Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Petitions 19 November 1987 4553

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 1987

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifera) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

REPORT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS Mr SPEAKER announced the receipt from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations of his 1986-87 report. Ordered to be printed.

PRIVILEGE

Report of Speech of Member for Windsor in Bribie Times Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the honourable member for Windsor raising a matter of privilege conceraing an article in the Bribie Times. The honourable member points out that the article is based upon the honourable member's speech printed overaight in the proof Hansard, which indicates a reference to a public meeting for 3 000 people. My investigation of the matter and reference to the tapes reveal that, in fact, the number "300" was used by the honourable member in his speech. The honourable member has used his right to amend the printed speech accordingly. It appears that there could have been reference to the proof Hansard, and I remind the press and honourable members that pages of proof Hansard are supplied to allow correction of speeches in accordance with the practice of the House and are not for publication in any way.

PETITIONS The Deputy Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Construction of Noise-attenuation Barriers along Western Arterial Road at Fig Tree Pocket From Mr Lickiss (31 signatories) praying that the ParUament of Queensland will reconsider the constmction of noise-attenuation barriers along the widened westera arterial road in the Fig Tree Pocket area.

Investigation into Workings of Glengallan Shire Council From Mr Goss (36 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to investigate the workings of the Glengallan Shire Council.

Food Irradiation From Mr Goss (28 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to ensure that the irradiation of food is not permitted.

Teacher Aide Hours From Mr Sherlock (212 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to reverse the Budget decision on cut-backs in teacher aide hours. Petitions received.

77195—148 4554 19 November 1987 Questions Upon Notice

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Gladstone Port Authority for the year ended 30 June 1987 Department of Harbours and Marine for the year ended 30 June 1987. The following papers were laid on the table— Regulations under— Farm Produce Marketing Act 1964-1986 Fmit and Vegetables Act 1947-1972 Stock Act 1915-1986 Reports— Report and Balance Sheet of the Downs and South-Westera Queensland Racing Association for the year ended 30 June 1987 Tmstees of the City Debt Redemption Fund for the year ended 30 June 1987 Sugar Experiment Stations Board for the year ended 30 June 1987.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Underground Water Supplies for Residents of Rupertswood Mr BURNS asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "With reference to the agitation among residents of Rupertswood because access by them to underground water is prevented under the terms of the Greenvale Agreement Act and that the Thuringowa Council supplements its supply to the extent of 27 per cent from bores provided by the developer— (1) Will he support an approach by the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board to Queensland Nickel to attempt to reach an agreement whereby the company will draw its water requirements from the Mount Spec water pipelines once the Burdekin pipeline is operational and, if such an approach is successful, will he agree to recommend amendments to the Greenvale Agreement Act to remove the company's control of the underground supply? (2) Will he approach the Thuringowa Council to urge them to increase their annual allowance to Rupertswood residents by 27 per cent to give recognition to the degree to which their supply is supplemented by underground supplies?" Mr TENNI: (1) I am well aware of the water supply situation in the area from which Greenvale Nickel draws its water. I have recently taken steps to rationalise matters so that domestic water supplies are available to larger properties in the areas which, unlike Rupertswood, have no other source of supply available. Unfortunately, because of the large number of smaller blocks in the Rupertswood estate, it is not possible to allow domestic bores in that estate without unduly diminishing the supply available to Greenvale Nickel. This fact was clearly known and understood by the developers at the time the estate was developed. Despite this, at least Rupertswood does have a reticulated supply available—something which all land-holders in the area do not enjoy. I will support any approach by the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board to Queensland Nickel which attempts to reach an agreement along the lines suggested by the member for Lytton. In fact, officers from the Queensland Water Resources Com­ mission have had informal discussions with both the site manager and a member of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board concerning this option. I am surprised that the board has not pursued this matter already instead of indulging in political antics.The State Goverament has poured, and is continuing to pour, millions of dollars into a water Questions Upon Notice 19 November 1987 4555 supply for Townsville and Thuringowa. I would hope the board will seek some means of ensuring that water is provided to those rate-payers so that the money invested by the State Goverament is put to good use. If such an agreement is reached, I believe that the State Goverament would be prepared to look at appropriate amendments to the Greenvale Agreement Act. (2) In regard to the suggestion that I approach the Thuringowa City Council conceraing an increase in water allocation to the Rupertswood estate, I should point out that this is purely a matter between the council and the residents of the estate. I believe that the council would view such a matter favourably if and when the board can make an adequate supply available.

2. Funding for Gayndah Bridge Mr SLACK asked the Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to the article in the Bundaberg News Mail on 12 November and the Central Burnett Times on 5 November by the Federal member for Hinkler, who stated that the Hawke Government had allocated $l.lm for the Gayndah Bridge— What are the tme circumstances conceming funding for this bridge?" Mr HINZE: The figures quoted in the newspaper articles are not accurate. In September 1985 the Federal Minister gave project approval for the Gayndah bridge for expenditure up to a level of $500,000. In April 1986 the project approval was increased to $ 1.1m. Based on an updated estimate, the project approval was increased to $ 1.66m late in October 1986. However, project approval is simply the Federal Minister's agreement that Com­ monwealth funds can be spent on a particular project. Project approval does not bring an automatic allocation of Commonwealth funds. In fact, to provide maximum pro­ gramming flexibility, the value of road projects nominated for project approval in any one year is normally well in excess of available Commonwealth funds. The Gayndah bridge is located on the Buraett Highway, which is classified by the Federal Goverament as a mral arterial road. The level of funding provided by the Hawke Government for mral arterial roads has been severely cut back in recent years, and this is the real reason why expenditure to date on the Gayndah bridge has been limited to $340,000. The Gayndah bridge is rated as high priority and it is planned to spend a further $600,000 on foundation work this financial year. The member for Hinkler would be more productive if he directed his efforts towards getting increased Commonwealth funds for mral arterial roads so that we can expedite this project and many other urgent arterial road projects. Mr Burns: The Commonwealth Goverament did a good job on the highway. Mr HINZE: Fancy Sciacca trying to make comments in Federal ParUament on road expenditure and coming into an argument on road-funding!

3. Future Main Roads for Northern Suburbs of Brisbane Mrs NELSON asked the Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing— "(1) Is he aware of reports of protest groups circulating petitions regarding possible future main roads works in the northera suburbs of Brisbane? (2) What is the tme position regarding present expenditure on the main Bmce Highway, particularly that section from Chermside to Bald Hills? (3) How far advanced are his department's plans for the development of alteraative routes to the northem highway and what time-frame is proposed for the implementation of these plans?" 4556 19 November 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Mr HINZE: (1) Apart from the activities of certain groups along the westem arterial road (Route 20) from Toowong to Everton Park, I am unaware of the activities of other protest groups. (2) The current position on the Gympie arterial road from Hamilton Road at Chermside to the motorway at Bald Hills is that $7.2m will have been expended over the period April 1987 to August 1988 on the following projects— (a) improvements to Hamilton Road intersection—$400,000; (b) widening to six lanes from Hamilton Road to Webster Road—$2m; (c) widening to six lanes from Webster Road to Albany Creek Road—$1.2m; (d) widening of Cabbage Tree Creek bridges to six lanes—$500,000; (e) widening to six lanes from Gayford Street to Graham Road—$lm; and (f) widening to six lanes from Graham Road to Roghan Road—$2.1m. (3) Broad planning lay-outs have been prepared on the alignment of the former north-west freeway from Stafford Road to Roghan Road. This alignment is well known and has been incorporated into the declaration of the westera arterial road. There is no program for constmction on this section, and the current works on Gympie Road are expected to defer any constmction requirement for many years. The planning lay-outs allow Main Roads to deal with property hardship cases, which are directly affected by the proposed route, in a sensitive and responsible way.

4. Teaching of Japanese Language at Malanda State High School Mr MENZEL asked the Minister for Education^ "(1) Did the Education Department notify the Malanda State High School that there would be no Japanese teacher at the school in 1988? (2) If not, who at the Malanda State High School made that incorrect statement? (3) Will there be a Japanese teacher at Malanda State High School in 1988?" Mr POWELL: (1) My regional inspector (secondary) from the peninsula region advised the Malanda State High School that the services of the current Supply B teacher, who was teaching the Japanese language classes at the school, would not be required in 1988. (2) I refer to (1). (3) This is the good news. A full-time teacher who will teach Japanese has been appointed to the Malanda State High School for 1988.

5. Teenage Suicides Mr PALASZCZUK asked the Minister for Health and Environment— "With reference to recent studies showing that suicide is now second only to accidents as the most common cause of death of teenagers in Queensland— (1) What are the figures for Queensland for teenage suicides over the past five years and do they confirm the result of the studies? (2) How many teenage suicides have occurred in Queensland institutions such as psychiatric units, hospitals etc.? (3) Has the department any special programmes in place, or planned, to arrest this disturbing trend?" Mr AHERN: Scientific studies pertaining to suicide are often hampered by problems of methodology. One of the major difficulties relates to the classification of the causes of death. As a result, the tme incidence and prevalence of suicide in the population as a whole is difficult to determine. Tme suicide rates may be significantly higher than those recorded. Questions Upon Notice 19 November 1987 4557

(1) For the years 1982-1986 inclusive, teenagers aged 10 to 19 years died in the following fashion— 729 — Accidental death 112 — Suicide 102 — Cancer They are the three most common causes. These figures confirm that suicide was the second most common cause of death for people between the ages of 10 and 19 years for the years 1982 to 1986 inclusive. A break-down of these figures reveals— Death by Suicide 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

20 13 17 36 26

If one takes one year, 1985, and examines the causes of death, one finds that the figures are as follows— Female Male

Substance (liquid/solid) 4 Gas 1 Hanging 2 10 Drowning Firearms 2 16 Other 1

Total 36

This data reveals the high rate of suicide by the use of firearms by teenage males for this particular year. (2) This data is difficult to obtain in an accurate fashion. For example, the Prince Charles Hospital has had no deaths by suicide in the hospital grounds over the past five years. However, several people have committed suicide while on leave or after being discharged from the hospital. There is no formal mechanism for this information to be relayed back to the hospital, and so no accurate data is avaUable. (3) There is a clear relationship between some forms of mental illness and an increased suicide rate—for example, depression. The suicide risk for these people is increased even further if they are untreated. The Department of Health operates a comprehensive inpatient/outpatient and community-based psychiatric service. It is designed to identify and treat any person suffering from mental illness. This in itself has an effective impact on the overall suicide rate within the community. Senior members of my department are working in conjunction with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in an attempt to identify and subsequently minimise areas of high suicide risk by examining, for example, the role of firearms availability and the relation between this and suicidal behaviour.

6. Construction of Bridge over Nerang River Mr HYND asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— "(1) What action has been taken to accommodate the traffic flow when the Ross Street Bridge is completed over the Nerang River? 4558 19 November 1987 Questions Upon Notice

(2) Will the bridge currently being buUt over the Nerang River at Nerang have the ability to receive traffic going south from Southport by access from an on-ramp, or will this traffic have to proceed via Nerang Road and Ferry Road?" Mr HINZE: (1) Action has been taken by Main Roads in conjunction with the Albert Shire Council to constmct a roundabout at the intersection of Ross Street and Ashmore Road and a signalised intersection at the intersection of Ross Street and the Nerang-Broadbeach road. The departmental costs associated with these works are expected to amount to $lm. (2) The bridge currently being built over the Nerang River at Nerang will form part of the future northbound lanes of the Pacific Highway. Therefore no on-ramp for southbound traffic will be provided on this bridge. However, on completion of the northbound carriageway, the existing bridge over the Nerang River will be widened to accommodate an on-ramp for southbound traffic from Southport.

7. Bridge at Latimers Crossing, Nerang Mr HYND asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— "What action has been taken to provide a new bridge at Latimer's Crossing, Nerang?" Mr HINZE: Main Roads is proceeding with the design of a new crossing of the Nerang River at the location known as Latimers Crossing. However, the timing for constmction will depend on the Albert Shire Council's secondary road priorities and the availability of funds. In answering this question, I wish to take the opportunity to place certain comments on record. I inform those people who are negotiating on behalf of the Brisbane Bears to make sure that any planning that they intend for the future involves discussions with the department or the councils concemed. Daily in the newspapers there is comment that the Brisbane Bears will probably be transferring from Carrara to either Chandler or the Gabba. I state quite clearly that if the Main Roads Department is given responsibility for providing roads to shift 18 000 to 20 000 people after matches have taken place, those responsible for making the decision on the transfer of venue, if they intend to switch their venue, will have to co-operate with the Goverament through the Main Roads Department or the councU. After they have made a decision as to where they are going to settie, it is not much good their coming to me and saying that they have got traffic problems. I make that very clear so that they clearly understand the position.

8. Aboriginal Justices of the Peace Mr SCOTT asked the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services— "In view of the fact that aboriginal Justices of the Peace residing and working in aboriginal communities perform complex and consistent legal tasks occupying much of their time and carrying responsibilities well beyond those expected of Justices of the Peace in other towns, would he enlist the resources of his department toward finding a way in which such worthy people may be paid for the work they do?" Mr KATTER: At present in the communities there are two streams of justice and two streams of law enforcement. They have been the subject of very great and lengthy debate with the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council and various Ministers of the Govem­ ment, including myself We as a Government have decided in the long term to move to a single stream of justice, and that is also the position of the ACC. The question as to whether this should ultimately occur is a very, very vexed one. It is a matter of very great and continuing controversy. Whether we move to a single stream of justice and a single stream of law enforcement depends also upon whether decisions are made by me to move those justices of the Questions Upon Notice 19 November 1987 4559 peace on the communities up to a more formal and highly paid position. Although at present it is our intention to move in that direction, I most certainly assure the honourable member that I will be taking the matter up with my colleague the Minister for Justice and seeing what we can do about it. I must say that all decisions in this area are dependent upon the decision that the ACC takes in the future. The ACC has changed its position a number of times, as I also have done. It will depend upon the decision taken by the ACC as to what action can be taken with respect to the justices of the peace.

9. Sawlogs Taken from Bloomfield River Area Mr SCOTT asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— "(1) What is the current annual volume of saw logs which Mr Simms is permitted to take from the Bloomfield River area? (2) Can these logs be taken from the area uncut? (3) If not, what is the minimum size to which the logs must be reduced, at his Ayton mill, before transport from Bloomfield? (4) In each of the last five calendar years, what proportion of the annual entitlement has been taken from the area in the permitted sizes?" Mr GLASSON: (1) Simms sawmill is permitted to harvest up to 3 120 cubic metres of sawlog per annum from the Bloomfield area. (2) Current policy enables Simms to divert up to 75 per cent of the harvested volume for processing through other mills in the same ownership, provided that at least 25 per cent is processed at the Ayton mUl. (3) The mimimum percentage of harvested volume currently required to be processed at the Ayton mill must receive at least one longitudinal sawcut through each log. (4) While current policy enables up to 75 per cent of the harvested volume to be diverted to other mills within the same ownership group, because of problems in re­ establishing the Ayton mill, including provision of a satisfactory power source, diversion at near 100 per cent level took place in the period 1982-84 reducing to less than 75 per cent in the period 1985-87.

10. Staffing Levels in Primary and Secondary Schools Mr BORBIDGE asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to a scurrilous and anonymous document being circulated through some schools on the Gold Coast claiming that there will be drastic reductions in the number of primary and secondary teachers for the start of the 1988 school year— Are these claims correct and what is his response to this document?" Mr POWELL: I have seen the document to which the honourable member refers. The claims are certainly not correct. The recent State Budget documents indicated that "it is not possible in the present economic climate to increase the teacher establishment for the Department beyond that approved for 1987". Some reallocations of numbers among sectors of education are necessary to enable a significant growth in the number of teachers in TAFE and senior colleges. Some movement of teachers from primary to secondary schools may also be required. In a time of nil growth in teacher numbers, the staffing of individual schools, which are changing in enrolment, is, of course, difficult. Teachers must be transferred from schools which have surplus staff to those where there are shortfalls. This is further complicated by the uncertain attrition rate over the summer vacation due to resignations 4560 19 November 1987 Questions Without Notice and early retirements yet to be notified. As in previous years, it is likely that for a brief period a school's complement of teachers might not perfectly match the needs. The situation is being closely monitored—and will be closely monitored—and adjustments are being made as needs are identified.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tourist Resort, Palm Cove Mr WARBURTON: In asking a question of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport, I refer to reports that a Japanese developer has scrapped plans for a $300m resort at Palm Cove, north of Caims. I now ask: does he agree with the Premier that the scrapping of this proposed resort is a tragedy for Caims, and for Queensland, that has resulted from a minority of locals expressing what the Premier claims are selfish and politically motivated views? Mr MUNTZ: There is no doubt that the scrapping of the plans for that development obviously is a very big loss for the Cairas tourism industry. In any development there is always a need for a very fine balance between development and the effects that it might have on the environment. In this instance, that fine line could not be found. It is a very sad moment for Caims, but, because of the enormous developments that are already occurring in that area right from Caims through to Cooktown, I do not think that there is any need for great concem. That development would have been of enormous benefit to Caims. However, that city's loss will be another's gain. Daikyo Kanko will obviously invest somewhere else in Queensland. That company has been one of the biggest interaational investors in this industry. The Goverament welcomes and encourages interaational investors and the Japanese, American and European tourists who come here.

Cronyism in Public Service Appointments Mr WARBURTON: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the fact that this week in my speech to the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) I referred to an address by Sir Eraest Savage to the Australian Institute of Public Administration, in which he said that it was apparent that cronyism in the State Govemment public service could not be tackled properly until after the Premier retires. I now ask: is he aware that, in an address yesterday to the Queensland Confederation of Industry, Sir Ernest has repeated his comments that top public service promotions are being made on a basis of cronyism rather than merit? Is he aware that at this function Sir Eraest said that under the next Premier—I presume that will be in 1988—there would be "new opportunities for those most ready and able to accept them and who are probably suffering from defeated enthusiasm."? I ask the Premier: as this represents a virtual declaration of no confidence in the Premier's control of the public service by the public figure appointed by his Goverament as an expert in such matters, will he, as a means of improving morale in the public service, transfer this responsibility to another Minister for the remainder of his stay in this place? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Over a long period of time I have learat that a person should not take for granted what he reads in the press. Unfortunately, today the press exaggerates, invents and says many things that are not tme. Mr Warburton: Sir Eraest said that. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The paper says that Sir Emest said it. If he did say that, I will have something to say about him. I tell the honourable member to just leave it alone at the moment. Naturally I want to confirm whether Sir Eraest really said all those things. I do not believe he did. Questions Without Notice 19 November 1987 4561

The Goverament immediately implemented 75 per cent of the recommendations made. The Goverament could have done those things without an investigation and without inquiry, but it was felt that, in the interests of all public servants conceraed and the public generally, it would be appropriate to get some outside person to make the necessary judgment and the decisions that were made. As I said, 75 per cent of those recommendations have been implemented. Honourable members opposite have to recognise that we in Goverament—the Cabinet Ministers and I—have a very good oversight of what is good, what is necessary, what is important and otherwise. We have a far greater knowledge of these things than Sir Emest Savage or anybody else would ever have. I have been in Parliament for 40 years. I have been Premier for nearly 20 years. I have worked in the system very, very successfully. If anyone other than Sir Eraest Savage attempts to criticise the Queensland Govemment, he is on very, very dangerous ground. Mr Warburton: He did criticise you. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: According to the media, he did. I could say a number of things that Sir Emest would not like me to say.

Swedish Automatic Train Control SignaUing System Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Transport: did the Minister see the reports on television and in other media of a serious train smash in Sweden resulting in a number of deaths? As the Transport Department in Queensland has announced that it is intending to install a Swedish ATC signal system in Queensland, does that train smash cast any doubts on the effectiveness of the Swedish system? Mr LANE: My department's preliminary inquiries in regard to the Swedish train disaster indicate that the accident does not reflect on the signalling system that this Govemment has contracted to have installed by Ericsson between Caboolture and Gladstone to allow for the new faster passenger trains and heavier and faster freight trains to operate along the route with electric track and electric locomotives in the year 1989. That will be an historic time for the railway system. When discussing railway signalling systems, the media do not draw a distinction between what is said to be fail safe and what is said to be foolproof The automatic waming system that exists in the Brisbane suburban area is fail safe, that is, if the mechanical or electronic system fails, it fails in the safe position. However, it is not foolproof because there is no guaranteed method of controlling the human error that could occur in certain situations. The ATC system—the automatic train control system—which operates in Sweden and which the (Queensland Goverament is installing, is not only fail safe—that is, if it fails it will fail in the safe position—but also foolproof so that there is no room for human error in the system. That is why the Government is installing it. That is why, when it has been installed, it will be the best and biggest example of safe signaUing anywhere in the world.

Traitors within Australian Labor Party Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police: has he seen press reports that indicate that the Labor Party's Lord Mayoral candidate in Brisbane, Mrs Jeannie Davis, has threatened to call in the police to expose the traitors in the party that its leader, Mr Warburton, believes should be expelled? Is the Minister aware of any police involvement at this stage, and do not such accusations reinforce the community's view that Labor in Queensland is still very much a traitorous, factionalised conglomerate of competing egos? 4562 19 November 1987 Questions Without Notice

Mr GUNN: Yes, I have press cuttings of those two events. The first article states— "ALP Lord Mayoral candidate, Mrs Jeannie Davis, today called for an inquiry into the Labor Party's State administration, following the leak of secret research showing the Labor Party could lose up to four seats in the next council election." That article was in the Telegraph. The second article was in the Courier-Mail of 19 November, headed, "Warburton calls for ALP traitors to be expelled". The comments by Mrs Davis and the Opposition Leader highlight the deep divisions that are part and parcel of the Labor Party today. Mrs Davis, of course, is finding out just what politics are all about. The honourable member for Brisbane Central should at least have waraed her that the going might get tough. But that would be like the blind leading the blind. I am not aware at this time of any involvement by the police, but I give this undertaking: if the Labor Party wishes to lay a complaint with me or the Police Department, I will have the complaint investigated. This could be organised at any time in a bid to weed out all the traitors in the Labor Party. There is one problem: if we are successful in weeding out all those traitors, there will not be too many people left in the Labor Party. Condom Vending Machines Mr BURNS: The Labor Party will not be referring any requests to the Deputy Premier, because he could not find prostitution in massage parlours. In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to reports that a Gold Coast company is selling condom vending machines on the basis of putting a deposit on a machine now and having it delivered once the Premier has retired and the machines are made legal. As the company involved is being mshed for orders and believes the Health Minister, Mr Ahera, will succeed the Premier after August next year and immediately legalise the condom machines, I ask: does the Premier agree that the present situation involving condom vending machines, whereby club-owners, hotel-owners and others are forced to virtually lay-by condoms and wait until his political demise, is a national disgrace as well at a national joke? Will the Premier, in the light of the National Party conference decision, end that ludicrous situation by moving to have the machines legalised now? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member is a very clever man, but he is not clever enough to get me on that one. The answer is that I know nothing about the issue raised by the honourable member, and I have no intention of commenting on it any further. Koi Carp Mr BURNS: We will have to wait until they make sex legal on 8 August 1988. I have a second question without notice to the Premier, and this is one that he will know the answer to. It is a question of a very fishy nature. Is the Premier aware that Koi carp, which is a Japanese variety of European carp, Cyprinus carpio, declared noxious under the Fisheries Act, fourth schedule—which provides a penalty for a first offence of $2,000 and $4,000 for a second offence for a person who keeps, hatches, rears, sells, consigns or conveys this noxious fish—are not allowed to be imported into, or kept in, this State, and is it tme that he keeps these carp on his property at Bethany? Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: Ha, ha! Mr BURNS: It is tme; the Premier does have them on his property. Is it also tme that Keith Williams has Koi carp in ponds on Hamilton Island? As it is illegal to keep these carp in Queensland, will the Premier explain why he, as the chief legislative officer in this State, is setting such a poor example by defying the law, and will he ensure that Fisheries inspectors enforce that law or, altematively, that the Questions Without Notice 19 November 1987 4563 law is changed, if it can be shown that these carp do not pose the threat that most amateur fishermen, including myself, believe they do to the fish and aquatic Ufe in our east-coast streams? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: This is obviously a figment of the honourable member's imagination. Mr Burns: Have you got any carp in your ponds up there? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I have no ponds. Mr Burns: You have carp in them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member is trying to get some free publicity. First of all, I never go fishing—I do not know anything about it—and, secondly, I do not know if there are any fish in any of the ponds or dams on our properties. I have certainly never put any carp in there and know nothing about the matter whatsoever. It is a lot of nonsense, and the honourable member is trying to make a story out of nothing.

Funding for Agricultural Irrigation Projects Mr LITTLEPROUD: I ask the Minister for Water Resources: would he confirm or deny the accuracy of allegations that the Federal Goverament has stopped all funding for agricultural irrigation projects? Mr TENNI: I found it a little hard to hear all of the honourable member's question, but I will endeavour to answer it. He is referring mainly to the fact that some three years ago the Federal Goverament cut out all funding for water in this State and all other States. The only funding that it continues to provide is made available to assist schemes such as the Burdekin Falls Dam and the Bundaberg scheme for a period of another two years, but that is only a very minor amount. The decision is something that my department, the people of Queensland and I cannot understand. Australia is one of the driest countries in the world. The Federal Govemment sees fit to hand out money to all sorts of greenie organisations and provides money to save the fairies, the frogs and whatever. It pours millions of dollars into all sorts of things, but it cannot pour millions of dollars into the conservation of water in this country. That is alarming. This moraing the honourable member for Lytton asked a question about water supplies north of Townsville. He should be getting his colleagues in this State to ask that question of my counterpart in Canberra so that some funding can be returned to the States. All that Queensland is asking is that the tax-payers' money that goes from this State to Canberra be returned to this State so that water can be conserved. If the Federal Government would do that, Queensland would not be experiencing the problems that have been caused by the present drought. I thank the honourable member for his question. I want it known very clearly in this House that, strange as it may seem, in this instance the Commonwealth is not picking on Queensland only in its allocation of funds for the conservation of water supplies. In fact, the Federal Goverament has stopped the allocation of funding for water conservation throughout this nation. Mr Katter: Shame! Mr TENNI: Shame, indeed! I do not think that my colleagues on the other side of the House really understand the significance of what I have said. 4564 19 November 1987 Questions Without Notice

I suggest that the Federal Government stop handing out money to all the fairy- floss groups that mn around the State to save frogs, lizards, crocodiles and all sorts of other things. Instead of providing money to such groups, it should use that money for water conservation in the State of Queensland. Media Report of Alleged Offer by Minister for Education of Unpaid Positions to Teacher Graduates Mr LITTLEPROUD: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to an article in today's metropolitan press that alleges that he wrote to recently graduated teachers offering them unpaid positions in schools. The article had the audacity to imply that the Minister was seeking slave labour. I ask: would the Minister inform the House of the tmth of that scurrilous accusation? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is probably seldom that I agree with the vice-president of the Queensland Teachers Union, but on this occasion I agree with him fully that such a claim is scurrilous and an absolute nonsense. People who are spreading such mmours ought to come up with the hard facts. If in fact they have found a letter that bears my signature offering student teachers unpaid work in schools, I would like to see it, because I did not write it; nor did I authorise such a letter. It is a pity that members of the media do not check their facts before they print such reports. It might be noted that the Courier-Mail carried an almost similar article last Saturday and Monday. That newspaper must be very short of news. It is a pity that the media would upset graduating students in such a manner. The students are justifiably upset. I find it difficult to explain how anybody in a responsible position could possibly suggest that such an action could have taken place. The position is very clear indeed. I do not know how many times I have to say that the teacher establishment for 1988 wiU be the same as it is for 1987. The graduating teachers will be employed as vacancies occur. It would be irresponsible of the Queensland Govemment, or any other Govemment for that matter, to employ people for jobs that do not exist. If that were the case, the tax-payers of not only this State but also the nation could justifiably revolt. If there are children to be taught in schools, they will have teachers. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Staff will be found for that. I have made a further statement about teacher aides. I was asked by the Miscellaneous Workers Union whether I would employ more teacher aides if more money was available for education. I said that my first priority would be the employment of qualified teachers. I then made the statement—and I suspect that they have purposely misconstmed it— that, if there are vacancies for teacher aides and the people who applied were graduating teachers who had yet to get jobs, they should be considered for those teacher aide positions—which, I might add, are paid positions. I would add that Uttle additional bit in case somebody wants to misconstme my statement. Last night, some of the student teachers who were here asked me if that meant that those students who accepted teacher aide positions would have priority in employment as teachers. My answer to that question is, "No, they would not." As a result of interviews that take place with graduating teachers, a prioritised list is drawn up, and those graduates are employed according to that priority and where they are willing to serve in the State. The position is quite clear. This Goverament would not be looking for so-called slave labour in schools—and I would hope no other Goverament would be, either. People who work in schools as qualified teachers will be paid as such. People who work in schools in other capacities will be paid in accordance with the way in which they are employed. As a footnote I add that, in some other States of Australia, graduating teachers are waiting for up to seven years for a position. Although I am not happy that we cannot employ every graduating teacher of quality, I point out that other States are in an even worse position than Queensland is in. Questions Without Notice 19 November 1987 4565

I am certain that, by the end of the next year, the position will be similar to what it is today; that all of those teachers who have offered themselves for genuine employment throughout the State and who graduated in 1986 will be employed. I am confident that, by the end of 1988, that very same position will apply to those teachers who graduate in 1987. Membership of Queensland Post-Compulsory Course Accreditation Council Mr HOBBS: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I point out that, last night, the honourable member for Sherwood, Mr Innes, attacked the proposal for a nominee of the Isolated Children's Parents Association to be a member of the (Queensland Post-Compulsory Course Accreditation Council. In view of the fact that that association represents the parents of children who are geographically isolated and therefore do not enjoy the advantages that are associated with local, modern, well-equipped and well-staffed schools to choose from—as the people of Sherwood have—I ask: can the Minister confirm that the isolated children of Queensland will not be neglected despite the narrow unwarranted criticism that was levelled by the honourable member for Sherwood? Mr POWELL: No doubt, in common with other honourable members in this House, I sometimes have great difficulty in following the so-called logic of the honourable member for Sherwood. If he had not filibustered last night, I would have been able to answer his shallow criticisms in the time that was available to this Parliament for dicussion on that particular Bill. I find it disappointing that a person who represents a Brisbane electorate—and who could probably ride around it on a bicycle in the moraing if he was fit enough—would criticise the appointment of a person from the Isolated Children's Parents Association to one of our major course accreditation councils. The honourable member's convoluted logic was that isolated children were really concerned only with education up to Year 7 standard; that for secondary education they had to leave their homes and come to Brisbane, and therefore they should not be represented. That is an example of how much the honourable member knows about education in this State and, for that matter, cares about people who live somewhere to the west of Ipswich or to the north of Aspley. It is clear that people who live in isolated areas of this State deserve the same education opportunities as those enjoyed by people who live in the metropolitan and provincial areas of the State. I will certainly be one who will make sure that they are represented and have an adequate say on course accreditation councils and other areas of education input. It is important that those people do have a say and that the young people who are growing up in the widely spread areas of this State are adequately represented at that education level, whereas in the past they have not been. Mr Innes: Why weren't they on the first draft? Mr POWELL: The member for Sherwood interjects. It is a shame that he cannot read. One would have thought that in his profession he might have been able to read documents thoroughly. In the debate last ni^t, he kept claiming that there was no TAFE representative. If he would read the membership of the course accreditation council, he would see that the Bill states— "(e) two nominees of the Director-General who are involved in the provision of post-compulsory education within the State, at least one of whom shaU be a practising teacher;". Mr De LACY: I rise to a point of order. Last night, the Goverament gagged debate on that Bill. One of the consequences of that was that the Minister did not get his right of reply. This moraing, by having a question asked of him, he is using question-time to make his reply. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to mle that tactic out of order, because he is using up question-time. 4566 19 November 1987 Questions Without Notice

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Education may continue. Mr POWELL: The proposition that I was putting forward was that the member for Sherwood obviously is incapable of working out that post-compulsory education includes TAFE, and therefore a person from that area will be on the Post-Compulsory Course Accreditation Council. His remarks were extremely shallow and should be exposed for what they are.

Reopening of "Black hole" at Brisbane Prison Mr SHERLOCK: I direct a question to the Minister for Corrective Services. He has expressed fears for the safety of his prison officers and the maintenance of community safety during Expo. I ask: will the Minister assure the House that in the opening of the "Black hole" section of the Brisbane gaol, which was classified by his predecessor, the Honourable Geoff Muntz, as never to be reopened, individual human rights of prisoners are preserved; specifically that the United Nations minimum mles of standards of imprisonment are adhered to; that intemational conventions of civil and political rights are followed; and that prisoners will be protected against extreme degradation in situations of solitary confinement? Further, will he consider inviting an intemationally respected organisation such as Amnesty Interaational to inspect the gaol and assure concemed Queensland citizens that these worldwide conventions will be adhered to and that standards to which Australia and this State, in particular, have agreed wiU at least be maintained? Mr NEAL: Obviously, the honourable member is trying to do a bit of grandstanding to gain some kudos. As far as the opening of those detention cells is concemed, I indicated that, first and foremost, I was concemed with the security of the public at large, the security of the prison and the welfare of my prison officers. In relation to the honourable member's remarks about the operations of those detention cells—I have every confidence in the superintendent of Brisbane Prison ensuring that those cells will be operated in a satisfactory manner. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Victorian Govemment intends to reopen its security prison, Jika Jika, which was closed down recently. There were reports in the media to that effect. It is being reopened because of the situation in Victoria's prisons in which there is nowhere to handle or control the most dangerous criminals. As I have said, the decision to open these detention cells was one to which I gave very deep consideration. It was one that was not taken lightly. Those cells are going to be in operation and put to a purpose for which they are needed at this stage. As I said, it is an interim measure until such time as new detention cells can be built in the prison complex.

Staffing Arrangements, Basil Stafford Training Centre Mr SHERLOCK: I ask the Minister for Health: is he aware of staff cuts recentiy applied at the Basil Stafford Training Centre for the intellectually disabled, where the trained nursing staff have been cut to five to cope with 170 patients, 60 per cent of whom are medical cases and therefore exposed to unacceptable risks? Is the Minister also aware that the existing nursing staff are being called upon to work 4 p.m. to midnight shifts and Saturday overtime on a permanent basis? Leaving aside the fact that most nursing staff are married and have families, with resultant stress adding to the low staff morale, is the Minister aware that no extra staff have been provided for planned leave during the holiday break, causing further unacceptable strain and, further, that administrative staff with no medical training are called upon to perform nursing duties? Can the Minister assure the House that this grossly unacceptable situation will be rectified immediately? Questions Without Notice 19 November 1987 4567

Mr AHERN: I am sure that the honourable member has overstated the situation. However, I will have the matter investigated. In the overall context of economic restraint, at present there are staff pressures emerging in some institutions throughout Queensland. One of those is the Basil Stafford Training Centre. I have met with representatives of the unions conceraed and I have explained to them the staff review that is taking place in all institutions throughout the State in an endeavour to cope with the strains that are inevitably present. Priority is being given to patients and to treatment areas. Regular reviews across the State are taking place to ensure that wherever staff surpluses occur, they are redeployed into areas of greater need. That has happened at Wolston Park recently. Some extra staff have been redeployed there from other areas in the State. These reviews are now taking place on a monthly basis. I can assure the honourable member that every effort is being made to minimise the impact on patients and to ensure that patient welfare is always given a high priority. However, strains in the system are evident now right throughout the system, as a result of economic restraint. That situation prevails throughout the nation at present. If the honourable member were to read the interstate press, he would know that these sorts of issues are in the newspapers in every State in respect of every Goverament in Australia at present. It is an economic strategy that is deemed by the Commonwealth Goverament to be in the interests of the nation at present. I reiterate that high priority is being given to patient needs. I suspect, having heard the honourable member's recitation of the situation that exists at the Basil Stafford Training Centre, that he has overstated the situation. However, I will have the matter investigated and report to the honourable member. Police Manning and Working Conditions, Country Areas Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, I refer to numerous queries raised by police in the Roma police district with regard to cut-backs in overtime, undermanning in one and two-min stations, particularly when officers are on holiday leave, cut-backs in travelling allowances, and the effect of demands made by Expo 88 on staffing levels in country areas, and I ask: what is the explanation from the Govemment's standpoint with regard to each of these matters that have been raised? Mr GUNN: Of course, the honourable member appreciates—along with all other Goverament members—the cut-backs imposed on Queensland by the Federal Govera­ ment. At the last Premiers Conference, they amounted to $400m. The cut-backs are not just peculiar to Queensland; they are common to all States throughout the Commonwealth. Of course, it has been necessary for the Queensland Govemment to cut back accordingly. The cut-back to the Police Department was only 5 per cent. Just recently, the honourable member fumished me with a list of some of the problems in his area. In that region there is a grave need for a reorganisation of police overtime. I have arranged for the Acting Police Commissioner to look at that. The management of the pool of money set aside for travelling allowances is the responsibUity of the inspector in charge of that region. In relation to Expo—in the Budget that the Premier brought down in 1986, funds were made available for 100 extra police for Expo. They will be duly provided. On top of that, Expo will have its own security force. Over a period—and this deserves mention—the Govemment has engaged some 834 clerks to work within various areas in the Police Department. The Govemment would like to engage many more, but at the present time the lack of funds prohibits that being done. That is one way in which a policeman can be released from desk duty in order that he may perform police duties. As I said, throughout Queensland 834 clerks have been employed, which means, in fact, that 834 extra police have been released for police duties. 4568 19 November 1987 Questions Without Notice

In relation to the other matters that the honourable rnember mentioned, I will give him a detailed answer at the appropriate time. I can assure him that the department will do its utmost to satisfy the demands in his area.

Withholding of Superannuation Pay-outs to Retiring Police Officers Mr BRADDY: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, I refer to his request to the Solicitor-General to advise of means of withholding superannuation pay-outs to certain retiring police officers in appropriate cases, and the National Party decision not to proceed immediately with legislation or procedures to delay those payments. I ask: will he state the Goverament's reasons for not acting now to prevent such inappropriate superannuation payments? I also ask: to what extent did the present position of the Minister for Transport play a part in the decision not to establish the precedent? Mr GUNN: I wiU deal with the lastmentioned matter first. The Minister for Transport was not present at the party meeting, so he had no input into any decision. I am amazed that the honourable member asked that question. I believe that he is a solicitor or a bush lawyer or something. He has something to do with the law. One of the great principles of British justice—and I thought the honourable member would have learaed this at university—is that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Surely the ALP does not want to get away from that principle. That would amaze me. The Solicitor-General wrote me a letter, the last paragraph of which states— "It is therefore my opinion that the law presently does not provide any basis for preventing the retirement of a person who otherwise has a right to retire under the Police Act. Nor is there any effective means for preventing payment of super­ annuation in such a case." That is the punch line. Mr INNES: I rise to a point of order. I move— "That the letter referred to and read from be tabled." Motion agreed to. Whereupon the honourable member for Somerset laid the document on the table. Mr GUNN: There is no problem with that. It has been in the paper. The fact of the matter is that the contents of that letter are common knowledge. Joumalists have had a copy of the letter. I have no problem with it at all. It is merely an opinion by the Solicitor-General. I think it is a very good opinion. That decision prompted the recent party meeting to make the decision that it made. It has been said once again by Commissioner Fitzgerald that hearsay evidence is not necessarily the tmth. I have repeated that many times in this Chamber. I will repeat it once again: a decision was made at the recent party meeting, and we will stick by that decision.

Withholding of Superannuation Pay-outs to Retiring Police Officers Mr BRADDY: In the light of that answer, I direct a further question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police. I ask: in the light of the advice that he has received from the Solicitor-General, which he has now tabled, why did he not take the second option of immediately drafting emergency legislation and bringing it before the House this week to deal with the problem? Mr GUNN: I thought that I had explained to the honourable member that the party made that decision yesterday. I wUl stick by that decision. Questions Without Notice 19 November 1987 4569

Postal Ballot, Livingstone Shire CouncU Mr HINTON: In asking a question of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to the coming local goverament elections. I ask: will the Minister advise whether the Livingstone Shire Council may conduct its election in Divisions 1 and 2 by postal ballot as it has requested? Mr HINZE: I understand that the councU is desirous of conducting a postal ballot in two of its divisions. I have discussed the matter with the director. Both he and I believe that there is no reason why that request should not be acceded to. The answer to the honourable member is simply that, if it is the wish of the council to conduct a postal ballot in the areas referred to, there will be no opposition from the Goverament.

Employment Prospects for Teacher Graduates Mr HAMILL: In asking a question of the Minister for Education, I refer to the employment prospects for teacher graduates from Queensland tertiary institutions. I ask, firstly, how many of this year's graduates from primary school teaching courses can expect employment with the Education Department in 1988; secondly, how many of this year's graduates from secondary school teaching courses can expect employment in the Education Department in 1988; thirdly, what is the likely average waiting-period for prospective teachers before they can expect to obtain employment with the department in 1988; and, fourthly, what proportion of this year's teacher graduates can expect to remain in the unemployment queues throughout 1988? Mr POWELL: Earlier, in answer to a question from the member for Condamine, I basically answered that question. I reiterate that the number of graduates from primary teaching courses who obtain employment will depend greatly on the number of resig­ nations that are received over the Christmas vacation. Some specialist areas in secondary teaching have a great demand; those teachers will have no problem in finding employment. Mr Hamill: What areas are they? Mr POWELL: Mainly commercial, some areas of English and some areas of maths/ science. The number of people who will be employed depends on two variables: the number of students who make themselves available for school at the beginning of 1988, and the number of people who resign during the summer vacation and have yet to let the department know. I cannot honestly give the honourable member an exact percentage. I cannot say for how long people will be unemployed. Mr Hamill: You told the member before that by the end of the year they would all be employed. Mr POWELL: I said that I expect that, by the end of 1988, most of those students who graduated this year would be employed. However, there are variables. Some of those variables are the locations to which those people will accept appointments, their subject offerings, the number of children who enrol and the number of teachers who resign. At this stage, those variables are unknown. The department has projections. It would be foolish of me to list those projections, because they may or may not be correct.

District Police Headquarters, Mount Gravatt Mr SHERRIN: In asking a question of the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police, I refer to representations made to him by my parliamentary colleagues Mr Ian Henderson and Mrs Leisha Harvey and me conceming the need to bring forward the constmction of a new district police headquarters to be located at Mount Gravatt. I now ask: has the decision been made within the Govemment on the constmction of this district headquarters to serve the people living in the southem 4570 19 November 1987 Local Govt., &c., Redland Shire Town Planning Scheme Bill suburbs of Brisbane? If so, what capital works funds, if any, will be made available for the project in the current and subsequent financial years? Mr GUNN: I am very pleased to be able to inform the honourable member that $50,000 will be made available immediately. To complete the project, next financial year almost $2.5m will be provided for this worthwhile project. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (VALIDATION OF APPLICATION FOR REDLAND SHIRE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4153). Mr SHAW (Manly) (11.05 a.m.): At the outset it is important to acknowledge that this Bill does not aim to correct any wrong-doing by the council. The Bill corrects an omission and not any misuse of power. It is first necessary to consider whether or not the omission has been serious and then whether or not anyone in the community has been adversely affected. It would seem that the failure by the council to place a formal advertisement in the local newspaper has not had serious consequences. That is so because of the wide publicity given to the display of the town plan. I am not suggesting that the requirement for formal advertising should be eliminated. However, it is a fact that good news stories are more widely read, and that the Redland Shire town plan received wide coverage, including front-page stories in local newspapers. Stories also appeared in the metropolitan daily press. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The member for Mansfield! Mr SHAW: There is no evidence to suggest that any disadvantage has been caused to any person by the failure to place a formal advertisement, and it could be argued that problems will result if the council is forced to begin again the town-planning procedures. Consequently, the Opposition will support the legislation. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Archerfield and the member for South Brisbane! Mr SHAW: Redland Shire Council is very proud of its town plan, with some justification, as the plan has been the subject of two awards from the Royal Australian Planning Institute, including an award for town-planning excellence for the most out­ standing work on a town plan in the last 18 months. I am sure that the staff employed by the council are very proud of this effort. There are aspects of the town plan about which the Opposition could be critical, but it is more appropriate and fair to say that the plan has much to recommend it. I tum now to a widespread town-planning problem. Much has been said about the need to eliminate delays in obtaining town-planning approvals and the cost occasioned to developers and the community at large by unnecessary delays. Unfortunately, there have been some ham-fisted attempts by the Goverament to improve the situation by some retrograde steps such as the removal of people's right to appeal. There are many opportunities for improving the efficiency and speed with which applications are handled. Approximately eight years ago in this House, I suggested that the opportunity should be taken to deal with applications concurrently instead of, for example, waiting until town-planning or site approval was given before even considering Local Govt., &c., Redland Shire Town Planning Scheme Bill 19 November 1987 4571 building or development applications. I am pleased to note that the Government has taken up that suggestion and that, over the years, it has moved to eliminate more of these unnecessary delays. The opportunity still exists to further improve efficiency in regard to town-planning approval. Town plans usually propose intended use for some sites as being, if not ideal, then the preferred type of development to occur in a particular area. For example, land might be designated as future industrial or future residential of a particular density—if not in those words, then in other terms which mean the same thing. The proposal is placed on public display and the opportunity is given not only to those affected but also the entire community to lodge objections or to make suggestions about the proposal. It is quite possible that no objections would be received and that council, the State Govemment, the professional planners and the community are unan­ imous that this is the desirable ultimate use for the land in question. In spite of all that, when a developer wishes to proceed along the lines suggested, he is still required to advertise once again. Of course, this means additional costs. He must then wait 30 days for objections to be considered by the local council before applying for the rezoning that everybody has already agreed should occur. At this stage, someone—in fact, anyone—perhaps Uving miles away, with no direct interest in the development, can lodge an objection and create further delays. This objector could be a rival developer who, by following the objection provisions, could hold up this project, which is in accordance with the plan, for very lengthy periods. Apart from the unnecessary costs involved to both the developer and the community, there is obviously no incentive for developers to follow the guide-lines and aims as set out in the town plan. Almost the same costs and delays are incurred in complying with the aims of the plan as in attempting to develop a property which may be cheaper, but is not in the desired location. I am suggesting, therefore, that when a property is required to be rezoned to a use which is in accordance with that set out in the strategic control plan or similar document, and where the proposal has previously been advertised and the opportunity for objections given, the 30-day waiting period and the requirement for the calling of objections should be abolished. The adoption of this procedure would undoubtedly save between one and 12 months in the time taken to approve applications which were in accordance with the town plan, and would not lessen the legitimate rights of citizens to have a say in matters which affect them. Retuming to the details of the Bill, I would point out that the Redland Shire town plan was on display for 3V2 months and, during that period was surrounded by almost constant publicity. As the Minister has said, it attracted 600 objections during that time, and I understand that the biggest percentage of those were of what could be called a constmctive nature, that is making suggestions, or were based on the already well- publicised drainage problem areas on the Moreton Bay islands. Those objections were to be expected. The Opposition is of the opinion that, so far as advertising of town plan proposals is concemed, the spirit of the Act has been fulfilled, and it supports the Bill. Mr FRASER (Springwood) (11.12 a.m.): I rise to support the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing in the commonsense approach that he has adopted through this Bill to overcome the problem that the Redland Shire Council finds itself in owing to the oversight of not advertising the new town-planning scheme for the shire in a local newspaper as required under the provisions of the Local Goverament Act. Being a resident of a large expanding city, I know that it is imperative that town- planning schemes for areas such as the Redland Shire be regularly upgraded. It is imperative that this new scheme be validated as soon as possible so that developments can be assessed under the new planning guide-lines. The Redland Shire is one of the fastest growing shires in Queensland and, with its small-crop land blending with its urban areas, it is becoming a very desirable place in which to reside. 4572 19 November 1987 Local Govt., &c., Redland Shire Town Planning Scheme Bill

When the new town-planning scheme was previously on public display, even though, owing to an oversight, the formal newspaper advertising was not carried out, there was considerable media attention given to the fact that the scheme was on public display and in fact a total of 600 objections were received to the scheme. In my view, to any fair-minded person this would give the impression that sufficient advertising of the proposed new scheme was carried out and that there was sufficient public awareness. I support the Bill that is before the House. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.14 a.m.): The Liberal Party also supports this legislation that is before the House today. It is clear that the Redland Shire Council has a good history of town-planning and in fact it has received several awards over a number of years for its town plans. I am sure that even though this is a serious oversight, nevertheless it is an oversight which I am sure that the council will ensure will not occur in the future. Naturally, a basic requirement in reviewing a town plan is to advertise that review in the public notices section of one of the local newspapers. That is a matter than can be very easily overlooked. Unfortunately, in this case it was overlooked. However, for the benefit of the community in the Redland Shire, I point out that the plan received a great deal of publicity. I understand that most of the objections to the plan related to the drainage on the islands in Moreton Bay. The legislation deals basically with one problem. I am sure that, should it tura out that some people feel aggrieved, in the near future, with the local authority elections coming up on 19 March, they will have ample opportunity to express their concera about the members of the local shire council. They will be able to campaign against them and, if they so wish, to stand against them to reinforce their objections. It is clear that the Redland Shire wants to proceed expeditiously with the new town plan and with processing of applications lodged under it. In order to keep its good record intact, the shire council has asked the Goverament to process the legislation as expeditiously as possible. I am sure that, had there been real problems with the plan, hundreds, or probably thousands, more objections would have been received by the Goverament. It is a pity that the Goverament, when looking at town-planning generally in this State, was not a little more conceraed about the rights of the individual. In late 1985, the Goverament changed the present town-planning legislation. Many members of the community are afraid to object to town-planning applications because they are conceraed that, for the first time, they could end up having to bear the costs, because costs can be awarded against either party. Previously, if an objection was frivolous or vexatious, costs could be awarded against the party that made that objection. The Minister has freed up the situation considerably. Many people fear that, should they proceed with an appeal to the Local Goverament Court, they could suddenly find that they have to bear the costs of that appeal. The previous system under which people had to generally bear their own costs was better and fairer. The Minister would have us believe that in Local Goverament Court cases in the past people advanced all sorts of frivolous and vexatious reasons for appealing against town-planning applications. In many instances it was, and still is, the large developer who appealed because he wanted to delay another developer's application from proceeding. Often it is an exercise in which one large developer takes on another large developer so that an application is delayed. Over a period of years it was found that that was one of the major ways in which a developer held up another developer's application. The developer would appeal against the application in the Local Goverament Court. I do not believe that the manner in which the Minister has gone about changing the Act so that people are now very fearful of lodging appeals against applications for development has done anything more than take away what was one of the basic democratic rights of the public. Members of the public should not be conceraed about having to bear the costs of another party. Major developers engage leading Queen's Counsel to Local Govt., &c., Redland Shire Town Planning Scheme Bill 19 November 1987 4573 appear on their behalf as well as town-planners, traffic engineers and so forth. The costs of those services can mn into tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, a local resident can lose a considerable sum of money, perhaps his life- savings. A person may have to mortgage his home. If the costs of the appeal that he has lodged are too high, he could even lose his home. Large developers do not really care if an appeal costs $50,000 or $150,000 if they have a chance of beating another developer or delaying a development for six or 12 months. Perhaps they feel that an applicant may not be in a position to proceed with a particular development^whether it be a shopping complex or a large commercial office block. The proposed amendments mean that the onus now lies with the objector to prove that a particular development is not in keeping with the town plan. Over the years the Govemment has whittled away the rights of individuals, including small businesses and entrepreneurs who are trying to make a living in the community. No doubt the Minister will attempt to refute that statement. Having worked with people in the community, I am aware that, in the past, they have lodged appeals against major developments based upon very sound reasons. People such as that are now fearful that their rights have been whittled away and that they could face tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs if they proceed with an appeal. By this legislation the Government is clearly doing the right thing by local authorities and the community. Mr Stoneman: It always does the right thing. Mr BEANLAND: Mr Stoneman is always being looked after by the Govemment. Sir William Knox: They do the right thing by him. Mr BEANLAND: The Goverament certainly does the right thing by him. Unfor­ tunately, Mr Stoneman never does the right thing by his electorate. Mr Stoneman: There is no problem being looked after if you do the right thing by your electorate. • Mr BEANLAND: The honourable member always does the wrong thing by his constituents, who are quite ashamed of how he has been holding up those masks with egg all over their faces. I notice that the honourable member has been very quiet about that issue in recent months. Perhaps since the "Joh for PM" campaign went bust, things have changed slightly in the Burdekin electorate. Because it will allow the Redland Shire to proceed with its new town plan, I commend the Goverament for introducing this legislation. The citizens of that shire now know exactly where they stand. I am quite sure that if they were forced to readvertise the proposed town plan by inserting public advertisements in newspapers, there would be fewer objections than were received initially. Public notices are a very necessary requirement under the town plan and I do not suggest that they should be done away with. Nevertheless, a few people only—for example, members of Parliament, councillors, aldermen, solicitors, and so on—read the Public Notices section of a newspaper. The majority of the community would not read it and would probably not know that it exists. The Liberal Party supports this legislation. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing) (11.24 a.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for Manly, Spring- wood and Toowong for their contributions. I see a degree of unanimity and support from all sides for this proposed Bill. The Goverament has set out clearly that an oversight occurted on the part of the local authority. That matter had to be rectified so that there were no legal challenges to its town plan. The honourable member for Manly referred to the need to provide for concurrent consideration of various types of town-planning applications. I support that view. I 4574 19 November 1987 Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) advise that approval of that nature has been incorporated in the current review of the town-planning laws being carried out by the Department of Local Goverament. I thank Mr Fraser for his contribution, and also Mr Beanland, who, although he acknowledged the reason for the legislation, then set about destroying his own contribution by an attack on the member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman. It was unnecessary because, quite obviously, Mr Stoneman is a good member who always looks after his electorate. The member for Toowong's contribution in relation to the appeal clauses was so far astray that it seems rather strange to me that a man with such local goverament experience should be making those comments. However, I expect that they were made for a particular reason. As he gains experience in the House, he will leara that matters such as that wiU be debated at some other time. However, on this occasion his remarks had nothing to do with this Bill. I thank honourable members for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CHINATOWN MALL) ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4154). Mr SHAW (Manly) (11.28 a.m.): The Chinatown Mall legislation has not been a success story. It is also tme to say that neither is the Chinatown Mall a success story, and, unfortunately, the lack of success of the mall reflects, to a large degree, the failure of the legislation. Legislation to create the Chinatown Mall was first introduced into this Parliament in November 1984. It was subsequently amended in April this year. Now, in November, we are faced with another amendment. It is clear that the project is in considerable trouble. If anyone doubts that statement, a visit to the site and an objective inspection would, no doubt, be convincing. When the Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act was originally introduced, it was supported by the Labor Party as a piece of progressive legislation. We acknowledged that it would break new ground and that, consequently, mistakes would occur. I remember stating then that we could expect amending legislation to come before the House and that we should be prepared to forgive any mistakes which may have occurred as a result of moving into new initiatives. Regrettably, it has not been as a result of initiative that amending legislation has been introduced, but rather as an attempt to correct problems resulting from inactivity—or, perhaps, the wrong activity. The Chinatown Mall project has a number of difficulties that cannot be avoided. The existence of the car park, the fairly narrow confines of Duncan Street and a number of other factors have produced problems which make difficult the conversion of the area into a pedestrian mall. These problems have not been totally overcome, but that is not to say that they cannot be overcome in the future. I reported to the House last April that, on an inspection of the mall, I was disappointed to find the area lacking in colour and atmosphere, and with more parked cars than pedestrians. I expressed the view then that the area was still in serious need of greater input from the (I^hinese community. Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4575

Unfortunately, as I recall, Govemment members speaking in that debate were inclined to adopt a head-in-the-sand attitude, refusing to acknowledge that there was any problem. It is not knocking to suggest improvements and to recognise a problem. While I am on the topic of problems, I wish to refer very briefly to problems associated with the Queen Street Mall. Last March, the Minister said that he would step in if the Brisbane City Council failed to solve problems in connection with the payment of compensation to traders who were being very seriously adversely affected by the developmental work that was taking place in Queen Street. I report to the Minister that I am still getting complaints even today—and I am sure that he is, too. The traders in the mall are suffering unfairly and they are not satisfied with the sort of treatment they are receiving from the Brisbane City (I^ouncil in the payment of compensation. I take the opportunity during this debate to ask the Minister to investigate the Brisbane City Council's handling of this issue and, if necessary, to take action to ensure that the traders who are being adversely affected by the development in the Queen Street Mall area get the sort of compensation and the sort of consideration that they are entitled to. If necessary, I think the Minister should directly take control of this matter and take it out of the hands of the Brisbane City Council, if it is not going to handle the matter properly. I think that the Minister ought to handle compensation payments directly, and that payments should be made directly from the State Goverament to the traders who have been adversely affected. The Opposition has supported the establishment of the Chinatown Mall. Members of the Opposition would have contributed more to the project if they had been given the opportunity. Nonetheless, for some time, members of the Opposition have recognised that our original hopes—expressed in 1984—were not being realised, and that all was not well with the project. The Bill before us now attempts to incorporate what the Opposition suggested in 1984. Members of the Opposition said then that genuine involvement from the Chinese community was essential. I recall previous publicity to the effect that the stmctures at the entrance to the mall carefully maintained traditional Chinese features. I think someone even took a trip to China to ensure that that was the case, although I am not sure that that would have been necessary. Apparently, however, that is what was done. An authentic-style Chinese entrance does not necessarily result in a successful Chinese mall. The area must reflect a Chinese atmosphere and, ideally, genuine Chinese culture. Providing dragon or lion dances—or, worse, kung fu demonstrations—on week­ ends is simply not good enough. By setting up a committee under the provisions of this Bill, the Govemment is attempting to achieve the involvement of people with Chinese backgrounds in more promotional activities. The Minister has mentioned that the aim is to provide activities surrounding Chinese festivals and that this should assist to promote a Chinese atmosphere in the area. Whether or not this action—at long last—to provide the Chinese involvement which the Opposition has been calling for since the beginning will solve the problems of the mall remains to be seen; but it is certain that these problems will not be solved without such involvement. The Opposition supports this amendment. I express the hope that this wiU be the last occasion on which it is necessary to pass legislation aimed at rescuing the Chinatown Mall. Finally, I must say that this Bill is another example of the way in which the lack of a joint party committee in this House reduces the level of effectiveness of legislation— particularly on issues such as this which are, essentially, non-political, and on which all members of the House have an agreed aim. Mr BERGHOFER (Toowoomba South) (11.34 a.m.): I want to say a few words in support of this legislation. For many, many years in Queensland the big thing has been for people to go mall mad. I can assure honourable members that malls do not work 4576 19 November 1987 Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) in every city. In Toowoomba pressure has been put on the council to spend a couple of million dollars to build a mall. One of the first malls to be built was at TownsviUe. I do not think it is going quite as well as many people make out. FoUowing that, the Queen Street Mall came into operation. However, a large number of people were already in the area. Office-workers in the various nearby high-rise buildings use the mall, and tourists are also attracted to it. Chinatown is an example of a mall that has been built but is not working. A request has been made that the mles and regulations be changed to see if it is possible to make it work. Two or three years ago I attended in Townsville a conference about malls. A guest speaker from New York said the malls do not bring people; that if people are not there in the first place, the building of a maU will not necessarily bring them to it. Cavill Avenue on the Gold Coast is a typical example of people being there before the mall was built. Once the maU is put in, the people automatically become part of it. The same can be said of the Queen Street Mall. Too many people use the example of Queen Street to claim how successful malls are. I am not a great supporter of the constmction of a mall in Toowoomba because the area does not have large numbers of people. I do not think a mall will bring them to it. The Chinatown Mall is an example of that. Legislation is being introduced to see if that mall can be made to work. I support the BiU before the House. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.36 a.m.): The Liberal Party supports the amend­ ments before the House. The Chinatown advisory committee was based on provisions similar to those for the Queen Street Mall advisory committee. The advisory committee is set up to advise the Brisbane City Council on the mnning of the mall. I can understand that the Chinatown MaU is having some problems because it is based, I believe, on different considerations. It is really based on ethnic considerations, whereas the Queen Street MaU is based on retailing considerations. Because of that, it is clear that some changes are needed to the present arrangements. The Chinatown Mall is clearly not mnning as effectively and being promoted as efficiently as the Queen Street MaU is. These amendments will certainly allow for a considerable increase in the input from the Chinese community. That is essential. One of the things that I would ask the Minister is how he will choose the five members from the Chinese community who will be appointed to the committee. It is important that aU sections of the Chinese community are included on the advisory committee. Within the Chinese community itself there are a number of differing groups. I am sure that they themselves have differing views on how in fact the mall should be mn. Of course, over many, many years, people of Chinese nationality have contributed greatly to the city and to the history of this State. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure that the functioning of the mall becomes efficient and successful. It would be a great shame if it was not successful. There is no reason why it should not be. I understand that within the Chinese community at present there is a great deal of friction not only over the mnning of the mall itself but also over a number of other issues. Therefore, it is important that, when the Minister is appointing members to the committee, he takes all those various groups into account. The appointment of Chinese to the promotion committee will allow for genuine Chinese input and cultural partici­ pation within the mnning of the mall. Although the various stmctures in the mall are in place, it still leaves a lot to be desired. I believe there is a need for greater character and greater colour in the whole operation of the mall. I cannot help feeling that the present arrangements that allow the access of motor vehicles to the car parks in the mall from both the Wickham and Ann Streets ends detract greatly from encouraging people into that area. One of the reasons for the great Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment BUI (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4577 success of the Queen Street Mall is that motorists do not have access to it during dayUght hours. In fact, only with special permits can vehicles gain access to the Queen Street Mall. At the Chinatown Mall, motorists are coming and going all the time. When pedestrians move into an area such as that, they do not want to have to move continually and to be careful that they are not mn down by a motorist who is either going to or leaving a car park. The passage of vehicles has a detrimental effect on that mall. One of the things the promotional committee might consider is alteraative ways to gain access to those two car parks. I understand that within a very short space of time—probably early in the new year—a lane will link Duncan and Bmnswick Streets. From talking to business people in both those streets, I have learnt that one of the major problems is that for a person to get from the mall to Bmnswick Street, and vice versa, he has to walk down either Ann Street or Wickham Street. People do not like to have to walk further than is necessary; they would much prefer to wander straight through somewhere near the centre of the block. Such a lane would overcome the problems of the vehicles that I have just mentioned and of having to walk down the footpaths. I believe that that link between Duncan and Bmnswick Streets will improve greatly access to the mall and also enable people who go into the area to be able to wander straight through to the shops that are presently there—although some of them might close in the future. That lane will give people a much greater opportunity for shopping in the mall area. I have always believed that, if the Fortitude Valley area is to be redeveloped, the Chinatown Mall will be the catalyst for that development. That is another important reason to ensure the success of the mall. I am sure all honourable members want the Valley area to be redeveloped. The mall could generate that development. In fact, for the mall to be successful, the Valley must be redeveloped. If that area does not regenerate and develop, in the long term the Chinatown Mall will certainly have great difficulties in attracting the people it needs to become the success that it ought to be. If the Chinese community is given half a chance, the opportunities are there for it. The Bill before the House allows the various sectors of the Chinese community to have a greater input and to make the Chinatown Mall the success that the Queen Street Mall has been. There is no denying that the Queen Street Mall is a great success. I am sure that the council, the Chinese community and the people of Brisbane want to ensure that the ethnic considerations are taken into account and that the Chinese community is given every opportunity to have an input into the mall's operations and promotions to ensure that it is successful. Mrs HARVEY (Greenslopes) (11.44 a.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the BiU. When the legislation was previously before the House, I supported very strongly the whole concept of a Chinatown Mall in the Valley area. I know that area very, very well from the old days when for many years my mother worked in the Sunsun Cafe. When 1 got off the tram I used to spend all my after-school hours hanging about waiting for Mum to finish work, having my fair share Mr R. J. Gibbs: That's nice. Mrs HARVEY: I think members opposite have a real problem. I became very well acquainted with the hard-working Chinese community. I came to know of the hard-work ethic of the Chinese community. The members of that community tolerated working seven days a week to establish businesses in that area. I think that the Valley area is a tribute to the people who put in all that hard work in the early years. I am talking about at least 30 years ago. It is a tribute to those people who put in such an enormous effort in the Valley area that it has blossomed and has become the Chinatown Mall. The amending Bill is excellent legislation. It shows that the Minister is prepared to deal with problems as they arise and to consider the real interests of the people involved in the Chinatown Mall. The Valley has never looked as good as it does now, with a predominance of red and yellow, which gives a Chinese feel to the area. 4578 19 November 1987 Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Regardless of how good a project is, it will founder if it is not adequately promoted. It is one thing to have something good but it is another thing to let people know about it. I agree with the claim by the Chinese organisations in the Valley that not enough has been done to promote the Chinatown Mall and let people know that it is something special. However, that does not mean that there is no onus on those organisations. I think that they also have to examine their own operations to see whether they can get more out of them. I support the idea of providing for the representation of these people on the committee that is to be established. The various sections of the community will be represented. I have a Chinese friend who is a solicitor in the Valley, Mr Lock Lim. I would imagine that he looks after the legal interests of many of the Chinese people in that area. I would think that Mr Lock Lim and many other people involved in different businesses would have a great deal to offer in terms of what the real needs of that area are. I believe that if a group can be formed that has real determination to promote the Chinatown Mall, the money that has been spent on that mall will have been well-spent. It is a great shame that the Chinatown Mall is so far from the centre of the city. I can remember the old days when the tram went from the heart of the city down to the Valley. If one could not find what one wanted at Allan and Stark in the city—it is now Myers—one thought nothing about hopping on a tram and popping down to T.C. Beime's in the Valley. It cost very little. The trams seemed to be shuttling past non-stop. It was very convenient. I think that that is when the Valley was at its peak. People did not worry about cars; they did not need them. Mr Vaughan: We've got electric trains now; they're just as good. Mrs HARVEY: If one is in the mall in the centre of the city, one is not going to walk all the way down to the train station in the city, go by train to the Valley, walk to the shops and then walk back to the train station in the Valley. That sounds okay, but it is not so easy in reality if one has a baby on one hip and a bag of groceries or clothes in one's hand. One could walk a couple of miles. While honourable members are on the subject of the Chinatown Mall—perhaps it would be worth considering linking the Chinatown Mall in the Valley more closely with the mall in the city. The Minister will probably faint when he hears my suggestion of a continuous mall from Queen Street right down to Chinatown. If the two malls were linked, the tourists could walk from the city to the Valley. It would be a nice brisk walk. However, I suppose that it would create horrendous traffic problems. Perhaps Chinatown could have a bright red and yellow bus that could operate as a shuttle service Mr Casey: Rickshaws. Mrs HARVEY: Whatever the honourable member prefers. It would be good to see a continuous flow of people from the city to the Valley and back again. Perhaps a bus shuttle service is the answer. As I said, it is a shame that the Chinatown Mall could not be linked to the centre of the city. There is a dark pocket between the two malls with no shops. One comes to the end of the shops and then there are banks and other organisations along the commercial strip, which creates a bit of a black hole between the city and the VaUey. If the blackness of that hole could be brightened by establishing more shops in that area, people would be encouraged to move further down into that area and the Valley could be linked to the city. That is worth thinking about as a long-term proposal. Mr Randell: It has the potential to be the best attraction of the lot. Mrs HARVEY: I believe that it has the potential to be the best attraction in Brisbane, apart from the Brisbane River. Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4579

Many different kinds of functions, such as special festivals, could be held in the Chinatown Mall, but they would last for only a while. Some continuous activities need to be introduced, for example, a shuttle transport service. The Brisbane Development Association was thinking of mnning a small tram throughout the city area. Perhaps consideration could be given to the introduction in the future of some form of transport between the city and Chinatown; for example, a tiny monorail. Possibly someone will come up with a good way to link the two areas. If a person is feeling energetic, the two areas are not an impossible walking distance apart, although no-one who is genuinely wishing to shop would attempt the walk. A proposal of this kind would make that area of the Valley much more viable. It would become an extension of the city without losing any of its identity. It would benefit from the city crowds. The Chinese community in the area should be encouraged to expand their operations and not limit themselves to what is currently there. They should look at a greater variety of stores and all the businesses should not be merely restaurants and food outlets such as Chinese delicatessens. There is room for theatres, especially Chinese theatres, to be established in Chinatown, which would attract more people seeking a social life. The restaurants cater only for people who are interested in eating in Chinatown. I am sure that as a result of this amendment, the right people will get together and come up with many interesting innovations for the area. This Bill does not warrant a lengthy debate, because it is only a minor amendment. It is, however, a very important amendment for the area concemed and the Chinese people. I hope that during Expo there will be a link-up with Chinatown through promotion, as was mentioned by the Minister in his second-reading speech. The Chinese community in Brisbane would appreciate the opportunity of being included in Expo. Australians refer to their heritage in Queensland and the Chinese, who have worked in this State for many years, have as much right to claim to be a very significant part of Queensland's heritage as other Queenslanders have. Expo wUl provide a good opportunity for the Chinese community to promote itself as well. I commend the Minister for introducing this amendment. It is welcomed by the Chinese community and, even though it is a minor amendment, the repercussions of it will be large and the results will be seen in the very near future. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (11.54 a.m.): The Chinatown Mall was a great concept introduced by Alderman St. Ledger of the Brisbane City Council. He retumed to Brisbane with this idea after seeing a very successful Chinatown Mall in Dixon Street, Sydney. Mr Lee: You can't really say that, can you? Mr ARDILL: I certainly can and do. This great concept has been architecturally developed very well but the problem is one of promotion and management. That is the rock on which malls stand or fall. The member for Toowoomba South, Mr Berghofer, said that a mall does not attract people. His statement was entirely erroneous. I have visited malls in towns and cities all round Australia, some of which have a population of 8 000 or 9 000 persons and also in metropolitan cities, which have very large populations. On every occasion that a mall has been well designed and well managed, it has attracted people to the town or city. The constmction of a mall is the most outstanding way of preventing a city from dying. I think that the member for Toowoomba South should examine that matter more closely before he forms the opinion that a mall is not a worthwhile addition to any city. Malls that are badly designed and cluttered certainly do not work successfully. The problems with the Valley to which the member for Greenslopes referred have always existed. The Valley was never a viable entity on its own. In the first place, the Story Bridge was built to attract people to the VaUey. Even in the late 1930s the VaUey was not a huge success as a shopping centre. As soon as regional shopping centres started 4580 19 November 1987 Local Govemment (Chinatown Mall) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) to develop around Brisbane, such as those at Chermside, Toombul and Lutwyche, the days of the Valley as a major shopping centre were numbered. The lack of success of the Valley as a shopping centre had nothing to do with the demise of trams. Although trams were in operation at that time, just as many buses now pass between the centre of the city and the Valley, except during peak hours. It is as convenient for people to travel from the city to the Valley on any one of the tmnk-line buses, except those from the far-westem suburbs, as it was to travel on trams. As I said, the Valley is not a viable entity as a shopping centre. It can be rejuvenated by the Chinatown Mall if it is correctly promoted and managed. I hope that the five members of the Chinese community who are appointed by the Minister to the committee will serve that purpose. I hope that he chooses them wisely. The city council should have more input into the selection of those persons. Depending on the persons who are appointed to the committee, I believe that the Chinatown Mall will either become a viable entity in our city of which we will be proud or it will fail totally. I do not think that there is any need for me to deal with the subject at great length. I am sure that the Minister has the matter in hand and that he will choose the members of the committee wisely. The Brisbane City Council should be given a greater say in that matter. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (11.58 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the Bill. The honourable member for Manly agreed that there are difficulties with the mall and that there is a need for greater Chinese input into its promotion. Similar views were expressed by the member for Salisbury and the member for Toowong. They questioned the way in which the members of the committee will be selected. I believe that those honourable members will be pleased to hear that the Goverament will be taking on board and giving consideration to the views of the various groups of Chinese in the city. Cognisance will be taken of the recommendations made by those groups. The Bill provides for five representatives of the Chinese community to be appointed to the committee. I am confident that this will have a big impact on the popularity of the mall in the future. The honourable member for Manly referred to problems faced by traders in the Queen Street Mall extension area. I agree that there are problems there. I also agree that the interests of those people contiguous to malls, irrespective of where they are built in the State, is paramount. A developer cannot enter a particular area and carry out works that are to the detriment of any group of people. I believe that some traders in the Queen Street Mall are going broke. I do not wish to see a repetition of that in the extension area. I have spoken with some of the traders, and the point that was made by the honourable member for Manly is real. In the future, serious consideration must be given to those people who are contiguous with or adjacent to proposed malls. The Act removed the legal impediment that prevented those traders from claiming compensation. I do not propose to intervene further at this stage. The honourable member for Toowoomba South raised a valid point in relation to his electorate. Being the mayor of that city, he has a very good knowledge of the Toowoomba region. Undoubtedly his input into the proposal will be quite significant. The honourable member for Toowong asked how representatives of the Chinese community will be selected for the Chinatown Mall Promotion Committee. I assure the honourable member that there will be no problem with that whatsoever. This Government intends to consult widely with all Chinese groups in this city. The honourable member for Greenslopes made a valid contribution to this debate. Having lived there for part of her life, she knows the Valley area well. She indicated her support for the Bill—as did other honourable members. Motion agreed to. Local Government Act Amendment Bill 19 November 1987 4581

Committee Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. BUI reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4155). Mr SHAW (Manly) (12.03 p.m.): When introducing local govemment Bills in this House, the Minister usually states that they have the support of the Local Goverament Association. I notice that he has made no such claim in relation to this Bill. I particularly looked for that. I would be very interested to leara the reaction of the Local Goverament Association to this legislation. I would be very surprised if that association does not object quite strenuously to this legislation. This Bill represents a gross intmsion into the rights of local government. It is an extension of the debate that conceraed ministerial rezonings. I wonder where the National Party back-bench members, who took such a strong stand in the media about ministerial rezonings, stand on this Bill. We certainly have not heard very much from them. Where are the back-benchers or the rank-and-file people of the National Party who, at their recent conference, called for a halt to ministerial rezonings and called for less intmsion into the affairs of local govemment? They called for more autonomy for local govemment. This BUI represents the exact opposite. Perhaps they are waiting to see what the public reaction will be and, as a result of that, they will take a stand or otherwise. They are waiting to see whether there will be an outcry from the public and the councils; and, if there is, they also will object. They will probably then talk about the terrible action of the Local Government Minister and his Cabinet and what terrible people they are. On the other hand, if the Goverament gets away with it, the back bench will be very quiet about it. At the outset, I state that the Labor Party in this House will oppose the Bill. The Bill clearly illustrates the need for an inquiry into local goverament—a need which the Opposition has been pointing out for some considerable time. It particularly illustrates how inappropriate present local goverament boundaries are in some instances. That is not surprising, as many of the boundaries were drawn up years ago and, although the Minister says that there have been amendments, the tmth is that there have been very few amendments and little realistic consideration of the overall problems Statewide. Adjustments which have taken place have failed to even scratch the surface of the problems. There remains a great need to make local govemment boundaries relevant to the present-day situation. Honourable members will have noticed that the Landsborough Shire Council has joined the ranks of those seeking city status. What immediately becomes apparent is that, although Caloundra, Currimundi and Kawana could logically be grouped as a city, there is some doubt as to the suitability of towns such as Landsborough and Beerwah being included in such a city. Consideration of the adjustment of boundaries to preserve community interests is clearly warranted, even though it could ultimately prove that these areas are best served by being retained with the Caloundra administration. The Opposition has proposed to the House that a select committee be appointed to address these types of problems. It has suggested the terms of such an inquiry would be— (a) its—that is, local goverament's—ability to assist or promote small business development; 4582 19 November 1987 Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill

(b) whether the Local Govemment Act and the City of Brisbane Act could better permit and assist councils to serve their areas; (c) the adequacy of local residents' representation on councils; (d) whether present council boundaries provide the most viable and suitable administration of areas and communities— of course, that is what we are referring to in this Bill— (e) its ability to service and properly plan for industry and commerce; (f) whether environment issues and the views of residents are being adequately considered; and (g) whether local goverament finances could be miore efficiently and equitably raised and expended. We readUy acknowledge that the problems are difficult and that the answers will not be easy to find. However, the solutions which were arrived at would not be the bandaid treatment that the Goverament so often proposes. I draw again the attention of the House to clause (d) of the terms of reference suggested in our notice of motion, which would cover specifically the sorts of difficulties this Bill addresses in a different way, that is, two or more local authorities administering the same services—an example of an area of endeavour being divided only by a local goverament boundary. It becomes apparent from an examination of the Bill that the Goverament's response to this problem is similar to the attitude that it has adopted so often. It gives the Minister widened powers to impose on the council concemed the type of joint authority which this Government, not the councils, feels is appropriate. The Bill actually lessens the autonomy of the council by taking away its right to have a say in the board positions. It can be fairly said that, rather than widen or improve the powers and autonomy of local goverament, as all State Goveraments profess to support, this Bill diminishes its power and autonomy. Almost complete discretion rests with the Minister. I understand that there are around 30 to 35 existing joint boards, and we can expect that there will be more if no action is taken on local goverament boundaries. I anticipate that that action will not be taken in the near future, so this issue is an important one. If any proof were needed that the approach outlined in this Bill to constituting these boards is not totally supported by the Goverament, one only has to draw a comparison with the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board, which is constituted under a different Bill to be dealt with by this House today. The TownsviUe/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill completely ignores this legislation. The question must be asked: if this Bill is satisfactory, why is it not sufficient to provide for the situation in TownsviUe/ Thuringowa? The Opposition strongly supports the principle of greater autonomy for local govemment. Members of the Opposition believe that when people vote for a local council, they should be able to expect that council to carry out its own policies and not be dictated to by a State Government that is intent on imposing its own ideas from afar. The Opposition therefore opposes this Bill. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (12.10 p.m.): Honourable members have been led by this Minister to believe that this legislation will ensure that the Mayor of the Gold Coast is included as a member of the Gold Coast/Albert Joint Local Authority Board and that, in tum, the Government will be able to ensure that either the Mayor of the Gold Coast or the Chairman of the Albert Shire wiU be appointed as chairman of the joint local authority board. On the face of it, that might appear to be fair enough, but the Bill goes a great deal further. It is clear that what the Govemment really intends wiU also affect the other joint local authority water boards, and I think that there are quite a number of those water boards. It will be the foremnner to the establishment of other joint local authority water boards. I understand that the Gold Coast City Council has Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill 19 November 1987 4583 repeatedly voted against establishment of that type of water board in conjunction with the Albert Shire. This legislation is another attack on the autonomy of local authorities. For example, the Gold Coast City Council wants to use the Hinze Dam for water supply purposes; yet a strong feeling exists in the Albert Shire about the Hinze Dam being primarily for the purposes of flood mitigation. Before the joint local authority water board even gets started, it is clear that there is disagreement between the two local authority areas about the use to which the Hinze Dam should be put. That disagreement will certainly have a very significant effect on the mnning of the joint local authority board. Clearly, amending legislation will have to be brought forward, or perhaps the Minister will have to appoint an independent chairman, which is what he intends in respect of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board. The provisions of this Bill make a real farce of the Townsville/Thuringowa legislation that will be debated later today. It is clear that, on the one hand, the Govemment is saying one thing in relation to this Bill and that, on the other hand, it is saying the complete opposite about the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board. I understand that at present sufficient land has been zoned on the Gold Coast to use up the water stored in the Hinze Dam till the year 2010; yet the Minister has given no real reasons for proposing a joint local authority water board. Perhaps he feels that it is best not to talk about it, but simply to clothe it in the mantle of ministerial authority by deciding who will chair the joint local authority water boards. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Honourable members have before them not only a proposal for the establishment of a board comprising two local authorities but also evidence of a complete lack of strategic regional planning on the part of the Govemment. By virtue of taking into account only two local authorities, the Govemment highlights its complete lack of regional planning for that area. When amalgamation of the two councils is discussed, the Minister says that he would not contemplate merging them unless they agreed; yet he wishes to foist this joint proposal on one of the councils that does not want to be part of it. Clearly, the Minister is having some problems in achieving what he wants to do as a political exercise and having his words stand up to scmtiny. It is a case of do as I say, not do as I do. That has been seen to occur so often with this Govemment. The Bill is certainly an attack on the rights and the autonomy of local goverament, because it will give the Minister of the day powers over local govemment which he previously did not have. The Bill says to the local authority that the Minister knows best; that he has determined who will be on the joint local authority board. No longer will the local authorities have that automatic right to decide whom they will choose to represent them on the board. The fact that at this stage the Goverament has not seen fit to proceed with regional planning on the Gold Coast will also lead to grave problems in the not-too-distant future. In the south-east coraer of the State the Brisbane and Area Water Board has been established. When that board was set up, discussions took place as to whether or not the Gold Coast City Council or the Albert Shire Council should have representation on it. In fact, at the outset, part of the Albert Shire was represented on the Brisbane and Area Water Board. However, because of the Hinze Dam, it was felt that the Gold Coast City Council had no need to be on the board and that it should appear separate from h. In fact, only recently on the Gold Coast it was seen how the life-blood of this State and this nation was drying up. Only a few weeks ago there was a great scream for the Gold Coast City Council to obtain additional water supplies from the Tweed. Since that time, rain has fallen. I understand that sufficient water is once again in the Hinze Dam to supply the needs for the immediate future. 4584 19 November 1987 Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill

However, that is not looking at the long-term situation. The long-term forecast clearly indicates that the Gold Coast will once again have considerable water shortage problems, whether it is next year, the year after, in a decade or in three decades. An area's water supply must be considered several decades into the future. Because of the residential development, the tourist development and the industrial development that will occur in parts of the Gold Coast region, the Government should be looking down the track in relation to water supply; but it is not. What the Goverament should be doing is not introducing some piecemeal amendments that thmst upon the Gold Coast City Council a joint local authority water board, but looking at long-term strategic planning and regional planning for the area and whether or not the Gold Coast will have adequate water supplies well after the tum of this century. Clearly, it will not. Prior to the formation of the Brisbane and Area Water Board, for some time there were discussions about the constmction of the Wolffdene Dam. Back in 1979, when the board was formulated, the opinion was expressed that, with major urbanisation appearing in the Wolffdene Dam catchment area and in the flood margin area, consideration ought to be given to what should happen in relation to further developments in that area before too much major development occurred. At that particular time, the Goverament was looking at long-term regional planning in the area. Admittedly it may have been only in its infancy, but the Goverament was looking at long-term regional planning and taking into account the most important consideration of water supply. It gave full consideration to the fact that in the year 2000 or 2010—somewhere around that time— that region would need a major water storage facility. That is the very thing that neither the Gold Coast nor the Albert Shire has. Because of the total lack of adequate water supply throughout the Albert Shire, its northem part was included in the Brisbane and Area Water Board. However, today, for short-term political expediency—and I think that is all that one can put it dowoi to— the Govemment is moving forward to bring in this particular piece of legislation under the guise of being able to appoint the chairman or the mayor as president of the joint local authority water boards. Really, what the Goverament is doing is foisting upon the Gold Coast City Council a water authority that everyone knows the Gold Coast City Council does not want. I am sure that the Gold Coast City Council would be much happier if the long-term solutions were being considered. As responsible aldermen down there looking at the area's tourist potential and at the type of development and industry that is likely in the long term, they realise that they themselves will have to confront this problem. They will be looking towards a long-term solution to their water supply problem. I know that in 1979 the Gold Coast City Council felt that its water supply problems would be solved with the constmction of the Hinze Dam—that marveUous dam down there that went dry so very quickly, as many of us at the time said it would do when the region suffered from a severe dry spell. We said that it would be totally inadequate. Even when the third stage of the dam is constmcted, in another two or three decades it will still be totally inadequate to service the needs of that area. Sure the Minister can stand today and say how great it all is and how things will function, as he has done in the past. However, within the next few years more legislation will be introduced into the House to take further action to cater for the need for a proper regional water supply system. What I am speaking about is proper regional planning for the area. Mr Gygar: Don't you think that, as it is one of our major tourist areas, the State Government would be providing infrastmctural support to the Gold Coast for its water supply? Mr BEANLAND: The Government should certainly be considering that very seriously and very closely. Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill 19 November 1987 4585

Sir William Knox: The Hinze Dam is a memorial to the Minister. Mr BEANLAND: Yes, it might be; but it did not take long to dry up. It is certainly a memorial, with the emphasis on "memorial". Although she is not presently in the Chamber, the member for Pine Rivers would know full well that, when it was proposed that the Pine Rivers Shire be included in the Brisbane and Area Water Board, she was strenuously opposed to the inclusion of that shire in the board's region. All honourable members would remember the great, gallant fight that she put up in opposition to that shire's inclusion in the regional water authority. Even though it was pointed out to her that the North Pine Dam was a very important part of the regional water supply, she resisted the inclusion of that shire in the water board's area. However, at the time it was given no choice, and the Govemment of the day said that the area was a most important part of the regional make-up. That shire was included, just as were one or two other shires that were not particularly keen on the idea. Yet Gatton, Laidley, Kilcoy and Esk, which do not at this time take water from Brisbane, although in the fiiture a couple of them wiU—I dare say it wiU be a long time before Kilcoy and Esk take water from the Brisbane and Area Water Board, if indeed Kilcoy ever does—have also been included in the regional water authority. I believe that in the long-term interests of the area, even though in the past the Gold Coast City Council has strongly resisted being included in it, the Minister ought now be having discussions with the council with the proposition that in the not-too-distant future very serious consideration be given to the inclusion of the Gold Coast City Council in the regional water authority. Having just felt the effects of such a dry spell, the Gold Coast City Council will see the benefits of being included in the authority. Those problems will be foremost in the council's mind at the moment. The House has been told that both authorities will have equal representation on the joint local authority board. The Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply BiU, which is to be debated later today, is designed to get over the problem brou^t about by the fact that Townsville had three representatives and Thuringowa had only two. Because of the arguments there, the Minister will replace the board with an independent chairman. I can see many problems arising in relation to the functioning of this board when the two local authorities disagree vehemently over some aspect of the mnning of the board. This is another instance in which the Govemment will get itself into a lot of strife in the not-too-distant future. Although the Minister might not realise it now, I am sure that in years to come he will wish that other arrangements were made in relation to giving the authorities equal representation. This is clearly an assault on the autonomy and the rights and responsibilities of local govemment. The Goverament is trying to overcome, for political expediency, what has become a short-term problem. It is interesting to note that in this Chamber on 11 November the Minister for Maritime Services, Mr Tenni, lashed out at me. He said that he is sick to death of hearing the member for Toowong—that is, me—talking about so-called assaults on local govemment. It is also interesting to note how quickly Mr Tenni changes his mind. Those honourable members who have looked at the front pages of today's Courier-Mail could not help noticing that Mr Tenni has indicated that he is very pleased that plans for a $300m Japanese resort north of Caims are being scrapped. In fact, the whole development is to be axed. Mr Tenni said that the decision is a victory for common sense and fairaess for the residents of the northem beaches and that the development would have cut a popular beach area in two. Of course, this raises the matter of the Goverament's attacking the rights and responsibilities of local govemment and the rights of the residents of a particular area. This is all about that very famous Integrated Resort Development Act. Time and time again the developer has been quoted in the press as proclaiming that it would be the pace-setter, the path-finder, under the Integrated Resort Development Act and that this would be one of the first developments to occur under that Act. Yet now Mr Tenni is

77195—149 4586 19 November 1987 Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill suddenly having a change of heart. Perhaps he will now come out in support of local govemment. Had that Act not been in force at that time, this situation would simply not have arisen, and Mr Tenni would not have had to suffer the heartbum that he has obviously experienced recently over that development. This is a matter of great concem. I hope that the Minister will reveal that he has now had a remarkable change of attitude in relation to the rights of local authorities. What the Minister is putting before honourable members is a velvet glove. What he is putting before the Gold Coast City CouncU is certainly the clenched fist of Rocky Marciano, and I am sure that the Gold Coast City Council will be on the receiving end. Mr FRASER (Springwood) (12.28 p.m.): Once again I rise to support the Minister for Local Govemment, on this occasion in regard to the Local Govemment Act Amendment BUI. The main thmst of this Bill is the repeal of the existing provisions of the Local Govemment Act relating to the constitution of joint local authority boards under the Act and the inclusion of new provisions in relation to this matter. As mentioned by the Minister in his second-reading speech, the main thmst of the new provisions is to provide greater discretion for the Govemor in Council in constituting what will now be termed a joint board and to determine how that constitution should be effected. Further, in constituting a joint board this BiU provides that the Govemor in Council may nominate that the mayor or chairman of a particular local authority shall be a member of the joint board and also that the election of a president of a board shall be made either from amongst the members of the board or from amongst the members of a particular component local authority or a group of local authorities and, further, that the chairman of one of the component local authorities shall be president of the joint board. That is one of the reasons why the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Toowong, in their opposition to the Bill, have completely missed the point. The honourable member for Toowong drew the analogy with the TownsvUle/Thuringowa Water Supply Board BUI. In that instance, the Minister involved is proposing to appoint a completely separate chairman and not a member of a local authority as chairman. Mr Ardill: Why? Is there a difference? Mr FRASER: There is a complete difference, and the reason is that the people of the Townsville/Thuringowa area, through their member in this House and through representations to the Minister, have asked for that legislation as a result of lengthy procrastination on the part of groups led by the Townsville City Council in the establishment of a water supply system for the city of Townsville. If any members have been in TownsvUle recently, they would have seen how urgently that city, and also the Thuringowa area, needs a good water supply system. This Bill further provides—and very importantly—that the president of the joint board will rotate between the chairmen of the local authorities constituting the joint board. This is one of the main components of the Bill. Over the last year, the Logan City Council has disbanded the Logan and Albert Joint Library Board. One of the main reasons for this was that the mayor of the area was not on the board, the chairman of the other member local authority was not on the board, and the councU found that its local authority representatives were not putting forward the views of the majority of the council. In a completely constitutional way, both local authorities applied to the Minister, and that board was disbanded. That instance illustrates the need for this Local Govem­ ment Act Amendment BiU. The Minister has introduced it because he has the same problems with the water supply storage system in the Gold Coast/Albert area. I support the Bill. Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill 19 November 1987 4587

Mr DAVIS (Brisbane C:entral) (12.32 p.m.): I support the Labor Party in its attitude towards this BiU. I wish to answer the comments made by the honourable member for Toowong. It is marvellous to see that all of a sudden the Liberal Party wants to look after the rights of local govemment, as long as those rights involve the Liberal Party's own people. This House will recall the time—and I believe that you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing were present—when a health BiU was debated. If my memory serves me cortectly, at the time the Brisbane City Council voted for appointments on hospitals boards. The democratically elected Brisbane City Council voted for representatives to go onto a particular board from the council. The city council voted for two councillors who were Labor Party nominees, because the Labor Party held the numbers in the council. However the Minister of the day vetoed that appointment and put in two Brisbane City CouncU Liberal aldermen. At that time I did not hear one iota of dissent from the Liberal Party. This is typical of the Liberal Party; it is a weak- gutted organisation that defends democracy only when it opposes something. Mr Lee interjected. Mr DAVIS: The honourable member never said one word. I believe he was a Minister before he was thrown out, and at that time I noticed that he never came to the defence of democracy. It is democracy when the Liberal Party wants it—Liberal style. Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (12.34 p.m.): Although the Bill under consideration by the House at the moment deals principally with the composition of water boards and the State Govemment's desire to have its own way on the Gold Coast Water Board, it could be characterised as being a Bill which deals with interference in local authorities. I intend to take advantage of the broad-ranging nature of the second-reading speech to raise another area of potential interference by the State Govemment in local authority powers and precepts. This relates to the strong mmours that are currently sweeping the Noosa area, and I would ask the Minister to take these comments on board and include them in his reply. At the moment in Noosa, mmours are sweeping the area that the State Govemment is about to override the planning and consent powers of the local authority to permit a tent city resort on the Noosa spit at the end of Hastings Street. It is causing considerable concern amongst local operators, and so it should. The mmour is that currently a submission is being considered by State Govemment officers for presentation to Cabinet. I ask the Minister to check with his officers and to inform the House as to whether or not that is cortect. As I have said, it is a matter of grave concem to the operators in the area. If the mmours are tme, the local authority's planning and consent powers are being deliberately overridden. Moreover, it would set a precedent for the development of resorts of this type that many people beUeve are unhealthy. In recent months all honourable members have seen on television advertisements for tent-city type resorts. They look terrific; undoubtedly they are. The operators of such resorts allege that they provide low-cost accommodation to persons who are travelling at the lower end of the tourist market. However, there are some long-term problems associated with such resorts. One of those problems is the density of development that is allowed under the special mles that provide for these types of accommodation places. For example, that density is higher than that in any caravan park. It is higher than the density of areas in which detached bungalows are aUowed to be constmcted at tourist resorts. The great fear of many local authorities, one of which is the Noosa Shire Council, is that if tent cities are allowed to spring up outside their control, sooner or later—and it will probably be sooner rather than later if they are subjected to salt spray and sea air—the tents will start to rot away—probably after three or four years. The cry wUl 4588 19 November 1987 Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill then be heard that those tents should be replaced by more permanent stmctures. If that is allowed because of the higher density of development, an instant slum will be created. Mr Hinze: There have been no representations made to me in relation to any tent city in the Noosa area. Your statement there about these mmours is ill-founded. Mr GYGAR: I thank the Minister for his assurance on that matter. I note the careful terms in which the Minister couched his statement, that no representations have been made to him. I would hope that if the Minister later detects that there have been representations made Mr Hinze: There have been no representations made to my department, either. Mr GYGAR: I know that the Minister is a man of honour and integrity. I know that he would not seek to fiddle the language to try to get out of one that easily. My fear is not that the Minister and his department are pushing this barrow; rather, it is that the Minister for Tourism and the QTTC might be in it up to their ears. I ask the Minister to inform me whether any of these matters reach his attention. The Minister for Local Govemment is well aware of the problems that will arise in the future because of the density of development and what can occur if the normal powers of control of local authorities are not allowed to be exercised over developments. That is the bottom line and why there is such a strong argument against State Govemment interference in these matters. The local authority must live with such a development and has to make it work, not only today and tomorrow, but next year and the year after, when the present owners, however laudable their aims might be, have long departed the scene and someone with less cash, and fewer high hopes and intentions, might move in. I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has given me on this matter. I hope that, if the matter comes to his attention later, he will continue to oppose it. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing) (12.38 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution. The honourable member for Manly referred to the fact that absolute discretion is given to the Govemor in Council as to how the joint local authorities may be constituted in the future and objected to that principle. The point is that aU cases are different and that there is a need for the Act to be flexible enough to meet any circumstances that may arise. He referted to a number of problems facing local authorities. I advise the House that the Local Govemment Act is being reviewed in its entirety. That review is not being conducted solely in-house by the department and includes persons from local govemment services, the Local Govemment Association and the academic world. The review is examining, amongst other aspects, the funding and the economic powers of local authorities generally. The honourable member for Toowong criticised the Govemment for not entering into regional planning for the area. That is exactly what the new board will provide. Water is a regional resource. In the future, it is my intention that water be handled on that basis and not left to the whim of one particular local authority. I believe that the honourable member for Toowong tried to make a sensible contribution to this debate. However, he gave the House an indication of his limited knowledge in relation to the regions that he was talking about. The Leslie Harrison Dam was constmcted in the Redland Shire as a stock dam, but it has serviced that area very well over the years. Millions of gaUons of very good water from the Nineteen Mile Lagoon are mnning out to sea daily. If the Redland Shire CouncU could constmct a stmcture across to Stradbroke Island, it could bring water from that lagoon to the Redland Shire. The honourable member criticised the Hinze Dam and indicated that it is mnning dry. That criticism is not worthy of comment other than to say that the councils are Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4589 unanimous in that they do not wish to be included in the Brisbane and Area Water Board region. Those councils are quite happy with the present dam, to which 40 feet is being added. I understand that, untU 2010, that dam will service totally the needs of that region, which is the fastest-growing area in AustraUa. People who criticise a project such as that site and dam do not know what they are talking about. I take on board the comments that were made by various honourable members, whom I thank for their contributions. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 42 NOES, 34 Ahem Hynd Ardill Shaw Alison Katter Beanland Sherlock Austin Lane Beard SmUh Berghofer McCauley Braddy Smyth Bjelke-Petersen McPhie Bums Underwood Booth Menzel CampbeU Vaughan Borbidge Muntz Casey Warburton Burreket Neal Comben Wamer Chapman Nelson D'Arcy Wells Cooper Newton De Lacy Yewdale Elliott Powell Eaton Fraser Randell Gibbs, R. J. Gately Sherrin Goss Gibbs, I. J. Simpson Hamill Gilmore Slack Hayward Glasson Stephan Knox Harper Stoneman Lee Harvey Tenni Lickiss Henderson Mackenroth Hinton Tellers: Milliner Tellers: Hinze Littleproud Palaszczuk Davis Hobbs FitzGerald Prest Gygar Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Clauses 1 to 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time.

RACING AND BETTING ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4154). Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (12.51 p.m.): The Opposition wiU support amendments to the Racing and Betting Act. As the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, this measure is being taken as the result of a proposal mentioned in the State Budget in which' the Premier indicated that tum-over tax for book-makers in the metropolitan area would be reduced from 2.25 per cent to 2 per cent. Implementation of this proposal will mean that a uniform tax will apply throughout the State. For the reasons that the proposal formed part of the State Budget and that this legislation will bring about uniformity in the State, the Opposition will support these measures. Personally, it would not matter what the level of tura-over tax was; the Goverament would not be getting any of my money because, frankly, I do not go to the races. However, a few of my colleagues are punters and would like to say something about the Racing and Betting Act. During the debate, some members of the Opposition will probably expand on the effects of this legislation. Therefore, I will leave those matters to them. 4590 19 November 1987 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (12.52 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the BiU. The content of this legislation is based on a proposal that was announced in the State Budget. This legislation will implement Budget poUcy by providing for a uniform level of tum- over tax and club levy. In Queensland, the racing industry is very important. It has developed enormously, especially since the present Minister included racing in his portfoUo. Without doubt, the Minister has been the best thing that has happened to racing in Queensland. Mr Yewdale: He is a very racy character. Mr MENZEL: I do not know what the honourable member means by that, but I do know that the Minister owns a number of racehorses. Apart from that, I believe that the Minister knows more about racing than the honourable member knows about his electorate. The Minister is very knowledgeable about racing. An important step in the racing game has been the TAB's introduction of television into hotels. That move has enabled punters who live outside the metropoUtan area and who are unable to attend race meetings in Brisbane to be able to watch the races on television. This is another innovative service that the Minister has encouraged and made possible. In conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (12.53 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the Bill. I give credit to the Minister for amending the Act. How can anyone justify charging one group of book-makers a higher rate of tura- over tax than that charged to another? The Liberal Party adopts the view that, as book­ makers are all involved in the same business—they are all human beings—they should pay the same rate of tax. Mr Newton: You must have a lot of bookies out there, have you? Mr LEE: No, I have not. However, I fail to see why they should be discriminated against. I cannot support any legislation at aU that is discriminatory. Mr Randell: Have you ever heard anyone complain about it? Mr LEE: Yes, I have. I have made representations to the Minister. I have taken delegations to meet him. I do mix in racing circles a little—unlike the Minister! Mr Yewdale: You have had a good horse, haven't you? Mr LEE: As a matter of fact, I have had a couple of good ones. Any time that the honourable member likes to interject, he can rip it in. I have heard criticism of the Minister for lowering this tax. In my opinion, it is discriminatory and it should be lowered. If the tax had not been lowered, more and more bookies would have left the industry in Brisbane and gone to the coast or other areas. When book-makers are lost from the arena of the race-track it will be a very sorry day, because they provide competition. Mr Randell: It is part of the tradition of racing. Mr LEE: That is right. It is very much a part of the tradition of racing. A person has the option of going to the TAB for a bet or having his bet with a bookie. As bookies have said, they will lay odds and the amount that is written on the ticket is the amount that the punter stands to be paid. That is very different from the TAB. I am sure that one day the Minister, with the capacity that he has, will be able to talk the TAB into reaching the stage at which people will be able to place a bet on a horse and know what odds they are receiving. Mr Yewdale: What about those TAB licences? They are important. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4591

Mr LEE: Yes, they are important. I admit that. Only recentiy the Minister answered a question from the Opposition about that. I thought he covered it very well. His answer was very discreet. Mr De Lacy: Why do you back all those slow horses? Mr LEE: Just recentiy I leamed that the person from whom I was getting the information received it from the honourable member, and his information is crook. I have woken up to that and I now get my information from the Minister. That is the difference. When it comes to racing, he is a knowledgeable man. Therefore, I might win a dollar or two. I was very disappointed when I noticed that the reduction in the levy wiU be responsible for the race clubs receiving less money. After all, the Govemment is receiving about $50m a year—about $lm a week—from the racing industry. The book-makers and the racing fratemity wanted a reduction in the tum-over tax. Even though the Govemment is receiving $lm a week from racing, the Treasurer would not meet the shortfall in revenue caused by that reduction. The result will be that the racing industry places a further burden on some of the metropolitan clubs. I am very disappointed that the amount of money that the clubs will now receive is less because the shortfall to the Treasury has to be made up. Over the last few years the revenue that the Goverament has received from the racing industry has risen from about $20m to over $50m, or $lm a week. That revenue has not cost the tax-payers anything at all. The Minister knows that and is very proud of it. The racing industry is a very large business indeed. However, I say to the Goverament that it should not milk the cow dry. If it continues to keep taxing the racing industry Mr Prest: That is not the right saying. Mr LEE: It may not be the correct saying. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr LEE: Before the luncheon recess I was expressing the hope that the Goverament might decide to put a little more back into the racing industry. The Minister would know quite well that today it is extremely costly to train a horse. Mr Davis: About $110 a week? Mr LEE: It is about $1,200 a month. Racing has got to the stage that it is no longer the small man's pleasure. The cost of training and everything else associated with racing is getting past the small man. The costs are so high that it is very important indeed that, when a horse is worthy of winning a race, the prize-money is worth winning. The racing industry is worth billions of dollars to Queensland. I ask honourable members to stop and think how widespread the industry is. It affects the man who grows the grain for feed and even the real estate agent who sells the property to the man who grows the grain. Mr Smyth: The glue factory. Mr LEE: To this stage, I have not had a horse that has gone to the glue factory. The industry is so widespread that billions of dollars are invested in it. Unlike many other industries, its presence is not denoted by chimney stacks with smoke belching out of them. When people see that sort of thing, they think of a great industry. However, the racing industry, which is worth billions of doUars to the State, is pollution free. Perhaps now and again when a horse gets a bit nervous before a race, there can be some pollution. 4592 19 November 1987 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

The breeding side of the industry is a very big part of it. I venture to say that, without the breeding of racehorses. New Zealand would be practically bankmpt. The Minister established Waverley Park, which is possibly one of the best studs in Queensland. He has spent a lot of money there. I have visited it and it is a complete credit to him. He has his own race-track and training-track. He has certainly put a lot of money into the racing industry and he deserves to get something back out of it. That is why I am saying that the Govemment should give some of this money back so that the prize- money can be kept at a reasonably high figure. It is all very well to say that the TAB wiU put money back into the racing industry, but that is the punters' money. That should go back into the racing industry. The Goverament rakes its take straight off the top. The studs throughout Queensland and particularly down in New South Wales are quite large. I am not sure how many mares the Minister has at Waverley Park, but I know that he has a couple of good stallions that have left their mark around the race-tracks. I know that the Minister sticks out his chest very proudly when one of the horses he has bred wins. I do not know if he has kept any for himself I have a horse called Sir Tristram, which was sired by what I think is a champion horse. The service fee of that horse alone is $185,000 and there is a queue of people waiting to have their horses serviced by him. That is indicative of the size of the industry, which is very big indeed. I wish to let members know what happened last week. I had a bet with the Minister that my horse, Tristram's Edition, would beat two of his horses in a race. Of course, he could not grab the bet quick enough. It was only a $10 bet. It was hardly worth having. The Minister did not take up the challenge in this Chamber. However, when he was at the racecourse and nobody was listening he said to me, "You bet me $10." I said, "Hang on. Now you want 2 to 1 odds." Anyway, the Minister took the bet. My horse came in third and I think the Minister's horses came in fifth and seventh. I hope that the Minister has bought a casket ticket. I am sure that he wiU not welsh on the bet. Mr Davis: Not like the last time when he made you shout half the racecourse. Mr LEE: The Minister did not make me do anything. That was through the kindness of my heart. This week sees the mnning of the Queensland Cup, which is a 3 200 metre or 2- mile race. Of course, only good horses can mn in such a race. It is good to own a horse that can stay for 2 miles. The Minister has nominated Sir Zamazaan and Prince Bourbon for the Queensland Cup. I wish him well. However, I will bet him $10 now that my horse will beat his horses. It is good to see that the Minister has lowered the tum-over tax. That was needed. It was discriminatory, and it was wrong in principle. The Liberal Party is very happy to support the BUI. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (2.36 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill. It is only a minor machinery piece of legislation that will make possible a promise that the Govemment made in its Budget. It is good to see that the book-makers' tura-over tax is being reduced by a quarter of 1 per cent. Anyone who listened to the honourable member for Yeronga would think that it was something that affected only book-makers at metropolitan race meetings. It also affects book-makers in country areas. Until now country book-makers have had the advantage of a small percentage over metropolitan book-makers. In contrast, the met­ ropolitan racing clubs had an advantage over the country racing clubs. There is no doubt that book-makers are stmggling. Fewer book-makers are operating today than were operating a few years ago. There are many and varied reasons for that. The book-makers of today are not as colourful and experienced as those of days gone Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4593 by. Today more rorts are going on within the racing industry than ever before. Perhaps it is simply that more people are in the know these days. Many book-makers have gone by the wayside for many and varied reasons. Some people say that book-makers are a dying race. I agree with what the honourable member for Yeronga said. The day when book-makers are forced off course and are no longer avaUable to offer the odds and people have to rely entirely on the totalisator, much of the colour will go out of racing. It is a hard thing to say, but everyone knows that rorts do occur. Money is a curse and rorts wiU occur where money is involved. This appUes not only to racing or gambling, but also throughout the length and breadth of society. No doubt the reason why the Fitzgerald inquiry is being conducted at this time is because money is the curse; it is evil. I am very concemed for the book-maker. At times I feel sorry for the book-maker, because gone are the days when the ordinary mug punter could go to the racecourse, back a favourite and know that the odds were in his favour. That is not the case today. There are a thousand different ways for horses to be beaten and it is the poor mug punter who feels the effect of the reversal of form. The reversal of form is something that is of great concem to the people involved in racing and should be of great concern to the stewards. Quite often when a horse is backed in from a long price to a short price no reason or explanation is given for its reversal of form. From time to time the opposite occurs, where the favourite, who has good form on the board, mns a pretty poor race. The stewards may call for an explanation, but the book-makers are the ones who are well aware of betting transactions and what will happen. Many licensees have friends who are jockeys, and jockeys have friends who are trainers and often knowledgeable people within the industry who, in tura, are friends of the book-maker. They go hand in hand. On most occasions the book-maker is not the one to be affected. He is the one who knows exactly how the race will be mn. One matter that conceras me involves country racecourses. If this kind of thing is occurring at the major metropoUtan racecourses, what is happening at country racecourses? Everyone knows of the form reversals which occur on the major racecourses. On the small country race-tracks the form reversals are more glaring. The jockeys are not as experienced and the fields are not as big. Everyone can see how the jockey is riding the horse which the punter thought stood a good chance of winning the race and which, on its past performance, should have won. However, on the city race-tracks the horses get bottled up or pocketed, due to the size of the field, and are blocked and do not have a chance to mn until the race is virtuaUy over. We are led to believe that that is bad luck for the horse and the jockey who could not get a mn, and good luck for the bookie because the favourite has been beaten. The mug punter is the biggest loser and the one who is the worst hit. Because of a decrease in the tum-overs of book-makers, it is proposed to reduce the amount of tura-over tax paid by them. Book-makers always make allowances for such matters when they set their prices. When they operate at a race-meeting, they take into consideration the overheads that will be incurred and adjust their prices accordingly. Years ago, the costs of a book-maker's operating a stand at a race-meeting would have been determined by the amount of prize-money that was offered and the number of book-makers operating at that meeting. Book-makers virtually had to make up the amount of money that was required by the country race club. The book-maker would also take into consideration the taxes that he would have to pay and the overheads that he would incur on the day. If the prices offered by book-makers are reduced, the punters will be hit again. We wonder why people continue to attend race-meetings. Over the years, the number of people attending at racecourses has decreased. The facilities provided at TAB agencies throughout the State have improved. That is one reason why people now stay away from racecourses. One cannot compare betting with book-makers with making investments on the TAB. When a person has a bet with a book-maker, the price is agreed between 4594 19 November 1987 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) him and the book-maker. Once a person accepts that price, he must be satisfied with it. The approximate TAB dividend payable on a particular horse could be showing $15, $ 16 or even $20 for a $ 1 investment; but in no time a punter could find that the horse had been backed either off-course or on-course and that it would start as a very short- priced favourite. If a person has placed a bet with a book-maker, he knows that he will be paid at the price that was offered. However, with the TAB a punter could find that he is taking very short odds. Mr Hinze: Did you read that proposal of mine about phoning in to the book­ maker? Mr PREST: I have read about that. That is one of the matters that I am concemed about. By making those bets, people will stay away from racecourses. Mr Hinze: You have to accept that. Mr PREST: That worries me. Lately, I have read the Minister's statement that the increase in TAB tum-over has reflected what has happened at the Fitzgerald inquiry. SP book-makers seem to have been put out of business for the time being. I do not know if that is the exact cause for the increase in the TAB tum-over. Recently, the TABs and the pubs have installed monitors that display fluctuations in TAB dividends. Broadcasts of races are now provided in TAB agencies. People now seem to stay in TAB agencies for an aftemoon so that they can bet on the races. They now have more bets than they used to have. With the service provided by Skychannel, races are now being shown on television, and that has generated greater interest in racing. People seem to be placing more bets. I have given two reasons why there has been an increase in TAB tum-over in the past few months. I give the Minister great credit for the facUities that have been provided to people in country areas who cannot attend race-meetings. The Minister should be congratulated on what has been done. Mr Lee referred to the racing activities in which the Minister is engaged. I am certain that all members who have had some interest in racing would acknowledge that the Minister is a very keen racing man. He has put a great deal of money into racing. No-one would begmdge the Minister what he has received from racing. I am sure that all honourable members would wish the Minister success with his champion horse. Our Waverley Star, in Japan. We sincerely wish the Minister well. If the Minister's horse could win that main race in Japan, it would be a great thing not only for Mick Dittman, Our Waverley Star and Russ Hinze but also for Australia. Getting back to why people stay off course—I know that, during the period that he has been the Minister for Racing, the Minister has spent a lot of money in providing facilities for racing in this State, particularly during the past few years. Although I recognise that approximately $500,000 has been spent on the stabling of horses at the Gladstone Turf Club, which has been greatly appreciated by the racing fratemity in the district, the stabling of horses does not seem to bring the patrons back on course. The facilities there are very poor. When the Minister visits Gladstone in March for the official opening of those stables, I hope that he will bring with him very good wishes and also a very big purse so that the money wiU be released that was promised approximately four or five years ago to provide the amentities that the patrons of Gladstone and surtounding districts are entitled to. Much has happened within the racing industry conceming form reversals. I am not sympathetic towards jockeys or licensees who have mn foul of stewards because they have not allowed horses to mn on their merits. Horse-owners believe that, because they spend a lot of money on their horses, they should be able to do what they Uke. However, I believe that the ordinary punter who goes on course and invests on the TAB is entitled to a fair go. Racing is kept going through the contributions that those punters make. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4595

The book-makers' tum-over tax that goes to the Govemment and the clubs comes from the ordinary punters. Therefore, the Opposition agrees with the proposed reduction in that tax. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (2.53 p.m.): As chairman of the Minister's parUamentary committee, I am pleased to support the BiU. I am sure that all honourable members support the move to lessen the burden on book-makers. That is very worth whUe. All honourable members have acknowledged that bookies are a part of racing. An honourable member: There would be no colour there without them. Mr RANDELL: There would be no colour at aU without bookies. Mr R. J. Gibbs: If you would only pay your debts, they would be a lot better off. Mr RANDELL: I think that the honourable member for Wolston would pay his debts. I will not go into that today. Mr Lee: He is talking from his own experience. Mr RANDELL: That is right. As a matter of fact, I do not think that they let the honourable member on the course sometimes. There is no doubt that bookies are part of racing Ufe. They are part of its challenge and its charm. I hope that they are always there. It is good to have a bet on the TAB, but there is nothing like going to the races, looking at the odds, walking around and having a bet. I was pleased that Mr Lee paid tribute to the racing game. There is no keener attribute to the racing game than Mr Lee. Mr Lee: Did you have a few dollars on my horse last week? Mr RANDELL: Yes, I had a few dollars on it. Mr White: I wondered why you were saying such nice things about Mr Lee. Mr RANDELL: I acknowledge the support that Mr Lee gives to the racing game. Tristram's Edition is a great racehorse. If anybody is prepared to foUow that horse along, it will pay dividends. There is no doubt about that. The big race next Saturday will see it come home. It would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the great contribution that the Minister has made to the racing industry in Queensland. He is acknowledged as one of the great contributors to racing. Mr White: Who was the previous Minister? Mr RANDELL: I think that a Liberal member might have been the previous Minister. Mr Davis: I will say who it was, if you like? Mr RANDELL: I will leave it to the honourable member. There is no doubt that, by the time the previous Minister left the Racing portfoUo, the racing industry was in a shambles. It had no aims and was going nowhere. Then Mr Hinze came along. He takes advice on matters and then makes his own decisions. Those decisions have been to the benefit of racing in Queensland. Mr White: We would have to agree with you on that. Mr RANDELL: I do not know whether I like the idea of the honourable member agreeing with me. It makes me very suspicious when that happens. The Minister's decisions have been of great benefit to the racing industry of Queensland. Honourable members only have to visit race-tracks to notice that amenities have been upgraded and there has been a great transformation in racing. 4596 19 November 1987 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Racing is a great leveller. I enjoy a day at the races. Working men and professional men mix together, have a few bets, have a beer Mr Davis: I tell you what, they don't exactly mix together in the QTC. Mr RANDELL: Is that so? At any race-course in Queensland, doctors, professional men, cane-cutters and workers will all acknowledge the contribution that has been made to the racing industry by the Minsiter for Racing, Russ Hinze. Everyone recognises the great work that he has done. I pay a great tribute to him. I wish the Minister well with his horse in Japan. We have a great combination there. The owners are great Queenslanders. We have adopted Our Waverley Star as a Queensland horse. The jockey is a good Queensland jockey, who is one of the best in Australia. When the horse jumps on Sunday, I will have a few dollars on it, if I possibly can. I wish the Minister all the best. He is doing a very good job. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House. Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (2.57 p.m.): The member for Mirani, as he sat down, stated that if he was able to place a bet with the TAB, he would. If the TAB is accepting bets on that day, I suppose he will; otherwise he will probably have to look for one of his SP book-makers. I acknowledge that racing has improved under the administration of the Minister in comparison with when it was under Dr Edwards' administration. Mr Lee: Who was he? Mr DAVIS: Dr Edwards was a former leader of the honourable member's party. Mr White: Don't remind us. Mr DAVIS: That is the worst part of having a good memory. I am sure that, as a former Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr White remembers. Mr Elliott: Somewhat short-lived, though. Mr DAVIS: Short-lived. As a racing administrator Dr Edwards did not know the difference between a horse and a greyhound. Mr Comben: There was a short period between him and this one, wasn't there? Mr DAVIS: A very short time. However, Mr White is a good bloke. When one recalls the long queues for a book-maker's licence, one realises that times have changed. New South Wales has gone even further. Mr Lee: Do you know somebody who was called the "wild duck" because he wouldn't settle? Mr DAVIS: Who is that? V Mr Lee: I asked you did you know him. Mr DAVIS: I knew a couple of members of this House called the "wild duck" because they would not settle. They were members of the Liberal Party. Previously Mr Lee mentioned Tristram's Edition. He was teUing everybody what a good chance it had on Saturday. I certainly hope for his sake that it wins. Over the years, it has been a bookies' friend. It has only won four races, although it did win a couple of big races. Mr Lee: I never noticed you chucking in for his feed bUl. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4597

Mr DAVIS: He deserves to win. At the same time, the bookies have done well out of Tristram's Edition. The Labor Party supports the decrease in fees purely and simply because the book­ makers are not doing as well as they have over the years. Of course, some of the book-makers, particularly in the provincial areas and in Brisbane, would not bet that the sun will rise. The other day I was at Caloundra, and I noticed that none of them had a price that was one jot over the fluctuations. They operate entirely on the fluctuations. It is fairly standard for book-makers to have the same prices throughout. I can remember the old days when, before the betting boards were up, at least a person could shop around for a price. Since the advent of use of betting boards and the fluctuations, the prices have not improved. With the introduction of the mechanical monstrosity of the TAB and the computerised tote that has brought about the exotic way of betting, things have changed. The sooner book-makers are allowed to take bets from outside the course, the better. I think they should be able to channel betting on other events. I do not go along with the attitude adopted by racing clubs. They are concemed about registration of bets and problems associated with that. However, I think sufficient numbers of mechanical monsters are available to record the bets. One way of ensuring that bets are registered is to impose a penalty for default. Among the Bills introduced by this Minister, legislation was brought forward with a great fanfare to provide a $50,000 fine for default by book-makers. Mr Lee: SP book-makers. Mr DAVIS: That is right, SP book-makers. At this stage, how many SP book­ makers have been caught? Mr Hinze: We caught one paraplegic and one old woman. When you listen to the Fitzgerald inquiry, you know why! Mr DAVIS: And do not forget the 72-year-old pensioner from Wynnum. Mr Hinze: They are doing handsprings on the beds. They tumed the bed into a trampoline. Mr DAVIS: I think even the Minister will agree that it has not exactly been effective. Racing clubs have a good deal to answer for in the way they regulate the activities of book-makers. Book-makers should be able to bet on anything. A registered book­ maker at a course should be able to bet on motor racing, quineUas, doubles or anything else, because, for so many years, the QTC adopted its usual stand-over tactics and did not allow book-makers even to bet on place-winners. All place bets had to go through the TAB. Mr Milliner: What price would you put on Mr Hinze becoming the next Premier? Mr DAVIS: Well, I would have to think about that. Mr Elliott: His odds are definitely shortening. Mr DAVIS: I have listened to some Goverament members, and it amazes me that in this fish-bowl place. National Party members will sometimes give one their ideas. However, as the honourable member wants my opinion, at this stage I would say the odds are 50 to one, and drifting. That is unkind of me; I would honestly like to see the result go the other way. Sir William Knox: What price Jeannie? Mr DAVIS: In the last couple of days, her odds have improved considerably. Mr Hinze: What price a double—Jeannie and me? 4598 19 November 1987 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Mr DAVIS: I gave the Minister 50 to one at this stage. I will reserve the figure tUl later, if it is on. In outUning the point I want to make, I do not wish to recaU that Dr Llew Edwards was such a poor Liberal Minister. However, racing clubs annoy me when they complain all the time about poor attendances, especially when it is remembered that the Racing Development Fund has spent a great deal of money on improving faciUties. Last week, I was in Toowoomba and. found the facilities to be first class. Sir William Knox interjected. Mr DAVIS: I am not one to act as a parasite on the QTC—unlike some Ministers. I do not go to the course at Eagle Farm. As a matter of fact, I do not use a gold pass to get into the courses. Mr R. J. Gibbs: They reckon that Judge WUUams constantly says that the honourable member for Yeronga has long, hollow legs. Mr DAVIS: I do not know. Other things are said about the member for Yeronga. The simple fact of life is that, because I have said so much about the QTC, I do not go to race-tracks in Brisbane. I do not beUeve that I could be a hypocrite and a parasite by abusing the QTC in this House and then going and asking it for free hospitality. However, I do attend courses such as Toowoomba and C!aloundra. On Melbourae Cup day I had an exceptionally good day at Toowoomba. Shortly I will mention the Caloundra race-track as it is on my circuit of outside courses. Mr Mackenroth: Your high morals are costing you a lot in petrol. Mr DAVIS: That is tme. But one must have principles. I now want to deal with the amount of money that is being spent on racecourses. It is amazing how many free-loaders are invited to courses by the race clubs. The family man has not been given the same sort of benefit. I make the point that at the greyhounds and at the trots Mr R. J. Gibbs: The old red-hots. Mr DAVIS: The red-hots, too. It is a bit of a farce that those racing venues charge admission for youngsters aged 15 to 18. The people in that age group are not allowed to have a bet. To gain admission they have to be accompanied by an adult, who is charged an extra $5 for them. The Minister could ask the clubs to look into that practice because it does stop many families, who have to pay that extra amount, from going to those tracks. Mr Lee: Why aren't you like Ron McLean? He at least comes down and mixes with us on the racecourse. Mr DAVIS: What other members of this House do as regards the gold pass and the hospitality is a matter for them. I think that too much money is being spent on hospitality by the QTC and other clubs. It is a fact of Ufe that those clubs do spend too much money. If a person has to spend a couple of thousand dollars or more to get elected to the committee of the QTC, there must be some reason why he wants to get on that committee. I said that my remarks would be brief. We in the Labor Party support the BiU but as the same time we believe that some book-makers should be able to give better prices than they do. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing) (3.07 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Bill is a very simple one. It simply means that very slight relief is being given to the book-making section of the racing industry. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board BiU 19 November 1987 4599

All honourable members have made the point that the number of book-makers is diminishing. The book-makers have made out their case. They believe that this sUght reduction is justified. That is the purpose of introducing this legislation. Comments were made in relation to the healthy position of the racing industry. That is something that the Goverament is very proud of As honourable members have seen, it is an industry that pays its own way. There is no drain on the pubUc purse from consolidated revenue. In fact, annually, something like $50m is being put into consolidated revenue. It is one source from which the Goverament receives revenue. I do not think I should take any more of the time of the House other than to thank all honourable members for their contributions and their statements of support. Mr Lee: What about that bet for Saturday? Mr HINZE: As the honourable member for Yeronga would know, in this place I am not at liberty to accept bets. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time.

TOWNSVILLE/THURINGOWA WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4157). Mr SHAW (Manly) (3.10 p.m.): This BiU is probably the worst piece of legislation that the Minister for Local Govemment has introduced into the House for quite some considerable time. My criticism does not relate to the drafting of the BiU but to the principles and aims that are incorporated therein. My colleagues from Townsville are anxious to speak to the Bill. I shall leave the detailed discussion to them. Suffice it to say that the Bill represents a vindictive and spiteful attempt to play politics at the lowest level. Even worse, it is negative politics that are involved, in that the Govemment is trying to act to the detriment of the existing board and also the residents of Townsville, rather than attempting to gain a political advantage, which also would have been reprehensible, but more understandable. In his second-reading speech, the Minister has given no real or logical explanation for the changes that he has introduced. The reason for that is, of course, that no such explanation is possible. No doubt there will be arguments advanced, particularly by Govemment back-benchers, during the debate in favour of the changes, but these arguments will amount to nothing more than camouflage—an attempt to cover up the real reason for this sad piece of legislation. To call the Bill a misuse of Govemment power is an understatement. It is reminiscent of the Brisbane City CouncU electricity take-over, which cost electricity-consumers in south-east Queensland so dearly. There is every reason to beUeve that the residents of Townsville and Thuringowa wiU also incur extra costs and reduced services as a result of this legislation, introduced by the Govemment to remove an authority which had the temerity to disagree with Govemment spokesmen and, in some instances, with Govem­ ment poUcy. The demands for retaliation against the board were, no doubt, increased by the fact that, in many cases, the board's decisions were proving to be the correct ones. 4600 19 November 1987 Tovmsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

This legislation is even more unworthy of an elected Goverament than the electricity take-over because, in that case, greed or, at best, a desire to take advantage of the Brisbane City Council's efficient operation to assist others who had not planned so well, was the motive. However, in this instance, malice is the driving force. The Townsville Bulletin has described the moves to reconstmct the board as an attack on democracy. Certainly there seems to be no logical reason why the area could not continue to be served by a democratically constituted joint board. The Opposition wiU be opposing the BiU. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (3.13 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the establish­ ment of a regional water authority. However, one must question just what the Minister is setting out to do with this Bill. Clearly it provides for a rearrangement of the present joint local authority water artangements. The Minister is obviously very concemed about the political arguments that seem to be going on in Townsville at the moment over the cost of water and the pipeUne that is presently being constmcted from the Burdekin to Thuringowa and Townsville. What is quite clear from all this is that the National Party really has a political problem on its hands. It is trying to deal with it in a none-too-subtle way. In fact, it is very much a ham-fisted way. From some of the things that have occurred up there in recent times, clearly there is an argument with Alderman Dobinson, who is the ALP chairman of the water board. He seems to want to fight the Govemment, which I believe has done a great deal to provide the pipeline and the additional water supply for Townsville. During the last Federal election campaign I can recaU the Labor Party over and over again promising $5m for this pipeline. The Federal Labor Goverament said, "$5m on the knocker, no trouble at aU. As soon as we are elected, you wUl have the $5m for your pipeline." What happened? That money was nowhere to be seen. The silence was deafening. Senator Margaret Reynolds, Ted Lindsay and aU those Labor people say that they wiU do everything for the people of the north. Labor Party members say that they have the north's interests at heart. What happened? Not a cent has been forthcoming from the Federal Labor Govemment since the Federal election. The silence is deafening. The State Govemment has provided a subsidy of $4.5m, I understand, and loan guarantees of another $10.5m. The water board is very fortunate that the State Govemment is backing it in this exercise. Without that backing, the situation would be disastrous. We cannot get away from the fact that it is very dry in the Townsville region at the moment. Water is certainly the life-blood of the Townsville region. Without water, it would certainly die. The State Govemment is being cmcified, it seems, by the Labor councU in Townsville in relation to this matter. The Govemment has decided that it cannot take any more and it is trying in a very ham-fisted way to tackle the problem and take over the water board by appointing an independent chairman. This pipeUne has become such a political argument up north that it has reached the stage at which the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board has taken out a full-page advertisement in the Townsville Bulletin. That advertisement features large photographs of Alderman Dobinson. It is interesting to note that the water board has no legal authority to do that. It would seem to me that under the Order in CouncU under which the board has been set up, it has no legal authority to pay for advertisements. It can certainly take out advertisements but it has no legal authority to pay for them. I question the board's legal right to spend rate-payers' money on that advertisement. When it is all boiled down, it is the rate-payers' money from the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils and, in this instance, also some State Govemment funds that will pay for the pipeline. I ask the Minister to investigate the matter. I think that it is fairly serious that the water board can spend what is clearly rate-payers' money on an advertisement of this type. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4601

If one reads the Order in Council that has been promulgated, one finds that it states that the functions of the local authority shall be— "(a) the sale of water in bulk to the Council of the City of Townsville and the Council of the City of Thuringowa; and (b) to enter into all such arrangements as may be necessary in order for the Joint Local Authority to be in a position to sell water in bulk to the CouncU of the City of Townsville and the Council of the City of Thuringowa;". I cannot see how taking out a full-page advertisement in a newspaper, whether it is attacking the Goverament, the council or some other body, is in any way selling water to one of those councils. I believe that it is a very serious matter. Mr Hinze: Mr Beanland, I have made inquiries about the matter that conceras you. I also was concemed that they squandered their money on a full-page ad. The answer is that they are regarded as a local authority and they had every right to take out the ad. No legal action can be taken against them. Mr BEANLAND: I thank the Minister. It is obvious that, although the functions are set down in the Order in Council as such, the board does have powers that are far wider than the authority set down in the Order in Council. One of the things that are occurring is that the joint local authority arrangement is being altered to a water board that will be controlled by its own separate Act of Parliament. I have found this legislation to be deficient in one or two areas. In particular, there is no mention of the fact that the board will be required to provide an annual report. I have looked through the legislation several times—and I do not believe that my eyesight is failing—and I have found that nowhere does the Minister appear to have inserted a clause requiring that an annual report be presented to this Parliament. This matter was raised in the recent Savage report, in which it was re-emphasised that all the various quangos should table annual reports to this Parliament. A provision of this kind is not contained in this Bill, although it is contained in a number of other Acts of Parliament. It is only in those cases that an annual report is tabled. Naturally, the Minister can say that it is the Govemment's policy to table annual reports in the future referring to all of these operations, but, if history is any guide, it is clear that there will be occasions on which, for various reasons, the Goverament of the day does not want to table reports on various quangos. Because this board has now become a straight-out quango, it is one of those that could avoid reporting to this ParUament and would have no accountability whatsoever. That is a very serious matter and it should be addressed. I mentioned previously the fact that the Labor Goverament is getting away without making any contribution at all to this pipeline from the Burdekin Dam. If the Brisbane and Area Water Board is any guide, there would have been some justification for broadening the regional water authority in the Townsville area, particularly in view of the very dry spell that the whole region is curtently experiencing. In addition, perhaps the Burdekin Shire and one or two other adjoining shires could have been included to make it an all-purpose regional water authority. That would have included several additional shires and several new appointees would have been made to the board. It would be one way to stop the infighting that is going on to a degree between the two councils and at the same time between the regional water authority, as it is presently constituted, and the Govemment. Although the Goverament classes it as a regional water authority, it clearly is not that; it is a water board that caters for the water supply needs of Townsville and Thuringowa only. Unfortunately, because of the actions of this Govemment, there is once again an attack by the Govemment on local authorities. The Minister has not put forward any real justification for implementing these amendments so soon. It is only a few months ago that the Minister introduced the original legislation into this House which allowed the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board, a joint local authority at that time, to be established to implement the sale of bulk untreated water to Townsville and Thuringowa. 4602 19 November 1987 TownsvUle/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

That having taken place, it has been only a short period of time before the Govemment has encountered further difficulties with this water authority. One cannot help but feel that this is a further attack on the local authorities in that area. The dam that has been constmcted on the Ross River illustrates the short-sightedness of the authorities, because it has shown that, although the city was dead keen on having its own independent source of water, it is totally inadequate for the city's long-term needs. As I mentioned a short while ago in a previous debate, the long-term needs for the supply of water have to be recognised, and in these areas the supply can dry up ovemight. Without a supply of water, not only are there problems for the people themselves, but also the whole development of the area is affected. Townsville and the regions around it is developing as an industrial area as well as on an administrative level. Therefore it is important that Townsville is assured of a long-term adequate supply of water. Clearly there is only one place that that supply can come from, and that is the Burdekin Dam. Mr SMITH (Townsville East) (3.25 p.m.): I would certainly Uke to take up the point made by the previous speaker. It is obvious that he has not gone very deeply into the history of the Ross River Dam. Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam waU was built in the seventies under a non-Labor administration. In those days, there was a coalition Govemment in Canberra. There was clearly no intention that the Burdekin Dam was ever going to be built under that Govemment's administration. From an historic point of view, the honourable member was very wide of the mark. I say to the Minister that the Bill is one of the most dishonest Bills to come before the House since I have been a member of this Assembly. It is dishonest because the stated reasons for its introduction just do not hold up. The Minister for Local Govemment has enjoyed a reputation amongst the local govemment community as a reasonable Minister. However, he has agreed to accede to the wishes of the temporary member for Townsville, whose sole pre-occupation since he was elected as a member of Parliament has been to pursue a vendetta against the Townsville City Council, of which he is a member. These days, the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services is more frequently referred to as the "squawk from the north". I was surprised that the Minister would succumb to those pressures. Earlier the Minister asked what the betting was. Someone suggested that it would be possible to get 50 to 1 against the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing becoming Premier. He said, "How would a team of myself and Teniu go?" One of the more experienced National Party people around the place told me that a person could name his own odds. There is the Minister's answer. Few actions of this Govemment have been more hypocritical. The Opposition spokesman hit the nail on the head when he referred to the previous instances in which this sort of thing happened. It happened during the take-over of the Brisbane City Council electricity authority, which at that time was the most efficient authority in the State. Everybody knows what has happened to electricity prices since that happened. Potentially, the same thing will happen again, only this time it could occur to water charges. The Bill to set up the joint water authority was debated in the House on 19 March. At the time the Minister for Water Resources expressed his full confidence in the BiU. In his speech on the Bill, the member for Townsville said— "This BiU, which enables the setting-up of the TownsvUle/Thuringowa joint water authority, is a positive step to put the water problems of the area into proper perspective. The inclusion of two members from Thuringowa city on the authority will ensure some degree of proper responsible water management in the area." The simple fact is that the authority has worked weU. There is no way in the world that any criticism whatsoever could be levelled at the way the authority has worked. It is very simply a matter of using a sledge-hammer to cmsh a nut. I wonder where it wiU finish. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board BUl 19 November 1987 4603

It is necesary to go back into the history of this matter to some extent. The Ross River Dam, which everyone seems to be so critical about now, was approved fuUy by the Water Resources Commission. It had the approval of the previous Minister. As a matter of fact, anyone who studied this matter carefully would know that, in the mn- up to the previous local goverament election, the former Minister for Water Resources came out against his own National Party mayoral council in Townsville. That is an indication of the political nature of the whole matter. I am personally convinced that the Minister will regret his action. He may gain the votes of one or two persons, but it wiU not be good enough to put him into the job that he is hoping to accede to. The Minister's image will be tamished for ever in the local govemment community with which he has worked weU for a long time. At the moment the Miiuster has a poker face. I wonder what thoughts are going through his mind. I do not believe that in other circumstances the Minister would have been a party to this legislation. The fact is that there are no legal or moral justifications for the BUl. One can see that during the debate on previous legislation TownsvUle was being put into a situation that is different from the position of all other areas. Townsville is being singled out for no particular reason. With a flimsy and transparent argument, the Minister in his second- reading speech tried to link the Townsville situation with that of Gladstone. The Minister quoted a similar pattem of development. The fact is that the circumstances could hardly be different. TownsvUle and Thuringowa have always paid their way. In fact, the water supply service has been operated at a modest financial surplus. On the other hand, Gladstone is subject to deficit funding. I am not criticising the Govemment for this, but it quite rightly recognised its responsibiUty to meet the industrial water needs of Gladstone for industry, which the Govemment had directed to Gladstone. It is a widely held view in Gladstone that, at some time in the future, the Gladstone Water Board will have a balanced budget and the responsibility for water supply to the area will quite correctly be retumed to local govemment. The Minister's lack of personal commitment to this Bill is quite apparent. In his second-reading speech, the Minister used the word "perhaps", saying that perhaps the current type of water supply board is not appropriate. I do not believe that "perhaps" is a good enough reason for implementing an unjustified power grab to satisfy the ego of a man who is destined to become a oncer as the parliamentary representative of Townsville and the ego of a Minister who has become a joke in north Queensland, which he is supposed to represent, namely, the Minister for Northem Development. I sincerely regret that the Minister for Water Resources, whose ministerial performance has at least been passable in comparison with the Mafia-like behaviour of several of his colleagues, has been sucked into the whirlpool of this political opportunism and deceit. In his second-reading speech, the Minister spoke also about using resources of local govemment, which I find quite fascinating. After he has hit them on the head and imposed an authority upon them, the Minister states— "The intention is that the board will not become a large organisation and that it will use the resources of the local authorities conceraed, wherever possible, in carrying out its activities." In other words, he kicks them in the backside and then expects their co-operation. I wiU be surprised if he gets it. Towards the end of his second-reading speech the Minister stated— "... an examination be made of the question of the need for its continued existence or whether its functions might be better performed in some other manner." In other words, on consideration of the situation, the Minister reaUses that there is no justification for political intervention and that, after the poUtical need for the Goverament to control the authority passes, it should pass that authority to the proper authority. 4604 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

The Minister obviously believes that that will occur within a seven-year time span. I am amazed that the Minister for Local Govemment, who enjoys a reputation for frankness and honesty, could have been a party to this Bill. I wish to say a littie more about the dam. Firstiy, it is claimed that the Ross River Stage 2 will cost $35m. The tmth is that, since the decision to proceed was made in 1983, the costs have been estimated at $12m. The difference relates to expenditure on a new westera highway, which was delayed until a decision on the large dam was made. The difference of $23m would have been spent regardless of whether or not the dam had proceeded. The proposed size of the pipeline was criticised—as to whether it should be 1 250 millimetres or 960 millimetres. I would be interested to know where the honourable member for Townsville's technical advice came from. It was certainly in conflict with that of Mclntyre and Associates, which is one of the most respected consultant organisations in Queensland and which recommended a 960 millimetre pipeline. I point out that Mclntyre and Associates are major consultants to the Goverament on a wide range of matters, not only in Townsville. Half of the consultations that come to the Goverament in respect of north Queensland are carried out by Mclntyre and Associates. Because of that, the member for Townsville should not attempt to overtura the recommendation in this particular case. The member for Townsville must have been asleep when he and I and the member for Thuringowa, together with senior business-leaders and other interested parties, were given an extended and very convincing briefing of the proposal by Mclntyre's senior engineer and shown the results of the computerised studies of rainfall and river mn-off against known and predicted water usage. To fly in the face of that sort of information and technology, the member is living in the Dark Ages. The member for Townsville then proceeded to claim that the pipeline would cost $19m. That is another nonsense. In fact, the joint water authority was able to secure a price that was approximately 70 per cent of that cost. The next incorrect statement by both the member and the Minister—not this Minister—was that the joint authority did not ask for funding in this year's Budget and therefore it had not been allocated. The fact is that on 16 June an application was handed to Treasury by a deputation which included the chief engineer of the Townsville City Council and the Mayor of Thuringowa, Dan Gleeson. The Minister for Water Resources quoted from a document that, as he said, fell off the back of a tmck. I have a copy of a letter, apparently with identical wording, which is signed by John Kerin—not Peter Morris, as was indicated and stated in this House. I It appears that I am also the recipient of some other documents that apparently fell off the same tmck on its retum jouraey. Included in a letter to the TownsviUe/ Thuringowa Water Supply Board is a letter from Mr Tenni dated 27 May 1987, in which he says— "... that projects priority within Queensland's total priority listing of projects recommended for funding to the Commonwealth Goverament would need to recognise the greater prior needs of projects currently under way and already being funded. In any event, the earliest timing for inclusion in the State's priority listing would be for the 1988-89 year." Of course, honourable members know what he has been trying to say. Clearly, in terms of Goverament intention, it was always a put-up job and the Goverament had no intention to apply for funds for the 1987-88 year. I also have a copy of a letter to the Co-ordinator-General, dated 5 August, which refers to the submission of 16 June and identifies the figure of $ 15m for State loan subsidy approval. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4605

In yet another set of typed documents—but with side notes—of a meeting with the Water Resources Commission on 2 September, the commission raised the possibility of the FWRAP funding for 1987-88 as distinct from previous advice. What happened was that, without reference to the water authority, the Minister sent off a hasty, ill-prepared request, knowing well that it would almost certainly be rejected in that form—and of course it has been. It really amounts to sabotage of the water authority's application and the loss of $5m to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa straight down the drain. Another way of expressing the damage done is to say that it wiU mean that individual rate-payers will be obliged to pay $38 instead of $28 for the next 10 years to pay off the capital cost of the pipeline. That matter has not been addressed before. The Water Resources Commission is intent on charging $46 a megalitre for water supplied. That cost is arrived at by including a component of $1 Im for the Clare Weir, when in fact the incremental cost to supply Townsville was $ 1.57m. It also takes into account the full cost of the Ravenswood road, which is now of highway standard and taken over by the Main Roads Department. The fact is that the road is a people road— a multipurpose road—used by local residents, tourists and, indeed, miners. It is totally unreasonable that the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board should have to pay the cost of such a facility when in fact a simple access would have adequately served the actual needs. It is an expensive facility, but it does practically nil for Townsville. I sincerely regret that the honourable member for Townsville seems to be working against the interests he is supposed to represent. He is very much responsible, in part, for misleading the Minister. I would have to say—althou^ it is a very hard thing to do—that, in my view, the actions of the honourable member for Townsville amount to treachery and nothing else. Mr BURREKET (Townsville) (3.40 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board as" proposed by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze. The cities of Townsville and Thuringowa have suffered severe water shortages, especially over the last six years, as a result of the poor wet seasons. The residents of those cities have been on severe water restrictions for over three years, and for some time have been reduced to three hours a day, three days a week. Townsville, the State's largest tropical city, is situated in the tropical north and depends for its rainfall on the monsoonal rains, which come in the months November through to March. Townsville itself is located in a rain-shadow belt and thus misses the very heavy rains that occur in the Burdekin in the south, and Ingham to the north. Ironically, the best rains for the city occur because of cyclones. The last major rainfall occurred in 1981 but, in the last six years, Townsville has been subjected to a decline in the rainfall pattem—so much so that the volume of water in the Ross River Dam now is less than eight per cent of its capacity. Water is the most precious commodity in north Queensland; therefore, its storage, availability, reliability and dependability are matters that should receive top priority by any responsible local goverament. The Townsville City Council, as the water supply distribution authority, stands condemned for its inept planning to provide water for the 110 000 people who come under its responsibility. When the Federal Goverament made the announcement that it was to proceed with the constmction of the Burdekin Dam, one of the purposes of that Burdeldn Dam was to meet the short and long-term needs for water supply to Townsville/Thuringowa. Nevertheless, the Townsville water committee, under its chairman Alderman Dobinson, elected to ignore the Burdekin water supply, and made a decision to spend up to $35m of rate-payers' funds on constmction of Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam. Mr Smith: I told you $35m was not cortect. Mr BURREKET: The estimated expenditure for Stage 2 alterations and constmction to complete Stage 2 is $35m. 4606 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board BUl

Mr Randell: Who made that decision? Mr BURREKET: The decision was made by Alderman Dobinson and the TownsvUle water committee. Mr Randell: They wasted $35m? Mr BURREKET: They have not spent that much. That is the projected expenditure, which is certainly an abysmal waste. The TownsviUe City Council should be ashamed of what it has done. Mr Campbell: You are on that councU, aren't you? Mr BURREKET: I objected very strongly to its decision. The honourable member will discover that my record as a member of the Townsville City Council shows that I have opposed every loan program for Stage 2 of the dam. I opposed them on the basis of not knowing how the council could take a gamble on spending such a large amount of money on expanding Stage 2 of the dam when water was available from the Burdekin pipeline. How could the council take a gamble on the heavens opening up and rain falling in the area? The TownsvUle water committee made a decision to spend up to $35m of rate­ payers' funds on constmction of Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam, thereby ignoring the availability of the guaranteed Burdekin water which has a present volume of four times that of Sydney Harbour. All that water was provided for the purpose of improving the water supply in Townsville and Thuringowa. It is still sitting there, and the people who live in my electorate cannot get it. In the local govemment elections of 1985 the National Party mayoral candidate Mr Arthur Baldwin fought the councU election on the pipeline, claiming that the facts given by the Labor council could not be substantiated. As an independent candidate in the council election, I would have to agree that there was a litany of misinformation and unsubstantiated figures that had very little substance in tmth. I quote such stunts as, "The pipeline from the Burdekin is going to cost $48m, the rate-payers can't afford it" and "The Labor Party plan to spend up to $35m on Stage 2 of the dam is substantially cheaper." At this stage I wish to highlight the figure of $48m quoted then by the Labor Party. There is no doubt that at that time the figure of $48m frightened the people of Townsville, who listened to the arguments and accepted that $48m for the pipeline was too costly, and obviously $3 5m on Stage 2 of the dam was the preferted option. Some months ago, when the ALP council realised the ertor of Stage 2 of the dam and realised that it had made a monstrous blunder, it was the same Mr Arthur Baldwin and a group of businessmen who offered to build a pipeline from the Haughton for a mere $8m. The proposition caused Alderman Dobinson and the Mayor of TownsviUe, Alderman Reynolds, to do the greatest political tura-about in Queensland's history. At last common sense and logic prevailed, and the council was faced with dwindling water supplies, an ever-increasing Stage 2 cost factor, and the possibUity that another dry season could mean an absolute water crisis for both cities. The water authority called for a new consulting engineer's report and then proceeded to caU tenders for a 960 millimetre pipeline to bring water to the cities. Mr Smith: Which you opposed. Mr BURREKET: That was a direct result of the actions of the businessmen's group led by Mr Arthur Baldwin. Let me make it quite clear that, despite opposition from the council, I have always supported the pipeline. I will prove—I do not have to prove, as I will state as a fact—that the member for Tovrasville East is again using misinformation, for which he is well known. The engineering estimate was $15m and the accepted tender came in at a mere $11.5m. I suggest that an anomaly exists between a supposed $48m pipeline, as Alderman Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4607

Dobinson in 1985 told the people of Townsville it would cost, and a $ 11.5m tender price nearly three years later. Any businessman—and there are none among the ALP aldermen on the Townsville City Council—will say that prices and costs always increase; they do not go down. If at the end of 1987 the tender price for the pipeline was $ 11.5m, I believe that in 1985 the tender price for that same 960 mUlimetre pipeline would probably have been $7m. That finally put to rest the lies and propaganda espoused by the ALP during the last city council election campaign in frightening people about the cost of the pipeline. It was disgraceful and disgusting. The situation really demands the sacking of the ALP members of the Townsville City Council. If they had any sense of decency, responsibility and integrity, they would accept that they have badly misled the people of Townsville and Thuringowa, resign and suffer the consequences. In any business, should its chairman and directors make a mistake of a magnitude such as this, they would be asked or forced immediately to resign. A further factor in the water saga conceras the people of Thuringowa. In the mn- up to the last council elections, the Mayor of Townsville, Mike Reynolds, and Alderman Dobinson said they were going to Stage 2. The people of Thuringowa, under Mayor Dan Gleeson, protested bitterly and called a number of protest meetings. Their arguments were so convincing that Mr Ted Lindsay, the ALP Federal member for Herbert, accepted the findings of the protest meetings and also supported not going to Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam. He is the Labor Party Federal member in that area. He is the man who is supposed to guide Labor Party members and be their shining light. He tried to talk sense to them. He said to them, "Fellows, for God's sake be sensible once. The people don't want the extension of Stage 2 of the dam." The mayor, Dan Gleeson, and the people of Thuringowa expressed concem that the dirt waU of the Ross River Dam was leaking. As that leaking was fairly obvious, they feared for their safety should an extra large mass of water, as would be held back under the proposed Stage 2, be in storage. Mr Smith: That is a hoary old argument. Mr BURREKET: That was a factual argument. In fact, nearly $9m has been spent to try to rectify the leaking of the dam. I attended those meetings and I must say that any responsible person would have responded to the conceras of the people of Thuringowa and taken action not to proceed with Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam. There has since been the arrogance of Alderman Dobinson, as chairman of the water authority, who blatantly overrode the conceras of the people of Thuringowa and decided not only to proceed with Stage 2, which they did not want, but also to force on them a contribution towards the cost of all the works associated with Stage 2, which was approximately $10m. Yet members opposite speak about interference and criticise the Minister for trying to bring some sense to what is going on in Townsville. They criticise the use of overriding powers. I ask the member for Townsville East, Mr Smith, and the member for Thuringowa, Mr McEUigott, to look in their own yards and see what their own Labor council did to the people up there. They display such hypocrisy when they have the audacity to stand and talk about taking power away from the people. During my time as an Independent alderman of the TownsviUe City Council Mr Smith: That is a joke. I think you should restate that. Mr BURREKET: For the information of the House, I will say that I was elected to the Townsville City Council as an Independent alderman. I went to the people as an Independent alderman. I was elected as an Independent alderman. However, because I would not play the stupid, idiotic games that the Labor Party plays, I was declared a National Party person. I can assure the House that, until a week before the pre-selection for the National Party, I was a very strong Independent. I am independent-minded now, but I am very supportive of this very good Govemment that mles Queensland. 4608 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

Mr Stephan: You have those fellows up there worried, too. Mr BURREKET: Yes, it is the first time in 12 years that the ALP in Townsville has been caught on the back foot. It is a shame that the council has had to use the money of the people up there to publicise this issue. Mr Casey: Tell us the tmth. How independent were you? Did you ever vote Labor? Mr BURREKET: That is a good question. Yes, in the past I have voted Labor. I say to the member for Mackay that I had a lot of respect for the former Mayor of TownsviUe, Mr Perc. Tucker. Mr Stephan: Do you think these people would want to know Perc. Tucker? Mr BURREKET: No. I do not think they would. These are probably the people who sacked him from the leadership of the Labor Party. He was a great man, a man who put the ideals of business sense before his politics. That is why he was so well respected in Townsville. I cannot say the same thing of the present incumbent. During my time as an Independent alderman on the Townsville City Council, I opposed strongly every loan-borrowing program associated with Stage 2 on the basis that the Burdekin Dam was being built, that that would guarantee the availability of water for Townsville, that the people of Thuringowa had genuine conceras and did not want the extension of the dam and, lastly and most importantly, I questioned the value of spending up to $35m on Stage 2 of the dam if the heavens did not open up and the rains did not come to fill that extension. I stood alone on this matter and, of course, because of my opposition to the proposal, copped many buckets. However, what was most surprising was that the ALP aldermen of the Townsville City CouncU could not see that logic of first bringing the Burdekin water to the cities and guaranteeing a water supply. On the expectation that the heavens would open and the rains would faU, they preferred to gamble with the weather. My analysis of the accumulated rainfall pattems showed clearly that Townsville experienced a series of wet and dry spells. In 1985 I believed that the city was into a dry spell and that a gamble by the Townsville City Council was foolish, irresponsible and lacking proper analysis. I objected to the poUtical thuggery exercised by the Townsville water committee and Alderman Dobinson, who simply rode roughshod over the objections of the Thuringowa City Council, the people of that city and the expert opinions presented at public meetings, which left too many unanswered questions and which showed clearly that the conceras of Mayor Dan Gleeson were legitimate, that should Stage 2 ever fill and the dirt dam burst, it would wipe out most of the people of Thuringowa and a fair proportion of those people of Townsville who live in the lowlands. For a number of years the Mayor of Thuringowa has been advocating the formation of a joint water committee with Townsville at least as a stepping-stone to gaining input for the water distribution for his city. As an alderman on the Townsville City Council, I experienced the rantings and ravings of Alderman Dobinson over all matters of water distribution, especially his attitude to the proposal of a joint water committee by Alderman Dan Gleeson. In the councU chamber we were subjected to the continuous on/off relations with Thuringowa. One day Alderman Dobinson would make an announcement that the joint water authority would proceed, then at the next meeting he would announce that it was off again. Alderman Dobinson displayed such irrational behaviour as refusing to let a Liberal alderman sit in on a council water committee meeting. I emphasise, "sit in". He did not want to take part in the discussion. He simply wanted to sit in and Usten to what was being said. Alderman Dobinson, in his capacity as chairman, threw out that person. That alderman did not want to contribute; he simply wanted to listen and find out what was happening about water. Mr Menzel: Is that Labor's open govemment policy? Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4609

Mr BURREKET: Absolutely. Labor councils are the best examples of open gov­ erament in this country! I point out that in early 1986 the three Opposition aldermen, that is two Liberals and myself as an Independent—members of the Opposition will love that; it always stirs them up when I say it—refused to join the water committee because of the sheer arrogance of Alderman Dobinson. That is on record. We simply refused to join that water committee. We were keen to play our part, but the man was just so arrogant. Thankfully, the State Goverament recognised the plight of Thuringowa and initiated the joint water authority between the two cities, which at last gave Thuringowa some say on behalf of its 30 000 residents. Following the 1987 proposal by the businessmen's group led by Arthur Baldwin that they could build an emergency pipeline for $8m and subsequent pressure from the people that a pipeline could be built to water the cities, we have witnessed an almost maniacal response from Alderman Dobinson, Mayor Reynolds and the ALP council to try to blame the water crisis on the State Govemment. Alderman Dobinson made frequent trips to Brisbane to talk to Water Resources officers conceming proposed water charges and raced back to Townsville with another litany of unsubstantiated facts and charges which the Townsville Bulletin, the most biased newspaper in Australia, printed on his behalf We then saw a concentrated campaign by Alderman Dobinson and the Townsville Bulletin to accuse the State Govemment of every conceivable obstmction, and which would allow the Labor Party to cover up the Stage 2 $35m blunder by tuming public opinion against the State Govemment, and the Labor Party and the Townsville Bulletin have attempted to salvage credibility for the Townsville City Council. I publicly called for a stop to these unscheduled misinformation trips by Alderman Dobinson to Brisbane and suggested that all discussions between Water Resources and the joint water authority be conducted formally by letter so that there could be no opportunity for misinformation and any problems that arose could be dealt with in a professional and business-like manner. The campaign of hate conducted by the Townsville Bulletin and Alderman Dobinson is the most disgusting exhibition of reporting that I have ever known. The Minister for Water Resources, Mr Tenni, and the Minister for Northem Development, Mr Katter, have fallen over backwards to help the people of Townsville and Thuringowa, but everything that they did has been effectively tumed against them. At this stage I wish to thank the Minister for Water Resources, Mr Tenni, for his response and co-operation and the assistance that he has given to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa throughout this dreadful smear campaign. I also thank Mr Katter for his excellent support. I would like to make the record clear that the State Goverament is the only Goverament that is doing anything to help the people of TownsviUe. It has provided a grant of approximately $4.5m for the pipeline; it has paid the cost of the engineering survey for the pipeline; and it has made available a loan of over $ 10m for the constmction of the pipeline. Mr Hamill: You are not suggesting that water supply is a Commonwealth matter? Mr BURREKET: I will answer that shortly. Mr Hamill: Do you believe in State rights? Mr BURREKET: If the honourable member listens, he will hear the answer. At the time of the Federal election, Townsville suffered the charade—as mentioned by my Liberal colleague—of the Prime Minister saying that the Federal Goverament would make funds available if an application was made through the State Goverament for priority listing for the pipeline. Notwithstanding the letter that has been read by the 4610 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill honourable member for Townsville East, Mr Tenni then requested the TownsviUe/ Thuringowa joint water authority to make a submission for priority funding. The honourable member for Townsville East should listen because the authority did not then do, and stUl has not done, a priority listing for water supply. The honourable member can laugh, but this is his council to which I am referring. Mr Tenni, realising the necessity to obtain Federal funding, made a separate submission in which he placed the Townsville pipeline in first place immediately after those submissions that were already part of Federal/State Govemment agreements. This submission was rejected by the Federal Govemment, and I wish to quote from two letters submitted by Mr Morris, the Federal Minister for Resources. I table these two letters. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. Mr BURREKET: In the first letter, which was unsigned, Mr Morris rejected the proposal on the basis that Townsville's water charges, based on the consultants' report, were very low and he did not believe that there was a case for financial support for the pipeline. He further stated that the proposal was not absolutely essential. A couple of days later Mr Morris sent out an almost identical letter and deleted that the proposal was not absolutely essential, but then stated that the State Govemment had given the proposal a low priority and that this was an unethical, cheap political trick. The Townsville Bulletin seized upon the words "low priority" in the letter, slammed Mr Tenni and accused him of costing Townsville/Thuringowa rate-payers millions of dollars, but did not say how or why. In the mn-up to the Federal elections, Mr Ted Lindsay, the member for Herbert, who won the seat, gave an unqualified commitment to the people of Townsville that he would make pipeline funding available. I will read from that document, which states— "As your Federal member, Ted Lindsay will ensure the Hawke Govemment makes money available to help build a pipeline to carry Burdekin water to Towns­ ville/Thuringowa." Mr Littleproud: He did not say when. Mr BURREKET: That is tme, he did not say when and, knowing the Labor Party, that is what can be expected. I table that document. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr BURREKET: There then followed a whole series of neurotic editorials by the editor of the Townsville Bulletin, who criticised the Minister for Water Resources, Mr Tenni, the Minister for Northera Development, Mr Bob Katter, and myself I received a copy of a letter from the Federal Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Kerin, addressed to Mr Ted Lindsay, the member for Herbert. Part of the letter, in relation to funding for the pipeline, states— "In saying this, I must add that in the current economic and budgetary circumstances, assistance for any new project would need to be assessed against continued funding for existing approved high priority projects, such as salinity control... The submission, therefore, would need to establish a compelling case for Commonwealth support. While a Queensland Government submission may present a different case, the Planning Report on the Haughton Channel to Ross Dam Pipeline by Mclntyre and Associates has not established a compelling need for Commonwealth funding. On the basis of the Report, the project would appear to be only marginally eligible for FWRAP funding, and in accordance with the FWRAP terms for revenue-producing projects, it could only attract funds by way of loans at market interest rates." Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4611

Mr Littleproud: So much for Mr Lindsay! Mr BURREKET: So much for Mr Hawke! The letter continues— "I note also from the Planning Report's estimates that the rate burden after the proposal would still be relatively low, and that Commonwealth grant assistance would only reduce future annual domestic water rates by $4 per household." There is no doubt on reading the contents of that letter that there never was any Federal funding for the people of Townsville/Thuringowa. The people have been the recipients of one of the cheapest political tricks one can imagine, perpetrated by the Prime Minister himself and it is interesting to note that although the editor of the Townsville Bulletin has received a copy of this letter from Mr Kerin and Mr Morris, he has not challenged at all the Prime Minister or the member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, who gave an unqualified commitment for pipeline-funding. He has not challenged anyone in the Labor Party about their promises. Only last Saturday honourable members saw the charade—the fuU-page political advertisement that was inserted in the Townsville Bulletin. Again, it contained a series of facts that are clearly wrong. Over $2,000 of the water-users' money—rate-payers' money—was spent on political advertising by the ALP. There have been a couple more, too. The lies today are no different from the Ues in 1985. I strongly support the move to set up the Townsville Water Board and hope that any problems that do exist between the board and the Goverament will be resolved in a proper businesslike manner and that the people of Townsville and Thuringowa will now get a guaranteed water supply as quickly and efficiently as possible. I tura now to Mr McElligott, who represents the people of Thuringowa. He has come out very strongly in support of the Townsville City Council. He has forgotten that the people of Thuringowa elected him. In his role as their elected member, he should, by rights, have been supporting the Thuringowa council's having an equal say in water distribution. But no, his politics overrode the reason why he was elected, and he in fact came out publicly supporting the Townsville City CouncU. Mr Ardill: Obviously you are a mirror image of that. Mr BURREKET: I think that the frogs are croaking. I heard something on the opposite side of the Chamber. Alderman Dobinson has been so free with rate-payers' money that he booked a helicopter for three hours and went for a ride over the Ross River Dam. Mr Smith referred to the State Goverament's contribution to the cost of shifting the road and the railway. My counter argument to him is that if the pipeline had been constmcted initially, the roadway and the railway would be in their original position and there would have been a further saving of money for the people of Thuringowa and Townsville. Mr Smith also referred to the size of the pipeline. I am certainly not happy with a 960 millimetre pipeline. I wrote a letter to the joint water authority. Many months after I wrote that letter, it was finally acknowledged. However, it was then too late. That was a shame, because with all the development that will be taking place in Townsville a larger pipeline should have been provided. In another three or six years' time, when I am still here in this House, I intend to raise this matter once again. Townsville is going to need a larger pipeUne, because unless the rains come, the present one is not going to be big enough. Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (4.10 p.m.): It is a great shame that an issue that is as important as this one is to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa gets buried in such mindless political rhetoric as we have just witnessed from the honourable member for Townsville. It calls into question the whole reason why we are debating this BUl. 4612 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

Firstiy, I wish to outiine the history of the Townsville and Thuringowa water supply, which has culminated in the present pipeUne constmction. Townsville has always been very short of water. It has been a continuing problem that has been met by various councils in a variety of ways, starting with the old weirs on the Ross River, followed by the Mount Spec pipeline and the later duplication of that pipeline. Stage 1 of the Ross River Dam and later Stage 2, and now the pipeline from the Burdekin River. The decision to build Stage 1 of the Ross River Dam was taken prior to the election of the Labor council in 1976. It was constmcted on the advice and under the supervision of the Queensland Water Resources Commission. It is certainly not an ideal location for a dam. I am sure that the commission's officers would be the first people to acknowledge that fact. However, it is the only suitable site in the vicinity of Townsville on which a dam can be constmcted. As I recall it, that dam filled to overflowing not long after it was opened in 1976. Seepage problems started to occur in Stage 1 of the dam. Naturally that caused some concem, particularly to people living below the earthen bank of that dam. As several honourable members have indicated, considerable debate and discussion took place on that issue. It was always contemplated that Stage 1 would be only a partial remedy to Townsville's water requirements and that Stage 2 would ultimately be built. At that time it was estimated that the dam would be completed in either 1986 or 1987. The seepage problems that started to become apparent during Stage 1 raised conceras about the dam's future safety. I will come back to that. When the decision had to be taken as to whether or not to proceed with Stage 2, I was a member of the Labor Townsville City Council. At that time I argued that, rather than proceed with Stage 2, we should go immediately to the Burdekin Dam, which, by that time, had been announced. As it turaed out, at that time we were discussing only Stage 1 capacity of the Ross River Dam. Mr Burreket and Mr Katter seem to have ignored that fact. The size of the pipeline that was needed from the Burdekin Dam at that stage would have had to be substantiaUy greater. The estimated cost of that pipeline was approximately $52m. It is most important to point out that both the State and Federal Governments refused to provide finance for that pipeUne because the recom­ mended option for improving Townsville's water supply was Stage 2 of Ross River Dam. I argued within the council that the option that it should adopt was to hold out and demand finance from both the State and Federal Govemments for that pipeline, because it seemed to me at that stage, in the future, Burdekin Dam water would be available and would not be used—certainly not to the extent that was envisaged when the Burdekin Dam was planned. Without financial assistance from both the State and Federal Govemments, it was clearly beyond the capacity of the Townsville and Thuringowa rate-payers to finance that pipeline, which, I repeat, would have had to be substantially bigger than the one we are currently discussing and was going to cost approximately $52m. Reluctantly, the council took the decision to proceed with Stage 2. The decision to build Stage 2 was completely in accord with the recommendation of the Water Resources Commission. In the Townsville Bulletin of 1 July 1982, an article stated— "Stage two of the Ross River Dam will proceed as an interim solution to Townsville's water supply requirements, pending the availability of water from the Burdekin Dam, the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, said in Townsville yesterday. He said reports from engineers indicated that it would be safe to go ahead with stage two and that there should be no fears about seepage. Stage two would involve lifting the height of the dam wall for an increased capacity. It would mean flooding sections of the Flinders Highway, which would have to be relocated. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4613

Mr Bjelke-Petersen held a news conference after a meeting yesterday moming with the Mayor of TownsviUe, Alderman Mike Reynolds, and the chairmen of the Thuringowa, Burdekin, and Proserpine Shires.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen said that it would be nice to have water available from the Burdekin, but the dam had not yet been built.

He told newsmen that the State Govemment was looking forward to getting on with the Burdekin Dam project. It had already spent $8 mUlion on related works and this year would spend another $7 million.

He said it was proposed to build a canal to the Haughton River, then a connecting pipeline to the Ross River." That was the program that was laid down by the State Govemment. It was agreed to and announced by the Premier in Townsville on 1 July 1982. That is the program that has been put in place by the Townsville/Thuringowa joint water board. On 1 June 1983, the following article appeared under the heading "Decision on Ross dam to cost city $18 million"— "The Townsville City Council will go ahead with Stage 2 of Ross River Dam at a cost to the city of more than $18 miUion. The council is confident that Stage 2 will meet Townsville's water needs until 2000, and possibly to 2005 and beyond.

The chairman of the council's water supply committee. Alderman Brian Dobinson, said yesterday that the decision to proceed with Stage 2, rather than invest immediately in bringing water from the Burdekin, would save $100 million. But the city council held the long-term commitment to get future water supplies from the proposed Burdekin dam." Again, that is exactly the point that I was making. The councU had no option but to proceed along the Unes recommended by the State Government. On 3 June 1983, the then Minister for Water Resources, the late John Goleby, bought into the argument. An article stated— "The Federal Goverament's commitment to finance the Burdekin Falls dam should not be influenced by the decision of the Townsville City Council to go ahead with stage two of the Ross River Dam. The State Minister for Water Resources, Mr Goleby, said yesterday the work on the Ross River Dam second stage was in no way associated with the Burdekin project. Mr Goleby said: 'It would be highly illogical for the Federal Govemment to use this as an excuse to cut back or delay funding of the dam. 'In my opinion, the council's decision to go ahead with Stage 2 of the Ross project was the only one open to it, and the correct one. 'It is an interim measure only, designed to cater for the city's needs until about the end of the decade. 'With the development of the city and its environs, it will eventually have to obtain its water supplies from the Burdekin dam. 'It is the city's long-term needs that must be considered.' Mr Goleby said the main reason for Burdekin dam was irrigation of sugar cane and other crops, with industrial and domestic usage in the longer term. 4614 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

'It must be remembered that if the present Labor Goverament honoured the previous Goverament's commitment to the letter, it would still be 1988 before the dam was completed. 'The constmction of the pipeUne to TownsviUe would also have to be undertaken, which means that the city is stiU about a decade away from being able to take Burdekin water. 'This reinforces my comment that the Townsville City Council's decision is the correct and logical one to take to ensure the city's water supply ...'" Those facts speak for themselves. The council proceeded with Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam, without any option in the absence of finance to proceed immediately to the Burdekin scheme, and, by so doing, saved, in Mr Dobinson's estimation, $100m. It is important to note that the member for Townsville indicated that the matter was tested before the people of Townsville at the 1985 local govemment elections. In fact, the National Party candidate in Townsville campaigned almost exclusively on Ross River Dam, Stage 2. As a result, he attracted 19 per cent of the vote. Although 19 per cent of the vote was sufficient on one occasion to give the National Party power in this State Parliament, it certainly was not enough to give power to the National Party in the Townsville City Council. Mr De Lacy: He was rejected by the people of Townsville. Mr McELLIGOTT: He was soundly rejected by the people of Townsville on that occasion. The council clearly had a mandate to proceed in the way that it did. Until recently, the Townsville City Council, of course, was a water supply authority for the Townsville/Thuringowa region. The joint water board was established under the Local Goverament Act when Thuringowa became a city. It was seen to be an appropriate course to take, given the developing importance of Thuringowa and the need to bring both those local authorities together to control the water supply. I believe that there are two aspects contained in this Bill: one is that it is merely a blatant intmsion of party politics into local govemment affairs; the second aspect is that the Bill is simply not necessary. In tuming my mind to the first aspect, I wish to refer to comments made by the Mayor of Toowoomba—the honourable member for Toowoomba South, Mr Berghofer— during the Adjoumment debate on 17 November. Clearly, the honourable member understands the situation. On that occasion, he had this to say— "Today, some local authorities are in dire straits because of the problems caused by a lack of rainfall in some districts. Local authorities in Queensland are responsible for water supplies." I ask all honourable members to note the words used by the honourable member, "Local authorities in Queensland are responsible for water supplies." He went on to say— "Some local authorities have direct responsibilities, others come under the responsibility of water authorities such as the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board or the Brisbane and Area Water Board." The honourable member then went on to say as follows— "Various councils, such as the Townsville City Council, have made decisions to extend their dams. Unfortunately, Townsville has not had sufficient rains for more than six years to fill its dam. It will cost the councU $10m or $ 12m to obtain water. However, it is able to obtain water from the Burdekin FaUs Dam." Those statements were made by a responsible member of this Parliament who understands that the problems facing Townsville and Thuringowa are certainly not the fault of the Townsville City Council or of the joint water board. The fact is that there has been insufficient rain to fill Stage 1 of the Ross River Dam, let alone Stage 2. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4615

Mr Burreket: If you did not have enough water for Stage 1, why did you spend aU that money on Stage 2? How stupid can you get? Mr McELLIGOTT: The honourable member should listen to what I have to say because it is most important. When the rainfall pattera for the area over the last 100 years is considered, on only 29 days during that period would water from the Burdekin have been necessary, given the capacity of Stage 2. Honourable members are not discussing a decision of the council that was wrong; they are talking about the only decision that could possibly have been made. It has been said by the Premier and the previous Minister for Water Resources that the decision to proceed with Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam was a logical one and the only one that could have been made, given the comparison of the costs involved in the two proposals. This is another example of the State Goverament intmding into local goverament affairs. I must admit that I am very disappointed in the Minister for Local Goverament, who travels throughout the State saying that he is the friend of local goverament whereas he has become the great intmder into local govemment. Honourable members will recall that he intmded into the electoral system of local authorities by imposing a ward system. I wish to inform the House that on the occasion of that local govemment election in Townsville, a Labor council was elected with total support. The entire mayoral and aldermanic team nominated by the Labor Party were retumed, and the Minister has intmded again. To that extent, members of the Labor Party ought to be grateful; however, I point out that it is not the role of the Minister to intmde into matters that are the legitimate responsibility of local goverament. This legislation is another instance of the Minister's intmsion; he is doing it again. Yesterday I presented to the Minister a petition signed by 7 744 residents of Townsville and Thuringowa that states that they do not want political intmsion by the State Govemment into their affairs. The petition goes on to state— "We object strongly to the gross political intervention into the affairs of the democratically elected TownsvUle/Thuringowa Water Supply Board and we abhor the State Govemment's intention to appoint a non elected, Brisbane selected chairman to a restmctured Water Authority. As citizens of Townsville and Thuringowa we appeal to the State Goverament not to intmde into the affairs of our communities and we ask that the presently stmctured Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board be allowed to get on with the job of getting Burdekin Water to TownsviUe and Thuringowa." To that I say, "Hear, hear!" The problem with the Minister is that he listens to dills such as Katter and Tenni and to political lightweights such as the member for Townsville, Mr Burreket. Given his experience in this Parliament and as a Minister, he ought to have more sense. Mr BURREKET: I rise to take a point of order. I was called a poUtical lightweight. I think that the two Ministers present in the Chamber would object to the comments that have been made also. I object to being called a political lightweight. In TownsviUe, I am considered a political heavyweight. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Thuringowa. Mr McELLIGOTT: When the honourable member for Townsville bounced around the council table in Townsville and thumped the table, he was more like a bantamweight than a heavyweight. The reason why the water board and the people of Townsville and Thuringowa have objected to this take-over is the fact that Alderman Dobinson and his board—I repeat, "and his board"—stood up to Mr Tenni on a whole range of matters affecting the cost that this Govemment was seeking to impose on rate-payers. That has been attempted to be justified in a whole heap of strange ways. The most blatant example of 4616 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill that is from the mad Katter himself who, on a number of occasions, particularly recently, has said that the Townsville City CouncU has been reluctant to make the decision to build the pipeline. I have already referred to the reason for the decision to build Stage 2, but I would like to read into the record the fact that on Wednesday, 8 April 1987, the joint water board made this decision: that the board invite the Honourable Martin Tenni, Minister for Water Recources and Maritime Services, and Mr T. D. Fenwick, Commissioner, Queensland Water Resources Commission, to meet with members of the board and certain representatives of community and business interest groups to discuss the water resources of the Burdekin Dam over an informal luncheon to be held at their earliest convenience. It was the initiative of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board that started this whole thing off. Given the very, very unfavourable weather conditions that had prevailed, it agreed that it should proceed to look at the possibility of a pipeline from the Burdekin. For Mr Katter to try to argue that the Townsville City Council has been reluctant to proceed is political chicanery at its worst. I remind the House again that Mr Burreket's interest in the water supply of Townsville is such that he was not prepared to serve on the water committee because he did not like the chairman. He and the two Liberal members of the council refused to join that committee when they were invited to do so because they could not get on with the chairman. I would like to read into the record the facts as they relate to the disagreements that have occurred between the joint water board and the Minister for Water Resources. On 20 May Mr Tenni revealed that the cities were to pay for the Burdekin Dam and agreed to make the Burdekin pipeline the State's No. 2 priority for Federal water resources funding. Mr Tenni promised also that there would be no headworks fees during the drought emergency. On 26 May Mr Tenni and Mr Fenwick confirmed that they wanted to charge Townsville and Thuringowa for the Burdekin Dam—this is the very Burdekin Dam that the Federal Govemment paid for—despite its cost having been fully covered by the Federal Govemment. On 27 May, a letter from Mr Tenni to board chairman Alderman Brian Dobinson stated that the annual charge for the Burdekin water would include a headworks fee covering costs associated with getting water to the end of the Haughton channel. Mr Tenni said also that the earliest timing for State priority listing would be for the 1988- 89 year. On 28 May acting Premier Bill Gunn said "No way" to Townsville and Thuringowa paying for the dam. A spokesman for Mr Gunn said that the term "headworks" could reflect the costs of developing the main Haughton channel to help provide water to the cities. On 2 June, in Cabinet Mr Tenni dropped plans to charge Townsville and Thuringowa for the Burdekin Dam. Under the revised plan approved by Cabinet, both Townsville and Thuringowa would be asked to pay only a fair share of the realistic capital cost of the State Govemment works associated with taking the water from the lower Burdekin River, via the Haughton main channel, to the Haughton River. On 14 June Alderman Dobinson waraed of a Water Resources Commission intention to add the $14m Ravenswood road and the Clare Weir to the bill. On 15 June a letter from Mr Tenni to Alderman Dobinson confirmed the deletion of the Burdekin Dam from cost calculations but waraed that the bill would include more than the basic channel and pumping costs. On 3 August a letter from the Water Resources Commissioner, Mr Fenwick, to the water board clerk said that the capital component of Burdekin water charges would be $18 per megalitre, which would include "the board's share of the State's expenditure and costs over time for the Burdekin Falls Dam, Clare Weir, the Haughton pump station and the Haughton main channel." Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4617

None of those costs have been imposed on the cane-farmers of Gim or the Burdekin area generally. They are costs that this Goverament was specifically trying to impose on the rate-payers of Townsville and Thuringowa and now the Government is saying that Alderman Dobinson should not have objected. Quite frankly, he would have been derelict in his duty if he had not objected as he did. As I said, the letter included the statement that "the board's share of the State's expenditure and costs over time for the Burdekin Falls dam, Clare Weir, the Haughton pump station and the Haughton main channel". As the member for Townsville East pointed out, that does not include the cost of upgrading the road from Ravenswood to the dam site. That capital component was to be updated to reflect current costs if the water emergency continued after June 1989. Mr Fenwick assured that that charge would be levied on a pay-for-use basis during the emergency, but indicated that the commission would consider the emergency was over when the levels of the Ross River Dam reached the height of Stage IB. A letter of 4 August from the Minister for Water Resources to Mr Dobinson reiterated his advice that the pipeline would not receive priority until the 1988-89 financial year. The Minister awaited response from the board. He also outlined moves taken to ensure water and pumping facilities would be available to meet the pipeline. On 13 August a memo from the water board engineer to its secretary, which was later tabled at a board meeting, notes that water from the Burdekin would cost $46 per megalitre, including the $18 capital component. Notwithstanding previous verbal advice that the capital component of costs would not apply to emergency demand, the commission resolved to introduce a component from the outset. On 14 August the water board expressed concera over forgotten promises by Mr Tenni and the commission on Burdekin water charges. The board said that the commission was seeking to charge $46 per megalitre for water during the emergency, after assurances from the Minister that it would cost only $28. The water board also stated that, as the commission continually supported and advised in favour of the constmction of Ross River Dam Stage 2, to consider the drought emergency over when it was only 30 per cent full was tantamount to expressing no confidence in the commission's own advice to push on and complete Stage 2 as soon as possible. On 21 August, Alderman Dobinson outlined a plan to pay out the States for capital costs incurred on its behalf nominating that bill at $ 1.57m. The Minister for Water Resources agreed to consider the plan. That is a realistic estimate of the capital cost of the Haughton River pipeline—$ 1.57m. On 25 August, James Cook University Associate Professor Philip Courtenay stated that urban residents should not have to pay anything for the Burdekin water. He said that the scheme's $450m public cost could be justified only if that were the case. He also said the cities should have to pay for the pipeline, as water distribution systems for Burdekin users had been included in the total project costs. On 31 August a statement released by the member for Townsville, Mr Burreket, quoted the Minister for Water Resources as saying in Parliament that the only way the cities' water supply problem would be solved was to remove Dobinson. That is what this Bill is all about. The Minister for Local Government has listened to that dill up there; that is the reason why the Bill is before the House today. The member for Townsville also attacked the board for not having filed an application for Federal funding and for blaming the State Govemment for the delay. He also claimed that the board had not filed the submission. On 2 September the Minister for Water Resources, Mr Tenni, filed a submission to the Federal Minister for Resources, Mr Morris, seeking Federal contribution to the pipeline. The Minister said that the pipeline would get top priority in the urban and industrial water supplies section and that, in addition, its overall priority would be immediately after the Burdekin Falls Dam, the Bundaberg irrigation project and the COWSIP programs. On 16 September, the member for Townsville said that, because the water board did not ask for it, there had been no pipeline allocation in the State Budget.

77195—150 4618 19 November 1987 TownsvUle/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill

On 18 September, the board received a letter from the Queensland Under Treasurer approving its loan application for pipeline funding, including a $4.5m subsidy. That contradicts the statement made by the member for Townsville on 16 September. On 22 September Mr Dobinson said that the application by the Minister for Water Resources was guaranteed to fail because of its low priority listing. The member for Townsville dismissed that as mbbish and said that two weeks earlier the Minister for Water Resources had assured him that the pipeline was the State's No. 2 priority. On 23 September, Mr Morris revealed that the pipeline had been listed twelfth in the State's priorities and had not been listed for funding in the next three years. That puts the lie to the argument of the member for Townsville about the Federal Goverament funding of the Burdekin pipeline. The intention of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board was always that the pipeline would be funded by a State Government subsidy. I give the Minister for Water Resources credit. He made a commitment in this place—a very generous commitment— that he would provide a 30 per cent subsidy, which he subsequently did. A $10.5m loan allocation to the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board and a 30 per cent subsidy were provided, as requested by that board, through normal Treasury sources. The constmction of the pipeline is under way. The contracts have been called and let. The pipes are on site. The turning of the first sod has occurred. Everything is in place. That gives the lie to the Minister's statement in his second-reading speech that concerns have been expressed to the Government about major decisions that have to be made in respect of water supply matters and that a water supply board needs to be set up. The fact is that the major decisions have been made. No other major decisions remain to be made. As the Minister has indicated publicly, the board has behaved very, very well indeed. It has considered the options; it has considered the contracts. The members of the board are in total agreement. Alderman Gleeson is the deputy chairman of the board. The board has acted responsibly, as the Minister well knows. As a reward for its efforts, the board is now going to be restmctured and a State Govemment appointment will be made. The people of Townsville and Thuringowa will not cop this. The Minister is asking them to surrender $85m worth of public assets—assets paid for by the rate-payers of Townsville and Thuringowa—to a State Govemment lackey, who will no doubt be one of the member for Townsville's mates, in place of duly elected local government representatives. The Minister for Northern Development, Mr Katter, indicated the other night in this Chamber that the Townsville/Thuringowa rate-payers will be hit for massive water rates. That is another lie. Townsville is not even in the top 20 of local authorities in Queensland. Cooktown has the highest water rate bill in Queensland, at $437. In Mount Isa, it is $389 per year. TownsviUe is not even in the top 20. It is $175.82 per year— one of the lowest local authority water figures in this State; yet the Minister, with the support of the member for Townsville, is trying to say that the Townsville City Council has mismanaged the water resources of Townsville and Thuri.ngowa. What a load of rot! The very fact that Townsville's water rates are so low has been the weakest point in submissions made to the State Government for financial assistance, because the Federal Goverament has said, quite rightly, that the rate-payers are only paying $175 a year in water rates and that they are paying much less than people in other parts of the State. To suggest, as Mr Katter did, that Townsville's water rates are excessive is a load of mbbish. I will conclude by offering my total support to the submission by the Mayor of Townsville, Alderman Mike Reynolds, to the Minister for Local Government, in which he said that, if the Minister really believes that there is a need to do something about the Townsville joint water board, he ought to let the people of Townsville and Thuringowa decide. Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill 19 November 1987 4619

In a telex dated 16 November, addressed to the Minister, the Mayor suggested that the Minister allow this Bill to lie on the table so that a poll could be taken under the Local Government Act at the time of the local goverament elections on 19 March next year to let the rate-payers of Townsville and Thuringowa decide whether they have confidence in their elected representatives or whether they need a lackey of this State Goverament to provide leadership and direction That is only a matter of a few months away. It would be democracy at work. In that telex the Mayor stated— "It is my strong belief that the proposed water Bill is an erosion of local govemment power and I would ask that the constituents of Townsville and Thuringowa have a democratic say in the future of their water board. I would specifically request that you authorise the holding of a poll which would allow the residents and ratepayers of Townsville and Thuringowa a say in this important matter. The poll would simply ask residents whether they favour the present stmcture of the water board or the water board that is being imposed on them by the State Government. Again it is my strong belief that the ratepayers and the residents have a right to express their opinion and the proposed poll would aUow this to occur." Surely there could be no objection to that; that is democracy at work. "Democracy" is an old fashioned word that we used to know in Queensland and Australia when the people decided; and so it should be in this case. The people in this area have indicated their resentment in a petition that is signed by 7 500 of them. They resent this intmsion by people living in Brisbane into this democraticaUy elected water board—a board that has done its job and has the support of every member of the board, including the Thuringowa council representative, and the support of those two communities. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (4.40 p.m.), in reply: The honourable member who has just resumed his seat has carried on for the full time allocated to him and, during his speech, continuously referred to his colleague from Townsville as "that dill up there" or "that bloke up the back" or "that dill". Possibly exception should have been taken to the term, but the way that he chooses to refer to his parliamentary colleagues in this House is recorded in Hansard. He refers to the person whom this Goverament will give consideration to as "the lackey of the Government". Mr Burns: He would be, wouldn't he? You wouldn't appoint anybody else. When was the last time you didn't appoint a lackey? Do you remember? Mr HINZE: I take the point that the honourable member for Tingalpa—where is it? Is it Lytton? Mr Burns: And we can refer to you as the member for the Coomera pub. Mr HINZE: There is nothing wrong with that. It is better than Lytton. I return to the contribution and doubts of the honourable member for Thuringowa. He began his speech by referring to my intmsion into local government. That is politics and that is what my portfolio is all about. I have been the custodian of local govemment in this State for the last 13 years and am responsible for 134 local authorities. I take exception—not that I care much about what the member says—to his comments and do not accept the term "intmding". I do not know if any person in Townsville believes what the honourable member is saying or if anybody will read his speech. I doubt that they will, or, if they do, that they will be convinced. I ask the House: by appointing the Mayor of the city of Townsville, the Mayor of Thuringowa, a member of the Thuringowa council and a member of the Townsville City Council to this board, how can it be said that I am taking away authority from the local authorities? How stupid can he be? There will be four members of the board elected by the people. The honourable member tries to tell the people through the paper up there that I am intmding into Townsville's affairs, yet there will be four elected people: the Mayors of Townsville and Thuringowa and two elected members. The fifth person will be appointed by the Goverament. So 4620 19 November 1987 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board Bill four out of five will be elected representatives. That is what politics is all about—and the Opposition has heard a bit about politics in the last few days in its own rooms when it has been counting heads. That is what it is all about. The honourable member for Manly compares this situation with the electricity take­ over some years ago. While I do not for one moment back away from the very positive action by the Goverament in respect of electricity, the position here is vastly different. This Bill is designed to deal with a particular localised situation which has been consistently described to this House by the member for Townsville, Mr Burreket. The current position in Townsville is serious and the provisions contained in this Bill will help to alleviate the problem. The very serious drought conditions and the fact that there must be a continued and positive supply for the Townsville area have been considered. I think that the people in that area are lucky that the Govemment has acted in the way that it has, in such a determined manner, to ensure that the future of water supply for the Townsville area is assured. The honourable member for Toowong, Mr Beanland, referred to an advertisement placed by the board in addition to the information already provided. I point out to him that another local authority—and I refer specifically to the Brisbane City Council— places a large number of advertisements in the local press. Does the honorable member wish me to take any action in relation to those activities? I think that he has to be consistent. Mr Beanland said that the board is not a tme regional authority. That is not correct and indicates that the honourable member has not properly read the Bill. In fact, the board, with the approval of the Minister, may provide water to any local authority in the region and to other major consumers. The honourable member suggested that there was no requirement for an annual report to be fumished by the board. In doing so, he has again demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the laws passed by this House. The Financial Administration and Audit Act, which applies to all statutory bodies of this nature, requires that an annual report, including audited financial statements, be fumished. I refer specifically to the two honourable members from Townsville. I think that they have adequately indicated their feelings. All members from the Townsville region who have a practical knowledge of the matter expressed their feelings to the House. They certainly put forward a good argument. I believe that nothing has been lost by the debate that has taken place. I commend the Bill to the House. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 41 NOES, 37 Ahem Hynd Ardill Palaszczuk Alison Katter Beanland Prest Austin Lane Beard Shaw Berghofer McCauley Braddy Sherlock Bjelke-Petersen McKechnie Bums Smith Booth McPhie Campbell Smyth Borbidge Menzel Casey Underwood Burreket Muntz Comben Vaughan Cooper Neal D'Arcy Warburton Elliott Newton De Lacy Wamer Fraser Randell Eaton Wells Gately Sherrin Gibbs, R. J. White Gibbs, I. J. Simpson Goss Yewdale Gilmore Slack Hamill Glasson Stephan Hayward Gunn Stoneman Innes Harper Tenni Knox Harvey Lee Henderson Lickiss Hinton Tellers: McElligott Tellers: Hinze Littieproud Mackenroth Davis Hobbs FitzGerald Milliner Gygar Resolved in the affirmative. Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4621

Committee Hon. R. J. Hinze (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr SMITH (4.54 p.m.): Clause 10 states that the board wUl include a person nominated by the Minister, who shall be chairman. Members of the Opposition treat public servants in paid positions with the respect that they deserve and do not believe that they should be involved in the political process. It is outrageous to appoint someone in that capacity. Anyone who agrees to accept the position of chairman of that board under the circumstances would be regarded by me as nothing more than a crawling, subservient stooge and a political person. If the person so appointed has any skeletons in the cupboard, he should take great care before he accepts that appointment. I would like to put that on the record. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 112, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time.

SANCTUARY COVE RESORT ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4152). Mr SHAW (Manly) (4.56 p.m.): This is the second amendment to the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act. It serves to extend the area considerably, although a great deal of the extension is taken up by the proposed golf course. It is difficult to see the constmction of a first-class golf course in anything but a positive light. It also provides for an increase of 600 residential sites, which must be acknowledged is a large increase in the number of homes in the complex. There are a number of aspects of this development about which members of the Opposition have great reservations. The Opposition expresses its concem about the number of buildings and the proposed extension of the development along the riverbank. The original Act provided for some such development, but we now find that being extended, with little consideration to the provision of open areas. We concede that the land involved is already freehold and homes could be built in this same manner without the provisions of this Bill. However, it is also tme that the opportunity could and should be taken to preserve open areas along the river. It is obvious that developers will always place maximum financial retum above aesthetics and good planning. I might add that this is one of my concerns about the development of the Expo site, that here, again, we will see the precious waterfront land taken for development. The riverbank development in Sanctuary Cove seems to expose a deficiency in the legislation. The opportunity needs to be provided for a greater role by Govemment or council planners in ensuring that integrated resorts plan for neighbouring communities as well as themselves. If the banks of the Coomera River were to be entirely taken up with buildings, the area would become unattractive, indeed. Yet, if every resort continued in the same manner as the Sanctuary Cove resort, that would be the result. The resorts 4622 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) have a responsibility to preserve and improve the adjacent areas of which they often make good use. In this case such an area would be the waters of Moreton Bay and its islands. I am assured that this will be the last increase in the Sanctuary Cove development. I hope so. A large section of the community is becoming increasingly uneasy about this type of development. Businessmen are already expressing concera that there are too many such proposals, and there seems to be justification for that concera. If integrated resorts begin to fail, they will become a burden on the State and an administrative nightmare. Advertising agencies seem to do odd things at times, and the decision that Sanctuary Cove attract residents by raising, in advertisements, the fear of so-called "society cockroaches" outside, must be regretted. I, personally, did not like the term when applied to New South Wales footbaUers and find it repugnant when applied in the manner of the Sanctuary Cove advertisement. I would point out that cockroaches, being resilient, as they are, Mr Gore may find as many cockles and gmbs inside his development as outside it. I must be honest and say that this Bill is not received by the Oppostion with any enthusiasm. Hopefully, it concludes and improves this project, which, once begun, is best concluded satisfactorily. It is still an experiment and the project should be monitored. I repeat that the Opposition has reservations about the project, but will not move to reject the Bill. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5 p.m.): This Bill continues the fine tradition of providing special Acts of Parliament, concessional Government deals, behind-the-scenes access to Government funds—which are available to no-one except those with special access to the National Party—and the generally favoured treatment of Government cronies that has become so evident in Queensland. Today, the National Party is again legislating to help Mr Mike Gore, the self-professed leader of the white-shoe bngade and the man who had $25m at his beck and call for the "Joh for PM" campaign—the campaign that never materialised. That man has said of his friend Cabinet Minister Mr Russell Hinze, "They try to say that Russ Hinze is a cormpt Minister; but if he is, he is a failure." I would like to hear the Minister's comment on that one, because I am not sure what it means. Does Mr Gore mean that in the cormption stakes, the Minister is a minor player, having failed to make it into the big league? I am not sure. However, I would suggest to the Minister that with friends such as Mike Gore, the Minister does not need enemies. Everybody would recall the long line of special deals for Mike Gore and Sanctuary Cove—deals that have been unavailable to anyone else in Queensland. Firstly, the Government introduced a special Act of Parliament, the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985-1986, which guaranteed title to property-owners in the Sanctuary Cove development while exempting them from all Local Government Act requirements. I objected to that because the special Act gave control over the waterways to the developer and meant that an ordinary bloke in his tinnie could not go into the harbour owned by the millionaires. What a handy little piece of legislation that was! Secondly, in his capacity as Minister for Main Roads, the Minister came to white- shoe Mike's rescue with two new bridges and access roads, giving the resort direct access to Paradise Point. What a great Government gift that was! Without that great gift, Sanctuary Cove would have been much more unattractive, because its residents would have been effectively cut off from the charms of the coast. They would have had to drive past Hinze's pub to get to the coast. The Sanctuary Cove development was then given permission to close in the Coomera River, divert water and deepen waterfront access. The channels were closed off completely. The water was pumped out and bulldozers were put into the area. The fisheries research and management section had the hide to write back to me and state that an environmental impact study had been carried out but that it had not included a study on the effect on Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4623 fish-breeding of closing off the river and putting in a bulldozer after the water had been pumped out. The Government ignored claims by professional fishermen and scientists that the destmction of the wetlands and mangroves would be devastating for the fish-breeding nursery along the Coomera River, while the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation warned that the area was in danger of becoming a marine desert. In recent years, 20 kilometres of mangroves have been destroyed north of Paradise Point. Sanctuary Cove has been one of the major destroyers of these mangroves. The next example of Government largess was when the South East Queensland Electricity Board came to the rescue with a multimillion-dollar subsidy for the installation of electricity along the private access road into the project. In most other developments, the developer has paid the cost, but again Gore received special treatment from this Government. Is it any wonder that he raised $25m for the "Joh for PM" campaign? I wonder who got the money? The deal greatly upset the Gold Coast City Council because a similar proposal from the council to SEQEB had been rejected. Why was Gore favoured when the (5old Coast City Council's proposal was discriminated against? Why was one man and his devel­ opment favoured whereas all the residents of the Gold Coast were ignored? Of course, no explanation was forthcoming from the Government. The real example of cronyism was exposed when it leaked out that the State, through the Queensland Government Development Authority, had made a secret $10m loan to Sanctuary Cove to bail it out of its financial difficulties. Isn't it amazing that the so- called mgged examples of private enterprise—those private developers who praise the so-called free enterprise of the Queensland National Party—cannot get anywhere without massive Government, public-funded assistance—the public that Mike Gore calls cock­ roaches? It appears that the most hypocritical squeal the loudest. Doesn't the Minister find it hypocritical that Mike Gore, who supposedly had $25m for the Premier's "Joh for PM" campaign, had to come crawling to the Government through the back door, begging to be bailed out of his financial difficulties? The Government was obviously embarrassed as well, because it tried to hide the transaction through the Queensland Goverament Development Authority, which was intended to be a central borrowing authority for statutory authorities alone. It was not designed for failed second-hand-car salesmen. The QGDA was never intended to be a financial vehicle for private developers, as Mr Gore so obviously pretends to be. Former Treasurer, Sir Llew Edwards, who set up the QGDA, emphasised in his briefing notes that the QGDA was not intended to be used for such purposes. What that means is that if a person has the right contacts in Government and he knows the right Ministers, back-room deals are possible and State funds are available to the sly. The Government did its best to keep the loan secret by not dealing with it through the normal channels such as an Order in Council, which would have required publication in the Government Gazette. Instead, it was approved by Government minute. The Under Treasurer, Sir Leo Hielscher, allowed himself to become a bagman for Sanctuary Cove. In this House the Premier and Ministers were giving the vaguest of answers to questions on whether the Government had advanced any money for the project. It is irrelevant whether the Government was paid interest on the loan. What is important is that the Government tried to do a secret deal for one of its shady cronies—a deal which is impossible in normal circumstances. As Peter Morley commented in the Courier-Mail, the public purse was used for the advancement of private interests. What happened earlier this year after the famous $10m loan? Ariadne went in and for just $lm purchased a 70 per cent share in the proposed $300m Sanctuary Cove project. What a financial coup! Mr Hinze: What has the Western Australian Premier done for Laurie Connell? 4624 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Mr BURNS: Laurie Connell is the owner of a merchant bank. The bloke involved in Sanctuary Cove is a failed second-hand-car dealer. How can anyone fail as a second­ hand-car dealer on the Gold Coast? Because he is the mate of the Minister and a mate of a few other people from the Goverament side of the House, he gets all of these special deals, special legislation and special loans. The Minister should not start talking about other fellows. He should talk about his own back yard, namely, the area down at Coomera next to his dairy farm, and how he will do very well out of what has happened on Hope Island. He should not start mnning down any other State. He should look after his own back yard. Mike Gore was in a desperate financial plight and Govemment members went out and bailed him out. They used public money. They talk private enterprise, but when their mates are in trouble they talk about public funds. They put their hands in the public trough to look after their mates. That is what they do. I now want to retum to Ariadne. After the Goverament lent ten million bucks to a failed used-car salesman, Ariadne came along and for just $lm purchased a 70 per cent share in the proposed $300m Sanctuary Cove project. For one million bucks Ariadne purchased 70 per cent. That was after the Government had lent ten million bucks to the second-hand-car dealer—the white-shoe man. What a financial coup for Ariadne! What it did show was the desperate financial plight of the failing Mike Gore. There he was, willing to flog off 70 per cent of his project for a lousy million dollars. Mr Geoff Wilson, a director of Ariadne and notable as working full time before the last State election in raising funds for the massive media blitz by the National Party, reportedly commented privately that Mike Gore was nowhere near a millionaire. But the Goverament was lending him millions. Perhaps that has changed, for I am not sure of Mike Gore's current holdings in Sanctuary Cove. Sanctuary Cove would not have got off the ground if it were not for this Goverament's willingness to provide generous deals to its cronies. It is nothing like free enterprise. It is a Goverament project with the Minister playing the role of midwife and fairy godmother—and the Minister is the funniest looking fairy godmother that I have ever seen. However, as a midwife—well, I suppose he could be. Every man to his own job. As an editorial in the Daily Sun stated, the National Party Govemment was willing to do what development-conscious free enterprise financiers were not prepared to do. It was willing to put tax-payers' money in a risk venture while private enterprise financiers were not prepared to put their money into it. There was even the question of whether Gore had paid stamp duty on that $10m loan. Some said yes, some said no. The Government said that it had been paid but was unable to say how much, and it would never produce the details. Another recent controversy included the sabotage of a mosquito-control study being carried out by Griffith University researchers at the mouth of the Coomera River. Thousands of dollars has been lost and the study, which would help all the people on the Gold Coast, has been put back years because, without consultation Mr Hinze: The Deputy Premier tells me they paid all stamp duty. Mr BURNS: I must be told eventually how much. It will be interesting to know. Last year the Opposition asked questions about that and it could not get an answer. Anyway, I will retura to dealing with the mosquito-control study. As I said, thousands of dollars has been lost and the study put back years because, without consultation, Mike Gore and Sanctuary Cove constmcted a bund that stopped the flow of water in a section of the south arm of the Coomera River. For a few days now, I have been asking the Premier to reply to a question that, a few months ago, he promised he would reply to in writing. I have not received the answer yet. However, I have been down on the Coomera River. Mike Gore has been dredging the mouth of that river. He has put in two or three major dredges which have dug a channel right across Coomera Island Mr Hinze: No. You don't know what you're talking about. Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4625

Mr BURNS: Yes, he has. I was there when the ditch witch was there. Do not give me that buUdust. That is not tme. I was there and I watched the ditch witch. I walked beside it on the island. Mr Hinze: You are on the wrong island. Mr BURNS: He put it across Coomera Island. I am speaking about where he destroyed the research into mosquitoes. He went through that area and over the south arm of the Coomera River so that he could pump the fiU out of the Coomera River to Sanctuary Cove. That was going on while I was there. I watched it. I asked the Premier a question about that and I was to be supplied with an answer in writing. I have not got it yet. I would like to bet a few bob that I will not get it by tomorrow. Mike Gore does what he likes down there. He breaks open rivers, destroys mangroves and pumps through areas where the university is trying out mosquito control plans in an endeavour to do something about the midges and the mosquitoes that are attacking people in the resort areas of the coast. The Goverament does nothing about him. He walks away. That vandaUsm by Mike Gore and the developers put back by approximately two years the solution to the mosquito problem in the area and caused additional financial burdens to the Gold Coast (Tity Council and the Albert Shire Council, which were financially supporting the study. What did the Minister for Local Goverament do? Nothing! My question to the Premier was not even answered. I was promised an answer in writing, and I have not received it yet. That is the type of man the Govemment is deaUng with—as the member for Manly said, he is a man who calls decent Australians "cockroaches", a man who thumbs his nose at Goverament regulations, a man who cannot survive without massive Govemment financial backing through the back door, a man who cannot survive without special legislation from—and I use his words—his old mate Hinzey, and a man who is now being exposed as a tax fraud. Last year seven companies mn by Mike Gore were fined a total of $6,650 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for the late lodgement of tax retums. Curtently he is facing charges of evading the payment of $300,000 in duty on luxury yachts. He is facing 17 charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and another 17 charges of imposition on the Commonwealth. He is a great sort of a dealer! He is a great sort of a bloke for the Government to be knocking around with! When Gore is not defrauding the tax authorities, he is boosting his own ego by praising Sanctuary Cove in a way that is most offensive to most Australians. In what can be described only as "used-car Gore-ese", he described the streets of the Gold Coast as being full of cockroaches, most of which are human. By comparison, he claims that Sanctuary Cove is an island civilisation in a violent world. That is the world where the Minister for Local Government lives. Does he accept Mr Gore's definition that the people of the Gold Coast are cockroaches, that that world down there is violent and that he has taken steps, with the help of the National Party, to ensure that his little world remains safe from the ordinary Australian cockroach? The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for supporting him. I think that what I have said gives people a clear picture of what that man is like. However, he has again crawled to the Govemment to ask for more legislation, this time to extend the resort by a further 242 hectares, which will permit the establishment of a further 600 residential lots. The Minister has told the House that Crown land will be donated to Gore in retura for private land elsewhere. No mention is made of the quality of the land to be swapped. What is the Crown land like? What is the private land like? Is the Crown land high quality and the private land a swamp? I do not know. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House. The usual golf course and canal sites will be provided for the well-heeled foreign gentlemen who want to escape from their own world. What of the private resort beach 4626 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) that Gore wanted on South Stradbroke Island? Do honourable members recall the proposal that was discussed when four or five Ministers went down and met in secret with Gore and the letter that went to the Gold Coast City Council that mentioned a landing in behind Brown Island, a track across South Stradbroke Island and a private beach with showers, swimming-pools and bars over on South Stradbroke Island? What has happened to that? Mr Hinze: It was to be a nudist beach. Mr BURNS: Has the Minister approved it? Is there to be a private nudist beach over on that island? What has happened to that proposal? When will the Minister tell the House the tmth about that? When will the House finally learn that Mike Gore is not to get a large section of the beach on South Stradbroke Island as a private domain for the rich geriatrics who are now buying his properties down there? Mr Milliner: Do you think that Mr Hinze would go on the nudist beach? Mr BURNS: I think the Minister would look good on a nudist beach. I think he would be a prime addition to it. Mr Hinze: I would be a tourist attraction. Mr BURNS: I think the Minister would be a major tourist attraction. On the Gold Coast, Sanctuary Cove has already been nicknamed "Cemetery Cove", obviously because only rich retirees will be able to afford it. Given Ariadne's present financial difficulties and its need to be bailed out, I am not surprised at all that there are strong mmours that Gore and Ariadne are negotiating to sell off Sanctuary Cove to the Japanese. Perhaps Sanctuary Cove will become the first Japanese retirement village in Australia. Do honourable members remember that story about the Japanese retirement village that Joh wanted? This might be it. I think that eventually a royal commission wUl be held into this Government's dealings with some of these developers and their cronies, such as Sanctuary Cove. When that occurs, it will make the Fitzgerald inquiry pale into insignificance. Honourable members might not have to wait for a royal commission. When the writs that have been issued by Cabinet Ministers against me are before the courts, my barristers will be asking Mr Hinze and all the other Ministers who have served writs on me to answer questions under oath about Sanctuary Cove and other deals, particularly the very smelly conditions that Mike Gore has received. I will see the Minister in court. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.15 p.m.): I cannot resist speaking on a Bill involving Sanctuary Cove. As honourable members are aware, I was the person who brought to the attention of the House the matter relating to the gas franchise limitation, the SEQEB special subsidy deal on the installation of underground electricity and the funding Mr Austin: And you were wrong. Mr INNES: I was right. I also brought to the attention of the House the Cabinet documents that purported to indicate a contribution by Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd, Mr Gore's company, of $lm towards the construction of the bridge. That was phony, deceptive documentation because in fact it was paid by the Queensland Government in lieu of dredging that still had to take place on the south arm of the Coomera River. Mr Hinze: That is not tme. Mr INNES: It is true. The public record and the public statements were that Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd paid $lm as its miniscule contribution towards some $4m or $5m-worth of Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment BUl (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4627 dredging works and associated roadworks. Nothing was paid by Discovery Bay Devel­ opments Pty Ltd. It was paid by the Queensland Govemment in lieu of dredging works that still had to take place in the future, dredging works that were only required and demanded because of this proposal and which are only now starting to occur. I was also the person who brought to the attention of the House the matter of the intmsion of the temporary pipework for the pumping of sand from Paradise Point for the further development of Sanctuary Cove across and through a habitat reserve or a marine wetland reserve on which the Griffith University was conducting research on behalf of itself the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the two local authorities. Sensitive, careful and long-term research was being carried out which involved the potential natural control of certain species of mosquito, one of which was capable of transmitting Ross River fever. Mr Newton: They all do that. Mr INNES: They do not all do that at all. Certain species of salt-water mosquito do transfer that fever but others do not. This whole experiment was a careful attempt at minimising on a long-term basis the problem of salt-water mosquitoes in southem Moreton Bay and in other parts of Moreton Bay. Mr Hinze: There's not even a midge left down there, let alone a mosquito. Mr INNES: There are midges and there are mosquitoes. The vehicles to put this sensitive pipe across the island for three or four months' dredging or pumping went up to 300 metres away from the pipe and through the marked, surveyed Griffith University reserve in defiance of the specific solicitor's letter that had already been sent to Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd and the Queensland Gov­ ernment by way of the Harbours and Marine Department and the Primary Industries Department, which is in charge of fisheries, warning that legal action was possible as a result of the earlier cutting of the south arm of the Coomera River and the bunding, which earlier caused an overflow of and damage to the research area. The developers went ahead despite that waraing. This is an indication of the Mike Gores of this world; the man who consistently tells lies; the man who consistently uses whatever words come to his mind. He has great dreams. We all have great dreams that can become a reality with someone else's land and someone else's money. It is great to have dreams. Mike Gore was the man who said recently in an interview, "I never wear white shoes." However, when he was going to court on a charge of sales tax evasion, the camera panned down from that elegant head of his to the elegant feet and, lo and behold, he said, "Whoops, white shoes." There is a great deal in what the honourable member for Lytton has said and what has been said before. This man is not a captain of private enterprise. This man's dreams are dreamt and his fortune made at other people's expense. He has to be subsidised, propped up and receive benefits all along the line. This House did pass a special Act of Parliament and hopes that Ariadne's sobering or more professional influence will bring this development to a competent conclusion. The Liberal Party has no cavil with what occurs on the block itself but it is what occurs around it and which hands go into the public purse that the Liberal Party takes exception to. I refer to the glossy advertising that appeared in the national press one week-end. There is a careful statement by Mr Gore and a glossy full-sized logo and once again the words "An island of privilege in a sea of mediocrity". That sea of mediocrity is the Minister's own Gold Coast. Mr Gore says— "Welcome to Civilisation. It is a place where successful people will live in a community of their peers." The following words are also used— "An environment protected by its own Act of Parliament." 4628 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

As one of the advantages of his development, Mr Gore says that the development has the protection of its own special Act of Parliament. His environment is protected, but what does he do? He instmcts his workers to go outside the boundaries of Sanctuary Cove, across the Coomera River, through a wetland reserve controlled under a special Act of Parliament, ignoring the warnings already given by researchers and is prepared to destroy the environment that is important to the rest of Queensland and invade research taking place within that area. It is merely rampant hypocrisy. It is part of the constant stream of lies and hype that fall from his lips. In the brochure he refers to the 24-hour-a-day security and states— "... will ensure that only permanent residents, their authorised employees and invited guests will have access to the residential community. In a world which seems to have gone mad, in a society in which crime and violence have become common-place, this kind of peace of mind is priceless." Unfortunately Mr Gore leaves the rest of us without that same peace of mind that he finds so attractive for the future residents of his development. By the time he has finished with the Legislature of Queensland, the public purse and anything else he can get his sticky hands on, we will be left in a state of neurosis. The reality is shown in the national press. Many people in Queenslnd are beginning to ask what this Goverament is all about. Why are there special Acts of Parliament, special concessions, financial assistance and deals to the Mr Gores of this world, when the community around him—which he describes as a "sea of mediocrity"—and the people of Queensland cannot find the wherewithal to keep crime off the streets of the Gold Coast, Sherwood, Brisbane or Roma? This House heard the honourable member for Roma complain today—and people are constantly complaining in these difficult times—about the reducing standards which apply to the rest of the community. Not only does Queensland have this island of privilege emerging in a sea of mediocrity, but also Queensland has a person who is prepared not only to wear his white shoes, but also stick his thumb up his nose and twiddle his fingers at the rest of the world. He cocks a snoot at the rest of the world and says, "You dummies who assist me to do all this, living in your own grotty world, your mediocrity, in your crime-ridden streets, while we have this special Act of Parliament to provide a special enclave to which you cannot go." Mr Gore is advertising a superb show, full of the world's stars, for the opening. It will be interesting to see if they come. The public will be charged $210 to attend this show. Because of the kinds of deals that Mr Gore has been involved in during this development—particularly before Ariadne took over—the whole of Queensland should be invited to the show as joint venturers. Queenslanders have paid their stake; they have paid their way and are entitled to attend the show for free. It is an outrage. Every youngster and every old person in Queensland should be invited free of charge to that grand opening ceremony because they have paid their way. Mr Burns: He is bringing out a Mafia star as the main singer, Frank Sinatra. He does not have anybody who is not connected with crooks. Mr INNES: I have not received an invitation; has the honourable member? Mr Burns: No. Mr INNES: I suspect that we will not. I hope that Ariadne Australia makes a go of it. I am afraid that the combination of Mr Michael Gore and Mr John Singleton—a well-known Labor advertising agent— who send amongst the community this type of overbearing, arrogant, insulting literature, is something that the members of my party and I cannot cop. We believe in private enterprise. We like to see everybody having a go with the same mles. We do not believe that people should be constantly assisted. Perhaps people should be given one-off assistance so that they can start their business. However, when Mr Gore takes the special Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4629

Act of Parliament and every benefit that can be offered, some of which we discovered only by accident, then thumbs his nose at the poor, stupid tax-payers, that is difficult to cop. As soon as the combination of Gore and Singleton is broken down Mr Lee: I was down there recently talking to one of the agents. I said, "What's that boat doing there?" He said, "That's the boat that's going to be used to go over to a private beach which the Goverament is going to put through Parliament." Mr INNES: I know that Mr Buras has referred to one or two of the deals. I have referred to two or three of them. I have no doubt that Mr Gore is still working away at extracting all the additional benefits that he can. I hope that Mr Geoff Wilson and Adriadne Australia will begin to realise that companies that derive such extraordinary benefits from the community, as Mr Gore has done through his friendship with the Minister for Local Government, have some social responsibility. There is another little deal about which I would like to ask the Minister. I am glad that the Minister for Mines and Energy is in the Chamber. Perhaps the Minister for Local Goverament can seek the advice of his colleague. I understand that under the new mles the South East Queensland Electricity Board—and Mr Austin may well know about this because his father is on the South East Queensland Electricity Board Mr Lee: How did he get there? Mr INNES: The honourable member has asked a good question. In the end, the Government must mn out of positions for the members of famUies and friends of Ministers. The public service is supposed to be entering into employment contracts. There was a policy whereby distributing authorities or the QEC could sanction a special deal involving the supply of bulk electricity for special purposes. The classic, of course, is Queensland Alumina. Honourable members know that special deals are entered into around the world. In some parts of the world the people are told about the special deal. There are benefits in giving discounted electricity, such as assisting in the creation of massive new wealth and the generation of new jobs. I understand that, as part of the so-called entrepreneurial approach by the electricity distribution authorities, it has been suggested that a special deal has been made in relation to bulk electricity at discounted prices to Sanctuary Cove. Perhaps the Minister for Mines and Energy, who is in the Chamber at present, might indicate whether that is tme in the case of Sanctuary Cove or whether I am in error? Mr Austin: I have responded to you about that before. There is no special deal. It is a normal commercial arrangement that is entered into with many bodies. In fact, one of your colleagues I was speaking to the other day said, "You want to do that more often." Mr INNES: It would be interesting to know what that special deal is and what the terms are. We know that there will be residents at Sanctuary Cove. It has gone from being a tourist-type resort to a very much residential development. Are those residents, wealthy as they may well be, so privileged as they are, to receive electricity at a cheaper price than other electricity-consumers in Queensland or is Mr Gore, the operator, to receive electricity at a discounted price and be able to sell it to residents at normal electricity tariffs? In what is predominantly a residential development, I know of no reason why somebody should be able to interpose, almost like a sub-unit of an electricity authority, receive discounted electricity and then sell it at the usual domestic tariffs. That is not the reason why the discounting system was introduced. It was supposed to be for industrial and major commercial users, not to dummy up the profits in a residential development. Mr Austin: Gas is exclusive in the area. You know very well that reticulated gas is put into big tanks, it is transported in big amounts, and they come in and fill the tanks exclusively. Mr INNES: I have gone a step further than that. 4630 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

I am not talking about the first deal that I mentioned, namely, the subsidised installation of underground mains. I am talking about the deal in relation to the costs of the supply of electricity into Sanctuary Cove and whether Sanctuary Cove has a special deal for the buying of bulk electricity at a discounted price. Mr Lee: And retails it. Mr INNES: And then retails it out. If that is so, I would like the answer given either by ministerial statement or by the Minister for Local Government in his reply. I would like to know the extent to which the public purse is involved in the assistance of that development, which is becoming a rort. Mr Lickiss: He could put a call through to his father. Mr INNES: He could put a quick call through to his father and get the answer. That is right. If deals are to be done and Goverament or semi-Government authorities are to be involved, it is about time that we established the principle that those deals should be done in public. I understand that in Victoria the subsidised price for the alumina industry is disclosed. The public should be the judge of the cost benefit. Efficiency analyses are being considered in terms of accountability. The party organisation—in complete distinction from the parliamentary party—is talking about an open and accountable Govemment. Let it start. Let there be public accounting. Let us see how much the mediocrities and cockroaches are contributing towards that island of privilege. I do not wish the development any harm. I hope it does well. However, I will continue to argue against the malignant influences who—particularly in the early part of a development—go outside to affect and cut across the standards that apply to everybody else. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (5.33 p.m.): Firstiy, I believe that the Minister should be set straight on one particular aspect. On 5 November, when this legislation was first introduced into this House, the Leader of the Liberal Party said— "The Liberal Party supports the Bill. This innovative measure will certainly create history in this country." I believe that the Liberal Party's position has now changed. I strongly endorse the words of the deputy leader. I oppose this Bill, because Mr Gore has been given more than a fair go. He seems to have influential powers over this Govemment and receives favours that most people do not receive. Perhaps Mr Gore will be the new Ted Lyons—the new "Top-level" Ted—who will receive favours that nobody else will. What upsets me more than anything else is that Mr Gore is anti-Australian, un- Australian and totally against what this nation stands for. He visits Brisbane and refers to us as cockroaches. Mr Hinze: The term "cockroach" that has been referred to so fluently this afternoon was coined by Mr John Singleton who, as you know, mns the PR for the Labor Party throughout Australia. Mr CAMPBELL: If a person says something that appears in the newspapers, he must live with it and wear it. Mr Gore really attacks what Australia is all about. In our bicentennial year, for a person to say that other Australians are cockroaches is totally against what our nation is all about. I am conceraed about the Clive Jameses of this world who will be used to promote people such as Mike Gore. I respect Clive James and I appreciate his humour. He will be used to do a worldwide TV spectacular to present Australia to the rest of the world and also will be used by Mike Gore, who is un-Australian. People such as Clive James and other great Australian entertainers should do one thing or the other. Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4631

They should be prepared to sell Australia for what it stands for—it is about giving everyone a fair go and a belief in genuine equality—and not be associated with promoting a class of person who is not acceptable to the ordinary Australian. I ask the Australian Bicentennial Authority to question the people whom it is nominating to present Australia to the rest of the world. Those people should not be associated with people such as Mike Gore. People have had serious reservations about the BiU. On 5 November 1985, when I spoke to the Bill, I concluded by saying— "A proper environmental impact study has not been carried out. In many ways, the right of the public to question development has been overridden by this legislation. If this is setting a precedent for other legislation, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the Queensland public." What was said on that day is coming tme today. What has been done for that one person is making a mockery of democracy and the concept of giving everybody a fair go. This is what 1 said when I spoke on that occasion— "The Bill provides that the Companies (Queensland) Code does not apply to or in respect of the principal body corporate. I do not know whether the rights of individuals are fully covered or protected by any other legislation or by this legislation if the body corporate is outside the ambit of the Companies (Queensland) Code." I strongly believe that that is not in the interests of the people down there. I further stated— "I am also concerned about that part of the legislation that provides that the principal body corporate shall not be required to make any payments or provide any consideration for any transfer of land for these thorou^fares. In other words, the developer has also been given a concession that will save it a considerable amount of stamp duty." Why should only the developer and not all the other people of Queensland have the right not to pay stamp duty? Many of the other people are battlers and pensioners. When they buy their house, they do not receive a concession on stamp duty. I continued— "Reference has been made to the ownership of land between the high-water and low-water marks. This Bill is setting more precedents than members have appreciated. Extra care needs to be taken in this area because, suddenly, one might see the development of land on beaches. Care needs to be taken to ensure that overdevelopment of such areas does not occur." What do we have now? Two years later, not only does Sanctuary Cove want one area of the river; it now wants to double the size of the area. It has reached the stage at which ordinary Queenslanders are being deprived of the opportunity of taking their boats along different waterways, because they cannot land between the high-water and low-water marks. Mr Lee: Not even a Tom Burns tinnie can go down there. Mr CAMPBELL: That is right. That is what I am concerned about. We always hear that private enterprise will be able to do it properly, and public enterprise cannot. The estimated cost of the project was about $230m. Do honourable members know what it is now? Less than two years later, it is $400m, as reported in a journal of the Queensland real estate institute. Not only that, but the annual report of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority says that it will cost $ 1 billion. Private enterprise cannot even get its act together. Sanctuary Cove will probably cost more than the new ParUament House in Canberra. 4632 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Again, within two years, the original site of approximately 232 hectares is to be doubled. Why has it got to be doubled? A Sanctuary Cove marketing assessment compiled by The Banks Group on 9 September 1986 stated that Sanctuary Cove has all the dimensions of a highly successful development. It said that it only needed to make 900 exclusive residential sales. However, three or four months later, the developers want to double the size of the resort. Why is that? Is it to make it viable? What has gone wrong? The first companies had to get out of it. It is interesting to read what the Minister said in his reply on 6 November. He said— "The reservations held are recognised... but in my view are without foundation." The Minister went on to say— "... a full and detailed examination has to be undertaken to determine the feasibiUty of the project and the financial capability of the proponents of such a project to deliver the goods. In the case of Hope Island and the companies conceraed, their ability has been proven beyond doubt, and the development wiU proceed to completion as a matter of course." Ariadne has already had to come in with financial assistance, within a year of that speech being made. The latest mmour is that the only reason the development has obtained additional land is that the Japanese want to take it over. I point out to honourable members that on 6 November, the Minister gave the House an undertaking that everything was all right financially with the resort; yet, within two years, it is evident that there are problems with the bona fides of the people involved in the development. What concems me more is that, when I consider the favours that have been granted to Mike Gore, I realise that he is not worth it. Mike Gore was the first man in Australia to be convicted for false advertising under section 53 (3) of the Trade Practices Act. He was the first person to be given a fine for false advertising. Mr Lee: What on? Mr CAMPBELL: On cars. That matter was reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin on Tuesday, 18 August 1981. What is interesting is that while that report appeared on the front page, Mike Gore's advertisement for his cars was on the back page, emphasising this remark: "He's the safe way to go!" I do not believe he has been the safe way to go, either in buying a car or in giving him all these extra Goverament favours. He has had a fair go. He was involved in other offences. He was alleged to have had unlicensed firearms on the premises. That matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. He was fined under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and, for faiUng to file an income tax retum, for which he was fined $6,650. He even admits that he has abused dmgs such as methadone and benzedrine so that he could stay awake. He even admitted publicly that he was prepared to lie to obtain a car-dealership. Now he is in court because he has allegedly evaded paying sales tax. I really do not believe that Mike Gore is the type of person who should be given extra favours beyond those that have already been given to him. By way of this legislation, however, that is what is happening. He has had a fair go, yet he has demonstrated that his attitude is anti-Australian and un-Australian. I bitterly oppose what has been done for him by the Queensland Govemment over the past two years, and I oppose what is being done this evening. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (5.42 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this Bill. I would like the Minister to answer one question in relation to it as it applies to the grant of Crown land. I know that the company is in the process of purchasing freehold land in the area, but the Bill refers to the grant of Crown land. I want to know what is the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4633 particular area of land contained in the site? I presume that it is a smaU area that the Govemment is proposing to include in the development. However, it is not clear from the Minister's second-reading speech what the position is. I would like to know what the area of the land is, what the valuation of the land is and what the sale price to Sanctuary Cove or Discovery Bay Developments will be. It is clear that the sooner that Mr Gore gets out of this development, the better off everyone will be. The entire discussion during the debate this afternoon revolved around Mike Gore and was not about the development itself Sir William Knox: It is a very worthwhUe project itself Mr BEANLAND: As the parliamentary Leader of the Liberal Party says, it is a very worthwhile project indeed. I will not go through the whole history of the development and the company's changing hands, or how Ariadne ended up bailing out Mr Gore for the sum of $lm. I am sure that it is well known to all honourable members. Clearly, however, I do not think Mr Gore can be excused for his outrageous and disgusting outbursts in recent times on the pretext that it was the fault of his advertising agency that he referred to fellow human beings as cockroaches and so on. Sanctuary Gove is a magnificent development. I listened to Opposition members during the debate and I agree that ordinary Queenslanders will not be able to live there, because they simply cannot afford it. However, those people who are in the upper range of the economic scale and can afford to live there should not be denied the opportunity to purchase property and live in the security and comfort that they wish to live in. There are places in the United States and elsewhere in the world where people can go and acquire similar property. One of the important things about this development is the fact that it includes a second interaational golf course. A major part of this development's appeal is the fact that people are attracted to it because it has international golf courses. I think it is fair to say that very little of the development today relates to the resort itself Much of it will be for permanent residential accommodation. However, there is a tourist aspect to the development, as there will always be with this type of development. In view of the hour I will cease and allow the Minister to make his final reply. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (5.46 p.m.): Mike Gore is one of those people who are absolutely larger than life. Everything about him is an exaggeration. Sanctuary Cove seems to be an extension of the man. That development will certainly be attractive to a certain class of people. As other honourable members have said, I hope that it is a success, otherwise the public will be picking up the tab for part of its costs. We on this side of the House do not want to see it fail. A further example of its larger than life aspect has been enumerated by the member for Bundaberg. Various figures have been bandied about. Is the cost of the development a billion dollars or $400m? Nobody seems to know. AU that is known is that, because of the support given by the National Party Goverament to Mr Gore, the pubUc now has a large stake in it. I would not take issue with Mr Gore who said that Sanctuary Cove will be a sanctuary for people and that it will protect them from the problems that people in the outside world suffer. Unfortunately, in this case what he is saying is tme. Lawlessness in this State is totally out of control. The Gold Coast is an example, as are the suburbs of Brisbane. At present Queensland is in a worse state of insurrection than it was during the time of the bush-rangers. The ordinary people of this State have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the police force to protect them. That is why support has been given to areas such as Sanctuary Cove. The Govemment stands condemned because of the fact that people do need that type of area to protect themselves, their property and, particularly, their treasures. 4634 19 November 1987 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

In the outside world, ordinary people such as ourselves—not the members on the other side of the House who represent country areas, but people in urban areas—are living in a State which is suffering from tremendous lawlessness. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will return to the principles of the Bill. Mr ARDILL: I think this is the basis of it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for the second time. Mr ARDILL: The thing that I particularly oppose is the fact that Sanctuary Cove is taking up riverfront land. I am not concerned about Mike Gore dredging out the southern arm of the Coomera River at all. However, I do object very strongly to the fact that a further extension of this development to allow an additional 600 units to be built will give total riverfront access to the Coomera River to those people who will be living there. The ordinary citizens of Brisbane will be denied that privilege. It is the same sort of mistake that was made in Brisbane by Governor Gipps and here it is being repeated on the Coomera River. It is total anathema to Labor Party members of this House. I wish to ask: is Coomera Island, at the mouth of the river, to be turned into an environmental park, or at some time in the future will it be subjected to this type of development? I ask the Minister to address that matter. We on this side of the House oppose totally the giving of waterfront land to a private development such as this. Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (5.50 p.m.), in reply: It is not for me to protect Mr Gore in any way. I certainly do not intend to align myself with public comment in relation to the term "cockroach"; but it grieves me to sit in this place and hear unfounded criticism of a man who, I know, has worked diligently to put together what history will record as one of the greatest developments in this State, if not Australia. Time wiU prove that. With regard to the amount of gifts from the State—if honourable members added them up they would be surprised at the very small amount that this man has asked for. Some of the statements that were made this afternoon were so incorrect that it would nearly take a balance sheet to set out clearly what has been given, what has been asked for and what has been granted. The tmth is totally different from the conception that honourable members have of the Sanctuary Cove development. The statement that the riverbank should be preserved is not accepted. The land is subject to tidal influence and is generally inaccessible to all but the most intrepid. The relocation of the riverbank alignment will be an improvement and of benefit to all but the biting midges. My friend the member for Lytton accused Mr Gore of being a failure as a developer. All I can say to that is that I am proud of the fact that I understand the processes of development. The other matters raised by the member for Lytton have been dealt with previously in the House and I do not propose to discuss them further. Mr Burns: What about his private beach on South Stradbroke Island? Mr HINZE: I can tell the member that there is no such thing as a private beach. Mr Burns: Has he got it yet? Mr HINZE: He has not got any private beach. Mr Burns: Has he got permission to use it? Mr HINZE: There will be no private beach allocated. Mr Burns: Have you given him land on South Stradbroke Island? Sanctuary Cove Resort Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19 November 1987 4635

Mr HINZE: In reply to the honourable member for Lytton, I am saying in the House that no private beach has been allocated for Sanctuary Cove. That is as clear as crystal. Mr Burns: That application has been knocked back? Mr HINZE: If there has been an application made, the simple answer is: no, no private beach will be granted to Mr Gore, Sanctuary Cove, Discovery Bay or anyone else. Mr Burns: Has it been knocked back? Is it final? Mr HINZE: Let me say that I do not know that an approach has been made. There will be no private beach. That is simple and clear. If the honourable member wants me to, if the House has the time, I can answer most of the other accusations in the same way. The honourable member for Lytton also alleged that a sand-pumping line has been built across the island. That line is above ground. At present, both the Crown land and much of the freehold land is swampland. Both will be improved by reclamation and development. The matters raised by the honourable member for Sherwood, Mr Innes, have previously been the subject of much debate in the House. Actually, when I was listening to him, I thought he sounded like a broken gramophone record. His speech was just a repetition of what has been heard on previous occasions. I do not think that I should waste the time of the House in going over it all again. The honourable member referred to Mr Gore in scathing terms. I would like to see him have the opportunity to say those things to the man's face—that is, if he has the guts. With regard to the provision of electricity—I can assure the honourable member that no special side deals are involved. The Minister for Mines and Energy could confirm that himself I can assure the House that no special deal has been entered into by the Queensland Electricity Commission. The project director, Mr Niel Griggs, has advised me that that is the case. The honourable member for Bundaberg, Mr Campbell, is incorrect in saying that relief was granted from the payment of stamp duty. The Act provides for no exemption and none is contained in this Bill. Therefore, his reference to stamp duty concessions is entirely incorrect. I say to the member for Toowong, Mr Beanland, that the grant of Crown land is in fact an exchange of lands to enable the riverbank to be realigned. The value is market value on the net difference in area. I wish to thank the member for Salisbury, Mr Ardill, for his comments of support for the project which is, indeed, bigger than all imagination. Perhaps I should not be thanking the member for Salisbury for his comments, because I thought they were a little astray. Mr Ardill: What about Coomera Island? Mr HINZE: I make it very clear that I believe that the greatest advocate in Queensland in relation to Coomera Island, Woogoompah Island and all of these other islands is my colleague the Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Ivan Gibbs Mr Burns: For destmction and development. Mr HINZE: No, not destmction under any circumstances. I know Coomera Island very well, and I can assure the honourable member that not one mangrove on that island has been tampered with, let alone any cutting through of drains. 4636 19 November 1987 Queensland Govemment Industrial Gazette Act Amendt. Bill Mr Burns: That is mbbish. I chaUenge you to come down with me and I'll take you through the mangroves on Coomera Island. Mr HINZE: The honourable member will not take me to Coomera Island. I can assure him that no works at all have been carried out on that island. I remind the honourable member for Lytton that he is on the wrong island. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. R. J. Hinze (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr CAMPBELL (5.56 p.m.): The Minister said that there was no stamp duty relief I refer to the amendments passed earlier this year concerning Sanctuary Cove. Clause 7 of that Bill, which amended section 14 of the Act, stated— "(c) The principal body corporate shall not be required to make any payment or provide any consideration for a transfer pursuant to this subsection." This conceras secondary thoroughfares. So there are changes to the Act and to land ownership, yet it says that no payment is required. I ask the Minister to clarify that. Mr HINZE: The information given to me is as I have given it to this Chamber. If that information is not correct, I will have to supply the facts to the honourable member. I merely state that I queried my officers and the statement that I made in this Chamber is my belief Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 48, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hinze, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m.

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 November (see p. 4201). Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (7.30 p.m.): As the Minister who introduced this Bill indicated, this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation. This is the first time that the Queensland Govemment Industrial Gazette Act has been amended since its introduction in 1961. This BiU updates the list of industrial Acts covered by the Act and an analysis of the contents of the Bill indicates that the Constmction Safety Act replaces the Inspection of Scaffolding Acts; the Industry and Commerce Training Act replaces the old Apprentices and Minors Acts; and additional Acts such as the Consumer Affairs Act, the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act, the Workers' Compensation Act and the Workers' Compensation (Lead Poisoning, Mount Isa) Acts have been included. This legislation is very straightforward and the Opposition has no objection to the Bill. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah—Leader of the Liberal Party) (7.31 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this Bill. As has been already mentioned, it is a simple Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4637 machinery piece of legislation that is catching up with some of the changes that have occurred in recent years in some of the Acts. In addition, it gets rid of some of the antiquated nomenclature. There is one question that I would like to ask of the Deputy Premier, if he can answer it at this stage: what progress has been made and what state has been reached in regard to the computerisation of this gazette? One of the problems associated with the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette is the regular alterations to awards that occur as a result of CPI movements or any other movement which demands an across the board change in awards. In the past the gazette had to publish this information in a huge volume which has to be redrafted or recast into a host of awards around the State that various people keep and bring up to date. The law states that awards must be published on a notice board or in a place where employees can read them. Under the Act there is an obligation upon an employer to keep these awards up to date. This is an enormous task and because of that in the past it has taken some time for that information, after it has been officially decided, to percolate out through the community. The computerisation of the records of the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette is well under way and I hope that it has reached the stage where it will be completed soon. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (7.33 p.m.), in reply: I wish to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. In answer to Sir William Knox—computerisation is a gradual process and it is taking place throughout the system. Sir William Knox: Is there any date? Mr GUNN: I could not give the honourable member a date at all. The computer­ isation will be gradual and, as funds become available, they will be provided. As I stated previously, this amendment Bill is only of a minor nature. Nevertheless, I feel that it is important to clarify the situation regarding the publication of proclamations. Orders in Council, regulations, mles, etc., in the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette as against publication in the Queensland Government Gazette. The amendments as proposed will do just that and I thank the members once again for their participation. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gunn, by leave, read a third time.

CULTURAL RECORD (LANDSCAPES QUEENSLAND AND QUEENSLAND ESTATE) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 November (see p. 4406). Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (7.36 p.m.): On Tuesday evening, in the course of the debate, I referred to the general concepts relating to Aboriginal and Islander affairs in Queensland. It is certainly time to proceed to discuss certain aspects of the Bill. On 10 November 1987, the Minister introduced into the House a fully revised Bill. On that occasion he said that he had consulted with numerous groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Yet the new Bill still fails to make any reference whatever 4638 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or heritage. The new Bill contains the same reference to indigenous persons as the original Bill did. It states— ".. .'indigenous' means pertaining to any people who inhabited any part of Australia before colonization of Australia." The Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council has, right from the first occasion on which it had an opportunity to read the first Bill that was introduced into the House, objected to the definition of "indigenous", the use of the word "indigenous" throughout the Bill and the failure of the Bill to make any reference whatever to Aboriginal or Islander people. Indeed, the words "Aboriginal" and "Islander" are used only in those parts of the BiU that provide for the revocation of previous parts of the legislation. At the September meeting of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council, the Minister, through his department, was contacted and again a request was made for the word "indigenous" to be deleted and for the Aboriginal and Islander people of this State to be dignified by having their correct tities used in this legislation. The Aboriginal Co­ ordinating Council wrote to the department requesting that that be done and that criticism be made of the word "indigenous". In a letter dated 17 September 1987, the following comments were made by Mr Roy Gray, chairman of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council— "The Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council has considered the various reasons given by the Government for deleting all reference to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the new Bill. Aware that every other mainland state, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth have special legislation for the protection of Aboriginal heritage, the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council is not convinced of the need or justification for legislation which does not distinguish between Aboriginal heritage and other heritage in Queensland. We still find this aspect of the legislation 'in bad taste to Aboriginal people'"— a quote from the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council resolution of 18 July 1987— "and ask that the legislation be amended to mention specificaUy Aboriginal heritage."

The Aboriginal people have had many months during which to consider the position. The body that was elected to advise the Minister for Community Services has repeated both the criticism that it made and its request to the Minister to accord to Aboriginal people the right to have the Bill amended so that reference is made to the Aboriginal and Islander people, rather than the word "indigenous". I will return to that matter, because other people of significance within the cultural heritage community have made the very same criticism. Queensland will be the only mainland State without heritage legislation that is applicable essentially to Aboriginal and Islander people, their heritage and their culture. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that the Bill sets out to— "... reflect the contribution made by all people of this State, without racial or cultural difference. This Bill will serve to highlight the fact that we are one Australian people."

I suggest that we do not become one Australian people without racial or cultural difference by neglecting the heritage of people who are an important part of this State— who indeed are the original inhabitants of this part of Australia. We do not become one Australian people by seeking to downgrade the differences between the people who live in this country, or in this State. That is the fundamental error that the Minister and the Government have made. I call upon the Minister to explain adequately why he has refused to accept the advice and the request of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council in relation to this matter. CuUural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4639

Other serious problems exist within this legislation. This Bill does not guarantee confidentiality or secrecy about the sites that are sacred to the Aboriginal tribal people of Queensland. Mr Katter: That is not correct. It is just the opposite. Before there was an onus to disclose. We have removed that onus to disclose. Unless there is a parliamentary draftman's mistake, that is the complete opposite to what the directions were on my reading of the Bill. Mr BRADDY: I believe that the Bill does not adequately guarantee that confidentiality. Mr Katter: If that is correct, it will most certainly be changed down the track. Mr BRADDY: Perhaps the Minister should listen to what I am trying to say. There might be some misunderstanding between the Minister and me on what he is doing and what the Bill will achieve. The sites are viewed as the common heritage of all the citizens of Queensland. The Minister is required to make the decision about classifications, publication and access. The Aboriginal heritage is therefore viewed as the property of the Crown in Queensland. In that regard, local Aborigines have no specific legal interest. It is my submission that that specific legal interest should be supplied by the legislation. I suggest that the new legislation does not provide to the Aboriginal people any significant right that was not already applicable under the previous Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. The one major change in this legislation is that the words "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal" are entirely removed from the legislation. It seems that the Goverament continues to have difficulties in using the words "Aboriginal" and "Islander". It is always significant—and it is a matter to which I frequently refer—that this State, because of Government legislation, does not have a Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs; it has a Minister for C^ommunity Services. In every other State in Australia, and in the Commonwealth, that means something entirely different. If hon­ ourable members were to ask people what "community services" means, they would answer that it referred to the whole community—as indeed it should. That, of course, is the common usage of the term. However, for some extraordinary reason, the Gov­ ernment refuses to acknowledge that it provides specific services to Aboriginal and Islander people by having any Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs or some other title that clearly identifies that it is in the business of having a Minister who is charged specially to deal with Aboriginal and Islander people. The Minister for Community Services in Queensland only has a responsibility to deal with Aboriginal and Islander people within the terms of that particular title, with Aboriginal and Islander communities, with reserves and so on. Yet for some extraordinary reason, the Government will not own up to it; it dodges the issue. It removed the old titles—and there have been several of them. Yet here we have it again in this legislation. Nowhere in this legislation does the Government refer to "Aboriginal", "Aborigine", "Island" or "Islander". It mns away from it. As I say, it is extraordinary. The explanation that has been advanced to the Aboriginal people—to the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council—does not satisfy them, and I suggest that it does not satisfy anyone. It certainly does not satisfy me. I call on the Minister to explain tonight, if he can, in adequate language why he has refused to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Islander people of this State. All existing Aboriginal sites that were declared under the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act will have continued protection under the provisions of this Bill relating to designated landscape areas. That provision satisfies one of the concerns of the Aboriginal Co­ ordinating Council. This legislation does not empower miners to veto a listing of Aboriginal heritage, although it contains a provision which allows the Governor in Council to consider the mineral-bearing potential of an area in determining whether or not to declare a designated landscape area. The Opposition considers that to be a problem and an indication that problems will arise in relation to it. The Opposition is concerned 4640 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill that where a balance has to be stmck between the Aboriginal heritage of an area and the mineral-bearing potential of the area, the legislation does not provide sufficient safeguards for heritage. Mr Katter: The reason for that is that the landscape areas wiU be designated areas. Aboriginal artefacts or Aboriginal relics—including Aboriginal rock paintings, etc.—are automaticaUy and immediately declared to be protected under the heritage legislation. We would only make a declaration when we are talking about something that is non- Aboriginal. Mr BRADDY: I take the Minister's point and I am pleased to hear him make it. However, in relation to these matters, perhaps it would be better if he made his point at the conclusion of the debate. The Minister is given considerable time to comment on various matters raised. Mr FitzGerald: You gave him the opportunity. Mr BRADDY: I accept that. I simply say that in future I would prefer that he made his comments at the conclusion of the debate. The Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council has also stated its opposition to provisions that enable private land-holders to terminate a listing and protection of Aboriginal heritage on the land. The Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council has submitted to the Minister that such protection should be withdrawn only if a local Aboriginal committee recom­ mends withdrawal to the Minister. The Minister has not seen fit to include a provision to cover that in the Bill. A strong objection is taken also by the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council to provisions for the removal of Aboriginal burial remains. This is another objection that has not been met by the Minister. Indeed, the correspondence between the Minister or officers of his department and the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council is a sorry tale of request after request that has not been met. After aU, this council is a statutory body that has been set up to advise the Minister for Community Services. The Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council is opposed to the Minister being given power to remove their ancestors' burial remains to the Queensland Museum. The councU informed the Minister that the remains of their ancestors should be treated with respect and reverence. The council says that it does not believe that the provisions contained in this legislation treat the ancestors of Aborigines with that degree of respect. It is suggested—and I agree with the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council—that the provisions of the Bill that allow the remains to become the property of the Crown and to be removed to the Queensland Museum are disrespectful and potentially irreverent. Similarly, under this legislation, the Minister will have power to permit persons to explore for Aboriginal heritage items without the need for approval by a local Aboriginal heritage committee. In that context, members of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council said that their concems would have been met if the legislation had provided for Aboriginal representation on regional landscape committees whose approval would be required before the Minister issued a permit. However, that was another request that was not granted by the Minister. The Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU sought an undertaking from the Minister that he would appoint an Aboriginal advisory committee pursuant to clause 12. The Minister has not complied with that request. Another amended provision in the Bill does not ensure confidentiality of sacred or secret information. This matter is left to the discretion of the permit-holder. The Aboriginal community has sought, but has not been granted, confidentiality. Indeed, except for the addition of much-needed transitional provisions and some comments by the Minister in his second second-reading speech, the major concerns expressed about the original Bill by the Aboriginal Co-ordinating (Council still remain. The Minister has not in any major respect at all complied with the comments, the criticisms and the requests of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU. Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4641

Lest it be thought that it is only the Aboriginal people themselves who have criticised this particular legislation, I wish to make reference to criticisms by other organisations and individuals in the community, which criticisms are just as serious as those made by the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU. I refer firstly to a submission by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in Canberra in July 1987 to the Queensland Goverament conceraing the proposed cultural record legislation. I refer to page 12 of that submission to the Queensland Goverament. Part of that submission states— "The Bill for cultural heritage legislation in Queensland is developed from the current Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1967-1976. Most changes are extensions, strengthening or weakening of its basic provisions; there are two major new sections, those dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander burial remains, and the establishment of Register of the Queensland Estate. One of the main reasons for having a new Act appears to have been the desire to extend it to non-'indigenous' items, or perhaps to remove the word 'Aboriginal' from an item of Queensland legislation. It might be argued that none of the new provisions will significantly enhance the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sites and only marginally increase the opportunity for Aboriginal people to have an input into the preservation and administration of their cultural heritage. From an archaeological perspective, it is unlikely to provide as well as the current Act for archaeological sites and artefactual materials. Certainly, it would appear that there wiU be very few 'Designated Landscape Areas', and a major concera is the lack of provision for automatic incorporation of currently declared Aboriginal sites in the protective provisions of any administration of the Bill. The major thmsts of the Bill are not clearly stated and its direction is not fully clear; neither is the second reading speech particularly helpful in this respect. Major concems can be summarized thus: • Many definitions are unclear and inadequate and/or tautologous. • Administration responsibilities of the Act are unclear. • Advisory committee formulation and memberships are unclear: they lack specific requirement for representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and professional individuals and/or organisations. • In that part dealing with protection of cultural places, it is unclear as to whether sites of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are covered, and there is no formalization of rights of Aboriginal site custodians. • In the sections on burial materials there is no formalization of the avenues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander roles in dealing with burial remains. • Landholders continue to have a right of veto over important provisions of the legislation and there would appear to be little to prevent them from destroying cultural items existing on their properties. • The provisions relating to research are poorly framed; it would appear to require Ministerial approval to investigate an archive. • The powers of the Minister are enhanced but there is no comparable degree of ministerial accountability. • The Bill appears to lack explicit provisions covering sites of significance to contemporary groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, does not provide for appropriate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander control of their cultural heritage, neither does it guarantee Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people effective avenues for participation in the decision-making process; the Bill lacks provisions which would require developmental agencies to consult an appropriate authority regarding cultural heritage, that would restrict trade and export of cultural heritage, and which would encourage public education." 4642 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

Members of the back bench of the National Party were calling for discussion on the BUl and for criticism of it. Now they have it, not just from me but from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies concluded its summary by saying— "In general, the Bill would be improved by clarification of aims and definitions; it should attempt to incorporate lessons learaed from the framing and implementation of other legislation within Australia and elsewhere, and specifically not fail to deal with earlier criticisms of the current Act... it should discontinue undesirable aspects of the current legislation and avoid compounding difficulties relating to definitions, and procedures involving protection of cultural materials and the roles of minorities and researchers. The opportunity should be taken to thoroughly overhaul and up­ date a major piece of State legislation." I suggest that that is a major criticism of the legislation, a criticism that has not been in any significant way met by the Minister or by the Goverament with the presentation of the second piece of legislation on this matter. The criticism does not stop there. I refer also to a critique of the legislation that was submitted to me by the Australian Heritage Commission under cover of a letter from the director, dated 4 August 1987. Page 1 of that critique of the Australian Heritage Commission states— "The Bill contains several areas of major concera, which in combination render the Bill ineffectual in comparison to other heritage legislation in Australia." I emphasise the word "ineffectual". The critique continues— "Key areas of concern are: Part V of the Bill specifies that entry in the Register of Queensland Estate must be by consent of the owner, and that the owner may request removal of a place from the register, the request subject to public advertisement and the Minister's consent. Both provisions are inconsistent with the concept that a Register should be an objective listing of place, with heritage significance. It is perhaps most helpful to separate the question of identification of places of heritage significance from the question or the way in which these places are to be managed. The ideal situation is for the identification of heritage significance to be undertaken by a professional body, such as an Advisory Committee, without this assessment being influenced by considerations not relevant to a place's heritage significance—these considerations would include the current state of the building or place, future plans for the place and the opposition of the owner or management authority. Having established if a place does have heritage significance, one can then proceed, if necessary, to establish the options for future management as a separate exercise. It is not consistent with sound identification of heritage if owners are empowered to veto the entry of a place in the Register. It is at the management stage that the owner should have the opportunity to present the reasons why a place cannot be conserved, or why changes in use or modification of the place is necessary. These arguments can be weighed up against the established heritage significance of the place and an informed judgment made by the advisory committee and the Minister." The Australian Heritage Commission comments in the following way about Part V of the BiU— "Part V gives the Minister wide powers to decide whether or not a place is of sufficient significance to enter in the Register; and whether or not its future management is satisfactory to allow entry. There is no requirement for the Minister to seek expert opinion or to consider such representations. This wiU mean that any property where there is the prospect of future development could be kept out of Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4643

the register because the Minister decides future preservation of the item cannot be guaranteed. The issues of identification and management should, again, be kept separate. The Minister may also recommend the removal of any item at each 6 years review of the Register, with no guidelines as to the basis for that decision. The degree of Ministerial veto, without any expert advice from a Heritage Council usually established under such a Bill, again removes any semblance of impartial identification of heritage places of significance to the community." That, again, is significant criticism from an important public body, a body which has the right and the duty to examine similar legislation. Again, the situation is clearly one that would make a responsible Minister and a responsible Goverament look again at this legislation. That is not the only criticism that I can point to as one which I have available to me and which I believe the Minister would have had available to him. I refer also to significant criticism of this legislation by Dr A. K. Chase of the School of Australian Environmental Studies. In critical comments relating to this particular legislation, Dr Chase states as follows— "The term 'cultural record' is not defined in the Bill. The term 'culture', as it is used in the discourse of social sciences (as opposed to vague and imprecise popular usage) refers to systems of beliefs, knowledge and values in a primary and a constitutive sense, rather than to the material outcomes from these (e.g. artefacts, objects and material).... A 'cultural record' should therefore include these knowledge belief systems as part of the record, certainly more so than material objects. It is quite unclear in what sense the Bill is seen as providing a 'cultural record' as the term is not treated under Interpretation. Nor is it mentioned in the all-too-brief overall description of the Bill. Certainly the implication is from various sections, that the writers see the concept only in material terms." Again at page 2 of his critical comments, Dr Chase states— "The Bill sets up a plethora of administrative categories—apart from the public service officials and delegates there are 'protectors', 'advisers', 'advisory committees' and 'Regional landscape Queensland committees'. Just how all these operate and intermesh would seem a bureaucratic nightmare. At least one interpretation of these structures is that they result from the very imprecisions of definition which are commented upon earlier. Surely experience from other State bodies could be applied here?" At page 3 of his comments, Dr Chase comments as follows— "The present Bill is a confusing and badly written item. ... The rational approach is to scrap this Bill in its entirety, and open the area up to ongoing discourse, advice and critique at all stages of the drafting. Non-partisan scmtiny can only help this State develop meaningful heritage legislation. After all, it appears to affect many dimensions of Queensland and its population. Proper planning should take place in stages, ensuring full consultation with all potentially affected people (including indigenes and researchers, for example). All of us recognise the need for some legislative control in this area free of political partisanship and directed towards recognition of the continued legitimate interest by indigenous people about their own heritage. Legislation should also be specific, clear and fair to all sectors of the population. This Bill falls far short of these criteria, particularly with regard to the undeniable right of indigenous minorities to have a formal place in the protection and management of their own cultural heritage, irrespective of how 'traditional' is interpreted by the legislators." It is my experience that every significant anthropologist and archaeologist independent of the Government department who was prepared to examine this Bill and to discuss it has significantly criticised it. I have referred previously to the strong criticisms from the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council which have not been met. The Minister chose not 4644 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill to use the time available between the presentation of the first Bill, which was withdrawn, and the presentation of the Bill now before the House to make any significant changes to the legislation. It is a great pity. For the reasons to which I have referred, the Opposition cannot support this legislation. The criticisms which have been levelled against the legislation are so significant, so many and so varied—and the Minister has failed to take note of these criticisms and amend the legislation properly—that the Opposition is left with no choice other than to oppose the legislation and to call on the Government to withdraw the Bill and redraft it again. After it is withdrawn on the next occasion, the Opposition will join with Dr Chase in asking the Minister to have significant consultations with groups, organisations and individuals—and not mererly the ones selected to give advice by the Minister and the Government—and to present to this House legislation which is meaningful and proper and which will guarantee reasonable legislation for the heritage of all Queenslanders. Unfortunately this legislation satisfies neither the Aboriginal and Islander people of this State in relation to the protection of their heritage and culture nor the subsequent settlers of this State, whether they be of European or Asian descent. The Minister has missed a great opportunity by not consulting widely and fairly to present legislation which would meet the general satisfaction and agreement of the whole of the informed Queensland community. In these circumstances, the Opposition must oppose the legislation. However, in the event that the Minister does proceed with this legislation, it is my intention as Opposition spokesman to introduce several amendments which would attempt to satisfy some of the criticisms which I have made, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal and Islander people. Those matters will be dealt with in detail in the Committee stage. The stinging criticisms of this legislation from organisations, professionals and Aboriginal and Islander people are a great pity, because they demonstrate once again that an attempt to have goodwill is not enough. The Minister must be competent and discuss widely. He must not merely pick out one or two favourite organisations, such as the National Tmst, and let them dictate the terms, and he must not rely only on professional advice from within his own department when other professional advice is available that is significant and important. The Minister has failed to heed the common sense of the situation and has listened too closely to an organisation such as the National Tmst and not to other organisations. The Minister and his advisers have failed to take into account other relevant legislation—the Minister has let down the Aboriginal and Islander people badly. It is no wonder that in July 1987 the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council passed a resolution conceraing this legislation and its attitude to it. The resolution passed by the council is as follows— "The ACC further resolved to request Mr. Paul Braddy MLA in his position of Opposition Member State Parliament, to instigate public debate through media coverage of this issue." That was done; a seminar was held in Brisbane and discussions were held with professional organisations and advice was obtained. The result of that I have read into the record. Also in July the Aboriginal (Do-ordinating Council passed the following resolution— "The ACC resolved to request Paul Braddy MLA to have fully debated in Parliament our dissatisfaction with the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate Bill 1987), and to also record our dissatisfaction that there was no consultation with Aboriginal people before the Bill was tabled in Parliament. On all future occasions any legislation or matters of concera to Aboriginal people in Queensland must be formed only after full consultation with us. The overall legislation is in bad taste to Aboriginal people and is totally rejected in its present form." As the Aboriginal representatives who are elected from the Aboriginal communities have found this legislation to be in bad taste, so have the professional people and others Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4645 who are interested in heritage and culture similarly found the legislation to be in bad taste. The Opposition firmly opposes the legislation. Mrs HARVEY (Greenslopes) (8.15 p.m.): I am very happy to rise in the debate on the Bill. The Bill is innovative, forward-thinking and, in many respects, well ahead of its time. The member for Rockhampton said that Queensland is not introducing legislation in the same manner as the other States have done. Thank goodness for that! Queensland is noted for its being ahead of the other States and not necessarily following like a mob of sheep. I congratulate the Minister on taking the whole issue out of the too-hard basket, where it has remained for a very long time. The Minister has had the courage to deal with the issue head-on and to go way beyond the little parochial attitudes that have been exemplified by the member for Rockhampton. The Bill is much wider than the narrow thinking of the Labor Party. I am very pleased about that. The legislation will ensure the preservation and acknowledgement of mankind's contribution to the State over not only 200 years but thousands of years. At a time when we are considering our history and when emphasis is being placed on our origin and our heritage, it can be seen that Queensland realised long, long ago that it must acknowledge the role of Aborigines in this country, particularly those in this State. The Queensland Goverament has gone even further than that. It realises that Queensland's pre-history must also be considered. The Queensland Goverament has realised that Queensland is the caretaker—the keeper—of the most significant examples of pre-history in the whole of Australia. We must look way beyond narrow labels and titles, such as limiting a Bill to words such as "Aboriginal" and "Islander", and use much broader language that reflects the whole idea of culture. The criticism of culture by the member for Rockhampton was very narrow. The Bill links all the history that has created the culture that we have now. It includes all the other nationalities and all the other aspects of our history. The Bill is a unifying link in our history. I am very proud to speak on legislation that is so innovative. A large number of changes have been made since the beginning of Australia's history. We have moved on to eras in which social and technological changes have occurred as man has adapted to the different impacts and pressures placed upon society. I reject the circular reasoning of the member for Rockhampton. On one occasion he wanted the Bill to be limited to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. He wanted the title and the emphasis kept there. Towards the end of his speech, he criticised the lack of inclusion of other nationalities and cultures. I regarded that as totally circular reasoning. Mr Braddy: You could put them into two pieces of legislation. Mrs HARVEY: I guess that one could put them into umpteen pieces of legislation. One could divide up the whole of our society and put the parts into neat little boxes and say that they are being looked after. However, we belong to one community. The honourable member queried that fact. I point out to him that we are one community and that we appreciate the whole idea of being one community. The Bill addresses that issue. We appreciate our past and we know that it is essential to do so if we are to look at our present and our future in any sort of perspective. The tapestry that has gone on before can be traced back to pre-history. We appreciate that and we want to protect it. Having included all that, I add that times are changing. At one-time we were like a ship without a mdder—we were without a real history. This Bill acknowledges the fact that we are all Queenslanders and are all entitled to the very same benefits and recognition. That is the way that I would like to see us stay. Queensland is made up of people from a wide range of countries and cultures—a veritable United Nations. I believe that within this House we would have the United Nations represented. Yet we do not want any special legislation to isolate any one of us from any of our colleagues. This legislation follows that very same idea. This Bill differentiates between indigenous culture and the remainder, the reason being that many remains of the cultural record are many thousands of years old and 4646 19 November 1987 CuUural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill form a part of mankind's heritage of importance not only to Queensland but also intemationally. I refer particularly to pre-history. The Riversleigh property is situated between Burketown and Camooweal. Australia's most significant finds of pre-history are situated on that site. I refer to the discovery of many fossils on that site, which has been significant not only for Australia but intemationally as well. Fossilised remains of thousands of animals from the Miocene age have been locked up in the tough limestone of that region for 15 million years. They include tiny teeth, limb bones of browsing marsupials the size of cows and even entire skulls revealing details of spines, the stmcture of blood vessels, the brains and the tiny inner ear bones of bats. Mr Prest: Oh! Mrs HARVEY: Honourable members think that it is trivial of me to mention these things. Labor Party members are always claiming to have a special interest in heritage matters. However, when this Government attempts to deal with the issue and explain it for the information of honourable members, the members of the Labor Party are not terribly interested. One of the most notable finds in that whole area was a giant possum that was perhaps four times larger than any of its living descendants. Other areas of great significance must be considered. Queensland has a tremendous amount of history. Fossils have been discovered approximately 200 kilometres from Townsville along a riverbank in the Greenvale area. Those fossils are believed to be 500 000 years old. Further fossils have been found in north-west Queensland, which has shattered the popular theory that marsupials migrated to Australia. It has been discovered that the marsupial fossils that have been found here in Queensland are much older than those that have been found elsewhere. Pre-history must be considered in the total scan of where we come from and how the whole tapestry fits together. This Bill acknowledges that Aboriginal and Islander people may have special and traditional concerns about places and objects. This Gov­ ernment respects their feelings and their wishes. In fact, this Bill contains the very same powers and means to protect Aboriginal and Islander remains as those that exist under the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. Indeed, the Bill contains additional benefits to Aboriginals and Islanders with regard to the ownership of Aboriginal burial remains. That has been dealt with most adequately in the Bill to the satisfaction of the Aboriginal and Islander co-ordinating councils. It would seem that the honorable member for Rockhampton and I are totally at odds with what has been agreed to in that regard. A wide range of people were consulted. As a result, numerous changes have been made to the legislation. For the benefit of Opposition members, I intend to list some of those people who were consulted, because accusations have been made that no-one was consulted. Let me list some of those people. For a start, 1 mention the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council and the Islander Co­ ordinating Council and the individual Aboriginal people as well. They are listed here but, because I am short of time, I will not read them. Other people or organisations who expressed concern are— Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists; Australian Archaeological Association; Professor John Mulvaney, on behalf of the Australian Academy of the Humanities; Association of Australian Anthropologists; Professor Barrie Reynolds, James Cook University; Dr Peter Lauer, Queensland University; Professor Bmce Rigsby, Queensland University; Queensland History Group; Professor R. M. Golding, Vice Chancellor, James Cook University; Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4647

National Tmst of Queensland; Australian Conservation Foundation; Institution of Engineers; Wildlife Preservation Society; Institute of Architects, Mr Richard AUon; Planning Institute of AustraUa, Queensland Division; Departments of Mines and Arts, National Parks and Sport. The list is endless. This is consultation across a very wide scope of society and a very wide area of expertise. I also refer to— Queensland Museum; National parks; Forestry; Primary Industries; Local Government Association; Brisbane City Council. Some organisations are— UGA; Queensland Chamber of Mines; BOMA; Gulf Local Authorities Development Association. There are more on the list. However, because we are short of time tonight, I will not read them all. Mr Braddy interjected. Mrs HARVEY: The Bill repeals and replaces the existing Aboriginal Relics Pres­ ervation Act of 1967 and the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Amendment Acts of 1976— and rightly so. The Government has long since laid the foundations of a policy that is looking at one land, one people and one heritage. This Bill has encapsulated that policy and brought it to the stage at which it is workable. I am pleased that the Govemment has been able to do so. The member for Rockhampton shows a great deal of life now in interjections. It is a good deal more than he showed when he was making his speech and put everyone else to sleep. I had a great deal of trouble getting myself started after having been lulled to sleep. I move away from the area of Aboriginal concern. That is the only area to which the member for Rockhampton referred. The Bill covers a much wider area. The Bill looks at amendments to the town plan and graph that the city council has produced in terms of heritage. The Queensland Goverament is looking at the whole idea of attaching itself to every aspect of heritage that affects Queensland. It is looking at the Brisbane City Council's record and is worried about that record. When the city council pretends to have a good track record and makes a very loud resounding yawn when the naval stores burn down, then we start to worry. The council starts making arrangements with the Commonwealth Government, which pretends to be interested in Queensland's history—so interested that for a long time it has been finding a minimum amount of money for the preservation of the findings on the historical sites and in the pre-history areas. It is a pathetic effort that the Federal Goverament can find $6m for the Grand Prix in Adelaide but finds only approximately $160,000 for Queensland's area of pre-history that needs to be conserved. Mr Simpson interjected. 4648 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

Mrs HARVEY: Yes, it manages to find money for those sorts of things. However, when it comes to history, it suddenly seems to be very poor and cannot seem to find the wherewithal to help preserve some of the pre-history in Queensland. I tura to the city council, which is in the same boat. It was going to preserve or protect the naval stores, yet somehow they buraed down; and there is not the slightest bit of excitement. I am disappointed that the people of Brisbane did not rally and jump up and down and scream and shout about it. I must have appeared on the TV about four times waraing that those stores would be buraed down. I walked through the buildings and saw the holes burat in the floor from previous attempts. I warned until I was blue in the face and absolutely nothing happened. Guess what? They bumed down. Surprise, surprise! That is an absolutely disgusting record. As far as I am concemed, this council that pretends to be interested in history is just a farce and it should be ashamed of itself It is all very well to attract headlines that look nice, but the council should produce the goods. I challenge the council to build a replica where that building once stood. It would be interesting to see whether the council actually achieved that, because the Queensland naval stores deserve to be restored. The building is half destroyed and it should occupy the site intact. I refer now to the sale by the Commonwealth Goverament of Shafston House. I believe that most people would have heard the honourable Minister's speech in the House this week when he referred to the raw deal that the Commonwealth Goverament has dished out to the Queensland Goverament. The Queensland Govemment has made an honest and genuine attempt to consider preserving Shafston House for the people of Queensland. If the sale proceeds, I have no doubt that it will be bought by a developer and that the site will be occupied by a huge high-rise building. The integrity of the site would be totally destroyed. It would be tantamount to putting a high-rise, brassy building right in the heart of Charters Towers. The impact would be similar. The same people who jumped up and down about other aspects of Queensland's local history seem to be guilty of the most deafening silence when it comes to saving other old buildings. One can only conclude that those who have been involved in preservation of old buildings and have said, "Save this building and that building" or "Save this, that and the other" at public rallies have been members of the Labor Party who, for political reasons, have made a lot of noise. When it comes to a deal being offered by the Labor Goverament, their silence is deafening. If they really cared about Queensland, they would be picketing Shafston House and saying, "Come on. Commonwealth Government. We are going to protect this building." Mr Ardill: You are being dishonest. Mrs HARVEY: Where is the honesty of members of the Labor Party in regard to this whole issue? The Brisbane City Council's tactic in the central city area has been to ride roughshod over private owners. The council has created an enormous problem, and I do not know how it will be unravelled. When one examines the amendments to the City of Brisbane Town Plan and the graph that has been provided, it can be seen that developmental penalties have been provided. Owners of heritage buildings on small blocks have been penalised. I pity the owners of those blocks, because I think the situation created by the council is basically unworkable. I do not know how the council will be able to legally enforce the situation that has been created. I believe that if the council's decision were challenged in a court, the rather fancy and totally incomprehensible graph that accom­ panies the amendment would be mled invalid. The graph and amendment are accom­ panied by a rather strange scale whereby a private owner will be granted approval for an extra floor for every little bit of history that the developer preserves, which is a very amateurish attempt at pretending to do something about preserving local history. It is Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4649 almost as pathetic as the many facades that will be tuming up with the Lord Mayor's plaque attached to them. The Brisbane City Council has sought public comment on its proposals without setting the criteria for assessing the historic value of places. I really cannot see how this whole exercise and the plan for the city will be of much use in the long term. I seek leave to table the graph produced by the Brisbane City Council. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mrs HARVEY: I tura now to proposals made by the Goverament. The emphasis in this Bill is on consultation and, in particular, the preservation of old buildings. I have mentioned already places that can be preserved if the right attitude is adopted. I instance Queen Alexandra Home in my electorate. The Goverament has provided one-off funds for the restoration and preservation of the building. Quite rightly, the Goverament then handed over responsibility for the mnning and future maintenance of that building to the committee of Queen Alexandra Home. The home is paying its own way and the committee is making a pretty good fist of managing it successfully. I believe that is the way that buildings can be saved. I challenge the council to do likewise and produce what it can to save our heritage in an honest way by providing real incentives to others to restore or save their own properties. This Government does not believe in taking properties from people. It does not believe in listing to the extent that people no longer have rights over their own private property. The Government believes in encouraging people to do what is right and to preserve their properties. Individuals are encouraged to play a role in the preservation of our local history. To that end, the Minister is setting up a register of experts who have skills in the preservation of the Queensland estate. That is a very exciting concept. A Brisbane City Council register contains a list of 97 places for the CBD, many of which are questionable, certainly in historical and even architectural terms. A great map with red, blue and green dots all over it has been produced. By looking at that map, one will see that the Commonwealth Goverament centre on the coraer of Ann and Creek Streets is included on that Brisbane City Council map. I hope that is an error, because there is certainly nothing historically or architecturally significant about that building. How on earth did it get on the map? If that is an indication of the kind of research that went into providing this blueprint for the preservation of the Brisbane city historical centre, I will be very worried. I think it is something that was thrown together in five minutes by someone so that it would look good when it was issued to the press and the public. It certainly does not provide any sort of a real blueprint for the preservation of history in the city. It appears that places of value could even have been left off that particular map, for example, the Stables in Mary Street. It is uncertain whether they are included, as the Brisbane City Council computer listing of the title is confused. It seems like a hotchpotch. Somebody is pretending to do something in the city, but it is not really happening. I guess that via the Minister's portfolio the Government will have to look into that and make sure that the whole thing is eventually tidied up, otherwise it will become such a mess that nobody will know what is going on. Look at the Goverament contribution. There are the George Street precinct. Parliament House, the Old Goverament Printery, which is being restored at present, the Mansions and Harris Terrace. There are many buildings that we can rightfully be proud of As I have said once before, they are whole buildings, not facades. They are a significant piece of our history that will be preserved for the people of Queensland. As a public service, advice will be made available via the Minister's department to people wishing to renovate and restore old buildings. That is the sort of incentive that people need if they are going to do something worth while. They may not be buildings of historical significance and be on the register, but their accurate preservation will help

77195—151 4650 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill to maintain the character of the State. Many buildings would fit into that category. I need only to drive around my own electorate of Greensolpes to see many buildings that would really be worth saving. I think of the Early Street Historical Village. It is having huge problems with the Brisbane City Council in trying to remain viable and keep its whole estate together. The people involved need all the help they can get and all the incentive they can get, because they have done the right thing by this State. They have looked after their properties and it is up to us now to help them out if they are in trouble or if they are finding it difficult to make ends meet in looking after those very expensive properties. Therefore, a register of places and people engaged in the buying and selling of historical materials will be provided by the Minister's department. That is very welcome. Many people are moving into the area of doing up little old homes. They want to know what sort of paint is available and what sort of authentic design can be found to be of use to them. I know that we in the Queen Alexandra Home had to search for a long, long time to find the right pattern in order to have a carpet specially woven for the building. It was eventually found. There is now a most magnificent reproduction Victorian carpet in the building. They are the sorts of things that people want to know. It would be a very worthwhile exercise to help people to do the job for themselves. In that way the Government will not have to spend a lot of money on obtaining a lot of properties, which would be a very expensive task. The Government can simply help people to help themselves. People can be helped to own their own property without the threat that anyone might come in and say, "Right, you own an historical property. You can't do anything with it because we are the Govemment and we say so." This Goverament has adopted the right attitude. It depends on people for their co-operation and assists them as much as it can. That is how to preserve buildings. I wish to mention particularly the Queensland Estate Awards, which are well regarded for their prestige value. They are made to individuals with special and disappearing skills. They are not like the flimsy awards handed out in Victoria. They have meaning and enable the passing-on of traditional skills to future generations in courses organised at places such as TAFE colleges. The Queensland Estate Awards are a useful adjunct to the register. They help with the preservation of skills that are needed for the preservation of buildings. With the renovation of the Queen Alexandra Home we had a terrible time trying to find someone who could lay the very small tiles for the foyer floor. These days most tilers are used to laying tiles that come on a net backing. They can whack them down in five minutes and the job is finished very quickly. It was very difficult to find somebody who could lay tiles piece by piece like a jigsaw puzzle. Central to the Bill is the establishment of a register. Unlike the Brisbane City Council list, it will represent accurately places of tme historical, cultural, anthropological and societal significance. The register will be a professional listing recommended to Govemment by professionally based committees. Membership of the committees will reflect the needs of the legislation, for example. Aborigines, ethnic groups, historians and architects. Fortunately the type of the profession of members has not been limited by the legislation. The Bill should not confine membership of committees. That was referred to earlier by the member for Rockhampton. I want to say to the House that the needs of the Act will probably change with changes in technology and social characteristics. Those things have been considered in the legislation. Committees will reflect professional and private industry interests to give the broadest and most appropriate advice to the Minister and, ultimately, to the Governor in Council. The terminology to be used in publications, forms, etc., will be set by committees. The term "preservation" is used in the Bill in a general and flexible sense. When dealing with this area of preservation, I believe that things need to be flexible. The Bill cannot cover every possible circumstance that may occur. Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4651

Regulations will be established to ensure the proper and professional management of the register and the maintenance of places accepted for the register. Methodology and standards will be set under regulations by committees. The conditions and requirements of the Burra Charter will be the basis upon which all matters pertaining to the register will be assessed. The regulations will be regularly updated to keep pace with scientific and technological advances. The impact of the register will be such that even the owner may not interfere with a place or object that is on it. Once a place is registered, that is it. The registration is voluntary. However, once that happens it will be binding upon people that they do not interfere with the property. As I have just said, obviously the approval of owners is required before a building is listed on the register. The Goverament will not be going round requesting people to register their property, it will simply make it attractive for them to want to register the building. How would members of the Opposition like their homes placed on the register without their approval? I am sure that nobody would want to be placed in that position. As the Labor Party happily knocked down Trades Hall, its members probably do not care one way or the other. The Bill emphasises the need for consultation in good faith. It acknowledges the commercial and economic viability of keeping old places and buildings, whether through imaginative use, such as with the Queen Alexandra Home, or through tourism. Buildings can be put to many and varied uses. When I was in TownsvUle, I noticed that some of the lovely old buildings were used for nightclubs. They certainly provided an interesting sort of atmosphere. That is fine. Because the buildings had to be well presented, they had to be well painted. That meant that a certain amount of work went into the buildings and they give some sort of retum. In a response to complaints that this Bill does not define specific actions, I point out that legislation should provide a policy guide for future administration and action. There is no need for it to dot every i and cross every t. This legislation is a broad policy directive. The specific actions will be determined through negotiations between Government, local government, developers and so on and also upon recommendations from professional advisory committees. We do not want to provide ourselves with a strait-jacket by putting all these minor matters in the Bill. That will allow far more scope. Legislation gives a policy and philosophy guide. Adherence or otherwise to the conditions of the Burra Charter in each instance will be a matter initially for advisory committees comprising professional people and the Governor in Council Time expired. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (8.46 p.m.): On reading the Minister's second-reading speech, one could be forgiven for thinking that this Bill is about Queensland's heritage. There is a gulf between the speech and the Bill. It reminds me of Clayton's legislation. The Minister can laugh. People in the community do not think that it is very funny. Indeed, they think that it is a very serious matter. People are very conceraed about the lack of any worth while and adequate legislation before the House this evening. This Bill really takes the place of the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act as amended, and goes a little further. It certainly does not really get involved in urban heritage. The member for Greenslopes went to great lengths to tell honourable members about urban heritage. I will touch on that shortly. Certainly it does not amount to a sincere or genuine attempt at worthwhile heritage legislation. However, it does cover more thor­ oughly the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander areas, whether pre-historic or of historic significance, as well as evidence of man's occupancy of over 30 years. The Bill removes the term "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders" and replaces it with the wonderful term "indigenous". However, it does little more than that. It provides for some additional powers. I will deal with that shortly. The Bill is in no way a genuine or sincere attempt by the Minister to preserve our heritage. The Minister knows full well that this is one of these Clayton's exercises by 4652 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill the Government to try to say to the community, "Look what a wonderful group of people we are. Look what we have done for you. We are introducing this worthwhile heritage legislation." Clearly heritage legislation can be introduced in two ways. There can be two separate Bills or one Bill. The message this evening is that this one Bill is to cover heritage in Queensland. Of course, it is totally inadequate. If the Government wants to proceed in the manner in which it is proceeding, it would probably be better off having two separate pieces of legislation, one to cover the Aboriginals and Islanders and the other to cover generally heritage in Australia over the last 200 years. This Bill deals largely with what was covered by the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. There are, of course, great practical problems with heritage legislation. One has to decide, first of all, what warrants conservation. Equally important is to achieve the conservation and preservation of those areas. It is a complex matter and probably more so because the market forces in the community by themselves cannot bring about socially desirable levels of heritage benefits. Therefore conservation becomes a concern of Government as the community perceives the failure of other processes of society to cater for and cope with this matter. In the past few years many buildings have been listed by the National Tmst, but many of them have been demolished. Despite campaigns conducted by various groups in the community, this Govemment has turned a deaf ear. It has turaed a deaf ear on every occasion. Many more buildings out in the community have been changed against the advice of the National Tmst, and much of their value has diminished and been lost for ever because of the changes that have been made. This has been brought about through this Goverament's lack of adequate worthwhile heritage legislation. In recent years our awareness of the value of heritage buildings and heritage areas has increased enormously as our standard of living has improved, so much so that today there is certainly a need for the preservation of Queensland's heritage, something which the majority of the community supports. It is a complex question. It involves Government. It also involves considerable cost. The benefits that flow from it will be unevenly distributed throughout the community. I refer to the honourable member for Greenslopes' attack—and that is all it was, a knocking exercise—on the Brisbane City Council. How wide of the mark she was! In fact, the one thing that she showed this evening is that she has no knowledge of the basics of heritage at all. She comes into this Chamber and holds herself out to be the heritage saviour of this city, but nothing could be further from the tmth. I understand why the Government gave her that motor car to drive around in; that is the only thing she could gain from this whole exercise of being on the river. Time does not permit me to go through that story this evening. Clearly the honourable member for Greenslopes tries to make out that this legislation will cover all heritage in this State. Her attack on the Brisbane City Council was a valiant effort. In recent days, the council has put forward very worthwhile heritage legislation. It remains to be seem whether or not this State Goverament accepts that legislation. That will be the test. Everyone will see how good the State Government is and how genuine the honourable member for Greenslopes is in the song that she sung to this Chamber. It was a disgraceful performance that does nothing for her position in the heritage community. The honourable member for Greenslopes read out a long list of people who the Minister consulted. She did not of course tell the Chamber what those people said to the Minister. Everyone knows full well what many of those organisations said. The Brisbane City Council said that the legislation was completely and totally inadequate, and so did the National Tmst. The National Tmst stated that there was no statement of aims in the legislation and that the definitions of heritage and cultural property and the categories of these which are to come under the protection of heritage should be included. It mentioned also the mechanisms for identifying such items of cultural property and said that the processes by which these findings are to be confirmed and made public should also be included in the BiU. Cultural Record (Undscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4653

The National Tmst went on to attack the definitions and the lack of clearly defined aims. It stated that there was an absence of any obligation of State Government or local government to identify public and private places and items of cultural significance and to encourage and facilitate their conservation. I could go on and on. Many of the organisations mentioned by the honourable member for Greenslopes were very scathing indeed in their attack of the State Govemment's original Bill. Very few changes have been made in this second Bill. There has been a whole host of minor changes right across the board but no change of any worthwhile note. It is really a farce to refer to this legislation before the House as being heritage legislation. There is no reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; instead the term "indigenous" is used. It is defined as follows— " 'indigenous' means pertaining to any people who inhabited any part of Australia before colonization of Australia". The Minister has taken out one term and put in another term so that it appears that he is doing a wonderful job with the Bill. Of course, it makes no diffemce whatsoever. The Bill was introduced by the Minister who is responsible for Aboriginal affairs. The Bill basically relates to Aboriginal affairs, but even in that area it is completely and utterly deficient. A number of people who have read the Minister's speech have had very harsh things to say about it indeed, because they believed that, when they read the Minister's speech, it would set out to cover heritage, including buildings. To their horror, when they read the Bill, they found that it did not cover those matters. If it was serious heritage legislation, the term "heritage legislation" would have appeared, instead of the mouthful, "Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) BiU". We do not even get a definition of the term "cultural record". The definitions of "Landscapes Queensland" and "Queensland Estate" are, as the National Tmst said, far from being clearly defined and are really gobbledegook. Let us look at some of the real requirements of worthwhile heritage legislation that should apply to this legislation if it is to be worthwhile legislation, as the Minister tells us it is. We should have a register with an expert advisory body to recommend listings on the register. Instead, Queensland has anything but that. Queensland should have an early-warning system, a right of appeal, compensation and incentives, control of penalties, accountability and reporting. The legislation has only part of one of those requirements. Of those basic requirements—a register, with an expert advisory body to recommend listing on the register, an early-warning system, a right of appeal, compensation incentives, control of penalties, accountability and reporting—only one of them is covered, partially, in the Bill. The legislation provides for a number of ad hoc advisory committees. Clause 12 states that the Minister may establish advisory committees to assist him in the administration of the Act and that he may establish those advisory committees as he thinks fit. They are to comprise persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have such expertise as he considers appropriate for the preservation of Landscapes Queensland and the Queensland Estate. If the Minister was fair dinkum, he would have spelt out a list of people and organisations from which those people would come. Already in the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act, under the present advisory committee, the persons who shall constitute the current advisory committee are spelt out. Those people are the director of the appropriate department, the Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Queensland, the Director of the Queensland Museum and one other person nominated by the Minister. The Bill before the House goes much further than that. It has been watered down completely. If one has a look at the legislation of other States of Australia, one finds that the members of the committees are spelt out in the legislation. I know that, this evening, 4654 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill jokes have been made about the other States. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know, as the community knows, that the other States have had a system of trial and error. Their legislation has existed for a long time. It is not something that has been brought in recently. That is why those States have spelt out in their legislation who shall constitute their advisory committees. They do not have a whole host of ad hoc advisory committees; they have one expert committee, which is composed of people from the architectural world, the National Tmst, the Planning Institute, the Local Govemment Association, the Conservation Council and the Building Owners and Managers Association. In this case, if the Goverament was going to have everything in one Bill, the people who are named in the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act would also have been included in this legislation. An honourable member: Isn't it in there? Mr BEANLAND: It is not in the Bill at all. The Bill is just a sham. It is a whitewash on this very important issue. The Minister will not get away from it by saying, "Look, leave it to the Minister's discretion. I will decide who are the people who should be appointed to that committee." The Minister should spell out the organisations from which the members of the committee will be appointed. If the Minister wants a choice, he can ask those organisations to submit the names of three people. If someone from Queensland is required to be appointed to the Senate, I understand that the Government requires the names of three people to be submitted to this Parliament from which a person can be selected. The same procedure should apply under the Bill. It should not be left to the Minister to choose the number of persons he can appoint. He can appoint any number of persons that he cares to think of He can appoint people who he might think have the necessary expertise. If we are going to accept the way in which those advisory bodies will operate within the community, there will be a host of those organisations and none of them will perform their tasks very well. Mr Lee interjected. Mr BEANLAND: They demand three for the Senate also, and then Parliament decides whom it will select from those three. I know that in various other organisations in which nominees have to be put forward, the Goverament demands three. There is nothing wrong with that. The Minister then chooses from those three. Under this legislation the Minister does nothing like that. He just wants to go about things in a willy-nilly manner. As I mentioned, there wiU be a series of those advisory committees around the State. No doubt they will do very little. If one considers the way in which hospital boards and other groups within the community are established, those committees will be established on a voluntary part-time basis. I presume that they will play a very mediocre role in relation to this whole operation. They will advise the Minister, and no doubt there will be quite a number of them. This Bill does not niake provision for accountability or reporting to this Parliament. In fact, private property cannot be included without the property-owner's approval. I can understand why the Goverament would include such a provision. However, in order to achieve worthwhile heritage legislation, that very important aspect must be confronted and wrestled with. With town-planning, the types of zones into which people's property is put determine what people can do within those zones. Of course, properties can be rezoned through the town-planning process. That procedure should also apply to any private property that is going to be listed under this legislation. If private property is listed, people have a right to appeal to the Local Government Court. If that appeal fails and they can prove to the Land Court, for example, that they are entitled to compensation, they will be paid some form of compensation. Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4655

The values of properties that are listed by heritage organisations usually rise considerably. Private property will not be listed—nor will any State Government property without the appropriate Minister's approval. If a Minister has within his departmental responsibility an area of land that he does not wish to have listed, I am sure that he will win the day, because he will say to the Minister for Community Services, "I am not going to agree to have that property listed." Therefore, under this Bill, it will not be listed. I have already mentioned that the number of appointees to the various committees can be altered at the whim of the Minister. Those committees could comprise anything from three to 33 members. That is very unsatisfactory, as are the terms of appointment of those people. In New South Wales and Victoria, committee members are appointed for three years and are then subject to reappointment. I am not sure whether this legislation will allow people to remain committee members for a long period; whether the Minister will review their appointments on a regular basis or whether their appoint­ ments will be reviewed at the Minister's pleasure. In relation to the functions of the advisory committee—clause 13, in common with clause 12, is fairly silent in relation to those functions. In other States of Australia, heritage committees spell out in great detail the functions of the various heritage councils. They point out quite clearly that they are there to arrange and co-ordinate consultations, discussions, seminars and conferences. Other functions are— "... to make recommendations to the Minister relating to the taking of measures for or with respect to— (i) the conservation of; (ii) the exhibition or display of; (iii) the provision of access to; and (iv) the publication of information conceming"— and— "... to make recommendations to the Minister for or with respect to the exercise by him of any functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act or the regulations;". It continues. But it is clearly spelt out, unlike clause 13 of this Bill, which leaves the matters largely unsaid and leaves to the whim and discretion of the Minister what he will refer to the various advisory groups. I am sure that the Government is very concerned about giving the advisory committees teeth, because it has gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that they have no teeth and that the Minister keeps all power and control. Nothing is mentioned in the Bill about accountability. There is no reference to annual reports. Because of the type of advisory committees they are, I am not sure whether they will have to make annual reports to the Parliament or not. If they do not make annual reports to the Parliament, of course. Parliament will not be informed as to the operations of the committees. They will be able to operate in secrecy without taking the public into their confidence. The basic requirement of worthwhile heritage legislation is proper accountability and reporting. That occurs in all other States of this country. It is a basic requirement. There is nothing special about it, except when it comes to Queensland. Of course, it is not included anywhere in Queensland. When it comes to removal of items from the register, we just have to look at the power that the Minister will have. The Minister may remove items. I know that this will be hurting the Minister, because he does not know the first thing about worthwhile heritage legislation. He knows nothing about what ought to be in the Bill. It is a shameful Bill and nothing to be laughed at. 4656 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

The Minister says that every six years he will review the listings. No mention is made of referring those listings to the various advisory committees. The owners or prospective owners may ask the Minister to remove a listing. No mention is made of referring them to the various advisory committees. The role of the advisory committees is continually belittled throughout the Bill. Generally, reference is not made to them. On 10 May the Minister made a great song and dance about how the Bill would cope with various buildings in Charters Towers. Someone was saying that some buildings in Charters Towers might be destroyed. The Minister said in the Sunday Sun, "Look, if I just had this heritage legislation in, it would aU be saved." Mrs Nelson: Have you ever been to Charters Towers? Mr BEANLAND: The member for Aspley has prattied on. She knows nothing about heritage legislation, either. She just indicated that. I will get on with what the problems are here. Mrs Nelson: Have you ever been to Charters Towers? No, you have never been to Charters Towers. Mr BEANLAND: I say to the member for Aspley that if I presented this legislation to the House, I would be ashamed of it also. I can understand her concera. However, the simple situation is that this legislation will not affect those properties, because most of the properties to which the Minister refers are privately owned. The Goverament can take action against the properties that it owns, anyway. The Minister's press statement is merely another headline-grabbing exercise. There is no aspect of this legislation of which the Minister can be proud. In fact, in view of the community's concern for the matters that I have just raised, it is surprising that he bothered to bring in a second Bill, in much the same terms as the first BiU, by suggesting a tidying-up effort. Tmly, people are extremely conceraed about the definitions and about the failure of the Goverament to adequately spell out exactly what the legislation will do. According to the Bill, the Government is relying solely on its record. However, when it comes to heritage, its record is not one that the people in the community are proud of The people believe that the legislation is unworthy and inadequate. The Bill ought to be withdrawn again. Its provisions should be defined in proper terms before it is brought back before the Parliament. The people of Queensland are entitled to worthwhile heritage legislation that can be adequately and properly enforced. They are also entitled to legislation that is worth while. The Goverament should have brought forward heritage legislation that it could hold up its head and be proud of Instead, all that the Goverament has done is give honourable members a remn of the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (9.10 p.m.): I have great pleasure in joining in this debate tonight. I wish firstly to rebut some of the remarks made by the previous speaker who referred to Clayton's legislation. I would have to say that the honourable member's speech was a Clayton's effort. Most honourable members were anxious for the speech to conclude because it lacked substance. One could be forgiven for having to tell the honourable member that his name around Parliament House is "Horlicks"—always guaranteed to put everybody to sleep. I wish to examine some of the speeches that have been made during the debate which have merely been attempts at posturing. The Labor Party wants people to believe that it is the saviour of the Aboriginal and Islander community. The Liberal Party wants people to believe that it is some sort of saviour of the heritage and cultural record of the Brisbane City area. I suppose that characterises party politics, but the tragedy is that members of both parties have really debased the discussion that ought to have taken place in this Parliament about Queensland's quite extraordinary set of cultural and historical records, properties and places that are of great significance to the people of Australia. Queensland has an historical record of which various local authorities and Governments, both past and present, can be very proud. Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4657

I wish to remind the Opposition parties of some of their own track records. I will not refer at length to the Cape Bowling Green Lighthouse—that act of vandalism and theft by the Biggies of the Federal Parliament, Senator Gareth Evans. I wiU, however, remind the honourable member for Salisbury, who has been in the Chamber this evening, that he informed the House that the Federal Minister had made a statement about Shafston House. Apparently, all honourable members are supposed to fall about in gratitude because that is supposed to solve the problem. I inform the honourable member that the Minister's statement solves nothing. The fact that that buUding is proposed to be listed on some register will not save it. The fact that a building is on a Ust will not save it from the auctioneer's hammer and the developer's plans. The Queensland Goverament approached the Commonwealth Goverament and asked whether this Govemment could buy it. The Commonwealth Goverament was offered a reasonable price. However, the Commonwealth Goverament has deliberately put the property up for public auction in an attempt to double the price. All it has done is place Shafston House at risk. The Commonwealth Goverament is playing party politics with Australia's heritage. The Labor Party ought to be ashamed of itself Members of the Opposition ought to rap the knuckles of their Federal colleagues for what they have done. For a real indication of the chicanery of the Labor Party at the Federal level and the embarrassment caused to their colleagues, members of the Queensland Opposition, one only has to look to one of the nominations for Australian Heritage Commission listing. Let us see what the Commonwealth Govemment has stooped to, and what a disgrace members of the Labor Party are for daring to say they have the interests of the Aboriginal and Islander community at heart. Every honourable member would know that of very special significance to the Aboriginal and Islander community—particularly the Aboriginal people— is their sacred sites. Let me inform honourable members that the Federal Labor Govemment, through the Australian Heritage Commission, is proposing to list the original blockade site on Cape Tribulation Road. Have honourable members ever heard anything so farcical in their lives? It is an insult to the Aboriginal people of north Queensland. I ask all honourable members to listen to the statement made about the significance of the proposed listing. The statement reads as follows— "The original site at (Tape Tribulation is totally unique. From the forest action perspective"— talk about the socialist double-speak of the twenty-first century, we are right into it and ft is only 1987— "it has hosted two blockades (the first to take place in Queensland) and maintained a road block for nearly 9 months. It is steeped in the history and literature of Australian forest preservation and has inspired 1,000s of people to the cause of rainforest conservation." Wait for this— "It is a tme modera Australian sacred site." That is the basis for a listing by the Australian Heritage Commission—by our very own precious Federal Labor Govemment. It is a farce. Opposition members in this Chamber are cringing with embarrassment. They are blushing at the absolutely disgraceful behaviour of their Federal colleagues. The Liberals are even stunned into silence at such a performance by the Federal Labor Party. I would like to congratulate the member for Greenslopes, Leisha Harvey, and take great exception to the comments made by the member for Toowong conceraing her activities in the field of conservation and preservation. Her efforts in the Queen Alexandra Home, on the Brisbane River committee, Shafston House and other buildings of major significance in this city are absolutely to her credit and to the credit of her representation 4658 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill for the people of Greenslopes. Frankly, I would like to remind Mr Beanland, who was once the Deputy Mayor and is now a very junior back-bencher in this House Mr Beanland: Just like you. Mrs NELSON: Much more junior. I would Uke to remind him that his former colleague, Sallyanne, is known as the queen of facades in historical and conservation circles, because all she has managed to achieve so far is to save the fronts of some buUdings and leave nothing behind them. In the past I have said that that is a definition of the Liberal Party. Mr Simpson: Queen Anne at the front and Sallyanne at the back. Mrs NELSON: Yes. I made those remarks a long time ago but they have not changed. With every day that passes they are proved more and more correct. I do not think the member for Toowong could take any more; he has bolted from the Chamber. He has fled the scene. One of the other remarks that the honourable member made has to be rebutted. He said that Queensland had to follow the example of other States. Queensland has learned from the errors of some of the other States. We have consulted with them. The option for private property was in fact suggested to us by other States. I would like to cite a fairly significant comment about that from someone who is a leading spokesman in the conservation area. It is that insofar as a Government seeks to achieve its goals by force it is acting fmitlessly and foolishly. The preservation of our estates, the dissemination of knowledge and understanding of the historic continuum are things which are most readily and efficiently achieved when Government works in tandem with the owners and occupiers of land and property. I believe that is a statement about the intent of this Bill. I believe that when the Bill becomes an Act and is proclaimed it will be of great benefit to the people of Queensland. I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill this evening. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (9.18 p.m.): I would like to respond to a couple of the points raised by the two lady speakers on the other side of the House, who have not impressed with their honesty and integrity this evening. Firstly, Mrs Harvey referred to my colleague Mr Braddy as having totally scorned the main thmst of the Bill in terms of urban heritage legislation. She referted to his making no reference whatever to heritage legislation. I remind the honourable member for Greenslopes that the member for Rockhampton, Mr Braddy, referred at some length to the Australian Heritage Commission's comments on the BUl. He made the Opposition's position on the Bill and its intentions with heritage legislation quite clear. He also referred to criticisms from the Griffith University's School of Environmental Studies. He deliberately concentrated on the Aboriginal aspects of the Bill, because that is what it is really all about. The member for Greenslopes spoke of the possibility of building a replica of the naval stores on the other side of the river. I wonder whether she has costed that. It would be a colossal amount. Where does she intend to build the replicas of the Bellevue, Cloudland, Her Majesty's Theatre and every other building that her Government has destroyed? Mrs Harvey: Part of the stmcture was still there. Mr Goss: You won't take interjections, but you give them. Mr COMBEN: Yes, she is very quick to interject. She is there whinging and whining in the background, carping away, yet when she stands and speaks it is almost impossible to understand her through the microphone and she will not accept any interjections. She has got no guts until someone gets stuck into her. As she is in this place, it is about time she learnt to take it. Mr Hamill: She is as hollow as some of those facades that have just been mentioned. Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4659

Mr COMBEN: That is about all there is to her. Even the naval stores, however historic they are, have no substance to them. When the member for Greenslopes spoke I took notes. According to her the whole point of the BUl is heritage. She claims that it is attaching to every aspect of heritage in this State. I challenge the member for Greenslopes, at the Committee stage, to tell the Chamber where there is reference to heritage in the Bill. She did not understand the Bill. She got conned in the same way that the Minister has tried to con the people of Queensland. There is nothing about heritage in the Bill. Mr De Lacy: The only place that has a worse record than Queensland for preserving historic buildings is Beimt. Mr COMBEN: Yes, and over there they have an excuse. The Queensland Govera­ ment has no excuse; all it does is kowtow to the white shoe brigade. The legislation makes no mention of heritage. It is not heritage legislation. For six years we in the Opposition have waited for heritage legislation to be introduced in this State. The legislation went through seven drafts and finally it was so watered down that it could not be a Bill on its own; the Government had to add it as an addendum to the Bill that the Minister should have introduced as the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act Amendment Bill. Instead of that, the Government has lumped the two pieces of legislation together. It has tried to con the people of Queensland. As I said on the night the BUl was introduced, it is Clayton's legislation. The member for Toowong can take that quote and use it as his own, but it is the Labor Party's quote. This legislation is totally inadequate. Queensland is the only mainland State not to have heritage legislation. This Bill has no similarity whatsoever to legislation in any other State of Australia. Government members can speak about consultation with other States and improving on their legislation, but this Bill bears no similarity whatever to the legislation in other States. The Bill is just not good enough. At present developers have open slather. I instance the Bellevue, Cloudland and Her Majesty's Theatre. In this State the list is endless. The only historical precinct in Brisbane is the parliamentary precinct. Brisbane is quickly losing its character. The Government should have attempted greater preservation, as has occured in Rockhampton and Townsville and the Rocks area of Sydney. However, this State has no legislation whatever to preserve its heritage. The Bill is tmly inadequate. It lacks the essentials of any normal heritage legislation, the essentials that are in the Acts of every other Australian State. Those essentials are compulsory listing, incentives, compulsion and protection. I shall now refer to criticism of the Bill by the National Tmst of Queensland. There seemed to be some implication by Government members that the National Tmst supports the Bill. Nothing could be further from the tmth. A short statement from the National Tmst says— "The National Tmst of Queensland has rejected the Queensland Goverament's proposed heritage legislation. In a letter to the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services... Mr. Noel Hobson advised that the Tmst's Council considered the Bill failed to provide effective protection for Queensland's heritage." Mrs Harvey: Were you talking about Her Majesty's Theatre? Mr COMBEN: If I am to accept interjections from the honourable member for Greenslopes, in future she ought to accept them from the Opposition. As she never responds to Opposition interjections, I see no reason why I should be bothered by some little squeak in the background. Mr Sherrin: That was not very polite. Mr COMBEN: That was the polite version. An Opposition member: The other pip-squeak is no longer in the background. Mr COMBEN: No. The other pip-squeak has moved. 4660 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

Mr Sherrin: Don't be nasty. Mr COMBEN: I simply said that the pip-squeak had moved. The National Trust continued to say that aspects of the Bill that the Trust Council believes need attention include inadequate definitions, the apparent disregard of the provisions of the Burra Charter, the lack of clearly defined aims and the absence of any obligation on State and local government to identify public and private places and items of cultural significance and to encourage and facilitate their conservation. The Tmst Council also recommended that the Bill include the responsibilities and roles of various levels of authority, for example State and local authorities, the National Tmst of Queensland, specialist advisory bodies, interest groups and ministerial discretion. Nothing in this Bill reflects tme urban heritage legislation. It has massive defects. The Minister knows that he has tried to con the people of Queensland. That is the only way I can put it. I will conclude with a resume of the heritage legislation that a Labor Government will introduce into this State. As was stated in our policy document for the last State election, a Labor Government will ensure the protection of our heritage by introducing mirror State legislation to complement the Australian Heritage Commission Act of 1975. A Labor Goverament will have a list that is objective; it will have protection; and it will have incentive to preserve as well. A Labor Goverament will ensure that there is full and proper consultation and co-operation between State departments and the Australian Heritage Commission and encourage nomination of suitable Queensland places to the register of the National Estate. In addition. Labor will establish a Queensland Heritage Commission to provide for the protection of Queensland's cultural, natural and archaeological heritage and it will be responsible for a range of other matters. A Labor Government will genuinely consult with the National Tmst and other interested bodies. It will introduce legislation that will ensure that our urban heritage is preserved. A Labor Government will not have some shonky piece of legislation that is good for cave paintings in the northera parts of the State but will do nothing to save the Bellevues and so on of this State. It is about time that this Goverament introduced proper legislation. This is the Government's second attempt. I have great pleasure in opposing the legislation. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders—Minister for Northera Development and Com­ munity Services) (9.26 p.m.), in reply: In the first half of his speech, the first speaker, the member for Rockhampton, commented on a number of things that really pertain to Aboriginal Affairs in the State and which I do not think relate to heritage. I think that most honourable members would in fact agree with some of the comments that the member for Rockhampton made. In regard to his comments about Aboriginal police training—some problems have been experienced. However, training has begun and a very significant number of the police in the State have now been trained. I am informed that the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council is quite pleased with the training program that has been instituted. The member for Rockhampton spoke about a lack of resources. This State is spending far and away more money on the communities per head of population than is any other State in Australia. The fact that the Government is meeting this cost burden has been one of the reasons why the Federal Goverament has been short-changing this State to the tune of some $62m a year. The Queensland Government has been a very, very generous Government in this area. As I said, the Federal Govemment has short­ changed the people of this State by $62m each year. I do not want to bore the House with those statistics or how I arrived at them. Hansard will reveal that those figures have been gone over many times before. In regard to a possible lack of resources—a study by the University of New South Wales stated that 80 per cent of the Federal Government money that is earmarked for Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4661

Aboriginal Affairs is presently ending up in the pockets of white people. I ask that some of that money be taken away from the white people, the do-gooders who so often criticise the Queensland Government, and given to the black people. I suggest that the answer lies with the Federal Govemment and not with the Queensland Govemment. It is unfortunate. I only wish that the Queensland Govemment could spend more money. In regard to water, dusty streets and overcrowding—again two of those problems relate to the first problem. I will deal with the problem of overcrowding first. With the brick-making machines that are provided on almost all of the mainland communities now, the Government believes that people have the wherewithal to be able to build the houses themselves. If CEP and CDEP funds are used, the number of houses that are being built in the State at present should be able to be increased by 30 or 40 per cent. This Government has come to grips very aggressively with the problem of overcrowding. I agree with the honourable member for Rockhampton that this is one of the worst problems that the Goverament has to deal with, because it causes many social problems as well. The new houses that are being built can easily accommodate between 8 and 10 people and there is a different style of house that covers that problem. 1 agree with a number of issues raised by the honourable member for Rockhampton. The Federal Government should attend to this matter because, as should be obvious to everyone, the State Goverament cannot put any more money into it. At the present time much of the money that is going into white pockets should be going into black pockets. In regard to the training programs that are being undertaken by the Federal Government—once again this Cioverament is extremely short of resources for those programs. If this Government switches resources into that area, the funds will have to be taken away from other projects, such as water supply, street development and road access. The Federal Government has all of the responsibility, because the Federal Minister for Education has an enormous amount of funds that are available for Aboriginal people only. If the Federal Minister for Education is not going to spend the money on this, I would like to know what in Heaven's name she is going to spend it on. I agree with the honourable member for Rockhampton on the other points that he. raised, but I totally disagree with him on the next point, because he is most certainly wrong. He said that black people do not have any say in the housing programs. I personally went to every community, attended public meetings and asked them what features they wanted in the new houses. I took notes, and 27 items were specifically requested. I can remember many of the items graphically. These notes were given to the architects as orders and directions for the ideas to be incorporated into the new house design. The new house design incorporates all of the features that were suggested by each of the communities that I visited. In regard to the break-up of the housing programs—I retain control over 10 to 12 houses to use at my own discretion for emergency cases that occur from time to time. The ACC and ICC have agreed to that. The other houses are divided amongst the councils on the basis of where they think the houses should go. The decisions on the houses are made exclusively by the people themselves and the vast preponderance of the houses next year will be built by the councils, which will be the contractors. I might add that 196 jobs have been created for people of Aboriginal descent in house-building. In the second half of the honourable member's speech he referred to some of the issues contained in the Bill currently before the House. He said that the word "Aborigines" was not used. Far from making any apologies for that, this Goverament feels extremely strongly about the fact that we are one people in Australia. As far as I am conceraed, we always have been and we always will be. Any racial isolation, or any step in that direction, is unpalatable to everybody in this House. This Goverament is not trying to achieve cultural ghettoism. That is what the Goverament is trying to get away from. Mr De Lacy: You are speaking on behalf of a party that is full of racists. 4662 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

Mr KATTER: I find it most extraordinary that a party—a Goverament—that moves racial discrimination Acts would move Aboriginal legislation two seconds later. They are acts of arch hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of the Federal Goverament. Mr Hamill: Why do you have a Community Services (Torres Strait) Act and a Community Services (Aborigines) Act? Mr KATTER: Because in one case this Govemment is administering councils, and one of them has 22 people on it. An Act that is suitable for a council that administers 22 people is an entirely inappropriate Act to be utilised when administering a community of some 2 000 people, such as Palm Island. That is a major reason for the difference. The honourable member is talking about an entirely different animal altogether when he refers to the small, isolated Torres Strait island communities. It would be a little bit beyond somebody who has not set foot north of Caloundra in his entire life to know the difference between the geography of the Torres Strait islands, which are surrounded by water, and the mainland community. As to the reason for the omission of the word "Aborigine", I point out that the Govemment has constantly tried to assert that we are all Australians and that we are all Queenslanders. They are the principles that the Govemment has attempted to embody in every single way in the Bill. Any intmsion by the Federal Goverament with racial legislation must be in contravention of its own Racial Discrimination Act. There can be no doubt that there were gross legal inconsistencies as well as logical inconsistencies in the approach adopted by the Federal Goverament. I agree with the remarks about confidentiality made by the member for Rockhampton. The Government would like to preserve confidentiality at every twist and tura. There is no doubt that, the more people who know and the more forcing of disclosure that occurs, the less chance there is of adequately policing these places at all times. So the greatest protection for most of our heritage is our anonymity. The Goverament would like that to continue. The member for Rockhampton referred to the words "community services". I advise him that at the last meeting of Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia, two or three of the Ministers were in fact Ministers for Community Services. That is, in fact, their title. The Ministers' portfolio change from time to time. I do not know what the situation is at present. When I represented the Police Minister at a recent meeting, two people at the table were also Ministers for Community Services. I do not know how it moves backwards and forwards. I know that other States have adopted the same approach as Queensland has. The member for Rockhampton said that a number of objections were made by the ACC. To my knowledge, four objections were made, three of which were met by the Government. I sympathise with the ACC. It has some worries that the omission of the word "Aboriginal" will mean that they will not be looked after. I can assure the House that they most certainly wiU be looked after. All of the protections that exist at present will continue. As to consultation—Dr Chase said that the Govemment did not have any consvUtation. At the time, the Govemment released numerous press statements and received very wide media coverage. The Bill was allowed to lie on the table of the House for, I think, six months. Everybody was invited to come forward. Between 40 and 50 different parties came forward. If Dr Chase did not come forward, let that be upon his head. The legislation hardly needs criticism from him; in fact, he criticised himself when he said that he was not given an opportunity to come forward. Of course he was. He could have done exactly the same as everyone else did. Reference was made by members of the ALP and also Mr Beanland to a meeting. I could not understand anything that Mr Beanland said in his speech, so I cannot say that he agreed with what the ALP was saying. However, I think that he did. He quoted Mr Hobson, the president of the National Tmst. A meeting was held. It was attended by Richard AUom, Doug Russell and Noel Hobson. I cannot remember Mr Hobson's objecting to anything. The minutes CuUural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4663 of the meeting that was held most certainly indicate that he did not. Agreement was reached on all of the other items from the other two members of the National Tmst who were present at that meeting. There must be some misunderstanding on the record. As far as the Government is concerned, its record reads that it has total agreement from the ACC, except on the issue of the word "Aboriginal". I sympathise with that council. I give it every assurance that Aborigines will most certainly be looked after in the new BiU. Mr Simpson: Wind up. Mr KATTER: I am winding up. I know that the hour is late. It would be improper for me not to comment upon the actions of the Brisbane City Council. I think that there are many members, particularly those on the Opposition benches, who do not understand what has been done in Brisbane. Some people at City Hall are like facades. Of course, the by-laws, or whatever they are, are continued in a very ineresting document. It refers mostly to buildings with which the council has absolutely no connection. In fact, it refers to State Goverament buildings. Although it is a document with many rosy colours in it, it can be seen that most of the colours are attributable to the State Government, not to the Brisbane City Council. This Government has been the preserver. It has created a beautiful precinct and has achieved heritage preservation in this State practically, positively and in reality. In common with other action that has been taken by the Brisbane City Council, this document is a facade. Mr De Lacy: Why do you spend all your money in Brisbane? Why won't you spend some in the country—in the north? Mr KATTER: I wish that Mr De Lacy would get his act together with Mr Comben, who has stated that all this Government will do is look after the north of the State. Mr Comben's concluding remarks were that we will look after a few Aboriginal paintings up north but we did nothing to protect the Bellevue. Those were Mr Comben's exact words. Mr De Lacy: What an absurd response. Mr KATTER: Those were not my words. An honourable member: Wind it up. Mr KATTER: Yes. I am winding up. The only other aspect that calls for comment is a statement that was made by the last speaker for the ALP, who said that, because the Australian Heritage Commission is such a distinguished organisation, it will be consulted and it will have a very great say in what takes place in Queensland in the future. I wish to point out that the gang that proposed the monorail around Ayers Rock; the people who painted over the Wandjina Aboriginal paintings with Berger Breeze; the people who captured the Cape Bowling Green Lighthouse, packed it up in a carton and took it back to New South Wales; and the people who mined Kakadu national park are the sorts of people with whom we are going to do business because they have protected the environment so wonderfully well! Those people are part of a very sad and sorry history. This Government is very proud of what is being achieved by this legislation. It will stand on its record of achievment and on what it will implement in the future. The Brisbane City Council is mnning scared. It does not want to appear to be taking action. During the next two years, this Government will be judged by its actions. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— 4664 19 November 1987 CuUural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill

AYES, 50 NOES, 26 Ahem Katter Ardill Alison Knox Braddy Beanland Lane Bums Beard Lee Campbell Berghofer Lickiss Casey Bjelke-Petersen McCauley Comben Booth McKechnie De Lacy Borbidge McPhie Eaton Burreket Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Neal Goss Elliott Nelson HamUl Fraser Newton Hayward Gately Randell McElligott Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock Mackenroth Gilmore Sherrin Milliner Glasson Simpson Palaszczuk Gunn Slack Shaw Gygar Stephan Smith Harper Stoneman Underwood Harvey Tenni Vaughan Henderson Veivers Warburton Hinton White Wamer Hinze Wells Hobbs Tellers: Yewdale Tellers: Hynd Littleproud Davis Innes FitzGerald Prest Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. R. C. Katter (Flinders—Minister for Northem Development and Community Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr BRADDY (9.49 p.m.): The subject has been fully canvassed in my speech this evening. I intend to cover the legislation only briefly in the Committee stage. It has been submitted by the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU that the legislation should make particular reference to "Aborigines", "Aboriginal", "Island" and "Islander". I reject the statement made by the Minister to the effect that it would be racist to accede to that submission. I point out to the Minister that, where necessary, people must be identified by their correct titles, as occurted in legislation pertaining to Community Services, which contains references to Islanders and Aborigines. It is equally important in heritage legislation that Aborigines and Islanders be referred to by their correct names. I believe that clause 5 should be amended. I therefore move the following amendment— "At page 3, line 16, insert— ' "Aboriginal" means pertaining to Aborigines or their ancestors. "Aborigine" means a person who is a descendant of an indigenous inhabi­ tant of Australia other than the Torres Strait Islands.' "; "At page 4, line 7, insert— ' "Island" means pertaining to Islanders or their ancestors. "Islander" means a person who is a descendant of an indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands.' " Mr KATTER: The Queensland Govemment has stated previously that it is trying to have everyone in Australia accepted as Queenslanders and as Australians. Racial Cuhural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4665 discriminations and distinctions are not what the Govemment is trying to achieve in any of its legislation. For those reasons, the amendment is unacceptable. I recognise the concera felt by the ICC and the ACC. I sympathise with members of those councils. I understand that they are worried about being forgotten. I assure the Committee, as I have on numerous occasions previously, that they will not be forgotten and that hopefully, they will be looked after in the future much better than they have been in the past. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! There are two similar amend­ ments to the clause. It is my intention to put both questions. Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 27 NOES, 49 Ardill Ahem Knox Braddy Alison Lane Burns Beanland Lee Campbell Beard Lickiss Casey Berghofer McCauley Comben Bjelke-Peterser 1 McKechnie D'Arcy Borbidge McPhie De Lacy Burreket Menzel Eaton Cooper Neal Gibbs, R. J. Elliott Nelson Goss Fraser Newton Hamill Gately Randell Hayward Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock McElligott Gilmore Sherrin Mackenroth Glasson Simpson Milliner Gunn Slack Palaszczuk Gygar Stephan Shaw Harper Stoneman Smith Harvey Tenni Underwood Henderson Veivers Vaughan Hinton White Warburton Hinze Wamer Hobbs Wells Tellers: Hynd Tellers: Yewdale Davis Innes Littleproud Prest Katter FitzGerald Resolved in the negative. Clause 5, as read. agreed to. Clauses 6 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr BRADDY (9.59 p.m.): I referred to this matter in the second-reading debate. It relates, of course, to the necessity for Aborigines and Islanders to have their own advisory committees. I have spoken to the Minister about this matter and he has indicated that he agrees in principle with the Aboriginal and Islander people being consulted. It is the Opposition's contention, however, that although the Minister has agreed in principle the matter should be put beyond doubt and placed in the Bill. Accordingly, I move— "At page 7, delete all words after 'Minister' in line 43 and insert— 'shall establish and maintain an Aborigines Advisory Committee and an Islanders Advisory Committee and may establish and maintain such other advisory committees as he thinks fit comprised of persons having, in the Minister's opinion, such expertise as he considers appropriate to the preservation of Landscapes Queensland and the Queensland Estate.' " Mr KATTER: The Goverament agrees totally with what the honourable member has said. It fully intends to move in the direction that has been outlined by the honourable 4666 19 November 1987 Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill member. I am quite happy, on behalf of the Government, to give assurances to the honourable member that all of the principles embodied in his two pages of foreshadowed amendments will be implemented in a relatively short, time by regulation or by admin­ istrative fiat. It may be possible to have these principles incorporated in the legislation at a later time. The Government most certainly wiU implement every single aspect put forward by the member for Rockhampton. I do not think there is any need to divide the Committee on it. Amendment negatived. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr BRADDY (10.02 p.m.): This matter has been canvassed previously. It relates to the sensitivity of the Aboriginal people, their need to be consulted and the need for appropriate legislation to cover these consultations. I note the Minister's undertaking that he gave when he spoke to the amendment that I moved to clause 12. However, I wish to formally move— "At page 12, line 35, after 'Museum' insert— 'provided that no part of the Queensland Estate which is of Aboriginal or Island significance will be so removed without the approval of the Aborigines Advisory Committee or Islanders Advisory Committee respectively.'" Mr KATTER: The Government accepts the principle espoused in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Rockhampton and wiU be implementing it. I give that commitment to the Committee. Amendment negatived. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr BRADDY (10.04 p.m.): Again the clause relates to dealing reasonably with Aboriginal and Islander people. The matters have been fully canvassed. I move the following amendment— "At page 15, line 28, after 'granted' insert— 'and if the Regional Landscapes Queensland Committee (if any) for the area approves'." Mr KATTER: Once again, it most certainly is the Government's intention to see that the regional landscapes committee is consulted in every single case. There are some difficulties in carrying this out. It will be enormously expensive to mn these regional landscape committees if they are going to meet every month. The Government does not want work to be held up for that period of time. I again give the honourable member an assurance that the principles involved will be implemented in the administration of this Bill. Amendment negatived. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clauses 29 and 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr BRADDY (10.06 p.m.): Again, this clause relates to deaUng properly with the Aboriginal and Islander people and the requirement that information that is provided by them be treated with the greatest confidentiality. This relates particularly to tribal people. The amendment is proposed for the purpose of endeavouring to tighten up the Cultural Record (Landscapes Qld & Qld Estate) Bill 19 November 1987 4667 situations in which this confidentiality can be enforced. Accordingly, I move the following amendment— "At page 17, line 12, omit, 'is not required to' and insert— 'may not'." Mr KATTER: This clause was inserted by Professor Rigsby from the University of Queensland. I stress that that clearly shows just how much detailed discussion took place with so many people. I am sure that Professor Rigsby would agree that "may not" would be a better expression. I accept the honourable member's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 36, as read, agreed to. Clause 37— Mr BRADDY (10.08 p.m.): This clause deals with the disposal by the Queensland Estate of certain items, and the sensitivity relating to the matter of dealing with Aboriginal and Islander remains. The amendment that I propose to move is again an endeavour to protect the sensitivities of the Aboriginal and Islander people in relation to burial remains that have been discovered. Sometimes in the past they have been dealt with in a most insensitive way by Australians and they have been paraded around in a manner that has caused distress and anguish to Aboriginal and Islander people. The amendment is to be moved in an effort to tighten up that situation. I move the following amendment— "At page 19, line 31, after 'Estate' insert— 'other than indigenous burial remains'." Mr KATTER: I believe that some changes need to be made here. My department was under the impression that the museum had agreed with the ACC on this matter. From what the member has said, there is obviously some doubt about that. My department will go back to both those parties, but I would not like to ride over the top of the museum. It has done an excellent job in this field. The concerns expressed by the member are very real—and the museum would agree—and these people should have first say at all times in this matter. I assure him that I will discuss this change with the museum and will come back to this Chamber with the best possible way of attending to it. I do not want to agree with the amendment instantaneously, because the museum and the people concerned would be deeply offended if this Government mshed in without firstly consulting them. I certainly agree with what the honourable member said. It may be that legislation is required and that it cannot be done by administrative fiat or regulations. I ask the honourable member to consider the fact that the museum has done an excellent job in this field and a complaint has never been laid against it. It would be offensive to the museum in the extreme if this Govemment were to accept the proposal that is currently before the Committee. Amendment negatived. Clause 37, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BRADDY (10.11 p.m.): There is only one further matter in relation to the clauses that I wish to speak on and this relates to a proposed amendment to insert a 4668 19 November 1987 Queensland Place Names Bill new clause 37A immediately after the clause with which the Committee has just dealt. Again, this new clause relates to the necessity to protect the burial remains of Aboriginal people. The proposed amendment is self-explanatory. I move the following amendment— "At page 20, after clause 37, insert— '37A. Any item of the Queensland Estate which consists of indigenous burial remains submitted to the Minister shall forthwith be buried under the authority of the law of Queensland or other State of the Commonwealth of AustraUa or of a territory of the Commonwealth unless the Aborigines Advisory Committee and the Islanders Advisory Committee agree to the remains being dealt with as items of the Queensland Estate other than indigenous burial remains pursuant to section 37.' " Mr KATTER: The remarks I made concerning the previous clause are relevant to this new clause. Everyone in the Chamber would agree with what the honourable member is attempting to achieve through this amendment. This Government must ensure that it will be achieved, and I give an assurance to the Committee along those lines. Amendment negatived. Clauses 38 to 66, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Katter, by leave, read a third time.

QUEENSLAND PLACE NAMES BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (10.15 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to repeal the Queensland Place Names Act 1981, to provide for the naming of places in Queensland and for other purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (10.16 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Bill is intended to repeal the existing place names legislation, the Queensland Place Names Act 1981, and achieve four main objectives. They are— (1) to aboUsh the Queensland Place Names Board; (2) to transfer the board's powers to the Surveyor-General; (3) to streamline the administrative processes associated with place names matters; and (4) to strengthen the power of the Crown to prevent blatant misuse of place names which are not approved. Under the existing Act, the Surveyor-General is ex officio chairman of a board of six members, appointed by the Goveraor in Council, to advise the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying on place names matters. Because the board normally meets only once a month, any matter for consideration faces a delay of at least three weeks if it arrives at the board office just after a meeting. Queensland Place Names Bill 19 November 1987 4669

The abolition of the board, which is provided for in clause 3, would remove the need to wait for a board decision on each particular matter, which is one cause of delay in place names processing. An officer of the board devotes at least one week in each month towards preparation for board meetings, the recording and distribution of minutes and the preparation of copies of correspondence and submissions, etc. This effectively reduces the time which can be spent on processing of place names matters, replying to public inquiries, dealing with intra-departmental work—for example, checking maps in the course of preparation—and input to the gazetteer of place names. Abolition of the board is in accordance with current Goverament policy in seeking to reduce the number and powers of statutory authorities and would represent a yearly saving to the Government of $3,000 in members' fees. The Surveyor-General will assume the powers and functions of the board under the provisions of clause 8, including responsibility for advising the Minister on place names matters. The Surveyor-General will not be the sole source of advice, but will seek to co­ ordinate such advice. The Surveyor-General also may commission research into place names origins, control the compilation and use of the Queensland Place Names Gazetteer— the data base which records all approved place names—provide information to the public based on those records and control the addition and omission of place names to maps issued under his authority. The present Act provides for compulsory advertisement of intention to adopt, omit or alter a place name, followed by a one-month objection period. Any objections received are reported on by the board. The Minister then approves the submission of the proposed action to the Governor in Council, who has the power of final decision. Under the existing legislation, there is usuaUy a delay from origin of place name action of at least two months, because of the need to obtain board permission to proceed to preliminary pubUc notice and to allow the objection period of one month, plus consideration of objections and ministerial report. The removal of the compulsory provision to advertise every place name proposal, contained in clause 10, will allow ministerial discretion on the pubUc advertisement of place name proposals. Experience has shown that only 10 per cent of names advertised attract any comment at all. Comment and objection nearly always originate from proposals affecting urban areas. Many place names relate to minor features. Under the provisions of clause 10, the Minister retains the power to advertise and accept objections if he considers it necessary. The adoption of the optional procedure is expected to save at least $7,000 in advertising costs per year, and to allow staff time to be reallocated to other vital tasks within the place names area. It should, in the case of minor features not attracting public comment, allow much speedier processing of applications for new, altered or omitted names. Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill are designed to give the Crown greater power to control the deliberate misuse of place names, usually through publication of unapproved place names in the media in real estate advertising and promotion. Where estate names are adopted unofficially by residents of newly opened estates, confusion in the delivery of essential services, such as police, fire brigade, ambulance, doctors and postal and general deliveries, inevitably follows. In an extreme case, such confusion can represent a risk of loss of life or property. The Solicitor-General's advice was sought in consideration of existing legislation, and his advice has been incorporated in the Bill. Definitions have been altered to give better effect to the Crown's procedure for prosecution of offenders, and penalty levels have been brought into line with accepted levels in the hope that the minority of offending real estate agents and other property-developers will adopt a more responsible attitude. 4670 19 November 1987 Queensland Place Names Bill

In summary, this Bill seeks to make the process of registering place names in this State more efficient and effective. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Eaton, adjouraed. The House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.