Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2537

TUESDAY, 11 MAY 1993

Under the provisions of the motion for special adjournment agreed to by the House on 19 March 1993, the House met at 10 a.m. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Audit Legislation Amendment Bill; Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill; Water Resources Amendment Bill; Townsville City Council (Douglas Land Development) Bill; Transport Legislation Amendment Bill; Harbours Amendment Bill; Lotto Amendment Bill; Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Repeal Bill.

ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Nomination of Ms L. J. Power Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to inform the House of the absence of the Chairman of Committees, Mr Heinrich Palaszczuk, who is on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business in London. During his absence, I nominate Ms Laurel Jean Power to act as Chairman of Committees.

PAPERS TABLED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: I advise the House that papers were tabled during the recess in accordance with the list circulated to members in the Chamber. Mr Speaker— 30 April 1993— Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts—Report on the review of the Auditor-General’s first and second reports on audits performed for the year ended 30 June 1992: Matters concerning the Department of Primary Industries and associated documents Ordered to be printed. Electoral and Administrative Review Commission—Report on Review of Government Media and Information Services Ordered to be printed. The Clerk of the Parliament— 2 April 1993— 2538 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Annual Report for the period 1 July 1991 to 31 July 1992— National Companies and Securities Commission—Fourteenth and Final Report and Financial Statements 30 April 1993— Annual Report for the year ended 31 December 1992— Ministerial Consultative Council on Curriculum.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Child Molesters From Mr Bennett (2 157 signatories) praying that the parole period be removed when sentencing child molesters, that offenders are given and serve maximum sentences and that their names be released for publication. Similar petitions were received from Mr McGrady (3 316 signatories) and from Mr Laming (387 signatories).

Queensland University of Technology Campus, Nambour From Mr Turner (451 signatories) praying that the new campus for the Queensland University of Technology be situated at Nambour and that funding be provided for the proposed university on that site.

Moorooka Police Station From Mr Foley (992 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that the Moorooka Police Station is not downgraded from its current 24-hour status.

Services on Doomben-Pinkenba Railway Line From Mr Santoro (404 signatories) praying that the Minister for Transport will not authorise cutbacks to rail services along the Doomben/Pinkenba line. Petitions received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Agricultural Standards Act— Agricultural Standards Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No.78 Art Unions and Public Amusements Act— Art Unions and Public Amusements Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 75 Chemical Usage (Agricultural & Veterinary) Control Act— Chemical Usage Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 77 Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act— Foreign Ownership of Land Register Regulation 1993, No. 86 Harbours Act— Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2539

Harbours (Reclamation of Land) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 67 Harbours (Hay Point) Amendment By-law (No. 2) 1993, No. 66 Justices Act— Justices (Places for Holding Magistrates Courts) Regulation 1993, No. 83 Land Act— Lands Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 84 Lands Legislation Amendment Act— Proclamation—certain provisions of the Act commence 26 March 1993, No. 88 Local Government Act— References, dated 29 March 1993, of reviewable local government matters to the Local Government Commissioner in relation to the common boundaries between the following Local Authorities— Albert and Beaudesert; Aurukun and Cook; Bundaberg, Woongarra, Gooburrum and Isis; Burdekin and Bowen; Burke and Mornington; Cairns and Mulgrave; Clifton, Cambooya, Gatton, Jondaryan and Pittsworth; Duaringa and Bauhinia; Emerald and Bauhinia; Esk and Kilcoy; Maryborough, Hervey Bay, Noosa and Widgee (Fraser Islander and Great Sandy Region); Gladstone and Calliope; Gold Coast, Albert and Beaudesert; Gympie and Widgee; Ipswich and Moreton; Mackay, Pioneer, Whitsunday, Mirani and Sarina; Maryborough and Hervey Bay; Maryborough, Woocoo and Biggenden; Mount Isa and Cloncurry; Noosa and Maroochy; Tambo and Murweh; Townsville, Thuringowa, Burdekin, Dalrymple and Hinchinbrook; Waggamba and Tara; Warwick, Glengallan, Rosenthal, Allora and Stanthorpe Meat Industry Act— Meat Industry Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1993, No. 68 National Parks and Wildlife Act— National Park 13 County of Uanda (Declaration) Order 1993, No. 71 Primary Producers’ Co-operative Associations Act— Primary Producers’ Co-operative Associations (Exemption) Regulation 1993, No. 79 Primary Producers’ Organisation and Marketing Act— Primary Producers’ Organisation and Marketing (Egg Marketing Boards Extension) Regulation 1993, No. 76 Property Law Act— Lands Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 84 Real Property Act— Real Property Regulation 1993, No. 87 River Improvement Trust Act— River Improvement Trust (Bremer River Improvement Trust) Order 1993, No. 69 River Improvement Trust (Pioneer River) Order 1993, No. 81 River Improvement Trust (Proserpine River) Order 1993, No. 80 State Development and Public Works Organization Act— State Development and Public Works Organisation (Bikeways Project Board) Order 1993, No. 72 2540 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2)— Proclamation—certain amendments to the Harbours Act 1955 commence 19 March 1993, No. 70 Supreme Court Act— Supreme Court Rules Amendment Order (No. 2) 1993, No. 82 University of Southern Queensland Act— Proclamation—certain members of the University of Southern Queensland Council assume office on 19 March 1993 Valuation of Land Act— Valuation of Land Regulation 1993, No. 85 Workplace Health and Safety Act— Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 73 Workplace Health and Safety (Plant) Code of Practice Approval Notice 1993, No. 74.

PAPER The following paper was laid upon the table of the House— Minister for Health (Mr Hayward)— Towards a Queensland Women's Health Policy—Social Justice for Women.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Former Deputy Police Commissioner Blizzard Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform the House of the circumstances relating to the Supreme Court action in regard to David Blizzard, the Commissioner of Police and me. I inform the House that Mr Justice Thomas, in the Supreme Court, has dismissed an application by Mr Blizzard relating to termination of his employment and has affirmed the legality of the dismissal which occurred. I further wish to talk about a call by Mr Blizzard in relation to more circumstances to be discussed regarding his termination of employment, and the support that has been given to him by the Opposition spokesman in this place, the honourable member for Crows Nest. I refer—— Mr FitzGerald: You are not debating, are you? Mr BRADDY: Certainly not. I refer particularly to four paragraphs of Mr Cooper’s media release. It is important that I respond to those paragraphs in this House. Mr Cooper said—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr BRADDY: The media release by Mr Cooper stated— “I have always defended the right of the Police Commissioner, Mr O’Sullivan, to select his own senior command structure. I do not retreat from that one millimetre. Mr Blizzard’s claim this evening remains a real cause for concern.” The media release further stated— “I don’t have any doubts at all, and never have, about the absolute honesty”—— Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2541

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is indulging in the practice of making a point for and a point against. This is not a ministerial statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Clayfield will resume his seat. Mr BRADDY: I repeat— “I don’t have any doubts at all, and never have, about the absolute honesty and integrity of Commissioner O’Sullivan, but Mr Blizzard’s claims still need investigation.” Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the Standing Order which states that ministerial statements are not an occasion for debating an issue. This is clearly a debate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Honourable the Minister. Mr BRADDY: Mr Cooper stated— “If the Government refuse to release Mr Blizzard from his secrecy”— I cannot read this—— An Opposition member: You can’t read. Mr BRADDY: It is such a poorly written release. Mr Cooper stated— “. . . his secrecy obligations, it would be seen as a deliberate cover-up, and the painfully won good name and reputation of the Queensland Police Service would suffer a terrible blow.” I wish to inform the House that two matters are pertinent. One is that the secrecy provisions do not apply in any way to Mr Blizzard—— Mr Cooper: Give him the guarantees here and now. Mr BRADDY: That is why I am on my feet. The honourable member should wait. Those secrecy provisions, that is, the confidential information in clause 14 of Mr Blizzard’s contract, do not in any way apply to the debate about the termination of his contract. Of course, Mr Cooper seeks to have it both ways. On the one hand, he states that Mr O’Sullivan is a man of absolute honesty and integrity. However, we all know that, on the other hand, Mr O’Sullivan terminated Mr Blizzard’s contract of employment. Anyone other than Mr Cooper would understand that if there was a conspiracy, Mr O’Sullivan had to be a part of it. He was the person who terminated Mr Blizzard’s contract. When Mr O’Sullivan and I both say, as we have said, that Mr O’Sullivan terminated the contract, in effect, Mr Cooper is saying that Mr O’Sullivan is telling untruths. Mr O’Sullivan terminated Mr Blizzard’s contract of employment. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. I find the statements made by the Minister offensive and untrue. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr BRADDY: To whom? Mr COOPER: Exactly what the Minister was saying—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member finds the statements offensive. Under the Standing Orders, the Minister must withdraw those remarks. Mr BRADDY: I withdraw those remarks. Mr O’Sullivan terminated the contract. Consequently, if there is a conspiracy, he had to be part of it. Of course, Mr Cooper—as he usually does—wants to have 50c each way. Let us be clear about this: the confidential information clause—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The Opposition would welcome the opportunity to debate this matter in the way in which—— 2542 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet! There is no point of order. I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. Honourable members, Standing Order 108A, which refers to ministerial statements, states— “A Minister of the Crown, by leave of the House, and so as not to interrupt any other business, may make a Statement relating to matters of Government policy or public affairs.” Mr BRADDY: Under those circumstances, the confidential information clause does not apply. Previously, I have said that publicly, and I am saying that here in this House. I go beyond that and give the House an absolute assurance that if Mr Blizzard wishes to come forward anywhere in this country and talk about the circumstances of his dismissal, the Government will not invoke this confidential information clause. Firstly, the Government says that it does not apply. Secondly, it says that if, by his interpretation, Mr Blizzard believes that it does apply, the Government says that it will not invoke it. The Government says that Mr Blizzard is hiding behind this clause, because he knows that he does not have any facts to back up his claim. He knows that he does not have a basis for making his unsubstantiated claims of a so-called conspiracy. I invite Mr Blizzard to go anywhere in this country and talk about the circumstances of his dismissal, and this Government will not invoke the confidential information clause. The Government could not in law and, in fact, it will not.

STANDING RULES AND ORDERS

Amendment of Rule of Practice No. 10 Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (10.12 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a proposed amendment to Rule of Practice No. 10 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (10.13 a.m.): I move— “(1) That Rule of Practice No. 10 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly be amended by omitting ‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’ and inserting ‘The Parliament of Queensland enacts’. (2) That the amendment of the Rule of Practice be presented to His Excellency the Administrator by Mr Speaker for His Excellency’s approval.” This morning, I wrote to the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Standing Orders Committee, giving notice of this proposal. Of course, members had been aware of it for some time, because it has been approximately a month since I announced on behalf of the Government the proposal to move in this direction in respect of the drafting of Queensland legislation as part of a general review of Queensland legislation and oaths of allegiance to remove references to the Queen and the Crown and to replace them with more modern and Australian language. Of course, in addition to that public announcement of those matters, I discussed the Government’s intentions privately with Her Excellency the Governor. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2543

The Government believes that it is important that we move now towards this change. It believes that it is timely to move towards the use of more modern and Australian language, and that it does it now, because the Government has a substantial legislative program already on the business paper and, this week, it will introduce a large slate of important legislation. The time has come for that legislation to be drafted appropriately. This motion is about the need to move away from some of the mumbo jumbo of Queensland’s colonial past, and to adopt a more modern and Australian identity and character. It is entirely consistent with the move by this Government towards plain English drafting of legislation. I will spell out the current enacting words in this Parliament— “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows”. That paragraph would be replaced, because it is archaic and far too wordy, with the following words— “The Parliament of Queensland enacts”. In the age of the laptop computer and laser surgery, we are still using the words of the quill and parchment scroll. We cannot afford to drag this cumbersome baggage with us into the twenty-first century. Mr Elliott interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Cunningham will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: Members opposite, including the member for Cunningham, should calm down. Perhaps they should have a Bex and a rest for a minute. They should realise that whereas those words may have been appropriate 100 years ago, we have an obligation to be using in our legislation words that are Australian, words that are modern, and words that are understood and used by the average Queenslander. That is what this is about. In very many ways, it is people such as the member for Cunningham and his constituents who are very much the average Queenslanders or the average Australians of today, who would use the sort of language that I propose instead of that archaic language. Mr Borbidge: Has Dave Blizzard got you worried? Why don’t you want questions? Mr W. K. GOSS: That is a load of rubbish. The Leader of the Opposition can ask questions until the cows come home. Mr Blizzard has nothing to say. Mr Cooper: How do you know he hasn’t? Mr W. K. GOSS: If he has something to say, the Government places no impediment in his way. The Minister has said that. If members opposite had done some homework since this review was announced over a month ago—and I hope that some of them have—they would realise that this is not a controversial move. The sort of language that we are proposing—— Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I ask the member to listen. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Western Downs will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: The sort of language that we are proposing is used in every other Parliament of Australia. In the Parliament of New South Wales, where the Liberal and National Parties are in Government, and have been for some five years or so, the enacting words are as follows— “The Legislature of New South Wales enacts as follows:” 2544 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Liberals and Nationals have made no move to change back to the old colonial language. In Victoria, where one finds the worst of the Liberals and Nationals, the enacting words are— “The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:” Even Mr Kennett, who brought back wigs and silver service, has not gone back to the old colonial language. In the Northern Territory, the language is as follows— “Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory . . . ” Marshall Perron has not gone back to the old colonial language. In the national Parliament, the Parliament of Australia, the enacting words are— “The Parliament of Australia enacts:” The simple form of words proposed in this motion now before the House has exactly the same legal effect as the current wording. The enacting words have no legal effect on the meaning of the Act. No constitutional questions arise from this change. In the past month, there has been a lot of confusing and, in some cases, misleading comment about what is involved in the review announced by the Government. I want to make it plain that in this move which I propose today there is no change to the Constitution, the role of the Governor or the role of the Parliament. It will not deliver to this State a precedent and it will not change the name of Queensland, nor will any of the other moves foreshadowed by the Government in the context of this debate. There is no requirement for an amendment to an Act of Parliament to bring this into effect. Lest there be any doubt, I point out that there is no requirement for a referendum on the matter. At the end of my comments, I shall table a legal opinion from the Crown Solicitor setting out the requirements for this particular change. The legal role of the Queen continues because, as stated in section 2A of the Constitution Act of 1867, the Parliament of Queensland consists of the Queen and the Legislative Assembly. Section 8 of the Constitution Act of 1867 requires that any change to the Standing Orders and Rules has been adopted by the Legislative Assembly and has the approval of the Governor. It does not become binding and in force until the Governor’s approval has been obtained. Furthermore, there is no doubt that we continue to follow the Westminster tradition. There is no doubt also that Australia has changed, is changing and will continue to change. All members should remember that when they went to school—or most of them went to school—they used to sing God Save the Queen as the national anthem. It is now Advance Australia Fair, and not before time. In those days, the Privy Council in England was the final court of appeal. It is now the High Court of Australia, and so it should be. In those days, prominent and worthy Australians were recognised by imperial honours. They are now recognised by an Australian system of honours, and so they should be. Incidentally, it was this Government that effectively ended the system of imperial honours when, on 7 December 1989, I advised the Governor that they would no longer apply or be awarded in Queensland. It was consequent upon Queensland moving in that direction—but sadly being the last to do so—that the Queen herself, Queen Elizabeth II, initiated the move to end imperial honours for Australia. And good on her. Just as Australia has evolved and changed, members should also appreciate the significance of the fact that England has also changed. England has moved in the direction of Europe, in search of a more European identity. England has turned away from Australia, New Zealand and the Commonwealth in pursuit of a European identity. England has also turned away from the Commonwealth in pursuit of its own economic interests. And fair enough. I have no complaint about that. But let there be no complaint when Australia pursues its own identity and its own economic interests in the way that it has and will in the future, particularly in terms of our identity in the Asia/Pacific region, the way we see ourselves and the way that we want other countries of the region to see ourselves. Apart from the important symbolism of standing on our own two feet and being seen to stand on our own two feet, I believe that there is in every sense an important opportunity that will be of benefit to this country to have Australians accept Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2545 and appreciate the fact that we do stand on our own two feet, and that we stand or fall on our own performance. We should realise that there is no benevolent monarch across the seas, that there is no empire on the other side of the world that will come and look after us when we really get into trouble. We must knock away the psychological props and the false allusions that we stand somehow supported by an empire. I would hope that all members would agree that, irrespective of these changes which will inevitably occur over the coming years and irrespective of this change today in the Parliament of Queensland, the real ties between Australia and England will continue. The real ties are those of history, language, family—— Mr FitzGerald: Cricket. Mr W. K. GOSS: Cricket, friendship, and trade and commerce. We have substantial practical ties of trade and commerce. Those real ties, friendships and bonds will continue undiminished—perhaps more mature, but certainly unaffected and undiminished. Mr FitzGerald: And the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility to answer questions during question time. Mr W. K. GOSS: A week ago in England, I was at pains to point out—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS: If the honourable member wants the Westminster system, I will come into this Chamber once a week, like Mr Major does in England, and answer questions for 15 minutes. That is what the honourable member will get—15 minutes. Mr FitzGerald interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: As honourable members know, the structure and the role of Parliament remain unchanged. Let me stress, as I stressed a week ago in England, that these moves involve no snub to the Queen, no disrespect to the royal family and no snub to England; they are simply part of a maturing relationship, and one which is timely in terms of the change. As to some of the emotion that has come into this debate in recent times in Australia, let me say also that the Australian Labor Party claims no mortgage on national pride or on patriotism. Members opposite are just as proud Australians as are members on this side of the Chamber; they have the same patriotism and national pride. It is in that sense that I appeal for their support. Members of the Labor Party do not claim any better or stronger standing on patriotism; we simply say that these changes are timely. More and more people on the conservative side of politics who privately believe the same now have the courage to say so publicly, and that is welcome. However, even those who do not support discarding some of this colonial baggage should at least do what other conservatives have done, that is, be prepared to join in the debate in a positive and constructive way and not in a spoiling way. There is ample evidence that even the greatest and most longstanding traditions and values can change and still be intrinsically worth while. Earlier, the member for Lockyer interjected about the game of cricket. Of course, that is part of the history, the ties and the friendship between Australia and England, but he should remember also that cricket has stayed with us because it has tried to remain relevant. These days, players wear coloured uniforms and play games at night under lights. That game has matured and changed and remained relevant. Other things have changed, too. There was once in this State a very proud tradition, a very proud political party called the Country Party. The word “country” was essential because of its commitment to rural and provincial Queenslanders. The members of that party discarded the word “country” in pursuit of political advantage, but I will not argue with them when they say that, even though they dumped “country” from their name, they remain committed to rural and provincial Queenslanders. They were 2546 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly prepared to dump the baggage of their name and to change to become more relevant and more modern, and good on them and good luck to them. They will need all the luck they can get. In conclusion, and as promised, I table the opinion of the Crown Solicitor which confirms that this matter does not require a referendum; it simply requires the resolution of this House and for the matter to be laid before the Governor for the Governor’s approval. I say again that these changes are timely, that these are more modern and Australian words and that in our legislation, in our forms and in our ceremonies we should be using the language that ordinary Queenslanders use. This process is about being relevant; but, more importantly as we head towards the twenty-first century, it is about a modern and more Australian identity, something that we should grasp in both hands and something that Australians should embrace. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 a.m.): I move— “That the motion moved by the Premier be amended by adding the following words— ‘and that the matter be deferred until it has been considered by the Standing Orders Committee for report back to this House.’ ” The motion says a great deal about the Premier and about his Government. At a time when Parliament has not sat for several weeks, the day after the immediate past Deputy Commissioner of Police has made serious allegations of political interference in the conduct and the operations of the Police Service and, at a time when tens of thousands of Queensland families are suffering the ravages of drought and recession, we have a Premier who walks into this Parliament and instigates a debate about three words, a debate that does not even change the nature of our constitutional monarchy, the office of Governor or the role of the Parliament. Today, we are seeing the ultimate stunt. Mr Johnson: No reference to our real problems. Mr BORBIDGE: There is no reference to our real problems, as the honourable member for Gregory said. We will not even hold a debate on republicanism, because the wording that the Premier has adopted today is largely that suggested by the Opposition, when so foolishly some weeks ago he said that he would change the preamble of legislation so that it would read, “The Legislative Assembly enacts”. There is a very big difference because the Legislative Assembly comprises 89 members of Parliament. What the Premier has proposed today is that “The Parliament of Queensland”—and the Parliament of Queensland comprises the 89 elected members of this place, plus the Crown represented by the Governor—“enacts”. So what we have is a resolution of nothingness so that the Premier can come home and claim that he has achieved something out of his lengthy constitutional discussions in the United Kingdom—a Premier who has been so shallow and so plastic as to deny this Parliament its question time. This motion could have been debated after the debate on Matters of Public Interest; it could have been debated this afternoon; it could have been debated tomorrow. But, no, the Premier and the Government do not want question time, so we have this incredible stunt laid before the people of Queensland as nothing more than a shallow, shabby and plastic diversionary tactic. Mr W. K. Goss: You have half an hour for questions. Support the motion and you’ve got have half an hour for questions. Mr BORBIDGE: I will come to the honourable member. I heard him in silence. Let us have a look at the record. How long did he take? Mr W. K. Goss: Support it and you have half an hour for questions. If you vote for it, you’ve got half an hour for questions. Mr BORBIDGE: I accept the challenge of the Premier. Shut up for a minute! The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2547

Mr BORBIDGE: I support the challenge of the Premier. After the two or three speakers on this side of the House have spoken, I invite him to suspend Standing Orders so that we can conduct a proper and legitimate question time, in particular, about the allegations of the Premier’s involvement in the dismissal of Mr Blizzard. We have the incredible situation where the conventions and the protocol of this Parliament have been abandoned. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn members on both sides of the Chamber to listen to speeches made by other members. If honourable members wish to speak, they will have their turn. I also warn members about the language which they use. I will call people to order as I see fit. Mr BORBIDGE: I look forward to you keeping the Premier to order. We have the incredible situation—— The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I find those remarks offensive and I ask the honourable member to withdraw them. Mr BORBIDGE: What remarks did you find offensive? The ACTING CHAIRMAN: The remarks about whether I will call the Premier to order. Mr BORBIDGE: I am sure you will, Madam Acting Chairman. Incredibly, the Premier got off an aircraft in the middle of the night after coming home from constitutional discussions in the UK. He went up to Oxford and he met Professor Finnis to see if they could undo the “Queen of Queensland” amendments to the Constitution Act in 1977. The Premier told us that legal advice from Professor Finnis would be forthcoming within a couple of weeks and that there would be proper discussion in regard to this program. Today, what do we see as we talk about respect for the institution of Parliament: 50 minutes prior to the resumption of Parliament I received a note stuck under the door, as I assume did the Speaker and all the other members of the Parliamentary Standing Orders Committee. This comes at a time when the Governor is overseas. The matter has not been referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and I want to talk a little bit about that because that is fundamentally wrong. I want to give some credit to the Government, to the Speaker, to the Premier and to the Leader of the House on the conduct of the Standing Orders Committee, because it has worked very well. When the Standing Orders Committee meets, it is worked by agreement and understanding, and when there has been an agreement, particular recommendations in respect of Standing Orders have been reported upon by that committee and submitted to this Parliament for full and open debate and subsequent approval. But, today, the parliamentary Standing Orders Committee has been completely made irrelevant—a political eunuch—because the Premier gets off an aircraft and says, “I am so good, I do not have to follow the basic conventions or procedures. I do not have to refer this change to the Standing Orders of this Parliament to the committee that this Parliament gave the responsibility to handle such issues.” Mr Santoro: The ultimate arrogance. Mr BORBIDGE: It is the ultimate arrogance, as the member for Clayfield said. That is why the Opposition has indicated that it would be appropriate and it would respect the conventions of this place if this motion went to the Standing Orders Committee. My preliminary legal advice is that it changes nothing. It does not change a thing! All we are doing is making the preamble to the legislation a little simpler. But the man got himself caught up in a legal and constitutional quagmire when after a quiet Cabinet day he had to announce something and decided he was going to sack the Queen. All of a sudden, he had to come back from London with something for the Parliament to do. What we have is no change at all! We have “the Parliament of Queensland” instead of his original proposal of “the Legislative Assembly of Queensland”. 2548 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Honourable members interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members will allow the honourable member to continue. Mr BORBIDGE: I would hope that members of Parliament on both sides of the House have learnt a few lessons in recent political history. If we are to be relevant to those primary producers who have their backs to the wall and who are shooting sheep today on Retreat Station out at Jundah; if we are to be relevant to young people at Stonehenge who are splitting up in their marriage—the husband is leaving the wife so that he can go and put cattle in the long paddock from now until Christmas, and he will not see his wife until then; and if we are to have some relevance to the one million people who are unemployed in this country, then we have to make the institutions of Parliament certainly relevant, but most certainly workable. We have to respect the guidelines and the framework that the Parliament itself has laid down. In respect of Standing Orders, there is a procedure and a convention in this Parliament which suggest that if a member is going to change Standing Orders, the proposal is not stuffed under the door 50 minutes before the Parliament meets for the first time in six weeks, thereby treating the whole committee and the Parliament with total arrogance. It should be done properly. A committee has been established to do it. I challenge the Premier to give one indication, one example of when, on the Standing Orders Committee, this Opposition has been unreasonable. Mr W. K. GOSS: I accept the invitation, Madam Acting Chairman. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: The Premier has had his chance. He can talk later. Bring back question time! Mr W. K. Goss: I will tell them how you talked them out of extra questions. You talked them out of extra questions to look after yourself when you were Deputy Leader. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: The Opposition makes no apology for insisting that questions by Opposition members of this Parliament are not restricted. There was no unreasonable attitude on my part or on the part of anyone else on the Opposition side. The message to the man who sits opposite me today and who has done nothing about getting off his backside to get Queensland working again is to do it right; to get the conventions of this Parliament right; to make sure that the Standing Orders Committee can do its job; to support the amendment that I am now moving; to send this matter to the Standing Orders Committee so that it can report back to the House in a short period; and to get on with the business of Parliament. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.40 a.m.): This is not a change to frighten the horses; it is a commonsense use of plain English. One listened with bated breath to the honourable Leader of the Opposition to hear whether at all during his speech he would deal with the issue. He dealt with everything else, but he studiously avoided dealing with the very issue before the Committee of the Whole, namely, whether or not we should stick with these archaic and verbose enacting words or whether we should move in the way in which Parliaments throughout Australia have moved. The Leader of the Opposition studiously avoids the issue because it strikes at the heart of his confusion and, indeed, the confusion of the Liberal Party and National Party about whether or not they wish to bring circumstances in our Parliament and in our Commonwealth into the modern world. The Constitution of Queensland Act provides in section 2 for the making of laws by the Parliament for the peace, welfare and good government of Queensland. That Act provides in section 2A that the Parliament of Queensland consists of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland and the Queen. Mr Borbidge was correct in indicating that this motion does not alter that constitutional proposition, that is, that the Parliament of Queensland consists of the Legislative Assembly and the Queen. Very simply, what it Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2549 does is a matter on which one might have hoped that the Opposition parties would express a view clearly and simply, and not fudge, delay, equivocate and procrastinate. The simple proposition is that we should use plain English words so that all citizens can readily understand them when they read Acts of Parliament. What are the current words? The current form of words is mystical and verbose, namely— “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the . . . Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—” Such a mystical and archaic use of words is not helpful to public understanding, particularly when there is little public awareness of the process of who makes the laws. Earlier this morning, I had the opportunity to speak with the children at the Moorooka State School in the course of the adopt-a-cop ceremony. I explained to them that the police enforce the laws that are made by the Parliament through their elected representatives. My experience in speaking with school children and, indeed, my experience as a lecturer at university is that there is often a serious lack of public awareness about who makes the laws. Because there is such gobbledegook about the form of enacting words that anybody reading an Act of Parliament would be flat out figuring out that the law is made by his or her elected representatives as a result of their having been elected to Parliament, one might forgive those people for not understanding who makes the laws. There is nothing unusual about changing the description of Acts of Parliament. There is nothing unusual about changing the forms of words which are used. Over time, the description of Acts has changed to take account of the increasing role of Parliament and the decreasing role of the monarch. It used to be the case that Acts were referred to by the monarch in whose reign they were made. Thus, for example, the Petition of Right is referred to as “3 Charles I c. 1”. That Petition of Right of 1627 was made in the third year of the reign of Charles I and was the first Act made in that regnal year. Similarly, the Statute of Monopolies of James I was referred to as—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr FOLEY: Quite so. I take the honourable member’s interjection. I thank the honourable member. I am pleased to see that at least the member for Lockyer is taking an interest in the debate and that he realises that in fact the description of Acts changed after the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He is a member of this place who has a particularly deep grasp of them. Indeed, he is one of the finest thirteenth century minds in this House. Those changes do occur over time. They have occurred throughout the length and breadth of Australia in the use of enacting words, but it appears that those changes have not yet dawned upon the members of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Too often, those laws are written in a way that is complex and hard to understand. Ideally, every school child who can read and write plain English should be able to understand the law. After all, the law binds us, whether or not we are aware of it. Ignorance is no excuse. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable member for his return to the debate and for his interest in the House of Lords, because his silence on this very issue is nothing more than a condoning of the practice which emanates from the House of Lords and which it still uses today. I refer to the form of words used by the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It reads— “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—” Have honourable members heard something similar to that before? That is because it came about out of a time when the monarch used to make the statutes. Over time, the House of Lords gave advice and consent and, ultimately, the Commons got the power 2550 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly of the purse and had the authority to give advice and consent; hence the form of words which we now have—an archaism which should be abandoned, and which could have been abandoned rapidly. If it had been abandoned rapidly by honourable members opposite, they would indeed have been able to have the benefit of question time. However, the reason that we have been plummeted into this debate is simply a failure to deal with the issue. It is clear that honourable members on this side of the Chamber support the proposition. I wonder whether we will hear any of the speakers from the Opposition deal with it simply. Will they try to defend that verbosity, that archaism, in the current words, or will they simply try to delay and to procrastinate? This change will help people know what Parliament does. Parliament makes laws and that is what these words so plainly say. It is to be hoped that the seemingly invincible ignorance demonstrated by honourable members opposite can be penetrated by a shaft of reason and that they may come to their senses quickly so that we can proceed to debate some other matters of great moment to this State. Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.49 a.m.): When the Premier stepped off the plane in his usual grandiose and, I am sure, well- orchestrated fashion, the first question that he was asked was, “Mr Premier, there is a bit of an issue currently running called prostitution. What do you think about it?” In his dismissive and arrogant way, that pious excuse for a Premier said, “Do not talk to me about prostitution. There are plenty of other issues to talk about. There are far more important issues to talk about.” When members of the Opposition came into this place this morning, we were looking to participate in some debate. We were wondering what the Premier would allow us to debate. I use the word “allow” very, very selectively and very purposefully, because it is the Premier and his Government that have the numbers and control what happens in this place. It is not what the Parliament wants; it is what the Premier and the Executive Government want. So we came into this place again, perhaps foolishly prepared to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt, expecting that he would debate something serious. He might have sought to debate the EARC reform that has been abandoned—the report on media manipulation, media bias and $36.6m of Government expenditure. Maybe we could have debated that report, or unemployment, or the crisis in the Queensland Police Service. The happiest fellow in this room at the moment is not the Premier; it is the Police Minister, because effectively the pressure has been taken off him. Maybe we could have debated that great Government initiative of corporatisation and the implication for labour market reform that must accompany that. An Opposition member: Or the HOME Scheme. Mr SANTORO: Or the HOME Scheme. I will get to that. I have a list of important issues that could have been debated. However, the people on the Government side of the House, knowing that they have their feet on the sticky paper, bring up a smokescreen. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we are debating three words. Perhaps we could have been debating the drought and the suicides that are occurring as a result of the collapse of service provision by the Department of Primary Industries. That department, which is hopelessly mismanaged and hopelessly out of touch with its Minister, is not able to provide the basic services to people who are suiciding. Do honourable members hear that? That is the sort of issue that honourable members should be debating. We should be debating suicides on farms, and the effects of the drought. Maybe we should talk about the strike that is occurring at the abattoir. What the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been talking about is the loss of export revenue. We have a Premier who recently, before going overseas on a two-week jaunt, said, “I am going overseas to do two things. One is to promote trade and the other is to seek constitutional advice.” I will get back to the constitutional advice in a moment. So this Premier comes back and rather than getting stuck into the striking unionists who are depriving Queensland of vital export income and depriving the farmers of revenue, he stays silent about that important issue, which is of fundamental importance to the Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2551 economy and of fundamental importance to the farmers. He goes on about three words rather than tackling the really important issues. So what do we have? We have a Premier who does not want to talk about prostitution, the drought, maladministration, or an EARC report that is an indictment on his Government in terms of media bias, manipulation, selected briefings and the overspending of $36.6m. The Premier used to crucify Bjelke-Petersen and other Ministers about whom a litany of complaints was made regarding their manipulation of the media. The present Government’s manipulation of the media has been formally documented by the independent watchdog to which the Premier so piously pays so much lip-service. But when the crunch is really on, the Premier does not give a damn. The Minister for Environment and Heritage immediately and quickly flouted one of the report’s major provisions and took a bevy of journalists along with her. That is the sort of Premier we have, a Premier who is not prepared to face the real issues. So he brings on this inane, insensible and utterly ridiculous debate. Let us have another look at the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition said quite correctly that the motion moved by the Premier says a lot about the man; it says a lot about the Premier. I also reckon that it says a lot about him. Let us see what the professional qualifications of this man are. The Premier claims to be a lawyer. I have gone on the record in this place as saying that if he had to rely on his legal ability to earn a living, his family would starve. Let me tell honourable members what the prime responsibility of a lawyer should be. The prime responsibility of a lawyer should be to have regard for the due process. It should be to have regard for propriety. It should be to have regard for accountability. It should be to have regard for the top law-making body within the State—this Parliament. By bringing this motion into the Parliament under the current circumstances, this person has flouted his responsibility as a lawyer. As the Leader of the Opposition said quite eloquently—and I do not wish to go through all of the points again—the Premier has flouted, first of all, the basic rights of this Parliament to operate effectively on a morning such as this morning. This debate could have been brought on at 12 o’clock. Mr Cooper: Any time. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Crows Nest. It could have been brought on at any time. We could have debated it after 12 o’clock. If it had been done in that way, we, on behalf of our constituencies, could have asked Ministers the important questions that we wished to ask. We are not able to do that. So the lawyer has no respect for Parliament. He has no respect for all of those particular reforms and all of those attitudes which he in Opposition mealy mouthed for the sake of obtaining power. He of course has absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Standing Orders Committee. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Premier gets up and says, “We circulated the Opposition and members of the Standing Orders Committee with notice of this motion.” That was done at 10 past 9 this morning. And he, the Premier, wants us to believe that he was doing the Parliament and the Standing Orders Committee a favour by circulating this notice at 10 past 9! He actually got up and proclaimed as a virtue the way in which he has been dealing with this issue. He slipped the notice under the door. There was not even a phone call saying, “Listen, we have just put an envelope underneath the door. You may care to read it because it is important. Something may happen.” Did he call the Leader of the Opposition? Mr Borbidge: No. He slipped it under the door. Mr SANTORO: No. There was no consultation. He just slipped something underneath the door. That is the way in which this Premier operates. I return now to the constitutional advice from overseas. The Premier went overseas to seek the advice of Professor Finnis. He wanted to talk to Professor Finnis about what he was able to do. It is not the advice and the opinion of Professor Finnis that the Premier has tabled, it is the opinion of another lawyer. The reason why he cannot table the opinion of Professor Finnis is that it is at least six months away. If the Premier had had the decency to try to justify his other reason for going overseas to discuss these weighty matters, he may have cared to wait until that full advice was forthcoming. So much for the reasons for his 2552 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly going overseas—trade promotion and to get advice from Oxford! The Premier is an absolute disgrace to his profession. He has contempt for the Parliament, for the Standing Orders Committee and for the process which he himself said he was going to follow, that is, seeking constitutional advice. I turn now to the points made by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. He said that one of the reasons why this motion was necessary was so that we could institute some plain English within the processes of the Parliament. However, I cannot recall Mr Foley supporting, via this sort of motion, the reforming of the way in which petitions are worded. Recently within the Parliament—— Mr Foley: Why don’t you deal with the motion? Mr SANTORO: I am dealing with the motion. I am drawing an analogy. When he spoke on this motion, the Minister said that he was talking about simple language. Recently, the Parliament was given a report which strongly recommended that the Government reform the wording of petitions so that our constituents—forget about the expert people who read legislation; forget about—— The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! As it is now 11 o’clock, it is time for the debate on Matters of Public Interest. Progress reported.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Drought Relief Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Although the State and Federal Governments have attempted to deal with the drought crisis, the true situation is that much more needs to be done. Both Governments have to realise that the assistance outlined so far goes only a very limited way in dealing with the looming rural catastrophe, particularly in the woolgrowing areas of this State. Earlier this year, before the drought broke into media and political prominence, I visited Augathella and Charleville at the request of my colleague the member for Warrego. Since late last year, Mr Hobbs and other members of the Opposition such as the Primary Industries spokesman, Mr Perrett, and the member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson, have been warning Queenslanders of the disastrous consequences of this drought. Last week, I visited rural centres in Emerald, Longreach, Stonehenge, Jundah, Yaraka, Isisford and Blackall to speak with producers about their prospects and the assistance available to them. One cannot help but admire the resilient spirit of those people in the face of adverse economic conditions compounded by the worst drought this century. They share a common outlook of optimism and a deep love for their land, and collectively represent a dedicated group whose skills in rural production are among the best to be found anywhere in the world. Yet not even the most skilled producer can contend with the multi-pronged attack on his or her resources which has come from a period of record high interest rates, a collapse in commodity prices—with wool the worst affected—and drought. Although they welcome the assistance offered so far, it is clear that, for many, rain is the only ingredient that really matters. For woolgrowers, even rain tomorrow will provide only some form of temporary relief until we come to grips with the problem of the national stockpile, current wool production levels and the fact, for example, that 70 per cent of last year’s production of men’s woollen suits today remains on the rack in retail outlets in Japan. I believe it is important that we address some of the specific issues. The State Government is offering a drought crop loan scheme to allow producers to take advantage of any break in the season. That scheme will provide loans to cover planting costs to a maximum of $160 per hectare, with a maximum loan of $40,000 to be repaid over 18 months. I have spoken with several grain growers on the Central Highlands north of Emerald. They regard such assistance as a token effort. Such producers face Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2553 total planting costs of $120,000 to $130,000 for a winter grain crop. They told me that $100,000 would be a more realistic level of assistance. In fact, several believe that, if the Government is fair dinkum, that should be the minimum. They claimed also that the required payment time of 18 months is too short and that it illustrated the Government’s lack of understanding of rural production. Even if those producers grow a good winter grain crop, they will not receive income from it until early next year. The loan term needs to be extended to five or seven years, preferably with an interest holiday initially, and provision should be made for payout without any penalties in the latter years if trading conditions are more favourable. A question mark hangs over whether drought assistance is available to share farmers or others leasing a property. I hope that the Treasurer will get that issue sorted out quickly. From indications given to me by a number of producers, the QIDC does not want to know anyone who does not own his or her own land. In common with several aspects of this State’s drought assistance, the crop loan scheme is helpful only once it rains. The grain producers have a legitimate point when they see a maximum loan of $100,000 over five years available for restocking yet smaller and tighter terms for their assistance. If the Government is fair dinkum about helping drought-stricken producers now, it should move immediately to provide a transport subsidy of at least 50 per cent for the forward movement of stock to agistment. On Bancoorah station, just outside Stonehenge I met Lawrence and Jenny Egan, a young couple battling to become established on the land. Lawrence pushes scrub daily to provide feed for stock, with the diesel rebate being his only form of assistance. From the nineteenth of this month, he and a neighbour, Dick Smith, will move the nucleus of their herds onto the long paddock, and they will stay there until it rains. That means months on the road towards the gulf, while their respective wives are left at home to oversee the properties. How many families would contend successfully with such challenges to their lifestyles and their livelihoods? In fact, the common thread flowing through many producers’ comments is the Government’s failure to provide assistance for moving stock away from drought properties for agistment. The rhetoric and false accusations raised by Government members when they were in Opposition in regard to that assistance in the past has to be seen for what it was—a lot of political hot air. No accusations were ever proven. Now the Government’s obvious political hang-up with providing such assistance is imposing additional burdens on rural producers at a time when they need immediate help. The cost of transporting stock to agistment can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. At a time when cattle prices are at a six-year low, subsidy assistance for forward movement would be the most tangible form of assistance this Government could provide right now, yet it procrastinates and looks for lesser alternatives such as interest-free loans and raising the subsidy for return transport to 100 per cent. At present, another loan is about the last thing many producers need. The subsidy for forward movement would provide immediate help up front, where it is needed most. The crunch problem in determining who survives this drought is, in most cases, eligibility for assistance through the exceptional circumstances provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. I met one woolgrowing couple in the Jundah area who had been astute enough to put aside some funds in the better years to ensure that their boys could attend secondary school. City members of Parliament have to appreciate that secondary schooling in western Queensland is not just a matter of rolling down to the local high school. Sending children away to boarding schools and coastal centres is virtually a necessity. In this case, because the couple had put funds aside for education purposes and had saved for years to do so, they are not eligible for interest subsidy drought assistance. The fact that they are down to about 5 000 sheep with little water remaining is apparently irrelevant. The Federal Government would be well advised to alter hastily the Austudy eligibility requirements for drought-stricken producers to allow more to be assisted in that area. It will be interesting to see how many drought-stricken producers actually qualify for the drought assistance measures which have been 2554 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly provided. On the surface, it seems that 40 per cent of woolgrowers will derive no form of assistance from it, primarily because of their astute conservative approach. At the other end of the spectrum, through no fault of their own, many producers judged to be not viable in the current circumstances will be forced off properties simply because they have no way of earning an income at present. In that regard, the great injustice between household support assistance and the Jobsearch allowance provides a stark contrast. If one owns a home in the suburbs, which could be worth up to $300,000, and one becomes unemployed, one can seek and obtain the Jobsearch allowance to help one find work. One does not have to sell one’s home to get the allowance, and one does not have to pay it back. Those circumstances should be considered in contrast to the circumstances of the rural producers who seek household support just to keep some food on the table during those times when they have absolutely no income. Unless a producer agrees to sell his property, household support assistance, which is equivalent to the Jobsearch allowance, becomes a loan to be repaid at commercial rates of interest. The fact that producers and members of their families work to keep properties going during drought should qualify them at least for the equivalent of the Jobsearch allowance on a non-repayable basis. It is one rule for the city and another rule for the bush. One could imagine the outrage if those urban dwellers who took the Jobsearch allowance either had to take it as a loan or had to sell their homes to get it. Yesterday, at Retreat Station, farmers started shooting at least 10 000 sheep. They may shoot in excess of 12 000 sheep, including many young lambs that do not have enough teeth to enable them to live through a dry winter on the feed that exists in the paddock. It is a sorry situation when flocks, which have taken years to develop and improve, have to be wasted in this way. In this regard, both the State and Federal Governments should examine some of the suggestions that have been put forward in a bid to provide some alternatives to wool producers. Finally, I point out that drought aid is so crucial that members on both sides of the House need to ensure that it is as effective as possible. For its part, the Opposition is prepared to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that that is achieved. I acknowledge the assistance that has been delivered so far at a cost of $3.5m this financial year. However, I point out that much more needs to be done. After all, that drought assistance figure equates to approximately one-third of the amount that the Government lost on Compass, approximately one-half of the amount that it lost on a South Bank theme park and approximately one-sixteenth of the amount that it lost on a motorcar race. It is no wonder that graziers are becoming increasingly frustrated and are wondering where this State’s priorities lie. I also make the point that we cannot assume, and the Government cannot assume, that the problems will cease when the rain comes. We face two horrendous droughts in Queensland: the drought and the international trade drought, which will ensure difficult times for some period.

Queensland Place Mr WELFORD (Everton) (11.10 a.m.) Minor improvement work has just been completed on a $52.5m monument to the incompetence of the Cooper Government during its dying days in 1989. I refer to the decision by that Government over which Mr Cooper presided to purchase Queensland Place. Let me say something about the history of this monumental investment blunder, which wasted $52.5m of taxpayers’ money in 1989. It is now the most expensive open-air car park in the world. In the dying days of the National Party Government in 1989, at a time when it should not have been making any long-term decisions and when it should not have been spending taxpayers’ money, it splashed out with $52.5m of Queensland taxpayers’ money to purchase Queensland Place. However, this matter has an interesting history. According to the Fitzgerald report, on 18 February 1986, the company that bought Queensland Place had just paid $320,000 to a company called Oxenford Tavern Holdings Pty Ltd. Fancy that! I wonder who owned Oxenford Tavern Holdings Pty Ltd? Could it have been a Minister Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2555 in the Cooper Government? No, of course not! On 20 October 1987, barely a year and a half later, that very same company that had paid money to Oxenford Tavern Holdings and, presumably, to the coffers of the National Party’s slush funds for election campaigns, then paid $30m for Queensland Place. Two years later, while Mr Cooper was heading the National Party Government of the time, processes took place in the Cabinet over which he presided to give a windfall to that company, that National Party supporter, in the form of a payment of $52.5m for Queensland Place, which was bought only two years previously for $30m. What did the National Party have planned when it invested Queensland taxpayers’ funds in this vacant allotment in the middle of the city, this hole in the ground? Absolutely nothing! After it was purchased by its previous owner for $30m, it laid idle for three years. After it was purchased by Mr Cooper and his National Party Government for the inflated figure of $52.5m, it laid idle for a further three years. Why has it lain idle? Because it was never worth $52.5m. Since that time, the assessments of the unimproved valuation that have been made by the Valuer General— remember that it is a vacant allotment; it is now a car park—— Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moggill will cease interjecting, and he should interject from his proper place. Mr WELFORD: In 1988, this vacant allotment was worth $19m. In 1989, its unimproved value was $25m, and in 1990, it was worth $34m. However, at a time when Mr Cooper and his National Party Government had called the election already, what did they pledge on behalf of Queenslanders to one of their mates? They pledged $52.5m, which was almost, if not more than double, its real value. Let us consider the facts. The date for the next election of the Queensland Parliament was announced on 23 October 1989. On that very day, Cabinet decision No. 57727 was made to buy Queensland Place. On 27 October, a written offer to sell the property to the Queensland public for $52.5m was received by Cabinet. That price was grossly and outrageously inflated when one considers the property’s value then and since. I wonder why the Government would invest almost double the value of a property to buy it from a company that had previously made an unsecured, unrepayable $320,000 loan to a Cabinet Minister. This gives members an idea of the sort of propriety that was commonplace in National Party Governments prior to the election in 1989 of the Labor Government. What do we have to show for it? We have a property that we hope will, in the next couple of years, struggle its way back in value to something approximating the $52.5m which Mr Cooper and his mates pledged to pay for it on behalf of Queenslanders. The allotment has lain idle for three years. All we can do with it—and thank goodness there is something that we can do with it—is turn it into a permanent car park for the time being. It has pretty green railings and a bitumen surface, and some trees and flowers have been planted there. But that is all that can be done with that wasted bit of property, which is not worth two bob compared with the price to which the National Party committed the Queensland people back in 1989 during the dying days of that Government. The property provides about 500 car parking spaces. People have the privilege of parking there for about $1.40 in parking fees. But little do those people realise that every car parking space in Queensland Place is worth $100,000 in Russell Cooper dollar values. People can go there today and park their cars for $1.40. What a brilliant investment! Mr Cooper is the Opposition spokesman on Police. He wants to run the police force, and he tries to tell us how to run it. I am sure that if he were in charge of the police force, his decisions would be just as astute and insightful as they were in 1989 when, as the agent of the Queensland people, he was in the land-buying market within the real estate industry. It must be remembered that the flurry of property speculation in which Mr Cooper engaged did not create one single job and did not bring any tourists to Queensland. Let us face it, no-one comes here to look at car parks—not even one that Russell Cooper purchased. We have done up that car park, but it still will not be a tourist attraction. This 2556 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly was just a flagrant waste of Queensland taxpayers’ money that could have been used to improve health services and a run-down health system over which the previous Government presided, and a police force that was grossly understaffed and underresourced in terms of technical equipment, computers and office facilities. It could have paid for more teachers, just after a Budget in which the previous Government promised—as an election bribe—to give teachers massive wage rises. But what did it do? It gave teachers nothing before the election, and it spent $52.5m on a car park. This is the most amazing twist of circumstances one could ever imagine. At the very least, that Government gave away $22m of taxpayers’ money over and above what that vacant car park was worth. I recommend that we erect a massive plaque at Queensland Place and call it the “Russell Cooper Car Park”. On a massive sign we could print, “Already paid for by taxpayers to the tune of $52.5m. Park here free. Russell will pay for it for you. We will deduct it from Russell Cooper’s electorate office account, because he has already paid for it for you with $52.5m of your money.” This is the man who wants to run the police force. This is the man who gave us the Trinity Bay fix. This is the man who, in 1989, was the real estate speculator on behalf of the National Party. It was a blatant and gross waste of taxpayers’ funds by a man who has lost credibility not only with the Queensland people but also with this Parliament and his own party. Time expired.

Former Deputy Police Commissioner Blizzard Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.21 a.m.): Any lingering hopes that Queenslanders had that the reform process was still on track have been killed stone dead again in the past 24 hours. Statements made on radio and television by former Deputy Police Commissioner David Blizzard gave powerful hints at how an obsessive and power-hungry Government has crushed the reform process as envisaged by Fitzgerald, and then subverted it to its own political ends. The statements by Mr Blizzard should be taken very seriously indeed. For a start, they are made by a man wearing a legal and financial gag. Because of the legal gag imposed by his contract with this Government, he clearly cannot come out and say what he wants to say. The legality of that gag was reinforced by the decision handed down only last week in the Supreme Court of Queensland by Mr Justice Thomas. Let us not forget that Mr Blizzard is the fourth victim of this Government’s purge of those who would push the reform process without fear or favour. It turns out that it is genuine reformers in Queensland who have plenty to fear. Under this Government, political favouritism is the way to go in Queensland. The other victims of this Government’s system of payback were hardly lightweights. Their names are household words in Queensland and other parts of Australia, and before falling foul of the Goss Government they enjoyed impeccable reputations in legal circles, law enforcement, the medical profession and the community. Yet they fell foul of the Government. Let us refresh our memory of those other people, the major players in the reform agenda, who were pushed aside and trampled underfoot because they would not buckle down and play the role of nice little Labor patsies. There was Sir Max Bingham, Chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission; Noel Newnham, Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service; and Dr Janet Irwin, a founding commissioner of the CJC. The former Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Blizzard, is the most recent victim. The major thrust of what he said on last night’s 7.30 Report and in other places is this: like his former boss, he was a victim of the dispute between a former Police Minister, Mr Mackenroth, and the Police Commissioner at that time. He named the Premier, Mr Goss, as being central to that dispute. We all know that, and we know that the Premier took the side of Mr Mackenroth, just as we know that the seeds for that dispute lay in the production of tape-recordings and transcripts which we are still not allowed to debate in this Parliament. It was one of the darkest moments of this Parliament when the reference to those tapes was expunged and, again, this Parliament was treated with utter Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2557 contempt by the bush lawyers on the other side of the Chamber who pretend constantly to have respect for this institution but who, at every possible opportunity, use the rules to trample on it. The current Police Commissioner, Jim O’Sullivan, may have fired the bullet that got Blizzard, but the allegation is that “far more powerful forces” than Mr O’Sullivan had loaded the gun. That allegation must be taken seriously. Obviously, the chief suspects in “far more powerful forces” would be the current Police Minister, Mr Braddy, the Premier, and, of course, dare I say, Mr Mackenroth, who never forgets and seems determined to rid this State of any person to whom Mr Newnham ever talked—for what reason, we can only guess. The most amazing revelation of all is Mr Blizzard’s claim that he took his case to the Criminal Justice Commission but that it refused to investigate it because it found the case, to quote Mr Blizzard, “too big a bullet to bite”. Again, that is an allegation which I believe is worth testing in forums in which Mr Blizzard would feel comfortable. Obviously, Mr Blizzard has a story to tell which, four years down the track, has serious ramifications for the Fitzgerald process. He desperately needs a forum, because he has been gagged legally by this Government from speaking publicly, and he claims that his case is too hot for the CJC to handle. I repeat that those allegations and the suggestions made by the shadow Minister for Police and Emergency Services must be tested in forums in which Mr Blizzard has at least legal, if not financial, protection. I suggest that, without that legal and financial protection, Mr Blizzard cannot accept the facile invitation by the Minister for Police to come out and say everything. This morning, the Minister for Police basically said, “You can trust us. We will allow you to say it. We will not sue you. We will not take any further action against you.” All members know that the reassurances of Ministers are worthless, irrespective of what area of Fitzgerald reform is being discussed. An assurance given by a Minister to somebody who is under such financial and legal pressure as Blizzard, is clearly no assurance at all. Mr Cooper: Witness Lorelle Saunders. They gave her guarantees. Look where she ended up. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Crows Nest. Honourable members should examine the Lorelle Saunders case. No Opposition party in history has gone to the people proclaiming such utter and total support for somebody such as the Labor Party did for Lorelle Saunders. It claimed it would support her by providing her with resources, forums and hearings so that she could clear her name. Because the issue was too hot to handle, the Labor Party has dropped it. Mr Veivers: They have dogged it. Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection from the member for Southport. They have dogged it. It is not a reference that I normally make, but it certainly describes the attitude of the Government towards people who are seeking redress for wrongdoing. Dr Watson: Dogged determination. Mr SANTORO: Miss Saunders does have dogged determination. I believe that, eventually, she will win, despite the best attempts of people opposite to preclude her from exercising her rights as a citizen and as somebody who, in our view, has been wronged. However, we know that the Government has nothing on Mr Blizzard, otherwise Mr Braddy and his cohorts would have gone for the big smear months ago. That is what they have always done. That is the clearest proof that the Government has nothing on Mr Blizzard and that he has plenty on the Government. If Mr Blizzard had something to hide and the Government had something on him, he would have been smeared. Honourable members should remember Sir Max Bingham and the licence issue. They would remember former Commissioner Newnham and the disgraceful Mackenroth allegations. Recently, when Dr Janet Irwin again put herself forward as a commissioner of the Criminal Justice Commission, we were told that she was over the hill, that she was old blood and basically that we needed somebody else. Again, that was a gentle but 2558 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly subtle smear against somebody who has made very similar allegations to those made by Mr Blizzard. If Mr Blizzard is allowed to tell his story and the Government has the guts to act on it, to continue the Fitzgerald process, perhaps the police can go back to catching criminals and the Government can go back to trying to create jobs and manage the economy. At present, the Government cannot manage to deliver effective police services to the community. There is a constant conflict between Government Ministers and senior police officers. It has been going on for years, and it is going on to this day. In the past two years, the senior officer corps of the Queensland Police Service has had to spend more time talking to lawyers than planning crime prevention, and all because of political interference by the relevant Minister, backed every time by the Premier—those superior and additional forces, I would suspect, to which Mr Blizzard referred. The suggestion has already been floated that Mr Blizzard should be invited before this Parliament to air his serious allegations about political interference in the Queensland Police Service. The Opposition supports that call from the shadow Minister for Police and Emergency Services. This forum will provide the protection which Mr Blizzard is seeking. It will make Parliament the master of the issue and it will make the so- called reform process which, according to Mr Blizzard, is under so much stress, accountable to the institution to which it really should be accountable, that is, the Parliament. Minister Braddy has tried to dismiss the idea and claimed that Mr Blizzard can say whatever he likes if “he stops hiding behind his pathetic interpretation of the law”. It is not Mr Blizzard who is interpreting the law, it is Mr Justice Thomas of the Queensland Supreme Court. Mr Blizzard went to court to gain access to reasons for his dismissal. For the benefit of members opposite, including the Minister, the last paragraph in the 18-page judgment by Justice Thomas reads, “It is therefore not a decision in respect of which Mr Blizzard can insist upon reasons being given.” Clearly, he needs the protection of a forum such as the CJC or this Parliament. The attempts to sidetrack the issue by the Minister for Police by bringing in Mr O’Sullivan are just not relevant. Mr Blizzard has made suggestions that there are other forces apart from the Commissioner of Police who are involved. Again, that is no reflection on the Commissioner of Police. At the moment, the Police Service, as a result of this and other neglects by the Government, is in turmoil, and the sooner the Government deals with it the better. Time expired.

Drought Relief Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (11.31 a.m.): Rural Queensland—the bush—has only a small percentage of the State’s population. It has fewer members of Parliament to take on issues that affect the lives of the people who live there. Today, I want to speak on behalf of rural producers in central Queensland who have been hard hit by the drought. This is not a normal drought; it is a drought that many are saying is the worst in 120 years. Before this drought ends, there will be very few Queenslanders who will not have felt, in some way, its impact upon the State. I do not wish to be controversial about the issue, but I want to say that most Australians have little understanding of the impact of the elements on rural production. If it is not a drought, it is a flood or a fire. On top of this, rural producers have had to deal with high interest rates and low commodity prices. Many areas of Queensland are in the grip of drought for the third successive year. From reports, I understand that there are 26 or 27 shires and two or three part shires that are officially drought declared. It is quite frightening when one realises that a total of 10 500 properties are actually drought declared. That is a lot of properties, and it means that a lot of people are hurting. Crops have failed for the third year in a row, and properties have been destocked. Livestock has been sold for less than a third of the best price on offer 12 months ago. Governments cannot overcome the problems faced by people on the land or in rural towns which have been brought about by drought. The people themselves understand that a lack of rain and depressed world commodity prices are fundamental Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2559 problems that cannot be fixed by Government. Drought relief and other financial assistance will not solve those problems, but it will help to ease the pain. We have to do what we can to assist families in need of food, water and other things essential to life. It does not matter whether they live on properties or in rural communities; there are people who are being affected by the drought and who need help. A large number of drought appeals have been launched throughout Queensland. The State Government is supporting the Channel 9/Courier-Mail/Metway Bank drought relief appeal. Recently, Treasury allocated $600,000 from poker machine levies to that appeal. In Rockhampton, the Central Queensland Rural Aid Relief Fund has been set up. The local committee chairman, Peter O’Leary, has worked tirelessly to bring together a committee with the aim of raising funds and food vouchers for rural families. As I said before, I know that that appeal will assist not only the people on the land but also the people who live in rural towns who are affected by the drought. Those people may have been laid off or they may rely on getting work from the rural producers themselves. The purpose of the committee is to help families—not the cattle, not the sheep—who are going without food and water and other items essential to a reasonable quality of life. Everybody should be aware that those people are out there and they are in need. Donations of money can be made at any branch of the Commonwealth Bank. One of the biggest problems currently faced by the committee is getting the fund up and running so that assistance can be made available immediately. There are people who need help now, and the fund is in desperate need of assistance and financial support. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the honourable member speak a bit closer to the microphone, please. Mr PEARCE: I do not know what has happened to the microphone. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr PEARCE: I take the honourable member’s interjection, because I know what he dislikes. Members on that side of the House hate it when a Labor member of Parliament—and a member of the Government—gets on his feet and tries to do something for the people in rural Queensland who are suffering. At least I get off my butt. I talk to people face to face and listen to what they are saying in an effort to get assistance measures put in place. While I am on the subject of the Rockhampton appeal and the need for financial assistance, I make an appeal to the Deputy Premier to investigate the possibility of making available some dollars to kick-start that appeal. Central Queenslanders who have donated to the Metway appeal have told me that they consider it important to support that appeal but that they would like to see their dollars assisting central Queenslanders—the people in their area who are in need of help. I am not asking for a significant amount of money; just a few dollars to help the appeal get off the ground and to provide immediate assistance to those who need it. I understand that, because of the way in which the guidelines are framed, there may be difficulty in gaining access to the funds for this purpose. I ask that that be investigated and, if it cannot be done, I will understand. Maybe some of the members on the other side of the House who are making smart comments would like to open their wallets and donate a few dollars to help get the appeal going. The Queensland Government has done a lot to assist drought affected rural producers. In fact, the people to whom I have spoken are generally happy with the Government because it has demonstrated an understanding of the problems and has shown a willingness to talk with rural industry groups about how assistance measures can be implemented. In consultation with industry, the Queensland Government has developed and is implementing a comprehensive drought management policy. The policy was adopted by the Government in February 1992, and was the catalyst for the national drought policy endorsed by all States and the Commonwealth in July 1992. In 1991-92, the Rural Adjustment Scheme, known as RAS, which is shared by the Commonwealth and the State, provided a total of $29m in interest subsidy via 5 805 approvals, subsidising $527m in debt. To date in 1992-93, $27m has been made 2560 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly available via 4 490 approvals, subsidising $429m in debt. Included in this assistance was $8.3m in assistance under the exceptional circumstances provision made available to 1 022 drought affected producers, or a $170m debt. Under the exceptional circumstances provisions, Queensland originally successfully negotiated $7m of a $14m special allocation by the Commonwealth Government to both Queensland and New South Wales for drought. Subsequently, Queensland has received approval for a further $2.5m for this financial year. Since July 1991, the Queensland Government has directly provided $9m in freight subsidies. In 1991-92, the figure was $5.037m and it is $3.965m in the year to date. In excess of 5 400 claims have been processed this financial year. Currently, claims are averaging 180 a week. Forms of assistance that are available include a fodder freight subsidy of up to 50 per cent from point of sale to home property—the 1 000 kilometre distance limit has been removed, and maximum assistance of $20,000 a year applies—and a livestock freight subsidy of up to 75 per cent is available to property-owners on the return movement of stock sent to agistment and for restocking following drought. I take up this issue because, in recent weeks, I have inspected a number of drought-stricken properties in my electorate. I have spoken face to face with graziers about their problems. One of the biggest problems facing them is the lack of cash on hand to cover the cost of the forward movement of livestock for agistment. A 75 per cent subsidy is available for freight cost for the return of livestock to the home property, but nothing is available for the forward movement. This is a result of the problems that were identified in the eighties when the majority of stock subsidised for agistment did not return to the property of origin. In the seven-year period between 1982-83 and 1988-89, $26.6m was spent subsidising the movement of stock for agistment. Only $8.5m, or 32 per cent of the $26m, was required for the return of stock from agistment. Cattle were transported and, in part, were subsidised by the taxpayers for fattening and sale. There was also a subsidised movement to properties under the same ownership as the property of origin. Again, taxpayers subsidised the movement of stock for fattening or breeding purposes. Mr Perrett: Are you against the subsidy on the forward movement? Mr PEARCE: The member should let me finish. Following a recommendation by the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, the previous system was abandoned by the State Government, and there has been resistance to reintroducing a freight subsidy for forward movement. I am concerned that this restriction will mean that for many graziers, the subsidy will not be available to assist them to move herds to agistment. Mr Perrett: So are you against the subsidy on the forward movement, or not? Mr PEARCE: The member should listen to what I am saying because at least I have done something about it. Again, I renew my call to the DPI to give serious consideration to a proposal I put forward some 10 days ago. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is not happy with what I have proposed, but it is a positive move and it is a genuine attempt to solve the problem. At least it is generating discussions within the department. Mr Perrett interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barambah! Mr PEARCE: The thrust of my proposal is for the Government not to be sponsoring the movement of stock to agistment for fattening or breeding purposes but, rather, to be assisting producers who are genuine about the security of their breed and the future livestock viability of their property. If graziers have herds that they want to look after, let us help them to get the stock away, keep them fed and watered and, when the drought finishes, brought back to the property. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2561

Ipswich City Council Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.41 a.m.): Today, in my position as Local Government spokesman, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a local government matter. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member use the other microphone. Mrs McCAULEY: Mr Speaker, you are going to give me extra time for this, aren’t you? Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will. A Government member: Ten seconds. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That comment demeans the member for Callide. Mrs McCAULEY: They will soon be very quiet, Mr Speaker. This matter concerns the Ipswich City Council, which recently has been in the news because of the expulsion from the Labor caucus of its mayor, Dave Underwood, and the perceived emasculation of Mayor Underwood who has been blocked from carrying out the day-to-day decisions that are necessary in the running of a local authority. The removal of Mr Underwood from caucus was apparently sparked by concern from the unions about restructuring within the council work force. So concerned were the unions about these activities that four union officials were in the gallery at the council meeting at which the decision was made to freeze the workplace reform program and block the move to cancel payroll deductions. They were there to ensure that their puppets on the council voted in the right way. The motion to expel Mr Underwood from the Labor Party caucus was moved by Alderman Paul Tully and seconded by Alderman John Kannine. Deputy Mayor Norm Kruger was elected temporary Labor Party Council Leader to take over the day-to-day running of the council. His announcement that “Underwood is politically finished” will come back and bite him, if the reaction of the people of Ipswich is any indication of the situation—because some 78 per cent of the people are supportive of Mayor Underwood and are keen to see him remain in his position. Mr Tully was on the Ipswich City Council in 1989 when the then town clerk, Bruce Edmonds, was sacked. The decision to remove Mr Edmonds was taken at a meeting at which Aldermen Tully, Kruger, Livingstone and Evans voted in favour of his removal and Aldermen Freeman, Molloy and Dwyer voted against it. It is interesting to note that the then mayor, Des Freeman, retired at the 1991 election and that the present mayor, Dave Underwood, was nowhere in sight. It is also interesting to go back and look at the headlines that appeared in the newspapers at about that time and read the reactions of the various aldermen. Paul Tully said— “It would be unfortunate if people think he has been treated unfairly.” Don Livingstone, who was a councillor at that time, could not be contacted. What a shame! At that time, Tully controlled the council through a faction of four—Tully, Kruger, Livingstone and Evans. He made headlines regularly with his champagne style of living—at Ipswich ratepayers’ expense, of course. He called the shots, and this included procedures such as when files were requested by certain aldermen. For example, the files would be available to the Liberal alderman at the time, Mr Denman, only after 24 to 48 hours’ notice had been given to the town clerk, Mr Edmonds. Of course, this rule would not apply to Alderman Livingstone or Alderman Kruger, but certainly it applied to anyone who in any way posed a threat to the cosy manner in which the Ipswich City Council worked for the benefit of Tully and Co. Before Alderman Denman could get access to the file, it would be placed in Alderman Tully’s office, which was next door to the shredding machine and the photocopier. He would come in at night, because he worked during the day as a Commonwealth public servant, and he would vet the file. There is no list on the front of files as to contents and pages are not numbered, so it is easy to either add or delete from files in question. Mr Tully has a key to the building and he could access his office to check the files without the presence of any council officer. 2562 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

That is in contravention of the council rules which apply to, of course, Alderman Denman, who had to have a council officer present if he were looking at files. In that way, Councillor Tully was able to ensure that his excesses at ratepayers’ expense were not exposed—not, that is, until now. Unfortunately for him, there are still staff with principles around who object to the way in which Alderman Tully carries out his activities. I believe that Town Clerk Edmonds was one of those people. Mr Lingard: Is Tully the man who used to make all those phone calls? Mrs McCAULEY: Tully is definitely the man who used to make all those phone calls. Here he is on the front page of the paper looking very much at ease with his feet up on the desk and a cigar in his mouth. It is very easy to lead that sort of lifestyle when one’s ratepayers are paying for it. This headline, which appeared on 31 March 1989, talks of the town clerk pursuing Tully over his outrageous phone accounts, one of which was $840-odd. Another one was $451. It shows an arrogant Tully with his feet up, saying, “Well, this is the way that I do my business.” I find it rather interesting, if he is a Commonwealth public servant, that he can find the time to make phone calls involving expenditure of that amount. Somewhere, someone along the line is not getting the full benefit of Mr Tully’s expertise. He is either not putting the work into the job that he has or he is ripping off the council. Mr Tully, who obviously feels insecure if he cannot have a telephone in his ear, spent some $295.59 on phone calls over four days while attending a conference in Canberra in 1988—in only four days! He obviously has a fetish with the telephone. When the then town clerk, Mr Edmonds, decided that enough was enough and that Tully’s outrageous behaviour was unacceptable, he was unceremoniously sacked, with the motion being moved by guess who—none other than Alderman Tully. I am pleased to see that Mr Livingstone is here. He will find that very interesting. I table the deed of agreement between the Ipswich City Council and Mr Edmonds in which Mr Edmonds was paid $184,726 in severance money. One could call it hush money to protect Alderman Tully. It is an interesting document because it states, of course, that he will withdraw his appeal to the Local Government Officers Appeal Board. One of the clauses states that Mr Edmonds is appointed to a temporary position of adviser from 23 March 1989 to 3 July 1989, but then clause 9 states that the said Mr Edmonds will refrain from entering council premises or engaging in any communication whatsoever with aldermen or council officers during that period. Clause 10 states that the council agrees to provide a reference for Mr Edmonds upon termination of his employment. That is obviously a document that is drawn up to give Mr Edmonds the utmost benefit. I would query why would it be that the council had to bend over backwards, unless it had something to hide? The council obviously has something to hide, and that document is proof of that. It is Mr Tully’s modus operandi, of course, to call for the sacking of anybody who stands in his way or disagrees with him in any way at all. He called for the sacking of the President of the District Law Association, Robert Walker, who ran the Liberal campaign at the last local government election. He called for the sacking of Edmonds. He is calling now for the sacking of Underwood. That is his modus operandi: people should not get in Tully’s way or they will get the sack. Edmonds was sacked on a beat-up and as a means of sending a clear message to other senior council staff not to rock the boat. It was done at Alderman Tully’s instigation. Mr Livingstone interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should interject from his correct seat. Mrs McCAULEY: He said that it was done at his instigation. Now we go back to the high-flying Mr Tully and the role that he has played in council. In 1988, he went on a trip to Canberra to a conference. According to documents obtained by the Queensland Times, that trip cost ratepayers at least $7,539 in expenses. I wonder who else was at that conference. That total 1988 bill, which includes meeting fees, out-of-pocket expenses, daily allowances, registration fees and car and taxi hire, is more than $4,500 higher than expenses for the trip quoted last November by Mayor Freeman. Tully’s Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2563 share of that bill was at least $3,505. I suppose the rest was Mr Livingstone’s, but I am not sure about that. There was another article in the paper about their staying at the Hilton Hotel with their wives during a conference, when members of the Moreton Shire Council drove daily from their homes to attend that same Brisbane conference. That one cost the ratepayers of Ipswich a great deal of money. This is a letter to the paper that I thought was worthy of repetition. It states— “Seems Paul Tully wants Dave Underwood’s job. A short time ago, he went after Les Scott’s job. Before that, he went after Bob Gibbs’ job. It seems like he wants everybody else’s job other than his own. Maybe it’s time to kick him out.” I agree. Time expired.

Credit Cards; Drought Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (11.51 a.m.): I rise today to support the stand taken by the Minister for Consumer Affairs on the interest rates on credit cards in this country. In Australia, one of the great problems that we have is banks taking by stealth money from people who have credit cards. I want to talk about that and take the House through the history of the way in which it happened. Back in the mid seventies, the idea of Bankcards was introduced into this country. The banks talked to retailers and wholesalers. They signed those people up and said, “We want you to become merchants.” People can use their Bankcards and credit cards and obtain money on credit. Having done all of that, the banks then turned around and offered plastic cards to people in this country. They actively pursued customers by writing to them and saying, “Here we are. We will offer you a plastic card. We will give you a credit limit of $500, $1,000 or $2,000.” Progressively over the past 15 years or so, we have put plastic cards into everybody’s wallet. Most of those people also have a line of credit. The interest rate that is charged to people who use credit cards with an interest-free period is approximately 20 per cent. Those who have cards with no interest-free period are charged a rate of about 17 per cent. On a number of occasions, the Federal Treasurer has gone to the banks and implored them to reduce their rates. The banks have deliberately stalled and said continually that interest rates are under review. The banks continue to charge 17 per cent or 20 per cent, but they tell us that they are not making any money. They do not tell the consumer that the retailers and wholesalers about whom I spoke earlier are also charged interest. However, those rates are negotiated. They can be anything from 1.25 per cent to approximately 5 per cent. When a person uses his plastic card, the banks not only get interest from him but also a fee from the retailer or the wholesaler. At present, banks in Australia say that they want to charge a fee to everybody who has a plastic card. Most people in the work force today would have at least one if not two credit cards. A conservative estimate would be that there are between 3 million and 5 million credit cards in Australia. If the banks charge an annual fee of $20 a credit card, based on a figure of 3 million credit cards, there is an immediate windfall of $60m to the banks. The people who will have to pay that fee are the ones who can least afford it, the people who owe money on their credit cards. Way back in the late 1970s and early 1980s the banks went further. Once they put credit cards in the hands of people, they wrote to them saying that, because they had been good customers, their credit limit would be increased automatically. If the limit was $1,000, the bank increased it to $2,000. If the limit was $1,500, it was increased to $2,500. That was done deliberately in order to make people rely on credit. A number of people have expressed concerns about that action. The Australian Consumers Association has voiced its concern at the reluctance of banks to drop interest rates. In the four years since 1989, interest rates have dropped approximately 15 times. The total interest rate drop has been approximately 13.5 per cent. Interest rates in this country are 2564 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly now in single digits. But what are the interest rates on plastic cards? They are between approximately 17 per cent and 20 per cent. In the period that interest rates have reduced by about 13.5 per cent, interest rates on plastic cards have come down about 2 per cent. Banks say that they need to keep interest rates high because it costs them a lot of money to run the credit card system. What they do not say is that most people have two or three credit cards. These days, most people do not use the interest-free period; therefore they are paying interest right up front. The banks have said to the Federal Treasurer, “If you allow us to charge an annual fee on our plastic card, in return we will lower interest rates.” The capacity exists today for the banks to immediately reduce interest rates by as much as 5 per cent or 6 per cent without needing to charge an annual fee, and the profit margins would still be there. Nevertheless, they refuse to do this. So they turn around and say to the Federal Treasurer, “We will reduce the rates if you allow us to charge an annual fee.” The banks are holding the consumers of this country to ransom. Unfortunately, the Federal Treasurer is sending out to Consumer Affairs Ministers in all States legislation to say that this is the way he is looking at heading. He is looking at allowing banks to charge an annual fee as well as charge interest. As a result, the banks will say, “Yes, we will drop our interest rate by 5 or 6 per cent.” The rate will come back to 15 per cent. However, general interest rates are about 8 or 9 per cent. The banks are saying, “Out of the generosity of our hearts we will drop credit card interest rates by 5 or 6 per cent to 15 per cent.” However, people who have credit cards will be charged an annual fee of approximately $20 to $30 a year. Not for one minute should anyone think that that fee will not increase over the next two or three years. One the one hand, banks will be able to charge people more by the imposition of an annual fee, and on the other hand they will be able to turn around and increase interest rates. They will get it both ways. I applaud the Queensland Minister for Consumer Affairs for his stand. He is the only Minister in this country who can see through the smokescreen. The banks are deliberately holding the consumers of this country to ransom. It is time they were brought to heel. I hope that our Minister goes down to Canberra and argues our case strongly. Today, we have heard a number of honourable members talking about the drought in Queensland. I, for one, feel very deeply for those people out in the bush. However, in adversity there is always someone with a sense of humour. A little while ago, I was with some of my colleagues out in the electorate of the honourable member for Gregory. We told the people there about the great deeds that the member for Gregory was doing in supporting the GST in days gone by. Actually, we were in Barcaldine, so I went over and paid homage to the Tree of Knowledge. I was having a beer in the hotel there and I saw this old fellow sitting at a table. I wandered over to him and I said, “Good day, mate. How are you?” He replied, “Hi. How are you?” I bought him a beer, sat down and said, “Tell me how crook things are out here.” He said, “I will tell you. Actually, it all started back in 1966 when they changed to decimal currency and my overdraft immediately doubled.” He said, “I was just becoming used to that when pounds changed to kilograms, and my wool clip dropped by half. But that is not all. Rainfall changed to being measured in millimetres, and we have not had an inch of rain since. Then a measurement called celsius was introduced. Now it is never hotter than 40 degrees in summer, and that is why my wheat will not grow. If that was not enough, acres were changed to hectares, and I ended up with half the land I had.” That bloke is in all sorts of strife. He then said, “But that is not the end of it. I bought a small car to beat the oil crisis, but then gallons changed to litres and I am now using four times as much petrol as I once did. I sat down and had a think about things. I thought that I might sell my place.” When daylight-saving was in effect, that fellow reckoned that he was working an extra seven hours a week for nothing, so he decided that he would sell out. To cap it all off, just as he put the place in the agent’s hands, miles changed to kilometres and he now finds that he is so far out of town that no-one wants to buy his blooming property! One thing can be said about the people in the bush—even in adverse times, they still have a sense of humour. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2565

STANDING RULES AND ORDERS Amendment of Rule of Practice No. 10 Committee Debate resumed (see p. 2553). Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12 noon), continuing: I do not intend to speak for much longer on this issue. Most of the substantive points were made in my earlier contribution prior to the adjournment of this debate. I have been trying to work out the agenda of the Government. Apart from attempting to ignore the issues that I raised earlier as being worthy of consideration and debate in this place—such as drought, unemployment and the case of Mr Blizzard—what is the real agenda for this motion by the Premier? Government members may accuse me of being cynical, but it seems to me that the Premier is out to upstage his good mate Keating by bringing forward this motion. I listened very carefully to the speech by the Premier. He said that nothing will really change as a result of this motion. We will not become a republic and the Crown will still play a substantial role in the legislative processes. However, this motion will send a clear signal to those constituencies to which the Premier and the Labor Party pander. It will score a point on behalf of the Premier. It will demonstrate that he is doing much more in this regard than is Keating. Perhaps I am being a bit cynical in expressing that view to the House, but I believe that it makes sense. The other major reason for the Premier bringing forward this motion is to divert attention from the major issues facing this Government—unemployment, the drought, strikes and all of the other issues that are basically—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Southport, who reminded me that another issue is the mismanagement of the public service. All of those issues, which are worthy of debate, are being avoided. As a result of the Premier and the Government bringing on this motion, the Opposition was not able to question Ministers. Another reason for the moving of this motion has occurred to me. I have been following the speeches which some Government members have been making to various constituent bodies. Those Government members are raising issues such as prostitution. The current prostitution laws are not working as well as the Government had hoped. Some Government members are even beginning to disagree publicly with the prostitution laws that this Government has introduced. They are making their concerns known publicly. That dissent is starting to worry the Premier and the powerbrokers within the parliamentary Labor Party. Another issue that is gaining momentum rapidly is abortion. Certain influences and groups within the parliamentary Labor Party need to be cajoled and massaged by the Premier. He seeks to control that very divisive issue within the community and, more importantly from the Premier’s point of view, within the Labor Party. Corporatisation is also on the agenda. As I mentioned in passing in my earlier contribution, the benefits that flow naturally from that process, if it is properly implemented, will not be enjoyed without labour market reforms occurring in the public sector. Obviously, the unions need to be appeased in some way. The Premier seeks to appease the unions by bringing a measure as facile as this motion before the Parliament. He is throwing out a bit of a sop to those various and dissenting forces in the hope that they may let the tough issues go by the way. Some people may accuse me of stretching a long bow. However, I believe that the unholy alliance of the Left and the Right that exists in the Government—and the Left particularly—is placing a considerable amount of pressure on the so-called powerbrokers in the Government. This is yet another measure to divert attention from 2566 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly issues which Government members when in Opposition said would be tackled upon their election to Government, including abortion and prostitution. Clearly, the Government is failing to address the issues which it promised would be addressed. The Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations spoke quite eloquently. However, after hearing the diatribe contained in his speech, one should not be surprised that he is no longer invited to talk to school children about politics. I was not surprised to see him support this motion, because he long ago placed on record his views about the State’s emblem and crest. The Minister obviously has a fixation about those matters. He did not make much sense when he started referring to plain English, because he is clearly one of the practitioners who is incapable of using plain English. There is something to be admired in a person who—dare I say it, no pun intended—uses the Queen’s English in an—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Minister is a relic of the seventeenth century propelling us into the twenty- first century. He comes across as that. The point I am making is that I have heard him be very, very silent on issues such as reforming the petitioning process that occurs in this place. Many of his constituents, as well as many of my constituents, would love to be able to put together a petition without having to refer to a brochure and without having to obtain advice from a member of Parliament. Many people would like to see more immediate manifestations of this Government’s intention to use plainer English in how it deals with the public. But no, we are talking about plain English in relation to documents and legislation, which is rarely read by constituents who have a genuine concern about plain English. Basically, this is the beginning of an exercise by the Labor Party to deny our history. I do not know what Government members have against our history. We should be proud of it. Mr W. K. Goss: What’s your history? Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection from the Premier. I was not born of English stock. The Premier can be abusive—he can mutter words or abuse under his breath—but I am very proud of my history. I am Australian, and I have respect for the institution of Parliament. I have respect for the Westminster system, which his party began desecrating in the early 1920s when it abolished the Upper House—the only genuine house of review. As members opposite lay scorn on that statement, I do not hear and I will not hear during this entire debate a move to abolish the Senate. I challenge the Premier to come out and say that we might as well abolish the Senate as a House of review. Mr W. K. Goss: We might as well abolish the Senate, because it no longer represents the States. Mr SANTORO: All I can say is that I will take that interjection from the Premier. Again, he has displayed a vandalistic attitude towards Federal Parliament. I am sure that many senators from all sides of politics will clean up the Premier very quickly on that issue. He is nothing but a constitutional vandal. He has displayed that by his support for what his party did in the 1920s. He has reiterated a similar course of action in relation to the Australian Senate, and his real intentions in this debate have been epitomised by that comment. All Government members want is total Executive power. Mr Blizzard, Mr Newnham and Sir Max Bingham found that out. The Parliamentary committees, which are abused constantly by the Government, have found out precisely what the Government’s thirst for total Executive power is all about. The Premier’s throwaway line is a clear indication that the Labor Party is all about centralised power—“do not worry about the institution of Parliament; do not worry about the offspring of Parliament, including Parliamentary committees”. The Premier’s latest revelation is that the Government may as well abolish the Federal Senate. I think that is a despicable attitude. As I sit down, it gives me great pleasure to second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2567

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (12.12 p.m.): I wish to return to what this motion is all about, which is a change to the enacting statement to legislation of this Parliament. The proposal that is before the Chamber simply reflects what occurs now. It brings Queensland into line with the remainder of Australia. People on the Opposition side of the Chamber who seem to think that that is going to cause doom and gloom should talk to their equivalents in every other State in Australia, even those States in which their party is in Government—albeit for a short period—about the horrific changes that this motion has caused. It did not hurt those States. As the Premier pointed out at the very beginning, has Jeff Kennett changed back the wording? Has John Fahey changed back the wording? Of course, John Fahey must be an absolute embarrassment to Opposition members, because he is in favour of Australia moving towards being a republic, and he is in favour of having an open debate about a republic. This debate is not about changing Queensland into a republic, it is not about the flag, it is not about State emblems or ensigns, it is simply about changing the format of words at the beginning of legislation introduced in this place. I wish to make some comments about the royalists on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Over the last seven or eight years, while I was a group leader of the Duke of Edinburgh Study Conference, I had an opportunity to meet with some members of the royal family and chat with them informally about this issue, as well as a range of other issues. I must say that when I held that position, occasionally some Opposition members would look at me a little cross-eyed and ask, “What are you doing there?” Apart from discussing the value of that project, which, if we carry this motion today, will continue, the reality is that I have had a chance to have several discussions with the Duke of Edinburgh and with the Duke of Kent. They do not carry on with all of this bloody nonsense. They are not interested in trying to pretend that they are the most royal of the royal. They are not perturbed about the fact that there is, and was even then, a growing republican movement in Australia. Opposition members are trying to be more royal than the royals. The royal family are not perturbed about those types of debates. Similarly, several weeks ago, I had an opportunity to have a discussion with the British consul, who was leaving to be replaced. At that time, members on the Opposition side of the Chamber might have noted the public statements which he made and which were produced in the media. He did not see anything outlandish about Australia becoming more identifiable by its own national stance. In fact, he stated publicly that he thought it was a positive move that we were debating whether we should move towards being a republic and changing a range of these issues. Similarly, one of the most successful businessmen in my electorate, John McGuire, who runs Driza-bone—now an English-owned company, although it is one of our most successful companies and national symbols—made a public statement several weeks ago at a major function at the Gold Coast. He said that he could not see what all the fuss was about with the debate about republicanism in Australia. As the manager of a major company in this nation that is owned by the British, he thought that it was constructive that we are moving towards a debate about republicanism, and that we should have more of a national identity. Again, I stress the point that Opposition members, in their opposition to this simple motion, are trying to be more royal than the royals, more British than the British consul, and more defendant of the British than are the British who live in this country. Those members should have a look at precisely where they are going with these issues. The change, by the way, is small beer compared with the massive changes that are taking place in the world today. The world is changing dramatically. Let me consider some things that I believe, only three or four years ago, nobody on this earth would have dreamed could have happened by now. The Berlin Wall is down. Russia is no longer communist. The Country Party no longer exists; it is now the National Party. England is part of Europe and part of the EC, and the EC is consolidating at a more rapid rate than previously. I am sure that many members of the House who have been to the UK in recent years would have discovered that in fact they are the aliens in the UK these days. The Germans, the French, the Italians and everybody else can wander through 2568 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly passport control in London and not be pulled up. But an Australian, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, must line up with everybody else. It is about time that we started to adopt a more independent stance in this country. Of course, there is misinformation about what republicanism will mean. Most members of the British Commonwealth of Nations are republics. The countries that are still dominions or constitutional monarchies, such as Australia, are in the absolute minority in the British Commonwealth. It does not stop those republics from participating fully in the British Commonwealth. It does not stop them from recognising their history, acknowledging their history and being proud of their history. I am very proud of mine as a fourth-generation Australian. But my great-grandfather was an Irishman, not a Brit. I believe that my position reflects the position of a great many people in this country who essentially are not of British stock. My immediate family members are not British. My wife is German. My ancestry is Irish. I do not know what the Union Jack in the corner of a flag has to do with the values of Australians today. Something like 70 per cent or 80 per cent of people in this country are not direct descendants of English stock. I wish to comment about some of the things that have been said by the acting Leader of the Liberal Party. Earlier, I heard someone refer to him as the acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am not really certain what he is doing today, but there is absolutely no doubt that he is acting. This motion before the House is not about the Premier coming back from Oxford. It is not about prostitution, EARC, unemployment, David Blizzard, labour market reform, union bashing, drought, suicides, corporatisation, strikes, the powers of the Left in the Australian Labor Party, abortion, the State emblem, the State crest or abolishing the Legislative Council of Queensland in 1922. This debate is not about those things. The only thing that whatever he is—the acting Leader of the Liberal Party—got right is that he has suddenly become very perceptive. At long last he has worked out that the Government has the numbers in this Chamber. Members on this side of the Chamber were amazed that at long last he has worked that out. This motion is not about outlandish slanders against the Premier. Mr Bennett: You’d think that Armageddon was coming. Mr BARTON: One would think that Armageddon was coming. There is a proposal before this Assembly simply to change the form of words to put it into simple, mainstream English so that everybody, including the school children who stream through this Chamber, can understand what this Parliament is doing, and to put it into language that we can all understand. The Opposition also made great play of the fact that this debate is taking place and that there was no question time. What a pity! As the Premier so succinctly pointed out, had the Opposition wanted to have question time, all it had to do was agree to the motion before the Parliament, which would have taken probably 60 seconds, and we could have returned very rapidly to question time. In turn, Opposition members are making a big thing of the fact that they have missed out on question time, but the Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech that the words did not change anything; that the words simply reflected what is happening now, because the reference to the Parliament means the Crown as well as this Legislative Assembly. If, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition is stating that this motion does not change anything, why is he opposing it? Why is he wasting the time of every member of this Parliament by opposing something that he says does not change anything, while at the same time complaining that the Opposition has missed out on question time? I am sorry that there was no question time because it saved members on the other side of the Chamber from another mauling. I turn now to the slander of the Premier by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party when he spoke about the Premier supposedly being on a jaunt. I ask him where his leader is now. If the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party wants to complain about people going on legitimate parliamentary study missions, perhaps he can explain where the Leader of the Opposition was several weeks ago. Was that study mission a jaunt? I am not suggesting that it was. It is offensive to Government members that Opposition Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2569 members consider an overseas visit by the Premier studying issues that are important to the development of this State as a jaunt, yet similar visits by Opposition members are acceptable. It seems that Opposition members, who think they are born to rule, believe that they can travel wherever they like and do whatever they want. I suggest that, if that is their attitude, their mentality is a bit thin. Mr Davies interjected. Mr BARTON: I take that interjection. A fortnight ago, Parliament was to sit for one week, and it did not sit because the Leader of the Opposition had made overseas travel arrangements. Now Opposition members complain that we have not had question time because it was taken up by a debate on an issue that they say does not change anything. If that is the logic that they think will get them back into Government in this State, they need to review their position. The question has been asked: what is the agenda of this Government? It is not about upstaging Keating; it is not about distractions. I will spell it out for Opposition members. The motion proposes a simple change of words into plain English to reflect what occurs in enacting legislation without all the rhetoric of past centuries. If that is all it does, and if the Leader of the Opposition agrees that it does not really change anything, I ask Opposition members: what is the problem? Other documents have been changed into plain English. A range of legal documents and public documents that were written in legalese or in old English have been changed. Daily, Governments throughout the world, and particularly in this country and this State, are changing documents to reflect simple language that people can understand. That is all this motion is about. The words reflect the body which really makes the laws, that is, this Parliament. The motion reflects what occurs in this place daily, and I support it. Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.26 p.m.): This morning, we saw a Parliament controlled by a dishonest Premier. I say “dishonest”, because the Premier stated continually across the Chamber that he was not attempting to stop question time. With the debate on former Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr David Blizzard, the obvious topic of the day, I trust that the media and Government members will note this cynical attempt to control the Parliament. Unbeknown to the Premier, when he was making his dishonest statements, members of this House were receiving a speakers’ list on which 10 Government members were listed to speak. Including the Premier, eleven Government members were expected to speak, yet Government members allowed the Premier to call across the Chamber—— Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the Committee. The list was devised in the Chamber. After the House assembled, as the member for Archerfield, I was the first to be asked whether I wanted to speak to the motion. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr LINGARD: Obviously, another member knew about the list. The Premier knew about the list, but he continued to say that it was not the intention of the Government to stop question time this morning. It was obvious to the media, to all Government members and to Opposition members that debate was to be adjourned at 11 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon. We had been informed by the Leader of the House that the debate was to be adjourned at 11 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon. Honourable members know that the Blizzard accusations could have been aired during question time between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and that this debate could have commenced at 12 noon. Previously, when Peter Laurance was in trouble, the Government adopted this strategy. However, on that occasion, the Government forgot that the Opposition controlled the debate and that, once the mover of the motion spoke again, the debate was closed. I remind honourable members that, on that occasion, the Attorney-General forgot to jump. Today, the Government controlled the debate completely. Not only did the Premier move the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders; he also moved the motion that honourable members are debating, and he can close the debate by again 2570 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly speaking to the motion. The Premier could have closed the debate at any time, but he did not do so between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., and he still has not done so. What is more, it is obvious that, with 10 Government members listed to speak in the debate, the Premier does not intend to close the debate at this stage. I hope that the media, Government members and all those people who have witnessed this morning’s debate realise what happened. The Premier did not have to debate this issue during the time usually occupied by question time. As the mover of the motion, the Premier could have closed the debate at any time. However, that is not what happened. He was dishonest. He knew at all times that 10 Government members were listed to speak in the debate. It does not matter what the idealistic member for Waterford tried to say; all Government members knew what was going on. They knew that question time would be removed. Previously, the Premier was dishonest to me. I will never forget that instance, and I will never forgive him for it. On that occasion, he gave me approval to go on an overseas trip. Just prior to my leaving, the Premier gave me a letter indicating that I could go on the trip. However, when I returned, the Premier said, “I am sorry. Cabinet did not give its approval.” He has been dishonest to me; he knows that he has been dishonest. The Deputy Premier was also included in that dishonesty, and I will never forget it. I say to Government members that dishonesty is going to be the Achilles heel of this Premier if he is not careful. It has always been the practice of this House that both the Government and the Opposition are allowed to seek and table legal advice. This morning, most of us received that motion 30 minutes before we walked into the Chamber. There is no way possible— even after all of our discussions on republicanism and its effects—that we would have been able to get our legal advice into this House. That is dishonest, it is cruel and it is not the Westminster system. Clearly, the Government should be unable to do that. It is not democracy and it is not in line with the Westminster system. The Government was elected on a policy of reform. Supposedly, it went to the Queensland people and said, “We are going to reform.” Over the last four years, there has been no indication of open and honest government. This morning, the Government has not allowed the Opposition to carry out its true role in this Parliament. Regardless of what the Government thinks of the Opposition, regardless of what the Speaker thinks of the Opposition, it must be the role of Government to allow the Opposition to perform its work in Parliament. If it does not allow an Opposition to perform its true role, it may get into trouble and it may find itself in a lot of difficulties. This morning, the Government has clearly placed the Speaker in an unbelievable position because it has made the Speaker bow to its commands. It does not even put a matter of privilege through like it has tried to put this motion through the Chamber this morning. A matter of privilege must be decided by a parliamentary committee. The Government has forsaken all of the roles of committees; it has not even referred this question to the Standing Orders Committee. It has decided to barge in, and within half an hour it has put this in. Government members have allowed it, yet they shake their heads and say, “Yes, it was a great strategy.” A Government can adopt any strategy it likes, but it must face the consequences. Clearly, relations between Premier Goss and Prime Minister Keating broke down before the last Federal election. We all knew that; the media knew it and it was well publicised. The Premier has said, “I will lead your republican debate for you, and what I will do now is try to bring in something soft.” As has been said, this motion has nothing to do with republicanism, but we heard the member for Waterford start to talk about the “little facts”. The Government is hoping that the media and the public accept this as its first step and that the Premier can say to Prime Minister Keating, “I am leading this republican debate for you.” The Government was elected on a policy of reform: reform of the Parliament and reform of question time. What about all the grandiose statements the Speaker made about what was going to happen to question time and what he was going to do to question time when he came into this House? Look at what happened this morning! Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2571

Government members have sat in their places and allowed it to happen. They all nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, yes. We’ll reform Parliament; we’ll reform all the terrible things that have happened.” Yet they allow this to happen today. Supposedly, we were going to get reforms on debates on Estimates and reforms on the sitting of Parliament. The Government knows that none of that has happened and absolutely nothing has happened about question time. Honourable members should look at what the Government has done on the EARC recommendations: it accepted the EARC recommendations before the last State elections; it brought into this Chamber a motion about adopting the EARC recommendations and optional preferential voting; but since the last election, it has not observed anything of that last EARC report. It has done nothing about second offices for the six western electorates and northern electorates. It has done nothing about extra personnel for electorates. All it did was allow it before the last State election, and since the last State election it has put it aside. The Government knows as well as I do that it went to the public with a policy of reform, and none of that reform has been seen. I ask Government members: what is their policy on the role of committees? We have heard the policy on the role of committees. The committees must discuss things; they must make a report that is not the be-all and end-all; that report must come back to this House. But what has the Government done here this morning? It has not put this question to the Standing Orders Committee. With its numbers, the Government is going to swamp this Parliament and have it accepted by Parliament. I hope that the media does not support the Government. I hope that the media sees what it has tried to do here this morning and that the media accepts the true role of an Opposition, namely, that it should be allowed to seek legal advice on issues, to table that legal advice and to discuss it. If the Government continues to just put things through this Chamber, it will blast an Opposition away. We have no statements about that. We know what it is doing, and it is doing it pretty well, but that is not the role of a Westminster Parliament. The public will see that and, hopefully, the media will see that. If the media continues to assist the Government in completely blasting away an Opposition, then that is not the way a Parliament should act. I respectfully say to the Speaker of this Parliament that he should know that that sort of motion can be turned down by a Speaker. A Speaker can make a decision that a motion cannot be put to the House. It is not correct to say that a Speaker has to put every motion to the House. If he believes that it has been unfair to an Opposition, he can say, “I will not put that motion to the House.” Quite honestly, it has been completely and utterly unfair. Mr Bredhauer: Get used to it. Mr LINGARD: The member for Cook says, “Get used to it.” If the member for Cook continues to say, “Get used to it”, let the media work out how it is going to support or go against the member for Cook. The member for Cook wants to blast away an Opposition— and he can be completely undemocratic. It is quite obvious that the Government can do anything that it wants in this House. Subsequently, it must answer to the people and say how it has run the Parliament. The Premier is unilaterally trying to overturn the entire legislative system in this State. Clearly, he and the Government have no mandate to do this. He has not detailed in any way his supposed discussions with Professor Finnis in England, and none of those statements has been referred to the House. The statements have been tabled, yet no discussions have been held and there has been absolutely no chance for members of the Opposition to look at those legal opinions. The Governor will be presented with a fait accompli by the Premier. The Premier knows that this matter must be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for full consideration. He has not done so. He has no regard for the conventions of this House. The Parliament of Queensland comprises 89 members who have been duly elected by the people of Queensland. Not one member was elected on a platform of republicanism or an anti-monarchy policy. By all means, the debate on republicanism can 2572 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly be flagged and the Premier can support it if he wishes, but let us not go about it in an underhand and sly manner. If it is done in that way, sooner or later the media will turn on him. The media will not accept it. He can control the media if he wishes but, eventually, the media will say, “Don’t do it in an underhand and sly manner.” Why does the Premier act in this way when we obviously have a rural industry crisis, a budget that is dependent on Commonwealth Government handouts and hollow logs, and a public service that costs twice as much as it should? This morning, the acting Leader of the Liberal Party mentioned a strike at the abattoirs. For nine weeks, an industrial dispute has been taking place between the Associated Meat Buyers and the Metropolitan Regional Abattoir. During that period, neither the Minister for Primary Industries, the Deputy Premier, Tom Burns, nor the Premier went out to resolve the issue. Associated Meat Buyers purchase 1 200 sheep per day from the western areas and have them slaughtered, but because of the industrial fights taking place, not one of those sheep is going through the meatworks at present. Today, 1 200 sheep could be bought at $2 or $3 for a 19-kilogram, off-shear wether from people out west who are affected by the rural industry crisis. That is money that a farmer could receive, but farmers are receiving nothing at present. The industrial dispute has been extended to a dispute between the AMIEU and the abattoir. Last Friday, the workers were told to return to work, but they did not. Yesterday morning, they said that they want $25 extra per week plus all the enterprise bargaining benefits that they can get, and went on strike. They met again this morning and decided to stay out. Where is the Deputy Premier? Where is the Minister for Primary Industries? Where is the Premier? Clearly, the abattoir reports to the meat authority and the meat authority reports to the Minister, so surely the Minister for Primary Industries can go to the meatworks and say to members of the AMIEU, “For the sake of rural Queensland, let us get this matter resolved.” This morning has been a program of absolute deception. All honourable members who think about parliamentary reform should say to themselves, “This morning I have allowed this to happen when I know in my heart that this could have been discussed at 12 o’clock today—and is being discussed at 12 o’clock—and there was absolutely no reason for this motion to be put forward between 10 and 11 o’clock.” Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (12.41 p.m.): It is somewhat interesting for me to join in the debate because I thought there might have been something in the three speeches of the members opposite that could have been used as debating points, but they did not address the motion at all in any of their speeches. Instead, we heard an interesting definition of “honesty” from a former Speaker of this Parliament whose honesty is legendary in this State. I do not think that I want to be lectured by him on honesty; nor do I want to be lectured by him, or by the Leader of the Opposition, on reforms to question time. When the Leader of the Opposition held his former, exulted position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he actually sabotaged reforms to question time in this Parliament—not only to the detriment of his own back bench, but also to the detriment of backbenchers on both sides of the House, and to the ultimate detriment of the constituencies that those members represent. I think he should be condemned for it. I do not think that Opposition members should be raising that issue in this debate to show that the Government is not doing the right thing in terms of Standing Orders. Mr Borbidge has referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Why did he do so—so that he can sabotage it again? Mr Lingard: This is a great reaction to the Standing Orders Committee. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: If the member wants to make that suggestion, I am sure that his suggestion would be considered, being the reasonable Government that we are. But I do not think on this occasion he has done his intellect any good by making that suggestion. Mr FitzGerald: You are sabotaging the committee, and that is all you are doing. You are an accomplice. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2573

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am quite happy to hear the blithering idiot—I am sorry—the member for Lockyer because what he has to say is spoken at volumes far beyond the level that his intelligence dictates should be used by him in this place. We heard Mr Santoro during this debate—— Mr Ardill interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am sorry, we heard the member for Clayfield, which was previously the clay field mine, saying that we are denying our history. He took offence when the Premier indicated that he might be denying his own history by opposing the motion. I guess it is true that there is no fiercer Queenslander than those of us who were not born here. Mr Santoro shows also that there is no fiercer monarchist than one who was not born here. I am not denying my history. My ancestors came to this country as convicts. They did not come out here as landed gentry, as the ancestors of members opposite obviously did. Mr Springborg: Mine came out as convicts, too. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: In the honourable member’s case, I can understand that. Members opposite are probably bemoaning the fact and blaming the rural recession on the fact that they have to buy farm equipment. In the old days, their ancestors would have contacted the Governor and had him supply them with a few thousand labourers to plough their fields and shear their sheep, but that is not what is happening today. Through this small amendment, which is not a required amendment or one that has constitutional implications—and I will return to that point shortly—we are bringing Queensland into line with the Commonwealth and every other State in Australia. Why should we be different? It is not a revolution. This is not a classic confrontation between Anglophiles and Anglophobes or monarchists and anti-monarchists. This is a simple machinery amendment to the enacting preamble in all legislation that is brought forward in the House. Mr Lingard mentioned the sabotaging of the role of committees. I guess that he would prefer the Government to pre-empt the findings of the all-party Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on the report on committees in this place given by the commission to the Parliament. It is not fair for him to stand up in the Parliament and say that the Government should do that. I want to take the member for Beaudesert to task over his bitter complaints that the Premier has not given any of the details of his discussion with Professor Finnis on the matter. As I understand it, the Premier discussed constitutional matters with Professor Finnis. This is quite clearly not a constitutional matter. Why would the Premier have wasted his time discussing the matter with Professor Finnis? I would agree that, if the sole purpose of the discussion with Professor Finnis were to discuss that matter, members of the Opposition may have had some justification to say that it was a wasted trip. Quite clearly, the matter was not the subject of those constitutional discussions. As Queensland and Australia move to a consideration of a number of questions—the republic; our national symbols, the flags; and abolition of the States—many constitutional matters need to be discussed. I am sure that those matters, rather than this small matter, will be the subject of discussions with Professor Finnis. Members opposite have regularly bemoaned the loss of question time. I know that my colleague the member for Waterford mentioned this, also. Those members ought to thank the Government for denying them question time. They ought to ask the Government to come up with another motion tomorrow so that question time is denied to them again. For three and a half years in this place, every time that members opposite rose to their feet on a witch-hunt they were made to look very foolish indeed. They did not have a win. Their tactics in question time are appalling, to say the least. Perhaps it would be wise for them to bear in mind that a blizzard is a cold and freezing wind. That cold and freezing wind that they are about to unleash on the Government will in turn 2574 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly give members opposite frostbite. There is no frostbite for the Government in that question. It will be frostbite for the members of the Opposition. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: My dear friend the member for Southport asked who has written this speech. I recall the member for Southport in the Adjournment debate giving a three-minute speech that was written by somebody other than himself. The speech went for three minutes and was poor from start to finish. Nevertheless, I remember it well. The member for Southport can come over here and look at the scribble that I have put together from which to couple together these few thoughts—— Mr Veivers: Has your wife been ringing you in the Parliament again? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No. My wife has not been ringing me in the Parliament, but I thank the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to mention the wonderful support that my wife gives me as a member of Parliament and to have her contribution to my role as a member of Parliament recorded for posterity. I have met the honourable member’s wife. She also is a very lovely woman. I will record her role, also. For the benefit of Madam Acting Chairman, I will return to the motion in question. Mr Beattie: Remember that speech that he gave? He slurped his speech. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No, I would not say that. The reality is that, for all the blustering, for all the posturing, for all the abuse, the three speeches from the Opposition were three speeches of slander directed—— Mr FitzGerald: What did you call me? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Nobody said that there was not some slander coming from the Government side of the Chamber. Three speeches of slander from members of the Opposition were directed at the Premier, who is a man that I will say that I and all members of the Government would follow virtually to the fires of hell because, if that were the direction in which the Premier were to lead us, I would know that that would be for the benefit of Queensland. Mr Lingard: He took me there once, and he made me pay for it. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I will not rejoin that because I know that it was a very painful experience for the member for Beaudesert. I am sure that it is an experience or a memory that he will take with him to his grave and that his bitterness will not abate between now and then. If I can return to the subject, I will wind up and not take up any more of the time of the Committee unnecessarily. If we consider the motion quite simply, it is nothing other than a small machinery amendment to bring our enacting preamble into line with that of the other States of Australia and the Commonwealth, to bring it into a form of plain English. I say to those members who are fierce defenders of the Standing Orders Committee that, while they are considering the review of the Standing Orders, they should also consider reviewing the form in which petitions are presented to Parliament. Petitions should also be in plain English; archaic language is out of place in that instance, too. Mr FitzGerald: You support the Standing Orders Committee, don’t you? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I cannot hear the honourable member. Mr FitzGerald: You support the Standing Orders Committee functioning, don’t you? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I would support the Standing Orders Committee functioning, but I do not support—— Mr FitzGerald: Not on this occasion. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I do not know that this—— Mr FitzGerald: You would support the amendment? Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2575

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Of course I am going—— The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: He gets the hook out, he throws the fly in the direction of me and he thinks that he has caught a fish. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No, I am not going to bite on a fly. The motion before the Committee is sensible. It brings into line the enacting preamble in Queensland legislation. I do not see that it pre-empts or does away with any of the functions of the Standing Orders Committee. I see the motion as reasonable, timely and worthy of support. I support the motion. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside) (12.53 p.m.): This is a motion in support of the citizens of Queensland. It is a motion that affirms the supremacy of the people of Queensland because it is a motion that recognises that Parliament needs to be more relevant for our citizens. This is not a motion against the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. For those who still have respect, admiration or affection for Her Majesty, they can still at the same time hold that affection while recognising that her role has changed, or recognise that the manner in which her role is carried out needs to change. The debate today is not about Australia’s move to become a republic. That matter will come up for debate at a later stage, and I will support that motion. Today’s motion concerns the change to the Statement of Enacting Authority under Rule of Practice No. 10 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. That is what we are debating today. This Parliament and the laws we pass must be relevant and beneficial to our citizens. For them to be relevant, we need to use language which is readily understood by the people of our State. It should be noted that in many areas of our society the language has been changed to be more relevant. I will cite some examples. We have noticed our insurance policies being written in plain language so that all can clearly see their responsibilities and liabilities. Church services and liturgical practice have been brought more into the vernacular to make them more relevant for those participating. Medical and nursing practices have changed, especially in consultation practices, so that people can clearly understand what is required of them, and of their complaint. A few legal practices have changed. Not many have changed, because the legal profession is very slow to change, but at least it has made some effort. Parliamentary drafting practices have changed, and have to incorporate plain English where possible. Wedding vows, that ultimate verbal contract between people, are heard now in very plain, readily understood English. And at last, therefore, it is appropriate that this Parliament uses language which is simple, clear, plain and appropriate for what is necessary. We must take the steps to bring the practices and language closer to those of our people. In conclusion—the motion before the Committee is necessary, it is needed, it is practical, it is desirable and it is worthy of speedy passage through the Committee. I support the motion. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: I call the member for Cook. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (12.56 p.m.): Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman. Mr FitzGerald: The first non-Irishman speaking on your side. Mr BREDHAUER: But my mum was a Quinlan. I would like to endorse the motion that is before the Committee. I do so mainly from the point of view and the perspective that was put both by the Premier in his speech and by a number of other previous speakers, namely, the importance of having the procedures and the literature of this House done in a form which is recognised as plain English. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke, he made great play of the fact that it was important that we as a Parliament maintain the relevance of our forum to the people of Queensland and to the people of Australia. I would argue and contend that one of the things that have made us increasingly irrelevant to the people of Australia is some of the forms that we use, some of the language that we use and some of the procedures which we adhere to, which are 2576 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly seen by some people to be quaint but by others to be totally anachronistic. I think a small change such as this—and it is a relatively small change; even Opposition speakers have noted that it is not a major change to procedures that we are embarking on today—helps to bring an increasing relevance to the procedures and debates of this Chamber for the people of Queensland and for the people of Australia. I want to comment very briefly on the plain English aspect of it. I refer briefly to the Law Reform Commission of Victoria and its ninth report on “Plain English and the Law”. One of the defences that people put up against moving to plain English, and something that we have heard from members opposite, is the objections that people have to the use of plain English. The report talks about plain English involving a debasement of the language. The report quotes a piece from Shakespeare, which I will not quote because it would take up too much of the Committee’s time. The report states that the form of English that is used in that literary work is appropriate to the literary work. It then gives a plain English interpretation of that literary work and it says that the language would certainly be debased if plain English terminology was used. However, the report states that legal documents—and I will add here legislation—are functional documents, not literary ones. It says that their aim is to establish, and to communicate information about, rights, duties, benefits and burdens. It states— “They are not intended to be works of art, to convey atmosphere or to generate aesthetic pleasure. That is not to say that they may be written clumsily or inelegantly. . . . Writing legal documents in plain English requires direct and clear expression. It does not involve any debasement of the language.” That is a principle with which I concur. May I return to the inference contained in the report that it is not to say that documents must be written clumsily or inelegantly. The member for Clayfield seems to think that because the Government is moving towards the principles of plain English it must not use the range of vocabulary that is available to people such as the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations who, whilst he supports the principles of plain English, usually speaks quite elegantly and, might I say, eloquently. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BREDHAUER: Prior to the luncheon adjournment, I was referring to the importance of the procedures of the Parliament being undertaken in plain English. I was referring to some of the criticisms of plain English, and I was attempting to demonstrate that those criticisms are not really serious. I was referring also to the ninth report of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria titled Plain English and the Law, which has application also to legislation. I want to refer further to that report. It makes a number of points about the importance of plain English. This is a pet subject of mine, and this is an opportunity for me to place some of my views on record. The report states— “Plain English is important because it improves communication. Improved communication increases information and decreases the need for interpreters. In the legal system, adoption of a plain English approach would have two main benefits. First, it would contribute to the rule of law by decreasing the risk of unintentional breaches of the law, and of legal obligations, resulting from ignorance or misunderstanding. Secondly, it would decrease the costs associated with the administration and application of legislation and other legal documents.” I think that is an important point. By simplifying the law, the opportunities for people to accidentally breach the law are decreased. In addition, the costs of administration can be reduced. The same applies to legislation. The report further states— “Laws confer benefits and impose obligations on people. If laws are not written in clear and easily comprehensible language, those who are affected by Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2577

them may be deprived of those benefits or fail to discharge their obligations. But laws are rarely written as plainly as they might be.” That report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission makes the point that, if people are to understand the processes and their responsibilities and entitlements, they must be able to understand the language in which the legislation is written. Rather than being an attack on the monarchy, as some Opposition members have portrayed it, and rather than being a denial of our history, as one of the Opposition members has portrayed it, this relatively simple motion—— Mr Ardill interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: That would probably be correct. I think it was the member for Clayfield who referred to the denial of history. He is probably deficient in that area. The motion moved by the Premier is a simplification of the enacting preamble or preface to the legislation. In that context, I think it is to be applauded. At a later date and on numerous occasions as the debate on the republic and other issues generate great interest in the community, we will have the opportunity to discuss those issues further. On one previous occasion in this House, I have stated that I am a supporter of Australia moving towards a republic. I do not want to guess the exact number, but I have acknowledged that a considerable number of people in my electorate would disagree with me. On the other hand, I know that a considerable number of people in my electorate would agree with me. I know also that, for most people, the jury is still out on the matter, and they will make up their minds as the debate unfolds. I am not one of those who ascribe to the theory—— Mr FitzGerald: Some of them mightn’t care. Mr BREDHAUER: There may be some who do not care. However, I am confident that, ultimately, the majority of Australians will support the initiatives that see us move towards a republic. I do not know whether that will happen by the year 2001 or not. I am not fixed on the timetable. However, I do not agree with Opposition members, who believe that these debates are a distraction or are irrelevant. This is an important debate. It is a debate that the community must be mature enough to embrace. It does not mean that other issues of importance, such as drought, unemployment or police issues, are being neglected. We must have the opportunity to debate a whole range of issues in this Parliament. At times, the Government will want to debate issues that are of importance and significance to the community. The Government has the right to do that, and the Opposition has the right to object. I look forward to the opportunity to debate in this House on a number of occasions the progress towards a republic in Australia. I give notice to members opposite that I intend to participate in that debate vigorously. However, I advise members opposite that today is not that time. Today’s debate involves a relatively minor amendment to the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. I support the motion before the House. Mr DAVIES (Mundingburra) (2.36 p.m.): This morning, I listened to the contributions of the pathetic bunch opposite, and they really are a pathetic bunch. The Government has to drag them screaming into the twenty-first century. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr DAVIES: The honourable member for Burdekin may not like it, but that is the truth. Today provides an opportunity to talk not about other issues but about this issue. This is a chance to change the Standing Orders, and it is simply a recognition of the need for that change. Rather than that, Opposition members want to stay back in the 1700s. They are stuck in an Old English mind-set. They are stuck in the days of the gentry—the knights, the lords, the earls, the princes, the princesses and, more importantly, the serfs. That is why Opposition members want reference to the Queen to remain in the Standing Orders. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government acknowledges that flash titles are not needed. It does not believe in the Old English symbolism because, in common with the Old English language, it is inappropriate in today’s multicultural society. The world has changed and 2578 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Australia has changed. Queensland has to change, as well. The English aristocracy bears no relationship to modern Queensland, no relationship to modern Australia and to our place in the Pacific Rim. These days, it is even doubtful that it has relevance to Britain and the United Kingdom, because their ties are becoming increasingly greater with the European Community. It is significant to realise that Australia’s ties with the UK have diminished significantly over the past 20 years, both in terms of trade and hereditary links. In terms of trade, in 1954, approximately 40 per cent of Australia’s exports went to the UK. Fifty years later—to be precise, 49 years later—that figure is down to 3 per cent or 4 per cent. In terms of hereditary links, as at the 1986 census, only 48 per cent of Australians were of Anglo-Celtic descent; 30 per cent of Australians were from a multicultural/Anglo- Celtic descent; and approximately 12 per cent of Australians had no Anglo-Saxon ties at all. The 1991 census results will show an even greater differential. It is not surprising to find that the conservatives oppose this motion today because the senior partner, the National Party, is opposed to the push for a republican Australia, and the hapless Liberals do not have a spine. They will just tag along and do what the Nationals say. One wonders why the member for Clayfield does not support this motion. He argues that it should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. That argument does not hold water. In fact, it is quite a farcical argument. Although the committee system is important—and I acknowledge the importance of the committee system— Parliament is supreme. It is the law-making institution, not a committee. The committee system in Parliament is subservient to the Parliament itself, and I do not think that anyone could stand up and argue against that. The other reason I am surprised that the member for Clayfield does not support this motion is that he is not of Anglo-Saxon descent. I presume that he is one of the 12 per cent of Australians that I mentioned previously who have no ancestral links to the mother country. There are some good reasons why the reference to the Queen should be deleted from the Standing Orders and the wording for the enactment of legislation. The reference to the Queen is entirely inappropriate because it represents a discrimination that is inappropriate in modern Australia. Firstly, only a member of the Church of England can accede to the throne. Since the Act of Settlement of 1700, the monarch must be a communicant of the Church of England. When Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic, he had to give up his position in the line to the throne. Mrs Woodgate: Surprising. Mr DAVIES: I agree with the honourable member for Kurwongbah. I would argue that discrimination on the basis of religion is inappropriate in any legislation not only in Queensland but also in Australia. Although section 116 of the Constitution strikes out such discrimination in Australia, nevertheless it is a symbolism that should be removed. A second discrimination exists in that the monarch accession rules contain a preference for the male line. In other words, where there is a son and a daughter, the son comes first in the line of accession. Clearly, discrimination on the basis of religion and on the basis of sex is something to which we should be opposed. We have to remove those blatant symbols of discrimination. Also, the monarch is required to reside in the UK. Apart from the aristocratic lineage and the additional symbolism that I mentioned previously, that is another reason to make this change. As has been mentioned by other speakers, dramatic changes have occurred throughout the world. Australians are just catching up with the rest of the world, and Queensland is catching up with the rest of Australia. As a number of speakers have said this morning, we are just coming into line with other Parliaments in the ACT, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. It is also about time that we recognised that the Australian mood has changed. The recent Age/Saulwick poll indicated that approximately 50 per cent of Australians want a republic, but they want to retain Commonwealth links. Only 35 per cent of Australians want the status quo to remain, and 15 per cent want a republic with no links to the Commonwealth. That opinion has changed significantly since the 1950s. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2579

During that time, only 15 per cent of Australians favoured any type of republic. Approximately 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the youth of Australia support a republic with, as I said before, those links to the Commonwealth. Quite frankly, the youth of Australia find it difficult to work out why the older population and the middle-aged population oppose the move towards a republic. Two years ago, a James Cook University survey indicated that over 90 per cent of the students on campus favoured a republic with Commonwealth links. Predominantly, the youth of Australia support this type of change. On a national level, the debate against the move to become a republic is led by that arch conservative, John Howard, or, to be more precise, John Winston Howard. With his miniature Bob Menzies eyebrows, his exceptionally British name and his arch conservative views on industrial relations and migration, is it any wonder that John Howard is leading the debate in the Liberal Party against a republic? It is no surprise at all. It is appropriate at this stage to say that Australia does not have a formalised hereditary political system. In fact, about 140 years ago, in the 1850s, a proposal was put in New South Wales to have an Upper House based on the hereditary system, in other words a system similar to that of the House of Lords in the UK. That proposal was rejected out of hand. That type of concept, the hereditary principle of succession, has always fitted uneasily in Australia, because it is an indicator of the British class system. The principle of merit is one to which we subscribe, not what family we were born into. Australia has changed, and we have to change, too. Since the Australia Act of 1986, our legal ties to the British legal system have been cut. The legal revolution occurred through that, because no longer do we have appeals to the Privy Council in the UK. The highest court in the land now is, appropriately, the High Court of Australia. Yet we have legislation in Queensland which begins with “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty”. That is obviously and clearly a contradiction in itself, and one which cannot be allowed to continue. The retreat to Britain is over. Economically, we are part of the Pacific Rim. From the British point of view, Britain is part of Europe. Legally, we are independent. For many years, we have been independent in defence and those types of things, and it is only appropriate that this very minor change be made because it reflects reality. I support the motion and refute an amendment which does not acknowledge the supremacy of Parliament. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (2.47 p.m.): This afternoon, I rise to support the motion moved this morning by the Premier to amend Rule of Practice No. 10 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. I do so with some enthusiasm because, as honourable members will recall from contributions that I have made on previous occasions in this Chamber, it is my view that the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly 1992 fell off the back of the ark heading west, and were left out in the sun somewhere on that honourable mountain. The Standing Rules and Orders of this Parliament need major overhaul and change. Mr FitzGerald: They would have got wet. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, they did get wet. They are wet all right, and they need drying out and changing. I agree with that interjection. That will surprise most members, including the member who interjected. The Rules of Practice are set out in the contents. Rule of Practice No. 10 is set out there as part of the Standing Orders. I hope that this change is the first of many changes that will take place to the Standing Orders because, as I have indicated, they need urgent reform and updating. In fact, they need dramatic and major reform. Anybody who supports the retention of this archaic Rule of Practice No. 10 is really supporting the past, going back to the penal days of Australia and supporting a period in Queensland’s history that is well and truly dead and gone. Today, because this debate was so scintillating, I had time to again read the various Standing Orders that apply to this Chamber. As I said, they are in need of reform. From reading Standing Order 280, Disposal of Original Bills, on page 45, it is obvious that Standing Orders of this type need reform, too. It states— 2580 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“When the Governor shall have assented in the name of Her Majesty to any Bill, one of the fair prints thereof, on vellum, shall be deposited by the Clerk of the Parliament in the Registry of the Supreme Court . . . ” That is almost a foreign language. Mr Grice interjected. Mr BEATTIE: As the honourable member from the Gold Coast said, even he could not understand it, and I read it to him. That comes as no surprise to me. One of the strengths of this Goss Government is that it has supported the introduction of clear, plain language in Bills. As a lawyer, one of the things that irritated me most was how the law was written. On many occasions, it was written in a form that was not understandable by the ordinary citizen. I reject that totally in terms of the law, and I reject it totally in terms of the operation of this Parliament which, after all, is the people’s House. Therefore, any move that supports the introduction of clear, plain language I will support in this forum and in any other forum where I have an opportunity to do so. It is fundamentally important to the operation of a democracy that the people who vote for their elected representatives, that is, ordinary Queenslanders, are able to understand the language of the operation of their Parliament and of the courts and the law of the land. To do otherwise leaves a mystery about the law and the operation of the Parliament when neither should be mysterious. They should be clearly understandable to the ordinary Queenslander. This reminds me of the days subsequent to the Norman invasion of England after 1066, when French was used quite widely in the English courts. In fact, it was used by the king. That was a senseless operation of a foreign language. In those days, the ordinary Briton had no possible opportunity of understanding the French language. Yet because the Normans had invaded England, and they were the monarchy at that time, French was practised as the language of the day. It was irrelevant then, as it would be now in Australia. That is why we are seeing in Australia, through this move and other moves that are continuing as part of the current debate, a maturing of Australia and a modernisation of Australia. We no longer need—and I quote from the Premier, who this morning made a very valid point—“psychological props to keep us going”. We do not need those props. We are standing on our own two feet, and it is long overdue. I am always intrigued by debates such as this. I remember some actions taken during the 1970s by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, which I will mention in a minute. Whenever debates such as this occur, the Opposition—the conservatives in Queensland, in the Parliament and outside—run around championing the cause of consultation, the cause of involving Queenslanders in the decision-making process, the cause of the monarchy, and so on. But what about the practice of what they did? During the 1970s, the Premier and the National/Liberal Party coalition Government changed the Coat of Arms. Indeed, behind you, Madam Chairman, is the current Coat of Arms for Queensland. If I recall correctly, the Coat of Arms was changed from a ram and a bullock, which I thought represented primary industry in this State, to a rampant red deer—an English, rampant red deer. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr BEATTIE: It is imported. Would the honourable member prefer to support rampant red deer or the cattle industry of Queensland? If he looks at that rampant red deer, he will notice that it has exposed itself in a way that is not appropriate for a coat of arms. I take offence at it. It is about time we grew up. All honourable members know why the rampant red deer is poised in that stance and why it is referred to as a rampant red deer. If they know why that is so, they will understand why we need to change our Coat of Arms. Mr FitzGerald: You have sheep on the Coat of Arms, anyway. Mr BEATTIE: I am referring to the major figures. I have no problem with having a brolga on the Coat of Arms, but it is embarrassing to Queensland to have a rampant red deer on the Coat of Arms. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2581

Mrs Woodgate: Why have we got that on there? Mr BEATTIE: That is a very good question. I am about to come to that. We have it there because in the 1970s Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, without any consultation with the people of Queensland, changed the Coat of Arms. Mr FitzGerald: The party did it. Mr BEATTIE: I know that the honourable member is going to say it was a gift from the Queen. I accept that it was a gift from the Queen, but it was changed without consultation with the people of Queensland and it was done by replacing an animal that was very much typical of Queensland with one that is very much typical of Great Britain. I will make my position very clear. Mr FitzGerald: They had no animals on it. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member can talk about his animals in his own time. We should change our Coat of Arms. It is time that we got rid of that indecent rampant red deer from the Coat of Arms. I wonder how many people have closely studied letterheads of various Government departments. When they do, they will support me in calling for a change to the Coat of Arms. In the 1970s, under Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, there was a reversion. We went back to towing the line of nineteenth century Great Britain and the monarchy that existed at that time. Australia and Queensland are more mature than that. Today, we are making an important symbolic move. We are simply saying “The Parliament of Queensland enacts”. We are elected by the people of Queensland as their representatives in this place. We are the body that makes the laws for this State on behalf of the people of Queensland. Anybody who objects to the Government’s proposal that the preamble should be “The Parliament of Queensland enacts” is supporting something so archaic and out of touch that it does not deserve detailed consideration. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am prepared to accept that appropriate interjection. Let us get rid of the deer as well. During this debate, National and Liberal Party members have stated that we should be dealing with the drought and looking at other issues involving the police and so on. Every member of this Chamber is concerned about the drought in Queensland and the plight of country people. However, Opposition members should not try to use the plight of country people as some sort of political weapon. The reality is that the Government is doing everything it possibly can to help the people who are working on the land in this State. Just because this motion has been moved today does not mean that the Government is not preoccupied with helping the economy and the people on the land; it is. The reality is that this Government can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is multiskilled. It can do more than one thing at the one time. This Government is not a Government led by people such as the former President of the United States, President Ford, who could not walk and chew gum at the same time. Governments can do many things at the one time. I know that, over the years, the National Party had difficulty doing that. But this Government is multiskilled. It is multidimensional and can do more than one thing at the one time. I note that the honourable member for Aspley is looking aghast. He, too, does not understand the need these days for multidimensional political operatives and multidimensional activities by State Governments. If he listens, he will understand clearly just how multidimensional this Government is. We must appreciate that much of the debate in opposition to Australia’s move towards a republic is based on self-interest, political opportunism and naivety. Anyone who has been to Britain will be aware of the cauldron effect that has occurred in that country over the decades. Many of us who go back there looking for our ethnic origins would be aware that a large part of Britain was settled by the Saxons, who were the ancestors of the honourable member for Aspley, who has Germanic ancestry. Britain was settled by the Vikings, the Saxons from the heart of Germany, the Normans and the Celts. They ended up with a melting pot in Great Britain. This argument is not about 2582 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly ethnic origins; it is about what form of government we have and what level of maturity we have. I hope that as this debate takes place, as it clearly will in the move towards 2001, we will start looking at where Australia’s future is. At the end of the day, we are all Australians. If people think that our economic future lies just with Europe and Great Britain, they are kidding themselves. In 1987, I visited Britain as a guest of the British Government and spoke with some officers who were involved in Britain’s move into the European Community. I raised issues about Australia’s future. I talked about apples, wool and other commodities. I spoke with a very nice little Scot. Being of Scottish ancestry, I can understand and appreciate what a talented man he was. In the end, he said to me, “You realise, of course, that you have got to make your own way in the world now. We may have been the founding fathers of Australia, but the blunt reality is that Britain is going to take its own economic direction and has been doing so for some time. Australia has to worry about where it is, and that is in the Asia/Pacific Rim.” Whether we like it or not, our trade future is in Asia. That is the reality of where we find ourselves geographically. That is why the symbols of Australia are important. People outside Australia look at our symbols to understand us better. As we begin to stand on our own two feet and forge our way economically and politically in the world, the symbols we use are important. That is why to me it is a joke to have a red deer on the Coat of Arms. That is why, when we are talking about the Preamble of a Bill, surely we can say “The Parliament of Queensland enacts”. Why we need to even mention the Queen in that context is beyond me. Anyone who thinks sensibly about this matter, anyone who is interested in the country people, and anyone who is interested in the development of trade and manufacturing knows that our symbols are important and that those symbols demonstrate to the region in which we live that we are a part of that region. That does not mean that we should ignore our historical links. When one considers the Maastricht Treaty and what is happening in Europe; one does not find any place for Australia in the Maastricht Treaty, nor does one find any place for Australia in that huge trading bloc which is the European Community. One finds a huge trading bloc that is looking after its own interests. Honourable members should talk to farmers about what they think about the French farmers and the other European farmers. They do not like them at all. Given half a chance, they would tar and feather them. But that has happened as a result of what is occurring in Europe. We have to resist any further deterioration by developing our own markets and improving our production techniques in our markets. I was in Britain in December of last year and January of this year. Having been there, I suggest that if members opposite want to talk about what is happening in the royal family, all they have to do is read the British press. There seems to be more reverence for the royal family from the Opposition in this House than there is in Britain! Anyone reading the press in Britain will find that the greatest sport in Britain is to kick a royal. Some of the things that they have done—and some of the tapes that I have heard about of telephone conversations—leads me to believe that the royal family deserve to be given a kick here and there. I am sure that the Queen—and she has carried out her role in a very dignified manner—would be as embarrassed as a lot of Brits are about what has happened. Mrs Woodgate: It lends more meaning to the term “royal flush”. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. The point that needs to be made in this debate—and it is a bit hard to carry on after that—is that we have to find our own place in the world. We have to grow up; we have to get out into the world. For so long, Australians, particularly under leaders such as Menzies, thought the world owed them a living. In the 1950s and early 1960s, we rode on the sheep’s back. We did not get out into the world; we were not as competitive as we needed to be; we did not undertake the necessary restructuring of the economy. As a result, we paid the price in the 1970s and through the 1980s when that necessary restructuring was carried out. Mr Springborg interjected. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2583

Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. Yes, it is better and it will be better because Australia will be more competitive and we will not sit around pretending that the world owes us a living. That is exactly what we have done for too long. I conclude by saying that the symbols we use are important. This Parliament is a mature Parliament that stands on its own two feet. It is about time that we got the symbols right and had pride in our country for what we are—not just where we came from, but what we are today, taking into account where we came from. We cannot simply use the crutch of the past to pretend that that will provide us with a living in the future, because it will not. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (3.03 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in this very historic debate today in this Chamber. In my opinion, this motion is yet another courageous move by a Government that has proven itself time and again very much in touch with the feelings and thoughts of ordinary Queenslanders. As previous speakers have said, this is a timely move as Australians work through the process of forming a republic. The motion moved here today proposes no constitutional changes; no changes to the role of the Governor; no changes to the workings of this Parliament; no changes to any of the institutions in this State. What we are talking about here today is removing a few words, “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows” and inserting five words, “the Parliament of Queensland enacts”. Basically, today we are talking about getting rid of 34 words and substituting five. In saying that, I do not want to trivialise the importance of words because I happen to think that language is important. The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane Central, suggested the importance of symbols and symbolism and spoke at length about the rampant deer on the coat of arms. I agree with the honourable member. But today we are not talking about symbols so much as words. In the past, I have been a great proponent of eliminating sexist language because I think that the choice of words we use says a lot about our attitudes and that is what we are debating here today: in the future what choice of words we should use at the beginning of our legislation. While I am talking about the importance of words, because it is about words I want to share with honourable members something that happened to me on the weekend. I had the great privilege to share a platform with the member for Clayfield. Mrs Woodgate: Privilege? Ms SPENCE: Yes. We were speaking at a conference attended by academics and the like assessing the performance of this Government in the last three years. I think the member for Clayfield made the fatal mistake of saying that he enjoyed sharing such stages with me because I was one of the prettiest members of Parliament. I am sure that the member for Clayfield was well meaning and no doubt he was trying to flatter me with those remarks but he did not—— An honourable member interjected. Ms SPENCE: Nor was he honest. However, he did not. In fact, I think that what he did by that statement was to trivialise me. Mr Bredhauer: Patronise you. Ms SPENCE: And patronise me. I trust that my election to this place was not dependent on good looks or the lack of them and that it was not a beauty contest. Let us face it and look around at us all. For the member of Clayfield to trivialise me by describing me in that way rather than any of the other hundreds of words he could have chosen to describe a colleague and a politician was, in fact, very important. Words are what we are talking about today—eliminating a set of very archaic words that say a lot about our past but nothing at all about our future. Today, the Premier and others have made much of the fact that the future of this country lies in us being independent; lies in us seeing ourselves working and living—— Mr FitzGerald: You still use the title “Mrs”—archaic, individual, independent. 2584 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Ms SPENCE: Actually, no, I do not. I use the title of “Ms”, and that says a lot about me, too. Our future lies in the Asia/Pacific region. This is where we live. This is where we will trade. Eliminating these words today has a very important part to play in the future of this State and in the future of this country. Mr Springborg interjected. Ms SPENCE: What is wrong? Mr Springborg: Does that mean that they have to change also—all the things that are wrong about Indonesia and other places? Ms SPENCE: I cannot follow that logic. I cannot agree with Opposition sentiments that suggest that removing the Queen’s name from legislation means that we are turning our backs on the past. I think that the past will always be very important in Australia, and visible in our buildings and in the nature of the people who live here, but I think these words are anachronistic for Queensland in the 1990s. For many Queenslanders, particularly young Queenslanders to whom I have spoken, the Queen is fairly irrelevant and they see Britain and the Commonwealth as fairly irrelevant to our future also. Ever since Australia became a federation in 1901—— Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. I was listening to the honourable member for Mount Gravatt on the monitor, as I usually do for all speakers when I am not in the House, and she made the claim that during a conference at the weekend, I referred to her in a disparaging way and suggested that she was pretty, and words to that effect. Mr Bredhauer: What is your point of order? Mr SANTORO: I am getting to that, if the member will allow me to do so. She said that somewhere along the line I demeaned her. I find those comments offensive. I never made them at the conference and the transcript will show that. I find them offensive and I ask the honourable member to withdraw them. I said no such thing, nor do I intend to say any such thing in the future. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the member to withdraw the words that the member finds offensive. Ms SPENCE: Madam Chair, I do not know which words he wants me to withdraw. Mr SANTORO: I will repeat the words. They were words that suggested that at a conference I addressed, together with the honourable member, I said that she was pretty, and words to that effect. I made no statement about the aesthetic qualities of the honourable member. The fact that she uses that cheap form of words is offensive to me, and I ask her to withdraw them. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Mount Gravatt will withdraw the words. Ms SPENCE: In fact, those words were said at the conference and there were about 50 or 60 people there. But I will withdraw the words that the member for Clayfield finds offensive, just so that I can continue. Mr Santoro interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Mount Gravatt will continue. Ms SPENCE: I think what I was up to was talking about the increasing irrelevance of Britain and the Commonwealth to Queenslanders and, indeed, to all Australians, and that young people are very aware of this. Since federation, this country has moved to cut its ties with Britain and the Commonwealth. In common with the previous speaker, the member for Brisbane Central, Mr Beattie, last year I was in Britain. I picked up the Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2585 same vibes as he did, namely, that Britons did not spend any time thinking about Australia. They see no place for Australia in their future. Their future is firmly set in the common market and in the Maastricht Treaty. Australians are slowly beginning to realise this. In conclusion, I make the point that this motion is long overdue. I am surprised that the Opposition has not wanted to play a bigger part in this debate. I would have liked to hear more from them. I think this motion shows a level of maturity in the Queensland Government. This is certainly an important day for all Queenslanders. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (3.12 p.m.): In speaking to this motion, I refer to one point that clearly stands out—that is, the Opposition in this Parliament is opposed to change. It is not sensible opposition, but just a blind, blinkered approach that offers no alternative to the motion put forward by the Premier this morning. Today, I am pleased to speak to what is an eminently sensible proposition, that is, the removal of archaic words from enacting legislation. As an Englishman by birth and now as a proud Australian, for some years I have wondered why we, as an independent country, still bow and scrape to imperial Britain. Why do we enact legislation by the “Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty”? We do so because, since the creation of State Parliament, people have been reluctant to change. I recognise that sometimes change is hard to accept and that it is easier to sit back comfortably and allow the world to pass us by, but I wonder whether that is what we in Australia want to happen. Do we want to sit here and continue as we did in the old times, and continue, as the member for Brisbane Central said, with the coat of arms with the red deer on it? Do we want to continue with archaic words, or do we want to be part of the modern world? The essence of this motion is for this State to be part of a modern society, a modern world and a modern Parliament. This is pretty important because change takes place not just because of the type of resolution that is before the Parliament today. Approximately 20 years ago, we did away with the royal anthem and decided on the Australian anthem of Advance Australia Fair. I can remember when I was president of a Lions Club and when, approximately 14 years ago, the Lions Club members were still singing “God save our gracious Queen” at the commencement of dinner meetings. Australia Day came around, so I decided to do something to change that state of affairs. At each member’s place, I put the words of Advance Australia Fair and I had a tape- recorder ready. For the first time ever, that Lions Club sang the proper Australian national anthem. Since that day, although those people were reluctant to change, within six months the majority of the Lions Clubs in the south-east corner of Queensland turned to singing Advance Australia Fair. That was not my doing; that was the process of change. That was people getting out and saying, “Perhaps we should have change. Perhaps we should think about our Australian identity rather than sing a song to some ageing monarch in Great Britain.” The members of some organisations still sing the royal anthem. After 20 years of having our own national anthem, it is very difficult, even for somebody who is English born, to understand the mentality and the reasoning behind that. When I hear people in those organisations singing lustily, “God save our gracious Queen”, I often wonder what many of those people who do not come from England, who are not Australian born, who come from other countries such as Greece or Sicily—where the member for Clayfield came from—and who, in most cases, have taken out Australian citizenship, think about a group singing a song or an anthem that is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with their life in Australia. During June, I will be revisiting the United Kingdom for the first time in 31 years. I say “revisiting” rather than “returning to”, because Australia is my home now. With the taking of Australian citizenship, with the life that Australia has given me and with the success that I have achieved in Australia—a success that I would not have achieved had I remained in England—when I visit England, I will be able to give an 2586 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly example of what one can achieve in Australia. One of the advantages of our country is that everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed. Everybody has an opportunity to go places and to be part of an Australian way of life. We are coming back to the central point of what members are talking about with respect to what the ceremonial words “Her Most Excellent Majesty” mean when we read them in the legislation that we pass in this Chamber. As the Premier said this morning in the debate, words such as “Her Most Excellent Majesty” and similar words and similar imperial displays that we still carry out here in Australia create a remoteness between the people and what the real meaning of the Act is. That is probably what has happened in the United Kingdom over past years. I have an 80-year-old mother who has never met a politician. She was in Australia when I was elected in 1989 and she was absolutely amazed that people could go down the street, meet a politician and talk to him or her about their concerns, their families and anything else. She was amazed, because in 80 years of life in England she has never met a politician. One of the reasons why people in England will not meet their politicians is that politicians in that country hide behind the ceremony; they hide behind the archaic words. They have their clubs and residences in London. Honourable members should obtain from our Clerk the handbook from the English Parliament and read how many of the 600 or so politicians in England—the members of the House of Commons—have an address in their constituencies. The majority of those politicians seek their remoteness by listing their address and their clubs in London. If one wants to see a politician in England, one goes to the House of Commons or to one of the exclusive clubs, if one can get in the door. That is what we have been talking about here today—getting rid of some of the aspects that create remoteness between the Parliament and the people. Although I support the motion, I did not intend to make a republican speech. However, I believe that it is time that we threw off the shackles of imperial Britain. As the Federal Government is encouraging debate on the republican issue, it is time that all members of the Queensland Parliament lead that debate in Queensland so that at least a commonsense approach is taken not only to the republican issue but also to removing the words that have no relevance in today’s society. Mr WELFORD (Everton) (3.20 p.m.): I would like to say a few words for the edification of the member for Southport, who I know finds those concepts extraordinarily difficult to grasp, having the intellectual limitations that he has. In any event, this is an important symbolic gesture on the part of the Parliament. I am pleased that members of the Opposition support the motion, although in their usual style they take the view that any change is good so long as we do not do it just yet. That is presumably what motivates the Opposition Leader to move the amendment to send the matter off to the Standing Orders Committee—a committee which he has done his best to frustrate and abort on more than one occasion in the past. One wonders how genuine his support for the proposal either now or at any time in the future really is. Let me consider some of the history of this matter so that the record of this Parliament contains a detailed analysis of what the situation has been in Queensland and in other States of Australia. As other speakers have indicated, all other States except Tasmania, as well as the Commonwealth, have already revised those enactment clauses. If the Opposition Leader said one insightful thing this morning it was his point that there really is no major change in what is being proposed. The earliest constitution of New South Wales gave the Governor primary authority over legislation. Only the Governor could initiate legislation and although the Legislative Council—which was an appointed House at that time—could pass amendments, the Governor still had a power of veto. The enacting words in legislation at that time reflected that situation. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2587

In 1856, a new constitution was proclaimed for New South Wales. That, of course, was the time when Queensland was split off from the rest of New South Wales. That constitution for New South Wales established a Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly and gave the Legislative Assembly in particular considerably expanded autonomy over financial matters. The enacting words then became— “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:” This formula had been introduced earlier in Victoria, in 1853. In 1987, the formula changed again when those words were updated to simply read— “The Legislature of New South Wales enacts:” As is the case in Queensland, that change is not necessarily especially substantial, given that “The Legislature” is defined in section 3 of the New South Wales Constitution Act 1902 as “His Majesty the King with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly”. The recent change—that is, the change in 1987—to update the language was made on the recommendation of Parliamentary Counsel as part of the move to plain English in that State. The words themselves do not form part of the Acts and no amendment to legislation was required to introduce that change. That is the import of the advice which our Government had received, that a change in Standing Orders is all that is required, upon a direction of the Premier and Attorney-General to change those words in Bills that come before the House. Turning to Victoria, I note that Victoria’s enacting words were modelled initially on those in New South Wales. Victoria was established as a separate colony and proclaimed in 1851. The Governor was advised by Legislative Council on matters of legislative importance, but the Governor at that time still retained primary authority to enact legislation. The initial enacting words at that time were— “Be it enacted by His Excellency Lieutenant Governor of the Colony of Victoria by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof that . . . ” A new constitution in 1853 introduced to New South Wales a Legislative Assembly with authority over financial matters, as I have already indicated, and the words in Victoria were changed to mirror those that I have already indicated for New South Wales for the same period. In 1985, the Victorian formula was ultimately changed to the plain English version, which now reads— “The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:” Again, the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 defines the Parliament as including Her Majesty, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. South Australia went through a similar genesis until 1986 when its wording was updated to read— “The Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:” Interestingly, the South Australian Constitution Act 1934 defines the Parliament simply as the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, with no reference to the Governor or the Sovereign. In introducing the change in 1986 in South Australia, the Honourable Chris Sumner said— “(The previous formula) was more appropriate in those days, when the Governor took a much more active part in the legislative process, but now gives a 2588 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

rather unbalanced, perhaps even misleading impression of the relationship between the Crown and the Parliament.” I turn now to Western Australia, which in 1988 introduced its plain English version in similar terms. The Commonwealth Parliament changed its enacting words, firstly in 1973, to refer specifically to the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and then again in 1990 to simply refer to the Parliament of Australia. In all these cases, it is clear that Queensland is doing no more than bringing Queensland into line with updated plain English drafting which has already been implemented in all of the other States which at the time had both Labor and non-Labor Governments. It is appropriate that Queensland do this, not just for the purposes of plain English, an issue about which I have spoken most strenuously in this place before, but also, I think, as a symbolic indication of the primacy of this Parliament in exercising the law-making powers of this State. I support the motion. Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (3.28 p.m.), in reply: I thank members for their contributions. I think it has been a useful debate and of course precedes the more substantial debate that we will have later in the year. The point is a short one and a simple one. I would hope that it will get broad support from members. I think all members, despite the fact that they may have complained about this, that, or the other thing, acknowledged that it is a straightforward point, that it is just a few words and that it has no fundamental or substantial constitutional or legal effect. It is simply a case of members asking themselves the question: do I or do I not support the use of modern, ordinary language that the average person can understand, or do I want to retain colonial legal jargon that every other State has discarded? Question—That the words proposed to be added be so added—put; and the Committee divided— In division— The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind honourable members that, for all future divisions, the bells will be rung for two minutes’ duration. AYES, 31 NOES, 45 Beanland Stephan Ardill Milliner Borbidge Stoneman Barton Nunn Connor Turner Beattie Nuttall Cooper Veivers Bennett Pearce Davidson Watson Bird Purcell Elliott Braddy Pyke FitzGerald Bredhauer Robertson Gilmore Budd Robson Goss J. N. Burns Rose Grice Campbell Smith Healy Comben Spence Johnson D’Arcy Sullivan J. H. Lester Davies Sullivan T. B. Lingard De Lacy Szczerbanik Littleproud Elder Vaughan McCauley Fenlon Warner Mitchell Foley Welford Perrett Gibbs Wells Quinn Goss W. K. Woodgate Randell Hayward Rowell Hollis Santoro Tellers: Mackenroth Tellers: Simpson Springborg McElligott Livingstone Slack Laming McGrady Briskey Resolved in the negative. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2589

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 45 NOES, 31 Ardill Milliner Beanland Stephan Barton Nunn Borbidge Stoneman Beattie Nuttall Connor Turner Bennett Pearce Cooper Veivers Bird Purcell Davidson Watson Braddy Pyke Elliott Bredhauer Robertson FitzGerald Budd Robson Gilmore Burns Rose Goss J. N. Campbell Smith Grice Comben Spence Healy D’Arcy Sullivan J. H. Johnson Davies Sullivan T. B. Lester De Lacy Szczerbanik Lingard Elder Vaughan Littleproud Fenlon Warner McCauley Foley Welford Mitchell Gibbs Wells Perrett Goss W. K. Woodgate Quinn Hayward Randell Hollis Rowell Mackenroth Tellers: Santoro Tellers: McElligott Livingstone Simpson Springborg McGrady Briskey Slack Laming Resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported and adopted. SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.39 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts relating to superannuation.” Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER read a message from His Excellency the Administrator recommending the necessary appropriation.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.40 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The purpose of this Bill is to introduce amendments to the legislation governing the superannuation schemes of Queensland Government employees and members of Parliament. The amendments are required predominantly to ensure that the schemes comply with Commonwealth superannuation standards and to apply to the Police Scheme the tax-efficient split-funding approach used by other major Queensland Government defined benefit schemes. A number of other administrative amendments are also being made to the schemes. The Bill introduces a top-up provision into the State service, parliamentary and police superannuation legislation to ensure that the employer-provided benefits from these schemes are sufficient in all instances to meet the level of employer support required by 2590 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the Commonwealth Government’s superannuation guarantee charge legislation. It is necessary that this provision be in place by 14 August 1993 in order to avoid the incurrence by the Crown of the superannuation guarantee charge and associated penalties under the Commonwealth’s legislation. Amendments are also contained in the Bill to vary the method of funding the benefits provided under the Police Scheme. This variation, which has been agreed with the Police Superannuation Board, will reduce the level of superannuation benefits which are to be met directly from the Police Superannuation Fund from the total of all benefits prescribed under the legislation to a level equal to two-sevenths of all State-subsidised benefits. The component of the benefit for which the Government is responsible for funding will be paid from the Consolidated Fund to the Police Superannuation Fund at the time the benefits emerge. This variation will bring the manner in which the Police Scheme is funded into line with all other major Queensland Government defined benefit superannuation schemes. Once the amendment is made, the Police Fund will be able to support its portion of benefits, with the State setting aside its contribution in the Consolidated Fund, as now happens with the Government’s other defined benefit funds. Of course, the Government will continue to fully fund its share of the superannuation liabilities, but will do so more tax effectively within the Consolidated Fund. In other amendments to the Police Superannuation Acts, the Bill will— restrict the adjustment of contributions to the Police Scheme to an annual basis, for administrative efficiency; clarify the manner of calculating benefits for persons who have been suspended from duty; correct an anomaly which occurred in a previous Act amendment in the case of pensions for certain widows; reconstitute the Police Trustee Board to ensure it is composed of equal representatives of the Crown and of employees; and confirm, following the offer of an option to transfer to Q Super, the closure of the Police Scheme and provide for the re-entry of a member with preserved benefits. Further, in both the Police Scheme and the State Service Superannuation Scheme, an amendment is proposed to allow the payment of interest by the trustees where a benefit has not been claimed. The Bill also amends the Superannuation (Public Employees Portability and Acts Amendment) Act to allow the preservation of a superannuation benefit in a scheme operating under the portability legislation for employees who have transferred their benefits to that scheme and subsequently leave before age 55. As honourable members will appreciate, the amendments proposed are purely administrative in nature, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Santoro, adjourned.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.48 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Financial Institutions Code and the AFIC Code.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2591

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.49 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Bill addresses amendments of technical or procedural matters with regard to various existing provisions and reflects solutions to some operational difficulties which have become apparent with the financial institutions legislation. The Financial Institutions Agreement, which underpins this legislation, establishes the Ministerial Council for Financial Institutions—MINFIN—which oversees the operation of the legislation. One of MINFIN’s functions is to consider and vote on all proposed amendments to the financial institutions legislation. Formal approval has been given by MINFIN, in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Institutions Agreement, to the amendments being made in the form contained in the Bill. The passage of this legislation is essential to the continued support of all other Australian State and Territory jurisdictions and all industry participants to the financial institutions scheme. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Santoro, adjourned. BRISBANE CRICKET GROUND BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.51 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the development and management of the Brisbane Cricket Ground, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.52 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The purpose of this Bill is to restructure the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust. The Government has committed to redeveloping the Brisbane Cricket Ground and has approved a three-stage redevelopment program costing an estimated $49m. Work on the ground has already commenced, with a number of improvements having been completed, including enlargement of the ground, provision of facilities for the Brisbane Bears, a new stand at the western end of the ground and corporate boxes and suites. This work has received wide acclaim from all quarters. Mr Lingard: Why don’t you move cricket to the QEII? Mr De LACY: There is not much chance of that. As part of the redevelopment of the ground, the Gabba Greyhound Racing Club relocated to the Albion Park Paceway and the Brisbane Bears moved from Carrara to the Brisbane Cricket Ground. These tenancy changes of themselves necessitate amendments to the Brisbane Cricket Ground Act, as the legislation specifically provides that, among others, the Gabba Greyhound Racing Club has a representative appointed as trustee of the Trust. However, apart from this specific issue, there is a need to review the structure of the trust to meet the changing environment within which it is to operate. With the redevelopment of the ground, a more commercial approach to its operation is essential to ensure the success of the sports played at the ground, to improve viability and 2592 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly consequently to service debt required to part fund the redevelopment of the ground. This can be best achieved by the appointment of trustees who have strong commercial managerial experience, knowledge of public facilities management and a strong interest in sport. Appointment of trustees who represent various sectional concerns does not always work in the best interest of the ground overall. In the circumstances, it is proposed in the new legislation to, among other things, reduce the size of the trust from eight trustees to a minimum of five and a maximum of seven trustees, with appointment to be made on a non-representational basis. It is also proposed to amend the term of appointment of trustees from a fixed term of five years to a variable term of up to three years. This arrangement will provide for greater flexibility in the structure of the trust to meet specific needs in relation to the operation of the ground. The continuing redevelopment of the ground will, I anticipate, ensure its long-term viability. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Santoro, adjourned.

PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (3.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Act 1923.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr McGrady, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (3.55 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The purpose of this Bill is to provide a mechanism for adjusting tariffs for the transportation of petroleum through the Moonie to Brisbane pipeline and to set a transportation tariff for 1992-93. In addition, and in accordance with legislative drafting practice, the Act has been amended so that it conforms with current legislative conventions. The need for amendments to the Act stem from a long-running dispute over pipeline tariffs between the Moonie Pipeline Company—now a wholly owned subsidiary of Santos Ltd—and oil producers in the Surat Basin. As the parties were unable to reach a settlement over tariffs, the then Minister for Resource Industries established, in 1991, a Pipeline Tribunal in accordance with section 4B of the Petroleum Act to inquire into, and make recommendations on, an appropriate tariff regime. The tribunal found that, under the tariffs then existing, the Surat Basin producers received none of the benefits of scale reflected in the lower tariffs charged to another group of pipeline users with petroleum interests in south-west Queensland. Accordingly, the tribunal recommended, among other things, that the Surat Basin producers should pay a tariff equal to the average tariff paid by the south-west Queensland producers. This recommendation was accepted by the then Minister and, by Order in Council, the 1991-92 tariff for Surat Basin producers was set at the estimated average tariff to be paid by the south-west Queensland producers. The Minister further decided that the tariff should be adjusted to the actual tariff of the south-west Queensland producers, when that figure was known. This process, while complicated, is necessary because the Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2593 average tariff paid by the south-west Queensland producers is directly related to petroleum throughputs, and these, obviously, are not final until the end of the accounting period. As the current legislation does not provide a mechanism for adjusting tariffs, the Minister, in advising parties of the 1991-92 tariff, indicated that the Petroleum Act would be amended to enable the tariff adjustment to be effected. Section 4H of this Bill gives effect to that requirement. This provision will also allow the tariffs for any future accounting period to be similarly adjusted. The second element of this Bill concerns the setting of a tariff for 1992-93. This is provided for in section 66 (2) of the Bill. Because of difficulties in reaching an agreed position with the parties on a 1992-93 tariff, it was not possible to have a tariff struck by the beginning of the 1992-93 accounting period. It has become necessary therefore to include the tariff as an addition to this Bill. In conclusion—this Bill will provide an efficient mechanism for adjusting tariffs where these are dependent on pipeline throughputs which can only be estimated at the time of setting the tariff. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Gilmore, adjourned.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (3.59 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Liquor Act 1992.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Gibbs, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (3.59 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Liquor Act 1992 has provided a flexible legislative base for the liquor industry in Queensland and has fostered the establishment of a number of innovative practices. The combined effect of the Liquor Act and the Gaming Machine Act 1991, which provided for the introduction of gaming machines, has resulted in an enormous growth in the club industry in Queensland. These recent legislative initiatives have produced a high level of competition in the industry and licensees are now looking for more innovative ways of operating. One of the more recent innovative approaches of some licensees involves looking at ways to utilise the club industry to boost their economic base. Proposals have been made to the liquor licensing division that would involve the establishment of a club in what was formerly a part of hotel premises. Although the Government is keen to foster innovation in the liquor industry, it is not prepared to allow creative arrangements that provide obvious opportunities for improper practices involving gaming machines. This type of operation could mean the emergence of a few super clubs to the detriment of other similar, smaller clubs and other licensed premises. It is also reasonable to suspect that large amounts of revenue generated by club gaming machines could find its way into the hands of other licensees and entrepreneurs. A proposal that could result in the proliferation of clubs being managed in conjunction with other licensed premises is clearly at variance to the Government’s philosophy when it introduced gaming machines. Gaming machines were introduced to 2594 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly assist clubs to further their objects, not to assist the development of schemes that could be used to line the pockets of individuals. It has never been the intention of the Government for clubs to be used other than to further the objects of their members. They are not intended to be used as a device for individual or commercial gain. The proposed amendment, which will preclude licensees from excising part of their premises from the licensed area and subsequently leasing the excised part to a club, will prevent the development of schemes by some licensees to utilise clubs to boost their economic base. The Bill will also amend provisions of the Act relating to public drunkenness and prohibition orders. Honourable members would be aware that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that the offence of public drunkenness be decriminalised as soon as proper alternatives were in place for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons. To allow time for alternatives to be developed, a sunset clause was included in the offence provision relating to public drunkenness to provide for it to expire one year after commencement, that is, 30 June 1993. An interdepartmental working group was formed to make further recommendations as to appropriate legislative and procedural initiatives required to be in place upon the expiration of the provision. The working group’s research has revealed that the failure of decriminalisation in other jurisdictions was largely attributable to the lack of adequate planning and resourcing at the post-legislative phase. This finding has been reinforced during consultations with several communities in north Queensland where there is a clear need for local solutions for dealing with persons who are intoxicated in public and who require some form of care and/or control. I can see that the honourable member for Southport is very interested in that particular area. As a consequence, it is the Government’s intention to extend the sunset period to 30 June 1994 to safeguard against repealing the legislation until a comprehensive set of alternative strategies can be developed. A similar sunset provision, which provides for section 192 to expire one year after commencement, will also be extended to 30 June 1994 by the amendments. Section 192 provides for a council to make a prohibition order in relation to a resident in its community area. As section 192 is linked to the issue of public drunkenness, both provisions were timed to expire together. It is proposed to similarly extend the operation of section 192 to undertake consultations to examine the implications of removing prohibition orders. The Government is committed to working with local communities to develop coordinated, whole of Government, innovative solutions to problems relating to public drunkenness. Extension of the sunset clauses relating to public drunkenness and prohibition orders will allow adequate time for appropriate programs for non-custodial care and treatment to be developed. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Veivers, adjourned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (4.05 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the City of Brisbane Act 1924, the Local Government Act 1936 and the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2595

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (4.06 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I introduce the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1993. This Bill provides for amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 1924, the Local Government Act 1936 and the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990. The amendments to the City of Brisbane Act deal with validating certain ordinances made by the Brisbane City Council. Where the council resolves to make an ordinance, certain procedural steps are required to be taken under the City of Brisbane Act 1924 prior to the council submitting the ordinance for the approval of the Governor in Council. These steps include matters such as notifying the purport of the ordinance in a newspaper and advertising for objections, posting a copy of the newspaper notice for the information of the public in a prominent position at the prescribed place, making copies of the ordinance available to the public and considering all objections received. The council has advised it inadvertently failed to carry out one of the statutory steps in the procedure since the requirement to do so was inserted in the City of Brisbane Act in May 1980. This step is provided for under section 38 (5) of the Act and requires the council to publicly display the newspaper notice relating to the ordinance in a prominent position at the prescribed place, which basically means a public office at City Hall or within a radius of one kilometre. The prescribed place under the Act for displaying the notice is currently the ground floor, Brisbane Administration Centre, 69 Ann Street, Brisbane. Although the council inadvertently overlooked this step, it has taken the other requirements of the Act further by displaying the newspaper notice at all ward offices and the council's five regional centres. As required by the Act, ordinances were also advertised in the Courier-Mail and copies were made available from the Brisbane Administration Centre. However, as a result of the council's failure to comply with this statutory step, the validity of the ordinances subsequently approved by the Governor in Council and tabled in Parliament can be questioned. The provisions contained in the Bill therefore validate all those ordinances which were made by the council and approved by the Governor in Council in respect of which there has been non-compliance with section 38 (5). I have been advised by the council that this step in the procedure is now being carried out and will not be overlooked in the future. Any proposed amending ordinances that missed this step and have not yet been approved by the Governor in Council will be reprocessed by the council so that all the relevant steps are complied with before being submitted for the approval of the Governor in Council. The amendments to the Local Government Act deal with the financial divisions of local authorities. Under the Local Government Act, a local authority can be divided for electoral purposes, or for both electoral and financial purposes. Where a local authority is divided into divisions for financial purposes, the Act requires the council to provide and keep separate and distinct accounts in respect of each division. Various other rules are laid down in relation to the allocation of revenues and expenditures to the individual divisions. In effect, each division is treated as a mini local authority for budgetary purposes. As a result, extra administrative work is required to maintain the accounting system, and the members representing each division tend to make decisions based on a divisional viewpoint rather than what is best for the entire local authority. In addition, there are restrictions on the transfer of funds between divisions if it was decided one part of a local authority should contribute towards the provision of services in another part. It is largely for these reasons that most local authorities have chosen not to adopt financial divisions or to abolish their financial divisions. There are now only five local authorities which are divided into both electoral and financial divisions, that is, Balonne, Burdekin, Kilkivan, Mareeba and Waggamba Shire Councils. A number of local authorities have requested or are considering the abolition of their financial divisions on and from 1 July 1993. 2596 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Local Government Act requires a proposal to abolish financial divisions to be referred as a "reviewable local government matter" to the Local Government Commissioner for consideration. If the commissioner proposes to recommend that financial divisions be abolished, public notice of the proposal must be given. A final decision in the matter rests with the Governor in Council. However, the matter cannot be referred to the commissioner in these instances because of the provisions of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1992, which commenced on 30 November 1992. This Act was introduced to require all councils divided for electoral purposes to review their electoral arrangements for the March 1994 elections to ensure they complied with specified voter tolerances and a number of other prescribed principles. These special provisions were not enacted on the basis of enabling a council to abolish its financial divisions. In fact, the amendment Act provided that if the electoral divisions of a local authority were changed for the March elections next year, any financial divisions would remain in force until 1 July 1994. This approach was taken in the amendment Act to ensure the financial divisions were not disrupted during the 1993- 94 financial year as a result of any redrawing of the internal electoral boundaries to meet the specified voter tolerances which are to apply in time for the March 1994 triennial elections. In the circumstances, amending legislation is now necessary for any financial divisions to be abolished on and from 1 July 1993. Where a local authority wishes to have its financial divisions abolished as from 1 July 1993, the Bill will enable the Governor in Council to make a regulation abolishing those divisions, irrespective of the provisions of the Local Government Act preserving financial divisions until 1 July 1994 or the provisions relating to "reviewable local government matters". These provisions have been considered by the Local Government Commissioner and the Local Government Association and they have no objection to the legislation proceeding. I will now turn to the provisions of the Bill which deal with amendments to the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. The amendments allow, through relatively minor procedural changes, for significant improvements in administrative processes for both local government and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning. The amendments further implement the Government's policy of streamlining the planning and development decision-making system and providing greater autonomy to local government by— Providing that planning schemes and their amendments will no longer be subordinate legislation. State planning policies will remain as subordinate legislation, and the procedures for their publication and availability will be clearly defined. Providing for the amounts of land dedication or monetary contribution for park provision during subdivision to be established by local planning policy, planning scheme provision or by-law. Providing for local authorities to be given a general power to delegate decision making on planning matters, rather than the current highly prescribed powers. Providing for the current restrictions on local authorities approving allotments without access to be removed to enable councils to be assured of performance of external works and contributions without having to take bonds. Providing for applicants for subdivision to be required to pay outstanding rates before their applications are determined, rather than all rates levied, as it is at present. Providing that local authorities without divisions be given an option to nominate specific members to receive notifications of planning applications. This will overcome the present situation where each member must receive a notification, regardless of whether it is in his or her ward or division. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2597

The Bill provides that Orders in Council made under the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act are not subordinate legislation. This amendment establishes the true status of planning schemes, as local government instruments recognising the autonomy of local government as a legitimate sphere of government. It also establishes procedures for the public notification and public availability of Orders in Council. This amendment will reduce the time necessary for planning schemes and their amendments to become operative. It will no longer be necessary for these Orders in Council to lie on the table in this House after their approval. This amendment is consistent with the treatment of local authority by-laws in the Statutory Instruments Act, and recognises the extensive consultative process and public availability requirements already provided for in the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. It does away with bureaucratic procedures which confuse the respective responsibilities of State and local Government, add costs to the administration of planning, and create delays in planning processes. State planning policies will remain as subordinate legislation and exempt instruments under the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992. The Bill provides that an Order in Council for a State planning policy be placed in the gazette. These amendments clarify the role of planning schemes as local laws made and administered by local government and reinforce State planning policies as the primary instrument in State Government planning policy. The Bill also provides that the amount of land required to be dedicated for park purposes or the amount of money required to be contributed for park provision during subdivision be established by local planning policy, planning scheme provision or by-law. Presently, these contributions can only be made by a local planning policy. This amendment is in response to a Planning and Environment Court decision interpreting the local planning policy as the only mechanism for achieving parks contributions. The Bill provides that any planning scheme provisions or subdivision by- law which established rates of contribution of land or money and which were in force before the proclamation of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Amendment Act 1992 continue to have force and effect. This will confirm the ability of local authorities to take contributions on both pending and future applications in accordance with the intent of the Act and community expectations. The Bill omits the provisions that decisions upon certain applications can be delegated to the chairman, members or officers of a local authority, and replaces them with provisions allowing broader powers for a local authority to delegate its powers to the person who ordinarily presides at meetings of the council; or a committee of the members of the council; or an officer or employee of a local authority; or a board or committee consisting of officers and employees of the local authority. This will allow for savings of several weeks in the determination of routine matters, particularly in local authorities with less frequent meeting times. The Bill omits the provision that requires a local authority to refuse an application for approval of a subdivision of land unless each allotment in the proposed subdivision has access. This provision enables councils to be assured of performance of external works and contributions without having to take bonds, by requiring temporary access restriction strips instead. The Act will still allow local authorities to consider the adequacy of access to proposed subdivisions and allows refusal in the case of inadequate access. The Bill amends the provision of the Act relating to a local authority not being able to approve an application to subdivide land until all rates and charges levied by the local authority have been paid. The amendment provides that applicants for subdivision approval will only be required to pay rates outstanding before their applications are determined, rather than all rates levied, as at present. This will lead to savings for applicants, who will no longer be required to pay rates before they are actually due. The Bill also provides for local authorities to be given an option to nominate specific members to receive notifications of planning applications. This will overcome 2598 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the present situation in which, in local authorities without divisions, each member must receive a notification regardless of whether it is in that member’s local area. It will minimise potential for errors in process through failure to adequately notify which may result in proceedings having to be repeated, creating additional costs and time delays for applicants. This concludes the substantive aspects of the Bill. A minor amendment to the definition of “access” is necessary if the proposed amendment to section 5.8 (1) of the Act is to function effectively. The amendment deletes reference to an access restriction strip. The definition of a site contamination report is also being amended to allow for consistency with the provisions of section 8.3A of the Act. The effect of this is to clarify that the definition applies to site contamination reports that may be required in respect of an application to amend a planning scheme, town planning consent, the subdivision of land and a staged subdivision of land. A reference to the Supreme Court as the appeal body on points of law arising from planning appeals to the Planning and Environment Court has been amended to the Court of Appeal. Section 7.4 of the Act has been amended to reflect the recent establishment of the Court of Appeal and its assuming of the former jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in these matters. In commending the Bill to the House, I would like to say that, in bringing this legislation together into one Bill, I did not realise the problems that I would cause for the Opposition in having two shadow Ministers for the one piece of legislation. Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, adjourned.

INTEGRATED RESORT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (4.21 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (4.21 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Integrated Resort Development Act was formulated in response to a substantial demand from within the tourism industry for fully serviced, self-contained destination resort communities where the use of land and facilities is shared and where provision is made on site for all day-to-day living requirements. The Act provides for the approval of schemes of integrated resort development and the subsequent subdivision and ongoing management of approved resorts. Ongoing management of approved resorts becomes the responsibility of a hierarchy of bodies corporate created by subdivision which is effected generally in accordance with provisions similar to those contained in the Building Units and Group Titles Act. During the five and a half years that the Act has been in force, five schemes have been approved, the latest being the Laguna Quays Resort in north Queensland which was approved in April 1992. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2599

As a result of the application of the provisions contained in the Act over this period, it has become apparent that certain amendments need to be made to provide for more effective development, subdivision and management of these types of resorts. The amendments contained in the Bill now before this House seek to achieve that end. The amendments are supported both by the proponents of approved integrated resorts and by the individual proprietors of land within the sites of the resorts who are, by virtue of the Act, members in one or more of the bodies corporate in the hierarchy referred to earlier. The amendments proposed deal with five broad issues. They will provide greater development flexibility for developers or persons having an interest in integrated resorts by allowing— initial lots or secondary lots to be resubdivided or amalgamated prior to those lots being further subdivided by building units and group titles plans; the boundaries of initial lots or secondary lots to be altered by the lodgment of boundary adjustment plans; and the extinguishment of registered plans in a progressive way which would enable subdivisions which are no longer appropriate or viable to be retrieved and resubdivided in a more appropriate manner. The provision of these additional subdivision options will bring the Integrated Resort Development Act closely into line with the Mixed Use Development Bill currently before the House. It will also provide developers with the means to respond to rapid changes in consumer demand which is a feature of current trends within the development industry. The Bill provides for the expansion and increase in membership of principal bodies corporate as further residential precincts within staged implementation of resorts are developed. In the long term, this will result in substantial management and administration cost savings which will ultimately benefit all members of these principal bodies corporate. Further potential cost savings for members of bodies corporate will be achieved by amendments to the Act which provide for the annual general meeting dates and accounting periods for bodies corporate to be varied. In circumstances where a hierarchy of bodies corporate exists, it is advantageous for administration and budgeting purposes for the annual general meeting dates and accounting periods for each of them to coincide. Because of the various communities of interest which exist within integrated resort developments, it has also been decided to empower principal bodies corporate to utilise parts of the secondary thoroughfare networks within residential precincts of these resorts for community-related purposes. The net effect of the amendment will be to allow the principal bodies corporate to construct and maintain facilities which are of benefit to and capable of being used by members of the bodies corporate. The Bill also contains a number of other amendments of a minor nature which do not change the intent of the legislation or introduce new principles but merely seek to bring this 1987 Act into line with current-day drafting practices. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned. AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.26 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Agricultural Standards Act 1952.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading 2600 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.27 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Mr Deputy Speaker, I would highlight that the Acting Minister for Primary Industries is here with us but I am doing the job. This is the second amendment to the Act which has been presented to this House to assist in a smooth transition from the existing State-based registration systems for agricultural and veterinary chemicals to a single national registration scheme. It reflects the commitment of this Government to reform in this highly important area. These chemicals, which continue to be essential for primary production and the wellbeing of the community, must undergo a very rigorous assessment prior to approval for sale. Historically, this pre-market assessment has been achieved through a mixture of State and Commonwealth activities. Each State has legislation prohibiting the sale of unapproved chemicals, but they rely on the Commonwealth, through the Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council, for advice on a number of important matters such as human safety. I would remind the House that, because of his concerns over unnecessary and costly duplication of the State and Commonwealth systems, the Minister for Primary Industries sought and received the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council that a single registration system be established under Commonwealth legislation. The Commonwealth is committed to the introduction of a national system and is proceeding with the establishment of a national registration authority and appropriate registration legislation which will see the Commonwealth assume full responsibility for the registration process. However, in the absence of this legislation, all States have cooperated since 1 July 1992 in transitional arrangements whereby there is a single national assessment by the Commonwealth of all new chemicals and amended uses of previously approved chemicals. Under amendments to the Act approved by the House last year, Queensland formally recognises these arrangements and registers products without additional evaluation. This Bill provides for further amendments to facilitate the transitional arrangements. The amendments are needed because legislative priorities at the national level have meant that the full national system will not now be operational on the planned date of 1 July 1993. This means that Queensland, along with the other States, needs to maintain the State registration system, but with the use of as few resources as possible. In essence, the Bill removes the need for Queensland to renew the registration of products which would normally expire on 30 June 1993 or later. The renewal process is an administrative exercise designed to keep records up to date and to receive some funds towards the costs of the registration system. Renewal of registration does not involve a reassessment of products. Therefore, removal of the renewal requirement will not detract from the controls in place over these chemicals and will have no effect on the ability of either the Commonwealth or Queensland to remove products from the market, if considered necessary. The proposed amendments reflect the request of the Commonwealth that States not renew registration for the currently required three-year period but that renewal be granted to fit into the revised anticipated date of commencement of the national legislation—1 July 1994 at the earliest. The proposal allows for the expiry dates of registrations to be extended automatically, thereby ensuring that the resources of the Minister’s department are more effectively utilised in higher priority areas. At the same time, it is necessary to continue to process applications for registration prior to 1 July 1992 which have been assessed by the Minister’s department and for which applicants Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2601 still need to complete registration requirements. While there are few applications in this category, registration of individual products is important to the applicant companies. This Bill also includes amendments necessary to update the provisions of the Agricultural Standards Act so as to recognise a number of current legislative requirements and Government policies. These are contained in the Schedule to the Bill. I stress that the Bill before the House is a necessary step for the orderly transfer of Queensland’s registration function to the Commonwealth. Once the Commonwealth has developed the legislation for the national scheme, the Minister will bring further legislation to the House which will ensure Queensland is a full participant in the scheme. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

STOCK AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.32 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Stock Act 1915 and the Deer Farming Act 1985 and to repeal the Artificial Breeding of Stock Act 1979.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.33 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill reflects two major policy initiatives in terms of self-regulation in the livestock industries and demonstrates the Goss Government’s commitment to letting primary producers get on with the business of operating efficiently in the marketplace. The first is in relation to the documentation and procedures associated with the regulatory control of livestock movements to prevent the spread of stock diseases. The Bill removes the need for a stock permit in some 90 per cent of stock movements and replaces the existing stock waybills with a more efficient, duplicate waybill system. Owners intending to move livestock will now only require stock permits when there are significant disease implications, such as moving stock from a cattle tick infected area to a tick-free area. In the vast majority of situations, producers, stock agents and livestock carriers will be able to move livestock without any requirement to contact a stock inspector for a stock permit. Similarly, the need for waybills describing the details of travelling stock will be restricted to situations of disease control significance. Owners’ waybill books will be in duplicate form for better recording and disease traceback purposes. The overall objective of the new system is to dramatically reduce the regulatory burden involved in moving livestock both for the livestock-owning public and for the Minister’s department’s stock inspectors. Stock inspectors will be freed up from administrative work. They will also play a key role in monitoring compliance and checking the effectiveness of the new self-regulatory systems. The net result will be improved and streamlined stock disease monitoring and traceback systems. These are essential elements for certification, quality assurance and protection of export markets, and for disease control capacity and quality assurance within Queensland. The 2602 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly amendments represent the most significant rationalisation of livestock disease control measures in Queensland in 80 years. The freeing-up has come about after wide consultation and support from industry, and is a direct result of the successful eradication of three major stock diseases—pleuro pneumonia, brucellosis and tuberculosis. The second policy initiative in the Bill is to completely deregulate the stock artificial breeding industry by repealing the Artificial Breeding of Stock Act 1979. This is not only timely in terms of industry requirements and less Government intervention but it also satisfies the Public Sector Management Commission’s recommendations that the Artificial Breeding of Stock Act be amended or repealed to remove the State monopoly on the supply of cattle genetics material. A simple health assurance provision will be included in the Stock Act so that artificial breeders who seek to access interstate and international markets can obtain the Minister’s department’s certification that their premises meet the Australian standards. This reform will mean easier access by producers to a range of artificial breeding services and, as a result, improved quality of livestock. Privately owned artificial breeding centres will also develop. The additional service and competition provided by private centres will stimulate increased genetic improvement in Queensland’s cattle industry. The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that Queensland’s livestock industries continue to develop genetic material at an internationally competitive rate. The Government will continue to work with industry to provide traditional support in the area of strategic and applied research and extension. Quite clearly, this Bill will provide an open and administratively simple environment for all artificial breeding operations to compete in the market. The statute book will be simplified by repeal of the Act, while health assurance and disease controls are maintained or enhanced under the relevant disease control statute, the Stock Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 November 1992 (see p. 1255). Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (4.37 p.m.): This legislation aims to ensure that convicted illegal bookmakers have a real incentive to pay the fines imposed on them by the courts. At present, unpaid fines for illegal betting offences must be pursued as civil debts. The Opposition recognises that that situation is not satisfactory in the present circumstances. It cannot be as effective a penalty as one accompanied by the certainty of gaol for non-payment. The Opposition has no quarrel with that concept. It supports the legislation targeting the illegal betting industry—as far as it goes. The measures contained in this Bill are necessary, and they will go some way towards relieving the burden that the illegal betting industry places on the racing industry and the legal forms of betting. I am a bit different from the Minister in that I believe firmly in putting the racing industry first, and any betting industry should be subsidiary to the racing industry. Without the horses or the greyhounds, there would not be a betting industry. I am happy to concede that Australians love a punt, and I would be the last person to stand in their way. However, the racing industry, which makes it all possible, must have a share of the proceeds of the betting industry. Essentially, they are two separate industries that depend on each other for support. When we consider one industry, we must consider the interests of the other. At present, I do not think that the Minister is doing that. The attitude of this Minister and this Government is that the racing industry is there only to support the betting industry and to put money into the Government coffers. I assure the industry that, under a conservative Government, that attitude will not continue. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2603

I want to set the Minister straight on a few other matters, and I hope that he will change his mind about the way in which he treats the racing industry. Racing is an important industry that provides many thousands of jobs to Queenslanders and enjoyment to a great many more. It is an industry that has a very long history of doing that—certainly, it did for many decades before some of the modern forms of betting were even thought of. Betting is only one of the reasons for the existence of racing. Many people go to the races for the pure enjoyment of the contest between magnificent animals. Some people go to the track for years without even having a bet. Others go for the social occasion. After last Saturday, I am still working out why I go to the races. Racing is particularly important to people who live in the regional and rural areas of the State where opportunities for entertainment and social contact are often very limited. Other people go to the track to bet in an atmosphere that only the track can provide. They know that before the horses or dogs go on to the track, they can look at them and make their own assessment of their chances. They know that they can watch the ebb and flow of betting with the bookmakers, and this helps them make up their minds about the possibilities. For someone who truly loves a punt and has the opportunity to get to the track, a bet with the bookies is the only way to go. Of course, for a whole range of reasons, that is not always possible. Mr Nuttall interjected. Mr VEIVERS: Some people live too far away. In the case of the honourable member, he does not live far enough away. Some people cannot afford the time, and others might like just a small bet on one race. That is why off-course betting came about. It filled a market that was created by punters who still wanted to bet, even though they were not going to the track. Starting price betting has been with us for a long time. Many people have even thought of it as part of the Australian culture. At one time, on a Saturday afternoon, almost every public bar in Queensland was full of blokes having a bet. The publican always had a radio tuned into the races, and many a bookie stored the cash behind the bar. Punters were given a starting price that was verified on the radio, and matters were not very complicated at all. Many people were hard put to see anything wrong with what was happening, and I reckon that even a few members of this House might have got set with an SP in a local watering hole. I wonder whether anyone here ever took a bet. I hope not, because SP bookies have always been bludgers on the racing industry and bludgers on the legal bookmakers. Over the years, the blokes who were up front and applied for licences to swing bags have been very important to the industry. It is not the contribution that they make to the atmosphere of the track—although that is important—but, over the years, the very large financial contribution to the race clubs the legal bookies have made. They have paid fielding fees directly to clubs running the tracks where they have stood. In addition, they have paid some pretty healthy percentages in the form of turnover tax, which Governments have channelled back into racing. That is fair enough. I do not reckon that licensed bookmakers have ever objected very much to putting something back into an industry that provides the betting medium for them. Of course, the blokes who were taking bets in the bars and over the telephones did not kick in one cent. They were happy to let the clubs foot the whole bill for putting on the races, and they were happy to pocket all the profits without making the outlays that the legitimate fielders had to make. I bet none of them paid any tax, either. When the tote technology was good enough, the Government of the day kicked off the TAB. That was partly to tap into the betting revenue that was sloshing around in the illegal SP business, and over the years it has gathered in a lot of revenue for Treasury. Race clubs benefited also, with distributions from the TAB making a big difference to prize money and development funding. Top stuff, is it not? Mr Beattie: Throw the notes away. Mr VEIVERS: I have been waiting since this morning to make my speech. We skipped question time. Fair dinkum, one would not know that one was in Parliament. A Government member: You’ve only got 54 minutes to go. 2604 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr VEIVERS: Excuse me, I did not notice that. It is good to know. At least the TAB has traditionally given something back to the racing industry. Ms Spence: A hardworking member. Mr VEIVERS: I beg your pardon? Ms SPENCE: I suggested that you were a hardworking member. Mr VEIVERS: I take that on board. I hope that it is noted in Hansard. Mr Santoro: It is one of the more sensible statements that she has made today, wouldn’t you say? Mr VEIVERS: That is good. I will return to the racing industry. At least the TAB has traditionally given something back to the racing industry, and that is good, because the racing industry directly makes it possible for the TAB to earn most of its revenue. Things have gone a bit sour in that relationship, and I will come to that in a minute. The creation of the TAB brought another benefit. It gave punters who could not get to a course a legal method of having a bet. As the TAB network developed, with more and more agencies, and with phone betting, just about every punter in this State had access to it. It was a good system, with benefits for just about everyone. But I suppose that the downside was that fewer people had to go to the track in order to place a bet. There is no doubt that race day attendances are a long way down on what they could have been and what the clubs would want. The decline in patronage has had an effect on club revenues, offset a little by revenue from the TAB. The bookies on course have really suffered. They have not shared in the TAB bonanza, and their numbers have been declining rapidly. They needed the turnover tax relief which they got a couple of years ago, but they cannot be very happy with what the Minister is doing now with the TAB. The only legal offcourse betting medium in this State is being used to drag more and more punters away from the tracks. It is also being used to attract the biggest punters away from the tracks and the licensed bookmakers. The Minister is doing his best, through his hand-picked TAB board, to put every dollar through the books of the TAB and boost the revenue that he can pass on to the Treasurer. The whole racing and betting policy in Queensland is aimed squarely at achieving that result. TAB agencies are becoming betting palaces, with facilities such as price monitoring, Sky Channel coverage of races, and lavish surroundings, all designed to convince punters that there is no need to go to the track. PubTAB does the same thing, with the added facility of private rooms and private betting terminals for professional punters. They can even get fluctuations on facsimile. The professional punter is king, and he is given everything that he needs to make a steady killing, generally at the expense of the small punter and, of course, the oncourse bookmaker. On top of that, the TAB is trying to manipulate the race calendar to suit the needs of the TAB turnover and the small group of professional TAB betters. We have reached the absolutely ridiculous situation in which some smaller country race clubs are virtually paid to have meetings at times when there is hardly a racegoer in sight. Those meetings are purely to provide something for the professionals to bet on with the TAB. I must say that those meetings are welcomed by professional owners, trainers and jockeys, but they do nothing to fill racing’s other role of providing entertainment for the locals. At the same time, we have the spectacle of courses such as Caloundra being told that they have to give up Saturday dates and race at unpopular times. If this sort of nonsense is not proof of what the TAB is up to on the Minister’s orders, I really do not know what is. A few things need to be done to attract people back to the legal forms of betting and make things difficult for the illegal operators. There have to be changes in the way the TAB operates. I do believe that we have to make it possible for the licensed bookmakers to get involved in offcourse betting. Mr Beattie interjected. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2605

Mr VEIVERS: That could be interesting, if the sculpture is done correctly. The legitimate bookmakers have been looking for telephone betting for a long time, and it is time that they were listened to seriously. Bookmakers are finding the going tough right now, and there is no sign that things will get any easier for them. If we give them the go ahead to take phone bets, I believe that they will increase their turnover enormously. Hopefully, the Minister will mention that in his reply. Mr Gibbs: Don’t punt on it. Mr VEIVERS: I thought that the Minister might have been going to get us to catch up to South Australia, so that when the big moves are on and the big race days are on, the money does not leave Queensland and go to South Australia. We have to get our tail into order so that we get something and keep that money in Queensland. The Minister said that he might do something about that. Has he changed his mind on that now that we are in Parliament? Mr Gibbs: I thought you were a great supporter of the AJC and the Principal Clubs. They don’t want this introduced. You can’t have it both ways. Mr VEIVERS: The Minister says, “great supporter of the AJC”. We do not even belong to it. They do not recognise us down there. The Minister is the one who caused all that. A jockeys’ advocate named Malcolm Query has been warned off tracks. How can he look after the jockeys when he cannot go onto the track to see them? Mr Gibbs: You’ve reinforced my gravest suspicions. Mr VEIVERS: There are no suspicions about it. Mr Gibbs: I only got the fax yesterday. Mr VEIVERS: What fax? Is that “fax” or “facts”? Mr Gibbs: What time did you get your riding instructions yesterday, or the fax? Mr VEIVERS: “Riding” or “writing” instructions? Mr Gibbs: Riding. Mr VEIVERS: Neither. The Minister must straighten up a few things, otherwise neither black print racing here in Queensland nor the Magic Millions will be recognised. We will not be able to race those horses, and they will not be recognised for the Cox Plate or anything else. I own a few horses. They will never be very good, but one never knows. Mr Gibbs: It is called black type racing. Mr VEIVERS: I know that it is—black print, black type. At least I am in the industry. The Minister is too tight even to have a horse. Mr Gibbs: What about the conflict of interest? Mr VEIVERS: The Minister likes to have a bet on them, so what is the difference? Why does he not support the industry? Mr Gibbs: We run an honest game. We’re not into the rorts of the Opposition. Mr VEIVERS: I am not into any rorts, and the Minister knows that. I hope that he has a few answers for the racing industry and the breeders who believe that the industry could fall head over turkey because of the Minister’s total incompetence. Mr Gibbs: That’s fine. Mr VEIVERS: We are out in the cold. Because the Minister has nominated people to the board, the rest of Australian racing will not recognise us. There is a danger that it could all fall over. Technically and legally, it could all fall over, and this will have all been brought on by the Minister and some of his idiotic moves within the industry. Mr Gibbs: But you tell me you supported most of them. Mr VEIVERS: The Minister says, “supported most of them.” Mr Gibbs: What about your own policy? You stole it. 2606 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr VEIVERS: No, the Minister stole it from us to straighten his up. Then, just to make sure that he kept control, he whacked a four-man committee between them. The Minister throws up his hands. He does not want to take responsibility. If something goes wrong he says, “It was their fault.” He is just like most other Ministers. There is a committee between everybody, and when something goes wrong everyone points to the committee. Mr Gibbs: Stick to your notes. Mr VEIVERS: I do not need notes when I am rocking-and-rolling. I have lost so much weight that I do not know how to roll any more. If we were to install some betting phones on courses so that bookmakers could take bets, legal bookmaking would again be a viable business, and I am sure that we would see an increase in the numbers of bookmakers at our racetracks. Of course, the Minister does not want that to occur, because the Government will not get the money into consolidated revenue through the TAB. That money goes straight to Treasury, and we do not know where it goes after that. Mr Welford: He’s not learning anything from you. Mr VEIVERS: It probably is used to fund some of the crazy schemes that the honourable member for Everton mentioned previously. Even the greedy Treasurer would benefit, because bookmakers would be paying turnover tax on the bets that escape the net at the moment. It is good to see the former director of the Events Corporation sitting around the corner listening to me. Mr Welford interjected. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member fancies himself as a top solicitor. That is why he is in this Chamber. He would not have made it in that profession. He would have gone broke and his family would have been out on the street. Mr Welford: I’ve cleaned up your mates. They’re all in striped suits. Mr VEIVERS: And what will the honourable member do about the people on the other side? Will he let them go? He has one set of rules for one side and another set for the other side. Mr Welford: We’ll catch you yet. Mr VEIVERS: I am an honest kid. My mum and dad brought me up correctly. Mr Welford: Your mum cut you out of her will. Mr VEIVERS: That is a cutting remark. I have not worked out why she did that, even though I am the only child. However, if we legalise telephone betting by licensed bookmakers, there is a great opportunity to bring people back to the tracks and help out with funds for racing at the same time. I am suggesting that that part of the turnover tax that licensed bookmakers pay on telephone bets should go to providing free racetrack entry. When we have offered free racetrack entry at the Gold Coast, many people have come to the races. I do not know whether people believe that the entrance fee is too high. Of course, many of them would not know what the price is. However, when the radio station advertises a free day at the races, people pour through the gates. Last Saturday at the Gold Coast races, numbers were down. If we had more free days, more money would be made by the race clubs. I suppose that the Minister will pinch my good idea and run with it. If he does that, I will give him commendation; if he does not do it, I will give him a brickbat. If that type of strategy boosted attendances even by a few per cent, there would be enormous benefits, but I am suggesting that there would be a huge boost to attendances. I urge the Minister to take note of the crowds on track on free days. We should thank the sponsors who put on those free days. Everyone benefits from the big crowds. The clubs make more from their concessions, the bookmakers and the oncourse tote increase their turnover, and that extra revenue allows the clubs to pay better prize money, which flows back to owners, trainers and everyone else involved in the racing industry. Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2607

It would not be too hard to institute a system of legal telephone betting with bookmakers on course. Every bet would have to be recorded electronically, and there would have to be a voice tape monitor on the phone lines with ready access by betting stewards. The technology is available to do that. I will be interested to see what happens in South Australia. By shaking hands, they made a gentleman’s agreement that no State would commence legal telephone betting until all States discussed the matter. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I am interested to see how they will handle it. There is only my electorate secretary and me. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I know. I do not have as much assistance as the Minister, and I spend most of my time keeping my eye on him. If we can monitor thousands of poker machines spread all over the State, we can do the same for a couple of hundred telephone betting lines at a relatively small number of racetracks. The clubs would have to provide common facilities, but that would be a small price to pay for the benefits they would get out of the system. I believe that telephone betting with licensed bookmakers on course would be a positive step in cutting into the business of the illegal operators. The TAB has a role to play, as well. The better the service that the TAB provides to all punters—not just the big-time professionals—the less attractive the illegal operators will become. Before any progress will be made there, the Minister needs to change his instructions to the TAB board. Members representing provincial electorates will be well aware of the complaints from those parts of the State about how the TAB is operating at the moment. The small punters away from the south east of the State are treated as nothing more than a nuisance, particularly if they are looking to use telephone betting facilities. That attitude was reported by none other than the Courier-Mail, which is very friendly to the Government, in the words of the TAB Chairman, Bob Douglas. He responded to complaints regarding people in the bush by talking about “mug punters who log-jam the system”. His answer to complaints that approximate dividends and scratchings were no longer available by telephone was that “serious punters” could get them from 4TAB and Austext. We are not talking about serious punters; we are talking about the little bloke who lives in an area where he cannot get 4TAB. We are talking about people who cannot afford Austext, even if they are in a service area. Mr Bob Douglas needs to get out of Brisbane to see how a lot of people in this State live. Many thousands of people cannot just slip down to PubTAB for a look at the satellite coverages of the races. They also cannot invest in Austext and the delivery system just for a few bets on a Saturday. This is supposed to represent and be used by everybody. At present, it cannot be, and that is not fair. I think that some members at the back of the Chamber would admit that. But I am certain of this: those people living outside the south east are still Queenslanders, and it does not disqualify them from the right to have the same opportunity in their betting as everyone else. I think honourable members would have to agree with that, too. Illegal betting no longer involves a few blokes running around bars taking bets at starting price, or a few people doing the same thing from a house with a couple of telephones. The evidence is there for all to see that illegal betting has gone a long way beyond that. The operators are sophisticated; they offer a real betting service, even at negotiated odds; and they are well organised with the best technology. They are dealing in sums of money that no-one would have believed even a few years ago. Today, the Opposition calls on the Government for an all-out war on illegal betting. No longer is there any reason to doubt the extent of illegal betting. There is no mystery about the consequences for the racing industry or the way that the illegal betting ties in with other forms of crime and corruption. The Government has had the results of the CJC study for a good while. It also has access to all the work done by the Queensland 2608 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Police Service and other law enforcement agencies around the country. The technology is available to find the operators and track the money. Now is the time to act. Mr BUDD (Redlands) (5.02 p.m.): I am slightly bemused. It took the honourable member only 23 minutes to get to the point of the Bill, and then he spoke for one minute on it. Unlike the member opposite, I have some concerns, so I will confine my remarks to the amending Bill. As the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Racing and Betting Act to remove impediments to the effective prosecution of unlawful bookmakers. In doing this, the amendment will provide for unlawful bookmakers to be imprisoned as a natural consequence if they do not pay their fines. In addition, it will give the courts the extra option of imprisonment if the unlawful bookmakers continue to engage in these operations. I use the term “unlawful bookmakers” as opposed to “SP bookmakers” for the simple reason that at one stage SP bookmakers gave only starting price odds, hence the term “SP bookies”. However, in recent times, one has been able to get any odds at all, for example, 6 to 1, even money, 3 to 2 on, so these people are no longer starting price bookmakers but unlawful or illegal bookmakers. If one looks at the history of unlawful bookmaking in Australia, one finds that it is as old as the racing industry itself. More than likely, it owes its origin to the early racing clubs wanting to control all betting. For generations, the belief has been that Australians would bet on two flies crawling up a wall. It is an accepted fact that Australians like a bit of a punt. After all, the kind of people who were prepared to take a gamble and leave the settled lifestyle that they knew in search of a better future in a new country were highly likely to be attracted to gambling in this more traditional form. It was a natural progression and, of course, it was just as natural that some enterprising people decided that they would take all bets. In the early days, the local SP bookie was a very popular figure in the neighbourhood and regarded as a friend to all. During the depression days of the 1930s, very few people could afford to travel to a race meeting and then have the extra money for their entrance fee. It was much simpler and cheaper to bet a couple of bob with the local SP bookie. It was a cheap form of entertainment for the poor who could have a flutter with a sixpenny bet, and it had the added advantage of putting fruit on the sideboard if they had a win. The SP bookie was often the local barber, or some such bloke, who took bets as a sideline, as in the Bookie Book by Harry Robinson, who wrote, “Kenny’s dad was a real barber and he cut a lot of hair but not after 12 noon on Saturday. Then his wireless would blare with race calls right through to 5 o’clock in the afternoon.” In those days, if someone lost his money, he could still have another bet on tick and fix up the SP bookie if he had a win, or fix him up the next week. Unfortunately, times have changed. Illegal or unlawful bookmaking is now a full- time and very lucrative business. High stakes are involved, and this has often led to links with organised crime. Now, poor payers are threatened with, or even have used against them, physical violence. That violence often extends outside the immediate circle of the punter and the bookmaker and has an enormous cumulative effect on the individual and on the community. It includes such things as the personal misery that is suffered by the families of compulsive gamblers who have been given credit by those unlawful bookmakers and their fear of the savagery and thuggery that is often used to collect the debts. It is not an understatement to say that unlawful and illegal bookmakers have been a parasite on the whole racing industry and completely callous in their destruction of families and individuals. Both the CJC and the Fitzgerald report expressed concerns that proceeds from unlawful and illegal bookmaking have been used to finance other forms of criminal activity. That includes such things as drug running, money laundering and—perhaps this is the most unfortunate aspect—the corruption of public officials. In the early 1980s, police task forces identified a number of racing industry syndicates that had resorted to the importation and distribution of narcotics from South East Asian countries. The racing industry, of course, offers a perfect cover and reason for frequent overseas travel and the possession of large sums of money. The Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2609 compulsive gambler, who the illegal bookmaker allows to run up large debts that he cannot pay, is often very amenable to criminal corruption and blackmail and may see a quick drug run as the answer to his problems. There have been many reports, both in Queensland and interstate, linking the importation and distribution of narcotics with the illegal bookmaking industry. Money laundering, of course, is the technique of making dishonestly acquired moneys appear to have been legitimately obtained. By disguising their real source of revenue, criminals are able to display their wealth and to distance themselves from their crime. Under the cash transaction reports legislation, all cash dealers are now compelled by law to report any transaction in excess of $10,000 or any transaction of a suspicious nature. The legislation included bookmakers in its definition of cash dealers. In 1984, the Costigan report made specific reference to the use one particular SP bookmaker was making of the banking system. In 1989, the Fitzgerald report also took up this issue. Inquiries of officers of the commission indicate that bookmakers often encourage larger punters to break down their bets into amounts below the $10,000 threshold and in that way avoid the paperwork. It is known that SP bookmakers frequently lay off and bet with licensed bookmakers and use this to launder their profits. The enormous monetary cost to the community and to the Government of these activities has to be taken into account. For instance, illegal or unlawful bookmakers pay no licensing fees or turnover tax, nor do they pay their full share of income tax. These activities represent a substantial loss of revenue for both State and Federal Governments. In addition, there are numerous indirect costs associated with illegal bookmaking. These include such matters as the need for additional police resources, the significant costs associated with the prosecution of unlawful bookmakers, and the substantial amounts of time and resources that must be given by various Government departments to the ongoing problem. It has been surmised that the Government loses between $16m and $18m in revenue each financial year. However, when the costs to the State in terms of crime and law enforcement are added, it would be hard to estimate the total price that the Government and the people of Queensland finally pay. The financial cost is not just a cost to the Government; the racing industry in Queensland is itself further defrauded of between $30m and $60m by this illegal industry. When it is considered that the racing industry in Queensland is our fourth largest industry and a major generator of employment, the enormity of the problem becomes very apparent. The current penalties for unlawful bookmaking in Queensland are among the most substantial in Australia. However, this has been an anomaly. Under existing legislation, an unpaid fine for a conviction must be pursued by the Crown as if it were a civil debt. Therefore, most illegal bookmakers have their affairs arranged in such a way that they do not appear to have any recoverable assets that can be seized if the fine is unpaid. By providing imprisonment as a natural consequence of failing to pay a fine and by including the options of imprisonment as an alternative to a fine for subsequent offences, these problems will no longer occur under the proposed legislation. I will not go into the monetary penalties proposed in the Bill except to say that the amendments in the Bill are essential to the effective prosecution of unlawful or illegal bookmakers. The legislation before the House is an integral component of this Government’s response to the threat posed by illegal bookmaking. Now, thanks to the ongoing reforms to the racing industry that have been instigated by the very capable Minister, the Honourable Bob Gibbs, when this Bill is passed, these defaulters will be put behind bars where they belong. Mr Robertson: You’ll go places. Mr BUDD: I certainly will. The winners will be the honest punters, legal bookmakers, the TAB, the racing industry and the community in general. I commend the amendments in this Bill to the House. Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North) (5.11 p.m.): I rise in the House today to join in the debate on the Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill. It is quite obvious that we as an Opposition, as alluded to by my colleague the member for Southport, do not intend to 2610 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly oppose this piece of legislation which, of course, is designed to increase the penalties for those convicted of SP bookmaking in this State. We have no problem with that, but I think that it is necessary to point out that, while the legislation may make it harder for some SP bookmakers to operate, it certainly will not wipe out SP bookmaking completely. In other words, it appears that the legislation does not go far enough, firstly, to discourage the punter from betting SP—subsequently reducing the profitability of the SP bookie—and, secondly, to offer any real alternative to the punter who bets SP. It is agreed that the Fitzgerald report detailed the magnitude of the illegal bookmaking industry in Queensland and organised crime in this State, and that the CJC’s Report on SP bookmaking and Related Criminal Activities in Queensland confirmed that organised criminal activities, such as drug trafficking and money laundering, were linked directly with the illegal industry. However, I think it must be made clear why the industry of illegal bookmaking was allowed to develop in this State to the magnitude that it did prior to Fitzgerald. It is true that, from Fitzgerald, some of our law enforcers were proved to accommodate and, indeed, encourage and protect the SP operations in this State—in a lot of cases for their own personal financial benefit. But we all knew that, and that our courts did not have the necessary teeth to impose tougher penalties on those who were ever brought before them on illegal bookmaking charges. That is why Opposition members do not oppose the legislation. However, what I think we really have to address are the reasons why it is so attractive for punters to bet SP in the first place rather than betting with the legal alternatives of the TAB, or with oncourse bookmakers and the tote. The punter is no different from anyone else when it comes to his money: he wants the easiest, most convenient and, indeed, most profitable return on his investment that he can possibly get. It makes sense that a punter would easily be attracted to an SP service because of a combination of factors, namely, telephone access; credit betting; almost complete anonymity; starting price odds—or better, if negotiated; settling of bets at a predetermined time after the event; and discounts on losing bets. With the combination of all those factors, it certainly makes sense to see why that alternative is so attractive. It also makes sense that if the combination of all these factors or better were offered legally to the punter, then he would not need to avail himself of an SP service. To be quite honest, to the average person in the street, the penalties proposed in this Bill would seem to be pretty harsh when compared with other penalties handed out by the courts for more serious or violent crimes committed against a person or persons. Commissioner Costigan, QC, stated in his 1984 report that the SP bookmaker had assumed a place in popular history and that, despite the limited contact which the community has with SP, the illegal bookmaker had been accorded an acknowledged role in our community. In fact, the CJC report suggests that the community does not regard the SP bookmaker as a sinister criminal such as a drug trafficker but, rather, as being akin to a businessman who provides a service which, at its worst, should be regarded as merely a quasi-criminal activity from which many people derive relaxation and enjoyment. The attitude seems to be that, notwithstanding the failure of the SP bookies to pay either turnover taxes or, in some cases, income tax, they are really likeable rogues who do the community no great harm. Mr Costigan did point out, however, that there was some community concern over the involvement of SP bookmakers in race fixing, the laundering of illegal moneys, the financing of narcotics, the corruption of public officials, the use of violence to enforce both debts and the code of silence and, of course, significant losses to Government revenue. It was interesting, though, to read in the Courier-Mail on 10 February this year the comments of Sydney Turf Club Chairman, Tom Kennedy, who cast grave doubts on the extent of SP bookmaking in New South Wales when he absolutely refuted suggestions that it was a billion dollar a year business. He said— “I have asked bookies, jockeys and trainers but no-one can tell me where I can place an SP bet.” Other States in Australia do have harsher penalties for SP bookmaking than currently exist in Queensland but it is also true, as mentioned in the CJC report, that the Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2611

SP bookmaking industry continues to thrive in other States despite those States already having default imprisonment for offenders. The commission believed that, if penalties that attached to convictions were significantly increased and default imprisonment reintroduced in Queensland, there would be some decline in the incidence of SP bookmaking but that it is certainly not the complete answer to the problem. In fact, as the report says, the probable expected decline in SP bookmaking activity in Queensland may be attributed to SP bookmakers simply shifting out of the jurisdiction and into other jurisdictions of lesser enforcement or lesser penalties; in other words, border hopping, but still servicing the same clients. The very stark and frightening aspect from that report was that, with the enactment of stiffer penalties, because some individual SP bookmakers have turnovers that run into millions of dollars per annum and given the order of profit that can be made, there will merely be a change in industry personalities to one that is primarily run by ruthless and violent criminal entrepreneurs who are prepared to accept the risks of harsh penalty. The other problem that has raised its head here in Queensland recently is that of licensed bookmakers betting unlawfully. This may seem like a completely different issue but the fact of the matter is that some of the largest SP bookmakers in Queensland have been or possibly still are licensed bookmakers, as evidenced from the Fitzgerald report. Of course, anyone who is familiar with what happens within the racing industry also knows that the incidence of licensed bookmakers betting SP is extremely hard to detect, so again it could be argued that the proposed piece of legislation, when passed, may not have as great an effect on that particular side of the operation as it will on a normal SP bookmaking operation. When we go back to some of the theoretical proposals that have been put forward to combat SP bookmaking and, indeed, SP betting and to provide an acceptable legal alternative to the punter, the subject of oncourse telephone betting with bookmakers has been touted and already alluded to by my colleague the member for Southport, and more so recently with the decision by the South Australian Government to approve oncourse telephone betting from last Saturday. I assume that the Minister is still keen to pursue investigations into that proposal here in Queensland. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the CJC investigation into bookmaking to allow oncourse telephone betting with bookmakers on racetracks in Queensland, but because of its ramifications, this in itself must be carefully examined, and both sides of the argument should be listened to before a decision is made. It has indeed been interesting over the past couple of months since the South Australian decision was made to hear arguments from various sections of the industry as to the impact of that controversial but certainly not new proposal. In fact, the idea was first mooted some 30 years ago in 1962 when the then Liberal Treasurer of Queensland told Cabinet that principal race clubs would have Government sanction if they chose to allow betting by bookmakers via the telephone. The proposal was, of course, not taken up at the time because of the introduction of the TAB. It may very well be the TAB that may play a large part in any decision which is made regarding oncourse telephone betting in Queensland in the 1990s. After all, it will be TAB turnover that could be affected, which could eventually mean a sharp drop in State Government revenue—now around $72.5m—and that then would have a flow-on effect with a reduction in the $41.8m paid out by the TAB to race clubs last year. Queensland TAB Chief Executive, Dick McIlwain, was quoted in the Courier-Mail on 2 February as saying that allowing phone bets with track bookmakers would sharply cut the State Government’s revenue from TAB betting, but he was also quick to point out that, if Queensland did not follow the lead of South Australia, Queensland punters would bet by phone with South Australian bookmakers, meaning that money would flow out of the State. Either way, the Government would be set to lose. After last Saturday’s South Australian meeting at Morphettville when the national oncourse telephone betting system was introduced, South Australian Bookmakers League Chairman, Michael Webster, was quoted as saying that nine bookmakers using the system held $87,500 in turnover and that 85 per cent of calls received were from interstate punters. The 2612 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly solution to that problem, as proposed and discussed by national TAB chief executives recently in Adelaide—to impose a national blackout of South Australian racing, including betting broadcasting and the transmission of interstate bookmakers’ prices into South Australian racecourses—could be seen as nothing short of bullyboy tactics. The whole issue of SP bookmaking in Queensland and trying to wipe it out is not as simple as increasing the penalty and default imprisonment for those convicted. It is a case of giving the punting public the service that it wants legally and, at the same time, keeping legal bookmakers on courses throughout the State. It is true that bookmakers’ numbers throughout Australia have dwindled by almost a third in the past two to three years. Bookmakers add to the atmosphere of the racetrack and, without them, oncourse betting would not have the same colour and excitement. Every bookmaker has his own character, and this adds to the thrill and excitement of going to the races, but it is the offcourse punter who needs to be looked after so that he does not need to bet SP. Recent computer problems experienced by the Queensland TAB give further incentives for punters to consider betting SP. I can recall a major breakdown on 13 March this year, when all betting stopped for 15 minutes shortly before 5 o’clock and dividend payments were delayed for a further 45 minutes. The breakdown also prevented punters from using the Telebet service for the whole of that Saturday night. If the State Government is serious about trying to stamp out SP operations, it must encompass a plan that combines the effects of the implications of this Bill and an urgent need to influence the TAB to restructure and accommodate the needs of today’s punter. If that means fixed odds tote betting, credit accounts for punters, national betting pools and a replacement computer system, perhaps right now is the ideal time. By all means, gaol those who refuse to pay the fines or who cannot pay the fines, but seriously look at the advantages that the offcourse punter needs to take advantage of in the nineties. Debate, on motion of Mr Vaughan, adjourned.

BAIL AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.23 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Bail Act 1980.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.24 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” At present, section 13 of the Bail Act 1980 provides that persons charged with an offence defined in section 5, trafficking in dangerous drugs; section 6, supplying dangerous drugs; section 7, receiving or possessing property obtained from trafficking or supplying; section 8, producing dangerous drugs; section 9, possession of dangerous drugs; section 10 (1), possessing anything for use or that has been used in connection with the commission of a crime under the Act; section 11, permitting use of a place; or section 12, parties to offences committed outside Queensland, of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 can only be granted bail by order of the Supreme Court. Section 13 (2) does permit a member of the police force or a Magistrates Court to grant bail for Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2613 charges preferred against offenders under these sections where proceedings may be taken summarily pursuant to section 13 of the Drugs Misuse Act, that is, where the person charged with the commission of the offence is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for 15 years. The general effect of these provisions is to preclude stipendiary magistrates from granting bail in a large number of matters. This has resulted in regular criticism from judges of the Supreme Court regarding the current provisions of the Bail Act. Judges have stated that magistrates should have jurisdiction to grant bail in these cases. In the overwhelming number of cases where application for bail is made to the Supreme Court, bail is granted to the applicant and only in a small number of cases is bail refused. Applications to the Supreme Court for bail are expensive for offenders and unnecessarily consume the time and resources of the Supreme Court. Judges have been diverted from the conduct of trials and from otherwise dealing with far more important criminal and civil cases. The only other offences where magistrates are denied jurisdiction to grant bail are those crimes, such as treason, murder, piracy on the high seas, and demands with menaces upon agencies of Government, where the penalty upon conviction is mandatory life imprisonment. The Law Reform Commission has published a working paper on the Bail Act. The commission is of the view that the power of the Magistrates Court to grant bail should be extended. The discussion paper states— “In light of the fact that magistrates decide whether or not defendants should stand trial for serious offences such as murder, and are able to hear most charges arising under the Drugs Misuse Act, the commission considers that magistrates should be empowered to deal with bail applications in all cases.” This amendment Bill deals only with Drugs Misuse Act offences. Presumably the justification for limiting the jurisdiction to grant bail for offences under the Drugs Misuse Act to the Supreme Court was that the penalty for some offences at one time was mandatory life imprisonment. Now that the maximum penalty under the Drugs Misuse Act is 25 years’ imprisonment, not mandatory life, that argument no longer holds. This Government also has regard for the seriousness of the drug problem in society. It has introduced legislation which establishes sentencing criteria to be considered by the courts in determining what is an appropriate sentence to be imposed in a particular case. The argument that removal of the jurisdiction to grant bail in drug cases from the Supreme Court to the Magistrates Court is “going soft on drugs” cannot be sustained as, in the majority of cases, bail is unopposed. Where bail is opposed, in many cases bail is nevertheless granted by the Supreme Court. The Legal Aid Office grants legal aid to a large number of defendants to make applications for bail to a Supreme Court judge in chambers. A large number of these applications are for drug offences. Bail applications on drug charges involve a large expenditure of resources by the Legal Aid Office both in the preparation of associated material and in the time spent in appearances before a judge in chambers. Documentary material must be prepared and filed in the Supreme Court. Counsel are instructed to appear on the applications and administrative processes have to be complied with in taking out orders granted by the court. In the Magistrates Court, an oral application for bail is all that is required. In the Legal Aid Office, Brisbane, a survey was conducted for the period July to December 1992. Some 66 applications—46 per cent of all bail applications made—related to drug charges. Of the 22 applications made in November/December, bail was granted in 21 of the 22 cases. Fifteen applications were not opposed by the Director of Prosecutions. A large number of these bail applications are dealt with in- house by the Legal Aid Office. However, where such matters are prepared by private solicitors instructing counsel, the cost to the Legal Aid Office in legal fees is about $600 per matter. Allowing stipendiary magistrates to grant bail for all drug offences will release legal aid funding for other deserving cases. A survey of the Supreme Court bail 2614 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly application files for the year 1992 in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions was also conducted. Approximately 80 per cent of all drug-related bail matters were unopposed. With regard to the most serious charge of trafficking, of the cases where bail was applied for and opposed, only 12 cases were refused bail by the Supreme Court. The criminal justice system also bears the additional cost of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission detaining defendants pending the determination of bail applications. Considering the following issues, namely— mandatory life imprisonment is no longer a penalty for these offences; the regular criticism from the Supreme Court about the cost associated with applications to it for bail, both from the defendant’s and the prosecution’s perspective and from the operational and resource aspects of the court; the publicly stated view of the Supreme Court that bail applications relating to drug offences should be determined by the Magistrates Court; stipendiary magistrates would then be able to grant bail for all offences except murder, treason, piracy and demands with menaces upon Government agencies; readier access to Magistrates Courts; the potential costs savings to the courts, defendants, and the Office of the Director of Prosecutions; the potential for more legal aid clients to be assisted by funds presently used to finance bail applications being available for other worthy legal aid cases; and the recommendation in the Law Reform Commission’s working paper for the transfer of the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to the Magistrates Court— it is appropriate that jurisdiction be conferred upon stipendiary magistrates to grant bail for offences under the Drugs Misuse Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, adjourned.

PENALTIES AND SENTENCES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.31 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in relation to penalties and sentences.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.32 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Since the passage of the Criminal Code through this House in 1899, until last year there was no attempt to consolidate in one enactment the types, administration and enforcement of penalties and sentences which may be imposed on persons convicted of criminal offences. The Government has shown its commitment to law reform by the passage through the House in November 1992 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. As honourable members will doubtless recall, that Act represented both a consolidation and a reform of Queensland’s sentencing laws. A period of about five months has now passed within which the provisions of the Penalties and Sentences Act have been Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2615 tested in practice. Over that period, information has been received from judges, magistrates, registrars of the various courts, the Corrective Services Commission and legal practitioners which have pinpointed a number of technical, administrative and interpretive matters raised by the Penalties and Sentences Act. In line with its continuing commitment to law reform, this Government has listened carefully to those who have taken the time and trouble to put forward constructive suggestions for improvement and amendment. Interestingly enough, while the Penalties and Sentences Act of 1992 contained a significant number of reforms, many of the constructive criticisms made of some provisions of the Act relate more to former provisions of the Criminal Code and the Justices Act which were not substantially reformed but consolidated into the Penalties and Sentences Act. For this reason, I foreshadow that, having undertaken a project of such significant importance to the criminal law, the Government will continue to monitor, review and assess the processes and procedures affecting penalties and sentences generally. On that basis, it is reasonable to expect that further ongoing maintenance of the Act will be necessary to ensure that it continues to deliver cost-effective enforcement of criminal sanctions in an impartial and just fashion. Turning to the Bill before the House—the principal objective is to provide a common enforcement procedure for all court jurisdictions dealing with fine defaulters. The sentencing provisions applicable to the District and Supreme Courts were, until the passage of the Penalties and Sentences Act, contained in the Criminal Code. However, the provisions relating to the imposition of sentences and their administration in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction were governed by the provisions of the Justices Act. Because of that historic accident, there developed two distinctly separate systems for, amongst other matters, enforcing the imposition of fines. The Magistrates Court system empowered magistrates, at the time of imposing a sentence, to nominate a default period of imprisonment if the fine was not paid in the time allowed. In contrast, however, the District and Supreme Court systems required that the offender be returned to the sentencing court before the offender could be dealt with for failing to pay the fine within the time allowed. The latter system was both cumbersome and time consuming. It is clearly desirable to have a uniform process applicable to all sentencing courts regardless of jurisdiction. It is of interest to note that, by aligning these enforcement procedures, the imposition and administration of fine option orders will also be made consistent across the three jurisdictions. While it is acknowledged that, rather late in the life of the former National Party Government, it attempted to open up the issue of fine option orders, it has fallen to this Government to ensure that administrative processes underpinning fine option orders are both workable and consistent. Indeed, the whole concept of fine option orders is continually being reviewed to ensure that both the interests of the community and the offenders are fairly balanced. One important matter clarified by the Bill relates to the power to issue warrants upon non-payment of fines within the time allowed. While such a power has remained under the Justices Act—and thus, to date, has been independent of the Penalties and Sentences Act—it has been deemed advisable for technical reasons and for considerations of efficiency to have the Penalties and Sentences Act reflect the provisions currently contained in the Justices Act. Such an amendment will ensure that opportunistic offenders could not mount a contrived legal argument to impugn the basis for payment of their fines, thereby wasting valuable court time. For this reason, an administrative decision was taken to postpone the issue of warrants for outstanding fines until the amendment proposed by this Bill has been made. This does not mean that persons fined between November last year and proclamation of this Bill will be able to escape their liabilities, but this Government, acting prudently, has simply not sought to 2616 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly enforce orders made during that period at this stage to ensure that due legal process was in place. In practice, this has simply meant that some persons who had not paid fines due have received an additional period in which to make payment. Offenders who continue to resist their responsibilities in this regard will, upon proclamation of this Bill, be confronted with their delinquent behaviour. Other items which have been proposed for amendment are provisions relating to fine option orders; the way in which superior courts may deal with fine defaulters; clarification of a number of provisions originally taken from the Corrective Services Act; and a significant number of administrative reforms to enhance the administration of the Act in the Magistrates, District and Supreme Court registries. As I have already mentioned, in the sphere of fine option orders, this Bill effectively aligns procedures in the Magistrates and superior courts. While this is an area which will continue to be monitored closely, this Bill proposes to align the powers of registrars of District and Supreme Courts with those of registrars of the Magistrates Courts to make provision for such persons to enable them to make fine option orders for offenders in appropriate circumstances. The net effect of the proposed amendments will enhance the efficiency of the District and Supreme Courts and clarify procedures of the Magistrates Courts concerning fine enforcement. However, as a result of consultation with judges, it has been proposed that the existing system of fine enforcement in the District and Supreme Courts be retained as an option in those jurisdictions alone. The justification for retention of the existing system as an option in conjunction with the proposed amendments is to allow the superior courts additional flexibility in dealing with fine defaulters, in view of the wider range of cases that the superior courts encompass. In summary, the amendments will— (1) provide the District and Supreme Courts with a power to impose, at the time of sentence, a default period of imprisonment on a person sentenced to pay a fine; (2) provide the District and Supreme Courts with a more efficient option in dealing with persons who have failed to pay fines within the time allowed, such system to be additional to the powers currently contained in the Act; (3) align procedures across all jurisdictions in regard to the application for and the granting of fine option orders, either by the court which imposed the fine or by the proper officer of that court after the sentence has been passed; (4) enhance clarity and understanding of a number of provisions of the Act to remove ambiguities and inconsistencies arising from the reform process; (5) provide more efficient administration of sentencing orders by the courts, court registrars and the Corrective Services Commission. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, adjourned. TRUSTEE COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.39 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Trustee Companies Act 1968.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2617

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.40 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The purpose of this Bill is to amend the the Trustee Companies Act 1968. These amendments are directed at providing for flexibility in the administration of the Act. Trustee companies are governed by the trustee companies legislation of the State or Territory in which the trustee companies were established. The Trustee Companies Act 1968 sets out the powers, responsibilities and accountability of trustee companies in Queensland. By way of information, these companies differ from other companies in that they are given the power to perform roles which are generally only able to be performed by natural persons, such as the administration of deceased estates and the maintenance of minors and other legally incapable persons. Other functions carried out by trustee companies are the management of common funds—some of which are offered publicly— and acting as trustee to unit trusts, debentures and other public offerings. The trustee companies industry is not an industry with many operators, but rather it is an industry with a small number of operators which provide a specialised service. This Bill has several objectives, which entail— (1) removing the requirement by a subsidiary trustee company to obtain a guarantee from its parent company of its liability to be incurred in the performance of its trustee functions in respect of deceased estates; (2) removing a Henry VIII clause from the the Trustee Companies Act 1968; (3) making some minor technical amendments to the Act; and (4) granting trustee company status to National Australia Trustees Limited. I now turn to discuss the clauses in the Bill. Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive provide for minor technical amendments to the Act. Clause 7 omits section 72 (1) of the Act. Section 72 is a clause which enables the Trustee Companies Act 1968 to be amended by subordinate or delegated legislation—in this case by Order in Council. This type of clause is commonly referred to as a Henry VIII clause. It is a breach of fundamental legislative principles when a statute does not have sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament. A Henry VIII clause does not have sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament, because it breaches the requirement that an Act may be amended only by another Act. Accordingly, it is necessary that section 72 (1) be omitted so as to comply with fundamental legislative principles. Clause 8 omits section 74 of the Act. Section 74 requires a subsidiary trustee company applicant to obtain a guarantee from its parent company in respect of its deceased estates business. An anomalous situation arises when a subsidiary company applicant has a parent company which is either a bank or an insurance company. The requirements of the banking prudential standards set down by the Reserve Bank of Australia do not allow a parent bank to give guarantees to any of its subsidiary companies. To overcome this anomaly and to introduce flexibility into the granting of trustee company status, it is necessary to omit section 74. However, the requirement to obtain a guarantee may be necessary in other cases. That is why my department’s guidelines for applicant trustee companies still provide for a possibility that a guarantee may be required. For example, there may be an application from a low capitalised subsidiary company which does not have a proven record of performance in its business operation. Its parent company (other than a bank or an insurance company) may be called upon to provide a guarantee, depending on the subsidiary company’s compliance with other requirements in the guidelines. Applications for trustee company status are processed by my department in accordance with these guidelines. The omission of section 74 will not weaken the 2618 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly scheme of prudential standards under the Act. In fact, trustee companies legislation in other mainland States and Territories does not contain provisions requiring a guarantee from a parent company of its subsidiary trustee company’s liabilities in its estate business. Clause 9 inserts National Australia Trustees Limited into Schedule 2 of the Act and, therefore, authorises it to operate as a trustee company in this State. National Australia Trustees Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Australia Bank. It has already received trustee company status in other States such as Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. By the passage of this Bill, it will receive such status in Queensland. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (5.45 p.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Transport Department Inspections; Seat Belts in School Buses Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (5.45 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter concerning the Transport Department and its officers. On 22 November 1991, a constituent of mine purchased a Hino truck from Vince Carroll truck sales at Withcott in Toowoomba. As required by law, a certificate of inspection was issued for that vehicle when it changed hands. After two months, during which time the truck was used only to cart pigs weekly or fortnightly over a sealed road to the Monto saleyards from a distance of probably no more than 25 kilometres, it was noticed that the front springs were sagging under load. At the beginning of February, the truck was taken to Rockhampton to be repaired. My constituent was told that the hangers on the front springs were badly worn and would have to be replaced, the pins were very worn and had all but worn through the housing on the hanger, and the bushes inside the housing were non-existent. My constituent took the worn parts to Brisbane and saw a Mr Morris in the Transport Department in the Valley. Mr Morris agreed that the truck should not have been issued with a roadworthy certificate with the hangers in such a worn state. However, he declined to do anything until he sighted the certificate of inspection. This was subsequently posted to him, and my constituent received a letter saying that it had been sent to Toowoomba where the truck was inspected and they would advise him accordingly. Almost 12 months later, the silence was deafening, and my constituent contacted me. I wrote to the Minister, who took two months to tell me the following— “Mr Learmont was told on that day that as it was some time since the inspection and the conditions under which the vehicle had been operated were not known, it would be difficult to determine the exact condition of the spring hanger at the time of inspection.” This was the only vehicle fault brought to the attention of the department. He went on to say— “As to any assertions of impropriety”— which I made— “between used truck dealers and officers of the Department of Transport, I have been informed by the Director-General that he has instigated an investigation of the matter.” Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2619

He went on to say that he would advise me when that investigation was concluded. That letter was obviously drafted by somebody from within the Transport Department, and took the normal line. Toowoomba has a number of second-hand truck dealers who purchase trucks from interstate, do as little work as possible on them and then resell them. I do not object to that, except that people purchasing these trucks are entitled to feel confident that the steering, tyres, brakes and so on are in a safe and roadworthy condition if they have been inspected by the Transport Department. For example, it is a simple operation to test the amount of wear in the spring hangers. Yet here we have a case in which this test was obviously not carried out—whether through incompetence or design, I am unsure. It is this which I have asked the Minister for Transport to find out, instead of simply trying to fob me off with a reply drafted by one of his departmental officers, who may very well have something to hide or be trying to protect his mates. I await a reply from the Minister on that particular transport matter. The other matter which I raise concerns a school bus which the Peek-A-Doo Parents and Citizens Bus Committee bought last Christmas. The committee wished to install seat belts in that bus, as it had in the old bus. The bus already contained three seat belts, and the p. and c. wished all the children to wear them. So the seat belts were taken out of the old bus and installed in the new bus to the specifications pertaining to the old bus. An inspection by officers from the Transport Department defected the bus because the anchorages were wrong. The parents and citizens association then had to get an engineer to design and construct the seat belt anchorages and have a specification plate fitted, which it did. On a second inspection, the inspector, Mr Ken Clarkson, based in Roma, would not pass the bus, but would not say why. The bus committee understands that there is no ruling on seat belts in buses and no legislation in place for same, but it has taken more than three months for the committee to get a brand-new vehicle passed as being roadworthy. I raise these two examples of problems that I have encountered within the Transport Department. I am sure that other members of this House have had similar problems. The lack of satisfaction from dealings with the Transport Department is lamentable. It is unfortunate that the Minister is away jaunting overseas instead of sitting here listening to my concerns about his department. Time expired. Liberal Party Brochure on Immigration Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (5.50 p.m.): There appears to be no depth to which the Liberal Party will not go to try to win a vote, even if it means using sensitive issues such as immigration and preying upon xenophobic attitudes within our community— attitudes which we have worked so hard to change over the past 20 years in Australia. As the member for Sunnybank, an electorate with a significant Taiwanese/Australian community, I am disgusted and embarrassed but not surprised that the Liberal Party would distribute this brochure during the recent Federal election campaign—or indeed, at any other time—linking, as it does, unemployment with immigration. I ask members to imagine for a moment how those new Australians must have felt when they received in their letter boxes this brochure stating that “There are over one million reasons to cut immigration.” As one of a number of members of this Parliament who were not born in Australia, I am disgusted that the Liberal Party would ignore the continuing contribution that migrants have made to this country and this State over many years. But immigration has never been just about inviting people from other countries to live in Australia and contribute to the economic wealth of the nation. We also have a sound history of accepting economically and socially displaced persons, political refugees and other people, based upon compassionate grounds. Yet the Liberal Party wants to ignore our place in the rest of the world. In its own undisguised xenophobia it has said to Australians, “We do not care about the world we live in, and neither should you.” The Liberal Party is prepared to forgo Australia’s international reputation as a caring and 2620 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly compassionate society, a country with a cherished democratic tradition which allowed it to develop into a society that accepted migrants from many different races and cultures. The Liberal Party has demonstrated a preparedness to isolate a significant and important section of the Australian population, people who still have families living in desperate circumstances, whether it be war or famine, political or religious persecution, as a way to attract the support of what I hope and believe is a minority of Australians who think that we do not have global responsibilities. Australians are in many respects still handicapped by attitudes towards immigration based on old myths rather than current realities. But rather than try to heal the wounds, bring communities closer together and promote understanding and acceptance, the Liberal Party would rather split asunder all that has been achieved over the past two decades. Mr Bredhauer: Politics of division. Mr ROBERTSON: Politics of division. That is quite right. Ethnic communities are angry, and so they should be. Taiwanese Australians have already expressed outrage and their profound disappointment that the Liberal Party would use the complex issue of immigration in such a way during the election campaign. There is no denying that immigration is a complex issue. Politicians know that and community leaders know it, as do migrant groups themselves. They also know that slashing immigration levels even during a recession is a simplistic and cold-hearted response. On this point, the Liberal Party is no better than the neo-Nazis in Germany. And what about the contribution to economic growth that immigrants make to Australia? It is a blatant distortion of the facts to say that immigrants are going straight onto the dole queues when they arrive in Australia and that they have no hope of getting a job. The Liberal Party is telling a blatant lie. Tell that to the Taiwanese community in Sunnybank who are investing in local industry, promoting trade and creating jobs for fellow Australians. Tell that to those members of the Taiwanese community who come to me asking for help in establishing contacts with local businesses so that mutually beneficial arrangements can be made to increase profits and employ more workers. And tell that to the building, retail, real estate and manufacturing industries which have benefited so much in the last five years from immigration— particularly from the business migration program. I am proud to say that Labor has for many years demonstrated its commitment to our immigrant population. It has promoted policies of inclusion, not exclusion. It has dealt with immigration responsibly, sensitively and with compassion, and will no doubt continue to do so in the future. The commitment to our immigrant population was demonstrated late last year by former Federal Immigration Minister, Gerry Hand, coming to Queensland—to Brisbane—to meet with members of the Australian Taiwanese community. The Liberal Party’s electioneering tactics are loathsome. And they have the temerity to bleat about the Labor Party running a negative campaign! This brochure is only one of the many examples from both the Federal and State election campaigns that lead me to describe the Liberals’ form of campaigning as full of hatred, divisiveness and vindictiveness. In concluding, I offer this quote from Australia—Island in the Sun as the most accurate means to describe the Liberal Party and its disgusting attitude towards immigrants and immigration— “You never accept me for your own. You always ask me where I’m from. You tell me I look strange. Different. You laugh at the way I speak. You think you’re better than me. You don’t have any interest in another country. Idiot centre of your own self.”

Services on Doomben-Pinkenba Railway Line Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.55 p.m.): I rise to speak about an issue concerning a large number of rail commuters who regularly use Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2621 the Doomben-Pinkenba line in my electorate. This is an issue which I believe should be drawn to members’ attention, particularly those in whose electorates suburban rail lines run. Recently, I was contacted by several rail commuters who informed me of rumours concerning cutbacks to train services on the Doomben-Pinkenba line. Accordingly, I made inquiries of Queensland Railways. I raised the concerns about service cutbacks which had been brought to my attention. The responsible corporate body told me that there were no current plans to cut any rail services. However, I was told that a usage survey is currently being conducted and the responsible corporate body will receive a report from a firm of consultants in the future. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Indooroopilly. It looks like abolishment and losing them is the name of the game. It was impressed upon me that, although the department may make some decisions, no definite decisions had been made. Because cutbacks to the services on the Doomben-Pinkenba line are of concern to my constituents, I drew up a petition which my volunteers and I handed to commuters who were on their way to work. This morning in this place, I tabled petitions from 404 constituents and other citizens of Queensland—and, undoubtedly, more are to come. At this point, I should add that the current services available on the Doomben-Pinkenba line are a disgrace. In fact, as members of this House know, Pinkenba receives only two rail services a day—one in the morning and one in the afternoon. It is also a source of wonder to my constituents how anyone can justify the shabby peak-hour services that the Doomben-Pinkenba line receives; how anyone can justify such poor service in a residential area with growing numbers of apartment blocks. Surely the department realises that there is ready for the taking a large and growing market of people who would use the train. Every night our living rooms are bombarded with the department’s advertisements. As members know, those advertisements depict that it is much more enjoyable to travel to work by rail. There is no stress, no traffic, no noise and no pollution. What are those much-vaunted slogans? “The Right way is the Railway”; “Take it easy—Take a train”. Indeed, the department should be commended for its approach, which encourages people to travel by public transport and leave the car at home, or drive to the nearest railway station. It may even claim that it is encouraging energy conservation, which is a laudable goal indeed. Interestingly, the response I have had to date has proven that, if the department ran reasonable train services, people would use them, particularly in the evening. A lot of my constituents who live near the line do not finish work until after 6.30 p.m. Although those people catch the train in the morning, they are forced to use a bus in the evening. Consequently, they cannot purchase a weekly ticket and take advantage of the savings that such tickets provide. Other constituents complain that, with only two trains after 5 p.m., the wait involved in getting home, especially if they miss the 5.23 p.m. service, is not worth it. The next train is at 6.10 p.m. Many people do not finish work until after the 5.23 p.m. train has departed. To make matters worse, the department, in its infinite wisdom, has seen fit to make the 5.23 p.m. train a three-car train only. Worst of all though, that train, I believe, is the first non-express train out of Central Station after 5.05 p.m., or thereabouts, to run between Brunswick Street and Eagle Junction. Therefore, it is packed to the limit with commuters going to stations such as Albion, Wooloowin and Eagle Junction. So much for the relaxed environment that the department likes to portray! However, the really embarrassing thing for the department is that word has got out about what is happening to suburban rail services and what is going to happen to services on the Doomben-Pinkenba line. I have been given the new schedule proposed by the department for the Doomben line. The Pinkenba service—there there were only two trains per day—will be abolished. The workers who use the train to travel to work in the industrial areas of Eagle Farm and beyond will have to make other and obviously 2622 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly more costly and inconvenient arrangements. The Doomben service is to lose four trains. The proposed timetable was to take effect from June 1993. I am told that that has been put back to 1 September 1993 because of the campaign that I am conducting on behalf of my constituents. If the Minister and the department hope that I will have forgotten about the issue by then, they are mistaken. I will fight every inch of the way for the residents in my electorate who use the current rail services along the Doomben- Pinkenba line. I make the strongest representations to the Minister on behalf of my constituents who are using the current services on that rail line not to reduce the services. As well, I strongly urge the Minister to increase the service provided, particularly to the practically isolated community of Pinkenba which currently enjoys a very limited service. Any cutbacks to these services will particularly affect schoolchildren, city workers and other workers who use the services to travel to and from destinations other than the city. Clearly, the constituents of Clayfield deserve a far better service and a far better hearing from the Minister and the Government of this State.

Farm Indebtedness; Land Bank Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (6 p.m.): The drought and low wool prices have caused a major financial crisis—a cash liquidity crisis—in the pastoral areas of Queensland and Australia. Farm indebtedness has increased substantially over the past five years. The Agricultural and Resources Quarterly of December 1992 has estimated that, although net value of farm production in 1987-88 has decreased from $3,565m—in other words, $3.6 billion—to $1.204 billion for the last financial year, at the same time, farm indebtedness has greatly increased. Over the same period, the total increase in farm indebtedness of Australian farmers increased from $10.697 billion to $15.873 billion. Over that five-year period, the debt of Australian farmers increased by $5.2 billion. Over that same period, the debt to major trading banks in terms of term and farm development loans, overdrafts and other advances and bank bills drawn, increased from $4.739 billion in 1987 to $8.794 billion. In other words, the indebtedness to the major trading banks increased by $4 billion. That is, over the five years, the indebtedness to major banks for Australian farmers increased from 44 per cent of total farm debt to 55 per cent in 1992. Other non-farm businesses have an option open to them—that, at present, is not generally available to primary producers—to improve the cash liquidity situation of their businesses. That option is to be able to sell their assets—their land and premises—and lease them back over a long period. Honourable members may have seen the business advertisements or auctions for local country towns where national companies have sold their local branch offices on a lease-back basis. They have been able to improve their cash liquidity situation by selling those assets and maintaining the businesses in those premises. The concept known as a land bank is used in some countries. It allows a Government-backed authority to buy land from a primary producer and then lease it back to the people on a long-term basis. It gives to the primary producers the same flexibility as other businesses have in those lease-back arrangements to improve cash liquidity. The drought has caused a major disaster for areas of Queensland, and Governments have responded with policy initiatives, including a further commitment to the Rural Adjustment Scheme. A land bank could be used to complement the present operation of RAS, which has two major objectives of debt reconstruction and farm build-up. A land bank can achieve debt reconstruction by encouraging a viable producer with liquidity problems to sell his land and then lease it back from the land bank. He can also achieve farm build-up by encouraging producers to sell non-viable holdings to the land bank. That land is then leased to producers who need extra land to remain viable. The advantages of a land bank over the Rural Adjustment Scheme are: producers, by selling their mortgaged property to the land bank and leasing it back, can actually reduce debt and subsequently be more financially viable; producers can obtain the use of extra land to expand the size of their property without increasing their debt; and land, a relatively Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2623 immobile resource and a last resort sell decision for producers, is freed up by a land bank. A land bank could be used to provide extra help to producers in this present desperate situation, and also to support long-term industry reconstruction. The member for Burnett had responded to my call for trading banks and producer organisations to consider the concept of a land bank by saying that it is a communist- inspired plot. Nothing could be further from the truth. A land bank is operating in different parts of the world—in Canada, the Netherlands, America and Germany. One cannot call those communist countries. A land bank has been operating in Canada and the Netherlands to allow young people access to land without providing security. In Canada, it is used to allow people with limited capital access to agricultural land without providing security. In other countries, it allows farmers to remove their capital from their farm and spend it as they wish while they retain the rights to use their land. The land bank concept has been used in other countries, all to the benefit of primary producers, to maintain the family farm in those countries. It can be used here. As I have mentioned, major trading banks now have 55 per cent of the total farm indebtedness. They could be a major player in overcoming the problem of farm indebtedness. Time expired.

Penalties for Sexual Offences against Children Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (6.05 p.m.): Few matters attract more universal concern in the Queensland community than the issue I raise tonight: inadequate penalties for sexual offences against children. Even in the prison system itself among hardened prisoners, child molesters are regarded as “rock spiders” and need constant protection from other prisoners. Sadly, the one area in which there ought to be the strongest recognition of just how heinous are sex crimes against children appears to be less than satisfactorily understood. I refer, of course, to the judiciary. The general view in the community of Queensland is that convicted child molesters get off far too lightly. The limited evidence that is available to honourable members can only confirm that view completely. The imposition, if that is the word, of a suspended gaol term for sexual offences against children is unacceptable to the community and it must be unacceptable to this Parliament. Yet, thanks to the media—notably the Sunday Mail and the 7.30 Report—recently we were given evidence that the courts are imposing non-custodial sentences for serious criminal attacks on children. Recently, a petition containing some 80 000 signatures was presented to this Parliament, protesting against an effective three months’ sentence for a child molester. The honourable member for Mooloolah, Mr Bruce Laming, has spoken very forcefully inside and outside the House on this and other cases. I am concerned that the judiciary is not getting the message. The message is that the non-custodial sentences for sex crimes against children are not acceptable other than in the most rare circumstances. In a recent case where the victim was not even two years old and the offender was given a suspended sentence, the Attorney-General, by the media and myself, has been prompted into lodging an appeal. It should not have been able to happen that way. There must be an automatic mechanism for such obviously inadequate penalties to be brought to the notice of the Attorney-General so that an appeal can be lodged. There is no doubt that the penalties and sentences legislation, rushed into law last November, only encourages judges to impose non- prison sentences, even for horrible crimes against children. In clear and unambiguous terms, the legislation states that a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed only as a last resort and that a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable. In regard to serious sexual offences against children, those statements do not reflect the will of the community or, I hope, this Parliament. In regard to sexual offences against children, a prison sentence ought to be the first resort, not the last resort, and it is most certainly not preferable for such offenders to stay in the community. 2624 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

While these amendments were well intentioned, they are open to misuse, and I believe that is what is happening today. The legislation gives the courts the discretion to even refrain from recording convictions for virtually every offence except murder. That is not good enough. I challenge the Attorney-General and the Premier to rewrite the Act to more accurately reflect community standards and community concern. In the case to which I referred earlier, the Parliament has provided a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, yet the offender was given a suspended sentence which is, effectively, no punishment at all. The penalties parliamentarians provide are adequate. The courts are imposing grossly inadequate and unacceptable penalties partly because the new penalties and sentences legislation actually encourages judges to do so. As legislators and the elected representatives of the people, we also must send a clear message to the courts. That message is that serious sexual offences against children must attract a prison sentence. Before the session ends, I will move a motion to reflect that message and I hope the Government will support it. Total blame for inadequate penalties does not rest with the judiciary alone. The law which we passed last year and which the Attorney-General rushed into force with unexplained haste must share in the blame as well. Public confidence in our legal system and in the judiciary is vitally important. Recent insensitive and erroneous statements made by some judges in other States and community belief that offenders such as child molesters are getting off lightly are putting that confidence in great peril. For a variety of reasons, media coverage of court cases is nowhere near as extensive as it used to be. As a result, the fact that penalties for sexual offences against children are all too often grossly inadequate has not been known widely. But now that it has become public knowledge, there is outrage right throughout the community of Queensland—and so there should be! It is within our preserve and it is our responsibility to ensure that the community’s concern is acted upon. The Attorney-General must be far more active in appealing against manifestly inadequate penalties for crimes such as sexual attacks on children. The Parliament must express its belief that custodial sentences for such offences should be the rule, not the exception. The preamble to the Penalties and Sentences Act must be reworded to better reflect the will of the community and the Parliament. Every law-abiding decent Queenslander is appalled and alarmed at the incidence of sexual violence, especially against young children—and often very young children. The current range of penalties being imposed for the minority of cases which are able to be pursued is grossly inadequate. That position must change, and it must change without delay.

Federal Electorate of Leichhardt Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (6.10 p.m.): On 13 March 1993, the people of Australia voted in a watershed Australian election. It is now history that Prime Minister Keating led the Australian Labor Party to a historic fifth term in office. On the night of 13 March, Mr Keating claimed victory and reluctantly, if not disbelievingly, Liberal leader John Hewson was coaxed out of his bunker to concede defeat. As is customary in any election, the process of counting then ensued over the following days—and even weeks, in the undecided seats—as MPs and aspirants watched their fate, already decided on the 13th, ultimately fulfilled. Page and Richmond, Stirling and Canning—names such as these rose to national prominence as electoral officials inexorably wound their way towards the conclusion that had been predetermined by the voters. Only Dickson, through the untimely death of a candidate, remained an unknown. In Queensland, Kennedy and Hinkler were conceded by sitting members and claimed by National Party candidates who are now MPs. In Bass, Tasmania, a Labor victory was snared by the narrowest margins—40 votes. Then Dickson voters took their turn, but even that outcome was quickly determined, albeit by fewer than 400 votes. It may come as a surprise to some members of this Chamber, but there is still one electorate where, if members were to listen to one party, the outcome is still unsure. Across the length and breadth of Australia, one electorate stands out because one party Legislative Assembly 11 May 1993 2625 refuses to recognise the verdict of the people. In an entire Federal election, when political careers have been won and lost, in one electorate a party is still in the dreamland that made it certain that it would win. Thus members of that party have steadfastly refused to concede defeat. Was this seat so tightly contested that it was more marginal than Bass with fewer than 40 votes separating the contenders? Was it as marginal as Dickson with 400 votes being the margin? Were there a thousand votes between them, or even 1 500 votes? The electorate, of course, is Leichhardt. And, of course, the party is the Liberal Party, and the margin was much closer to 2 000 votes, yet the Liberal candidate is still to concede defeat. Even at the declaration of the poll, the candidate refused to accept his loss and our win, claiming, instead, that of all candidates, he had achieved the biggest swing of 8 per cent. A Government member: There are no Liberals in the House. Mr BREDHAUER: I take the interjection and note that there are no Liberals in the House. Unfortunately, the Liberal candidate neglected to thank his coalition colleague and National Party candidate, Ben Wilson, who contributed 6 per cent of the 8 per cent swing. For the Liberals, the unthinkable had happened. They had a high profile candidate. They had a retiring Labor member. They had a big-budget campaign, especially as they spent tens of thousands of dollars on television advertising. They had national trends in their favour. But they lost. Then, in the finest traditions of contest, having given it their best shot, and in Olympic-like spirit, they began casting around for scapegoats! Firstly, the Liberal candidate claimed he had won the seat. Then he claimed he had won the seat as far as the Bloomfield River or south of Cooktown. Wouldn’t we all like to say that we have won our electorates in the booths that favoured us and that, in the booths that did not favour us, we did not do quite so well! His main concern was, of course, that he had won the seat, except for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vote. Then, enter the Liberal senator, Ian Macdonald, who had it on very good authority—of course—that the polling had been rigged in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities! When this assertion failed to generate much currency, the Liberal senator was able to produce documentary evidence of voting impropriety. We all waited with bated breath for the onslaught of evidence that the senator was about to unleash, but what he produced were statutory declarations alleging impropriety by electoral officials at three polling places, signed—you guessed it—by Liberal Party scrutineers. In the best traditions of Don Quixote, the senator has continued to run around tilting at windmills. He is still talking about taking the matter to the Court of Disputed Returns. The Australian Electoral Commission has thoroughly investigated the claims that were made in the statutory declarations and has found that there is no case to answer. That cowardly attack by the senator and members of the Liberal Party in far-north Queensland on people who live in remote areas cannot go unchallenged. They have impugned and maligned the integrity of the people who worked as electoral officials in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voting booths and they have done so from the safety of their castles in southern climes where they have access to the media. They have also done so without thought or concern for the reputations of the people who worked as electoral officials. They have been patronising towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by saying that those people cannot handle the complex task of running polling booths and by suggesting that the AEC should fly in people to run the polling booths for them. They have failed totally to understand cultural differences whereby an Aboriginal person may not walk up to a returning officer and say, “Excuse me, I need help”—if, in fact, that person needs help. Those people have also totally underestimated the impact of coalition policies on the outcome of voting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Before too long, I will have more to say about that. Another thing they have forgotten is the 1967 referendum that gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the vote. I cite the Australian Electoral Commission— “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander votes count.” Time expired. Motion agreed to. 2626 11 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.