Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 1984

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1118 9 October 1984 Ministerial Statements

TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 1984

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

OVERTIME PAID IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS Return to Order The following paper was laid on the table- Return to an Order made by the House on 28 August last, on the motion of Mr Menzel, showing the amount of overtime paid in each Grovemment department (all funds) in 1983-84. PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Queensland Museum for the year ended 30 June 1984. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Industrial Development Act 1963-1981 Water Act 1926-1983 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Harbours Act 1955-1982 Regulations under— Electricity Act 1976-1982 Traffic Act 1949-1982 By-laws under— Harbours Act 1955-1982 Harbours Act 1955-1982 and the Port of Brisbane Authority Act 1976-1982 Notification under the Electricity Act 1976-1982 Reports— Greyhound Racing Control Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1984 Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations for the year ended 30 June 1984.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Alleged Impropriety of Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services Hon. J. P. GOLEBY (Redlands—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (11.4 a.m.), by leave: During the past two to three weeks I have been subjected to a smear campaign in this House and, as a result, in some sections of the media. Even though not one solid fact has been produced, the smear by innuendo has continued. As a Cabinet Minister, I have been accused of intervening in a Fraud Squad investigation. 1 have already denied that allegation; I again deny it. The honourable member for Chatsworth (Mr Mackenroth) has launched a vicious campaign. He has put together several completely unrelated facts and has tried to make something very sinister out of them. Ministerial Statements 9 October 1984 1119

Official police records show that Detective Mahony was relieved of his duties in connection with the Bargara land investigations on 27 October 1982. Statements made in this House by the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police have verified that. It was the then Acting Detective Inspector John Huey who recommended that action. I did not enter Cabinet until 6 December 1982. Therefore, I could not have used any ministerial influence, if there is such a thing, to have Detective Mahony taken off the case. I will give Mr Mackenroth his due. He will try anything. He even missed a day's sitting of this House on 2 October to fly to Melbourne, at tax-payers' expense, to secure a statutory declaration. He hoped that it would be evidence against me. It tumed out to be irrelevant; but fitted in well with his campaign by innuendo, so he used it. Mr Mackenroth has used a fight between two solicitors, a fight between a father and son, and the concern of some investors that they might lose money to try to implicate me in some alleged underhand land dealings. To try to prove his case, Mr Mackenroth has used the alleged word of a person whom he has described, in this Parliament, as a "con man, a charlatan, and an embezzler" His informants have described the same man as a "name-dropper" I do not know whether any of those descriptions are accurate. I do not know the man well enough to even give an opinion. As 1 have said inside and outside this House, I have met Mr Luton. I have met thousands of people whilst I have been a member of Parliament. I even receive deputations from, and attend functions with, members of the Labor Party. It is a wonder that Mr Mackenroth has not condemned me for doing that, too. It is tme that police have spoken to me about Mr Luton but, unfortunately, I have not been able to help them very much. I think it was in about June or July last year that my office received a telephone call from a senior police officer, requesting an appointment with me for two senior officers. From memory I think the name of one of them was Dwyer. The senior officer indicated to my staff that they wanted information about a so-called knighthood which Mr Luton claimed to have received. I was led to believe that the police thought that, because I had attended special functions associated with Mr Luton's church, I may have been able to help them with their inquiries. However, as I had no details of Mr Luton's so-called knighthood, my staff rang Mr Luton and asked for details about the citation. I am told that Luton delivered the information to my office. I am also told that he spoke with police officers at that time. As I was not involved with, or interested in, Mr Luton's affairs, I have only vague recollections of my discussions with the police. I do not have any knowledge of what information Mr Luton supplied to them. I have had no further contact with the police regarding their investigations. The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police may be in a position to advise the House whether the investigation has been completed or is still proceeding. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the whole campaign has been built up on innuendo. I have been told that Mr Luton has either had discussions with, or attended functions with, the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Wright) and the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Burns). However, I would not expect either of those two gentiemen to remember those occasions. I certainly do not remember everyone I have met or complete details about them. As I said right at the beginning, this whole affair has been put together by the honourable member's taking bits and pieces of unrelated information and trying to make something sinister out of them. To prove just how sincere Mr Mackenroth is. Let us look at what he had to say to John Barton on "Today Tonight" on 19 September— "Mr BARTON: 'Well, you believe him (Luton) don't you? You believe what he said?' 1120 9 October 1984 Ministerial Statements Mr MACKENROTH: 'I haven't said that I believe him'." Later in the interview Mr Mackenroth said— "Well, I never made the allegations. I raised this very serious allegation that's been made to me after I checked it out and was able to at least verify portions of that statement and the portions that I could verify were tme." This issue could very well go down as a Claytons allegation—the allegation Mr Mackenroth makes when he's not making an allegation. Finally, let me say, if only for Mr Mackenroth's sake, that I have never intervened, as a Minister or as a member of Parliament, in any land fraud investigations involving Mr Luton or anyone else. I have never applied pressure anywhere to have Detective Mahony taken off any investigations. I have never made formal representations on Mr Luton's behalf I have never done business with Mr Luton. I have nothing more to say on this matter. However, I have no doubt that Mr Mackenroth's mouth is still in gear. "Motormouth Muckenroth" will not be able to help himself Opening of Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield Road Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Enviroment, Valuation and Administrative Services) (11.10 a.m.), by leave: Contrary to those two so-called experts on road-building in far-north Queensland, Dr Aila Keto of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland and Mr Ray McKendrick of the Wilderness Society of Queensland, the opening of the Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield Road on Sunday was an outstanding success. Approximately 100 four-wheel-drive vehicles, six small buses, five conventional cars and a campervan completed the historic cavalcade to Bloomfield without incident. The cavalcade, which was witnessed by some 1 000 people at Cape Tribulation and 800 people at Bloomfield, was officially welcomed at the road's northern end by members of the Cook Shire Council and the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Community Council. The completion of this missing link in the coastal road to Cooktown has broken the isolation gap felt by hundreds of families in Bloomfield, Rossville, Helenvale and Cooktown. The new road will markedly improve police, defence, emergency, community services and ranger access to one of the most inaccessible stretches of coastline in Queensland. These benefits mean very little to the likes of Dr Keto and Mr McKendrick, who have waged a deliberate distortion campaign over the last two days, claiming that 50 or more vehicles, including the official party, and 30 elderly people in buses were left bogged on the road after a downpour of some 39 mm of rain. Such downright lies and distortions were given good press by some sections of the media, who, I might add, declined an invitation to attend Sunday's official opening ceremony. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the Minister that this is not really a personal explanation. Mr TENNI: It is a ministerial statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thought that the Minister asked for leave to make a personal explanation. Mr TENNI: No. Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order. Apparently this has now been changed to a ministerial statement. This matter has nothing to do with the Minister for Enviroment, Valuation and Administrative Services. Ministerial Statements 9 October 1984 1121

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This matter is well within the Minister's jurisdiction. Mr TENNI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just point out that I have in my hand a pamphlet put out by a Labor Party candidate demanding that a road be built along the coast to Cooktown. These same media representatives required no invitation to race up to Caims to capture the antics of the most unwelcome of southem imports, the feral protestors of far-north Queensland. These feral protestors are normally found with their dole cheques in places such as Roxby Downs. The facts are that all of the vehicles, except one vehicle which joined in the motorcade, made it home safely. Council assistance was needed to help three buses and three four-wheel-drive vehicles up Donovan's Range after these vehicles lost traction on the road. Any remaining vehicles made it home without incident the next morning. Contrary to the wild statements of Dr Keto, who now claims that the road is life- threatening, no driver or passenger on the motorcade was injured. The only vehicle that did not make it home successfully was wrecked on the CREB track, the powerline service track which the conservationists claimed was a sensible altemative to the Cape Tribulation to Bloonifield Road. The predictions of the conservationists that the road will disappear this wet season are based on fiction, not fact. There has not been a road built in far-north Queensland, including some of our best known tourist roads, which do not suffer from erosion and landslips during the wet season. This road will be no different. This morning, 45 conventional vehicles travelled along that road without encountering any problems. However, the road could have been built to a much better standard had it not been for the gutiessness of the Federal Govemment, which could not make up its mind on whom to support—the people of the far north or the conservation lobby in Canberra. I now challenge the member for Cook (Mr Bob Scott) and the Federal member for Leichhardt (Mr John Gayler) to come off their fences and finally support the people whom they are supposed to represent. I share the view of the people of the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Community and the Bloomfield/Cooktown residents that the Federal Govemment must immediately match the $340,000 contributed by the State Govemment and the $90,000 contributed by the Douglas Shire Council to upgrade this road. If the Federal Govemment does not, it wiU stand condemned in the eyes of many far-north residents who Bob Hawke jokingly promised in the last Federal election campaign never to forget. Mr MACKENROTH having given notice of a motion— Mr MACKENROTH: I tell the Minister that I will not shut up until he does resign, because he should. He has told a lot of lies in this place this moming. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chatsworth will withdraw that remark. Mr MACKENROTH: I will withdraw the word "lies" and replace it with the word "untmths" Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Chatsworth to withdraw that remark, because it means the same thing. Mr MACKENROTH: I withdraw the words "lies" and "untmths" I will state, however, that the Minister still has not told the House everything. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Chatsworth under Standing Order 123A. 1122 9 October 1984 Personal Explanations

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (11.17 a.m.), by leave; Last Tuesday night, in the Adjoumment debate, I referred to road transport and, in particular, to double- decker cattie transport vehicles and their overloading. On Wednesday moming, the responsible Minister (Mr Hinze) made a statement replying to my remarks. In addition, a prearranged question was asked by the member for Roma of the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter). While Mr Katter was answering that question, I rose to a point of order and asked that he withdraw a remark that implied that I advocated the removal of the top deck of double-decker vehicles carrying livestock. At your request, Mr Speaker, the Minister withdrew his statement because he knew that it was wrong and that the "Hansard" galley of my speech did not substantiate his comments. The Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs and the Mount Isa newspaper "The North-West Star" have jointly misrepresented the issue and have the support of Mr Rick Fariey of the Cattlemen's Union. I stand by my criticism of the overloading of cattie transports. The "Hansard" report of my speech contains no reference to the removal of top decks from transport vehicles. In collaboration with Mr Farley, Mr Katter and others, "The North-West Star" has taken a one-sided stand on the issue. I am considering legal advice about the article that appeared on the front page of "The North-West Star". I am doing so because my comments in this place did not refer to the removal of top decks from cattle transport vehicles. I am concerned about all road-users and, in particular, about motorists who have to contend with overloaded vehicles on narrow strips of road. I will continue to criticise the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing and the Govemment if the present condition continues to prevail. Mr HINZE: I rise to a point of order. I must correct the statement made by the honourable member who has just resumed his seat. With volumetric loading, which is the law in Queensland at the moment, it is impossible to overload. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (11.19 a.m.), by leave: I refer to an article in "The Courier- MaU" this morning that quotes me as opposing the idea of a blockade on New Zealand because of the detrimental effect of such a blockade on Queensland commerce. In support of my objection, the article quotes me as saying that 1 400 New Zealand visitors come to Queensland each year. Although even one New Zealander can be important to Queensland, the figure I used was 140 000, which is the estimate of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation of the number of New Zealand visitors who stay an average of three weeks in Queensland and spend an average of $43 per day, which is a total of $ 126m each year. The main destination of New Zealand tourists is the Gold Coast. My objection to any blockade was that, given the benefits of tourism, together with Queensland's trade with New Zealand in sugar and alumina, the effect of any blockade would be felt more in Queensland than anywhere else in Australia, or even in New Zealand itself

Mr PRICE (Mount Isa) (11.20 a.m.), by leave: On Friday, 5 October 1984, "The North-West Star" of Mount Isa headlined a telex message that was issued by the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter). The article beneath that headline highlighted the statement made in Parliament last week by the honourable member for Rockhampton North in which he questioned the probable role of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing in road transport. The report claimed that eariier in the year I had attacked the use of road trains. "Hansard" records no such criticism, and vindicates earlier criticism in an editorial in "The Caims Post" to the effect that the Minister handles the tmth carelessly. Questions Upon Notice 9 October 1984 1123

My only reference to stock tmcks questioned non-compliance with weight regulations during a period of grace that was allowed to hauliers to enable them to adjust their tmcks to qualify for the exemption from weighing. That was satisfactorily answered by the Minister. No criticism as such occurred of double-decker stock tmcks. I resent the Minister's treatment of the tmth and the aspersions that were cast.

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

1. Statutory Authorities Mr WARBURTON asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to information provided to this House in March 1979 regarding the operation of statutory authorities in Queensland and in view of regular expressions of concern since then relating to the activities of statutory authorities— (1) How many statutory authorities currently in operation have been established under the laws of Queensland? (2) What is the name or title of each of these authorities? (3) Which of these authorities fumish annual reports and/or audited accounts to the relevant Minister or department? (4) Which of these authorities have their accounts audited by the Auditor-General? (5) Which of these authorities report to this Parliament, either separately or through their relevant departmental head? Answer— (1 & 2) The Register of Statutory Authorities, which is maintained by the Co­ ordinator-General, identifies 627 authorities. I table a list of these authorities, which have been grouped under the responsible Minister of the Crown. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table. (3 to 5) In April 1983, the Government decided that all statutory authorities are to submit an annual report to their Minister for presentation to Parliament, such report to be in a format approved by the Minister and to include financial statements audited by the Auditor-General. With the approval of Cabinet, certain statutory authorities have been exempted from the provision of a separate report if their activities and financial statements are incorporated in departmental annual reports. There are a total of 520 statutory authorities subject to audit by the Auditor-General. Those authorities subject to his audit are marked with an asterisk on the list that I tabled. For the purposes of the Financial Administration and Audit Act, a statutory authority does not include those bodies or authorities which are "departments" The accounts of such bodies form part of the Public Accounts and are subject to the audit and reporting requirements of that Act. Also excluded are local authorities. The accounts of these authorities are, in the main, examined by registered local govemment auditors appointed by the Auditor- General. The remainder are audited by officers of the Auditor-General. At 30 June 1984, there were 133 local authorities and 20 joint local authorities constituted under the Local Govemment Act, and the city of Brisbane constituted under its own Act.

2. Electrification, Kingston-Beenleigh Railway Line Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Transport— Is it still expected that the extension of electrification from Kingston to Beenleigh will be commissioned during the current year? 1124 9 October 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— Yes. The official opening of this section wiU take place on the 3 November. A new timetable will be introduced to coincide with this and the travel time from Beenleigh to the city wUl be reduced by 14 minutes compared with the diesel-hauled service, demonstrating once again the efficiency of electric traction. One is continually amused by the divisions within the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the honourable member for Brisbane Central that his action in holding up his papers is no different from makiujg an inteijection. He makes constant interjections. Last week I told him that, as Opposition Whip, he has a responsibility. I should like him to shoulder his responsibilities. Mr DAVIS: Mr Speaker, I was just showing my amusement at the asking of a Dorothy'Dix question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LANE: It is noticeable that the only time in the last three years that members of the Opposition have been united was on the occasion when they joined together to endorse the honourable member for Rockhampton to send him away to Canberta. In answer to the honourable member for Mansfield, who asked a positive question, I point out that, in addition, bus interchange faciUties will be provided at Beenleigh to permit the introduction of a fast co-ordinated service to the Gold Coast. Mr Yewdale interjected. Mr LANE: Did the honourable member disagree with the endorsement? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister for Transport to continue with his answer. Mr LANE: This continual heckling makes it very difficult, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: I know that it is difficult. Mr LANE: These facilities will provide bus platforms capable of catering for three buses and shelter sheds for the convenience of the travelling public. Beenleigh will join other railway stations such as Enoggera, Sandgate, Oxley, Darra, Wacol, Goodna, Ipswich, Kingston, Woodridge, Thomeside, Petrie and Strathpine, which have bus intercahnge facilities especially provided.

3. Hospital Staff Mr GYGAR asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the 1983-84 Budget Speech and Financial Statement delivered in this House by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer on I December 1983 and in particular the details of health funding where it was stated on page 12: "The aUocation allows for the appointment during the year of 630 additional nurses, doctors and other hospital staff'— (1) What is the break-down, by number, employment category and level, of the additional staff employed under this provision? (2) At which hospital was each one of these additional staff employed? Answer— (1 & 2) The honourable member would no doubt appreciate the complexity attached to the allocation of new positions in Queensland hospitals to achieve a well-balanced health care service. It is not a simple matter of a one to one allocation, owing to numerous considerations and in some respects a rationalisation to achieve the effective utilisation of these new Questions Upon Notice 9 October 1984 1125 positions. A number of aspects must be considered, such as the need for part-time and sessional allocations in respect of some medical and paramedical positions, a monetary aUocation for annual and sick leave relief for all new positions and the temporary allocation on an ad hoc basis to cater for special and unforseen circumstances. A departmental conimittee, having regard to the foregoing, allocated the equivalent of 630 positions to hospitals boards throughout the State as follows— Nursing 422 Other (medical, paramedical, clerical, domestics, wardsmen. X-ray, pathology, dental, pharmacy) 208

4. Radioactive Sand, Schools and Kindergartens Mr GYGAR asked the Minister for Health— What schools, pre-schools and kindergartens in the Brisbane area have been suppUed vrith sand which was probably, or possibly, radioactive? Answer— Of the schools in the metropolitan area inspected, contaminated materials have been removed from the following six schools: the Carina State High School, the Hendra State High School, the Pinkenba State School, the Aspley State High School, St. Peter's CoUege and WaveU Heights Kindergarten.

5. Closure of Streets for Spring Hill Fair Mr DAVIS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Which organisation or persons recently appUed for the closure of Leichhardt Street and adjoining streets in Spring HiU for the holding of what is known as the Spring Hill Fair? (2) When was the application made and which officer gave the approval? (3) Were any conditions laid down for the granting of the request for the closure? (4) Were the Brisbane City Council, the fire brigade or the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade consulted for their views regarding the closure of streets? Answer— (1) Spring HiU Fafr 1984. (2) 10 August 1984; District Superintendent of Traffic, Brisbane. (3) Yes. (4) Brisbane City Council—yes. It was a condition of the permit that the ambulance and fire brigades be advised of the street closure prior to the closure date. The relevant permit was issued having regard to the safety of the public generally, which included the safe and effective regulation of emergency vehicles, if necessary.

6. Queensland Film Corporation Mr DAVIS asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— With reference to the Queensland Film Corporation, for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984— (1) Which members of the corporation made claims for entertainment or hospitality expenses? (2) On how many occasions has each person or persons lodged such claims? (3) What was the cost of each individual claim? (4) What information and explanations were requested by the Auditor-General with respect to the corporation's accounts as set out in the 1981-82 annual report? 1126 9 October 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(5) Were the inquiries by the Auditor-General of a financial nature? (6) Did these inquiries involve any members of the Queensland FUm Corporation and, if so, which members or officials and in what precise form? Answer— (1 to 3) Members of the Queensland FUm Corporation, with the exception of the chairman, the Under Treasurer and the Director of Industrial Development, who are public servants appointed ex officio, receive meeting fees as determined from time to time by the Govemment for all statutory bodies. The chairman and members have their accommodation and hospitality expenses paid on official business or where the corporation meets outside Brisbane or visits film locations as it has done at the annual Motion Picture Exhibitors Association conference, the start of shooting on "Buddies" at Emerald, "The Coolangatta Gold" on the Gold Coast, or the meeting held at Caims. Accom­ modation, air fares and hospitality expenses also are paid at meetings such as the conference of Commonwealth and State film bodies twice a year. Because accommodation, air fares and similar expenses for members or staff often are booked and paid collectively in the name of the chairman for administrative simplicity, it would be difficult to differentiate them. All expenses and accounts are subject to ratification by the board at its regular meetings, and the corporation's accounts are audited annually by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has on occasions sought more detail on a particular item or suggested changes to existing procedures or adoption of new ones. His satisfaction with the results of such suggestions is indicated by his certificate that has been attached to each annual report to Parliament. The 1983-84 certificate has been received and appears in the annual report now being printed for presentation to Parliament. (4 to 6) No additional information or explanations were sought by the Auditor- General in regard to the 1981-82 report, which received his normal certificate. The honourable member may be referring to the wording of the certificate, which had been changed the year before for all Govemment departments and authorities. It reads, "I have examined the accounts of the Queensland Film Corporation and I have obtained all the information and explanations that I have required." That wording reflected new national companies and securities legislation, which placed greater responsibilities on accountants and auditors to satisfy themselves before certifying accounts. Honourable members will have noticed that, since then, the Auditor-General has altered the form of all departmental annual reports to include footnotes incorporating a wider range of information. With regard to the 1981-82 annual report of the Queensland FUm Corporation, the only major change was in fact made at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, then Opposition spokesman on the arts, who asked that the corporation incorporate a list of its investments. The corporation readily agreed, and that list has appeared every year since. I might add for the information of honourable members that major productions in which the corporation has invested this year are: "The Coolangatta Gold", which will premiere on the Gold Coast next month; "The Naked Country", on which shooting has started near Charters Towers; and "Butterfly Island", a children's television series now being shot in the Whitsunday Islands. Mr Davis interjected. Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. By interjection, the Opposition Whip, in another of his frequent snide remarks, used the word "cover-up" I state categorically that I have given a very detailed reply. The Opposition Whip has already been wamed by you, Mr Speaker, about his behaviour in the House. I draw it to your attention once again. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I note the Minister's comment. Questions Witiiout Notice 9 October 1984 M27

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland Trade Sanctions on New Zealand Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I point out that today he has again threatened that the Queensland National Party Govemment wiU move to impose trade sanctions on New Zealand. In. making those threats, he has reportedly referted to proposals to implement provisions tmder the Queensland Health Act and the food-labelling regulations. I now ask, first: Is it a fact, as has been reported, that this very serious matter was discussed at yesterday's State Cabinet meeting for the purpose of assessing options open to the Queensland Govemment? Secondly, does he comprehend the extremely serious consequences of his threat being imposed? Does he understand the inevitable hurt that this would cause to Queensland's depressed sugar and manufacturing industries? Will he therefore now give an unequivocal assurance that he will desist from making further similar irresponsible threats? Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, which affords me an opportunity to read a letter sent to me by the Prime Minister some time ago. The Prime Minister pointed out that Queensland has the power and could stop imports. He asked whether we would be kind enough to do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition referred to discussing the matter in Cabinet yesterday. This idea is my own. As he knows, I released the information to the media on Sunday night, before Cabinet's meeting. He can work out from that it had nothing to do with a Cabinet decision as such. He can rest assured on that. I turn now to the seriousness of the matter. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition members generally do not realise how extremely serious is the refusal by the Prime Minister of New Zealand'to co-operate under the ANZUS Treaty. Ultimately, he has to co-operate. Following the statement I made, he has already begun to move in that direction. Members would have leamt of that this moming. His move was as a consequence of what he discovered yesterday. We have the power. We can stop it. It is a very serious matter and impinges on our defence. Opposition Members interjected. Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I will read the letter. It is very interesting. Mr Burns: The whole lot. Will you table the letter? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I do not mind whether the letter is tabled or not. If the Prime Minister explodes, I will blame the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will read briefly from it. If I table the letter, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be able to read it all. The seriousness of the matter from the point of view of New Zealand is that its Prime Minister is undertaking world jaunts, encouraging Eastem Bloc countries to appreciate that New Zealand will be a ripe plum for the picking at any time after the United States drops it from its defence umbrella. The result is that our eastem flank will be wide open. Because the Commonwealth Govemment is not prepared to do anything, I decided that it was necessary to draw attention to the consequences. My word, haven't we done that! The report in today's paper is that the New Zealand Prime Minister has decided to soften his stance. He wiU have to fall into line. Mark my words; he will have to fall into line and back down. I now read the letter I received from the Prime Minister— "My dear Premier

It has become apparent that there could be serious trade implications resulting from the requifemetit agreed by State Ministers in the Model Food Act that imported food products must display the name and address of the importer. 1128 9 October 1984 Questions Without Notice

With the introduction of food legislation in Queensland based on the Model Food Act, the New Zealand government has formally requested consultation with the Commonwealth Govemment under the terms of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations—Trade Agreement. The basis of the request is essentially that the additional cost involved in labeUing products for the Australian market would disadvantage New Zealand suppliers to the Australian market compared with Australian suppliers.

There is recognition in the Agreement that policies in areas such as standards could impede the free flow of goods between the two countries and provision is made for 'action to harmonise requirements relating to such matters as standards, technical specifications and testing procedures, domestic labelling In the circumstances, therefore, I am seeking your co-operation in delaying the introduction or enforcement of the labeUing requirement in question until the need for and ramifications of such action can be further considered by relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities." A great deal of correspondence has been exchanged on this matter. On 26 April 1984 I indicated that the Queensland Govemment had granted to importers of New Zealand foodstuffs an exemption from compliance with the labeUing requirements untU 1 July this year. I also said that, pending the outcome of a meeting that was being arranged to discuss the matter, under a section of the Food Act Queensland will postone until 1 July 1984 any action with regard to packaged foodstuffs imported from New Zealand. Therefore, it is up to the New Zealand Prime Minister, first of aU, to recognise that Queensland can stop it. As I say, Queensland can stop it as easily as falling off a log. No problem! I have indicated to the New Zealand Prime Minister that unless he is prepared to do something about the defences of his country and this country, he has a problem on his hands. He cannot dismiss the matter as easily and simply as he would like to. It is a serious problem. Mr Warburton: You are serious? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am serious, my word I am. Statement by Member for Rockhampton on State Governments Mr NEAL: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to an article in the Rockhampton "Moming Bulletin" dated 3 October 1984 in which the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Wright) says that the central Govemment in Canberra will soon take over the powers of State Govemments and that he regards State Govemments as little more than dispersal agencies. I now ask: Does that statement show beyond doubt that the honourable member for Rockhampton has already deserted the interests of Queensland for the interests of centralism and socialism? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I was surprised, as all honourable members on this side of the House would have been, to hear the honourable member for Rockhampton make those comments contained in an article headed "A closer look over the rest of the Capricomia field" That article states— "Keith Wright says he wants to move into Federal politics because State Govemments are becoming little more than dispersal agencies. He said yesterday the decisions in health, education, road funding and numerous other areas were being made Federally." Apparently the States no longer make decisions of that sort. Because the member for Rockhampton thinks that he can see the end of the road for the States, he is opting out. I will not read aU of the article; I will table it for the benefit of the honourable member for Lytton. Questions Without Notice 9 October 1984 1129

Mr Burns: You did not table the last one. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I will do that in a minute. Another part of the article states— "Mr Wright believes the day will come when State Govemments in Australia will lose most of their power and Australia will have a Federal Govemment and regional governments based on areas such as Central Queensland. He says he is a democratic republican—" 1 do not know what that means. He obviously supports the idea of a republic— "who says there is nothing wrong with having a democratic republic in Australia with a royal head." I do not know how there could be a royal head of a democratic republic of Australia. The honourable member appears to be a little mixed up. The article also states— "But I believe Australia should be a more independent and if necessary a more neutral country." 1 do not know why he wants to isolate Australia. That would be dangerous. The article continues— "I question the way we are locked in internationally on an economic and miUtary basis." He does not even want Australia to have military alliances. He does not want Australia to have any economic contacts or association with any other country. I draw members' attention to that article. It will be very interesting to read the comments in the media when the Federal election campaign gets under way. We now know that the honourable member says that he will represent Queensland by pushing for and supporting the objectives of the socialists to take over and control State Govemments. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table. Mapping and Surveying Mr NEAL: I ask the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services: As his Department of Mapping and Surveying is responsible for surveying in Queensland, will he inform the House why it is necessary for a Govemment department to do surveying work, and could it not be better performed by private enterprise? Are records of such work kept readily available, and is it costly for the public to obtain information? Mr TENNI: We work very closely with private enterprise, and this year's Budget documents will prove that statement. Because private surveyors throughout the State are finding it very difficult to obtain sufficient work to keep them going, a large sum has been set aside so that the Department of Mapping and Surveying can engage private surveyors. The Government will be doing everything in its power to help private enterprise. As far as the availability of the department's resources is concemed, the honourable member would know that Sunmap agencies are being established throughout the State. The department is either setting up its own Sunmap shops or appointing surveyors to handle the sale of its maps to the public throughout the State. This will prove a great advantage to people wanting to purchase a map. Surveyors will be able to explain to people how to read a map and find a location. As I have already said, maps are available for purchase by the general public throughout the State. 1130 9 October 1984 Questions Without Notice High Schools Building Project Ms WARNER: I ask the Minister for Works and Housing: Can he inform the House how the high schools building project will be implemented? WiU the building projects be put out to tender, and if not, why not? If they are not put out to tender, how wiU the projects be costed? Can the Minister deny that the Department of Works is afready informing would-be tenderers that the projects have already been earmarked for certain firms? Mr WHARTON: There is to be a $600m building program in this State. Of that $600m, the Works Department will be spending $200m. Opposition Members interjected. Mr WHARTON: Opposition members do not like it, do they? This year the department will be spending $28.3m over and above its normal budget. The money wiU be spent in various areas in which it is needed. The reason for the expenditure is that the Govemment wants to create employment. The Govemment intends to spend money on capital works so that the public will have an asset in offices and buildings so that and much-needed employment wiU be provided. I know that members opposite do not like that idea. Tenders and quotes wiU be called from private enterprise, and the work wiU be done using constmction management techniques. All the work will be done by private enterprise. Public tenders will be called from contractors and subcontractors. The constmction management technique is not new; in fact it has been used on many previous occasions. A number of firms were invited to submit a proposal so that everyone had the chance to win the contract. We have deliberately not invited a tender from only one firm. Very shortly the department will be releasing about 10 projects to constmction management so that we can get on with the job of creating employment and capital development in this State. I point out to the honourable member that we have called for proposals for constmction management at various schools in north and south Queensland. I think that four schools are involved. Similar action will be taken for other Govemment buildings in the State. I assure the honourable member that the Works Department is getting on with the job of creating employment. It is doing a great job in helping to develop Queensland. Laurinel State School Mr CAHILL: I ask the Minister for Education: Has his attention been drawn to widespread claims by the honourable member for Mackay that a one-teacher school at Laurinel has cost something of the order of $300,000? Is the claim tme? Mr POWELL: Yes, I have read reports of those claims. In my view, the hyperbole used by the honourable member for Mackay is disgusting, and it is a great shame that the newspapers have not bothered to print the tmth of the matter. The school at Laurinel cost $131,800, and during all this year it has been operating on a very sound basis. I am further disgusted—and I am sure that honourable members wiU be disgusted when I point out to them—that yesterday the honourable member for Mackay, in the company of people with television cameras, burst into the school and aUowed the cameras to be used without taking the precaution of first approaching the principal of the school and seeking permission. Such actions, in my mind and I am sure in the mind of the Govemment, deserve the utmost condemnation. Mr FitzGerald: He's laughing. Mr POWELL: Of course he is laughing about it; he is such a fool. Questions Without Notice 9 October 1984 1131

It is important that the tmth of the matter be publicised. At least honourable members wiU now know that the school at Laurinel cost $131,800, not the $300,000 that the honourable member for Mackay used as hyperbole. It is a shame that he will not allow fact to destroy the nonsense that he wishes to get across to people. As regards enrolment at the school at Laurinel—numerous schools in this State have an enrolment that is smaller than that at Laurinel, and up to 10. Mr Scott interjected. Mr POWELL: The school at Laurinel is situated 64 km north of Duaringa and 100 km west of Marlborough. It is in an isolated area of the State. It is an area in which there are poor roads. Unfortunately, the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— Opposition Members interjected. Mr POWELL: Opposition members continue to laugh about the plight that country people in this State suffer with communications. Of course, the noisy member for Cook will not back this Govemment in its effort to build a better road to Cooktown. He has not backed the actions of this Govemment in providing better communications in his electorate. All he will do is act like Sir Echo and repeat the hyperbole that is used by the member for Mackay in his personal vilification of the Premier and Treasurer. It is a shame that the honourable member for Mackay does not stick to the facts. The facts are plain and open, and I think it is about time that they were published for the benefit of the people of Queensland. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is deliberately misleading the House. A few moments ago, he made the assertion that I burst into the Laurinel school. I knocked on the door and was invited in by the principal. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Department of Education Newspaper, "Education Statewide" Mr CAHILL: My second question is directed to the Minister for Education and refers to the first issue of the Department of Education's newspaper, "Education State­ wide" I understand that this joumal will be issued on a monthly basis to all Queensland State schoolteachers and to p. and c. associations. I ask: Will the Minister inform the House of the purpose and the aims of the newspaper and why its publication seems to have drawn the wrath of the Queensland Teachers Union? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. Last year, my department and I were concemed that we were not able to communicate as effectively with our staff as we believed we should be able to. The only documents that were going into schools were the very staid "Education Office Gazette"—because it is a gazette, I guess it must be staid—and a document called "Ed ALERT", which gave some indication of movements within the department. The Education Department felt that a more newsy document should go into schools, and that is why "Education Statewide" has been produced. It is hoped that it will be a newsy paper that will tell the Education Department staff what is going on within the department State-wide. It is hoped that the staff will find the articles in the newspaper interesting to read. Movements within the department will be publicised in that manner. With reference to the Queensland Teachers Union—I can only suggest that the union is upset with "Education Statewide" because the newspaper will stick to fact— that is all that it will publish—and it will be a direct line of communication between employer and employee. As I said in Pariiament last week, the Queensland Teachers Union regards itself as the altemative education administration in Queensland, which, of course, it is not. "Education Statewide" is designed to present positively to teachers 1132 9 October 1984 Questions Without Notice and others in this vast State just what is happening in education in Queensland. It is hoped that this medium will be used in a positive fashion by teachers and others who are involved in education in this State. Mr WHITE proceeding to give notice of a question— An Opposition Member: Table it. Mr WHITE: Because I think that Opposition members should hear about this matter, I do not intend to table it. SGIO Building Society Advertisements Mr COMBEN: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to advertisements on behalf of the SGIO Building Society that originally carried photographs of himself. Sir Roderick Proctor and Mr Ashley Goldsworthy, the general manager. I ask: Is he aware that the photographs of himself and Sir Roderick Proctor have been dropped from the SGIO Building Society advertisements and that increasingly larger photographs of Mr Goldsworthy are appearing? Has Mr Goldsworthy, who is a vice- president of the Liberal Party and the heir apparent to its presidency, decided that the Premier and Sir Roderick no longer produce the goods for Queenslanders? WiU he take steps to ensure the cessation of this personal promotion for political purposes by the Liberal Mr Goldsworthy, using SGIO Building Society funds? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: This is a commercial operation by the Mr Comben: Liberal Party. Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It has nothing to with the Liberal Party. I have not been photographed for any Liberal Party advertisements. This matter has nothing to do with either the Liberal Party or the National Party. However, if the photograph helps the SGIO Building Society in its commercial operations, so be it. Subsidies Paid to Industries to Relocate Operations in Queensland Mr BAILEY: I ask the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology: Is he aware that a Govemment subsidy was paid to the Namco company to relocate certain of it interstate operations in Queensland? Is he aware also of the subsequent closure of that company's factory in Queensland? If so, what action is he taking to ensure that such a thing does not happen again? Mr AHERN: Last year, a subsidy was paid to the Namco company to relocate its interstate operations in Queensland. It was disappointing to the Govemment when, subsequently, the Namco factory in Queensland closed. The company, however, had honoured its part of the deal. It had no contractual obligation to refund any of the moneys that it had received. Naturally, I was keen to ensure that such a thing did not happen again. Recently, the Government has either agreed to pay subsidies or has in fact paid subsidies to two companies that have decided to relocate their operations in this State. In each instance I have made it a condition of the payment of the subsidy that if the company's Queensland factory ceases to operate within a period of two years, the moneys will be refunded to the Crown. That is the right way to go. The situation involving Namco was a one-off situation, and it was not foreseen at the time. Namco had no obligation to refund the moneys. In future, however, companies will have such an obligation placed upon them. The two cases that I have cited are worthy of note. Firstly, the Repco company has decided to locate its Australia-wide gasket-making operations in Queensland at a very fine factory at Eagle Farm. A subsidy has been paid to that company. As weU, the Century battery company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Repco, decided to rationalise its Australia-wide battery-manufacturing facilities onto the Carole Park indus­ trial estate. A subsidy will be paid to enable that relocation to occur. Questions Without Notice 9 October 1984 1133

A number of other interstate companies are interested in the comparative advantages that Queensland now offers. The Government is negotiating with those companies on the payment of subsidies.

Redundancy of Railway Workers Mr BAILEY: I ask the Minister for Transport: Is he aware of a reported statement by Queensland Railway Employees Union official Garth Head that raUway employees in Maryborough who were served with redundancy notices would rather go on the dole than live elsewhere? As the rationaUsation of the railway workshops in Caims in now almost complete, will the Minister state whether the results in Caims bear out Mr Head's claim? Mr LANE: I am happy to give the House information about the railway workshops in Caims. That information demonstrates that the redundancy arrangements that the Commissioner for Railways has with railway employees work satisfactorily. I have with me figures relating to the raUwaymen who have been accommodated by those arrange­ ments in the recent rationalisation of the Caims workshops. A total of 34 railwaymen were affected by the rationalisation at the Caims workshops. Of those 34 men, three retired, four were transferred upon their own application to other depots, nine filled vacancies as porters at Cairns, one took leave without pay for 12 months, one is absent on workers' compensation, two apprentices were reindentured to other industries in Caims at their choice, one apprentice was fatally injured while off duty, and 13 apprentices have been retained on their own grades in vacancies that arose in Caims as a result of natural attrition. From those figures, it can be seen that relocation to other depots is not a problem. That has been demonstrated in Cairns. As I say, four of the men who have been relocated to other depots have been relocated at their own choice. It would be better if Mr Head and other officials of Queensland railway unions realised that the Government, on more than one occasion, has given its assurance that railwaymen will not lose their jobs as the result of the rationalisation of workshops or of any other measures that are introduced as a result of the PA report on the efficiency of the Queensland railways. Since then, the endorsement by the Australian Labor Party of Garth Head as its candidate in the electoral division of Fisher at the forthcoming Federal election has demonstrated clearly that Mr Head's motive in raising in the press this matter and many other matters is politically motivated rather than industrially motivated in the interests of the members of his union.

Queensland Public Sector Debt Mr HAMILL: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer: In view of the authoritative report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicating the Queensland's public sector debt in 1983-84 was a massive $1,741 billion, what action is the Govemment taking to rein in that deficit, which is the highest in any Australian State, especially in the light of the State Budget's commitment to a continuing and heavy borrowing program by the State Government and its instmmentaUties? Mr GUNN: I am very happy that the honourable member has asked the question. This morning I received the New South Wales Budget papers. I will refer to them. Something has been happening in that State for a long time. I am sure that the honourable member would be pleased to compare the Budget speech made by the Premier and Treasurer of Queensland with the Budget speech made by the Treasurer of New South Wales. I shall refer to pay-roll tax, which is most important. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. 1134 9 October 1984 Questions Without Notice

Mr GUNN: I am going to answer the question. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. Honourable Members interjected. Mr GUNN: I am answering the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been taken. Mr HAMILL: My point of order is that I am concerned that the Minister may not have heard my question properly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAMILL: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I remind the honourable member that I am still on my feet. I call the Minister. Mr GUNN: I concede that the honourable member is very difficult to understand. However, I did understand his question. Mr Booth, the Treasurer of New South Wales, made the following speech— "At the present time, no pay-roll tax is payable where the annual wages bill does not exceed $130,000." Big deal! His speech continues— "That figure is to be raised by more than 30 per cent to $170,000." The Premier and Treasurer of Queensland made the following speech— "The maximum pay-roll tax exemption wiU be increased from $252,000 to $270,000." That is the difference in the two areas. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The matters raised by the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer have nothing to do with the question that I asked. They are totally irrelevant. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr GUNN: They have a lot to do with it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ipswich has a point of view; the Minister has his point of view, and he is answering the question in the way in which he should answer it. Mr GUNN: I will read some more from the speech made by the Treasurer of New South Wales. He referred to the wholesale and retail trade, which is the life-blood of New South Wales. He stated— "Despite the reduction in interest rates, the high levels of consumer confidence are yet to be translated into real growth in retail sales. This area remained a weak spot in economic performance over the past year. The nominal value of retail sales in New South Wales in 1983-84 was $15.6 billion, a rise of only 7.3 per cent. This represented little, if any, real change on the level of the previous year." As to business investment, Mr Booth stated— "The down turn in investment during the recession extended into the early stages of economic recovery. For the March quarter of 1984, private capital expend­ iture in selected industries in New South Wales was $1.0 biUion—" Questions Without Notice 9 October 1984 1135 this is the punch line^— "some 10.3 per cent below the same quarter in the previous year in nominal terms. This compared with a national decline of 6.2 per cent." It is necessary for the Govemment of Queensland to borrow, and it has borrowed. It has borrowed off-Budget, too, to provide for Dalrymple Bay and Abbot Point. Mr Hamill: You have no comprehension of the responsibilities of your portfoUo. Mr GUNN: I know that the member for Ipswich West does not understand me. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not allow this to be tumed into a debate between the Deputy Premier and the member for Ipswich. Mr GUNN: He is very wet behind the ears. He has been in the House for only five minutes, but he thinks he knows everything. He is an utter failure as a representative. Ipswich is going backwards since he has been the member. Opposition Members interjected. Mr GUNN: That is so. I have never received a letter from him seeking anything for Ipswich. He is a dead loss to Ipswich. That is a fact of life. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member for Ipswich have a second question? Mr HAMILL: That was my second question, Mr Speaker, but I might as well not have asked it. It was not answered. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the House. Sugar Industry; Talks with Federal Government Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Can he comment on an article in today's press reporting the call by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry for a meeting in the near future with the Queensland Government on the needs of the sugar industry? Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The member for Burdekin asked the Minister to comment. He did not ask him a question. I refer you to your mling last week, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for Brisbane Central very much for his advice. I ask the member for Burdekin to rephrase his question. Mr STONEMAN: Is the Minister aware of the comments by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in calling for a meeting with the Queensland Govemment on the needs of the sugar industry? Mr TURNER: In answer to the very pertinent question by the member for Burdekin, I indicate that I am aware of today's "Courier-Mail" article. I am rather amused by Mr Kerin's calling for such a meeting. It really indicates that an election is now on. In view of its calling an election on 1 December, the Federal ALP Government is concemed about its lack of support in sugar areas—and, when one considers its track record, not without reason or justification. Although I regard Mr Kerin's call for a meeting as political posturing, I have agreed to meet him on the 24th of this month. I hope that that meeting will be more fmitful for the sugar industry than have many other repre­ sentations that the Queensland Govemment has made to the Federal Govemment in recent months for assistance. Mr Kerin has a fairly good knowledge of the industry and 1136 9 October 1984 Questions Without Notice is aware of its problems. However, the greatest obstacle that he must overcome to secure financial assistance for a primary industry is the socialist Government in Canberra. Let me deal with the track record of Mr Kerin and Mr Hawke in this matter. Mr Hawke's solution to the problems of the sugar industry was to advise Queensland to take all the money allocated to primary industries under the Relocation Assistance Scheme and divert it to the sugar industry. Mr Kerin is on record as suggesting that there would be no help for the sugar industry until after the completion of the internal review, which could take up to two years. I point out that representations have been made at a Premier-to-Prime Minister level. Over a period of many months, I have sought assistance for the sugar industry from the Minister for Primary Industry. Until quite recently, the Commonwealth declined to match the State Govemment's $5m assistance under RAS funding. It refused to pick up the interest component to bring the first delivery advance from $160 to $180 a tonne. The State Government has assisted by doing so. In short, in answer to the honourable member's question, I do not believe that the industry will swallow the latest ploy by the ALP in an endeavour to win votes. People in sugar areas would not be so naive. Rather, they will register their disapproval of the Australian Labor Party at the polls on I December.

Parliamentary Sittings Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Minister for Works and Housing and Leader of the House: Has he seen an article by George Langley in "The Weekend Australian" of 6 October in which it was claimed— "It is not difficult to think about why the Queensland Govemment is reluctant to call Parliament together. Every time Parliament sits the Govemment gets hammered by the Opposition."? Mr WHARTON: I have certainly read the article referred to by the honourable member. The Queensland Govemment is far from reluctant to call Parliament together. When the National Party was elected to govem in its own right last year. Parliament commenced sitting on 22 November and sat right through virtually until Christmas eve. The Queensland Parliament's performance has far outstripped that of any other State. These types of off-the-cuff remarks contained in newspapers and elsewhere are wide of the mark. Since 22 November the House has sat for 47 days, which is more than any other State Parliament. During the same period the number of sitting days for the other States were: South Australia, 44 days; New South Wales, 42 days; Victoria, 40 days; Westem Australia, 32 days; and Tasmania, 37 days. The Federal Government sat for 55 days. Unlike the Federal Govemment, the Queensland Govemment is not cutting short its term of office for an early and unnecessary election. Queensland has a full legislative program and the House will be sitting, despite the spurious claims and allegations that stem from the Opposition. The article states that allegations against Govemment Ministers are a regular feature of the parliamentary sittings in Queensland, yet nothing ever comes of these aUegations. The Government knows why that is so. There is no substance to them and they lack proof In recent weeks the House has witnessed a continuing exercise in bucketing by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is not involved; instead he has organised all of the other members of his team to do the bucketing. He has tried to keep his own nose clean at the expense of his own mates. The article also mentioned the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the Budget debate in which he described the State Budget as a document of deceit and fraud and a hoax. It is a pity that he did not obtain the views of some of his own members, such Questions Without Notice 9 October 1984 1137

as the honourable member for Bundaberg who is very happy with the Budget. In fact, in a newspaper known locally as "The Dmm" the member for Bundaberg took all the credit foi- all the things that happened before he entered Pariiament. On the one hand he is saying what a great Budget it is and on the other hand the rest of the Opposition claims the Budget is a fraud and a hoax. The member for Bundaberg is claiming that major new projects in education, office constmction and water resources will be funded mainly from the Special Major Capital Works Program, which his leader so roundly criticised. The honourable member is claiming these projects as his own, but he was not even a member of Pariiament when they were first mooted. It is no wonder that the Labor Opposition has such little credibility with the electorate at large. The National Party, both inside and outside of the Parliament, has always performed in the interests of all the people of Queensland and will continue to do so. Random Breath-testing Mr KAUS: I ask the Minister for Transport: Has his attention been drawn to press reports concerning the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety and to its finding that random breath-testing should be introduced in all States and Territories? Mr LANE: I read the report in this morning's "Courier-Mail" I do not have a copy of the committee's report. That committee does not pay me that sort of courtesy. I would have thought that road safety was a non-partisan and non-political matter. As chairman of the Queensland Road Safety Council, that is the way I have tried to play the game. Unfortunately, neither the chairman of the national committee nor its members seem to wish to play the game that way or respond to the goodwill that I have extended to them in this matter. In regard to the content of the report as it appeared in "The Courier-MaU" this morning—I think it is worth noting that whilst the report, presumably amongst its other recommendations, opted for random breath tests throughout the nation. The Queensland Government is not in favour of random breath tests at this time and maintains that position. We are well supported by the road-toll figures over the past year or so. For example, as at midnight last night there had been, quite sadly, 366 road deaths this year compared with 381 for the same period in 1983. But, more importantly, a comparison of that figure with the figure of 476 for the same period in 1982 shows that there has been a net saving of 110 lives—110 Queenslanders who, under the same criteria, died in 1982. I am suggesting that that has occurred because of this Government's positive policies. Following the introduction at Christmas-time 1982 of the 0.05 blood alcohol Umit, Queensland has been able to record an extremely significant reduction in fatalities without having to introduce random breath-testing. The joint Department of Transport/RACQ report on alcohol and road fatalities that was published earlier this year was studied in great detail by the Govemment, and it decided that an increase in specific target testing— limitations on young drivers and an increased public awareness campaign—would be better than the introduction of random breath tests. As members know, Queensland is a vast and decentralised State, and this Govemment believes that the measures I have outlined are the best possible means of utilising police manpower and resources. Finally, I would like all members to realise that the slogan adopted by the Queensland Road Safety Council says it all. It is a matter of individual responsibility—"Finally It's Up To You!" Soil Conservation Mr ELLIOTT: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Is he aware of an article in "The Chronicle" by Councillor Ross Stirling, who is the chairman of the Central Downs Advisory Group Committee on Soil Conservation? In the article Councillor 1138 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

Stirling indicated that he is hopeful that the State Govemment will spend more money on, and co-operate more with, bodies involved in soil conservation. Will the Minister ensure that the Government does spend more money on soil conservation and that sufficient officers are available to undertake the necessary work? Mr TURNER: I share the honourable member's concern about the serious problem of soil erosion, which the Govemment is addressing. It is a national problem, because once soU is lost, it is gone for ever. The problem should concem everyone, whether in mral areas or in the metropolis. The article mentioned by the honourable member referred to a booklet on the subject, which will be published within the next month. Only last Friday I attended a seminar on soil conservation. In many country areas there is now a greater awareness of the problem of soil erosion, particularly in areas that have been newly opened up, in which it is particularly significant. I do not believe that the complete answer is just to allocate money. However, this year, the State Govemment will spend approximately $6.7m in employing a staff of about 160 in the soil conservation area. In the same period, Queensland wUl receive about $600,000 in assistance from the Federal Govemment. A more positive measure for the Federal Govemment to take would be to provide greater tax concessions for improved works. That would give individual property-owners a greater incentive to embark on soil-conservation programs. I inform the honourable member that Cabinet has approved the drafting of a new soil conservation BUI, which wUl go a long way towards alleviating some of the problems, particularly in the area of tmsts, that are inherent in the Soil Conservation Act, under which we are presently operating. I also indicate that the Govemment wiU be implementing quite a number of recommendations that were made in the Father report. Once again, I repeat that this is a very serious problem. It is a pity that the media did not place more emphasis, on the problem and acquaint the people in the cities that Queensland is losing a natural asset when it loses its soil. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has how expired.

SUPPLY Committee—Financial Statement—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 4 October (see p. 1117) on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's motion^ "That there be granted to Her Majesty, for the service of the year 1984-1985, a sum not exceeding $588,000 to defray Contingencies—His Excellency the Govemor." Mrs CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers) (12.23 p.m.): I have much pleasure in taking part in the debate on the Budget. In the days ahead, it will be seen that this is a Budget of success. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber, and particularly in the lobby on my right. I ask the Committee to come to order. Mrs CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Row. All too often people are concemed about what they have, not how they pay for it. This Budget is balanced and it shows that the Qovemment is working within its means. No-one in a Government or private enterprise can possibly make ends meet if his total bills exceed the amount of money that he receives. Many other States in Australia are slowly but surely getting themselves into the position in which their total bills exceed the amount of money that they are receiving. The problems that Queensland face are not as bad as some people beUeve, Although all of us would like certain things to happen overnight, if the economy is to get back onto its feet it is better to adopt a crawl-before- you-walk policy. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1139

The problems that we all face are unemployment, the care of the elderly, and the looking after of small business, which is the backbone of our country. Firstly, wage demands must be moderated. The reduction in pay-roll tax must give incentive to business in general. Although I, personally, would like to see greater reductions in pay­ roll tax, we must be thankful that pay-roll tax has not be increased. Provided that redundancy pay, termination pay and other benefits are not too demanding on small business and provided that unions do not seek unrealistic increases, the unemployment situation should improve and greater incentives should be provided. The $550,000 that has been allocated to the Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs for young people can only help, not hinder, young people who are so eager to become employed. Another $400,000 has been allocated to the Division of Youth to expand the Youth Employment Support Scheme. Under that scheme, centres are being established at Beenleigh, Caims, Mackay, Maryborough and Roma. The decentralisation of the scheme will be advantageous to Queensland's country youth, who are usually disadvantaged because of their distance from the capital city or provincial cities. Schools, which we are told are understaffed, will receive an additional 1 155 full- time teachers. TAFE colleges will be allocated 173 of those teachers. An additional 400 teachers will be employed on a temporary basis to provide relief for teachers on leave. The police force will be increased by 100. I do not deny that, in some areas, more officers are needed. However, I ask this question: Who pays? Of course one can have whatever one likes, but it is a different matter when one considers who must pay. Extra taxes are levied by Governments to cover extra costs. But the Queensland Govemment has still managed to balance its Budget without increasing taxes. Why is it that, when the Commonwealth raises its charges, it claims that it is merely keeping up with changes in the Consumer Price Index but, when Queensland automatically raises its charges, it is said that the Government is raising its taxes? It is easy to see that a little jealousy is portrayed by those who wish to be on a winner. Because it plays such an important part in the family way of life, home-ownership is of paramount concern to any Govemment. The Queensland Govemment has begun processing the first applications for assistance under a new loans scheme that is aimed at helping low and moderate income-earners to bridge the home-purchase deposit gap. Under the Budget, the maximum loan available under the Housing Commission's interest subsidy income-earned home-ownership scheme will be increased from $35,000 to $37,500. It may be unwise for Govemments to encourage people to rent Housing Commission houses rather than ensure that families own their own home, thereby avoiding the problem of having to pay rent, a difficulty that many young families face today. When one combines with the Budget allocation the subsidy payments made through the Commonwealth Govemment's first home owners' scheme to help in the repayment of the second loan that is now available to young couples over a period of 10 years with interest at saving bank home loan rates of 11.5 per cent, the total Budget funding for home purchase this financial year is $ 105.4m. That is an increase of 14 per cent on the total advances provided for such purposes during 1983-84. No limit has been placed on the amount that can be borrowed under the second loan scheme. Families and housing are important, but the availability of transport for all people, no matter where they build their homes, is also important. The urban rail electrification program is almost complete, and the Petrie-Caboolture section will be finished this year. The Thorneside-Wellington Point extension will proceed under the Special Major Capital Works Program. Solutions will be found, hopefully, to the very real transport problems being experienced in my areas of Bracken Ridge and Albany Creek. As the rail service becomes more efficient, more parking facilities will have to be provided at railway stations. Much has been achieved in catering for those members of the public who, because of their way of life, make use of the facilities that the Government provides. 1140 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

Public services should be decreased, not increased, because it is not in the long- term interests of the State to bear the large financial burden or overhead that is created by its public services. Mr Davis: The States are creating more public servants. Mrs CHAPMAN: State public services are not growing quite as much as that of the Commonwealth Public Service. The State needs its public service, but it tends to grow too frequentiy into a large organisation. That organisation is dependent on the tax-payers for its survival. A similar instance can be found in the provision of welfare services. The welfare service bill has grown out of all proportion to the number of tax-payers who can support it. It is quite deplorable that the Commonwealth Govemment wUl pay for the full- time employment of a dark person in an electoral office but will not provide the same assistance for the employment of white people. A Government Member interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is very bad. The private sector needs to be given aU possible assistance. Most people present in the Chamber are lucky not to have come into contact with the dmg problem. The very existence of dmgs should be outlawed. I am pleased to belong to a Govemment that has stated quite emphatically that it opposes the use of any kind of dmg that leads to addiction. I view with grave concem the actions of any Govemment that allows marijuana to be grown for private use. Is not that the thin end of the wedge? All concerned parents should deplore any move in that direction. Mr Davis: Are you against the smoking of tobacco, too? Mrs CHAPMAN: Yes, I am. The role of the Police Department should be recognised. A police officer's job is not an easy one, so I am pleased to see that the Budget allocates $2.8m to the Police Department to allow the appointment of an additional 100 police officers. Their appoint­ ment is vitally important to the community's well-being. Certainly it is a pity that the number is not higher. However, as I have said, one has to live within one's means. But, believe me, if the use of marijuana were legalised, no number of police would be able to combat the crime rate that would result in this State. The sum of $ 1.4m has been set aside for the Police Department's computer facility. Over the next three years, the total cost of additions to the facility will be $6.3m. No doubt the computer terminals that will be set up in the many non-metropolitan centres will be of great assistance to the Police Department. Similarly, because the activities of criminals are not confined to one State, the computer-to-computer link-up with New South Wales and Victoria is a great asset. This year, the Queensland Government's contribution to the Central Fingerprint Bureau in New South Wales will be $220,000. However, it provides the tie-up that is so necessary to protect the residents of this great State. The Queensland Police Department is always eager to learn of the problems confronting Police Departments throughout Australia. From the Budget, the National Police Research Unit will receive $49,000 towards its administrative costs. That will help ensure that the Queensland Police Force is not left behind in gaining the knowledge that is necessary to maintain law and order. A long, hard look must be taken at the way in which the importation of goods is slowly eroding the manufacture of products that are proudly stamped "Queensland made" On the one hand, exorbitant demands made by trade unions result in unem­ ployment; on the other, vast quantities of goods are imported from countries such as Taiwan, in which the workers receive a pittance. Australian consumers are gullible and Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1141

buy those products, most of which are of poor quality. Consumers cannot see the wood for the trees; they should, whenever possible, buy goods that are Queensland made. That would help keep Queenslanders in jobs and would support Queensland industries. Mr Davis: We go for Australian-made goods. Mrs CHAPMAN: The public should go for Queensland-made goods first. The Budget sets aside an amount of $37,000 for Asia's first agricultural exhibition, which opened in August 1984. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Callide has passed between the Chair and the member on her feet. I ask him to refrain from doing that. Mr HARTWIG: I apologise, Mr Row. Mrs CHAPMAN: The Budget also makes provision for the appointment of a trade development officer to the Agent-General's Office in London. That appointment will encourage the sale of Queensland-made goods in the United Kingdom and Europe. Tourism is the growth industry in Queensland. All Queenslanders should be proud of the part played by the tourist industry in this State. Queensland lacks suitable fresh­ water impoundments that allow the stocking of fish on a self-sustainable basis. The Budget provides $100,000 to help overcome that problem, and the expenditure of that sum must ultimately benefit the tourist industry. Queensland's total expenditure on tourism this year, which is provided from consolidated revenue, is $ 16.7m. Because Queensland knows the importance of tourism, it has doubled its spending on promotion. A certain amount of praise should also be given to the Paul Hogan presentations. They are having a tremendous impact on tourism in Australia. The Queensland Government is also pleased to achieve a firstb y introducing its own computerised data bank and reservations system. In 1972, the Queensland Govemment established the firstsport s ministry in Australia. Since then, it has provided $25m to 79 sports throughout Queensland. The Queensland Cultural Centre is a building of note, one of which Queensland can be very proud. At a cost of $5m, the Queensland Cultural Centre Tmst will encourage the arts that have come to the fore in Queensland only over the last few years. The performing arts and the Queensland Museum are also catered for in the Budget. I tum now to health. One can be sure that the Queensland Govemment has filled in the hollows left by the Medicare system. It is a shame that many Queenslanders took care of their own health by being insured privately and that now, once again, there is a socialist system under which so many people depend upon the Govemment. How far can the Government go with the welfare system? Queensland hospitals were the envy of every other State. This year, $218.2m will be provided by the Budget towards health services^—an increase of 12.1 per cent on the previous year's allocation—and $811.2m will be provided for hospitals in Queensland. Queensland's school dental service will be expanded. In those centres in which school dental services are provided, the schoolchildren will be in close touch with dental care. It is pleasing to see that money is being spent on mosquito control. Problem diseases, such as dengue fever, associated with mosquitoes will be more readily solved. More than $22m has been provided for community home care, and new community health service centres, staffed by a nurse and a social worker, will be established at Ingham, Ayr, Biloela and Gayndah. Queensland's roads have received an extra boost of up to $100m. That will be of great help in such a vast State. The approaches to the great Gateway Bridge will ensure 1142 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

a better flow of traffic in the city of Brisbane. The Govemment should be congratulated on its foresight. Mr Vaughan: Smack through my electorate. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is great. Probably the people using it will all be tourists. In my electorate of Pine Rivers, attention needs to be given to the southem link proposed by the Pine Rivers Shire Council to enable motorists to circle Strathpine, especially during peak hours. Any assistance provided by the Main Roads Department on that very important connection would be greatly appreciated. Schools are well catered for in the Budget, although all honourable members would wish that schools received everything that they asked for. All of us realise, of course, that out of the aUocation of $l,072m, which is an increase of $l45m, or 15.7 per cent, on the allocation for the previous year, a great deal must be paid for. The first and foremost consideration of all honourable members is the education of the children of Queensland. One may wonder how people ever existed without the carpets and mod cons to which our children have become accustomed over the years. Are our children better citizens for it? I sometimes wonder. I have advised the Minister for Education about some schools in my electorate. I should be pleased if attention could be given to them. Following an incident of arson at the Pine Rivers High School, repairs were carried out by the Works Department. I am very grateful for the great boost that the department provided in that area. The overall education program in this State is first-class. Queensland is proud of the many academics produced from its education system. A great deal of thanks should be bestowed on the p. and c. associations. Their untiring efforts have saved the Queensland Government many thousands of dollars. Queensland is a very large State, and I congratulate the Premier and Treasurer on introducing a Budget that has been so well thought out.

Mr CASEY (Mackay) (12.40 p.m.): Last week I brought to the notice of the Parliament aspects of the Budget that have, to say the least, created a sensation throughout Queensland. It could be said that in some respects they set the State alight and led people to a realisation of just what Ministers are prepared to do to help their friends or, as in this instance, themselves. Since my speech, amazing statements have been made and I will comment on some of them. One was by the Premier and Treasurer last Thursday moming. In a ministerial statement he said that the project that is to be called Tartms Weir had been about for a long tiine. As you would appreciate, Mr Row, water projects are about for a long time. I mean a really long time. The Budget suggests that a commencement will be made on the Proserpine Dam. That project has been about since I was a kid. It was contemplated 40 or 45 years ago. The Burdekin River project was being mooted in the 1920s and 1930s as a major scheme to boost our water resources. Since the very first settiement in the Rockhampton area, suggestions have been made about a project in the Fitzroy River below the junction of the Dawson and Mackenzie Rivers. A "long time" when speaking of water projects really means that. On the Premier's admission, the comments that I made about the first time the Tartms Weir was mentioned were correct. It was in the 1982-83 report of the Water Resources Commission. The 15 or 18 months since that report was tabled in the Parliament could not be considered to be a long time. It is quite a short time. As I will point out later, perhaps it is one of the quickest projects ever to get off the ground in this State. The Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services (Mr Goleby) commented about its being a long time, too. I will deal with him shortly. In his ministerial statement, the Premier and Treasurer said that his son would not be using the water for many a year because his property was still at the developmental Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1143

stage. I was amazed to read in this moming's "Courier-MaU" comments by his son, John BjeUce-Petersen. I reiterate that at no time since I first made comments about this matter have I directed any criticism whatsoever at the Premier's famUy. However, because of the public statements made by John Bjelke-Petersen, I suggest that a number of questions ought to be answered. Perhaps I could caU the Premier's son "Little Sfr Echo" We have Sir Joh and Sir Echo. I emphasise that I first raised the matter pubUcly in May 1982. John BjeUce-Petersen said, " we have our own water so the Mackenzie River Weir Dam is of no benefit to me." In view of that statement, I have a very simple question to ask the Premier and his son: If that is so, why have they applied for water rights from the Mackenzie River? Why was their application the first cab off the rank? Why was Ciasom Pty Ltd, out of all the land-holders being spoken to by the Water Resources Commission about the Tartms Wefr on the Mackenzie River, the firstcompan y to seek a major draw-off from the Mackenzie River? Those questions should be answered by the people involved. Those questions cannot be answered as the Premier would Uke them answered, because they are a matter of public documentation. The application was gazetted on 1 September 1984. I certainly accept that the anabranch mnning right through the two properties owned by the Premier's family contains a major water-hole which can be put to good use by the properties. Mr Gunn interjected. Mr CASEY: Certainly it is tme that Ciasom Pty Ltd has applied for a licence to pump from that water-hole, but why does the company put in an application to use an 18-inch pump to draw water from the Mackenzie River? Quite clearly and quite intentionally that company desires major supplies of water at all times, and I will go a little further into that shortly. Government Members: Knockers! Mr CASEY: I chaUenge the back-bench members of the National Party to go out into their electorates, be they city or mral-based, and sit down with their constituents who have been starved for water for years and explain to them how this project got off the ground in 18 months. That will be the test for them. That wiU show the people of Queensland whether those members are any good as parliamentarians. They should get out into their electorates and try to explain it. Then they will find out who are the knockers round the country, because they will be the ones copping the knock. Some amazing remarks have been made by the man of the hour, the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services. In a rather garbled answer to a question I asked, he said that the State did not suffer from any real problems in water resources. He really did not answer my question about the Tartms Weir; he spoke about the Proserpine Weir, what was happening in the Proserpine area and what he hoped would happen in the future. That is probably because in recent weeks in this House the Minister for Water Resources has clearly displayed that he has a very, very poor grasp of his portfolio. Perhaps he should have the Lands portfolio, because he seems to be a little more expert in land-dealings. As was indicated in the Parliament this moming by way of a Dorothy Dix question to the Minister for Education, yesterday I was again in the Apis Creek/Marlborough area and spent a considerable time looking at what is happening and talking to a considerable number of people in the area. One of the surprising things that I leamt was that, despite what the Minister for Water Resources said in ParUament last week, the majority of the land-holders who are downstream from the proposed Tartms Weir are against the proposal. I do not blame them because, at the moment, other than for the mere payment of their annual water licence fee, they are pumping the water out of the river for free. Many of them have been making very good use of it for quite a considerable number of years in developing farming properties. In the future they will have to pay for all of that water. 1144 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

The harnessing of that water resource comes about for the simple reason that for the first time a major farming operation is to be established on what is known there as "east of the river" That farming operation will be on the "Ten Mile" property of the Bjelke-Petersen family. Good luck to that family. I understand that the major commodity intended to be grown there, surprisingly to many, is cotton. Another suggestion is that grain will be grown. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I hope it is not Fine Cotton. Mr CASEY: Because of everything that has happened in the area, a ring-in inquiry is needed. Judging by what is going on in the area, the suggestion of cotton-growing makes sense for the simple reason that the growing of cotton needs an assured water supply. If a person expects to get a constant retum from a cotton crop, it must grown under irrigation. At the moment cotton is one of the best cash crops available to primary producers in this State and in the nation. Mr Newton: The more water, the better. Mr CASEY: That is why Ciasom Pty Ltd wants to install an 18-inch pump on the Mackenzie River. Cotton must have a guaranteed supply of water. I have inspected the soil in the area, and I admit that it would be excellent for the growing of cotton. But once the cotton has been harvested, it will have to be transported to a cotton gin, and the nearest gin is located at Emerald. That is why the Apis Creek-Duaringa Road is being upgraded. That is why it has been gazetted as a main road. It has certainly not been done to permit people to travel through to Mackay, which was the ridiculous statement made today in "The Courier- MaU" I have lived in Mackay all my life, and I know that area very well. I would not use that road to travel to the coal mines, Emerald or westem Queensland. I would use the Peak Downs Highway to travel to Clermont, Emerald and out to Longreach. If I wanted to go to Blackwater, I would travel straight down the Dingo-Mount Flora beef road. That road was contmcted 30 km west of the Mackenzie River to avoid the flood-prone area near the river. The situation is quite clear. Anybody who knows the area and knows what he is talking about knows that the comments being made about the road being a short-cut to Mackay are absolutely ridiculous. Even to talk about it being a short-cut to the national highway is absolutely ridiculous. Yesterday I travelled by the national highway from Rockhampton to Marlborough. I then had to turn off and travel about 60 km up what was known as the old inland highway before I could reach the site of the Tartms Weir. Residents of the area would say that if they wanted to go north there is no way in the world that they would use that route through Marlborough as a short-cut. Ridiculous nonsense is being spoken, and people who do not know and understand the area are swallowing it. Anyone who knows and understands the area knows full well that arrant nonsense is being spoken about the direction of the road. To return to the farming operation—back in May 1982 when I first raised the issue and said that funds would be allocated to a road that was then not even a declared main road and a road that led to an area in which the Premier's family had purchased a property, the Premier publicly proclaimed that thousands of tonnes of grain grown in the area had to be transported to a port. Let me set the record straight. Thousands of tonnes of grain is not being grown in the area east of the Mackenzie River. Grain is grown in the area west of the Mackenzie River, and the growers in that area face great difficulty in transporting their grain over the Dingo-Mount Flora beef road and then to a port. They had by far the greatest priority in roadworks. Already established farming operations were struggling to get their grain to market. One farmer in the area has to Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1145 continually use his own grader to grade the road to enable vehicles to transport his grain to Dingo so that it can be sent to Gladstone and exported. Let me set the facts straight. There was an already established priority for roadworks in the area, and it certainly was not for the Duaringa-Apis Creek road because, apart from one small property, no farming operations were being carried on east of the Mackenzie River. The tmth of the matter is that if there is to be any additional farming on that side of the river there has to be guaranteed access. The only guaranteed access now is that to the property owned by the Premier's family company. It is passing strange that the reconstmction of the road begins right at the southem boundary of that property. 1 will refer to that matter in greater detail later. It must be realised that if a cotton-farming or even grain-growing operation is to be established, there must be a guaranteed supply of water. From speaking to people in the area, 1 understand that the water rights on the river have virtually been taken up already. That is why the weir is being built. The Bjelke- Petersen family, or the Thiess property across the river, wants a guaranteed supply of water. The Premier and Treasurer said that people have to pay for a water scheme. That is not exactly correct. People pay through water rates for the maintenance of a water scheme, but they certainly do not pay for the capital cost of the scheme. I know of no scheme anywhere in Queensland, or, for that matter, in Australia, that has been sponsored by a Government, under which the land-owners who have benefited from the scheme have had to meet its cost. Such a cost has never been imposed on land-holders anywhere in Australia. It is accepted that the constmction of a dam, including the channels, is paid for out of public funds. The only cost that is imposed on land-owners is that for the maintenance and upkeep of the scheme. That is why the 11 other land-owners in the area do not want the Tartrus Weir. They will have to pay for water that they now receive for nothing. It is passing strange that the owner of another property in the area who applied to the Water Resources Commission for a water licence was knocked back because there was insufficient water in the river. That happened a couple of years ago. Ciasom appears on the scene, and constmction of the weir is approved. One of the other comments that have been floating round relates to the National Water Resources Program. I draw the Committee's attention to the priority listing that the Government supplied to the Federal Government for 1983-84, which is the last listing that it forwarded to the Federal Government. It shows the following priority programs— 1. Water resources assessment. That is a continuing program to ascertain where the water resources of the State are. 2. Bundaberg irrigation project. 3. Brisbane creeks flood mitigation works. That has been an ongoing program since the 1974 floods. 4. Eton irrigation project. 5. Leslie Dam, Stage II, and associated works. 6. Herbert River flood mitigation works. 7. Ross River Dam, Stage II. Of course, Ross River is in Townsville, and, Mr Row, the Herbert River is in your electorate. 8. Awoonga High Dam. That dam will provide additional water for industry in the Gladstone area. 9. Kammba water supply. The poor old people in the Gulf of Carpentaria area have been waiting for a water supply for 20 years, since the prawning industry was established there.

64165—39 1146 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) 10. Mount Morgan water supply scheme. Over a number of years, the honourable member for Rockhampton has told the Chamber about the problems with water in Mount Morgan. The people in that town virtually die of thfrst. They see their gardens wUt away. 11. Lower Mary River irrigation project. 12. Cloncurry water supply. 13. Cressbrook Creek Dam. That is the list. Those were the schemes that the Queensland Govemment submitted to the Commonwealth Government as priority schemes for irrigation and flood mitigation purposes and for domestic water supplies in Queensland. There is no mention of the Tartms Weir as a priority project. If the State Govemment has $4.5m up its sleeve, surely it should devote that money to one of the schemes set out in that list, because they are the priority schemes in Queensland. That listing was submitted by the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services (Mr Goleby) to the Minister for National Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in August 1983. No fresh Ust has been submitted since that time. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Mr CASEY: Before the luncheon recess, I read a list of the Govemment's declared priorities for water resources programs and Commonwealth funding. As I mentioned, the Proserpine Dam did not appear on that list. The Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, in answer to a question from me last Thursday in this place, said that the Proserpine Dam had a very high priority. In fact, I think that he said that it had the highest priority. No mention was made on that list of the Gyranda Weir, the Mackenzie River Weir No. 2, the Lake Clarendon Scheme or Dyer's Lagoon. However, they all receive mention in the water resources allocation in the Budget. But there was certainly no mention of the Tartms Weir. It is spelt T-a-r-t-r-u-s. It was originally spelt T-a-r-t-a-r-u-s, but the property on which the weir wiU be situated is Tartms. The derivative Tartms means hell-like, and that is an apt meaning, because aU hell has cut loose over the decision by the Govemment to constmct that weir. What this is all about is priorities—the declared priorities of the State as opposed to what appears in the Budget as regards water resource programs. As far as roadworks are concemed, there is a difference also between the declared priorities and the Budget aUocations. In answer to my question in this place the other day, the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services (Mr Goleby) said, in relation to Proserpine Dam— "I can say without fear of contradiction that the scheme is brought to fmition in this Budget because it is considered to be the most urgentiy needed in the State." That is passing strange. The Proserpine Dam has suddenly become the most urgentiy needed dam in the State, yet it has never appeared on the list of water resource programs in need of Federal funding. The Minister also said that there was no reference to the Proserpine Dam in any report in his department. It is obvious that the Minister for Water Resources knows nothing about his department. According to the records, inves­ tigations have been going on for years and have been reported in the annual reports of his department. That is typical of the Minister for Water Resources. What sort of fight did John Goleby put up for farmers, graziers and local authorities who have been waiting in the queue for years for water resources schemes for their areas? None! However, he is not alone, because every member of the National Party Cabinet is to blame. They did not put up a fight for the projects that were on the program. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr CASEY: Every National Party member of Parliament, including the member for Lockyer who is being vociferous on the sidelines, must share in the shame. The Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1147

member for Lockyer should go out into his electorate and explain to the water hungry people in the Lockyer Valley why the Premier and Treasurer has grabbed the Water Resources Commission funds for his scheme. That money should be going to the Leslie Dam, Stage II. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. The member for Mackay is implying that I have not campaigned for weirs in the Lockyer Valley. Because of my representation, seven weirs for the Lockyer Valley are projected in the Budget. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): There is no point of order. Mr CASEY: Of course there is no point of order, because I made no such comment. There is no way in the world that the Premier and Treasurer, any other member of the Cabinet or any other National Party Government member can ever again blame the Commonwealth Government for the failure to provide water resources projects. Throughout the length and breadth of the State, Government members make comments while local authorities and people all round the State are dying of thirst because they cannot get a proper drink of water. But what do Govemment members do when those people make appeals for water funds? A Government Member interjected. Mr CASEY: The honourable member should talk to the people in the Bowen area and in Cloncurry; they have been fighting for a long time. What about Kammba? It is one of the most isolated parts of Queensland. Every member of this Parliament knows what is happening in Kammba and why there has been no water there for years. The Govemment would not allocate the finance. It kept saying that it should come from the Commonwealth. It did not say that money for the Tartrus Weir would come from the Commonwealth. But that is where the money has gone. Government members will have to answer for that in their electorates. This Government is very selfish and we all know why that money has been provided for that weir. I turn now to electricity. Many rumours have been circulating in the Chamber, in central Queensland and, indeed, throughout the whole of the State to the effect that some special funding deal was being engaged in, in relation to a rural electrification scheme north and north-east of Duaringa, in central Queensland. I believe that a few months ago the Minister for Mines and Energy took to Cabinet a subsidy proposal concerning that scheme and that half of the Ministers in Cabinet almost fell over in a fit because they got such a shock when they learnt of the scheme. It contained a proposal for the connection of three-phase power to the area. As all honourable members know, three-phase power does not attract a subsidy as part of a mral electrification scheme. Members of the Australian Labor Party know a little about electric power and mral electrification schemes. We believe that electric power, like water supply and sewerage facilities, is the basic right of every person in this State. I cast my mind back to the days when the Labor Party started mral electrification schemes in Queensland. Some far-western towns in Queensland were given electricity by Labor Governments before it was connected to many medium-sized towns in coastal areas. Many years ago, my colleague the honourable member for Brisbane Central and I, as young members of Parliament, visited Quilpie, where on a plaque on the power station I read, "Instigated by Labor Government" That was back in the 1950s. Mr Davis: And we travelled by train, too. Mr CASEY: Yes. We did not fly round the countryside in a jet aircraft. The Labor Party's policy is that power should be provided to all people, even if it means that solar power has to be provided to outback places. 1148 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) At a time when there is not enough money to enable everybody to be provided with electric power, the scheme taken to Cabinet by the Minister for Mines and Energy contained the proposal for three-phase power. Rightly so, the scheme was rejected. I understand, however, that it is being looked at again. Certain people in the area concemed want three-phase power for irrigation. All mral electrification schemes embody what is known as the SWER system, which is the single wire earth return system. As you would know, Mr Booth, from the mral electrification schemes in your area, that system is a fairly simple one. The route of the wire does not follow a set course or roads; the poles are erected cross-country and a single wire is hooked up to the side of the pole to carry power to the households and farms. Despite the fact that subsidy is payable only on the single wire earth retum system, in central Queensland the poles are being erected with cross-arms. That in itself is completely contrary to the usual scheme. Cross-arms are being provided so that at a later stage the other two wires can be hauled through and three-phase power can be connected. To say the least, that is unusual. It is also unusual that the only place in Queensland in which that is happening is this area in central Queensland, in which two of the properties are "Ten Mile" and "Crystal Waters" on the Mackenzie River. I must allude to the services provided by Telecom. Time and time again in this Chamber, the Premier and Treasurer tries to castigate the Federal Govemment for what it is doing or not doing for Queensland. This morning, he did so again. He must do that with tongue in cheek, for the simple reason that he is one of the greatest beneficiaries that I know of He should be personally grateful to the Federal Govemment because last year Telecom hooked a telephone line up to his property at a cost of $40,000. What did he pay for it? $1,350, which is the highest fee that Telecom is able to charge. So the Premier and Treasurer himself made a direct saving of $38,650, thanks to the good, Hawke, Labor Federal Government. In other words, that $38,650 has been paid for by other Telecom subscribers, such as pensioners and urban dwellers in cities such as Brisbane, TownsvUle and Rockhampton. Every time the Premier is critical of the Federal Government he must have his tongue in his cheek because of the personal support that he has been given to the extent of approximately $38,000 to instaU a telephone. Last Wednesday, I intended to refer to another matter. Unfortunately, because of some untimely intermptions, I ran out of time. I touched on the matter partly by way of a question the following day to the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police. The matter does not involve lands or police; it involves forestry. On 19 September the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police introduced a proposal to revoke nine areas of State forest. Like most other members of this Assembly, I did not have time to examine them all until the recess. Among them was the proposal to revoke as State forest that part of State forest 18, parish of Moultrie. My attention was attracted by the area of revocation. It was 1 174 ha, or about 3 000 acres, which is a large piece of land. The land concerned was portion 13 of that parish. Moultrie parish is opposite the Bjelke-Petersen property on the Mackenzie River. The 1 174 ha of State forest was only surtendered to the Crown in 1977, seven years ago. At the time, the owner of the land was converting his property to freehold. Although the area had been previously logged for millable timber, 25 to 30 per cent of the area still had timber suitable for fence posts, decorative logs, or even mine timber. In 1977 the owner was quite happy to surrender that part of his lease so that it could become a State forest. He freeholded the rest of his land, which became known as portion 10. It is most unusual for a State forest to be revoked after only seven years, despite the assertions that the Minister tried to make in Parliament recently. I am aware that the Forestry Department recommended against revocation when it was applied for by the new owner. The new owner took over from the previous owner the grazing rights over that State forest. The lease, together with those grazing rights, was transferted on 8 June 1983. I ask honourable members to note that date. It was about the time that Cameron McNamara reported on a water resource solution for that area. Despite the protestations from people within the Forestry Department, the motion moved by the Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1149

Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Glasson) passed through Parliament without members having an opportunity to study it to see what it was all about. The extra land considerably increased the size of the property known as "Dumbarton".I can tell honourable members that the owners are not dumb. The value of the property has increased tremendously, especially now that a major water storage area will be built upstream of it. Who was the person who purchased the property prior to June 1983? Obviously, the person had inside information on what was happening. It was not the Bjelke-Petersen family but the very close friend of the Premier in the person of Leslie Charies Thiess, and the members of his family. In answer to my question recently, the Minister for Water Resources admitted that that was so. He said that any other land-holder could have put forward a similar argument about the land. The Minister said that the area was surrounded by cultivation and that, in fact, no forestry timber had ever been harvested from it. The Minister is wrong because timber had been harvested from the area. Over a period all the millable timber had been taken off the area. Honourable members are well aware that the Minister for Water Resources is not the only Minister who does not know too much about his portfolio. The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Glasson) recently showed quite clearly that he did not know much about his portfolio. I have a sketch of the area. It shows quite clearly the type of land in portion 13 of State forest 18. It shows forests of lightly to densely timbered bloodwood, ironbark, budjaroo, etc. The Minister said that it is surrounded by good, arable soil. Considerable additional value will be added to the property. The Thiess family suddenly became the holders of the casino licence in Townsville because of what appeared to be a little bit of inside information and a littie bit of push and pull directly from the Premier. With my knowledge of what has happened over the years, nobody can tell me that the Premier's very good friend was not in the know with what was happening with this land. It is passing strange that it was purchased at about the time the investigation was under way prior to the report by the Water Resources Commission. It is passing strange also, as everybody knows, that, at the time, the Thiess family was really chasing money for the Townsville casino. However, the property was too good an investment to miss. Those in the Duaringa/Marlborough area know that the values of properties in the area have doubled since the announcement of the weir. The Thiess property has substantiaUy increased in value. This morning we heard a Dorothy Dix question from the member for Aspley, who probably does not even know where Duaringa and Apis Creek are. Perhaps he would know a little about bush-rangers. Apis Creek was the home of Frank Gardiner, the infamous bush-ranger who was part of the Ben Hall gang from New South Wales 100 years ago. The Laurinel State School, as has already been quite well documented, was opened at the beginning of this school year with only eight students. The Minister admitted that it was opened this year, but he did not announce the number of students. For donkey's years, the Government's policy has been that no school will be opened 27th fewer than 10 students. That policy was ignored in this instance. About three weeks ago the Howland family, who were employees of the Bjelke-Petersen family, left the area and took their children away from the school. Consequently, the enrolment fell to five students. Yesterday, it rose to six students. Mr Underwood: Is it still open? Mr CASEY: Yes. I can vouch that there were six students yesterday. However, it is quite incorrect to allege, as the Minister did this morning, that I burst into the school. I pulled up in a car outside the school, quite openly walked through the gate and knocked on the door of the school. The schoolteacher called to come in. I walked into the school and introduced myself He was quite happy to meet me and talk about the building and 1150 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) the educational problems of the school generally. Certainly media people followed me. However, I did not burst into the school, as the Minister suggested. Mr FitzGerald: Did you have the courtesy to ring him first? Mr CASEY: I thank the member for Lockyer for raising that point. One of the problems of the Laurinel State School—and he ought to be concerned about it as a member of the National Party—is that it does not have a telephone. Only last week, when one of the children was sick, the teacher had to decide whether to leave the child in the care of much younger children while he went to a nearby property-owner to ring the parents to collect their child or to look after the child himself while he sent one of the children with a message. If a school is built, a phone should be connected. Like everybody else, I am concerned about the children. They are such a good bunch, I would have given them a holiday except that it would have been reported to the Minister. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr CASEY: I have done it before, as the member for Nudgee well knows. Nobody will know where it was. 1 certainly do not intend telling the Government. In my career as a parliamentarian I have given a holiday to children in remote areas. They have deserved it, too. Mr Davis interjected. Mr CASEY: Certainly the Minister has not been there. He is the only one who may grant a holiday. The school has been built so quickly that the Lands Department has as yet not gazetted as an educational reserve the land on which it is situated. In December 1983 approval was given for that to be done. The survey and surrender are still proceeding, but the procedures have not yet been completed. Whilst I am on the subject of education, I might mention another unusual occurrence. It was completely in breach of normal Education Department policy. Mid-way through the year, the pre-school teacher at Duaringa was transferred to Moranbah, I think it was. He did not request the transfer. His transfer was effected to create a vacancy for the wife of an employee on the Bjekle-Petersen farm. She was not even a pre-school teacher from the State system. She came from another State but was promoted to that pre-school. Everybody knows that married women are supposed to have the lowest preference with the Education Department, but in this instance special provision was made. 1 wonder why. It is not hard for you or me to guess, Mr Booth. I mentioned earlier that 1 first raised this matter on 2 May 1982 when I was Leader of the Opposition. Mr FitzGerald: It is a long time ago now, isn't it? Mr CASEY: Yes, it certainly is a long time ago, if the honourable member uses the same criteria as the Premier, who thinks that two years is a long time. In parliamentary terms, it is certainly not a long time. It is certainly not a long time compared with the time taken for the declaration of a main road in this State. In a few moments, for the benefit of the honourable member for Lockyer, I will point out the types of things that go on in the area. The vote on the Duaringa Shire Council was only 5:4 to proceed with the road. At that time, the Premier spoke a great deal of rot and rubbish, which was echoed by his son in today's "Courier-MaU" The Premier claimed that his son does not use the road, he flies. That probably is true, and good luck to him if he is in that fortunate position. Most other people in the area, as do other people over the length and breadth of Queensland, use roads as a means of access and communication—to go shopping; to take children to school; to go on holiday. Because of that, the State has a priority system for road declarations. The State has a highway priority system, which is now funded by Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1151 the Commonwealth Government. The State Govemment funds the main roads; local authorities fund local roads. However, all roads are declared on a priority basis. Although the Premier and the Premier's son do not now use the road in question— the Premier travelled over it initially when he used a police car to travel from Duaringa to inspect the property when he was negotiating its purchase—nonetheless the road has to be used to get goods in to the property and to cart produce out. That is why a major bridge is about to be constmcted over the Mackenzie River. The survey marks are already in the ground, and another 15 km of road has been surveyed. Surveyors were working on the road yesterday—but only, I might add, south of the "Ten Mile" property. The work is now being carried out from "Crystal Waters" to "Ten Mile", where the main access will be to the irrigation areas on the Bjelke-Petersen family property. The eight or ten property-owners further up will still travel out through Marlborough. The claims of the Premier and his son about their not using the road is just mbbish and rot. The road is vital to that property, just as roads are vital to every property in Queensland. In an article in today's Rockhampton "Morning Bulletin", Counsellor Sandy Bred- hauer, a well known member of the National Party in the Duaringa area, claimed that I had been invited to attend the monthly meeting of the Duaringa Shire Council to clear the air on this matter. I point out to the Chamber that I have not received an invitation from the Duaringa Shire Council to attend one of its meetings. However, on Sunday I was contacted by the chairman of the Duaringa Shire Council and, as a result of that contact, I indicated to the chairman that I would be at the headquarters of the shire councU at between 1 and 1.30 yesterday, and I presented myself there just prior to 1.30. In spite of that. Councillor Bredhauer claimed in the Rockhampton "Moming Bulletin" that I had previously been invited to speak with shire chairman Kerry Park and shire clerk Mr Stower about both issues but had declined the invitation. What a heap of garbage that is! It shows that he does not have a clue. With blokes like him supposedly being one of the shire's key personnel, no wonder it has problems. He had the hide to say that 1 do not know the full facts. Councillor Bredhauer is the one who has been caught out, because I indicated quite clearly to Councillor Park and the shire clerk that I would be there, and I spent a considerable time there yesterday after 1.30 and discussed their particular beef about my comments on this matter. For the record, I indicate that Kerry Park was the gentleman who left the National Party to become the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Capricomia at the 1980 election. He was soundly thrashed, and since then he has done everything he can to worm his way back into favour and rejoin the National Party. For that reason, he was willing to do whatever was requested of him. It is not passing strange, however, that one of the first indications I had of what was going on in that area was as a result of a report that the same Councillor Kerry Park presented to the Duaringa Shire Council meeting of Thursday, 15 April 1982. I remind the Committee that that was before the land had been transferred to the Bjelke- Petersen family but while negotiations were under way. There was an option on the property. The report is headed "Discussions with the Premier" It states, "Following advice received..." From whom? Members can guess the answer to that, but I am sure that when I read the rest of the document they will be left in no doubt. The report states— "Following advice received, we met with the Premier to discuss aspects of road funding, with particular reference to the road leading north from Duaringa to the Bruce Highway near Marlborough." 1 wonder why they wanted to discuss that road with the Premier? Of course, it is the Duaringa-Apis Creek Road. The report continues— "In regard to this road, the proposal is to request the Main Roads Minister, Mr Hinze, to take action to have the road declared a main road, at least in our own shire area." 1152 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) The shire council is now trying to claim that that request had been made some time previously; yet here the proposal was to make the request to Mr Hinze in 1982. I might add that in that same report the chairman of the shire council listed eight or nine other Government departments with which the counciUors had had dealings while they were in Brisbane with the shire clerk, but there is no mention of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing. They did not meet him at all. Surely he was the person with whom they should have raised the matter. But, no, they had their discussions with the Premier. The report continues— "There is every indication that the Government would be amenable to this suggestion and I am reasonably confident that funds would become available, over a relatively short period of time..." What other shire chairman in Queensland could write that about any road declaration in his area? What other shire chairman in Queensland could arrive back from visiting Government departments in Brisbane and report to his council that he would receive a lot of money over a relatively short period for a very insignificant road that had not even been on his own shire's priority listing to be created as a main road? The report continues— " .. both for bitumen sealing of the roadway and for the provision of a bridge over the Mackenzie River." All cut and dried, wrapped up! Mind you, Mr Booth, the report does add— "Additionally, in this instance we have the strong support of the Premier in our endeavours and I would strongly commend the move to council." After mentioning the commercial advantage resulting for the area from the road, he adds— "... every mile of road that becomes the funding responsibiUty of the State is one less mile that must be funded by our own ratepayers." That is dead right; he is spot on. I am sure that the shire councils in your electorate, Mr Booth, or in the electorate of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, or those in the electorates of Government and Labor back-benchers, would be happy if the Govemment did that. But things do not happen that way. A priority system is followed, and the local authorities set the priorities. I invite Councillors Bredhauer and Park and everyone else on the Duaringa Shire Council to check the council's records. They will find that for years and years the shire's priority listing included the Blackwater to Dysart Road, which services two major population centres, not just the 12 farm properties serviced by the Duaringa to Apis Creek Road. Another road that was listed for years was the one that travels through Woorabindah and across to Bauhinia to link up with the brigalow scheme that has been developed in that area. For years, people living further up the Mackenzie River have had to use access tracks to get to the western bank. They wanted priority for a road to the Dingo-Mount Flora beef road. Even that road has had a priority. Because of the mistake that was made in the design of the existing bridge, priority has been given to a new bridge across the Mackenzie River so that the townships of Middlemount and Dysart will not be cut off completely during floods. Those were the priorities in that area; those were the priorities of that shire. Never mind all the other 130-odd local authority areas in Queensland; those were the priorities allocated by the Duaringa Shire Council. In order to curry favour with the Premier, following advice received, the council rushed in and accepted the suggestion that it should talk to the Premier about the Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1153 particular matters that were of concern to the area. That was reported by the shire chairman. Let Councillor Kerry Park, Councillor Bredhauer and any other councillor of the Duaringa Shire Council who is strongly in favour of this proposal tell the rate-payers in the other divisions of their shires why their roads did not get the priority that was given to this road that services only 10 or 12 properties beside the Mackenzie River where the Bjelke-Petersen family properties are situated. I repeat that, in the forward planning of that area 20 years ago, it was decided that the major road would go from Dingo to Mount Flora, where it would meet the Peak Downs Highway mnning from Mackay to Clermont west of Nebo, for the simple reason that it could be built on ground that was not in bad flood country. If a bad flood occurs in that area, water will back up the Mackenzie River for 50 miles. I am not exaggerating; I have seen it. Those are some of the points that should be put on the record. Whilst I am talking about roads and this road in particular—in the Queensland Government Gazette of 4 Febmary 1984, notice was given that surveys would be taken and land acquired on the Duaringa to Apis Creek Road relative to "An area of about 30.577 ha, being part of portion 1, R.14, Reserve for the Benefit of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the State. (Crown Reserve)." All of the other acquisitions, including the acquisition for the school that I mentioned a while ago, have not as yet been published. It was essential that the Government get that acquisition surveyed and passed by the Assembly at that time because the Bills dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands were before the Parliament. After those Bills were passed, any land excised from an Aboriginal reserve had to be the subject of debate in this Chamber. There is no way that the Premier wanted a debate on anything connected with the Apis Creek to Duaringa Road. I could go on and on, but, before I wind up, I shall refer to a few different matters. Some amazing things have happened in this part of Queensland. I think that a reporter made the comment in the press today that if the Premier purchased land in Cape York Peninsula and his family moved up there, the reporter would probably follow them up there. I probably would, too. The people of Weipa would be happy if the Premier moved to that area because the Peninsula Developmental Road might be built. That road has been a major priority for northern Queensland for a long time, but the people cannot get the Government to provide the money for it. However, suddenly the Government can find $4.5m for the Tartrus Weir and $4m for the Mackenzie River bridge. It has already spent $lm on the Apis Creek-Duaringa Road. A new police station, a new sporting complex and new showgrounds have been built at Duaringa. I could go on and on. Conservatively, at least $10m to $12m has been poured into that area in a short time. It is unfair to all the other people in Queensland that the priority system has been thrown out of the door to allow other projects to proceed. Unfortunately, many people in this State who are close to the action find it hard to believe that something like this can happen in our so-called free and democratic society. The mles of the game laid down by Governments for such a long period have been thrown aside. 1 sound this note of warning: the extreme Right in the political spectmm is just as dangerous as the extreme Left. I consider that I am playing my part in this Chamber today by making the public of this State more aware of the abyss of cormption into which Queensland is falling. It is up to the media to carry this message out to the public and to play their role in exposing the methods of the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment in this State. Let us not be swallowed up by that Government's massive public relations machine. Mr NEWTON (Caboolture) (2.50 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. During the past week, I have listened to the attempts of the Opposition to discredit the Budget. The Opposition has failed. It has failed because this Budget is a sound economic package that will benefit all sectors of the economy in this great State of Queensland. 1154 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) An Opposition Member: What's in it for Caboolture? Mr NEWTON: There is plenty there. The State's economy achieved substantial growth in 1983-84. Statistics from every imaginable source have been quoted. The fact is that a 4.6 per cent increase in employment in Queensland compared with a 3.5 per cent increase for the rest of Australia means that Queensland and its economy are not terminally ill, as honourable members opposite would have us believe. The member for South Brisbane made many sweeping statements. One memorable statement was that not even the National Party would take credit for the sunshine and the climate in this State. His conclusion is that it is just good luck that Queensland has a booming tourist industry. What he failed to mention was that the Govemment has promoted this State. It has encouraged tourists from overseas, interstate and from within Queensland to visit the tourist attractions and to enjoy themselves. The tourist industry has been encouraged by the Govemment. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has been a major part of the Govemment's promotion of the State and the 20 per cent increase in its allocation means that it will continue to carry out its valuable and essential work in attracting tourists to Queensland resorts. A perusal of the documents accom­ panying the Budget speech by the Premier and Treasurer reveals statistics that indicate the excellent prospects of the industry. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at great length about the tricks and hoaxes that he believes the Government is involved in. He accused the Govemment of not providing all the facts and figures with the Budget papers. He said that the Budget is a deliberate exercise to con the public, and he launched into a lengthy and unwarranted attack on its provisions. After all of his rhetoric I at least expected the Leader of the Opposition to outline some earth-shattering policies that would show Queenslanders how a Labor Govemment would manage the financial affairs of the State. Unfortunately, all that honourable members heard was the same old well-wom promises—increased spending and increased taxation. How can a Govemment possibly expect to decrease charges and increase services without asking the tax-payers to carry the burden of those concessions? That is fairy-tale economics. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have some grip on reality. The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that a Labor Govemment would introduce a job-creation scheme from the State's cash reserves. The problems of unem­ ployment cannot be solved by short-term projects in limited areas in the State. It is astounding that he could even suggest that money for that scheme come from the State's cash reserves. Much of that money is held in tmst. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not realise that money held in tmst cannot be used for capital expenditure. The Auctioneers and Agents Tmst Account Deposit Fund had a balance of $25.9m as at 30 June 1984. As at that date, over $2 billion was held in Tmst and Special Funds Accounts. That is revealed in the Summary Tables Relating to the Public Accounts. It is because of the nature of these funds that the interests of the State can best be served by investing them. This Government has come to terms with the increasing educational needs of the State. On many occasions the Government has been accused of not spending enough on education. During 1984-85, spending on education will increase by 15.7 per cent to $l,072.5m. How silent members of the Opposition have become! During this financial year, a further 982 teachers will be employed in the State school system. The TAFE colleges will employ a further 170 teachers, and $4m has been allocated for the employment of additional part-time or relief teachers. That proves that the Government does look after the educational needs of the residents of the State. Over the past 10 years, my electorate of Caboolture has seen enormous growth. The Govemment is constantly reviewing and monitoring the schools so that funds can be allocated to the most needy areas first. My area is serviced very well by the schools in it. I know that Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1155 the department is aware of the need for a school at Beachmere, and I know that the money will be allocated at the appropriate time. All over Queensland, however, honourable members can witness the benefits flowing from the provision of this funding. Of the $ 1,072.5m allocated this financial year, the major expenditure item will be wages and salaries. The next largest component, $269.5m, will be allocated to such items as equipment and materials, wages of ancillary staff, free milk, teacher rental accommodation, the conveyance of students and funding to private schools. I congratulate the Minister for Education (the Honourable L. W. Powell) on his foresight. Evidently, members of the Opposition have not read the Budget papers fully. The honourable member for South Brisbane criticised the level of the allocation for public housing. A 14 per cent increase in the funds available to home-purchasers through the Housing Commission demonstrates this Government's willingness to help people own their own home. For those who cannot afford to purchase a home and those in immediate need of accommodation, the Housing Commission will be spending $55.5m on land acquisition and development, constmction and the purchase of rental and crisis housing. As I mentioned before, my area is a growth area. Unfortunately, rising rents can force many people out of the private rental market. The Housing Commission is helping to satisfy the need for low-cost housing. Recently, tenders were called in the Caboolture and Burpengary areas for the erection of 29 houses. The Government is looking realistically at the housing problems. The honourable member for South Brisbane might accuse the Govemment, but if he would care to examine the Budget, he would see that the amount allocated for public housing is clearly shown. The Minister for Transport must be congratulated on his department's initiatives to introduce school-crossing supervisors. I have been actively involved in the introduction of "loUypop ladies"—my apologies; I should say "loUypop persons"—to some schools in my electorate. This scheme commenced as recently as January of this year. It provides for the training and employment of persons on a part-time basis to supervise the crossings at primary schools. Children rushing to and from school can create a hazard not only for themselves but also for traffic in general. Under this scheme, 646 people are presently employed and 332 school crossings are being serviced. I urge all honourable members who are not familiar with the scheme to take the time to witness this commonsense program. The electrification of railways to the coal-fields of central Queensland and to the urban commuter towns will give the Queensland economy another boost. I know that, in my area alone, the completion of electrification from Petrie to Caboolture will provide commuters with a safe and fast means of travel. Mr Davis: Will they have bus/rail interchange facilities there? Mr NEWTON: Yes. Increased patronage will result as travel times between Caboolture and Brisbane Central will be reduced by about 26 per cent, that is, from 69 minutes to 51 minutes. More travellers who presently drive cars will decide to travel by train, thereby leaving the roads less congested. In these few short minutes I have endeavoured to illustrate how the Government will provide Queenslanders with an atmosphere of stable economic growth. The Budget comes to terms with the problems that wiU be faced during the next 12 months and provides a solid economic base for the continued growth of this State. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (3 p.m.): This debate is more important than the attendance in the House would suggest. It is worthy of comment that neither the Premier and Treasurer nor the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer is in the Chamber. 1156 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) Indeed, support from the Government side seems to indicate the level of importance given by it to the parliamentary processes. I shall begin by referring to the Budget. Classically, and until very recent times, the Budget meant certain things. Budget-time was a time when the electorate at large, when the public of a State or country were told Mr FitzGerald: You've only got two of your coUeagues in the Chamber. Mr INNES: Half of the Liberal Party is present. For the record, I point out that six Government members out of a total of 40-odd, are present. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: They are supposed to have 17. Mr INNES: Yes, 17 Government members should be present. That is an indication of the level to which this Chamber has sunk. The Budget is a document of sales. I concentrate on the first part of the word "Budget". It is a "budgie". It is an attractive, caged, inoffensive little thing. The "get" part has been jettisoned. Its part is what now occurs in the Queensland Govemment Gazette during the course of the year when the people of Queensland begin to understand the realities of the financial matters presided over by the Govemment that affect their lives. People are entitled to be told not only what the spending is going to be but also what the revenue—the cost of the provision of those Govemment services—is going to be. It is lamentable that, in this State, in other States and in the Federal sphere, the tme cost of Government is increasingly hidden from the public and is increasingly the subject of an extended public relations campaign in which the members of the press are fed, as the Premier has stated, like chooks. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for them to realise the realities. By that time the revenue side is out of date. The proper ventilation of the most important part of the affairs of a Govemment, which is the raising of taxes, the raising of Govemment charges and the spending of public moneys, is not fuUy examined. The Government Gazette that was published immediately following the Budget is almost three-quarters of an inch thick. It contains Govemmental gazettals presented to this House. It indicates thousands of increased charges. They are the realities of the cost of providing so many Govemment services. If they were provided at cost, the increases might be ignored. However, the services are not provided at cost. The increases in Government charges are frequently in excess of the inflation factor. Therefore, they are part of the increasing burden placed upon the ordinary people of this State in small business and big business. Their provisions, their planning and their budgets are frequently made without fuUy understanding the implications of the Govemment's policies and decisions. The things that matter to the average household include income tax. A great deal of income tax comes back into the Commonwealth receipts section of the State Budget. Other things that matter to the average household include the costs of electricity, transport and motor vehicle registration. The Budget contains no reference to those last three matters. Last year, history proved that charges do not go up in line with inflation. In the life of the average person, that is one of the things that hurt. For the average businessman, the increases in costs and charges that came out in their hundreds in the Government Gazette immediately following the introduction of the Budget have a tremendous impact. I refer to the cost of documentation, filing fees, and licences—the cost of staying in business. As a Parliament, we ought to examine what is going on. We ought to raise our hands in protest at what is happening. We are responsible to the people for the cost of Government programs and for the cost of Government charges. We are the people who pass the legislation that is the commencement of any Government impost. Quite clearly Supply (Financial Sutemem) 9 October 1984 1157 something is happening about which public comment ought to be made. The Budget is no longer a budget in any traditional or normally accepted sense of the word. Let us look at parts of the Budget. The member of Caboolture, who preceded me, in attacking the Labor Party—and there is plenty of justification for that—spoke about short-term schemes. His speech, unfortunately, seemed to be more in terms of party rhetoric than honest and objective assessment of what is happening. He spoke also about low taxes. They are points with which I would be broadly in agreement if the examination of the documents and the State's position validated the criticism that he so properly offers. The leader of my party, the Honourable Sir William Knox, member for Nundah, rightly highlighted the issue of pay-roll tax. We have, as we have from the Hawke Government, talk about forgoing so many miUions of dollars in taxation. Yet an examination of the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditures for 1984-85 shows that, in spite of the protests about a reduction and real savings to business, the year will yield increased pay-roll tax of approximately $27m. From land tax, a subject which should be far closer to the hearts of Government members, expected receipts are up 41.6 per cent—darned near 50 per cent—in a single year! The estimate for stamp duty, for a change, is that there will be a $3m drop. I point out that that comes after an increase of $66m in receipts last year, a matter I objected to at that time, suggesting that the rates were too high, particularly for those doing business, and that the volume in tumover would make good any reduction in the incidence of stamp duty on any particular type of transaction. There was a bit of both. There was an increase in volume; but, my word, there was an increase in the impost on business generally. I suspect that at the end of next year the proposed decrease of $3m will not be a decrease at all. There are other increases, too. The member for Caboolture, very rightly, criticised short-term schemes. They are phoney employment schemes. They do not create real jobs. Certainly for three, four or even six months they provide people with the iUusion of a job. They do not, however, create real work. Real jobs derive from the private sector. Without arguing about the validity of the figure of $600m over three years for increased capital works programs, I point out that a Government which is committed to private enterprise is really following the socialist track—the track of public spending on public projects. I am not saying that that should never be considered as an option for a country or a State in economic difficulties. It can be a short-term palliative to get a country over a rough spot before an upsurge occurs. However, it must be galling for private sector companies such as MIM Holdings Ltd, which, because of its financial predicatment, has had to sack between 600 and 700 middle management people in Townsville and Brisbane in the past three months, to find that the Govemment can make available enough money to create works schemes that provide unreal jobs in the public sector. The predicament of that and other mining companies is particularly galling when it is not simply the result of world downturn and competition. One of the most significant factors—factors that have rightly been highlighted by the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, the Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited and commentators—is that the State profiteers to a great extent on the services it provides. I am not speaking about royalties. Some people are confused about mining royalties, which are substatially provided by coal-mining. Next year in this State, those royalties will increase by $36m, or by approximately 33 per cent. I am not speaking about royalties, which are an impost that has traditionally fallen on aU, about which I have no complaint, and from which, because of increased production, this State will profit. I am speaking about the effect of freight rates. I will consider the coal-mining industry for a little while because it is so important to this State. A modest improvement has occurred in the forecast of world demand for steaming coal. This year in Japan, there has been a reduction in wages growth. Japanese steel production has increased, and it will increase next year to a forecast 104 miUion 1158 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) tonnes. The British coal-miners' strike has stopped supply and created a demand. South Africa had a major set-back to its export of coal when the port at Richards Bay suffered enormous cyclone damage and approximately 800 000 tonnes of coal slid into the ocean. The longer-term impact of the BHP take-over of Utah should have a positive influence on prices, and the export tonnage under BHP's control will increase dramatically. In 1983, Japanese coking coal imports fell to 60 million tonnes, compared with 65 million tonnes in 1982. At the same time Japanese steaming coal imports increased to about 14.5 million tonnes, which was an increase from 13.6 million tonnes in 1982. Steaming coal continues to account for an increase in the Japanese share. South Africa is the only country that can land coal in Japan more cheaply than Australia. Although Australian wage rates are approximately three times higher than South African wage rates, Australian productivity rates are almost three times higher, so in South Africa and Australia the cost of getting the coal to the mine head is identical. It is after that that things go wrong; it is after that that one finds the reasons why, despite the longer distance to travel, South Africa can land coal in Japan more cheaply than Australia can. Ocean costs in taking coal to Japan from South Africa are greater by $3 per tonne, but the difference occurs in port and rail charges. On average, port charges in Australia are about $2 per tonne more expensive than they are in South Africa. The cost of rail transport of coal in Queensland is approximately $5 a tonne dearer, and up to $9 or $10 a tonne dearer, than in South Africa, although the haulage distance is far less. In Queensland, the average price for a 300 km trip is probably between $12 and $14. It may go as high as $19 in the case of Mount Isa Mines. The real costs are down at the level of $4 or $5, or perhaps $6. An astute device, as it then was, which led Queensland to get a greater share of the nation's cake at a time when things were buoyant and such charges could easily be afforded and paid, has led to a situation in which that cost alone makes this State uncompetitive in world terms and places an enormous strain on a company such as Mount Isa Mines, which is already suffering the effects of fierce competition for copper, in particular. In addition, it places a strain on the other coal-mining companies of central Queensland, apart from Utah, which stmck bargains in a pioneer sense and does not have to face the burden of the profiteering on the coal freight rate charge. It is, to my mind, hypocritical to advocate low taxes, to talk about the need for a profit factor, to preach all the things that we who believe in private enterprise preach, yet slug—there is no other word for it—the great mining companies of Queensland on whose development Queensland's prosperity and Queensland's low taxes historically have so much depended. The Government must share some of that with them Mr FitzGerald: Are they still continuing to find new sales? Mr INNES: Yes, but they are working at only 75 per cent capacity. For the first time since the early 1970s, Queensland does not have a new mine under development or constmction, with all that that means. I am afraid that the Queensland Government has just not been sensitive to what is a very real predicament Mr FitzGerald: Aren't they selling more coal this year than last year? Mr INNES: Yes. They must, because more mines are in production. Several brand- new mines have come on stream, but all are operating below capacity. Some companies are selling and making a substantial loss on every tonne, but they have to get some cash flow; they cannot afford to close down. Notwithstanding that, about 600 miners have been paid off in Queensland and about I 000 in New South Wales. There are similar problems in New South Wales, and similar complaints about coal freight rate charges. 1 had hoped that the Queensland Government was smarter than the socialist Govemment south of the border and that it would adjust its take according to the predicament of the companies, because those jobs are real jobs and we should all worry when a Queensland company as large as Mount Isa Mines has to lay off 600 or 700 people. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1159

Mr FitzGerald: Do you think the Government should take shares in the company so that there could be profit-sharing? Mr INNES: The Govemment was prepared to take shares in Suttons/Kemp Foun­ dries because an election was only three weeks away. The Govemment was prepared to pay $ 1.25m for almost half its shares, to give guarantees of $ 1.6m, to appoint the chairman of directors and half the other directors, and then have the company go out of business six months later. What I am speaking about is not something that is on the skids but something that has the capacity to rise again and to be profitable if the Govemment allows it to compete on normal commercial terms and not take into account the very special factor, which has been created in Queensland and New South Wales, of profiteering on the rail freight charges on the commodity. The commodity is produced competitively; competitive royalties are paid; it is shipped competitively; but after the mines pay for the building of the railway, the building of the houses for the railway workers, for the locomotives, for the wagons, for the diesel costs, for everything, it is that factor of rail freights that makes the mines uncompetitive. After all of those costs are taken out, there is still this vast profiteering; as I say, the difference between $5 and $12, $13, $14 and, in one case, $19. The vicissitudes of the market must be considered. Companies in every other country do that. The Japanese Ministry of Intemational Trade and Industry is always after a lower contract price as the world price goes down. The Govemment was conned to a certain extent by the Japanese. The development of new Queensland mines was based upon consumption projected by a world energy authority that depended mainly on Japan for its information. The Japanese inflated the consumption figure slightly, the world price went off the boil, and the difference between supply and demand became enormous. That is the predicament. Added to that is the development of other new mines. There is the development of vast mines in Columbia and China. In Columbia, Exxon proposes to set up a mine that will export 5 million tonnes of coal in 1986. There is and will be enormous competition. Mr FitzGerald: Is that steaming or coking coal? Mr INNES: That is steaming coal. This is a matter of great importance. It should have been fully considered by the Govemment in this Budget, but it was not. It is a false exercise to believe that the recent concessions were adequate. The coal freight rate issue should not be confused with the domestic supply of coal to MIM in a back-loading operation. My party cannot urge the Government strongly enough to consider that matter and to do something about it, because Queensland prosperity depends so much upon the prosperity of its coal mines. The other brief comment that I wish to make is that some imagination needs to be shown in looking to the future of this State. Sometimes it is wise and necessary to emulate what other people do. The Government has done the "me, too" on casinos, and one of those ventures did not work out too well. It is doing the "me, too" on technology parks and science parks. I am not for a minute denigrating the efforts of the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology to stay up with the world, but it must be realised that the rest of the world is doing the same thing. The Govemment is just keeping up with the rest of the world; it is not getting ahead of it. We have to concentrate our efforts on the things that we do better than the rest of the world. Tropical agriculture and mining-related activities are clearly two in which Queensland has a head start and can stay in front. I suggest that, instead of doing a "me, too", the Government should be looking at big projects in the future. Il should get ahead and do things that are fundamentally important. I have mixed feelings about the announcement of the biggest current railway contract on earth for $700m or $800m for rail electrification. Queensland has a railway system and it has locomotives. Those locomotives are curtently doing the job and. 1160 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

according to my information, they will continue to do that job for the rest of the decade. The time will come when they have to be renewed. At an appropriate time in the future the Government could carry out the electrification of some of the coal lines, depending on the volume of use. Surely, at this time, when money is tight and difficult to come by, the Government should be looking at doing something different. It should not be doing the same thing in a different way. If the Government is looking for imaginative projects, let it do something new or something different, something that is needed. A number of Government members have made a call for the provision of funds to combat soil erosion. I support those who say that soil erosion is probably Australia's greatest, long-term national problem. In fact, people have been saying it for years. What has been done about it? The allocation in this Budget is peanuts and the allocation from the Federal Government is peanuts, yet everybody recognises the extent of the problem. What if the $600m or $700m that the Govemment is prepared to find to do what it already does—to transport people and produce by rail—was aUocated to soil erosion programs? What if Queensland had been the first State to allocate that sort of money for a State-wide soil conservation program? Honourable members should consider the stimulation that such a program would create as regards earth-forming works and the amount of fuel and support services that would be needed across the length and breadth of the State. About five years ago I read that about a billion dollars was needed to start to combat most of the major soil erosion problems in Australia. Five years later, amounts of $300,000, $lm or even $5m for a development fund are certainly not enough. Would it not have been imaginative, totally necessary, of great priority and in the long-term interests of the State to have committed to what is accepted by members on both sides of the House as the major, long-term problem of this State the sort of money that has been allocated elsewhere? It would have taken Queensland into the next century, combating something that is seen by everybody to be a fundamental problem. Queenslanders have heard much talk but seen very little action. If that funding was available, why was it not allocated to a problem that desperately needs it and is completely new, rather than being allocated to the reproduction of an existing function in a different way? Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (3.27 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in this debate. I give 100 per cent support to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sandgate. Today, honourable members have been asked once more to cut back the time allotted in this debate from 60 minutes firstly to 40 minutes and now to 20 minutes. As the member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) said, the Auditor-General's report was not prepared and presented to Parliament in time for honourable members to study it in detail and to relate it to the Budget and the Estimates. We have been promised that it will be available to debate some of the Estimates, but that is not good enough. At a time when accusations have been made against members of the Government and some Government departments, members of Parliament should be able to go through the details of the Budget and details of receipts and expenditure of Govemment departments for the past 12 months and for the next 12 months and be able to debate the Budget fully. But, once more, members of Parliament do not have that information. During the past week, some Ministers and departments have been under fire, and it is little wonder that so little time has been allowed today to debate the Budget fully. Honourable members will not be given the chance to debate the Estimates of as many departments as they should. In fact, our remarks are being curtailed; we have been hobbled. 1 turn my attention now to the Budget. It is remarkable that Govemment members support the Premier and Treasurer in what he termed a tmly remarkable Budget; the Government's greatest ever Budget. How easily they are led. The Budget was presented as the National Party State Government's finest achievement—I will not deny that— because of what the National Party has achieved that it can crow about. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1161 It is only the second Budget that the National Party has introduced. Govemment members must agree that the 1983-84 Budget achieved nothing. The Queensland economy is making the slowest recovery of all the State economies. And the Premier and Treasurer is saying that this is his greatest Budget! However, he has nothing to crow about. The Budget has been described by the Leader of the Opposition in appropriate terms, and no doubt Govemment members agree with his description, because not one Government member has been able to prove that the remarks, facts or figures of the Leader of the Opposition are wrong. As time goes on, more and more people will see that the comments made by members of the Opposition are correct, and they will see that this Govemment is deceitful and is continuing to hoodwink or mislead the people of Queensland into believing that everything in the garden of the State is rosy. However, that is not so. After all, time and time again we read of businesses that go to the wall and of unkept promises that industries will come to Queensland. Certainly some people may be enjoying prosperity. However, people in the low-income group, those in receipt of unemployment benefits and the aged are not enjoying prosperity. They are hit continually with an increased cost of living, increased prices for goods and services, increased electricity tariffs, increased local authority rates, increased charges, higher rentals, increased transport costs and thousands of other charges that continue to increase far and above the rate of inflation and far and above increases in award wage rates. In the Budget, the Premier and Treasurer said that there would be no increases in taxes or charges. However, we know that the increases were made either prior to the Budget or the week after it was brought down. As a newspaper editorial said, "Budget one day; charges up the next" I repeat that percentage increases in wages are of great benefit only to those in the higher wage bracket. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Do members of the National Party worry about those people in the lower wage bracket? Not at all! They believe that the people in the working class are just that and must always be thankful for small mercies. Sir Edward Lyons, the comptroller/trustee or strong man of the National Party, has recently been granted an 18.5 per cent increase in the aUowance paid to him as head of the Totalisator Administration Board. That is not a bad little perk in recognition of his loyalty to the Premier and Treasurer. That should ensure the Premier of his support should numbers ever be close. It is obvious that the Minister for Racing (Mr Hinze) has no say over the administration of the TAB in Queensland; nor has he any say over racing in Brisbane. Sir Edward Williams has the last say on that, and if the Minister dares assert his ministerial authority. Sir Robert Sparkes calls him to order. A recent editorial states, "Nationals rift shows as Russ throws down the gauntlet" I am quite certain that if Mr Hinze does not give Sir Edward Lyons his way. Sir Robert Sparkes will do something. He will either disendorse Russ Hinze or expel him from the National Party, as happened to the honourable member for Callide. However, 1 will have more to say about racing and racing antics and cormption in the Estimates debate. Mr Milliner: Who do you think will win the bout? You are a betting man. Will you put your money on Russ or on Lyons? Mr PREST: I think it will be weight for age—a pretty even bet. However, I think I will have to go for age, as Russ might have a little bit too much weight. Later I will cite instances of this Government's deliberate attempts to mislead the people of Queensland. So much propaganda has been put out, no doubt for political purposes, and has been believed by some people in small business who have stmggled on by gaining further loans at high interest rates, that they are hoping and waiting for the promised boom period to come again. Some people have speculated on land or in real estate, whilst others have just hung on believing that things are going to change for them because the Government, by its media releases and in TV commercials, said so. 1162 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

The Government has led people to believe that Queensland has plenty of opportunities and that full employment is just round the corner. It has tried to convince the people that Queensland is better off than any other State. It hopes that the people believe its propaganda. After years of waiting for wonderful things to happen, we find that the biUion-doUar industrial projects that we have been told about so often have not eventuated. To name just a few that come to mind, I mention the Rundle oil-shale project. Stage 1 and Stage 2 at an estimated cost of $3.5 billion; the Lend Lease coke plant, $1.2 billion; Occidental chemical plant, $2.3 billion; Alcan aluminium smelter. Stage 1, $300m—that is only a small show; the Boyne smelter. Stage 2, $460m, and the Audax caustic soda plant, $327m. Those projects, together with steel-mUls and many more projects, have been mentioned for this State. The projects that I have mentioned are just a few that I could name in my electorate of Port Curtis. In a moment I will refer to those projects and to the statement by the Premier as to why those projects have not come to fmition. Is it any wonder that the population increase in Queensland is above the national average when all of those projects are not only spoken about but also published in the booklet, "Queensland Million Dollar Projects" Some of the projects were commenced and completed many years ago; some will never be commenced and some will never be completed. In a newspaper on 15 October 1983, under the heading "Joh displays his pies in the sky", an article states— "The State Government has won few friends in the business world with the issue of its glossy book of the States' 'million-dollar projects'. A better title for the publication could well have been Queensland's disappearing million-dollar projects. A lot have already taken place, so it is not really fair to include their value in a wrap-up of 'development projects under constmction, firmly announced or in the planning stages'. More importantly, many of the developments cited are unlikely to get off the ground for a long time, if ever, and to some extent the blame lies with the Government.

The biggest project listed is the $4 000 million Julia Creek oil-shale project and the second biggest the $3 000 million Millmerran coal-to-oil project. But both are still in the dream stage. Maybe our grandchildren will see something happen^ maybe not. Meanwhile, we should note that the two projects represent almost half the claimed "development expenditure' in Queensland." That was written by a finance person last year. Mr Lee: Who was he? Mr PREST: Brian Hale. Mr Lee: What paper was it? Mr PREST: "The Courier-Mail" The article is there for anyone to read. It is little wonder that so many people are flocking to Queensland. The people who come to Queensland wish to obtain work. They read that sort of rubbish and flock to Queensland, as the Premier crows, only to find that (Queensland has the second highest rate of unemployment in Australia and, in fact, the highest unemployment rate of the mainland States. The people who come to Queensland find that they and their families must live in emergency or welfare situations Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1163

and must obtain welfare benefits. It is no wonder that people are coming to Queensland when such statements are made by the Premier or by the Government of this State. Over the years, we have been told that Queensland is better off than any other State. In previous years, when members asked for the reduction of class sizes, they were told that there was no need for concem. They were told that class sizes were at an acceptable level and that no more class-rooms or new schools were necessary. When members asked for the provision of more welfare housing and Crown employee housing, they were told that the waiting-list was not long or that sufficient Crown employee housing was available. Recently, the Minister for Works and Housing issued a press release in which he stated that 10 000 people were waiting for welfare housing in Queensland. The Budget has what is called a Special Major Capital Works Program, to the value of $600m, I emphasise that the special capital works are additional to the normal capital works program. The State's period of capital-intensive constmction projects has passed. More people are out of work than ever before, and the number of unemployed is growing. If $600m is to be found when the State is facing hard times, I ask: Where is the money to come from? Another major program about which the Committee has heard is rail electrification at a cost of $680m. 1 give credit to the member for Sherwood (Mr Innes), who spoke about (Queensland's rail electrification and the oversupply of coal mines in this State. 1 agree with him on both counts. In July 1979, when large construction programs were under way, the then Treasurer (Dr Edwards) went to London and borrowed $45m, $8m for the Brisbane rail electrification and $37m for the Gladstone Power Station project. He said that in the following two years a total of $ 140m would be borrowed to build coal-loading facilities at Hay Point and to build the Wivenhoe Dam. In May 1980, Dr Edwards went to London again and borrowed $40m for a Queensland electricity project; in June 1982, he borrowed $9m from Japan to help fund Brisbane's rail electrification; and later he borrowed $50m from the Bank of Tokyo to help finance the $ 1,000m Tarong Power Station. If the Government must bortow small sums of $8m or $9m from overseas to fund projects in good times, one must have doubts about funding in bad times projects to cost $600m and $680m. It gives cause for suspicion. It is little wonder that the Opposition calls for a foreign land register and an all- party parliamentary public accounts committee, as recommended by the Auditor-General (Mr Craven) in a proposal on 12 September 1984. He said that the committee could review budgetary allocations and priorities. He was proposing the establishment of a forward-spending committee. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) said that he would look into the proposal and arrive at a solution. However, he will show once again that he is a "mirror" Minister. He will look into it and, when he walks away from the mirror, that is the last we will see of it. Yesterday's "Courier-Mail" editorial, headed "Spending the Public's Money", said— "To Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a public accounts committee and freedom of information legislation are unnecessary encumbrances upon his style of government. Queenslanders need neither, according to Sir Joh. What's more, Queenslanders will get neither so long as he is Premier. A shame because both a public accounts committee and freedom of information legislation would go far towards getting the Premier out of the difficult political position in which he finds himself" I agree completely. Parliament should know what is happening about the Govemment's expenditure and its borrowings. Honourable members should not wonder at Queensland's having the greatest public debt of all Australian States. I could go on in relation to the bortowings of the Government. I said earlier that the Auditor-General's report has not been available to members during this debate. The 1164 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) Opposition maintains that it should be available and, even if it is tabled in time for the Estimates debates, the Estimates of all departments will not be debated. No doubt the Government will be selective as to which ones will be debated. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) did a great job in exposing the Government and its Budget for just what it is—a fraud, of which the Government is obviously proud. The Premier is despicable when he deliberately misleads the unemployed and the young people by saying that the Special Major Capital Works Program wiU create 40 000 new jobs. The Leader of the Opposition has exposed the Budget and, in particular, the Special Major Capital Works Program, which is to mn for three years, for just what they are—worth very little this year, and little more next year. In fact, the special program is only the normal, mn-of-the-mill works program. Had it not been for the ALP Federal Govemment's financial assistance to Queensland, the Budget would have been a shocker. The Federal Labor Govemment has saved this State from having to face a dismal year. In many areas, the Federal Govemment has increased its contributions to the State. The Govemment will be able to spend more on education. For 1984-85, the Federal Government has granted Queensland $259m for roads and $82m for public housing. Queensland can expect to receive $54m from the first home owner's scheme, which could benefit 16 000 house-holders. The Federal Government's Community Employment Program will give local authorities approximately $57m. That will create employment and give local authorities the opportunity to carry out works that to date it has not been possible to include in the budgetary program. The Community Employment Program, which gives employment to those who have been unemployed for some months, is a wonderful thing. The Opposition and the Federal Government do not believe that it is the answer to their dream of having everyone fully employed, but at least it gives some people an opportunity to work. I will turn now to some of the benefits contained in the Budget and to matters that have been mentioned in newspaper articles. In his Budget speech, the Premier and Treasurer promised the creation of 40 000 jobs. I need not say any more in relation to that, because the Leader of the Opposition adequately covered just what a fraud the Budget is. 1 will now reveal the way in which, over a number of years, the Queensland Government has hoodwinked the people of Queensland. In 1980, newspaper headUnes claimed that Queensland would have a $2 billion steel-miU. Once again in 1980, the claim was that Gladstone and Townsville would get a steel-mill each. In 1981, Queensland was promised a titanium smelter. In 1982, coke companies considered plant proposals. Mention was also made of a chemical plant that could mean a new coal market and of an extraction plant for Port Alma, which would be built by a well known friend of the Premier, Dr Oskar. That also fell through. Mr Milliner: Where is he? Mr PREST: I think he is in gaol. The Premier was in London recently, and I believe that it was not long after that event. I do not know whether they were together, but one ended up in goal. It may have been Dr Oskar. Mr Milliner: They tell me that if the Premier had been a week later, he would have been able to bail him out. Mr PREST: The Premier may have been the one who topped him off; I do not know. The headlines to which I referted appeared in 1980, 1981 and 1982, and aU those wonderful schemes and industrial projects were supposed to reach fmition. But in 1984 one still sees references to the fact that studies on the coke plant site are about to start. Recently the Premier travelled to Gladstone, supposedly on his way to a littie island off the coast—I think it was Boyne Island—but he did not reach there following a Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1165 dispute he had with the island's manager over the manager's not paying wages and subcontractors. The State Government itself would know something about not paying subcontractors. Although the Premier did not go to Boyne Island, he and his pilot took a helicopter and went to Heron Island for the night instead. There is nothing unusual in that; it happens quite regularly. At the time of his visit the Premier said that the third and fourth potline expansions at the Boyne smelter would go ahead if agreement could be reached over cheap electricity prices. He said that Comalco had always said that it would go ahead if it could get the electricity at the right price. He said that discussions were continuing on the issue and that he laid the blame for the delay at the feet of the member for Port Curtis. He said, "Your member is the problem. If he'd support it we'd be right." I immediately challenged the Premier to enter into meaningful discussions with the company so that it could start on the construction of the third and fourth potlines at the Boyne smelter. I knew that I had a little control over events in my area, but I did not know that I had power over this Govemment's decision on whether or not it entered into meaningful negotiations with a major company. In order to put the story straight, Comalco replied the next day. The newspaper article stated— "A Comalco spokesman said yesterday the company had been meeting with Queensland Government officials for some time, to agree on a viable basis for an expansion to the Boyne Island smelter. He was replying following claims by the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Gladstone on Thursday that the smelter expansion was being delayed because of ALP opposition to a power deal between the State Government and Comalco. 'As with any major export development, prospects for expanding the Boyne Island smelter depend fundamentally on whether the project is economicaUy viable in international markets over the long term,' the Comalco spokesman said. 'Electricity costs are significant, but not the only important element in this equation. As part of the discussions with govemment officials, Comalco has been attempting to reach agreement on a power supply arrangement which would reflect the economics of providing a large quantity of power on a continuous basis for a possible further expansion,' the spokesman said." Therefore, it was not the fault of the member for Port Curtis. It was the responsibility of this Government because it had not been able to reach agreement with the company as to the cost of electricity. Other members have said that there is an over-supply of power in this State, and I agree with them. The Government has committed itself to power stations at Tarong and Wivenhoe and to the constmction of Callide "B" and StanweU. Because of the cut­ back in industrial development in Queensland, those power stations are not necessary. Money has to be found to pay for them. Because the big consumers who would help to meet the cost of building those power stations are not coming to Queensland, the burden of meeting the cost is falling back onto the shoulders of the ordinary users. They have to pay for the cost of building power stations that will not be required until the early 1990s or mid-1990s. It is obvious that the Government is electrifying the coal Unes to use some of the power that those power stations will generate. That is not a good proposition. We have been told that the electrification of those lines will save $50m a year in fuel costs. The Government will spend $680m on electrifying those lines and it will take some years for that money to be recouped. I could refer to the propaganda that the Government puts out from time to time. It tries to get people from the other States to come to Queensland by saying that so many magnificent things are happening in this State and that people in Queensland are so much better off than people anywhere else. I have an article headed "500 C.Q. jobs in gas pipeline to Gladstone". Approximately 26 years ago, gas was found in the Injune/Roma/RoUerston area. The pipeline to 1166 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

Gladstone is no closer today than it was months ago. Cabinet has said that once sufficient gas is found in that area the company concerned will be able to enter into a long-term agreement with users in Gladstone. No more wells have been drilled. All that has happened is that, with the stroke of the pen, the period has been increased to 10 years from six to seven years. Reference has been made to a $350m steelworks in Queensland. In fact, an editorial in one newspaper said that the mill would be constmcted before the end of this year. At this point in time, not one thing has been done towards constmcting that steel-mill. The propaganda that has been put out by the Government is nothing but a hoax. We have read that there is total stagnation in the heavy constmction industry in Queensland. One venture that I would like to see get off the ground is the Rundle oil-shale project. Sir Ian McFarlane has done a considerable amount of work on that project. I give him great credit for what he has done. One of the mistakes that he made was to get Esso involved in the project. Sir Ian has been able to reduce the cost of building the plant to about one-third of what it was in 1983. However, Esso now seems to be giving the project the shove off. An article states that Esso believes that the news media reports about the development of the Rundle oil-shale project near Gladstone are potentially misleading. After all the work that Sir Ian has done, the Government should talk to the company. In answer to a question that I asked about that company some time ago, the Premier and Treasurer said that any commercial venture in Queensland must be able to stand on its own two feet. The Premier did not intend to make any offers to a project that could mean employment for thousands of people and that could become a very viable proposition. If shale-oil can be produced as cheaply as claimed in that report, it may become a threat to the mining of crude oil. No doubt oil companies such as Esso do not want shale-oil projects to develop. The Budget has provided for an increase of 100 police officers. That increase is needed, and could have been greater. The Police Department, in a submission to the Treasury, requested an additional 520 police officers. Unfortunately, the Budget has provided for an increase of only 100. That will hardly cover the numbers of officers who resign or leave the force for some other reason. Articles in the press indicate that much is happening within the police force. A lot of crime is occurring in the State and is causing hardship and heart-buming. The community is faced with no greater problem than dmg abuse. The dmg problem has been spoken about for a long time but very little time and effort is spent on attempts to capture the suppliers, who are getting off scot-free and making a lot of money. The user—the little person—is being caught. An editorial in "The Courier-MaU" of 1 August 1984 carried the headline "Drug inaction goes on and on" It has been revealed in the press that Brisbane is not safe at weekends because of a shortage of police and restrictions on overtime. That was also a 1984 report. Another report claimed that 12 months after the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) announced in Parliament the formation of a highway patrol, the police union said that it did not exist. Everyone should be concerned about the road-toll; 400 or 500 people are killed each year. The Minister for Transport said today that there has been a reduction of 100 in the number of people killed in 1983-84 compared with the number killed a couple of years ago. 1 do not think that we should talk in numbers; circumstances change. One of the major causes of deaths on our roads is alcohol abuse. One could say that it is the biggest killer. Drink driving comes within the jurisdiction of the police. The Acting Police Commissioner (Mr Syd Atkinson) said that if the police image is to improve, an additional 500 officers are needed to meet the demands placed on the Queensland Police Force. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1167 The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Glasson) earlier this year ordered an investigation into claims of rampant cattle-duffing in Queensland's isolated north west. Graziers in Queensland have enough to cope with—fires, floods and droughts— without having their stock stolen by cattle-duffers in good times. It was also revealed in the press this year that Brisbane's outer suburbs are breeding baby criminals. It was claimed that children are shop-lifters at seven, car-thieves and burglars at 12, and armed robbers at 15. Apparently, that is how kids in south-east Queensland are graduating in crime. Those comments were made by the Juvenile Aid Bureau in Brisbane. Will the additional 100 police, as provided for in the Budget, be adequate to cope with the increased prevalence of crime that we read about in our daily papers? A recent newspaper contained the headline "Brisbane Beats Sydney for Burglary" and stated that Brisbane residents have more chance of being burgled than people in Sydney. The Minister for Police is being bypassed and Mr Arhtur Stephenson of the RACQ sent out letters in which he mentioned certain problems. The last one to know about those problems was the Minister for Police himself Recently, police cadets became involved in a scandal at the Police Academy. Forty of them were reprimanded for committing some petty offences. That matter could have been handled intemally and need not have got into the papers. Unfortunately, many Govemment members are caught up in the web and cause problems and embarrassment for members of Parliament and for the Government. The Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) is under poUce guard because of dmg threats, and at an inquiry the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter) was a mystery witness. He told a Police Complaints Tribunal hearing into a cattle-duffing case that he could not give evidence, because he had to watch his interests. I do not know what he meant by that, but I suppose that he was scared of the repercussions of giving the inquiry all the information that he had. In presenting the Budget, the Premier and Treasurer said that no additional taxes and charges would be imposed. Within the next six months, local government elections wiU be held in Queensland. A candidate for the position of Lord Mayor in Brisbane will be Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson of the Liberal Party. She has proposed the imposition of hotel and entertainment taxes by local authorities to boost their revenue-raising capacity. The Government does not want to do that, but if Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson were successful in her attempt to become Lord Mayor, she would impose a hotel tax and an entertainment tax so that the Brisbane City Council would have another source of revenue. She is proposing that because the Government is starving local authorities and forcing them to introduce more taxes and charges. The Govemment claims that it is not imposing more taxes and charges, but it puts the local authorities in a position in which they have to do so. If the electors of Brisbane do not return the Australian Labor Party to office at the Brisbane City Council election next March, Sallyanne Atkinson will introduce forms of revenue-raising that presently do not exist within local government. Rest assured that if the Brisbane City Council does that, other local authorities will do likewise. Over the years, of course, such taxes have been resisted. A few moments ago, while I was speaking about police matters, I omitted to mention a certain gentleman within the police force who seems to appear in the newspapers from time to time. The Commissioner of Police (Mr Terry Lewis) was mentioned in the report that was made in the north. He said that an investigation was not to take place. He was supposed to appear before the Police Complaints Tribunal to answer questions. As he was overseas at the time, I suppose it could be said that he evaded it. Mr Lewis said that he was not embarrassed when he gave a character reference which was tendered in the District Court following the conviction of a man on criminal 1168 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) charges. The Police Commissioner allowed his name to be associated with various wrongdoings of a person in this State. The Queensland Police Force receives enough flak. It needs a man of honesty, integrity and leadership. He should lead by example. I do not think that the Queensland Police Commissioner is such a man. The police force has no faith in its leader. The Police Commissioner has been a political stooge in Queensland for far too long. What is happening at the top in the police force will percolate through to the rank and file. Mr Fouras, as honourable members have been asked to limit the length of their speeches, I will do so. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (4.12 p.m.): I was very amused to hear the comments from the other side of the Chamber, particularly those of the member for Port Curtis. I do not think that he believed in what he was saying. He said that the Federal Government gives Queensland a great deal. He must live in Fairyland. All that the Federal Govemment does is take, take, take. The Minister for Health will tell honourable members how much Queensland is behind in Medicare payments from the Commonwealth. The Federal Government still owes Queensland $50m. If it had any sense of duty, it would give Queensland some money for the sugar industry. Later, honourable members will hear more about that. A short time ago an Opposition member said that he would be disappointed if I did not say something about it. I am pleased to rise and take part in this debate because there is no doubt that the Queensland Budget is the best Budget that has been brought down for many, many years. I congratulate the Premier and Treasurer and Treasury officials on the presentation of an excellent blueprint for expansion and progress in this great State of ours for many years to come. When it is contrasted with the recent disastrous high-tax Federal Government, we should be satisfied that this State's economy is in good, safe, reliable and stable hands. It is amazing how anyone has the gall to rise in this Chamber, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, call the Budget a fraud and suggest that the amounts of money allocated do not in fact exist. Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say about him is that he cannot understand the figures and is trying to cover up his lack of knowledge. Mr Palaszczuk: It was the best Opposition speech ever. Mr RANDELL: If that was the best Opposition speech ever, I would hate to hear the worst. If the honourable member has not made his speech, I am anxious to hear it. Perhaps he will fit into that category. Labor members opposite privately know that it is a good Budget and they have shown that by the way they have floundered about in their speeches, as the member for Port Curtis did. Opposition members cannot find anything on which they can hang their hat. However, as usual, they knock the Queensland Govemment and this State in a desperate attempt to save their own political scalps. During the debate I wish to refer to various aspects of the Budget. I shall compare it with the Federal Budget, refer to its effects on my electorate, and comment on a few of the statements made by Opposition members. Mr Underwood: Refer to the water resources part of the Budget. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member does not face up to the facts. He makes comparisons in an unfavourable light. Firstly, I shall refer to education allocations. For years members of the Opposition have been crying about the education allocation, notwithstanding the magnificent job that the Government is doing and has done for many years in that area. Not one word of praise has been forthcoming from the Opposition. The senior officers of the Queensland Teachers Union are deafening in their silence, so the Budget must be good. Nothing has been heard from them. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1169 I note that the total funds made available to the Education Department this year are $l,072m, an increase of $145.9m or 15.7 per cent on the previous year's allocation. Honourable members will note that that is the largest single allocation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In other words, the Education Department is receiving the largest slice of the cake. Opposition Members interjected. Mr RANDELL: The way members opposite speak, one could be forgiven for thinking that there are two cakes to cut up. If they were administering the State, they would need two cakes. I am pleased that the member for Mackay has re-entered the Chamber. Mr Casey: It's just to keep you honest, Jim. Mr RANDELL: Someone said a long time ago, "Let him without sin cast the first stone." In 1985, the Education Department will employ an additional 1 500 teachers. An allocation of $4m has been made to enable part-time or relief teachers to be employed to facilitate the granting of long service leave. There is no doubt in my mind that that will have a marked effect in further reducing class sizes. Over many years, the Government has reduced the numbers in classes to a level that is now acceptable to teachers and parents alike. The Government is keeping pace with technology in State schools. The total expenditure on the provision of computer hardware in 1984-85 will be approximately $4.5m, of which the State's share is just under $4m. As usual, a measly sum—$500,000— will be provided by the Commonwealth Government. Mr Comben: Tell us about the bmcellosis and tuberculosis eradication program. Mr RANDELL: I will come to that. We should probably give the member for Windsor a shot of that. It would sharpen him up a bit. In practical terms, the special school grant scheme, which will provide $2m additional to the usual 8 per cent escalation, will result in an across-the-board increase of 33'/? per cent. The scheme for upgrading school grounds, which commenced in 1983, wUl be boosted with an aUocation of $95,000 in 1984-85. If the Government receives the Commonwealth Employment Program grant of $190,000, smaller schools wiU be able to benefit from a ground maintenance program for a further year. Mr Comben: How is the Federal Government going to give this to you? Mr RANDELL: What is the Federal Government giving us? We are only getting our own money back. It is money that has been taken from us in the first place. The member for Windsor should not try to put it over me. In spite of his limited education, he ought to attempt to recognise the facts. The Budget provides $400,000 for programs for special education and education for employment. It is pleasing to note that the Govemment has recognised the value of non-State schools and has provided a real increase of approximately 6 per cent. Hon­ ourable members ought to be aware that the amount paid under that scheme has risen from $22.5m in 1979-80 to an estimated $53.26m in 1984-85.1 have not heard members opposite argue against those figures. Provision has been made in the Budget for payments to school bus operators and for the conveyance of students by private transport to increase by an overall 8 per cent. I plead with the Minister for Education to look seriously at providing relief for bus operators who travel over difficult terrain. Operators are paid on a kilometre/pupil basis. However, some kilometres are certainly tougher than others. In my electorate is the mn up the Eungella Range. The operator of that route is being paid the same to travel 8 or 1170 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) 10 km up a steep grade as someone else is paid to travel the same distance along a flat road. There must be many more examples of difficult bus mns throughout the State; so I ask the Minister to give consideration to that. I realise that it would set a precedent. If the Government wishes to retain the services of experienced operators and reliable buses to transport children to school safely, it must make some concessions. Textbook allowances have been increased by an average of 12 per cent and, in 1984- 85, are estimated to cost a total of $9.87m. There will be allowances for isolated students living away from home, although members of the ALP would not be remotely interested in that. Provision is also made for remote area tuition allowances, a remote area hostel allowance and an extension of the travel allowance scheme. That illustrates that the Government recognises the problems encountered in providing education in the outback and is doing something about them. It is a pity that the Federal Government and Opposition members did not recognise the problems of country people. It is very pleasing indeed that the Queensland Police Department's allocation has been increased by 11 per cent to $207.5m and that 100 new police officers will be provided to man new police stations and to provide increased personnel in growth areas. I have always said—and I may be thought parochial—that the Mirani electorate is one of the most progressive and rapidly expanding areas in this great State of ours. I hope that that allocation is only the start, and because of the real and urgent need for more men, equipment and accommodation throughout my region, I ask the Premier and Treasurer to provide more funds as soon as possible. If traffic problems are to be addressed and service to the public and general law enforcement are to be provided, the police force in my electorate must be expanded immediately and urgently and provided with equipment to match. The coal-mining boom has meant the constmction of new towns and the expansion of old towns, not only for miners but also for the railway personnel who are needed to get coal from the mine site to the seaport. Towns such as Sarina and Coppabella have expanded to cater for the increased population. An immediate and definite need exists for more police officers and for more housing and office accommodation to meet the demand of this population explosion. Over the years, the Government has improved the roads in my electorate, which means that the number of travelling motorists has increased. I have been told by a couple of ALP members that they enjoy travelling in my electorate. Mr Davis: A former Minister, Mr Camm, had a bitumen road constmcted past his place. When will you do the same? Mr RANDELL: The member for Brisbane Central would not know what roads in my electorate are like. Once he got past the traffic lights of Brisbane, he would need a white cane to feel his way along. He would get lost in the bush areas of my electorate. The police in my area do a tremendous job and have the confidence of the public, but they do need help in the matters I have mentioned. A start has been made with first-class buildings being constmcted at Middlemount and Glenden. The police buildings at Glenden were officially opened by the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Glasson) earlier this year. I know that any policeman would be proud to live and operate in a centre such as that. If that building is to be the blueprint for future buildings, I will be very satisfied. Not before time, plans are in hand to expand police accommodation at Sarina. That and increased personnel are urgently needed. The men there now under Sereant Keith Jeffries are excellent officers and have a good relationship with the general public, but they desperately need more space and men to provide an adequate service to the ever- increasing population of Sarina. The Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay export terminals have been completed. Because of the duplication of the Hay Point-Goonyella rail system, the number of railway Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1171 employees has been increased. I understand that shortly the electrification of that line will be commenced and possibly 100 men wUl be employed in the constmction. The police in the area will have to deal with that as part of their normal duties. Another problem is that when police officers at one-man stations go on leave, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a satisfactory replacement for them. In much the same manner as the Education Department has relieving teachers, the Police Department should have a group of relieving officers. From conversations I have had with policemen in my electorate, I understand that the various departments in the Mackay region could use up to 15 officers in this manner. Another way for some relief to be provided is by the employment of office staff at one-man stations. If a capable girl was employed, she could answer the telephone, take messages, do typing and, when required, help the general public complete forms. That would allow the police officer to do general patrol and other work in the field. The young people so employed could come from the town in which the station is situated, which would help employment in small regions and aUow young people to stay at home in the family environment, which is so important in our society. I have no doubt that those young people would become interested in the police force and would go on to make the police force their career. The Budget contained an allocation of more than $100m for primary industries, which is an increase of 17.6 per cent on the 1983-84 figure, In part, that will provide a boost to the tuberculosis and bmcellosis eradication campaign. In 1984-85, expenditure on that campaign will total $21.6m—an increase of 45.9 per cent. Steps will be taken to continue the efforts to control the cattle tick—something that has been tried for many, many years—and I wish the officers involved luck. An allocation of $135,000 will continue to develop data for the computerisation of brands. The Nile perch program will get a further boost, with $100,000 being allocated to further tests on the suitability of that fish to the State's environment. Already $500,000 has been spent in research on this project. I have no doubt that if the Nile perch proves suitable for Queensland, it will be a tremendous asset for the State's amateur fishermen, as well as a boost to tourism. The Budget provided $3.8m for the Dairy Adjustment Scheme to provide loan funds to producers undertaking eradication programs to control the spread of bovine leucosis. I am pleased that a further $5m is allocated to the Rural Reconstruction Board in order to provide loans to needy cane-farmers. The Federal Government has refused to match that offer, just as it has refused all similar requests. I have been interested to hear Opposition speakers referring to the sugar industry and saying why the Federal Government should not help it out of its present crisis. I doubt whether there is one member opposite who understands the industry or would have the slightest concem about what happens to it. The only concern of Opposition members is that right along the coast there will be a concerted rejection of ALP hopefuls in the forthcoming Federal election. Growers and workers and their families are not fools. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has just cast aspersions on members on this side of the Chamber by saying that we have not done certain things. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! What is the honourabfe member's point of order? Mr CASEY: My point of order is that the Premier offered more to Dr Oskar, $6m, than the $5m to the sugar industry. Mr RANDELL: That comment should be communicated to the people of Mackay, Mr Booth, to show them the attitude taken in this Chamber by the honourable member for Mackay. He treats this crisis as a joke, yet Mackay would not exist if it were not for the sugar industry. Mr Casey interjected. 1172 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Constant cross-firing will not be toferated. I suggest that a commonsense attitude be adopted. Mr RANDELL: I was not arguing with the member for Mackay, Mr Booth; I was merely suggesting to you that the people of Mackay should be told what the honourable member thinks about the sugar industry. The growers and workers know that we have a national problem on our hands that would be solved by a national Government with the guts and ability to come to grips with it. Unless it does, there will be a crash all along the coast. If that occurs, as the honourable member for Mackay knows, many, many workers will face retrenchment. But I do not think he cares. He knows what will happen, but he could not care less. If that were to happen in the golden triangle of Sydney, Canberra and Melboume, there would be an immediate uproar and funds would be poured in to assist in overcoming the problem because the Australian Council of Trade Unions would demand action. Everybody knows that body wields the heavy whip in Australia at the moment. I would not begmdge such assistance, but I believe that the Hawke Govemment has tumed its back on north Queensland and is not concemed about what happens to it. Labor candidates will pay for that lack of concem in the forthcoming election. 1 understand that in excess of $ 1,000m in aid will be given to overseas countries this year. But what about charity beginning at home? Why cannot some of that money be put back into an industry that has made an enormous contribution to the economy of this nation over many years? Members opposite now make jokes about an industry that provides employment for thousands of workers. I now want to deal with some of the comments of Labor people about the sugar industry. I have an article headed "Labor issues blueprint for North" that was published prior to the last Federal election when Mr Hawke was Leader of the Opposition. The article states— "For the sugar industry a Labor govemment would negotiate a fairer domestic price formula, and would look at loans to tide the industry over its present crisis. The speech said a Labor government, in consultation with the industry, would look at its stmctural problems." In another article Mr Kerin is reported as having said— "Labor will sympathetically consider any request for an industry loan and/or an underwriting scheme, to include the 1982 crop." That is there in black and white. The article continues— " 'While many aspects must yet be sorted out, we believe any underwriting scheme should be based on industry retums over the previous five years,' he said. Mr Kerin said it was imperative assistance be forthcoming urgently and it should go to those with greatest identified need. He pledged a Labor Government to giving the sugar industry first priority in the long line of primary industries neglected, he said, by the Fraser Government." Aren't they hypocrites! There it is in black and white. I have another newspaper article, the contents of which Opposition members cannot deny. In June last year, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia said— "It is about time the rural producers of this country woke up. That if we decided to import wheat, or import sugar, pineapple juice, citms juice, we could do without the lot of them because we can get it cheaper somewhere else. And they ought to reaUse this." Not many Opposition members are talking now. Where is the member for Mackay now? Did any Opposition member condemn the Deputy Prime Minister for saying that? Not one of them. They should hang their heads in shame. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1173 I refer to an article in today's "Courier-Mail" headed "Kerin caUs meeting on sugar needs" After all the pressure from the Queensland Government and the Miiuster for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin has decided to call a meeting. Why is he doing that? Because it is getting near election-time and the Federal Govemment is trying to save its northern members. I have news for the Federal Government: it is too late to save its northern members. They are gone. The Federal Govemment had an opportunity to help those members. The sugar industry does not want any more talk; it wants action. The industry knows that the Federal Government's promises are not honoured. An article in the "National Farmer" states— "Kerin may do a good job of understanding the problems, but he doesn't come up with the goods. He'll promise you the world, but not deliver.

Costs and wages have gone up, and incomes down. The sugar industry's in dire straits. I think farmers are really starting to question how good a fighter John Kerin is in Cabinet. Is he tough enough to really fight for agriculture's good in what must be a fairly hostile and unsympathetic Cabinet? The Minister is alleged to have confided in a farm leader after his defeat on harvester tariffs: 'The bastards won't give me a go.' " He was referring to his Cabinet colleagues. I see that the member for Mackay has left the Chamber. Is the member for Bundaberg in the Chamber? Recently, the members for Bundaberg and Mackay came to my electorate and called a meeting in Sarina. I understand that about four people and a dog tumed up. An article in the press is headed "Govemment accused of being 'lousy' with sugar aid" If the heading had commenced with the word "Federal", it would have been correct. It might be a good thing if the members for Mackay and Bundaberg stayed in their own electorates, because I think that they have problems there. After the Labor Party sent members of Parliament into my electorate during the last State election, I increased my majority by 5 to 6 per cent. They did not do much good for themselves. This article, in referring to a joint statement issued by the members for Mackay and Bundaberg, states— "Treasury officials in Canberta are not fools. They would know that the Queensland Govemment had $30 million available right now in its own funds, but it was only prepared to allocate a lousy $5 million this financial year." What hypocrites! They talk about $5m. They want the Queensland Govemment to give more. It has provided more than $60m. The article continues— "They said the State Government should dig deeper into its own pocket instead of mnning to Canberra for a $5 million grant from the Commonwealth." An Opposition Member interjected. Mr RANDELL: I shall reply to that interjection. Honourable members can see that "The Sarina Times" gave the honourable members for Mackay and Bundaberg headlines on the front page. My story, as usual, did not get the same headlines. 1 am quoted in an article as saying— "Part A of the funds service a number of mral industries including sheep, beef, dairy, fmit and grain as well as sugar, and are used for debt reconstmction, farm build-up, farm improvement, and household support. Part B of the funds is used for special carry-on funds for sugar and beef All these funds are distributed under guidelines agreed to by the Federal and State Governments." I could read out more articles, but I shall not do so because my time is mnning out. I have been asked to restrict my speaking time, and I shall do that. 1174 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO

Ms Warner: Do you support the Premier in cutting off the sugar trade with New Zealand? Mr RANDELL: The Premier did not say that. Perhaps the great success story in this Budget is the increase in funding for water resources. It shows that the Queensland Government, unlike its counterpart in Canberra, is dedicated to the upgrading and improvement of water resources in this State. The Queensland Government knows that good, reliable water sources are needed to fully realise the potential of the resources of this great State. Mr De Lacy: Do you know where they are building the new dam? Mr RANDELL: I know where the Government is building the new dams; all over Queensland, where they are greatly needed. I am pleased to note that the Consolidated Revenue Fund allocation to the Water Resources Commission is increased by 40 per cent to $27m. Provisions for water assessment are increased by 52 per cent. Maintenance of works allocation is up 31 per cent and expenditure under the Capital Works Program in 1984-85 wiU be $ 125.79m. Even Opposition members would agree that the $100m to be allocated in special grants to water resources over the next three years is something that the Govemment should be proud of, and they should be, too. This development will take place in spite of the Federal Government which has not put an extra cent into water programs. As a matter of fact, one of the first things it did when it came to power last year was to cancel the Bicentennial Water Resources Program that was set up by the Fraser Government. Had that program continued, $640m would have been spent on water resources development programs round the nation. Mr Davis: What do you call the Burdekin Dam? Mr RANDELL: The member for Brisbane Central would know that the money allocated to the Burdekin Falls Dam is separate altogether from these aUocations. He does not understand. He is just talking for the sake of talking. The Bicentennial Water Resources Program would have been the start of one of the great things to happen in Australia in our time. However, it was cancelled out of hand. Of course, money has been found for pet projects in the golden triangle and mral Australia suffers once more. North Queensland becomes a forgotten land. In my electorate, the Eton Irrigation Scheme will benefit from the State Budget, and it is expected that the whole scheme will be completed in 1988. Mr Casey: It is about time, too. Mr RANDELL: The member for Mackay said that it was about time. The scheme will never be finished if the State Government waits for help from the Federal ALP Government. It also will not be completed if the scheme relies on requests for help from the member for Mackay. All he has ever done in Mackay is knock programs, whether they be for hospitals or roads. If something is achieved in the area, he tries to claim the credit for it. It is about time that the honourable member started looking after Mackay and stayed there because he has troubles aplenty that he will find out about in a couple of years time. The wall of Kinchant Dam will be completed in 1985. Work will then start on the Mirani Weir on the Pioneer River. I understand that, at present, 64 farmers already use water from the Eton Irrigation Scheme to service 3 800 ha. Mr John Ross of North Eton has said— "Water has been the difference between viability and survival. The sugar level in the cane is better. We are harvesting more tonnes per hectare and the ratoon Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1175

stools are being kept alive and these tangible results did not take into account the changed attitude of growers with water. Farming is a lot more pleasant now and we are getting results." That is the opinion of one of the growers in the area. Many members of the ALP find these achievements amusing, but when the irrigation scheme is finished, over 250 cane-growers with an excess of 13 000 ha will have a more pleasant farming future and a stable supply of water. As the scheme progresses, it is pleasing to note that more and more farmers will take part in a progressive schedule with access to water. An investigation will be carried out into the possibility of a dam site on the upper Pioneer River for future water storage. I welcome that move because it will provide a reliable, safe water supply for farms along the river and for the city of Mackay and the Pioneer shire. I hope that a start will be made on that investigation on the completion of the Eton Irrigation Scheme. In this place last Thursday, the member for Mourilyan said— "Surely the Federal Government is not expected to mother the State and feed it all the way through. The State Government has no initiative; it will not get up and go." I inform the member for Mourilyan that the Federal Government is giving Queensland nothing. If Queensland had to wait on money from the Federal Govemment, nothing would be done in this State. The money Queensland does get back is only money that the Federal Government has taken from it. Mr Hartwig: They take a lot. Mr RANDELL: That's right. The member for Callide said that the Federal Gov­ ernment takes and takes. If there is anything left over, it takes that, too. It is amusing to hear honourable members opposite say that it is Federal money. It is not Federal money; it is Queensland money. It is our money that has gone, and it should come back. It is keeping the people who live in the south. This year, the Budget allocations to the various departments are higher than those for last year. The increases in the allocations to the various departments are set out in the following table— Percentage Department Increase Health 12.1 Commercial and Industrial Development. . 39.8 Justice 15.3 Lands 19.3 Forestry 23.7 Local Government 16.7 Tourism, Sport and The Arts 27.0 Transport 40.5 Harbours and Marine 14.3 Works 18.5 I could go on and on about how the Government is providing more money for Queensland, and it is doing so without imposing new taxes. All the money will come from a weU-balanced Budget. Mr Davis: Will you take an interjection? Mr RANDELL: If it is not stupid, as some interjections that I get from the honourable member are, I will consider answering it. 1176 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) Mr Davis: Do you know that neither the Treasurer himself nor the Minister Assisting the Treasurer has been in the Chamber during the Budget debate? Mr RANDELL: That is an irrelevant question. At present they are not in the Chamber, but at other times they are in it more often than the honourable member himself The honourable member for Brisbane Central has been warned more times today by the occupant of the chair than on other days. As Opposition Whip, he should accept more responsibility. He has been warned several times today. I congratulate the Premier and Treasurer and his Treasury officials under Mr Leo Hielscher on the marveUous job that they have done in compUing this very good Budget, which will promote the development and progress of this State. And that will be achieved without the imposition of new taxes. I congratulate them and I wish this State all the best. Mr SMITH (Townsville West) (4.42 p.m.): After studying this Budget, particularly the statement on capital works, one could reasonably conclude that the authors believe either that there will be no tomorrow or that at least in some way they will not be here to be held accountable for the attempted deception. It is a Budget of illusion to satisfy the ego of the coterie of yesterday's men, who now hopelessly grapple with the demands of this present era, which are completely beyond their experience and, indeed, their capacity for financial, economic and admin­ istrative comprehension. Anyone who dares to suggest that this Govemment should face the reality of the results of past and present policies is either subjected to outright personal abuse or accused of promoting doom and gloom to the detriment of the State. The unfortunate reality is that Queensland is now experiencing the accumulated effect of the absence of good economic or enlightened leadership, even though the advice available to this Government from its professional Treasury officers, and indeed from the private sector, would come from some of the best brains and most experienced people in Australia on Government administration. Perhaps Queensland should be thankful that, in spite of inept and anachronistic political leadership, the professional public service management has to date been able to keep the State financially afloat. The Under Secretary of the Treasury Department does, however, get some relief from his daunting task of keeping the Premier and Treasurer of this State away from the cutting edge of the departmental operation because, as is well known, Sir Joh is a keen tourist. He enjoys international excursions to far-away places to invite business to Queensland, where that important ingredient for business confidence is upheld—the playing -of "God save the Queen" instead of the fiercely socialistic strain "Advance Australia Fair", which is what he regards as something that the misguided rest of AustraUa accepts as its national anthem. Of course, if it had not been for those troublesome professionals, academics and the Labor Opposition who ask persistent and awkward questions, Queensland, with its enlightened National Party Government, would by now be mass-producing Horvath's hydrogen-powered car, and the oil industry, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and the Arabian Gulf states would be feeling financially threatened by this dynamic leadership. Queensland should also be reminded that if it had not been for an unco-operative Liberal Deputy Premier trying to keep business for his medical mates, Milan Brych, a present guest in a US penitentiary, would have rendered redundant some of Queensland's most eminent medical specialists and a good deal of the resulting spare hospital space could have been made available for Festival of Light meetings. There are, of course, opportunities in Queensland, including those for an entrepreneur who specialises in setting up $2-companies that are designed to go broke, leave unsecured Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1177 creditors to bemoan their fate after the company has been stripped of its tangible assets, without any impediment before or after with law enforcement agents. Queensland indeed is a State of great promise for some of the people that this Govemment seems to favour. Even for those without great entrepreneurial flair, there are fewer worries by way of dreaded socialistic regulation or control, and, because of the convenient Queensland registration system, it is not very difficult to sell a stolen car to achieve some rapid liquidity of one's finances; nor is it difficult for those with a punting flair to mn an illegal gambling casino, which the poUce seem unable to detect in spite of being given a detailed address. Even for the police, there are opportunities because the Queensland promotion system does not usually depend on ability or educational achievement, but rather on having the correct attitude towards anything remotely progressive, and always voting for the National Party. Where else would the opportunity exist to verbal suspects, beat up dmnks, non-Anglo-Saxons, and economically less fortunate people with immunity, and at the same time earn a tidy sum on special duty preventing those incredibly immoral and Statehood-fibre-sapping street marchers, who want to protest about the lack of democracy in this State, shorter working hours, land rights, environmental issues and other grievances posing such an imminent threat to good govemment, the Queen, the national anthem, law and order and the ethic of hard work. Nobody is in a position to say that the Queensland Govemment does not look after heavy industry, particularly if it is a non-Australian organisation. Queensland has a unique and selective tender system for its multimillion-dollar contracts which specifies that factors other than price and proven performance are given adequate weighting. It is no wonder that Korea and Japan see Queensland as a place in the sun when huge imported items of equipment, such as valves for hydroelectric stations which could have been made in Queensland, are accepted and paid for and only then found to be defective. Local high-technology industries in this State are also given every opportunity to tender for major Government contracts. The slight problem is, with monotonous regularity, that they are unsuccessful and contracts are awarded to overseas organisations. So the multimillion-dollar contract associated with the radio-control and signalling requirements for the new electric locomotives has again been awarded to a foreign organisation. In a further example, a local successful Queensland computer manufacturer has not been able to get his foot in the door because of this supposedly fiercely Queensland oriented Govemment. In recent times, the State Co-ordinator-General has referred to the general lower level of education in the work-force being an impediment to economic progress, and there is no doubt that the Minister responsible for technology shares that view. A distinctly Queensland solution has been introduced to overcome at least one shortcoming in the scientific education base of the community. After little deliberation, the Queensland Government decided that an evolutionary approach to the modemisation of industry was not the best solution and that something would have to be done to achieve a more rapid improvement. Because they are practical men unencumbered with the burden of scientific knowledge or the restraints of scientific inquiry, the leaders of this Government decided that if God could create the earth, its environment and population in seven days, there had to be a message for Queensland. So we have in Queensland now the study of creation science, which will be of significant benefit in conditioning the minds of our future leaders and work-force to a concept that nothing is impossible and all things are possible, provided, of course, that the ethic of hard work is maintained, and the reading of books does not get out of hand. It must be realised that this branch of scientific instmction provides Queensland with a unique advantage. No other State teaches this particular strand of science in its schools, nor is it ever likely to. No doubt our technical graduates with such a distinctive

64165—40 1178 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

background will be widely sought after, althoiigh not necessarily as science teachers in those parts of AustraUa outside the Queensland border. Such ,an ^tUghtened attitude may, of course, lead to opportunities in the State to write and pubUsh science textbooks cleansed of any reference to evolution. No doubt the Christian Science Foundation established locally will be more than wilUng to provide material for the text. I also understand there is an export market for such publications, so perhaps we would be able to sell those books to some of the States of the deep south in the USA, which have faUed to convince the major American publishers such texts are appropriate. This Govemment is very confident of its decision in this regard, because Ronnie Reagan agrees with them and has also told the American people that evolution should not be regarded as fact. In Queensland, the Govemment takes considerable care to ensure that children who are being educated in the State school system are not exposed to undesirable influences. For example, the pupils of State schools are not exposed to human relations courses and the teachers are prevented from using dangerous resource material such as SEMP or MACOS. However, non-State school pupils are not so protected and must mn the risk of exposure to wider and modem influences. In the education office gazette dated 10 August, a directive was issued instmcting teachers not to discuss the HaUoween theme because there were religious and psychological reasons for avoiding the topic at the school level. It is reassuring to know that there are dedicated people in the State prepared to freely offer their advice to the Govemment on all manner of subjects. Of course, one of the experts to whom the Minister regularly defers is Mrs Rona Joyner. He might, however, be in trouble with her now because I notice from this moming's press that she has made a comment disapproving of his flying squad, the deliverers of what passes for sex education in this State, even if it is after hours and only about a quarter of the pupil population attend with any regularity. That figure has been inflated to 31 per cent, but it takes some believing. I retum to the subject of HaUoween, which is observed on 31 October each year. It is interesting to note that since 1967 UNICEF, an agency of the United Nations, has attempted to incorporate in the Halloween observance the collection of money for the United Nations Children's Fund. I would have thought that was a reasonably good cause. Apparently that is regarded as undesirable in Queensland, even though the observances go back to the time of ancient Britain and Ireland, because it was then a time to placate the supernatural powers controUing the processes of nature. In addition, Halloween was thought to be the most favourable time for divinations conceming marriage, luck, health and death. I am sure that the real objection by the watch-dogs of Queensland's young arose because Halloween was the only day on which the help of the devil was invoked for such purposes. HaUoween, of course, became a secular observance and many customs and practices have since developed. So, while the children of other States and other nations, principally the Scots, the Irish and the Americans, court great moral danger by allowing the continuation of this observance, Queensland children shall not be so exposed. I would have thought the Minister could protect students from any likely danger by having the matter fully discussed and understood in the class-room with a strong emphasis on achieving community support in discouraging children from entering the homes of strangers as part of the festival activities. To find the real state of Queensland's economy and the outlook for the future, it is necessary to go well beyond the Premier's speech and, indeed, beyond most of the Budget papers, which are prepared in a manner .that would indicate a major political input and an excessive influence by the Government's overstaffed, overpaid, but nevertheless well-oiled public relations team. The Budget is severely lacking in the area of detailed and quantitative information which is necessary to properly analyse comparative performance and future prospects. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1179 What does become clear in the opportunistic rhetoric of the Premier and Treasurer, and his "Sir Echo" assistant Mr Gunn: You can't even say the word. Mr SMITH: I had a better word for the Deputy Premier, but I decided to use my original one. The opportunistic rhetoric of the Premier and Treasurer and his deputy is not supported by external analysts, the Govemment's professional officers or, indeed, by one or two of its better-informed Ministers. Of course, the Deputy Premier is not one of those. In fact, he comes bottom of the class. No Government in recent memory has had to resort to the shameful practice of taking out full-page newspaper advertisements to consolidate a confidence trick on the people it purports to represent. 1 shall now draw attention to one practice which today just about anyone can recognise as being shonky. The Federal Govemment, other State Governments, local authorities and virtually any professional organisation involved in, or having an interest in, financial matters today compare likely cost estimates and expenditure in terms of constant values, or express costs in the real value of today's and yesterday's dollar set against a particular bench-mark. An example in the Budget, which is certainly typical of the whole document, is the expansion of the recurrent expenditure on education, which is the largest single budgetary item. The Government is tmmpeting a claimed 15.7 per cent increase in educational outlays. It is only towards the conclusion of the Premier and Treasurer's statement on education that he admits that the real increase is not 15.7 per cent but— " .. provide for a real increase of around 10 per cent." An increase in education is welcome and overdue, but education has been put up as the Government's show-piece this year in terms of its recurrent expenditure. As an inquirer progresses through the Premier and Treasurer's speech, he sees few comparative references to real term outlays. Rather, the vehicle of cash increases and the quotation of large dollar sums are used to convey and enhance the deception of massive above- inflationary-rate budgetary allocations. No budgetary document presented to this Chamber can be, or ever should be, regarded as an instrument for comparison unless the information is more definitive and the movements in the size of allocations, up or down, are shown in terms of bench­ mark values. The fact is that the deflation factor accepted by the State and Federal Treasuries is 6.5 per cent. The Treasury papers on education indicate a percentage growth of 11.8 per cent over last year compared with 12 per cent for the previous financial year. In terms of the percentage increase in outlays, there is not an increase, but, in fact, a net reduction in the rate of increased allocations for education. The Treasury provides the 11.8 per cent figure in a table that has not been inflicted with political tampering, while the Premier talks of a grossly dishonest figure of 15.7 per cent. The difference is the Treasury quotes actual expenditures, while the Treasurer's figure relates to the 1983-84 original estimate when used to compare last year's outiays with the present expenditure projections. The acceptance of the 11.8 per cent figure as the correct basis and not the 15.7 per cent, leads to the next comparison. From the 11.8 per cent must be extracted the deflationary factor of 6.5. That leaves the Govemment with a net increase of 5.3 per cent in real terms, not the 10 per cent as claimed in the Premier and Treasurer's speech. For those with more than an academic interest, and for those who by now have come to doubt the veracity of the Government's claims but who want to establish the real-term per capita increase, allowance must be made for an estimated population growth of 1.9 per cent. That, of course, has to be deducted from the net real increase 1180 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) of 5.3 per cent, leaving a real per capita increase of 3.4 per cent, or about 30 per cent of the Govemment's adjusted claim. Naturally, evidence of underspending by the Queensland Govemment on education has to be backed up by figuresfro m authoritative sources. This has been done repeatedly by citing figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Schools Commission. In a recent pubUcation the Grants Commission identified the Queensland expenditure on education on a percentage basis to be only 82 per cent of the national average. The Budget speech was long on historical matters but serious inquirers have to carry out their own research by way of the figures quoted in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure if any information is to be gleaned on what the tme expectation of the State's economic performance is likely to be for the next 12 months. These figures are, of course, vital and represent statistical analyses of the Probable Ways and Means prepared by Treasury and, importantly, without the addition of Government public relation's embelUshment or deliberate political distortion. For example, the pay-roU figures in that document show that Queensland's employment growth will not be equal to the national performance and certainly will not measure up to this Government's predictions. How different a position from that which exists in Victoria under the Cain Labor Government, where on 18 September the Treasurer (Mr Jolly), two days before Queensland's Budget was brought down, was able to indicate that Victoria's employment prospects would be higher than the national average, while the inflation rate would be held to that average. Even more impressively, Victorian non- farm gross domestic product is expected to rise between 5 and 5.5 per cent, a full percentage point over the national average. In terms of private investment, the confidence expressed in the Cain Govemment can best be gauged by an expectation of a 9 per cent increase, set against an expected national average of 3.5 per cent. This Govemment is strangely silent on that subject, and it may well be that this State will be the only State in the Commonwealth to suffer negative growth in that sector. In a further example of the euphoric outlook of this Govemment, in March this year the Department of Commercial and Industrial Development claimed that there was a mix of Queensland projects in the pipeline worth $20.2 billion. A safety-valve statement, however, was the qualification that the list of projects comprised three categories, that is, committed, feasible and possible. The list included 37 coal projects, about which there is no realistic expectation of commencement prior to the late 1990s. A new coal- loader was also included, although existing equipment is working at less than 50 per cent capacity. The most optimistic of all the included projects were a coal liquefaction plant and not one but 10 shale-oil projects. The most reliable economic assessment is that even if oil prices quadrupled (an unlikely event), only one or two of the shale-oil projects might be feasible before the turn of the century. The departmental list does have some revealing facets. For instance, only 12 per cent of future major projects are indicated as likely to originate from the private sector. The remainder are indicated as being either Govemment or semi-govemment expenditure, and include power stations which are most unlikely to be required to meet the State's predictable industrial needs, as the previous speaker just said. The same is said by anyone else who knows anything about the subject. In fact, new fixed capital expenditure in Queensland by private enterprise showed a decline of 13 per cent in 1983-84, compared with a national decline of only 8 per cent. In 1984-85, such expenditure in Queensland is expected to decline by a further 20 per cent, compared with only a 5 per cent reduction for the rest of Australia. It is impossible not to conclude from all the figures available that Queensland has compared unfavourably, and will continue to compare unfavourably, with the other States while the existing leadership holds the reins of management. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1181 The 12 per cent factor demonstrates only too weU the massive drop in private sector capital investment in major Queensland projects, and shows why there is a crisis in the heavy constmction and heavy engineering sector in this State, with the reality being a halving of the work in progress and an even greater reduction of work on order. As part of the Budget package, announcements have been made in respect to the development of major tourist facilities. One of those proposals covers an area known as Florence Bay on Magnetic Island, just off Townsville. Mr Peter McKechnie, the Minister for Tourism, etc.—I have forgotten his other responsibilities because he seems to do very little in that regard, anyway—took the opportunity of saying that the Florence Bay project was the last of four on the Government's priority list, and he personally contacted the "Townsville Bulletin" to say that the city council had been completely "apathetic" and had taken a "negative attitude" in respect to the Florence Bay proposal. He accused the three parliamentary representatives of the Townsville area of not making representations to him in support of the scheme. We all know it would be a waste of time talking to him, but we had all spoken to the previous Minister. The tourist industry is important and is becoming more important to the Queensland economy. In fact, I am sure the Government hopes that it will provide its economic salvation. In the Townsville area, massive investments have already taken place. Other projects are either being built or are in the planning pipeline. To refresh the Minister's mind—and that might be difficult as he has been correctly described as a National Party archetype—Townsville is the major population centre of north Queensland in its own right. As well, it serves a vast and rich hinterland extending to Mount Isa and perhaps beyond the border to the Northern Territory. The Federal Government has provided an international air terminal and a new Commonwealth office building worth about $ 14m, which is about 60 per cent completed. A new domestic air terminal will be commenced next year. Bicentennial funding is to be made available for the construction of a unique complex to be known as "Reef Worid" If the Minister is unaware of the impact of that sort of development and its importance to the business community, and particularly for the development of tourism, he should spend more time studying the responsibilities of his portfolio, or he will go the way of the two other Ministers who preceded him in it. The delicacy of the matter of his predecessors may be too sensitive for Government members, but I think that the thrust of my remarks will penetrate the thick craniums of the members of the National Party front bench. Mr Davis: They are so hard that you might have to use a bit of dynamite. Mr SMITH: It might not be strong enough. The proposal for a major development at Florence Bay was announced by a former Minister for Tourism (Mr Max Hooper) just prior to the 1980 election. It was hailed as the flagship proposal for the "Nats for the North" campaign and spmng on the community without any prior consultation whatsoever. At the time, Mr Hooper was the member for Townsville West. Of course, he was one of the two casualties for the National Party in the 1980 election. The view is held widely that the lack of consultation with the community on the Florence Bay proposal was one of the major reasons for Max's defeat. I am not here to pursue any argument with or over Mr Hooper, who is now chairman of the Townsville Development Bureau, a hard worker for the city and someone with whom both the council and 1 enjoy an excellent working relationship. To ensure that the correct chronological sequence of events is placed on the parliamentary record, I seek leave to incorporate in "Hansard" a resume of the dates 1182 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement) and subject matters of exchanges of correspondence and the major press statements on the subject. Mr Randell, I showed the material to a previous occupant of the chair, and he agreed to its incorporation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Randell): Order! I understand that this material was checked by a previous occupant of the chair.

Leave granted.

Florence Bay Site: Some Vacant Crown Land—See plan Portion 26, 14.7204 ha—Special Lease 31143—Boy Scouts Association. (30 years from 1.7.67) November, 1980 Inspection Florence Bay—Council and National Park & Wildlife Service— see C. Sandercoe's report dated 14.7.1980. January, 1981 (a) Press Releases Proposing development scheme. (b) Letter from Council to Land Administration Commission—Proposed development. (c) Press Statement by Mayor—expressing need for responsible devel­ opment and concern regarding access road and provision of sewerage & water facilities. February, 1981 Letter from Land Administration Commission advising that approval in principle has been given for preparation of documents to enable invitation of applications for major International Tourist Resort at Florence Bay. March, 1981 Letter from Townsville Regional Conservation Council—expressing con­ cern—Proposed development. April, 1981 Letter from Minister for Tourism—advising Queensland Tourist and Travel Organisation has been requested to ensure that the Council is consulted and kept fully informed of action to call tenders for development. April, 1982 Press Statement—Alderman E. J. Lindsay—Contribution from State Gov­ ernment towards cost of installing larger water pipeline to Magnetic Island to supply extra water needed for the proposed development. Survey by City Council which revealed that 56.3% of the people, who responded to the survey, opposed the development. May, 1982 Press Statement by Mr Frank Moore—Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, supporting proposal which would provide jobs for 5000 people. He said that QTTC was fully committed to the Florence Bay site and that 26 Companies had registered their interest. Editorial Townsville Daily Bulletin indicated that the Tourist and Travel Corporation and the City Council should be maintaining much closer consultation and that the Corporation be "a little more specifically informative" 5th May, 1982 Statement by Acting Mayor, Alderman K. V. McElligott calling upon the State Govemment to release more details about the proposed development. 11th May, 1982 Press Statement by Chairman, QTTC, Mr Frank Moore, stating resort will go ahead and that the develoment was part of a continuing plan that had included the establishment of the Townsville Intemational Air Ter­ minal. Also, that the Hawaii-based Tourism Consultant, Larry Helber, had visited Townsville to assess the Florence Bay development. 15th May, 1982 Press Statement Mr M. McLean, Florence Bay Preservation Group, suggesting that the mooted Florence Bay Project was completely lacking in substance and that his group was seeking to have portion 26 declared an Environmental Park under joint administration of the Townsville City Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service. September, 1982 Council confirmed that Corporation had agreed to fund part of extra cost of increased water supply pipeline to Magnetic Island. But, Council was unable to give prior approval to rezoning until details of proposal had been received, accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study. 16th September, 1982 Press Statement, Mr Frank Moore, QTTC, who said that he was unable to comment on when proposal would go to State Govemment. Also, that the corporation had not changed its priorities, but was looking closely at a number of other centres, as well. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1183

25 & 26 October, 1982 Tourist Industry Seminar in Townsville Minister announced that tenders would be called to develop a $100 million resort at Florence Bay on Magnetic Island by the end of the year— 4000 people signed petition to save Florence Bay A. Jeffreys—proposed development would be not only unpopular but uneconomic. 26th October, 1982 Further statement by Minister—"very serious consideration has been given to environmental aspect—we wiU try to keep a low-rise situation— sorting out a few problems" (The Scouting Movement held a lease over Florence Bay but agreed to surrender it in retum for certain facilities to be provided for them by the developer) 31st October, 1982 Tourism and Industry Bodies keen to see early start. October, 1982 Proposal by Florence Bay Preservation Group to establish an Environ­ mental Park at Florence Bay— "A carefully developed management strategy implemented by the National Park Service would rapidly rehabilitate stressed areas whilst conserving the recreational assets of this excellent site. These assets could be exploited without degradation of their intrinsic value satisfying the obviously growing demand for them." 27th January, 1983 Magnetic Island Committee drew Council's attention to the deterioration of the natural environment at Florence Bay. 3rd February, 1983 Dr N. R. Scott-Young and Townsville Regional Consevation Council advised of Council's concem. 7th Febmary, 1983 &. Letters from Townsville Regional Conservation Council re responsibility 21st February, 1983 for the area, and offering to undertake basic remedial action. 10th February, 1983 Letter from the Upper Ross Rotary Club of Townsville offering assistance. 8th March, 1983 Council resolved to call this meeting.

Mr SMITH: When the proposal was originally put up, it was on the basis of sketch plans and a very broad outline. It lacked any detail. Strenuous representations were made to the Government to locate any major development on the island at one of two locations. Horseshoe Bay or Nelly Bay. At all times there has been support and enthusiasm for a major project on Magnetic Island from the majority of the community, including the council, except, of course, the Magnetic Island residents, who, understandably, prefer that no development takes place so that they can continue to enjoy the tranquility of the island. The original argument was simply that a clear majority of interests wanted Florence Bay preserved as a wilderness area and development to occur in an area in which environmental damage would be minimal. Because it seemed clear that the suggestion for other sites was not to be given serious consideration, the council sought from the Government an environmental impact study with respect to Florence Bay. In April 1981, the council wrote to the Minister and asked to be consulted on the Florence Bay proposal and to be kept fuUy informed of developments. It was also pointed out that a significant volume of additional water— beyond the capacity of the existing pipeline—would be required if the development eventually went ahead, and Government assistance was sought. In May 1982, Mr Frank Moore, the chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, said that the corporation was fully committed to the Florence Bay proposal and that it would generate 5 000 jobs. At that time he claimed that 26 companies had registered their interest. Later in May he said that that particular development was part of a continuing plan that included the international air terminal. In September 1982, the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation agreed to fund part of the cost of a larger water pipeline. That is very significant. At the same time, the Townsville City Council cleariy stated that the area would not be considered for rezoning until an environmental impact study was received. At that time, Frank Moore said that he did not know when the proposal would go before the State Government 1184 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) and, although the corporation was looking at other centres, its priorities had not changed. That is also significant. At a tourist industry seminar held in Townsville on 26 October 1982, the then Minister for Tourism announced that tenders would be called to develop a $100m resort at Florence Bay by the end of the year. He also said that very serious consideration had been given to the environmental aspect and that—to use his words—"We will try and keep a low-rise building situation—(thus) sorting out a few problems." I suppose that he meant problems with respect to objections. The Minister for Tourism has been left appearing to be totally incompetent because there has been a continuous exchange of correspondence between the city council, the Minister's office and the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. On 8 February, the council wrote to the director of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, seeking the latest plans for the development proposals. A copy was also sent to the Minister. The council pointed out that it still wanted the environmental impact study to be undertaken. 8th Febmary, 1984 The Managing Director, Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, G.P.O. Box 328, BRISBANE. Q. 4001 Dear Sir, FLORENCE BAY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT—MAGNETIC ISLAND At the last meeting of the Council, reference was made to the State Government's proposals for the Florence Bay Tourist Development on Magnetic Island and it was resolved to seek clarification in regard to the latest development plans for Florence Bay. The Council confirmed its desire for an Environmental Impact Statement for the project, consultation and discussion with the Council regarding service facilities to the development, and that it was the Council's wish that public access to the beach area be guaranteed to the public. Given the above requirements of the Council, it was further resolved to ask the Minister for Tourism to visit Townsville so that this developmentproject could be discussed in a cooperative manner between the Council and the State Govemment. The Council requests that it be informed of the State Government's plans in relation to this proposed development. Yours faithfully, A/TOWN CLERK. Mr SMITH: The Minister was asked to visit Townsville so that discussions could be held in a co-operative manner. How could the Minister conceivably take that as being an apathetic or negative approach? Simply put, the National Party bosses have decided to pork-barrel some of their own areas because the political climate is more favourable to them. They have lost sight completely of their responsibility to assist with integrated development as part of the thrust of the Federal Government and private enterprise. Only this Government could have made such a mess of the casino proposal for Townsville. Had it listened to wise counsel in the first instance, the Townsville casino, like that on the Gold Coast, could have been due to open before the end of this year. The incompetent Minister—and I say that very deliberately—has come up with shallow and, as has been now proven, untruthful charges about the council. He should resign. Mr Lee: Which Minister is that? Mr SMITH: The Minister for Tourism. On 27 March the Minister responded to the council's letter of 8 February saying that he had no plans to visit Townsville. Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1185

The Acting Town Clerk, The Council of the City of Townsville, P.O. Box, 1268, TOWNSVILLE Q. 4810 Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter of 8th February in connection with the Florence Bay tourist development project on Magnetic Island. The proposed developments at Florence Bay are a matter for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and I have arranged for a copy of your letter to be passed to the General Manager of the Corporation. So far as the invitation to discuss the matter with your Council is concerned I regret I do not have any plans to visit Townsville at this stage. Yours sincerely, PETER McKECHNIE, Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts. Mr SMITH: Clearly, the Minister did not have the intestinal fortitude to talk to the council across a table because he knew that he would be embarrassed. He should now be embarrassed further because the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation is and has been contributing $40,000 a year since 1982 as part of its contribution for the extra interest and redemption payments for the larger pipeline. If there was no intention to build the resort or even to drop the priority, it was irresponsible for the Minister and his department to commit that money for a larger pipeline which would not be needed for the normal development of the island as a residential location. The tourist and travel corporation replied to the council on 23 March, noting its requirement for an environmental impact study. The general manager, Mr King, in the final paragraph of his letter to the council, noted the request for a meeting with the Minister. He assumed that the Minister would comply with that request, because I suppose that he did not know what was going on. QUEENSLAND TOURIST & TRAVEL CORPORATION 23rd March, 1984. The Town Clerk, The Council of the City of Townsville, P.O. Box 1268, TOWNSVILLE Q. 4810 Dear Sir, Re: Florence Bay Tourist Development—Magnetic Island Thank you for your letter of 8th February in connection with a proposed development at Florence Bay. The desires of your Council in respect of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project and other matters raised in the second paragraph of your letter have been noted and will be taken into consideration by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation at the appropriate time. It is understood the Honourable P. R. McKechnie, M.L.A., Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts has received your invitation to meet with Council and will reply to you in the near future. So far as planning is concerned the first stage is to ensure passage in State Parliament of certain legislation. Yours sincerely, P. T. KING, Managing Director. Mr SMITH: Mr McKechnie is now trying to dodge the flak coming from his blatant and unpardonable attack on the council. He has not done his homework and has been 1186 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) made to look idiotic. He should not have attempted to cloud the real issue because the transparent attempts to lump responsibility onto the city council have only highlighted his duplicity and that of the Government conceming the proposed development. Any development at the Magnetic Island site is clearly the State Government's responsibility. The land was acquired by the Government from the Scout organisation, so it has now reverted to Government ownership. Only the Govemment can decide how that land is to be used. How could the Minister say that the council had been obstmctive and totally uninterested, when it is also spending rate-payers' money for a larger pipeline to Magnetic Island to cope only with tourist development and not with the residential development? The pipeline is certainly much larger than would be required to service the ordinary residential population. If the council had been an obstmctionist council, it would not have become involved in any way in the scheme. The pipeline has been a partnership in that a subsidy was coming from the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, but the Govemment has now broken the spirit of the agreement that was implicitly part of the original arrangement. If Mr McKechnie has any real plans, costs or anything else in relation to Florence Bay, let him produce the proposal so that it can come under the scmtiny of people who can make a professional judgment on its merits and the relative merits of Rorence Bay and the other proposals. Until the Minister does that, he must be condemned for not having the real interests of his department at heart and, as I said before, for merely being an archetype of the National Party and a creature of its intrigue. Mr ALISON (Maryborough) (5.16 p.m.): I offer my sincere congratulations to the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) and the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Bill Gunn) on the balanced Budget that they have presented to this Chamber. It is a blueprint for increasing development and increasing employment throughout the State. Mr Henderson: A good model for the rest of Australia, too. Mr ALISON: It certainly is. I also offer my congratulations to the Under Treasurer (Mr Leo Hielscher) and the First Assistant Under Treasurer (Mr Vince Doyle), whose prime responsibility is the Budget, on the presentation of the Budget and the associated documents and statements. They have greatly simplified the Budget and its implications so that it is more easily understood. The Special Major Capital Works Program of $600m over the next two and a half years is a master-stroke, and it will demonstrably improve employment and development throughout Queensland. Quite obviously, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) had great difficulty, even after a considerable amount of research that he and his officers did, in coming up with anything substantial by way of criticism. The best that he could do was to state that the Budget is a document of deception, a hoax and a fraud. During his speech, he referred to certain sections of the Queensland economy that possibly are not up to standard when compared with the Australian average. What he did not do, however, was make passing mention of those areas in our economy in which Queensland is way ahead of the rest of Australia. I refer to the Budget document titled "The Queensland Economy", which shows quite clearly that in 1983-84 employment in Queensland increased by 4.6 per cent compared with an increase of 3.5 per cent for the remainder of Australia, that the State's population increased by 1.6 per cent compared with an increase of 1.1 per cent for the remainder of Australia, that Queensland's net migration gain from all sources of 14 640 persons was the highest of all the States, and that the State's labour force increased by Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1187 3.8 per cent compared with an increase of only 2.2 per cent for the remainder of Australia. Those across-the-board statistics are the important ones. It is useless for Opposition members to engage in nit-picking and to say that a certain little industry is down. The figures that I have quoted show the overall scene. As is shown by the Budget papers, the Queensland economy has certain weak spots. The Government is tackling the problems in a very businesslike way, and that will have fmitful consequences for Queensland over the next 12 months. I would have hoped for a constmctive approach by the honourable member, but it was not forthcoming. I am well aware that it is the Opposition's role to try to highlight any deficiencies in Govemment policies or the economy of the State or, in this instance, any areas in the Budget that the Leader of the Opposition feels should be criticised. However, there was absolutely nothing constmctive in the honourable member's speech. In fact, all that he did with his speech was knock Queensland, not the Govemment. I will now endeavour to deal with certain of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition to show that he is just as big a knocker of the State as the previous Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had great difficulty in coming to grips with the Special Major Capital Works Program of $600m, over and above the Government's normal Capital Works Program, to be spent over the next two and a half years. He was completely lost in trying to work out how that program would be funded. He even tried to make out that the loan funding program this year allocated less than was allocated last year. If the Leader of the Opposition had studied page 4 of the booklet "The State Capital Works Programs 1984-85", he would have seen clearly set out how the $600m had been allocated; for example, education buildings, $100m. If he had studied page 8 of the same booklet, he would have seen the sources of those funds. I say with tongue in cheek that I am quite sure that he read it, but he does not want to acknowledge its contents. The Leader of the Oppositon pretended that he cannot understand it. He suggests that it does not exist. The Leader of the Opposition also tried to make out that the Government budgeted for less loan works than it did for the previous year. I refer him to page 133 of the Estimates where he will see that, out of the Loan Fund, $330.89m was spent last year and that, this year, $334.01 m is budgeted to be spent. That, of course, is completely independent of the Special Major Capital Works Program and loan fund raisings by statutory and semi-statutory bodies. Let us examine another statment made by the Leader of the Opposition. At various places in his speech he referred to $72m and $90m being spent this year out of the Special Major Capital Works Program. In an effort to help the honourable member, I refer him to page 82 of the Estimates where he will see clearly that $90m has been set aside in that fund and that estimated expenditure for 1984-85 is $72.Im. I further understand that, should for some reason the progress of the works that are projected out of that Special Major Capital Works Program accelerate, $ 18m is available, that is, up to a total of $90m is available, for the year. That is wise house-keeping. The Queensland Government wants to leave some latitude so that it can do those things necessary to assist in creating jobs. The Leader of the Opposition further stated that less than one-eighth of the $600m of the Special Major Capital Works Program will be spent in the current year. The honourable member has fallen into a trap in that he has either inadvertently or deliberately overiooked the additional fund-raising by hospitals boards through loans. I think that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (the Honourable Bill Gunn) indicated in answer to a question asked last week that it was estimated that something like another $70m would be raised in that way over and above the normal loan fund requirements for hospital boards for the current year. That would mean that about $l40m or $150m of the $600m program would be spent in 1984-85. 1188 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) To sum it all up, the Leader of the Opposition obviously found it impossible to find any holes of any substance in the Budget. Therefore, he had to come up with a charge that the Budget was a document of deceit, a hoax and a fraud. I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is a hoax and a fraud because of the statments that he made in his Budget speech. I sympathise with him because he had some difficulties in finding something worth while to criticise, but I would have thought that he could have been a great deal more constmctive. I now refer to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that Queensland's present unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent is the highest of any mainland State. In fact, the official unemployment rates at 30 June 1984 suppUed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are: Queensland, 9.2 per cent; New South Wales, 9.5 per cent; Victoria, 7.6 per cent; South Australia, 9.1 per cent; and Westem Australia, 9.8 per cent. Queensland, however, has for some years now had a net interstate migration inflow, whereas over the last two years, at any rate, all other mainland States except Westem Australia have had a net migration outflow. The net interstate migration figures are readily available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the year ended 30 June 1983 and the year ended 31 December 1983. However, they are not available for the six months ended 30 June 1984.1 endeavoured to obtain those figures to see just what effect that net interstate migration factor had on Queensland's unemployment rate, since we are creating jobs in this State at a far greater rate than any other State. For the purposes of the exercise, I took the net interstate migration figures for the 12 months ended 30 June 1983. Then I took the figures for the 12 months ended 31 December 1983 as being the same as for the 12 months ended 30 June 1984. I reiterate that, apart from Westem Australia, Queensland was the only State to have a net interstate migration influx in that period. For instance, on the figures that I arrived at, the net increase in Queensland's population resulting from interstate migration over the two- year period was 31 584, whereas the net decrease for New South wales was 28 769, for Victoria, 9 617, and for South Australia, 4 245. The net increase for Western Australia was 4 243. To take the calculations and estimations further, I assumed that one-third of the number of people migrating from one State to another are in search of work. I used that figure to either add to the unemployed figure of a State at the end of June 1984 or deduct from it, depending on whether there was a net increase or a net decrease in population caused by interstate migration. I then arrived at what might be called the adjusted unemployed figure to 30 June last, taking into account an estimated weightage of the net migration factor. Having done that, I arrived at an adjusted percentage of unemployed in Queensland of 8.3 per cent; in New South Wales, 9 per cent; in Victoria, 7.8 per cent; in South Australia, 9.3 per cent; and in Westem Australia, 9.6 per cent. Even if I was out by 33'/a per cent in the estimate of net interstate migration figures for the year ended 30 June 1984, Queensland's adjusted unemployment rate at that date would still be only 8.47 per cent. In short, even if I am considerably out with the net migration estimate for the year ended 30 June 1984, Queensland's adjusted unemployment rate is still better than that of any State other than Victoria, taking into account an allowance for Queensland's unemployment rate being increased by the net migration inflow. Judging from the rate at which people are coming here from Victoria, it will not be very long before Victoria's figure is greater than ours. My electorate of Maryborough has done very well out of the Budget. The Youth Employment Support Scheme was mentioned. Of the five new centres to be set up in Queensland, Maryborough will have one. Under the scheme, an office is set up for people who endeavour to target in on 14 to 18-year-olds who are unemployed and have problems. An endeavour is made to assess young people, find them suitable positions and undertake follow-ups with the employers to ensure that, as far as possible, a success is being made of the employment. It is a wonderful scheme that has worked very well in Brisbane. I look forward to the scheme operating from its own office in my city of Maryborough. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1189 A $4m redevelopment plan has been announced for the Maryborough Base Hospital, which will entail the replacement of the old wards 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the provision of a new administration area. The old wards will be used for store-rooms, a flat for staff, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and a school of nursing. In addition, $884,000 has been earmarked for refurbishing existing wards 5 and 6 of Wahroonga Nursing Home at the base hospital. That involves the implementation of stage 2. The Lower Mary River Irrigation Scheme has received an aUocation of $3.6m this year. That will provide irrigation water for cane-farmers south of Maryborough. Current work includes a pipe reticulation system on both sides of the Mary River downstream of the barrage. Work is beginning also on constmction of the OvanyiUa diversion channel, which will enable water to be pumped from the Mary River to supplement supplies in the Tinana Barrage. Accelerated funding as a result of the Special Major Capital Works Program will result in the scheme being completed by mid-1987 instead of by mid-1990, with the consequential benefits that wUl flow from that. This year at Tuan, Toolara and Wongi, 2 600 ha of softwood forest wiU be planted. The thinnings and mature timber from those forests will feed the projected paper-mill and integrated pine-mill that are to be set up somewhere in the Gympie/Maryborough area. With regard to the special education program—the early educational intervention program for children with special needs will be significantly enhanced from January 1985, with new special centre-based education programs for young chUdren being mounted in 11 centres, including one at Maryborough. The programs will accommodate children whose severe developmental delays place their educational futures at risk. Their full- time or part-time attendance in special school sessions will enable careful assessment to be undertaken in consultation with parents. This early start will maximise each chUd's potential to benefit from future education programs in regular special schools. In addition, special education programs for severely handicapped children will also be expanded in the 1985 school year. Again, Maryborough features as one of the four cities in which for the first time groups of severly handicapped children will be enrolled in special schools. This move follows a successful pilot scheme undertaken in conjuction with teams from the Department of Health. The main focus of teaching programs for severely handicapped children is independent living skills in line with Govemment policy to give every child access to an appropriate education as soon as possible. The Budget provides funds for rail projects. I refer firstly to the extension of the contracts that were granted earlier this year to Walkers/Asea of Maryborough. The extension of the contracts is for the supply of 24 electric passenger rail cars for the Brisbane electrification scheme. Mr Hartwig: That was as a result of your representations, of course. Mr ALISON: I certainly spoke to the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Transport (Mr Don Lane) about it. I would like to think I played some small part in U. The Budget allocation will mean a six-month extension to the present contracts, which will now go into early 1987. The money will provide six months' work for 100 men. The big contracts won be Clyde/Asea and Walkers for the constmction of 70 heavy- duty electric locomotives to be used on the coal lines in central Queensland have been a tremendous fillip to the town. Even though no jobs have yet been provided, the psychological effect has been great. The contract is worth $90m and, when Walkers/Asea in the city of Maryborough start work on it, it will create 200 new jobs that will last for three and a half years. I am sure that will be only the first of other considerable contracts, because the firms wiU have a foot in the door in the electrification of the rail system of the State. As the State Government further develops the electrification of some of the major rail lines of the State, I am sure more contracts will be let. 1190 9 October ;1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO

The main problems in my electorate are employment and housing, which would not be very different from the problems of other electorates. In regard to employment, I mentioned two State Govemment contracts that will help quite considerably to create employment in the mid and long term. I have already referred to the paper-mill. The firm Taif consultants conducting the feasibiUty study for the consortium interested in setting'up the paper-mill has to have its final report in the hands of the State Govemment by 31 December. I am confident that the paper-mill will be situated very close to Maryborough and will have a pine-mill integrated with it. In all, when the industry is in full operation it will create 400 new jobs. As I say, in the mid to long term there will be a tremendous boost to the number of jobs in the Maryborough district. A couple of months ago Mr Jeff Weigh, the development officer of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, was in Maryborough and suggested that the city should be promoted as "Heritage City". The recommendation is that a section of the city down by the river, which contains buildings that remain as they were perhaps 100 years ago, should be restored and developed. I see that as a great opportunity for the tourist industry to develop in Maryborough, which has not always been very interested in tourism. I will certainly be looking for Maryborough's share of rental houses out of the funds provided in this Budget. I congratulate the Honourable Claude Wharton on the manner in which he carries out his duties in that area, for his efforts to provide welfare housing and finance for people wanting to purchase their own homes. The department does an excellent job under the Minister's administration. I look forward to seeing provision in a future Budget for the constmction of a new police station in Maryborough. The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (the Honourable Bill Glasson) has already indicated that officers of his department and the Works Department are satisfied that the old police building simply cannot be satisfactorily redeveloped, and therefore Maryborough will be placed on the list for a new police station. I have another problem with the Maryborough High School and the adjacent TAFE college. Both institutions share certain facilities and are very crammed not only in terms of facilities but also in the area around the buildings. I have had frequent discussions with the Honourable Lin Powell in this regard, and I believe that he agrees that the appropriate course is to gradually redevelop the TAFE college on another site and allow the Maryborough High School to take over the entire present site, so winding up with two excellent education facilities in keeping with the size of the city and district. Last week, 43 railway workers in Maryborough received redundancy notices. That was a blow to the city. Since late last year, I have been speaking to the Honourable Don Lane in an endeavour to stave off the possibility of the rationalisation of railway facilities as a result of recommendations made by the management consultants. I believe that it is fair to say that my efforts have resulted in fewer redundancies than may well have been the case. Although it is a blow to my electorate, one must accept that the State Government is doing a good job in terms of making the railway system more viable and competitive. By so doing, the job security of all railwayworker s is strengthened, as is the future of the department. Eventually, more jobs may be created in the railway system as a result of this effort to make it more viable and competitive. Contrary to the stories being spread round Maryborough by the ALP that those unfortunate men will lose their jobs—that is utter mbbish—the Government has laid down guide-lines for them. No employee will lose his job. He is to be given the six months' notice to enable him to become placed in an altemative position. Generous assistance is available to facilitate relocation in a vacancy at another depot. In addition. Cabinet recently approved an early retirement scheme for railway workers to enable employees who meet specified criteria to retire at or after 55 years of age. Mr Hartwig interjected. Supidy (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984^ 1191 Mr ALISON: I do not think so; electrification will create work because the raUways will be used more frequently. Mr Jemiings: It means they will all be offered other jwbs and six months' pay. Mr ALISON: Nobody will lose his job. The men will' continue working at the Maryborough workshops for at least the six months. During that time, as has happened at the Caims workshops, endeavours will be made to offer those people other jobs in Maryborough within the railway system if they wish to stay there. Some of those who are getting on in years will probably take up the offer of eariy retirement. If any of the 43 who have received redundancy notices are stiU'at the Maryborough workshops at the end of six months, and have not found another job, they will be relocated at the Govemment's expense. Mr Jennings: No doubt the Minister has taken notice of your representations. I heard him talking about it the other day. Mr ALISON: I am sure that he took notice of my representations. I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about an organisation that is important to Maryborough and to what is known as the Sugar Coast region. lam referring to the Sugar Coast Burnett Regional Tourism Board. The board was formedjin 1981 and, since then, has actively promoted the Bundaberg, Maryborough, Hfervey Bay and North and South Burnett areas. Unfortunately, early in 1983, a difference of opinion arose among certain board members—basically, it was the Bundaberg members against the members from the other areas—over a constitutional matter and the siting of the office from which the board would operate. As a result, the Bundabeig area broke away and formed its own tourism boaid. That was unfortunate. I do not wish to canvass the reasons for that. I am more interested in adopting a constmctive attitude and pointing to the way in which the situation may be retrieved. The entire Sugar Coast region should be promoted by the one organisation. Until 30 June 1983, the Maryborough, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Woongarra, Miriam Vale, Mount Perry, Kingaroy, Murgon and Wondai local authorities contributed finan­ cially to the board. Since thehj the Bundaberg, Woongarra, Miriam Vale and Mount Perry local authorities have not subscribed to the board. The current membership of the board stands at 112. It comprises fiveloca l authorit'es and 107 private enterprise bodies. In the current year, $62,304 wiU be subscribed by local authorities and $19,440 by private enterprise. I emphasise that the board continues to promote the entire Sugar Coast/Burnett region. Since the breakaway, the board has been promoting not only the Maryborough, Hervey Bay, and north and south Bumett areas but also the entire area. Of course, it is Government policy that bodies promote large identifiable regions. The Government does not want splinter groups or small tourism bodies being parochial and promoting their own small areas. As I understand it, that policy is based on experience in the tourist industry. Statistics indicate that the best way in which to get the most value out of money spent on the promotion of tourism is to set up large identifiable areas and have those areas promoted by one body. For 1983-84, the Government provided a subsidy of $30,000 to regional tourist bodies. Unfortunately, the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie) was prevailed upon to hive off $6,000 of that to the Bundaberg group. The Sugar Coast Regional Tourist Board received $24,000. which was a great pity because it knocked its budget around qiute a bit. This year, the Budget documents indicate that regional tourist boards are to receive a subsidy of $35,000. I ask the Minister not to split up that subsidy. Let the Sugar Coast Regional Tourist Board receive the full $35,000, because it is doing the jdb of promoting the entire region. 1192 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) The Sugar Coast region covers an area defined by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation from Miriam Vale in the north, to Tiaro in the south, to Kingaroy in the west and to Fraser Island on the coast, and from Monto to Lady Elliott Island. That is a clearly identifiable region. It is essential to extract the maximum potential from the tourist industry for a clearly defined area, and to achieve that only one body must be handling the external promotion. There is nothing to stop the local authorities within the region promoting their own area; but, as I understand the position, it is best to have one body handling the promotion for a region. Therefore, I ask the Minister and the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation to endeavour to prevail on the Bundaberg area to come back under the Sugar Coast umbrella. It should forget past differences and consider the welfare of the entire region, including the Bundaberg, Maryborough and other areas. Mr Jennings: It is a very appropriate comment. Mr ALISON: I thank the member for Southport for his remark. I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, through his good offices and those of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, to bring what influence he can to bear to encourage Bundaberg, the local govemments of the region and the private enterprise sector to extend the hand of friendship. I know that it will be grasped eagerly by the Sugar Coast Regional Tourist Board. Mr McKechnie: You have my assurance that we will endeavour to do so. Mr ALISON: I thank the Minister for that. Mr Veivers: Would you call that instant success in representation by the National Party? Mr ALISON: Yes; that is not a bad effort, even if I do say so myself With those finalcomments , I repeat my congratulations to the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) and the Honourable Bill Gunn. I must say also how proud I am to be a member of this very progressive National Party Govemment in Queensland. I look forward to working with this Government for many years to come. Mr VEIVERS (Ashgrove) (5.46 p.m.): In speaking to the Budget Mr McKechnie: What can I do for you? Mr VEIVERS: With similar instant success in representation, I can think of many projects in my electorate that I would like the opportunity to put to the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. If he can give instant decisions Uke that, Opposition members would be delighted. However, perhaps the Minister's party would be in all sorts of trouble and he might not be a Minister for very much longer. I support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that he made so succinctly during the course of his speech in the Budget debate. This evening, I propose to speak about the deception that has been perpetrated by the Government in the Budget. I propose speaking also in support of my leader's comments about the emphasis that the Govemment places on its philosophy of being a low-tax or no-tax Government. I will make some comments also about the general philosophy of Govemment members about the Federal Govemment and other State Governments in this country and about their continual knocking of those Govemments. I will make reference to where Queensland's finances really come from. I will knock on the head some of the myths that are continually created by Government members about free enterprise, about where the State is going and about the reactions of Government members to the southern States. I will comment also about education. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1193 I will speak firstiy about comments made by the member for Maryborough, who preceded me in this debate. He spoke about southern migration to Queensland. This is one of the great myths that is circulated continually by the Government—how these hordes and hordes of people from the southern States of Australia flock to Queensland to escape what I suppose are called the terrible socialists in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberta. They are democratic socialists and they have come to Queensland to join the agrarian socialists. Let us consider the reality of this migration. I wonder what effect the comments of Government members over such a long period about migration have had in this State and how true they are. The Government's claims about migration are a fallacy and a myth. There is no doubt that a number of people migrate from the southern States to Queensland and there are very good reasons why they do so. The reasons, however, are not those mentioned by Government members. For a start, have Government members thought about our climate? Secondly, have they thought of other reasons why people leave the large urban areas of Sydney and Melbourne and come to parts of Queensland that are less populous and do not have the problems created by congestion? I congratulate those people who come to Queensland from southern States. The vast majority of people who move to Queensland live on either the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast. I have no objection to their residing in those places; they are wonderful parts of the State. However, generally speaking, a large proportion of those people who migrate to Queensland are elderly people who have retired on superannuation benefits or have given up business. They come to Queensland because of our good climate. Although those people have been respionsible for a boom in the home and home- unit construction industry, and have thereby created jobs, they do not tend to spend a great deal of money. In most cases, they probably have a good car that was bought soon after retirement, they do not eat a great deal, their children have been educated and have grown up, and they do not travel a great deal. So their economic value to this State is limited. Even though we are pleased to see them here, they do not create much turnover in Queensland's economy. Mr Alison: Are you telling them to nick off home? Mr VEIVERS: No, certainly not. However, I would not recommend that they live in Maryborough while the honourable member represents that area. I can think of many other electorates in which they would be looked after much better by other members. The honourable member for Mirani dwells on one theme in his speeches—the sugar industry. As a large proportion of his electorate is related to the sugar industry, I do not blame him for that. However, the usual tactic is to blame the Federal Govemment for the problems that confront the sugar industry. He fires a continual bartage against it and blames it for the problems. My only comment is that the sugar industry is governed by the law of supply and demand. Government members would be better advised to come to grips with the problem and to analyse it seriously instead of using the Federal Labor Government as a political whipping-boy. It is absolutely ridiculous to do that. No-one would deny that the sugar industry is confronted by a very serious problem. However, we will not get anywhere in this Chamber, in this State or in this nation by continually knocking the Federal Government and trying to make political gain out of a very serious situation. I mention that for the benefit of the honourable member for Mirani, who is not in the Chamber at present. The plight of the sugar industry calls for some positive proposals. The situation was created by previous Governments, including that of Mr Fraser, and this State Government, too. Mr Alison: Are you in favour of a republic? 1194 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr VEIVERS: I do not respond to unintelligent questions. In supporting the attack by the Leader of the Opposition on the Budget, I remind honourable members of his reference to what was really a deception perpetrated by the Govemment on the people of Queensland. It puUed the wool over their eyes in that it told them once again that no taxes had been increased and that this Govemment is a no-tax, low-tax Government. Of course, that is not the case. Two; days after the Budget was introduced by the Premier and Treasurer on 20 September, hundreds of charges were increased. Mr Alison interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I beg to differ with the honourable member for Maryborough. The average increase in those charges was 25 per cent. I do not disagree with the claim that some charges needed to be increased to keep pace with inflation. The majority of those charges increased substantially. Mr Palaszczuk: An average of 25 per cent. Mr VEIVERS: The member for Archerfield is correct; the charges increased by an average of 25 per cent. That is well and tmly beyond the increase in inflation. Mr Alison interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I suggest that the honourable member read the Queensland Gov­ emment Gazette of 22 September. He is supposed to be an accountant. Mr Alison: That's right. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member should go through it. The honourable member is supposed to be good at arithmetic. Mr Alison: Yes. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member should analyse the percentage increase in many of those charges. The people of Queensland have been conned into thinking that the Govemment does not increase taxes. The Government has increased fees in the Titles Office, such as auditing fees, lodgment and registration fees, and increased a whole host of indirect taxes that will hit the pocket of every Queenslander. Mr Simpson: They are not taxes. Mr VEIVERS: If they are not taxes, what would the honourable member call them? Mr Palaszcuk: Taxation by stealth. Mr VEIVERS: It is taxation by stealth. They are charges or impositions placed upon the residents of this State. The honourable member could not disagree with that statement. Earlier in the year, motor vehicle registration fees and charges for maritime services were increased substantially. In the Government Gazette on 22 September a whole range of charges in the Supreme Court, the District Court and the Magistrates Court were increased. The Government Gazette contains pages of charges for every activity in the legal system. The increased charges will add to the cost of that system, which, in tum, will affect the people who can least afford to pay. That is regrettable. People on low incomes who have to take legal action in this State will need to find more money to meet the increased legal charges. That is tragic. It is regrettable that nobody was told about that when the Budget papers were presented by the Premier and Treasurer. The increased charges were sprung on the Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1195

people of Queensland two days after the introduction of the State Budget. Charges were increased under the Justices Act, the Real Property Fees Act, the Property Law Act, the Coroners Act, the Building Units and Group Titles Act, the Justices of the Peace Act, the Friendly Societies Act, the Auctioneers and Agents Act, the Money Lenders Act, the Co-operative and Other Societies Act, the Art Unions and Amusements Act, the Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Liquor Act. A large section in the Govemment Gazette lists the charges made under the Liquor Act. The cost of obtaining a canteen permit is $67. The charge has not increased substantially. Many small clubs are stmggling to survive throughout Queensland. Parents must spend many hours looking after their children and trying to raise funds for those clubs. Many small clubs are trying desperately to provide ovals, dressing-rooms, toilets, etc. It is tragic that the cost of obtaining a canteen permit has been increased to $67. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.

Mr VEIVERS: Prior to the dinner recess I mentioned a number of Govemment charges that had been increased two days after the Budget was introduced by the Premier and Treasurer. I did not mention the fees for the registration of births, deaths and marriages, so I will add those to my comments. I now refer to the Govemment's tactics. Initially I spoke about the philosophy of knocking the Federal Labor Government at every opportunity. That is a continuing process. In my time in the Parliament it has been done at every opportunity by both Government Ministers and Govemment back-benchers. Mr McPhie: Has it occurred to you that we might be knocking them because they are not performing?

Mr VEIVERS: The member for Toowoomba North told me earlier that he was one of the few to have come from the south—Sydney, I think it was—for reasons other than the weather. I have worked out his real reason. He wanted to join the National Party and be elected as the member for Toowoomba North. Many people migrate to Queensland for reasons other than those put forward by the Govemment. We have a wonderful State climatically. It is just not tme that they are coming to Queensland to escape the evils of the socialists in the south. In fact, by coming here they are migrating to a State of agrarian socialists. I return to my point about the Govemment's tactics in the Parliament. 1 note a change. On every occasion when we as Opposition members put proposals forward. Government Ministers and back-benchers attempt to depict us as knockers, destroyers and prophets of doom. That is certainly not so. I ask the public of Queensland: Who are the knockers? Historically, the National Party Government has done more to knock the welfare and co-operation that ought to be extended to every member of our society than any Government I have known. It is knocking the Federal Labor Government's efforts for the sugar industry, as I mentioned prior to the dinner recess. Without any reason, it knocks every positive initiative put forward by the Hawke Labor Govemment. Mr Simpson: Higher taxes.

Mr VEIVERS: The member for Cooroora was silenced prior to the dinner recess when I read a list of Acts under which hundreds and hundreds of charges were increased by the Govemment subsequent to the introduction of the Budget. The Government does not call them taxes. They are certainly an imposition on the citizens of our State. If the Government does not wish to call them taxes, I do not know what those Government charges are. They are certainly a penalty on the people of this State. It is govemment by regulation and govemment by deception. 1196 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement) I wish now to deal with the damage that is done to our society by the Government's knocking tactics. All honourable members should very seriously consider the matter. When one political party continually knocks and endeavours to destroy any initiative put forward by another political party, a great deal of damage is done to our society, particularly to our young people. It has the result of establishing negative attitudes and philosophies in our young. If any country needed co-operation and positive proposals, Australia was certainly that country after years of Fraserism. The ballot-box speaks for itself Mr Palaszczuk: It is consensus that the people want. Mr VEIVERS: People want co-operation and consensus. All 1 have to do is to refer to the results of the last Federal election. The National Party Government is continuing with its philosophy of trying to knock every initiative that is put forward. Tonight I am putting to every honourable member in this Chamber that the damage that has been done to our society, particularly to our young people, is quite serious and that sort of approach should not be encouraged. 1 know that political parties, particularly if they are in Opposition, need to put forward positive, constructive proposals, but in Queensland the Govemment knocks the Labor Party on every occasion it puts forward constmctive proposals. If something goes wrong, the National Party Government tries to blame everyone else. Now it does not have the Liberals to blame. If every State of Australia had a Labor Government, the Queensland Government would continue to blame those Governments. If other State Governments were of the same colour, I do not know what the Queensland Government would do. Perhaps it would blame the Governments in New Zealand or Europe. That sort of attitude is not healthy for society. Mr Cahill: Give credit where credit is due. Mr VEIVERS: Credit must be given when it should be given. For the benefit of the honourable member for Aspley, I point out that, whilst I have been a member. Opposition members have given credit where credit is due. The Opposition does not oppose every piece of legislation put forward in this Chamber. The honourable member for Aspley has heard many Opposition members say that the Government's legislation is quite good, is acceptable to the Opposition and is for the benefit of the State. So members of the Government cannot say that members of the Opposition are knockers. The knockers are sitting on the Government side of the Chamber and are members of the Government of the State. I shall now refer to an article written by Mr Ian Miller on 9 September. Mr Cahill: This will be a nice, unbiased article. Mr VEIVERS: No, it is a very constructive article by a professional journalist. The Government does not like what he had to say. He stated some home truths. He hit the nail right on the head. Members of the National Party do not like it because what he says happens to be the truth. In referring to knockers, Mr MUler said— "One myth which should be dispelled right from the start is that poor old Queensland does very badly at the hands of the terrible socialists in Canberra in terms of tax sharing on a per capita basis for the 1984-85 financial year. New South Wales receives $506 a person, Victoria $502 a person, and Queens­ land $754 a person. In other words, Queensland gets $252 more per person than Victoria. For a Queensland resident, that is hard to knock. But two points remain. First, the continual attacks on the Federal Government by Queensland are invalid and second, it is easy to understand the complaints of Mr Wran and to a lesser degree Mr Cain, about the extent of finance provided from the Federal cake to Queensland." Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1197

That dispels the myth that Queensland is badly done by in treatment from the Federal Government. Queensland receives $252 more per head than Victoria. I wish to refer to some other parts of Mr Miller's article, which is headed " 'All's weir is an economic myth" The Committee should get some facts, and the foUowing contains the facts— "In May this year, the Queensland Confederation of Industry's Quarterly review of private sector performance forecast a grim economic outlook for Queensland, despite the 'quiet' recovery occurring nationally. For July this year, unemployment rates in Queensland stand at 9.2 percent compared with 8.4 percent nationally." That does not say much for the Government's employment record. Unemployment in this State is worse than the national average. The article continues— "The inflation rate in Queensland, according to the Australian Statistics Bureau, is 5.3 percent compared with 3.9 percent for Australia (which includes the Queensland figure) for 1983-84." That shows that the Queensland inflation rate is also higher than the national average. That deals with unemployment and inflation, which are two of the key factors governing the economy. The article continues— "Building approvals in Queensland for 1983-84 stand at $2.6 billion, roughly the same figure as in 1981-82." That shoots down the use by this Government of building approvals as a yardstick for the State's so-called tremendous economic growth. Turnover on the Brisbane Stock Exchange is another example of economic growth used by the disciples of free enterprise on the other side, particularly when allied with the Premier's attempts to make Queensland the financial capital of the southem hemisphere. But when one looks at turnover on the Brisbane Stock Exchange, one finds that in July this year it was $37m, or $7m down on the July 1983 figure of $44.3m. That dispels that myth! What about retail sales? A great many Government members say that Queensland's economy is doing extremely well as a result of the Government's initiatives, so retail sales ought to give an indication of that. Here are the facts: retaU sales, with figures of $532.2m in June 1983 compared with $564m in June 1984—an increase of only 5.9 per cent—barely kept ahead of inflation. What about motor vehicle registrations? Because they show what people can afford to buy, many people say that they are an indicator of economic growth. Motor vehicle registrations feU from 120 012 in 1982-83 to 112 000 in 1983-84, or by about 6 per cent. The article continues— "And so it goes on. In June, the Queensland Manufacturers' Advisory Committee reported to the Industry Minister, Mr Ahern, that the state economic recovery was lagging behind that of the rest of Australia." 1 repeat that that statement was made by the Queensland Manufacturers Advisory Committee, a reputable body. Let me turn now to the banking industry and its assessment of how this Government has built up the economy. The article continues— "Also in June, the ANZ Bank's report on the economy showed that Queensland lagged behind the rest of the country in terms of employment growth. Compared with Western Australia at 5.9 percent, Queensland recorded 0.05 percent in terms of an increase." 1198 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

Surely Government members will not knock those statements by the ANZ Bank on employment growth in Queensland. The article continues— "In April, the Metal Trades Association of Australia reported that little improvement was expected in sales in Queensland's metal and engineering industry during 1984 despite an expected 9.1 percent increase in the industry on a national basis during the year. Again in April, the Statistics Bureau reported that Queensland was the state with the highest public sector deficit." I believe that earlier today that was reported to be $1.7 billion. I will now quote the remarks of some other people referred to by Mr Miller. The article continues— "A most extraordinary address was made by Mr Bruce Watson, chairman of MIM Holdings Limited, on April 2 this year, in which he said: 'It concerns me that the "boom mentality" which has been responsible for many of our current economic problems is apparently alive and well in this state. 'The recent report by the Queensland Commercial and Industrial Development Department entitled "Major Development Projects and Proposals" which was released a fortnight ago gives a false impression that the once high levels of resource development in this state are to continue well into the future. This simply is not so. In other words, the Government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the Queensland public. I shall refer briefly to the source of the revenue that the Government receives. That has been mentioned in some detail in this Chamber today. Queensland receives 49.7 per cent of its revenue from the Commonwealth—that is, almost 50 per cent of the State's revenue comes from the Commonwealth. Mr Gunn: It comes from the taxes of Queenslanders. Mr VEIVERS: I am not denying that that is so, but the Minister and other Government members continually attack the Commonwealth Government for not return­ ing to the State a fair share of the taxes. I am pointing out that Queensland is receiving more than the other States. I have just stated that Queensland receives $252 per head more than Victoria. Does the Minister deny that? From his silence, it appears that he is not prepared to answer the question. As 1 say, almost half of Queensland's revenue comes from the Commonwealth. State taxes raise 19.6 per cent of the revenue, the railways raise 17.3 per cent, and so on. They are the major sources of revenue in this State. That is the answer to one economic myth put forward by the Government. I now turn briefly to the other great myth put forward by the Government—that is, the great free enterprise myth. That is a great joke. As I mentioned earlier, this is a Government of agrarian socialists. That is a term used by the Liberals, and I must give them a littie credit for it. Mr Palaszczuk: Where are the Liberals? Mr VEIVERS: They have disappeared. They cannot stand the heat. 1 object very strongly to the hypocrisy of the Government when it says how magnificent it is. It says that it is the shining light of free enterprise. What wUl it do about the State Government Insurance Office? Mr Bailey interjected. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1199

Mr VEIVERS: Does the honourable member think that the SGIO should be abolished? If he believes in an ultimate free enterprise society, what does he intend to do about the SGIO? Mr Cahill: I would say encourage it. Mr VEIVERS: In other words, the honourable member is talking a lot of nonsense. I have no objection to the SGIO. I think that it does a very good job for our society. Because it is in the market-place, it provides a buffer. I refer to an article in the "Telegraph" of 26 July 1984 written by Mr Dempster. I know that Government members do not like him because he hits the nail on the head. The article is titled, "Now who's a socialist then?", and states— "But the Nationals, more than any other, have sustained and enhanced Queens­ land's monuments to socialism. The State Government Insurance Office is a prime example. Take a look at this extract from the Nationals' Rockhampton conference agenda." The conference is over, but this is worth repeating. The article continues— "Landsborough electorate council is to move: 'That this conference recommends that action be taken by the Government to curb the activities of the SGIO in its invasions into affairs of private enterprise. Under no circumstances should it be allowed to hold more than 10 percent of equity capital in any private company.' Attached to this resolution is the following comment: 'The Premier has advised that the SGIO has in excess of two million policy holders. To provide the best available return for its policy-holders, the office must be able to compete with other insurers on an equal basis without marketing or operating restrictions other than those applicable to the insurance industry in general. The SGIO has proven to be a good corporate citizen of Queensland and has protected Queensland companies on several occasions through its investments, and has been almost solely responsible for averting take-overs of certain Queensland companies. The only way this situation can continue is for the SGIO to be subjected to no greater investment restrictions than are applicable to its competitors.' " How far can one go with the great philosophical statement about this Government being the shining light of free enterprise? Mr Simpson interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I must say to the member for Cooroora that I do not disagree with the involvement of the State Government Insurance Office. It is very good and I support it. I am talking about the hypocrisy of Government members who claim that everything should be free enterprise. 1 want a mixture. I want the right balance between Government involvement and private sector involvement, and that is where the Labor Party stands. Another passage in the article makes reference to what is a form of socialism, no matter what else one calls it. It reads— "The SGIO was used effectively to stave off the collapse of Queensland's building society industry after the sustained run on funds by panic-stricken shareholders in 1978." Some honourable members would remember that. It continues— "The other notable cases of Government intervention in the market place has been the purchase of Evans Deakin and Walkers Ltd shares to prevent 'southern' takeover." 1200 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement) There is that terrible phrase—southern take-over; I know that it terrifies some honourable members. It continues— "The wisdom of this investment of taxpayers' funds is still the subject of much controversy. And then there was last year's election-eve decision to buy into the ailing Suttons Foundry." All honourable members will recall that. The article goes on— "Even Sir Joh, the Treasurer, said at the time it could be interpreted as socialism, but the Government wanted to save jobs." Goodness gracious me! Mr Dempster concluded that part of his article by asking— "So, who is a socialist then?" 1 have another good example. I do not study the platform of the National Party, so 1 am subject to correction in my remarks. However, Mr Dempster, in that same article, states— "Pretty soon Queensland will have a State Bank, if Sir Joh and his financial adviser. Sir Edward Lyons, can persuade Sir Robert Sparkes and the management committee to support the idea." 1 ask Government members what they are talking about. Mr Simpson: You would have no competition; it would be all national. Mr VEIVERS: I thank the member for Cooroora for his remark! Because I have probably taken up nearly all of my time, I would like to make some very quick references Mr Ahern: You have cleared the press gallery. Mr VEIVERS: Members of the press are waiting for the member for Toowong (Mr Bailey). I suppose that when Mr Bailey gets up very shortly, they wiU come in in their droves. I would like to make a brief reference to National Party priorities and the way that that party looks after its electorates. A number of TAFE colleges are under construction throughout the State. It is commonly known that a TAFE college is being constructed in Kingaroy at a cost of approximately $7m. Others are to be constructed at Ayr/Home Hill and at Emerald. They are all roughly in the $6m to $10m ambit. Also reasonably well known are the planned TAFE colleges on the southern Darling Downs, at Warwick and at Innisfail. These colleges are supposedly under consideration. 1 refer specifically to the TAFE college that is planned for Warwick. I am given to understand that when the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie) heard that a TAFE college was to be established in Warwick, he said, "That is not good enough. If Warwick is to have a TAFE college, Stanthorpe should have one." So Stanthorpe is on the list for a TAFE college, just because Warwick will have one. 1 could list various areas of Queensland in which TAFE colleges will be estabUshed. Remember that 90 per cent of the funds for their establishment comes from the Commonwealth. Under consideration also is what is referred to as a senior high school/TAFE concept for Hervey Bay. Nambour already has one. Mark my words, I do not knock that concept; it is a very good one. What 1 do question, however, is the placing of the new combined high school/TAFE at Hervey Bay, which is in the electorate of the Minister for Education, when the whole of the north-western suburbs of Brisbane do not have a TAFE college. They are desperately in need of one, and tonight 1 call on the Minister for Education, who is not in the Chamber, to establish a TAFE college in that area. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1201 Mr Cahill: There is already one there. Mr VEIVERS: I am talking about the north-western suburbs, not those out the honourable member's way. 1 do not have time to go through the whole list of priorities as set out by the Govemment, but it shows that the Government is only feathering its own nest. What I do say is that there is a great need for TAFE colleges to be established in certain areas on the basis of justifiable needs. Mr Gunn: The priority comes from the TAFE council, which is a Federal body. Mr VEIVERS; I realise that 90 per cent of the funding comes from the Federal Government, so, historically, the Minister's comment is correct. However, under the Fraser Government, the State Government established TAFE colleges wherever it wanted to, irrespective of feasibiUty studies. It was only recently that the Commonwealth Government said to the State Government, "As we are providing 90 per cent of the funds, we want to have a say, not politically, on where they go." 1 know that, and the Minister knows it. So I call for the establishment of TAFE colleges on the basis of a properly researched feasibility study based on needs. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (7.44 p.m.): I point out to the honourable member for Ashgrove that he should not miss out on the stampede into the press gallery as 1 begin my speech. However, at least 1 have brought the Government Whip into the Chamber. 1 am surprised, saddened and sickened by the Opposition's very negative approach to the Budget. The oft-repeated claims that Queensland should be grateful to Canberra for its so-called largess staggers me. 1 find that so politically partisan and so anti- Queensland that in my mind there is no doubt that the Opposition is unfit to lead this State and that its support for development and progress in Queensland is highly suspect. It is reprehensible for the Opposition to try to convince the people of Queensland that they should be grateful to the Government of Hawke and his rapacious lunatics of the Left for returning to Queensland little of the money that they rip off this State by way of income tax. The people of Queensland will judge them and, I hope, give them and friend Hawke a bloodied nose at the Federal election. The Federal Government might be able to con southerners, but Queenslanders are not quite so naive or gullible. Although the Labor spokesmen have attacked this Budget, I, like my colleagues in the Government, would like to compliment the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer for an approach that is designed to keep this State's economy firing and improving. At the same time, I would like also to put on record my admiration for the Under Secretary of the Treasury (Mr Leo Hilscher) and his departmental officers. All members would agree that they have contributed much to the development and economic health of this State. Tonight, I should like to concentrate on the small business area, the encouragement given by the Government to industry in this State, and the encouragement given to new companies to come to this State. The Small Business Development Corporation is one of the best-kept secrets in Queensland. That body is capable of advising, helping and directing so many small- businessmen, yet very few are taking advantage of the service. I suggest to the Opposition that, instead of knocking and whinging, it might take positive steps and recommend to small-businessmen that they make contact with the Small Business Development Corporation and avail themselves of its acknowledged expertise. Mr Menzel: Do you know that there is another faction fight going on in the Labor Party in Queensland? Mr BAILEY: Is there? 1202 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) Too many small businesses are failing. In many cases, that is caused by lack of expertise, forward planning and realistic budgeting; in some cases, because they should never have taken on the business in the first place. Small-businessmen or prospective small-businessmen can obtain advice free of charge, just for the asking, and under this Budget the corporation will receive almost double last year's allocation. The number of staff available to advise business people will also double. Small business is the life-blood of this State and the nation, and it should be helped and guided. However, it still has to face the litmus test, and that is survival in the market-place, it is a pity that the Federal Government, for all its promises, does not address itself to the problem of small business. The Department of Commercial and Industrial Development has been allocated another million dollars for schemes of assistance to industry. That money will go towards projects that include subsidies for specialist consultancy services, loans and grants for overseas market development and overseas trade missions and, to me, the most important of all, implementation of a technology development program. Technology is the future of this country. Even though many union leaders want to bury their heads in the sand and prevent new technology and more efficient production techniques, those innovations are imperative for the survival of Australia. I am always amused when the Opposition gets steamed up about the limited manufacturing and industrial base in Queensland, yet its own major supporters would like the Government to return to the days of the horse and cart in some mistaken conclusion that it will lead to full employment or the retention of jobs. Industry must compete, and that means efficiency and modem techniques and productivity. Nowadays, the unions are so busy protecting their members in work and improving their conditions that they ignore the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians who will never obtain a job unless Australia is competitive enough in the world market-place to be able to export its goods. The economic cavemen of the Labor Party seem to want an improved economy without really addressing the problems that face the country, such as overpayment of the inexperienced-youth labour force, penalty rates, too many public holidays and an attitude to work that is held by so many unionists that they are doing someone a favour by attending the work-place, let alone putting in a hard day's work. The union movement hates to pay those who succeed. Look at its attitude to piece­ work or productivity bonuses. This is its attitude: Do not give the extra money to those who earn it; let us go into the myopic socialist Utopian philosophy of redistribution of wealth and equality all round; let us forget excellence and achievement, hard work and incentive; let us all be the same. Mediocrity and envy seem to be the keynotes of Labor philosophy. When people do succeed. Labor would tax them so hard that they could not keep the results of hard work, initiative and the courage to take risks and compete. That is not the philosophy of the Queensland Government. As long as it remains the policy of the Labor Party and its union backers, they will sit on the Opposition-benches bickering and bitching. $ 1 m is not a large sum, but efficiently expended it will provide help and incentives to a large number of businesses. Add to that the "Enterprise Queensland" campaign, which this year has a promotional budget of about $1.2m, and the chances of Queensland attracting new industry and technological leaders is very great indeed. In my own electorate are numerous examples of high technology at work—Hartley Computer Pty Ltd, Prime Computer of Australia Ltd and a myriad of computer software companies contributing mightily to industry in Queensland and also selling their expertise to a variety of overseas clients. They need to be encouraged, to be cosseted, to be thanked and to be helped. This Budget is all about that and 1 am sure the Premier's new Trade and Investment Branch will be active in this area. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1203 In concluding, I commend the Premier and Treasurer on his massive increase in education spending. If ever there was a resource worth developing in this State, it is our children. There is no doubt that this generous education allocation will assist in doing that. 1 am sorry that in so many schools the philosophy of socialism, as expounded by the Queensland Teachers Union, holds so much sway. I can only wonder where this country will go if we continue to allow the educators of educators to promulgate and perpetuate the negative approach to having a go and achieving—of negating individual success—that seems to be creeping into education. Is it any wonder that so many parents choose to send their children to private schools even though in many instances the State school facilities are equal to or better than those in the so-called privileged private sector. It is about reality, whereas the Teachers Union is about politics rather than what is in the interests of Queensland children. It is based on the self-seeking political interests of a socialist trade union. Already 1 have dealt with numerous complaints from teachers who feel that they are being victimised because they are conservatives and do not want to be part of a union that misuses union funds for blatantly political purposes. Let us hope that sanity prevails and that the educators whose interest is what is best for the children can win through and that the others see that free enterprise as personified by this Government and the very generous support of education in Queensland are so much better than the socialist nightmare of mediocrity espoused by the Opposition. 1 commend the Premier and Treasurer on the Budget. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (7.52 p.m.): As the Deputy Premier and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer would know only too well, 1 have spoken in many Budget debates. Each time 1 have spoken, including those occasions when I was shadow Treasurer, my opening remarks were similar. The documentation with which we were provided at the time of the introduction of the Budget does not give us the facts. No person in the Parliament—no person in the State, whether or not he was an accountant—could point out in what directions money has been or is to be spent. The facts are hidden. We would like to ask a myriad of questions about the Budget, for we would never find the answers in the Budget papers. No other country, no other State—in fact, no other constituency in the Western World—is confronted with such a hopeless feeling of ignorance. We are not able to detect the real intentions of the Budget. We cannot find the facts. They are not presented. They are submerged in a myriad of figures.Tha t has always been so. If we were to attempt to ascertain some simple item such as what a Minister has spent at a particular time, we could not do so. We do not know whether the figureswoul d be contained in his departmental expenses or in his personal expenses. Because of the way in which the Budget is presented in Queensland, the only way in which we could resolve the problems with which we are confronted would be through a public accounts committee. The former leader of the Liberal Party (Terry White) is to speak later tonight. He pressed for a public accounts committee. We all know what happened to him! Queensland is the only State in Australia without one. The Com­ monwealth has one. Every major Pariiament in the Western Worid has a public accounts committee. The State would be saved millions of dollars if we had one. We have no idea where the money is going. It is useless our being presented with such a mountain of figures.W e hear from National Party members that so much is beimg spent in their electorates and that schools and public instrumentalities have received increased allo­ cations. We hear the same comments every year. That is all that happens. The fact of life is that the depth of the Budget is such that it is a giant cover-up. The Leader of the Opposition said that, and it is true. The Queensland Budget has always been a giant cover-up. The State is still living in the days of Sir Gordon Chalk as Treasurer. He was able to cover up. Mr Lingard: It is a good job we are not living in the time of McCormack and Theodore. 1204 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) Mr D'ARCY: At least they presented reasonable Budgets and did something for the State. The member for Toowong spoke about technology. The State Budget provides no money for technology. The State Government barely mentions experimentation. Mr Gunn: Are you talking about the Federal or State Budget? Mr D'ARCY: I am speaking about the State Budget. Mr Gunn: What about the Federal Budget? Mr D'ARCY: I am talking about the State Budget. Because two years ago the Minister was on the back bench, he would not know that the Govemment gave some money towards solar energy research. Does the Minister know that the Government gave $50,000? Mr Gunn: That was last year. Mr D'ARCY: No, it was the year before. The Minister should remember that last year his Government cut out that grant. This year there is no chance of anything like that. The Government managed to cut out even that miserly amount. The Government promotes no experimentation. That is the whole point of my speech. The Government must consider how far Queensland is behind the rest of Australia and the other countries in the world in technological experimentation. The Budget will prove to be a most decisive one. It will prove to be the watershed for this Government. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer has brought down this Government with this Budget. The Budget is the watershed for the Government, but the Minister and his colleagues do not realise what they have done. That is most fortunate for the Opposition because it will put us into Govemment. Before 1 address myself to the outlook in Queensland, I must look at the economic situation throughout the world. The economies of Queensland and AustraUa have some dependence on the world economy. As honourable members must be well aware, last year the United States of America staged an exceptionally strong economic turn-around which was fuelled by massive Budget deficit spending, a series of personal income tax cuts and, in the early part of the recovery, a very accommodating monetary policy. However, the President and his advisers have now painted the US economy into a tight corner; The Budget deficit has been allowed to consolidate into a figureo f approximately $US 180 billion and it will prove to be a very difficult exercise to meaningfully cut back that deficit in the years ahead. He, of course, is looking at an election in November. The necessity for the US to finance this deficit has now led to the crowding out in the US capital markets as the Government competes with the private sector for finance. On top of this it is generally expected that inflation will be on the climb in late 1984 and this, along with the crowding-out problem, has seen pressures remount on US interest rates. Since January this year the long-term bond rate in the United States has climbed from 12 to nearly 13 per cent. The prime rate climbed from 11 to 12 per cent and most short-term money market rates have risen by at least 0.5 per cent. Obviously the political considerations have far outweighed the economic fundamentals and there can be little hope that President Reagan will take any action until after November. A cutting into the deficit next year would involve increases in taxes and certainly affect the growth of the US economy—an economy whose growth rate is perceived will slow down in this year, at any rate. It is unlikely, therefore, that the US interest rate will fall significantiy during 1984 or 1985. These high rates will obviously go on to affect the corporate expansion programs in that country. Owing to the US Government's policy, the Federal reserve now finds itself in a no-win situation. However, should the United States Federal Reserve seek to lower rates by adopting easier monetary policies, it will immediately fuel even greater inflationary fears and create greater cause for concern. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1205

Looking outside the United States, the major industrialised nations are picking up the momentum of their own recoveries and it is likely that in 1985, the Japanese, German and British economies will continue to strengthen further. Even so, the 26 member nations of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, including the United States of America, are forecasting a growth in the 1984 calendar year of 4.3 per cent, but only 2.6 per cent in 1985. While the overaU world economy continues to grow during the next 12 months, it will be nothing like a growth of boom proportions, and competition in world trade markets will remain exceptionally keen. The dramatic decline of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in the face of the soft oil prices brought about by the world recession, should not be forgotten. In 1980 the OPEC nations enjoyed current account surpluses brought on by their oil exports of about $US72 billion. Those countries became major buyers of other countries' exports and poured bUlions of dollars into United States and United Kingdom Govemment bonds and stocks. For example, it has been estimated that in 1982 the OPEC countries contributed 30 per cent of the total foreign holdings of the United States Govemment's securities, and clearly that support would have been welcome assistance to the United States Government in financing its deficit without creating any problems of interest rate rises. However, by the end of 1983 the OPEC nations' current account balance was $US9 billion in deficit, and there can be no expectation of any revival in the OPEC fortunes in the immediate years ahead. This removes the major underpinning support for the world trade markets and investment markets. A final comment on the world scene refers to the plight of Third World countries —which even the Deputy Premier must have heard of—such as Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina and Poland, which cannot meet their commitments. It has been estimated that a 1 per cent increase in United States interest rates would lead to a $US4 billion per annum increase in the interest bill of those Third World countries. The recent rise in United States interest rates has further pressured Third World countries. About 30 countries are experiencing difficulties in meeting their debt and interest repayments. There will be a further upheaval in the world's financial markets as individual Third World countries again falter—Government members do not know what has been done— during the next 12 months. To sum up the United States economy, a maintenance of high interest rates and rising inflation could well lead to a move back into recession no later than late 1985, but fortunately not to the same extent as the recession that was experienced in 1981- 82. Partially offsetting this, the world environment will be continued Government Members interjected. Mr D'ARCY: Government members should listen to the effect that that wUl have on Queensland. The Government has made a massive mistake in this Budget, one that it has never made before. The Japanese and several other European economies can only stage modest recoveries during this period. That should ensure that world trade continues at fairly active levels and will clearly point to strong competition in the world trade markets. That would again emphasise the point that Australia will have to become more cost efficient and a more reliable trading partner if its exports are to compete in such an environment. There can be no doubt that Australia will post strong economic growth at the end of 1984. The impact of of the record Budget deficit, the dramatic turn-around in mral industries, a strong lift in the activity of the housing market and at least some pick-up in consumer spending have boosted the economy. Those things have all happened. It is easy to admit that they have happened and that we have lived with them. But the golden years have gone. The bad years are coming, and this Government has made no provision for them. Mr Gunn: Don't worry about it. That's why Hawke is calling an election. 1206 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr D'ARCY: The Government has made no provision for it. Mr Hawke has done a very good job to date; he has no problems, Mr Gunn interjected. Mr D'ARCY: If the Minister knew that, if he was so confident, and if he agrees with my predictions for next year and about what is really happening, why has this Government brought down a Budget like this? It has provided for no real growth in this State. Mr Gunn interjected. Mr D'ARCY: I ask the Minister to listen to my argument. 1 have put together a very good argument on the world, Australian and Queensland economies. It must be continually borne in mind that, because of our deep depression, most of last year's figures relating to the economy were extensively poor. As a result, when one does percentage comparisons, say, for a month this year against the corresponding month last year, one finds that the percentage recovery looks enormous, but it is not. That can lead to misguided and over-optimistic conclusions—exactly the conclusions that were reached in the formulation of this Budget by the Government. What I would like to do is run through several of the key economic aspects of the economy and, hopefully at the end, draw various points together to paint a picture of where the Australian economy is likely to be in 12 months' time, and where the Queensland economy, as a result of this Budget, is likely to be in relation to it. 1 have already commented that Australia is poised to achieve a record growth this year, and nobody will deny that. Essentially, that is because of the one-off factors. The first is the Federal Budget deficit. I am not denying that; it is a fact of life. The Federal Government has budgeted for that deficit so that it can promote an Australia-wide recovery. Another factor was the breaking of the drought. Nobody denies that that occurred; it happened. That was very palatable for the country. The question to be asked is: What are the factors underpinning the economic recovery into 1985-86? That is the area in which this Government has made a serious mistake. It looked into the past and not into the future. As I have mentioned, the farm sector had its one-off major impact on economic growth this year. In fact, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts that the gross farm product will fall by 10 per cent in 1985. Did the Minister have any idea that that was going to happen? Mr Gunn: Yes, 1 did. Mr D'ARCY: The Minister has made no provision for it in the Budget. Mr Gunn: We have. Mr D'ARCY: The Government has not. That will have a major effect on the Queensland economy. Mr Gunn: The Australian economy. Mr D'ARCY: No, the Queensland economy. Certain activity of the corporate sector has picked up, but only to very poor levels compared with the recovery in the previous year. For example, the index of manufacturing production showed that although output picked up during the December quarter, total manufacturing activity had increased only to the level prevailing during the first half of 1978. Clearly, there is a long way to go in the manufacturing area. In the last couple of years the corporate sector has been severely hit with the return to full indexation in addition to the relatively high interest rates. That has not assisted the corporate cash flow to take up the incentive to invest. I think that this year, most Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1207 interest rates in Australia will remain reasonably low, and we will then embark on expansionary programs. The mining sector is vitally important to Queensland and, from what we know, during the next 12 months it is unlikely to be a major contributor to economic growth. Vast over-supplies of raw materials are still spread throughout the world. Many countries, such as the United States of America, Brazil, Canada and South Africa, have emerged as strong competitors in the commodity markets. Without exception, those countries also bold the edge over Australia and, unlike the Queensland Govemment, the Govem­ ments in those countries can be relied upon to meet contracts. In addition, the modest pace of the recovery is unlikely to create, across the board, any major lift in commodity prices anywhere in the world. In fact, there will be a fall. Mr R. J. Gibbs: The Premier was in Ipswich during the last State election campaign and said that he would help the mining industry. Mr D'ARCY: The Premier and Treasurer has not helped the mining industry in this State. Many countries are heavUy in debt and are desperate to sell their commodity exports to generate hard currency to service their debts. That is what must be considered very seriously. The Government did not consider that, on the world scene, hard currency is needed in many countries. They are prepared to compete with Australia on a different and unfair basis. Australia has not been able to protect its contracts. In the early '60s and the late '70s, mining companies in Australia were forced to accept low royalty payments because of the Queensland Government and it was the Whitlam Government that made the State Government increase those payments. Now those contracts have been ratted on by the people who said that they could maintain them. Third World countries are in trouble with minerals. The State Govemment is being duped because Queensland, with Government expenditure, is building massive facilities that are not likely to be used. The Government will not get a return from them. That is what this Budget is about; it reflects the mistakes that the Government has made. It represents detrimental activity to the mining sector during the next 12 months. What it boils down to is that the recovery in Queensland and Australia will be very much dependent on a strong pick-up in consumer spending, which is something about which very little has been done in this State. Of equal importance to the recovery is a major upsurge in Australia's level of exports. I have commented already on the difficulties that will be faced by Australia when trading in world markets when consumer spending will be only at the level that it was in 1983. As consumers spend, companies have to run down their stock levels and are forced to restock, which directly adds to economic growth. However, 1 can again foresee a one-off phenomenon; that is, that the recovery cannot be sustained through 1985 or 1986, and that is the point that I am making. My main concern centres on the virtual locked-in nature of the Queensland Budget. The likelihood is that inflation will again be on the upturn next year without any return. To sum up on economic growth—I expect that Australia and Queensland, for the year ending 1984, will record about a 5 per cent gross domestic product increase, and that is all. During 1985-86, it is expected that the nation will face a minimal if not a negative gross national product increase and performance. The housing market is very important to Queensland because Queenslanders have tended to live off it for some time. The Australian housing market, which has seen values plummet by 25 per cent since 1982-83, has staged a strong recovery. The fall in interest rates on mortgages has been much too slow in Queensland. The Government was very quick to put them up; it encouraged the building societies to put their rates up from 7 per cent in 1976 to almost 15 per cent in the late '70s. The Govemment forced the interest rates up. But the Government has been very slow, now that the 1208 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) money flow has eased, to get the building societies to bring interest rates down. The Government makes a big effort when building societies such as the SGIO Building Society bring rates for first home mortgages down by 1 per cent. The housing market in Australia—the buying and construction of houses—will not pick up readily. In Queensland, in February 1983, $145m was spent in the housing market and, in 1984, $174m was spent. In contrast, in February 1983 New South Wales had $162m spent, and in February 1984 the sum had increased to $322m. Compared with Queensland's increase, that is a tremendous increase. Housing values have now hit the bottom in some areas. Prices in the housing market have firmed during the last few months, but I expect them to again decline. As distinct from housing markets, home-unit markets remain in a state of over-supply, particularly in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast. The situation in Sydney and Perth is somewhat similar. However, I expect that unit prices will remain somewhat flat over the next two years. In broad conclusions in relation to the housing fund—in recent months there have been some interest rate rises in Australia, and they have been staged through increases that should not feed through mortgage rates. However, the medium long-term rates will be under pressure in 1985 again and the mortgage rates will increase at that time. That has happened in the United States; it is likely to happen here. Provided the Federal Government can maintain a responsible stance on its economic Budget deficits, the recovery in the housing market should continue in most States except Queensland. 1 point out that the housing market in Queensland is such that it can be inflamed by this Government. Queensland faces a crisis in the years ahead. The dramatic growth of the last few years is at the crossroads. The private development of Queensland has slowed down dramatically. To maintain the economic growth to which this Government is so politically allied requires a new economic direction. That has not been provided in this Budget. As capital investment in cental Queensland coal has dropped, new investment has not taken place. Queensland's growth, particularly from 1978 to 1983, did not come from the coal mines and alumina plants churning out their products; it came from the building of new coal mines and alumina/aluminium projects. Honourable members are all aware that once a coal mine is up and running only from 600 to 1 000 employees are required, whereas during the development period from 2 000 to 5 000 people are employed. The construction of major turn-key projects built up from the early 1960s with the first central Queensland coal mines, Weipa bauxite mine and Gladstone alumina plant, to 1983 when five coal mines were under construction at the one time. Nearly $2,000m worth projects were under construction in central Queensland. In 1984-85, the figure has dropped to less than $600m, and that figure includes the so-called BHP mini- steel-miU in Brisbane. In March, the Queensland Department of Commercial and Industrial Development issued a prospectus. I am disappointed that the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahern) has left the Chamber. He said that those projects that were committed and subject to feasibility studies totalled $20 billion. However, they included 37 coal projects, not one of which will get off the ground. If they do, it will not be until the late 1990s. They also include a coal-loader, when present loaders are working at barely half capacity. Those projects mentioned by the Minister also include 10 shale-oil projects. We saw the fiasco with Southern Pacific Petroleum and its sister company when they tried to make a statement on the world market to boost their shares. The shares went up overnight, and Exxon and Esso got to the company straight away, saying, "Don't talk such rot." Despite the fact that the Queensland Government talks rot through its Budget, Exxon told Queensland not to look at shale-oil until many years in the future. It told the two companies, "Do not start boosting shares on our behalf" Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1209 If oil prices quadruple, only one or two shale-oil projects can be expected to start, and that wiU not be until the 1990s. A dissection of the $20 billion worth of projects that Mr Ahern put forward shows that 11 projects worth $3.2 billion in the $5.4 billion committed category have already been completed. $ 1.4 billion has already been spent on the other projects, and, of the remaining $4 billion, $3.5 billion is for Government or semi-Government projects. Only $500m of all those billions of dollars is for private sector projects. That demonstrates cleary a massive drop in private sector capital investment in major projects in Queensland. When that is added to the world situation, the Opposition realises what the Govemment has done in the Budget. It shows why the heavy construction and heavy engineering sector in Queensland this year has faced a halving of work in progress and more than a halving of work on order. There is some doubt about the viability of some major projects in the Govemment's $3.5 billion worth of capital investment. That is being done with borrowed money, public money and money borrowed from overseas. The State Electricity Commission has slowed down construction at StanweU. The Government has not told anybody what it is doing. The Government contracts have been cancelled or deferred. It must be conceded that the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahern) has some idea of what is happening. Other than Mr Hinze, he is probably the only member of Cabinet who knows the real problem. Despite the cheap price paid by the electricity authorities for coal—the Government is talking about $11 a tonne compared with $50 or $120 a tonne in Europe and Japan—Queensland's electricity charges for industrial users are now the same as, or slightly higher than, the electricity charges overseas. In other words, the people of Queensland are being bled to pay for it. In the late 1970s, the Queensland Government outlined a plan that, after the initial resources boom, Queensland's next growth phase would be based on attracting secondary processing industries by providing cheap energy prices. Queensland has not been able to deliver the price advantage, and the second phase of the State's development has stalled. Those facts are not unknown to the Government. However, it has chosen to ignore them. The facts are dismissed by the Government as doom and gloom, particularly by the Premier and Treasurer, and it is not facing reality. As I have said, only Mike Ahem and Russ Hinze see the reality because of the reaction from the industry to the $20.2 billion program put up by Mr Ahern. Senior businessmen throughout this State forcefully poked holes in his list and told him,that if he and his Government did not climb down from their boom mentality to reality, Queensland was headed for difficult times. Mr Wharton: 20 minutes was the arrangement. Mr D'ARCY: No arrangement was made with me. Rather than accept the realities, the Premier and Treasurer and the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) have scathingly attacked anyone who tried to push those facts. They have done that inside and outside this Chamber. The Deputy Premier and the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr Gibbs) have answered critics by pointing to exports of coal. Last financial year coal output was 44 billion tonnes compared with 36 billion tonnes the previous year. That was reflection of investment made in the '70s and the early '80s that the Government has not picked up. Is the investment decision being repeated now for the projects of the '80s and the early '90s? It is not. The result that comes to prominence in the stand off between the Government and the coal-mining companies has taken place over rail freights. Queensland rail freights are four times as high as the rail freights in Canada and South Africa. There is a major split between the Government and big business backers. The Premier and Treasurer has seen the mining companies as his closest ally during the last decade. In the '70s the mining companies poured hefty donations into the Bjelke- Petersen Foundation. These dropped off markedly at the time of the 1983 State election.

64165—41 1210 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) The National Party did not do so weU then. The National Party is now crying poor. The rural community still makes up its membership. The Government wiU be placed in a situation in which it will receive less and less from the mining companies as they look at the world situation and realise that they must compete. They must realise that they will receive no help from the Queensland Government. One of the few industries that is progressing in Queensland without any help from the Queensland Government is the tourist industry. The input from that industry is massive. The tourism industry is the third largest industry in this State. It is an industry that will continue to grow. The property boom in Queensland is over; the property market is failing. Migration of people from southern States has almost dried up. It is less than half the number the Govenment would have us believe it is. Those people had to buy houses, but the boom that resulted from their influx has died. The Government has ignored its manufacturing and processing base. In the last 10 to 15 years, it has had a cargo-cult mentality. That mentality is at an end. It must get down to some hard work. The Budget supplies no incentive for hard work. It continues the cargo-cult mentality and hopes that the $600m worth of projects put forward in the Budget will provide an impetus. They will not. They are not directed at the private sector. The money will be spent on things that will not be required in the near future. The State will suffer as a result. The Government ought to concentrate on the hard slog of the processing and manufacturing base that Queensland thoroughly deserves. The State Government has always run away from that, even though Queensland has always needed it. I have put together a firm case for my prediction of what will happen to Queensland. The Budget has failed to meet the economic needs of Queensland in a very testing time in the light of Australian and world economic conditions. The Government has a boom mentality. It has faUed to meet its commitment so supply capital works, employment and the real needs of Queenslanders. My own electorate of Woodridge is an expanding area. It is an area in which a great deal of housing development has taken place. However, education standards have fallen well behind. Mr Lingard: What about Shailer Park? Mr D'ARCY: That is the mentality of the member for Fassifem. He says that, as the principal of the Kingston High School, he created a showpiece. What about the others? He managed to get a free-standing library. I could show him high schools in my electorate with 1 000 students but without a free-standing library. There are primary schools that have never had a library. Queensland is laughed at by every other State in the Commonwealth because of that lack of education facilities. Government members say that the Budget provides a huge increase in educational expenditure. The fact is that the schools in expanding areas do not have the basic necessities—standards that are accepted as the norm in every other State and in every other developed country in the world. Queensland is well behind. It has been well behind for a long time. Mr Lingard: What about the favourable treatment at Shailer Park High, where your wife teaches? Mr D'ARCY: Does the member for Fassifern want to hear about the primary schools? He was at the Springwood Road State School the other day. After 15 years, that school is finally getting a library. In the same road is another school in the same position. The Springwood Central State School in Dennis Road, which has been in existence for the same period, still does not have a library. It has a thousand students. School ovals are no longer provided by the Government. Basic necessities are not Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1211 provided by the Government to allow for a proper educational package for Queensland schoolchildren. I do not know why somebody with foresight has not put forward in expanding areas Mr Gunn interjected. Mr D'ARCY: Why has the Govenment not been able to plan so that a primary school, a secondary school and, if necessary, a technical college are developed in the one complex so that the facilities can be shared and used by the public? Mr Gunn: We couldn't get a tank at a school when Labor was in power. We had to take our own water. Mr D'ARCY: What absolute rot! The Deputy Premier has lived in the dark ages. I am speaking about the essentials in education today. Government Members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Davis): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr D'ARCY: The Government is ignoring the provision of basic educational facilities. The Budget does not supply them. Government members use the same old rhetoric of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent increases on last year's Budget. They do not even keep pace with inflation in areas where educational facilities are urgently required in this State. The Government has no foresight and does not realise what could happen in the long term. The Government knows that some schools are over-committed and that in the future their circumstances will change, but the Government wiU not build proper educational facilities. Mr Lingard: What about Runcorn High School? That wiU help you. Mr D'ARCY: That is only one high school. 1 ask the honourable member for Fassifern why it is not a complex. I presume the honourable member is speaking about Fruitgrove. I wish to mention one of the problems that has arisen with property trusts. As 1 have already pointed out to this Chamber, the property trust market is such that there will be major failures. Some of the trusts in which people have invested wUl get into very serious trouble. In recent times, because of the publicity, the one that has caused the most concern to Queenslanders is the trust known as Northern Securities. A former Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Sir Llewellyn Edwards) is chairman of it; Greg Chappell, who answers everyone on television, is a director of it and Barry Maranta evidently runs it. I feel sorry for Sir Llewellyn Edwards and Greg Chappell because obviously they do not know what is going on. Greg Chappell's article in yesterday's newspaper talks about what a good investment adviser he is. Mr Lingard: That is in real estate. Mr D'ARCY: I am very pleased that the member for Fassifem said that because that is really a contribution to the debate. That is what Greg Chappell says, that he knows about real estate. He says that he has no idea how the share market operates, yet he is an investment adviser. He also said— "The same is true for equity trusts. For me to invest directiy in the share market is impossible because I don't have the experience and I haven't got the capital to get a wide enough portfolio of shares to make it worthwhile." This is the man the whole of Australia looks up to as the great investment adviser. According to his own statement, he does not understand half of basic investment. The 1212 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement) fact is that previously Austin Donnelly was quoted as very sensibly saying something about investment advisers such as Greg Chappell. He said— "We have a situation where people who are used car salesmen on Friday can be metamorphosed on Monday into investment consultants. The legislative controls on the giving of advice have been a complete failure. So long as you haven't been in jail or are not an undischarged bankmpt, you can get a licence. The Queensland Govemment and the Federal Govemment (through the National Companies and Securities Commission) control the giving of investment advice. The principals of investment companies must have a dealer's licence. They, in turn, employ staff." Mr Chappell has obviously breached the Corporate Affairs Commission agreement by publishing an advertisement in which the company tried to defend itself For doing that the company should be prosecuted by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in this State. The Minister says that the company is under investigation. The chairman of the Brisbane Stock Exchange, who was upset by the company's statements, actually issued a statement and sought an inquiry. The chairman condemned the property tmst, of which Greg Chappell is a director, for the series of newspaper advertisements. The chairman described the property tmst headed by the former Deputy Premier as mde and said that it lacked courtesy and taste. In a newspaper article the property trust listed 64 stock-brokers and investment agents who reportedly had inspected the tmst properties and recommended that the company had excellent prospects. However, the National Companies and Securities Commission has begun a nation-wide check after brokers and advisers told the com­ mission that they had not consented to the use of their names in the advertisement. In other words, they have not recommended that tmst. This is a clear case for the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to take action against Llew Edwards, Greg Chappell and the co-directors of the Queensland Property Growth Trust. When Greg Chappell appeared on television after my last statement, he did not answer the queries I had raised. He did not say how, without the aid of United Capital, he would overcome the current low management charges of his property trust. He did not reply to what his co-director, Mr Hanlon, said in "Business Review Weekly" about management fees. He said that the fees were much too low and that the management company could not make a go of it. Now that Chappell and Maranta are trying to mn the business themselves, they will obviously have to increase the rates, but they have to get the CAC to agree. Yet people investing in these tmsts have not been told about these problems and how Chappell and his co-directors intend to overcome them. I want to know. I believe that they will do so by again revaluing and taking further money out of the pockets of the ordinary investor. Property tmsts will fail. They will fall like a house of cards. The bad ones that have not been set up properly are no better than those companies engaged in pyramid selling and a lot of the other shonkies that people have had to put up with recently in the quick-quid market. Before I resume my seat I want to mention just one more property tmst. Several months ago I mentioned that a major Australian investment property tmst was in diabolical trouble and that there was no way that it could survive. One of the biggest single trusts in Australia is Telford Property Tmst, which is heavily involved in the tourist industry in Queensland. It owns a resort resort at Surfers Paradise. It recently took over a Western Australian trust that was involved in shopping centres and is now in diabolical financial trouble. One financial adviser said that, because the tmst cannot meet its current commitments, investing in it was like being picked up by the "Titanic" It cannot hope to meet all of Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1213 the claims it has made, and it should be investigated Australia-wide. I advise people who have money in the Telford Property Trust to review their investment. Mr KAUS (Mansfield) (8.38 p.m.): Mr Davis An Opposition Member: Keep it brief Mr KAUS: How can 1 keep it brief after listening to that load of garbage? Our society is founded upon individual initiative, private enterprise and the market economy, yet we have heard one of the richest members of the Opposition, who relies on the Government for his money, making a hypocritical speech. I mentioned the market economy, yet increasingly these principles are attacked, and attacked savagely by those who benefit greatly by them. We as a Government are committed to a Government role in the economy which supports private initiative, provides permanent and rewarding jobs and builds a secure and prosperous economic future. No country or region has achieved enduring prosperity through expansion of overbearing Government bureaucracy, and that is what is happening in Canberra. Governments which lean too heavily on the tax-payer, suppress individual initiative and mortgage the future inevitably precipitate economic decline. Our philosophy as a State Government involves a more limited Government presence and expanded participation of the private sector in the delivery of Government services. It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to congratulate the Premier and Treasurer on an outstanding Budget. It has been well received by those people who understand economics of this magnitude. There is no doubt that the promises given by the Government will be honoured. Reference has been made to the $600m, and that money will be spent. Mr Prest: What is that for? Mr KAUS: Cannot the honourable member read? He was in this Chamber last week and heard everybody talking about it. The expenditure of this money will help the honourable member in his electorate. I am amazed that he should criticise the proposal. From my point of view, I am absolutely delighted to note that the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing has allocated sufficient money to complete the Gateway Bridge approaches to meet up with the freeway at School Road, Rochedale. My good friend over there, the honourable member for Nudgee whose electorate is at the other end of the bridge, should be very pleased that $100m is being spent on those approaches. Mr Vaughan: I have been trying to convince the Minister of that since 1980. Mr KAUS: Money will be spent on the roads in the honourable member's electorate in the same way as it will be spent on the roads in my electorate. I am pleased that that work will be carried out before the next State election. I was told before the last State election that that work would not be carried out for 10 years. This has come out of the blue, and I am appreciative of it. During the campaign leading up to the last State election, not a week went by without my Liberal Party opponent castigating me in that regard, saying that I had neglected to safeguard the interests of my constituents, particulariy those living on Newnham Road which will bear the brunt of all the traffic coming off the Gateway Bridge. That was a good political ploy, because the best way to upset people is to tell them that heavy traffic will pass their front gate. I commend my Liberal opponent for doing that because, as I say, it was not a bad ploy. If I had the opportunity, I would do the same thing. A lot of lies were told in that campaign. My Liberal opponent distributed pamphlets in that regard, held public demonstrations which I did not attend, and captured front-page headlines in the local newspaper. I did not get a run in the local newspaper for about five weeks. Newspapers want to sell their productions, so they 1214 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem) do not go to the people who can answer the questions. I hope that my Liberal opponent in the last State election has taken note of this aspect of the Budget. Because of these cheap campaign tactics, elderly residents living along Newnham Road—indeed, all residents in that area—were unnecessarily distressed. Because of the baseless lies that were bandied about, many houses were hurriedly sold at great loss to the owners. 1 am also happy to note that the Minister for Education has received a large slice of the Budget. Although the schools in my electorate are, happily, well established, there is always room for improvement, and 1 am constantiy being asked to make representations on behalf of both high school and primary school bodies for more computer equipment. 1 am sure that the Minister for Education is well aware of the need for more computer equipment in schools. Recently, the member for Archerfield criticised the fact that so many schools in my electorate have swimming-pools. I appreciated his referring to that fact because it just demonstrated that the local member of Parliament is doing a good job. Another subject in which parents express concern is music tuition. I must congratulate the Minister on the programs under which children learn to play orchestral instruments. I hope that he will see his way clear to expand those programs. One of my other problems has been solved by the Minister. At this point I wish to thank him for providing a Special Education Unit for hearing impaired children and for remedial teaching at the Warrigal Road State School. This work involves a tender of $254,760 and will be funded jointiy by the Commonwealth and State Governments. The unit will serve a great need in the area. It will have a variety of facilities incorporated into it. It is particularly satisfying when such large sums are allocated for the disadvantaged people in the community. I am sure everyone agrees that income tax is necessary—as much as we are loath to pay it—but the proposed new income tax laws from Canberra will do nothing to endear that Government to the general public. Although it is true that tax relief wiU be given to those receiving lower incomes, that will be at the expense of those people on higher incomes, who will pay increased levels of tax after the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill comes into effect on 1 November. No doubt honourable members are aware that the new scale cuts the marginal rate for people with incomes in the range of $4,596-$ 12,500 from 30c to 25c in the dollar, with which nobody could take issue; but the rate for those earning between $28,001 and $35,000 is increased from 46c to 48c in the dollar. Furthermore, the maximum 60c in the dollar rate will operate from $35,001, whereas previously it was levied only on earnings of $35,789 and over. On top of that is the Medicare levy of one per cent of gross income. I am sure that all honourable members have seen the advertisements on television about the prices and incomes accord. It has been depicted as a harmonious orchestra. Of course, it includes fiddlers, and everyone knows who the fiddlers are in Canberra. The advertisements suggest that, since the introduction of the accord, harmony and sweet music prevail. 1 doubt whether some Australian tax-payers would sing along with the tune. The following statistics have recently come to my notice. Approximately 500 000 tax-payers will move up into the 46c marginal tax bracket this year. An Opposition Member: Where do these figures come from? Mr KAUS: They come from the Westpac Bank. Approximately 400 000 tax-payers will move into the 48c marginal tax bracket this year, and another 200 000 people will move into that 48c bracket during the course of the year. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1215

Mr Fouras: There is no 48c tax bracket; there is only a 46c bracket. Mr KAUS: That is not so. The bracket has increased from 46c to 48c. In addition, one in four people between the ages of 15 and 19 do not have jobs. It seems to me that these large numbers of people will not be terribly happy with the so- called accord. Robbing the rich to pay the poor will only kill the goose that lays the golden egg. By introducing these measures, the Federal Government has removed all incentive to wage-earners to increase their incomes. A man eaming $34,500 would not view kindly a salary increase of $502 which would immediately put him in the tax penalty area of 60c in the dollar. This will stultify and nullify any money-generating schemes in small business and have an adverse effect on the overall economy. 1 believe that a flat rate of personal income tax is a far more sensible approach. I know that today the Federal Treasurer said that he would never introduce it, but I do not believe that he knows what he is talking about. Honourable Members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I ask for silence. Mr KAUS: A flat rate of personal income tax would be of enormous benefit in providing incentive to work and incentive to earn more money. A flat rate tax system is the only way this country's economic difficulties can be overcome. It would promote an acceptable level of taxation to everyone, regardless of income, in return for the Government-provided services we expect. Hong Kong is a very good example of a country that imposes a flat rate tax, where it has worked surprisingly well with 17 per cent levied for companies and 15 per cent for individuals. From research, 1 believe that 20 per cent across the board is an acceptable figure. With the incentive to earn more money, knowing that one was not going to be taxed too highly for the ability to do so, there would be an upsurge in earnings and a corresponding increase in levels of taxation revenue accruing to the Government. Every other taxation level in Australia, except personal income tax, is covered by a flat rate. An argument against this scheme is that low-income-earners would be taxed at the same level as high-income-earners; but, by the same token, the higher earner would pay a correspondingly higher tax, since every dollar would attract 20 per cent to the Government. Of course, this scheme would also be highly opposed by tax agents and accountants, since they would no longer be required to work out ways and means of beating the system. Even a schoolchild would be able to determine the sum of 20 per cent (or one fifth) of a specific amount. As it is now, the low-income-earners between $4 596 and $12 500 are paying 25c in the dollar under the new scheme, so they, too, would welcome a flat rate tax of 20 per cent, which gives them an even better rate. I believe there would be a wave of prosperity in the country if such a flat rate were introduced—and we could certainly do with such a wave. Capital gains tax would be abolished; any profit made on selling real estate would merely attract the 20 per cent flat rate tax. What headaches would be removed from filling in income tax forms for a start! I understand that West Germany, Japan and Switzerland have also adopted a flat rate tax. It will be noted that these countries are all on a very sound economic keel and appear to be well satisfied with the system. It would need no economic genius to calculate how much revenue the Government could expect from such a scheme and to balance that against present income tax revenue; but, alas, it would seem that such economic experts are sadly lacking on the Federal Treasury staff. 1216 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statement)

It appears that the Federal Government is attempting to mollify one section of the community at the expense of the other. It comes down to balancing the wishes of the labour force and those of the business and commercial sectors. Profits are frequentiy attacked as somehow being bad and the integrity of those who are involved in the onerous task of earning these profits is constantiy under attack, yet the role of profits and those engaged in the productive economic system are fundamental to alleviating the economic and social problems that are of concern to us all. Systems in which free enterprise is allowed to operate have permitted the raising of living standards and have permitted greater freedom of the individual than have other systems. I do not think anyone could disagree with that. Profits are fundamental to all the freedoms that we enjoy—not just the freedom to make profits or losses. A State or country cannot begin to constrain the ability of its citizens to make their own decisions on how they will earn their incomes and how they will spend them without beginning to place shackles on the liberty of those citizens. No reasonable member would argue against the need for some constraints on individuals in the interests of the common good. The vital question, however, is where that Une is drawn. Profit is simply the indicator of whether the tender economic plant is growing or not. Perhaps members have heard the story of the frog which was dropped into boiling water. It immediately jumped out. However, when the same frog was placed in cold water and heated slowly, it remained until cooked. I am a Uttle concerned that the Hawke Government is applying those tactics, and I think that we are already feeling the heat. It is a socialist Government, working as a team to open doors for one another and gain the promotion that enables them to implement their subversive plans. If one wishes to destroy a building, the obvious course is to undermine the foundations. The foundation of any nation is national unity and our unity is buUt on the Constitution, religion, the Queen, the oath of allegiance, the flag and the national anthem, all of which are under attack by various sections of the present Federal Government. Although I do not for one moment entertain the idea that honourable members are as important as some of them seem to think they are, it is true, nevertheless, that, as elected representatives of society, parliamentarians are expected to set an example. Leadership does not just mean making the right decisions on highly complex issues; it means first and foremost a continuing effort to mould public opinion and to change prevailing community attitudes and ideas, no matter how deep-rooted, where these ideas are destructive of the national well-being, and where they stand in the way of the realisation of the objectives which most of us seek. Leadership means being absolutely frank with the people, even at the risk of incurring unpopularity; it means a persistent endeavour to create a climate of opinion in which the technical remedies for our economic and social ills will have a chance of working. Above all, it means setting an example of behaviour, a standard of incorruptibility— which does not exist in New South Wales—that will command popular respect and inspire public confidence. It is not only in what it says but also in the example it provides that leadership is expressed. Only in doing the things that they want and expect others to do will political leaders achieve the moral authority and respect which will dispose the people to get behind them. Mr Prest: What is all this about? Mr KAUS: 1 am talking about good leadership. Queensland has good leadership. No matter where one goes throughout Australia, everyone talks about the great leader. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He does a good job. Mr Milliner: They talk about how he has rorted the system. Mr KAUS: No. They are all behind him. The ALP is fighting a losing battle. Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1217 I compliment the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology on recent moves to improve this State's technology. Whether we like it or not, we have to recognise that we must march with the times or be left behind. Indeed we may have already been left behind in some fields. If we are to overcome the problem of having to import large amounts of equipment in the electronic industry, great strides will have to be made in establishing our own production plants. The Minister is moving to that end. Along with many others, I have had fears about the number of jobs being replaced by silcon chips; but, like it or not, industry will have to be modernised and we cannot escape the fact that we are living in a time of technological revolution. It would be safer, perhaps, for Governments to continue the status quo and keep everyone happily in jobs using outdated and outmoded equipment, but this would be short sighted and irresponsible. Computerisation has revolutionised our production and business methods. Every aspect of daily living is affected in some measure. Industry could take an example, perhaps, from the housewife, who has eagerly adapted to all the gadgetry because she realises that it saves her the most valuable commodity of all—time. As well, it removes the drudgery from most household chores. I doubt whether any housewife would want to go back to the good old days of copper boilers and coal-fired stoves. The obvious fear is that improved technology will lead to higher unemployment. Not long ago when I was overseas I saw robots performing metal work. In a few minutes, a car was made. In Korea, Mitsubishi Colts rolled off the assembly line every two and a half minutes. Robots were able to do in a matter of minutes jobs that would take several hours to do manually. Such developments cost jobs in the short term, but not to use them would be to stagnate. The continuation of high unemployment among the young will have tragic social consequences. We have already seen an increase in violence and crime as a result of our youth resorting to drugs and other forms of escapism because of disillusionment. That is one of our biggest problems. It is a shame that, because of time limitations, I cannot continue with that theme. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr KAUS: I have a great deal of material with me. There are so many subjects that 1 could talk about. Really, 1 do not have a brief What are the main issues in business and profitability today? In reality, we must look beyond the deception of public relations tinsel and political rhetoric. Never before in Australia's history have we needed to be more perceptive and diligent, particularly in the investment field. Today, investment decisions have to be made in a difficult investment climate. It is doubly important that we understand the real issues in our country. The real issues are not those that are sometimes conveniently portrayed by our political masters and their public relations machines. First, we should recognise that in Australia today basically we have government for the unions by the unions. Today in Canberra we really have a coalition Government—a coalition between the Labor Party and the ACTU. However, it is the first time that we have had a coalition Government in which one section of the coalition has not been elected by the people. What honourable members have to understand is that under the accord the Australian Council of Trade Unions regards itself as an equal partner in the running of Australia. Honourable members need to understand the concept of the accord. I have always regarded the accord as a document of the Left. Through the media one mainly hears and reads that the accord is about prices and incomes, but it is about much more than that. The accord and also the latest publication of the ACTU "The Way Forward" ought to be compulsory reading for all Australians. Implementation of the accord wiU give unions control and influence over sections of Australian life. That would be repugnant to most Australians. These publications are blueprints for the way in which the Left would like to get control of the running of Australia. 1218 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

Honourable members need to ask themselves how to assess the track record of the union leadership in Australia as a constmctive influence in the Australian economy generally. Make no mistake about it. Every investment decision will ultimately be influenced by unions. Honourable members should also understand that consensus cannot really exist and it is not a viable political or management mechanism. Consensus cannot replace leadership. If it is to survive, the Federal Govemment has to show leadership and make its own decisions. After the Government has made its decisions, it may then try to get the business and other groups to move in behind it and back up those decisions. The great need for Australian industry and business today is to become more competitive. That is the way to create more growth and more jobs. That might not be palatable to the authors of the accord, but more jobs will never be created if the wages of those who already have jobs continue to be increased without regard to the capacity of industries and business to pay. It is a shame that I have not been able to speak on all of the subjects that I wished, but as a good Deputy Whip I must give somebody else the opportunity to say a few words. Mr HARTWIG (CaUide) (9.7 p.m.): This is the thirteenth occasion on which I have had the opportunity of speaking in a Budget debate. An interesting fact is that three previous Treasurers have been knighted in that time—Sir Gordon Chalk, the member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) and Sir Llewellyn Edwards. Of course, the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) is also a knight. Although I realise that it is not likely that members of the Labor Party will ever get into power, who will go after the knighthoods? In submitting the 1984-85 Budget, the Premier and Treasurer has endeavoured to portray to 2.4 million Queenslanders the economic growth of this huge State. The Consolidated Revenue Fund Budget provides for total expenditure of about $4,645m and anticipated revenue is expected to be approximately $4,644m. The Govemment is therefore budgeting for a small deficit of $1.1 m. When I was in this Chamber in 1972, the State's revenue was approximately $ 1,500m. One finds it hard to realise the tremendous development and progress that has taken place in those 12 years. Today State and Federal Budgets are becoming more and more welfare oriented. Each succeeding year sees huge allocations for some form of welfare or another and that results in great increases in direct and indirect taxation. As more people become unemployed, those who are working have to pay more. In 1982, Australia had 1 367 000 aged pensioners, 216 600 invalid pensioners and 164 000 widows and deserted wives, a total of 1 747 600 people Uving on a pension out of a total population of approximately 14 million. On those figures, about 130 000 out of every one million people are living on a pension. Add to that the unemployment or dole figures and, in 1982-83, there was a staggering welfare and social security biU of $13,836,628,000. Little wonder that the people who are working have to cop it sweet and pay increased taxation on income and higher registration fees, electricity tariffs, rail freights, insurance costs. Medicare levy, pay-roll tax, postal and telephone charges, fuel prices, air fares, interest rates and valuations. We are galloping towards the bankmptcy of other welfare states such as Canada and the United Kingdom. In June 1984, 104 300 people, or 9.2 per cent of the labour force were unemployed in Queensland. I cannot say how many of those people would be employable, but working on a normal work-force unemployment rate of 4 per cent, the figure is not aU that bad. I believe that some people are working and still drawing dole cheques. I was told recently by a hotelier that a chap he employed was picking up five dole cheques under five different names from five different addresses every fortnight. Five months ago, I wrote a letter to the Department of Social Security informing it of that situation, but it has not deigned to reply. Australian tax-payers are paying deariy for those dole Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1219 bludgers. For that we can thank computerisation. Computers spew out the cheques to any old address, and who cares? I want to talk about the 850 quangos in this State. What is the role of those boards or statutory organisations? Those almost self-appointed bodies become virtual dictators in their own right. In my opinion this Parliament delegates too much authority to those boards, thus eroding the powers of Parliament. 1 now want to comment on a few points in the Budget. There has been an allocation of $ 100m to primary industries. That is not a large amount considering the tremendous amount that primary products contribute to our balance of payments. Sadly, owing to bad seasons, high costs and low returns, the lot of primary producers is not an easy one. There are only 2 616 dairy farms in this State, a far cry from over 24 000 in 1940. The number of poultry farmers has fallen from 450 in 1974 to 284 in 1983. Beef cattle numbers are down to about 8.5 million. Our overseas markets are dicey because the Japanese favour lot-fed beef If Australia is to maintain its overseas markets it has to step up the lot-feeding of beef That would improve the quality and give grain-growers in this State a great domestic market. When a Treasurer brings down a Budget, the priority of expenditure should be where it will do the most good for the most people. That should be the order of the day. Public money should be spent only with the approval of Parliament, and Parliament by its actions should be accountable to the people. The Government insists that any organisation or sporting body has its books fully audited once a year. If any such a body does not submit to that audit, the Government has something to say. The Auditor- General immediately draws the matter to the Govemment's attention, and the Govemment says, "You must do it or we will put you out of business." The largest business in this State, the State Government, is not accountable to the people, the tax-payers. Why? The editorial in yesterday's "Courier-Mail", under the heading "Spending the public's money", states— "To Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a public accounts committee and freedom of information legislation are unnecessary encumbrances upon his style of government. Queenslanders need neither, according to Sir Joh. What's more, Queenslanders will get neither so long as he is Premier." That leads me to ask the question: Why has the rich Callide Valley been overlooked? Why has it not been provided with a weir? The long-awaited Callide Dam gates are not scheduled to be installed for another two or three years. The Callide Dam was built primarily for power generation. The Callide Valley is the most productive valley in Queensland and could be tumed into the lucerne bowl of Queensland. When a drought occurs, people from all over Queensland contact growers in the Callide Valley seeking lucerne. Yet, year after year, the Government has failed to provide a feasible irrigation scheme for the Callide Valley. It contains thousands of acres of rich agricultural land, and, given water, it could become the luceme bowl of Queensland. I now comment on the proposal to spend $4.02m, which was the estimated cost in 1983, on a weir at "Tartrus" station on the Mackenzie River. Last week, much was said in this Chamber about that proposal. Some of the information was misleading, so I wish to give the Committee a truthful report of the events leading up to the selection of this weir site at "Tartrus". Early in 1983, consultants Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd were engaged—not by the Duaringa shire, the land-holders or any member of Parliament— to carry out a survey for a weir site between the junction of the Isaacs River and the Mackenzie River down to the junction of the Dawson River. It is not clear yet who requested this hurried survey. In June 1983, some land-holders were advised that blasting would be taking place at the weir site. Still they were not sure what was going to happen. It was said in this Chamber that meetings of the land-holders concerned were held. That is not correct. Only one meeting has been held in the area, and that was called by the Water Resources 1220 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO

Commission—not by the land-holders, the people who, if they needed water and were keen to get it, would be calling a meeting. The notice states— "Notice of Meeting to discuss proposed weir on Mackenzie River You are invited to attend a meeting to be held at the C.W.A. Rooms, Duaringa at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 12th September 1984 to discuss a proposal to construct a weir on the Mackenzie River at AMTD 428.6 km near Tartarus Crossing. The Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services (Honourable John Goleby, M.L.A.), accompanied by the Commissioner for Water Resources (Mr. D. Beattie), will be in attendance to explain and discuss various aspects of the proposal. These will include conditions of supply, licensing procedures, brief detaUs of the weir structure itself and its influence on water supplies along the Mackenzie River from Isaacs River junction to Dawson River junction. It is anticipated that, following the meeting, a postal ballot of all affected landholders will be held to determine if they are in favour of the scheme proceeding.

J. P. Moreton Regional Engineer, Water Resources, Rockhampton." Mr Casey: Is that an advertisement or a letter to the land-owners? Mr HARTWIG: It is a letter to the land-owners. Mr Casey: It was not a public advertisement? Mr HARTWIG: No. Mr Casey: What was the date again? Mr HARTWIG: It is dated 30 August, and the meeting was held on 12 September. Mr Casey: That was 12 days after Ciasom applied for a water licence. Mr HARTWIG: That is right, 12 days later. I turn now to consider in detail the Tartrus Weir proposal. A recent survey by the Water Resources Commission of contained water holes showed that there was sufficient water in the area now to meet existing demands. The land-holders who use the water get it free. They view with concern the fact that, when the weir is constructed, they will have to pay for water. Properties on the river have been owned by families for years and years. No subdivision has ever been expected by those land-holders. The Fairbairn Dam, which is the largest dam in Queensland and holds more than all the other dams together, is upstream of the proposed site. Also in the area are the Bedford and the Bingegang Weirs. A recent release of water from the Fairbairn Dam ran the Mackenzie River about 2 metres deep and filled up the existing water-holes, and that would not have reduced the level in the Fairbairn Dam by 2 inches. Approximately 30 people who attended the meeting called by the Water Resouces Commission were told that, if they did not avail themselves of the offer, they would have to wait 30 years for another. A survey of the river was carried out prior to April 1983 by consultants Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd. The meeting was told that the weir, in 1983 values, would cost approximately $4.02m and that construction work could start in April 1985. Supply (Financial StatemenO 9 October 1984 1221

The largest irrigator in the area, Mr Graham McCamley, spoke out against the weir being built. However, no vote was taken at the meeting despite the concerted efforts of Mr Beattie and the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, who seemed to be shocked that property-holders were not in favour of the weir. During the course of the meeting, cotton-growing was suggested on a number of occasions by the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, and this left land­ holders in a quandary as to what the real purpose of the weir was and what would happen to their land. I understand that, as a result, a postal ballot will be conducted. I would now like to read a list of property owners who are opposed to the scheme. They include: G. McCamley,"Tartrus"; P. Winsor,"Kiauroo"; R. Beuman,"Karamara"; G. Donovan; H. Mackenzie; R. Fernie; W. Cragg; C. Greenup; B. Beak; W. Preston and J. Dunne. Mr Yewdale: Are you saying that all those people oppose it? Mr HARTWIG: They are against it; they are opposing it. Mr Casey: Do you know whether a company called Ciasom Pty Ltd was present at the meeting? Mr HARTWIG: Yes; John was there. Following the purchase by the Bjelke-Petersen family company of the property "Ten Mile", the chairman of Duaringa Shire Council (Mr Park) reported to the council. I quote from part of that report, which is headed "Discussions with Premier", as follows— "Following advice received we met with the Premier who discussed aspects of road funding with particular reference to the road leading north from Duaringa to the Bruce Highway, North Marlborough. In regard to this road the proposal is to request the Minister for Main Roads, Mr Hinze, to take action to have the road declared a main road, at least in our own shire areas and that we link with the Livingstone shire to make a joint approach for declaration in respect to the remaining portion in that shire. There is every indication that the Government would be ameanable to this suggestion and I am reasonably confident that funds would become available over a relevently short period of time both for bitumen ceiling of the roadway and for the provision of a bridge over the McKenzie River. I am aware that council may consider this move could tend to delay upgrading of existing declared road in our shire. I believe that we should also consider the matters of Duaringa township Our original priority be not lessened or changed with this inclusion and it should be kept in mind that every mile of road that becomes a funding responsibility of the State is one less mile that must be funded by our ratepayers. Additionally in this instance we have a strong support of the Premier in our endeavours and I would strongly commend the move to councU." A letter, which came into my possession in 1983, reads as foUows— "1 ask you to accept my word that I am a senior public servant who wishes to draw your attention to what is a scandalous situation in central Queensland, involving the Premier, Mr. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, his son, Mr. John Bjelke-Petersen, and the Duaringa Shire. As I am sure you are aware, there was considerable media interest in the revelation earlier this year, that the State Main Roads Department was using Federal/ State Government funds to construct a multi-million dollar road/bridge over the Mackenzie River. At the time of this controversy, both the Premier, Mr. Bjelke-Petersen and the Main Roads Minister, Mr. Hinze, denied any impropriety and claimed the work was not proceeding. 1222 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

In my capacity as a senior departmental officer, I visited the Duaringa Shire recently. What I found in evidence in relation to the above-mentioned matter shocked me. It is quite clear to anyone who makes an enquiry, that this road is, in fact, proceeding, and that approval was given recently that a $3 million project would be constructed over the river in question. My official duties revealed that there is much unhappiness in the Duaringa Shire over this issue, and that the majority of Shire Councillors are convinced that the multi-million dollar project is a shocking abuse df public funds. I was further informed that funding for this project has been drawn illegally from Main Roads revenue at the direction of the Premier. As 1 am sure you are aware, gazettal of main roads is necessary over five years, and this project was gazetted in mid-term and without proper authority, both legally and otherwise.

The facts are that this road is now well and truly under construction, that approval has been given for a $3 million bridge as part of the project, that the funding was provided illegally, and that on a needs basis, the main beneficiary will be Mr. John Bjelke-Petersen. 1 ask you to investigate this matter with urgency and to reveal the true facts in your responsibility. 1 repeat that, as a senior public servant with no party political affiliations, I regard this situation as scandalous." I table that letter. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr Lane: Is it signed, or is it anonymous? Mr HARTWIG: It is anonymous. Mr Lane: So it is useless. Mr HARTWIG: He would be a mug if he signed it, wouldn't he? I draw attention to the two jobs that were released on that particular road. One was on 10 June 1983, in which 7.7 km of roadworks was announced. On the letter from the Minister for Main Roads appears something that does not appear on other letters. He said— "The Council will be given the opportunity of lodging an objection to this work and, if no objection is received, action will be taken to obtain the necessary approval for it to be implemented." That clearly shows that the shire council did not ask for that particular job. I have here another half dozen letters, not one of which has such a paragraph included in it. 1 now want to quote the following extract from the High Court case of Horne v. Barber, which was heard in 1920— "When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Pariiament—censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from office. That is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone of our Supply (Financial Statemem) 9 October 1984 1223 political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarUy left to the Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudically to the public interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration." I conclude by stating that the air has been cleared on what has happened to date. For years and years, people in the Callid6 Valley have waited for wat^r. Tonight in the gallery there are people whose properties adjoin the river and who are strongly opposed to the constmction of the weir. Many other people, too, are opposed to it. An investigation should be conducted into who wants the weir and who made the request. After all, the Government is playing with public money. Somebody must want it, but the land-owners have indicated quite clearly that they do not want it. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the wishes of the land-owners in the area will be acceded to. Mr CAHILL (Aspley) (9.30 p.m.): Some extraordinary remarks have been made today by members of the Opposition, including a defence of MIM, which I found quaint. In answer to the honourable member for Mackay, I state that I do know where Duaringa is. Mr Casey: You don't know much about the Laurinel school Mr CAHILL: I know a little bit more than the honourable member for Mackay would like me to know about that. Addressing ourselves to the Budget—the Premier and Treasurer said quite clearly that the overriding consideration for the Govemment in the Budget—and that is what we ought to be addressing—is the long-term solution to create jobs and not simply making work. There must be a massive enhancement of the Capital Works Program in the long term to complement the short-term Commonwealth initiatives. The Leader of the Opposition and member for Sandgate is lost, obviously, and cannot find an issue in the Budget to criticise. He cast round everywhere. "The Courier- Mail" is not necessarily sympathetic towards the Government; in fact, in many cases it is unsympathetic towards the Government. But an editorial in "The Courier-Mail" pointed out that, although the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Govemment, he had not in fact told Queensland a better way to do things. The aim of the Government and of the Budget is to strengthen economic recovery. Through building and through construction industries there will be a significant spin-off to the economics of the State generally. When expected major expenditure under the program occurs in 1985 and 1986, the debt-servicing capability that exists within consolidated revenue will be utilised. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I ask the Chamber to come to order. I ask the member for Callide to resume his seat. Mr CAHILL: Thank you, Mr Row. Some criticism has been made that the Government will not be able to do the debt- servicing. It will be able to do it. In 1979-80 public, debt-servicing costs were 7.4 per cent of consolidated revenue. In 1984-85 they will fall to 5.6 per cent. By public or private sector standards, that is a very low ratio. It indicates that Queensland has the capacity to meet additional debt-servicing costs without the impact on normal services and programs and without resort to new taxes. The Premier and Treasurer's second Budget, as promised, is balanced and contains no new taxes. Later I shall refer to the Special Major Capital Works Program, which 1224 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO will create 12 000 man-years of additional employment directly and provide a major stimulus to the building, construction and service industries. That is in addition to the Government's Capital Works Program which, for 1984-85, will be $348.Im. As the Premier and Treasurer said, almost all of the work will be undertaken by the private sector. That is what the Queensland Government is about—using construction manage­ ment or design and construction techniques. It is indeed a free enterprise Government. Under the Special Major Capital Works Program, educational facilities, water resource projects, hospitals and roads will each be boosted by an additional $100m. Let me glance quickly at some of the Budget initiatives in general terms. I shall deal with specifics in a moment. Provision is made in the Budget for an increase of 750 in average hospital employment. The allocation for health services generally has increased to $218.2m. That is 12.1 per cent higher than it was in the previous year. In addition, $950,000 is required for statistics compilation under the Medicare arrangements, $3.2m is provided for expansion of activities under the Community Health Program, $4.2m is provided for expenditure on medical aids for the disabled, and $850,000 is provided for equipment purchases, including a quarter of a million dollars for a new spectrometer for the Government Chemical Laboratory. Arts and culture are not neglected in the Budget. Let me emphasise the positive. Work at the Queensland Cultural Centre is progressing well. It is a vital need for the State and, when completed, will be a great asset of which all Queenslanders will be proud. The grant to the Queensland Cultural Centre Trust for its overall management, maintenance and control is in excess of $4.5m. A further $3.4m has been allocated to the Queensland Performing Arts Trust to assist with its ongoing operational role in the Performing Arts Complex. Total funding for grants to cultural organisations throughout the State for 1984-85 is in excess of $5.5m. The funds include an amount of $300,000 by way of special enhancement, $250,000 of which is to assist the major companies. Naturally, other companies have asked for more money. I am chairman of one that considers it does not receive enough. The Minister is aware of that and knows that I imend to speak to him fairly strongly. That it is not receiving sufficient money may be because he is receiving bad advice. Who knows? Mr Jennings: What company is that? Mr CAHILL: The Brisbane Light Opera Company. In other Budget initiatives, the pay-roll tax exemption has been increased from $252,000 to $270,000 and the Government proposes to introduce a concessional rate of stamp duty for the transfer of property from parents to children, which the Labor Party might not like to hear. I will deal with the Budget in some detail, commencing with capital works. Mr Milliner: Boring. Mr CAHILL: Of course, boring is in the mind of the beholder. Mr Elliott: They only like to hear bad news. They do not like the good news. Mr CAHILL: Yes, so let us have some good news. The Special Major Capital Works Program over and above the normal Budget allocation provides an additional $200m for the Works Department over the next two and a-half years. Because of the large-scale program, the money cannot be spent immediately. The Budget announcement spelt out that it was to be an ongoing program over the next two and a-half years. In any such program, one needs time for gearing. The Works Department is moving to get that long-term program under way and, with it, consequent job creation. In addition to the regular Capital Works Program is a program of confirmed spending of extra funds over that longer period. That allows for the start of work on projects that will have a long-term and significant benefit for people involved in the building industry and its many associated industries. It will create considerable employment—something that wiU Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1225 embarrass the ALP—for consultants, builders, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. In general, it will provide ongoing employment in the private enterprise area, through a staged Capital Works Program. This financial year, including part of the special funding announced in the Budget, the Works Department will spend a total of $228.3m on its Capital Works Program, which is an increase of 18 per cent on the figure for last financial year. Included in that program are 10 new State primary schools, four replacement State primary schools, nine State high schools, six new special schools, 46 pre-school units and 10 major building projects at colleges of technical and further education. It will provide, further, for a start on six major new office buildings for the State Government, three in Brisbane and one each in Bundaberg, Cairns and Townsville. I repeat those three cities: Bundaberg, Cairns and Townsville, each of which is represented by a member of the Labor Opposition. The Budget will provide for the commencement of constmction of 150 new residences for public servants, police and teachers throughout the State and the construction of new police stations at seven centres in Queensland. They are just some of the projects that will benefit from spending during the current financial year. In the housing area, rental and home-ownership schemes operated by the Housing Commission will see a significant expansion in spending. In home-ownership, $ 105.4m will be made available to help people move into their own homes—an increase of 14 per cent on advances made available through this program in 1983-84. In the rental area, a total of $76.3m will be allocated for the provision of additional land and housing— an increase of more than 28 per cent on last financial year. Spending on education is to rise by 15.7 per cent. The Minister for Education has said that is an increase of $145.8m. The Estimates of expenditure on education have risen from $926.7m to a near peak of $ 1,072.5m. I will consider some of the major features of education spending contained in the Budget. There will be the employment of 982 extra teachers in State schools, 172 teachers in TAFE colleges and an additional $4m for additional part-time or relief teachers. There will be a further reduction in class sizes; a 33'/a per cent increase in general purpose and other grants to State—that is Government—schools; a total of $4.5m for the provision of computers in schools; the rationalisation of isolated student allowances; increased funding to assist the introduction of the final phase of ROSEA; initiatives in early intervention and special education; the establishment of a new Peninsula region based on Cairns, which is represented by Mr De Lacy; a plan to give State-wide recognition to school musicians; and expansion of TAFE facilities. Mr Lingard: Mr De Lacy is riding his bike from Cairns. Mr CAHILL: If the honourable member for Cairns was not riding his bike from Cairns, he would be able to listen to what I am saying. The Budget provides a big boost in capital expenditure. I will have more to say about education. Opposition Members interjected. Mr CAHILL: No. The Government is constantly under attack for what it does not do for education; but when it does do something, as it always has done, nobody wants to listen. I intend to put it on the record so that people may read it. This financial year, enrolments at TAFE colleges are expected to increase by 23 per cent. As the Minister has said, on top of the normal 8 per cent escalation on last year's funding, there is an allocation of an additional $2m in the Budget, which will represent an across-the-board increase of that one-third that I mentioned earlier. The Government will look after reading materials, text and reference books, physical education, science, art, home economics, manual arts, cleaning, equipment repair, petty cash and general purposes, and. furthermore, real increases of approximately 6 per cent 1226 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO are contained in the State Budget for per capita grants for students in non-Govemment primary and secondary schools. The existing grant of $345 for primary schools has been increased to $384, and secondary grants have gone from $552 to $621. The Budget contains provision for isolated student allowances and the introduction of a remote area tuition allowance. I am accentuating the positive. Travel allowances will be extended so that all benefits will be free of a means test and will be extended to cover all primary and secondary years. I could go on about the education grants, because they are the largest single departmental expenditure in the Budget. The Opposition has expressed a great deal of criticism of class sizes, but the bottom Une is that the Govemment is looking after the Education Department to fix that. The Budget provides $4.7m—an increase of more than 23 per cent—to the Depart­ ment of Sport following the strong argument put forward by my friend and colleague the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Peter McKechnie). Junior coaching wiU receive $lm, $1.3m wiU be provided for capital facilities and $0.5m for State team travel. The list totals $4,622,700—up from $3,835,800 in 1983-84. So that country people are not excluded, the Government has introduced a special allocation of $100,000 to boost sport in country areas. Although time is short, I will mention just a few allocations to organisations in my own general area: the Aspley Australian Football Club, $2,750; North Aspley Rugby League Club-in Kirby Road, $250; the Chermside Youth and Recreation Club, $3,500 for gymnastics and $300 for judo; $270 for the Kyushin Judo Club; the Northern Suburbs Pony Club, $250; the Craigslea State School Aquatic Club, $1,600; the Fergusons Marlin Swimming Club, $3,750; the Coops Tennis Club, $3,750; and the North Brisbane Volley Ball Club, $3,750. So let us not have this nonsense that the Govemment does not spend money on doing things for people. To conclude, let me look at the Department of Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs. The main allocation of $400,000 is for the expansion of youth employment. You see, Mr Row, this Government finds jobs; the Federal Government talks about finding jobs. The Youth Employment Scheme has operated through two centres, at ZiUmere and Salisbury—the home of Mr Goss—since 1978. It has been successful in assisting 4 500 mainly disadvantaged people in finding permanent employment. There is an allocation of $858,000 for accommodation assistance for youth. There is an allocation of $30,000 for a pilot community adolescent support scheme, an alternative to secure custody for placing adolescent offenders with families where perhaps they can get some love and warmth. There is an allocation of $60,000 for a new scheme to allow community organisations to employ community development officers. There is to be a 27 per cent increase in the staff of the Probation and Parole Service. That represents a Budget increase of 20.5 per cent. There is an allocation of $108,000 for organisations providing family emergency accommodation—double that for 1983-84. Mr Comben interjected. Mr CAHILL: I will take that interjection from the honourable member for Windsor. If this speech sounds statistical, it is meant to be so, because this Budget looks after people. There is an allocation of $400,000 for the acquisition of land for the erection of community care centres. To conclude, I wUl quote the Premier's words because I could not find better ones— ". . the Budget I have presented is another major step forward by this Government in improving the economic well-being and lifestyle of the people of this State." Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (9.48 p.m.), in reply: 1 have listened with interest to the various contributions made to the Budget debate, and I thank all honourable members who have spoken. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1227 As the main thrust of the Opposition's commentary on the Budget was delivered by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, I will direct my attention principally to his statements and accusations. 1 am sure that his colleagues were disappointed to find that the Leader of the Opposition chose to spoil a reasonably well-structured, but, nevertheless, erroneous reply to the Premier's Budget speech with downright false accusations and misrepresentations of fact. I have the impression that more work than usual went into the response, but, unfortunately, the analysis has been to little avail. In fact, at times one could have been forgiven for thinking that the Leader of the Opposition was not speaking about this State Budget at all. Only the Opposition could indulge in such fanciful critiques of a Budget that gives so much to the people of Queensland, yet costs them so little. In that respect, the 1984- 85 State Budget could almost be described as a bargain Budget. All Government services have been fully maintained, and in many cases enhanced. There has been real growth in education, health, welfare and other areas. Additional teachers, police and hospital staff will be employed to cope with increasing numbers and to improve standards. There have been no taxation increases, and some concessions have been given. The normal governmental capital program has been reinstated at a real 2 per cent increase on last year's. On top of this, a special $600m major capital works program over two and a half years has been instituted. No other Government in Australia has been able to formulate such a Budget. Queensland has set a pace and a standard that cannot be matched elsewhere, and, instead of looking at the Budget objectively and assessing what it means to the people of Queensland now and to generations to come, what does the Opposition do? It condemns it! Let us look at the extraordinary interpretations and manipulations of facts and figures that have been put forward by the Opposition, particularly in regard to the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program. The Leader of the Opposition claims that the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program does not exist. Let me show him where he is wrong, and again explain it to him and any other "doubting Thomases" on the Opposition side. Let me give them some hard, cold facts about the program. For education in 1983-84, the normal State-funded capital works expenditure programmed totalled $62.9m. This year, the comparable figure is $68m, an increase of 8 per cent. In 1985-86, this program will be at least maintained in real terms, as it will be again in 1986-87. In addition—and 1 stress the word "addition"—the Government will spend $100m on additional educational facilities under the Special Major Capital Works Program over the next two and a half years, including an estimated $ 15.35m this year. The Leader of the Opposition might care to look at pages 4 and 5 of the Budget document, "The State Capital Works Programs" for a list of the additional school facilities that will be provided under the special program. 1 suggest that he might also look at pages 9 and 10 of the same document for school facilities that will be provided under the normal program. I repeat that the $ 100m education special program will provide 10 extra high schools, 17 extra new or replacement primary schools, 79 extra pre-school centres, and extra special education facilities at 22 centres. They are all detailed in the Budget document and they will become a reality. By 1987, the backlog of school facilities will be a thing of the past and, should the Leader of the Opposition be round then—he will still be in Opposition, although he will not be Leader of the Opposition—1 trust that he will admit his mistake. Let us look at the water resources program to which another $100m of extra money is being directed. Pages 6, 7 and 8 of the same capital works document list all the 1228 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial StatemenO projects that are to be accelerated to completion, those that are to be commenced and completed and those that are to be very substantially progressed beyond what would have been possible but for this extra $100m funding. Pages 30 to 37 of the capital program document detail all the works for 1984-85, including this year's component of the special program. Again, the normal program for each year will be continued without reduction and the $100m wiU be extra. In 1987, let the Opposition ask the people who benefit from the Bundaberg, Eton, Lower Mary, Leslie Dam and Proserpine schemes and all the other schemes whether the program has been real. Let us now look at hospitals, where capital expenditure over the next two years will be $100m higher than normal. I refer the Opposition to page 12 of the capital document, the first of 10 pages listing all the significant hospital projects that will be advanced in 1984-85 under the normal and the special programs at a cost of approximately $122m compared with normal programs of about $50m in past years. I am sure that, when their new facilities are completed, the people of Nambour, Townsville, Cairns, the Gold Coast and other places wiU confirm, for the benefit of the Opposition, that the facilities really exist. What of the thousands of Government employees who will benefit from better working conditions in Government-owned buildings in Brisbane, Cairns, Bundaberg and Townsville—some $80m worth in all—plus the hundreds of police, teachers, public servants and railway employees and their families in country areas throughout the State whose living conditions will be improved by $20m worth of new houses? Galling though it must be to the Opposition, this $600m additional program is very real indeed. The extra facilities that it will produce are real. The boost that it will give the building and construction and supporting industries is real. The jobs that it will create are real. It is hard, cold, brick and mortar reality, not a figment of somebody's imagination. The Leader of the Opposition claims that expenditure from the $600m will be only $72m in 1984-85. In fact, in one part of his speech, he alluded to $54m. This is arrant nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Budget documents. In fact, expenditure from the $600m in 1984-85 wiU be of the order of $ 140m. What Opposition members and their researchers have overlooked is the fact that capital expenditures on hospitals are met by the various hospitals boards directly. The boards are statutory authorities and their funds do not pass through the public accounts. As a result, the figures do not appear in the Estimates. 1 stress for the benefit of the Opposition that the Special Major Capital Works Program is a two and a half year program. This was stated clearly over and over again. For the Opposition to claim that the program has been put forward as something else is simply not factual. As in any program, there has to be a buUd-up period leading to a peak and then a tapering off. The logistics of mounting and executing a program of this magnitude are quite daunting and it wiU take some months for all the works to be put under way. The Leader of the Opposition went on and on in his desperate efforts to discredU the Government's major capital initiative. Although 1 do not wish to bore the Committee with detailed rebuttals of false statements and conclusions, some points must be made to put the record straight. Firstiy, the reduction in the amount provided from consolidated revenue to the Special Projects Fund this year does not signify a reduction in the normal Capital Works Program. In fact, normal expenditure on capital works from the Special Projects Fund will be $87.8m this year compared with $71.7m in 1983-84, which is an increase of 22.5 per cent. Only $24m was needed from consolidated revenue to maintain the program, and this was provided. Supply (Financial Statement) 9 October 1984 1229

Secondly, the fact that consolidated revenue does not have to support the Cultural Capital Development Fund this year is not relevant. The Opposition was clutching at straws again. Expenditure from the fund wiU be $30.8m this year compared with $27.7m last year and this will be met from fund balances and the net proceeds of the Casket, including the new Instant Casket. I could go on and on about the mistakes. Misinterpretations and muddle—words that so aptly describe the comments by the Leader of the Opposition on the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program. The plain, simple fact of the matter is that the Opposition is jealous of the Government and its capacity to provide positive and responsible financial management and policies. The Labor colleagues of Opposition members in the Commonwealth and other States cannot produce such a beneficial and visionary Budget and, along with the Queensland Opposition, they must wish that they had never heard of this 1984-85 Queensland Budget. The Leader of the Opposition and his predecessor (Mr Wright) must surely be suffering severe indigestion from having to eat their words. Close to the end of 1983- 84, they both came out with gloating predictions of financial disaster for the Government. The former leader, in particular, accused the Government of mismanagement and foreshadowed a Budget deficit in 1983-84, increased taxes, reduced services and so on. None of this has happened and it will not happen while this Government is in office. The Government has an unequalled record in financial management and Budgetary control and in obtaining value for money. Let me make one final point with regard to the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program. The claim that the State has agreed to borrow no more than $1,513.4m this year is not correct. For the edification of the Leader of the Opposition, I draw his attention to page 32 of Commonwealth Budget Paper No. 7, titled "Payments to or for the States", which shows the State's borrowing authority as $ 1,552m, which is for semi- governmental authorities alone. Apart from this fundamental error, the claim that this limits the Government's capital program by way of special effort, such as through the Special Major Capital Works Program, is demonstrably false. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Wolston that his present contribution to the debate is negligible. Mr GUNN: It was when he made his speech. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am speaking to the honourable member for Wolston. If he persists with his interjections, I will have to warn him. The Minister will proceed with his speech. Mr GUNN: The honourable member's contribution was nil, and it is not even worth mentioning. As anyone with a remote understanding of Federal/State financial relations and, in particular, the operations of Loan Council is aware, a State's capital works capacity is not necessarily limited to its borrowings. The State can increase this capacity by, for example— Contributions from consolidated revenue, such as the $90m provided this year; Loans provided from within the State's own funds; and Intemal funding by the various statutory authorities. Is it too much to ask that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Wolston check their facts before they make their misleading claims? So far as the total Capital Works Program for the State public sector is concerned, the full details will be available, as is the case every year, in the co-ordinated plan of works document produced by the Co-ordinator-General. 1230 9 October 1984 Supply (Financial Statemem)

The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the existence of this document and, in fact, has actively quoted from it. I reject his criticism that the Government does not provide details of the public sector capital program. I turn now to some other glaring examples of the Opposition's failings in financial management expertise. Specifically, I refer to pay-roll tax. The assertions by the Opposition that pay-roll tax estimates suggest a lack of growth in employment in Queensland are nonsense. After making allowance for the full year's cost of the generous pay-roll tax concessions provided in last year's Budget, plus a growth in employment and earnings a little below the rather optimistic forecasts of the Com­ monwealth, and the part year's cost of concessions provided this year, the $43 7m estimate is conservative but realistic in the present economic climate. On the economy—1 am tired of the Opposition's constant whinging on this subject. For every statistic that the Opposition can dredge up to paint a picture of doom and gloom, there are all the other statistics which show quite the reverse. The reality is that, over a long period, the Queensland economy has performed extremely well under this Government and will continue to do so in the future. The Government made no claim that the economy is now exactly as we would want it. The Budget has recognised this and therefore has, as its prime objective, the acceleration of growth in our economy—and it will succeed. 1 also find it unbelievable that the Opposition has trotted out the same old hoary arguments about the Treasury's cash reserves, waste and inefficiency and more spending. It seems to happen with every change of Opposition leadership, and we on the Govem­ ment side have to re-educate Opposition members again and again on the facts of life. As has been explained a hundred times before, the supposed surplus Treasury cash balances are not surplus at all. They are largely superannuation funds belonging to Crown employees or other statutorily required deposits belonging to people such as Supreme Court litigants and real estate agents. They are held by the Treasury, invested for the beneficiaries and are not available for general expenditure by the Government—tempting though they might be to a less-honest Government such as the Wran Govemment. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting that these funds be milked to fund ongoing services. Surely the Opposition does not want to place the Queensland Crown employee superannuation scheme in the same scandalous position as that in New South Wales, with billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and cuts in benefits already announced. If that is to be standard of a Labor Government's financial management, thank goodness this Government will be around for a long time to come! What also seems to be forgotten is that these funds, by their investment, become available for private sector developments, albeit in an indirect way. I also find it inconceivable that the Leader of the Opposition could suggest that the Budget is riding on the back of Commonwealth Government generosity and that somehow the per capita general revenue assistance from the Commonwealth to the State should be equated to that of his friends in New South Wales and Victoria. 1 am very concerned that the Opposition, if it ever came to power, would hand back to other States some of the $494m per annum it seems to think that Queensland is being overpaid. The facts of the matter are that the Commonwealth payments simply represent a recognition, although still an inadequate one, of the State's needs as assessed by the independent and non-political Grants Commission. They should be regarded as some return to the State for the income and wealth that is generated from within this State for the benefit of all Australians. In no way is it Commonwealth benevolence. The Opposition has spoken extensively about so-called waste and inefficiency and the relative per capita expenditures on various services. It has pointed with pride to the State Housing Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1231

$600m allegedly to be saved by elimination of waste and inefficiency in quangos in Victoria. Excesses of that magnitude should never have been allowed to arise. There is no way such a situation exists in Queensland. This Government runs a very trim and taut ship. The lower per capita expenditure on services simply reflects very efficient management that can provide the same service as the other States at a much lower cost. I defy anyone from the Opposition side of the Chamber or elsewhere to prove that Queensland services overall are at a lower level than those of the other States. Having attempted unsuccessfully to disparage the Government's Budget—a Budget which, 1 might add, has been widely acclaimed in the media and by the general public as the best ever—what does the Opposition offer in return? It offers shallow promises; and that's all. They are promises that, if put to the test, would cost a fortune. But no plans were put forward as to how they would be funded. Presumably the first port of call would be the trust fund balances, as happened in New South Wales. Not so long ago, a commercial appeared regularly on the television screens. It asked the very pertinent question, "Where did they get the money?" The same question could be asked of the Opposition. And I will tell honourable members the answer. Higher taxes, bigger debt and other people's money, just like its friends in Canberra and the other Labor States. Thankfully, the vast majority of people have accepted the Budget for the great achievement that it is. Again I thank the many honourable members who have spoken in support of the Budget or who have offered some positive suggestions during the debate, and I assure them that they will be considered fully. Mr Row, I will leave the Budget to be judged by the people of Queensland. I am confident that it will have whole-hearted support. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the member for Wolston under Standing Order 123A. His persistent interjections are an annoyance to the Chamber. Item (Contingencies—His Excellency the Governor) agreed to. Progress reported.

STATE HOUSING ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Minister for Works and Housing), by leave, without notice: 1 move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the State Housing Act 1945- 1983 and the State Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957-1983 each in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Wharton, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (10.4 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." My purpose in introducing the Bill is to— Enable the Queensland Housing Commission to assist applicants to finalise payments for or to purchase land as a prelude to building through the commission; Update the rental provisons; Tidy up loose administration provisions; and 1232 9 October 1984 Electricity Act Amendment Bill

Allow the purchasing price of residential perpetual leases administered by the commission to be reduced by the amount of land rent paid by the lessee. Let me deal first with the purchase of land. Under existing provisions of the Act, the commission could not finance the purchase of land. A clear titie is required as security for home-ownership finance,an d borrowers without clear title were disadvantaged as compared to spec house-purchasers. On a trial basis, a scheme was introduced under which the commission purchased the land and sold the completed house/land package to the applicant. Although it achieved its purpose, there were time delays and some minor added costs to the borrower. Removal of the land-purchase restriction will simplify and speed procedures and benefit the borrower and the building industry. Honourable members should note that the proposed legislation will ensure that finance is available only to borrowers with contracts or agreements to build. 1 turn now to the rental provisions. The Act presentiy restricts rental accommodation to a person with dependants. Strictly interpreted, it excludes both aged and single pensioners and is contrary to the intention of the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement and to current practice. The existing provisions also authorise that an economic rent be prescribed by regulation. As honourable members are aware, the commission moved from economic rent through market rent to the present income-based rent. The proposed amendment will bring legislative provisions into line with current practice by broadening the range of persons who can be accommodated and remove reference to economic rent. To tidy up loose administrative provisions, the Bill corrects a few spelling and grammatical errors. The Bill also removes the authority to prescribe a regulation forbidding a purchaser from selling within five years. This was a 1973 Commonwealth/ State Housing Agreement requirement. The regulation has been repealed. Finally, the Bill will allow the freeholding price of leasehold land to be rebated. Under existing legislation for the freeholding of residential sites, the purchase price must be the unimproved market value at the date of application. The lessee may elect to have the price determined by the commission, the Valuer-General or the Land Court. The lessee may buy in cash on a 5 per cent deposit and pay the balance by monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 11.5 per cent (variable) over 10 years. The existing legislation does not provide for a rebate or reduction in price. The commission is a commercial agency buying land on the open market. When U sells, legislation ensures equitable treatment between a person who buys on a perpetual- lease basis and subsequently converts to freehold and a person who purchases in freehold title in the first instance. They are both treated in the same way. However, I have been concerned for some time that the long-term lessee should receive some special consideration. For that reason, the Bill will allow the rent paid by a lessee to be deducted from the purchase price. In no case shall the amount of the reduction be greater than 50 per cent of the unimproved value. This amendment will hold the commission's market-place position and will afford lessees compensation for rent paid. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Yewdale, adjourned.

ELECTRICITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy), by leave, without notice: 1 move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Electricity Act 1976-1982 in certain particulars and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and. on motion of Mr 1. J. Gibbs, read a first time. Electricity Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1233

Second Reading Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.14 p.m.): 1 move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Bill proposes amendments to the Electricity Act to provide for— The amalgamation of the State Electricity Commission of Queensland and the Queensland Electricity Generating Board to form a new department of the Govemment of this State to be called the Queensland Electricity Commission; A complete revamping of the provisions relating to prescribed electrical articles. Similar provisions are being enacted in the other States and Territories of the Commonwealth; Some changes in the provisions relating to electrical contracting; and Several minor amendments to correct problems that have arisen in the normal administration of the Act since it was last amended in 1980. Honourable members will know that the Government has felt for some time the need to become more closely involved with some aspects of the electricity industry. All honourable members are aware that this is an area of activity that impinges on everybody's daily personal lives, in commerce and industry and on the land, and plays such a very big part in the development of the State. Consequently, the Govemment has a responsibility to work closely with the industry, particularly with regard to issues such as prices, industrial relations and forward planning. What 1 am putting before the House is not dramatic change but merely the administrative adjustments arising from Cabinet's decision to bring the industry closer to Government. It is, of course, the first major change in this large and complex industry in seven years. Members will be quite familiar with the situation in other States where, at various times over the past few years, there have been electricity shortages and publicly expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of the electricity supply. Comparatively, Queensland has been fortunate. That is not to say the Government is prepared to accept that things could not be improved. It is the aim of Government to have the most efficient and effective industry possible. 1 envisage the industry going on very largely operating as it does now, but with some wider powers of direction available to me as Minister in those areas where a co-ordinated and immediate response across the whole of the industry is required. What is proposed is a simpler two-tiered structure—a Queensland Electricity Commission and the seven electricity boards. Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity of considering the reaction of other States to what in many instances are shared problems. In each of the other States, the Government of the day has seen fit to bring the industry closer to it in some respects. New South Wales has seen a most extensive reorganisation over the last couple of years, and numerous headlines over the winter months attest to the motivation and reaction there! Perhaps the first such recognition of the inescapable role Government must play was in Western Australia. The State Energy Commission was formed in 1975—as an amalgamation of the Electricity Commission Organisation and the Fuel and Power Commission—in order to co-ordinate and allow the Government its proper directing capacity in relation to the State's energy resources. In recent years, the Electricity Trust of South Australia has become more accountable to the Minister. In Victoria, the biggest electricity authority in the country has been massively reconstituted with explicit accountabilities to the Minister and to the Government. 1 do not think that massive change is needed in Queensland, but the Government has a concern to be able to be involved in important decisions. After all, the Government is held accountable for these—and properly so. 1234 9 October 1984 Electricity Act Amendment Bill

I have said publicly several times that the existing boards have all served the State well in coping efficiently with unprecedented growth and development. They wUl, I am confident, continue to do so. In any climate of development and change, a review and reappraisal is necessary to ensure that original aims are still valid and are being met. The main administrative aim of the Bill is the merger of the Queensland Electricity Generating Board and the State Electricity Commission to form a new Queensland Electricity Commission. Broadly speaking, those internal functions that can with benefit be amalgamated—planning, public relations, industrial relations, administration and finance—will come together. However, the generation and systems operations, transmission and construction activities of the present QEGB will hardly be altered. Some months ago. Cabinet agreed to the commissioner's suggestion to, as far as was legally practicable, put the organisatioii in place on the basis of what the Government wants. So, much has already been done. This amendment to the Act will complete that process. For most of the employees of the QEGB and SECQ, this is an evolutionary stage that will have no significant impact on day-to-day operations. Hence the Bill deals with many what might be termed machinery matters. I do not propose to take the time of the House by outlining these in detail here, but it may be helpful to honourable members if I sketch briefly the main areas of change and the reasons for those changes.

One important aspect is to protect the rights of employees; hence the need to include vesting and transitional provisions. OrganisationaUy, there will continue to be a commissioner to head the combined body. This amendment provides for one deputy commissioner instead of two. No jobs are theatened in this merger. The former Deputy Commissioner (Administration) is to become the secretary of the Queensland Electricity Commission, and the former secretaries to the generating board and the State Electricity Commission will be employed within the Finance and Administration Division of the commission. The general manager of the generating board will become general manager of the generation and transmission undertaking. Unless they so request to be transferred to lower-paid positions, present employees of the generating board will not suffer any loss of salary. The fact that the commission will be performing, as an electricity authority, duties that were previously functions of the generating board has necessitated many of the amendments to the Act.

The electricity supply authorities, including the generating board, pay rates to local authorities. Now the commission, which is the Crown, will hold much land that would normally be exempt from local authority rates. The Act makes it clear that land vested in the commission is rateable land. In other words, local authorities wiU not be disadvantaged in that regard. A major part of these amendments will regularise the accounting arrangements for the new body and, at the same time, bring them more directly in Une with those of other Government departments. Attention has been given to the need for electricity authorities to take into account the environmental effects of their works. The State Development and Public Works Organization Act is specifically made applicable to the commission. Clause 7 of the Bill involves an important change in policy. It proposes the inclusion of a new section (section 129A) in the Act. This will empower the Minister, through the commission, to issue a direction to an electricity board on a matter of policy. Experience elsewhere has shown that when this power exists there is no need to use it. Stand-offs do not occur and consensus is reached by discussion. Electricity Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1235 Individual amendments are proposed to provide— (i) The conditions under which a consumer may resell electricity to his tenant; (ii) That additions and alternations to an electrical installation that are in a "hazardous area" (usually an explosion-prone situation) must be left disconnected by the electrical contractor performing the work until these are inspected, passed and connected by an installation inspector; (iii) That where there are disconnected overhead lines on a consumer's premises, he must accept the same responsibility for them as an electricity authority is required to accept for its lines, that is, he must either maintain them in sound mechanical and electrical condition or dismantle them. (This amendment arises from the findingso f a coroner's inquest after several people were killed as a result on one of a picnic party using a poorly maintained and disconnected line as a swing and its contacting live wires in the vicinity.); (iv) That an electricity authority may disconnect supply in any case in which, after due notice, a consumer refuses or neglects to shift a meter from an inaccessible position; however, it also provides for an appeal to the commission by a consumer who is dissatisfied with the electricity authority's determination of what is a suitable location for a meter; and (v) That where entry to premises by an employee of an electricity authority who legally seeks to enter such premises is refused or obstructed, an electricity authority may disconnect supply immediately in a case where an employee is satisfied that a fault that may cause fire or shock exists or in any other case in which, after due notice is given, entry is still refused or obstructed. In some circumstances it is in the public interest to erect an electric line in or through a national park of fauna reserve. We have, in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, faced up to this problem and provided that only the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts may authorise such a line to be erected, and then only upon conditions proposed by the Director, National Parks and Wildlife Service. Another anomaly that it is proposed to correct is that often distribution and subtransmission lines are erected over private land by way of a way-leave agreement with the owner. Compensation, if appropriate, is negotiated as part of the agreement, but a permanent lein by way of a registered easement is not taken. While the person who has given the way-leave remains the land-owner, he is bound by the ageement. However there is real doubt about whether the purchaser is so bound. A few consumers have demanded that the lines be removed by the electricity authority at its expense, and where the issue has been forced the electricity authority, or, rather, the consumer—you and I—has had to pay. Can honourable members imagine anything more unreasonable? A person buys land with electric lines legally erected on it, and if he is any sort of prudent person he has inspected the property and seen the lines. He knows that this is an encumbrance, so he takes it into account in the price that he pays. Having been compensated for it once in his purchase price, he stands on his legal rights and makes the electricity authority remove its lines at the expense of consumers generally. Then he develops or subdivides the land. What is proposed is that if a land-owner who is not the granter of a way-leave wants lines removed, the electricity authority will do it at his request if he meets the cost of removal and relocation. In most cases, problems about relocating lines are amicably resolved between the electricity authority and the land-owner. The commission will ensure that this level of co-operation is maintained. However, legal provision will exist to ensure that we as consumers are not disadvantaged by the few unreasonable people who unfortunately exist. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a most important change is the new concept of electrical approvals. Until now a manufacturer or importer had to have a prescribed electrical article that he made in Australia or imported tested and approved by a statutory 1236 9 October 1984 Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill approvals authority in one of the States or Territories before he could offer it for sale or hire. This involved delays in testing over which he had no control. It is proposed that he arrange his own testing at one of the NARTA (National Association of Regulatory Testing Authorities) laboratories and then, on the basis of the test certificate, register the article with a statutory approvals authority and thereupon proceed to sell or hire articles of the kind covered by the certificate of registration. As an additional protection to the public, the statutory approvals authorities will regularly select articles offered for sale and have them tested to ensure that the standards of safety incorporated in the model submitted by the manufacturer for test prior to registration are maintained in the articles offered for sale to the public. There is a need to tidy up the law relating to electrical contracting. However, the Government remains firmly committed to its policy of keeping a place in the electrical contracting fieldfo r genuine part-time contractors. The Electrical Contractors Association continues to press for reversion to the arrangement under which the full-time contractors had the sole right to contract. The association is prepared to concede that people may have limited licences for a couple of years' part-time work if they intend to contract full time. We, as a Government, do not want to revert to the monopoly situation which was corrected in the 1976 Act, not on the recommendation of the commission but at the instance of my predecessor's Bills committee, that is, members of this House. The Government, however, does intend to correct the few anomalies that have been brought to light, namely— (a) To discourage the holding of electrical contractors' licences for status reasons or so that the holder can do a few odd jobs and quite obviously avoid income tax, the annual fee will be significantly increased, and before renewal of a licence is granted the holder will be required to declare that he earns a substantial amount (to be prescribed) each year from electrical contracting; (b) A few installation inspectors quite improperly hold contractors' licences, and this will be made illegal; and (c) Electricity authorities will be required to strictly enforce the provisions of the legislation that require electrical contractors to inspect and test additons and alterations and to report to the consumer that this has been done. In order to streamline the commission's procedure of advertising job vacancies, appropriate amendments have been made to provide for the filling of consequential vacancies in the same way as this is done in the public service. I commend the Bill to the House, in the firm belief that the people of Queensland will continue to benefit from electrical power produced and distributed in the most economic manner possible. Debate, on motion of Mr Vaughan, adjourned.

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 3 October (see p. 987) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.30 p.m.): In joining in this debate, I point out that I appreciate the comments that have been made by members on the other side of the Chamber earlier in the debate. Quite simply, the amendments to the Small Claims Tribunals Act will ensure that the Act has more teeth. Complaints have been made by people who, although they have Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1237 received judgment from the tribunal, have not been able to obtain the payment that was due to them. When those people went to the Magistrates Court to obtain redress and get an order of payment, they found that the person or company against whom or which they were claiming did not have the wherewithal to pay, and they were left with the bill. This Bill makes it possible for an oral examination to take place before the tribunal. The cost of that examination will not be borne by the person who wins the case but by the debtor. Therefore, justice will be done. A number of complaints have been received about the failure of the Act in that regard. The second most important part of the Bill provides that traders will be able to go before the Small Claims Tribunal when amounts not exceeding $1,500 are in dispute. I am sure that many traders, who are willing to accept the decision of a referee about whether a payment should be made or not, will be happy to accept this innovation. The Bill means that they will not be caught with legal costs when such relatively small amounts are in dispute. It has been argued in the past that the Small Claims Tribunal dispenses summary justice; in other words, a finding is made against which there is no appeal. But I believe that both parties appearing before the tribunal accept its nature; they understand that they cannot complain about the judgment that has been handed down. The third most important aspect of the Bill concerns the dividing fences provisions. Those provisions will operate if both parties are willing to appear before the tribunal, and such disputes can be settled before it. It is interesting to note that, since the Act came into operation, many people have tended to use it to settle their disputes. I took out the figures for the six-month period from February 1984 to July 1984. They reveal that the number of people who have received redress under the legislation in that period is 397. Cases were settled on 127 occasions, and of that number, 121 were settled prior to hearing. That means that the people got together to discuss the matter and were able to settle it before the hearing took place. Another 51 people settled their cases after the compulsory conference had been held, 113 cases were dismissed in that six-month period, and 27 cases were stmck out. It is rather interesting that the Small Claims Tribunal has been used by a large number of people. It can hear cases involving sums not exceeding $1,500, but honourable members would be surprised to learn how small some amounts of money involved in cases are. No-one wishes to pay over money unless he is legally obliged to do so. In Gladstone in May 1984 a company was ordered by the Small Claims Tribunal to refund to the claimant the sum of $11.25. Similarly, in March 1984 a respondent was ordered to refund within seven days the sum of $10, being the balance of deposited bond money. Those cases show that the Small Claims Tribunal hands out justice to the little person and that people are willing to use its facilities for the purpose of receiving justice even when only small sums of money are involved. Last Wednesday night I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Windsor, in his speech, complain about the difficulty he confronted in getting bailiffs to operate. I have received some complaints concerning the way that bailiffs operate and their inability to pursue a warrant or take a warrant and deliver it. However, I took a more responsible attitude than that taken by the honourable member for Windsor. I contacted the Minister for Justice and instigated an inquiry into the delays that had occurred. To refresh the memories of honourable members, I point out that the honourable member for Windsor told the House that on a couple of occasions, when he was confronted with the problem, he purchased a bottle of Scotch and took it round to the bailiff, with the result that early next morning the summons was served. That is an admission of bribery. Last Wednesday the honourable member for Windsor said that he had taken a bottle of Scotch round to the bailiff to ensure that the warrant was 1238 9 October 1984 Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill executed. That is absolutely despicable. Any responsible member who found a bailiff who was willing to accept a bottle of Scotch should immediately report the matter to a higher authority instead of condoning it. Opposition Members interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I draw the attention of honourable members to that matter. Opposition members did not raise objection last Wednesday night when the honourable member for Windsor made his speech; it is only now that I am raising the matter that they have decided to voice their displeasure—or is it concurrence—at the matter. Ms WARNER (Kurilpa) (10.39 p.m.): As has been said earlier, the Opposition welcomes the Bill as it is a step in the right direction. It provides the mechanism by which findings of the Small Claims Tribunal can be enforced, thereby increasing the capacity of the Small Claims Tribunal to act as a deterrent to traders who might otherwise engage in fraudulent practices. In other words, after the Bill becomes law, traders will feel less secure in trying to get away with shoddy deals. Another advantage of the Bill is that it covers traders who are in dispute with other traders. Having said that the Opposition welcomes the BiU, I add that we would also welcome further amendments to strengthen the existing legislation. That can be said of almost any piece of legislation, but in relation to consumer affairs, which is basically the field at which this Bill is directed, a number of legislative changes could be made to protect the consumer to a greater degree than at present. I was pleased to hear that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs will introduce further legislation. Hopefully, he will do that as soon as possible. The Government should be addressing a number of matters with some spirit of consensus. Agreement could be reached by both sides of the sides of the House as to how to proceed to listen to the points of view so ably put forward by voluntary consumer protection agencies. They could outline the problems that exist and the difficulties faced by the small people in our society when they are swindled by unscrupulous persons or by people who, through negligence, do not provide proper goods or services. Some consumer organisations have suggested that the maximum amount of $1,500 that can be claimed at present is inadequate and that the amount should be raised to a more realistic level to bring it into line with current prices. However, that is a debatable point. Once the sum of $2,000 has been reached, one will be concerned about people's rights being protected by some more legalistic process under which trained people ought to be involved in the solution of disputes. In keeping the level as low as it is, the Government seems to be saying that if a person has been ripped off for a small amount of money, that is, up to $1,500, he may have a relatively inexpensive remedy through the Small Claims Tribunal to obtain some relief However, if a person has been ripped off for a large amount of money—for example, he has paid $10,000 for a swimming-pool that cannot be used—he must go through the relatively more expensive mechanism of the civil courts to seek a remedy for the injustice that he has suffered. If a person has lost a great deal of money, he must pay more money to receive some justice. That person has probably spent his life-savings on the construction of a swimming-pool. He would not have much money left over if he was ripped off. At this stage I am outlining the irony of the situation; I am not suggesting a mechanism by which it can be resolved. 1 raise that matter for future consideration. Traders are the only persons who are covered under the Bill. The matter of malpractice or fraud by professionals whose services are not covered by the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal must be examined. The Bill seems to be somewhat deficient. The main advantage of the Small Claims Tribunal is its inexpensive nature and its relatively lay capacity to deal with disputes in a humane manner. It should not prevent Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1239 inexperienced persons from seeking redress. The behaviour of professionals is not covered under the legislation. Another problem with the Small Claims Tribunal at the moment is that it is grossly overworked. The present staffing level is inadequate to handle the number of claims lodged. The Government ought to direct more resources to the provision of additional tribunal staff. There is nothing worse than having to wait and wait for a remedy when the process should be relatively simple. In more general terms, I raise the point that the legislation is curative rather than preventive. It says that when a wrong has been done a way can be found to obtain redress. Perhaps it would be more efficient if, instead of providing the tribunal with masses of staff and resources to right wrongs, staff and resources were directed to prevention rather than cure. If the Government were to adopt that basic philosophical position on the matter of consumer rights, we would be much better equipped to protect our citizens against shoddy practices. How many people are aware of the Small Claims Tribunal? Very often people are ripped off. Many of them think, "There is nothing I can do about it. That's life. It has happened before and it will happen again. I will put it down to experience." They then forget it. The more people do that, the more will traders feel confident that they are able to get away with unscrupulous practices. Therefore, the Govemment ought to be addressing itself—it may not be the responsibility of this Minister, but rather the Minister responsible for consumer affairs—to a public awareness program to inform people that malpractice is not one of the ills of society that we have to live with; that it is a matter that we as a society^that the Government and the Parliament—are attempting to redress. By exercising their rights, often people can strengthen the deterrent quality of legislation. The other point relates to the awareness of traders themselves. To be charitable to them, traders may not be aware that their practices result in a bad deal for the customer. The cause may be negligence or a lack of understanding. Perhaps part of any public awareness program, which I suggest ought to be pursued more vigorously than it is at the moment, should include the requirements to be fulfilled by traders. In this day and age, when small businesses are under such threat from big operators, and their profits are dwindling every day, there is an understandable, if lamentable, propensity to ensure profits—and therefore to ensure survival—by being slipshod in the provision of services and about the quality of products. These matters ought to be addressed in a spirit of willingness to listen to those who have looked long and hard at the issue of consumer affairs and to consider the measures being taken in other States to deal with the problems. In these circumstances, I could only commend the amendment, as it gives teeth to the tribunal and makes the task of a consumer attempting to pursue his remedy so much easier than it was previously under the legislation. I shall return to the point of preventive rather than curative mechanisms. The analogy that springs to mind is that in most cases of Government vigilance the Government does not wait for a catastrophe to occur before it starts thinking about a cure. For instance, mines inspectors do not wait for a mine to blow up before they investigate it. Similarly, the staff of the Consumer Affairs Bureau should not be waiting for things to go wrong; rather they should be going round checking. All 1 am saying is that more can be done with some kind of goodwiU and the proper intention. 1 understand that on this occasion the Government has considered that, so I await further legislation along those lines. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (10.51 p.m.): Over previous years amendments to this valuable legislation have added something new to small claims. Because in 1973 I introduced this legislation into the House, I have some special interest in it. That was the first time that this form of solving disputes between traders and their clients could 1240 9 October 1984 Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill be accommodated by the justice system. Prior to that, although there were plenty of complaints and plenty of causes, because of the inability of those who complained or had causes to take the matter any further than merely making a complaint, very few of them ever came to the justiciable level. 1 think it should be stressed that most people in business endeavour to accommodate shortcomings of service—either the type of service or the product that results from that service—by resolving the problem amicably. In private enterprise that has been the case for all time and it is still so. But there is always a handful of circumstances that warrants some special attention and in 1973 it seemed to me that the justice system, because of its inability to accommodate the problems that were facing citizens in everyday situations, was being held in some degree of disregard and even, perhaps, comtempt by the public at large. 1 am rather proud of the fact that, of the 190 pieces of legislation that I introduced into this House, this is perhaps one of the most innovative. It was designed to bring about a system that would enable the small claims of the community to be heard without a great deal of fuss. So it transpired that not only was this legislation successful in this State but it was copied by all other States of Australia and, in fact, it has been copied by over 20 countries in the world. It is another contribution that Queensland has made to solving these problems. Mr Mackenroth: Who was the Minister for Justice who brought this in? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: For the benefit of the honourable member, I mentioned that at the beginning of my speech. Mr R. J. Gibbs: He is recounting his old days of glory. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I still have some reflected glory in the fact that the legislation has been adopted by other States and other countries. The honourable member for Wolston should be proud of the fact, because the legislation belonged to the Parliament, not just to the Minister who introduced it. It was approved by the Parliament, and by all sides of the House, as being something worth whUe. It is something that Queensland has contributed to the world and that is something to be proud of Mr Innes: The member for Wolston is just upset because he has had no days of glory at all. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The member for Wolston will be lucky if he is re-endorsed by his party for the next election. Because he might not be here for very long, he should make the most of it while he can. One of the great attractions of the system was that it did not cost the litigants any money; it was an inexpensive process. Over a period, successive Parliaments have improved the legislation. One of the reasons why there have not been a great many prosecutions relating to consumer matters is the success of the Small Claims Tribunal. Many of the disputes that might well have ended up as prosecutions have been resolved through the Small Claims Tribunal and, as members know, the decisions of the tribunal are published in the newspapers circulated in the areas in which matters are heard. That published list of decisions of the tribunal discourages would-be offenders from taking matters too far. But 1 issue a word of warning regarding the proposed amendments. They include a provision that disputes between traders will become subject to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal, as will disputes between principals and contractors. I point out that although I approve of that amendment and support it, vvhen that area is opened up substantial consequential claims can become a matter of some importance. Undoubtedly there will be moves for substantial legal representation by people who get into such arguments. At the moment, that is not excluded, but it must be agreed to by both parties and the presiding magistrate. Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1241

There could well be substantial claims consequent upon the decisions made by the Small Claims Tribunal on disputes between trader and trader and between principal and contractor. So 1 stress that, although a limitation of $1,500 is placed on these matters, there will be pressure to make the system a little more cumbersome. I hope that that pressure will be resisted, because the great merit and virtue of the Small Claims Tribunal is that it is available almost exclusively to the little people of the community. I would hate to see it become cumbersome and push justice out of the reach of those people. The question of legal representation has often been argued. In my opinion, the system has worked very satisfactorily and, generally, the absence of legal representation has been to the advantage of all concemed. I would not support that in other circumstances; in fact, in most circumstances in which there are arguments, it is very important that people obtain legal advice and representation. Many people who appear before the Small Claims Tribunal obtain legal advice and get their lines right before appearing. However, the magistrate who presides can provide most of the help that is required in the disputes that normally come before the tribunal. Members of the Liberal Party welcome this positive and progressive step, but I hope that the legislation will be monitored to make sure that a situation does not arise in which justice is pushed out of reach. Mr MILLINER (Everton) (10.59 p.m.): Before commenting briefly on the Small Claims Tribunal, I must say that 1 hope that the Ministers responsible for consumer affairs, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs and the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, do what they have been saying they will do in the past couple of days, that is, strengthen the consumer affairs laws of this State. Unfortunately, honourable members have recently seen rip-offs in the health field, with health clubs such as Vigor and Inshape going into liquidation. I am concerned that people pay money believing that they will receive a service but the organisation goes into liquidation and the consumers are left virtually holding the bag. The Minister for Justice and Attorney- General has indicated that he is considering a move to have such moneys paid into trust accounts, and I would welcome that. 1 would like the Minister to look also at the role that the Bankcard organisations have been playing in this matter. I am concerned that health clubs are using the Bankcard organisations to finance people who wish to join the clubs. I have been reliably informed that when people go to the health clubs, they fill out a form. In fact, what they fill out is an application for a Bankcard. Funds are then transferted to the health club, and the people are indebted to the particular Bankcard organisation. I hope that that matter is considered. The Small Claims Tribunals Act was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation to come before this Assembly. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Nundah, indicated, the legislation has been accepted in other States and in other countries. Under the legislation, an ordinary person has the opportunity to go before a tribunal and argue his case. A determination is then made by the tribunal. The person concerned is not involved in considerable legal costs. Of course, all honourable members know how much it costs to take a case to court. As I understand the matter, the present limit in the Small Claims Tribunal is $1,500. 1 hope that in the future the Minister will look at providing some flexibility in the system. The referee should be able to determine whether he is prepared to hear cases involving more than $1,500. Most of the cases that go before the tribunal are small claims, but in some cases the amount involved could exceed $1,500. One need only look at the problems that constantly arise in the swimming-pool industry. Consumers are ripped off for considerable amounts of money. Because the amounts involved are more than $1,500, they are forced to take their cases to other courts to receive satisfaction. In many cases, the people concerned cannot afford to go to those courts. As I say, I would like to see some flexibility

64165—42 1242 9 October 1984 Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill built into the system so that the referee is able to determine whether he can hear a dispute involving more than $1,500. I am pleased that the legislation will give the referee some powers to enforce his decisions. One of the criticisms of the SmaU Claims Tribunal has been that it lacks the teeth to enforce its orders. I am pleased to see that the orders granted by the referee will be enforced. The other provision in the legislation that I welcome particularly relates to trader- to-trader disputes. In the mn-up to the last State election, the Labor Party advocated that a tribunal should be set up to hear trader-to-trader disputes. There is no doubt that a fomm is needed in which traders can have disputes determined. Until now, traders have had to take their cases to other courts. Again, there is the question of fbe costs involved in taking cases to other courts. I certainly welcome the proposed amendments to the Act. As I said, I hope that they are the foremnner of many other amendments that will strengthen the laws to protect consumers. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (11.4 p.m.): I support the amendments to the SmaU Claims Tribunals Act. As with any good legislation, there is still room to refine it and improve it. Even the Opposition has acknowledged that this is good legislation, yet there are some areas in which improvements can be made. The collection of moneys awarded under determinations of the tribunal is an area that has been abused. That is partly because people cannot perform in attempts to collect the judgment of the tribunal and because people try to outsmart the system. This Bill, as has been outlined by previous speakers, concerns itself with that, and I do not want to go through it again. The scope of the Small Claims Tribunals Act has been extended in this legislation as regards the ability of traders to appear before the tribunal in disputes with other traders. Small business people and primary producers fall into that category. Under the provisions of the Act, they are not able to take a case before the Small Claims Tribunal. This amendment will definitely be of advantage to them. The Bill restricts the amount of the claim to $1,500. But that is the pitch of proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunal, and that is where it is supposed to be. Another important consideration in the Bill is that, once people opt for a tribunal decision, they know that there is no right of appeal against a judgment to higher courts. That is not fully understood by members of the community, and it should be. The Bill also provides for a better system of finding out the capacity of a debtor to pay. Under this legislation, a debtor's circumstances can be discovered so that the warrant of attachment or garnishee order can be so fitted to make it the most effective order possible. That will be done in a way that will not cost money. Under the Act, when the satisfaction of a judgment was pursued and it was found that the debtor did not have the capacity to pay, even more money of the people who were in a position to claim went down the drain. The Government hopes that this Bill will make good legislation better. However, I have no doubt that, in the course of time, the legislation will appear before the Parliament again to be refined further in such a way that other Parliaments and other countries will want to follow it. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (11.7 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for their support of the Bill. The honourable member for Wolston expressed concern that, if a large number of disputes between traders came before the tribunal, a backlog might occur and that that might possibly delay the determination of claims by consumers. It is not possible to Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Bill 9 October 1984 1243 predict with any degree of accuracy the number of trader-to-trader disputes that will come before the tribunal, although the number of inquiries being directed to the registrar suggests that a substantial number of disputes will be referred to the tribunal. The honourable member may be assured that a close watch will be kept on the total number of claims referred to the tribunal and I give an assurance that, if unacceptable delays do occur, appropriate remedies will be taken. I make the point that I had in mind taking action in another direction that may well bring about a reduction in the total number of claims referred to the Small Claims Tribunal. That remains to be seen. The honourable member for Wolston also referred to a company known as Zupps. When speaking about that company, I think he was looking for the term "subrogation", but 1 took on board the comments that he made, particularly with regard to consumer protection. In fact, recently I have received some complaints in regard to Zupps, and, as I said, I take note of the honourable member's comments. The honourable member for Sherwood suggested that the Bill opens up the possibility of traders of substantial means pursuing claims at the expense of smaller traders with limited resources. The types of traders referring claims to the tribunal will be carefully monitored to detect whether there are any abuses of the system. However, the information that is presently available indicates that the overwhelming majority of trader disputes referred to the tribunal will involve small-businessmen with very limited means. The honourable member for Windsor was severely critical of bailiffs and the job that they do in serving civil court documents throughout the State. His comments were referred to by the honourable member for Lockyer. Let me point out to the honourable member for Windsor that bailiffs' fees are currently set by the Rules of Court and are paid by the party seeking to enforce the judgment. 1 take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the State's many conscientious hard­ working bailiffs, who are not in a position to defend themselves against unfounded criticism of the type levelled at them by the honourable member for Windsor. Bailiffs' duties are many and varied and often they are carried out in most difficult and onerous circumstances. In country areas in particular, long distances make a bailiffs job even more difficult, especially when he is required to make a number of attempts to serve documents. Unfortunately, bailiffs are not always successful in serving documents, but for the honourable member for Windsor to suggest that that is because of a lack of resolve on the part of bailiffs is incorrect and irresponsible. The bailiffs of this State are using their best endeavours to carry out their duties in an efficient and responsible manner. The honourable member for Windsor disputed the fact that costs and expenses associated with oral examinations before the Small Claims Tribunal are to be met by the Department of Justice. I refer the honourable member to the proposed new section 23A (3) (b), which makes it clear that such costs are to be paid by the department from moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. Finally, the honourable member for Windsor suggested that free search facilities be provided for anyone who is seeking details of a defendant's or a judgment debtor's motor vehicle. 1 am advised that a registration search in the Main Roads Department costs $4. That does not appear to be a particularly prohibitive expense. The honourable member for Kurilpa and, in particular, the honourable member for Cooroora made significant comments in drawing attention to the fact that there is no right of appeal from a decision or judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal. I invite the attention of the honourable member for Kurilpa to the fact that the greater the sum involved the more important is the need for an ability to appeal. As the honourable member for Cooroora said, ahhough the Small Claims Tribunal conducts proceedings that are not expensive, there is no right of appeal from it. The honourable member for Kurilpa referred to the need to make known the right of people to use the Small Claims Tribunal. 1244 9 October 1984 Judges Pensions Act Amendment Bill (No.2)

The Govemment agrees with that. It takes advertising space. Pamphlets and brochures are available. Recently, the Small Claims Tribunal and these proposals were the subject of a "Queensland Unlimited" report that was shown on television throughout the State of Queensland. The honourable member for Everton referred to a problem with Bankcard. In acknowledging that fact, I point out that the problem is similar to that experienced with promissory notes. The problem is experienced particularly with sales of videotape recorders. A purchaser signs what he or she believes to be a contract. It is effectively a promissory note. The purchaser finds that, instead of paying $600 for an item, he is really paying $3,000. It becomes a question of the extent to which the Government should go in protecting a person against himself or herself It is with a great deal of sympathy that I suggest that the one solution that can be effective is for the consumer to be aware of the consequences of documents that he signs. Mr Milliner: How many people are aware of that? Mr HARPER: I take the honourable member's point. Also, I point out that there must be a limit to which the Government can go in protecting a person from himself As was indicated by the honourable member, I intend to invite comment on the matter of prepayment. I thank the honourable member for his comments on that subject. Without doubt, the Small Claims Tribunal is an effective and economical means by which recourse may be had to the court system to resolve disputes involving not more than a relatively small amount of money, which at present is $1,500. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Why doesn't Mr Lester outlaw those sorts of practices? You know that they are corrupt and that they are bad. Why doesn't your fellow Minister outlaw all of those practices? I accept the fact that it is not your responsibility. I have spoken about it in this Parliament. You have acknowledged that it is not your responsibility, but the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs will not do anything about it. Why not? Mr HARPER: I finallydra w to the attention of the honourable member for Wolston the fact that promissory notes are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time.

JUDGES' PENSIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Judges' Pensions Act 1957- 1984 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER proceeding to read a message from His Excellency the Governor— Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Wolston under Standing Order No. 123A. Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill 9 October 1984 1245

Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the second time the member for Wolston has been warned today. I will not warn him again. First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (11.22 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Earlier this year I introduced a Bill which amended the Judges' Pensions Act. The object of that Bill was to increase the pension entitlement of members of the judiciary. It has been brought to my attention that an unintended consequence of those amendments is that a judge who retires on attaining the age of 70 years now has to complete 12 years of service to be entitled to receive his maximum rate of pension, that is, 60 per centum of his salary. Previously, he only had to complete 10 years of service to receive his maximum entitlement. A judge who retires voluntarily at or over the age of 60 only has to serve 10 years to be entitled to an annual pension at the rate of 60 per centum of his salary. It would therefore be equitable for a judge who retires on attaining the age of 70 years to have to serve 10 years only to become entitled to his maximum rate of pension. The Bill corrects this anomaly by providing that a judge who has served for not less than five years is entitled to an annual pension at the rate of 30 per centum of his salary plus six per centum for each complete year of service in excess of five years, but so that the rate of his pension shall not exceed 60 per centum of his salary. 1 thank all members for supporting me in the past in my efforts to provide adequate benefits to the judiciary with a view to attracting suitable appointees to the bench. I refer in particular to the recognition given by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Wolston. Debate, on motion of Mr R. J. Gibbs, adjourned.

EDUCATION (SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS RATIFICATION) BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 October (see p. 988) on Mr Powell's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr SMITH (Townsville West) (11.25 p.m.): The Opposition is prepared to accept that an understandable human error resulted in the subordinate instruments not being tabled in Parliament. It does not seek to establish major fault by the Minister or his officers in that respect. Nevertheless, I believe it is encumbent on me as the spokesman for this side of the House to put the view that we believe that this Chamber should not be bypassed in the administration of Government or the disbursements of its revenue. I believe I should mention a view that is held very strongly by this side, and which is well understood by the Government. I refer to the need for an all-party parliamentary public accounts committee to ensure the proper accountability of Government expend­ iture. The fact that the overwhelming number of legislatures to which the Parliament of Queensland bears some similarity embrace that concept should encourage the Govern­ ment to adopt the principle. The acceptance of that principle would ensure that the Government and, indeed, the Pariiament would enjoy greater public confidence and respect. 1246 9 October 1984 Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill

The Subordinate Legislation Committee is to be congratulated on ensuring that the error was brought to the attention of the Minister and the Parliament. Opposition members accept the Minister's statement that the regulations are solely to allow more efficient administration relative to the payment of allowances and borrowing authoris­ ations. The Opposition is also prepared to accept his assurance that the necessary procedures have been examined to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the oversight in these particular circumstances. The new regulations mentioned, that is, Nos. 50 and 51, are necessary to accom­ modate the fairly extensive changes to the system of allowances. With quite a deal of interest 1 read the comments contained in the speech made last Thursday by the member for Burdekin. Basically, they were an explanation of the reason behind the formulation of the new regulations, allowances, etc. Clearly there were inequalities under the old allowance arrangements. Undoubtedly, over time, problems will again arise with the new arrangement foreshadowed in the Budget speech. Also, over time, some further adjustment will be needed. The cost of the new allowances is stated in the Budget to be $3.1m. The Minister may care to give some further explanation on the distribution of that sum. I acknowledge that it is not strictly embraced by the Bill. If the information is not at hand tonight— and 1 would not necessarily expect it to be—he might care to provide the information by mail or, alternatively, in a ministerial statement. I am sure that, on this side of the House, the information would be of particular interest to the members for Cook, Mount Isa and Mourilyan. 1 am also confident that the Isolated Children's Parents Association will welcome this initiative. There is certainly considerable sympathy for the plight of children affected, particularly as farm and rural incomes have dropped dramatically in recent years. If the account of the member for Burdekin is accurate—1 have no reason to believe otherwise— it is pleasing that the conclusions reached by the committee are similar to those adopted by the Tannock report. Because there has been so much criticism of the Schools Commission and the Federal initiatives in the education area, the comment was refreshing, although it may have been somewhat unintentional. The problems of living away from home out of necessity are well understood by members on this side. It makes very little difference if the affected person is of tender years or a tertiary student, because basically the financial responsibility still rests with the parents. As a member of the Federal policy committee, 1 take this opportunity to briefly mention that the Commonwealth is giving considerable attention to the possibility of making special allowances to boarding schools, and to looking particularly at their incomes, under the new funding arrangements. That would, of course, apply from 1985. Under the funding arrangements a school's total private income for both operating costs and capital projects will be taken into account in determining the level of funding. The Commonwealth has indicated that it will consider appropriate advances for boarding costs to a determined standard, and any other justifiable cost, including debt-servicing for capital needs. 1 understand that the Schools Commission has been told to consult non-Government school authorities and advise on detailed arrangements for the implementation of that approach from 1985. The Commonwealth is certainly aware of the special burdens that the provision of boarding facilities places on schools. 1 agree that it is essential that those facilities be maintained as widely as possible, particularly for country students. 1 know the very important role that they play in Charters Towers and the area it serves, and 1 am very conscious of the fact that none of those schools is wealthy. In fact, they have been somewhat disadvantaged by the most recent adjustment. 1 certainly accept that there is some need for review. 1 would just like to say why there seems little purpose in debating the guide-lines for the allowances—1 realise what the Minister is talking about in this Bill—which are Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill 9 October 1984 1247

superseded by the proposals announced the other day. It would be remiss of me not to draw attention to the paucity of the allowances paid to children from low-income families. 1 submit that the quantum is low and the stringent guide-lines ensure that only a very small percentage of students are in fact beneficiaries. Indeed, from the answer provided by the Minister on 2 October it seems to me that only about 3 per cent of the secondary school population receive that benefit. Because the percentage of people now identified as being within the low-income family bracket—or people with incomes below the poverty line—probably constitute about 20 per cent of the population, it seems to me that the guide-lines need to be broadened so that that 3 per cent bears some closer relationship to the people identified in the low-income category. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that at present the eligible recipients would have to come from a single-income family with no regular income other than perhaps a single social security benefit. I feel that that is just not adequate, and has not been adequate, and has not been adequate for a long time. I would have welcomed some adjustment to that allowance. I have said something already today about the Education Vote, and I certainly contend that it is less generous than 1 thought on first examination. I will take the opportunity again tonight to point out that Commonwealth outlays this year increased by 11.2 per cent to $4.5 billion, which is approximately 4'/2 times the total State outlay. Most Government Ministers have had lot to say about what the Federal Government would do in the way of funding for independent schools, and it was all adverse and inflammatory. Understandably, since the figures have been released they have gone to water. I hope that those who did make those comments are now honest enough to feel a little embarrassed. I have here a copy of a press release from the National Catholic Education Commission, which is very generous in its praise and appreciation of the recently announced Federal initiatives. The concluding paragraph of the release signed by the chairman, the Reverend John Williams, stated— "The National Catholic Eduction Commission wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the decision of the government to provide extra funds for schooling within the present economic restraints. The National Catholic Education Commission welcomes the recognition by the government of the right of parents to choose the type of schooling they want for their children and of its obligation to be a partner in the funding of that right of choice." That is a very welcome statement. There were other initiatives, including student assistance totalling $437.3m, which represented an increase of 17 per cent, and living allowances to tertiary students, which were increased by 10 per cent. Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the honourable member is speaking to the legislation before the House. I draw your attention to the fact that he is straying from the subject-matter of the legislation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr SMITH: Mr Speaker, 1 have one more brief comment to make on that. Payments to parents of secondary students rose by about 15 per cent. 1 mention those figures merely to show the wide range of assistance provided by the Federal Government, including allowances. The legislation that is required to validate the borrowing for grammar schools comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Education. I understand that such matters are effectively the responsibility of Treasury. The payment of interest subsidies to independent schools, other than grammar schools, appears to come within the purview 1248 9 October 1984 Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill of the Works Department. It is not a contentious point, but I would certainly welcome a clarification of those administrative arrangements. Mr SIMPSON: (Cooroora) (11.37 p.m.): I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation. Mr Comben: That is not what you said in the committee. Mr SIMPSON: I was about to point out for the benefit of the Opposition the reason for the setting-up of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation and the function that it performs in this Chamber. I am disappointed that one of the members of the committee should start to criticise the work done by the committee. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SIMPSON: The deputy chairman of the committee (Mr Stephan) has indicated, by way of interjection, that the honourable member for Windsor is not always present at committee meetings. The members of the committee are Mr Stephan, Mr Jennings, Mr Alison, Mr Comben, Mr Veivers and Mr Gygar. One of the responsibiUties of the committee is to consider all regulations, rules, by­ laws, ordinances. Orders in Council and proclamations that are required by legislation to be laid on the table of this House and be subject to a motion for disallowance. It is understandable that the Minister, who is a former chairman of the committee, is in tune with the safeguards provided by this Assembly. Regulations prescribed by legislation passed by this Assembly must be considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and by this Assembly. Another responsibility of the committee is to ensure that regulations are in accord with the general objects of the Acts that bring those regulations into being and that they do not trespass unduly on rights previously established by law. In this case it was a benefiting regulation that needed to be considered by the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. The committee considers such regulations when they err from the intent of the original legislation. If that is the case, the matter is brought to the attention of the responsible Minister in the hope that the legislation can be amended or the regulations that were tabled can be corrected. The committee must also consider whether the regulations contain matter which, in the committee's opinion, should properly be deaU with by an Act of Parliament. That sometimes happens, but it is a question for the Minister and the Government to consider. There may also be some special reason why the form or purport of the regulations calls for elucidation. In other words, it may need to be written in simpler or plainer language. That is also brought to the attention of the Minister and the Government. I believe that that is an important part of the function of Parliament. The Government is very receptive to the need for clear regulations that can be followed, and it wUl continue to pursue that line. Whether the regulations unduly make rights dependent on administrative or judicial decisions is also considered by the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. In other words, power and responsibility must be vested in the Parliament, and that is the whole idea of Parliaments, anyway. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the oversight that was made by way of human error on this occasion. That is a good indication that the system is working properiy in this place. I am a little disappointed that the member for Windsor does not see it that way, and I would appreciate his co-operation in the future to support what the Government considers is an important committee of the Pariiament. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (11.42 p.m.): So often in this place legislation comes before honourable members which, so soon after its passage, needs amending. This evening. Education (Subordinate Instmments Ratification) Bill 9 October 1984 1249 the Judges' Pensions Act was amended again. It is very rare that regulations which have not been tabled must be placed before the House in the form of a Bill in order that they can be enacted. As the honourable member for Townsville West pointed out, the Opposition is very tolerant in this case. However, Opposition members hope that this situation will not occur on a regular basis. We understand that human error is the reason in this case, and we cannot account for it. The Bill before the Chamber is significant because it provides for a measure of Government funding to parents of students and to schools in the State of Queensland. This level of assistance will be provided by the State Government to assist people in providing the necessities of education for their student children or to help schools to make provision for the accommodation of and assistance to those students attending school. The Bill is interesting also because it is often said that the contributions of the Government to the necessary expenditures relating to education is insufficient. I had recourse today to note statements from p. and c. associations, particularly the one at the Redbank Plains State School. The report from that p. and c. association pointed out that it was raising almost $20,000 per annum to provide necessities at the school. Half of that sum is spent on basic items such as class-room reading books, cleansing agents for the school, floorpolish , typewriter repairs and for repairing and servicing photocopiers. It would be naive to think that parents who receive a textbook allowance will not put that allowance into the general revenues of that family. So much of that allowance is eaten up by the funds that parents are asked to contribute to provide for the sort of equipment in schools that one would have thought would be the prerogative of the Education Department to provide. Mr Scott: That is another form of indirect taxation that the Govemment levies. Mr HAMILL: That is quite right. As I pointed out earlier in the year, p. and c. associations have to contribute large sums of money. It has been suggested that they contribute as much as $22m or $25m a year towards the upkeep of the basic amenities within schools. The sum involved represents a broadly based community tax that is imposed upon parents of schoolchildren and it indicates a lack of adequate funding by the State Government of the education system. I also pointed out in earlier debates that the Schools Commission report for 1981- 82 shows that recurrent expenditures for secondary students in Queensland lag by approximately $404 per student behind the six-State average. The Minister might suggest that these figures are old ones. However, they are the most recent figures published and they appear in the Schools Commission report of January this year. A good deal of propaganda has emanated from the Government in the wake of the State Budget. Education expenditures for 1984-85 have increased above those for the previous year, but the expenditures for the previous year saw the establishment of a new record by the Queensland Government, namely, a 10-year low in the proportion of consolidated revenue that is devoted to education. So the increase as set out in this year's Budget is an increase on a very low base indeed. A comparison between the proportion of consolidated revenue that is devoted to education expenditures this year and the proportion devoted 10 years ago shows that this year's proportion is well below that of 10 years ago. Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. This member also is straying from the subject-matter of the legislation before the House. The debate is becoming a free debate on funding of education, when the Bill is a ratification Bill. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAMILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The State Government has much to answer for in relation to expenditure on education. The BUI provides for disbursements into 1250 9 October 1984 Education (Subordinate Instmments Ratification) Bill the education system—into a very important part of the system. It provides for dis­ bursements into the pockets of Queensland families. A point to be recognised in relation to the Bill concerns approved schools. The Opposition does not object to the Bill, under which the regulations refer to allowances that are given to students at approved schools or to principals of approved schools. The term "approved schools" is an intriguing one and one that we as members ought to bear in mind when determining exactly what it is we are dealing with. Very often this year, the question of what is a school or what is an approved school has taxed the minds of honourable members. Mr POWELL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is straying very much from the tenor of the Bill. There is no reason for him to want to debate approved schools within this context. I seek your ruling, Mr Speaker, on the debate and the guide­ lines for it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled on that point. I ask the honourable member to continue but to keep to the content of the Bill. Mr HAMILL: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am disappointed that the Minister took a point of order in relation to approved schools, because the term "approved schools" appears on pages 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. The Minister is erring when he suggests that my remarks relating to approved schools are not relevant. Mr Scott: That is the basis of the legislation. The money is going to approved schools. Mr HAMILL: Indeed. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your presence of mind in mling that the Minister's point of order was a spurious one. Mr Comben: Even Mr Innes from the Liberal Party was against him. Mr HAMILL: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by honourable members who have read the Bill and are aware of its contents. Mr SPEAKER: Order! 1 ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr HAMILL: I wish to raise the issue of approved schools. I would hope that the Minister's expenditures would be authorised under the regulations contained in the Bill. In one instance, they provide for considerable sums of money to be paid to the principals of approved schools and, in other instances, to students who attend approved schools. On sundry occasions earlier this year what is in fact an approved school was raised in this Parliament. I am indebted to the Minister for his endeavours to explain to this House exactly what he means by an approved school. It would appear that an approved school is a school that is in receipt of funding from the Education Department in this State. That is very helpful, because that information has only been elicited by way of questions directed to the Minister. The terminology "school" is not defined in the Education Act, although amendments were passed in this Assembly at the end of last year. From the occurrences in this State in recent times, I suspect that there would be attending what could only be described as pseudo-schools pupils who would not be eligible to funding under the Bill, because the Bill provides allowances to those students at "approved schools" The Minister might be able to inform the House of the exact situation. Mr Scott: He has a stubborn look in his eye; I don't think that he will. Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill 9 October 1984 1251

Mr HAMILL: 1 would hope that he would, because it is a matter that is taxing the minds of many people in the State. The community is concerned about what is and what is not a school in the State of Queensland. The Minister has pointed out in this House that pupils may attend a school which, in the opinion of their parents, is the most suitable place for them to go to obtain an education. Of course, at present we are dealing with a different body altogether. In fact, in the Act it is described as an approved school. Because there is ambiguity in the Bill, 1 would ask the Minister in his reply to explain the differences. Under the Education Act, according to the Minister in reply to a question asked by the member for Sherwood in March, a child between the ages of 6 and 15 must attend the school at which he is enrolled. The legislation does not state that it is an approved school. Presumably, the Bill provides disbursements to only a certain section of the Queensland community. If it is not an approved school, one would wonder about the ambit of the legislation. The Minister might elucidate further in his reply what he means by a school. This year the Queensland community has raised what is meant exactiy by the word "school" In a fairly trite comment, when asked a similar question in this Chamber earlier this year, the Minister said, "A school is either a Government school or a non-Government school." To answer a question in that way lends no light whatsoever to the meaning of the word "school" The Bill at hand, which refers to "approved schools", leaves members in a dilemma. Does the Bill refer to an approved Government school or approved non- Government school? Does it refer to tutorial services or some other variety of creature that masquerades as a school in this State? I ask the Minister to explain exactly what he means by "approved school" Mr Scott: 1 know a lot of children who missed out on the opportunity of getting secondary scholarships under the previous arrangements because they were not attend­ ing Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HAMILL: That is correct. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is straying from the Bill. That particular issue is rather confusing. Mr HAMILL: Mr Speaker, I am sorry that you are confused. 1 believe that every member of this Parliament is confused, because the Minister's explanations about the nature of a school in Queensland are very confusing indeed. I ask the Minister in his reply to state exactly what he means by "approved school" The term "approved school" appears frequently in the Bill. Mr SPEAKER: Order! On many occasions the honourable member has asked the Minister to reply on that matter. I am sure that he will do so. Mr HAMILL: I am pleased that he will do so, because it has been suggested that "approved school" means a school to which an inspector will go and inspect the nature of the education that is being provided there. So often one finds in pronouncements of the Minister that such approval is not granted to the whole range of educational or pseudo-educational institutions. I and other members are waiting with bated breath for the Minister to present his long-promised paper on that very issue. I hope he gives an indication of when he will present that paper, which will finally resolve probelms arising under the provisions of the Bill. I address the matter of allowances provided by the Bill—an important matter indeed. The first schedule to the Bill provides to the parents of Queensland students textbook allowances ranging from $40 in Year 8 to $80 in Year 11, with sundry amounts for the years in between. 1252 9 October 1984 Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill

Mr Scott: That was last year, of course. Mr HAMILL: Indeed. The point that ought to be made is that those allowances do not nearly approximate the cost of textbooks for what is assumed to be the free education system in Queensland. I ask the Government seriously to take on board suggestions that schools be encouraged in every way possible to establish textbook clubs to ensure that the burden of providing textbooks is not placed so heavily upon Queensland parents. Already, they contribute heavily to p. and c. associations. They contribute heavily towards State Government taxes and charges. In addition, they are required to fund the basic necessities of their children's education—textbooks—over and above the meagre allowance provided by the State Government. The Minister is, I hope, a forward- thinking Minister for Education. I ask him to devise some sort of book club, as often exists in primary schools for reading books Mr Powell: Do you want stereotyped textbooks? Mr HAMILL: No, I am not talking about stereotyped textbooks. In the range of book club offerings to pupils in Queensland schools, there is a very wide variety. I suggest that, as in so many other areas of economy when books are purchased in bulk, the cost is much more reasonable. If a certain textbook is prescribed, why should the school not endeavour to reduce the burden on parents? Because the Bill relates to the disbursement of funds to the families of Queensland, it is very important to them. I have directed my remarks to the issue of what are and what are not approved schools. As you have been confused, Mr Speaker, so are we all confused. The Minister's remarks on the subject have been very confusing indeed. It is most important that the Government consider seriously the contributions made by Queensland families to the education of their children. The meagre allowances prescribed by the Bill go but a Uttle way to meeting the enormous burden imposed on Queensland families to provide basic educational necessities for their children. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (11.59 p.m.): Earlier today I referred to the level of importance attached to the proceedings of the House by the Government. I said that, acknowledging that the Treasurer is also the Premier, and is busy, not even the Minister Assisting the Treasurer had been in attendance for substantial periods of the debate on the Budget. It is probably the first time in the last 27 years when such contempt has been shown for the most important function of the Parliament in the year. An indication of the problems that the Parliament is currently having is contained in this legislation.

Wednesday, 10 October 1984 Mr Gunn: He does not even work his own electorate. Mr INNES: If the Minister did his own job properly, that would help. The legislation is before the Parliament to cure the defects of the Government and the administration. They ignored their own procedures, failed on two occasions to carry out the set procedures—all honourable members know that those procedures exist— with regard to the tabling of the delegated legislation and failed to show respect for this House and table the regulations. In fact, it was only the action of one of those sometimes much criticised committees of the House that brought to light the fact that disbursements were being made without the authority of the House and without the authority of law. It is not good enough that legislation such as this has to come before the House. The Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill should be titied the Education (Substandard Efficiency) Bill. The Parliament is supreme, and the forms of Parliament must be respected. If it had not been for the work and efficiency of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, this problem would not have been revealed. In a very simple way, that demonstrates why committees of this House are necessary and the value of their role, which is to check on the workings of government. On some occasions they have quite clearly been demonstrated to be defective. Education (Subordinate Instruments Ratification) Bill 9 October 1984 1253 Of course, one supports the Bill. The expenditure referred to was necessary, and one regrets that legislation of this type comes before the House. One would hope that, in future, the general respect for the importance and dominance of this institution is shown. Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (12.3 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I acknowledge the remarks made by the Opposition education spokesman, the honourable member for Townsville West, and thank him for his sensible attitude to the Bill. As I said in my second-reading speech, an honest mistake was made and I think that the majority of honourable members—the member for Sherwood excepted—will accept that mistakes can be made honestly. It is a shame that members can stand in this Chamber and not recognise that. It can tmthfuUy be said that a person who has never made a mistake has never done anything. The honourable member for Townsville West spoke about proper accountability. I assure the House that there is proper accountability both within my department and in the expenditure of moneys by the Government in toto. The Financial Administration and Audit Act in Queensland is the most stringent of its type in any ParUament in Australia. As a result of that, there is proper accountability. The honourable member for Townsville West then dealt with some matters that, in my opinion, are not part of the Bill and therefore not relevant to the debate. He did, however, raise the matter of the grammar school ratification, and questioned the administrative arrangement. Whenever a school requires a Government guarantee for a loan, the application goes through the Education Department, and that is the simple reason why the ratification is applied for in this Bill. 1 thank the honourable member for Cooroora for his remarks. He is the chairman of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, and I thank him and his committee for their forbearance on this issue. As a former chairman of that committee, I understand its workings extremely well. I was extremely disappointed with the interjection of the honourable member for Windsor, who is apparently bringing a bipartisanship into the committee that was never there before. When I was chairman there were two Labor Party members on the committee, the late honourable member for Archerfield and the honourable member for South Brisbane, both of whom worked in a completely non­ partisan manner. Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order. The Minister seems to be accusing me of some sort of partisanship. I do not accept that. I simply said that he was not doing his job in replying to our correspondence. That is not being partisan; it is being constructive and correct. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi There is no point of order. Mr POWELL: It is also being pompous, and the honourable member might learn that if he remains here longer. 1 guess that the electors of Windsor wUl have enough sense not to vote for somebody who gets lost on the Bruce Highway between Childers and Howard. The honourable member for Ipswich carried on with a lot of nonsense that was not part of this Bill. The Assembly is discussing the ratification of regulations which, through an oversight, were not tabled. This is neither the time nor the place to debate the issues that he raised. In a very cynical fashion the honourable member for Sherwood raised the issue of the Government's respect for the Pariiament. Mr Speaker, I say through you to the honourable member for Sherwood that if this Government did not have respect for the Pariiament this Bill would not now be before the House. The introduction of such a Bill is clear evidence that the Government does have respect for the Pariiament. 1254 9 October 1984 Adjoumment 1 believe that the criticism levelled by the honourable member for Sherwood at the Honourable the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer needs to be answered. The criticism was rot. The honourable gentleman was in the Chamber listening to the debate on the Financial Statement at every opportunity, and he answered very adequately any valid criticism that was raised. I will conclude by repeating my opening remarks: A mistake has been made. We admit that mistake. I believe that members who are honourable will recognise that. 1 commend the BUI to the House. Motion (Mr Powell) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, and first and second schedules, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Powell, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House): 1 move— "That the House do now adjourn." Brisbane Prison Complex Mr McELLIGOTT (Townsville) (12.11 a.m.): There is a grab for power or, should I say, a bid to retain power, going on in the Brisbane Prison Complex at the moment. The people involved are attempting to take advantage of the general disquiet among prison officers throughout Queensland. The bid is being made by the emergency squad, which is battling to retain its identity and power as an elite group. This is the special unit that used to operate the infamous "black hole" at Boggo Road. Its members resent the concessions being granted to prisoners as part of overdue reforms in the system and they see that there is no future for the squad. Two weeks ago there were stories in the media about imminent riots among prisoners. That was mbbish, and it has been proved to be so. The prisoners generally are very appreciative of the changes and are not about to misbehave and thereby lose the concessions. When that did not work, there was this latest report that seeks to create sensation and a certain amount of fear—again to argue for the retention of this squad. With two notable exceptions, there is nothing in the report that one would not expect to find in any prison throughout the world. There is a suggestion of drugs, escape attempts, SP betting and standover tactics. The two exceptions to which I refer are the allegations that an eariy release can be bought for $6,000—the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs has since said that that is incorrect—and the alleged relationship between a Roman Catholic nun and a prisoner. Quite frankly, that is gutter stuff and must be a severe embarrassment to the only Roman Catholic nun who regularly visits the Brisbane Prison Complex. What should have been a routine report has been sensationalised for a purpose. I must ask the question: Why was the report given to the member for Aspley and not to the Minister or the Comptroller-General? Simply because those who prepared the report wanted to be sure that it would get wide publicity—and who better to achieve that purpose than the member for Aspley? What an embarrassment to his Minister who, on many occasions, has declared that all is well in Queensland prisons. Clearly all is not well. Quite frankly, the member for Aspley has been conned. He has been used as a pawn in this desperate bid to reject change. In my speech during the Budget debate, I congratulated the Minister for implementing overdue concessions; but 1 warned him then that there would be opposition, and I told Adjournment 9 October 1984 1255 him that more resources would be necessary. Now he must show his resolve. He cannot change direction now, or he will lose the repect of officers and prisoners alike. I have no doubt that among prison officers there are those who are enthusiastic about these changes and clearly there are those who are strongly opposed to them. However, I suspect that the vast majority of officers simply want to get on with their job under positive leadership and direction. There are strong suggestions that standover tactics are being used to capture the minds of the uncommitted. An officer is reported to have suffered a broken jaw. This is heavy stuff and clearly calls for a full inquiry. All of the other States have been through this process, and the Opposition would certainly support a similar move in Queensland. It will be interesting to see how a Government that says it will not respond to demands from prisoners wiU respond to demands from prison officers. We cannot condone again the use of punishment cells that are contrary to United Nations minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners and have been condemned by the Nagle royal commission into prisons in New South Wales. 1 believe that the greatest priority is for the Prisons Department to formulate a clear statement of aims and objectives. The policy endorsed by the Nagle royal comniission accepted the aims of imprisonment as being punishment, retribution, deterrence and the protection of society. The report emphasised that the loss of liberty is the extent of punishment. While in prison, a prisoner should be treated justly and humanely and attempts should be made at rehabilitation. Prison officers have a very difficult job, and any inquiry should consider better pay and conditions aimed at easing the high burn­ out rate among prison officers. 1 have heard some extraordinary stories regarding the problems in the Queensland prison system. On a previous occasion, I referred to the theft of building materials in Townsville. I have been told today that 54 sets of handcuffs are missing from Brisbane gaol that cannot be accounted for. Clearly, there are real problems in the prison system. Distmst exists among the prison officers and there are a number of bullies, to whom I have referred. I understand that one officer, accompanied by a savage dog, parades around Brisbane gaol with a large revolver tied to his side. He has buiU up quite a reputation among his fellow officers for stand-over tactics. That is not good enough. The member for Aspley has been negligent in his duty. He could have produced that report directiy to the Minister without attempting to sensationalise it and add further to the problems. An inquiry is called for to settle once and for all the difficulties that obviously exist in the prison system. As I said, it is a difficult issue that requires the undivided attention of the Government and the community.^ Senate Inquiry into Allegations Against Mr Justice Murphy Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (12.16 a.m.): I will speak tonight about the behaviour of people at the top of Australian society. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to the time when Sir Robert Menzies retired as Prime Minister. Although I have mentioned this before, I think it is relevant today. Arthur Calwell, the Leader of the Opposition, said at the time that while Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of this land, there was never any shadow of doubt or hint or sign of graft and corruption in the Government of the day. That is the greatest thing that could be said for a democracy, and it was said many years ago. Recently, after 30 years, papers relating to the Petrov affair were released. Over the years, many comments have been made, amongst other things, about the involvement of Sir Robert Menzies in a conspiracy. Much doubt was cast upon him at the time. The papers show quite clearly that there was no conspiracy and that the Petrov affair was handled properiy and decently, in accordance with the pattern of Government in those days. 1256 9 October 1984 Adjournment What a difference in today's world. The taint of graft and corruption pervades the highest offices in the land. That is extremely serious, and it is eroding public confidence in not only the top level of Government but also the top level of the judiciary. Mr Lee: It is more than a taint though, isn't it? Mr JENNINGS: That is right. The current Senate inquiry is very serious indeed. What is even more serious is that Mr Justice Murphy is continuing to act on the High Court bench. He should stand aside until the inquiry is finished. His presence on the bench casts a reflection on the High Court itself, on the other judges on the High Court bench and on every court in the land. It is setting a precedent. Evidence has been given to the Senate inquiry, and I wiU not comment on it. Because it appears in the newspapers every day, everybody in Australia is reading about it. The Premier of New South Wales, who is whizzing around the world, has criticised one of the chief witnesses at the inquiry and threatened that witness with the loss of his job. When the Senate inquiry would not release the names of two people mentioned before it, Premier Wran said in London that the names should be released. The committee of inquiry released the names and, the next day, the Premier said that it was scandalous that his name was mentioned. He cannot have it both ways. A few weeks ago he also asked what he should do with five bungling judges. What sort of a Premier is he? The important thing to realise is that the code of behaviour in Australian society permeates from the top down. The Australian people must be able to look up to those at the top. Any High Court judge—indeed, any judge—would understand the seriousness of the situation and how disturbing it is. It is destabilising and embarrassing. Just imagine how embarrassed a litigant would be to have a High Court judge sitting on the bench under the current circumstances. I cannot understand why the High Court allows the situation to continue. The situation is setting a bad precedent and one that must not be set. Once such a code of behaviour is set, it will continue. There should never be any doubts about the highest court in the land. If doubts are held, doubts will arise about its decisions. Everyone is aware of the importance of the decision on the Franklin dam. It had a vast impact on the Constitution. No longer can cases be taken to the Privy Council; they can be taken no further than the High Court. The High Court lays down the code for all other judges to follow, and that code is followed by personnel in all areas of public service. I ask the High Court to act. Justice Murphy should stand aside immediately. It is absolutely vital that he do that until the matter is cleared up once and for all. Amnesty International Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (12.21 a.m.): Before addressing myself to the main topic that I wish to discuss, I must respond to the remarks made by the honourable member for Southport. He suggested that if someone casts an innuendo or a slur against another person, that person must stand aside. The thread that runs through all English common law is that an accused person, before being found guilty, must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr Davis: If Mr Jennings is right, there would be no-one left on the Government side. Mr COMBEN: That is quite right. If the proposition espoused by the honourable member for Southport was agreed to in this place, every time an Opposition member made an allegation about a Government member that Government member would have to resign. Not one Minister would be left in Cabinet. The comments that were made by Adjournment 9 October 1984 1257 the honourable member for Southport are what Opposition members have come to expect from the Government. It has one rule for the Labor Party, one rule for the judiciary and another rule for the National Party. I turn now to a less contentious matter. As honourable members are aware, at the end of the previous session, a parliamentary group of Amnesty International, the human rights organisation, was convened in this Parliament. That parliamentary group joins similar groups working actively in the South Australian, New South Wales and Federal Parliaments. In each of those Pariiaments, support for and membership of Amnesty International is totally non-partisan, with substanial membership from each party. It is pleasing to see wide aU-party membership of the new Queensland group. It is important that Amnesty International have a strong voice everywhere, not just in this Parliament, because for many thousands of people throughout the world Amnesty International stands for a freedom that we take for granted. Since Amnesty International was established in London in 1961, it has attracted many thousands of members from more than 100 countries throughout the world. Together, those members are working to help men, women and children who are prisoners of conscience. In general, the only crimes that those "prisoners" have committed is that their political or religious beliefs or their ethnic origins are not approved of by the regime in power. Through letter-writing campaigns and many other techniques developed over the years, Amnesty International works in certain specific areas of human rights. Firstly, it seeks the release of men and women who are detained anywhere for their beliefs, colour, gender, ethnic origins, language or religion, provided they have not used or advocated violence. Secondly, Amnesty International advocates fair and early trials for all political prisoners, and works on behalf of such persons who are detained without charge or trial. Thirdly, it opposes without reservation the death penalty and torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of all prisoners. Amnesty International bases its actions on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as on other international covenants for human rights in civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres. The successes towards which Amnesty International has contributed in terms of those aims, and the worid-wide respect that it has in the field of human rights, are due to two things: firstiy, its clear, simple and firm mandate, and, secondly, its financial independence. Amnesty International has no ties with any Government or political faction, religious creed or commercial interest. Its funds come solely from membership subscriptions and donations. The aims of the Queensland pariiamentary group of Amnesty International will be to speak against violation of human rights throughout the world and to make approaches to representatives of other Governments in respect of individual prisoners of conscience. Another aim is to bring the work of Amnesty International to the attention of Queens­ landers. We as members of Pariiament have a unique opportunity and responsibUity to speak and act for those people who, through no fault of their own, are prisoners of conscience. Pariiamentarians have immediate access to legislators in other States and countries. We are able to travel and see at first-hand the problems of individuals. We have access to the media of the State. That can be used to the advantage of those less fortunate than ourselves. It is a heavy responsibility that members should not take lightly. Finally, 1 commend to the House the many publications produced by Amnesty International on human rights and various specific issues, such as torture, child prisoners, women and political prisoners. A recent excellent publication is "China—Violations of 1258 9 October 1984 Adjoumment Human Rights" It deals with prisoners of conscience and the death penalty in the People's Republic of China. It is an excellent publication that deals with prisons, detention centres and labour camps throughout China in which prisoners of conscience are held. For the information of honourable members, I table the document. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Finally, I confirm that Amnesty International would even support the release of political prisoners such as the member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald) who usually would be gaoled for attempting to bribe bailiffs. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. I understood the honourable member to say that I should be gaoled for attempting to bribe bailiffs. I find the remark offensive and ask him to withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr COMBEN: I am not sure that I made that remark, but I withdraw it without qualification. Road Safety Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (12.27 p.m.): I bring to the attention of the House the issue of road safety. Flashing lights could be used on highways to frighten away wild and domestic animals, such as kangaroos, horses, cattle and wombats, which cause death and injury to about 30 persons each year in Australia, including 5 persons in Queensland. In Austria and Holland a reflector picks up the beam from the headlights of a vehicle on the road and transmits a red flash. It is believed that the animals interpret the red light as a fire. They are then frightened away from the road. If that system was successful in Australia, it could play a role in the provision of road safety. When I was overseas I tried to determine how successful the system had been. However, my Dutch and German was not good enought to let me determine how effective it was in keeping deer off the roads. Unless a certain amount of traffic is using a road, the incidence of flashing lights is not great. This safety procedure should be evaluated in Australia. The safety procedure involves a triangular prism being placed at headlight height on the side of the road. In daylight, the prism has a white appearance. However, when a headlight beam passes through the prism, a flashing red light is transmitted at an angle to the road. Subsequently, other reflectors pick up the flashing light. The flash of red light can be transmitted through forest vegetation. The system is used extensively in overseas national parks. Greater access to national parks is being given to people. Steps are being taken to avoid injury to animals. The project is worthy of consideration in Queensland. In other countries a motorist at an intersection controlled by traffic-lights is allowed to do a left-hand turn if it is safe to do so. Mr Davis: They have started in New South Wales. Mr SIMPSON: Bearing in mind that in the United States of America vehicles travel on the other side of the road, the same practice is adopted with traffic turning right. It works very effectively by clearing a lane that is often congested. It is particularly helpful where there are pedestrian-activated lights. If it is being practised in New South Wales, and Australia has a uniform code, I wonder how it is working. We should be looking also at international signs. With more and more tourists coming to Australia, we ought to examine the whole system of road signs. As most tourists are used to travelling on the other side of the road, they are at a disadvantage. We need additional signs. I suggested to the Main Roads Department that rumble strips be placed on the verges of highways. They are now being used, but they tend to lose their effectiveness when they become worn. The strips are designed to alert drivers who become drowsy Adjournment 9 October 1984 1259

and drift off the road. The aggregate used should be of a heavier grade so that the noise created is more effective in alerting drivers of the danger.

Door to Door (Sales) Act Mr VEIVERS (Ashgrove) (12.32 a.m.): Last week I asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, who is responsible for consumer affairs, about the Door to Door (Sales) Act. I asked him— "Why is it that some companies, such as Permanent Pantry, which supply bulk frozen foods and sell other products ranging from freezers to video equipment and kitchen-ware—and, I might add, charge a substantial membership fee—are allowed to get around the terms of the Act by claiming that the consumer has invited them into the home .?" 1 have a letter from a Mrs Shea of East Ipswich, who writes— "I did not invite them into my home. They got in contact with me and invited themselves. They do it in such a way that you are under no obligation to buy with promises of free giveaways, in other words it 'doesn't hurt to look'. Unfortunately, once inside the home it's a different story. They use high pressure sale tactics and work it so you are unaware of the hidden costs of the contract. In my case, he would not leave until we had signed the contract. I had signed the contract 3 p.m. Thursday 12th April. On Friday 13th between 8/9 a.m. I tried to cancel the contract. There was nothing I could do they said. My contract was being processed. They had rung their Finance Co. (Nat-West) for approval. 1 was told the manager was the only person to cancel a policy and he was away until the following week. 1 felt they were moving too quickly on my policy—by Friday afternoon I had been in touch with David Hamill ALP Member for Ipswich. He referred me to a solicitor, Mr K. Bradley, who had helped other people in my situation against Permanent Pantry Ltd. I rang their Finance Co., to stop approval and explain situation—they still persisted in going ahead. It was a matter between me and Permanent Pantry. The following week the Queensland Manager of Permanent Pantry got in touch with me to try and persuade me to change my mind. He said he would keep us to the contract, as we had signed, and there was nothing I could do. However, by this time, all legal groundwork, letters etc., had been completed, and I was most fortunate they did not take the matter further." The reason they did not take the matter further, of course, is that food contracts are not covered by the Door to Door (Sales) Act. It is about that matter that 1 directed my question to the Minister, but he treated it as a joke. I have with me a contract entered into by a Mr and Mrs Gifford of Ferny Grove. The details are that the initial purchase of food supplies cost $299 and the food service membership cost $1,295. At the same time, supposedly buying freezer food goods, they purchased a Sharp video cassette recorder for $1,079. The money they borrowed from Permanent Pantry totalled $2,673. The amount payable over 60 months at $90 a month was $5,400, of which $2,673 was borrowed from the company. What is absolutely ridiculous—and the Minister does not seem to understand—is that the food membership fee of $1,295 is charged under the contract at interest rates. In other words, when a person signs a contract he pays interest on his membership fee. That is absolutely disgraceful. These people were not able to get out of the contract. The company, Permanent Pantry, allowed them to get out of the purchase of the Sharp video, because that is covered by the terms of the Door to Door (Sales) Act, but they have been committed to the continuation of the contract. They have been very, very unhappy about it. All endeavours by Mr and Mrs Gifford to get relief have come to no avail. I now ask the 1260 9 October 1984 Adjoumment

Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, who is responsible for the Consumer Affairs Bureau, to look very, very seriously at the activities of Permanent Pantry in this State. Land Tenure Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (12.36 a.m.): Fortunately Queensland has only a few places that have land tenure problems left over from mining operations. Gympie is one of those areas. From time to time the various types of land tenure create unacceptable problems. The present problem is the non-acceptance by building societies of residence areas as legal land tenure. When real estate agents ascertain that a block of land is an RA, they will not take prospective buyers out to view it. The problem has been recently highlighted by the legal aspect discovered by the building societies. I do not know whether the problem has been caused only recently by building societies being a little hesitant to accept RAs as legal tenure or whether the problem has always existed. Before a person can hold a residence area he must hold a miner's right. The problem appears to be that generally a miner's right has to be owned by a person and not by a company. If an RA has to be forfeited because the owner cannot meet his commitments, there appears to be some question whether building societies can hold a miner's right, which would enable them to occupy the RA. As I pointed out, fortunately few places in Queensland have the problem, but that does not make the problem less important or mean that those who hold RAs will find it any easier to sell them. Owners of RAs are trying to convince building societies that RAs are a secure form of tenure on which borrowing can take place. 1 must compliment the Minister in his efforts to enable people to convert RAs to freehold tenure. That is an answer for those people who take that step, but some people have not done so, and that creates problems. Real estate agents are very concerned about the problem because it is cutting down on the number of sales that they can make and also because it is a waste of time to take prospective buyers to view residence areas. I will highlight the problem in a letter to the Minister and ask that the problem be investigated. The obvious answer lies in freeholding. I beUeve that a person who has taken the decision not to proceed with a freeholding arrangement still has the ability to secure legal tenure. He can become the owner of an RA through the purchase of a miner's right, and that needs to be investigated. The House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. (Wednesday).