Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 28 MARCH 1984

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2118 28 March 1984 Ministerial Statements

WEDNESDAY, 28 MARCH 1984

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Trade Data International Pty Ltd Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (11.1 a.m.), by leave: FoUowing discussions with my ministerial colleague the Honourable Peter McKechnie, Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, I wish to draw to the attention of this House and of the people of Queensland the activities of a company operating under the name of Trade Data International Pty Ltd. This company has established In Melbourne a Queensland Real Estate Exhibition, which spedaUses in marketing Queensland real estate to Victorians wishing to resettle in Queensland. On the company's own figures, the exhibition to date has processed over 1 000 buyers with a total purchasing power in excess of $50m. Officers of my department and tourism officers have been concerned for some time that Trade Data International, primarily through the efforts of a Mr Colin Cowell, has deliberately sought to give a strong Impression to existing and potential clients that this exhibition has the full support and the ringing endorsement of the Queensland Government. Attempts have been made to convey the Impression through advertising and promotional material that the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau and the Department of Com­ mercial and Industrial Development have in fact been referring potential clients to the Queensland Real Estate Exhibition. Let me state quite clearly that this is not the case. Numerous attempts have been made in recent times to advise Mr Colin Cowell and the Queensls^nd Real Estate Exhibition to withdraw implications and statements of State Government support for the activities of this organisation. I think it is fair to say that these approaches have been virtuaUy ignored by Mr Cowell and others Involved with Trade Data International and the Queensland Real Estate Exhibition. Of particular concern to the Government are the use of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation logo on advertising material for the exhibition and a number of quotations in newspaper reports attributed to Mr Cowell. These quotations are to the effect that the Queensland Department of Commercial and Industrial Development and the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau have been referring to the Melbourne exhibition potential Victorian buyers of Queensland real estate. Again, this is completely false and Mr CoweU and the company have ignored repeated requests from the Government to withdraw these statements. Ministerial Statements 28 March 1984 2119

In short, Queenslanders are being asked to part with $350 for space In the exhibition with a very heavy sales pitch that the exhibition has the endorsement of my department and the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau. The State Government remains committed to attracting new residents to this State, but Queensland departments do not act as referral points for commercial ventures. I can only view with suspicion the activities and motives of Trade Data International, the Queensland Real Estate Exhibition and Mr Colin Cowell in ignoring numerous requests from the Government to desist from implying Queensland Government endorsement of the exhibition. I advise Queenslanders to treat with caution any approaches from or dealings with this exhibition, Mr CoUn Cowell and Trade Data International Pty Ltd. The State Government is now looking at legal options to redress the situation.

Rural Fires Board Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Adminis­ trative Services) (11.5 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday, I tabled in this House the annual report of the Rural Fires Board, which administers the operation of Queensland's very efficient network of 1 500 volunteer bush fire brigades in this State. In his report, the Rural Fires Board chairman was critical of the level of State Government funding to this essential service, currently $1.2m In 1984-85. Although I share the concern of the chairman that rural property-owners should receive adequate protection from the threat of bush fires, I cannot agree with the criticism that the State Government has given insufficient attention to the needs of the Rural Fires Board. Since becoming Minister responsible for the Rural Fires Board, I have had discussions with many bush fire brigades about the standard of rural fire safety in this State. I have been impressed by the efficiency and enthusiasm with which brigades carry out their work. As late as last week, when I visited four bush fire brigades on Eraser Island, there had not been any criticism made to me by the brigades that they lack the equipment or man­ power to carry out their task. I am very much aware that the Rural Fires Board is keen to expand its level of funding to meet what it sees as increased obligations throughout the State. However, to date, approaches made by me on the board's behalf to Treasury have been unsuccessful, and the question of Increased funding has now been taken up by the board with the insurance industry. I look forward to receiving a report from the board on this initiative. Although I fully support the board's efforts to obtain greater funding, it must be pointed out that comparisons between States on the level of rural brigade funding are not valid. Thanks to different climatic conditions, Queensland does not experience the dangerous cycle of hot dry summers and high winds that has caused so much destruction in southern States. Despite the reduced bush fire threat, the Rural Fires Board continues to maintain a very high level of fire protection In this State. The board recently approved the following objectives for the 1984-85 year^ A stepped-up hazard-reduction burning program in winter; The establishment of an operational pool of fire-fighting equipment capable of being deployed at quick notice anywhere in this State; An Improved public education program, using audio-visual aids, on the dangers of rural residential living and the fire safety needs of the established man on the land; The establishment of training programs for chief fire wardens, fire wardens and brigade first officers; The continuation of the very successful purchasing and rebuilding program for fire-fighting vehicles; The continuation of the successful fire station building program; and The introduction of a five-year program to upgrade radio communications for brigades. Sunshine Association of Australia Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (11.8 a.m.), by leave: In November of last year, my attention was drawn to the activities of an organisation known as the Sunshine Association of Australia. This association appeals 2120 28 March 1984 Ministerial Statements

to the public for support under the authority of a short-term sanction, issued by my department, which expires on 31 March 1984. As a result of these complaints, I had inquiries undertaken by Inspectors from my department. Members may be aware that the objectives of this association are "to make the dreams and wishes of chronically and terminally ill children come true" and "to provide happy memories to the parents during traumatic times ahead". I think that all honourable members would agree with me when I say that, without doubt, those objectives are such that wide public support could be expected. Not surprisingly, a number of prominent people, both in and out of business and of differing politicial persuasions, became involved in the organisation. It is a fortunate fact of Ufe that worthy charitable causes are not impeded by political harassment and political factors; certainly, there should be no place for politics in charity. Unfortunately, the investigations that were initiated in November have now indicated that the Sunshine Association is presently not viable and is not fulfilling its objectives to the extent one might reasonably expect. From the report that I have received today, it is apparent that the administration, and I stress "administration", is unsatisfactory In that only a very small percentage of the funds raised have been used to assist the children intended to be benefited. The audited income statement for the period ended 30 June 1983 discloses a total Income of $154,809, of which only $5,269 was shown as being spent on what is called "client servicing". Total expenses, apart from client servicing, as disclosed by that audited statement, were shown as $72,852. The Sunshine Association originated in Queensland but exended to New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Audited accounts for New South Wales and the AustraUan Capital Territory for the period to 30 June 1983 indicate that telephone selling programs resulted in what were called sales of $235,545.29 and $72,385.47, with expenses iieing $302,960.76 and $92,048.19 respectively. Honourable members will understand that quite substantial losses were suffered. It seems to me that the present executive officer and founder of the Sunshine Association, Mr G. Shuker Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr HARPER: With respect, I remind the member for Wolston that this is an extremely serious matter. I genuinely believe that everybody Involved in this association has the best intentions and supports a cause with which we should all have sympathy. It gives me no joy to come to this House and draw the matter to the attention of the public. I hope that the member for Wolston understands that this is not political and, if he wants to bring poUtics into it, there will be red faces on the Opposition benches, too. I do not want politics to become involved. I believe that the present executive officer and founder of the Sunshine Association, Mr G. Shuker, has failed to demonstrate that he is capable of administering a charitable organisa­ tion the size of the Sunshine Association. Although there is no suggestion of misappropriation it seems that the accounting system in use does lend itself to this possibUity. Mr Shuker has acknowledged that the sales program was not viable and he has told my officers that the association wUl now rely on donations for support. Nevertheless, he admitted that 10 persons, including himself and his wife, were stUl employed by the association. I have determined that the short-term sanction issued to the Sunshine Association, which is due to expire on 31 March, wUl not be renewed and that the association Mr Fouras: Surprise, surprise! Mr HARPER: "Surprise, surprise!" perhaps. Mr R. J. Gibbs: How long have you known about this? Mr Wright interjected. Mr HARPER: What I have determined- Mr R. J. Gibbs: You have done nothing about it. Mr HARPER: For the benefit of the honourable member for South Brisbane, I inform him that what I have determined Is that the association will be required to show cause as to why it should be permitted to conduct further appeals for support. Ministerial Statements 28 March 1984 2121

The Leader of the (^position interjected and asked how long I have been aware of this. If he had listened to my remarks at the commencement of my ministerial statement, he would have heard me indicate clearly Mr Wright: If you had been listening, you would have realised that I did not ask you. Mr HARPER: It was one of the Opposition members. It must have been the honourable member for Wolston. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously the Interjection came from the honourable member for Wolston. As you would realise, Mr Speaker, I prefaced this statement by saying that these matters were brought to my notice in November of last year. Mr R. J. Gibbs: The department knew for months before that. Mr HARPER: The department was not aware of the position before that time. The matter was brought to my attention when It was drawn to the attention of the department. I have also given instructions that inspectors from my office examine the records further to establish that the accounts have been prepared in accordance with normal accounting standards and that the accounts are properly drawn up so as to give a true and fair view. I have taken this action because I am concerned that the accounts prepared may not reflect the true operating position of the association. This statement has been made with a degree of reluctance, but I believe that the public should be aware of administrative problems faced by the Sunshine Association. I repeat that I believe its stated objectives are most worthy and, in fact, I understand that approximately 44 children have benefited as the result of the association's work. The future of this association wiU depend both on the attitude of the public and on the adequacy of its response to the action that I have taken.

Health and Safety Program Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs) (11.18 a,m.), by leave: I refer to a comment in this morning's "Courier-Mail" relative to Queensland's record concerning health and safety. The comment was made by Dr John Mathews, who was reported as saying that Queensland is far behind other States In developing a health and safety program and that that is a disgrace. I simply want to say that Dr Mathews is totaUy wrong. Like many other ignorant people in the south, he had made a mistake in judging Queensland. I refer to people who made mistakes in judging Queensland's workers' compensation scheme. When those people came to Queensland, they learned that our system was so good and our premiums were so low that they went back to their States and began to foUow our system, Queensland has a very good record in the field of health and safety. The gentleman who made the comment is the very man behind the introduction of proposed legislation In Victoria to provide generous consideration to union leaders, who wiU be able to determine safety poUcies and even to stop jobs at the work-place. That has been said by some industrial union leaders as being their greatest poUtical weapon and it wlU b& used to close down businesses. The Government is envisaging the declaration of a safety week in Queensland. Mr Burns: What are you doing about blokes who die in trenches on industrial jobs without your inspectors being there? Mr LESTER: Towards the end of this year or early next year, Queensland wiU be conducting a safety week, during which everyone wiU be invited to participate. This morning I opened a seminar of project safety officers. Mr Prest: You opened lavatory doors, too. Mr LESTER: In a discussion on the health and welfare of people, the honourable member for Port Curtis is bringing shame on himself by referring to lavatory doors. He should take his head out of the lavatory door and put it into Parliament, where he might be able to help people achieve a better way of Ufe. 2122 28 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

The project ^safety officers, who are trained by my department, have the abilitjr to' teach people to be careful at their place of work. Safety training courses are also available at Highgate HiU and Dutton Park. Prior to the trench accident referred to by the mettiber for Lytton a few moments ago, a safety trench-digging course was held at Dutton Park. However, very fevif persons attended it. Safety at tHe place of work is everybody's responsibility. It Is the employer's responsibUity, the employee's responsibUity and the Government's responsibility. Following the. moves that have been Initiated since t became Minister for Employment and Indu§triV Affairs, the Queensland Government wUl soon be the leader in this nation in that field.'The Government will not give up until it is the best.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BURNS (Lytton) (11.21 a.m.), by leave: Members of this Parliament and select commercial fishermen would have, by now, received a copy of the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation publication which, in a single page, gave a selective biased report of my speech on the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act and A.nother Act Amendment Bill that appears in "Hansard" dated 31 January 1984 at pages 1179 to 1200. I am only too pleased to provide copies of the full speech to anyone who asks for It. Let me say first that Mr Conaty and the QCFO officials, who published that report, could not honestly report a one-minute silence. Nevertheless, I thank them for at least acknowledging that I spoke about the fishing industry, as I have done in the past and will do in the future. As an amateur or sports fisherman, I am proud that the QCFO said that I tried to represent that group in Parliament. Finally, let me say that Mr Conaty's record as a fishing administrator and as one who represented fishermen on the fish board whilst it was being sent broke, is only secondary to his success in the industry itself, in which it is widely rumoured that he failed as a sand crab fisherman because he put the bait on the outside of the pot and boiled his crabs until he could put a .fork through their shells. The closed Cleveland Fish Board depot is a decaying monument to his professional fishing efforts as a Redlands fisherman, I have kept my explanation short so that the QCFO can print it in full and not selectively abuse it, as it did with my previous speech in this House.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows— 1. Exit Ramps, South East Freeway Mr Kaus asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— WUl consideration be given to the provision of exit ramps on to the South East Freeway between Logan Road and Underwood Road for the convenience of residents in that area?

Answer— This matter has been the subject of representation by various groups. In the past, requests for this additional on ramp have not been acceded to, on the basis of con­ siderations associated with the operations of the South East Freeway and the future proposal for the North South Freeway connecting to the Gateway Bridge. It Is understood that the Logan City Council has engaged the services of a consultant to examine the matter. The Department of Main Roads wUl co-operate with the consultant in providing Information to enable the preparation of a detailed! submission. Main Roads consideration of any resultant submission, however, must ensure that the operation of the proposed future north-south freeway is not jeopardised by the introduction of these ramps for which a reasonable alternative exists. Questions Upon Notice 28 March 1984 2123

2. Connections to Electricity Supply Mr Scott asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— \yith reference to electricity supply authorities in Queensland whose areas might contain a substantial number of rural properties or small townships— (1) Have these authorities compiled comprehensive lists of prospective consumers for whom supply of electricity Is not yet available? (2) If such lists have been compiled. Is it possible to give an indication of the approximate number of consumers who wUl not be able to be suppUed economically under existing rural extension schemes? (3) What consideration has been given to ways in which remaining. possible consumers could be assisted in having better or cheaper electricity suppUes? (4) Will he consider recommending to the Government that a subsidy be paid for fuel used either for electricity generation or refrigeration by those who are unUkely to be connected to comprehensive schemes?

Answer— (1) A survey has been made and a plan^ adopted in respect of those prospective consumers to whom a reticulated supply of electricity will eventually be available. (2) No. (3) The Government is investigating ways to ease the financial burden on those consumers referred to in (1), It is also contributing to the cost of research into solar electricity and other alternative methods of power generation likely to be suitable for isolated areas. (4) Except in matters of safety, the Electricity Act has no application to the private generation of electricity. Therefore, any consideration of payment of a cash subsidy to people with private generating plants is not a matter that comes within the ambit of my portfoUo,

3. Tourist Bus Fares Mr EUiott asked the Minister for Transport— (1) Is he aware of recent press reports giving prominence to reductions in fares by major national bus lines to meet the competition of the fare discounters? (2) Given that Queensland's coastline extends about 2 000 km from the border to Cairns and that interstate bus passengers can get a discounted fare to Cairns, what is being done to ensure that Queenslanders travelling on the same route will not be disadvantaged?

Answer— (1 & 2) I am aware that a very competitive cut-price war is presently under way with respect to interstate bus tours. The discounted fare structure was Initiated by Deluxe Coachlines and VIP Travel out of Sydney and closely followed by the other major operators. As honourable members would be aware, bus services between coastal centres within Queensland are conducted under the authority of licences Issued by the Commissioner for Transport under the State Transport Act. The fares charged must be approved by the commissioner as a condition of those licences. Two major national operators, namely, Greyhound and Ansett-Ploneer, hold licences to convey passengers in Queensland between Brisbane and Cairns. In November last year, both made approaches to the Commissioner for Transport for a reduction in fares between those two centres. Those reductions were granted and the benefits of this discounting war have been extended to travellers within Queensland on those routes. 2124 28 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

4. Grain Terminal, Port Kembla Mr EUiott asked the Minister for Primary Industries^ With reference to the proposal to build a $100m grain terminal at Port Kembla, and the New South Wales State Government's stated intention to pay $28.5m of that total cost— (1) What has been the relative performance of existing export terminals, in respect of both throughput and time lost through Industrial stoppages? (2) Is there any marketing research which may indicate the wisdom or otherwise of this program? Answer— (1) Although I do not have specific figures on the relative performance of New South Wales grain terminals, it is fair to say that in recent times Queensland has enjoyed less time lost through Industrial stoppages than New South Wales. The Carmichael report on the New South Wales Grain HandUng Authority did highlight the fact that the throughput to storage ratio of New South Wales grain export terminals was less than 12:1. I am happy to report that grain export terminals in Queensland often operate on an extended basis at over 25:1, thus making greater utilisation of our port facilities. (2) The siting and funding of the third terminal in New South Wales has been a matter of controversy for several years. During that time, the New South Wales Government has commissioned and received a number of reports on this matter. However, I understand that one of the considerations of the New South Wales Government in relation to the project was the significant effect that the port construction would have on unemployment. On a number of occasions during the last two years, the handUng authority in Queensland has offered to handle northern New South Wales grain through the Port of Brisbane, thus relieving pressure on the existing New South Wales ports of Sydney and Newcastle. With the upgrading of the south-western railway line over the next few years, the Queensland Grain Handling Authority will be in a position to handle greater quantities of grain from northern New South Wales, In relation to the funding of the project, I note the New South Wales Government's commitment of $28,5 m, which I understand is the extra cost associated with the Port Kembla site. However, of greater interest to Queensland Is the reported funding by the Commonwealth of $18,7 m towards the project. At the earliest opportunity I will be pressing the Commonwealth Government for simUar assistance for the new grain export facility at Fisherman Islands.

5. Asbestos Problem, Maryborough Hospital Mr McLean asked the Minister for Health— With reference to a very serious asbestos problem that exists at the Maryborough Hospital— (1) Is he aware of the problem that exists at this hospital? (2) When was he made aware of the problem? (3) What sections of the hospital are affected? (4) What tests have beeti carried out at the hospital? (5) When were the tests carried out? (6) What were the resuUs of the tests? (7) What action has he taken to date, and what action is he going to take in the future to remedy the problem? (8) Why has it taken untU 1984 for this serious situation to be made public when the dangers that exist with the product asbestos have been well known since the mid-1960s? Answer— (1) Yes. Questions Upon Notice 28 March 1984 2125

(2) August 1983. (3) Maternity section. (4)- (I) Tests were taken to determine asbestos in air levels in the maternity unit. (U) An analysis of the insulating material was also undertaken. (5) September 1983. (6)- (i) The levels of amosite and chrysotile asbestos were significantly less than the threshold limit value of 1.0 fibres per mUlUitre of air. (ii) Samples microscopically examined were found to consist mainly of fibre- glass with a small component of asbestiform material. The asbestiform material consisted mainly of chrysotile asbestos with a smaU amount of amosite asbestos also present. Such results indicate that regular exposure would not present a health hazard. (7) Approval has been granted for the removal of ceiling insulations in accordance with a specification prepared by my department. (8) Advice from the Maryborough Hospitals Board is that no reason existed prior to August 1983 to suspect that the ceUing insulations contained any asbestos material.

6. Sunshine Coast Tourism Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— (1) Is he aware that an independent survey by Morgan Research has shown that the Sunshine Coast has moved from eleventh place to ninth as the most popular tourist destination in Australia? (2) How do Queensland tourist destinations compare with those in the rest of Australia? (3) What has made the Sunshine Coast such a popular destination for tourists? (4) What Increase in Sunshine Coast tourism can be expected with (a) the opening of the new Maroochy jet airport in AprU and (b) the provision of a four-lane highway from Bald Hills by 1988?

Answer— (1 to 4) I am aware of the independent survey recently undertaken by Morgan Research which indicates that the Sunshine Coast has moved from eleventh place to ninth place as the most popular tourist destination in AustraUa, Knowing the honourable member for Cooroora as well as I do, I am sure that he is not happy with this result; that he would prefer to see the Sunshine Coast as the number one destination in Australia; and that he will be working very hard in his electorate and with his constituents to make that happen. There is no doubt that tourism in Queensland is growing at such a rate that the State can be considered as the prime destination. Furthermore, there is no doubt that overseas tourist operators and tour-packagers are looking to Queensland as their prime destination, I am reliably informed by the overseas offices of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation that, in Europe and the United Kingdom alone this year, tour packages being sold contain no less than 52 per cent Queensland content and that, in a number of cases, Queensland is now being marketed as a sole destination. When one sees the decUne in tourism in the socialist States of New South Wales and Victoria, one can be assured that Queensland's product is right and that the terms and conditions created by this Government for the operations of tourism in this State are also right. 2126 28 March 1984 Questions Upori Notice

An analysis of the Sunshine Coast area shows that it traditionally has been a popular destination for the people of Brisbane and surrounding areas, and over the years it has grown in its appeal to southern visitors. This is especially so in the case of Noosa. It is regarded as a family destination and this Government, through my colleague the Minister for Main Roads, has been acutely aware of the necessity for the upgrading of the highway between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and I am sure that all honourable members are delighted with the fantastic progress that is being made in improving this highway. This can only mean a greater influx of day trippers from south-east Queensland and a greater through-flow of interstate and overseas visitors. The opening of the new Maroochy jet airport in April wUl, of course, be a boon to the area. The popularity of the Sunshine Coast as a destination has grown in part owing to the promotion of the destination by Airlines of New South Wales and East West Airlines, which have been operating F27 aircraft into that port. With the greater ease of access and new fare initiatives, I. am sure that we wUl continue to see improved growth from the Sydney market. The introduction of new domestic fare initiatives should also ensure that a better flow of international visitors reaches the Sunshine Coast. I congratulate the honourable member for his contribution and the continual pressure that he has placed on both this Government and the Commonwealth Government to ensure that the Maroochy Airport is upgraded. I can see nothing but a very bright future for the Sunshine Coast and, certainly, with the tremendous interest in the development of Queensland and the Sunshine Coast in particular as a prime destination for both domestic and international visitors, its long term future is assured. With the influx that is expected, let us hope that the infrastructure and the facilities of the Sunshine Coast can handle the projected growth in a planned and orderly fashion.

7. Queensland Tourism Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— (1) What percentage of tourists in Queensland are (a) day trippers, (b) on package tours, (c) overnighters, (d) visiting relatives, (e) on business and (f) other? (2) What mode of travel to tourist areas by tourists Is used in Queensland generally and on the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast in particular: (a) air (b) sea (c) road— private car (d) road—^public coach and (e) raU? (3) What percentage of visitors and tourists in Queensland live (a) in cities (b) in rural areas or (c) overseas? (4) How does Queensland's tourist industry compare with those of other States? Answer—^ (1 to 4) I thank the honourable member for his question and his abiding interest in the growth and prosperity in the tourist industry. His question is a long and detailed one and I wiU endeavour to answer the points that he has raised. May I say firstly that Queensland is presently enjoying twice the growth of Interstate and International tourists experienced in any other State in AustraUa and, in fact, last year Queensland enjoyed a growth of 480000 in its bed nights whilst Its prime competitor. New South Wales, declined by more than 1 million and Victoria by almost 400 000. The interesting point in this is that the declining bed nights in the southern States can be correlated directly to the Queensland growth. This growth has been from both AustraUan and International sources and even better figures throughout 1984 and 1985 are expected. In terms of specifics, it Is interesting to note that 31.5 per cent of people classed as travellers in Queensland actually spent at least one night away from their home. In addition, 43.9 per cent of the visitors to Queensland actually came here for no purpose other than to holiday, 27 per cent of our visitors came to see relatives and also to use our infrastructure, while 19 per cent of visitors came specifically on business and were, of course, major contributors in terms of their financial contribution to the accommodation and hospitality industries. An Opposition Member: Why don't you say a few words? Question upon.Notice 28 March 1984 2127

Mr McKECHNIE: I have been asked a long question, which 1 am endeavouring to answer. I have no doubt that members of the Opposition do not like it because the Labor States are losing many tourists to Queensland. I might also add that the New South Wales Government has indicated that it will attempt to bribe people to stay in that State. Answer (contd)— In his detailed question, the honourable member asked for details of the mode of travel used by visitors to this State. By far, most visitors —more than 80 per cent- use their own private car or rented car. The number of people using coach travel has increased in recent years to 5.1 per cent, and 3.2 per cent travel by rail. With regard to the third part of the honourable member's question—It is pleasing that 46 per cent of aU hoUdays taken by Queenslanders are spent in their own State and this h the highest figure of any State in Australia. As weU as that, 39 per cent of city dwellers holiday in their own State while 61 per cent of country dweUers hoUday in Queensland. In addition, 46 per cent come from interstate into Queensland while the overseas visitors reach 7 per cent, and that figure is continually growing because of the opening of the new international airport in Cairns and the tremendous interest by international airlines in Queensland as a holiday destination. When the honourable member considers that more than 9.7 million trips were made to Queensland last year, he can see the tremendous impact that tourism is having on the economy in this State. It is now the second largest industry and, in terms of its job-creating capacity, is the greatest employer of new labour of any industry in Queensland. In the last four years alone, 23 500 new jobs—jobs that were never there before—have been created by the tourist industry. I can assure aU honourable members that the Queensland Government will continue its promotion of the Queensland tourist industry. It can do that because it has the product and the expertise. The Government has the runs on the board and the one thing that it does not have to do is make wild socialist promises to subsidise people from this State to hoUday here, as the recently chastened socialist Premier of New South Wales has had to do. Queensland is Australia's leading tourist State and, with the right promotion and the right development in the future, the Government will make sure that the State becomes one of the world's prime holiday destinations to maximise the wealth created by tourism and to maximise the jobs generated for our children and for generations to come.

8. Local Authority Elections Mr White asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— (1) As he appears to justify the increase in aldermanic representation in Brisbane on the grounds of a daily population increase in excess of 1 million, is it his intention, for the sake of consistency, to correspondingly reduce the number of local government representatives in adjoining shires and cities? (2) What is the statistical source to support his claim? (3) Does he intend to introduce a zonal system into Brisbane as applies with the four-zonal system for State elections? Answer— (1 to 3) When the City of Brisbane Act was amended in 1972 to provide for the division of the city of Brisbane into 21 wards for electoral purposes, the number of electors enrolled in the city was slightly in excess of 390 000. Having regard to the substantial increase in the enrolments in the city since that time, the Government is of the view that there is a case to divide the city Into 26 wards, 13 In the North Brisbane zone and 13 in the South Brisbane zone, and I propose to introduce legislation to that effect in the current session. The City of Brisbane Act presently provides for the division of the city into two zones, as I have already mentioned, and there is no proposal to alter that provision of the Act. The constitution of local authorities outside the city of Brisbane is a matter that needs to be considered in the light of the circumstances applying in each case, and any proposals for alterations in their constitution will be examined on their merits. 2128 28 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

9. Redcliffe RaU Link Mr White asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the proposed Redcliffe rail link— (1) Will he confirm that notices of resumption have been issued to all property- owners affected by the RedcUffe-Petrie Une? (2) What are the properties affected? (3) What stage has been reached with respect to compensation for the property- owners affected includmg the (a) number of claims lodged, (b) amounts of compensation involved and (c) number of claims settled and the amounts Involved? (4) If all notices of resumption have not been issued, what are the details of those so affected? (5) Out of the $15m referred to in the resolution that passed through the Parliament for the RedcUffe and Redlands rail links outlined by the former Minister for Transport, Mr Tomkins, in 1980, how much has been spent on the Redcliffe Une? (6) Out of the $2m referred to by the Government to be spent on the Redcliffe link in 1982-83, how much was spent in 1982-83 and how much has been spent to date In 1983-84? Answer— (1 to 6) Notices of resumption have been issued for over 90 per cent of the properties affected by the Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail link. The affected property-owners are listed in the book of reference that was tabled in the House on 13 March 1980. I expected that the honourable member would have studied it in order to inform himself. The payment of compensation to the property-owners affected is being advanced as quickly as the owners concerned lodge their claims and is proceeding in accordance with the commitment by the Government with respect to the Redcliffe rail line. The resumption procedures are on schedule, and when they are completed I shall Inform ParUament so that the member representing the route of the line can advise local residents of progress to that point.

10. Hospital Dietitians and Lecturers Mr Stephan asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the Increasing need for a dietitian to be attached to hospitals in provincial cities, particularly in relation to advice for diabetic patients— (1) How many dietitians are working within the State hospital system? (2) Will he give consideration to extending this service, for example, to Gympie, by appointing dietitians to those centres where this advice is warranted? (3) Is It possible for existing staff, for example, nursing sisters, to receive in-service training as dietitians to adequately advise diabetic patients? (4) Bearing in mind that lecturers are presently carrying out lectures in some provincial cities, are there any plans to extend this service? Answer— (1) Queensland public hospitals have staff establishments for 39 fuU-time and three part-time dietUlan positions. (2) Extension of the dietetic service depends on submissions from hospitals boards to the Department of Health, and the avaUabUity of finance and positions. (3) Nursing sisters with special knowledge In the care of diabetic patients are employed m the larger hospitals. Although general advice on diet might be offered by nursing staff, the specialised dietitian's knowledge required in the management of diabetes depends on specific scientific training. (4) There are In the hospital service medical officers skiUed in diabetes who give lectures, when requested, in provincial cities. The extent of this service depends on the requests that are made to them. Questions Upon Notice 28 March 1984 2129

11. Warwick Hospital Mr Booth asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the redevelopment of the Warwick Hospital— (1) Has planning commenced for such redevelopment? (2) Is the Horwitz Ward included in the planning and, if so, does it include plans for single-bed private accommodation in Horwitz Ward? (3) Has the Warwick Hospitals Board accepted his department's recommendations on the redevelopment and, if so, how soon can work commence? Answer— (1) Planning has not commenced as the board has not accepted a proposal put forward by my department, nor has the board submitted a suitable alternative. Upon acceptance of a proposal, planning will commence. (2) Yes. Single-bed accommodation wiU be provided. (3) See (1).

12. Acquisition of Land In KUlarney Area Mr Booth asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— (1) Has his department any plans for the acquisition or purchase of land within a 50-km radius of KiUarney? (2) If so, what is the area of land involved and where is It situated? (3) Why Is the land required and what benefits are expected to accrue from the acquisition of such land? Answer— (1 to 3) Yes. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is presently considering the acquisition of a small area of land for inclusion in the overall plan for the Scenic Rim region. At this stage, I am not aware of plans to acquire any other block in the honourable member's electorate, but I am having Inquiries made and wiU inform the honourable member as soon as possible.

13. TownsviUe Abattoir Mr McEUigott asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) What are the names and addresses of the members of the Townsville Public Abattoir Board and what expenses are paid to them in respect of their attendance at board meetings? (2) Does the Government intend to approve boning and packing faciUties in the Burdekin, subject only to monthly DPI inspections, although a similar proposal by the Townsville Abattoir in order to reduce costs was rejected? (3) Why does the DPI retain five inspectors supervising the slaughtering at the Townsville Abattoir when five men are dropped from the slaughtering team on four days per week because of the reduction in the kill? (4) What action will the Government take to remedy the present situation whereby 75 per cent of Townsville's needs are Imported from the south, thereby placing the TownsviUe Abattoir in a very poor economic position as boneless cartoned meat Is brought into TownsvUle for 8i cents per kilo and from Sydney for 12i cents per kilo, compared to 25 cents a kilo to have meat processed at the abattoir and delivered? Answer— (1) The names and addresses of the members of the TownsviUe PubUc Abattoir Board who were appointed for a three-year term commencing 7 October 1982 are as foUows— dlialrman—Mr O. K. Griffiths, 21 St. Vincents Road, Virginia; Members—Mr R. J. Kelso, 106 Ross River Road, Mundingburra; Mr B. W. Menzles, 18 Nyora Street, Gulliver. 2130 28 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

The chairman receives an annual allowance of $1,500 and Messrs Kelso and Menzies each receive $900 annually. Members are reimbursed for travelling expenses actuaUy incurred. (2) I am not aware of any proposal to approve boning and packing facilities in the Burdekin but would be happy to pursue the matter further if the honourable member would supply more detailed information. (3) Although a staff of five irtispectors is the normal complement of the Townsville PubUc Abattoir, more often than not only four are available. As well as providing everyday inspection requirements for this abattoir, these Inspectors are used also for relief of nine other officers stationed from the coast through to Mt Isa. On Tuesday, 27 March, and Wednesday, 28 March, only three inspectors were available for abattoir duties. Although on the surface it may appear that there has been an excess of inspectors at times, it needs to be borne in mind that other abattoirs are seasonally closed but inspectors have to be available pending reopening at very short notice. Information available to my department indicates that a normal slaughtering gang is employed on three days of the week with a reduction on two. days only—Tuesdays and Wednesdays. When particularly quiet, which Is very rare, a much reduced gang has been used. Efforts to carry out the kill over a four-day week did not work out, (4) Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution permits the free entry of meat into all areas of Queensland from interstate sources. Furthermore, under a reciprocal arrangement approved by the Livestock and Meat Authority of Queensland, public abattoirs and regional abattoirs have been granted access to each others' areas, which is regarded as a positive move in freeing up the movement of meat within Queensland, and, in the past, this has actually benefited the operations of the TownsviUe Public Abattoir. As regards the costings quoted by the honourable member—I feel that it is not practicable to compare transport costs from southern areas to Townsville with the actual cost of processing carcasses at the TownsviUe Public Abattoir and the subsequent cost of deUvery of meat to retail outlets.

14. Broadcasting in North Queensland of Southern Mid-week Races Mr Menzel asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— With reference to the need and support for broadcasting in north Queensland of mid-week race meetings in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne— (1) Will he take action to give the people of north Queensland that service? (2) Will he provide TAB agencies in north Queensland with results within five minutes? Answer— (1) I assure the honourable member that I am actively pursuing avenues whereby the people of north Queensland will receive radio broadcasts of all races on which the TAB operates. Together with the honourable member, I consider such a service to be the right of those living in the area who wish to avail themselves of It. and I am doing everything I can to bring the whole matter to a satisfactory conclusion. (2) Results and dividends are transmitted by computer from the TAB's head office centre at Albion immediately correct weight is declared. In the majority of instances, this would be within five minutes of stewards' confirmation of place-getters. The transmission of results and dividends would take approximately one minute to be available in any office in Queensland. AU offices receive the information through the same system.

15. Babinda Railway Station Mr Menzel asked the Minister for Transport— WUl he consider the installation of a water-cooler and air-conditioner at the Babinda Railway Station and also carry out necessary repairs to the buildings at Babinda? Answer— I am advised by the Commissioner for Railways that the small number of passengers using Babinda station does not justify the expenditure involved In providing Questions Without Notice 28 March 1984 2131

a water-cooler. A program is being framed to provide for the alrrconditioning of railway stations when the need can be justified, and this work will be undertaken in priority order as finance permits. A carpentering gang Is now at Babinda, and I am advised that the repairs will be completed today.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Comparison of State Taxation Revenue Mr WRIGHT: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I refer to the Reserve Bank of Australia's "Bulletin" of December 1983. It provides a comparison of State taxation revenue showing that, since 1975-76, Queensland's State taxes have increased by 145 per cent. As that figure Is the second highest in the nation and as the National Party is desperately trying to maintain the myth that it is a low-tax Government, wiU the Minister explain the attitude of the Government to this increase? Mr GUNN: The report is not correct. More is happening In this State, so more stamp duties are being collected in comparison with what is coUected in other States, such as South Australia where nothing is happening, and Victoria where very little is happening. That is the only area in which I wiU concede that Queensland could possibly be above the other States in taxation. Mr Wright: Are you saying that the report is not correct? Mr GUNN: I am saying that more is happening in this State and, naturally, Queensland is collecting more in stamp duties. Surely that is to the credit of the Government, but I do not concede the other points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Commonwealth Funding of States Mr WRIGHT: In directing another question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I refer again to the Reserve Bank of Australia's "BuHetin" of December 1983, which shows that, since 1975, Queensland has received the highest increase in Commonwealth funding of any State. Queensland has received an Increase of 184 per cent, compared with 149 per cent for New South Wales, 146 per cent for Victoria, 138 per cent for South Australia, 151 per cent for Western Australia, and 143 per cent for Tasmania. Because Queensland has received the highest increase in Commonwealth funding of any State and has the highest Grants Commission relativity classification of any State other than Tasmania, can the Minister explain the constant claim by the Queensland Government that the Commonwealth Government is mistreating it? Will he explain why Queensland expenditure on education, welfare and health services is weU below the national average? Mr GUNN: There is an old saying that figures never lie, but liars can figure. That applies in this case. Mr Wright: Are you saying that the Reserve Bank "Bulletin" report is wrong? Mr GUNN: I am saying that it is wrong in every way. The same question has been answered in this place time and time again. Queensland is the lowest-taxed State in Australia, with no transaction tax, no petrol tax and no tobacco tax. Opposition Members interjected. Mr GUNN: Members of the Opposition know that weU. The Opposition has gone in to bat for the Commonwealth on numerous occasions but not once for Queensland. I pointed that out yesterday when answering a question asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition. It is typical of the Opposition's attitude to Queensland. Mr Wright: Are you saying that the report Is wrong? Mr GUNN: I have told the Leader of the Opposition that I do not beUeve that it is correct. 2132 28 March 1984 Questions Without Notice

The tariff protection enjoyed by the other States should be analysed, and I pointed that out the other day as weU. Mr R. J, Gibbs interjected. Mr GUNN: The honourable member for Wolston would not know;^ he would not have a clue. Queenslanders enjoy $123 per capita by way of tariff protection. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Wolston. His interjections are not relevant to the answer. Mr GUNN: Queensland has $123 per capita tariff protection and New South Wales has $460 per capita protection. Mr Wright interjected. Mr GUNN: Just a minute; let me answer. Victoria has $1,214. Queensland's pay-roll tax is a fraction of that imposed in other States and workers' compensation premiums in this State are a fraction of those charged in other States; but the tariff protection that the other States enjoy is five times that enjoyed by Queensland.

Commonwealth Funding of States Mr FOURAS: I direct a supplementary question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. In relation to his answer. In which he gave figures about the tariff protection that is given to other States, does he not reaUse that those figures are based on the fact that there is much more employment in areas that have tariff protection and that that is the problem, and that his answer Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will ask his question. Mr FOURAS: I am trying to ask it. Mr Gunn: I feel sorry for the honourable member, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a debate. Mr FOURAS: Is the Minister aware that the figures he just gave in regard to the levels of tariff protection in the various States—an argument that he has used quite irrationally since he was appointed to his present portfolio—are based on the extent oT employment in the clothing industry, the footwear industry and other labour-intensive mdustries, and that is why Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Either he will put his question Immediately or he will not be allowed to continue. Mr FOURAS: Mr Speaker, I am trying to put my question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think the honourable member Is. I now ask him to put his question. Mr FOURAS: AU right, Mr Speaker. Cannot the Minister accept the argument that his figures in relation to tariff protection are totally wrong and are not relevant to the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the amount of money that the States get? Mr GUNN: As I said. I feel sorry for the honourable member. He missed the point. The position is as I explained. In the other States there are Industries that attract tariff protection. One such industry in particular is the motor industry. Very little of a motor industry exists in Queensland. Mr Fouras: What has that to do with it? Mr GUNN: It has a lot to do with it. Queensland had only one motor industry at Acacia Ridge—and it was shifted to South Australia or Victoria. The other States enjoy tariff protection. The figures are: Victoria, $1,213 per capita; New South Wales, $460; and Queensland, $123. Questions Without Notice 28 March 1984 2133

Teaching of Theory of Evolution Mr NEAL: I ask the Minister for Education: What degree of freedom do teachers have In interpreting the biology syllabus published by the Board of Secondary School Studies in relation to the teaching of the theory of evolution and other alternative theories? Mr POWELL: For quite some time it has concerned me that In some places certain people are teaching the theory of evolution as a fact, which it is not; it is a theory. The principals of aU State high schools have been instructed to ensure that the theory of evolution is taught purely as a theory. As well, instructions have been given to all secondary schools in Queensland that teachers must also present to students alternative models and theories about creation and human development. Many people, myself included, believe that the origin of the species lies in creation and not in evolution. However, looking at some people, I sometimes doubt my own background. It is proper and good academic practice for students to be presented with a range of aUematlves for study. I assure the House that the theory of evolution Is taught purely and simply as a theory and must always be regarded as a theory. Creation. Is taught as the origin (if the species. Milk Prices Mr KRUGER: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer to the continual increases in milk prices in Queensland and remind him that Queensland has the highest capital city milk prices in Australia. I now ask: Has his department investigated the need for the latest rise of 2.61c a litre, as announced by the Milk Board? Is it not true that the price increases are caused partly by the fact that the zone system is not operating as intended and partly by the fact that the allocation of quotas is being mishandled and aggregated, contrary to the intention expressed In the. legislation? Is it not true that influential National Party members exert an undue infTuence on the affairs of the Milk Board with the intention of making personal gain? Mr TURNER: It is correct that milk prices have increased recently. The cost of milk has not risen in line with the Consumer Price Index. The increase has been minimal. Although the cost of home delivery of milk is taken into account in arriving at a price for milk in Queensland, it is not taken into account In New South Wales and Victoria. As to the controls in the industry—the industry Is being managed competently. I point out to the honourable member that there is no interference from any particular quarter, such as the National Party, relative to the price of milk or with the Milk Entitlements Committee. I have complete confidence in the people who are appointed to positions on that committee. They are doing an exceUent job. The honourable member should direct a question to the Federal Government about the lAC report to find out In which direction the dairying industry will be heading in the future if the recommendations contained in that report are implemented. If they are implemented, no dairying industry will exist in Queensland, because it is proposed to impose a levy of 2 cents a litre on all milk produced in Australia. That will subsidise the dairy farmers in Victoria to the detriment of the Queensland producers.

After-hours Medical Services; Employment of English Doctors on Short-term Visas Mr KRUGER: I ask the Minister for Health: Is It correct that English doctors are being brought to Queensland on short-term visas to work in after-hours medical services? Are a number of Queensland doctors who are not fully employed suffering as a result of English doctors being employed? Mr AUSTIN: I am not aware that doctors are being brought to Queensland on short- term visas. If they were being brought to any State In Australia, they would be brought to the Labor State of Victoria. I understand that. In that State, special provision has been made by the Minister for Health to bring in ethnic doctors for specific purposes within the com­ munity. If unregistered doctors are practising in Queensland, I would be delighted to receive their names. However, if a medical practitioner comes to Queensland, he receives registration by the Medical Board. I will certainly not interfere with his opportunities to work within Queensland. 62185—75 2134 28 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

Mr Kruger: But you agree that there is rooni for concern if that Is happening to any degree? Mr AUSTIN: That Is correct; if those doctors are coming here. I am not prepared to interfere in the system. Despite what the honourable member suggested, I am also unaware that younger doctors are unemployed in the community. If the honourable member Is so concerned about the matter and It Is a matter of urgency, I am surprised that he has raised it In the Chamber without previously raising it with me. It is obvious from what the honourable member said that, as he has a list of names, he has known about the matter for some time. I view the matter with a great deal of concern. The honourable member probably was not in the Chamber at the time, but I point out to him that recently I introduced legislation relating to the control of after-hours medical services. I am not sure about the matter about which the honourable member has expressed concern. If he has a list of names or a list of complaints about the service that Is operated by those persons, I would be happy to refer the matter to the Medical Board of Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Penalty Rate Structure Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (12 noon): The need for a review of the existing penalty rate structure has been widely acknowledged in recent times. The Queensland Government and at least two Federal Government Ministers, the Honourable John Brown and Senator the Honourable John Button, have publicly expressed concern at the effect of penalty rates on both job security and job creation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I ask that conversations In the aisles cease and that members be seated. Mr BORBIDGE: The overall burden on many small employers Is considerable. Last year on the Gold Coast we witnessed the incredible spectacle of a major tourist attraction not being able to afford to open Its doors on a particular public holiday. Such a situation simply does not occur anywhere else in the world. It Is unacceptable. It is ridiculous. Such a situation is testimony to the absolute folly of the present system. Because of penalty rates, those employees received no work on that day and, consequently, no pay. A better system which does not take away from employees their fundamental rights but recognises their expertise and experience is, I believe, achievable. If we are to achieve the enormous job-creation potential of industries such as tourism, it is time that Governments at both State and Federal levels acted. Those who seek to oppose at any cost any review or any Investigation into penalty rates have recently drawn support from a penalty rates study on the Victorian hospitality sector undertaken by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. That report Is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the effects of penalty rates as they presently exist. The authors of this report, for example, did not bother to contact key industry organisations. The Australian Hotels Association, representing 1431 hotels in Victoria with 133 years of experience was not consulted, despite the fact that It employs 40000 people In Victoria alone. The authors of this fake, phoney and rigged report, in their indecent haste to whitewash the penalty rates issue, did not consult the Hospitality Industry Association, representing the Interests of licensed restaurants, unlicensed restaurants and caterers. The authors of this dishonest farce, this sham, consulted 54 selected hospitality establishments out of a potential 5 000 In Victoria. Of the 54 organisations or establishments consulted, only 12 were hotels. It is of note that no large capital city establishments were included. Large capital city hotels, deliberately excluded from the report, are extremely labour intensive, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Penalty rates are a major cost factor in their operations. Mr Davis Interjected. Matters of PubUc Interest 28 March 1984 2135

Mr BORBIDGE: It is estimated, I point out for the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central who is becoming so excited, that In 1984 penalty rates add between $7 and $8 to the dally room rate in a major capital city hotel. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest to the honourable member that in any review of penalty rates it is important that there be a constructive and well-informed debate. I am attempting to inform the House and to get through to the honourable member that his counterparts in Victoria and those who wish to appease them have quite deliberately released a most misleading document. The survey lacks credibility and amounts to a disgraceful exercise in deceit, the authors clearly deciding to cook the books, rig the results and appease the Victorian Government and Its Director of Tourism, the former Premier of South Australia, Don Dunstan. Penalty rates create problems for employees. Very often employers simply do not or cannot afford to pay them. In recent weeks the possibUity of voluntary contract employment has again been raised. Surveys conducted in New South Wales have shown that 70 per cent of respondents questioned favoured voluntary contract employment—^a result that was consistent between unionists, non-unionists and the jobless. Of those asked, 60 per cent said that they would prefer to be able to negotiate their own wages and conditions to some extent. Such a voluntary contract system with inbuilt safeguards for employees, should employers decide to rebut it, could well overcome many of the difficulties Inherent in the existing penalty rate structure. Mr Davis: What a load of tripe! Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member is not interested in job security or job creation. Also, he Is obviously out of step with two of the Ministers of the Federal Government who have suggested that the entire system of penalty rates be investigated. Because the honourable member has again missed the point, I shall repeat It for him: Such a voluntary contract system with inbuilt safeguards for employees, should employees decide to select it or should employees decide to opt for it, could well overcome many of the difficulties inherent In the existing penalty rate structure. The proposal calls for employers and employees to be empowered to negotiate wages and conditions and a seven-day work roster, excluding penalty rates, of under 40 hours of work per week. However, the rights of employees to refuse to enter into such negotiated contracts would be protected to prevent employers from dismissing them and employing a contract work-force. A contract could, therefore, be entered into only by mutual agreement. Both employers and employees would be given an option, an alternative, a freedom of choice, that does not presently exist. Mr Davis: Oh! Mr FitzGerald: He does not like that. Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourable member for Lockyer says, the member who has Interjected does not appear to want employees to have a freedom of choice which they currently do not have. In New South Wales, the Australian Small Bussiness Association has thoroughly investigated this proposal and conducted substantial surveys in parts of Sydney as well as in other parts of New South Wales. The concept of voluntary contract employment has relevance to Queensland. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member has missed the point. I do not seem to be able to get through to members of the Opposition that all this proposal would do Is provide employees with an option, an alternative, that they do not have at the moment. Obviously the Opposition opposes that. It is opposing freedom of choice and the right of an employee, if he desires, to enter into some sort of free agreement with his employer. I am surprised that the honourable member is so scared about giving employees in this State a right, an option or an alternative that at the moment does not exist. If members of the Opposition ever had their way, that option would never exist. 2136 28 March 1984 Matters of PubUc Interest

It would appear that such a scheme would have substantial employee support and would considerably assist employers In maximising job-creation opportunities. If honourable members are fair dinkum about long-term economic recovery, honest about job creation and about wanting to keep In employment people who already have jobs, surely they would agree that the alternatives that have been put forward should be examined and surely, unlike members of the Opposition in this place, they should not run for cover every time somebody says that the present system is not really working very well and perhaps a better one can be devised. I ask the honourable member who got so excited: What has the present system done in the instance I gave before when, one day last year on the Gold Coast, a major tourist attraction could not afford to open Its doors? The employees did not get any work and did not get any pay. What is the present system doing for them? All I am suggesting to the House Is that the matter should be seriously examined so that the options and alternatives that have been suggested, and may well even be suggested by honourable members from both sides of the Parliament, can be considered.

Sunshine Association Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (12.10 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the public the affairs of the Sunshine Association in Queensland and to call for an immediate investigation by the Attorney-General. The association was started in Queensland in 1982. It was based on a similar organisation in the United States of America that appears to be reputable and with which the Australian and Queensland organisations have no ongoing connection. The Sunshine Association supposedly operates on the basis of raising money to be used to grant the last wishes of a terminally 111 child. The scheme operates for children between the ages of 5 and 12 years. The emotive pull of the dying child is clearly very strong. Without doubt, many of the voluntary helpers and other associated i>ersons are involved from sincere motives. According to the financial report of the association for the year ended 30 June 1983, $154,000 was raised; but of that sum only $27,000 was used to assist children. In that context, I concur with the statement made by the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General this morning, that only $5,269 was actuaUy used in the servicing of clients. To say the least, that Is an extraordinary situation in the light of the $154,000 raised. Other organisations such as the Queensland Cancer Fund pay for administrative and running costs by way of Interest on capital, and they work to obtain a much higher percentage of Income for the charity beneficiaries. In New South Wales, the Malcolm Sergeant Cancer Fund for children is about to be launched. It will be helping all families who are needy because of cancer. It will operate on the ratio of 96 per cent going out and 4 per cent being spent on administrative and running costs. I am reliably informed that, in contrast, the Sunshine Association employs people on a very generous salary range—$20,000 to $25,(XX) a year—in some cases, plus extras. The association raises money from pay-packet deductions, the sale of jewellery, telephone sales and various other activities. A quick browse through Its official journal reveals that other staff are employed, including an executive officer, a Queensland director of special funds, a national fund-raising director, a Queensland sales manager, five sales women, five packaging department ladles, a manager of the administration department, a shop supervisor, a supervisor of telephone appeals, plus telephonists and an auxiliary director. I am told that all of those personnel receive some form of remuneration. The association Is Involved in false advertising designed to pluck at the heart-strings of a generous public. According to the association's television advertisements, one child in Australia dies every four hours; but medical experts throughout Australia estimate that approximately 350 chUdren—and I am told that that is a generous approximation— die each year as a result of terminal diseases. In most instances in which financial problems arise, the children and their families are assisted by community organisations such as Lions, Rotary and Apex. I am told that it Is a fact that the majority of children do not have a dying wish but find their comfort and security In the support of their Immediate family and friends. Matters of Public Interest 28 March 1984 2137

A complaint has been made to me about the Sunshine Association in connection with a Uttle girl dying of leukaemia. The girl's mother wrote to the association asking if it could meet her daughter's dream of going to Disneyland. The association replied that it did not have enough money, and asked would she like a hoUday on the Gold Coast Instead. When the mother questioned that response in the light of the publicity about fulfilling grandiose last wishes, she was told, to her deep distress, that she was being greedy. It is my understanding that the association is due for re-registration at the end of March. I appeal to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General not to grant re-registration. I repeat that I concur with the statement he made in Parliament this morning. In the short time left to me. I wish to quote to the House extracts from letters that I have received from reputable medical practitioners in Queensland and AustraUa, but whose names I have deleted In order to protect their privacy. Part of the first letter i.s in these terms— "We feel they must be raising significant amounts but are not returning a satisfactory proportion. We also feel they are sensationalising and maudlin and their motives not the purest. The truth of the matter Is children who are terminaUy ill very rarely have last wishes. It's a completely trumped up exercise. We have a lot of patients here—80 new children a year. We would lose 30 a year. Almost always a child doesn't have a spectacular last wish. They just want to be comfortable and secure within a loving family. If a boy or girl does want something special The writer then refers to the various communhy organisations that are willing to help. Another letter states— "The principle sounds very laudable. They seem to be making a lot of money. We have had trouble with the Sunshine Association to the extent of sending them shirty letters. They were raising money and giving the impression it was on our behalf. Lot of feeling and suspicion about them but not much in the way of hard fact." 1 might add that the letter is from the Leukaemia Association of Australia. As I said, the doctor will remain anonymous. The next letter is an absolute ripper, and I ask honourable members to listen to it. It states— "We repeived several complaints about the Sunshine Association and contacted the New South Wales Treasury Department. We were told that the laws were very wide in respect of charities. The Sunshine Association was registered, and under New South Wales law was entitled to hold back up to fifty per cent of funds raised. I've evidence, at second hand from a colleague, that 'awarding of last wishes' isn't always done according to need. There was one instance when the family of a dying kid was given a gazebo of all things. I was told some sort of deal was worked out where they gave the association a racehorse In return." I have here a copy of the balance sheet of the association for the financial year ended 30 June 1983. I understand—the Attorney-General can correct me if I am wrong—that no financial statement on the affairs of the organisation has been received for the year ended 30 June 1983. I am aware that the Minister's officers have been investigating the organisation. I am not out to score a point on this matter, but I am totally and absolutely convinced that there are people within that organisation who have been tickling the peter, to say the least I cannot accept that an association receives $154,000 and pays out only $5,000 for the welfare of the children whom it is supposedly assisting. The people who are administering and running the affairs of this organisation are supposedly competent, intelligent and, one would have thought, honest. I cannot let the occasion pass without making the point that every time a situation of this type occurs In this State, prominent members of the National Party seem to be involved. For example, I am amazed to find that the solicitor and secretary of this organisation in Queensland Is none other than Gaven James Duffy, who was the National Party candidate who stood against my colleague the member for Salisbury at the last election. The organ­ isation's medical adviser is none other than Dr Michael Podaglel, who was the National Party candidate who stood against the member for Wynnum QAif Shaw) at the last election. Mr Harper: And Bill Hayden. 2138 28 March 1984 Matters of PubUc Interest

Mr R. J, GIBBS: I will talk about Bill Hayden, If the Minister wants me to. He wrote the association a letter of support—that was all it ever was—as did Roy Harvey and other politicians who were concerned for the children whom the association supposedly sought to assist. The patroness of the organisation Is none other than Lady Barbara Hickey, who Is the wife of that bulwark of support and financial backer of the National Party, Sir Justin Hickey. Surprise, surprise! When things seem to go wrong financially with bogus companies, these names always seem to appear, I am concerned about the matter, I do not believe that the Minister's investigation to date has been thorough enough. He should be instructing his officers to dig a little bit deeper, because I am convinced that money is being siphoned off the top. (Time expired.) Student Accommodation Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (12.19 p.m.): I wish to draw the attention of the House tand of all Queenslanders to an act of what I can only deem to be deliberate political discrimination against young Queenslanders. Over 98 per cent of college students at the University of Queensland come from country areas. Over two and a half thousand college students use the university and about a quarter of them are unable to do their courses at other tertiary institutions. At the moment there is a horrendous shortage of accommodation. The residential colleges turn away a large number of hopefuls each year and I know of many students who travel daily from as far away as Caboolture and the Gold Coast to attend the university. Alternative accommodation can be extremely expensive if it can be found and, in the Toowong electorate, accommodation for students Is very, very expensive and becoming more expensive every day. Under the Federal Government's education policy, which is under the control of Senator Ryan, the subsidy paid to residential college students has been cut from $12 to $9 a week and the Federal Government Intends to do away with It altogether. No time limit has been set for the implementation of the policy but, as a quarter of the subsidy has already been cut, the rest of it will certainly be removed in the next university triennium, so residential college students in Queensland will receive no financial assistance. The usual practice is to increase the subsidy as the fees increase, so the reduction is even more oppresive, and the imposition wiU become greater as time goes on. It is not an optimistic projection. Senator Ryan, who is the initiator of the discriminatory scheme and is its motivating force, claims that residential colleges are elitist. That Is an extraordinary accusation. It is true that the educational standards needed to gam entry to Australian universities make all university students part of the educational and intellectual elite, and that Is how it should be. But elitism Implies wealth and privilege, and that is obviously Ms Ryan's intention. However, 50 per cent of students receive benefits under TEAS. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BAILEY: TEAS, Mr Davis. That scheme makes funds available to students who do not have enough money to attend university, so they are not an elite group. Under the Commonwealth Government's policy, the subsidy paid to residential college students is to be phased out. Presently, the most expensive college fees are already $10 in excess of the maximum TEAS payment. How can It logically be argued that, by reducing the subsidy, the colleges will become less elitist? That astounds me. The withdrawal of assistance will make it even more difficult for parents to afford to send their chUdren to university. That will make the colleges available only to those who can afford them and will make the colleges more elitist. If it is accepted that they are already the province of the privileged few. The argument is illogical and the policy should be despised. Strangely enough, it is the policy of the sociaUsts In Canberra. Why does the policy appeal to the soclaUst Government In Canberra? There must be a rational thought behind it somewhere, although It Is hard to find. It is not hard to think the worst of a socialist Government Mr Davis: Walt for the punch line. Matters of Public Interest 28 March 1984 2139

Mr BAILEY: It appears that this is a deliberate policy to disadvantage country students by reducing their chances of attending university and, ultimately, their chances of taking up senior positions in the community. I can only ask why, and I am sure that Mr Davis has an answer. Perhaps the answer Is that country students are basically conservative. They come from conservative homes and may even be conservative voters. What other conclusion can be reached when the policy Is discriminatory and based on purely political motives? There Is no other explanation for it. Queensland students are particularly vulnerable to the cut-back In subsidy. It only takes a quick glance at a map of Queensland to understand why that is so. The University of Queensland, which is in the south-east corner of the State, offers all the major degree courses, so the options for studying at other institutions are not necessarily available. It would probably be easier for most of the students in New South Wales to attend Queensland University than it would be for Queenslanders whose homes are In the north and far west of this vast State. Obviously the policy Is geared to disadvantage Queensland more than the other States. I know that college heads and the university administration have discussed this problem and that representations have been made to the good senator to have the decision altered, but to no avail. Senator Ryan is determined to have her way, and the subsidy Is to go. The students can write letters of protest and publicise their dilemma, but it Is a frustrating exercise. Generally speaking, those exercises by students have a poor success rate unless they appeal to the community. With this problem, that Is not necessarUy the case, as it involves only a certain number of students, not the overall bunch. Mr Davis: Have you taken up this matter with your Federal member, John Moore?

Mr BAILEY: Yes, he is looking at it. The State Government Is In a rather Invidious position. It appears that the matter is one to which the State Government may have to address itself. It may have to look at ways in which It may be able to repel the assault that Is being made on country students. That could mean that somehow or other the education dollar would have to be stretched to accommodate the extra Impositions placed upon it. As honourable members would be aware, funding of universities Is not under the control of the States. Mr De Lacy: Have you seen Rona Joyner about It yet? Mr BAILEY: That Is the type of Interjection that I would expect from the honourable member. Over the next few weeks I will discuss such a scheme and what the university and college students and administrators hope they might be able to achieve, if, as it appears, the Federal Government does away with the university subsidy. This withdrawal of subsidy to college students Is discrimination of the most blatant kind. The State should not take It lying down. The Federal Government has talked so much about consensus, but In Its education policy it has been shown to be totally hypo­ critical. Its policy has been designed by Senator Ryan to split the community along religious lines through private school funding and now to discriminate deliberately against country children. In-Une Machines Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (12.26 p.m.): I rise to speak on a matter of serious public interest and importance, and I raise this matter again because Opposition members support Queensland clubs and are determined to keep pressing until we get a better deal for Queensland clubs. Make no mistake; despite attempts by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to present a cool and calm exterior and to pretend that nothing Is wrong, this Issue wlU not go away. Members of Parliament, the media, the officials of Queensland clubs and business people involved In the amusement machine Industry have a responsibility and an obligation to the clubs and to the community to clean up and regulate the nine years of iUegal gambUng and the double standards adopted in relation to In-line machines. 2140 28 March 1984 Matters of PubUc Interest

The Minister attempts to defuse the Issue by saying that If evidence can be produced he wiU act. What a farce! This iUegal gambling has been going on for nine years, yet nothing has happened. The situation could have come about only as the result of corruption or negligence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind the honourable member that his use of the word "corruption" in the context in which he has used it could Impute improper motives to the Minister or to other honourable members. I therefore ask the honourable member not to go so close to the line of unparliamentary language.

Mr GOSS: I will bear your comments in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I note that yesterday a different attitude was adopted when the word "dishonest" was used in relation to me and when you were in the chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not reflect on the Chair.

Mr GOSS: If the Minister for Justice does not act and if the Minister for Police does not act, they wiU deserve the badge of guilt as much as those who have gone before them. I think that that comment is in line with your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members of the Opposition will continue to produce proof of Illegal gambling and criminal and violent activity until the Minister for Justice acts. The Government has only about five Inspectors available to police the amusement industry, and that number Is totaUy inadequate. On top of that, the Justice Department's inspectors are anchored down at Comalco House Instead of traveUing throughout Queensland to Investigate this iUegal gambling. They have been told to do their paperwork, on the pretext that the Justice Department has underbudgeted for their traveUing allowances and lunch money. That Is how the protection of the Industry is being maintained at that level. Everybody knows that in-line machines are being used as gambUng machines. So let the Government end Its double standards over poker machines and admit that, if It is not going to legalise that type of gambling machine, it should legalise in-line gambling machines In accordance with the motion of which the Opposition has given notice and which, I am pleased to say, members of the Liberal Party are now prepared to support. Only the passing of that motion wUl protect Queensland clubs and remove them from this insidious influence. Furthermore, it will ensure that 100 per cent of the profits stay in Queensland. The Minister says that he wants evidence and that he is not prepared to act without evidence. I will give him evidence. I will table the minutes of the annual general meeting of the Registered and Licensed Qubs Association of Queensland, held at the Kedron-Wavell Services Gub on Monday, 25 August 1980. At that meeting, the president of the association, Mr Jock McKendry, was recorded as saying— "That he was concerned that Income from in-line machines could be construed as 'commissions'. He suggested that secretary managers should not show this income in the balance sheet as income from in-line machines but should hide it as either bar revenue or sundries. He stated that the powers that be are turning a blind eye to this Income and the illegal use of the machines and we should help them by not highUghting our activities in this regard." Those minutes make It clear that there was a widespread fear that, because gambling was taking place on the machines, income from those machines was technically a gambling commission and, therefore, a criminal offence. That is the reason why many clubs disguise or incorrectly describe their revenue from In-line machines In their annual return to the Justice Department, and the Minister should well know that. How does It operate? Does the Minister want more proof of it? Because the Minister will not investigate the matter himself, the Opposition must tell him, and I wiU produce the evidence. He claims not to know about it, so I wUl tell him how it operates throughout Queensland clubs. I shall refer to one particular club. Matters of Public Interest 28 March 1984 2141

I have In my possession and I propose to table the annual report of the Southport RSL Services Club for the year ended 31 December 1983. I have received a letter from the former secretary/manager of that club, Mr Doug Adams, explaining the system. The letter states— "The persons who play these machines and gather credits are paid in cash over the bar, they receive a numbered slip from one of the staff crediting them with 'X' amount representing the credit. These credit slips are checked off each morning by the office staff and the amount Is deducted from the total amount cleared from the machine. Bookwork is kept on all the transactions." Mr Adams states that each Monday a Rooklyn representative calls at the club and is paid 50 per cent of the profits from those gambUng machines. Mr Adams says that this information was made known to the Taxation Department and to Mr Harper's Licensing Commission. Mr Adams said that the club was made aware by its auditors that the club was liable to pay tax on the amount received. However, annually the club received about $50,000 tax-free from those machines. I have told this House and the Minister about the advice on how to disguise the revenue that was given *.o club in 1980 by the president of the Licensed Clubs Association. I refer the Minister to page 19 of the annual report of the Southport RSL Services Club which shows that, for the 1982 and 1983 calendar years, the club received $67,982 and $64,714 respectively. That means that the Rooklyn organisation took out of Queensland precisely the same amount from between 12 and 15 machines at that club. My information is that there are 3 000 such machines in Queensland. The Minister concedes that there are 1 100 in-line machines in Queensland, so how much money is the Rooklyn organisation taking out of Queensland? When will that stop? When wiU that money be kept in Queensland and In Queensland clubs? Three weeks ago I pointed out the connection between the major in-line distributors and operators and organised crime. How does that organisation operate on the ground in Queensland? I have been told about a number of instances of violence and violent threats being made against individuals and competitors of the Rooklyn organisation. Until three weeks ago, for fear of reprisals, not one of those persons was prepared to come forward and speak. The Minister wants evidence. At last one man has been prepared to come forward. I will table a statutory declaration by Desmond Victor Welk, 120 Camooweal Street, Mt Isa. He is a justice of the peace for the State of Queensland. In his declaration he solemnly declares, pursuant to the Oaths Act, that he has been the subject of violence and threats from the Rooklyn organisation. Who is Mr Welk? He is a well-known amusement machine Industry operator In the north west of Queensland. Because of his poUtical affiliations, he stood as an anti-Labor candidate In the last State election. He drew these matters to the attention of Mr Bertonl. Mr Welk states In his declaration that, in September 1978, Barry McNamara, the present manager of Queensland Automatics, which Is the Rooklyn front and the major distributor for Queensland, came to see him, offered to buy him out, and said, "Rooklyn wants to buy you out, and If you don't sell to us, you're history. We'll put a contract out on you and you'll end up in a 40-gaUon drum out in the dam." Welk rejected his offer and told him to leave. Subsequent to that, a number of Welk machines were sabotaged in Mt Isa clubs. That campaign continued until Welk received a phone call from the RSL club in Mt Isa. Welk was told that a man working for his opposition had been found opening one of the machines. Welk went to the RSL club and apprehended one David Drysdale, a serviceman from Queensland Automatics. Shortly after that incident, Welk received a letter threatening him again. His secretary, Kathy Swift, was a witness to that. Subsequently, he was so fearful for his safety that he commenced wearing a bullet­ proof vest. There are witnesses to that. Late one night he received a call to service a machine at the Concordia Club. When he arrived there, a man came out of the darkness and asked him whether he was Welk. When he said "Yes", he was struck down from behind. Needless to say, it was a fake caU. He says in his declaration, which I am prepared to table, that he did not report the incident to the police because he was told by the managers of various clubs that McNamara, Rooklyn's Queensland representative, was being introduced round the clubs by a well-known 2142 28 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

Mt Isa poUce officer. Welk says that he is prepared finally to speak up and speak out because it is time, as he says In his declaration, "to check the activities of Rooklyn and his stooge, Barry McNamara, in Queensland" Is this special protection afforded to that Sydney Individual and his company structure what the Government calls "Enterprise Queensland"? What double standards! Let me sound a further note of warning to the Minister. Unless he steps in and Is prepared to clean up the Rooklyn organisation, the Opposition will have no choice other than to reveal how Rooklyn and his company structure—^In particular, Garderob Pty Ltd—^are moving towards controlling fund-raising by major and prominent Queensland charities. We give the Minister this opportunity to clean up the organisation of Garderob in Queensland charities. If he does not, we will have to name the charities and reveal how the Rooklyn organisation has taken them over and caught them up in the Rooklyn organisation web—quite innocently, on the part of the charities. These people are parasites and we wUl keep fighting until we achieve the best possible deal for Queensland clubs and Queensland charities, which presently are being used as a front for southern criminals, aided by either the negligence or the corruption of somebody In a high place. Whether or not It is the Minister, I cannot say. Whether or not It is somebody else, I do not know. However, it cannot be happening without that sort of corruption. (Time expired.) Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to.

Parthenium Weed Mr COOPER (Roma) (12.37 p,m,): I draw the attention of the House to the alarming spread of the weed known as parthenium. Mr Davis interjected. Mr COOPER: It may not interest the member for Brisbane Central. However, as I am dealing with a problem affecting productivity and as the honourable member is so unproductive, 1 will carry on without further interruption from him. In 1975 parthenium was declared a noxious weed under the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Act. The weed Is causing anxiety to land-owners, shire councils and stock route officers alike. It was Introduced into Australia and sighted in the vicinity of Toogoolawah in 1955. Later, in 1964, it was seen near Clermont in the Central Highlands. Many land­ owners in central Queensland have suffered severe economic loss. The weed has taken over many properties and, as a result, pastures are now non-existent on them. Parthenium has spread to Charters Towers in the north, Longreach in the west. Emerald, Sprlngsure and Rolleston in the Central Highlands, Roma In the Maranoa district and Moree and Coonamble in New South Wales. It is being spread, in the main, by grain-harvesters and stock transports moving from the worst affected areas of Queensland. Much stricter controls are vital if we are to slow the spread. Such controls must be the responsibility of State Governments, local authorities and land-owners. When I say "controls", I mean the thorough cleaning and spraying of vehicles and machinery moving from dirty areas to clean areas. Not since the days of prickly pear has this State seen such a parallel—and I think it Is fair to draw that parallel. Prickly pear devastated Queensland from about 1860 to 1940, after being introduced as a pot plant near Scone, New South Wales, in 1839. Prickly pear took over vast areas of pasture in Queensland and New South Wales, causing severe economic loss. The early spread was slow. Little or nothing was done to slow its progress. In 1884, even the Brisbane "Courier" was pleading for "some means whereby this growing evil could be overcome" Prickly pear came from South America. By 1925 It covered about 26 million hectares, five-sixths of which was in Queensland. The spread of the pest forced the abandonment of many large pastoral properties. The cost of eradication prevented large-scale control. Estimates of cost ranged from $20 to $80 a hectare. It was estimated that the first treatment would cost in the vicinity of $200m. The cost of chemicaUy controlling parthenium, where It has taken over, exceeds $20 per hectare and, as such. Is not economical. Chemical control, such as spot spraying and so on, is effective and necessary where the weed has not, as yet, got out of control. Matters of Public Interest 28 March 1984 2143

The Queensland Government and the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Board, by providing the poisons Atrazine and 2,4-D free of cost to local authorities and land-owners have acted responsibly and with genuine concern with regard to chemical control. Unfortunately, where parthenium weed has taken over, as happened with prickly pear, chemical control has become ineffective. The most hopeful form of treatment, with eradication the goal, is by biological means. The Alan Fletcher Research Station began the search for an insect in 1977 and, since then, has released about six different species. One of them is known as the stem galling moth or Mexican moth. It, along with others, was introduced from Mexico and Brazil. These insects, particularly the moth, have spread over a considerable area of country and are having an encouraging effect. The moth survived the 1983 winter, but that was mild and wet. Those conditions suited it. Whether the moth can survive a dry, severe winter remain.s to be seen. That will be the crucial test. The prickly pear or cactus insect, known as the cactoblastis, is a native of northern Argentina and southern BrazU. It was introduced into Australia in 1927. It produced devastating results and is still active today. Like the cactoblastis, the stem galling moth has undergone stringent testing to ensure that it does not adversely affect other plants and crops and, if the testing succeeds. It will be of immense economic value. Parthenium is an annual which remains dormant through the winter months. Its growth, particularly during a wet spring and summer. Is prolific and Uterally takes over natural pasture. The community must not be complacent; it must not run the risk of further spread. People must remember the lesson learnt from the spread of prickly pear and give this problem its unwavering attention until the weed is eradicated. Culture methods of control, through the use of a form of rust, are being considered. Problems with justifiable quarantine regulations preclude study in Australia, but study may may be undertaken overseas, and it is encouraging to know that this method of control is being examined. One cannot say that, because of cUmatic conditions, parthenium will not spread and cover a much wider area. Proof has been obtained that the weed is a problem In both tropical and temperate cUmates where the annual rainfall is approximately 20 to 30 inches. The weed can survive severe drought and frost. Research has proven that climatic conditions for its growth exist in every Australian State and, because of that, it must be viewed as a national threat. Credit should be directed to the work carried out by the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Broad and the Alan Fletcher Research Station, where Dr Rachel McFadyen and her staff have carried out so much important work. Their progress must not be permitted to falter through lack of funding. So far funding has come from the Queensland Government and the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Board. Some funds from the wages pause program were used to employ four people, whose task was to assist with the breeding and spreading of the Insect. These funds will soon dry up and extra funds will be necessary to enable this vital work to continue, particularly during the growth period of spring and summer. Commonwealth Employment Program funds have been applied for on a 2:1 basis and I urge the Federal Government to treat the matter with a sense of the utmost urgency. Just as with the prickly pear and the cactoblastis, parthenium and the Mexican moth— or whatever the ultimate biological agent proves to be—must receive the necessary attention to prevent even greater economic loss and to permit pastures to be restored to full economic use. The community should not wait until the problem is completely out of control as it did with prickly pear.

Asbestos Problem, Maryborough Hospital Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (12,44 p,m.): Although the very serious and pressing problem that I wish to raise directly affects the people of Maryborough, It Is a matter that should be brought to the attention of this House and the media. I refer to the very seriou-t asbestos problem that exists at 'he Maryborough Hospital. Yesterday in this House I gave notice of a question to the Minister for Health, but I feel his answer today needs a littlt mure elaboration. 2144 28 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

I recently visited Maryborough and Inspected the sections of the hospital that have a problem with asbestos-type material In the ceUing. The maternity wing is a large section of the hospital. It consists of a nursery and wards. The affected section extends into the passageways and encompasses virtually all of the maternity wing. In the past, I have spoken about the dangers of asbestos. Because the effects of asbestosis are long term and are not as spectacular as the effects of a person being hit by a bus or a car, most people are not very interested in the disease. However, the dangers are very real. The asbestos problem at the Maryborough Hospital should be dealt with urgently. The maternity wing is the worst-affected area. I was amazed at the state of the ceiling there, and 1 was particularly upset by the condition of the nursery section. The material used to form the ceiling in the hospital is about 20 years old. At the time of its construction, people were not aware of the dangers of asbestos products, and they were used quite commonly. The material in the ceiling comprises 30 per cent asbestos, 50 per cent fibreglass and 20 per cent binding material. The asbestos content Is high, but the danger, lies in the fact t"fiat the ceiling was constructed more than 20 years ago. The deterioration Is so bad that cracks have appeared and sections are flaking way. Because it is impossible for the workers to clean the ceiling, it is in a very dirty state. The Government has a very serious responsibility to provide a safe environment for hospital workers and patients, and especially for newly born babies. If the Government allows the danger to continue, a check must be kept on those people, because usually they do not know that sometimes it takes 15 to 20 years for the effects of the disease to become obvious. It Is very unfair that the Government, and particularly the Minister for Health, has not acted more expediently to overcome this problem, which makes the environment extremely unsafe for newly born babies. The answer to the question that I asked the Minister for Health yesterday left the situation far from clear. The Minister must do more to overcome the problem. When I asked him if he was aware of the very serious asbestos problem that existed at the Mary­ borough Hospital, he replied, "Yes." He said also that he had been aware of It since August 1983. In reply to my question— "What action has he taken to date, and what action Is he going to take in the future to remedy the problem?" the Minister replied— "Approval has been granted for the removal of celling insulations In accordance with a specification prepared by my department." That reply Is nowhere near good enough. A better answer must be given. The people of Maryborough are entitled to be treated in the same way as other Queenslanders. It Is more than unfair for the Government not to act quickly to cope with that very serious situation. I shall compare the situation at the Maryborough Hospital with that in some other public buildings in which the Government and outside bodies have acted to remove asbestos products. In most cases, the Government has acted only because unions have applied industrial muscle, or have threatened to apply it. The first Instance that comes to mind is two floors of the SGIO building in Brisbane. They have been cleared of asbestos. That was a lengthy operation, but It has been completed. If the Government or the health authorities believe that it is important to remove asbestos from public buildings in which people work and other people conduct business, surely a higher priority should be placed on the removal of asbestos from the Maryborough Hospital. It is strange that in 1984, more than 20 years after the dangers of this product have become known not only to Australians but also to people throughout the rest of the world asbestos dust and deteriorating ceilings are to be found in the maternity section of a hospital in whldi young babies are housed. At this stage, the Government Is not prepared to tell the House what it intends doing to overcome the problem at the Maryborough Hospital other than to say that approval has been granted for the removal of ceiling installations in accordance with a specification prepared by the Minister's department. I am amazed that the situation Is being allowed to continue. It strikes me that there Is some sort of a cover-up. The matter would not have Matters of Public Interest 28 March 1984 2145 come to the public's attention at this stage if some workers In the hospital had not sent a piece of the material from the celUng for an independent analyls down south. In the answer that' the Minister gave this morning, he said— "An analysis of the insulating material was also undertaken." He did not give the result of that analysis, but I can give It. The material was found to contain 30 per cent asbestos, which is extremely high. Because of its age and Its deteriorating condition, the material Is very dangerous and represents a serious problem. Asbestos sheeting, which is now banned on most work sites, has an asbestos content of about 10 to 15 per cent. Of course, that sheeting Is tightly compressed, which probably makes it 100 times safer than the material in the Maryborough Hospital, The situation Is extremely desperate. I urge the Minister to take immediate action to remedy the situation before someone is affected by the asbestos. Possibly some people have been affected already. Last week, I also Inspected the air-conditioning plant room at the Maryborough Hospital, It is probably the worst example of asbestos contamination in any building that I have seen. As I said earlier, 20 years ago people were not aware of these problems, and that room was really sealed and insulated. Almost pure asbestos about one-inch thick can be seen on the walls. It is flaking off. When I opened the door to the room, the wind blew the asbestos off the walls. The workers at the Maryborough Hospital have a very strong case for seeking some sort of compensation from the Government, (Time expired.)

Country Post Offices Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (12.55 p.m.): The people of all country areas should be made aware of the policy of the present Federal Government towards country post offices which, if continued, could mean the end of all small post offices in country areas. I will cite the examples of two country post offices at Kalbar and Roadvale in the electorate of Fassifern. Both post offices receive mail from Ipswich. It is sorted by the two post mistresses and Is delivered by mail contractors in the immediate area. For this service the post mistresses receive a fee. They are also paid for conducting usual post office business. That amount might be as much ?s $160 per week, which Is a fair return for approximately 36i hours work. However, the job of mail-sorting will now be centralised at Boonah, and the mail contractors wUI be paid more to travel to Boonah to pick up the mail for delivery. The Federal Government is hoping that the public will not become aware of the recent changes because their deliveries will generally continue to be received from the mail con­ tractors. As a result of this dubious action by the Federal Government and AustraUa Post, the post mistresses will now receive only $80 per week for the 36i hours of post office work. They wiU be forced to find a better paid job. The services of the post offices will be discon­ tinued. It means that the country towns will lose a facility that not only provides an excellent service but Is also a focal point of community Ufe. The implications of this Government policy to the people of Queensland country towns are very serious. I now refer specifically to the small country towns of Kalbar and Roadvale. Before 1980, the divisional manager of the Brisbane Central Division of Australia Post attempted to implement the policy of transferring to Boonah the sorting of mail from the Kalbar and Roadvale Post Offices but, because of the political climate at the time, he was unable to do so. At that time a Liberal/National Party Government was in office in Canberra. In March 1983 the Labor Party was elected. It |s weU known that it has no respect for the problems and worries of country people, and concentrates only on the highly populated urban areas. After March 1983, Mr Forster, the divisional manager of Australia Post, reintroduced the policy that will ensure the demise of the Kalbar and Roadvale Post Offices. Mr Duffy the Federal Minister for Communications, has given the proposal his support. In a letter to me he said— "Australia Post must continually review the way In which It provides postal services to ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible and that a reasonable balance Is maintained between services and the cost of providing those services." 2146 28 March 1984 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c., BiU

If the policies of the Federal Government continue in this vein, it could mean the end of equalisation poUcies adopted for petrol prices, electricity tariffs and postage. A Mr and Mrs Fowles bought the Kalbar Post Office in March 1983. It appears that they were not given all of the details of the future of the Kalbar Post Office, especially In the event of the Labor Party becoming the Federal Government. They paid over $100,000 for the post office for a possible return of $17,178 a year. If this policy Is implemented, they will only receive approximately $7,000. Mr and Mrs Fowles have to provide the buUding, have it cleaned, pay for Ught and power, pay the rates and maintain the building. If this policy Is implemented, it will mean that, for a $100,000 Investment, Mr and Mrs Fowles will receive a return of $4 per hour for 36i- hours a week. The return at the Roadvale Post Office will be approximately $2 per hour. The people in the area will receive a postal service on only three days a week rather than five days a week. However, the Honourable Michael Duffy does not see this as a problem because, as he stated in his letter to me, many residents of the Roadvale area conduct much of their business and do much of their shopping in Boonah. Therefore, they can pick up their mall there. I would Uke to know what that will do for the Roadvale area and for the shopping facilities in Roadvale. How many people will travel from Roadvale to Boonah twice a week to do their shopping? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Under the provisions of Standing Order 36A, the time allotted for the debate on matters of public interest has now expired. [Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND COAL ASSOCIATES AGREEMENT AND QUEENSLAND COAL TRUST BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 March (see p. 2105) on Mr Gunn's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (2.15 p.m.): I realise that, having been brought in last night, the Bill Is being debated this afternoon because of the time-limit relating to the take-over by BHP of the Utah Development Company's operations in Queensland. As I understand It, unless this legislation Is passed by next Tuesday, the take-over wUl be prevented. In view of that, Opposition members have no alternative to agreeing to the adoption of this procedure. I would point out, however, that we would have liked more time to study the ramifications of this very comprehensive and complex legislation. Although the Bill Is a technical one, particularly In relation to the contents of the schedules, which deal with the structure of the consortiums that will be established to control and operate the Utah Development Company's operations in this State, members of the Opposition, in the short time that we have had to peruse the BiU, have come to the conclusion that the principle of the Bill Is fairly straightforward. As I understand the position, BHP and other companies are to take over the Utah Development Company's operations, which are owned by the parent company. General Electric Minerals Inc. of the United States of America. That means that the Utah Development Company's Queensland coal mines wUl be transferred to that BHP consortium. There are two consortiums or two unincorporated joint venturers because, as the Minister explained, Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd, for reasons best known to itself, Is reluctant to enter Into any agreement that Incorporated the Gregory mine. One of the two consortiums comprises BHP and others, as set out In the document that was Incorporated by the Minister In "Hansard" It shows the percentage of involvement of the various companies that, with BHP, are parties to this arrangement. The first consortium will take over the Central Queensland Coal Associates mines which presently are operated by the Utah Development Company In conjunction with Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd. Those mines include the Goonyella, Peak Downs Saraji and the Norwich Park mines, together with the Utah mine at Blackwater. The second'consortium will take over and operate the BHP Gregory mine outside Emerald. According to the Minister, the Utah Development Company wiU manage both ioint ventures. BHP is the major party in both operations. As I have said, it presently owns the Gregory mine. Central Queensland Coal Awociates Agreement, &c., BiU 28 March 1984 2147

To effect the BHP take-over of the Utah mines in this State, BHP had to be involved in both consortiums. According to what the Minister said, the amount of Australian equity, which obviously is one of the advantages of this particular take-over Mr Gunn: 72 per cent. Mr VAUGHAN: The Australian equity wiU be in excess of 72 per cent. Many reports have been published about the proposed take-over. When the decision was first announced, doubt was expressed as to whether the final take-over would take place because of the amount of money involved. BHP is virtuaUy effecting this take-over. It will provide in excess of 72 per cent Australian equity. The important question is: Who owns BHP? Had more time been available, the Opposition could have delved into that and checked out the matter. I accept the Minister's statement that the take-over will result in 72 per cent Australian equity. As the Opposition spokesman on mines and energy matters, and because of the generosity of the Utah Development Company in the past, I have been supplied with financial Information and production figures on an annual basis. I think that the community would be interested to learn that the Utah Development Company has a 76 per cent interest in Central Queensland Coal Associates and is the owner of the Blackwater operation. In December 1980 an assessment was made of the value of its operation in this State. One matter that makes the proposed take-over an attractive proposition for BHP, notwithstanding that BHP will have to pay the market value for the mines, is that the mines have been established for some time. I was personally associated with the establishment of the first Utah mine, at Blackwater, in about 1968, with the establishment of the Goonyella mine In 1971, and with the Peak Downs mine in about 1973. In my capacity at that time I negotiated the agreements for the construction of those mines and the operation of those mines. I have had the pleasure of watching the development of those mines and the development of the townships of Moranbah, Dysart and Blackwater. Blackwater has developed from a one-pub whistle-stop on the Rockhampton to Longreach railway line Into a township with a population of about 8 000 people. In December 1980 Utah made an assessment of the historical value of those mines. It must be appreciated that those mines were established between 1968 and 1973. Compared with the amount that must be put into mines these days, their cost during those years was not great. As at December 1980, the historical value of those mines was $875m. That represents the Utah Development Company's share of the assets at that time. That company's share of the replacement cost of those mines—Goonyella, Peak Downs, Saraji, Norwich Park and Blackwater—is presently $2,265m. That is a large sum of money. That Is one of the reasons some doubt was expressed about the ability of BHP to effect the final take-over. One matter that went through my mind—and I think that it ran through the minds of many people at the time that the take-over was announced—was why General Electric Minerals Inc. of America would want to divest itself of its coal-mining operations In Queensland. I am on record as saying that it Is not mining coal; It is mining black gold. It has a distinct advantage over new operators or companies contemplating entering the coal­ mining Industry, All the mines the subject of the take-over export coking coal. They have the advantage of rail freight agreements and contracts which were negotiated some time ago. Of course, their contracts are renewed from time to time. Having negotiated their rail freight agreements a long time ago, they are advantageously placed. Mr Gunn: Except Norwich Park. Mr VAUGHAN: I wlU come to that. I take this opportunity to place on record the Utah Development Company's operations in this State. I have perused the reports sent to me by the Utah Development Company, for which I am very appreciative, and have compiled tables enabling me to make comparisons to see how the operations are proceeding. The Minister interjected that the raU freight advantage of the Utah Development Company relates to GoonyeUa, Peak Downs, Saraji and Blackwater, but not so much to Norwich Park. However, in my view, Utah Is exercising Its advantage by effectively reducing its exports from the Norwich Pa''k mine and concentrating on its exports from the other mines, thereby avoiding the necessity to meet Its commitment to pay higher 2148 28 March 1984 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c.. Bill raU freights from Norwich Park. According to my calculations, the rail freights from Norwich Park are less than those applying to German Creek and Oaky Creek. I think they are less than those for Gregory, although I may be wrong. Certainly, they would be less than the freights for the steaming coal mines at Blair Athol, which is to be opened on 6 April, Newlands and CcHUnsviUe. AU In all, Utah has a distinct advantage. I recall Ustening to a radio program this week—I think it was "AM"—when a comment was made about the advantage enjoyed by Utah. From memory, it related to a comment made when the Premier was enjoying the hospitaUty of the People's Republic of China. He alleged that Queensland coal mines were being disadvantaged in the negotiation of new contracts, because the Federal Government was purposely holding up the signing of new contracts for Queensland mines in order to advantage New South Wales mines. Of course, nothing was further from the truth. While enjoying the hospitality of the People's Republic of China and wishing to maintain some sort of image back here, the Premier probably thought to himself, "How best can I make sure that the people know I have not migrated to the People's RepubUc of Cliina? I wiU send back a news release accusing those terrible people south of the border of trying to do something to the detriment of Queensland's coal-mining Industry." Mr FitzGerald: Has the Federal Labor Government changed since Connor's day, because he certainly didn't muck around? Mr VAUGHAN: It has not changed since Connor's day. The Federal Government is operating in the Interests of the people of Australia and in the interests of the Australian coal-mining Industry. The allegations made by the Premier In China were untrue. The Federal Minister for Trade (Mr Bowen) cleared the air on that matter. Mr Borbidge: It's the first time in ages he's said anything. Mr VAUGHAN: The Federal Government has learned to live with the irrational statements that from time to time emanate from the Premier of this State. The present Federal Government knows better than any previous Federal Government, either Liberal or Labor, how to handle the Premier, A prime example is the way the Premier was dealt with on the Medicare Issue, Irrespective of all the Premier's Irrational statements, finally he had to sign the agreement. I thought it significant that It was the first occasion on which he has come back from Canberra with his tail between his legs. He did not even release a media statement. He was very lucky that he did not continue with his bhiff and deny Queenslanders mllUons of dollars, as he did a few years ago. Government Members interjected. Mr VAUGHAN: 1 will Ignore the interjections and get back to the subject at hand because I have a great deal of Information to place before the House. The people of Queensland should understand exactly what is Involved In this take-over by BHP of the interests in this State of General Electric Minerals. I would like to know why the General Electric Company Is prepared to divest itself of its operations in this State. Since it has been In operation, the profits of the Utah Development Company have been significant and substantial. Utah has access to some of the best, if not the best, coal in this State. The company cannot be blamed for that. After all. It entered the field virtually at the beginning, just after the commencement of the Thiess, Peabody Mitsui operation at Moura. Utah had access to a great deal of information from the Queensland Mines Department which showed it where the coal was situated. AU mining companies that want to commence operations in this State have access to very good information from the Mines Department. I must compliment the Mines Department on the work that It does in this regard. It makes information avaUable to mining companies Interested In the development of this State so that they can take advantage of the areas that have the richest resources. As I said, the Utah Development Company has access to some of the best, if not the best, coal deposits In the State. An example of that Is the Goonyella mining operation, which I will be viewing in the not too distant future In an endeavour to ensure that I do not lose touch with the industry. That mine now has Its bucket wheel operating. Although I Inspected it while I* was under construction, I have not seen It In operation and my committee and 1 are looking forward to that. Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c.. Bill 28 March 1984 2149

I take the opportunity to refer to some statistics on the Utah operation. In 1983, the Central Queensland Coal Associates' operation in the vicinity of Moranbah and Dysart produced a total of 15.5 million tonnes of coal. If the 2.7 million tonnes that was produced at Blackwater Is added to that, It gives a total of 18.2 miUion tonnes, which is a substantial amount. In 1982-83, the total Queensland coal production was approximately 38.5 miUion tonnes, so the Utah figure is approximately half of the coal production of the State. These figures do not Include the Riverside operation near the Goonyella coal mine. What is happening is that BHP is taking control of a substantial proportion of the coal-mining production capacity of the State. Mr Littleproud: The company will probably pay for it. The New South Wales Govern* ment did not pay the people of New South Wales for the coal that it took. Mr VAUGHAN: I think the honourable member is referring to the decision of the New South Wales Government to withdraw the mineral rights held by people from the time Australia was first settled in 1788. Mr Bailey: Shame! Mr VAUGHAN: That is not a shame. Very few Queenslanders have mineral rights. A person who owns the freehold title over his land does not hold the mineral rights. The cmly people In Queensland who own mineral rights are those who had freehold title prior to March 1910, They are very few and far between. Most of them are on Ipswich fields. The rights to the deposit on Gordon Downs was acquired very adeptly by Houston Oil and Minerals and subsequently transferred to Apex Oil. In that way, the company recouped most of the price It paid for the block of land near Emerald and retained substantial rights to the underground minerals. In 1983, Utah's total sales revenue was $958,9m. That was about 9 per cent higher than In 1982. On that $958.9m sales revenue, the company made a net profit of $l48.9m. That amount compares with $148.5m profit in 1982, $132.6m In 1981 and $122. Im in 1980. I was talking earlier about rail freights. Utah pave me certain information about the total raU freights paid in 1983. The amount of raU freight paid by the coal-mining industry is a vexed question. The extent to which the State Government relies on revenue derived from raU freights is worth mentioning. In the last State election campaign I was asked what a State Labor Government would do for the mining industry, particularly the coal-mining industry, relative to rail freights. I answered the question carefully. I said, "The extent to which the State Government relies on rail freights to he'p balance the State Budget makes me reluctant to give any undertaking to change the situation until I get into government and see exactly what is going on." Until the books were audited, I would be very reluctant to say, "Sure, we will do something to alleviate raU freights." A more positive approach must be adopted than that announced by the Premier. I may get round to talking about his announcement about giving some relief from rail freight. Any party achieving government would have to look closely at the State's financial situation and see just how much the State Government did rely on that revenue. I understand from the mining industry that, last year, the total rail freight revenue derived from coal was about $180m. That was a large sum. No Government could give an undertaking to drop $180m from its Budget. However, Labor has Indicated that it is prepared to look at rail freights and royalties. The total raU freights paid by the Utah Development Company amounted to $131.9m. According to Utah, because of the rail freight that the company paid, the Government made a profit In that sphere of Its operations. Several components, such as the security deposit, the operating cost and the profit component In the raU freight calculation are tied into rail freights. The total profit derived by the Queensland Government from the Utah sales revenue of $958.9m was $89.6m. Mr Gunn: How would they know that? Mr VAUGHAN: Those are the figures they gave me. I venture to suggest that they gave the Minister the same figures. Mr Gunn: You could put out any figure if you cared to. Mr VAUGHAN: They do their calculations in the same way as all other mining companies. 2150 28 March 1984 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c.. BUI

Mr Gunn: They're not right. Mr VAUGHAN: The Minister should know very weU that. In calculating the rail freights, there is a component that ensures that the companies pay. They are required to pay so much a tonne as a security deposit. They are also required to pay so much per tonne to cover the operating costs of the line after it is built and pay so much per tonne on profit. Considering the faciUties available to those mining companies, it would not take them long, particularly those that are tied up with the General Electric Company, to work out the way in which this State Government calculates its rail freights and the amount of money that it raises through royalties. Is the Minister saying that the Treasury Department is more astute than the Utah Development Company or the General Electric Company and that he can hide from those companies the amount of money that the Government makes from rail freights? If he is, he Is kidding himself, and I am sure that any thinking QueensUnder would agree with me. In addition to the $89.6m that the Government received from the BHP operations in 1983 it received $33.5m In royalties. One does not need a calculator to work out those figures because that information Is freely available. Out of the total of $53.2m that the Government received In coal royalties, $33.5m was received in royalties from Utah coal-mining companies. Mr Gunn: Don't you think that the State Government should get something out of these operations? Mr VAUGHAN: I agree that it should. All I am doing is placing this information on the record so that the people of Queensland wiU know what is going on. They should under­ stand quite clearly what Is happening with the take-over of the Utah operations in this State by BHP and its two consortiums. Mr Gunn: You are on our side then?

Mr VAUGHAN: I am on the side of the people, of Queensland. The Labor Party's policy on royalties is that the people of Queensland should receive a fair return from the exploitation and development of the natural resources of this State. As a matter of fact, the Labor Party's policy on royalties, which was enunciated before the last State election, is very clear. There should be a two-tier royalty system. Royalties should be calculated in two ways. Firstly, the people of Queensland should receive a base return from all minerals mined in this State. That is not happening now. The Government had to amend the royalties under the mining regulations so that some mining companies In this State that have not paid any r<^alties for many years will now pay royalties. Mr Gunn: The Commonwealth Is taking the cream off them.

Mr VAUGHAN: Come off It! I have examined with a fine-tooth comb the extent to which this State benefits from royaUles. I can refer to kaolin, which the Premier mines outside KIngaroy, to dolomite, in respect of which the royalties are based on so many cents per tonne, or to nickel ore, in respect of which the Government receives 10c per tonne in royalties. When I have an opportunity to refer to this matter In detail, which I hope to be able to do later this year, I wiU show the people of Queensland that this State is not benefiting from all of the mining operations in this State. It is benefiting from some mining industries—certainly from the bauxite industry. I cannot reconcUe the figures that the Government has placed on the records of this Parliament with the figures obtained from an analysis of the annual reports of the Mines Department or from the leading mining companies. When, in an endeavour to ascertain the amount of royalties being received from the various mining operations in this State, I asked the Minister for Mines and Energy a question, he refused to answer It. He said to me, "Those figures are not publicly available to the people of Queensland." When I first tried to obtain those figures, I went through certain channels. When the matter came to the attention of the heirarchy in the Mines Department, I was told that the figures were not available for public consumption. Then I directed a question to the Minister to try to obtain the figures. He told me that they were not available. Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c.. Bill 28 March 1984 2151

Mr Gunn: A lot of those ventures would never get off the ground if we were too hard on royalties. Mr VAUGHAN: It is not a matter of the Government's becoming too hard. The AustraUan Labor Party's philosophy is that a royalty should have two bases. Firstly, any mining company in Queensland should fully understand that, if it is to take a raw material out of Queensland, it wlU have to pay something in the way of royalty. Secondly, the Labor Party believes that there should be a second royalty payment based on the profitabUity of the operation. The Government's policy at the moment Is based on a royalty of cents per tonne or a percentage of the value. Mr Gunn: Two per cent at the pit-head. Mr VAUGHAN: I am not talking about any particular mineral but about royalties generaUy in Queensland. Some royalties are based, as I said, on only cents per tonne. For example, the royalty on nickel Is 10 cents per tonne. Ad valorem royalties, based on a percentage of the value of the product, also apply. The Government's policy on royalties actually Inhibits mining operations because a mining company, aware of the royalty to be applied, reaUses that it caimot get its operation off the ground. That Is why the Labor Party beUeves that a two-part royalty should be payable, based on the production of a mineral and the profitabUity of the operation. If one operation Is not as profitable as another (me. It does not pay as much In royalties. Mr Gunn: A lot of those Uttle groups are not paying the average rate. Mr VAUGHAN: Why is it that the Minister for Mines and Energy wiU not teU me how much the Government receives in royalties from the exploitation of the gemfields In central Queensland? I am sure that that is because he is embarrassed by the mere pittance the Government receives. About SlSm worth of gems was produced in 1982-83. The Minister also would not teU me how much royalty Is earned from tin-mining. I believe that, once again, it would be a mere pittance. Mr Gunn Interjected. Mr VAUGHAN: That Is right. How much Is earned from gold? Mr Gunn: We have changed the regulation. Mr VAUGHAN: Yes, the Government changed the regulation of the payment of royalty from the lesser of 2 per cent of the value of the mineral produced and 5 per cent of the profit, to the greater of these two amounts. The Government then turned round and gave the KIdston gold mine exemption from the royalty for five years. Mr Gunn: What are they getting out of it? Mr VAUGHAN: I do not know, but that operation was set up and then the Government granted it an exemption for five years. The Government did the same thing with the Mary Kathleen uranium mine. The overaU royalty from Mary Kathleen totaUed about $3m. Mr Gunn: Don't forget that we helped them at the time when they were struggling. Mr VAUGHAN: Come off it! But that Is getting off the track; we are talking about the BHP take-over. By way

The companies go to Japan one at a time ana are picked off by the Japanese, who are very astute. The Nippon Steel Corporation invites people to Japan to sell coal. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to visit Japan to see how the negotiations are conducted, but I am looking forward to such a visit one of these days. As I understand it, the Nippon Steel Corporation negotiates In this way: it has representatives of one coal company in one room and down the corridor It has representatives of another coal company. On top of that, it has runners going backwards and forwards between the rooms. It plays off one coal company against the other. It Is significant that the Japanese buy as a group. Nippon Steel buys for steel-mills and the Electric Power Development Corporation and the Japanese Coal Company buy for the power stations. They would not dream of fragmenting their situation and buying Individually. If they want to buy as a group, that is fair enough. Mugs from Australia travel to Japan and the Japanese play them off against each other. The Minister says, "We do not want to be involved. Let them go. Let the companies cut each other's throat." That is what has been happening. On 6 April, the Blair Athol coal mine will be opened. I wish the Blair Athol coal mine much success. Not very long ago I read an article that stated that the Japanese were pressing the coal company to reduce its exports by 50 per cent. TTie Blair Athol mine wUl export 5 million tonnes of coal a year. That will be reduced by 50 per cent. Although the mine has coal seams of good quality, the coal does not have the heating value of other coals. However, it has other advantages. I wonder how the company at Blair Athol will be able to manage with a 50 per cent reduction in its exports, considering the cost of the establishment of mines today. Mr Gunn: There is keen competition in world markets for coal. Mr VAUGHAN: We know that. Mr Gunn: That is why Japan can do that. Mr VAUGHAN: It is a buyer's market, certainly. In the Interests of the coal-mining industry In this State and In this nation, Queensland cannot adopt an attitude of, "To hell with the rest of Australia." Queensland cannot adopt a policy of letting the coal companies cut each other's throat. Mr Gunn: Our coal is cheaper to produce than New South Wales coal. It is a different type of mine. Mr VAUGHAN: Recently I extracted some figures. I will not dig them out to show where Queensland stands in the field of coal exports compared with New South Wales, Notwithstanding what the Minister says, there is not a great deal of difference between the two States in relation to coking coal or steaming coal. In conclusion, the Opposition wishes BHP much success. Opposition members appreciate that this agreement is necessary. At the Committee stage, I shall ask the Minister one question. I wUl reserve further comments tUl then. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (2.57 p.m.): I have very much pleasure In supporting the legislation. It facilitates a transfer to new proprietors, and this legislature has a very important role to play in that arrangement. Having been one of the four Ministers who negotiated the original arrangement with Central Queensland Coal Associates in 1967 and 1968 and having been involved In the signing of the agreement involving that consortium, I have found it rather Interesting to watch history unfold. Many aspects of the original legislation were opposed by the ALP when the legislation was introduced Into this Chamber in 1968. I should remind honourable members of that. This venture was begun in the late '50s by people who were interested In the development of coal resources. At that time, it was extremely difficult to attract venture capital into Australia to develop such a resource that was so far away from a seaboard. Queensland was lucky that people were prepared to take the risks involved. It is all very well for the Opposition to complain about the royalties. In fact, if the terms in the agreement had not been negotiated, all that flowed from that development would not have happened. The agreement was a major breakthrough to develop the resources and to 2154 28 March 1984 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement. &c., BiU have guaranteed customers, namely, the Japanese steel mills. People were prepared to venture their capital with no guarantee that it would be returned. Enormous infrastructure costs and great risks were involved. Queensland was very fortunate in having the Utah Development Company and its associates available to develop the resources. At that time, there was not a queue of people endeavouring to develop those resources. It was as a result of this agreement that a queue began to develop, because it was realised that the pioneering efforts by Central Queensland Coal Associates were bearing fruit and that the Queensland Government was encouraging private enterprise and encouraging capital to be invested in such development. Others then appeared on the horizon who would never have dreamt of looking at Queensland for such resource development. Therefore, it does the ALP no credit to criticise those arrangements. Many thousands of jobs were created in Queensland as a result of the successful negotiation of the agreement.. Many thousands more have since been created because people were able to use this agreement as a model for the development of other resources. I repeat that the Government did net have the world beating a path to its door to develop the State's resources. It had to go out and find the people. Venturers were a very rare breed Indeed. There has been some criticism of franchise development. I remind the House that the project would never have got off the ground had it not been for the endeavours of Utah, a company which at that stage had never ventured into coal development. It was an entirely new development for that company. It was new for Queensland; it was new for the venturers. There were a great number of uncertainties, and I am pleased that the project has been so very successful. Mr Gunn: It was a pioneer industry. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: It was more than a pioneer industry; it was the foundation for a whole host of new industries. Mr Vaughan: They were not the pioneers, though. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: No. Thiess was the pioneer. Mr Vaughan: Thiess, Dampier, Mitsui. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: No. Thiess on his own was the pioneer. He had to truck coal by road to Gladstone at enormous cost in the very first development of this type. However, for the enormous resources Involved, we were very fortunate indeed to have Utah available. The Utah Development Company has proved to be a very sound manager. Tlie people it has had as its executives in this country have been of the very highest calibre. Their industrial relations have been of a very high standard. Their approach to the community has been very altruistic. I am sure that every member would agree that they have been wonderful citizens in this State and have contributed greatly to the welfare of the community. I expect that the Utah Foundation will be a lasting testimony to the contribution that Utah has made to our country, not just to this State. As one of the Ministers involved in the negotiations, which lasted some 12 or 18 months, I am fascinated that this stage has been reached. Utah itself was the subject of a take-over by General Electric and Is no longer Utah in the true sense. General Electric has a different philosophy about the management of Utah's world-wide interests. This could hardly be regarded as a take-over in the normal sense of the word; but when General Electric made policy decisions about coal resource development, we were very fortunate to have in AustraUa a company such as BHP with the resources, management skills and access to finance that enabled it to acquire such vast resources In our State. In some ways, I expect it could be said that It Is buying back the farm—the type of thing that was spoken about years ago when it was hoped that venture capital would be avaUable in this country to enable Australia to develop its own resources. It was not available In this country In 1967-68, much as we would have wished U to be. It is more generally avaUable now; but, even so, the acquisition of such an enterprise In Australia in 1984 is still a difficult undertaking for Australians. We must keep reminding ourselves that Australia is a very small country of 15 mUlion people. The surplus capital available for developmental purposes is still very limited. The agreement that has been reached and the break-up of the new ventures indicates clearly that this country Is still not in a position to provide all the venture capital we would like to provide for such resource developments. Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c.. Bill 28 March 1984 2155

General Electric has found it necessary to keep an Interest In this enterprise. I am pleased that an Australian-based company will play a major role In the development of these resources In Queensland. Although BHP has had an Interest in this State for some time, it has never been regarded as a major investor in Queensland and, under these arrangements, it wiU be In future. The question of rail freights ought to be brought to the attention of the Minister. In 1967-68, I was responsible for negotiating the part of the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Act that relates to rail freights and to the provision of the rolling- stock and facilities for rail transport. When the formula that Is now embodied In section 13 of that Act was agreed upon, neither the negotiators for the Government nor those on the opposite side of the table had any Idea that the prices of distillate and steel would increase so greatly. I counsel the Minister to re-examine the rail freight formula. Although the formula seemed very reasonable in 1968, with the benefit of hindsight, the Government should reflect upon the direction that the State should take In setting rail freights for resource developments. Way back in the 1940s the Labor Government produced the Powell Duffryn report, which was tabled in this House. That report put very clearly to the Parliament of Queensland that the viable development of these coal resources for export purposes and for home consumption was very doubtful because of the enormous costs of transport. At that time nobody had any knowledge of diesel locomotives, the use of slave locomotives or the operation of very long trains to carry large tonnages. That report was based on current costs of running steam locomotives. The report pointed out that the development of those resources in central Queensland would be quite Impossible. Because of enormously high transport costs, many resources still remain to be developed in central Queensland. The introduction of diesel locomotives and other things that I have already mentioned meant that It was possible to transport large quantities of coal over these relatively enormous distances economically and that fact, together with lower terminal costs brought about by bulk handling and so on, enabled Queensland coal to be landed at many destinations at a reasonable price. However, that is no longer the case. World competition is ever so much keener. Other countries have learnt from Australia how to handle the long distance haulage of bulk commodities. The technological changes that are taking place In the use of steaming and coking coal are changing the economics of this industry. I suggest that the Government re-examine the philosophy on rail freights of coal that was adopted in the late 1950s and the early 1960s and that resulted in agreements such as the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement on rail freight. In the light of that experience, the Government should be acutely aware of the nature of the strategy of the State's competitors. The State must better understand the demands of its customers round the world. The State should have a very positive approach to Europe as a market for its coal and should study that possibility very intensely. That market Is very Interested in the blending of coals, for which Queensland coal is very attractive. The State should be very much on the ball in trying to capture that market. Queensland has enormous exportable surpluses of steaming coal and coking coal and they should be taken advantage of. Queensland Is not depriving Itself of resources for the future. The reserves to meet future developments and the needs of population growth are enormous. They will last for centuries. Even the Powell Duffryn report pointed out that the known reserves In 1946-47 were sufficient to supply most of our world markets for 500 years. Since then, we have discovered, and not exploited, many times more than the reserves that were known In the 1940s. Queensland is one of the largest coal-bearing areas In the world. The world needs energy, It needs the resource and Queensland should be in a position to supply it. It should not be miserly in Its approach. It can still earn enormous Income. It would be better to redesign coal export rail freights to encourage greater exploitation of the world's markets. I am sure that the bulk revenue to the Government would be much greater if that were done. South Africa, Canada and some European countries that supply coal to the world market have learnt that lesson. Queensland must make the change. The coal freight philosophies adopted In the late 1960s should be reviewed. It seems almost sacrilegious to play with the original formulas, but the time has come to look 2156 28 March 1984 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, Sec, Bill at them again In the light of current circumstances and future markets. It is not good enough to keep the resources In the ground for no-one to use. They should be shared with the rest of the world at the right price. It is Interesting to note that the legislation recognises the trust. I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to impose certain monitoring arrangements to ensure that the trust's transactions are known to the Governor in CouncU. It has been very fortunate that BHP has taken the lead in this operation. Because of the leases, the land and the agreements involved, the facilitation of the arrangements by the sanction of this Parliament will be one further stage in the progress of the State. As a result of it, I trust that BHP and its associates will make even greater Investments in the State. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (3.13 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The honourable member for Nudgee spoke at length about Utah. I agree with him that Utah has done a- tremendous amount for the State. The honourable member referred to the town of Blackwater. I, too, saw Blackwater when It was a little stopping place. Today, it is a very fine town. Utah must be thanked for what It has done. The Queensland Government must also be thanked for providing the infrastructure, including the schools and police stations. Blackwater has a fine motel. It is a good town. It should be remembered that all of its development is attributable to coal. The honourable member for Nudgee asked why the General Electric Company wants to sell Its coal-mining areas in central Queensland. He has obviously forgotten that It will cost BHP and its joint venturers $1.1 billion. I should think that that was a very attractive sum. I understand that GE Is receiving part of that amount for Its Utah interests and that GE wants to avail Itself of the opportunity to expand into further high-technology fields in the United States. That Is a matter for GE to decide. The company probably feels that that may be an even more lucrative field. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr GUNN: They are fairly shrewd business people. A massive amount of money Is Involved. As the honourable member said, it took some time to get the act together. Negotiations have been taking place over a long period. The agreement was on and then it was off. We did not know what was going to happen. The structure of the venture was finalised only as late as last week; hence the speed with which the House is dealing with this legislation. I appreciate that the honourable member understands what has happened in that regard. The honourable member for Nundah referred also to rail freights. At present, Utah Is benefiting from concessional rail freights for Its Norwich Park coal. Of course, other mining companies would not qualify for those concessional freight rates because their contracts were entered into many years ago. Utah was one of the pioneers in the coal Industry. As the member for Nundah has just pointed out. In the early stages of the development of the coal Industry, Infrastructure costs were low compared with today's costs. At that time. Interest rates were low. Of course, Utah has a cost advantage. The honourable member for Nudgee said that Utah Is not using Norwich Park coal to the same extent as It is using coal from some of Its other mines. Possibly that is good business. But, under the agreement on concessional rail freights, the company has to take a certain amount of coal from Norwich Park. As the honourable member for Nudgee will aw^reciate, Queensland is competing quite favourably on the world coal markets. I believe that the mining companies are making a profit out of their operations, otherwise they would not be selling their coal, and there Is nothing wrong with that. Queensland coal Is landed In Japan, which Is the State's major customer, at a cheaper price than major competitors, which are the United States of America and Canada, are able to land coal there. Our coal exports to Japan are s HI increasing. Mr Vaughan: Very slightly. Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement, &c., BiU 28 March 1984 2157

Mr GUNN: The quantity exported to Japan is not being reduced, and that is the main point. The Government is well aware of the present problems with rail freights, which were mentioned by the honourable members for Nundah and Nudgee, and is doing Its utmost to overcome them. Every couple of weeks Treasury meets representatives from the principal coal producers. Treasury's door Is open at all times. Representatives from the companies have been meeting with Treasury officials to see what can be done In that area. At present, concessional rail freights are given to companies that are paying more than $10 per tonne in rail freights. Mr Vaughan: That would affect only Norwich Park. Mr GUNN: Utah receives concessional freight rates for Norwich Park coal. Naturally, many of the newer mining ventures that the honourable member mentioned would recieve those conessional freight rates. I am not quite certain when that concessional arrangement will finish. Mr Vaughan: Next year. Mr GUNN: No. Those concessions wiU apply until such time as Treasury carries out some research. Representatives of the companies and Treasury are sitting down and talking at present. The Treasury Under Secretary, the Mines Minister and I have been involved in the discussions. The concessional arrangement will apply to those companies that are paying more than $10 per tonne In raU freights. We are looking also at the problems facing the West Moreton fields. We are sitting dov/n and talking with aU of the mining companies. Time and time again their representatives have put their case and the Treasury has put its case. I beUeve that representatives of the mining companies have talked to the under secretary. Some headway is being made. The Government appreciates that there are some problems in that area. As I said, there is a need for this legislation to be passed speedily. The agreement must be signed early next week in the United States, by General Electric Minerals, Inc, and when the Bill has received royal assent. It will be sent to the United States as quickly as possible, I thank honourable members for their contributions. Motion (Mr Gunn) agreed to.

Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) in the chair; Hon, W. A. M. Gunn (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4—Amendment of s. 4; Variation of Agreement— Mr VAUGHAN (3.22 p.m.): I seek clarification from the Minister of clause 4. It amends section 4 of the principal Act. That section deals with the variation of agreement. Clause 4 renumbers the first paragraph in subsection (1) of section 4 and deletes the second and third paragraphs in section 4 and inserts two new paragraphs that become subsections (2) and (3), I am interested in subsection (3), The principal Act now says— "Unless and until the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to subsection (4) of section 5 of this Act, disallows by resolution an Order In Council approving a variation of the Agreement made in such manner, the provisions of the agreement making such variation shall have the force of law as though such lastmentioned agreement were an enactment of this Act," The new paragraph to be inserted, which will become subsection (3), says— "The provisions of an agreement that duly varies the Agreement shall have the force of law as if they were an enactment of this Act unless and until. In the case of a variation agreement made with the approval of an Order in Council, the Legislative Assembly disallows the Order In Council pursuant to section 5 (4)," I would like to know what the difference between the two provisions Is. I have read them and reread them and I cannot reconcile them. In notes that were provided to me, I read that there was a problem with people entering into a joint venture. They wanted to be sure of Its timing. Because the Legislative Assembly Is involved, and because the 2158 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BiU

Premier can make an agreement with a company or companies, I want to be sure of my understanding of the new provision so that. If it does come before the Assembly at any time, I know what Is happening. If the Minister can explain the ramifications of the new paragraph, it wUl be appreciated by aU members. Mr GUNN: I am told that It means that if the agreement Is changed by Order in CouncU, the amended agreement will be operative unless and untU the House, by resolution, disallows it. I am told that there Is little difference between the two provisions. Mr Vaughan: Is It tied up with the timing of this legislation? Are the time factors Involved? Mr GUNN: Yes. It is tied up with the Intending lenders and the funding of the agreement. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 13, and schedules, as read, agreed to. BUI reported, without amendment. Third Reading BUI, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a third time.

PRIVACY COMMITTEE BILL Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 March (see p. 2103) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (3.28 p.m.): Before this debate was adjourned last night, a number of honourable members had addressed themselves to the very Important Issue of privacy. I had hoped that the Minister would be here this afternoon to take on board comments made by honourable members on this Important Issue, because this legislation does not come to grips with It. Previous speakers have made a number of important points, and subsequent speakers will do Ukewise, so I am sorry that the Minister Is not in the Chamber. Mr Shaw: It shows a lack of Interest. Mr HAMILL: The Minister Is showing a lack of Interest, and I am disappointed that that is so. The matter of privacy Is a pressing one for the community. Recently it appeared on the Business Paper of the Queensland ParUament. However, 10 years ago. In 1974-75, the New South Wales Parliament addressed itself to this very important Issue. In July 1974, a privacy committee was set up under the control of the New South Wales Attorney-General. In the following year, an Act of Parliament was passed and a committee was established along lines similar to those proposed In Queensland. In other words, the committee was empowered to initiate Inquiries, collect Information in cases in which it deemed that the invasion of personal privacy was Involved and set up investigations when complaints were made. It Is interesting to note that between 1975 and 1980 the New South Wales committee received about 10 630 complaints in relation to privacy. A number of commentators have remarked upon the operation of the New South Wales Privacy Committee. Although I agree that It has played a very important role in highlighting the Issue of privacy, I feel that a committee that Investigates Is not sufficient recourse for persons who feel aggrieved that their privacy has been infringed. A number of the commentators argued quite strongly that a need exists for legal recourse, that administrative investigations have not provided sufficient recourse in dealing with the Invasion of a person's private affairs. The New South Wales committee that was established more than 10 years ago has made a worthwhile contribution to the whole Issue of privacy. The establishment in Queensland of a committee along similar lines will make a worthwhile contribution In this State. Ten years have elapsed since the New South Wales committee was established. Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2159

The issues that the New South Wales committee and, now, the Queensland committee are to address are far more complex. The issues become Increasingly complex as the years roll by. In 1983 the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General In the coalition Government (Mr Doumany) Introduced legislation similar to the legislation that was Introduced by the present Minister. At the time, Mr Doumany expressed concern about the Increasing ease of access to data bank information through the use of computers and cross-referencing computer data banks. It is that particular matter to which I wish to direct my remarks this afternoon. As I said, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General In 1983 (Mr Doumany) introduced legislation almost identical to that which is presently under consideration by this Assembly. It does not come to grips with the very real chaUenges to the very Important Issue of privacy in the community. On the one hand Is a person's individual privacy. R conflicts with other considerations, such as national security, freedom of expression and defamation laws, to which reference was made In this debate last night. Other Issues are involved. For Instance, how will the information recorded in data banks be acquired? Once the information is acquired, to whom will it be diffused within the community? How will it be diffused? These are particularly important Issues. I suggest that the legislation does not move towards seeking any solution to the problems that have been raised. On the issue of privacy, there Is a clash between an individual's personal right to privacy and the availability of an almost unlimited range of information in a technological age, associated as It is with the public demand for a right to know what is recorded about members of the public. The satellite and computer age has greatly changed the world. With the advent of international flight, it was said that the world was shrinking. SateUltes and computers have caused that shrinkage to progress apace. Compare the present system with the old telegraph system when the world was somewhat less complicated. In those days, an inter­ national message would be sent along the telegraph lines to the last receiving post within the nation. It would then be recorded at that outpost. It was then manually taken across the frontier before it could again be transmitted along the telegraph lines. What a far cry that is from the present system under which a message can be transmitted by sateUlte and computer technology across the globe or into space in a matter of seconds? How will the Government, through the legislation, deal with the very real threat to privacy that the information revolution is presenting? No novel attempt has been made to deal with those very real Issues. However, other jurisdictions have tried to deal with them. They have made very worthwhile contributions to revising the law covering the Information presently held in data banks. Let me return to a consideration of the issues, one of which is the accuracy of information. Information Is gathered about people for a whole range of purposes. How do the people about whom the Information is being gathered know that the Information is accurate? The spokesperson for the Council for Civil Liberties highlighted instances of people whose credit ratings had been impaired through mistakes made when information from various data banks was collated and provided to credit agencies as a profile of credit­ worthiness. I am sure that honourable members would feel that a legal duty ought to be placed upon those who gathered such information to ensure that the information is accurate. If we are to safeguard a person's right to ensure that the information gathered about him is accurate, surely we must safeguard his right to have access to that information to ensure that the information gathered Is accurate. If information is to be gathered, surely there must be safeguards against the Information being disseminated willy-nilly to people who have no legitimate reason or desire to obtain that information. That leads to the very important issue of security, a matter that is not addressed in this legislation. If the Information gathered Is accurate and is gathered for a specific purpose, how can we ensure that It remains private to those who have a legitimate interest in having the Information gathered? Another conflict that is all too common In governmental matters arises. Can those who control the data banks and the raising of 2160 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee Bill

Information be relied upon to self-regulate their practices to ensure that accuracy, access, security and legitimate dissemination are upheld? Or is legislation required to ensure that those safeguards are met? On the balance, it is felt that uniform legislation Is required. If messages can be transmitted round the globe in a matter of seconds, surely the threat to privacy Is not simply a State or national matter. It has international ramifications. Let me use the analogy of the national situation. If Queensland legislation provides safeguards, what is to stop information which is secure in Queensland from being transmitted in New South Wales, South AustraUa or Western Auitralia, where perhaps similar legislation Is non-existent? As I have said, other Parliaments have sought to deal with these very important Issues. The Europeans have shown a lead. The European Parliament has brought forward legislation which provides legal damages through recourse to the court system If Information in data banks owned by public authorities or private firms is shown to be Inaccurate. Again, there Is a safeguard to the individual's right to have accurate information stored about him. The Europeans have not properly worked out the matter of uniformity, but at least they are making advances along that road. Recently, legislation was put forward in the United Kingdom following the signing of the Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection In 1981. It provided security and safeguards in relation to data banks in that country. More importantly, the EEC's recommendation on the protection of individuals vIs-a-vis electronic data banks In the private sector was approved by that organisation's Council of Ministers way back In 1973. From that It is obvious that Australia really Is dragging its feet. The pioneering New South Wales legislation came almost 12 months after far more sophisticated legislation was Introduced in Europe. Many points were made in those recommendations, which were approved by the Council of Ministers. Honourable members should bear in mind that those recommendations were made in 1973; It is now 1984, a somewhat prophetic date when one is dealing with matters of privacy. The first point was that the information gathered about people had to be relevant to the purpose to which it was to be put. It had to be up to date, accurate and, very im­ portantly In relation to the issue of privacy, it had to be confidential, because presumably that is what privacy is all about—the confidentiality of information. The second point was that the information gathered had restrictions placed upon its use. If information was gathered for a specific purpose, it could not be used for other purposes. Again, that Is a safeguard concerning the dissemination of that information, a safeguard to preserve Its confidentiality. Next, there had to be adequate security systems that could not be opened to unauthorised access. I will have more to say about that shortly. Another point was the provision of professional secrecy provisions governing the operations of those who have access to the information and those who process that Infor­ mation. I believe there is scope for placing legal restraints upon those who deal with such sensitive information. Such sensitive information could extend even to one's car registration. Why should Individual members of the public have ready access to information that perhaps the Main Roads Department may hold against individuals? Mrs Chapman: How do we cover Medicare? Mr HAMILL: A voice to my left raises the question of Medicare. If that person was really concerned about the issue of data collection, she would have the gumption to stand and make points in relation to this BiU. I believe the BiU does not come to grips with the very Important issues of data banks, which is the whole purpose of my discussion this after­ noon. The governmental structure of this country is very complex, and Is becoming increasingly complex as the years go by. Mr FitzGerald: Under the socialists it wiU get a lot worse. Mr HAMILL: An agrarian socialist on my left speaks! No-one would doubt the com­ mitment of the honourable member for Lockyer to a whole range of what should only be described as socialist Impediments to the free market system of primary industry. Mr Milliner: That shows how far out of date he Is, because the Premier has been over wining and dining the socialists in China. Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2161

Mr HAMILL: That is right. The Premier has been kowtowing and I dare say his flock will soon be kowtowing, too. 1 return to the very real issues in this debate on privacy. An important right Is at stake, the important right that Individuals have a right to know what is recorded about them. This is the sort of civil liberties Issue for which one can never find support from the Government benches. Members of the Government are not Interested in individual rights; they are the great upholders of bureaucracy in this State. The Opposition is interested in civil rights and the provision of important safeguards for the rights of individuals in the operations of bureaucracy. I am sure that is what privacy is all about. I will now return to the 1974 recommendations of the EEC, the ones to which I have been referring. The EEC has taken a very brave step in this regard. It has taken those recommendations and applied them not only to the private sector—it is always very easy for governments to legislate in relation to the private sector—but also to the operations of the public sector authorities. If honourable members care to listen, they will be able to hear a pin drop now, because Government members are not interested in legislating in this regard against the bureaucracy In the State of Queensland, I will now consider a further step along the line that has been taken in Europe. In 1979—that is five years ago—the OECD brought forward draft recommendations for policy guide-lines on data privacy. In September 1980, the Council of Europe adopted a convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. That is another instance of true confrontation of the problems that exist in ensuring individual privacy in relation to the data Industry. A number of Important provisions were propounded in that convention. I beUeve that basic principles should be available to provide a guide-line for legislation to ensure privacy in data collection in Queensland and Australia. Provisions in article 5 of that convention deal with the quaUty of the data that is obtained and the guide-lines for the processing of that data. That article requires that the data undergoing automatic processing be, "(a) obtained and processed fairly and lawfully." That is a very pertinent point, particularly when Government members uphold the unlawful obtaining of data, which Is a gross Invasion of privacy. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of article 5 provide that data shall be— "stored for specified and legitimate purposes and not used In a way incompatible with those purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are stored;" Some matters that were recently considered relative to police legislation could well be argued to be excessive intrusion into privacy, as Is the sort of Information that is required by the bureaucracy In Queensland about ordinary citizens. Paragraph (d) of article 5 Is in these terms— "accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date;" That, again, enshrines the principles of which I spoke earlier. Paragraph (e) reads— "preserved In a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored." More importantly, article 6 prohibits any automatic processing of personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions, religious or other beliefs, or concerning health or criminal convictions, or sexual life, unless domestic law provides "appropriate" safeguards. As a whole, the European community is trying to close the gaps that presently exist because of the lack of action of individual national Governments. It is about time that we, as Australians, saw to it that similar legislation was enacted In this country. I said earUer that I wanted to address the question of security. That Issue has gained prominence in the United States very recently In terms of what Is known as "hacking", whiqh is when computer enthusiasts have been able to lock into the great data banks of that country in what seems to be a great game of cat and mouse. They have no particular purpose In trying to obtain the Information, but rather a wish to prove that they have great technical Ingenuity. Evidence shows that these enthusiasts, most of whom are very young, usually In their very early tertiary studies, have broken into some 60 major business and Government computer systems in the United States and Canada. That is an enormous breach of security which concerns corporate bodies and Governments aUke. 2162 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee Bill

The United States Government has been at great pains to point out that the defence system has not been breached, but members can imagine the inipUcatlons for business, with the industrial sabotage that could be wreaked If rivals were so unprincipled as to break into the computer codes in a data bank. That is an important Issue but under the legislation in hand, although privacy breaches can be investigated, no method of redress Is provided to rectify a breach of privacy. I come now to the associated risk that I referred to earlier in relation to (he Illegitimate use of data from various computer banks. Information that is gathered in order to provide a profile on someone's credit worthiness or for some other purpose. When there Is no safeguard in relation to the accuracy of that information, or access to It, how can any individual be assured that the information purported to be relevant to him is the sort of information In which he can have confidence, and know that it will not be put to purposes that I believe to be Illegitimate? In that regard, the OECD draft recommendations are very pertinent to our situation. Firstly, data may be collected only with the subject's knowledge. Secondly, It may be collected only for the purposes stated at the time of collection. Thirdly, a safeguard is needed to ensure individual anonymity in relation to the data that is collected. I know that the whole situation is fraught with conflicts and problems. One question that ought to be considered is how one reconciles this need for anonymity and safeguards with the need for legitimate research. The Germans have endeavoured to meet this need. A data protection Act has been produced in the State of Hesse. That Act allows universities and other public institutions engaged in independent social research to apply to make use of personal data provided, of course, that that personal data Is very relevant to the specific research project and also that the Information gathered about people is not made public—in other words, that their personal Interests are safeguarded. Another issue arises. If a research project is undertaken, how long can data be given out to those public institutions? Do those public institutions pass on their information to other Institutions? What Is the destination of the data? Obviously there are imperfections in the legislation in Hesse; but the basic principle of privacy in the legislation is the one that we should be endeavouring to safeguard. Computers in themselves are not a threat to privacy. Yesterday, I argued that firearms and automobiles were not in themselves inherently dangerous. Again, it is the use to which those very useful Instruments are put. The Illegitimate use of computer data banks and of computers provides a very great threat to privacy. Governments have to bite the bullet in that regard and take some initiatives to ensure that adequate safeguards are enshrined In the law and that Utigatlon can follow if those safeguards are breached. If Governments do not do that, they are allowing the computer revolution and the new-found technology to totally take privacy from the community as a whole. Although the legislation that has been Introduced Is a step in the right direction, it is 10 years out of date when compared with the legislation in New South Wales. New issues must be confronted, and I am afraid that this paper-tiger legislation that has been Introduced does not come to grips with those Issues. Because this legislation has a sunset clause—it wiU operate for only five years—the Government should be directing its attention to the sorts of issues that I have outlined this afternoon. I hope that well before this legislation fades out, a rather more detailed and considered Bill will be introduced Into this Chamber to address the very real threats to privacy that are posed by the technological advances In our modern society. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (3.54 p.m.): AUhough the debate so far has been far- ranging. Opposition members have completely missed the point of the Bill. They have not studied the title of the Bill. After Ustening to their speeches, one would doubt whether they know the Intent of the BiU. The member who has just resumed his seat said that the legislation was one smaU step and he hoped that it would lead to further legislation. If he had read the Bill, he would know that that Is the prime reason that it is before the House. This is not a privacy BUl. In the Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, the Bill appears as the "Privacy Committee BIU" Its longer title is "To provide for the constitution of a Privacy Committee, to define its powers and functions and for purposes connected therewith" Privacy Committee BiU 28 March 1984 2163

r do not disagree with members of the Opposition and the member for Sherwood who went to some lengths to explain their views on areas in which privacy may be Invaded. One of the main phrases used by the Opposition spokesman was "You could talk about this." He then went cm to describe areas in which he believed privacy could be violatetl. I have no argument with him. However, this BiU is to enable a committee to be formed that can recommend to a Government what legislative action It should take, and that legislation would then be brought before the Parliament. An annual report will be laid on the table of the House so that members have the opportunity to discuss its contents. The committee will comprise seven members. The BiU provides that the committee members will have expertise, special knowledge and interest in the matters affecting the privacy of persons. No doubt Opposition members and members of the public who feel that their privacy has been Invaded In the ways spoken about by honourable members wUl make submissions to the committee. It is not relevant to speak about privacy problems In Queensland or anywhere else in this modern, electronic world. Government members and members of the Opposition should make submissions to the committee requesting that action be taken to protect the privacy of a particular person. Mr Mackenroth: Do you know that the Bill does not give you the right to make a submission? Mr FITZGERALD: I understand that a constituent can approach a member of Parliament with a specific problem relating to that person's privacy. If that constituent believes that his privacy has been Invaded, he has the right to make a submission to the committee. AU members will have ample opportunity to look at the annual reports. The BiU also provides that special reports can be submitted to the House at any time. After aU, It is a very complex matter. The member for Wolston, who led for the Opposition, mentioned a multitude of areas In which privacy may be invaded. He spoke about the electronic age and some of the latest developments. He spoke about parabolic microphones with ranges extending to more than 250 metres. He spoke also about miniature tape recorders, binoculars with buiU-in cartridge cameras, Ustening devices that are laminated Into business cards and brief-case cameras. He mentioned also residual light Image intensifiers with ranges of up to 10 km, day and night cameras connected to monitors that are op)erated by remote control, long-range photographic flash devices, microphones concealed In watches, buttonholes, pens and ties, submlniature transmitters, listening devices that use laser beams, electronic stethoscopes, optical devices that permit continuous monitoring In complete darkness, and listening devices placed in telephones that work whether the' telephone is in use or not. Those are just some of the electronic devices that can be used. Other speakers mentioned further instances of invasion of privacy, and I shall elaborate on them later. The Opposition spokesman said that this legislation has as much bite as a toothless shark. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: That is exactly what the Opposition spokesman said; I can remember his saying it. AUhough he covered the whole ambit of privacy in our society, he put forward no positive alternatives. I do not Intend to enter into a dispute with him, because the matters that he mentioned are of grave concern to everyone. However, as legislators we must bring forward legislation that Is acceptable to the people of Queensland and will protect their privacy. This Bill is the first step. It provides for the setting up of a committee, which Is the only logical move that can be made. That committee will be able to say to the Government of the day that It believes that In certain areas legislation should be introduced. It would be totally unwieldy to have broad, conceptual loosely knitted legislation that is full of loopholes that a bull­ dozer could be driven through. Such legislation would be totally unacceptable. All it would do would be to give electronic salesmen a field day and solicitors and barristers an opportunity to make money from court costs. It would not serve the people of Queensland to any degree. 2164 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BIU

This Bill contains a sunset clause—in other words, the committee has a life of five years from the date of enactment of the legislation. That is a wise move. I am pleased that the Bill does not set up a committee that will go on ad Infinitum. I am sure that after this committee has done its work, and If there Is still a need for the formation of a new committee under, say, different guide-lines, the Government of the day will ensure that a committee Is set up to function within those guide-lines. Of course, recommendations will have to come forward. All of us are aware that in this electronic age changes are occurring rapidly. How many of us have seen the small microphones and tape recorders that people can carry in their pockets? How many of us know whether our words are being recorded? Such things were unheard of many years ago, except in the sophisticated spy films. Nowadays they are a fact of life. We do not know what developments In electronic eavesdropping devices will occur over the next five years. I turn now to other respects in which people believe that their privacy Is Invaded. I am deeply concerned about the use of plastic money such as Bankcard and other credit cards. I wonder how many people who use such facilities realise that, whether they like it or not, their privacy is being invaded. I do not claim that there Is no confidentiality with regard to the companies and their data base. However, if someone opens another person's Bankcard statement he is able to read that that other person drew, say, $100 out of a certain bank account, purchased some goods at a certain place and went to a certain place. Not that the release of such information would be an embarrassment to me; but many persons who use Bankcard may not realise that a data base Is built up to enable certain people to ascertain exactly where Bankcard-users have been. They virtually leave behind them a diary of wherever they go. To most of us, that does not matter a hoot, but some people may find It objectionable. Most people are aware of my movements. However, others may regard their activities as their own private affair and certainly would not like their Bankcard statements to fall into the hands of other people. After a given period, a certain picture could emerge from Bankcard statements. I am concerned also at the credit rating data that companies can compile on clients. I agree with the Opposition spokesman that it Is regrettable that many people do not know what their credit rating is and do not know how accurate or up to date the records are. Furthermore, they do not know whether anyone has brought their names to the attention of a credit reporting agency. Quite often, a person has a dispute with a company and will not pay his account and the matter is put into the hands of a collection agency. I share the concern expressed by Opposition members that, if such information found its way into the wrong hands, there could be an invasion of privacy. 1 am concerned about the invasion of privacy by some mail order firms. Several years ago something strange happened to me. Somebody thought that I was A. H. FitzGerald, not A. A. FitzGerald. It is possible that somebody pronounced my initials badly or misformed the letter "A" No A. H. FitzGerald resides in the Gatton district. All the FitzGeralds in the Gatton district are related and live in the same road. During the following three years a good deal of the mail that I received was addressed to A. H. FitzGerald. I received letters from all parts of Australia. I presume that a mistake had been made and my name was placed on a list which was sold to somebody else. There was a misprint on the list. I assume that a number of persons were given a copy of that list, I felt that my privacy had been invaded to a certain extent because a mistake had been made in that simple matter, I wondered how widespread the practice of selling such lists could be, I receive mail because I am a farmer, because I am an irrigator, and because I am Involved in other matters. I continued to receive mail addressed to A. H, FitzGerald for about three years and I did not reply to one letter sent to me under the name of A. H. FitzGerald, so I turned out to be a bad sales prospect. Eventually no further business was canvassed with me. On 3 March I attended a psychiatric nurses graduation ceremony at the Baillie Henderson Hospital, Sister Elizabeth Anne Abell, the Director of Nursing Services in Queensland, impressed upon the nurses the need for confidentiality between nurse and patient. She told nurses not to circulate to any person, other than one who was directly Involved with the patient and needed to know the medical condition and treatment of a particular patient, Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2165

any Information about a patient's medical condition or treatment. Nurses and doctors should not discuss a patient's medical condition or treatment outside a hospital. I agree whole­ heartedly with Sister Abell. Doctors are used to dealing with confidential matters, so they are not likely to discuss a patient's medical condition outside a hospital. I noted that Sister Abell brought that matter to the attention of the nurses. She said that that was one area in which nurses needed to be ever vigilant. She said that they should make sure that they do not abuse the confidence of their patients. Relatives and friends of a patient may have the right to know his condition, but that information should not be the subject of gossip at morning tea In the mess. The member for Sherwood expressed disdain at the attitude of some news crews who focus their television cameras on people who have suffered a bereavement or are In a situation of distress. It upsets me every time I see a television interviewer struggUng to Induce a tear from somebody in distress. It is not fair reporting. It is done purely for sensationalism. It is most regrettable. Interviewers discussing a rather sensitive issue with a person will persist with a specific line of questioning. When the person becomes uneasy because his mind is directed to a very sad event, eventually a tear will appear and the camera zooms in. I suppose that the interviewer says to himself when it is shown that evening, "Gee, I did a good job there, I made it a little bit more sensational." I have utter disgust for such Interviewing attitudes. Members of the media have every right to question politicians or others in the public eye but the questions should be fair and a fair representation of the interview should be presented. If an Interviewer asks the same question 50 times and the person gives the same answer 50 times, it would not make for interesting viewing. Such a reporter would not be seen as an intelligent Interviewer, However, I am absolutely disgusted at the treatment of somebody suffering a deep emotional trauma. The interviewer tries to screw the last tear so that it can be shown to the rest of the world, A person's grief and sorrow should be kept private. The privacy committee to be established by the Bill has far-reaching powers. The member who preceded me in the debate spoke about Medicare. Mr Borbidge: He is not here. He has run for cover. Mr FITZGERALD: I noticed that. I refused to take an Interjection from him. He spoke for quite some time and put In a fair effort. He may have left the Chamber for another reason. He expressed concern about the information contained in data banks. However, in my opinion, no greater threat exists to our privacy than a socialist Government, which wants to have everyone earmarked and dog-tagged. That is what is being done under Medicare. Mr Borbidge: They are doing it through the Bureau of Statistics, too. Mr FITZGERALD: Yes. People should not be dog-tagged. In certain Instances It is necessary for Governments to keep records on people. However, like the member for Surfers Paradise, I am very concerned that the Information could fall Into wrong hands. The exchange of data between computer bases poses a very real threat to privacy. However, I repeat that there is no greater threat to our privacy than the large socialist bureacracy that we are heading for In our country. It Is imperative that privacy be protected. The privacy of citizens should not be abused. The Bill will set up a committee to give consideration to all the problems that people are concerned about in the sphere of privacy. It will report annually to ParUament. If it feels It ought to, it will report to Parliament more often. It will recommend legislation to the Parliament. The Bill contains a sunset clause, which restricts the committee's investigation to a period of five years. All the peripheral matters mentioned by honourable members on both sides of the House concern us all and I am sure they will be brought to the attention of the committee. The member for Ipswich spoke about legislation proposed by the OECD, and I realise that the problem Is world wide. However, I am sure that the committee wUl consider submissions made by various law-making authorities throughout the world, and wlU make recommendations to this Parliament. It will then have the opportunhy to debate specific legislation, which is better than waffling on about all the areas of privacy. Mr Fouras: When? 62185—76 2166 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BiU

Mr FITZGERALD: I am sure that the committee will prepare specific legislation as soon as It isolates the major areas of concern. Not one specific legislative proposal has come forward from members of the Opposition during this debate. Members of the Opposition have talked about various things but It Is specific proposals that should be debated in this House. I am sure the committee will recom­ mend specific proposals to the Minister who, through the Government of the day, can introduce them to this House for debate.

Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (4.17 p.m.): I have a couple of comments to make on the contribution of the member for Lockyer, who complained that sociaUst governments want to tag everybody and keep records on them. The honourable member should think of members of his own party. I think it was the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police who wanted to dog-tag every person receiving unemployment benefits. That Is the type of thing that Ministers want to do. I wish to mention a specific case of what was a great invasion of privacy by a Government agency, the Special Branch. A personal friend of mine in my electorate was nominated by me to become a justice of the peace, I waited for approximately 12 months for a reply from the former Minister for Justice (Mr Doumany), and then wrote to him again and asked what was happening with the application. He finally replied that the person's appUcation would be refused and he would not become a JP. I rang the Minister for Justice to find out the reason for the refusal. The explanation was that a report from the poUce force was respon­ sible for the refusal. I told my friend that and asked him what records the police would have of him. He had no idea, because he had no speeding convictions and had never been arrested for any offence at all. He had not been convicted of drink-driving or any of the other common offences that are the basis for refusing an application to become a justice of the peace. I discussed the matter further with the Justice Department, which indicated that the application was refused because the Special Branch had informed the department that this person had attended a couple of peace movement demonstrations in King George Square. Mr Fouras: I have, too. Mr MACKENROTH: So have I. The person believes In peace in the world and had therefore attended the peace demonstrations; At no stage had he been contacted by a poUce officer or indeed had a police officer come near him at a demonstration. At no stage had he ever taken part In a march. Although he held a particular position in the community and did not want to be arrested for illegally marching or anything else, he still had a commitment to peace. I wrote to the then Minister for Justice and relayed that Information to him. The Minister replied in writing and agreed that the application was not refused because the person had broken the law—because he had not broken the law—^but because his attendance at rallies had shown that he supported people who broke the law. I suggest that that is why the Queensland Government intends to knock back that person's application to become a justice of the peace. Consider the invasion of his privacy. His name has never been taken by the police, yet somehow the Special Branch has got hold of his name and now holds a record on him. The Special Branch has supplied that record to the Justice Department and that person's application has been knocked back. When I consider some Government members' cronies who are being made justices of the peace, I wonder where the right is in that. Today, the honourable member for Lockyer referred, in part, to my main point of concern, when he said that a member of Parliament could take matters to the privacy committee. I hope the Minister, in reply, will give a specific explanation of subclause 18 (c), relative to "Refusal to investigate complaints", which reads— "that the person aggrieved has not a sufficient direct interest in the matter raised in the complaint;" I take that to mean that a member of Parliament could not make a complaint to the privacy committee on behalf of a constituent, a group of constituents or a group of other people, but that he would have to get somebody who felt aggrieved to complain to the privacy committee. Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2167

What happens if a person thinks that his telephone is bugged? Does the person who makes the complaint to the privacy committee have to prove to the committee that the telephone Is bugged, or is It good enough for him to say that he Is concerned about the possibility of Its being bugged? The legislation Is virtuaUy saying that a person has to prove that he has a sufficient direct interest in the matter. Although we may know that many things are going on in society it is difficult to prove that they are affecting us. I am concerned about a matter which, as a member of ParUament. I believe I wUl take to the privacy committee. I hope that in his reply the Minister will make a direct statement that members of Parliament can make complaints to the privacy committee on behalf of their constituents or other people. I am pleased that the Minister said the privacy committee will be able to Investigate Government departments. I have a complaint to make on behalf of Housing Commission tenants. One basic right is that people should have privacy in their own homes. People living in Housing Commission houses do not have that. Housing Commission tenants now refer to Housing Commission inspectors as "Wharton's marauders" because they are raiding Housing Commission houses very early in the morning in an attempt to get more revenue. I will now read to the House, without using the people's names, a letter that I received yesterday from a Housing Commission tenant. This issue does not affect only this woman because in the last six weeks I have received at least 15 similar complaints. The Housing Commission has dreamt up a new way of raising revenue. I am sure that after reading this letter honourable members wiU know what is going on. It is in these terms— "Dear Sir, This letter is to elaborate on the points discussed In the telephone conversation held between yourself and (a person) on the fourteenth of March in regard to a (particular woman) and her problems with the Housing Commission. The basis of the problems is that the Commission alleges that (the woman) who is on a supporting mothers benefit and lives in subsidised rental accommodation at the above address, has her boyfriend as a boarder and based on this information, is demanding a payment of rent arrears to the sum of $583.10. The sequence of events leading to this letter is as follows. On Monday the twenty seventh of February, (the lady) was awoken at 7 a.m. by two men knocking at the door, who identified themselves as being from the Housing Commission. One of the men, a Mr Lloyd Lynch, stated that he had kept the units under surveillance over a period of time, as he had been Informed that (the man) had been staying there on two nights per week. He then detailed two occasions on which he had seen (the man) on the balcony of the unit, while his car had been parked in the street. On the first occasion, at the specified time, the unit was in darkness as we were with friends and did not return till two hours after the alleged sighting. On the second occasion visitors were being entertained and they did not leave until a few hours after the specified time. When these facts were pointed out to Mr Lynch, no further comment was made and he then shifted the subject onto his past conquests in which he caught other couples in similar situations. (The lady) inquired to the regulations covering visitor's stays and was told by Mr Lynch that a tenant could have a male friend stay for no more than three nights per week before the rent would be adjusted. He later contradicted this statement, by stating that no-one was allowed to stay over night as this would affect the tenants rent. In order to clarify the situation, (the woman) rang the Commission in regard to visitors staying overnight, she was told that a male friend can stay one night per week without the rent being affected but when she rang on later occassions, a different answer was received on each enquiry. On one such occassion, a Mr "Natoli dismissed the Information given by Mr Lynch and stated that he should have known better than to give out such Information. On the eighth of March, a letter arrived from the Housing Commission containing a rental advice slip and an income declaration form to be completed and returned. The rental advice slip contained erroneous Information, which seems to be the reverse of normal justice, being that a tenant must prove her innocence. Even if the Information suppUed by the Commission on the form Is accepted, the calculations for both rent arrears and back dated rent adjustment are In error. On the twelfth of March, (the lady) contacted Mr Natoli again in order to clarify some matters pertaining to these forms. Mr NatoU stated that the reason 2168 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee Bill

for the charge was a levy for the use of facilities and was done for the benefit of the tenants. When questioned on this specific case, he become evasive and then passed onto a Mr Rafter of the rent arrears branch. Mr Rafter who used an Intlmldatory manner in which he did not allow . a chance to speak, stated that the money owing was now $603.10 and this had to be paid In full within three months or an eviction notice would be Issued. On the question of the Income declaration form, he stated that the rent would Increase until it was received thus eventually forcing (the lady) out of her unit. The rent advice slip with the details of (the man) crossed out and a blank incomes declaration form were returned to the Commission on the fifteenth of March. On the twentieth of March, we visited the Legal Aid Office in Brisbane, and consulted with one of the solicitors on these matters. After obtaining all relevant details pertaining to the matter, the solicitor stated that a letter would be sent to the Commission after the relevant ACTS had been consulted. We wish to make the following points: 1. (The man) Is not a boarder at the above residence, but will not deny that he has stayed overnight on the odd occasion. 2. As (the man) Is not a boarder, we feel that the income declaration Is unwarranted. 3. (The particular person) resides with his parents in the Ipswich area. 4. Due the confusing nature of the various interpretations by Commission Officers in relation to the above matter, we wish to have an unambiguous Interpretation on the above matter. 5. The only document signed by (the woman) on her occupancy of the unit, was the 'Multiple Tenants Agreement' which does not seem to deal fully with the above question." That lady has really covered all of the points that I would have raised and that I would want to place before a privacy committee. A tenant in a Housing Commission house has the right to privacy. I shall go through some of the points that she made. Housing Commission officers visited her home at 7 o'clock in the morning. Although she did not state it specifically in her letter, all of the people to whom I have spoken have told me that when those officers arrive they immediately barge into the house and almost take It over. They want to check out the bedrooms to see whether anybody is staying there. To me, that is an Invasion of privacy. No Government instrumentality has the right to barge into people's homes just because they are renting the premises. This lady said that these officers arrived at 7 o'clock in the morning. I know of cases in which Housing Commission officers have arrived at 6.30 In the morning and got people out of bed. When I have complained about that to the commission I have been told that Its officers and Inspectors do not start work until 7.30 a.m. and that they are not paid overtime if they start work early, but that they like their job so much that they start work early and carry out these tasks in their own time. The Housing Commission made that admission to me. It can be seen from the points raised in the letter to which I have referred that every time that lady has spoken to Housing Commission officers to find out what her rights are, she has been given different Information. Ever since I became a member of Parliament I have had dealings with the Housing Commission. It has changed Its rental policy and I have not yet found out what that policy Is. I do not know how the Housing Commission classifies people as tenants. No-one in the Housing Commission can tell me whether, if a person stays in a commission house for one or two weeks or for a number of nights In one week, he or she is regarded as an occupant of that house. Another incident was brought to my attention recently. An unemployed man was visiting daily a Housing Commission home rented by a lady who had the telephone connected. So that he could find work, he gave her telephone number to prospective employers. But because he was there five days a week during working hours, even though Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2169

he could prove where he was living and that he was paying rent, the Housing Commission classed him as an occupant of the house. In the opinion of the Housing Commission, that man was staying In the house too long and using its facilities for an extended period. His privacy was invaded. The commission tried to add the man's unemployment benefit to the Income that that lady was receiving, and to base her rent on the combined Income. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Chatsworth, with his examples, has Illustrated his point very well. However, his speech is entirely devoted to Housing Commission matters and not to the Bill, which deals with the formation of a privacy committee. I ask him to relate his comments to the Bill. Mr MACKENROTH: With the greatest respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that the Bill under debate deals with the setting up of a privacy committee to consider people's rights. At the outset, I said that I wished to place before the privacy committee the matters that I have raised. However, as I read the Bill, I do not have the right to do that. The only place in which I can put matters that should go before the privacy committee is in this Chamber. I am raising specific matters that I would want to place before a privacy committee if I were permitted to do so. If 1 put a case before that committee I would have to explain It In detail, I do not think that I am drawing the longbow, as members have done in the past. I have been guilty of doing that but I do not believe that I am doing so on this occasion. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to continue speaking about these very important matters that should be placed before the privacy committee. Over 10 000 people are affected by the invasion of their privacy by the Housing Commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the point that the member for Chatsworth is endeavouring to make but I remind him that a privacy committee to which he can address his remarks has not yet been established. The Bill being debated provides for the formation of that committee. The member is drawing a longbow and Is also putting the cart before the horse. That is making it very difficult for me, and I ask him to relate his comments to the Bill and not to the Housing Commission, which is an entirely different matter. Mr MACKENROTH: It is unbelievable, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you say I cannot raise matters that should be presented to the privacy committee because there is not one. This debate is about the need for a privacy committee and I am raising matters that should go before It. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to read the speeches that have been made by other members in this debate. The matters that those members have raised are matters that should go before a privacy committee. If this debate is to be restricted to one on the proposed privacy committee Itself, honourable members should be debating whether that committee should contain seven members or five members. The terms of reference of such a committee deal with matters that it should be investigating. The matter that I am raising here in this Chamber Is a matter that should be Investigated. You can sit me down, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you wish, but I do not intend to run away from what I am saying. The matter I am raising Is one that should be raised In this Chamber. What the Housing Commission Is doing is asking those women to prostitute themselves. It Is trying to get more rent from them. If I am not permitted to raise that matter, I will sit down because there would be no use in going on with my speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I firmly believe that the honourable member's speech Is quite irrelevant and Inappropriate to the Bill imder debate. Although the matters that he has raised may be very pertinent on some other occasion, I cannot allow him to continue In that vein any longer. Mr MACKENROTH: In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have concluded my speech, because there is no sense at all In speaking in this place. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (4.36 p.m.): I owe an apology to the honourable member for Salisbury and the honourable member for Ipswich, who last night raised matters that were so Irrelevant to the debate that I did not think I would ever hear such Irrelevant speeches again. However, I certainly heard one this afternoon from the honourable member for Chatsworth. 2170 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BIU

As you have correctly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as the honourable member for Lockyer has said, the debate concerns a privacy committee. From the Minister's second-reading speech I quote as follows— "The object of this BiU is to establish a Privacy Committee to Identify and report on unreasonable Intrusions Into the homes and private lives of Queensland citizens." The Minister said later that that, once the committee is established, he proposes to refer the Invasion of Privacy Act to it with a view to reporting on and recommending any amendments to that Act which that committee considers desirable in the Interests of the privacy of persons. The honourable member for Ipswich carried on for a considerable time about technological problems. The Minister said In his second-reading speech that, with the advance In technology since the Invasion of Privacy Act was enacted, he saw a need for Its amendment. The honourable member for Chatsworth, who has gone away and, I suppose, is sulking somewhere, overlooked the Minister's comments. The Minister said that the privacy committee would receive and Investigate complaints about alleged violations of the privacy of persons. The words are clearly in the Minister's speech, but obviously the honourable member for Chatsworth could not read them. Finally, the Minister said— "This BiU will assist in allowing the privacy of individuals to be protected whUst at the same time allowing normal functions of our technological society to operate in the community." That says it all. I am delighted to see the honourable member for Wolston back in the Chamber. I read the proof of his speech, in which he referred to many things. He did not, however, speak about the privacy committee. I should like to deal with some clauses in detail, because the House is debating the Privacy CommUtee Bill, not the matters that will be referred to that committee. Clauses 4 to 13 deal with the composition of the committee and the staff that will be necessary to support the committee. Mr D'Arcy interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I will be very interested to hear what the honourable member for Woodridge has to say. As honourable members know, the proposed committee, being a new committee, will be required to perform a great deal of work. The Minister said that it is his intention to appoint to the committee people representing a cross-section of the community, including people with special interests and experience in matters involving privacy. That is vitally important, and I commend the Minister for that. He has recognised the need for the whole community to be Involved. Mr D'Arcy: Why don't you read the BIU? Mr STONEMAN: The Bill is available for everyone to read. Obviously, Opposition members need to be given a summary of what Is contained in the BiU. They refened to everything except the Bill. Shortly, I shall refer to the remarks made by the member for Chatsworth, I wrote some notes about the matters on which he spoke. The honouaole member spent four minutes referring to a person whose appUcation to become a jus ice of the peace was rejected—and rightly so, in the mind of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Opposition members need to undertake a refresher course. The members of the committee will be drawn from persons with a background In the legal profession. The legal boys do not miss out. The member for Ipswich noted that the computer Industry wlU be represented on the committee. The finance industry will be involved, with particular emphasis being placed on credit and other financial Information. Mr Comben Interjected. Privacy Committee BIU 28 March 1984 2171

Mr STONEMAN: If the member for Windsor will bear with me, he will learn many things, I will not speak for very long. However, my comments will be relevant to the BUI. I wlU not refer to every airy-fairy matter that was raised by Opposition members. Members of the medical profession will be represented on the committee. The commUtee should not be dominated solely by technical experts. In this day and age, aUhough the advice of technicians and other persons with specific knowledge Is needed, the broader problems experienced by the ordinary man in the street must be addressed. It Is wonderful to receive Input from technicians, persons in the computer industry, members of the legal profession, and so on, but It must be recognised that the majority of people represented by the Queensland Government, and by other Governments throughout the world, are everyday men and women In the street. I hope that we can protect their rights. That is why we are here. As tlie Minister has noted, the committee will comprise representatives of the general community. I applaud him for that. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Initial term Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind the honourable member for Burdekin that clauses of the Bill can be discussed only at the Committee stage. General reference to the provisions of the Bill is made during the second-reading debate. 1 ask the honourable member not to discuss clauses. Mr STONEMAN: I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. It Is obvious that the Opposition is desirous of creating a huge bureaucracy. The number of persons on the committee will be Umited to seven. In certain circumstances, the committee will have the power to co-opt people. That is most desirable. We must make sure that such committees do not become too large and perpetuate themselves so that they are very expensive and not effective. It Is very important that that be noted. I wish to refer to one or two matters raised by other members. The member for Wolston said that the Bill has the teeth of a gummy shark. That was a very colourful turn of phrase. I suggest to the honourable member that it is better to hasten slowly. A shark might tear a leg off. The leg cannot be repaired. We need to ensure that the committee approaches this completely new area Mr R. J. Gibbs: This is devastating stuff! Mr STONEMAN: I know that it is very difficult for the member for Wolston to appreciate that I am speaking about a committee, not about the wide-ranging matters to which he referred. He said that the Bill does not go far enough. Does he want the committee to have 25 members? The Bill constitutes the committee. It does not particularise what the committee must do. I applaud the concept of a sunset clause. As the member for Ipswich said, the committee will, in accordance with the terms of the Bill, continue for only five years. However, that does not necessarily mean that it cannot be reconstituted. At the end of five years, the Parliament might consider that Its reconstitution is desirable. Sunset clauses are very vaUd instruments. The privacy committee will know where it is going. The most effective committees on which I served or had anything to do with had specific terms of reference or a set period of operation. They knew what they had to do and were very effective. The member for Ipswich spoke about satellite communications. That is a subject that I do not profess to know a great deal about. However, I do have some understanding of the planning being put into satellite communications and data transmission. He raised some points on which members have no practical knowledge. However, we In this State need to experience at first hand the implications of satellite data communication and the new tech­ nology. There are daily changes in technology. The impossible today becomes commonplace tomorrow. Very recently, I saw the trial of an attachment to a computer. It had been believed —and still Is in some quarters—that that attachment was impossible to Invent. Such techno­ logical advances must be addressed by the committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that the committee will not be aware of them. I applaud the provision in the Bill empowering the Minister to appoint people whh special expertise. In our changing world of technology, that is particularly necessary. Queensland as a State will move from not having dally access to satellite communications to trialUng them at the end of next year following the launching of Australia's domestic satellite. The Initial trial for the nation will be done here In Queensland. I refer particularly to the 2172 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BiU trials that wUl be carried out at the School of the Air In Mt Isa. Nowhere else in Australia will there be access to that type of information. That trial wUl continue through 1986. It will be appropriate for the committee to take Into consideration the knowledge gained as a result of that trial. It is Impossible to structure legislation that Is perfect In the eyes of everybody. Most members have their own Interpretations of what constitutes privacy. What may seem an Invasion of privacy to one person may be absolutely normal and of no consequence to another person. I recall the days when I was involved with the Royal Flying Doctor network. We conducted what would normally be totally private conversations over the radio. I do not know that we particularly enjoyed doing so. We had in operation one of the largest party lines that It would be possible to find. Hundreds of people all over Australia were able to listen to the most intimate personal medical details or business problems. A person might wish to speak to his agent about the sale of cattle, the price he might be asking or the details of transport costs. That was all on the airwaves for everyone to listen to, I ask members of the Opposition to consider the trials and tribulations of those who live out in areas where, for many, many years they have had to conduct their private and business lives over the Royal Flying Doctor network or some other radio network. That is one of the things that satellite communications will overcome. They will give people in the country some privacy. For many years country people have had to endure invasions of privacy that, quite frankly, most members would not be able to understand. I wish to refer to a particular invasion of privacy that has always upset me. It is the various religious groups that, without invitation, knock on doors and proceed to ram their particular version of religion down the throat of the resident. To my mind that Is the most upsetting invasion of privacy that I have ever encountered. As I have already said, I have attended to business and personal matters on radio networks and I do not believe that that approached the invasion of privacy inflicted on a person by those who try to ram a particular religious philosophy down his throat. That upsets me, but It might not upset the next person who might be quite happy with that sort of encounter. During election campaigns every honourable member invades privacy as he goes door-knocking in his electorate. Mr R, J. Gibbs: No wonder you were flat out winning that seat. You should have stayed at home, Mr STONEMAN: One of the reasons I won the seat was that I did not Invade people's privacy as my opponents did, Mr FitzGerald: The Labor candidate in that electorate was a shocker, Mr STONEMAN: He was a nice chap, but that is It, I have tried briefly to encompass the benefits of the Bill, I commend the Minister for the work that has been done. I implore the members of the Opposition to consider the BiU itself and not the asides. I am delighted to support the BIU. Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (4.53 p.m,): It may be that the Minister has a very genuine belief that the Bill is a worthwhUe step forward and will do a great deal to preserve privacy in the State, There will always be considerable doubt about that while the Government fails to put its own house in order. That is the subject with which I want to deal. Much has been said about the amount of data collected by organisations such as banks, finance companies and other private business people and what is done with that Information. My concern is about the great deal of information that comes into the hands of the Government through transactions that people have to undertake with Government departments or through Government regulation. Parents are required to supply to the Education Department intimate details of their family. Many other Government depart­ ments requu-e similar Information. I wish to deal particularly with the Main Roads Department and the registration of motor vehicles. I have very serious reasons for believing that in many Instances the trust that people place in the Government to handle that information Is being betrayed and that some of the information is being sold officially to organisations or is being traded Privacy CommUtee BIU 28 March 1984 2173 unofficially and illegally to other organisations. If it is traded on either basis something must be done about It urgently. The stage Is being reached at which almost anyone can get any information about Government transactions if he is prepared to pay the price. I am concerned particularly about the release of official information. I sought details from the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing about information released by his department on the payment of a fee. In the interests of saving time, I will not read the whole of the question I directed to the Minister or the answer. He said that upon payment of a $3 fee, the Information was available on an individual motor vehicle registration. Anyone can pay $3 to find out whether a person owns his car or who owns It. The Minister also said— "Traffic volume data upon the payment of a fee which varies according to the amount or complexity of the data requested." 1 am not quhe certain what comes under the heading of "Traffic volume data" I should think that it would relate to the volume of traffic on roads, but, in view of information 1 will divulge later It may very well go much further than that. The next part of the Minister's answer was In these terms— "Condition of official traffic signs at a particular time upon the payment of a fee which varies according to the amount of data requested. Again the minimum fee Is $10.00. Effect of road proposals on properties which is provided free. Information contained in the Department's Annual Report to Pariiament which is provided free." No-one could take issue at the release of information which is in the department's anfiual report. I asked the Minister that question because of an event that came to my notice that was causing concern to a constituent of mine. A young person received a very threatening letter from an organisation called Bishop Collections (Qld) Pty Ltd, in these terms— "Re: The Bible Society in Australia Your account with our above client for $80.13 has been passed to us for attention, and instructions for immediate recovery are to hand. - However, before we instruct our Solicitor to immediately take out a Summons against you, we are giving you this last opportunity to settle this debt without the cost of Court Proceedings. Action will be withheld for seven (7) days from the date of this letter. Your payment direct to this office will stop such action. All cheques, money orders etc., should be made payable to Bishop Collections (Qld) Pty. Ltd. Trust Account. Yours faithfully. Bishop Collections (Qld) Pty. Ltd." This young chap had not purchased a bible from the Bible Society. Mr R. J, Gibbs: Is he a Christian? Mr SHAW: I have reason to believe that he Is, but he will probably be reluctant to enter into any purchases with the Bible Society in the future. Because he had not made any purchases he expressed his concern to his family. As a result, his mother telephoned the collection agency. The agency spokesman said that the agency had no knowledge whatever of the letter, and suggested that she ring the Bible Society of Australia to ask what was known about it. The woman telephoned the Bible Society and a very lengthy discussion ensued. She had considerable difficulty in convincing the society that no debt was owing. She was told that she should pay up and stop arguing. After a lengthy discussion she convinced the society that her son owed no money. The society representative said, "We agree that you do not owe any money. We suggest that you dispose of the letter," The young man's mother wanted to know where the Bible Society got the information. She wanted to know how, when he had no deaUngs with the company, he could get a threatening letter asking him to pay up or else. She was first asked, "Is he on the electoral 2174 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BUI

roU?" Her answer was that he was not old enough. The next question was, "Has he purchased a motor vehicle recently?" She said, "Yes, As a matter of fact, he purchased one last January," She was then told, "Oh, that explains the whole thing," The Bible Society receives a monthly computer print-out of every registration transaction conducted through the Main Roads Department, This young fellow's name and address was obtained from that computer print-out. Although there was some similarity in the names— the initials, addresses and ages were different, but the surnames were similar—this organisation decided to send this threatening letter to this young fellow. I will not go into the question of whether it should have sent that threatening letter because If I were to do so I would be getting away from the subject-matter of the Bill. The point is that this information was given to this organisation apparently on the payment of a fee to a Government department. The Information is freely available to anybody to use as he wishes. I am not sure whether the Information was made available officially. I know of other instances In which information was divulged unofficially, and I have brought those matters to the attention of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police in the hope that he wUl investigate them and identify the culprits. It would seem that this information is being leaked regularly. People are compelled to register vehicles with the Main Roads Department. They are compelled to give Information to that department. Why should that Information be divulged to anyone who has the necessary pieces of silver with which to purchase it? The Government must look at the workings of its own departments. Previously, I have referred to people going to the Main Roads Department and obtaining a list of vehicles of a particular model. They can obtain the names and addresses of the people who own the vehicles and the periods for which they have owned them. That Informa­ tion can easily fall into the wrong hands. People can go to those addresses and steal cars for which they have orders. We know that people receive orders from unscrupulous buyers who ask, "Can you get me a Jag or a BMW?" Those people steal to meet the orders. They can go out and thieve a particular car because they can obtain the information about it from the Government. It teUs them where they can go and get the car. Perhaps the Government should be charged with aiding and abetting. Unless action is taken to overcome these problems that arise because of the sale of information, any privacy legislation is pure hypocrisy. One of the main offenders in divulging information is the Government and its various departments. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "The committee will have the power to conduct research and collect and collate information in respect of any matter relating to the privacy of persons referred to it by the Minister." I have asked questions in this House to try to obtain that information. It is not available to me or, more importantly, to this House. I ask: WiU the information be available to the privacy committee? Will the committee have the power to demand from Government departments information that is not divulged In annual reports and has not been given by Ministers to this House? If the committee is able to obtain such Information, It will have more powers than this Parliament. If It does not have those powers. It will become a tame-cat organisation, and the whole thing will be a joke. The Minister also stated— "The committee will also be required to make reports and recommendations to the Minister in relation to any matter that may concern the need for, or the desirability of, legislative or administrative action in the Interests of the privacy of persons." WiU the committee be able to teU the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing that he is doing the wrong thing in divulging the private Inforrnatlon that I have outlined? If It will be, the committee will have greater powers than the ParUament and Cabinet. In his second-reading speech the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General said that. In relation to privacy, the commttee will have power to disseminate information and undertake education work. It will also receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of the privacy of persons. As my coUeague the member for Chatsworth did I would Uke to formally lodge a complaint on behalf of people who are registering information with the Education Department, the Main Roads Department and dozens of other Government departments. I am interested to know whether or not this committee Privacy Committee BiU 28 March 1984 2175 will be able to investigate those complaints and have the power to disseminate Information from those departments and educate the Ministers and departmental officers about what they should be doing. In conclusion, I say that if this committee has those powers, it will have tremendous power. However, If the Minister for Justice does not come to grips with the very serious leakage of confidential Information from Government departments, everything that is done under this privacy legislation will be hypocritical. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (5.7 p.m.): The privacy committee that is to be established is very necessary. A national privacy committee should also be formed. In recent months, Australia has witnessed one of the most scandalous episodes In its history. The media have attempted to blacken the names of distinguished Australians and distinguished organisations with iUegally obtained material. I was horrified when the Minister for Transport and the member for Southport, who are political whores In their own right, used Illegal material to cast aspersions on decent distinguished Australians. They have dragged this House Into disrepute in the eyes of every Parliament in the British Commonwealth. They did not understand what they did. This incident Is a good example of the invasion of privacy, and it should be referred to a privacy committee. The people who should be prosecuted and put into gaol are those who gathered the material, and the editors and journalists who spread the filth across the papers of this nation in an attempt to prostitute pubUc opinion. Mr Harper interjected. Mr D'ARCY: The Minister can laugh, but it horrifies me that two members of this Parliament were Involved In the incident. Members of Parliament are the representatives of public opinion and the custodians of the rights of the public. It horrifies me that. In this day and age, that Incident was allowed to happen. It is not enough just to consider the individuals involved in this incident, who are a judge of the High Court of Australia and members of a political party who have been affected by the muck-raking and the innuendoes. Every member of this House must ask himself, "What if it were me?" What if it were the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General about whom the material was being coUected? Every politician is vulnerable and can be affected by the illegal gathering of material. With modern technology, that material can be easily obtained. That is what this whole matter is all about, and it involves the type of technology that is avaUable today. In recent legislation mention was made of voice-prints and the rapid progress that has been made In computerisation in all fields. People must be aware of the technological changes that are taking place. Surely It will be part of the job of the privacy committee to be informed on the opinions held by the vast majority of Australians and to keep those opinions before it. That is what average Queenslanders and Australians would expect. As for the recent fiasco to which I referred—I am proud to be a close personal friend of Mr Justice Murphy. Whenever I visit Canberra, I stay in his home. He is a distinguished Australian. Recently Wallace Brown commented on Mr Justice Murphy's background and achievements in Australian poUtical Ufe. He said that Mr Justice Murphy was a reformer and proud to be so. He is regarded as one of the most radical of the High Court judges, and Wallace Brown said that he would be the most liberal of them. Some of his peers regard him as a judge who Is rapidly changing with the times In AustraUa and who is bringing social common sense to the hallowed halls of the legal system where precedent dominates. That is the type of man who is being attacked on an illegal basis with Illegal material. But Mr Justice Murphy Is not the only person who has been attacked in such a manner. Recently the Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, QC, was attacked. He, too. Is a distinguished Australian, and despite the attacks that were made upon him, he was re-elected. As the result of political activity and innuendo, he put his job on the Une. Last Saturday, the people of New South Wales re-elected his Government with Its second highest majority in Its history. To revert to the privacy committee—the pubUc, not the lawyers or the credit reporting people who wUl advise the commUtee, must be able to determine what the committee will do, and the commUtee must be aware of the thinking of the vast majority of Australians and protect their rights. 2176 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee Bill

The recent use of iUegal material by members in this Assembly has made it clear that justice has not been done. This ParUament Is failing to protect the rights of individuals if It does not do something about recent comments made by two of the political whores In this place. However, the real culprits are the journalists and the editors who have prostituted themselves by publishing illegal material. I would hate to see In Australia a situation in which there is no freedom of speech and no freedom of the press in the sense that the vast majority of Australians want freedom of the press. As Mr Wran's victory on Saturday showed, the vast majority of people In Australia respect honesty and fair play, especially when that fair play is translated into government by consensus into which the people are able to have a fair and just Input. For quite some time Queensland has been governed by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. It has not been subjected to the type of scrutiny to which other administrations have been subjected, both legally and illegally, by the media. If It were to be subjected to illegal scrutiny, there would be a great outcry by the media of this State. The bias among the media is being fomented by iUegal activity throughout Australia. The proposed privacy committee is needed. I stress to the Minister that the committee must change with the times so that it is able to take into account the changes in technology in all the fields of endeavour that have been mentioned where privacy must be safeguarded. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (5.16 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, particularly the members for Lockyer and Burdekin, because they addressed their remarks to the BUI before the House. It was unfortunate that, in the main. Opposition members preferred not to do so. The member for Wolston is not in the Chamber at present. The Invasion of Privacy Act differs considerably from the Privacy Committee Bill that is presently before the House. The purpose of the Privacy Committee Bill relates solely to the formation of the privacy committee and its powers. The Invasion of Privacy Act makes provision for the licensing and control of such things as credit reporting agents, private inquiry agents and the regulation of the use of listening devices. Whilst the two pieces of legislation do have some relevance to each other, they are completely separate in their objectives. The Privacy Committee Bill has to a certain extent been modelled on New South Wales legislation, a piece of legislation that appears to have worked quite well since its inception in 1975. I suggest that the member for Wolston has merely harangued this Chamber with a rather prolonged version of what I said in a few words. Changes in technology and changes in social attitudes require that the Invasion of Privacy Act be updated. The review of the Invasion of Privacy Act will be the responsibility of the com­ mittee formed by the legislation presently before the House. I have given a commitment that the Invasion of Privacy Act will be referred to the privacy committee. I believe that that committee is the proper body to consider and to report on any updating needed to that Act. "Privacy" has not been defined in the Bill. I agree with the Opposition members who suggested that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define. Consequently, the powers of the committee are extremely wide, as has been remarked upon by means during the course of the debate. The committee will have power in relation to all matters affecting the privacy of persons. Leading the Opposition's criticism of my Government's decision to establish a privacy committee, again the Opposition Justice spokesman spoke at length about the need to protect one's privacy. He particularly referred to the evils that can be associated with computerised records. I agree whh him and I agree with other members of this Assembly who have Spoken on that subject. But there was no mention by the Opposition spokesman of the action of his Labor comrades'—and I am sure that he would call them "comrades"—total invasion of privacy through the computers of Medicare. How absurd is it—how hypocritical Is It—for the Opposition to talk about Invasion of privacy through computerisation when their comrades In Canberra have Introduced Medicare, which will from now on contain a fully detailed record of every person from the time he is born till he goes to his grave? Privacy Committee BIU 28 March 1984 2177

When the member for Sherwood began his speech, I thought that he at least understood that the Bill is to set up a privacy committee to investigate privacy in the community. One of the clauses in the Bill sets out that the committee is given power to conduct research and collect and collate information in respect of any matter relating to the privacy of persons referred to it by the Minister; to make reports and recommendations to the Minister in relation to any matter that concerns the need for or the desirability of legislative or administrative actions in the interests of privacy of persons; in relation to any matter relating to the privacy of persons, generaUy to disseminate information and undertake educational work; and, finally, to receive and investigate complaints about aUeged violations of the privacy of persons. That is the Bill we are discussing; that is the Bill before the House. The ramblings of some other members were perhaps of interest, but, unfortunately, they were no more to the point than the ramblings of the member for Sherwood. In particular, there was the contribution by the member for Ipswich. It was perhaps interesting, but certainly not to the point of the Bill. I'he honourable members for Ipswich and Sherwood seemed to have a reluctance, as did other members on the other side of the Chamber, to acknowledge that Queensland has an Invasion of Privacy Act in force. Today we are taking a further step in the protection of privacy by the establishment of a privacy committee. Suggestions such as that of the member for Sherwood In regard to telephone eavesdropping wUl be borne in mind by me when the privacy committee is appointed. The member for Chatsworth referred to clause 18 (1) (c). I think he Intended to refer to (d) as weU. I point out that the committee will be capable of receiving and Investigating complaints about alleged violations of a person's privacy. I see no reason to believe that the committee, in its discretion, will not be prepared to receive complaints that are made by a member of Parliament, particularly in respect of persons within his electorate. Of course, there is some concern that matters may be referred to the committee without the knowledge or approval of persons who are the subject of the complaint. Consequently, provision has been made to cover such circumstances. The committee Is able to reject such complaints. Because so much of the debate has really not related to the Bill itself, I simply draw to the attention of the House the fact that the proposed legislation is a serious attempt by the Government to help in the protection of that personal privacy which Is the right of every citizen In this great democracy. It should never be thought of as a privilege. Privacy, I believe, should be the birthright of every Australian. I will certainly do all I can to protect that birthright, just as the Bjelke-Petersen Government will continue to defend the rights of the States against the invasions of the federalist, centraUst, socialist Government in Canberra. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to.

Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Row, Hinchinbrook) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Harper (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5—Privacy Committee— Mr BURNS (5.26 p.m.): I want to know why there has been such a long delay in the setting up of this committee. In 1979, Mr Etoumany promised to set up the committee. In a feature article In "The Courier-MaU" of 17 May 1982, he outlined exactly the same committee that Is to be set up by this Bill, with the exception that at that time the intenion was for the chairman to be Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations. I want to know why there has been such a long delay in Introducing this legislation, particularly when every newspaper, every member of Parliament and everyone concerned with civil liberties, human rights and the rights of individuals has argued or demanded that some action be taken on privacy. Mr HARPER: The Bjelke-Petersen Government that was In power before the last election gave a commitment to the people of Queensland that, on re-election to Government, It would introduce a Bill to establish a privacy committee. That Is exactly what the Bill does. Mr BURNS: I ask the Minister again: Why has there been such a delay? Mr Doumany was a member of a coaUtion Government of which the National Party was the senior partner. In 1979, a promise was made to the people of Queensland, and it was made again In 1982. 2178 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee Bill

I want to know why there has been the delay in Introducing a piece of legislation that is virtuaUy the same as that mooted years ago. It seems to me that the Government has not shown any interest in privacy and has no desire to do amt'-ung about it. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17—Powers and functions of the Committee— Mr BURNS (5.28 p.m.): The clause is an example of just how interested the National Party Government is in setting up a committee with some teeth. Every provision in clause 17 is subject to the instigation of the Minister. In part, the clause reads— "Subject to this Act, the Committee— (a) may conduct research and coUect and collate information in respect of any matter referred to it by the Minister; (b) may and, if directed by the Minister so to do, shall make reports and recommendations to the Minister (c) may and, if directed by the Minister so to do, shall in relation to any matter relating to the privacy of persons generaUy disseminate information and undertake educational work." The committee cannot even try to educate the community on matters of privacy without instruction from the Minister. The Government is not fair dinkum when it speaks about wanting to do something about privacy; it has waited for years and done nothing about it. The Bill sets up a seven-man committee that is not allowed to do a damned thing unless the Minister authorises it. What sort of a group of people are you going to get with any sort of backbone? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair. Mr BURNS: I am addressing the Chair. Even though I am turning to my left, I can still address you, Mr Row. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr BURNS: Mr Row, I will face you and say it again. The Government is not fair dinkum in its attitude towards privacy. Mr FitzGerald: Do you want to move an amendment? Mr BURNS: I do not have to move an amendment. I am saying that the Government is wasting the time of the House and of the people of Queensland by pretending that it is interested In something when it is not doing anything about it. Mr FitzGerald: You are opposing it? Mr BURNS: I am opposing it. If the honourable member challenges me too strongly, he may find that I will debate a few more of the clauses and draw attention The CHAIRMAN: Order! If the honourable member continues in that vein, he may find that I provoke him. Mr BURNS: The honourable member Is provoking me. I will not pay attention to him. As I said, under every one of the provisions, the committee can work only if the Minister allows it to do so. Why does not the National Party of Queensland trust the people whom it puts on committees? Why could not the committee undertake the education of the public about privacy without first having the Minister's permission? Why could not the members of the committee conduct research and collect and collate Information in respect of any matter relating to the privacy of persons without having it referred to them by the Minister? Surely the committee members should be allowed InUlatlve to look at things that may be of some concern. I am not asking that these matters be published. The Government sets up committees to look at many things. The National Party's answer to any problem is, "When in trouble, set up a committee. If we have any trouble with that committee, set up another committee to see what the first one did.", and so on. Privacy Committee Bill 28 March 1984 2179

This legislation is a waste of time and a waste of public money. It is akin to the other invasion of privacy legislation of 1971 and the amendments of 1976. They have done nothing to protect the privacy or the human rights of Individuals in Queensland. Queensland has less protection of privacy than any State in the nation. Mr HARPER: It Is right to give credit where It is due, and, without doubt, the member for Lytton is a master in some areas. Anyone reading the "Hansard" report of this debate will see the words of wisdom that he has spoken; but no-one wlU know that the honourable member read clause 17(l)(a), (b) and (c), and very conveniently stopped there. He was distracted and provoked. The people who read "Hansard" will not be aware that everything he asked for in his haranguing of the House is contained in 17(lXd), which provides that the committee "may receive and Investigate complaints about alleged violations of the privacy of persons". Everything that the honourable member for Lytton asked for and said should be there Is in fact there. Mr FOURAS: I rise in response to the Minister's comments, which I believe are rather glib. The Minister told us, in his earlier summing up, that he was not wanting to be centralistic and sociaUstic. He spoke about people having the right to individuality, and he repeated the other myths that we hear from Government members. He told the House that clause 17(l)(d) provides that the committee may receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of the privacy of persons. Again, the centralistic power emerges further down in the provision, which reads— "(b) In any other case, advise the complainant that a report has been or will be forwarded to the Minister but shall not advise the complainant of the contents of that report." That report cannot be published without the Minister's approval. Mr Burns: That is right. The Minister was misleading the House. Mr FOURAS: The Minister was being somewhat glib. Mr Burns: In fact, the Minister was deliberately misleading the House. Mr FOURAS: It is appalling. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I will listen to one interjection at a time. Mr FOURAS: I thank you for your protection, Mr Row. I make the point that I agree completely with the comments made by the honourable member for Lytton. I am sure that "Hansard" will record them for posterity. The Minister was misleading the House. Only if directed can the committee do research; only If directed can the committee provide education; and only if directed can the committee make reports. As the Minister said, the committee members can look into something. But unless the Minister gives his approval, the people do not find out about the result of any report; unless the Minister approves, the report is not published to let people know what Is being done. What Is the point of this committee being formed and not doing Its job? The Minister should be a little more careful the next time he tries to attack my good friend the member for Lytton. Mr BURNS: The Minister accused me unfairly of trying to mislead the House. He said that I read the provisions of 17(lXa), (b) and (c) and neglected to read (d), which says that the committee "may receive and Investigate complaints about aUeged violations of the privacy of persons." In subclause (2) of clause 17, the Minister comes back into the act. It states— "Where the Committee conducts an Investigation under subsection (1) (d) It shall report thereon only to the Minister." The committee wiU have no right to do anything. It wUl be a handmaiden of the Minister. It wiU be at his beck and caU. It will blow its nose and change its diapers when the Minister tells It to. It Is not much use telUng the people of Queensland that this new privacy committee will stand up for Itself and have some backbone when the BIU is written in such a way that the committee will not be able to have any backbone. 2180 28 March 1984 Privacy Committee BUI

Subclause (4) states— "A report referred to in this section or any part of such a report shall not be published without the prior approval of the Minister." Even if the committee is given the right to investigate a complaint from a person who believes that his privacy has been Invaded, after it carries out its Investigation it wUl be able to report only to the Minister, and the Minister will decide whether the report is made public. This is not an invasion of privacy committee; It Is the Minister's private committee of secrecy. Mr PRICE: My main objection to the BiU is that k sets up a committee to investigate "complaints about alleged violations of the privacy of persons" Under clause 18 of the Bill, the committee may refuse to entertain a complaint or, having commenced to Investigate a matter raised in a complaint, may refuse The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that the CommUtee is discussing clause 17. Mr PRICE: What I am doing is referring to clause 18 to make a point about clause 17. Clause 18 (1) provides that the committee may refuse to entertain a complaint or, having commenced to Investigate a complaint, may refuse to continue the Investigation If certain matters become apparent to it, and those matters are set out in clause 18. Under clause 17 (1) (b) the committee, if the Minister directs it to do so, shall make reports and recommendations to him in relation to any matter that concerns the need for administrative action in the Interests of the privacy of persons. If the Minister decides, for reasons best known to himself, to investigate or to make complaints about any Labor member of Parliament, the committee will have no alternative but to carry out that investigation, and it will have to report to the Minister as required by the Act. As I read the clause, the committee, notwithstanding the power given to It under clause 18, will not have a discretion in that situation and must investigate the complaint and complete its investigation, notwithstanding that it might consider the complaint to be trivial, frivolous or vexatious, as set out in clause 18. Mr Row, I have to refer to clause 18. Clause 17 overrides clause 18 where the Minister requires the committee to carry out Its functions. The committee will have no choice in the matter. It must carry out Its functions, notwithstanding that the Minister might want to use the report In a witch-hunt against neighbours, business competitors or even Labor members of Parliament. Under clause 17, it will be mandatory for the committee to carry out the directions of the Minister. They must be obeyed. The committee will have no discretion and will not be able to exercise the powers contained In clause 18. Mr HARPER: As I pointed out to the Committee previously, the powers in this Bill are similar to those in the New South Wales legislation which, of course, was Implemented by the Opposition's comrades in that State. The privacy committee will have the power to determine whether It will do anything in relation to a matter raised by an individual. If the committee does conduct an investigation or an examination, it will be required to Inform the Individual that the matter raised by him or her has been investigated and that no further action Is warranted or, alternatively, that an appropriate recommendation has been conveyed to the Minister. The committee is not to be empowered to publish any finding of fact based on a complaint, but rather to identify areas where legislative or administrative action needs to be taken by the Government. If the honourable member has regard to those facts, he will see the wisdom of the wording of the legislation. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19—Powers with respect to Investigations— Mr FOURAS (5.41 p.m.): Clause 19 provides broad powers wUh respect to investi­ gations. I would like the Minister to explain why the requirement to produce documents and statements and to give Information may be set aside If that Is In the interests of the State. Why is the provision so broad? It is reaUy a catch-aU provision. How does the Government define the words "State Interest"? I presume that they mean the interests Privacy Committee BUI 28 March 1984 2181 of the State Government at that time. Although the committee can ask a person to give information and produce documents. In the case of a State Instrumentality, for example the Special Branch, that information may not be forthcoming on the grounds of State Interest. That means that If that State instrumentality invaded anyone's privacy, a complaint could not be investigated properly because the Interests of the State could be affected. Can the Minister explain how the State Interest provisions will apply to the committee's investigations? Mr HARPER: Generally speaking, in a court of law, evidence relating to the affairs of State may not be given, even by a wiUing witness. The normal rule applicable to the exclusion of evidence on the grounds of State interest is applied to the investigation of complaints by the privacy committee. In a court of law, the objection to the admission of evidence because It is contrary to the State interest may be taken by the judge but, as members probably know, it Is usually taken by the head of the Government department concerned. The privacy committee would have to satisfy itself that an objection was justified on the grounds of State interest. Mr PRICE: Clause 19 provides that a person has no discretion as to whether or not he gives information or makes a statement to the commUtee. That information must be given notwithstanding his sworn duty, as may be the case with a priest, solicitor, medical practitioner or journalist. They have certain privileges attaching to whether or not they should disclose Information that comes to them within the scope of their work. Clause 19 appears to override those privileges, except In subclauses (2) (c), (e) and (f). Under that provision, if it appears to the committee that a person has a privilege or is entitled to be excused from the requirements under the law, the information does not need to be given. To me, that clause seems to be directed towards journalists particularly, because solicitors, medical practitioners and priests have certain privileges that are respected by the law. However, as far as I am aware, journalists do not have that respect In the law and that subclause gives the committee power to require a journalist to disclose Information that comes to him in the course of his work, even if that information has been given to the journalist under privilege. That confidentiality would normally be respected by a journalist. I consider the powers given to the commUtee by clause 19 to be objectionable. They should be modified or redrafted in such a manner as to allow persons who usually receive privileged information in the course of their work to be excused from giving such Information to the commUtee. In the event of the Minister's wanting to conduct a witch-hunt against a certain person, he could use the committee as a means of gathering information from journalists or any other persons to whom certain confidential information might be given in the course of their work. Mr HARPER: It is Interesting that, whereas some members of the Opposition see the BiU as being inadequate in the pursuit of its objectives of safeguarding privacy and of investigating invasions of privacy, the previous speaker adopted the view that the powers of the coinmittee to function as it is intended to function may be too wide. Honourable members would agree that. In order to faclUtate the functions of the commUtee, a clause such as clause 19 is required. It gives the committee power to require any persons to give any statement of information or to produce any document, and so on, as indicated in the Bill. Obviously, if the committee is to function, if it is to pursue its objectives and the objectives of this Government in investigating Invasions of privacy, it must have that power. That relates back to criticism of earUer clauses, when it was suggested, I assume, that reports of the committee, irtespectlve of their sensitivity and no matter what effect they may have on parties not Involved, should be made public. Naturally this Government would not accept that contention, and that Is one of the reasons why the consent of the Minister is required before a report can be made. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 29, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Readmg BiU, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time. 2182 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI

FIRE BRIGADES ACT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 8 March (see p. 1985) on Mr Tenni's motion— "That the BIU be now read a second time." Mr MILLINER (Everton) (5.49 p.m.): At the outset, I express the OpposUion's concern at the provisions contained in the BiU. After I had heard the Minister's second-reading speech, I indicated that I considered that certain provisions were not too bad. However, since Opposition members had the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill more closely, we have come to the conclusion that It contains some disturbing provisions. Mr Tenni: That would not be right. Mr MILLINER: It is right. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to introduce a consolidated Bill. The Fire Brigades Act was last consolidated approximately 20 years ago, in 1964. Mr Tenni: That Is round the corner. Mr MILLINER: It is a pity that the Act is not being consolidated now. Obviously, in the not too distant future, because of the imposition of the fire levies, the Bill wiU need to be used. Various actions will follow upon amendments to the Act. It Is very difficult for persons to read the Act and to comprehend its contents. Again, it Is disappointing that the Minister did not take the opportunity to consolidate the Act. A number of requests have been made for an inquiry to be conducted into the fire brigades system in this State. I request the Minister to conduct an inquiry into fire services throughout Queensland. Honourable members know that 81 fire brigade boards operate fire services throughout this State. I question whether, with 81 boards, we are receiving value for money. In certain circumstances the number of persons on the board can outnumber the fire fighters. A person once wrote a song about too many chiefs and not enough Indians. In some instances a fire brigade may have six or seven members, a chief fire officer and a fireman. Because of the existence of so many boards, I question whether we are receiving the best fire services possible. The United Firefighters Union, which is a very responsible imion, has called for an inquiry into fire services throughout Queensland. It Is Interesting to note the suggestions put forward by the union in its submission. On 13 March the State secretary of the United Firefighters Union wrote to the Premier, suggesting that an Inquiry should take place. The matters that the union suggested could be examined were stated in the letter as follows— "Administration of fire services. (a) Reassessment of the method used to mcmitor fire service funding. (b) Staffing. To overcome what our practical firefighter members ccmsider an Inappropriate and unquaUfied assessment of the current position which has moved Cabinet to act, with the best of motives, against public safety and the best interests of this emergency service. Project fire service requirements, based upon practical operational knowledge and expertise, tempered by good accounting practice in lieu of Inexpert theorising. Consideration of setting up a central purchasing authority for Queensland Fire Service needs based upon the practical experience and knowledge In the field, together with consideration of good accountancy procedures. Projected consideration for development of a trade Industry supporting Queensland Fire Services and to include: Tailoring—uniforms and protective clothing: trades people. Footwear—protective and otherwise: trades people. Road vehicle body building —^various styles as required: trades people." It Is interesting to note that a number of contracts for the supply of fire-fighting clothing have gone to countries such as New Zealand. A number of fire tenders have been constructed outside Queensland. When I was the Opposition spokesman on small business, I referred on a number of occasions to the contracts that were being let outside Queensland. The fire services did not escape that problem. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2183

The union submission further stated that there was a need for— "Far greater standardisation of equipment and brigade operations where practical, based upon prior research and avaUablUty of parts. Research: To develop and test. (Made up of operational expertise and other experts in the field). (a) As public information centre (incidental to pubUc relations) to work on testing building materials etc. (b) Purchase of the most practical equipment available. (c) Fire prevention, protection and operational attack methods." They are reasonable terms of reference that could be used for a complete inquiry into fire services. Someone suggested to me that instead of having 81 boards It might be appro­ priate to have two boards, namely, a metropolitan board and a country board. I do not claim to be an expert on fire services, but it would be a worthwhile exercise to examine completely the fire services throughout Queensland. The most significant provision in the Bill provides that powers that are presently vested in the State Fire Services Council will be transferred to the Minister. The Bill also contains a provision under which the Minister may delegate those powers to other officers engaged in fire services. My colleague the member for Port Curtis will have something to say about that when he makes his contribution to the debate. Of some concern to the Opposition is the way in which the boards of fire brigades may be constituted. The Bill provides— " . in the case of a Board of a district where there are more than three compttnent Local Authorities, such number of members, being not less than two, as the Minister from time to time determines." The Bill goes on— "(a) the Governor in Council shall, by notification published in the Gazette, appoint not less than two members; (b) the contributory companies shall elect such number of members (if any) as the Minister determines; (c) the group of component Local Authorities shall be represented by such number of members (if any) as the Minister determines each of whom shall be a member of one of such component Local Authorities." What causes concern is the power the Minister has over the establishment of boards, partic­ ularly in local authority areas. Opposition members are particularly concerned that there may be a suggestion that the boards may be the subject of gerrymandering. Another provision in the Bill relates to service with another board and the transfer of officers from one board to another. The United Firefighters Union has written to me expressing its concern and seeking clarification about accumulated sick leave when an officer is transferred from one board to another. Mr Tenni: Have all the other unions expressed the same opinion? Mr MILLINER: The Country Fire Officers Association has also expressed that concern to me. Mr Tenni: What about the rest of them? Mr MILLINER: They are the two main ones. Various firemen in a private capacity Mr Tenni: What about the other unions? Mr MILLINER: I am saying that those two unions have expressed concern. In addition, a number of fire-fighters and officers have personally expressed their concern to me about that clause. The BiU contains a provision relating to superannuation trustees. This is one of the few provisions about which Opposition members do not have an objection. The United Firefighters Union, which is probably the largest union of employees in this field, has not been represented on the trust. The number of trustees has been Increased by one to allow it representation on the board. 2184 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

The next matter relates to entering into contracts. The Minister Indicated that in certain circumstances whether a board's secretary has been legally authorised to enter into contracts has been questioned. I refer now to the contributions of Insurance companies and particularly with the merging of insurance companies. On the matter of insurance, I refer to the number of Insurance-brokers who have recently gone into liquidation. All too often small people lose money when that happens. I know that does not fall within the provisions of the Bill, but I would like the Minister to convey my concern to the Government. I ask him to see whether his colleague the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General could do something to protect those who have invested money with insurance-brokers. Another matter canvassed with me by the unions relates to appeals. In his second- reading speech, the Minister referred to what happened in Gladstone when a couple of firemen were fined something like $20. An appeal was lodged at a cost of about $9,000. All honourable members would agree that something is wrong when that occurs. It is of concern to the firemen and their union that appeals will now be heard by the State Fire Services Council. [Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.] Mr MILLINER: Before the dinner recess I was discussing the clause of the Bill that provides for appeals by firemen. When a fireman has been charged with a minor offence that attracts a penalty of less than $10, he may appeal to the State Fire Services Council. I pointed out the problems that arose in Gladstone when a couple of firemen were fined approximately $20 each and the total cost of their appeal, after legal representatives had been engaged, was nearly $9,000. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr MILLINER: I am sure that the honourable member for Wolston has had plenty of complaints about the charges of the legal profession. I support the comments that the honourable member made some time ago when he objected to the increase in fees charged by solicitors. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourable member very much. He Is a very astute member of Parliament. Legal costs of $9,000 are fairly hefty in the defence of a $20 fine. Firemen are concerned that the appellant will not have a right to appear before the council. I accept that the appellant or his legal representative may make written submissions on the appeal, but the appellant does not have the right to appear. The right to establish a bush fire brigade in a region controlled by another brigade has caused some concern. Quite conceivably, a bush fire brigade could be estabUshed In the metropolitan area so long as a mutual aid plan has been agreed upon by the two boards. If a mutual aid plan cannot be agreed upon, the Minister has the power to establish one. Obviously, if the two boards cannot reach agreement, conflict will occur, and it is therefore doubtful whether there would be the necessary co-operation between the two brigades for the effective carrying out of their respective responsibilities. I wonder what is behind the thinking of the Minister in allowing a bush fire brigade to be established In the district of another brigade. Fire officers are concerned about the chain of command. Until now, the recognised sytstem has been that the officer in charge In the district in which a fire occurs is the responsible officer in charge of the fire. The Bill establishes a chain of command by which it Is quite conceivable that someone from outside the fire brigade district would be the responsible officer in charge of a fire. However, if that person cannot get to the fire, the old system Is reverted to and the person who Is the senior officer in the district in which the fire occurs is again In charge. That could cause some confusion and conflict. Recently, much has been said in the media about the employment of auxiliary fire-fighters. The Minister has said that he is concerned about the cost of fire brigade services and sees the employment of auxiliary firemen as one way of reducing that cost. I do not share the Minister's view. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the cost of providing fire serivces throughout the State is $60m per annum. The figures that have been bandied around in relation to the new fire levy would bring Into the Government's coffers approximately $90m. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU 28 March 1984 2185

Mr Tenni interjected. Mr MILLINER: Those are the figures that have been bandied about. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter by teUing the House exactly how much the Government will coUect. I am led to believe that, with the appointment of auxiliary fire-fighters, when the fire brigade turns out to a call in a city such as Cairns and there is actuaUy a fire and the station is unmanned, permanent fire-fighters are caUed in to man the station and are paid for a minimum of four hours, I think It is. Auxiliary firemen wiU be paid only normal time, with no penalty rates, when they are called in. As far as I can see, the employment of auxiliary firemen wUl not bring about great savings. In country towns, fire-fighters are not called out for very many fires, and it is only when they attend a fire for a long time that It is necessary to caU in other crews. That would not apply in Brisbane. If the unit at Ithaca were to be caUed out to a fire another unit would be despatched quickly from Roma Street to relieve it. The level of the fire levy is causing grave concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment on behalf of the Government that the total amount of money collected by way of fire levy will be spent on fire services. It has been suggested to me that $90m will be collected, but the Minister claims that that is not true. As I understand it, the figures for commercial properties have not been announced. I am very concerned about the level of levy for commercial properties. I am worried that the burden of the fire levy will be placed on those who can least afford It. The charge of $1.10 on every $1,000 insured was probably the fairest means of collecting the levy. A person with a property worth $250,000 paid more than a person with a property valued at $100,000. It is suggested that an across-the-board levy will be charged without differentiation. I am concerned about the $16 to be charged on vacant property. Firemen tell me that they are rarely called to a fire on a vacant 24-perch block in the metropolitan area. People in local authority areas, particularly Logan city, have been expressing concern about the fire levy. I have been told that about $3m a year wiU be collected In Logan city. Concern has been expressed about the amount of money that will be spent In that area. I share the concern that has been expressed to me. The Opposition has grave fears about the legislation. I thought that the Minister would take the opportunity to consolidate the Act. I also thought that the Minister could have held an inquiry about the necessary legislation. The BiU could then have been left on the table so that representatives of the various professions and services could comment on it and the Minister could have taken It from there. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (7.23 p.m.): In recent years the fire service throughout AustraUa has become an industry that consumes vast sums of money. Currently about $350m Is contributed by the community to direct fire protection by fire brigades, and much larger sums are spent by the commercial and industrial sectors and the buUding constructors to develop effective fire-prevention systems and equipment. It has been calculated by the insurance industry that each year the indirect and direct loss by fire amounts to about $ 1,500m. Obviously much more must be done if the losses are to be reduced significantly. Because the private home-owner cannot continue to support the increase in costs in AustraUa In recent years, obviously more will have to be done with less. The only way to achieve that end Is to take every possible step to improve fire services management and to Increase the direct accountability of fire authorities to the Government. No longer can the management of the fire service Industry be left in the hands of part-time executive bodies. Such systems lack the necessary expertise, introduce delay into the management process and, most significantly, aUow decision-makers to hide behind the faceless masks of a quango. The Bill now being debated is a major milestone on the road to full accountability, which should appeal to the Labor Party, and effective management whUe retaining a system of providing broadly based advice to the Minister and also to the Government. I wish to touch on the matters of insurance and local government contributions to fire services. It Is a regrettable fact that, aUhough the insurance industry in general Is both 2186 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill responsible and responsive to community needs, some sections of the Industry have seen fit in the past to find ways of avoiding their responsibilities. In particular, the growing use of mergers and take-overs to cancel obligations is to be deplored. That practice has recently seen the avoidance of payment of contributions legally due to fire brigades, in one case to the extent of $200,000. When this happens, the resultant shortfall in fire service income must be made up by other insurance companies, which, of course, simply pass on the additional costs to their policy-holders. Each time that an irresponsible insurance company takes such an action, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of small insurers must dig deeper into their pockets to provide fire protection for the whole community. Once the new fire service funding scheme has been completely implemented, it will see the end of insurance industry-contributions to fire brigades, that Is, the end of contributions from property-owners by way of their insurance policies. However, Stage II of the scheme will not come into effect until July 1985, and it is essential that this loophole be closed in the meantime to ensure that no further unfair burden is imposed upon those property-owners who do insure responsibly. Mr Davis: Can we cross-examine you after you have finished this script?

Mr BAILEY: When the new fire service funding scheme was introduced by amendment to the Fire Brigades Act last year, it was envisaged that, as an aspect of the scheme, the local government precept, which presently stands at one-eighth, would be halved on the way to the commencement of Stage I, and abolished when Stage II was implemented. That was considered to be fair, as owners of commercial and industrial properties would continue for the time being to contribute by way of their insurance policies. I point out to the member for Brisbane Central that I will be asking questions later, so if he has not got it right he can speak up then. Mr Tenni: He won't be able to answer a question. Mr BAILEY: He cannot be heard, anyway. Local authorities would not, for the time being, have to handle the collections from those properties. However, further investigation has revealed that the system would not be entirely fair to home-owners, because each local authority would continue to raise its precept as part of general rates, which would be applied to home-owners as well as to owners of commercial and industrial properties. This would, of course, result In a double payment by the home-owner. Accordingly, this BiU provides for the abolition of the total precept as from the commencement date of Stage 1, which is July of this year. Although this will further extend the fairness of the new system to private property-owners. It will naturally be incumbent on all local authorities to ensure that this benefit is in fact passed on to the rate-payer. For example. In Brisbane, the fire brigade precept this year amounts to about $2.75m, or about $10 each from approximately 250 000 rate-payers. Therefore, one would assume that Brisbane rate-payers wUl, after July, have the right to expect a $10 reduction in their rates. I wonder whether the Lord Mayor Mr Tenni: Challenge the mayor to make sure that this happens. Mr BAILEY: I would be delighted if the mayor would guarantee It. I worked out that if the amount coUected from the levy was Invested for three months, U would earn about $375,000, which is about $1.50 per tax-payer. I suggest that that is about the same amount of money that the city council will raise when it sells the St Lucia parkland. I ask the Lord Mayor to guarantee the citizens of Brisbane that their rates will be reduced by $10 and that the money wiU not be used at Boondall. Because of the Government's very generous policy on the payment of establishment and collection fees to the council, the reduction that could be passed on by the council to its rate-payers could be more. The council will be able to invest the coUected levy before it Is required by the State Fire Services CouncU. That was what I was talking about. About $10m is to be collected in two coUectfon periods over a year. The State Fire Services Council will not call for the money for some months after each collection. Therefore, If the money Is invested for about three months, approximately $375,000 in interest can be earned. As I said, that Is about $1.50 per rate-payer. That should be passed on. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2187

Mr Vaughan: Is It true that, at present, the Insurance companies pay In advance to the fire brigade? Who handles that money? Mr BAILEY: That Is a good question. I am sure that the Minister will answer that for the honourable member. I am more Interested in the money that is being saved. Mr Tenni: What is Alderman Harvey going to do with this money? Mr BAILEY: That is what I would like to know. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chair wlU only tolerate Interjections that are accepted by the member on his feet. Cross-fire will not be tolerated. Mr BAILEY: There have been enough red herrings; I will finish the point that 1 am trying to make. The Brisbane City Council will be collecting a lot of money from the fire brigade levy; but I doubt that it will be of any benefit to the rate-payers of Brisbane. Will the additional income derived by the city council from the levy be used for some other purpose—for example, at Boondall—without accountability to the rate-payers? All local authorities will benefit from the new arrangement. In the provincial cities particularly, reductions in rates should be offered to home-owners. I wonder whether that will happen. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (7.33 p.m.): I promised the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services at dinner tonight that I would not be too hard on his advisers. I will try; but when a Minister is advised by i>eople such as those in the State Fire Services Council sometimes the truth must be spoken. The Bill must be considered very seriously. Because it will virtually place Queensland fire services In the hands of the Minister, it will have far-reaching effects and dangerous ramifications. If the Minister had control over his department and total say in fire services matters, that would be a good idea. Unfortunately, the present Minister, who is very inexperienced and very new to Cabinet, must rely on his advisers, namely, Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper, who advises Mr Paltrldge. That is where the real trouble lies. It begins with Mr Tenni, Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper, all of whom have Uttle or no experience. Neither Mr Paltridge nor Mr Ripper is qualified in fire prevention, fire-fighting or fire safety. AU the power will be placed in the hands of one man—the Minister's adviser. As I have said. In some ways that would not be a bad Idea if—^and It Is a big "if"—the adviser knew what he was doing and if he was professionally quaUfied to do the job. Again I say that that is where the danger lies. All honourable members must be concerned. On previous occasions, I have stated in the House that Mr Paltridge endeavoured to make a job for himself and to provide himself with security at the expense of the citizens of Queensland. That must not be aUowed to occur. If it does occur, it will only place Queensland people and property at great risk. Throughout the BUI the word "council"—being the State Fire Services Council—Is being replaced by the word "Minister". That Is all It is—a word—because Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper will exercise the power, and all they are concerned with is gaining power, security and jobs for themselves, at the expense of safety. They are doing that by taking away the authority of the State Fire Services Council. Recently the annual report of the State Fire Services Council for the year ended 30 June 1983 was tabled. During my term In Parliament, various Ministers have been In charge of the State Fire Services Council, and never in the past have I heard any criticism of that body. Not that one would expect criticism to be levelled, as each representative on the council has been a person with years of experience and concern for fire services in Queens­ land. Fortunately, those representatives have acted in the best interests of the people of Queensland and their property; they have put aside self^nterest and self-gain—quite unlike the advisers of today. I ask: Why take away the authority of the State Fire Services CouncU? As the Minister appoints members to it, as do the insurance companies and the Queensland Local Government Assoclati(Mi, it is clear that the council Is an important body. So why must It lose its authority once this BiU is passed—as U will be, along party lines? Why thereafter will the council act 2188 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill only in an advisory capacity? The answer is that both Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper want to gain power and to keep their jobs, which are well paid and carry many lurks and perks. However, when the going gets tough, they will have the council members to fall back on. I repeat that those two advisers are not the qualified persons who could be expected to fill the positions that they hold and to be given the authority that they are trying to obtain by way of this Bill. I, together with various unions throughout the State, have called for the sacking or dismissal of those two advisers. They should not have been employed in the first place. Until a system that proves to be better than the operation of the State Fire Services Council Is found, the council should continue to be responsible for fire services in Queensland. In the meantime, a thorough investigation should be conducted Into fire services in the State. That investigation should be carried out into the finances of the brigades, the boards, the State Fire Services CouncU and so on. Of course, neither Mr Paltridge nor Mr Ripper should conduct such an investigation; it must be carried out by an independent person who possesses the necessary qualifications and some knowledge of fire services and their administration. Mr Miller: Whom would you recommend? Mr PREST: The honourable member for Ithaca can make his speech later. I support the call for this investigation. As the chairman of the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board has said, all sections of the State's fire services need to stop talking and to start listening to each other. When commenting on the present troubles that have erupted between the unions, the boards and the Government over the proposed changes to the fire services throughout the State, he said that the stage has been reached at which everybody In all parts of the fire services should start communicating with each other on those Issues. The Queensland Country Fire Brigade Officers Union, the MetropoUtan Fire Brigade Officers Union and the United Firefighters Union, which represent the State's 1 500 firemen and officers, have called for an independent Inquiry into the State's fire services and the department's administration. Work bans on the use of any new auxiliary or part-time aids were threatened, A newspaper article on that subjct stated— "State secretary of the UFU, Mr Arthur Rogers, said direct confrontation between fire unions and the Government was looming." We should do everything possible to avoid disruption within the unions and problems within the industry. The article further stated— "The dispute has centred on proposed changes to manning levels Involving the Increased use of auxiliary and part-time firemen following claims that present fire services are too expensive. The combined meeting voiced concern over a survey carried out by the advisor to Fire Services Minister, Mr Martin Tenni. The advisor allegedly misinterpreted the results of his questionnaire and the amendments reflected 'a lack of consideration of the practical working of the fire services'. The use of auxiliary firemen would lessen public and firefighting safety and decrease the efficiency of the service." I support the remarks made by Mr Rogers. The UFU has asked that all fire boards in the State support its stand. Mr Rogers had attacked the Minister's adviser, Mr PaUrldge, for proposed changes to fire services, which are described as dangerous. He accused Mr Paltridge of empire-building whUst damaging the safety and efficiency of the fire services. The union has protested also about the probable appointment of Mr Paltridge to the position of chairman of the State Fire Services Council and called for the appointment of someone with practical experience. There Is great uncertainty as to the future of Queensland fire services. There are 81 fire brigade boards employing 1500 firemen. They are under the control of the State Fire Services Council, which will be controlled by Mr PaUrldge when the Bill Is passed. On those boards are 567 board members, and 81 board secretaries are employed. In addition, there arc eight members of the State Fire Services CouncU. Last financial year, $350,000 was spent on administration costs to keep the boards functioning. In eight country fire Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU 28 March 1984 2189

brigade boards, the board members outnumber the firemen. For many years a board in central Queensland had a chairman, a secretary and six members, one chief and one fireman. Independent inquiries have been conducted Into fire services in Western AustraUa, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. All those inquiries have resulted in the updating and modernisation of fire departments. No such inquiry is to be held In Queensland. It would be far more beneficial for the Government to hold an Independent Inquiry now Instead of Introducing this legislation. I am concerned about what wUl happen to fire services and about the safety and protection of property at all times. I am concerned that the amendments contained in the Bill are just the beginning. Most members of the 81 boards, the 1 500 professional firemen in this State and I feel great concern not only for their positions but for the future of fire services. If Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper gain the power they are seeking, not one person— that Includes board members, firemen and secretaries to the boards—^would feel even a little bit secure in his position. Whether a fireman requests a transfer or not, he may be required to serve under some other board. If a person speaks against, or is suspected of speaking against, the administration of an adviser, he would find himself dismissed from his position or transferred to Timbuctoo. This power-hungry gentleman will be a dictator. People will be transferred against their will. If we desire peace and harmony In our State's fire service, we must show that we feel for our employees, appreciate their efforts and are earnest in our desire to give the best and safest fire service possible at a cost that we can afford. The former Minister, Mr Hewitt, used as an excuse to change the existing funding system the argument that it was most inequitable that people who did not pay fire insurance were avoiding their responsibility and not paying their share for the fire service. However, no-(me has ever bothered to inquire how many people did not pay Insurance. I am most disappointed with the new fire levy, which will be imposed on pensioners and other people who can lU afford to have their property insured at all, let alone fully insured. In most instances their properties would not warrant a $50,000 or $60,000 insurance cover. However, they will have to assist to fund a service to protect the property of the rich in our community—the silvertails. I am concerned about two other clauses In the Bill. The Bill provides for a levy contribution foUowing the merger of insurance companies. I agree with that. However, what a difference in attitude we see. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "One such merger resulted in the avoidance of a contribution in excess of $200,000, and this shortfall has had to be met proportionately by other companies." Only two and a half weeks ago I spoke about a company exempted from paying $600,000 a year. That exemption followed the subscription of $50,000 to a slush fund for the employment of the adviser to the adviser, and for no other reason. The name given to It was th§ Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit. However, the Minister says that the evasion by a company of the payment of $200,000—not $600,000—would have a great effect on the finances of the State Fire Services Council. Everyone covered by fire insurance should make a contribution. The company I have spoken about should not have had to pay $600,000 a year. It would have been happy to make a contribution to this State's fire services, and would have done so willingly. However, it was told, "The only way you can escape making a contribution is to give us $50,000 in our hands over two years. We will use it as we see fit." A bogus reason was advanced. I turn to the second clause I am concerned about. The Local Government Association has requested that the amount of fire levy collected not be taken into account for the purposes of salary calculation but that the actual collection fee be taken into account. In other words, it requests that the gross amount not be taken into account In arriving at the receipts of a local authority. It would be fair and reasonable merely to acknowledge the amount that local authorities are being paid to collect the levy. I do not know how the clause will get round the problem, because the senior clerks and other clerks involved are paid under a Federal award. The revenue collected by a local authority has to be accounted for and the clerks will have to be paid according to their award. So the State has introduced a matter into an award over which it has no control. 2190 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

The Opposlti(m Is concerned about the fire levy and the large amount of money that It will bring to the Government. When the BUI was introduced last year by the then Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Hewitt), honourable members were told that the levy would be $40 across the board. However, now the claim Is that it will be much more than that. Those rumours are certainly about the place and the Minister cannot deny that the people of Rockhampton face a very high fire levy. Previously the Government claimed that the new fair and equitable fire levy would result In a saving for most house-holders. The Rockhampton "Morning Bulletin" of 20 March stated— "Rockhampton ratepayers may face a fire levy of $100 a year, twice as much as other areas in the State, unless the city gets rid of 'a hell of a lot' of firemen. That is the warning from Administrative Services Minister Mr Tenni who said Rockhampton's fire brigades were acutely overmanned. He said on current calculations, Rockhampton house-holders would have to pay $90 to $100 compared with an average payment of $50 elsewhere." So the $40 that was mentioned when the Bill was first introduced approximately 12 months ago has now been increased to $50. Some students have undertaken a survey throughout the State. The calculations are now based on a four-tier system according to the number of firemen employed in a brigade area. Because Rockhampton is a rapidly expanding area, its rate-payers have been told that they might have to pay $100. I have been reliably Informed that the people of the city of Gladstone, whom I represent, could be paying $70 a year, not $40. The levy will be a gigantic rip-off and a great money-raiser for the State Government. It is yet another form of taxation on the people of Queensland, whether they happen to be pensioners or sUvertails. What is happening to the people of Queensland is nothing but a disaster. Although a submission was made to the local government conference held two years ago that the fire levy was a great thing and that it would assist people as weU as local government, local authorities are having second thoughts about collecting the levy, irrespective of what the amounts might be. They believe it will be a burden on their resources. All that they know is that the levy will be $100, $70 or $60—certainly not $40. Rate-payers wiU see U as an increase In their rates and charges and, in the long term, the local authorities will be blamed. Because a local authority election is to be held on 30 March 1985, they do not want that blame attached to them. Mr Menzel: No doubt you will keep the pot boiling. Mr PREST: There is no doubt about that. I believe in keeping the people of my electorate informed. I do not believe in hoodwinking them. I am here to represent people; I will represent them honestly and truthfully, something that cannot be said for members of the Government. Mr Stephan: How much do you pay now? Mr PREST: Very little. Mr Tenni: You do not insure your house. Mr PREST: Why should I? Of course I do. The honourable member should not be silly. It has reached the stage that wherever we see smoke, we see the Minister. Alderman Webber, the Rockhampton mayor, said that his council will have nothing to do with the fire levy if it is higher than the levies for other coastal centres. He said yesterday that he threatened to boycott the sending out of fire levy notices to rate­ payers and the collection of the levy through the rating system. The present Minister and the former Minister (Mr Hewitt) tried to tell us that this was the best thing since sliced bread; that it would assist everyone. The only ones to gain will be the State Government and the advisers to the Minister. The people of Queensland should not be ripped off as they are, and when I say that they are being ripped off, I mean It. In 1981, we were told that the levy collected by the Insurance companies would be a specific vote and that no money would be made by the Insurance companies. We were told that aU the money would go into the trust account of the State Fire Services Council to provide services. Only a short time ago, the present Minister (Mr Tenni) Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2191 accused the member for Sandgate and me, as reported In "The Gladstone Observer" of 21 March this year, of "trying to 'hoodwink' the people of Gladstone by their comments on the funding reforms" The Minister said that the Insurance companies would lose between $8m and $10m as a result of the funding change-over. No profit was to be made by the Insurance companies. All the money was to go to the State Fire Services CouncU. Can anyone imagine the Insurance companies handing over collections to local authorities at a cost of $8m to $10m a year? Of course not! The people were told a deliberate lie in that press article of 21 March. It was said that many people were not paying into the fire services but after funding the fire services of Queensland the insurance companies could make $8m to $10m profit. Now that the people will be paying 20, 30 or 100 times more, who will be making the profit? The Queensland State Government! Mr Stephan: You do not know what you are paying. Mr PREST: It would be no use trying to tell a dill like him. He would not understand. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The word "diU" is not considered to be parliamentary language. Mr PREST: In that case, I will call him a dillberry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word "dill" Mr PREST: I withdraw it. I have come under your fire previously, Mr Deputy Speaker. If we are to be ripped off, I do not mind if some of the profit goes to the people of Queensland. I do not mind as long as It does not go to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. That is totally incorrect and unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to withraw It. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has asked the member for Port Curtis to wUhdraw that statement. WiU the member withdraw U? Mr PREST: Is the Minister the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am ruling that the honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr PREST: I withdraw it. I do not believe that the people of Queensland should be ripped off as they are by this new levy. Mr Stephan: You do not know what you are talking about. How do you know they will be ripped off? Mr PREST: Will you go back again Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Port Curtis does not know what he Is talking about. He said that the people of (^eensland are being ripped off, TTiis measure does not take effect untU 4 July, I ask him to withdraw the comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment. Mr PREST: We have proof that the insurance companies are ripping people off, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister made U quite clear that the honourable member referred to the situation as it Is now and that that Is incorrect, I therefore ask the honourable member to withdraw the statement, Mr PREST: I wUl do that. I will withdraw the remark because I know that the Government does not like to hear the truth. So far as I am concerned, the Government will hear it tonight. 2192 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

Mr Tenni: You would not know how to tell the truth. You would not know what the word means. Mr PREST: That Is OK. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am totally impartial. I suggest that the Minister not make provocative statements, either, Mr PREST: The Minister has offended me by saying that I am telling untruths, and I ask that he withdraw that statement, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to restrain himself and the honourable member to proceed with his speech, Mr PREST: Very weU, The amendments in this Bill are the thin edge of the wedge. Those two gentlemen want to control fire services. They want to be properly accommodated in a job. Tasmania did not want them. Queensland did not want them, either. Only the National Party wanted them here. Fire brigade boards, the United Firefighters Union and others are asking for their dismissal. People are concerned. As I say, these amendments in the Bill are the thin edge of the wedge. Control of fire services Is being taken out of the hands of the State Fire Services Council. Perhaps it is not the best organisation, but it is better than what is proposed under this legi.»lation. Tony Carter, who works for an insurance company, told me that it is the aim of the Government and of the Minister's adviser, Mr Paltridge, to cut costs by doing away with professional firemen and appointing auxiliary and voluntary firemen. That is not the way in which to do a professional job. Professionals should carry out any fire-fighting in this State. They are able to provide the best possible fire protection. We do not want shop assistants and other people carrying out fire-fighting duties. The Act requires further amendments. The Opposition is asking the Minister to conduct a full investigation into the administration of fire services throughout the State. Such an Investigation must be conducted by a qualified person who knows something about fire-fighting, fire protection and safety within the Indutsry. (Time expired.) Mr MILLER (Ithaca) (8.3 p.m.): I congratulate the Minister and his department for introducing the amendments before the House tonight. The honourable member for Port Curtis Informed the House that he was one of those people In Queensland who were responsible for the change that Is being made In the payment of the fire levy. He said that he was one of those people who were not prepared to accept their responsibilities by Insuring their houses for their full value. He said that he is paying too little and asked why he should pay more. That Is the very reason these amendments have been introduced. This man stands in this place and says that he represents the people of Port Curtis. All he did for the 30 minutes that he spoke was utter words on behalf of the United Firefighters Union. The honourable member for Everton did exactly the same. We as members of Parliament represent constituents, not unions. The Opposition members who have taken part in this debate have spoken on behalf of unions. They have a brief on behalf of the United Firefighters Union. I commenced my speech by congratulating the Minister and his department for Introducing these amendments. Mr Davis: You are crawling. Mr MILLER: The honourable member for Brisbane Central has accused me of crawling. I have Ustened to members of the Opposition and members of the Government complaining about the number of quangos In Queensland. The Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services has deliberately set out to undermine the power of one quango. But what has happened? Opposition members have immediately said, "You are challenging our union." Mr Davis: No, I didn't. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2193

Mr MILLER: Yes, he did. Why is the Opposition saying It? Because It realises that the State Fire Services Council has always bowed down to the dictates of the UnUed Firefighters Union. Opposition members are happy to have that quango continue, even though next week In this place they wlU demand that the Government reduce the number of quangos; but only as long as that does not interfere with one of their pet unions. Everybody knows that the United Firefighters Union Is a left-wing union supporting the ALP. Mr Davis: No! Mr MILLER: My word it is. Mr De Lacy: They'U end up making you Speaker if you keep going like this. Mr MILLER: I am not concerned about what they will make me but I am concerned about listening to the rubbish put forward by the Opposition on behalf of the UnUed Firefighters Union. This Bill wiU reduce the cost of fire services to the people we represent. The honourable member for Port Curtis, who represents Gladstone, complained about the cost of fire-fighting services in Queensland. I would like to compare the fire services in Gladstone with those in LIsmore. The two towns are very close in population. Mr Prest: What Is LIsmore? Mr MILLER: LIsmore has 35 000 people, Mr Prest: You are nowhere near it, Mr MILLER: The honourable member for Port Curtis says that I am nowhere near It, Perhaps the next Opposition speaker wiU teU us the population of LIsmore. I tell all honourable members that the population of LIsmore Is 35 000, LIsmore has two fully paid fire-fighters and 15 auxUiary fire-fighters. Have any members heard any complaints from the New South Wales Government, the people of LIsmore or anybody else about the fire-fighting services in that town? I certainly have not. Everybody seems to be happy with the services provided there. But what about Gladstone? It has a population of 30 000. Mr Prest: 25 000, Mr MILLER: That makes it worse, I accept the interjection from the member for Port Curtis, I wiU change my figure from 30 000 to 25 000, Gladstone has 25 full-time, paid firemen, LIsmore, with 35 000 people, has two full-time firemen. Although I believe that Gladstone has closer to 30000 people, I accept the word of the member for Port Curtis that it has 25 000, That town has 25 full-time firemen; yet the member for Port Curtis spoke in this debate about the rising costs of fire-fighting services in Queensland, All honourable members are concerned about the rising costs, and something must be done. The Minister has taken the teeth cut of this quango to ensure that he, as the representative of the people of Queensland, has a say in what wUl happen in the provision of fire-fighting services in Queensland, Why should the State have a quango that is prepared to bow to the dictates of a union that demands that the number of fire-fighters be Increased at the whim of that union? Costs have to be contained. They can be contained by comparing the position in Queensland with that in New South Wales. The honourable member for Port Curtis should be ashamed to talk about costs. Compared with 25 full-time fire-fighters in Gladstone, Lismore has only two. Let the honourable member for Port Curtis try to show m.e any report in the media in which the people of Lismore have expressed dissatisfaction with the services they are getting. They are very happy indeed with those services. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Why are you using Lismore as an example? It is not even in Queensland. Mr MILLER: I chose Lismore because I believed that Gladstone had a population of 30 000 and I found the nearest tovra in New South Wales with a similar population. That town happens to be Lismore, which has a population of 35 000. The comparison shows exactly what has been happening in Queensland with uncontrolled quangos. Now, however, the Minister and his department are saying to this Assembly, "We are going to control the costs of fire-fighting services in this State." Mr Prest: He won't have a say. Read the Bill. 2194 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI

Ms Warner: You are so naive.

Mr MILLER: Some new members of the Opposition beUeve that aU members must be like members of the ALP and support their party no matter how they feel. On many occasions the Government has been defeated In this House by its own members and certainly not by members of the Opposition crossing the floor. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, made It quite clear that he had no control over fire-fighting services in Queensland. This legislation will ensure that the Government will be able to control those services Mr De Lacy: Heaven forbid! Mr MILLER: If I remember correctly, the honourable member for Calms was one of those members who expressed concern at the Increase in the number of quangos and the power of quangos. Now that a quango Is being controlled, he says, "Heaven forbid!" Opposition members do not care about quangos; all they are concerned about is whether a particular quango affects a trade union and whether they can score poUticaUy on the Government. I say that we should remove politics from this Chamber and look at quangos Opposition Members Interjected. Mr MILLER: I agree that I might be naive. I accept the Opposition's interjections, because there is no way in the world that Opposition members can remove politics from their way of thinking. The day that an Opposition member stands up in this Chamber and says, "I am speaking on behalf of the people I represent and not on behalf of the ALP," Is the day that I am waiting to see. But that day just will not come. Opposition Members interjected. Mr MILLER: I do not want Opposition members to agree with me; I want them to . go out to the people in their electorates and find out what they want. All that the honourable member for Port Curtis spoke about tonight was the fire- fighting services of Queensland. Mr Prest: The people want a good service. Mr MILLER: That is right. The people of New South Wales also want a good service, and they have it and at a fraction of the cost of Queensland's service. There is one other provision about which I am concerned and to which the Minister referred in his second-reading speech. In that speech, the Minister stated— "Under the provisions of the Act applying to the new funding scheme, the addition of collected fire levies to the revenue of a local authority could result in payment of higher salaries to senior local authority officers, whose award relates to revenue." I am absolutely amazed that a local authority officer could have his salary related to revenue. What hope has the paying community when the salary of a local authority officer will be related to the revenue he collects from the community? I do not care which local authority it is; there should be a set award irrespective of the amount of money that is coUected from the community. I repeat: What hope has the paying community? There Is one matter on which I disagree with the Minister, and that is the provision of long service leave. I have always beUeved that long service leave should be given to employees who have given long and faithful service to their employer. Once a precedent is created in this House, it will go from one section of industry to another. I am totally opposed to payment for long service to industry. I ask the Minister: What additional payment over and above long service leave would industry have to pay an employee whom it considered worthy of holding? Up to this point, employees have been able to say, "If I stay with my employer, at least I will receive long service leave." If long service leave is given to industry, what other charges will the community have to pay through the employer to the employees so that the employer can retain an employee whom he wishes to hold? Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2195

Employers wish some employees to continue In their employment. One service that an employer can do for such an employee is to pay him long service leave for the opportunity that he has given to his employer to employ him for a period. Once one gets away from that, one Is looking at an additional charge of some sort. I do not care what U Is called; some addUlonal charge will be paid by the employer to retain the services of that employee. Many employees are not retained by employers because they are not worthy of further employment. Under the Bill, they will receive long service. Once It is put Into one Industry Mr Prest: You said that people are not worthy of their posUions. You don't want to give the workers of Queensland their just entitlements. Mr MILLER: The honourable member for Port Curtis has his point of view; I have mine. The employer is not paying for the long service; the community Is paying. It is always the paying community that has to fork out for some additional charges. Mr Innes: If people were paid on performance, the member for Port Curtis would be fined. Mr MILLER: The honourable member for Port Curtis has highlighted very clearly to the Chamber his attitude on quangos. I support the legislation that the Minister has introduced. I hope that other Ministers will follow in his footsteps. Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (8.20 p.m.): I listened with interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Ithaca. Many of his remarks could well have come from a member of the Government team. There Is no way that I could say that about the contribution of the member for Port Curtis. Early in his speech he said that he wanted improvements. That Is just what the Bill Is designed to provide. He sftoke about a State-wide investigation into fire services. We know just how obsessed the ALP Is with setting up committees of inquiry and carrying out investigations. Today's Business Paper has a number of motions that have been there since day one. They will remain there until the last day of the session. Some suggest that committees of Inquiry be set up for needless purposes. The Labor Party in this country is obsessed with Inquiries. They have been set up in all States where the ALP is in power, and federally. They go on for ever and ever and produce no results. We will not be talked into commencing an inquiry that will join the endless procession of needless investigations. Mr Vaughan: That's what Neville Wran said, and he won the election. Mr McPHIE: Without a doubt, the member for Nudgee would know. Responsibility will be established in all areas. It will be established In the management and control of fire brigade boards. People will do the job or, if there are shortcomings, the regulations will be changed or new people will be brought in to do the job. Fire services In this State have grown into such a massive undertaking with so much money Invested that amendments are required to update and improve management. That is precisely what the amendments contained in the Bill will do. As a number of Government members wish to speak tonight, I will touch but briefly on four points contained In the Bill. Other speakers from the National team wiU cover the other points. During recent months there seems to have been a deliberate campaign to misinform the public about the new fire service levy. Most of that misinformation has come from the other side of the House. Allegations that the new system will raise vast sums of money to be used for purposes other than fire brigades are, of course, untrue; so are comments that home-owners will be paying double for protection. Mr Milliner: Does the Toowoomba City Council support It? Mr McPHIE: I am coming to the Toowoomba City Council. I have something to say on that and I have more to say on the levy, too. I ask the member for Everton to remain in the House to hear what I have to say. The annual calculation of the levy must, by law, be tied to the precise amount of the approved fire service budget and to the total number of properties as advised by the relevant local authority. Funds coUected must be paid Into relevant fire services trust accounts. Any 2196 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU surplus that occurs, for example as a result of construction In a local authorUy area of more homes than was estimated, must be taken into account in the following year's budget. The suggestion that surplus funds will be collected and diverted to other areas Is therefore purely mischievous and designed to confuse the public and frustrate the Government's aim of producing a fairer system of fire brigade funding. That Is precisely what the member for Port Curtis was aiming to do. Mr Prest: What was that? Repeat U. Mr McPHIE: Confusing the public. Lately criticism has been directed at the level of fire levies charged by insurance companies when home-owners renew their policies with only a few months remaining before the new scheme comes into force. Questions have been asked in the House about this matter, Mr Vaughan: They are charging 60 per cent more than they should be. Mr McPHIE: The member for Nudgee should not interrupt, I have the facts and am about to give them to him. As a result of pressure from the Government, the Insurance Council of Australia and the State Government Insurance Office agreed that the present fire levy charged on insurance premiums would be progressively reduced leading up to the commencement of the new scheme. However, as insurance companies must pay their annual contributions to fire services early in each financial year and recoup the amounts by charging a levy, the insurance Industry would have faced a loss of several mUlion dollars to be met subsequently by policy-holders. The industry therefore decided on a progressive reduction in rate—not directly pro rata—to minimise that loss. The Government Uself did not set that new rate. Any criticism should therefore be levelled at the insurance Industry. Critics of the levy would do better to concentrate on the benefits of the new system that will flow to property-owners. It Is a major taxation reform to Initiate a more equitable contribution to a vital community service. If the honourable member for Nudgee' has figures showing that the charges contain inequities in the transition period, I suggest that he take that matter up with the insurance industry, not this Government which has corrected the whole matter. I turn now to the salaries of local government officers. Those salaries could have been affected by the collection of the fire levy. When designing the new fire service funding scheme, a prime aim was to minimise any associated costs. For that reason, negotiations with the Local Government Association have been long and detailed, particularly in regard to the payment to local authorities of a collection fee and the payment of establishment costs. Although these payments will be generous, the Government has taken a firm stand on the principle that reimbursements must be based on the least expensive method of collection. There was no way that the Government would be a party to ripping off rate-payers merely to suit local politics. The fees set by the Government represent the minimum cost of collection and, therefore, will keep down the amount of the levy. However, It has been necessary for the Government to consider the matter of salaries of senior local government officers, a matter that has been of concern also to local authorities themselves. Such salaries are set under the terms of an industrial award, which relates salary levels to the totals of rate revenue collected by the relevant local authority. Collection of the new fire levy will swell the general rate fund, and higher salaries would be the result, with attendant increased costs being Imposed upon the rate-payer. As the levies collected will not be used by the local authority, there is no justification for including them In salary calculations, and this Bill will rectify that problem and keep costs down. Firemen and officers of urban fire brigades are party to a generous superannuation scheme controlled by a group of trustees, currently five in number, three from employers and two from employee groups. Many industrial unions represent fire service employees and, of these, five unions represent the operational personnel, that Is, the firemen and officers. I am sure that the members of the Opposition will be interested In this provision and support It whole­ heartedly. Because of the number of unions, there Is no guarantee of representation of any particular union during any term of office of the trustees. However, the United Firefighters Union represents just over half the total number of fire brigade employees and there is therefore some justice in that union's claim that It should always be represented by a trustee. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2197

The Government has given careful consideration to this matter and the Bill will Increase the number of trustees by one, granting to the United Firefighters Union representation by right. To continue a system which effectively denied representation to the majority of fire brigade employees would be totaUy unfair. During the past two years there has been much debate regarding the constitution of fire brigade boards when the new funding system comes Into force. Local authorities have constantly voiced the view that, as they are to contribute the bulk of fire brigade funds, they should have a majority voice upon fire brigade boards. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane has gone further. He wants to take over the metropoUtan brigade completely and therefore saddle the rate-payers of Brisbane with the total cost of that brigade, which is currently weU In excess of $20m. Presumably he will bring to the brigade the same quaUty of management that has marked the recent garbage disposal contracts. As the authorities do not In fact contribute the funds but merely act as a collection agent, and will be very weU paid for performing that task, that argument is baseless. The^ funds will come from the property-owners themselves and, in fairness to them, it is the Government's duty to see that each fire brigade board has balanced representation. Mr Milliner: Are you saying that the Toowoomba City CouncU Is happy about collecting the levy? Mr McPHIE: Some people up there wiU bellyache about anything, and they are bellyaching. The Toowoomba City Council has agreed to the conditions and to the coUectlon of the levy. I understand that the majority, if not aU, of the local authorities have done that. The funds wUl come from the property-owners themselves. In fairness to them, it Is the Government's duty to see that balanced representation is always maintained on each fire brigade board. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Personal remarks across the Chamber will cease forthwith. Mr McPHIE: Nonetheless, problems of representation could arise because some boards service more than three local authorities. At present, no provision is made for more than three local authority representatives on a board. There are six such boards, namely, the South Coast, Ipswich, Warwick, Tableland, Toowoomba and Mackay boards. Mr De Lacy: How does three make a majority out of seven? Mr McPHIE: The honourable member should not go away. The Government has an answer to that. Although there might be some justification for extending local authority representation on boards servicing only four authorities, Toowoomba and Mackay serve seven and six authorities respectively. Any attempt to grant representation to all authorities in those cases would result In unwieldy boards and greatly Increased costs of administration. The BiU will give to the Minister the right to set the board constitution that should apply in such Instances. As no two areas are identical in fire risk or In local community require­ ments, the Minister will be able to consider carefully all factors, consult wkh all relevant local authorities and then determine the constitution of the board that will best reflect the community needs. In Queensland, where communities and their requirements are so diverse, there Is no point In attempting to standardise representation. These new proposals, Mr Deputy Speaker, are therefore the fairest way of resolving the issue. That is definitely in Une with the National Party's approach to government In Queensland, OveraU, the amendments included In the Bill are sensible, timely and practical. I compliment the Minister on introducing them. Ms WARNER (Kurilpa) (8.33 p.m.): I am amused In many ways by the amount of heat generated in this debate. At one stage, I thought we might have needed the services of a fire brigade to extinguish the fire of the member for Ithaca. Mr Prest interjected. «2185—77 2198 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Ms WARNER: I am speaking about the member for Ithaca, who. It seemed, had taken some kind of drama lessons. Because of the piecemeal approach to its format and the whole question of fire safety In Queensland, it is not easy to look quickly at this legislation. As the member for Everton pointed out, a comprehensive review Is needed of the structure and fire-fighting capacity of the fire services throughout the State. In my electorate, we have a particular problem relating to multiple dwelUngs, the properties that are probably at greatest risk. Needless to say, they house some of the poorest people in the area. Queensland has a high percentage of timber houses. They are in a high fire-risk category. The domestic safety of Queenslanders depends on an effective, efficient fire protection service. Many responsible representations have been made to the Government. Many reports have come through the press, and many people have been astonished and horrified by the horrible fires of the last few years. We all want to see an end of the danger that fire causes each of us. The Government has never taken an overall view of the situation. It has not gone consistently to the experts in this very impjortant field that affects the safety of all of us and our children. The Government has resorted to fragmented responses that are hard to follow and are inadequate for the needs. That has resulted in the tortuous legislation that we are now debating. For instance, why is it necessary to further complicate last year's legislation relative to the imposition of the levy by introducing additional bureaucratic measures to confuse and confound the Issue? Rather than providing that the Government pay the money to the State Fire Services Council directly, this amending legislation establishes a State Fire Services Council Trust Fund and provides that moneys shall be paid into the fund by local authorities through the Minister. This again typifies the approach of this Government in trying to usurp aU the powers that should be given to the people who are the experts In the area, as the member for Port Curtis pointed out. Under the previous legislation, before the amendments were introduced last year, insurance companies collected the fire levy on the basis of a percentage of the amount for which a property was insured. I do not quibble with the idea of imposing a fire levy on all those people in Queensland who own properties, but why is a flat rate of about $50 to be levied? Mr De Lacy: Because they believe In a flat earth. Ms WARNER: Yes. Why will local authorities and not insurance companies have to bear the brunt of pubHc odium? It will appear that the local authority is raising Its charges, when it will be the Government and the insurance companies that are raising their charges. One of the doubts in my mind and in the minds of my constituents is that there will not be a corresponding reduction in the cost of insurance when this levy of about $50 Is added to the rates. The member for Sandgate has an insurance bill which indicates quite clearly that he is being over-charged. That wUl be the case with many Queenslanders. We have been assured that this matter will be looked at and rectified. Daily, I am receiving a number of complaints from pensioners who are worried that they wUl have to pay large sums of money for a protection that they already receive. This levy will greatly affect pensioners. A person on a low income with a house worth $40,000 will pay a levy of $50. A person in the $50,000-income bracket with a house worth $200,000 will still pay a levy of $50. The poor in this State will be subsidising the rich. As the member for South Brisbane has pointed out on many occasions, this Government seems to adhere to the principle that it should rob the poor and give to the rich—^Robln Hood in reverse. Here we see another example of it. A fairer and more equitable way of imposing this levy would be to provide a sliding scale so that the rich pay more and the poor pay less. We are all m need, but some people are in greater need. I shall move on from that point, which has been canvassed adequately by other members In this debate. Not only does the Government usurp power; it also sheds responsibUity, Under proposed new section 28 of the Act, the Minister and the people acting under his authority will be protected from any liability for which they would be Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2199

responsible through their performance. In other words. If a major fire disaster occurs in this State, presumably there will be no one to shoulder the blame because, under this legislaticm, the Minister will not be liable. Who will accept responsibiUty for the disaster? I urge the Minister to carry out a full and comprehensive review so that the best system can be found. This legislation will create more difficulties and more hardship, I hope that it wiU not lead to major disasters, but I fear that it wUl. Mr NEWTON (Caboolture) (8.39 p.m.): Last week, I visited the electorate (rf Port Curtis. Mr Prest: I noticed a drunk lying in the gutter. Was it you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Port Curtis Is interjecting from other than his usual place, Mr NEWTON: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like the member for Port Curtis to withdraw that remark, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! What was the remark? Mr NEWTON: The remark about me lying In the gutter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Caboolture inform the Chair what words he wishes the member for Port Curtis to withdraw? Mr NEWTON: The offensive remark about the gutter, Mr PREST: Yes, I will withdraw It, He was not In the gutter, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caboolture will continue with his speech. Mr NEWTON: I was In Gladstone visiting the Boyne smelter, about which the House has heard so much in recent days. The fire service at the Boyne smelter is paid for, and fully manned, by the company operating the smelter. If there were more fire services of that nature In Queensland, tax-payers would not be paying as much as the member for Port Curtis suggests. The $50,000 that the company has paid to the Fire Services Council is a reasonable amount. Until now, part-time management bodies have been a feature of Queensland fire services. Urban brigades are controlled and operated by 81 separate and autonomous fire brigade boards, while the State Fire Services Council has in recent years, been responsible for the co-ordination of the management and activities of those boards. This apparent fragmentation happens nowhere else in Australia, but the sheer size and diversity of Queensland demands such decentralisation. The board system ensures that there Is sufficient local Input to the management of the brigades, and that the development of the brigades is related to local needs. Naturally, such a diversified system tends to work against standardisation of management processes, of training, and of equipment design, and for this reason the Fire Services Council was originally created. However, in the years since Its creation, fire service budgets in Queensland have grown until they are now approaching the $60m mark, and the consequent range of responsibility and the need for adequate accountability to the Government has placed a question mark over the adequacy of a part-time council. Opposition Members Interjected. Mr Prest: Give him a go; let him read. Mr NEWTON: It is all right. I have been a member of a board; I know what I am talking about. With increasing complexity of management has come the need for more rapid decision-making based on professional Input of the highest calibre. That is particularly so if the fire brigade boards are to receive maximum support in their local tasks. It is significant that Queensland alone, of all the States and Territories, still retains a part-time body at executive management level. All other States—irrespective of the political colour of their Governments—have, during recent years, established some form of full-Ume executive management of their urban fire services. 2200 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

In the light of the determination of the Queensland Government to improve accounta­ bility of all semi-Government bodies—quangos is the term often used, particularly by the Opposition—^thls BiU will ensure that aim by placing the fuU responsibiUty for executive management decision-making In the office of the Minister. The Minister will be accountable to the Government and to the people of Queensland for the effectiveness of the State's fire protection. However, the accumulated experience and expertise of the members of the present State Fire Services Council, whose functions the Minister will assume, will not be lost. The councU will continue to meet and to consider relevant aspects of fire service operations and will advise the Minister constantly. This move will. In fact, remove from the council the burden of day-to-day decision-making and enable It to concentrate on major issues to the benefit of all sections of the service. By placing ultimate authority with the Minister, the boards and senior officers wiU be able to seek instant decisions on urgent matters, and greatly Increased efficiency will result. As industrial relations become an ever more Important part of modem management, so is the Government becoming more directly conccfrned and involved in industrial policy. This is a duty of the Government, if It is to ensure the continuing development of this State to the benefit of all of Its citizens. As the responsible executive of the fire service, the Minister will be in the best position to Interpret and Implement Government policy in the Industrial field. It is no accident that the Bill will, at the same time, increase the membership of the Fire Services Council by adding another representative of country fire brigade boards. ^ The board system serVes this State well, and must be supported. Additional representation on the advisory body will ensure improved communication between the Minister and the boards, and permit greater input from local areas. In summary—the Bill wUl strengthen the central management of the fire service and increase accountabiUty, while at the same time retaining all the best of those features of the service that have served Queensland so well In the past. I would like briefly to discuss the aspect of the Bill dealing with appeals against punishments. It has always been a basic principle of our industrial relations that opportunity for appeal against punishments awarded should be available to every employee. Such is the case within the fire service, and It Is guaranteed by the provisions of the existing legislation. However, there have been anomalies, not the least of which has been that appeal procedures designed for serious matters have been available in full also for the most trivial of offences. As a result. In a recent incident a board has had to incur legal costs In excess of $9,000 In respect of the punishment of three employees to the extent of fines of $7.50. NaturaUy these costs have become part of the board's budget, and have had to be met by the community. There is therefore the opportunity, should a union so wish, to cause a board considerable financial difficulty by following a policy of appealing against all minor offences. This Bill will greatly Improve this situation by causing the Fire Services Council, rather than a magistrate, to be the board of appeal for any offences punishable by a caution, a reprimand, or a fine not exceeding $10—In other words, the most minor of offences. There is no alteration to the appeal provisions applying for offences of a more serious nature, thus preserving the rights of the firemen and officers. It is worth considering also that the council, with its long experience of fire brigade matters, should be in a better position to judge the merits of minor appeals, and to decide accordingly. I support the Bill. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2201

Mr De LACY (Cairns) (8.48 p.m.): Members of the OpposUion believe that a need has existed for some sort of rearrangement and restructuring of the fire services in C^eensland. Therefore, when we discovered that amendments were to be made to the Fire Brigades Act, we welcomed the opportunity to look at them. We hoped that those amendments would bring about meaningful changes. However, having had an opportunity to peruse the amendments, we find that on balance they do more harm than good and that the few worthwhile amendments are far outweighed by those that are detrimental to fire services in Queensland. I wish to comment on certain points made by previous Government speakers. I begin with the honourable member for Toowong, who spoke about irresponsible insurance companies. He mentioned their Irresponsibility as being one of the reasons for the change in the levying base. However, he lost sight of the fact that for some time the Insurance companies have been lobbying to do away with that levying. What the Minister has done In fact is reward the insurance companies and the Insurance lobby because of their past IrresponslblUty. The Minister has stated that local authorities have accepted the change. I am sure that when they actually begin collecting the levies, even though they may have said that they welcome the method of collection, they will think again about the situation. Mr Shaw: They were given an offer that they could not refuse. Mr De LACY: I think that that is so. Mrs Chapman: Don't you accept that the precept will probably be much lower and therefore It will be an advantage to local government. Mr De LACY: I heard that remark. The member for Toowong and the Minister said that the Brisbane City Council should now be able to offer rate reductions to constituents. I wonder whether that applies to all local authorities in Queensland. I wonder whether the Minister has already told the local authorities in his area, and I refer to the Cairns City Council and the Mulgrave Shire Council, that he would expect them, after they had been asked to levy these new charges, at the same time to reduce rates or give a rate rebate to the rate-payers in their particular area. They will be interested to learn whether that is his opinion. The member for Toowoomba North said that the system of levying will be more equitable. If pensioners, persons with houses worth $30,000 and very rich people with houses worth $200,000 can be levied a flat rate, I do not know how it can be considered to be an equitable system. If the word "equitable" Is defined as meaning the same impost on every person, it is equitable. However, If the word "equitable" means levying people in line with their ability to pay and In line with the cover that they will receive, which Is my understanding of the word, I do not think that It is equitable. Mr McPhie: I used the expression "more equitable" Mr De LACY: "More equitable"? The member for Pine Rivers interjected In that vein when the member for Kurilpa was speaking. The member for Kurilpa took up the matter and said that it was not equitable. She said that the poor were subsidising the rich. If this Is not a case of the poor subsidising the rich, I would like to know what it is. If a person's house valued at $40,000 is burnt to the ground and the replacement value is awarded, that person receives $40,000. If a person's house valued at $200,000 is burnt to the ground, he must receive $200,000. The member for Ithaca, in his vintage speech, said that he represents his constituents. 'He accused the Opposition of representing only the trade unions. I admit that I have spoken to the trade unions, the constituents and the local councils. Those three groups are opposed to the changes that are being implemented. The member for Ithaca did not represent his constituents; he represented the Insurance companies, and I thought that he did a very good job at that. I thank him also for the kind words he expressed about the New South Wales system. It is not often that such comments are made in this Chamber. He said that fire services in New South Wales were excellent and that they operated at a fraction of the cost of the Queensland service. I might pass on his comments to the newly re-elected Premier, because he wiU pleased to hear them. 2202 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

The basic thrust of this legislation is aimed at taking powers away from the State Fire Services Council. That introduces a point of principle. Tonight many members have spoken about quangos and expressed their points of view about them. At times, quangos Jget out of hand. I believe that happens because they tend to develop a life of their own and they lose accountabiUty both to the people they supposedly represent and to the Government. The Opposition welcomes the action that is being taken to overcome that problem. There is, however, a need for organisations that represent people and make decisions on behalf of those people. That is the role of a properly constituted board. I am sure that most Government members—^those involved In primary industry—believe that those who know most about an industry should be In a position to make decisions on behalf of that industry. For the fire services Queensland did at least have something like that. The Bill, however, takes all power away from the board—away from the people who are experts and who, theoretically, are Involved with fire services and should be able to make responsible and informed decisions for the industry. Power is now vested in the Minister. It Is unnecessary for me to say that members of the Labor Party are always suspicious when power is taken away from a board and vested in a National Party Minister. I now refer to the other major complaint of members of the unions Involved and quite a few other people in authority to whom I have spoken. The honourable member for Port Curtis spoke at length on this matter. The Bill spells it out that the Minister may— ". delegate to any one or more officers appointed or seconded for the effectual execution of this Act all or any of his powers and functions under this Act except this power of delegation." That provision In the Bill has caused a great deal of misgiving. The person who we are led to believe will receive the delegation has already been involved in a running battle with some of the unions. He came here from Tasmania. I wUl acknowledge that he was appointed to this position not by the incumbent Minister but by his predecessor. He introduced a system similar to this in Tasmania. I refer to an article in "The Courier-MaU" on 15 July 1982. The Lord Mayor of Hobart, Alderman Plaister, was in Brisbane for a Capital Cities Secretariat Conference and said that such a system in Tasmania had seen the levy rise by 54 per cent in the previous two years. He continued— "You people up here have been told it's the answer. It's not the answer. It's the thin edge of the wedge." He went on to outline the way in which the levy had been increased and how it had not been efficient or effective in Tasmania. Today I was speaking to somebody from local government in my area. He understood that it was the system in use in Tasmania, though he did not know that it was working so poorly there. He said, "Perhaps It does work in Tasmania, but Tasmania is very much different from Queensland." I should not have to draw to the Minister's attention the substantial differences. Tasmania would fit into the far northern part of our fine State. We should not use that State as a guide. The Minister is taking this opportunity to restructure Queensland's fire services, but we seem to have received the worst of every world. We have not yet dispensed with the fire service board. It remains and, therefore, wUl continue to cost us money. It will remain as a quango even though it has been effectively emasculated. However, as far as I know, it costs just as much to feed a eunuch as it does to feed a complete and entire person. If It is the intention to do away with it, why not do away with it completely? The Minister has not addressed the cost structure and the escalating costs in the fire services system. I am aware that the Minister has recently made statements about the need to employ more auxiliary firemen and fewer full-time professional people. That is always the knee-jerk reaction of members of the Government. As soon as costs rise they say, "We have to sack some of the workers." They never address themselves to the cost of administration, the cost of management and the cost of these boards. The real problem with fire services In Queensland Is that there are too many boards, a point that was well made by many members on this side of the House. In fact, Queensland ha? 81 boards with approximately 500 o'- 600 members. Just before Christmas, the Minister advised me by way of answer to a question that, for the 1982-83 financial year, the actual administrative costs of those 81 boards was $319,000. Think how many firemen and Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2203 on-the-ground fire service people could be employed for that amount. Many boards have more members than they do fire-fighters. That Is the case at Gordonvale and Babinda, which have seven-member boards and only a fire chief and a fireman. The boards have many and varied problems. The service throughout the State has very little integration and very little uniformity. All boards purchase equipment as U is needed, with no uniform arrangement. Many boards purchase different uniforms for their firemen and have different fire tenders. In fact, the fire tenders at Innisfail are painted white and those In Cairns are red. Some brigades have quick release couplings and others do not. If a fireman goes from one brigade to another, he has to familiarise himself with the different equipment. That is expensive and clumsy and leads to inefficiency. Victoria has only two fire authorities, yet Queensland has 81. However, those two Victorian fire authorities could not properly co-operate during the disastrous Ash Wednesday fires of 12 months ago. The metropolitan fire board offered its services to the country fire authority and they were refused. The two authorities in Victoria cannot co-operate, so how can Queensland expect to have co-operation between its 81 boards. That sort of thing has happened in the past and is still happening. Firemen In Cairns have told me that they receive 000 calls to fires In the Douglas or Gordonvale areas but they are not allowed to attend to them. They must try to contact the local fire brigade and ask that it attend. On one occasion the Cairns fire service went to a fire that resulted from an explosion in the McDougall's machinery shed at Edmonton when it was not supposed to, with quite a few ramifications. The costs caused by the lack of uniformity, the lack of direction and the lack of overall purchasing power are where the inefficiency lies in fire services in Queensland, and that is where the Minister ought to be directing his attention, not to the employment of auxiliary firemen and removing the authority from the State Fire Services CouncU. The composition of the boards still remains something of a mystery to me. In the early part of his speech the member for Toowoomba North said that the reason the local authorities welcome these changes is that they will now have a majority of representatives on boards. Mr McPhie: I did not say that at all. Mr De LACY: I heard the honourable member say that. My understanding of the clause is that the Minister determines the representation on boards. I understand that three will be nominated from local authorities, but I ask the Minister to clarify whether boards will be comprised of seven members and what the composition will be. I notice that the Minister retains the power to appoint three members from local authorities. Nowhere did the concept "democracy" rear its ugly head. Mrs Chapman: Local authorities are democratically elected by the people and placed on the fire boards by people on the council. Mr De LACY: Part of the Bill states— "The group of component Local Authorities shall be represented by such number of members (If any)—" there do not have to be any— "as the Minister determines each of whom shall be a member of one of such component Local Authorities." That does not say the representatives are nominated or elected by local authorities. Mrs Chapman: How do you think they get the people on the local authority? They are democratically elected by the people In the community. You don't even know about local government. Mr De LACY: I will take that interjection. If honourable members will Usten, I will explain it. The amendments, as they stand, provide that they will come from local authorities. They do not provide that they wUl be nominated by the local authorities. Mrs Chapman. How do you suppose that they get on the local authorities? Mr De LACY: The Minister could nominate them. On other occasions Ministers have nominated people to boards all over Queensland. The Government makes the appointments as sinecures for National Party hacks. 2204 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): I call the honourable member for Mt Isa and other honourable members to order. Far too much shouting Is taking place in the Chamber. Mr De LACY: The Minister can resolve this matter in his reply. I ask him to speU out in clear terms the composition of the boards, and how the members wiU be elected. He can exi^ain to us the way In which democracy wlU play a part in this. I will deal now with the cost structure of the fire service. I am concerned about the cost, as were other Opposition speakers. I am led to believe that four classifications wUl be set up. I would like the Minister to end the rumours by confirming that there wiU be four classifications. The A classification, which wUl attract the highest levy, wlU apply to those stations which employ more than 21 full-time, professional firemen. I ask the Minister to explain why there should be a difference between the levy for stations employing in excess of 21 firemen and that for stations employing between 6 and 20 firemen. I appreciate that, obviously, smaller stations will be less expensive to run but, because of the greater number of calls on the services of a station in a large area, it wUl obviously receive more contributions. The economies of scale should apply to the bigger statl(»is. The Minister comes from an area similar to mine. I am led to believe that the Calms Fire Brigade will be in the A classification; therefore the residents of Cairns will be paying the top rate. Many other much smaller brigades have professional fire-fighters who provide an equal service, but the residents of those areas will be paying a lower rate. Speaking parochially as the member for Cairns, why should the residents of Calms have to pay a higher rate than the residents of many other areas that receive equal service? Another Issue to raise Its ugly head relates to the need to Impose a levy on vacant land. I am advised that fires on vacant land are fairly rare. When I was talking to some firemen and local authority people in the Calms area, I was told that the only vacant land with which they have a lot of trouble is that which Is under the control of the Queensland Housing Commission. Because the Queensland Housing Commission does not properly look after its property, it is on its land that most fires occur. I can accept that, but the fact is that the Queensland Housing Commission does not pay rates, and therefore, I presume, under this system will not be paying the fire brigade levy. The Opposition believes that a full inquiry should be held before radical changes are made to the service. We appreciate the need for some changes but we beUeve that the area which should be looked at Is that part of the service with the top-heavy administration. The Minister tried to do something about that by taking power away from the State Fire Services Council, but that has done nothing to trim Its top-heavy administration. In fact, he has taken the decision-making process away from the experts and given it to a person who I am led to believe has had no long period of training or any expertise in fire-fighting. The Minister should be addressing himself to the problem of top-heavy administration. The legislation, as I have read and Interpreted it, is not good. It contains a few good points, such as providing for union representation on the superannuation board. On balance. It will do more harm than good. It has not addressed the real problems facing fire services in Queensland. The Act has been changed on a number of occasions. It Is difficult to follow it. It should be rewritten and consolidated. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (9.11 p.m.): I have great pleasure in supporting the Minister in the introduction of this legislation. We have heard ranting and raving from Opposition members. It is the usual tirade that they trot out every time they oppose something that we are doing. The kindest thing that I can say about them is that they do not imderstand the legislation. They knock every proposal that the National Party Government brings forward. We live in a great State. It has been developed under National Party policies. The Government Is doing good things for h, but OpposUion members just do not understand that. I saw how they squirmed when the member for Ithaca was speaking. I compliment him on the great speech that he made. Opposition members did not like It one bit. Mr Innes: You would have to concede some Liberal influence in this legislation. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2205

Mr RANDELL: I do not concede anything. I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. There Is no doubt that U has been difficult legislation. Other Ministers have grappled with it; the present Minister has bitten the bullet and introduced the legislation into the House. He will do a good job with U. One of the most important tasks facing management and senior officers alike is the development of an adequate career structure for the firemen and officers of Queensland's urban tire brigades. Even Opposition members would agree with that. But a major obstruction to a career path within a service so widely diversified as the Queensland urban fire service Is the barrier In movement from one job to another. I think that the honourable member for Port Curtis mentioned that. Such an obstruction exists because of the autonomous nature of the 81 fire brigade boards. Although officers have certain portability of service provisions written into their awards, no such provision exists for firemen. If a fireman wishes to leave one board and take up service with another board, either for career or personal reasons, long service and sick leave entitlements may be lost. For example, a fireman who has served for nine years with each of four boards and who then retires and leaves the service receives no long service leave, even though he has given 36 years of loyal service to what is, after all, one urban fire service that Is provided for the benefit of all Queenslanders. That Is clearly unjust. Mr Prest: You have just commended the member for Ithaca on his speech. He was totaUy against that. Mr RANDELL: I do not think that he was. The honourable member does not listen to what is said. If he listened, he would learn something. This BiU will overcome the problem that arises when firemen move from one brigade to another. It provides for full portability rights between employing boards for officers and firemen. It will go a long way towards creating a better career environment and wUI, moreover, strengthen moves towards a standardised training and educational system within the service. I turn now to another matter affecting bush fire brigades. As Queensland develops, and as city and town-dwellers move ever more often towards rural life-styles, living on the outer edges of urban areas—^that Is happening in all regions—there is constant pressure for the extension of urban fire brigade boundaries to encompass newly reticulated water areas. That is happening In my own area. It is probably the fastest developing area in Queensland. It is extending further and further. Yet, because of the limitations of existing fire legislation, that is causing considerable difficulty and, In some cases, much friction between urban and rural brigades. That friction results from the fact that, under the provisions of the Rural Fires Act, bush fire brigades cannot be formed within the boundaries of an urban brigade district. Any extension of an urban district, therefore, requires an equivalent restriction of the area of operation of any bush fire brigade previously operating in that area. If the extension Is large enough, the disbanding of the bush fire brigade will eventually occur, and that is a sad loss for any community. The bush brigades do a tremendous job throughout Queensland, and I compliment the members of those brigades, particularly those in my own area. They are volunteers and they deserve my congratulations. If a bush fire brigade wishes to fight a fire outside its area, the members of that brigade lose their protective Insurance, compensation cover and the concessions that apply on the registration of private farm vehicles for use on public roads when going to and from a fire. The real Issue is the serving of the public and the protection of the public from fire. Rtatrictions of that type greatly undermine the effectiveness of general fire protection. The Government believes In principle, that all brigades, both rural and urban, should co-operate with each other without restriction. To Implement that principle and to overcome the problem, this Bill will amend the Rural Fires Act to permit the formation and operation of bush fire brigades within urban brigade areas. It is agreed that a clear chain of command is essential in emergency operations. It is also essential that all operational personnel are fully aware of the rcspec tivc responsibilittus of the combating bodies. This BiU makes it a requirement that, when an urban fire brigaJc and a bush fire brigade share the same area, they must produce a mutual aid plan. This plan wUl set out the different responsibilities of the respective brigades in joint operations. It will also spell out the chain of command that will apply, depending on the type 2206 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

and location of the fire. Under the Bill, the Minister is given the power to determine the chain of command that should apply for fires attended by more than one urban fire brigade. That will ensure that experienced and trained personnel are not subject to command by leaders with less experience. The legislation marks the culmination of a searching review of the needs of the fire services in Queensland. Significant management improvement, better career structures for personnel, more effective communication between boards and central management, increased support for board activities, elimination of the loan administration processes and a more effective funding system will result from this legislation. All sections of the community should applaud it and support it in the confident expectation of higher levels of fire protection and prevention. I congratulate the Minister and his departmental officers for the work they have done in introducing this legislation. I was a member of his committee that reviewed the legislation, and I appreciated the opportunity that he gave members of that committee to make contributions to the BUI. It will be of great service to the people of Queensland, and 1 commend the Bill to the House. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (9.18 p.m.): I have a short but important contribution to make to this debate. It refers largely to my own electorate, but it reflects what is occurring in other parts of the State in relation to fire services. 1 have known the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services for a long time; but, I in common with other members, am worried that he Is not receiving the right advice or that he does not have a real grip on his portfolio. This legislation, and the earlier legislation about the fire brigade levy, affect the more developed areas of the State in particular. Under the new levy system, the people living in those areas wUl be paying more money for fire services. The Minister Is shaking his head. He can do that as much as he likes, but he should come down to Woodridge. I canrgive him an idea of the figures, but, unless someone is leading him astray, he must be aware of them. Mr Tenni: You don't understand. Mr D'ARCY: I am sorry, but it Is the Minister who does not understand. Woodridge is serviced by the South Coast Fire Brigade Board. That board is based in Southport, which is an area in which there is very expensive property. I do not deny that the people who own that property pay very high insurance rates. Under the system that operated previously, probably they deserved better fire protection—probably, I repeat. The result is that the fire services that grew up on the outskirts of Brisbane are the worst of any metropoUtan area in Australia. The Minister does not care, people do not care and the Minister for Works and Housing does not care whether Housing Commission homes burn down. The fact remains that those areas have been growing very rapidly. Woodridge is in the Cinderella area of the South Coast Fire Brigade Board area. Woodridge has one fire service, Greenbank has what the locals refer to as a tin shed, and Beenleigh has a fire service unit. The density of traffic in the Woodridge area, which services the end of the South East Freeway and the Pacific Highway, is very high and, as a result, the number of traffic accidents in the area is high. Generally speaking, the turn-outs, as the fire brigade officers refer to them, are to motor vehicle accidents or to grass fires in areas adjacent to those accidents. It must be remembered that most of the accidents Involve persons who do not live in the Woodridge area. In spite of that, the fire brigade service in the Woodridge area spends a tremendous amount of itime in turn-outs to motor vehicle accidents in which it has to cut dead bodies or injured persons out of vehicles. The figures for the Woodridge area would speak for themselves, but nobody will produce them. The Minister has produced figures relatmg to the South Coast Fire Brigade Board area, but his limited figures do not tell the truth. Mr Tenni: Are you saying that the State Fire Services CouncU has not given you the right service by placing the fire brigade substations in the correct localities? Mr D'ARCY: I am saying that not enough substations have been established in the area. The Minister Is not servicing them. He is filling them with auxiliaries. Mr Tenni: I wiU fix U up for you. Mr D'ARCY: You will? Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2207

Mr Tenni: Yes, I wiU. Mr D'ARCY: I presume that the Minister must have read my letters. Mr Tenni: I have not seen your letters, but I will fix it up, Mr D'ARCY: I addressed the letters to the Minister. I wonder who has been receiving them, I would very much like to see the Minister In my area. The Minister has promised that he will solve the problem and that Woodridge will be provided with a proper service. I turn now to the figures on the levy base rate, which show that less than half a million dollars wUl be spent in that area. The levy that will be collected on commercial and industrial property seems to be a blind spot, because no-one Is sure what wlU be collected in my area, which has a high Industrial and commercial content, A blind spot occurs In the collection of year one and year two of the levy. Based on the council collection levy, I estimate that if the houses are rated at approximately $50 a house—which Is totally unjust— the Government will collect close to $2,5m and it will spend less than half a million dollars. Where Is the other $2m going? Mr Tenni: How are we going to buUd the new fire station? Mr D'ARCY: The Minister has not built it yet. He gave me a promise only two minutes ago. I am pleased that he said he will build it; but let him show me where he will spend the money. Information that I have received in letters signed by the Minister—as he has not been receiving letters from me, I do not know who has written those that I have received from him—Indicates that the Minister supports the auxiliary fireman system in my area. Mr Tenni: Of course I do. Mr D'ARCY: The Minister does not deny that? Mr Tenni: Not at all. Mr D'ARCY: By the sound of things, the Minister is prepared to admU that there is a shortage of staff at fire stations. Woodridge certainly has a shortage of staff and equipment within the existing fire station. I want to quote some figures from a station record of the Woodridge fire station setting out the attendance of auxiliaries on drill as from 4 January to 7 March 1984. On 4 January 1984, 11 personnel were on the books; five were present. On 10 January, 11 personnel were on the books; two were present. Mr Vaughan: They would be great fire-fighters. Mr D'ARCY: These are all rejects. They would not be employed permanently. On 8 February, 10 personnel were on the books; six were present. On 15 February, 10 personnel were on the books; five were present. On 22 February, 10 personnel were on the books; six were present. On 29 February, eight personnel were on the books; two were present. On 7 March, eight personnel were on the books; five were present. Mr Tenni: Do you know how many days a week they work? Mr D'ARCY: I do not want to answer the Minister's questions. He is supposedly answering my questions. It Is Interesting to note that on 7 March an auxiliary fireman presented himself for drill at Woodridge Fire Station at 1830 hours. At 1900 hours, when he was asked to don a breathing apparatus set, he Informed the duty officer that he was receiving medical treatment from a general practitioner for disc trouble. He could not do what he was requested to do. He told the duty officer that he would stand to one side and watch his fellow auxUlary firemen. The duty officer, on hearing this, did what he would have done If he had been a permanent fireman. He told the auxiliary fireman that he would have to book off sick, and duly notified the duty officer at headquarters. There seems to be no standard for auxiUary firemen. I wish to refer to an appUance that a trained auxUiary was supposed to drive at Woodridge. I hope that there will be no victimisation if I read a report that was obtained from the station. Mr Tenni: I would not do that sort of thing. 2208 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Mr D'ARCY: I am pleased to hear that. The matter is relevant, so I hope that there will be no victimisation. The report from the Woodridge Fire Station states— "We as permanent firemen are supposed to accept these people as our back. In this case the person Is placing other firemen at risk as well as himself. We also have the case where the permanent firemen were ready to respond to a house fire at Jimboomba on the 10/1/84. We were advised we were to remain at station while Woodridge Aux/Flremen were called in. After approximately 5 minutes an Aux/Fireman arrived. As he was not capable of driving a pump he waited for another Aux/Fireman to arrive. Some time later the second Aux/Fireman arrived. He was supposed to be able to drive the appliance. After a short time he advised us that he was unable to find the switch to turn on the head lights." It was obviously a night-time fire. The report continues— "After the permanent firemen had shown him where the switch was he was asked if he was ready to proceed. He advised us that he was ready. We operated the signal lights in front of the station. The only problem was he stalled the appliance. After 11 minutes from the time we received the call they finally were mobile. The point here in question is that if we were relying on that pump as a back up it could of been a sight longer. I mean no disrespect to the Aux/Flremen involved, but only wish to make the point clear, that If a Permanent backup from Beenleigh would of been at the fire and set up assisting the Woodridge crew. There are other instances, but I feel that these are two of the more important." The Minister must be aware that a much better service should be provided If the number of stations is increased and if the output Is Increased. Mr Tenni: Are you aware that I have just given that area 20 extra men? Mr D'ARCY: They have not arrived. In addition, the area needs additional stations and more equipment. Mr Tenni: You are going to get them. Mr D'ARCY: Very well. Obviously, the Minister admits that the fire services for areas of that type have been inadequate. The problem was not solved with the previous legislation; nor will It be solved by this Bill. We want to see the levy money spent in our area, where we know it wUl be effective. In all fairness, I say that the old system, particularly In the Woodridge area, had whiskers. It discriminated against the low-income earner. However, the proposed system will be even worse. We do not have adequate fire services. The Government is asking the rate-payers of the area to make a massive injection of funds Into the fire services. I rest my case. Overall, this State's fire service has been a fiasco. As the shadow Minister has said, there has been a conscious effort to inject some equality into the service. However, some areas will be seriously disadvantaged. I represent one of those areas. It has vast growth and consists predominantly of low-Income families. We have been disadvantaged by the system. We have not been serviced by It. The men In the service have worked unlimited overtime without payment and without any other reward at a greater risk to their lives and to their families than firemen in any other area of Queensland. 1 ask the Minister whether the Bill does anything to solve that problem. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.33 p.m.): It gives me much pleasure to support the BiU. I am amazed at the apparent ignorance of the members of the Opposition who have so far joined the debate. The member for Woodridge, who has just finished speaking and has already left the Chamber, amazed me. He was prepared to ridicule fire brigade employees in his own locality. I wonder how much support he has given the brigade. If he is aware of the circumstances he spoke about, how much has he done to overcome the problem? It i.s all very well to write a letter and say that It is someone else's responsibility, but Is It always someone else's responsibility to care for one's electorate? I doubt whether many of us would agree to delegate our responsibility to someone else in the electorate. The honourable member for Port Curtis also amazed me. Either he did not know or was not prepared to tell us how much he is presently paying in fire service levy on his insurance premium. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2209

Mr Vaughan: Why should he tell you that? Mr STEPHAN: He was asked the question, but he would not answer. Either he Is underinsured or he is paying about $100, which is twice the amount he wlU be paymg under the new levy. Mr Prest: How much do you pay? Mr STEPHAN: I am paying over $100 on my house. How much do you pay? Are you aware how much you are paying, or are you not prepared to tell us how much you are paying? You are speaking about the excessive amount being charged under the levy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Mr Borbidge: He has been caught out. Mr STEPHAN: Yes. He Is not prepared to accept that the.$40 he wUl be paying under the new scheme Is much less than he would be paying if he were fully insured. If you are not fully insured you are not accepting your responsibUities. Now you wlU have to pay a levy, the same as everybody else. Mr Prest: You will support anything as long as there is a quid in it for you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The cross-fire will cease and the member for Gympie wUl address the Chair. Mr STEPHAN: From the reaction of the member for Port Curtis when I interjected previously and his reaction now, quite obviously he does not like to face up to his respon­ sibUities and pay the same amount as others. I am sure that he would rather not pay the levy. Some local authorities are concerned about the reaction of rate-payers because the levy will be an extra charge that appears on rate notices. I should point out to local authorities that under the Bill the proposed precept for Stage I no longer applies. That Is one saving for local authorities. At the same time local authorities will receive an allocation for the collection of the levy, which will assist in the providing of extra manpower or equipment. So the local authorities have gained but, because of the political aspects, they are concerned about an extra charge on top of those that already appear on rate notices. As so often happens, people in the community wrongly look at the final figure on a rate notice and blame the local authorities for any increase. All rate-payers should be reminded of that and bear it In mind. Some members have been concerned because all home-owners in one area will pay the same levy. What people must remember Is that they are not paying for the loss incurred by a fire but for the service of the fire brigade. I would expect people who own a $200,000 house to have it Insured for that amount, just as I would expect pwople who own a $40,000 house to have it fully insured. I stress that it is for the service of the fire brigade that the levy has been applied. The fire brigade simply has to control a blaze and stop it from spreading to neighbouring property. Fire brigades have to maintain their equipment. Irrespec­ tive of what happens at Woodridge, I know the fire brigade in my area takes pride in the maintenance of its equipment and facilities. The equipment must be maintained irrespective of whether the brigade is called out to fires. The levy pays for the provision of fire services, not the loss incurred. The loss is covered by Insurance. In the past a problem has existed in rural B country areas without reticulated water. I hope It will be overcome by the coUectlon of levies. When people in those areas call the fire brigade It might have to travel anything up to 15 mUes. The fire brigade has a great deal of di.fficulty in recouping the cost of travelling to country areas for a house fire or a grass fire. The brigade has to establish who called it to the fire, and nobody will accept responsibility. The owner of the property will claim that he had it under control and did not call the brigade. Perhaps a neighbour or somebody driving past panicked and called the brigade. It Is almost impossible for the brigade to recoup the cost of travelling to such fires and, in many Instances, brigades do not even try to recoup the cost of servicing fires outside •their areas. As 40 per cent of the calls on the Gympie fire brigade are for fires outside the reticulated area, the problem should not be underestimated. It is to be hoped that, whh rural rezoning, the owners of the five-acre, 30-acre and other smaU blocks will be happy to pay the smaUer levy applicable and get the service that they are looking for. 2210 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

The bush fire brigades do a fantastic job, but, in many instances, they are absent when a call Is made and it takes them some time to get to the fire. I have referred to some of the problems as I see them. Although much work has been done, some of the problems have not been fuUy Investigated. I ask the Minister to tell us the anticipated revenue from Stage I of the scheme when It is introduced. If the Minister could supply that figure It would no doubt be very enlightening. I commend him on the effort that he has made in relation to this legislation. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (9.42 p.m.): I am happy to support the Minister's presentation of this legislation and to follow the member for Gympie in the debate. As a youngster I well remember my great-grandfather being involved with the fire brigade at Gympie. He used to tear down Mary Street, the main street in Gympie, behind a horse by the name of Blarney. It is possible that the member for Gympie knows the folklore surrounding that. I compliment the Minister and the Government on proceeding with this legislation. I take this opportunity to remind Parliament that the former Minister (Mr BIU Hewitt) was the motivating force behind it. I noted that some National Party members, including my friend the member for Mirani (Mr Randell), were a little reluctant to acknowledge that the legislation was pioneered by Mr Hewitt and was a creation of the Liberal Party. Mr Prest: Where is he now? Mr WHITE: If he were in the ParUament tonight I am sure that he would be proud that this legislation reached fruition. The fact of the matter is that it was a creation of the Liberal Party. It had a tortuous path in Cabinet. Some National Party members will recall that the debate In the joint parties room was quite vigorous. I am happy that the amendments before us tonight will bring more equity into the situation. The honourable member for Gympie referred to rural zoning. I hope that the fire brigade service will provide the same level of service, and I am sure that It will. The Redcliffe area has an exceUent fire brigade service chaired by Mr Tom Wallace. He and his board and the permanent fire brigade people do a marvellous job. Recently additional staff were allocated to Caboolture and Pine Rivers. As a result, some of the work-load should be taken from the Redcliffe Fire Brigade Board. The Minister Is to be complimented for taking action to deal with a quango. There has been serious criticism about the expansion of quangos in this State, This legislation Is tangible evidence that the Minister is prepared to grapple with the problem. He should be congratulated and recognised for that. The Minister has indicated his support and that of the Government for the appointment of additional auxUiary fire-fighters. I think that Is good. We should be looking at the cost of providing Government services. If a service can be provided to the community by utilising auxiliary fire-fighters, I support that, and I think that the system ought to be encouraged. I remind honourable members that this legislation was InUiated by the Liberal Party. I am sure that if the former Minister in charge of fire services (Mr Hewitt) were here, he would be happy to see this legislation being passed tonight. Mr Borbidge: You did have substantial support from the National Party. Mr WHITE: The member for Surfers Paradise has reminded me that a majority of members of the National Party had enough foresight to recognise the fairness and equity of this legislation. They supported us In the joint parties room, and I recognise that fact. This legislation will result in a greater degree of fairness and equity, I know that the Minister, Mr Davles and the other members of the staff will do all they can to upgrade fire services In this State. Hon. M, J, TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Adminis­ trative Services) (9.47 p.m.). In reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this Important debate. A very important decision is being taken In the Parliament tonight. Mr Davis: You don't understand the Bill. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2211

Mr TENNI: I do not think that it is worth while replying to that interjection. I shall ignore it. The member for Everton made some good points. I appreciated some of his remarks. I point out to him that this is a Queensland initiative. All State Ministers now are considering standardising equipment and introducing co-operative purchasing procedures. That is an important move. As the honourable member knows, recently the Ministers In charge of fire services held a meeting in Brisbane and made some Important decisions. The existing sick leave provisions will be preserved upon transfer from board to board. They wUl not be lost, as they are at present. Mr MiUiner: That is accumulated sick leave? Mr TENNI: There wiU be accumulated sick leave. Mr MUliner: They won't lose it? Mr TENNI: No. At present that happens, but it will not happen In the future. The Opposition has acknowledged that the United Firefighters Union should have trustees on the superannuation board. Apparently it has taken notice of many other comments that have been made by that union. Has the Opposition also considered the views of the Australian Workers Union and the other unions involved in fire-fighting? The amount coUected by way of the fire levy will be only the amount that is required to fund the fire brigade's budget. Mr Prest: That has always been the case, Mr TENNI: I do not know whether at this stage of the game it is worth replying to the interjections from the member for Port Curtis, Statements have been made that the Government will be ripping off $90m and various other figures that have been pulled out of the air. In fact, the actual amount collected will be the amount that is required each year to run the fire services in this State—no less and no more. Each year, there will be a calculation to determine the levy that is required to be imposed on each property to achieve the approved budget. No surplus is envisaged. Mr Milliner: You are saying that about $60m Is going to be collected per year. Is that what you are saying? Mr TENNI: It depends on the budget requirements for that year. That was another point mentioned by the member for Everton, Any levies collected will be spent on fire services and nothing else. The member for Toowong made some relevant comments. At present levies are paid to insurance companies after they have contributed to the Fire Services CouncU. Therefore the insurance companies cannot invest the money as local authorities will be able to. Mr Vaughan: What has been happening up to date vrith the payments by insurance companies? Have they been paying the money into a fund? What Is the name of that fund? Mr TENNI: I do not know what the insurance companies are doing with their money. Mr Vaughan: No, I am talking about the fire levy that they have been collecting. Do they pay it In advance to a fund? Mr TENNI: Quite frankly, I do not know. Opposition Members interjected. Mr TENNI: The insurance companies have been performing a duty that they did not want to perform. I am informed that the money goes into a trust fund of the State Fire Services CouncU. I was very pleased to hear the comments made by the member for Toowong because at least he has thoroughly researched the Bill. The points he made had merit. 2212 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI

I do not know how I can address the comments of the member for Port Curtis. 'He has continually denigrated my advisers. He Is hell-bent on a misinformation campaign that has been orchestrated by his colleague. Alderman Harvey, for his own narrow political ends. The way he attacks my advisers, who cannot speak In this Chamber In counter­ attack. Is despicable. But knowing my advisers as I do, they are not the type of people to use those tactics. If the member for Port Curtis believes that he Is right In what he Is saying why does he not say the same thing outside this Chamber? If he has got any courage, that is what he would do. I know that he does not have the fortitude to do that. The member for Port Curtis said that what is happening to the people of Queensland Is nothing but a disaster. He Is a total disaster in this Chamber. He said that the people of Queensland are being ripped off. The statements that he makes are uncouth and completely uncaUed for. He constantly makes all sorts of Innuendoes. He said that Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper would run the show. They are not even mentioned in the BiU. Nowhere does it say that the Minister will delegate powers to Paltridge and Ripper. I have made no statement on how the management of the Fire Services CouncU wiU be affected. Mr Paltridge was appointed to his position by Cabinet following a study of top administrators in all States. Ripper was appointed to his position by the State Fire Services Council after applications were called by public advertisement. That just goes to show the sort of rubbish spoken by the member for Port Curtis. * The honourable member for Port Curtis made other statements. The combined union meeting consisted of the executive representatives of only three of the many unions that represent fire service employees. They were the only persons who showed up at the special meeting that was held last Monday, and they could not get any press coverage of the meeting. Does the honourable member for Port Curtis realise how many members of unions support this legislation? It appears that he does not. Many times a day, every day of the week, I receive calls at my office from unionists who support the Bill. Mr Prest: You are tellmg lies. Mr TENNI: I am not telUng lies; I am telling the truth. The honourable member Is listening to the communist element who are trying to keep aU the lurks and perks that they enjoy. The honourable member for Port Curtis continually referred to numbers of firemen by using only numbers of full-time firemen. Does he not have any respect for the dedication and efforts of auxiliary firemen, without whom Queensland could not afford effective fire protec­ tion? He has no respect for the auxiUary firemen in his electorate. What a shocking state of affairs! Yet the honourable member Is supposed to represent them. He Is not worth wasting time on. The honourable member for Port Curtis suggested that Rockhampton would pay more for Its brigade as It Is overmanned. There is no doubt that Rockhampton is well and truly overmanned. However, I did not make such a statement. Mr Prest: It Is In the press. Mr TENNI: The honourable member is very good at twisting the truth. I will tell the truth, and the honourable member can take It back to his people, provided he has the fortitude to do so. What I said was that Rockhampton should—not would—pay more for the brigades, as it is overmanned. The honourable member would not know what he is talking about. I have not said at any time that the Rockhampton rate-payers will pay that amount. The situation in Rockhampton has been supported by the member for Port Curtis and by the Leader of the Opposition. When one of the longest industrial disputes occurred In Rockhampton, the member for Port Curtis supported the men involved in the dispute. All of them were sacked. Later, when they came back to the board, after a full new gang was employed, they were put back on and the number of staff was doubled. Most of those men may no longer be there; those who are not have been replaced. Rockhampton Is totally overstaffed, and the rest of Queensland will have to subsidise the Rockhampton station. The honourable member for Port Curtis admitted that he does not insure his house. Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2213

Mr PREST: I rise to a point of order. That Is totaUy wrong. What I do is my business. On this occasion I will say that my house Is weU Insured with the SGIO. I ask the Minister to withdraw his statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Curtis has assured the Minister that his house is insured. I ask the Minister to withdraw the statement. Mr TENNI: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker, but tomorrow morning "Hansard"-wlU show that earlier tonight the member for Port Curtis agreed that his house was not Insured. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr PREST: I will not ask for an apology, Mr Speaker. I will merely say that I know the member and I know his tactics. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr TENNI: The main reason for the Introduction of the new funding system Is that it will force all free-loaders to pay their fair share, instead of requiring responsible persons to pay for the free-loaders' protection. That is only reasonable. Mr De Lacy: Are you going to make pensioners pay, too? Mr TENNI: Most pensioners do pay right now, because they have a responsibility to themselves and they insure their homes. I just do not know how I can convince these new members on the Opposition side. Most responsible people in Queensland and, for that matter, in Australia Insure their homes. I refer now to the comments made by the honourable member for Ithaca concerning the portabilhy of long-service leave. It Is to be provided that, as all fire brigade boards are part of the one urban fire service, employees should not be penaUsed when moving from one board to another. Therefore, portability will be provided to allow firemen to gain the benefits to which they are justly entitled. The member for Ithaca played a very important role in the debate on this Bill. He was fully aware of the situation. He was aware of the situation In Lismore. It Is interesting that the member for Port Curtis supports the employment by the Gladstone Fire Brigades Board of 25 permanent men plus auxiliaries. LIsmore, which has a population of 35 000, has two per­ manent men and 15 auxiliaries. That Is common throughout New South Wales. It Is a credit to that State. I know that that system could not work In some areas of Queensland. However, if auxUiary staff can operate fire stations In this State to save the people whom we represent, they will be employed. I thank the member for Toowoomba North for his excellent contribution to the debate. Having heard his speech, I believe that he must have served on a board or had a tremendous amount of experience with fire brigades. Since I became Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services, the member for Toowoomba North has constantly brought to my attention the problems experienced by the fire brigades in his electorate. Where possible, those problems have been attended to immediately. I assure the honourable member that, where finance wUl not permit a solution to some problems, they will be examined in the next Budget. I point out to the member for Kurilpa that the insurance council has provided a written guarantee that insurance companies will not take advantage of new funding systems to hide premium increases. A copy of the letter from that council is available if the honourable member wishes to obtain one through my office. As to the flat-rate levy—the value of a house Is not relevant unless the house is destroyed. It does not matter whether the house is worth $10,000, $30,000 or $100,000. If the house is burnt down, it is a loss to the person and it must be replaced. That Is a matter for the Insurance company. If a person has his house Insured for $30,000, he receives $30,000. If his house Is insured for $100,000, he receives $100,000. All owners receive the same service; therefore, they should pay the same levy. A Mini Moke wiU not be sent to a house because it is worth $10,000; a big Mack will not be sent to another house because it is valued at $100,000. Opposition members should use their common sense. If Opposition members had any brains, they would appreciate that the same costs are involved and that the same services are provided. Mr Borbidge: They want a wealth tax. 2214 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Mr TENNI: I know they do. They want all sorts of things. There is no doubt that they are a queer mob. I congratulate the member for Caboolture on making an excellent speech. When he was travelling to the north, he made time to examine the situation that exists at the Boyne smelter. He is a responsible member of my committee. Having travelled to that area, he decided to find out whether the member for Port Curtis had been telling the truth In this Chamber. This morning he reported to me on his findings on the Boyne smelter. I cannot describe the statements that the member for Port Curtis has made recently. However, they certainly have been misleading and totally incorrect. Following his visit, the member for Caboolture told me what I already knew. He went onto the site, which, unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to do because of my busy schedule. I will be going up there within the next month to look at it. Will I be making some statements in the press up there! I will be telling them that the statements by the member for Port Curtis have been totally wrong. It is a disgrace that he should carry on in that way, I thank the member for Caboolture for his comments, which confirmed the opinion that I held. I turn now to the comments of the member for Cairns. The reason for the new funding system is not to support the insurance industry. It is to ensure that all property- owners contribute, not just the responsible ones who have been carrying free-loaders such as the member for Port Curtis. The Insurance premium reduction applies throughout the State, not just in Brisbane. Mr PREST: I rise to a point of order. Those words are offensive. I ask him to withdraw the word "free-loader" Mr SPEAKER: Order! What words did the member find offensive? Mr PREST: Just "free-loader" will do. Mr SPEAKER: " Tree-loader' will do"? Is that what the member said? Mr PREST: Yes. The Minister said that I was a free-loader. I wish to have that withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to wUhdraw that. Mr TENNI: I will withdraw it if I said it. It Is so far back that I will have to check "Hansard" tomorrow. However, I withdraw It. The funding system for Queensland is not the same as that previously introduced In Tasmania, where the system is based on valuation. In any event, the levy there has nothing to do with the cost of fire services. That shows how much the member for Cairns knows and how Incorrectly he advises the people of his electorate. The member for Cairns criticised the cost of fire brigade boards. It represents approximately 0.5 per cent of the entire fire services budget. That is a very small amount to pay for administering a service in a State as large as Queensland, AU boards except six will have three local authority representatives out of a total of seven members. The Minister cannot nominate local authority representatives. He did not have that power In the past, where there were two local authority representatives. Now there are three, and they are nominated by the councils, not by the Minister. The Minister will resolve the composition of the other six boards after consultation with the local authorities. In other words, six boards in Queensland cover an area containing more than three councils. We will be dealing with those boards Individually, which is why that provision is In the BiU. Larger brigades have the capability of deploying greater numbers of firemen to any given fire. Therefore, there are higher rates of levy for larger brigades. That Is only natural. It Is the same for Brisbane. Levies on houses rented out by the Housing Commission are paid for by the State Government. The Government contributes 12i per cent of the total cost of fire services in this State, and that covers Housing Commission houses and blocks of land. That is contrary to the statement made in the House tonight by the member for Cairns I ask the honourable member to teU his Labor colleagues in Canberra to come up with something more than the lousy 0.8 per cent contribution that they make towards fire Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2215 services In this State for the protection of all Commonwealth buUdings and land in Queensland. That Is shocking. It Is disgraceful, as was admitted by Labor fire Ministers from other States at a conference held here two weeks ago. The Commonwealth should come up with more money, in Une wUh the contribution made by the State. I thank the member for Mirani for his excellent contribution. The member for Woodridge Mr D'Arcy: Don't forget the 20 firemen you gave me. Mr TENNI: Moves are under way to upgrade fire protection in the Logan area. This year the South Coast board will be allocated an additional 20 men and next year it will receive even more. A new fire station Is under construction at Waterford and I agree with the need for increased services to the Logan area. At least I have kept an eye on all parts of the State and I know which areas need assistance. I thank the member for Redcliffe and all other members for their contributions. I appreciate the fact that the former Minister, Mr Hewitt, played a major role in the introduction of the original legislation. I congratulate him for that. Finally, I record the valuable contribution by my officers to the development of this innovative legislation, which will provide the basis for greater accountability and efficiency in the State's fire services. I refer particularly to the Surveyor-General (Mr Davles), my adviser in fire services (Mr Paltridge) and my research officer (Mr Ripper). In recent months, Messrs Paltridge and Ripper have been the subject of continued and sustained personal attack, no doubt promoted by those who profit from some of the sweetheart deals in the Industry, which I am determined to end. The attacks have been unwarranted and quite unethical. I have been very impressed with the professionalism and dedication these officers have shown to the charter I determine for them. Queensland is indeed fortunate to have public officials of this calibre and U ill behoves the Opposition to be associated with attacks on public officials, who cannot respond. I trust the member for Port Curtis wUl take careful notice of what I have said and. In the future, display a more responsible attitude in his criticism of officials who are required to implement Government policy. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr Tenni's motion)—put; and the House divided— Ayes, 44 Ahern Harvey PoweU Austin Henderson Randell Bailey Hinze Row Bjelke-Petersen Innes Simpson Booth Jennings Stephan Borbidge Kaus Stoneman CahiU Lane Tenni Chapman Lester Turner Cooper Lickiss Wharton Elliott Lingard White FitzGerald Littleproud Gibbs, I. J. McKechnie Glasson Menzel Goleby Miller Tellers: Gunn Muntz McPhie Harper Newton Neal Noes, 22 Comben McLean Veivers D'Arcy Milliner Warburton De Lacy Prest Warner, A. M. Eaton Price Wright Gibbs R. J. Scott Goss Shaw Tellers: Kruger Smith Burns Mackenroth Vaughan Davis Resolved in the affirmative. 2216 28 March 1984 Fhe Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Row, Hinchinbrook) In the chair; Hon. M. J. Tenni (Barron River—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services) in charge of the BUI. Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9—Amendment of s. 6; Constitution of Boards— Mr PREST (10.22 p.m.): The clause reads— "Section 6 of the Principal Act Is amended by— (a) in subsection (2), omitting the words 'consist of seven members and' and substUuting the words 'consist of— (a) In the case of a Board of a district where there are more than three component Local Authorities, such number of members being not less than two, as the Minister from time to time determines; (b) In the case of any other Board, seven members, and';

•(3A) A Board referred to in subsection (2) (a) shall be constituted as follows:— (a) the Governor in CouncU shall, by notification published in the Gazette, appoint not less than two members; (b) the contributory companies shall elect such number of members (if any) as the Minister determines; (c) the group of component Local Authorities shall be represented by such number of members (If any) as the Minister determines each of whom shaU be a member of one of such component Local Authorities.'" I am concemed about the words "If any" that are used in relation to contributory companies and local authorities. This clause gives the Minister authority to appoint all the members of a board. I wish to know why those words "If any*' have been included in this clause. Mr TENNI: The honourable member Is reading Into this clause something that is not there. The amendment simply allows me to appoint members, if required. On only six fire brigade boards in Queensland are more than three local authorities represented. That is the reason for that provision. Quite frankly, I do not see any problems with it and I cannot see the problems that the member for Port Curtis has read into it. Mr De LACY: That Is still not completely clear to me. The final paragraph does take account of the point just raised by the Minister In a board district in which there are more than three local authorities. However, subparagraphs (a), (b) and

I said, there are only six such areas in Queensland and in four of those, four councils are represented on one board. The appointment of the extra council member eliminates the problem of unrepresented councils becoming bitter. The member for Mourilyan would appreciate this clause because that position applle; to the Tableland Fire Brigade Board in far-north Queensland. I have already had representations from the four councils in that area. This clause wUl allow me to overcome the problems that occur by appointing an extra councillor to the boards in those areas so that each council Is represented. I do not see any problem with the clause at all. Mr De LACY: I appreciate the points that the Minister has made about the areas in which there are more than three local authorities. But If three board members are to come from the local authorities, why was that provision not written Into the Bill? If it is as simple as the Minister claims, why does that provision not appear? Why do the words "if any" appear in the clause? That must mean that in certain circumstances no members of local authorities will be appointed. I also asked the Minister what will happen in the Cairns area in which there are two local authorities. The clause provides that members are to be nominated from the local authorities. Can the Minister tell me which council will nominate two and which one will nominate one? Will the councils nominate their members or will the Minister select them? Mr TENNI: In the case of the Cairns brigade area, in which both the Mulgrave Shire CouncU and the Calms City Council are located, three representatives will be appointed. I will not tell either council whom it will appoint. That matter will have to be arranged between them. It is a matter of council decision, not mine. I believe that the matter has already been sorted out. In the past the Government has not told councils how to sort out their problems with regard to representation on fire boards, and I am not about to start. Mr PREST: The Minister said that if he sees that one councU has been offended he will appoint another representative from that council to satisfy It. I can see the way in which he will use this provision. He will use the numbers to ensure that boards are stacked in his favour. I would like to see the Bill provide that each local authority within an area has a certain number of members and that each local authority can vote to have representatives of its choice on the board. Such a provision should be spelled out. I do not believe that "if any" should be included in the clause. Mr TENNI: The constitution of boards in areas in which there are three or fewer local authorities is already provided for in the Fire Brigades Act, and It is not altered by this clause. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Causes 10 to 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13—^New s. 11 A; Service with a Board deemed continuous with prior service with another Board in certain cases— Mr PREST (10.33 p.m.): This clause provides that board members wlH be entUled to long service leave. Opposition members are pleased to note the Inclusion of that provision. Mr Tenni: You said that board members will get long service leave. That is not in the BUI. Mr PREST: If I said that, I am sorry. What I meant was that employees of the board—^the firemen—will be entitled to long service leave when they transfer from one board to another. Members of the Opposition are totally in agreement with that provision However, It was sickening to hear an honourable member say that he did not beUeve that the State of Queensland should have to pay for long service leave to such employees He disagreed with the provision. Yet that same member, like many other members, has more than one job and he is in this Chamber to get every cent that he can. However when legislation to benefit the workers of Queensland is being introduced, he claims that the State cannot cop that sort of provision. On this occasion, I commend the Minister for introducing this provision. 2218 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22—Amendment of s. 19; Constitution of State Fire Services Council- Mr PREST (10.34 p.m.): This clause relates to the constitution of the State Fire Services Council, which Is the best thing that this State has at the present time. The taking of power from the council will not be of any benefit whatever. That will put the State of Queensland out of the frying-pan into the fire—and It is a pretty big fire, too! Government members have claimed that the Opposition is against quangos and that this Bill eliminates one. I do not believe that it eliminates one at all. Although the power has been taken away from the quango, the number of people employed in that quango will be increased from eight to nine. If that is doing away with quangos, it is a very odd way of doing it. Pending a State-wide investigation, the State Fire Services Council should be allowed to retain its power and authority. We have heard about the wonderful brigade in Lismore, which Is in a Labor-controlled State. If such a wonderful thing can be done in that State, someone should be brought from New South Wales to conduct an Investigation In Queensland. However, I believe that there would be In Queensland persons with sufficient knowledge, qualifications and ability to carry out a full investigation into the administration and operation of State fire services.

Mr TENNI: One would wonder who is the shadow Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. I will endeavour to answer the honourable member. One minute he pats the Government on the back; the next he tells honourable members that the Govern­ ment Is wrong and that the Minister should take control. The States Fire Services (Council has been in existence for a long time. I, not the State Fire Services Council, made a decision. Many other provisions in the Bill are the result of decisions that I have made. Those decisions will benefit the firemen. The honourable member for Port Curtis and other Opposition members know that. I do not know how the honourable member can expect me to agree wUh his comments, particularly his suggestion of attracting officers from New South Wales. Some of my officers went to New South Wales so that they could advise me on what should be done in Queensland. I have told the member before—I will tell him again—that the people of Queensland will receive the best possible fire services at the lowest possible cost. Tliat will be done, because I will have control under the Act. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27—^New s. 24A; Chain of command— Mr PREST (10.38 p.m.): The proposed section 24A states— "Chain of command. The Minister shall determine the chain of command and order of seniority of officers and fireman (including chief officers, deputy chief officers, auxiliary fireman and cadet fireman) that applies during fire-fighting operations and such determination Is binding on the person to whom it relates. Different chains of command and orders of seniority may be determined to apply according to the nature of the fires to be extinguished or controlled." I would Uke to know what Is meant by "chain of command". I would like the Minister to tell me how seniority will apply. The Bill states that a different chain of command will apply according to the nature of the fire. I suppose that one officer wiU be in charge If for instance, there is an oil fire and another officer will be in charge If there is an ordinary house fire. WIU a meeting be held on the she, or how will it be determined who is in charoe of the fire? It Is something like "Dad's Army" ^

Mr TENNI: I suggest that the honourable member tell the fire services unions that he does not agree with this clause. The unions have been asking for this for a long time. It imple­ ments one of their policies. At the request of the firemen and the unions, a handbook will be issued. They are the people who have asked for this clause. Mr Prest: What does It mean? Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2219

Mr TENNI: It will enable the Minister to ensure that full-time personnel fighting a fire in an auxiliary area do not come under control of auxiliaries. That is something that has been requested by the men and by the unions. I am sorry to disappoint the honourable member. I would have hoped that he would at least support the unions that he usually supports. Mr De LACY: If that is what the Minister meant, why was it not included in the Bill? That is certainly not stated in the Bill. It is not obvious from the Bill. Neither is the point that I raised about the composition of boards. If the constitution is to be three from local authorities, two representing insurance companies and two appointed by the Minister, why was that not written in? It is in such vague terms. Mr Austin: Your problem is that the BUI is written in English. Mr De LACY: If the Minister for Health can read into that what the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services has said, he has a different interpre­ tation of English from mine. Mr TENNI: It cannot all be put in the Bill. It is the interpretation of the Bill that one is concerned about. I will excuse the honourable member for Cairns. He is fairly new in the Parliament. After another three or four years, he will be able to interpret Bills. I ask him to sleep on the Bill. He will probably understand it by morning. If he does not, he may call me and I will explain it to him. Clause 27, as read, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34—Repeal of and new s. 30; Annual report by Minister— Mr PREST (10.41 p.m.): This is a provision that we see in all Acts. It says— "The Minister shall as soon as a practicable, but not more than three months after the end of each financial year, cause a report on his operations throughout the year to be prepared." That Is a general provision in all Acts. However, yesterday the report of the State Fire Services Council for the year ended 30 June last year was presented in the Parliament. That was much beyond the three months. Under the new arrangements, will that provision be enforced, or will it be another instance of people being allowed to lope along so that the report is tabled just before a Bill is introduced into the Parliament? Mr TENNI: The member is deliberately stirring. The Bill Is very precise. The provision in the Bill will be adhered to. Clause 34, as read, agreed to. Clauses 35 to 41, as read, agreed to. Clause 42—Amendment of s. 34C; Local Authorities to collect annual contributions by owners of prescribed properties— Mr PREST (10.43 p.m.): The clause says— "The Minister may also take any action that a Local Authority may take (including the selling of land) to recover unpaid rates and for those purposes the amount outstanding shall be deemed to be rates outstanding to the Minister for 3 years or longer and the Minister shall be deemed under that Act to be a Local Authority and the Chairman or Mayor of a Local Authority and any document under his hand shall be deemed to be under the common seal of a Local Authority." The Government says that It Is only a minimal amount of money to be collected. If the Opposition's information Is correct, the total amount of fire service levy over three years will be $150. Is the Government going to sell people up because they are in arrears to that extent? Mrs Chapman: We are doing that now. Mr PREST: The Opposition does not want that sort of thing to happen. It would be totaUy different if it were property owned by the council. Some councils are a Uttle more sympathetic. They do not put the screws on Immediately after three years. They make some arrangements. What arrangements wUl be made under this clause? I do not believe that the Minister should be given the power to seU land after three years. 2220 28 March 1984 Fire Brigades Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Mr TENNI: This Is purely a consequential rewording of the legislation passed by the Parliament last year.

Mr De LACY: Can the Minister confirm that local authorities in classification A will be collecting $50 from each house-holder and $16 from the owners of vacant lots? Mr TENNI: The member for Cairns cannot confirm that; neither can I. We still do not have the number of properties from aU local authorities. When we receive those figures, we will be able to calculate the levies. I assure honourable members that the Pariiament will be one of the first to know what the levies are. I do not intend to guess, as has happened on the other side of the Chamber tonight. Mr PREST: This Chamber was told 12 months ago that the industry levy would be introduced and debated. At present the debate is about a levy only on property belonging to house-holders. What will happen to the levy on industry and will Industry be scrid to recover unpaid levies?

Mr TENNI: The honourable member is again trying to mislead the ParUament. He knows as well as I do that the legislation passed by the Parliament last year prescribed that the Act will apply as from 1 July 1984, when the levy will apply to house-holders, blocks of up to four flats and blocks of land. The Act makes it quite clear that the levy on industrial areas and home units will come into effect on 1 July 1985. I should not have to stand here and tell the honourable member for Port Curtis that. As a member of Parliament he should be able to check on an Act that was passed in this place last year. Clause 42, as read, agreed to. Clause 43—^New s. 34D; Contributions collected by local authorities not revenue for certain purposes— Mr PREST (10.47 p.m.): The clause states in part— "34D. Contributions collected by local authorities not revenue for certain purposes. Where under any award made pursuant to the 'Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1983' the classification or grading of or the salary or allowances payable to any employee of a Local Authority is determined according to the revenue received by the Local Authority, then, notwithstanding the provisions of the award, for the purposes of that determination, the revenue received by a Local Authority In respect of any particular period " The Bill tries to take power from the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act in stating that conditions In an award cannot be enforced. I agree that local authorities must not use the money that they collect on behalf of the Government. I am quite sure that an Act prescribes that a shire clerk or town clerk is responsible for the safe keeping and registering of all moneys coUected as revenue by a local authority. If the Government intends to implement this provision in the clause, I am sure that it will have to amend the Local Government Act and the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. 1 do not believe that the provision of the clause can be enforced. I earnestly believe that shire clerks and town clerks should not be able to claim that all the money collected on behalf of the Govemment Is part of the revenue of a locaf authority and therefore part of the basis upon which their salaries are calculated. Shire clerks and town clerks are covered by a Federal award and problems could arise.

Mr TENNI: To be able to dream up all these things, the honourbale member for Port Curtis must have nightmares. I cannot understand why a person who carries the responsibilities of the honourable member would ask such slUy questions. Every statement he has made has been completely Incorrect, false and misleading. The Bill defines what is to be regarded as revenue for the purpose of salary calculations. I will try to explain U to the honourable member. The salaries of shire clerks are calculated as a percentage of the revenue of the local authority. The Government believes—and 1 am sure the honourable member should beUeve—^that people who pay a fire brigade levy should not have to pay extra salary to shire clerks. The Government Is paying the councU only the collection fee which, for each property, is approximately $1. That will be part of Brisbane and Area Water Board Act Amendment BUI 28 March 1984 2221

the income of a local authority and therefore be part of the basis for the calculation of its shire clerk's salary. I do not know what else the honourable member is getting at. That is the best way that I can explain it. Mr PREST: The Opposition wants to know where the power lies to override the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Local Government Act or a Federal award. Mr TEiF^NI: I should tell the honourable member that I am a Minister of the Crown. I rely on the Solicitor-General's Office for advice. The opinion of the SolicitiM'-General b that no other Act will have to be changed. If the honourable member believes that he has more ability than the professional men in the Solicitor-General's Office, he Is a better man than most of the men in Queensland. Mr De Lacy: The simple question is, "Are these people covered by a State award or a Federal award?" Mr TENNI: I suggest that tomorrow the honourable member should ask that question of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racmg. So far as I know they are covered by a State award, but I am not 100 per cent sure. All I know Is that the opinion of the Solicitor-General is that no other Act has to be changed. Clause 43, as read, agreed to. Clauses 44 to 64, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Tenni, by leave, read a third time.

BRISBANE AND AREA WATER BOARD ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a BIU to amend the Brisbane and Area Water Board Act 1979-1983 In certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Hinze, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing) (10.54 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." This BIU seeks to amend the Brisbane and Area Water Board Act which provides for the planning, further development, administration and operational control of bulk supply of water to local authorities In Brisbane and surrounding areas by the Brisbane and Area Water Board which Is constituted by the Act for that purpose. Honourable members will be aware that construction of the Wivenhoe Dam which has been going on for some time is now nearing completicm. Suitable arrangements will accordingly have to be made for the operation of the dam, both from the point of view of the supply of water to the city of Brisbane and surrounding areas and for flood-mitigation purposes. The Brisbane and Area Water Board Act envisages that, upon completimi, the Wivenhoe Dam will be placed under the control of the Brisbane and Area Water Board, and that the board will also assume control of the Somerset and North Pine Dams, which are an integral part of the water supply sj^tem In the board's operational area. The Act contains machinery provisions setting out the procedures to be followed where the board proposes to assume from a local authority the control of any headworks within Its operational area. One requirement is that the board must serve notice upon the local authority concerned of its Intention to assume control of the local authority's headworks. Thereupon the board and the local authority have to agree, if possible, as to the headworks to be taken over and the property, liabilities and obligations of the local authority that are to be acquired or assumed by the board. 2222 28 March 1984 Brisbane and Area Water Board Act Amendment Bill

The Act provides that, where agreement cannot be reached by the board and a local authority in regard to these matters, either party may refer the matter to the Minister. Upon the making of such a reference, the Minister may cause an investigation to be made into the matters referred to him and after doing so he will report thereon to the Governor in CouncU, who will settle the dispute. Advice has been tendered that these provisions could be Interpreted as requiring the conduct of some type of formal investigation by the Minister at which the parties could seek to make formal submissions. The Government considers that the Minister should not be required to make a formal type of investigation Into these matters and that he should be in a position to make a recommendation to the Governor In Council after making such inquiries In the matter as he deems necessary in the circumstances. The Bill provides accordingly. Similar provisions are Included in the Local Government Act for the settlement of disputes between local authorities on water supply and sewerage matters. Advice has also been furnished to the effect that the existing provisions of the Act are inadequate to enable the settlement of disputes between the board and a local authority within a reasonable time. I have been advised that, under the existing provisions of the Act, a local authority could prolong negotiations by raising fresh matters of dispute each time a previous matter is resolved. To meet this situation, the Bill provides that, where a dispute is referred to the Minister, he may determine to make Inquiries into all or any matters associated v/ith the matter In dispute that are not subject to agreement between the parties. Where the Minister decides to make inquiries In this manner he will be required to notify that fact to the board or local authority concerned, and the determination will specify a date after which the reference will be enlarged to Include all those matters into which the Minister has determined to inquire. New provisions are proposed to be Inserted In the Act to authorise the Governor in Council to make Orders in Council for the purpose of determining matters in dispute that have been referred to the Minister. Such an Order in Council will specify a date on and from which the determination of the Governor in Council will become operative and the determination will be binding on the parties involved. A provision Is inserted in the BIU to the effect that the new provisions that I have just outlined will have application so that they can be used to settle disputes that have arisen prior to the commencement of the amending legislation as well as the disputes that arise In the future. The principal Act provides that, for the purpose of protecting the quaUty of water stored or to be stored in a reservoir of which the board has assumed control or which It has constructed. Is constructing or proposes to construct, the Governor In Council may make regulations controlling the subdivision and management of land use within the reservoir catchment area and the erection and use of buildings on such land. It wUl be noted that the power to make regulations of this type applies only In respect of dams that have been taken over by the board or which it has constructed, is constructing or proposes to construct. There would therefore be no power under the present provisions for the Governor in Council to make regulations at this time relating to land-use control In the catchment of Wivenhoe Dam since that dam is being built by another party and has not been passed over to the board. It is considered that the power of the Governor in Council should not be circumscribed in this manner and, accordingly, the Bill provides that the Governor in Council has power to make regulations relating to land-use controls in dam catchment areas prior to the assumption of control of the dam by the board. The Act presently provides that a manual of operational procedures for flood mitigation may be prepared In relation to each dam that is under the control of the board. Technical advice is to the effect that it is desirable In certain cases for a combined manual of operation to be prepared for two or more dams. For example, since the waters from Somerset Dam flow Into the Wivenhoe Dam, I am advised that a combined manual should be prepared for these two dams. The Bill accordingly provides for the preparation of combined flood manuals where this Is desirable. Building Act Amendment BiU 28 March 1984 2223

The present legislation provides that, where the board assumes control of a dam, it may enter Into arrangements with a local authority for the local authority to operate the dam on the board's behalf. It is envisaged that, upon the board's assuming control of Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams, It will arrange with the Brisbane City Council for the councU to operate such dams. Since these dams are located outside the city of Brisbane, the Act clarifies that a local authority has power to operate headworks on behalf of. the board notwithstanding that such headworks are situated outside the local authority's area. A further provision contained in the BUI clarifies that fees and expenses payable to members of the Brisbane and Area Water Board for attendance at meetings and for making authorised inspections will be as determined from time to time by the Governor in Council. The Act provides that these fees and expenses shall be as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in CouncU. In practice, the fees and expenses payable to members of boards of this type are determined by Cabinet and it Is considered desirable that the Governor In Council has power to fix such fees from time to time without the necessity lor drafting amending regulations. The final provision to which I wish to refer concerns section 131 of the Act. It provides that, in addition to the board, a headworks operator, that is, an authority engaged by the board to operate a dam on Its behalf, is not liable for flooding or for the escape of water from headworks or trunk mains under the board's control except in the case of negligence. Recent legal advice received indicates that the law In relation to liabiUty in circumstances in which danger is created by the escape of some wild thing from land Is that the occupier of that land Is liable, whether or not he was negligent in respect of the matter In question. When the Brisbane and Area Water Board takes over the control of any dam, it wUl be the occupier of land on which that dam Is located and. In accordance with the law relating to liability as referred to above, it would, in the absence of some statutory limitation, be liable if the escape of water from that dam caused damage, whether or not the board was shown to be negligent in the operation.of the dam. For that reason section 131 was included in the original Brisbane and Area Water Board Act to Umit the liability of the board to circumstances in which it was negligent in Its operations. Since there could be occupiers other than a headworks operator on lands under the control of the board, the reference in the section to a headworks operator is to be omitted and a reference to occupiers substituted. This will place occupiers in a similar position to the board itself. That is, they will not be liable for damages unless they act negligently. The provisions contained in the Bill are generally of an administrative nature and are designed to enable the Brisbane and Area Water Board to more effectively carry out its charter. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Shaw, adjourned.

BUILDING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. J. HINZE' (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Building Act 1975-1981 in certain particulars and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Hinze, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (11.4 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." 2224 28 March 1984 Building Act Amendment BIU

This Bill provides Tor a number of Important amendments to the BuUding Act which, as honourable members will be aware, govems the carrying out of building work throughout the State. The Act incorporates Standard Building By-laws that contain detailed technical requirements for the erection of all types of buildings. Honourable members will appreciate that a certain amount of controversy has arisen in recent times over the demolition of buildings and the obtaining of local authority approval for such demolitions. When that was examined. It was discovered that there is a variation of approach between the Building Act and the Standard Building By-laws in relation to the terminology used when referring to building work and associated activities, the Act itself refers almost exclusively to the erection of buildings, while the Standard Building By-laws, in the same context, refer to the carrying out of building work. The definUion of the term "erect" contained in the Act and the by-laws does not include the demoUtion of a buUding, whereas the definition of the term "building work" contained In the Standard Building By-laws includes demolition. The Standard Building By-laws provide that the approval of the local authority must be obtained before building work may be carried out, but the Act speaks of approval by a local authority being required before a building may be erected. There Is a need to clarify that the demolition of a building requires prior local authority approval and it has been decided, therefore, to omit from the Act references to the erection of buildings and substitute references to the carrying out of buUding work. This term Is to be defined In the Act in a similar manner to the definition contamed In the Standard BuUding By-laws, thus clarifying that the demoUtion of any building or other structure will be subject to local authority approval. Rights of objection and appeal are available under the Act to a person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a local authority on an application for the carrying out of building work. Including the demolition of a buUding or other structure. Section 12A of the principal Act provides for the constitution of a by-laws variation subcommittee, whose function Is to determine applications by developers for variations of the Standard Building By-laws In relation to the carrying out of building work. From time to time during the planning for or construction of a building, situations arise in which It may be feasible to design or construct the building in a manner that does not conform exactly to the requirements of the Standard Building By-laws but would nevertheless result In the erection of a sound and safe building at a lower cost. To meet this situation, the Act provides that an applicant for building approval may apply for a variation of the by-laws and such applications are considered by the by-laws variation subcommittee to see whether the modifications should be approved. A considerable number of applications for variations already have been lodged with the subcommittee and these are being dealt with expeditiously. Under the Act, one of the members of the subcommittee Is a representative of local authorities nominated by the Local Government Association of Queensland. This member is a member of a local authority that is located a considerable distance from Brisbane and because of other commitments It may not always be possible for him to attend meetings of the subcommittee. To cover this eventuality, provision Is made in the Bill whereby the Local Govemment Association may nominate a person as a delegate member who will be able to deputise for the permanent member of the subcommittee where he is unable to be present at a meeting. Under the Act as presently drafted, an application for a variation of the Standard Building By-laws In relation to a building must be made prior to the commencement of constmctlon of that building. Honourable members will reaUse that, during the course of construction of a major building, matters can and do arise where it may be desirable to carry out building work which may not strictly conform to the requirements of the Standard Building By-laws. Cases can also arise where, after a building has been erected It Is discovered that some of the building work does not fully comply with the requirements of the by-laws In some respects that do not adversely affect the structural stability of the buUding or the health and safety of the occupants. To cover these cases. It is proposed to Include In the Bill a provision that wUl authorise a builder to make appUcation to the by-laws variation subcommittee for a variation of the Standard Building By-laws during the course of erection of a building Building Act Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2225

or after a building has been completed. AU applications of this type wUl be thoroughly scrutinised by the subcommittee and approval for the variation of the by-laws wlU only be granted where the committee Is satisfied that the variation. If granted, will not adversely affect the structural stability of the building or the health or safety of the occupants. The BiU also clarifies that the Crown is authorised to make an application to the by-laws variation subcommittee for a variation of the by-laws in relation to the carrying out of Crown building work. The Crown is, of course, required to observe the requirements of the Act and the Standard Building By-laws when carrying out building work, but is not bound to apply for local authority approval. I might point out that there is a right of appeal to the Building Advisory Committee constituted under the Act against decisions of the by-laws variations subcommittee, so that an applicant for variation has a right of appeal if he Is dissatisfied with the subcommittee's decision on his application. A new provision is proposed to be inserted In the Building Act that wlU authorise a local authority to make a by-law under the Local Government Act prescribing requirements that wiU have to be observed by a person who proposes to erect in a local authority area a building or structure that was previously erected on other land, that Is, a second-hand building. The Local Government Association recently stressed to me the need for controls to be effected In regard to this matter. The BiU provides that a by-law made by a local authority in these circumstances will specify requirements for the purpose of ensuring that a second-hand building or structure, when re-erected, will be of such a standard as will not In the opinion of the local authority adversely affect the amenity or likely amenity of the neighbourhood and that the aesthetics of the second-hand buUding or structure wUl be In keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. If a person who desires to erect a second-hand building or structure Is dissatisfied with the local authority's decision to refuse the application on the ground that It wiU adversely affect the amenity of the area or will not be in keeping with the character of the neighbour­ hood, he will have a right of appeal to the Local Government Court. There are a number of circumstances set out In the BuUding Act where an applicant for local authority approval to carry out buUding work may object to a referee against the decision of the local authority on his application. Objection rights are also provided in respect of certain notices issued by a local authority, for example, a notice to demolish a buUding, or to carry out building work so as to make a building conform to the requirements of the Standard Building By-laws. In addition, the Act provides that an applicant who or local authority that Is dissatisfied with the determination of a referee may appeal to the Building Advisory Committee against such determination. Objections and appeals have to be lodged within 30 days from the date of the local authority's decision on the building application or 30 days from the date of the referee's determination, as the case may be. Experience has shown that, in a number of Instances, objections and appeals are lodged well outside the prescribed time. Legal advice received by the Director of Local Government is to the effect that. In such cases, there is no altern­ ative but to organise a hearing merely for the adjudicating authority to decide that It has no jurisdiction since the objection or appeal was lodged out of time. To avoid this inconvenience and expense, the Bill provides that, where the secretary to the BuUding Advisory Committee, with whom objections and appeals have to be lodged, is of the opinion that an objection or appeal Is out of time, he will have to notify the Director of Local Government accordingly. If the Director of Local Government Is satisfied that the objection or appeal Is out of time, he will be empowered to direct that no further action be taken in respect of the objection or appeal and that the parties be advised accordingly. Section 16 of the Building Act prescribes qualifications that must be possessed by a person before he may be appointed a referee to hear and determine objections under the Act. In practice, referees are appointed from technical staff of the Department of Local Government, the Department of Works and the Queensland Housing Commission who have special knowl­ edge of the Building Act and the Standard Building By-laws. One qualification Is the holding of a certificate as professional engineer in the Division of Civil Engineering under the Professional Engineers Act. In certain instances, it may be preferable to appoint as referee a professional engineer with qualifications other than In civil 2226 28 March 1984 Building Act Amendment Bill engineering. For example, the objection may relate to mechanical engineering matters or structural engineering matters, in which case it would be appropriate to appoint a registered professional engineer with expertise in mechanical or structural engineering. To provide for these circumstances, the Bill omits the requirement for a referee to hold a qualification in the Division of Civil Engineering so that each case can be considered on its merits and an appropriate appointment made.

Honourable members will be aware that I recently made public the Government's intention to legislate in order to deal with difficulties which some buUding applicants are experiencing with local authorities in having building applications considered and decided within a reasonable time. Representations have been made to me that, in the case of some larger developments, there have been unreasonable delays in having building applications approved by local authorities and that such delays are occasioned, not by the technical review of the application to ensure compliance with the Standard Building By-laws, but by matters not associated with buUding control which should not be taken Into consideration as part of that review.

I should mention that most local authorities are acting responsibly in the matter, but the Government feels that there is a need for a mechanism to be established that can invest­ igate complaints of undue delays in securing building approval. To this end, the Bill provides for the establishment of a building industry complaints tribunal, whose task It will be to investigate complaints of delays by local authorities in the decision of applications for building approval. The tribunal is to consist of four members appointed by the Governor In Council, of whom one will be a representative of local authorities nominated by the executive com­ mittee of the Local Government Association, one will be a representative of the Queensland Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects nominated by that chapter, and two will be nominated by the Minister. The Bill contains the normal procedural provisions relating to the constitution of a tribunal of this nature, the term of appointment of members, the filUng of casual vacancies, the appointment of staff, proceedings at meetings of the tribunal and like matters. The functions of the tribunal will be to consider and decide objections by applicants for building approval against the failure of the local authorities concerned to decide the applications within the prescribed time, which is 40 days from the receipt of the application by the local authority or such further time as the Minister may allow.

In terms of the Bill, an applicant for building approval will be entitled to lodge an objection with the tribunal at any time after the expiration of the period prescribed for the decision of the application by the local authority. An objection wiU have to be made on the prescribed form, be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and be lodged with the secretary to the Building Advisory Committee. As soon as practicable after the receipt of an objection, the secretary will notify the clerk of the local authority concerned of the receipt of the objection and require the clerk to furnish to him within a period of 14 days all relevant documentation relating to the application in question, together with a statement setting out in detail the reasons why the local authority has faUed to decide the appUcation within the prescribed time. Upon receipt of this documentation and Information, the secretary will refer the material and the objection to the chairman of the Building Advisory Committee, who wUl be required to furnish as soon as practicable a report in writing on the objection and the information supplied by the local authority. All of this material will then be referred to the tribunal, which will consider the matter and decide what action should be taken.

Where it considers that there has been unjustifiable delay by the local authority in deciding a building application, the tribunal will have power to direct the local authority to decide the application within a specified time or such further time as it may from time to time allow. A local authority to which a direction is addressed by the tribunal will be obliged to comply with the requirements of the direction. Honourable members will observe that the Bill does not take away from local authorities their power to decide applications for building approval. The tribunal wiU merely have power to investigate complaints of delays in the decision of building applications and, in the case of unreasonable delay, to direct the local authority to decide the application within a time it will allow. BuUding Act Amendment Bill 28 March 1984 2227

The Government feels that the establishment of the tribunal should help to resolve problems where developers claim they are being delayed In starting building work because of delays by a local authority in granting building approval. The Government's view is that, where land is appropriately zoned for development and a developer makes application to a local authority for building approval and pays the prescribed fee, he is entitled to a decision on his application within a reasonable time so that he can commence his project. I think all honourable members will agree that the overcoming of undue delays will aid in securing development, reduce building costs and create employment. The Building Act presently provides that a local authority may, by resolution, delegate to the chairman, a standing committee of the local authority or an officer certain of its functions, authorities and powers under the Act To facilitate the administration of the Act, it is proposed to widen this power by providing that a local authority may, by resolution, delegate all or any of its functions under the Act except where the Act provides that that function must be exercised by the council by resolution, where delegation Is specifically prohibited by the Act or where the power relates to the issue of a notice requiring the demolition of a building or other structure. This will assist in speeding up the processing of buUding applications generaUy and associated matters. The Act In its present form contains a number of provisions where a specific penalty is provided for a breach of the particular provision, but there are other areas in which no penalty Is provided. To overcome this position, it is proposed that a general penalty provision be inserted in the Act to cover offences where no specific penalty is prescribed. The general penalty wiU be a maximum of $500 and a maximum daily penalty of $50, which are similar to the general penalties prescribed by the Local Government Act. This completes my summary of the principal provisions of the BiU, but at this stage I foreshadow an amendment that I propose to move to clause 7 of the Bill at the Committee stage. This clause authorises a local authority to make a by-law under the Local Government Act prescribing requirements that will have to be observed by a person who proposes to erect in a local authority area a building or structure that was previously erected on other land, that Is, a second-hand building. The intention is that a by-law made by a local authority in these circumstances will specify requirements for the purpose of ensuring that the buUding or structure when re-erected will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood and that the aesthetics of the building or structure wiU be In keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. Following representations made to the Government, it has been decided to widen this clause to authorise a local authority to make a by-law prescribing requirements of this type in respect of any Class I or Class X building within the meaning of the Standard Building By-laws, that Is, dwelling-houses and outbuildings. The extended provisions of the Bill will enable each local authority to make a by-law fixing standards for the erection of dweUing- houses and outbuildings to ensure that they are in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. There have been certain cases where buildings have been re-erected in high-class areas and detract from the appearance of surrounding buildings. The clause is designed to enable local authorities to prevent this type of occurrence. Any by-law made by a local authority would, of course, have to be advertised for objections, so interested persons will have a right to object to the standards fixed by a local authority. Any proposed by-law and objections thereto will receive full consideration before a final decision Is made by the Governor In Council. I think all honourable members will support the foreshadowed amendment. I am confident that the amendments which I have outlined will assist in the processing of building proposals throughout the State. At the same time, I can assure honourable members that the measures proposed to be introduced will In no way detract from the powers of local authorities to properly control the carrying out of building work within their areas. I commend the BiU to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Shaw, adjourned. The House adjourned at 11.22 p.m.