNES: It is important to concentrate on that. It happens to embarrass the member for Lytton (Mr Burns). The embarrassment is this: not only is it not understood by a person who should know better—that is the opposition spokesman on justice matters— but it is also central to evenhandedness, when one looks at statutes, and central to an understanding of where the bounds lie. The member for Wolston commenced his examination of the Bill with clause 5, which sets out the powers of an authorised person. We must pay tribute: give to Caesar what is Caesar's. We have spoken to the Minister. The proposed amendments that members see before them, and which indeed go a long way to meeting some of the reservations expressed by the ALP Mr Burns: They all come from the Conservation Council. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4473

Mr INNES: They do not all come from the Queensland Conservation Council or even the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. The amendments come from joint discussions between ourselves and the Minister's advisers. The Minister—give credit where credit is due—has accepted them and will allow them to be brought forward. Amongst those amendments is an attempt to turn a subjective test into an objective test. For instance, where clause 8 provides "as he may consider reasonably necessary", the amendment will change that to "may be considered reasonably necessary". That is a change from a subjective test to an objective test; it is the traditional test of the law and not a subjective test of a person who might suffer from paranoia or undue personal sensitivity. Another amendment will change clause 8 (3) from "such force as is necessary" to "such force as is reasonably necessary", echoing again the words and phrases that are used time and time again in the criminal law of the State. Nobody has ever suggested that the Queensland Criminal Code is anything other than an epoch-making document, the most advanced document of its kind when it was passed, and still one of the best codes of criminal law available in the world. The member for Wolston mentioned clause 12, which raises problems. All sorts of matters canvassed by this Bill raise problems. I do not shy away from them and am most concerned about them. At the end of the Commonwealth Games I will be most concerned to see how this legislation has been used, on what occasions it has been used and to what extent the police or the authorised persons have availed themselves of the powers it contains. But let us look at the scheme of things. Honourable members will notice that a very distinct difference is made between the powers of authorised persons and of police officers. Although it might not have been recognised at an earlier time, it is accepted and recognised in this scheme of things that there is a difference between the self-control, between the knowledge of usual behaviour—of how a person should act—among those who are properly trained and those who are not as well trained. I agree with the reservations that have been expressed about the dangers of using untrained people, such as security guards, who might be carried away by the apparent authority of wearing a gun or their right to wander around private property. In all fairness, members of the Opposition have to accept that the legislation registers a difference between what a policeman and an authorised person are entitled to do. Qause 12 is one of the provisions about which I am concerned and about which, apparently, the member for Wolston is concerned. Other people have also expressed reservations about it. The problem is that situations might develop in some of the worst instances that could be imagined when we want the police to have the power to move quickly and to take action in relation to a member of the community that they would not normally be able to—the power to search; the power to take into custody; the power to stop and to search; or the power to detain for the purposes of search. Clause 12 is one such provision. We cannot go back and rewrite the laws when something has got out of hand. It is not true to say that aU the powers given by the Bill are to be found in existing law. They are not. It is an attempt to meet an unprecedented situation, a situation that we hope the poUce and other persons will never have to meet, which gives rise to some of these controversial provisions and to phraseology that is perhaps wider than one would like to see, and certainly wider than one would Uke to see customarily written into the laws of the State. It is about these that we have reservations. ^^ Those reservations are mirrored in the proposed amendments that convert the word near to "in the vicinity of" Why is that word "near" used at aU? Let us consider practical instances. We do not want the notified areas to be any bigger than absolutely necessary. Obviously, notified areas will be such areas as the Games venues themselves. However, people could be doing things close to those areas that could cause problems in tne notified areas themselves. Mr Burns: Judges have widened it further than that, haven't they? fore'^^i^^' '^^"^ °^ *^^ powers in the Bill apply only in the notified areas. There- or tiirTf ^^'"^ *° declare the whole of the city or the whole of a street of the city between th° °^ ^ '''^*"'^* °^ ^^® ^^^^ ^^ ^ ^P^'^'^' ^^^^' ^^^ attempt is to find a balance en tne areas absolutely necessary and those actions taking place near, in the vicinity 4472 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill of or outside a notified area that may affect inside a notified area. For instance, people might be carrying things that could be thrown into notified areas. They are not in the notified area, but the actions they take on the outside could affect the inside. Mr Burns: What sort of things? Mr INNES: The throwing of any missile—an empty bottle. Mr Burns: What? It wUl be an offence under this Act to carry an empty bottle? Mr INNES: No. It will be an offence, though, to begin throwing empty bottles. Mr Burns: You are saying that you would be worried if I was carrying an empty bottle outside a notified area? There will be a million kids picking up empty bottles. Mr INNES: No. The member goes too far. Mr Burns: You said that; I didn't say it.

Mr INNES: The member does not understand what he does not want to understand. Mr Fouras: Under the Criminal Code, it is already an offence to throw an empty bottle. Mr INNES: Suppose a person has a bottle of petrol. To carry a bottle of petrol is not in itself an offence in this State; but it is if the Crown is able to prove an intent. By the insertion of a wick, of course, that bottle is turned into a Molotov cocktail or it could otherwise be used offensively. In such circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable for the poUce, although it did not happen within the notified area, to stop, search and question somebody carrying a bottle of petrol. There are many other things which could be neutral or not leave a person liable to prosecution under the law in one situation but which could readily be converted into an object that could be used offensively and destructively. That is the balance we are attempting to achieve. We propose to modify clause 12 somewhat by deleting the phrase "or otherwise interfere with", which is very wide. By the time we have "endanger, obstract, hinder", there are very few other actions, one would think, that are embraced by "or otherwise interfere with" Some of the reservations voiced by the members for Wolston and others are to be taken into account by that deletion. I turn now to clause 16, and the amendment to which I refer wiU not be found in the printed document of proposed amendments. Some of the problems adverted to by the member for Wolston and by many other members who have considered and commented upon this legislation are worthy of a second consideration. The Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that he will ensure that no person can become liable for a criminal offence without knowing it. It is not Roman law. We are not trying to put the laws on top of columns of temples where the populace cannot read them. The Minister is prepared to accept an amendment that wiU make it obligatory on the Government to publicly advertise notified areas and prohibited items. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Which amendment is that? Mr INNES: There have been discussions with the Minister's advisers to overcome—• Mr Scott: Are you still changing the legislation? Mr INNES: The Minister tabled the legislation to allow contributions to be made. Mr Burns: Why can't we see them before you speak? Mr INNES: I understood that that amendment would appear on the list of amendments that has been circulated; however, it does not. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You should not have accepted it. Mr INNES: The reservations expressed by the member for Wolston wiU be taken into account and wUl become the subject of a proposed amendment. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4475

There is no question that the proposed clause 19 dealing with names and addresses is a difficuU one. On the one hand, the police would have liked the situation to be that a person has not only an obligation to give his name and address but also an obligation to supply evidence of it if he has it on him. On the other hand, the interests of the average member of the community must be considered. This morning I listened to "Open Line" A lady from Holland Park or Mt Gravatt said, "We live here as citizens and we can go about our business normally. We do not have to carry identification. Why, because of the Commonwealth Games that have been imposed upon us, should we have to carry identification? That involves our liberties, and our liberties are being affected." It is for that reason that the Minister has been prepared to accept an amendment that deletes the obligation to produce evidence of name and address. It is a balancing act between the rights of the individual and those powers that the poUce believe they need to efficiently carry out their duties, such as searching for objects on persons suspected of being capable of causing violence. That is the risk we take by having it removed. Perhaps somebody will say to us later, "I told you so." In the mterests of establishing a fair balance, that will be removed. It is a reality that any person owning property, or any organisation in control of property as an occupier, can refuse admission to anybody on any grounds he wishes. There might weU be many good reasons to clarify that matter and to give the right for the Commonwealth Games Foundation, or an authorised person acting on its behalf, to exclude a person. It is possible to imagine the generality of reasons, but it is impossible to specify every particular reason or combination of facts or circumstances that might cause a person to be rejected. Mr Davis: Do you agree with that investigation? Mr INNES: One can say that, because of the general nature of the legislation, the power could be used unfairly; but the_ power can be used unfairly by the Lang Park Trust, the Queensland Rugby Union, or by the owner of a scout den. Opposition Members interjected. Mr INNES: Opposition members' guffaws show the deficiencies in their intelligence and understanding. That is the right of an occupier. Mr R. J. Gibbs: That may be the right of the people and organisations that you have just named; that is conceded. But at the same time they are not confronted by the provocative actions that wUl result from this legislation, so it is very rare that that right is availed of.

Mr INNES: Any person who reacts to this legislation and claims that it is the very reason for his wishing to break the law has a fatal flaw in his make-up. Let me deal with what is perhaps the most serious intrusion of all. The honourable member for Wolston referred to clause 42 and to the apparent immunity given from legal liability. That matter has been taken on board. It is recognised that the clause should not be so widely written. I suppose that the police are concerned about keeping themselves free from liability if they are acting in good faith for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Bill. However, as the honourable member for Wolston rightly pointed out, and as Government members and other people realise, the rights of the people on the other side to compensation were forgotten. This clause will be amended, so that the person will have to be acting not only in good faith but also without negligence. If someone IS injured by a police car or by a Commonwealth Games Foundation vehicle, or even fy the deficient construction of the grandstand, he will have his usual right of recourse to the law for compensation. That principle has been accepted by the Minister, and rightly so. We are grateful to him for that. the ^w° *^1^"^^ '*^' which deals with notifications—an amendment wUl be moved requiring ne publication of any notification made under the BUI. So a person will not find that commift- ^ • ^""^ affected without his knowledge, and he cannot be found to be stroM 7H^ unwittingly an offence, such as carrying items that are prohibited, without S attempts being made beforehand by the executive to indicate that it is an offence. 4476 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

In summary, the exercise is one of a balancing act between the fears that are entertained about what could happen. The Alcoa Games gave us an illustration of what can happen. Two totally innocent, highly trained and dedicated overseas sportsmen were injured by the inane, destructive, mindless stupidity of some people who wished to make some comment. I am not even sure that they intended to do injury to those athletes. However, what they did jeopardised the activhies of those two athletes for several weeks and brought some disgrace upon the people of Victoria and upon the groups that the people involved represented. This legislation makes special provision to stop people impeding athletes or doing anything that is likely to endanger or hinder athletes. Rightly so. We have seen a recent illustration of the need to review our laws and to strike some new balances. In conclusion, I say that I have reservations about certain provisions in the Bill; I have reservations about striking a balance. Fortunately, the BUI will last for only three weeks or so. We will certainly be looking at it. The police will have certain rights under the Bill and an obligation, which goes with those rights, not to act in any way that is prejudicial, oppressive or in excess of the new powers that they are given. We will look at the realities of the execution of their powers under the Bill when we come to review the success or otherwise of the Commonwealth Games. In anticipation, I thank the Minister for the amendments that he has indicated he will accept. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (5.29 p.m.): This legislation is an example of the National Party policy that it wUl show the world how a free society works even if it has to lock everybody up in the process. The streets will be closed off and they will be lined with policemen, just as occurred in the days of the street marches. Churchmen and others will be gaoled. This State will be the subject of ridicule. The Government will be introducing the check-point mentaUty which is part of Job's mentality, the mentality that people who do not measure up to his moral standards, colour standards, racial standards or political standards wiU be pushed away by the poUce. This Government has invited all the ratbags in the world to come to Queensland. Its leader, who has supported most of the ratbag elements in the world, will lay down standards on who can come here. Any visitors with Left-wing tendencies or smaU "1" liberal tendencies would be weU advised to stay home. If they show any concern for the Aboriginal cause, moral issues, the right to dissent or the right to free speech in a democracy, they will be gaoled. The Liberals in this Parliament have stood by idly while Mr Bjelke-Petersen has enter­ tained the most extraordinary array of visitors, such as the eccentric inventor who said he would add water to his car's petrol tank in King George Square, the cancer cure fanatic who is presently being prosecuted in America, extreme Right-wing churchmen—'I cannot remember their names—^who were brought here to answer the World Council of Churches, and the Western AustraUan millionaire whose answer to the Aboriginal problem was mass sterUisation and mass castration. They are the type of people that Mr Bjelke-Petersen has brought here. I now refer to the "Sunday Sun" It reports the AyatoUah Khomeini as saying, "We will set Egypt afire" on the same page that Joh is reported as saying that he would invite the shah to live here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MUler): Order! I bring to the attention of all honourable members that other members should be referred to by their correct titles. They should be referred to, for instance, as the honourable member for Ipswich, the Premier or the Deputy Premier, not as Joh or Llew. Mr BURNS: I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that is what the newspaper says. I cannot rewrite what appears in the paper. That is what is in the "Sunday Sun". It reports, "Joh: I'd invite the Shah to live here." I explain to the House that Joh is Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the honourable member for Barambah. Everybody knows the Premier said that if he had his way he would let the Shah of Iran live here, at the same time that the AyatoUah Khomeini was saying that Egypt would be set afire if the Shah was allowed to live there. The Premier (the honourable member for Barambah) is prepared to invite those Right- wing extremists to this country and, at the same time, say that anyone who wants to dissent or who does not agree with the Premier's views wiU be dealt with by the 5 000 or 6000 Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4477 nolicemen who wiU be brought from all over the State to ensure that the friendly Games .tT«A The Government seems determined to provide ammunition for those critics who Cm that this is a police State. An important individual liberty has been ignored in favour of stJong, new powers for the PoUce Force. They are for the policemen, not the State, because they wrote this legislation. I should like to refer to "The West Australian", which is a very conservative newspaper. The editorial in the issue dated Tuesday, 2 March 1980 reads— "QLD OVERKILL Some parts of the legislation are so repulsive that they could be tolerated only if there was a real risk of terrorist activity at the Games. So far there is nothing to indicate that such a risk exists. Yet the BiU would suspend for 10 days some of the basic political rights and liberries of hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders and visitors. It would place no restriction on the amount of force that poUce could apply to offenders, confer on the Government and the poUce immunity against liability from any action taken, give i)oUce ill-defined povvers of entry, search and seizure and countenance the arrest of the most harmless demonstrators—those holding placards or handing out pamphlets—within 16 km of a Games venue. It would enable the police to declare a state of emergency but would give no one else—the Police Minister or the Governor—power to overrule the order. If passed in its present form—" 1 know that all sorts of amendments have been foreshadowed, but we are making our speeches on the material that has been supplied to us— "the Bill would invite defiance, and could have disastrous and tragic consequences. With the level of publicity that the Games wiU attract, any confrontation between police and protesters would be given world-vyide pubUcity, and Australia's overseas image could suffer irreparably—and probably unfairly^as a result." "The West Australian" is the most conservative newspaper in what is probably the second most conservative State in Australia, and yet it is becoming concerned about this Bill and the actions of this Government. It is becoming concerned that Australia will be made a laughing-stock throughout the world. Many years ago I went to Sweden. One morning when I arrived outside the Parliament 1 saw a group of people protesting in favour of the Vietnam war. They wanted it to continue and the Americans to remain there. On the other side of the quadrangle stood another group protesting against the war. That afternoon when the Parliament adjourned buses turned up to take people home. Those people all folded up their banners and went home on the same buses. No fight, no argument, each one agreed that the other person had a leghimate. right to protest, a legitimate right to have his say on an issue. Even though they were violently opposed on that one political principle of Vietnam, they all turned up in the same square, went about their business peacefully and went home together on the same buses. That could happen here, but this Government does not want it to happen. This Government wants conffontation. There is no way in the world that the plan of this Government is not tci use the Games as another way of repressing political dissent and individual freedom in this State. There is no way in the world that this Government has not orchestrated the Situation deliberately to ensure that there will be problems. I want to cite the remarks of the former Scotland Yard chief. Sir Robert Mark, who came here in 1978 to help the Federal Government with its security. An article ill "The Courier-Mail" was headed, "Stay free in terror fight, says expert" The article continued— "Former Scotland Yard chief Sir Robert Mark warned against giving up freedoms to combat terrorism when he began his security advising role for the Federal Government yesterday. 'I would not like either Britain or AustraUa so dominated by anxiety about security that they become less free societies than they are now,' he said." 4478 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

That warning was not heeded here, because the Government is so scared now that a loud-mouthed so-called Aboriginal spokesman from the South might turn up with a couple of hundred protesters that it is going to take away the freedom and the right of political dissent of every Queenslander within any so-called notified area, although no-one can tell me what that area is. Mr Hinze: Who are you talking about? Mr BURNS: I am talking about Perkins. I have had more fights with him than the Minister—and had more success, I might add. The proposed extension of poUce powers in the Bill is unnecessary. Mr Hinze: He called you an Uncle Tom. Mr BURNS: No, quite truthfully he never called me an Uncle Tom. But I must say that most of the people who advise the Minister on Aboriginal affairs are Uncle Toms. If the Minister spoke to the ordinary Aborigine who is concerned about the issues there would be no problem at the Games. If the Government treated the Aborigines of Queensland fairly and decently, if it treated them as average citizens in the same way as it treats Kornhauser, Proctor and people of that type, there would be no worry about the Games. There would be no need for protest, no need to rally so many police, and no need to organise private policemen and give them immunity against arrest for the thuggery they might perform. But the Government faUed to do the right thing by these people, and now it is running scared because its past actions are going to catch up with it. People might stand up in front of the world and say, "Russell Hinze and his men have been belting us, ignoring us, feeding us grog, and allowing grog to be fed into our reserves over the years to degrade our race and ensure that we remain second-rate citizens." They might say that to the world, and the Government does not want them to say it because it does not want the world to know the truth about the way it has treated the Aboriginal community. It intends to trot out hundreds of poUce after telling us about the terrorism that is going to occur. The extensions of this Bill are unnecessary. It creates new offences out of situations that are already covered by existing law. Most of the new offences are couched in such wide terms—catch-all language, we call it—^that one really does not know what they mean. We will have to wait for the first judge to make a decision to know where we stand. Some clauses should be completely deleted from the Bill. Who decided that special protection would be required for the Commonwealth Games? The honourable member for Sherwood said that he had facts and information that caused the introduction of this Bill. He did not introduce one fact or provide one bit of information. There was no special legislation needed for the Christchurch Games in 1974, the Edmonton Games, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1981 or even for the New Zealand Springbok tour when there was massive confrontation. None of the bodies organising those events had to introduce special legislation, so why does Queensland need special legislation? The other day a little bloke who was handing out pamphlets about Poland in the street was fined $60. That sort of political dissent would be allowed anywhere else in the worid. Why does the Government now need additional legislation to prevent an Aboriginal lad from handing out land-rights pamphlets outside the Commonwealth Games? Why does it need legislation to stop a crippled boy from the Endeavour Workshop selling a cuddly koala souvenir outside the Commonwealth Games? Why does it need legislation framed in such wide terms that no-one can really determine what it will mean until Cabinet gets a chance to spell out the details after it is passed by Parliament? My colleague the honourable member for Wolston referred to what Inspector Atkinson said after the SGIO Games. On 10 November 1981 Inspector Atkinson said— "I am quite elated with the progress so far. I honestly don't think the Games pose any security threat." There is nothing in that statement to suggest that the Government needs special legislation. I have looked at the statements that other police officers made about the SGIO Games, and I have not found one statement in which a poUce officer said that this special legislation was necessary. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4479

Mr Innes: Do you really want to see the whole of Brisbane covered Uke Melbourne was covered during CHOGM? Mr BURNS: That is what will happen. The honourable member cannot tell me where these notified areas wUl be; he has no idea about that. Those areas will be decided by Cabinet after this legislation is passed. If Cabinet decides that the Cannon Hill meatworks will be a notified area, it wiU be one. The honourable member is blindly passing this legislation. None of these matters are spelt out in the legislation. Cabinet will designate them by regulation. That means that these matters will be dealt with by Russ and his cobbers in the secrecy of the Cabinet room. I do not accept that. The Minister said that the proposed legislation was "based on the experience of security forces at international sporting venues over many years" The experience of which security forces and at what sporting venues? There is no evidence to support what he said. There is no evidence from Christchurch or Edmonton or from the Springbok tour. Special laws are not required. If the members of the Liberal Party had any guts, they would be voting against this legislation. The Liberal Party is not fair dinkum. I listened with interest to Mr Innes because he pretends that he is a smaU "I" Liberal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! WiU the honourable member for Lytton refer to him as the honourable member for Sherwood? I read the policy speech of the Liberal leader. He said— "A Liberal-led Govemment wUl have nothing to do with extremism. There wUl be no more confrontation with the Churches. No more bitterness with minority groups.

My administration wUl take Government back to the people." It will take Government back to them in a poUce car. He continued— "An over-riding priority of my Government wUl be to restore your faith and confidence in Government and in the democratic process. We will be relentless in that pursuit." What faith can people have in the policy speech of the Liberal leader if the basic democratic right to protest against the Government is taken away from them? In the early days of the settlement of this country, an Irish settler came off a ship from England and asked, "Have they got a Government here?" When he was told there was, he said, "I am agin it." He had a right to say that. The people have the right to be agin the Government if that is what they want. They have the right to hand out pamphlets to people walking past. If they have not got that right, they might as well be in Poland, in Moscow, in Spain under Franco, or in Nazi Germany. Mr Hansen: And Chile.

Mr BURNS: And Chile—in any of the countries in which people have lost their freedom. If people have not got that right, then they are not free. Peaceful, non-disruptive, legitimate poUtical activity wiU be an impossibility under the existing provisions of this BiU. A democratic society must protect and guarantee the right to non-dismptive political protest, subject to reasonable regulation. The Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police has used the concepts of deUberate disruption and terrorism to try to justify bad, wide-ranging laws that are in fact directed at outlawing legitimate, peaceful, non-dismptive political activity anywhere near the Games. Instead of outlining in the Act hself that h wiU be an offence, for example, to sell Australian souvenirs or peace badges or land rights badges within 1 km of any of the numerous Games venues, those who have drafted the BiU have left the way open for such a power to be passed into law by Cabinet, without any parliamentary debate, in the form of regulations made under the Act after the BiU has become law. ,u^ *'^*^'*^ statute should not be used to stop peaceful poUtical protests. The BUI is a deliberate move by some sections of the Queensland Police Department to use the "move on" provisions of the Traffic Act. that is the power to give a lawful direction, in a direct political manner. 4480 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Clause 5 (6) applies the provisions of the Traffic Act to any notified area. The boundaries and extent of a notified area are not set out in the Bill, they will be decided by Cabinet months after it is passed. The "move on" provisions will be used by police to move a silent, non-disruptive placard-bearer from the attention of international TV cameras. The use of the phrase "in or near" in clause 12, which makes it an offence to commit any act in or near a notified area which may hinder or otherwise interfere with any persons will have the effect of extending the new, wide poUce powers in the Bill far beyond the Games sites. The phrase "in or near" has been judiciaUy interpreted—I do not think the honourable member for Sherwood will argue with me on this—in other statutes to apply to a place as far as 10 mUes from the site of the subject matter of the particular legislation. Mr Innes interjected. Mr BURNS: That is the honourable ex-policeman from the Northem Territory, the member for Sherwood. Clause 8 (3), which is in Part II of the Bill, provides that an authorised person, such as a private security guard or Commonwealth Games Foundation official, may use such force as is necessary to carry out his functions. Some people who cannot gain entrance to- the Police Force, because the screening process does not admit them—I might add that I wonder how some of the people do get in—obtain employment as private security guards and under this Bill are given the power to use as much force as is necessary to carry out their functions. Mr Warburton: Some of them have been thrown out of the Police Force. Mr BURNS: That is right. Some have been sacked and some have skipped from the Police Force, just one step ahead of being sacked. Mr Scott: They are all "reasonable" men. Mr BURNS: I accept the idea of "reasonable" in one way; it is a better word than the wording contained in the Bill. However, the interpretation of "reasonable" as it is contained in many Acts is left to a judge or a magistrate. I have seen the Premier misuse the judiciary of the State. He has said that a particular judge cannot become Chief Justice because he does not toe the Premier's political line and will not do what he wants him to do. The Premier says that that judge gave a decision that he did not like and the honourable member for Merthyr (Mr Lane) discovered a postal vote that that judge had lodged on one occasion. When we experience such political interference, how can we be asked to accept the independence of the judiciary? It is no longer independent in this State! When did the Government last appoint a Labor man to the judiciary? When did it last appoint anyone other than an outright Right-wing conservative to the judiciary? When did the Government ever allow the natural progression of judges to Chief Justice? The Premier wiU not allow that to happen. So the Government should not ask me to accept the independence of the judiciary. It is not independent; it is now a political judiciary. The decision on who becomes Chief Justice is made by political parties in a political wrangle. Both parties in the coalition are involved, because one wanted one judge and the other a different judge, so there has to be a compromise. One got to be the boss and the other to be second-in-charge. But they are still political appointments and they destroy any faith I ever had in the independence of the judiciary. I am worried about many other phrases contained in the Bill. One phrase that I cannot find in any criminal statute is "otherwise interfere with." Mr Innes: That is going out. Mr BURNS: Thank God that the amendments will remove it, because it is a catch-all phrase designed to extend to non-criminal behaviour. I congratulate the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties upon its campaign against the BiU. If that body had not conducted that campaign, we would not have seen the amendments that have been presented today. However, I am stiU not satisfied and will not vote for the BUI. I believe that the statutes contain sufficient provisions to control any Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4481 person who misbehaves during the Commonwealth Games. I want the Commonwealth Games to be happy Games. But I do not believe that the Bill wiU achieve that. The Bill is designed to create confrontation. I am sure that is what the Government desires. The Government has already made clear its attitude towards land rights and the World Council of Churches. When I think back on the attacks on Archbishop Rush and Archbishop Arnott and the way the Christians singing in the park were run in by the police, I realise that over a long period there has been deliberate confrontation with people who do not agree with the Government. Mr Innes: How can they possibly be happy Games and constmctive Games if you people think that all the poUce are thugs and abusive? Mr BURNS: I have not said that at all. What I have said is that the Government is lining them up to be thugs, because it is saying to them, "Use whatever force you can use. Use whatever force you feel is necessary. We will cover you afterwards. If you knock a bloke out and he didn't deserve it, bad luck. We'll cover you for it." That is what this Bill says. He cannot be sued. No action can be taken in the court about it. The Government is saying to him, "You can't be sued. You will be protected." Mr Innes: I wiU give you a promise. You bring to me any evidence that somebody has said that to anybody else and I wiU bring a charge of criminal conspiracy. Mr BURNS: That is what is said in the Bill. The Bill says very clearly to a policeman, "If you go out on the street and flatten a protester and he takes action against you, we'll protect you." It is said very clearly, and I will read the clause later to the member for Sherwood. What about clause 16, which talks about "Prohibited items in notified areas"? The nature and exact extent of what is to be a notified area is not spelt out in the BUI, as I have said. What wUl be a prohibited item in a notified area? That is not sptelt out either. We have to wait to find out. We do not know what a prohibited thing is and we do not know what a notified area is. Therefore we are being asked to accept the enforcement by the police of a law prohibiting the carrying of a prohibited thing in a notified area when we do not know what the thing is and we do not know what the area is! If that is not voting blind, I do not know what is. Mr Fouras: They just want to ban pamphlets, leaflets and that sort of thing. Mr BURNS: That is right. There wiU be absolutely nothing to stop the PoUce Minister from asking Cabinet to prohibit the carrying of placards—or, as the member for Sherwood said, an empty bottle—or the handing out of leaflets or placards in or near a notified area. If the Minister decides that that is what he wants to stop and this fellow from the south, Mr Perkins, starts handing out pamphlets, his action wiU be declared to be a prohibited one. If a person says he is going to hold up signs on the side of the road during the marathon so that the TV cameras can catch them, that will be prohibhed so that we cannot see them. The Commonwealth Games will be referred to as the sterile Games because no-one who disagrees with the Government wiU be aUowed within range of a TV camera, a newsman or a marathon runner, let alone the Games complex itself. Let it be remembered that the judicial interpretation of "in or near" includes an area 10 miles away. That means that a fellow 10 miles from Mt Gravatt will not be able to hold up a sign or hand out a pamphlet. Even if someone is nowhere near the Games— even if he is 10 mUes from the Games—that wiU be prohibited. I have no objection to action being taken about explosives, bombs and things of that nature. Obviously we have to do something about that. But surely the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act would cover it. Surely we have other Acts to cover it. If we 00 not, then we most certainly have been deficient in the past in not passing laws to stop people doing such things. We have known all about international terrorism for some time. While I am on the subject of international terrorism, might I ask why we are failing to co-operate with the national Govemment and the national police force? They are concerned about terrorists coming in from Vanuatu or New Zealand, yet recently the Queensland PoUce Minister was saying, "Keep Federal police out of State affairs." He 4482 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

agreed with the Police Union that too many Federal police were being appointed and that they were intruding too much into State matters. Intemational terrorism is a national responsibiUty, and half a dozen State PoUce Forces cannot be asked to buUd the organisation required. It is a national responsibility and should be accepted nationaUy. I want to know why we are faUing to co-operate federally. I know that we have failed to co-operate in relation to drugs in the past. I know of the statements that have been made in the past by police officers that we should have nothing to do with the Commonwealth police in the matter of dmgs. I have read statements about Dorries or someone else, when he was in charge of the Dmg Squad, to the effect that he had been told not to co-operate with the Federal authorities. I cannot understand that. If the Government is concemed about these problems, why doesn't it co-operate and do all it can to use all of the avaUable forces? The Government pretends that it is concerned and worried, but it does not bring one bit of evidence before this Parliament to show why we should be concerned. It cannot use Perkins and his loud mouth as evidence of some­ thing to be worried about. He spoke about 20 000 Aborigines protesting. He wouldn't get them here if they started walking now. Mr Innes: Look at the definition of "member of the Police Force" on page 4. It says "any member of the Australian Federal Police" Mr BURNS: That is right. On 4 February 1982 the following article written by Peter Morley appeared in the Press— "Queensland police yesterday won government support for their campaign to stop the further intrusion of federal police into state responsibilities. The Queensland Police Union protested to the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, over what amounts to a demarcation dispute between the two forces." Why are we concerning ourselves with that? Why can't we solve those problems? Mr Innes: The BUI provides that every Federal policeman is a poUce officer under the terms of the Act. Mr BURNS: The Police Minister said that on 4 Febmary 1982. It was reported that Mr Bjelke-Petersen was approached because he was a "good federal basher" That is referred to in the last line of the statement in "The Courier-Mail" of that day. Mr McLean: And he meant it. Mr BURNS: Of course. If the banning of political leaflets or placards was spelt into the BUI, the true nature of the Government's intention would become very obvious, that is, that the Government does not want anybody to be able to say anything about it during the Games. No-one will be allowed to criticise the Government; no-one wiU be allowed to utter one word against the Government during the Commonwealth Games. I wonder why the Government has not outlawed letters to editors during the Commonwealth Games. Someone might write a letter to an editor and say something nasty about the Government. That matter probably will be dealt with in the Printing and Newspapers Bill. Mr Hinze: It is a pity there wasn't an election forthcoming. Mr BURNS: Does the Minister reckon the Government would win an election on this? Mr Hinze: To make sure they do not say anything against the Government. Mr BURNS: Probably this legislation will not be removed after the Commonwealth Games and the Minister will declare my electorate and others "notified areas" and we will not be able to distribute a pamphlet during an election campaign. I wish to return to the proposal to ban sales within a kilometre of the Games venue. Last year I spent a great deal of time campaigning on behalf of the disabled people of the community. I am concerned that they were completely ignored by the businessmen who are conducting the Commonwealth Games. Those businessmen are not conducting the Games for Brisbane; they are doing it for a profit. They are there to make a quid. The profits from the Games will be received by the Commonwealth Games Foundation. Commonwealth Games BUI 4 March 1982 4483

$30m has been spent out of our taxes and rates to stage the Commonwealth Games. Velodromes, swimming-pools and sports grounds have been constructed. The Government is going to keep the people off the street. It is going to bash up the Aborigines and stop private enterprise so that the foundation can make a quid. It will say that no-one can buy a pie, a bottle of drink of a stuffed toy kangaroo outside the Games venue because the' organisers wish to make a quid inside. Every disabled group ought to be able to set up a stall outside each Games venue so that they can sell the truly Australian articles that they produced during the International Year of Disabled Persons. The small amount of money that they would take away from the organisers would not make much difference to them. The Govemment is not interested in the disabled persons. The Government seems to be interested only in stopping people promoting themselves and their organisations by way of seUing stuffed toy kangaroos to aid the disabled, a land rights badge to support the Aborigines or a badge to support peace groups. The BiU should be scrapped. It is useless. Sufficient legislation exists to cope with situations that might arise during the conduct of the Games. The Bill is not necessary. [Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 7.15 p.m.]

Mr POWELL (Isis) (7.15 p.m.): Fortunately, terrorism is something that this nation has always been able to avoid. On only a very few occasions have people in Australia been willing to take the law into their own hands in a public place and cause harassment, damage and disruption. Later this year, when Brisbane is the venue for the Commonwealth Games, world attention will be focused on both this city and this nation. The world will judge us on the performance of everybody in this State and nation. It would be a mistake to claim once again that the Commonwealth Games are a sporting event and not a political event. Over the years the Olympic and Commonwealth Games have become a forum for people who hold minority views and want to try to force them onto the majority. We must ensure that the majority of law-abiding citizens can watch the Games without fear. So far in this debate we have heard two Opposition speakers. They did nothing more than reiterate the arguments that have been presented by the civil liberties group, led by Mr O'Gorman. I have not heard anything new from those Opposition speakers, and presumably other Opposition speakers who follow will present nothing new. We will hear only the same old comments that Opposition members make from time to time. It is interesting to note that this Bill was laid on the table on 25 November last year. To that time, nothing was heard of it except the nonsense that appeared in the media. It was all conjecture. Certain people appeared on television and waved pieces of paper that were purported to be drafts of the BiU. With a great fanfare the media trumpeted their opposition to the BUI, which they had not even seen. After the BiU was laid on the table, the controversy ended—untU about a fortnight ago, when the Minister for Police said that the debate on the Bill would proceed during the first week of the March sittings and that it would remain unchanged. Suddenly the civil liberties groups, the Left-wing lawyers and a few of their fellow-traveUers decided that, perhaps, they should read the Bill. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Who are the Left-wing lawyers you are referring to? Mr POWELL: The ones mentioned by the honourable member for Wolston in his speech. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Don't be a dolt. Which ones? You're not talking about the Queensland Law Society? ^••^OWELL: I am talking about the Left-wing sections of the Law Society and the Labor lawyers. They suddenly decided that the BUI was about to come before f'arliament and that they needed to gain wider publicity. As had been proved in this anH tV I ^'^^1 °°^ ^^^ *° ^° *° receive publicity, especially from the metropolitan media ana tne trendy sections of the media, is crhicise the Government, particulariy the Premier, and say that the Liberals are weak. Mr Mackenroth interjected. 4484 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Mr POWELL: Members of the Opposition are rushing in on cue. They ought to be members of Actors Equity. Earlier today I said that the members for Lytton and Rockhampton should be members of Actors Equity. Mr Mackenroth: Do you believe that the Liberals are weak? Mr POWELL: No, I do not. The Liberals in Queensland are not weak at all. I am sick and tired of hearing such accusations by the weakest Opposition in any Parliament in the Commonwealth. Opposition members cannot get their act together. The honourable member for Lytton said that if the Liberals had any guts they would do certain things. It is clear that the Liberals have guts and that is why they are supporting this legislation. If they were irresponsible, as is the Labor Opposition, they might oppose this legislation. By supporting this legislation the Liberal Party is accepting its responsibility to the people of Queensland. It is clear to the Opposition and their media friends that, if this Government is to be defeated, they have to drive a wedge between the coalition partners. They attempt to do that with their lies, half truths and shams. The smart thing for the Government to do is to make sure that every tool is available to let the Commonwealth Games proceed as the Games and not as a political event. What has placard-waving to do with winning on the sporting field? Absolutely nothing at all! The honourable member for Lytton—I almost called him the Leader of the Opposition, because he acts as such—would have people selling all sorts of things on the running track. The Games Foundation has many volunteers to assist it. Without them, it would be impossible to run the Games. They are dedicated people who want to see sporting events of world standard staged. They do not want to see politics; they want to see sports. The Opposition would deny the Government the tools to make sure that the sporting events continue as such. They would deny the Government the tools to protect those volunteers. I repeat that these people are : volunteers; they are not being paid, as most of the demonstrators probably wiU be. I remember the rent-a-crowd Whitlam had whenever he came to Brisbane. These volunteers wUl make sure that sporting events are staged smoothly. The Opposition would deny the Government the tools to guarantee the safety of those volunteers, the sportsmen and the visitors to Australia who go to the Games. Maybe Opposition members do not regard the threats of a blood-bath seriously. Maybe that is another one of their attempts to grab headlines. Maybe they do not really understand what could occur. I wonder if they have seriously considered the events that occurred at Munich, for example. Do they know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Edmonton were seriously embarrassed because the Canadian Government had no legislation to support them in their efforts to control loutish and subversive behaviour at the Games? Do they know that the Canadian people are still paying off those Games? Surely we do not want to do that. We want to make the Games a success so that the taxpayers of Queensland, particulariy the ratepayers of Brisbane, wiU not be lumbered with a tremendous debt because the Games are unsuccessful. Mr MUIiner: Wouldn't you congratulate the Brisbane City CouncU for getting the Games here? Mr POWELL: I congratulate the committee that bid for the Games. That committee comprised more than the Brisbane City Council. If that group is to be congratulated, the Government should be congratulated; and supported for'introducing this legislation to assist in the running of the Games. Opposition members are the ones who do not have the guts. They are not ganje to stand up to the noisy minority. Mr Davis: Of course we are. Mr POWELL: I have not noticed the honourable member for Brisbane Central doing it yet. In fact, he encourages them. Members opposite encourage disruptipn and disorder to cover up their own inadequacies. Mr R. J, Gibbs: That is not correct, and you know it. Mr POWELL: Of course it is. Opposition members do it all the time. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Give us an instance of it. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4485

Mr POWELL: One instance is the Opposition's performance in this Parliament on Tuesday and again this afternoon. Mr R. J. Gibbs: We are talking about public disruption, you flea-brained fool. Mr POWELL: The honourable member talks about public disruption, but after he finishes grandstanding here—I hope he is a member of Actors Equity—he rushes out in front of the media to gain as much publicity as he possibility can. Of course, that is the name of his game, but Govemment members are attempting to do a decent job for the people of Queensland. Mr Davis: Are you still leaking Treasury documents? Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Brisbane Central is probably the only one who would do that sort of thing if he could get hold of the documents. However, because he is brainless and unable to read such documents he would find great difficulty in determining what was in them. To get back to the BiU, it should be noted that some of its provisions are fairly extra­ ordinary. They are designed to deal with extraordinary circumstances, because at least 15 international heads of government will be coming to Brisbane at the one time. With the worid spotlight on Brisbane it is quite likely that a large number of people, particularly the media, will be looking for things to print other than about the Games. We have been warned that it will be a golden opportunity for some dissidents to advance their own particular point of view. There are numerous ways, as we all know, of presenting a point of view. The media is only too willing to print ideas for people, particularly when they run contrary to those of the establishment. People can conduct their demonstrations in the numerous halls, parks and so on that are available. Of course, when they do that they are acting within the law! It should be noted that the people who wish to change the law also encourage the flouting of it. On a number of occasions, members opposite have revelled in disruption and in the type of trouble-making that a certain section of the community can cause. As they grandstand and act out pseudo-injury in this Parliament they really fool no-one, because while they raise their sham of problems represented by this Bill and put forward an alleged platform of civil liberties they are at the same time denying others the right to be able to go about their every-day business. This Government wants to protect those people who go about their law-abiding business. I do not know how many members opposite have read the BiU, but if any of them are fearful of something in the BUI, straight away we know that they have a guilt complex. An honest, law-abiding citizen has absolutely. nothing to worry about in this legislation. Mr Hooper: Are you the poor man's Freud? Mr POWELL: I suggest that the member for Archerfield should read what Freud has written. He might then not carry on with so much stupidity. The half-smart accusations and half-truths that we have heard from Opposition members indicate that they are completely empty of ideas. They talk about the headlines opposing this Bill that have appeared in the Press. I wonder whether the people who oppose the BUI have really studied it. As I said earUer, the BiU lay on the table of this House from 25 November last year unril 19 February this year, when the civil liberties group decided that it had better do something about it. Mr Jennings: Opposition members have forgotten Munich, too. Mr POWELL: That is right, they liave forgotten Munich—or have they? Is that the sort of thing that they would like to see happen in Brisbane? Opposition members stand up in this place and criricise the Government. They say that we are a one-man band, that Queensland is a poUce State and that a section of the coalition is weak. I hope that in my contribution I have indicated that the Liberal Party is far from weak. In fact, it is quite strong in hs support for this legislation. It has shown the courage of Its convictions by supporting the legislation. Opposition members seem to think that in order to be strong one has to cross the floor of the ParUament and vote against one's party. If that is their criterion, they must be very weak because only one or two of them have crossed the floor to vote against their own party, If that is their criterion, they have condemned themselves. Mr Hooper: Have you ever crossed the floor in your eight years in this House? 4486 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Mr POWELL: The noisy member for Archerfield again interjects. A member of Parliament has to weigh up the pros and cons of any situation and discuss it in a responsible manner. A responsible Government takes responsible decisions. Far from being a police State, Queensland is probably the freest State in Australia, simply because the people of Queensland are guaranteed the right of assembly and the right to be able to move through the public thoroughfares at will. They are not blocked by noisy minority groups waving placards; they are able to move about freely. From the silence of Opposition members, it is apparent that they have no answer. It is important that this legislation be enacted and implemented because I, as a member of Parliament, do not want people killed or injured simply because I was derelict in my duty in not giving the law-enforcement authorities the tools with which to carry out their job. I hope that this legislation will be widely publicised so that people coming to Queensland for the Games will know the exact position. Law-abiding sportsmen and sportswomen will be able to come here to view the Games with full confidence that they will be able to go about their business in a perfectly happy way. They will be able to watch the Games without having any fear of being bashed or blocked as they try to enter the Games venues. Mr Frawley: Look at the way in which black activitists in Melbourne kicked two American Negro athletes. Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Caboolture interjects on a subject about which he obviously knows something. I have no intention of including in my speech any particular group that wishes to disrupt the Games. Anybody who reads the newspapers knows that we have been warned of a blood-bath. We have also been told that New Zealand Maori activists, who cannot get their own way in their country, are coming to Australia to help disrupt the Games. Threats of that type have been made. As I said earlier, perhaps they are empty threats. Perhaps the Opposition believes that they are empty threats and that is why it opposes the Bill, Perhaps it is simply being subversive, as is its practice. Mr Frawley: We should arrest all those Maoris when they get here and put them in a penal colony on Moreton Island and make them do some sand-mining. Mr POWELL: I would not go as far as the honourable member for Caboolture suggests. When one person has threatened to scatter glass on the track to help disrupt the Games, it is about time that the whole matter was taken very seriously indeed. The member for Lytton cast doubt on the need to control people carrying bottles of any description. Obviously the Opposition does not understand the seriousness of that. A bottle can be a very useful weapon and has been used as such in many instances. Why would people carry bottles full of petrol or kerosene other than for dismptive purposes? The accusations made by members of the Opposition are empty. The Opposition's sham has been exposed by the votes cast by the people of Queensland. The Bill is needed to support the Government's actions and also to support the Brisbane City Council in the running of the Commonwealth Games. I look forward to seeing the Games pass without dismption. I would hope that every member of this Parliament would act in a completely responsible manner to keep the peace as much as possible so that visitors to this country can be treated as such and be welcomed as Australians welcome their visitors. I would hate to see visitors to our nation embarrassed, jostled or mdely dealt with by a very small minority of people who wish to force on others a political action rather than take part in a sporting activity. I support the Bill. I believe that honourable members on this side of the House who support the Bill do so because they have strength and the courage of their convictions, not for any reason that might be put forward by honourable members opposite. Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (7.39 p.m.): I wish to register my concern and contempt for the provisions included in the Bill. The honourable member for Wolston outlined the contents of the Bill, and I fully support his criticisms. I am concerned to ensure that it will be possible to conduct the Games in a manner that will bring credit to our city and to Queensland as a whole. The 1982 Commonwealth Games will be the most significant event ever staged in Brisbane and I am sure that everybody wishes to see that they are a success. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4487

The Commonwealth Games will mean much more to the city and to the State than simply the staging of a sporting competition. It will be a time when the eyes of the world will be upon us and I, in common with a great many Queenslanders, hope that the Games will be successful. However, I am certain that the type of legislation before the House tonight wUl not ensure law and order and a peaceful Games. It is so provocative that it wiU have the opposite effect. In the past we have seen the results of this State's provocative legislation. The first legislation that comes to my mind is the senseless and disgraceful anti-march law and its vicious implementation. This Bill loses nothing in comparison with the street-march law. We are aU aware of the world-wide coverage that Queensland received in 1977 and 1978 and of the shame that feU upon our State. Mr Simpson: Do you support the march of minorities Mr McLEAN: I support the right of people to have their say, poUtically or otherwise. Mr Simpson: Do you support minorities taking over our streets? Mr McLEAN: If the member for Cooroora listens to my speech, he might learn something. The Bill contains so many provisions that can and will affect traditional rights that it can only be described as hideous legislation that goes far beyond the necessary limits. After reading some of the proposals, I could not help being reminded of the past. The Bill certainly brmgs back memories of 1977 and 1978, when the policies of the National-Liberal Govemment were given fuH reign. I would like to jog the memories of honourable members—and particularly the member who continually interjects on an issue about which he probably knows nothing—on some of the events that took place over that period and remind them that similar events could flow from the implementation of this BUI. Let me give the body count of the National-Liberal Government over the 15 months of demonstrations from September 1977 to December 1978. The number of arrests was— 22 September 1977 30 22 October 1977 .. 410 11 November 1977 169 3 December 1977 204 4 March 1978 50 11 March 1978 .. 50 22 July 1978 40 21 August 1978 .. 117 30 October 1978 .. 289 7 December 1978 337 Mr Powell: What was the home address of those people? Mr McLEAN: I wiU teU you one home address. One was mine. I was arrested and put in a ceU. Govemment Members interjected. Mr McLEAN: Yes, and I am quite proud of the fact. I did not want to march on the streets; nor did the people marching beside me. But I do not want to be told by Nazis like you that I cannot do it. From September tiU December 1977 there were 813 arrests; in 1978 there were 893 arrests—a total of 1 706. Mr POWELL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Bulimba referred to me as a Nazi. Mr Wright: Spot on. Mr POWELL: I find the remarks of the honourable member for Cook and the honourable member for Bulimba offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! The honourable member for Isis finds the word offensive and asks that it be withdrawn. 4488 4 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

Mr McLEAN: I did not refer to him personally as a Nazi. I referred to the policies of this Government as Nazi-type policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Did the honourable member for Cook refer to the honourable member for Isis as a Nazi? Mr SCOTT: No, but I endorse the remark made by the member for Bulimba and I wUl stand by it. There is no doubt about that. Mr McLEAN: As I see it, that is a period that will always be regarded as a disgrace and a slur on Queensland's history; a period during which democracy was under its greatest attack; a period when we saw the Premier of this State imposing his own political censorship and biased authority upon all Queenslanders; a period when we saw not tricks by this Government but a serious denial of rights that had been won by workers over -a century of struggle and which workers and all oppressed groups still need in order to defend themselves and have their point of view heard. The Premier's statement when first initiating the ban was typical of his contempt for other points of view. He said^ "The day of the political march is over. Anybody who holds a street march spontaneously or otherwise will know he is acting illegally." He went on to say to would-be street marchers— "You can shout yourself hoarse in the square, but don't bother applying for a march permit; you won't get one." To implement that ban it was necessary to make changes to the Traffic Act. That was done in typical style—by ramming the legislation through in one day—by people like you Mr POWELL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has again cast a slur on me. I take exception to the remark and ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Deputy Speaker, in case you did not hear it, he said that I was one who forced legislation tlirough in one day. I was not. I take exception to the remark. Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): I will handle one point of order at a time. Mr WRIGHT: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have to say is relevant, and I ask you to hear it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Isis finds the words of the honourable member for Bulimba offensive. Mr McLEAN: I said, "People like you" Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no debate on this issue. The honourable member for Isis finds the words offensive. I now ask you to withdraw them. Mr McLEAN: I withdraw them. My speech is more important than arguing with the honourable member for Isis. To cite an example of the differences between States at a particular time on the same issue, I point out that on 22 October 1977, some 40 000 people in Sydney and Melbourne staged demonstration marches against uranium and nuclear hazards through the city streets. Although the cause was earnest and urgent, the demonstrations were amiable, they were staged almost in a picnic spirit, with families marching. Police—what few of them were around at the time—'helped to guide traffic to minimise delays. There was no trouble. No harm was done to anyone. The demonstrators were not interfered with. In Brisbane, with our supposedly great democratic Government, it was a different story. On the same Saturday morning, a comparatively few people, numbering approximately 3 500, wanted to do what 40 000 other Australians were doing in Sydney and Melbourne. In Brisbane 800 police were massed around King George Square. When the demonstrators tried to walk on the footpath, either singly or in smaU groups, the poUce smashed into them and made mass arrests, many of which were effected with needless force. In all, 410 people were arrested for trying to do what their fellow Australians in Sydney and Melbourne were doing. What makes Queenslanders more vicious? What makes them so different? CommonweaUh Games BiU 4 March 1982 4489

Mr PoweU: They were not Queenslanders. Mr McLEAN: I was born here. I am a Queenslander, and I am quite proud of the fact. I was arrested. What explanation can be given for no arrests in the demon­ stration by 40 000 people in Sydney and Melbourne, and the 410 arrests in Brisbane? Give me an answer to that! Mr Bjelke-Petersen spoke in defence of those hideous laws. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! I ask the honourable member to refer to the Premier as "the Premier" Mr McLEAN: The Premier spoke in defence of those hideous laws and about protecting the rights of ordinary people to use the streets. His claim proved quite ludicrous. An examination of the fact reveals that the only thing that the anti-march laws achieved was to set Queenslander against Queenslander and place a burden of $2m or more on the ratepayer of Queensland. Mr Powell: The taxpayer. Mr McLEAN: The taxpayer. It would have been far less disruptive if the march had proceeded for 15 or 20 minutes. As a resuh of the Government's "overkill" reaction, the mass of poUce officers completely blocked major roadways for hours and, in some instances, for the whole afternoon. As a result some shops were forced to close their doors for long periods. Rather than permit the use of streets, the Government's action prevented their use for long periods. I turn now to the scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. A few days after the Government announced the ban, about 6 000 unionists attended a rally at the Roma Street forum in support of a Storeman and Packers Union organiser who was facing a criminal charge over union activity. On that occasion, on 7 September, about 1 000 police stood by, although they had been informed beforehand that no suggestion had been made that there would be a march following the rally. The expense involved in massing 1 000 police was totally wasted. On 22 September, approximately 700 police were massed. It was reported that they were brought in from areas within a radius of 150 miles from Brisbane. On the following day an interesting comment appeared in "The Courier-Mail", to the effect that some Gympie police were ordered home early when news broke of a double murder at Maryborough. That indicates how the Government's priorities are out of order. Mr Simpson: Gympie poUce would not be going to Maryborough. Mr McLEAN: That was the report in "The Courier-Mail", and I beUeve that that is what happened. Over that period the Government's ridiculous policies were highlighted by marches organ­ ised at Tweed Heads in New South Wales. New South Wales police escorted marchers to the Queensland border, only to find hundreds of Queensland police barring their entry. In Bundaberg we had the farcical situation in which police refused to give a permit to a 29-year-old dentist who wanted to march alone on a secluded road about 3 miles from Bundaberg in the early hours of the morning of 1 April. He wanted to carry a small placard in protest against the anti-march legislation. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr McLEAN: That makes the honourable member an even bigger dill than I thought he was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to refrain from personal abuse. The issue under debate is a very emotive one. I believe that points can be made on both sides of the House without niembers becoming personal. The use of certain words brings disrepute upon the whole of the House not merely on the honourable member who uses them. I ask honourable members to stick to the points under discussion and to refrain from personalities. Mr McLEAN: Once again the Queensland Government was the laughing-stock. The bmtahty and violence of those confrontations was watched with alarm and disgust by people in the rest of Australia and in many other parts of the worid. All around 4490 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Australia the media were consistently reporting happenings. National television showed incident after incident involving brutality. The average Australian was left sick and disgusted, and with a feeling of utter contempt for authority in Queensland. I would not like to see a recurrence of those confrontations, but I am afraid that this legislation will lead to a recurrence of them. The BUI can only be described as provocative. I want to refer to some of the provisions that were dealt with earlier by the honourable member for Wolston. The Bill wiU give "authorised persons" powers in excess of those given in the past to such untrained people. As I see it, an "authorised person" will be anyone who is given authority by the Government and in most instances will include persons who have had no police training and, furthermore, no training or experience in dealing with the public. The powers that are given by the Bill to police officers are extraordinarily broad. The powers of detention and search are far in excess of those given in the past. They are powers that no fair-minded person could accept as necessary. Any person found guilty of committing an offence against this Bill can have imposed upon him a penalty of $2,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both. The penalties proposed are certainly higher than those that are necessary to ensure the orderly conduct and security of persons during the Games. One clause makes it an offence for any person to fail to provide his name and address. I could go on and on in pointing out the extreme powers vested by this Bill, but that has been done by previous Opposition speakers. The BiU goes far beyond the type of legislation that is needed in the circumstances. I see it merely as an excuse for attacking once again the civil liberty groups in Queensland and for attacking and smashing the minority groups that dare to object to this Govemment's policies. Such attacks are carried out in a manner that any believer in tme democracy would regard as totally unacceptable and sickening. Hon. J. W. GREENWOOD (Ashgrove) (7.55 p.m.): When I am boarding a plane I do not mind in the slightest having my brief-case searched but, if a policeman stopped me and searched my brief-case when I was walking down the street, I would probably have something to say about it. What I regard as an infringement of my civil liberties depends upon the circumstances. For instance, 25 years ago we did not have security checks on boarding aircraft; 25 years ago we had not heard of hijackers. I said that I do not look upon a security check when I am boarding an aircraft as an infringement of my personal freedom. I go further. I regard it as an addition to my area of freedom. It is no great disadvantage to put up with a few minutes' delay for the trifling invasion of privacy involved in the search of a brief-case. On the other hand, it is a very great advantage to feel that all possible precautions are being taken against the risk of hijacking and to feel that I am free from that particular danger. On balance, in those circumstances, the area of my personal freedom has been increased. That is my approach to this legislation. Just as people are especially vulnerable on aircraft, so they may well be especially vulnerable at an event such as the Commonwealth Games. The events at Munich did not happen so long ago that we forget them. The events at the New Zealand football tests are even more recent. They illustrate that tragedy may not be very far away if we stand idle and do nothing to attempt to minimise risks which we know exist. That does not mean that we should give a blank cheque to the PoUce Force; it does not mean that we should agree uncritically to any and every increase in power that is sought; but it does mean that we should be realistic when we examine the problem. I congratulate the Government on the way in which it has set about solving the problem. It has not attempted to deal with it other than as a special case. This is not a BUI which will confer powers for an unlimited length of time. It is a Bill which proposes to confer certain powers for a special occasion for a limited time. Moreover, this Bill has been given the widest possible public airing, and many groups in the community have made contributions. It is fashionable to criticise university students. In my experience university students are some of the best-educated and most responsible people in our community. So, tonight, I should like to redress the balance a little and look in detaU at some of the suggestions Commonwealth Games BUI 4 March 1982 4491 that have come to the Government from a group of young people at the university—most of them, I think, law students—who have sat down and done some work on this BiU and attempted to make constmctive suggestions. If I may I should Uke to work through their suggestions one by one. I might not be able to cover all of them in the time allowed to me, but I shall certainly cover the more important ones. I hope to show the House that the contribution which these people have made has been a very useful one indeed. The first clause that they dealt with is clause 8, which deals with the exercise by an authorised person of certain powers, functions and duties pursuant to the Bill. It provides, firstly, that he may exercise those powers with such vehicles, equipment, plants, animals or instruments and— "(b) with such other things as he may consider reasonably necessary for the proper and efficient exercise or discharge of his powers, functions or duties." I stress the relevant words, "with such other things as he may consider reasonably necessary for the proper and efficient exercise ", etc. The students said of this— "Section 8 (2) (b) provides, in effect, that an authorized person may make use of any object which he himself regards as necessary for the effective discharge of his powers. There is no objective standard from which he or the public can gauge the reasonableness of his actions. Such a wide discretionary provision leaves the section open to abuse with virtually no legal redress for an injured party. Further, it leaves the police force wide open to allegations of abuse of power, whether founded or unfounded as courts will not take it upon themselves to decide the actual reasonableness of the action, only whether the authorized person at the time of making his decision believed his actions to be reasonably necessary." They suggested that the phrase "as he may consider reasonably necessary" should be replaced by the phrase "as may be reasonably necessary". They studied the Bill, they found what they regarded as a fault, and they made a specific suggestion as to how that fault should be remedied. I am not suggesting that they were the only ones who spotted that particular problem or that they were the only ones who made that recommendation, but I am saying that the work they did was useful, and perhaps before we reach the end of this debate tonight that work will be shown to be something that finds its way into the BiU. While I am on clause 8, might I also refer to subclause (3) which, as printed, states— "An authorised person may use such force as is necessary to exercise or discharge any of the powers pursuant to the provisions of this Act." In that form, the right to use force is an unlimited one or, to put it a different way, there is a right to use unlimited force. Here the suggestion from any people who have looked at this Bill is that the word "reasonably" should be inserted, so that the force that is authorised is not unlimited force but that measure of force which is reasonably necessary to achieve the result. I tum now to clause 12, which deals with the conduct of certain persons. Amongst other things, it deals with the right of the members of the Police Force, when they suspect on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence, to stop, to search and to detain for the purpose of such search. The students read that clause as meaning that there was no real time limit on the period of detention, and believing that and reading it in conjunction with clause 42 as printed in the Bill, they felt that it required amendment. That suggestion has been carefully considered, and it is the view of those whose responsibility it is to consider it that the words "detain that person for the purpose of such search" themselves carry within them a Umitation that the detention should not be any longer than is necessary for the purpose of search. The objection that the students thought was there is, in our view, not there. I turn to another extremely important provision that the students raised. Clause 42, 'n the form in which it was printed, provides— "Liability at law shall not attach to the Crown, the Minister, an authorized person or any other person on account of anything done for the purposes of this Act or done in good faith and purporting to be done for the purposes of this Act." 4492 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

To this the students made the comment that actions for negligence and others that do not require an intention to do the specific act complained of would be barred against any of the persons mentioned in that clause. In other words, they are saying that as the Bill was prmted, if a police officer negligently ran over somebody and injured him, there would be no right at law to sue for negligence or to recover damages, even though it would be admitted that it was a negligent act and even though, in other circumstances, an action for negligence would lie. That, too, is something that is easy enough to remedy. I think that when this BiU finally passes through the House the amendments to that clause wUl adequately satisfy the students and justify the work that they have done and the point that they have made. I think that everyone in this House is concerned to see that our civil liberties are not eroded. I think that everyone realises that it is only by being constantly vigilant that we will see that we preserve the liberties in this democracy of ours. But I also think that from time to time there arise challenges to our way of life, which have to be met. The important point is to meet them with care, and to meet them only so far as we have to in order to preserve our society. Provided we do that and provided we go about it with good will and care, then I think that we will both preserve our civil liberties and protect ourselves against the threats that will arise from time to time. Mr SCOTT (Cook) (8.8 p.m.): It is interesting to note that although a lot has been said about what might happen in Queensland in September and October when the Common­ wealth Games are held in Brisbane, not one Government member, in attempting to justify the legislation, has said one word about why protests might occur. I certainly beUeve that it is my duty to remind the House of the conditions under which certain people in Queensland live. That is really what we are talking about here tonight. Government members have made a very strong attempt to deny people the right to put forward a legitimate political point of view at the best time. I shall use one simple iUustration from the Government's own economic system; it relates to advertising. There is the simple concept of prime-time advertising. On television, the best and most expensive advertising is at a time when most people are watching television. That principle is espoused by those responsible for the Government's advertising. It is basic to an economy that is based on the advertising concept. People who wish to express a point of view in (Queensland in an effort to achieve some justice for themselves should have the right to express themselves at the time they think most appropriate. By this legislation the Government seeks to make sure that if people step over the mark set by it, they will pay the penalty. I am speaking about black people and their conditions, particularly in Queensland. They are the ones at whom this legislation is aimed. The Government is not concerned about anyone else; it is concerned solely about people who want to put their point of view before the world. The Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) should not shake his head, because it is patently clear that that is what the Government aims to do. To achieve its purpose the Government is enacting the worst legislation I have seen pass through the Parliament in my time here. It is worse than the Essential Services Bill, which was repressive enough. The Government is adding to the store of repressive legislation that it has enacted. It is doing that simply to stop a democratic point of view being put before the public. I have spoken often enough in this Chamber about the conditions of black people, but I wish to take a little more time of the House now so that when the record is read- when people investigate our stone age democracy—the complete picture will be there, The (^position is concemed about, the way civil liberties are affected by the BUI- We on this side of the House have expressed that view extremely well, We wish to argue even the finer points of the legislation that the Government is trying to enact. The Opposition says that it is not necessary for the legislation to go as far as it does. Although Govern­ ment members cannot prove their statements, they say that the legislation is necessary. This evening my role is to complete the picture and state why there will be some properly conducted protests. I certainly do not support violent protests,' and I am quite sure that as long as the Government does not provoke them, there will not be violent protests. It is part of human nature that in the end we will fight for what we hold dearest. In economic terms the Governmerit certainly does that; it is the strongest weapon it can wield. Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4493

The Government represents the strong economic forces in the community. In the end the Government wiU use that weapon in the most repressive manner. Signs of that have been evident this evening. The member for Isis is a great one for coming in to bat for Government legislation. Not too many people will defend the Government's legislation, because it is indefensible. However, the honourable member for Isis is glib of tongue and in a very smooth fashion he makes it all look so nice. But he covers up so much. Black people make up 47 per cent of my electoral enrolment. On many occasions I have informed the House of their living conditions. Time and time again I have high­ lighted the Government's policies. However, only on very rare occasions do the Press publish my views so that the full picture of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders can be presented to the people of Queensland. The Alwyn Peter case is a classic example. Because of its outrageousness and because of the case's instant appeal to the public, the Press printed the story. Even in that case there was not a proper examination of the conditions that have led to the present life-style of black people. I certainly do not have enough time to start from the beginning. Also, I {wssibly do not have the ability to properly spell out to the House the reasons why people are as they are and why they will protest. Recently the Premier made an announcement about land. He made it clear that the Government will deny land rights to the black people of Queensland. The Government has thought up a very cunning set of terms to describe the type of tenure that those people are to be given—or are apparently to be given, because it is quite possible that the Premier will change his mind before he introduces the legislation. Do not forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the repeal of the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act was promised nearly 18 months ago and nothing has been done in this Parliament either to tell the black people that the Acts are in fact not going to be changed or to give effect to the changes that have been promised. When the Premier made his recent announcement, he claimed, as his Govemment has always claimed, that the changes wiU be as a result of consuhations. I deny flatly and totally that there have been any worthwhile consuhations between black people and the Government or representatives of the Government. If there had been and if the Govern­ ment had taken any notice of the opinions of black people, it would be very clear about what titles they want to their land. They want only one title—freehold—so that they own the land, so that it is not under lease or deed of grant or any of the other technical legal terms with which the Government is trying to confuse them. Bariier I said that there were no consultations. I stand by that because I know that there have been none. I have spoken to the people who would usually be involved in consultation, and I have foUowed the process through from the time the announcement was made. I might say that I stood open-mouthed when I heard it was part of National Party policy that the Government would repeal the Acts. Then there were all sorts of mouthings by the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs and by the Director of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement that consultations would take place. The only way in which I can describe it is that a game was played with the black people and It was known that there would be no meaningful consultations. However, the game was allowed to go on and claims were made that consultations were taking place. Under the terms of the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act there are only two proper ways for consultations to be carried out, or so the Government claims.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MUler): Order! I feel that I must point out to the Honourable member that the House is not discussing the Department of Aboriginal and ith r-^'^^^"''^'"^'^*" •^^ ^^^ moment honourable members are discussing the Common­ wealth Games Bill, and I would like the member for Cook to return to that legislation, e may refer to the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders coming to the Games, out 1 would like him to deal with the legislation before the House. that^fh f^^°^' ^ ^"^ ^^"^^ ^^PP^ *° ^^ *^^*' ^'" Deputy Speaker. I take your point demo f '^ ^'^^^ '^ '^'"^ debated tonight. However, I believe that I have the right to want t f * ^° ^^^ ^°^^ ^^® ^^"^ strong case that black people have and that they t to have the liberty to present to the people of Australia and to the world when they ove an enlarged audience. That is what they want to do. 4494 4 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

I was making quite a valid point about consuhations. I wiU prevail on your kinder nature, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow me to pursue that point. There are two proper ways in which the Govemment could have carried out consultations—through the Aboriginal Advisory CouncU and through the Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council. The Aboriginal Advisory Council comprises the chairmen of each of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. They meet when the director caUs them together. They cannot call themselves together; they can meet only when the director calls them together. There is no other provision for their getting together. If they express a point of view at the time of the Commonwealth Games, they will be expressing a point of view that they were denied the right to express through the proper channels. I believe that the point I am making is quite clear. On the other hand, the Torres Strait Islanders carried out their own consultations. As is well-known to honourable members, they collated a set of findings by discussing with their own people their requirements for land. Consistently the point came through that they knew the way in which land was divided in Queensland and that they knew the various terms such as reserve land, leasehold land. Crown land and freehold land. The people in the North, as a result of their own consultative process, arrived at the conclusion that the majority wanted freehold title to their land. I wiU make two points about land, because it is connected with what we are debating here this evening. The Government wUl deny them the opportunity of expressing that point during the Common­ wealth Games simply because, as I said before, if they depart in any way from the very stringent conditions that are laid down for allowing political points to be made, they will suffer the full force of the law. In 1837. the select committee of the House of Commons, speaking about Aborigines, said— "Their land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title than that of superior force." I remind the House that that is what we are speaking about here this evening—superior force. Of course, what is done wiU have the force of law. It wiU aU be nice and proper, as the member for Isis speUs out so happily in the House. The quotation continues— "They" (the Aborigines) "have an incontrovertible right to their own soU, a plain and sacred right, which seems not to have been understood." I will complement that by quoting what the Honourable E. G. Whitlam said in 1973— "Let us never forget this: Australia's real test as far as the rest of the worid is concerned, is the role we create for our own Aborigines. AustraUa's treatment of her Aboriginal people wUl be the thing upon which the rest of the world will judge Australia and Australians—^not just now, but in the greater perspective of history." We are playing that role here this evening. We are enacting an historical role. That is why I want to complement the debate by putting the point of view of the black people so that there can be no doubt about what we are speaking. History wUl determine the role of the Government in society in whatever path it follows down the social evolutionary road. The Government will be judged to be found wanting. Without any doubt, this is the most repressive legislation that has been before the House. Those who wiU feel the brunt of the legislation wiU mainly be black people and those who are supporting and espousing their cause. I remind the House of the commonly known statistics in regard to the number of Aboriginal and other black people who feel the full weight of law in Australia. It is well known that the majority of people dealt with by our courts are black people. By far the greatest percentage of people in AustraUan gaols in proportion to population are black people. I wUl oppose every clause of the Bill. I can only endorse what was said before, that it is Fascist-like legislation. It is bad for Queensland. It is unnecessary. It contains so many bad aspects that the Opposition could not even consider it. The Opposition will oppose it as strongly as possible. Mr PRENTICE (Toowong) (8.23 p.m.): I have examined the BiU since it was first intro­ duced and laid on the table. At that rime it was a Bill about which I had a real and very genuine concern. I realised then that it was a Bill that I could not support. I say that as a background because in this Parliament we have a real and extremely important responsibility to the people of Queensland. Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4495

We make laws that add to that already mountainous pile of laws on the statute-book. Most laws in one way or another will impinge on the freedom of an individual, a corporation or a group of people. Quite frankly, in many ways, the fewer laws we have, the better off we wiU be. I look at this Bill in that context. We have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain the greatest amount of freedom for the citizens of Queensland in every respect of their lives. The honourable member for Cook has referred to demonstrations. My comment includes them. It also includes many matters to which I and a number of my colleagues in the Liberal Party have raised objection in the past. We have to balance that ideal against the reality of Australia's situation and Queensland's situation during the event that this legislation covers. It should be noted both here and in the community that the Bill is designed to cover the CommonweaUh Games and that its operation will cease when the Games conclude. We should look at the legislation in the context of what is happening in AustraUa and what can happen in the future. As I read of events that occur throughout the world I realise how lucky we in Australia are. We have not had to bear the full brunt of urban terrorism. We have not had Munichs and events of that kind. We have had one or two events that have not done much for Australia, but in spite of those events we have been remarkably lucky. Compare Australia with the United Kingdom, which has to contend with the activities of the IRA; compare it with Italy, in which urban terrorism is widespread; compare it with the Middle East and even with the United States. Look at the Commonwealth Games against that background. They have the potential for violence on a scale that we in this State have not seen. I am not a prophet of doom saying, "Yes, it will happen. A plan of events is being drawn up. There is no way to stop those events without bringing down draconian laws." Mr Scott: There's no doubt that some of you are hoping for violence.

Mr PRENTICE: That is a cynical comment. No matter what the honourable member's political views may be, by that comment he is debasing the whole political system and this Pariiament to such an extent that his comment should be ignored. He could not truthfully make the accusation that any Government member would wish to see violence at the Games. His comment is scurrilous and absurd. Perhaps we should be prepared to assess this legislation in the light of the potential that it has for ensuring that we can maintain in this country the life and freedom that we enjoy at the moment, free from the terrorism that exists in other parts of the world. Notwithstanding my comments so far, I would not have supported this legislation if it had remained unaltered. However, we have been given certain assurances, of which the House has been told. The honourable member for Cook said that by this Bill the Govemment is denying people the opportunity to protest. Anyone who compares the Bill with the laws that already exist wUl find that under the existing laws a Govemment that wished to prevent protest could go a long way towards doing that. It could refuse permits for marches and It could refuse permission to hand out pamphlets. The Govemment already possesses remarkable power, perhaps too much power. This legislation goes further than that, but It cannot be described as legislation of itself that denies people the opportunity to protest. That power already exists. I concede that certainly the Bill can be used in that way, but I do not see it as legislation that wiU operate in that way. The honourable member for Cook said that this legislation is adding to a store of repressive legislation. That seems to suggest some sort of continuhy. I remind the honourable member that at the end of the Commonwealth Games this Bill wiU be gone. The honourable member for Cook could not resist getting caught up in the usual socialist rhetoric. He claimed hat (jovernment members represented strong economic forces and that we would use ttiose forces in aU sorts of dangerous ways. If the honourable member for Cook wants 0 P ay that game, he should look at the Labor Party and hs connections with the unions. IS not perhaps very relevant to the Bill but the argument is no less relevant than that put forward by him. 4496 4 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

The honourable member for Cook dealt at length with land rights. I will judge that legislation when I see it. From what I have heard of it, it has every potential for providing some things worth whUe for aU Australians, including the black community represented by the honourable member for Cook. Mr Scott: Why has it taken so long? Mr PRENTICE: We should be looking to the future. If we do that, we will see that something has been done, and it is a step in the right direction. This Bill was a matter of concern to me. Together with a number of my colleagues— the honourable members for Sherwood, Mt Gravatt and Ashgrove—^I went through it, particularly the provisions about which I was concerned. That was possible because the Bill was allowed to Ue on the table to let people investigate it. I received comments from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. We took up a number of them with the Minister and his officers. As a result, a number of significant amendments will be moved. They will give the Bill a whole new complexion. It will stUl not be perfect but it is a Bill that I, as an individual and as a member of this Parliament having to make a judgment on behalf of my constituents, am prepared to support. Notwithstanding the deficiencies about which I am concerned, the Bill, over all, is in the best interests of Queensland. The amendments will correct one complaint regarding the Traffic Act by the Council for Civil Liberties. It is a step in the right direction. The council's concern was expressed in its letter which was probably sent to all members of Parliament. The tests in the Bill will no longer be subjective tests. Instead of providing, "such other things as he may consider reasonably necessary", the Bill will provide, "as may be reasonably necessary." In other words there will be an objectivity that was not there before. That is a significant change which puUs the Bill back from the brink about which many people are concerned. The council complained about the phrase, "in or near." It will be amended to read, "in the vicinity of." Changes such as those, made with the co-operation of the Minister, are such that the Bill will be changed in character. It will no longer be an offence to fail to supply evidence of name or address. One provision that relates to notifications of prohibited things is absolutely necessary. Notified sites, notified restricted zones and things prohibited must be advertised in the daily Press and in other ways as required by regulations. That is a step in the right direction because no person should be able to say that he did not have an opportunity of knowing the law. The people of Queensland should listen to the rhetoric of the ALP. In part, that is what it is, because the track record of the ALP, not merely on this legislation but generally, has been, "If you can see an area of political advantage, take it, regardless of the argument and the points of debate." The people of Queensland should judge the reaction of the ALP to this legislation in that light, because I believe that the Bill is needed. It is needed to give Queenslanders the opportunity of retaining that remarkable sanity that we have in relation to the rest of the world. It is said that hard cases make bad law. It is also said that lawmakers should be concerned about giving away the rights and liberties of individuals in cases such as that. That is a sentiment and an argument with which I agree, because as lawmakers we have that responsibiUty. I am assured that the provisions in the Bill relating to notified areas and prohibited places are not intended to relate to the carrying of pamphlets, placards and what-have-you but relate rather to the very essential need in events of this nature to prevent the carrying of bottles or cans of beer and liquor into sporting zones because of their potential danger. It is an argument that we have heard before in relation to Lang Park and the football, but things of that type can create havoc. I am told that recommendations in relation to what is to be prohibited will come from the Commonwealth Games Foundation. If that is so, I am happy to support such an approach. I would not want this legislation to be used merely to stop demonstrations or to stop people exercising their rights, and, on the information that I have been given, I am happy to accept the legislation as it stands. CommonweaUh Games Bill 4 March 1982 4497

It is all very well for members opposite to scoff at the motives behind the legislation, but they should remember that in Queensland we have a cherished and real opportunity of maintaining an environment that is free from the lunacy of many other countries in the western world, the lunacy of violence and real danger to the lives of every one of us. Because of that I am prepared to stand here and say that although I have concerns about the Bill, given my equal concerns about the future of Queensland I am prepared to support the Bill in the interests of all Queenslanders. Mr Scott: You don't think there is a provocative air about it? Mr PRENTICE: I can see how people, if they wish, can look at this legislation and paint it as provocative. I can see how ordinary citizens of Queensland, given the publicity that has been given to the Bill, could be concerned about it. As I have said before, I was concerned about this legislation. As honourable members well know, where I have disagreed whh things I have not in the past been afraid to vote against the Government, and if I disagree with such things in the future, I will do it again. But in this case, using my judgment, I beUeve that the Government is doing the right thing. I am concerned about certain aspects of the BUI; but, on balance, I believe that, for the benefit of this State, members must be prepared to pass this legislation and support it to the hilt. We have to trust the Govemment and the Police Force to administer it well, use it for the benefit of Queenslanders and ensure that the Games work out as they should. Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (8.39 p.m.): The honourable member for Toowong spoke about the track record of the ALP relative to civil liberties. I remind him that the spineless vacillators whO' call themselves members of the Liberal Party have run away from every cause they have espoused either in the media or in public. When they enter this Parliament, Liberal members are always blown over; they cannot stand on their own feet. Years ago they supported the findings of the Law Reform Commission; but when it came to supporting any action in this Chamber they gave it no support at all. They supported civU liberties, the right to dissent and the right to demonstrate; but in this Chamber they have been weak-kneed, subservient and pathetically insipid. So much for the spineless, vacillating Liberal Party! The member for Toowong has the cheek to accuse the Labor Party of having a lousy track record on these issues. The Liberals will find out the truth when they are judged at the next election. It is an appalling backdown on their part for poUtical reasons. I am amazed that Liberal after Liberal can get up in this Chamber and talk about the reservations they have about this Bill that gives excessive and unwarranted powers to the police. It affects the right of every man and woman in this State to dissent, to be able to stand up in a free democracy and oppose Government policy. The Liberals are saying that the track record of the Labor Party is appalling. They will be judged for what they are. They will not stand up to the National Party. They represent nothing more than the Brisbane branch of the National Party. It is about time that they woke up to themselves. This legislation is totally unnecessary. As the honourable member for Wolston so ably put It, the Traffic Act, the Criminal Code and the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act are adequate to deal with any problems that might arise through people trying to disrupt the Games. The Government is using a sledge-hammer to kiU a fly, and it is doing so for political reasons. It is creating in our Police Force the political arm of the Bjelke-Petersen regime. The Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and i'olice, through this legislarion, is politicising our Police Force. He is using these unnecessary and extreme powers to srifle dissent. That is appalling. Let us look at some of the clauses in the Bill to see what is wrong with them. Clause 8 (3) states— An authorized person may use such force as is necessary to exercise or discharge any of the powers, functions or duties which may be performed by such a person pursuant to the provisions of this Act." int JH ^T •^'^°^ *® proposed amendments that the Minister has circulated that he objection f 'Tf'* }^^ ^°^^ "reasonably" before the word "necessary" There is stiU great rise or ri- i! "^^" ^" authorised person may use such force as is necessary for the exer- public °'^^^''^® °^ ^^^ power, but there is no objective standard from which he or the rircum^t ^^"^^ reasonableness of his actions. If a course can be construed in the of power "^^H ^^ J^^^^^^y' regardless of the consequences it would be a valid exercise under the BiU. Normally a person is required to exercise his powers reasonably 4498 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill in the light of all the circumstances of the case. However, this clause only allows an authorised person to make reference to the powers given under the BiU, not to the circumstances of the case or any concept of public welfare or reasonableness. On a strict interpretation of the clause, an authorised person would be permhted to drive a car at a speed through a crowded area without regard for the safety of the pubUc, if his presence at another place was necessary to exercise or discharge any of his powers under the Bill, regardless of how minor the necessity was. Clause 42 reads— "Liability at law shall not attach to the Crown, the Minister, an authorized person or any other person on account of anything done for the purposes of this Act or done in good faith and purporting to be done for the purposes of this Act." This is the most horrendous clause that has ever appeared in any legislation in this State or in any other State of the Commonwealth. CivU actions for negligence and other causes which do not require an intention to do the specific act complained of, for example, false imprisonment, assault, grievous bodily harm, trespass against chattels, etc., would be barred against any of the persons mentioned in the clause. Criminal liability is also clearly excluded under this clause. Specifically, this would place extreme hardship on any person who suffered any injury or damage as a result of the negUgence of a police officer. Because such people could be under extreme pressure, they could make honest mistakes and actions for compensation would not be available. That is appalling. Why shouldn't these people accept their responsibUities? Injuries could be caused to a person by the reckless driving of a police officer. A person who is so injured has no rights at all under the Bill. There are negligent police officers. In a recent case of negligent driving on Mt Coot-tha, a policeman killed a girl. Dr Lockwood: How do you know? Mr FOURAS: I believe he was driving the vehicle. Dr Lockwood: You cannot judge that. Mr FOURAS: The member for Toowoomba North can say that he believes that the police officer was not driving the car, but I believe that he was. In the event of somebody being injured by a policeman, wilfully or otherwise, the Government should accept responsibility. If a policeman severely injures a person through lack of judgment or for some other reason, it is horrendous. Mrs Nelson: You have passed over that. Mr FOURAS: I want it on record that I, as the representative of my electorate, have expressed my grave misgivings. Apparently the Liberals have bowed down to the Nationals. The Liberals are not game to take on the National Party. Government members speak of wanting the Games to go on uninterrupted. Every member of the Opposition wants the Games to proceed without disruption. However, we also want the people to have the right to go about their business without being treated as if they were in a police State. I wish to deal with some of the problems that I see arising under clause 16, which states— "Prohibited items in notified areas. (1) The Governor in CouncU may, by Order in Council, declare any thing specified in the Order, to be a prohibited thing in respect of any notified area. (2) A person shall not be, within a notified area, in possession of anything declared to be a prohibited thing in respect of that notified area. (3) Where a member of the Police Force finds any prohibited item in such circumstances that he suspects on reasonable grounds that the provisions of this section have been contravened, he may seize and take away or cause to be seized and taken away that prohibited item." The object of the legislation is to stop people carrying placards, distributing pamphlets, wearing a badge or showing any dissent at all. My major objection to this clause is that it does not provide for a necessary and direct link between the declared prohibiteo item and the likelihood of actual disruption to the Games. How can the Government CommonweaUh Games BUI 4 March 1982 4499 say that the handing out of a pamphlet would be a disruption of the Games? There is no direct link between what is prohibited and what a person can do. Objects may be prohibited in respect of any notified area on the grounds of mere undesirability rather than on the grounds of a likely interference with the due processes of the Games. I expect this sort of legislation from the National Party members because they believe in the concept of confrontation. They wish to divide the State because they believe that is the way to go about things. The Government tries to divide the people on civil liberties, class sizes and many other issues. I am amazed that the Liberals have ceased to display even a pretence of supporting their basic principles. That they continue to do so is apalling. Clause 28 provides— "Power to prevent entry. An authorized person may at any time— (a) refuse permission for any person, animal or vehicle to enter; or (b) prevent any person, animal or vehicle from entering, a notified area." That is an extremely wide power which is open to abuse by authorised people. In effect h means that an authorised person can prevent any law-abiding, ticket-holding member of the public from entering a Games site without reason or justification. If that power is needed in the first place, the guide-lines should be spelt out. The Bill is an unnecessary intmsion into the civil liberties of the people of the State. People's democratic rights cannot be limited without being lost. I am amazed at the members of the Liberal Party. That party cannot hold its head up; it has become nothing more than the Brisbane branch of the National Party. The Liberal Party cannot go on pretending that it wUl provide the State with reasonable Government or that it wUl be able to stop the excesses of the Minister for Police. The Liberal Party does not have the fortitude to stand up to the actions of this Minister. Qause 31 deals with the power of police with respect to a situation of emergency. That should be amended so that the Supreme Court of Queensland may revoke any certificate issued under the legislation on the ground of expediency without having to review the exercise of the original power through the prerogative writs which would, in the end, have Uttle chance of success. If the Liberals want to be judged as tolerant people, concerned about basic human rights in the society in which we live, they ought to cross the floor and throw out this shocking piece of propaganda. It is a catch-all piece of legislation. The use of the Traffic Act, for example, to move people on and to stop people from doing anything except what the Government wishes at any time is an intrusion that ought not to be accepted. Again, there is a danger of the continual poUticisation of the Police Force. It is time we did something about it. It is typical of the Queensland Government's overkill legislation. The justification advanced that this legislation will last for three weeks only is the weakest argument I have ever heard. Govemment members may say that the legislation is bad, unreasonable, excessive and unwarranted, but they jusrify it by adding that it will be of only short-term duration. It is not possible to limit the right of dissent for three weeks. I do not believe in people using violence in any way. I do not believe in people dismpting the Games or preventing them from going on, but surely they have the ri^t Mr McKechnie: You want to protect those causing violence, though, don't you? Mr FOURAS: If the Government was fair dinkum, it would say to those who want to hold a meeting or convene and address a political or religious meeting that they should give notice in advance. That could be done and policed. People who wanted to object or show dissent in any way could seek permission to hold a meeting. That could be done very easily, yet this Government Mr McKechnie: You would even oppose that if the Govemment proposed it. Mr FOURAS: That would be a much simpler way which I would support. Mr Davis: Ask him what the League of Rights policy is. Mr FOURAS: It is unfortunate that we are getting the League of Rights policy. 4500 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Because many other members wish to speak, I will conclude by saying that I abhor this piece of unnecessary, excessive and unwarranted legislation. It will stick in the throats of all fair-minded citizens. It will create the problems that the Government is trying to avoid. It vk'ill create confrontation. It will worsen things rather than make thera easier. The Government v.'ill then be justifying something that it has caused. The Liberals in the House ought to be very worried about what they are doing. They have sold out their principles. If they continue in this way, I feel sure that they will be annihilated at the next election. I hope that some of them will have the guts, like the member for Pine Rivers, to cross the floor to show where they stand on this legislation. It is about time that they became something more than the Brisbane branch of the National Party. It is about time that they espoused their own principles.

Mr MOORE (Windsor) (8.53 p.m.): I support this piece of legislation somewhat reluctantly because I feel that no legislation of this type is necessary. However, if we did not have it and something blew up, what would be the result? The world would say, "You were warned. You were threatened with blood-baths and blood in the streets. You were threatened by the Aboriginal community. You were threatened by Mr Perkins. You were given all the warning signs, but like an ostrich with its head in the sand you did nothing." In the light of that possibility, one has to ask, "What do we do about it?" We are providing some legislation, but I am not certain that it could not be better. It probably could be better, but what should we do? I really wonder whether the Games are worth holding in this day and age, when they become world political forums where demonstrators can act and become world news. In this age of violence when people are allowed to get away with crime, we do not have people who have done dastardly deeds standing in a queue waiting to be beheaded by the guillotine. We virtually give them a medal; we say, "The poor feUow is psychiatrically upset. He should be pitied, not blamed." We will do almost anything to justify the actions of a person who is not law-abiding. That is our big mistake. In days gone by justice was excessively harsh and cruel. People were hanged for very minor crimes. I do not suggest that that should happen. Mr Hooper: By the party you supported.

Mr MOORE: By aU parties. We must consider an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Mr Frawley: Would you flog them?

Mr MOORE: One thing that a person does not like is having his hide hit. If he is in gaol and he thinks he might be flogged, he will be more worried about that than about being hanged. Most bullies are cowards. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to take a flogging. Generally speaking, if the person who is dishing out the flogging is not depraved at the start, he will be at the finish. For various reasons, one cannot condone flogging. However, it is a very good deterrent. A bully will go home and take his wife to task and knock her down. However, when he arrives at work and finds someone much tougher there, he will receive a smack across the chops if he opens his mouth. If he answers back, the other person will knock him down. The bully at home is a meek and mild little fellow at work. I have seen that in many instances. If anybody has not seen that, he has not lived. That applies also to the demonstrators and protestors blowing off at the mouth, such as Aborigines claiming some extra rights. It is wrong for people with white ancestry to claim to be Aborigines. We should not class as Aborigines those people who would not be here except for their white grandfathers. The protesters are not providing their own funds. They are transported around Australia at the taxpayer's expense. I have been informed that they have received money from socialist countries that are interested in making disruptions, but I have no proof of that. The Government is extremely generous to the Aboriginal people. Because of world propaganda, the countries in Black Africa are boycotting the CommonweaUh Games. That illustrates the extent that they are listened to. The legislation will not be implemented unless there is a need to use it. Commonwealth Games Bill 4 March 1982 4501

Reference has been made to the so-called right to demonstrate. People have asked whv a oeaceful demonstration of Aborigines cannot be held at the Games. What appears The a oeaceful demonstration could commence at the Games and then suddenly, because omeone makes an inflammatory remark, it becomes a war. How do the authorities cope with that situation? The best thing to do is to prevent it in the first place; so no demonstration, peaceful or otherwise, should be allowed. People say, "It is our democratic right to demonstrate." I say they have no right to demonstrate. Democracy is not demonstrating; it is the election of Governments. Govemments carry out their policies for the three years that they are in office. If the people do not like a particular Government they put up whh it for three years and over that period do all the organising they can to bring about a change of Govemment. If they succeed, a new democratically elected Govemment implements its policies. If the majority of the people do not Uke those policies they bring about the demise of that Govemment. That is what democracy is aU about. It is not half a dozen, a dozen or a hundred people inflicting their wiU on the rest of the community, saying that h is their democratic right to hold the rest of the country to ransom. That is not democracy. There is somehmg wrong with a member of ParUament who says that protesting is democracy. There is nothing democratic about it. People ask why they should not be allowed to hold up placards. There may be nothing wrong with holding up placards. However, the placards are attached to a sizeable piece of 2 X 1. If a person carrying a placard wants to pole-axe somebody, all he does is tear the placard off and use the piece of timber as a bludgeon. So I say there should not be any signs or placards. This short-term legislation is necessary as a safeguard. If I had been introducing it, it would have been framed differently. Indeed I would not have had anything in writing; I would merely have declared a state of emergency. Mr SCASSOLA (Mt Gravatt) (9.3 p.m.): Opposition members would do well to listen to my speech, because it wiU refer to them. Opposition speakers have spoken about principles and have berated Government members, particularly those in my party, allegedly for not having principles. I have yet to see any member of the Opposition stand up for the principles that the Opposition claims to have. I have yet to see any member of the Opposition vote against the dictates of his executive or his party. Until I see that. I will regard any comments that come from the Opposition side about principles as being nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. Until Opposition members are ready to put up. they should shut up. I hope that that is not an unpariiamentary term. The Commonwealth Games wiU be a once-in-a-lifetime event for Brisbane and Queensland. Mr Davis: Will you be going? Mr SCASSOLA: I certainly wUl be. Most Queenslanders wiU look forward to the Games with expectarion. The Games have been referred to as the "happy" Games and the "friendly" Games. No member—certainly no member on the Government side—wants the Games to be other than friendly and happy. Every member of the Queensland public wants to welcome the people who come here to participate in the Games or in the activities and social events associated with the Games. We certainly want happy and successfuIGames. Opposition members have argued in favour of the unbridled right to protest. In effect. they have said, "Ignore everything that's happened or been said and the climate that has been '^^^h'^i A^.P®°P'^ making quite irresponsible statements and threats. We should have an unbridled right to do as we like." They are saying that every member of society should nave a hcence to do simply as he pleases. Th ^^^ 'confuse the meaning of the word "right" with the meaning of the word "Ucence." a '^1,* 1,"°* ^^"^ ^^^ capacity to differentiate between the two. I would have thought that a right brings with it a responsibUity, and that responsibiUty attaches to each and every the^^V"* 1! ^'^*^" ^^ ^ person wants to do anything, he should, as a citizen, have regard to e eiteot that act would have on other people. A right imposes a responsibiUty on a person to consider the effect of what he does on other people. But not Opposition members, ineir attitude is, "Do as you like and to hell with everybody else." As one of them said this evemng, they are really libertines. 14«lg_l48 4502 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

The honourable member for Lytton, if I heard him correctly, seemed to suggest that we should leave the doors open to visitors to protest. I wonder if visitors would want to protest. I think that people would come here to genuinely participate in the activities. If I went to another person's home, I would not take it upon myself to cast any reflections on that person's conduct. I have looked closely at the legislation. I do not embrace it passionately but certainly I do not intend to oppose it. As was said earlier tonight, credit should be given where credit is due. The Minister has kindly discussed the Bill and has agreed to amendments which will temper a number of its provisions. I still have reservations about a number of provisions. One cannot look at these things in a vacuum. The whole of the community must look at circumstances reaUsticaUy. We in this Parliament have to look at legislation in the light of the circumstances. What are the circumstances? A numiber of quite irresponsible comments have been made by various people. A Federal pubUc servant suggested that there is likely to be violence. Mr Lee: Was that Perkins?

Mr SCASSOLA: Yes. At one stage he suggested that people might meet their death at the Games. This morning we had some person in the Press caUing for a blood-bath during the Commonwealth Games. We have had other threats of violence. We have actuaUy had •violence at a sporting event in this country in recent times. If my memory serves me correctly, in an athletics event during the Alcoa Games in Melbourne two visiting American athletes sustained very severe injuries as a result of the conduct of irresponsible people. They are the circumstances which confront this ParUament, and we cannot look at things in a vacuum. Violence and threats of violence are totally unacceptable, and ought to be totally unacceptable in any civilised society. I certainly hope that we wUl not witness any violence during the course of the Commonwealth Games. This legislation contains provisions to which, in other circumstances, I would not agree. Mr Davis interjected.

Mr SCASSOLA: The honourable member for Brisbane Central can laugh, but I do not think he has ever seriously looked at a piece of legislation since he entered this ParUament. He has never made an individual judgment in his life, because people in his party have always made decisions for him. He is now incapable of making his own judgments. I think he has been to Stefan, and Stefan has done something for him. In making a judgment on this legislation one has to look at the circumstances. As I said, it contains provisions in respect of which I have reservations and to which in other circumstances I would not agree, but in the ultimate result one has to strike a balance between a number of competing interests in the circumstances in which one finds oneself. On the one hand one has a request for powers; on the other hand one has the obligation to protect the rights of the people of this city, and that is of very significant importance. One faces the problem of striking a balance, and the balance in the circumstances is in favour of the provisions of this BiU. I trust that the powers which are given to authorised persons and to the police in these circumstances wiU be exercised with considerable discretion, and that at aU times those people wUl bear in mind that we have many visitors here and that, after all, the purpose is to stage a very successful sporting event in the form of the Commonwealth Games. One also has to have regard to the fact that this piece of legislation is enacted for a very short period of three weeks and some days, and the CommonweaUh Games will encompass but 10 days or so of that period. I could take considerable time to go through the provisions of the Bill about which I have reservations, but I do not propose to do that. A number of amendments have been canvassed by honourable members. Those amendments are very timely, and they will certainly assist in making the legislation acceptable. CommonweaUh Games BiU 4 March 1982 4503

Mr UNDERWOOD: (Ipswich West) (9.15 p.m.): This totalitarian BiU, when it is con­ fronted by a fair dinkum attempt to breach security, wiU prove to be ineffective. It is being introduced by a ruthless and immoral Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MUler): Order! The word "immoral" is unpariiamentary, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr UNDERWOOD: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was unaware of that fact. I shaU withdraw U. This Government suffers from a seige mentaUty. I recaU the infamous remarks of the Premier when he wanted to ring the place with intercontinental missiles. We are faced with the same madness at the moment. The Government is afraid. It cannot stand any type of criticism, and it must cmsh those people who dare to speak out against it. I draw the attention of the House to the preparations that were made in Moscow for the Moscow Olympics by the Brezhnev/Kosygin Government. It cleared the streets to present a nice and shiny Moscow to the world through the media. That is exactly what this Bill is about. The Bjelke-Petersen/Edwards Government is clearing the streets in exactly the same way in order to present a nice and shiny image to the rest of the world, because it is afraid of what it has done. The Government is afraid of the disruption that it has caused over the years and of the results of the tactics that it has used to maintain its power in the State. It governs by crearing dismption and hate and by vilifying the people of Queensland. The Government is incapable of meeting the needs of aU the people of Queensland; so we are confronted by this BUI, which is a desperate attempt by the Government once again to keep control of aU the people of Queensland. The Government is influenced by the superstituUons and the ignorance of the 18th and 19th centuries. The principal group that have come to the fore in this debate are the black people of Queensland. Why is the Government so afraid of them? It is because the black people of Queensland, as a whole, are the have-nots of this State. They are not the only have-nots, but they are the ones at whom this legislation is directed. One only has to go to the reserves on which the majority of these people live to see exactly why they travel from those reserves to the cities. They come to the cities looking for better health, housing, diets and employment opportunities. A Government Member: And taxis. Mr UNDERWOOD: That is the sort of ignorant rationale that we hear from Government members. Any attempt by these Queenslanders, our fellow citizens, to build self-confidence and self-respect is crushed because this Government does not want to give any form of self-determination to them. A suppressor wiU use whatever means are avaUable to him but, as in other cases, this suppressor—the Govemment—^wiU fail because the movement is irresistible. In this case there is a movement towards justice for the black people of Queensland. The Government fails to recognise the problems facing the majority of black people m Queensland. It points to people Uke Charles Perkins and says, "There is your typical Aborigine and Islander." He is not typical; he is atypical. He does not have the full following of the black people of this State. That is the false image that the Government, with the assistance of the media combines in the State, is creating and it is causing further dissension among the black people of Queensland. The Government IS fast causing disruption, further discontent and further unhappiness for all people of the State, both black and white. Honourable gentlemen on the Govemment side drive around in their limousines, ive in their plush surroundings, enjoy their nice fat salaries and are totally isolated from the ordinary people of the State. They do not drink in the pubs; they do not work shoulder to shoulder whh average working men; they do not live next door to the results of the conflict that IS created in the State; they do not see the disharmony caused in families; they do not see the destruction of young lives caused by the blind hatred that results from the ^overnnient's 18th and 19th century ignorance and attitudes towards the problems controntmg the black people. That is to the shame of the State and the Queensland ijovemment is the disgrace of the nation. 4504 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

The Govemment wishes to sweep the streets clean of any dissension by Aborigines. That is the reason why it misrepresents statements made by people such as Charles Perkins. It tries to create disharmony and to fool the people of Queensland. It is utter hypocrisy for the Press of Queensland to castigate the mUitant Aboriginal leaders for their statements. It is the Press barons of the State who use those statements to sell their products. If the Press barons ignored demonstrations, whether they be by black people or any other disadvantaged group, then because the protests would be of no or very little use they would cease. The protest movement has come about with the growth of the media and its desire to report conflict in an effort to seU its products. So it is in the hands of the media and the Government to do away with conflict. Mr McKechnie: Have you ever taken them into your home? Mr UNDERWOOD: Yes, I have. Mr McKechnie: Have they lived with you for a long time? Mr UNDERWOOD: That is right. Mr McKechnie: For how many years? Mr UNDERWOOD: I know more about the problems faced by Aborigines and the problems created by the Government than the honourable for Camarvon will ever know. People such as him and his leader pay them a pittance. They will not even pay Aborigines award wages. Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member said that I pay Aborigines a pittance. I find that offensive. I have employed Aborigines and I have had them live in my home. They are friends of mine. Never would I pay them a pittance instead of award rates. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark and to apologise. Mr UNDERWOOD: I withdraw the remark. I have never seen the honourable member's home, so I cannot comment on it. Aborigines are not the only people to be abused by the Govemment. The Government has taken Aboriginal leaders, built them up and then discarded them Uke dirty rags when it has no further use for them. The matter of land rights has been raised and I do not wish to cover it again. Patrick Field was built up by this Government and then discarded like a dirty rag when he was of no further use. The trouble the Police Force is now in is a direct result of the actions and non-actions of the Govemment. I recall that during a peaceful march by university students from St Lucia to the city a police officer waddied a young girl over the head. The then Police Commissioner ordered an inquiry, but the Govemment stepped in and stopped it. I remind honourable members of the Cedar Bay incident. The Police Commissioner moved to have the business straightened out through an inquiry. However, the Government stepped in and finaUy sacked the Police Commissioner as well as some of its own Ministers. No wonder the PoUce Force is having problems at the moment. The police have to deal with both the bad and the unruly elements among themselves^—two distinctly different groups. The majority of policemen do a good job and are good, decent people; but they have problems with these unruly and bad elements that have brought the Police Force into disrepute. That situation has been brought about by the actions and self-interest of the Government. Mr Prest: What has happened is that they have a dossier on the Minister and he cannot control them. Mr Hooper: It is a Special Branch dossier. Mr UNDERWOOD: That is right. As I said earlier, the Government has introduced this as an image-protecting Bill. If it was interested in the State's image in the eyes of the world, why did the Premier not take the golden opportunhy offered to him on a platter when the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugabe, visited this State? Why did he not invhe such an influential black leader on the world scene, and particularly on the African scene, to Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4505

discuss the Commonwealth Games and the problems being faced at that time by a Kenyan athlete? Instead, what did we see? An absolute and total rejection of him. In fact, insults were thrown at that influential African leader. If there are problems with the Games and vrith the African nations—allegations of race being mixed with sport—the blame may be laid directly at the feet of this Government under the leadership of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. He passed up a golden opportunity for discussion. Instead, he introduced conflict when he could have told that influential African leader his point of view about black Queenslanders and how wonderfully his Government was supposedly treating them. As I mentioned when I began my speech, I wish to speak about security and how the Bill wUl prove totaUy ineffective in the face of a fair-dinkum attempt to breach security. As some honourable members will recall, I was at CHOGM for which there was a multi-million dollar security exercise the like of which Australia had never seen before and may never see again. The streets of Melbourne were empty. There was drama supreme. Every parking meter and every street sign was hooded. "No Standing" signs and "No Parking" signs were propped up aU over the place. Every 20 or 30 metres there was a group of policemen with walkie-talkies. Overhead circled Air Force helicopters. The city of Melboume reverberated with the sound of those big military machines. There were no cars and virtually no people on the street. Security networks were everywhere. A cordon of police surrounded not only the national leaders and their delegations but also the Press corps. One needed to pass the security network to speak to the members of the Press not only in the convention centre but also at their hotel accommodation. For all the mUUons of doUars spent, for all the publicity, for all the scare tactics^ it was possible to get within 20m of all of those leaders without any real security check. I base that on personal discussions with the security people right in the heart of the CHOGM centre. I was waiting for a clearance from the main counter to get a visitor's pass, which I received twice that day. While waiting for a joumalist to come and sign me in, I spoke to a man who was checking people's photographic passes similar to the ones used here and in other Government buUdings. I had a reasonable discussion with him and asked why he was not checking their passes. He said, "We don't worry about that. As long as they have one on their lapel or coat, they are right." The only other check was when they had to walk through a metal detector similar to those at airports. That was 20 or 30 metres away from the convention centre. That is how easy it was to breach the muUi-million doUar security for CHOGM. It wiU be even easier to breach security here. Despite the arguments from the members of the Liberal Party, despite their stance and their protestations that they are going to do this and that, when it comes to the cninch they he down like dirty Uttle grey doormats to be walked over and trodden on by the National Party. This legislation, which is supposed to stop terrorism and violence in the streets, will prove to be totally ineffective. We already have sufficient laws and sufficient Special Branch and security intelligence personnel to counter such problems to the best of any Government's ability without the need for this legislation. This legislation means that justice is suppressed to the ordinary people who have a right to go out in the street and hold up placards. A Government Member: What were you in Melbourne for?

Mr UNDERWOOD: I went to Melbourne to highlight the problems of the black citizens of Queensland. It was a very successful exercise. I referred to the very tragic health situation that exists. Th rf*^ attitude we expect from the National-Liberal Government is one of total ignorance. Ihe Government adopts the 19th century attitude of the squatocracy when the Aborigines were thrown a bit of tobacco, a bit of sugar, a bit of flour, and then allowed to squirm in the gully. I IS no wonder they are upset with the Government. Tt is no wonder that some of the young people are coming to the dries and going to such lengths. desex\h^^"^ii^^""'^''' ^^^ '^^^^^ adviser to the Premier, made the infamous statement, "Let's like r M ^^^ **^*™ ^^^ P"^ ^ poisonous substance in the water and leave them there advisers T?"^"""!!^ a poisoned waterhole." That is the attitude of the Government and its and vi!it i u ** ^'"^ ^^^^ *°'"® Government members left their cosy offices and cars visited the areas concerned. Instead of spending only 10 minutes at some of the 4506 4 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

settlements. Government members should spend more time there to talk to the people involved, instead of just the managers. Instead of looking at Mr Killoran's memos, they should see for themselves how the people live so that they can understand their problems. Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (9.32 p.m.): When this legislation was first proposed last year, Uke many other citizens, I had significant reservations about extending police powers. At that time I believed that the police had adequate powers to organise the securUy of the Commonwealth Games and the security of citizens visiting the city and the security of citizens Uving in the city. However, having done some research and study on the matter after the incident that occurred in Melbourne when sprinters were injured when protestors invaded the track, I believe that those people committed that act involuntarily. I do not believe that it was planned. They may have been under the influence of alcohol. However, people were injured. Athletes travel at high speed and they may have been fcUled. It was extremely fortunate that they were not. The persons participating in that event were very charitable in their comments and those responsible for the incident were very remorseful in the statements they made afterwards. However, it brought to light the trend in sporting events throughout the world. In 1972 during the Munich Olympics 11 people were killed as a result of a dreadful attack on the Israeli team. The West German Government did not give its poUce officers sufficient authority to act in a manner in that situation which may have resulted in saving at least nine lives. Reports published since that time have indicated that the poUce clearly did not have adequate powers to co-ordinate what was happening after the event to prevent the loss of further life. Because there were no clear-cut guide-lines or specific legislative statements about the powers of certain individuals, nobody knew who was in control. As a result, lives were lost. The next Olympics were an example of security gone mad, which spoilt the Games. Incidents have occurred at the cycle track at Hawthorne. Bottles were thrown onto the track by louts. Opposirion members are obsessed with racist overtones. They should remember that in our urban society many white hooligans would do that sort of thing for fun. They think it is amusing to make hoax bomb telephone caUs that terrorise entire shopping centres. Recently someone was given a lengthy prison term for having planted bombs in retail centres. In introducing this legislation the Government has done the right thing. AU night, Opposition members have been clutching at straws because they know that the Liberal members have seen the Minister and have had included in the legislation amendments which allay the fears held by members of the legal profession and civil liberty groups. The appropriate amendments wUl be made at the Committee stage. If instead of the Commonwealth Games, a birthday party or a Sunday school picnic was to be held, this legislation would not be needed. However, the Commonwealth Games are as significant as CHOGM. It is vital that anyone who comes to Brisbane to participate in or to observe the Games must expect to survive and enjoy them. I remind honourable members of a couple of events that occurred in Australia in the last few years. In 1978 the Hilton bombing occurred. In September 1977, the military attache at the Indian Embassy was abducted. More recently consular and diplomatic personnel have been murdered in cold blood. In the past four years, such crimes have been perpetrated in this country. During the Commonwealth Games most members of the royal family will be in Brisbane, as will heads of Commonwealth Governments, politicians from various political parties in each of the States and other important guests. The Games will afford an opportunity to someone who wants to be clever or ruthless to kill someone. Mr Scott: Do you mean to say that at the present time we are not protected by the law? Mrs NELSON: We are not adequately protected by the law. For example, what powers do the police presently have to evacuate a building? How can they legally evacuate a buUding? The Commonwealth Games are a special event. I cannot understand why the member for Cook opposes this legislation. He gives the impression that it wiU last to the year 2000, but it will not. It will last only for the duration of the Games. Mr Wright: Where does it say that? commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4507

Mrs NELSON: The BUI contains a sunset clause. Mr Wright: Which clause is it? Mrs NELSON: I forget which one it is. As I have other comments to make, I suggest that the honourable member look for it. I want to mention two other factors that made me reconsider my view on whether this legislation is needed. I refer not to Mr Perkins, who is as racist as some people on the other side of the picture, because his views on the Vietnamese are just as extreme as those held by some people about the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, but to two Maori women who, on a "Today Tonight" program, said that they were prepared to come to Brisbane to show Aborigines how to crush glass and throw it onto the athletics track. They are also prepared to show Aborigines how to put on helmets and barge through the police and engage in violence. I do not beUeve that our Aborigines want that. The chairman of the Aboriginal Land CouncU said that he did not want the Maori activists to come here. He wants the Games to be happy and successful, not violent. Another Maori, Mr Renata, has established himself in North Queensland. He has a lengthy criminal record and a long association with drug-trafficking. Mr Scott: Who told you that? "Sunday Sun"? Mrs NELSON: No. The article in that newspaper may have been slightly exaggerated, but he has a lengthy criminal record and an association with drug-trafficking, as does his female companion. Mr Renata said that if men are sent to North Queensland to the area in which he is training a secret army to come to Brisbane to destroy the Games they had better not be married men, because they will not come back and their wives wiU become widows. The people of Queensland, whether they are Labor, Liberal or National Party supporters, or whether they do not even like poUtics, want the Games to be an event that makes this city a place to which people wiU be proud to come, where they will have a holiday, where they can enjoy the Games and, most importantly, where they can stay alive. Mr Wright: Have you stiU got your little book on all your colleagues? Mrs NELSON: The honourable member for Rockhampton is so pathetic he is not even funny. At one time I thought he had leadership potential. Mr Wright: Deny that you were doing it. Mrs NELSON: What mbbish! I deny it emphatically. The honourable member could not lead homing pigeons. I have been assured of the temporary nature of the legislation and I should like the Minister to make that clear. The members of my party would not wish the legislation to be other than temporary, and we have been assured that its period of operation is set out in the legislation. We have a responsibility to allow the Police Forces at both the Federal and State levels, the security officers who wUl be involved, and the people who live in this city and will visit here, to make the Games a success. We do not want a repetition of what happened at Munich and other places. Things that happened at CHOGM have not been revealed. That mdicates a very real need for scrutiny. I support the legislation provided the amendments suggested by the Liberal Party are adopted.

Mr HARTWIG (Callide) (9.42 p.m.): I suppose that 1982 could be well and truly h hl^^ ^he year of the century for Queenslanders inasmuch as the chy of Brisbane has been awarded the Commonwealth Games. It is something that I did not think would happen in my lifetime, and I am sure that many other people shared my view. I give full cre^t to the people responsible for bringing the Games here as well as to the Federal and ' . /^o^^rnments, the Brisbane City Council and the public who have so generously provided funds to ensure that the Games wiU be an outstanding success. 4508 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

I have listened to the debate on an independent basis. It is a great shame and one of the tragedies of this nation and of the world that politics has invaded the sporting arena. A full-blood Aborigine named Harry WiUiams lived on our property for over 40 years. He worked for my father, and he was a faithful servant. He died 23 years ago. He was educated. Many people think that my handwriting is good; Harry WiUiams had the best handwriting I have seen. He occasionally went on walkabout. I gained a lot of my bush knowledge from that man. Mr Davis: I'll bet you wish you had paid him more.

Mr HARTWIG: That would be the understatement of the year. When Aborigines were working on the stations, they were being paid. They are now sitting round in the parks and not doing anything. It seems that the introduction of this legislation is mixed up with Aborigines. I cannot make head or tail of it. Some Aborigines have clearly indicated that they wiU protest over land rights. When I was about 21 years of age I applied for a grazing homestead lease block and the late Tom Foley gave me a 14-year extension on a 10000 acre property. That was the going rate in those days, and one was lucky to get an extension of 14 years on a new lease. On ABC radio the other morning I heard a lady asking an Aboriginal woman would she be asking some Maoris to come here to teach the Aborigines how to demonstrate. If that was not a provocative question, I do not know what is. Should that lady not have been proud that the Games are to be held in Queensland and anxious to make them a success instead of inciting Aborigines to bring Maoris to Queensland? The ordinary Maori is a fairly intelligent person. In the early days, New Zealand was part of New South Wales; but in about 1860, when New Zealand became a nation in its own right, the Govemment passed legislation giving the Maoris land rights. Do members know what happened? The man who owned the area of land on which the city of Auckland now stands sold that land for £45. Do we want our Aborigines to do that? So much for land rights for the Maoris! I do not think our Aborigines have much to learn from them. I believe that I am one of the few Australian politicians to have visited Africa recently. I was there a little over 12 months ago for a Commonwealth conference, as a guest of the Zambian Government. Delegates also visited Zimbabwe, Uganda and Kenya. I spoke to Mr Nabalyoto, the Speaker of the Zambian Parliament, and two Zambian Ministers. They said that Mr Fraser was a great statesman who came to Africa and helped them get rid of colonialism and establish black mle. It should also be remembered that the unemployment rate in that part of the world is 85 per cent. I asked these black Africans what land rights they had given their people under black rule. The answer was that the people had no land rights. We hear the Aborigines talking about soliciring the support of African nations in their fight for land rights, yet the Africans themselves have no land rights. I have been trying to get that story across for many months since I returned from Africa. A previous speaker referred to Mr Mugabe. Let me tell members about Mugabe, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. One of his Cabinet Ministers shot a white man and was acquitted. It was very interesting to hear Mr Fraser talking about what he could do for the black people of Africa, but I happened to see the plight of the white people. I have never seen such frustrated people. They knew they were doomed. Everywhere I went white people asked me how they could get out of Africa. That attitude was emphasised on the flight from Johannesburg to Perth, which was fuU of white Africans getting out of Africa. I do not think that the Aborigines will get the support that they expect from the African nations. I will wager London to a brick that all the African nations wUl attend the Games because it will give them the opportunity to visit a country that they would not otherwise have the opportunity of visiting. They wUl welcome the opportunity to come to Australia. I have no doubt that every black nation that has been invited will send its representatives to Brisbane for the Commonwealth Games. A peasant in Zambia can have up to an acre of land to cultivate. That shows the type of land rights that are given under black rule in Africa. Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4509

Delegates were told not to walk the streets of Zambia alone, even in daytime. Mr Lee: When was that? Mr HARTWIG: That was 12 months ago. While we were in Africa, we had to have police guards. One lady who walked along the street with diamond rings on her hand had her hand cut off so that her diamond rings could be removed. Tonight we are discussing racial problems, not what we should be doing for these people. It behoves aU of us to do everything in our power to bring some harmony back into this situation. Let us get the Commonwealth Games over and impress our overseas visitors. If the Aborigines disrupt the Games, I do not think that their cause will be helped. Mr Frawley: Do you support this Bill? Mr HARTWIG: Yes, I am supporring it. I am sure that we will have an uninterrupted Games. The powers provided in this legislation wiU be necessary, and once the Games are over they wiU be repealed within a matter of days. Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (9.52 p.m.): It has been an interesting debate. Not only have some very interesring criticisms been made by Opposition speakers, particularly by the member for Wolston who led the debate for the Opposition, but speaker after speaker on the Govemment side has voiced his reservations and concern about the Bill. But it would seem that Govemment members will fall into line. They all concluded their speeches by saying that now, for some magic reason, they are prepared to accept the legislation. It seems that they are easily satisfied. They ought not to be so easily satisfied if they looked carefully and objectively at the BiU. AU members ought to ask themselves what it entails and what legal changes are embodied in it. Those changes can be summed up in a simple way by saying that there is an extension of existing police powers in Queensland and extension of powers to those people who wiU be associated with the Commonwealth Games, the authorised persons. There will also be some new offences. That is to be expected when one considers the problems that have occurred in other places when politics have been mixed with sport. But there has to be an obligation on the Minister for Police specifically, and on the Government generally, to prove that the extension of police powers, the extension of jHJwers to authorised persons, and the new offences that are set out in the BiU, are warranted and necessary to deal with situations that might or might not arise during the Commonwealth Games, and which, to use the Minister's words, unduly or unjustly interfere with "the overall safety of persons attending the Games, athletes and spectators alike, and property associated therewith" There should also be an obUgation on the Minister and the Govemment to demonstrate that the new provisions wiU not, again using the Minister's words, "unduly or unjustly interfere whh persons not having any contact with the Games, nor with persons peacefuUy attending the Games" The criticism that has been levelled at the Government is that in framing the Bill the Minister has deliberately set out to confuse and jumble together three quite separate aspects of poUtical life. For those listening, I cite them. The first is peaceful political dissent; the second, deliberate dismption; the third, terrorist-related activities. I make no bones about and have no argument with endeavours or efforts to overcome, eradicate or prevent the last two, that is, deUberate disruption and terrorist-related activities. However, in a democracy there has to be some basic right of dissent, a basic right of an individual to participate in non-violent, non-disruptive political activity and protests. Admittedly these- activities have to be subject to reasonable regulation, and all members wiU know that today there exists in this State regulation over protests. To my mmd, We aheady have unreasonable regulation. . ^° ^^. ™"st ask what is the reason for the need to extend the powers. Nobody in the Opposition and no thinking Queenslander wants to see deliberate disruption of the ^ommonwealth Games. No-one would condone terrorist activity. I personally intpr .• f"°°* °^ ^^^ '**'"* ™ England who chopped up a cricket pitch before an miernational match. We do not want that sort of thing; we must try to deter it. The thnrr " •*" ^ ^^^^ ^"'^ ^^°^® "^^^ ^^"* to ^"en** ought to have the right to see inose uames m safety-safety to themselves and their property. But if peaceful protest and 4510 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill non-disruptive opposition is not aUowed, the situation could then tum into one of violence. I suggest that, rather than deter and prevent such activities, the legislation wiU in fact encourage them. Obviously the Government has had second thoughts about what h has been doing. I recaU the Mmister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police rising in this Chamber and virtually presenting a fah accompli as a panacea for aU the sorts of problems that could arise. The Minister presented a BiU that was supposed to be the answer to expected problems. He was castigated by critics. He was attacked by people whhin the Queensland Law Society, by those withm the civil liberties movement and by members of the Opposition, but he was adament that he had the answer. However, tonight 14 amendments are being circulated, 14 amendments to a BiU that was supposed to be the resuU of a study that began in 1978 in Edmonton when a police officer attended the Edmonton CommonweaUh Games and brought back ideas. It was then that the studies began and drafting of a Bill commenced. Mr Prentice: You should not condemn the Government for being prepared to take advice.

Mr WRIGHT: That is not the argument. If it was, I would accept the honourable member's point. At that point the Minister was adament that the answers were in the BiU he presented to us. The Opposition said that there were some problems, but the Minister rejected that. The Minister said that the BUI had been drafted over four years. If honourable members go back to the Minister's second-reading speech, they wiU see that it records the Minister's actions. He said the Bill would solve all the problems. If it is reasonable to accept that the Minister was wrong last year when he introduced the BUI, isn't it reasonable to suggest that he could still be wrong? Just as there is a need now to bring forward 14 amendments, could there not stUl be some flaws—flaws which centre on the unnecessary extension of police powers, flaws which, if they become law, will unnecessarily lessen the rights of individuals? Based on what the Minister said, one begins to wonder what one can even beUeve about the various provisions in the Bill. Very often, to ascertain what legislation entails, what it does and how it wiU be interpreted, members of ParUament have to depend on what a Minister says on behalf of the Government. I know that legally a court cannot be found to read a Minister's speech to interpret what was intended; the court must give its interpretation on the actual legislation. But let me return to what the Minister said in his second-reading speech. I have picked out a couple of examples. In reference to declaring an emergency the Minister said— "As an example, a commissioned officer of police wiU be empowered to declare a situation of emergency in a notified area if he reasonably suspects the presence of an explosive, incendiary or other similar device which could cause extreme loss of life, injury or damage to property. In a situation of emergency poUce will be empowered to evacuate a specific area, commence an immediate search and render harmless any potentially dangerous situation."

He went on— "It is envisaged that the declaration of a situation of emergency wiU be used only in the most extreme circumstances." That is reasonable. Every member would have said, "Yes. such situations of emergency could arise and. if they are going to involve explosives and incendiary devices or if there is loss of life or some type of injury or damage to property that is major or extreme, there have to be powers and provisions to cover such acts." That provision would be accepted if that were so. However, we find that that is not so. Although the Minister made much of explosives, "extreme loss of Ufe, injury or damage", and although as a Minister of the Crown he has told that to the people of Queensland, that is not what the Bill says. There is no mention of explosives; there is no mention of incendiary devices; there is no mention of "extreme loss of Ufe, injury or damage" Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4511

To find what it does say we must turn to clauses 30 and 31. The definition of "Situation of emergency" is that it "means the occurrence of an incident or the existence of a state of affairs that creates or is likely to create a danger of death or injury to any person." It is open to discretion; it is open to interpretation. There is no mention of "extreme loss of life" It simply says "likely to create a danger of death"—and we certainly would not want that—or the danger of injury. If someone kicks his toe, will we have a "situation of emergency" under the Minister's interpretation or the way in which the Bill is framed? The Bill goes on— "A situation of emergency declared to exist for the purposes of this Part shall be taken to continue until the certificate issued pursuant to subsection (2) is revoked in writing by— (a) the Officer of Police who issued that certificate; or (b) the Commissioner." I heard the member for Aspley say that the Bill contains a sunset clause. Clause 2 in Part I says— "(3) The provisions of this Act contained in Parts II, III, IV, V and VI shall— (a) commence on the day on which the Games period commences; and (b) cease to operate upon the expiration of the day on which the Games period terminates. (4) For the purposes of this Act, the Games period shall be from the 17th September 1982 to and including the 10th October 1982." We accept that—but that is not what the Bill says in clause 31. It says that an area could be declared as a situation of emergency and shall prevail and shall not be revoked until the commissioner or officer who declared it does so in writing. What are we to believe? Do we believe clause 2? Do we believe that it will cease to operate as stated in clause 2 (4)? Or do we accept the other position, which seems to me to be binding in law, that when a person has made a declaration within the terms of clause 30 of a situation of emergency, that shall be declared to exist and shall "continue until the certificate pursuant to subsection (2) is revoked in writing" by that police officer or the commissioner? So there is an uncertainty and one wonders whether it could in fact continue for some length of time. I pass to another point made by the Minister. He spoke about authorised persons. In his speech—and, after all, he is an honourable man—he said that the authorised persons, not members of the Police Force, would be "fully trained officers from reputable private security firms." He said, "Private security officers wUl be employed primarily to ease the work-load on police officers assigned to the Games." I continue with that part of his speech— "It is understood that private security officers will—for want of a better term— undertake secondary duties such as the manning of entry and accreditation points and also the patroUing of Games venues after dark." But that is not what the Bill says. In fact, clauses 7 to 10 in Part II of the Bill have this to say about "authorised persons"— "7. (1) The Commissioner may appoint any person to be an authorised person for the purposes of this Act." It certainly does not Umit them to patrolling the areas where someone might have a residence or might live. It does not limit them to that. When one studies the BiU, one finds that the authorised person has amazing powers—^power of arrest, power of direction, power to refuse entry, power to do all types of things—— Mr Scassola: Power of arrest in very limited circumstances. Mr WRIGHT: It is still there. Mr Innes: Mr Wright . "^ ^^IGHT: I am not prepared to take the member's interjection at the moment. I promised the Minister that I would keep it short and I want to get on with my points. 4512 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

The amendments, strangely enough, are in Une with suggestions by the Queensland CouncU of CivU Liberties. When the Bill was first drafted, great personal discretionary powers were given to these authorised persons. Mr Innes: You dare not to take the interjection. Mr WRIGHT: All right, come on. Say what you want to. Mr Innes: In what part is clause 31 referring to revocation of the emergency? Mr WRIGHT: Part V, clause 31 (3). The member for Sherwood is going to say that Part V will be removed at the end of the Games period. However, it states that the situation of emergency shaU exist until revoked. If I am incorrect in what I am saying, the Minister can correct me. He can clarify the matter. When the Minister introduced the legislation, he outlined provisions that gave all types of discretionary power. An authorised person is given the power to do such things that he may consider reasonably necessary. It was changed. Why was it changed? It was changed because it was proved to be an error. That has happened in many other instances. A person was required not only to supply his name and address but also to prove his identity. That was criticised. It has been removed. That is further proof that the original Bill was in error and that there is every reason to believe that it could stiU be in error in many other parts. I have referred to a lack of certainty in the BUI. That is certainly an accurate comment when it comes to the definition of a notified area. Who has the right to determine what is a notified area? Certainly not this Parliament. Clause 43 states that the Govemor in CouncU will determine what is a notified area. Is it to be an airport? WUl it be a railway station? WiU it be a bus depot? WUl it be anywhere in Queensland that could come under the definition of an entry point? I suggest that the BiU contains no real safeguards against the abuse of power. All power is being put into the hands of Cabinet, and the provision of notified areas is a typical example. The BiU provides that the Traffic Act wiU apply to the notified areas, which are open to declaration and definition at the whim of Cabinet. It could simply be a case of, "Move on, or else." That could apply to a demonstrator, a spectator, a person connected with the media, or to anyone. If that person does not do as he is told, he wUl face the penalty of not obeying a lawful direction, as provided in the BiU. Mr Moore: It applies now in Queen Street for loitering. Mr WRIGHT: Yes. It has been speciflcaUy included in the BiU. In the past, the Traffic Act has been used for a number of reasons. It has obviously been included not merely to stop terrorist activity and deliberate dismption but also to ensure that there will be no such thing as peaceful, non-violent political dissent at that time. An authorised person may be appointed not only by a private security firm; he may be appointed by the Commissioner of Police. Provision is made for him to be issued with an identity card. Nowhere is there a requirement that that identity card must be shown to anyone. There is nothing in the BiU that says that if an "authorised person" says, "Move on.", that he has to prove that he is an authorised person. If he does anything outside his jwwers. provision is made for action to be taken against him. No obUgation is placed on an authorised person to prove his authority. I cannot say, "Prove who you are." There is no provision for that in the Bill. Some protection must be provided. Anyone could be an authorised person under the Act. He may not be a security officer who wears the uniform or badge of his firm; he could be anyone who puts his identity card in his back pocket and leaves it there and then pushes people around. The Traffic Act says, "You wiU obey that direction, or else." Wide powers are given to authorised persons, including the power of arrest, power to use force to prevent entry, power to give directions and power to refuse entry. That is not good enough; nor is clause 29 (3), which relates to accreditation. Clause 22 states— "System of accreditation. (1) The Commonwealth Games Foundation shall issue in respect of the Games period notification in writing of a scheme for accrediting perisons with a view to regulating access to any notified area and forward a copy thereof to the Commissioner." CommonweaUh Games BiU 4 March 1982 4513

I have endeavoured to find out what was meant by the accreditation system. My inter­ pretation may be incorrect, and I would ask for clarification. I believe that it refers to any type of accreditation by way of ticket. It is the job of the Commonwealth Games Foundation to issue some type of ticket—I wUl term it that for the sake of simplicity— and it wiU be passed on to the commissioner. There wUl be only the one type of ticket, and that is what wiU get spectators into the Games. I accept that. A person who is paying his way must have some type of accreditation. However, the BUI does not stop there. Clause 29, which is headed "Fraud and unlawful possession of accreditation, etc.", provides that a person shaU not by a false statement or misrepresentation obtain or attempt to obtain any accreditation. I accept that. However, subclause (3) provides that a person shaU not— "(a) use any accreditation unless it is an accreditation duly issued to him; (b) lend an accreditation duly issued to him to another person for use by that other person; or (c) permit or suffer to be used by another person an accreditation duly issued to him." I realise that tens of thousands of people will go to the Games. If travel and tourism are any indication of what can happen prior to any type of event, it is clear that some people who have bought tickets wUl get sick, others will change their mind and others will not be able to get away from work. Under the Bill they will not be allowed to let someone else use their ticket. In other words, they will be breaking the law if they let their sister, their daughter, their uncle, their aunt or a close friend go to the Games on their ticket. Surely that is unreasonable. The BUI says virtually that the accreditation is non-transferable and non-resaleable. It cannot even be passed on to another famUy member. Mr Moore: Boloney!

Mr WRIGHT: That is what the BUI says. Mr Moore: It does not.

Mr WRIGHT: The honourable member should get up and tell us all about it. In the time at my disposal I have levelled certain criticisms. It is no wonder that some people stiU hold grave doubts about the legislation and others have criticised it and opposed it openly. In this House the Minister has said one thing, whereas the Bill provides for another. The BUI is aUeged to be perfect legislation, drafted after almost four years of careful deliberation; yet tonight 14 significant amendments have been circulated. Many of the provisions are unclear and are not stated precisely. No specific reasons have ever been given for the increase in powers or for the extension of powers not only of police but also of authorised persons. Like so many other people, I question the motives. I question them because of the performance of the Government during the Springbok tour many years ago and during the street marches. I question them because of the Government's removal of the right of church groups, trade unionists and other persons to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful protest. I ask: What is the motive behind this legislation? What is the mentality behind It? Perhaps, to provide the answer, I should remind the House of a comment made by the honourable member for Caboolture. I should imagine that aU Government members respect him. Do any Government members not respect him? There is not a word from the Government side of the Chamber. So I take it that aU Government members concur with his attitude and that he voices their opinions and attitudes to many issues.

1?'^ ^siy night, the member for Caboolture, when talking about Maoris—not the troublesome ones or the ones who dissent, but all Maoris—said that Maoris should be taken to Moreton Island and placed in a penal colony. If that is the mentality of the tiovernment and if that is its attitude, it is no wonder that members of the Opposition tear the mtroduction of this legislation. 4514 4 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

Mr FRAWLEY (Caboolture) (10.14 p.m.): It is obvious that members of the Opposition would like to see the Commonwealth Games become a failure. They want to see them dismpted. They have supported every activist and every disrupter around the place. I give the Govemment my whole-hearted support on this legislation. If the Government did not introduce it and some trouble occurred at the Commonwealth Games, the Opposition would be the first to criticise the Government. The Commonwealth Games are one of the greatest shows on earth. Certainly they wiU be the most important sporting function held in Brisbane during our lifetime. Sydney was the venue for the 1938 Commonwealth Games. Melbourne for the 1956 Olympic Games and Perth for the 1962 Commonwealth Games. Incidentally, at the 1962 Commonwealth Games I was a member of the Australian team as one of the athletic coaches. I deplore the introduction of politics into sport. In fact, it should be the reverse; more sport should be introduced into politics. Brisbane is poised to conduct the fourth-biggest sporting event ever held in Australia. The Games are being threatened by a minority of black activists. AU this talk by Mr Charles Perkins of having 5 000 Aboriginal supporters and 10 000 white supporters is nothing more than a lot of hot air. Mr Hewitt: If Coe, Ovett and Frawley were to clash over 1 500 metres, who would win? Mr FRAWLEY: I would have to use my javelin to stop the other two. Charles Perkins was the deputy secretary of the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs on a salary of $37,000. He is now chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission on a salary of $45,000. He is one black man who has done pretty weU at the hands of the white man. I wonder how much of his wealth he has shared with his black brothers? Like NeviUe Bonner, nothing! Charles Perkins said that if the Queensland Government does not give land rights to Aborigines, there wiU be no Games. There was no doubt that he was sincere in what he said. He really meant that. He might be sitting back now and withdrawing things at the behest of Malcolm Fraser, but behind the scenes he is still urging confrontation at the Games. He said that there were three ways of doing it. The first is peaceful demonstration. He said he could muster 5 000 Aborigines and 10 000 supporters. I do not beUeve that there would be 5 000 Aborigines in AustraUa who want to upset the Commonwealth Games. I know plenty of Aborigines in sport. On numerous occasions I have competed against many black people. Even now. Aboriginal people are competing in athletics in Queensland. None of them cause any trouble and they do not want to dismpt the Commonwealth Games. Mr Innes: They have provided most of the boxers in Australia for years. Mr FRAWLEY: They certainly have. In the 1962 Games team, most of the boxers were Aborigines. They were fine sportsmen and damned good people. I have nothing against them at all. Charlie Perkins said that the Brisbane Games could go down in history as another Eureka Stockade. He is trying to have the Games disrupted. Violence is a real possibility at the Games. In January, in Melbourne, a group of black activists raced onto the track at the Alcoa Games and knocked down two American Negro sprinters. They hit Mel Lattany with a sign. I saw quite plainly on television that one of the activists kicked Mark Kent in the thigh muscle. They actually booted him. That is a great attitude to adopt! Fancy getting onto the track and attacking those two American Negroes who came out here. They are two of the best sprinters in the world. It was absolutely disgraceful. I believe that some trouble-making Maories are to be imported. They are mixed up m the HART organisation—Halt All Racist Tours. A mere 3 000 people protested against the Springbok tour. I am a personal friend of the former Deputy Commissioner of Police in New Zealand, Gideon TaU. He was one of the people who cleaned up some of the activists in New Zealand many years ago. He was in Australia recently. He was a competitor in the Fourth Veteran Games at Christchurch in 1981. The people from HART mshed out Commonwealth Games BiU 4 March 1982 4515 onto the track and pulled a hurdle away when the 400-metre race started. They pulled it away from in front of Dr Danny Craven, a South African competitor. Veteran athletics do not recognise racism or apartheid. That race had to be started again. At one stage the HART crowd disrupted the opening march at the veteran athletics and the veterans flogged some of them. That could happen elsewhere. Sporting fans have short tempers. Action by Aboriginal activists to interrupt the Games wiU rebound against the Aboriginal race. It wiU not do the Aborigines one bit of good. The Commonwealth Games should not be used as a place to settle land rights. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (10.19 p.m.): This very controversial Bill contains 45 clauses to provide some safety at the Commonwealth Games to be held in Brisbane. Today we have heard a lot of tongue-in-cheek remarks. A moment ago the member for Caboolture spoke about a terrible incident in which some very wonderful athletes from overseas were tackled on a track in Melbourne last January. In Rugby League there are no faster men than Ken Irvine and Mick Cleary. They get tackled a dozen times, not once, in a game, and they get up and play on. Injuries are nothing to them. They were also professional runners. They would mn in a professional foot race one day and play footbaU the next. But on this occasion a couple of fellows got tackled and tried to make an issue out of it. I saw that incident more than once on television, and I do not believe that they were severely injured. If they had not been softies they could have run in another race, just as AustraUan Rugby League wingers carry on after they are tackled. It is a great pity that this Bill has had to be introduced to cover up for some of the past treatment of Aborigines by the Government of this State. The main purpose of this Bill is to give much wider powers to the police to enable them to counter disturbances or demonstrations by Aboriginal people during the Commonwealth Games. In the past, this Government should have done something for Aboriginal people. When someone is elected to pubUc office or to Parliament he is supposed to represent people of aU colours and creeds, but unfortunately in this State we have a Government that does not represent the small people, the poor or the blacks. This Government looks after its own. It is elected by a minority of voters and that is who it looks after, the minority of people in this State. Previous speakers said that we should not have politics in sport, and 1 agree with them. But what happened when the Olympic Games were held in Moscow? Mr Fraser said that we should boycott the Games, and so Queensland and Australia did so. But now that it is our turn to hold an event of world-wide importance in our city the Government is saying that there should not be a boycott, that everybody should attend. The Government knows that we have problems in this State, and it is going to try to sweep them under the carpet and not show people from aU over the world exactiy how Queenslanders live and how the Government treats all classes of people. It wants to put on a face for the Games. I believe that the Transport Act, the Criminal Code and a number of other Acts give the police sufficient power to control any incident that might occur during the Games. During the late 1970s we saw hundreds of people stmck whh batons simply because they held peaceful demonstrations and marches through the streets of Brisbane. I do not believe that such demonstrations will take place during the CommonweaUh Games, but if they do I beUeve that the police already have sufficient powers to control any situation that might arise. The Government says that h is doing everything possible for the Aboriginal people and that they are pleased with what the Government has given them, yet the Government intends to take these massive steps so that the police can take action against any Aboriginal people Who do demonstrate. If the Government has the confidence of the Aboriginal people whv IS It so concerned about a small minority? f v , y I do not believe we should stage sporting events at which poUce go around with revolvers Zv fv • ?^ ''^^""^ '" ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^'*"8 for someone to step out of line. Unfortun­ ately this IS the picture that we wiU paint for the rest of the worid—this is Queensland ountrv hT.v '° ^ ^ ^'f ^*^^^- °"^ "^^^^ ^'^P"^ t« '^ ^^^^ i" Russia or in a Fascist The Oniiln' '^'T^^}'' ^ ^ f^ee country. I believe that this Bill is quite unnecessary, ihe Opposition wiU have a lot more to say when the clauses are discussed. Debate, on motion of Mr Hinze, adjourned. The House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.