Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 1985

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

3746 6 March 1985 Ministerial Statement

WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 1985

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

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under the Traffic Acts Amendment Act 1984 Regulations under the Traffic Act 1949-1984.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Draft Bill of Rights Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.1 a.m.), by leave: Prior to the last Federal election I drew to the attention of all Australians the horrific and revolutionary proposals contained in the Federal Govemment's draft Bill of Rights. At the time I was criticised by the Federal Govemment, and particularly by the then Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), as being irresponsible in my actions and motives. Reports from Canberta over the last few days indicate that my actions at the time in releasing the draft Bill of Rights were correct and very much in the public interest. The facts speak for themselves. Senator Evans has been dumped. The public and the media generally have decried the proposed legislation and, according to the Deputy Prime Minister and newly appointed Attomey-General (Mr Bowen) the Bill of Rights will not be proceeded with. Every Australian should make a point of reading the recently released draft Bill of Rights. I am sure that he will agree with the waming that I gave prior to the Federal election. He will discover why the Federal Labor Govemment wanted to keep the contents of the Bill secret in the lead-up to the poll. The implications of the draft Bill of Rights are frightening. The proposals would completely break down Australia's federal system. The States would no longer exist in their present form and the common law, which protects every Australian citizen, would be swept aside. People would be at the mercy of human rights commissioners invested with greater powers of investigation and prosecution than is presently held by police. Opposition Members interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I know that Opposition members support me. Mr Burns: Wouldn't it be good to have human rights in Queensland? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is exactly what Queenslanders have. Oppo­ sition members ought to be thankful for that. High Court judgments become ineffective in certain circumstances, and the mles could be changed as things go along by adding anything "deemed desirable" at a later date. This legislation is sinister in its intent and content. For instance, in line with the communist bloc deletion from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the draft Bill of Rights does not give the individual an inalienable right to property. Everyone who owns property could face losing that property, which is another Labor step towards a totalitarian economy. The draft Bill of Rights rejects the Christian ethic on which our society is based. The Bill consolidates the new morality so loved by Labor's pressure groups. Marriage would no longer be a commitment made in the sight of God between a man and a Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1985 3747 woman. According to the proposal, marriage will be for every person of marriageable age, without any mention of partnership between men and women. Non-heterosexual unions would have equality in law with traditional marriage, together with rights to adopt children and rear families. The draft Bill of Rights is a rehash of an unsuccessful attempt to introduce legislation in 1974 which brought the following reactions from prominent Australians. It will be recalled that Sir Robert Menzies said, "I am sure that most lawyers would recognise that to live in a common law country is in itself the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual." Mr Justice Gibbs of the High Court agreed when he said, "If society is tolerant and rational it does not need the BiU of Rights. If it is not, no BiU of Rights will preserve it." Professor Lumb, Professor of Law at the Queensland University has wamed that this type of legislation would cause, "a massive intmsion into the areas of traditional State responsibility, including the common law." As I wamed in the lead-up to the Federal election, the draft Bill of Rights erodes individual liberty, even though it pretends otherwise. The traditional role of the law would be taken over by non-judicial bodies with judicial powers. The Queensland Law Society has wamed of "powers inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Law itself" Normal legal safeguards would disappear with the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, which would add its powers to the Sex Discrimination Commission and the Racial Discrimination Commission already established. A new breed of commissars, called commissioners, would emerge under this proposed legislation. The Commonwealth becomes absolutely supreme over the States. Section 15 of the draft Bill of Rights can negate any State law after three months. If the Human Rights Commission merely thinks that a person's rights or freedoms might be infringed, that is enough to quash State action, and even a State's intended legislation can be blocked on such grounds. A Federal court will have unquestionable power to take over any case in a State court touching in any way on the Bill's intentions, and any further proceedings will be as directed by the Federal court. I have wamed of the pitfalls and restrictions to personal liberty contained in this BUI since it first came to my notice, and very good reasons exist for any Govemment to distance itself from such legislation. This Bill deserves to be lost forever in the trash- can of history.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced receipt of the following petitions— Trading Hours, Gold Coast From Mr I. J. Gibbs (429 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will not legislate in respect of 24-hour per day trading for the Gold Coast. [Similar petitions were received from Mr Warburton (474 and 388 signatories).] Petitions received.

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

1. Dam Site on Balonne River at Barrackdale Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— With reference to preliminary investigations and surveys for a dam site on the Balonne River at Barrackdale and the anticipated effect on water levels in the river and adjoining streams— (1) What data is already avaUable? 3748 6 March 1985 Questions Upon Notice

(2) Will such data be made available to local authorities, interested organisations and people in the general area? (3) Is such information already available to oil exploration companies operating in the area? Answer— Investigations into the possible storage dam on the Balonne River at Barrackdale have not yet been completed. However, the work completed to date indicates that— (1) The storage capable of raising water levels 15 metres above present bed level could be constmcted at the site. At this height, storage behind the dam could extend about 70 km up the Balonne River, almost to Surat. (2) Whilst a preliminary storage plan could be made available to approved bodies, it must be appreciated that no firm decisions in regard to the dam or what size storage might be constmcted have been taken, nor are such decisions likely to be taken for at least a year or two. (3) No.

2. Government Assistance to Fish Management Authority Mr BURNS asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) Did the Treasury advise the Fish Management Authority that previous financial support given by the State Government in 1982-83 and 1983-84 would not be continued in 1984-85? (2) If so, why has the National Party Government removed this assistance? (3) Is he aware that, as a result of this Treasury instmction, the Fish Management Authority has increased licence fees for restricted buyers by 100 per cent from $30 to $60 and aU other fees in a similar manner? (4) As the Queensland fishing industry is depressed, with many fishermen forced to leave the industry or live at subsistence level, what additional action will be taken by the Govemment to assist this industry in lieu of the moneys previously given but now taken from the Fish Management Authority? (5) If assistance is to be continued in some other form, why has the authority doubled its fees, in effect giving the lie to the Govemment's claims that taxes and charges do not go up in Queensland? Answer— (1 & 2) It is Government policy that statutory authorities should be fully funded by the industries which they manage. In the initial two years of operation, funds from consolidated revenue were provided to the Queensland Fish Management Authority as it implemented the terms of the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act. In preparation of the 1984-85 Budget, instmctions were issued to the authority that income and expenditure should balance. (3) Fees have not been increased across the board by 100 per cent. In one instance fees have been reduced by 20 per cent. Registration fees have remained constant. The increases for those which have been increased vary from 16 to 100 per cent. Increases have been related to the extent of servicing which is required of the authority. (4) I am fully aware of the economic state of the fishery. That was the basic reason for consolidation of the fisheries legislation and the formation of the Queensland Fish Management Authority. The membership comprises mainly representatives of the fishing industry who are fully informed on the state of the industry. A new Fisheries Management Branch was established in September last year comprising seven additional officers with an operating budget of $50,000. These officers are already working out in the industry on such matters as prawn closures, scallop Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1985 3749 management and environment protection. The Govemment is providing additional services through my department to assist the fishing industry. (5) See (1 & 2), (3) and (4).

3. Development of Roma Street Railway Station Mr CASEY asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the redevelopment of the Roma Street Railway Station by F. A. Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd and the Roma Street Development Group— (1) Has the station complex had to be redesigned because it was found that the site was 106 feet shorter than originally thought and, if so, what is the extent of the redesign? (2) Does any of the work already undertaken have to be redone? (3) Does the agreement entered into between the Govemment and the developer have to be amended and, if so, in what manner? (4) Has work stopped or slowed down as a result of this problem and will the developers have to refinance the project? (5) Will this cause a delay in the completion date of the project and, if so, what is the new anticipated date of completion? (6) Has any estimate been made of the additional cost that licensed bus operators will incur because of the requirement to transfer operations from their existing terminuses to the Roma Street complex? (7) If so, what companies will be affected, what will be each of their additional costs and what effect will this have on fares? Answer— (1) No. (2) No. (3 to 5) Final design of this $35m complex, which will be of great benefit to Queenslanders, providing integration between the various transport modes, is well under way. The design is being continually developed during the course of constmction. The developer, F. A. Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd, has guaranteed that the project will be completed on schedule. (6) Negotiations between developer and potential users of the bus terminal are not yet complete. The Commissioner for Transport and his officers have been involved in all these negotiations, and full regard has been given to the relevant costs of present and proposed bus accommodation, having regard to the advantages to the public and operators of a central terminal. (7) As these negotiations are not complete, the bus companies involved cannot properly be named at this time. A public statement will be made in due course as to those bus operators who will operate from the terminal.

4. Storm and Tempest Premiums, State Government Insurance Office Mr CASEY asked the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer— (1) Does the State Govemment Insurance Office in Queensland charge different storm and tempest rates for different zones in Queensland and, if so, what are the locations of those zones and what are the rates charged in each? (2) What was the pay-out by the the State Govemment Insurance Office on claims for (a) Cyclone "Ada", Whitsunday Islands, January 1970, (b) Cyclone "Althea", Towns­ ville, December 1971, (c) the Australia Day floods, Brisbane, January 1974, (d) the Brisbane storm, 18 January 1985 and (e) any other significant pay-outs for a major disaster which occurted in Queensland since 1970? 3750 6 March 1985 Questions Upon Notice

(3) What other insurance companies in Queensland charge different rates for storm and tempest premiums for cyclone areas and which ones charge a standard equitable rate for the whole of Queensland? (4) Why are north Queenslanders discriminated against by the State Government's own insurance company? Answer— (1) Yes. There are two zones. The northern zonal boundary stretches northward from Mackay, including Cape York, and takes in essentially the cyclone-affected area of coastal north Queensland. The rest of Queensland constitutes the other zone. The rates charged within each zone are not uniform but depend upon such factors as—claims experience; material of which building is constmcted; availability of fire services; and reinsurance treaty obligations. However, for comparable wooden dwellings in Brisbane and Caims insured for $30,000, the rates would respectively be $93.90 and $154.95. (2) The amounts paid, converted to June 1984 values, are— Cyclone "Ada", Whitsunday Islands, 1970; insignificant; no record. Cyclone "Althea", Townsville, 1971; $29.04m. Brisbane Australia Day floods, 1974; these were flood claims, not storm and tempest claims and therefore not comparable. Brisbane storm, 18th January, 1985; claims not finalised, estimated payout $30m. Significant storm and/or tempest claims since 1970 have been— Toowoomba, January, 1976; $ 16.2m. Brighton, December, 1980; $ 10.1m. (3) Since the passage of the Commonwealth Insurance Act of 1973, the Queensland Govemment has not had statutory control over general insurance premiums, including those for storm and/or tempest. Insurers operate in a competitive market and set their rates accordingly. In such a market, consumers are also free to choose where their insurance will be placed. However, while regulation of companies underwriting general insurance is a Commonwealth responsibility, my understanding is that a substantial number of insurance companies operating in north Queensland also charge differential rates. (4) There is no discrimination against north Queenslanders by the State Govemment Insurance Office (Queensland). Premiums are calculated to provide adequate funds from which claims for losses can be met. The simple fact is that storm and/or tempest losses on a per policy-holder basis are far higher in north Queensland than elsewhere in the State.

5. Proposed Hospital at Loganlea Mr D'ARCY asked the Minister for Health— (1) Since the acquisition of land for a State Government hospital at Loganlea, what preparation in planning has taken place for that hospital? (2) When is it anticipated that constmction of such a hospital will be commenced? (3) Is he aware of the very rapid growth within the area, which makes a hospital a priority? (4) Is he also aware of the youthful nature of the population which would make a State hospital concentrating on children's needs very desirable? Answer— (1 to 4) My department has been aware for some time of the potential need for hospital services in the Logan area, and it was to this end that land was acquired at Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1985 3751 Loganlea. The future need for hospital facilities in the State is monitored by the department on a continuing basis. A committee comprising senior departmental officers is reviewing projected needs in the Logan area with the view that suitable hospital facilities will be provided at the appropriate time.

6. Oath of Allegiance Taken by Members of Parliament Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General— As it is patently obvious that the Leader of the Opposition and some other members of the ALP strongly support the leadership of the Electrical Trades Union in the electricity dispute and as the union leaders broke the law by defying an order of the Industrial Commission, does this place the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in a compromising situation because the oath of aUegiance they sign as members of this Parliament ends with the words "according to Law"? Answer— The honourable member is correct in stating that it is patently obvious that the honourable Leader of the Opposition and some other members of the Australian Labor Party in this House strongly support the leadership of the Electrical Trades Union in the electricity dispute, knowing full well that they do not have the support of either the rank-and-file membership or of other trade unions. It is clearly the duty of every member of this House to uphold the law, but perhaps it would be too much to expect the honourable Leader of the Opposition, who has been involved with this union for so many years, to regard the oath of allegiance swom by him as a member of the Parliament to be above the interests of his close union associates.

7. Building Society Finance for Kit Homes Mr DAVIS asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) Is it a breach of the relevant Act for building societies to lend on kit homes? (2) Does the SGIO Building Society lend on kit homes? Answer— (1) No. (2) Yes.

8. Dispute Between Australian Workers Union and Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association Mr COOPER asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports from Melboume that a demarcation dispute between the Australian Workers Union and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association could lead to national industrial dismption in the power industry? (2) Is he aware that the basis of this dispute concerns the operation of cranes and mobile earth-moving plant and equipment in the power industry? (3) As the issue has now been drawn to the attention of the ACTU, does he believe that the unions could again cause problems in the power industry, this time on a national basis, because of nothing more than union in-fighting? Answer— (1) Yes. I am aware that an application by the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association is before the Commonwealth Commission seeking a Federal award for plant operators on constmction projects. The Australian Workers Union currently has coverage of certain plant operators under another Federal award and is objecting to the FED&FA application. This could result in union demarcation problems in the future. 3752 6 March 1985 Questions Upon Notice

The Queensland Government is opposing the Federal application as it seeks to cover certain employees already covered by State awards in Queensland. (2) The matter is in normal process before the Federal commission and no specific evidence is available at this stage to indicate that action will be taken whereby the operation of equipment in power stations could be affected. However, the coverage in the application would extend to the operation of plant in all constmction areas. (3) I am hopeful that problems will not occur and I intend keeping a close watch on developments. Any problems which might occur would be as a result of union in­ fighting for membership coverage.

9. Export Markets Mr COOPER asked the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology— With reference to the latest good news that Queensland, with just 16 per cent of Australia's population, now provides 23 per cent of the nation's exports and can claim to be Australia's leading export State with $5,430m in overseas exports for 1983-84— What are the Government's immediate plans to increase Queensland's export markets and, consequentiy, Queensland job opportunities? Answer— It is tme that, for its size, Queensland has for years contributed disproportionately to the nation's wealth in terms of export dollars earned through the sale of commodities. The huge increase in 1983-84 is due to this Govemment's policy of aggressively promoting the development of export coal mines and other mining ventures. During the year, retums from meat, sugar, wool, cereal grains, coal and non-ferrous metals all increased. However, it is recognised that this rate of increase is unlikely to be maintained, given that the world market for coal and other minerals is presently over-supplied and the maintenance of protected markets is continuing to create difficulties for agricultural products. These are factors over which we have no control. Assistance in various forms, for the expansion of existing export markets and for efforts to break into new markets, ranks high on the Queensland Govemment's list of priorities. Honourable members will recall that in the last State Budget a new range of incentives were offered. They are now being taken up by an increasing number of Queensland companies. There have been in the past, and there will be in the future, new initiatives aimed at diversifying Queensland's export-earning industries and, therefore, increasing job opportunities. The Govemment-initiated "Enterprise Queensland", led by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen), has brought to the attention of people in Europe and Japan the advantages of Queensland as a holiday centre. There is clear evidence that the number of overseas visitors to Queensland is increasing, and that, of course, increases overseas earnings and creates much-needed employment. "Enterprise Queensland" has also been active in promoting the sales of Queensland expertise in consultancies and services, mining products and manufactured goods. Of course, we have opened trade offices in Bahrain, Europe and Japan and have recentiy appointed export consultants in Hong Kong. However, in the export of manufactured goods there has to be a follow-up by firms of the ground prepared by "Enterprise Queensland" Manufacturers who wish to export need to bring their products to the attention of a large number of trade buyers. That is most economically done at trade fairs promoting the types of products produced by the firm. The Department of Commercial and Industrial Development is promoting the formation of appropriate industry product groups which could benefit from attendance Questions Without Notice 6 March 1985 3753 at overseas trade fairs in a number of countries. Opportunities exist in such product groupings as automobile accessories, fumiture, computer hardware and software. These groups would receive Govemment assistance with the costs of organising their attendance at the fair. In addition, the Government provides export market study subsidies and bridging finance for firms awaiting payment of grants under the Commonwealth's FMDG scheme. Opportunities to earn export income under the Closer Economic Relations agreement are also being brought to the attention of manufacturers. The Govemment is actively promoting the diversification of our export base so that more export income can be earned and job opportunities created. We will continue to support our traditional export industries while encouraging other industries by providing market information and financial support.

10. Mrs B. Birch Ms WARNER asked the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General— (1) Is he aware of the plight of Mrs Beryl Birch, and the public outcry which has ensued after her sentencing on 1 March to six years gaol for manslaughter? (2) In view of her health and in view of the suffering that she has already undergone, will he be considering any intervention, on compassionate grounds, in this case to ensure that Mrs Birch is not subjected to a harsh prison sentence? (3) Will he do anything to help Mrs Birch? Answer— (1 to 3) I am aware of Mrs Beryl Birch, who pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to a charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years. Prior to her trial, I exercised my discretion and directed that the charge of murder be reduced to a charge of manslaughter. Mrs Birch has been granted public defence by my department to pursue an appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed upon her, and the Public Defender will be acting for her in this appeal. All the circumstances surrounding this case will be placed before the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Public Defender and the Crown, and it would be improper for me to comment further at this stage.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Criticism of Premier and Treasurer by President of State Industrial Court Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to his attack on Monday on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to his response yesterday to criticism directed at him by the President of the State Industrial Court, Mr Justice Matthews. Yesterday, the Premier and Treasurer said, "He has made his statements and I have made mine " Two days ago, the Premier and Treasurer said in respect of the commission— "It has never settled anything very much other than giving it exactly what the unions want; they have always got what they wanted simply because they will never accept anything until they get what they want." I ask: In the face of strong criticism by Mr Justice Matthews of the comments by the Premier and Treasurer about the commission, is he now prepared to publicly withdraw those derogatory comments? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: What a hypocrite! The Leader of the Opposition and those members who sit behind him were the men who backed the law-breakers. They were the ones who defied the court. How hypocritical can they be! They supported 3754 6 March 1985 Questions Without Notice the men day after day, week after week when they defied the court. I was the one who spent tens of thousands of dollars on announcements in all the media, including radio and television, backing the court. Mr Warburton: What about apologising to the Industrial Court? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: If anybody should apologise, it is the Leader of the Opposition, for defying the court and backing the law-breakers. He is one who ought to apologise. The judge has had his say and I have had my say. The Leader of the Opposition knows the background to what we have said, and that is that. Expo 88 Mr WARBURTON: My second question also is directed to the Premier and Treasurer. With respect to the financing of Expo 88, I refer the Premier and Treasurer to the statement that he made in June 1983, in which he said that "the Expo would not cost tax-payers a cent" I also refer to similar statements made by Sir Llewellyn Edwards that the Govemment could fund the project by itself with a self-financing arrangement. I now ask: Will the Premier and Treasurer give a categorical assurance to the House that no tax-payers' funds in any shape or form will be required to fund Expo? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition thinks that he is being clever in trying to get me to make a statement about this matter. It is obvious that he has not read the Act, because the provisions appear in it. The honourable member knows the basis under which the Govemment intends to finance Expo 88. Mr Warburton: Will you give an assurance that it will not cost the tax-payers any money? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member has become very sanc­ timonious about making sure that Expo will not cost the tax-payers any money. Just a few weeks ago, he cost the tax-payers of this State enormous sums. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The constant interjections of the honourable member for Lytton are interfering with the Premier's reply. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would like to hear the answer to his question. I ask the honourable member for Lytton to keep quiet. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Because the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party backed the strikers who broke the law, they have cost the tax-payers and this State mUlions of dollars and many lost jobs. Now he is sanctimoniously claiming that Expo 88 must not cost the tax-payer anything. How hypocritical can a person be! The basis upon which Expo will be financed is outiined in the Act, and the land wiU be resold after Expo. Mr Warburton: Give an assurance. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is in the Act. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition cannot read. Mr Warburton: No, you tell us now. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Just a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition tried to make me apologise to Mr Justice Matthews. He does not have a hope in the world of making me say something that I do not want to say; it is as simple as that. The legislation outlines quite clearly how Expo will be financed. Yesterday the Government had a discussion with the Lord Mayor and with the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). The Leader of the Opposition should not worry, because everything is quite OK. Questions Without Notice 6 March 1985 3755

Investment Opportunities Mr NEAL: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware of comments by the national president of the Real Estate Institute of Australia (Mr Kevin Sullivan) that Queensland remains the ideal State in which to invest in real estate in Australia? How do Mr Sullivan's statements reflect on Opposition attempts to paint a picture of poor investment opportunities in Queensland and of doom and gloom? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Sullivan is a private enterprise man who operates in the thick of business, and he knows what he is talking about. What he has said on this occasion is dead right. Queensland is by far the best place in which to invest, despite comments by the prophets of doom and gloom in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and people such as Mr Day, who profess to know something about the economy when they really do not have a clue what they are talking about. Mr Sullivan is correct. At the week-end, I addressed a group of 40 people on the investment potential of Queensland. They had been all over Australia, and claimed that Queensland was the first State in which they could see real opportunities. Each one of those people was a billionaire. Every month they invest $129 biUion. Mr R. J. Gibbs: How much land are you going to give them for free? Are they Arabs or Japanese? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: One thing is sure: I would not become involved in anything with the honourable member for Wolston. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Wolston under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member for Wolston is as petty as it is possible for a person to be. I feel sorry for him and the people whom he represents; but that is their problem, not mine. As I was saying, these 40 people, who invest $129 biUion every month, told me that Queensland is the only State in Australia that shows great potential for investment. They had been to the other States and kept the best till last. Last night I spoke with a dozen people who have tens of billions of dollars to invest. Mr Fouras: You are becoming boring. You've been saying the same thing over and over again for 10 years. It's mbbish. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member for South Brisbane mentioned rubbish; perhaps he was talking about himself As well as Mr Sullivan, many other people know that Queensland is the best place in which to invest, and it does not matter whether honourable members opposite try to depict it as being otherwise. People who have money to spend are coming here in considerable numbers.

Foreign Banks Mr BURNS: In asking a question of the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I refer to his statement in "The Courier-MaU" of last Friday, 1 March, in which he asserted that foreign banks would not be of any real advantage to Queensland as they were only big corporate lenders and were of no advantage to small operators. Is 3756 6 March 1985 Questions Without Notice the Deputy Premier aware that Barclays Bank Australia and the Chase Manhattan Bank- AMP Society both plan to target their services at the small business sector and the so- called little Aussie battlers and that, therefore, the Deputy Premier's statement was not only incorrect but also displayed gross ignorance of the facts? The Deputy Premier has misled the House. Mr GUNN: Mr Morley took that statement out of context. Opposition Members interjected. Mr GUNN: Members of the Opposition should check on my answer to the question. I said that the Bank of America, Citicorp and others are already here and operating in Brisbane. Members of the Opposition should know that. What I did say was that the little Aussie battler has been very well served by institutions such as the National Bank, Westpac, building societies and most of all by the champion bank of them all, the Bank of Queensland. I am sure that if any of the foreign banks intend to enter into this small lending, they will face very stiff competition. I cannot see too many people leaving the traditional banks, which have stuck by the people of Queensland. Coal Train Derailment, Goonyella Line Mr NEWTON: I ask the Minister for Transport to inform the House of the circumstances surrounding the derailment of a coal train on the Goonyella line on 5 March 1985. Mr LANE: I wish to inform the House that, shortly after 2 a.m. on 5 March 1985, a number of wagons on a coal train comprising six locomotives and 148 wagons, conveying coal from Peak Downs to Hay Point, was derailed at Black Mountain, which is between Coppabella and Yukan. Fifteen wagons of the coal train were derailed and jack-knifed, effectively blocking both roads. Preliminary investigations indicate that the probable cause of the derailment was a cracked wheel boss. This fault allowed the wheel to move on the axle and apparently strike a cross-over, shattering the wheel and causing the wagon to become derailed. The following 14 wagons were derailed as a result. Breakdown gangs were sent to the site but access was extremely difficult because of the isolated location of the derailment. Heavy storm rains subsequently interfered with the re-railing procedures. It is expected that the derailed wagons will be cleared by 11 a.m., the up road opened by 5 p.m. this evening and the down road by 9 p.m. The derailed wagons caused severe damage to the track and roadside equipment. The cracked wheel boss is an unusual occurrence and the circumstances of its failure are being investigated. Mr Casey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Mackay under Standing Order No. 123A.

Electrical Contractors in SEQEB System Ms WARNER: I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy: Are contractors within the SEQEB system being directed to complete jobs within the industry without competitive tenders being called for contracts? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I am amazed that an honourable member would ask such a question. Questions Without Notice 6 March 1985 3757

Mr Austin: That is a rent-a-crowd question. Mr I. J. GIBBS: Yes. I think that it was part of the rent-a-crowd who were protesting out front yesterday. They were on television last night. An Honourable Member: What did they pay those students? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I am not sure how much they were paid. The public comments to those protestors were not very complimentary. Contractors were brought in when the SEQEB linesmen went on strike, and failed to do their jobs. SEQEB uses contractors all the time, as do the other Queensland boards. The electricity industry throughout Queensland uses contractors. SEQEB will use con­ tractors whenever necessary, especially when unionists will not do the work. The power industry has been held to ransom before and I hope to see contractors used more and more. In Queensland it was necessary to ask the unions to allow contractors to be used. That is no longer negotiable. Wherever possible, contractors will be used under whatever circumstances to ensure that the Govemment gives the people of Queensland the service which they deserve and which the unions and the Opposition will not allow them to have. Human Rights Commission Teaching Kits Mrs HARVEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I draw his attention to a series of notices placed in Queensland newspapers last Saturday by the Human Rights Commission. Those notices invited schools and teachers to trial a kit, "Teaching for Human Rights: Activities for Schools" and to explore human rights issues with their infant, lower-primary, upper-primary and secondary classes for a payment of $500 per term. I ask: Could the Minister advise the House on whose authority those trials are to be conducted? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. I was rather shocked to have those advertisements drawn to my attention. The Human Rights Commission had been working with various State education authorities in the development of an education kit. The Queensland Education Depart­ ment found it unacceptable, and it made a number of recommendations that would have made the kit more reasonable in its content and objectives. It is fairly symptomatic of the present Federal Government's attitude to State rights that the Human Rights Commission obviously has decided to ignore the recommendations made by the Queensland Education Department and to put advertisements in various newspapers in Queensland. The shocking thing about the advertisements is that they state— "The Commission wiU pay $500 (or $1,000 for two terms) under a smaU grants scheme to those who participate, and who can report in detail on the ideas, activities and resources which are most creative." I repeat that, at this stage, that program has been vetoed by the Queensland Education Department. The Human Rights Commission is ignoring normal State rights, going round them and attempting to bribe teachers to go into its nefarious schemes. Those kits will not be accepted in Queensland schools until such time as the Human Rights Commission has the decency to come to me as the Minister for Education and to my department to seek permission to use our schools for that purpose. Reviews of Law Schools Mrs HARVEY: I ask the Minister for Education: Has his attention been drawn to an article on page 12 of this morning's "Austrahan" announcing that the Commonwealth- appointed three-member committee will be undertaking reviews of law schools in the State's universities and colleges of advanced education? Has the Minister approved the 3758 6 March 1985 Questions Without Notice activities of such a committee in Queensland? If not, what action does he propose to take in the light of that recent development? Mr POWELL: I again thank the honourable member for her question and for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. This is another attempt by a Federal Government agency to bypass the constitutional rights of the States in education. Mr Comhen: Give them their money back, then. You take their money. Mr POWELL: I do not take their money, because Queensland does not receive any money. It is fairly clear that the honourable member for Windsor has a total lack of understanding of what education and education funding are all about. If the Opposition were in Government, it would be equally annoyed, because the State Ministers for Education as a body have been annoyed about the attitude of the Federal Government and the attitude of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Com­ mission of bypassing State Govemments entirely in relation to tertiary institutions. Those tertiary institutions are set up by State Acts. Queensland has an absolute respon­ sibility to the people for the way in which they are conducted. This morning I sent the following telex to the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan)— "I refer to advice contained in page 12 of today's issue of'The Australian' that a three-member committee will carry out a review of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission of law facilities and schools within certain Queensland universities and colleges of advanced education at the same time as it conducts such reviews elsewhere. As Minister responsible for education in this State I object most strongly to receiving such advice through the newspaper. Striking, as it does, at the heart of the State's constitutional authority in education this major departure from established practice is viewed with the utmost abhorrence by the Queensland Govemment. Under the circumstances I have to inform you that Queensland will not be participating in the proposed series of reviews unless and until appropriate mutually agreeable arrangements have been concluded between our Govemments." At the last meeting of the Australian Education Council, Victoria moved for a major review of CTEC, because it was obvious that CTEC was trying to take away the States' constitutional rights in education. It is a second attack on the States' rights by the education authorities in Canberra, and this Government will not have it. Accommodation for Mentally III Patients Mr COMBEN: I ask the Minister for Health: In relation to the establishment in April 1983 of a community support program within the Division of Psychiatric Services intended to "immediately address the issue of services for the chronic mental patients living in large boarding houses, hostels etc.", will he please advise what improvements in the standard of care have occurred during the two years since the implementation of the program and whether he is considering introducing any licensing scheme aimed at providing minimum standards of care in such facilities? Mr AUSTIN: It is tme that, approximately two years ago, the department established a south-west regional assessment and care centre for psychiatric patients so that those patients could be cared for in the areas that they come from. That service has now been expanded to the Gold Coast, and it will be expanded to other regions of the State when the financial resources are available. In relation to the care of mentaUy ill patients in hostel type accommodation, which is what I understood the honourable member for Windsor to be referring to, for some time departmental officers have been concerned about a few of the establishments that Questions Without Notice 6 March 1985 3759 are available to such people in the community. A significant improvement has been made in the type of accommodation available as a result of my authorisation, under the Hospitals Act, of inspectorial powers for officers of the department to visit such premises and inspect their books and to make necessary recommendations to enhance the quality of care available to the people living in these establishments. Departmental officers are currently reviewing the type of accommodation that is available to mentally ill people in the community and, if necessary, legislation will be drafted to ensure improvement in the quality of that accommodation. I can assure the honourable member for Windsor that officers of my department are only too willing to investigate complaints lodged against proprietors of such hostels anywhere in this State. As I said, at the present time, powers exist under the Hospitals Act which enable me, as Minister for Health, to authorise various officers to move in, and the Act contains certain powers to force the proprietors of these places to carry out any necessary improvements. I would have hoped that, if the honourable member for Windsor did know of such incidences, he would raise the matter with me prior to raising it in the Parliament. Report on Accommodation for Mentally 111 Patients Mr COMBEN: In view of the answer given by the Minister for Health, will he please advise the House what action he has taken in relation to a report, which is available to him, stating that the large boarding houses, hostels, etc., referred to in my previous question commonly have extremely low standards, including overcrowding, poor lighting, poor ventilation, insufficient and poor quality food and poor standards of cleanliness, as well as instances of physical and sexual abuse and, in the case of the Eton Private Hotel, financial abuse? In addition, will the Minister please advise whether he is prepared to recommend that no further referrals be made to the Eton Private Hotel, Natara, Whitehaven, Richmond Road, Wamurran Country Convalescent Resort and the Toogoolawah facility because of their unacceptable standards? Mr AUSTIN: It is quite obvious that the honourable member is quoting from an internal departmental report. Obviously, that report was leaked to him by one of the officers who carried out the work, and I will do my best to track down the officer who leaked that report to the honourable member. I think that I adequately answered the honourable member's first question. Officers of the department have been charged with the responsibility to examine these establish­ ments and, to that end, I understand that the proprietors of all of the facilities mentioned by the honourable member for Windsor have been spoken to. For example, the Eton Private Hotel happens to be part of the Anglican Archdiocese of Brisbane. I wonder whether Opposition members know that. Obviously, they do not. The hotel is situated in the electorate of the honourable member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis). Discussions have been undertaken on a continuing basis. By suggesting that no action has been taken, the honourable member for Windsor is saying something which is incorrect and untme. He ought to be ashamed of himself for suggesting that no action has been taken. High Court Application by Trade Union Movement Mrs CHAPMAN: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General: What is the latest position in regard to the application made by the union movement to have matters relating to the electricity dispute removed to the High Court? Mr HARPER: The action taken by members of the trade union movement to have removed to the High Court the matter of an injunction, which was intended to overcome further dismption to the supply of electricity in Queensland, has been dismissed by five 3760 6 March 1985 Questions Without Notice judges of the High Court this moming. I was advised this moming that the application for removal of the Supreme Court action to the High Court was refused, and the indication was that, on the balance of convenience, the action should remain in the Supreme Court of Queensland. It was also ordered that the unions pay the legal costs incurred by the electricity boards. Medicare Rebate Level Mrs CHAPMAN: I ask the Minister for Health: What is the Minister's reaction to reports that the Federal Labor Govemment has considered lowering the Medicare rebate from 85 per cent of schedule medical fees to 80 per cent? Is this a further indication of the inability of the Federal Labor Govemment to manage its financial affairs, making it necessary to milk tax-payers to gain additional finance? Mr AUSTIN: Every Australian citizen has real cause for concem about Medicare. Although, at this stage, only a report has been presented to the Federal Govemment outlining the proposal for a reduction from 85 per cent to 80 per cent of the schedule medical fee, everyone in Australia ought to know that Medicare is unable to pay for itself Two years ago, when the scheme was announced, the then Federal Minister said that the levy would require some topping up, if that term may be used, from funds allocated by the Federal Treasury to support the scheme. The topping up was provided from a rather large basket of money, because it reached the level of $1 biUion of tax­ payer revenue. It is obvious, not only to me but also to officers of the Federal Govemment, that Medicare is in trouble and will continue to be in trouble while the Federal Government tries to portray Mr De Lacy: It will continue to be in trouble while the doctors rip it off. Mr AUSTIN: That is exactiy what I wanted to hear. That is the attitude of the honourable member for Cairns, and I have no doubt that he speaks for the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member has launched a savage attack on members of the medical profession, and the profession is entitled to be informed that the honourable member lumps all medical practitioners together in a class that rips off the system. I will take great delight in circulating the interjection of the honourable member for Caims to members of the medical profession so that they can fully understand his attitude. Every Queenslander ought to know that the Medicare scheme is not paying for itself At the moment, in Queensland, Medicare contributes $6m a month towards the operation of the hospital system, which costs $67m to operate. Yet the Federal Govem­ ment tells the people of Queensland and Australia that the Federal Govemment has provided a universal health scheme. That is not true. Consolidated revenue funds in Queensland and every other State are being used to prop up the scheme that the Federal Govemment promised would be self-supporting. Fires at Chemical and Fertiliser Storages Mr INNES: I ask the Minister for Health: In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) about the fire at Gatton, and also in view of the fire that occurred at Zillmere, does the Minister envisage any steps that should be taken to assist in either waming the public or protecting firemen or people living nearby from the consequences of fires that occur at places at which large amounts of chemicals and fertilisers are stored? Mr AUSTIN: I acknowledge that there could be problems not only in premises such as fertiliser or chemical storage warehouses but even in hardware stores. There are a number of establishments throughout the country that store chemicals, fertilisers, plastics and all sorts of other items that might or might not have some deleterious effect on public health following a fire. Questions Without Notice 6 March 1985 3761

It is not only my department that becomes involved with that problem. The Brisbane City Council ought to become involved, but I did notice that during the recent debate the Brisbane City Council was conspicuous by its absence. The regulations under the Health Act make it the responsibility of the Brisbane City Council to supervise the public health in that field. It also becomes responsible under the provisions of the Local Govemment Act and the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act through its authorisation of the constmction of such facilities following a decision on whether they are conforming or non-conforming uses in certain areas. I do not really know how the problems associated with chemical fires can be overcome, and quickly, by any one body. My colleague the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services has to look after the environment and air pollution control. Another colleague, the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, has to look after water pollution control. Mr Davis: That is the way you get out of it. Mr AUSTIN: I am not interested in getting out of it. The honourable member for Brisbane Central suggests that I and my departmental officers want to get out of something. I suggest that the Health Department has a proven record of trying to care for people in the public health area. On not one occasion have my departmental officers or I shirked the very important issue of public health, irrespective of what might be the political connotations. Mr Davis interjected. Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member is exactly right. That is a perfect example. The honourable member for Brisbane Central referred to the recent problem of radioactive sand, and that is a perfect example of what I was referring to. That problem could have been swept under the carpet, but it was not. It was publicly disclosed. If I had wanted to hide something in order to serve my own political ends, I could have done so by saying nothing about it. That is a perfect example of my assertion that my departmental officers act honestly and openly. To retum to the honourable member's question, which was sensible, unlike some of the interjections made by the honourable member for Brisbane Central Mr Davis interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have had enough of the member for Brisbane Central. Mr AUSTIN: I, too, am concerned. But there is co-operation between the fire services and the Department of Health at the present time. In my ministerial statement yesterday I said that the Director of the Govemment Chemical Laboratory, Mr Trevor Beckmann, was advised of the fire and arrived at the scene within an hour and a quarter. He was able to advise the fire officers about what protection they ought to use. The fire officers themselves also have a fair idea of what equipment should be used to fight certain types of fires. I said yesterday that the choice of equipment is always a very difficult one, and it is impossible for any person to be cortect in all cases. Yesterday I was asked by the media to give an iron-clad guarantee that the people involved in the fire would suffer no harmful effects. I cannot do that, no-one in this Chamber can do that, and no-one anywhere in the world can do that. I said last night and I say again today that I cannot give an iron-clad guarantee that the spraying of ordinary pesticides around the house will not mean someone experiencing problems in the future. I cite the example of thalidomide, a dmg that was used to aid women during pregnancy. Everyone knows its effects. When it first came on the market it was approved by the best scientific brains in this country and around the world as a dmg suitable to

66531 — 127 3762 6 March 1985 Questions Without Notice be used during pregnancy. But what happened? Some time later it was discovered that that dmg had a deleterious effect on pregnant women. At the time of its introduction no member of any health authority in the world would have been afraid to say, on the scientific evidence before him at that time, "I have no reason to believe that that dmg will cause any problems." Unfortunately, that did not prove to be correct. So no person can say that, as a result of the Gatton fire, no deleterious health effects will be suffered by any person in the long term. What I can say, on the advice of my very expert officers, is that, relative to that particular fire, if people had not suffered symptoms within 24 hours it is extremely doubtful—in fact, ni^ on impossible—that they would have suffered any short-term effects. I believe that with the co-operation of Govemment departments and other authorities the problem can be resolved. They are co-operating weU at the moment, but perhaps it will be necessary to set up a single authority. At the moment, the Co-ordinator-General is investigating the disposal of toxic wastes. I have not yet seen his report. It may suggest that one authority be set up to cover these areas. That is a question for the Govemment to consider in the future. The Govemment will have to wait to see what the Co-ordinator-General's report recommends. "Education 2000" Mr LINGARD: In asking a question of the Minister for Education, I point out that, over the past few months, we have seen an obvious attempt by the Queensland Teachers Union to incite opposition within the teaching profession and amongst parents and citizens associations to the preferted option program suggested by the task force of Education Department officials set up by the Minister for Education in early 1984. The statements have been clearly motivated by the Queensland Teachers Union elections that are due this year. This attempt has been characterised by unfounded comments such as lack of teacher union input, scare tactics about the mixing of older and younger students at the same school, longer hours for teachers and so on. It has been supported for purely political reasons by the members of the ALP, in Opposition. Now that the official document "Education 2000" has been made available for public comment, I notice that the Queensland Teachers Union and the ALP members in Opposition have continued their negative approach. Today, "The Courier-Mail" gives examples of this negative approach in published comments by Mr Shuntner and the Opposition spokesman on Education (Mr Smith). Clearly the ALP and the Teachers Union are working hand in hand. The comments are clearly negative and show no attempt at voicing constmctive opinions. I now ask the Minister: As the discussion paper "Education 2000" has been distributed as a basis for professional discussion and comment, will he advise the House how he intends to canvass unbiased opinion from the Queensland public? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for an exceUent question. It was very well composed with well-chosen words. Honourable members who read "The Courier-Mail" will have noticed the remarks made by the honourable member for Townsville West, as Opposition spokesman on Education, and by the Queensland Teachers Union president about the document that I tabled in Parliament yesterday. Honourable members may also have seen documents that have been published by the Queensland Teachers Union in the Queensland Teachers Joumal, and which seemed to rely on caricatures to get the message across. "Education 2000" is a very serious document about a very serious subject. I regret that, for the benefit of the Opposition spokesman and the Queensland Teachers Union, I have been unable to present that document in cartoon form. I suggest that serious people, with serious minds, will read that document in the manner in which it is portrayed, that is, as a serious dissertation on how we in Queensland might be able to present to people education for their children through to the year 2000. Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3763 The honourable member asked, quite validly, what I intend to do to get unbiased opinions on "Education 2000". As intimated yesterday, the Director General of Education, other senior officers of the Department of Education and I will be travelling throughout the State in the next few months with a view to holding public meetings in various parts of the State—not to present the document, because I hope that will have been done. I hope that honourable members will adopt a more responsible attitude than that displayed by the Opposition spokesman on Education and the Queensland Teachers Union, and will make sure that the people in their electorates receive copies of "Education 2000" I hope that the people will have an opportunity to read the document. We hope that, when we hold public meetings, they will have seen the document, will have digested it, and will respond to it. It is very important for the future of children in Queensland that the response to it be made in a considered fashion. There is nothing flippant about it. It is obvious that the response by the Queensland Teachers Union was designed purely and simply to create fear in parents. Comments made by the union so far have been based on a lack of knowledge and fear. The Government is trying to make sure that the parents of Queensland ignore the remarks made by the Queensland Teachers Union and give a considered judgment on a very serious report. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Babinda Bypass Mr De LACY (Caims) (12 noon): Today, I want to speak about the Babinda bypass, a subject that was raised in the Matters of Public Interest debate last week by the honourable member for Mulgrave (Mr Menzel), and on numerous occasions previously. The subject is very important to the people of Babinda, whose livelihood, tranquil life­ style, peace of mind and very existence are being threatened by the callous, insensitive Queensland Government, aided, abetted and prompted by the local member. Usually, honourable members on this side of the Chamber would ignore the outrageous statements made here by the member for Mulgrave, and I am sure that most of the members on the Government side do likewise, because, in terms of political importance, he does not rate highly. Unfortunately, however, what he said in the Matters of Public Interest debate last week is important to the people of Babinda, who were defamed, insulted and outraged by his comments. It is important that the record be set straight, and it is on behalf of those people that I speak today. Mr Menzel: The local branch of the Labor Party. Mr De LACY: I am coming to that matter. The member for Mulgrave has claimed consistently that opposition to the disastrous western route has been promoted and orchestrated by the Austrahan Labor Party. That is false. In fact, the contrary is tme. In order that the issue is seen not to be party- political, and in order not to jeopardise the cause put forward by the people, ALP members have deliberately kept a low profile throughout this whole issue. Last Wednesday the member for Mulgrave claimed— .the Babinda branch of the Australian Labor Party had written to the Federal Transport Minister (Mr Peter Morris) asking the Federal Govemment not to provide funds for the western route. I challenge members of the Australian Labor Party to come clean and deny that." I now deny it, and deny it categorically. The ALP branch in Babinda denies it. I even took the liberty of contacting the office of the Federal Transport Minister (Mr Morris), and he confirmed, as late as 4.30 p.m. on Monday, 4 March, that his office had never 3764 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest ever received any communication from the Babinda branch of the ALP—in his words, "not even a birthday card" However, the member for Mulgrave went further and made the disgraceful accusation that the husband of the local ALP secretary, Mr Tom Felling, who is the mail contractor in Babinda, was tampering with the Queen's mail and that he did not deliver the Main Roads brochure to certain supporters of the western route. Mr MENZEL: I rise to a point of order. I asked the question and said that I hoped that nobody was tampering with Her Majesty's mail. I did not say that he was, and I ask that that statement be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I ask the honourable member for Caims to accept the explanation of the member for Mulgrave. Mr De LACY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I change my statement and say that the way in which the honourable member phrased his question implied that this person was tampering with the mail. That is a very serious implication. It is an unsubstantiated slur on that person's integrity. It is false and defamatory. On Mr Felling's behalf, I challenge the member for Mulgrave to repeat those aUegations outside the House. Last week, the member for Mulgrave made repeated references to intimidatory tactics used by so-called members of the "Concemed Citizens" group. He said, amongst other things, that those "Concemed Citizens" had conducted a blatant campaign of intimidation and lies, and that it was very disturbing that such gutter tactics were being used in Queensland. He said that the "Concemed Citizens" rostered their members, which is ridiculous. He said that people who visited the model display in the library were abused and shouted at by the organised intimidators. I am advised that the only person who harassed anyone was 5ft 7in-tall Ron Stager, who harassed the 6ft-tall Minister here. The honourable member also said that the "Concemed Citizens" picketed the display and that it was an orchestrated political campaign of intimidation and deceit. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Because I am the only 6 ft tall Minister in this place, I suggest that the remarks of the honourable member refer to me, and I object to them. The honourable member for Mulgrave is 6 ft 4 ins. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Because the Minister's objection is based on conjecture, there is no point of order. Mr De LACY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the House should be subjected to such puerile Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Callide will resume his seat. Mr De LACY: In the light of the accusations made by the honourable member for Mulgrave, one would think that these people in Babinda were trade union bosses. Everything that he said is mbbish. Dozens of people from all political parties have mng me or come to see me in my office and have assured me that the people the honourable member was referring to are the ordinary, everyday, decent citizens of Babinda— the same as would be found in a thousand other Queensland towns. When a person accuses other people of doing what he is doing himself, it is called sophistry. If the honourable member for Mulgrave believes what he is saying, it must be that he attributes his own motives and attitudes to others. The honourable member has made accusations about intimidatory tactics, yet he has served five writs on the people of Babinda, which bears testimony to the fact that he is doing what he has accused others of doing. Matters of PubUc Interest 6 March 1985 3765

Two people were singled out for special attention. The honourable member claimed that— "Councillor Harwood shamelessly intimidated age pensioners and elderly wid­ ows in Babinda with those disgraceful tactics." As every person in Babinda knows, and as the honourable member should know, Shirley Harwood is a noble and gentle soul. She is a person of integrity, who is held in the highest esteem, and these fanciful aUegations must come out of a "Mad" magazine. The honourable member also singled out Mr Bonny Corradi who, according to the honourable member, tricked people into signing pamphlets. He is a very popular and respected member of the Babinda community, and—wait for it—is a paid-up and practising member of the National Party. I suggest that Govemment members should be a little wary because the honourable member for Mulgrave is creating great divisions within the National Party in north Queensland. Last week in this place the honourable member for Mulgrave spoke about the meeting held on 8 Febmary in Babinda that was convened by the Federal and State Transport Ministers. The honourable member's version was that the supporters of the central route—the opponents of the western route—sat packed as a group in the front rows. I have been advised that that is tme and that the opponents of the westem route occupied the first 49 rows of the 50 rows in the hall. The honourable member claimed that when Councillor Harwood asked those who opposed the westem route to stand up, about half the people present in the hall— namely, the front section—stood up. I turn now to consider two independent accounts of the meeting. The front page of "The Cairns Post" reported the following day that "Babinda meeting rejects westem by-pass proposal" The article was written by a staff reporter who attended the meeting. No press releases were issued. The report reads— "Residents of Babinda last night overwhelmingly demonstrated their opposition to the proposed westem bypass for the town. At a public meeting held in the Babinda RSL Hall to gauge residents' views on the location of the bypass, almost all of the estimated 500 people in attendance stood to their feet when asked to rise if they objected to the westem route." A second independent opinion comes from the "InnisfaU Advocate" of 11 Febmary. Under the heading "Western route is rejected", the paper reported that— "Any doubts that Federal and State departmental officers may have had regarding the wishes of local residents on the vexed Babinda bypass issue must have been dispelled at a packed public meeting at the sugar town on Friday night. More than 500 people packed into the local R.S.L. Hall rose as one to register their opposition to the proposed Western Route." Mr MENZEL: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Davis interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Brisbane Central under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr Davis: What for? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the honourable member was speaking when the honourable member for Mulgrave was attempting to take a point of order. Mr MENZEL: The honourable member for Cairns will mislead the House if he does not also read the letters to the editor that contradict the press reports. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Caims has the option to table those documents if he so wishes. 3766 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest

Mr De LACY: Incidentally, the letters to the editor were written by the mother-in- law and sister of the member for Mulgrave. I appeal to the Minister for Local Goverment, Main Roads and Racing to honour his promise and to be a man of his word. He promised to take into account the feelings of the people of Babinda before finally deciding on a route. The meeting and many other factors have proved conclusively that the people of Babinda are opposed to the westem route. Time expired. Deregulation of Retail Trading Hours, Gold Coast Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (12.10 p.m.): I support the announcement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs that the Gold Coast is to have a trial period of optional extended trading. At the outset, I make the point that the pressure on, and the requests to, the Govemment from local business houses on this matter has not been so much for 24-hour trading, as has been reported in certain instances, but for optional extended trading—the right for an individual businessman, shop-keeper or retailer to open his doors when he wants to if he believes that a demand exists. A number of major developments of world standard are presently proceeding on the Gold Coast. The Commonwealth Employment Service estimates that those will generate between 10 000 and 12 000 jobs. The first approaches to members of Parliament on this matter came, through the chambers of commerce, from the small business people themselves, and the Government has simply responded to those representations. Why should somebody be fined or forced to close for wanting to open his doors to generate more business? That is exactly what the Government is presently examining. The opposition from the so-caUed business spokesmen on this matter is emanating from two sources. One is Mr Bill McCuUoch of the Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association and the other is Mr Robin Curtis from ESBAS Pty Ltd. Neither gentleman nor his organisation is Gold Coast based. They represent vested interest lobby groups based in Brisbane. Both are political opponents of the National Party; both are opponents of deregulation; and, judging from statements that have been made in recent days, both gentlemen have trouble telling the tmth. I was disgusted to see in the "Gold Coast Bulletin" a statement attributed to Mr McCuUoch. It was headed— "It'll bankrupt us, say shop owners" There is no way this Government would allow that to happen. The tactics being used by those two gentlemen are disgraceful scare tactics, devoid of fact or tmth, I think it is significant that the Gold Coast Combined Chamber of Commerce, which is led by a former Liberal member of this House, Mr Bmce Bishop, has warmly welcomed the Government's decision. The article to which I referred also contains the following— "But president of the Gold Coast Combined Chamber of Commerce, Mr Bruce Bishop, hailed the move as a dramatic step in boosting tourism. Shopping is a holiday activity just as going to a theme park or going for a swim. 'Tourists will most definitely take advantage of the additional shopping hours.' Mr Bishop said open trading would legalise what had already been occurring in Surfers Paradise. For the past 15 or 20 years many businesses have been operating all day on Sundays and up to 10 o'clock at night.. " Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3767 I understand that some of the Liberal members of this Assembly have expressed an interest in opposing the proposal. For their benefit, I state that the Federal Liberal member for McPherson (Mr Peter White) is on record as supporting the Govemment on this issue. An article which refers to statements by the member for Redcliffe (Mr Terry White), in the "Gold Coast Bulletin" of 28 Febmary reads— "The Queensland Liberal Party, next week when Pariiament continues, may move for a halt to plans to introduce 24 hour shopping on the Gold Coast.

Mr White accused the National Party Government of bypassing the Arbitration Commission in the 24 hour shopping issue, just as it had bypassed the commission during the recent power dispute." I am alarmed that, by giving de facto support to the Electrical Trades Union—as his reported comments would suggest—the honourable member for Redcliffe apparently sides with the industrial lawlessness that this State has experienced. One of the other opponents of this proposal is Mr Robin Curtis of ESBAS. He was formerly an executive director of the Government's Small Business Development Corporation. Let us look at Mr Curtis's record in regard to this matter. In the November/ December 1983 issue of "Food Week", the following report appears— "Queensland Independent Wholesalers and its sponsored groups have withdrawn financial support from ESBAS; a lobbying organisation set up last August to act for small businesses. ESBAS is still being supported by Cut Price, Four Square and IG, which are supplied but not sponsored by QIW. Laurie Ross, chairman of ESBAS and managing director of Cut Price, told FOODWEEK last week that, because of the reduction in funding, the ESBAS office had been closed. The general manager, Robin Curtis, would operate from his home, or from an office at either Cut Price or IG. FOODWEEK believes QIW and its sponsored groups withdrew their support because an editorial in its journal before the recent state elections criticised the National Party." The elections referred to were the 1983 State elections. Some of those groups that Mr Curtis has represented in the past are designated small shops and, as such, under the trading laws have certain privileges that he is now wishing to deny to other people. If one examines the definition of "smaU shop", one will see that a small shop can open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sundays and certain holidays. There are some exceptions, such as Christmas Day. Mr Jennings: They have a freedom that they don't want anyone else to have. Mr BORBIDGE: As my colleague the honourable member for Southport suggests, they have a freedom that apparently through Mr Curtis they want to deny to other people. Mr Curtis's contribution to the entire debate is an absolute farce. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I say to the honourable members who are interjecting that they are on very dangerous ground if they go against their own Federal member on the Gold Coast and what the bulk of the Gold Coast business community wants. Mr Jennings: Why are they frightened of a trial? Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Southport has made another valid point: Why are they scared of a trial? Surely the fairest way for the Govemment to tackle this issue is to conduct a trial period. Those persons who have been saying to the Government, "Examine the situation and review it," are quite prepared and quite happy to put their argument on the line in 3768 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest a trial period; but one must ask why people who are opposed to some form of deregulation of trading hours are not also prepared to put their arguments on the line. I reiterate that the groups that oppose what the Govemment is doing are not representative of Gold Coast business. The Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association has about 200 members on the Gold Coast, yet it says that it should have more influence and more input into a decision than a group such as the Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce, which has about 380 members, and other groups, such as the Gold Coast Combined Chambers of Commerce and Industry. It may well be that the trial period may not work. At least the Govemment will then be responding to expectations in the community. The trial period may assist the State Industrial Commission in reaching a final determination on the matter, if that is where it is to be ultimately decided. Honourable members need to remember that the whole question of extended trading hours is a political question that honourable members have every right to raise in this Assembly and in the community. As members of Parliament representing the Gold Coast, my colleague the honourable member for Southport and I would be failing in our duty if we did not convey those expectations to the Government. It has been to the Government's credit that the Minister has been able to announce the trial period. Mr Jennings: And has received wide community support. Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend said, it has received wide community support. Since the announcement was made on Monday, I have not received one telephone call against the proposal; neither has the member for Southport (Mr Jennings), the honourable member for Albert (Mr I. J. Gibbs) or the honourable member for South Coast (Mr Hinze). I believe that the Government's decision is in keeping with the expectations of the business community on the Gold Coast.

Deregulation of Retail Trading Hours, Gold Coast Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (12.20 p.m.): The honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge) spoke about the expectations of residents of the Gold Coast in keeping with the Government's decision. In fact, the expectations of a limited number of people are being met by the deregulation of retail trading hours. The Queensland Government's intention to deregulate retail trading hours for the Gold Coast is a further attack on the powers of the State Industrial Commission. Yesterday, legislation that was pushed through all stages in the space of a few hours stripped the commission of its powers in the electricity industrial arena. Yesterday the press reported that the Government intends to introduce legislation in the current session of Pariiament to deregulate retail trading hours on the Gold Coast. The public should be very suspicious of the State Govemment's motives. What is the reason behind the Government's interference? The Industrial Commission is the proper place for this issue to be resolved. However, it seems that when it wants to help its friends, the Government is always prepared to use its overriding powers and bring in special legislation. The report by the independent consultants ESBAS Pty Ltd shows quite cleariy that the overwhelming majority of Gold Coast retailers do not want extended hours. A select few who have influence within the National Party Government are pushing for 24-hour trading. The sort of ad hoc change that the Government is planning has sinister implications for other areas of the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction. If the Government uses its powers to impose extended trading hours on Gold Coast businesses, it can just as easily turn its attention to wage rates and penalty payments. Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3769

I am confident that the ESBAS survey was a reliable expression of opposition by retailers to the Govemment's plans. A total of 454 businesses along the Gold Coast strip, or about 30 per cent of all retailers, responded to the survey. A total of 81,3 per cent of retailers totally rejected the proposal for deregulated trading hours, saying that there was no demand by consumers for extended hours and that deregulation would reduce profits and would not create new jobs. I emphasise that. Under the Industrial ConcUiation and Arbitration Act, the State Industrial Commission is empowered to fix retail trading hours throughout Queensland. When any variation to existing trading hours is sought, an application must be made to the commission by the party seeking the variation. AU interested parties may then apply to be heard before the commission and state their case in support of or in opposition to the application. An application can be lodged only by a union of employees, union of employers or industry and trade association such as a chamber of commerce. An individual person, retail business or property-owner may not lodge an application for variation of trading hours orders. Over the past 10 years, a number of applications have been lodged before the commission for the general extension of trading hours in Queensland. In each instance the applications have been supported by major chain store interests and opposed by the small business retail sector and the unions. That is why Mr McCuUoch opposes it. He represents the retail traders, the small-business people that the Govemment is trying to sell out. The deregulation of trading hours is in the interests of big business, which the Government supports. In each case, overwhelming evidence has been produced to show that no justification exists for extended hours and the commission has subsequently rejected each application. On 3 December 1984, at the official opening of Bartletts new shopping centre at Nerang, the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, (Mr Hinze) horrified the retail industry sector by announcing that the State Govemment intended to grant by legislation the total deregulation of retail trading hours for the Gold Coast— completely bypassing the Industrial Commission. At the same time, the Minister sang the virtues of his close acquaintance, Mr Eddie Komhauser, the owner of the Paradise Centre at Surfers Paradise, and spoke about how he had been given a raw deal by the media in relation to his background. Since that time, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester) has announced his intention to introduce legislation that will grant a six months' trial of deregulated trading hours for the Gold Coast. Is it not marvellous that the faceless Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs has been pre-empted by the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze), who acts on behalf of his mates—people such as Mr Eddie Komhauser— on the Gold Coast? Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for South Brisbane is implying that the Govemment has taken action for the benefit of certain mates. I point out that is quite untme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I do not take the point of order, but I do refer to Standing Order No. 120, which refers to an imputation of improper motives. I suggest that the honourable member for South Brisbane should not impute improper motives to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, and should desist from engaging in that line of argument. Mr FOURAS: Bmce Bishop is the president of the Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce and claims that his organisation wants deregulated trading hours. However, he has not produced any evidence that the majority of retail traders want deregulated 3770 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest hours. Retail traders are the people whom the Opposition supports, and I point out that that chamber of commerce has not attempted to lodge an application before the Industrial Commission. If the chamber of commerce is so confident, why has the proper process not been put into effect? The pressure on the Government for deregulated hours comes from a small group of individuals with vested interests, namely Eddie Komhauser, Mr Curry of the Sports­ man's Warehouse, and Bmce Bishop, a former Liberal. Despite the absence of any evidence to justify extended trading hours the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze), the honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge) and the honourable member for Southport (Mr Jennings) are avidly advocating dere­ gulated trading hours, in the face of overwhelming opposition from the majority of retailers and their employees. The most critical part of this whole issue is the fact that the Queensland Govemment is prepared to wipe out the role of the Industrial Commission by a stroke of the pen, simply to grant a political favour to a handful of National Party cronies. For the benefit of the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, I repeat that the Queensland Govemment is prepared Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. I most certainly consider that a personal reflection has been cast upon me by the honourable member for South Brisbane, who said that the Govemment in Queensland is handing out favours to a bunch of National Party cronies. I point out that Mr Komhauser is the closest personal friend of the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister wishes to make a point of order, he should do so. I have wamed the honourable member for South Brisbane about the implications of his remarks, and I will not issue a further waming. The honourable member will not refer again to ministerial involvement. Mr FOURAS: Even the major chain stores, which traditionally have supported some extensions of trading hours, have publicly stated that they oppose Govemment intervention into the Industrial Commission system. All unions, business and trade organisations related to the retail industry, violently oppose Government intervention into the deregulation of trading hours. If the State Government proceeds with deregulation by legislation, the Australian Labor Party, when it wins the next State Election, will restore trading hours to the status quo and return the power to adjudicate on the issue to the Industrial Commission. The National Party Govemment has persistently demonstated that it pays only lip- service to small business and is willing to cmcify thousands of small business retailers by legislative intervention for the sake of granting political favours to a few friends. The State Government must stay out of the trading hours issue for the sake of industrial democracy in this State. If any change to retail trading hours is sought, then an application should be lodged, in accordance with the law, with the Industrial Commission, which can hear evidence from all interested parties. Once again, the Labor Opposition says to this National Party State Government—the best Govemment that money can buy—"hands off the Industrial Commission." It is important to note the comments made by the president of the State Industrial Court (Mr Justice Matthews) that were published in "The Courier-Mail" today. Mr Justice Matthews said that the Premier and Treasurer had publicly stated that the Industrial Commission had never settled anything very much, other than giving the unions exactly what they wanted. The response by Mr Justice Matthews is as follows— "This statement was not only hurtful and a denial of the years of upright and strenuous service which commissioners have given to the State but it was also absurd." Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3771 The people of Queensland are faced with the absurdity of the State Govemment overriding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission. That action wiU result in goodies and baddies being placed side by side at work-places in the South East Queensland Electricity Board, with one group enjoying better conditions than the other. It is also absurd that electricity industry employees can be dismissed and fined by a kangaroo court. Queensland has an invisible Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. He is one of the faceless Ministers in the Cabinet, and he has been derelict in his duty of protecting the integrity of the commission. He may be famous for walking backwards, but he has reprehensibly and disgracefully deserted the Industrial Commission while it is being comprehensively stripped of its authority by the Premier. The Minister's intention to deregulate trading hours on the Gold Coast will be correctly interpreted as his vote of no confidence in the Industrial Commission. Time expired. Human Reproductive Technology Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.30 p.m.): I believe that the subject of human reproductive technology should be raised in this House to alert the public to recent and likely developments in this area so that individuals and public organisations can contribute to the formulation of legislation that will be necessary to ensure that practices that are acceptable to present social standards are adopted. The interim report of the Asche committee to the Family Law Council has listed present technological developments in use and also lists likely developments in reproductive technology that are already being researched in animal reproduction. The report also alerts the Family Law Council to the effects that such reproductive technology can have on a number of aspects of Australian society. Attomeys-General, Ministers for Welfare Services, theologians, the medical profession and other interested bodies will be used by the Family Law Council to adopt a policy for the use of reproductive technology and then will recommend legislation. I have no reason to doubt that such experts will conscientiously apply themselves to the task. They will most certainly be fully aware that changes to the present situation regarding Australian society's attitude to reproduction, marriage, adoption and such related matters must be carefully managed. An article in a publication called "The Institute of Family Studies Newsletter" written by Tricia Harper gives a concise summary of the interim report of the Asche committee. Tricia Harper is a research fellow with the Institute of Family Studies. The Asche committee advises that legal procedures relating to the birth records of adopted children are still not totally uniform throughout Australia, nor are they always completely accurate. In some cases it can be argued that the method of birth-recording of adoptees does, in fact, violate the rights of the adoptee in that the natural father and mother are not listed on the infant's birth certificate and, as a result, the infant is denied, in later life, the right to know of his tme family background. I am aware that, in the young adult life of many adoptees, a strong desire arises to know of their natural origins. When they endeavour to trace their origins, they face many problems and their searches can also create problems that affect many people. It would be fair to say that some legislation is framed to prevent the occurrence of such potentially disturbing situations. I do not wish to debate the rights or wrongs of such legislation. I merely want to use it to point out that, if society has not tmly come to grips with the recording of birth records of adoptees, it certainly needs to be very careful about how far it allows reproductive technology to affect people's lives. What may be technically possible could well be beyond society's ability to adjust. 3772 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest

Programs using artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation, embryo transfer, in vivo fertilisation, frozen embryos and surtogate mother pseudo contracts already exist. I do not believe that society has yet come to terms, philosophically or legally, with such innovations. It seems to me that social attitudes towards any such innovations take a long time to change. To rush too many reproductive technological developments upon Australian society could be catastrophic. The Asche committee also alerts the community to future likely developments that are already being tested in animals. The likely developments in human reproductive technology are— twinning—splitting the human embryo into two, implanting one part of the embryo and freezing its twin for implantation later. cloning—the asexual reproduction of an individual from a donor body cell, which results in the birth of a child identical with the donor. artificial womb—attaching the embryo to another part of the body (such as the stomach), which, theoretically, could lead to men and transsexuals undergoing pseudo pregnancies. ectogenesis—which involves the growth of a foetus outside the human body in a laboratory without the need of a womb at any time. genetic engineering—the alteration of the chromosome stmcture of cells from which breeding takes place in an attempt to control the characteristics of the offspring. sex predetermination—which is already occurring on a widespread basis in some countries. When I read of such possible developments, I become concemed that there is a very real danger that our society could adopt these new technological skills without ensuring that it has the ability to adjust to such dramatic changes or, in fact, even wants them. The family unit is basic to our society. This reproductive technology will put tremendous strains on the family unit, and I believe that, in the interests of family life, the public should be aware of what could be in store so that the issues can be debated widely and so that, as a result, the Family Law Council can be better guided as to the attitude of the Australian public. To be fair to the Asche Committee on Reproductive Technology, I should inform the House that the committee has made recommendations to the Family Law Council on how it feels the council should proceed. I now quote from those recommendations— "To enable govemments and the community to address the major questions of public policy which arise out of the complexities and dilemmas implicit in the new reproductive technology which creates a family by enabling otherwise infertile couples to parent a child, the Asche Committee on Reproductive Technology makes the following recommendations for consideration by the Family Law Council. 1 A national multi-disciplinary body should be established to deal with matters relating to reproductive technology including: artificial insemination by donor (AID), artificial insemination by husband (AIH), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without donor gametes, embryo transfer (ET), surrogate motherhood, in vivo fertilisation, embryo freezing, and other new technologies. 2 This national body should: a advise both Federal, State and Territory Govemments; b monitor and make recommendations conceming present and future medical research and the practice of reproductive technology; c examine the implications of reproductive technology with respect to the children who may be/are born, to families, to the donors and their families, and to society, and examine the questions of public Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3773

policy which arise from the proposed or actual application of reproductive technology; d regularly provide information to the community regarding these technologies and seek public response; e develop clear guidelines and standards conceming such matters as the legal status of children and their parents, medical ethics and hospital/medical practice, records, access to information, counselling, etc.; f recommend and support research on the ongoing effects of the new reproductive technologies, including its effect on children and families (both men and women) its effect on donors of gametes and their families altemative ways of overcoming infertility with a responsibility to ensure the publication of the results of such research (present and future) in a language which can be understood by the community; g present an annual report. 3 The national body should be multi-disciplinary in its composition, with members selected on the basis of experience and expertise and with an obligation to liaise with those involved in their interest area. In order to reflect the complex questions of public policy which need to be addressed (of which medical ethics and/or research are only one small component), members of the national body should include persons with experience and/or expertise in the following areas: social science research into the implications of reproductive technology for families and society law, especially family law medicine child and family welfare moral theology philosophy professional counselling of famUies and infertUe people women's issues 4 The national body should be established by the Attomey-General or the Prime Minister with an obligation to liaise with, and report to the Standing Committee of Attomeys-General, the Council of Health Ministers, and the Council of Welfare Ministers." Ipswich City Council Election; Nomination of Mr W. R. Klopp Mr INNES (Sherwood) (12.39 p.m.): The matter to which I wish to refer today concems certain activities in the Ipswich City Council elections. Today, the 125th anniversary of the city of Ipswich is being celebrated. March 1985 is also the 125th anniversary of Ipswich's first election campaign. However because of the emergence of election activities in that city that belong more to Tammany Hall or to South America than to Australia, the occasion is not entirely one for celebration. Ipswich's proud democratic history is in danger. Why do I say that? Firstly, I refer to certain physical activities. Towards the middle of Febmary this year, one Wayne Rodger Klopp of CoUingwood Park, a man of some guts, as befits a serving Australian army officer, relying on our proud democratic traditions, formed the intention of standing for election in Division 2 of the Ipswich City Council in the current local government elections. He proposed 3774 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest to stand as a Liberal in a seat held by an Australian Labor Party councillor, one Paul Tully. Mr Tully will be remembered as an ambitious man who tried to knock off the member for Wolston (Mr R. J. Gibbs) in preselections at the last State election, before he was jumped on. Mr Klopp's intention was not finalised and made known until approximately Saturday, 16 Febmary, just three days before nominations closed. It became clear that Mr Klopp's democratic intention was seen by some to be both outrageous and audacious, as there commenced three days in which the Klopp family might have been excused for believing that they had been placed on active service with Mr Klopp in a guerilla campaign theatre. The enemy never revealed itself and was content to snipe and harass. The conclusions are that that enemy was the ALP. Mr Davis: Have you got proof of that? Mr INNES: All the circumstances point to it. Let us find out who, in the end, stood for the Division 2 seat. Mr Davis interjected. Mr INNES: No. Sneaks like the honourable member do not do that. It started with a telephone call on Sunday morning, the 17th, during which Mr Klopp's 12-year-old son, who was alone at home, was told to give his father a message. That message was, "If you stand for council it will be very dangerous for you and your family and it will really be very difficult for you." This charming little exercise in democracy was followed by telephone calls through the night that got the Klopps out of bed to answer the telephone, which was then hung up by the caller. That, of course, all happened during the power strike. On Monday, an advertisement appeared in the "Daily Sun", without any authority or instmction from the Klopps, giving Mr Klopp's name and a telephone number and calling for seven young people for promotional work at $8.50 per hour, with training provided. In these difficult employment times, everyone can imagine the telephone deluge that disturbed the Klopp household for the next two days. Not satisfied with harassing the Klopps, the caller or the people behind the caller were clearly prepared to trifle with the feelings of the young and the unemployed. The enemy moved up its heavy vehicles. A large tmck, probably in the 20-tonne bracket—the precise size is not known, but it was seen by Mrs Klopp—tried to deliver an enormous load of soil onto the Klopps' block. Fortunately, Mrs Klopp was able to stop the tmck and send it away. I guarantee that that little tactic comes as no surprise to the people operating in that area. The efficiency of the signals system operated by the local traders, who telephoned the Klopp household to double-check requests for the delivery of motor vehicle parts, together with 2-way radio in those traders' tmcks, luckily intercepted the delivery of motor vehicle parts to the Klopp household, including items as large as a windscreen, which had not been ordered. The enemy had tried its assault tmck, its psychological warfare unit, its harassing night-time "fire" and physical threats, and it was very nearly successful in changing Mrs Klopp's attitude towards her husband's nomination. However, after a discussion with her husband, Mrs Klopp, like her husband, was determined not to be ground down by the campaign of harassment and on Tuesday morning, the 19th, while her husband went off to duty at the Enoggera Barracks, Mrs Klopp took Mr Klopp's nomination into the Ipswich City Council chambers. By the way, this incident is not isolated. Other Independents and Liberals complained of harassment, and there were other activities. Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3775

I shall continue with the Klopps. The second type of hurdles in the face of this attempted exercise of democratic order was completely different. Mr Klopp is a cavalry officer and, to use cavalry terms, he had got over the post and wire fence and a few bmsh fences and water jumps. Then he hit the triple jump and brick wall. He even got over the brick wall, but then he was disqualified, and I shall teU honourable members why. After checking against the roll, the retuming officer pointed out to Mrs Klopp that one of the eight persons who had nominated Mr Klopp, being two in excess of the required six, was not on the roll, that one was not a resident in Division 2 and that two others did not have their Christian names in full, though the names and addresses given were correct. Mrs Klopp, who was recovering from a broken ankle and had to climb four flights of stairs because of the power strike, Umped off to attempt to coUect sufficient details to allow nomination. One of the ladies who had given one Christian name only inserted the additional name. The retuming officer accepted the nomination and the applicable fee when it was returned to the city council chambers five minutes before closing time. The retuming officer accepted the nomination knowing that one Christian name did not appear, even though in all other ways the nomination was complete and accurate, and that the name could not be confused with that of anyone else on the roll. I must make the point that the retuming officer in these cases is an officer of the council. It is well known that certain political activists are prepared to bring extraordinary guns to bear in this respect. Mr Davis: It is normal. Mr INNES: Certainly it is normal, but a closeness in the functions can be seen. The retuming officer, by signing the nomination form, certified that the nomination substantially complied with the Local Govemment Act mles for the conduct of elections. On Monday, 25 Febmary, the deputy town clerk of Ipswich called at Mr Klopp's house and gave him a letter from the retuming officer, advising him that the nomination was deemed to be invalid. The fee was returned. Mr Klopp telephoned the retuming officer and asked for an explanation as to why it was held to be invalid. The retuming officer admitted that Mr Tully—that name appears again—had lodged an objection to the nomination form. The retuming officer refused to give details as to why the nomination form was invalid. Subsequently, Mr Tully was declared elected because he was the only person who had nominated for Division 2. If one starts to look at the motives of the people who engage in that sort of harassment, one finds that it is unUkely that such people would be connected with those who do not engage in that harassment. Certain lines of inquiry are open. Apparently, the returning officer said that he was acting on legal advice. That advice may well have come from the solicitor who is employed by the Labor-controlled Ipswich City Council. However, one must bear in mind the authorities that are not consistent with that decision. I refer to one of the few authorities that do apply in this State. In 1920 a decision was brought down by the Full Court of Queensland in a case involving a local authority election. In that case, the wrong Christian name of one of the candidates was inserted on a nomination form and someone moved that he be removed from office. In the nineteenth century the local govemment legislation was very strict in this regard. Complete accuracy was demanded. However, part of the Local Govemment Act states that, provided the retuming officer is satisfied that the provisions of the legislation have been complied with, mere formal error shall not debar the nomination. In giving judgment, Mr Justice Lukin stated— "We are of the opinion that the nomination paper in the form in which it was actually lodged contains a mere formal error and that the grant of the retuming 3776 6 March 1985 Matters of Public Interest

officer's certificate shows that there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act." I am asserting that legal advice did Mr Klopp out of his rightful nomination and led to somebody Mr Davis interjected. Mr INNES: Legal cases are very costly. The honourable member's socialist friend Mr Linacre has apphed for Commonwealth legal aid to fight against the mles that the Labor Party presided over. Time expired. Water Conservation Mr HARTWIG (Callide) (12.50 p.m.): Today I shall touch upon a very important item, a commodity that the nation cannot live without but of which there is a shortage- water. In this State, this nation and throughout the worid, water is a commodity in great shortage. The land on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range in Queensland is very, very rich, but it suffers from a shortage of water. Without water the continued and increasing production of foodstuffs cannot be ensured. There is no way in the world that Queensland has adequate water. Recently, five land-holders in the Callide Valley were prosecuted in court because they had used water from existing bores on their properties without a permit. A young chap by the name of Greg Larson, who lives near Thangool with his wife and four young children, has one neighbour who is pumping as much water as possible day and night from four bores and another neighbour who is using three bores. However, this young man cannot get a permit to pump from a bore to sustain his way of life and feed his family. On three occasions in as many years, that man has been taken to court by the Water Resources Commission and heavily punished. That is not good. The main water catchment areas of the east coast of Queensland are the Brisbane, Mary, Bumett, Fitzroy and Burdekin Valleys. Surely the Govemment could establish a committee to study the productivity of each valley and allocate some priority for Govemment spending—whether that be Federal or State—that takes into account the retum that can be achieved by any water conservation projects that might take place in that valley. The Callide Valley is one of the richest areas in Queensland, yet it does not have a major weir for irrigation. The area produces cotton and lucerne. Goodness me, Queensland is looking down the barrel of another drought! What has happened since the last drought? Has the Govemment done anything really spectacular by way of water conservation for these areas? It has not; it has failed. If there is one lesson that should have been leamt by now it is that, in a world with an ever-increasing population, the production of food must also increase, otherwise the world will have another Ethiopian disaster on its hands—not enough food for the starving millions. Yet this Government denies adequate water to the very people who, by their way of life, seek to produce food. I refer to the primary producers. Like many other Queensland country towns, Yeppoon has an untreated water supply. That water is pumped from Water Park Creek, put into storage tanks and reticulated for domestic usage. The time has arrived for the undertaking of a proper survey into water resources that looks to the year 2 000 and beyond. It is no use squealing about increased population, business development and power stations if the State's water resources are not planned accordingly. The Government must plan for the future. I notice that the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter) is presently in the Chamber. When he was on the back benches, he rightly brought up—I think at my Matters of Public Interest 6 March 1985 3777

instigation—the Bradfield scheme. The only thing wrong with the Bradfield scheme is that the State does not have the courage to undertake it. It is no problem for the Queensland Govemment to find $500m for Expo 88. The people producing food, who provide the spice of life, have been denied an excellent opportunity of producing enough food to feed not only all Australians but also may hungry mouths throughout the world. Water restrictions limit beautification and civic pride in towns and cities. As soon as there is a week's dry weather, restrictions are imposed. When one considers that the average annual rainfall on the eastem coast of Queensland is between 25 and 300 inches, that is terrible. Heavy rain makes rivers miles wide, and aU the water mns out to sea. The Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Tumer) knows that, because of lack of rain over the last six months, people have been forced out of production. I believe that the last drought in Queensland resulted in lost production and costs in excess of $200m, which would be enough to enable half a dozen dams to be build throughout the State. Water must be conserved and dams must be constmcted. Drought occur because of a lack of water or a lack of moisture. As a responsible Govemment, we must use the water catchment areas and say, "Where do our priorities lie?" Money can be found for other projects. If the Govemment does not encourage primary producers to produce the food— the men who are being taken to court and prosecuted—who will produce it? The food will not be produced by the people who live in the city, because they are charged excess water rates if they use large quantities of water on their gardens. Civic pride should be encouraged. Queensland's parks and gardens need adequate water. Wherever one travels, one hears that water restrictions are applied following a few weeks' dry weather. That is not good enough. Honourable members must do something about it. In the Livingstone shire, residents pay $210 or $212 per annum for water. I am told that the people in Marlborough pay about $280 per annum for water, which is the second-highest charge for water in Queensland. That does not add up in an area that receives a rainfall of between 30 and 35 inches annually. Creeks, rivers and streams mn kilometres wide after the wet season. It is a reflection on the administration of this State that the people who are gambling against the elements for their livelihood must put up with restrictions and be taken to court because they want to use water, the life-blood of Queensland. I strongly urge the Govemment to come to grips with the shortage of water in this great State before another major drought occurs. Queeslanders cannot live without water. I repeat that water is the basic requirement of all developments. It is even more important than the power industry. It is possible to pipe water for hundreds of kilometres. Water is being piped for 90- odd kilometres to the Tarong Power Station. Water is being piped from Awoonga Dam to the Callide "B" Power Station for electricity generation purposes. Those two small schemes cost $ 150m. More dams could be buUt to accommodate the production of food and fodder for this great State. Speech by Honourable Member for Cairns Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (12.59 p.m.): I wish to comment briefly on the disastrous speech made by the honourable member for Caims (Mr De Lacy) today. As everyone in north Queensland knowns, he has communist tendencies and sympathies. It is unfortunate that he again denigrated the people of Babinda and made comments on matters about which he has no knowledge. The fact is that there was intimidation by the members of the "concemed citizens" in Babinda similar to the tactics used in Ipswich by the persons referred to by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes). 3778 6 March 1985 Architects BUI

I place on record that the statements I made last week in this Chamber are tme and correct, and I stand by them. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

ARCHITECTS BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resurned from 26 Febmary (see p. 3384) on Mr Wharton's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (2.15 p.m.): At the outset, I indicate that the Australian Labor Party is not opposed to an updating of the Architects Act. Obviously, from time to time that is necessary. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said— "The main thmst of the Act provides that persons who provide professional services in the field of architecture must be suitably qualified and that the Board of Architects is constituted to administer the legislation." It is to be hoped that people who are members of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects are suitably qualified. If that were not the case, it would be to the detriment of the community and the building industry generally. The Minister continued— "The main concerns of the Act are that there is no specific complaints procedure for the prosecution of offences under the Act..." It is vitally important that some machinery be set in motion to prosecute people under the Act. Architects should not be treated differently from anybody else in the community who is liable to prosecution as a result of misdemeanours or criminal acts of any kind. The Government has quite openly admitted that this is the first major review of the legislation for more than 20 years. It is pertinent to point out that it does not take the Government 20 years to introduce recurring anti-union legislation and to take the State apart when it sees fit to introduce legislation at the drop of a hat. However, in relation to such mundane matters as the Architects Act, it has taken the Govemment 20 years to conduct a major review. The Minister said also— "The main thmst of the proposed legislation is similar to that of the previous Act in providing for the keeping of a register of architects; the definition of qualifications of an architect; the approval of architectural companies; disciplinary provisions against architects and architectural companies;.. " Again, it must be conceded that that is essential in any form of govemment. The Minister continued— "Presently, the requirement for professional indemnity insurance places the approved architectural companies at a disadvantage in relation to individual or unincorporated practices and as it is commonplace for the majority of architects (whether corporate or unincorporate) to carry such insurance, it has been decided to remove this statutory requirement." I do have some reservations about that comment by the Minister. I interpret it to mean that the architect now is not required to take out indemnity insurance but is required, in the normal course of events, as an individual, to take out insurance. I wonder what policing will be enforced in respect of that and whether an individual architect will have to provide the Government with proof of insurance coverage. Architects Bill 6 March 1985 3779 The Minister said— "All monetary penalties have been updated. The present penalties were provided for in 1971 and have not been updated since." It has taken the Government 13 years to examine that aspect. He said— "The right of appeal has been changed from the Supreme Court to the District Court, which is considered more accessible in terms of time and cost." I totaUy concur with that. Overall, the Government is upgrading the legislation. However, a couple of minor matters do concern me. The Minister might contradict my interpretation of his comments. As I said earlier, the Opposition does not intend to debate the legislation to any great extent. I am the Opposition spokesman on housing, and it is my responsibility to examine the contents of the legislation. I have a document from some Brisbane residents explaining that they are in a hell of a mess in relation to some renovations or additions that were carried out to a property. According to the information that I have received from those people, the responsibility for that is laid at the feet of the architect who was engaged on the particular job. I will tell honourable members a few of the complaints made by those people. I will read verbatim what the writer says. I point out that on the advice of several people, the writer did engage an architect. The people concerned consulted with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The submission written by one of the people involved states that the consultation took place, "only after it became apparent to me that things had gone badly and that a Mr Ashe did not seem to be able to control the builder." Mr Ashe was the architect involved in the project. The submission continues— "I was so astounded by the inadequacy of Mr Ashe I asked, in all seriousness, whether it would be possible for a person to become a member of the Institute without formal qualifications (i.e. were an applicants qualifications carefuUy checked?) I was told it would be impossible as each and every member had to pass an entrance exam. The Institute was of little help. After months of delay they sent a highly qualified architect to interview me and to see the state of affairs. He seemed sympathetic and said he wanted to see a settlement negotiated, which was what I wanted, and for the cost and trauma of a court case avoided. After seeing Mr Ashe he wrote to say he could nothing. I also raised the matter of some of the clauses in the contract. The replies were unsatisfactory in the extreme i.e. they did not expect an architect to certify work which was unsatisfactory—but agreed that the contract permitted an architect to do just that. There therefore seemed nothing would be achieved with the Institute by continuing the discussion." The person involved was expressing dissatisfaction with the work performed by the architect, and total dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The writer goes on— "Architects Registration Board. I did not hear of this Board until the trouble had been going on for nearly two years. Until that time I had been under the impression that the architects profession was regulated by the Institute, the professional association of architects, in a similar way to which the Law Society is responsible for the regulation of the professional activities of lawyers. (It should perhaps be noted that the profession of architects is a much smaller one that that of lawyers and all my contacts have been with architects living and working in Brisbane.) The President of the Queensland Chapter of the Institute of Architects is Chairman of the Architects Registration Board. As far as I was able to ascertain 3780 6 March 1985 Architects Bill

there is no lawyer on the Board. The Architects Act is relevant to the existence and terms of reference of the Board. After a preliminary enquiry by the Board's Registrar an Inspector, a retired Brisbane architect, was appointed to investigate my complaint(s) against Mr Ashe. This Inspector spent many hours going through my correspondence relating to the building dispute and I understand he also examined Mr Ashe's file and interviewed him in regard to my complaint. I was never informed as to his specific findings or of Mr Ashe's rejoinders to my complaints although it would seem that Mr Ashe must have been told of my specific complaints. This seems a common but unsatisfactory format for investigations of this type. I believe that the complainant should be given the opportunity of replying to the person's responses otherwise responses can be made that are misleading or even false but this fact goes undetected. The Inspector is paid by the Board. Thus the investigation of my complaint must have cost the tax-payer a lot of money. The Board's conclusion was that the Architect had done nothing wrong under the Act. Such a conclusion is obviously undesirable in that it could be interpreted that the Board was condoning unprofessional work by a registered architect. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I suggest in the minds of a number of other architects, that Mr Ashe was negligent in his capacity as an architect employed to look after Mrs Head's interests in regard to this building project. My motive in complaining to the Board was the hope that either directly or indirectly it would lead to Mr Ashe changing his approach and being prepared to negotiate a settiement. Shortly after the investigation began the Registrar of the Board told me that the Board would be unable to help me in that the only powers they had were to fine, reprimand or deregister an architect. When I asked for what reason a homeowner might then complain to the Board the only reason given was 'for spite'. I would like to ask whether it is in the public interest for the govemment to provide a Board whose main purpose is to register, and presumably regulate the conduct of, architects, is dependant upon complaints motivated by spite as a method of assessing professional conduct? I pointed out to the Registrar that a possible anomaly could arise where the Board found that an architect should be reprimanded for unprofessional conduct but where the complainant was not in a position to obtain any redress from the architect. I asked whether the Board would consider setting up some form of insurance, along the lines of the Builders' Registration Board, as a means of preventing such a situation arising. In reply I was told by the Board (i) that statutory bodies did not usually handle money, and (ii) there were plenty of other resources available in the community that could overcome such a problem. Unfortunately the Board did not detail what those resources are. Perhaps it should be noted that neither the Institute, nor other architects with whom I consulted, mentioned the existence of the Architects Registration Board. Architectural Arbitrators. I consulted two on different occasions. Both were concerned by my lack of financial resources and neither could suggest a way around this problem. One simply suggested I would have to accept the builders terms of settlement as I was not in a position to take legal action against the builder. Neither suggested having recourse to the Builders Registration Board. Solicitors. I went to solicitors for advice before signing the contract and after the dispute arose, with the builder. The architect and myself agreed that we would settle the matter without the intervention of solicitors, and the architect undertook to persuade the builder that it was not in his interest to continue to use the services of a Solicitor. For myself I genuinely believed it would be best for all three of us to avoid solicitors because of the cost of their services and because at that time I did Architects BUI 6 March 1985 3781

not comprehend the magnitude of the defects but realised that the builder had made some bad mistakes." The lady visited four solicitors in an attempt to obtain some satisfaction, but was still unable to do so. In referring to the Builders Registration Board, she said— "Builders Registration Board. Before agreeing to the architect's choice of builder I contacted the Builders Registration Board to check that the Builder was in fact registered with the Board. I had little knowledge of the functions of the Board but thought that it would guarantee a good standard of workmanship and the ability to carry out the work tendered for." The lady described what happened and she then turned to her complaint, which is as follows— "(a) The complaint. An Inspector came and looked at the work other than plumbing and electrical work. He then gave the builder instmctions to remedy some of the work, with the consequence that in some places the effect was that of a patched up job. Some of these remedies resulted in additional costs to the home owner because fittings already purchased no longer fitted. The Inspector directed this. The Builder appealed against remedying some of the work and employed a builder to look at the work which the Inspector considered to be defective. This engineer then certified that with some work already corrected, that the work carried out by the builder was satisfactory. I found it strange that an engineer employed by the builder was able to over mle the findingso f the Registration Board's Inspector. When I raised this matter I was told by the Inspector that this was common practice. The Inspector was only able to check part of the work as some sections, such as the kitchen, shower room and toUet, were not completed. He said I could ask him back to look at this part of the project when the work on them was completed. He also explained that he could only look at the type of work listed in the Building Regulations. This did not include electrical work, plumbing or fittings. He was mainly concemed with the stmctural aspects of the work." I might add that I have not read the entire document. I have not had the opportunity of raising this matter with the Minister, the Builders Registration Board or the Architects Board, but I do intend to reproduce the document and forward it to them. I will ask the Minister to have the matter investigated as best he can in terms of his responsibility, because the Builders Registration Board is mentioned. I will also send it to the Architects Board in the hope that something will be done. I read that document mainly to demonstrate the difficulties faced by the ordinary person in the community who knows very little about architects or the activities of the Architects Board. Not very many home-builders engage architects to supervise constmction. Most people seem to regard architects as being concemed mainly with the constmction of high-rise buildings and other major developments. In this case it seems that, because of the actions of a number of people, including the architect who was engaged, the lady involved finished up in a hell of a mess. It is not good enough that that problem remains unresolved. The lady has had discussions, conversations and arguments with five or six different people and has still not been able to have her problem satisfactorily resolved. To reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech—the Opposition is pleased to see that the Architects Act is finally being reviewed after a period of almost 20 years. I can only hope that the updating of some aspects of the Act following a major review will mean that the provisions of this Bill relating to architects will be enforced. More importantly, I hope that my representations through the Minister in regard to that lady are successful. Mr MILLER (Ithaca) (2.29 p.m.): I enter this debate very briefly, mainly because of a problem that has arisen in my electorate. Having listened to the member for Rockhampton North (Mr Yewdale), I think we could both well be referring to the same case. 3782 6 March 1985 Architects BiU Mr Yewdale: They told me you weren't interested, that you said it was legal and, "You look after yourself" I will read it to you later if you like. Mr MILLER: We are dealing with the Board of Architects. I am wondering what the Government is doing in this legislation to ensure that any person with a legitimate case will not be treated in the same way as the woman mentioned by the member for Rockhampton North. My office checked with the Board of Architects and with SEQEB. The woman claimed that some of the wiring done by the builder was faulty. The SEQEB inspector said that the wiring referred to by the woman was not done by the builder; that it was old wiring which required replacing. The woman was given a list of requirements that SEQEB believed were necessary to make the house safe. If all the other complaints by this woman are in the same category, I am not as concerned as I might be. The Minister said— "The main thmst of the Act provides that persons who provide professional services in the field of architecture must be suitably qualified and that the Board of Architects is constituted to administer the legislation. The main concerns of the Act are that there is no specific complaints procedure for the prosecution of offences under the Act Because of that, I should like the Minister to tell me how the Govemment can ensure under this legislation that a complaints procedure has been included. It is obvious from the Minister's words that it was not possible previously to ensure that breaches of the Act could be remedied. On examining the Bill, I cannot see anything in clause 21 giving the board power to remove from the register the name of any person who is incompetent as an architect. I am wondering whether a subclause (e) could be added after subclause (d), to provide— "in the opinion of the Board this person has not carried out his duties to the satisfaction of the Board." I do not know what clause in the Bill will enable an outsider who is not satisfied with the work done by an architect to take satisfactory action against the architect. It is obvious from the letter read by the honourable member for Rockhampton North that the person was not satisfied with what the architect did. My office was told by the Board of Architects that things were satisfactory but, as I said earlier, SEQEB went so far as to say Mr Yewdale: The inspector did not say that. According to the lady's letter, the inspector said that it was faulty. Mr MILLER: The honourable member for Rockhampton North should investigate the matter in the same way as my office did. My office assured me that everything that could be done under the Act had been done. I remind the member for Rockhampton North that the Minister admitted that the Act had insufficient teeth, and he said that he is putting teeth into it. I want to know where the teeth can be found in the legislation. What is the clause that gives this legislation teeth to ensure that a person in a position similar to that referred to by the honourable member for Rockhampton North can take appropriate action? The only provision in clause 21 that could in any way reflect on an architect is subclause (d), which reads— "does not possess the qualifications in respect of which he was registered." That is a very broad statement. Mr Davis: Whose side are you on? Mr MILLER: I am on the side of my constituents. Clause 31 refers to an architect being a fit and proper person to be registered as an architect. That could cover many matters. I ask the Minister to consider writing into Architects BiU 6 March 1985 3783 this legislation a plainly worded clause that will allow members of the public to seek redress if they are not satisfied with the actions of an architect. Mr Davis: How do you do that? Mr MILLER: I am asking the Minister to consider that matter. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that he is concemed that the present Act does not allow such steps to be taken. He said that he has overcome the problem in this legislation. I cannot see where he has overcome the problem. Today, I am not here to tell him how to overcome the problem. I am asking him to explain to me and to the honourable member for Brisbane Central, because it is obvious that he does not know, either, just how people can take action against an architect who is not doing a fit and proper job for the community. Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (2.37 p.m.): Last week, I brought public focus on the home-building and seUing racketeers Dixon and Eton, and the lying, cheating and intimidation practised by them against their customers. Today, once again, I bring public attention to these matters and to an architect's report on a house of another one of their customers. This home inspection report relates to the home of a Dixon and Eton customer, Mrs Broadwater, of 21A David Street, North Boo val. The report was compiled by Queensland Inspection Service. The architect who made the report listed 10 problems with the house. The report states— "1. Tear in flyscreen door. 2. Downpipe broken at ground. 3. Beam at front has a bow between posts—bearers not level. 4. Tiedown bolts at the stumps require nut to be tightened. 5. Lock is puUed away from door—does'nt work. 6. Door wUl not open. 7. Sliding door wiU not lock. 8. Hole in door—small. 9. Hole in wall—smaU. 10. Door sticking." In regard to the third point, the report states— "Very little bracing in lower level—suggest check with local authority to see if it meets the code requirements—reason probably why house moves when movement upstairs." The architect also made these notes— "While the house is in a reasonable condition it is obviously buiU to a minimum standard. Areas of major concem are deflections in some bearers and an apparent lack of adequate bracing to the lower level." This lady spent about $150 to have the report compiled by an architect so that she could seek some sort of justice and recompense from Dixon and Eton. The case of Michael and Georgina Hooper, more Dixon and Eton clients, needs to be told. In a letter to me they stated— "I am not a member of your district, but after reading your story in the Queensland Times 28 February, I feel you are the best person who could help us. We are another victim of the notorious Dixon & Eton firm. It's a bit late for us to complain, we bought our house from them in December 1983, from finance which they arranged for us, at $708 per month. We were newly weds and didn't really know what to expect in a house. 3784 6 March 1985 Architects Bill

After striking a few minor problems, early in the piece, I decided to be a handyman since it was now our house, not thinking it should have been done since we paid $55,000 for the house & land. Could you please write back and tell us what we could do, if anything, or we are flogging a dead horse. Thank you for your time and help. Yours Sincerely, Michael and Georgina Hooper." To cut an expensive and long story short, I will list their problems as follows— "(1) Our septic tank 'feU to pieces' 5 months after we moved in, and was spilling septic waste all over the back yard. Eton & Dixon told us it was nothing to do with them, if the council passed it, it was the council's reponsibility, plus they told us there is only a 3 month warranty on the house." These people live in the Moreton Shire Council. The list of complaints continues as follows— "The council inspectors office told us, it was nothing to do with them, it was up to the builders to fix. At my own expense, I did a temporary fix up job, which is still holding. (2) The first storm we came across in the house, broke the front door in. We found that the lock and door panel were not put in properly and the door didn't shut correctly, making it impossible to lock. Thus, we bought a security lock & bolt, to keep it locked shut during storms and strong winds. (3) The back door, lock and all, are falling to pieces. (4) We haven't had our house checked by a constmction inspector yet, but during storms with strong winds our house sways to an incredible degree. So bad that the wife and myself have been 'absolutely terrified' while we are in the house. (5) I had to spend $140 to put soU in for a driveway because we have black soil here, and when it rains we have had to park our car on the road, because when black soil gets wet it's hard enough to walk on, and totally impossible to drive on. There are at least 15 more, other things wrong, such as bad carpentry, bolts to hold bad joints and beams together. I would be glad to tell you them all, if you want to hear them. Thankyou once again for your time." The letter was signed by Michael and Georgina Hooper. They enclosed a postscript that reads— "I didn't mention our house was a two storey weatherboard, with tin bottom. They didn't build if for us, it was to be a spec home for display, but we bought it before it went on display." Because I did not have time last week to finish listing the problems that Ray and Merin Francis faced with their home, which was built by Dixon & Eton, I wiU do so now. They went through the house with a fine-tooth comb and listed the following 14 faults— "Internal stairs were unlevel and twisted. Brick work was not finished off neatiy in mmpus room. Doorways (every one in house) weren't square. Storage cupboard under stairs was omitted. Downstairs bathroom window was not " Mr Menzel: He can't even read. Mr UNDERWOOD: No, my photocopy is not very clear. Architects Bill 6 March 1985 3785

The faults listed continued— "Downstairs bathroom window was not working properly & had no vent. Downstairs bathroom had no shower screen. Laundry tub was plastic (not s/steel as quoted). All internal walls upstairs were warped and bowed. Window frames were unsquare & unevenly positioned in height. Bedroom doorways were of different heights. Roof sagged in the centre. Comer of walls were skew. Ceilings sagged in lounge, mmpus, main bedroom & dining room. Back wall of house (western cedar boards) was 'slapped together' (the list goes on!!). When confronted with this, Eton's solicitor & ours came to a loose agreement & progress payments were released. Constmction resumed. We were told to pick our light fittings at Tracksons, McGregor—which we did. We chose our floor coverings. The only changes made to the house were:— —the laundry tub —bannisters —archways —storage cupboard —electrical outlets. The light fittings placed in the house were nothing like what we chose. No floor coverings were made apart from bathrooms & toilet. For internal colour scheme to differ from the standard cream and white—we were told we would have to pay extra (Although we 'had a choice'). For stained architraves we would have to pay a rediculous extra $500. Once again solicitors were called in. Deals and agreements were tossed around. Eton refused access to the house & removed all light fittings, taps, hot water system, drains, etc. House was boarded up to prevent forced access. Somehow he received his finalprogres s payment & council final inspection before the house was completed. The house to this day is still not complete as per contract. By forcing entry—we took an independant builder in, to give a quote to bring house to a finished tradesmanlike constmction." That house was in the Moreton shire. That quotation was given by Barry Hansen and a list of all faults is available from the sohcitor, Greg Ploetz. The statement continues— "Eton then tried to settle the contract on our house at Raceview—blatently obvious—trying to leave us homeless. Quick thinking by Greg Ploetz left his tender useless. (Eton set settlement for 3 p.m. Friday only to show up 10 minutes late) Details of all subsequent legal action is also available from Greg Ploetz. The house and land cost us $68,000 finally we could only sell it in its condition for $58,000." I have a statement from another Dixon and Eton client, Lyn and Neil Anderson, of 4 Cleary Street, Bundamba. It reads— "Switch in bedroom is installed upside down. Nail holes in bedroom and kitchen. Two front sliding windows leak at corner. Different house style than showed in plans. Sliding door not square. 3786 6 March 1985 Architects Bill Dents in roof iron. Laundry pipes installed on outside of flue. Outside feature siding was not the original siding quoted by Jeff Litzow. Feature siding was said to be redwood. Found it to be painted pine. Laundry pipes leaked (fixed them ourselves)." Since last week I have received an overwhelming response to my speech about Dixon and Eton. It has become apparent that many people have been touched by their activities. Lawyers, builders, developers, real estate personnel, building suppliers, Dixon and Eton clients, their friends, neighbours and families have said, "Good on you, Dave. Keep up the good work. It's time something was done about Dixon and Eton." The only people who have complained to me are Patrick Dixon and Peter Eton. On three previous occasions I have given them the offer—I do it the fourth time now—that I would be happy to receive any information in writing that they care to provide. If necessary I would then be prepared to seek further information from them and, again if necessary, would be prepared to meet with them. To date, all I have received is an abusive and false letter from Patrick Dixon. Quite obviously Dixon and Eton are not interested in rectifying the problems that I raised last week. AU they want is people's money and for their customers to deny that they have made any complaints about the products of Dixon and Eton. I make this call to Dixon and Eton to fix up the problems. Since the publication of part of my speech in "The Queensland Times", instead of accepting my offer, Dixon and Eton have resorted to harassment. For example, Patrick Dixon and Kevin Bradley, the firm's solicitor, have attempted to obtain a statement from Mr and Mrs Redunz exonerating Patrick Dixon. Dixon and Eton have sent a private detective to the people whose problems I raised last week. The information given by that private detective revealed that he was employed by SKE Stewart & Co., corner of Queen and George Streets, with the telephone number of 229 7450. Mr Davis: What was his role? Mr UNDERWOOD: To try to have people sign statements that contradicted their earlier statements and thus exonerated Dixon and Eton. A number of people fear harassment and violence. For their own protection, I will not name them. The following statement by Rosanne Roulston relates to the harassment and threats of violence from Mr Eton. It states— "To whom it may concern In 1978 my husband and I and my brother were renting a farm house from Peter Eton at Ironbark Range. We rented this house throught Statham's Realty in Brisbane Street and had a 6 month lease on the house. After approximately 8 weeks we received an eviction notice from Peter Eton. This Eviction Notice was in no way connected with any default on our behalf I was later to find out that Mr Eton wanted the property sold to settie an account that was outstanding. My husband, my brother and myself discussed the Eviction Notice and decided that we would fight Mr Eton because the law was that we had signed a lease. After this my brother and my husband had occasion to talk to Mr Eton who informed them that we had to leave because if we didn't he would have to resort to stronger tactics. We informed Mr Eton that we were staying and that the law would be on our side. Architects Bill 6 March 1985 3787

When we offered the fortnightly rent to the Estate agent, he informed us that he had been instmcted by Mr Eton not to receive any money from us on the Property. Mr Eton then threatened us with force. At this we informed him that we would obtain a Restraining Order against him. Mr Eton stated that this would not be any good as he knew people who would hurt just for the pleasure of seeing a person in pain and as he would not be involved personally we could not prove it was him. In the meantime there would be a woman raped and a baby whose brains had been bashed in. We again informed Mr Eton that we were not prepared to leave the lease." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind the honourable member that the House is debating the Architects BiU. I do not know whether the honourable member is referring to architects. His comments on the Bill are not as relevant as I would like them to be in this debate. Mr UNDERWOOD: Eariier I referred to the problems experienced by these people. One customer to whom I referred did use an architect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to inform the Chair whether he is complaining about architectural supervision or architects. Mr UNDERWOOD: Today I am making a call for the involvement of architects in more supervision of these people so that things can be brought up to an architectural standard. That is what the registration of architects is all about. I am showing the types of persons who unfortunately are in the business and need to be cleaned up. That is why the registration of architects is needed and why more influence should come from that sphere. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member had made no reference to architects. Mr UNDERWOOD: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have. The statement continues— "At this stage Mr Eton "moved in' some painters to paint the house on the property. There wasn't anything wrong with this except the men who were doing the painting became quite disrupting in their dealings at the house. They would come into the bedroom when I was getting ready for work and make lurid remarks about my perfume etc. We put up with this behaviour until I was quite concerned for my and my childens Safety. We then left the property to live in a caravan on a friends property until we could return to our own home in the Febmary. I would add that at the time Mr Eton had us frightened for our Safety and that of our children. He is man who intimidates one and knows he will get away with it because of his 'scare tactics'. Over the last few years I have become concerned with the fact that people like Mr Eton preys on the young people in our Society. There will never be complaints about such things as long as young people such as ourselves are scared of people like Mr Eton who hide behind discrepancies in the Judicial System. I might add that I never came forward eariier because I was scared of Mr Eton and his power. I am much older now and I also know more about the Law and Mr Eaton cannot hurt me any longer. The same law that protects Mr Eton also can work to protect me." The statement is signed by Rosanne Roulston. 3788 6 March 1985 Architects Bill

My search into court records shows that Peter Howard Eton last month swore an affidavit that he uses the false name of Peter Barry Howard. That camouflage by Mr Eton certainly needs to be questioned and answered by him. He should indicate why he needs that camouflage in his business and other dealings. I direct that query to Mr Eton and to his solicitors. I sound a note of warning to the people of Ipswich and West Moreton districts so that they are aware of that name when they see it. The other matter that I wish to raise briefly this afternoon is how Dixon and Eton finance homes for their clients. They attract people to their homes by advertising low deposits of $100 or arranging for no deposit at all. They are able to do this by dealing with finance companies such as FCA and AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd. The form of financing that is usuaUy offered is called baUoon financing. BaUoon financing means that the borrower pays an increasing amount each year on his monthly payments. A number of people have contacted me and given me the details of their financial problems. One of those people is, of course, Mrs Broadwater. I received also a letter from Mr and Mrs Hooper. They have a similar problem. Balloon financing is a form of financing that destroys people's lives. I was told by one person who contacted me that it has seriously affected that person's marriage, and that couple are expecting a baby. Dixon and Eton plead innocence. Through their arrangements with financecompanies , Dixon and Eton are destroying people's lives. I call on the Govemment to seriously investigate the matter with a view to putting an end to balloon financing or at least bringing in significant controls over balloon financing so that it is offered only to those people who can afford it. I do not have the latitude in this debate to go into balloon financing in further detail and into the number of cases that have been brought to my attention. However, I inform the House that I have received a number of additional complaints from clients of Dixon and Eton concerning the quality of their homes. Once again, I call on the Govemment to ensure greater supervision of home-builders and more of the professionalism that architects try to provide to the people of this State. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (2.57 p.m.): I indicate quite clearly that the Liberal Party is in favour of the Architects Bill. The Minister indicated that the Architects Act 1962-1971 has not been amended since 1971. That is quite obvious. However, I commend the Minister for the way in which he has updated the Act. In his second-reading speech he said— "In reviewing the legislation, a study of all State and Territory Architects Acts has been undertaken on a clause by clause basis. In addition, a member of the Board of Architects of Queensland has made visits on behalf of the board to all registration boards in Australia and all Royal Australian Institute of Architects chapters and Federal offices. Discussions have also been held with the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom and the National Council of American Registration Boards." I have no reason to believe that the investigation has not been carried out in a very thorough manner. Therefore, the input to this legislation should be excellent. In the practice of architecture both in Australia and overseas, much can be leamt in updating the Act in Queensland. The Minister has not merely amended the old Act; he has introduced a completely new Bill. That does not necessitate the consolidation of the existing legislation. I agree that that is the best way to go about it. Consolidation or mere amendment of the Act would not be in accordance with the requirements of a BiU of this nature. The Minister is to be congratulated on introducing a completely new Bill. It is interesting to note the problems that have been encountered in dealing with two-member corporations when only one member is required to be an architect. Whereas previously two directors were required to be architects upon incorporation of the firm, that provision has been relaxed. Architects Bill 6 March 1985 3789

The complaints procedure has been highlighted because, as the Minister said in his second-reading speech, consumer awareness is of vital importance, especially when the cost of housing is taken into account. The cost of constmction nowadays is approaching mammoth proportions, and the professional competence of the architect must be redoubtable. That is the reason that architects are registered and graded according to qualifications, professional capabilities and training. Moreover, a consumer who employs a professional architect in good faith should be protected to ensure that the professional service expected from an architect will be forthcoming. Professional architectural standards, both inside and outside Govemment service, are renowned. In passing, I compliment the Minister upon the architects who are employed in his department and the excellence of the work that they performed. The departmental architects I refer to have a reputation in the community for having achieved exemplary standards in architecture which are an inspiration for young architects embarking upon a professional career in the Government service. The Liberal Party is pleased to support the legislation. I believe that the best interest of members of the architectural profession and the consumer would be served by honourable members supporting the Bill. Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (3.2 p.m.), in reply: First of all, I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for their comments on the proposals in the Bill. Generally speaking, honourable members seem to be in agreement with the purport of the legislation, and I take on board the comments, which have been both constmctive and helpful. I take the opportunity to indicate that I will move an amendment that will merely bring accompanying regulations before Parliament. Rather than have the regulations altered by Executive Council, I prefer to have the alterations made on the flooro f the House, and I foreshadow that the amendment will be moved at a later stage. The honourable member for Rockhampton North has raised the matter of a complaint lodged by Mrs J. Johnstone against an architect, Mr R. M. C. Ashe. That complaint was also mentioned by the honourable member for Ithaca. I am informed that Mrs Johnstone lodged her complaint with the board by letter dated 27 September 1983, and that the board instigated an investigation under section 12 of the Act to assist in the inquiries. The investigation team submitted a detailed report after conferring with the complainant, the builder and the architect and, on consideration of same, the board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of misconduct in a professional respect, as laid down under section 22 of the Act. The honourable member will notice that the Bill before the House includes a number of amendments to the disciplinary powers of the board, which will enable it to deal with such matters more effectively. On the subject of recovery of damages, I am satisfied that sufficient legal avenues already exist through the courts for such action. I would also like to correct inaccuracies made in the honourable member's speech. The registrar of the board is not an inspector, and the president of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, while a member of the board, is not the chairman. In reply to the honourable member for Ithaca, I would like to draw his attention to "Part V—Disciplinary Proceedings", clauses 31, 33 and 35, which provide for deregistration of an architect who has been found guilty of professional misconduct. The honourable member for Ithaca asked about further amendments to those clauses which specify professional misconduct. The grounds listed in clause 31 include: conviction of an indictable offence; obtaining registration by fraud; not a fit and proper person; has been subject to suspension or has been deregistered in another State for misconduct in a professional respect, and has been an executive officer of a company that has been subject to disciplinary proceedings. Other instances of professional misconduct are along 3790 6 March 1985 Architects Bill the lines of those which I have quoted, and I point out to honourable members that penalties have been increased in an effort to overcome the problems that have been experienced. As I have stated, any recovery for damages would be a matter for the courts, which would no doubt take into account the findings of the board as to professional negligence. In reply to the honourable member for Ipswich—I sympathise with the problems being faced by the home purchaser, but the case has nothing to do with the Bill presently before the House. I think that all honourable members would agree with that proposition. Mr Yewdale: The whole crazy system has got people to the point that they don't know where to go. Mr WHARTON: I do not know about that. People should know where to go in order to make a complaint. This is the second occasion on which the honourable member for Ipswich West has raised that matter. It has nothing to do with the Bill. Complaints of that nature should be made to the Builders Registration Board rather than to members of Parliament, the media or anyone else. In respect of the matter raised by the honourable member in the first part of his speech during the debate on matters of public interest on 27 Febmary last, the board has received no complaints. The board has advised me that there is a Peter Eton who has been a builder registered with the Builders Registration Board since 1972. The board's records show that, since the board's home-owners insurance scheme came into being in late 1977, Mr Eton has undertaken work on close to 300 houses. Since 1979-80 the board has received a total of 10 complaints concerning him. In eight of those cases the builder undertook rectification of work on the buildings concerned. In another case the defects in a building were found not to be the responsibility of the builder. In the final case, the builder appealed against a rectification order made by the board. The appeal to the District Court was dismissed, but the court said that, before the builder could obey the order, the owner had to undertake certain works. I understand that the owner has not yet done so. I say again that if a person has a complaint against a builder he should take it to the board. I thank the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha for his comments. As a surveyor, he understands the intent of the Bill. I am sure that its provisions will mean that problems that arise in relation to architects and architecture will be dealt with in a more effective way than at present. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) in the chair; Hon. C. A. Wharton (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9—Rules in the Schedule— Mr WHARTON (3.9 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 5, omit all words comprising Unes 13 to 15." I raised this matter a moment ago. The Architects Act and the Bill as presently drafted permit the schedule to be amended by way of Order in Council. As the schedule is part of the Act, it is considered desirable that any amendment to the schedule be effected by means of another Act of Parliament so that it can be subjected to the full scrutiny of the Assembly. Amendment (Mr Wharton) agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3791

Clauses 10 to 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35—Disciplinary powers of Board— Mr YEWDALE (3.11 p.m.): Earlier, I elaborated on a complaint made by a party who approached me. In the light of various complaints that may arise, it seems to me that it is well to upgrade the penalties and monetary fines to be imposed on people who breach the Act. If those who administer this legislation enforce the provisions of this clause, with resulting prosecutions, something could well be done to tidy up what has been happening. Earlier, the honourable member for Ithaca referred to the complaint that I raised and indicated that it was placed in his hands and dealt with by his office. I should make it clear that the person who approached me with the complaint—obviously it was the same person—wrote to me and told me that the member for Ithaca had been approached and that he replied to the effect that he could not help in any way because it was a legal matter and the person aggrieved would have to look after it. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 55, and schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wharton, by leave, read a third time.

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 26 Febmary (see p. 3385) on Mr Wharton's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (3.13 p.m.): As the Minister indicated, the Bill will ratify the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The new agreement wiU mn for 10 years with provision for triennial evaluations. The Minister pointed out that, by agreement between the State and the Commonwealth, the 1981 agreement, which was to mn until 30 June 1986, was terminated from 1 July 1984. That allowed for the 1984 agreement which commenced from 1 July 1984. It is worth recording the funds that will be available under this agreement. It is pertinent to say that, in 1983, the Federal Govemment's election policy contained a commitment to renegotiate the agreement that was introduced in 1981 following con­ sultation with the States, local govemment and various interested groups. This Bill is the culmination of that commitment. In 1984-85, $500m was guaranteed and $623m has been allocated to the States for housing assistance. Although the amount guaranteed was $500m, $623m has been allocated to the States for housing. All of those funds are in the form of grants. When State contributions are included, more than $ 1,500m will be spent on pubhc housing. Eligibility is a fairiy important matter in the Bill. The eligibility criterion for housing assistance has been changed to include all groups, including single people and youths. The rent for public rental dwellings has been changed from market rent to cost rent. Rent rebates will still be available for those people who are unable to afford the asking rent. The home purchase assistance provisions for low income eamers have been revised in the new agreement so that repayments are more closely related to borrowers' incomes. The Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme, which is now applicable in Queensland, provides assistance to home-buyers and private renters having short-term difficulties in 3792 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

meeting housing costs and to people experiencing difficulties in gaining access to private rental accommodation. It includes references to bond and relocation assistance, housing information services and assistance in meeting rent and mortgage payments. In my electorate, the clamour for accommodation is probably no different from that in any other provincial city in Queensland. I am pleased that several people in my electorate are receiving assistance with bonds and rent subsidies. The program for crisis accommodation provides capital funding for crisis housing. It is mn in conjunction with the Department of Community Services' supported accommodation assistance program that provides recurrent funding. The State housing authorities administer the program, but they are advised by a committee comprising State and Federal officials and relevant non-Government organisations. In 1984-85, $ 12.6m was provided. The local government and community housing program involves local govemment and community groups in the provision and administration of low-cost housing and meets previously overlooked housing needs. I am informed that the Minister, his department and the Government are not really keen on talking about community housing programs. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to say whether that is correct. My information is that the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment is not really keen on talking about that type of housing. The local govemment and community housing program also involves local govemment and community groups in the provision and management of low-cost rental housing, boarding-house and hostel accommodation. Funds may be used to constmct, purchase or lease dwellings. Rental housing is available to assist Aborigines and about $52m has been allocated for 1984-85. That is a quick summary of some of the more important aspects of the agreement. The Opposition has no gripe with it. As the Minister has indicated, a requirement is placed upon the State Govemment by the Commonwealth Govemment to be part of the agreement and to ratify it in this way. Obviously the funds that are being allocated rather generously by the Commonwealth Government will benefit many people in Queensland who are searching for accommodation. On 28 Febmary last I asked the Minister the following question, which I think is worth repeating— "I have two questions for the Minister for Works and Housing. I think the Minister would agree that he has very often sung the praises of the work of the Housing Commission, its staff and its projects. I now ask: Is he in agreement with the recent appointments of relatively junior officers, namely, Ms P. Murray and Mr A. Hutchinson, as directors of the Queensland Housing Commission, whose appointments indicate that the experience of more senior officers of the Commission has been ignored?" For the edification of honourable members, I shall read what the Minister said in reply— "I thank the honourable member for his question. I am quite sure that he has asked that question merely because he does not understand the facts. Despite what the honourable member has said, I point out that applications are called for these positions by placing advertisments in the press, and applications are sought not only in Queensland but in all other States in Australia. Those applicants were investigated by the Public Service Board. I have met the appointees and I am sure that the board has selected the correct persons." I respect the Minister's right to answer the question in the way that he did. But I also reserve my right to pursue this matter. The old saying "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" is pertinent to what I will now read to the House— "On 14/2/85 M/s P. Murray and Mr A. Hutchison were appointed Directors. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3793

M/s Murray was previously in charge of the Commission's Computer operations classification 1-10. Since the computer was first introduced to the Commission's work some years ago, there have been continual difficulties and it still fails to balance the Commission's accounts. Staff inputs, of course, are blamed. The only successful program apparently resulted from the use of a private consultant. Mr Hutchison was only appointed to the Commission's staff in mid 1983. He very quickly endeared himself to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner by severely criticising the Commission's senior staff and it's work. He has yet to be heard saying anything good about Australia, Queensland, the Housing Commission, it's staff or it's contractors. He hails from England!" That is the Old Dart. I continue— "He gained the confidence of very junior staff and encouraged them to criticise more senior staff—even in writing. He has conveyed such information directly to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. Not surprisingly, he has picked staffs brains and passed off ideas as his own when it suited. Mr Hutchison's own output as an architect was minimal—he was too busy stirring etc, and to meet deadlines had to do work in his own time at home. One of the few projects he designed, a pensioner unit project at Laidley, has a severe flooding problem because a recommendation by the Commission's site inspector to provide filling was not heeded. Prior to his appointment to the Commission he carried out work for the Public Works Department on contract. One contract outstanding at the time of his appointment, involved a landscaping report and took 12 months to submit, despite reminders from that department. Mr Hutchinson became involved with the Queensland Branch of the Institute of Landscape Architects in late 1983 and was Secretary of the Organising Committee for the National Conference held in Queensland in August 1984. After the initial few meetings, Mr Hutchison failed to attend subsequent meetings and the Institute had to belatedly arrange another Secretary to take over. His initial involvement however, gained for him a position as a part time lecturer at Q.I.T. He apparently buys into operations, creating an impression (he can be very impressive) and then can't finish his commitments. Since his appoinment as a public servant in 1983, Mr Hutchinson has accepted a commission in a private capacity to prepare a design for a Kingaroy Shire Council park in contravention of Public Service Regulations. As a result of the 2 appointments, the reactions of senior and experienced staff have been shock, disbelief, ridicule and anger. Morale is very, very low. Advertising for jobs in the entire staff restmcture is expected in the Govemment Gazette on 2nd March. A source of further indignation is the fact that the Commissioner, 60 years old in August of this year, has been granted a 2 year extension. Two years apparently to train one of the two new appointees to take over as Commissioner as it is widely mmoured that Mr Rose is out of favour. He apparently has been critical of what has been happening. Perhaps Hutchison has put his weights up also." I am convinced that the facts that I have just read are correct. Last week, in his reply to my question, the Minister indicated that the applicants had been investigated by the Public Service Board, that he had met the appointees and that he was sure that the board had selected the correct persons. He also stated that applicants were sought not only in Queensland but in the rest of Australia. I ask the Minister to consider the statement that I have read this afternoon and to reply to it. His departmental officers and Mr Hutchison may wish to respond in some way through him. I tum now to discuss a registered building company called "The Design Builders" Many of the complaints that come through my office about builders, contractors,

66531—128 3794 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill subcontractors and the Builders Registration Board are made by people who are buying a home or having one built. Most members of Parliament make representations to the Builders Registration Board or to the Minister to try to resolve the problems of home-owners. I have before me a document of approximately 14 pages from a firm called "The Design Builders" I feel slightly out of place putting forward the case of this firm. I will do with this documentation what I offered to do earlier, that is, forward it to the Minister. He can respond to me, and I will then send it to the principal of that firm, Mr Noel James Barry, who, according to his letterhead, is a qualified master builder. In writing to the Minister, Mr Barry said— "I take this opportunity of writing to you in an endeavour to obtain some assistance with what we have been experiencing, and believe to be heavy handed one-sided and unreasonable attitudes of the Queensland Builders Registration Board. This case in particular is only one of various attempts by this organisation to make things difficult for me in the pursuit of my business and is a typical case of the Board's 'one-eyed' attitude, that we strongly believe should be curtailed. Too often we hear of the 'bad builder'—but never the 'bad house owner'! It is completely a one-sided affair and for too long the builder has been the one to be rubbished, with the house owner getting away scot free. Too many house owners are making and are able to make, claims on the Board when the home owner has not paid his due progress payments or final payment to the builder. The owner too often simply gets others to finish off, leaving the original builder to the courts, ending up 18 months to 2 years down the track! and thousands of dollars out of pocket in legals—and/or simply uses the Board to get the home finished off under the Board's insurance. As this case of order No. 1997 is specifically, the builder reduced his contract with his client by $7,563, leaving many items in an unfinished state, all in order that the purchasers of this house at 306 Giro Place—G. H. & S. D. Slennett—could afford to purchase the home! After purchasing the house in an as-is situation, to save money, the house purchasers have then used the Board's powers to get the builder to do hundreds of dollars worth of work that he had given credits for! People like these Slennetts are abusing the regulations and thus making a fiasco of the builder's responsibility.

If anything can be done, I am sure many other builders, as weU as myself, will be grateful." As the Minister is responsible for the Builders Registration Board, for home-building and for home-financing, if he cannot refute the charges that I have made relative to the appointments to which I referred and cannot argue one way or the other on the complaints that I raised earlier, on the complaints raised by the member for Ithaca, and on the complaints raised by that master builder, obviously not very much is going weU in the Minister's department and his portfolio. With the problems concerning computers and the appointment of people over the heads of others, it seems to me that the Minister's department is in one hell of a mess. Mr Wharton interjected. Mr YEWDALE: The Minister can smirk and smile and try to look quietly confident, but I assure him that I will be interested in his answers to the matters raised. If the Minister can prove to the Parliament and to the community that everything is OK and that the accusations I have made are inaccurate, I want him to tell me that they are inaccurate. Perhaps the debate can be continued as the session progresses. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3795

I heard last Tuesday moming on a Channel 7 news program that the Minister had announced a $91,000 project for the residence at the Byfield State School. The Minister is fully aware that that is just outside Yeppoon. The statement was that the high-set, three-bedroom home would be of great advantage to the principal of the school. I concur that if a principal can obtain accommodation close to the school that he is supervising, well and good. I wish him well in his new accommodation. I take it that the house that has been constmcted is the usual type of three-bedroom residence that is constmcted in Queensland. I cannot understand why it costs $91,000. Although I am not an expert in the building industry, I know that an aUotment in North Rockhampton costs between $10,000 and $15,000. A good type of home of brick or block constmction can be erected for about $50,000. Why $91,000 would be paid for what I imagine is a high-set three bedroom home—a home on stilts, as it is called—for the principal of the Byfield State School, I do not know. I would like the Minister to inform me of the name of the builders and how many persons tendered for the job. I would like the Minister to justify how the $91,000 was spent. If he can, well and good; if he cannot, everyone should know about that. Recently the Channel 7 news reported that a three-bedroom school residence is to be erected at Comet for the school principal. Since the Govemment came into power in 1957, the people of Comet have been trying to convince the Government to build a residence for the principal of the school. I am sure that, having tried for 30 years, they are pleased that finally a residence will be constmcted in that town. The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill is machinery legislation. I am sure that the many persons throughout Queensland and particularly in north Rockhampton who are on the waiting-list for loans and accommodation will receive their share when funds flow through. I hope that the money is shared on the basis of the needs of the persons who are looking for accommodation and wishing to obtain loans and not on the basis of pork-barrelling, as sometimes happens when by-elections and ballots are held. Very often, prior to an election, the Minister for Works and Housing and his coUeagues tell parents and citizens associations in different areas what will be done by way of pre-schools, kindergartens, building extensions and the provision of additional staff. A pork-barrelling approach is adopted and the Govemment obtains the response of the community by way of the ballot-paper. Strangely enough, the people do not seem to win. The amount of pork-barrelling that occurred during the Rockhampton by-election was unbelievable. The facts can be read in black and white. There is no need for me to fabricate this story. During the by-election statements were made by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) and the majority of his colleagues. The Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Muntz) handed out small amounts of money here and there for youth. The Minister for Works and Housing is a regular. He is a performer; he is a star. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I think that the honourable member is moving away from the subject under discussion. Mr YEWDALE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I am. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think that the honourable member is moving right away from the Bill. Mr YEWDALE: I do not think that I am. I am referring to housing. At the moment, I am referring to the Minister for Works and Housing and his pork-barrelling. He has been doing that ever since I became a member of this Assembly. I am not referring to him as a person; I am referring to him as a Minister. Mr Wharton: The Rocky "Bulletin" said we gave you nothing. 3796 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Ajgreement Bill

Mr YEWDALE: That is the opinion of the "Bulletin". I did not say that; the "Bulletin" said it. I do not think that that is a valid argument. Mr Deputy Speaker, to avoid disturbing you and causing you to get upset with my digressing from the BiU, I shall conclude my speech. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the matters that I have raised. Mrs CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers) (3.34 p.m.): Having heard some of the comments made by members of the Labor Party, I believe that if they won 12 races out of 10 they still would not be happy. An Opposition Member: Would you explain that? Mrs CHAPMAN: The honourable member does not understand. I support the Bill. Honourable members are well aware that housing is of paramount importance in everyday life in Australia. It is every Australian's dream to own his or her own home. Unfortunately, although every Australian has that ambition, the amount of funds available for housing always poses a problem. Housing is needed for the aged, young married couples, senior citizens, single parents and the many people who cannot afford their own home. The provision of rental housing requires a joint effort by the State and Federal Govemments. Of course, one of the aims of the Bill is to ensure that everything comes into being. The Bill ensures that every Australian has access to adequate and appropriate housing at a price within his or her budget, and it seeks to alleviate housing-related poverty and ensure that, as far as possible, housing assistance is distributed equitably to persons having different forms of housing tenure. I am in complete agreement with all aspects of the Bill. It would also be very desirable for those entmsted with the task of selecting persons eligible to rent or purchase a home to give special consideration to young families, to a father who may be the sole breadwinner of the family, or to a mother with very small children who are in need of a home. In some cases, preference is given to people in the community who are not really the basis of family life. As the Bill states, there should be no discrimination. However, quite often, for no apparent reason, not everyone has the freedom of choice that should be given to all members of the community. Many housing developments do not fit in with the environment. The powers that be should ensure that housing provided by the Govemment is close to facilities such as schools, transport and shopping centres. Of course, all honourable members realise that land suitable for that type of development is not always at hand. It is very important that the lower tier of Government—local government—have a close liaison with the State and Federal Governments to ensure that, when town plans are drawn up, an adequate supply of land is made available for such projects. The State Govemment provides money for housing through the Housing Commission. Under this agreement, the Commonwealth matches the money provided by the State Govemment. That should be of great assistance to home-buyers, particularly in Queensland. Everyone knows that that money is paid by the tax-payers of this State to the Commonwealth Government over a period. Repayments with an interest rate of 4'/2 per cent are admirable and will assist those people whose ability to secure their own home might have been only a dream without assistance of that type. Although Queensland does not yet receive any money per capita for housing, the Commonwealth Government is committed through the Act to provide money by the year 1990-91. It is a great shame that from the period 1 July 1984 tiU 1990-91, Queensland will forego millions of dollars. Far too often people are put down in this House. In my opinion, not enough praise has been given to the Housing Commission. It has a very difficult task to perform, and whatever else the commission does, it certainly makes housing available to people in Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement BUI 6 March 1985 3797 need. The efforts of the Housing Commission are certainly never lauded by the Opposition. As I said previously, regardless of the efforts that are made, the Opposition always finds something wrong. The moneys that will be made available by the Commonwealth Government will greatly assist the State in its responsibility to provide housing for those in need and for the housing industry generally, especially by making funds available for land subsidisation schemes. The Queensland Government is a leader in the field of housing. Needless to say, the efforts of the Queensland Govemment speak for themselves. They reflect the Government's concem for meeting the needs of people who require assistance in Queensland. Mr WILSON (Townsville South) (3.40 p.m.): Although the BUI more or less ratifies an agreement between the State and Federal Governments, I wish to address my remarks to the part of the agreement that affects the people. First of all, the Govemment must ensure that the people of Queensland are properly housed. As the previous speaker said, it is the aspiration of every couple, or every man and woman, to own their own home, and usuaUy that is regarded as a widespread ambition. However, it is an ambition that has been exploited over a number of years because, as has often been said by honourable members in this Chamber, the Govemment has looked after its friends the money­ lenders. It is important that people be able to own their own home. But at what price can that ambition be fulfilled? It is well known that first home buyers are provided with a Government grant that will assist in securing a deposit. From that stage, home-owners are in the never-never, because a house that should cost approximately $40,000 will eventually cost $200,000. By the time the house is paid for—and assuming that the proprietors live long enough to pay it off—the original cost will have multiplied several times. If that is held out to be an ambition, I state categorically that I do not want to have anything to do with it. The Govemment should be concemed about the provision of a good standard of housing under terms that can be met without inflicting undue hardship. The first matter to be addressed on the subject of housing, as was mentioned earlier by another honourable member, is the value of land. Land values are increasing continually. It is unfortunate that the price of land will be reviewed every year, whereas previously it was reviewed only every six to eight years. One can only hazard a guess at what the price wUl.be 10 years from now. The price of land is now almost out of reach of young people who wish to raise a family. In the acquisition of a home, land is becoming the greatest obstacle in terms of cost. Often, by the time the land has been purchased, couples are unable to purchase a home that is a suitable residence for themselves and their children. Couples are forced to resort to humpy-type dwellings, and such constructions can be described in no other way—unlike the $91,000 house in the Rockhampton area that has been referred to. Mr Miller: Are you suggesting that land is a greater cost component than a house? Mr WILSON: In many instances, yes. Mr Miller: Rubbish! Mr WILSON: I suggest that the honourable member for Ithaca vacate the littie comer of his electorate and travel around Queensland. Many homes that are worth $20,000 have been constructed on blocks of land that are worth $25,000 or $30,000. The dwellings that I refer to are gable and fibro constmctions. If the honourable member for Ithaca has not noticed them before, I suggest that he leave the littie comer he has become so wrapped up in and find out what is going on in other areas of the State. Mr Prest: He has never been able to get out of The Gap, and that is his trouble. Mr WILSON: The honourable member probably suffers from strangulation. 3798 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

I stress that insufficient housing is being provided, and the reason for that is not a shortage of inexpensive land, especially in the Townsville area. Land at Cluden is available, and it is owned by the Townsville City Council. I am sure that an arrangement could be discussed between the Housing Commission and the Townsville City Council for the sale of that land at a reasonable price. I estimate that sufficient land is available to erect at least 120 homes. The land is within 5 miles of the General Post Office. In contrast to that, spec homes are being purchased 14 or 15 mUes from the General Post Office in an area known as the Thuringowa Shire. In the Townsville area, most house constmction is taking place in the Thuringowa Shire at present. Other land at Wulguru has become available to the Housing Commission. It was resumed by the Railway Department but handed over to the Housing Commission about 12 or 14 years ago. That handing over has been kept very quiet, and people have only just learnt about it. At least 32 houses could be built on that land. There is an abundance of other land in that area, which is less than six miles from the GPO. There is sufficient land at Roseneath, where the controversy over the quarry has arisen recently, on which to build several hundred houses. It is still within the city boundaries and is less than seven and a half miles from the GPO. Water, electricity and other facilities are available within a mile of the land. Insufficient building is being carried out to meet the requirements of pensioner accommodation. At present pensioners have to wait between 18 months and two years before they can obtain accommodation. A number of pensioners in Townsville might be better off than pensioners in Brisbane, because at least in Townsville there are not many pensioners forced to live, eat and sleep in one little room as if they had committed a crime and were being locked up in such accommodation as a penalty. I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that two years is far too long for a pensioner to wait for accommodation that he can afford. Pensioners are being forced to live in one or two rooms for which they pay up to 90 per cent of their pensions. Insufficient pensioner units are being built. Pensioner units should be built^n every suburb to allow people in their twilight years to remain in the surroundings in which they have lived for many years and where all their friends are. They should not be accommodated in units such as those at Garbutt. I am not criticising the units themselves, but aeroplanes fly low over the Garbutt area and residents are subjected to a great deal of noise. I am sure that there are many other areas of Townsville in which units could be built so that people would not be subjected to aircraft noise. I sincerely hope that the Housing Commission does not build more multistorey units like Morrell Court in Townsville. It resembles a rabbit warren and does not provide congenial living conditions for the several hundred people living in a very confined space. If one person sneezes, the bloke next door wipes his nose. I would not like there to be a repetition of that type of construction. Children need ^ back yard or at least a common area away from the buildings in which to play. If houses are not provided, flats should be built on a smaller scale, with yard facilities in which children could play. Those people who have accepted accommodation in Morrell Court have discovered that they are confined there for as long as they are forced to accept Housing Commission accommodation. Once a person moves into those flats, the commission makes damned sure that he does not get out of them. No other accommodation is ever made available. Many people who have applied for accommodation and accepted a flat in Morrell Court with the idea, "We will take it pro tem while we are waiting for a house," have discovered that the commission finds all sorts of excuses why they should remain there and not move into a house. People who refuse that accommodation have the opportunity of obtaining a house or some better type of accommodation. The Housing Commission should not impose on people who are prepared to take accommodation pro tem. If they are prepared to take accommodation on that basis. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3799 they should gravitate to the top of the list and be eligible for the accommodation for which they originally applied. The housing shortage in Queensland is acute. Because the economic position in Queensland is becoming worse, more people will be unable to meet the high rents sought by private landlords. A bigger demand will be placed on the Housing Commission for cheaper rental accommodation. The Govemment should be more concemed about people in such circumstances. My comments relate to the people in Townsville in need of housing, but I am sure that they apply also to virtually every electorate in Queensland, with the exception of those in the far west, where the accommodation problem is not so acute. The Government should stop talking about housing; it should build houses. Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (3.51 p.m.): I am very pleased to speak to this Bill. Housing is basic to the Australian way of life. Although many people criticise the massive national investment in housing, without doubt the major piUar of the Australian economic stmcture is home-ownership, home-building and home maintenance. Enormous sums of money are invested in the Australian housing industry. One of the barometers of the economic welfare of the nation is the amount of money spent on houses. I look forward to seeing the effect of the secondary mortgage market on the economic welfare of the State. Surely the money involved in that, which is expected to exceed $ 1 bUlion, is indicative of the substantial sums of money involved in housing. Govemments have a definite, defined role to play in welfare housing. A number of people disagree with the term "welfare housing" They suggest that it tends to stigmatise the people who live in such housing. However, I guess that, if a spade is a spade, it should be called by that name. Without doubt, low-income family groups as well as recipients of welfare assistance deserve help in obtaining housing. I am pleased that the Queensland Government recognises and plays its role in this area. At the same time, I recognise that disadvantaged groups, including the unemployed, certain ethnic groups and so on, need housing assistance. I am very pleased that an increasingly large number of ethnic people are moving into the Housing Commission areas in my electorate. I believe in integration, and I am particularly pleased to see Vietnamese groups moving into the Mount Gravatt housing estate. On looking at the role that the Queensland Government has played in housing, I note that various types of houses are provided. That is an excellent trend in housing. All of us became familiar with the Inala housing concept of the middle 1950s and the early 1960s. Many members such as the member for Archerfield recognise clearly the enormous limitations of that type of housing development. I am pleased to see the move towards more individually styled Housing Commission homes. Honourable members have also seen the development by the Housing Commission of town house complexes. That type of accommodation is exceUent. In recent times, an upsurge has taken place in the construction of pensioner units. I am pleased to be associated with constructions of the calibre of the Tenby units in Mount Gravatt. I am certain that the 43 pensioner groups living there are very pleased with the first-class housing facility. During the 1960s, the Housing Commission built a number of flats. One of the more outstanding examples of those are the Housing Commission flats in Gates Avenue, Holland Park. I do not believe that those flats were very well planned. Today, they are plagued with numerous problems, not the least among which is the fact that a large number of people are crowded together. However, I am certain that those types of problems can be overcome. In the future, if the Housing Commission is seriously contemplating building flats, it might like to learn some lessons from some of the failures of the past, such as the fiasco at Gates Avenue, Holland Park. Today, it is very difficult even to get people to go and live in those flats. 3800 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

A few problem areas need to be addressed by the Govemment, and I am certain that they will be addressed. Perhaps the most outstanding problem of all relates to the old style concept of a Housing Commission area. At this particular point in time, the Housing Commission is building a fairly extensive new estate in Wecker Road, Mansfield. A fairiy large Housing Commission estate has been established on the eastern boundary of my electorate. It is bordered by Cavendish Road and Creek Road, coming back towards Gatton Street. In the past, numerous problems have been associated with that type of development. There is no doubt that when those developments commenced, very httle attention was given to the opportunity to provide playgrounds and areas for children and youth. In recent times, youth groups and children's welfare groups have moved in and constmcted playgrounds, and so on. In general, perhaps we tend to think that a large number of problems have arisen because of the fact that those estates, which primarily were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, were not specificaUy designed to cater for the problems of youth and children. Of course, numerous problems also exist in Housing Commission houses in relation to some of the people who actually come to live in those houses. There is no doubt that at times those houses attract a number of people whose attitudes do not tend to be congment with the general community attitudes towards co-operation, and so on. For example, I receive quite a number of complaints about some people who live in Housing Commission homes in my electorate. They seem to have scant regard for their neighbours, who seem to think that they are second-rate citizens, anyway. Often problems with noise are encountered in Housing Commission areas. Many people abuse the houses in which they live. Many yards are little short of junkyards. Some people who live in houses in my area really have nothing to be proud of I recognise that those people have rights that have to be protected. In communications with the Minister, he has pointed out to me the great difficulty that the Housing Commission experiences in terms of coping with those individuals. However, it is my considered opinion that it is time that the Housing Commission considered the neighbours on either side, the neighbours at the back and the neighbours across the road—in fact, in many instances, the neighbours several hundred yards away. It is time that the commission addressed itself to the question of what it does with those types of people. I do not suggest for a moment that they should be thrown out into the street because, after all, if they were deprived of their Housing Commission home they would have nowhere to go. Nonetheless, I think it is time that the Housing Commission really cracked down on the behaviour of those people. I could name half a dozen families in the Mount Gravatt Housing Commission area who are really creating a large number of significant problems. I do not believe that the people who live on either side are terribly amused by the Housing Commission's attitude. In fact, they almost seem to think that the commission does not care at all. Mr Fouras: What do you suggest? Mr HENDERSON: I have left that matter open for this House to consider. I have not been specific on that point. I was wondering whether there should not be more intervention programs of one form or another to help those people. I do not know how one accounts for antisocial attitudes of those kinds. It is most unsettiing if people play their radiograms full blast from daylight to dark, as one resident at the corner of Dunbar and Pond Streets, Mount Gravatt, does. Perhaps some of the social scientists in the House might like to tell me how one copes with that type of individual. I personally do not know. The third point that I make about Housing Commission areas relates to the myth that many people put round about the types of people who live in those areas. I think that the vast majority of people would be under the impression that they are second- rate citizens and dole-bludgers and that most of them could not be bothered working. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3801 even if a bomb was put under them. My experience with those people is completely the opposite. I might add, for the benefit of honourable members, that I am probably the only member of the Queensland Parliament who lives in a Housing Commission home. That might come as a surprise to Opposition members. Mr Palaszczuk: I do, too. Mr HENDERSON: Well, that makes two of us. I have Uved in a Housing Commission home for 30 years. It was purchased a considerable time ago when my mum and dad were pensioners, so I can speak with authority about Housing Commission areas. At times, Govemment authorities tend to promote that myth by not being as positive as they should be towards some of the people in Housing Commission areas. Most of the people in my area have lived there as long as I have, and they are extremely decent people. Two of them have won the casket, but they have continued to live in the area. The attitude that prevails in society is not very good or healthy. It is time that the persons who criticise Housing Commission areas got off their backsides and came out to have a look at the areas and to talk with the people in them. They would find that those people are very decent people with the same aspirations in life as honourable members. A few of them are tired of being treated as second-rate citizens by various sections of the community such as the media. My fourth observation is that Government authorities in general need to look very carefully at the provision of services in Housing Commission areas. It might be worth while to have youth counselling and children's services established in some housing areas. The one attempt by the Queensland Police Force to establish a neighbourhood cop scheme, at Jindalee, was, according to the Police Department, a dismal failure. If such a scheme were to be re-established, I would knock on the door of the Commissioner of Police and suggest that it be set up in my area, because I think that the scheme could be very successful. Most importantly, it could create a bond of friendship between the police and the people who, at times, are regarded as the enemy. This in tum would tend to promote healthy community attitudes. Mr Palaszczuk: The scheme failed because the area was too large. Mr HENDERSON: That is probably right. A trend is developing towards the integration into the community of people who are in receipt of assistance from the community. This is being done in part through the Rent Subsidy Scheme, which is an extremely good scheme. Regrettably, I have had only one experience with it. A woman in my electorate receives a subsidy from the Housing Commission for a house that she rents in Mount Gravatt. Since she moved into the area, every one of her neighbours has complained bitterly to me about her and her family. The problem is one to be solved not by the Housing Commission but by the Department of Children's Services, because it is really a case of child abuse. From time to time I have communicated with the Minister about the purchase of Housing Commission homes. The Minister and I do not agree on this point, and it is probably just as well that we continue to disagree. I believe that my views are correct; but I am not suggesting that the views of the Queensland Govemment are incortect. I am mindful that, in its first term of office, the Thatcher Govemment in Great Britain gave 500 000 people the opportunity of purchasing so-called welfare housing. I am sure that all economists who have looked at the British housing situation agree that that decision was a very good one. I know that people may purchase Housing Commission homes in Queensland. However, this scheme should be widened and encouraged strongly. Mr Campbell: Hear, hear! 3802 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Mr HENDERSON: Who said that? Mr Campbell: I did. Mr HENDERSON: Good on you! Every opportunity should be given to people to purchase their own Housing Commission homes. What I have observed in general in Housing Commission areas is that the vast majority of people, as they continue to live there over a long period, improve their economic status. Although such people probably could not afford to buy their home when they moved onto the estate, as their economic situation improves, they are in a position to afford to buy the home. As I have proposed before, and as I publicly state in this House now, a scheme should be implemented whereby these people should be allowed a certain percentage discount off the market price of their house for every year that they have resided in it. For example, if a person who had Uved in a Housing Commission house in my electorate for 30 years was allowed, under a fairly generous scheme, a 2 per cent discount for every year of residence in that house, it would amount to a 60 per cent discount off the market price of the house if he wished to purchase it. That would be a fair and equitable way in which to sell the house. I know that the Minister disagrees, but nonetheless I had to take this opportunity to read into the record that I support such a scheme. I am delighted with the present constmction of pensioner units. In fact, I am so delighted that on two occasions now I have given the Minister the opportunity of building more pensioner units on an excellent site on the comer of High Street and Logan Road at Mount Gravatt in my electorate. Mr Fouras: I would like a few more in South Brisbane, too. Mr HENDERSON: Yes. Another excellent site is at Gosford Street, Mount Gravatt. Any time that the Minister wants to approve the constmction of pensioner units there, I will hook a little trailer onto the back of my car and personally cart the bricks out, if that means that pensioner units will be constmcted on that site. I have a very good relationship with the pensioners in Tenby Units. I am delighted to have those types of units in my electorate, and any time that the Housing Commission wishes to build more of them, I will even draw the plans for the constmction and cart the bricks. I cannot offer much more than that. That is better than the offer made by the honourable member for Archerfield. The time has arrived for the Government to consider the problem of emergency housing. Until a Housing Commission house recently bumt down in my electorate, I was unaware of this problem. Suddenly a couple with three children were without a house and their rehousing presented an enormous problem. I know that no-one can expect to walk from one house into another at the drop of a hat. However, I wonder whether it might be worth while at some time or other to establish a number of houses to be kept specifically for emergencies of this type. My experience after the destmction of that house in Heyford Street at Mount Gravatt is that the Housing Commission should be commended for its care and concern in trying to find a house for those people. I certainly thank the Housing Commission for its action. However, the fact of the matter is that there did not really exist any emergency housing that could have been immediately available so that those people could at least have a roof over their heads. Although I did not really wish to drag politics into this debate, I must say that I have noted that, from time to time, the honourable member for Windsor, in particular, keeps telling the House about the Commonwealth moneys that go into housing. This morning, when the Minister for Education was speaking about law schools, the member for Windsor asked the Minister why he did not reject the money. The fact of the matter Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3803 is that that money is a fair and equitable amount raised from the tax-payers in Queensland. It does not belong to the Commonwealth Govemment or the State Govemment; it belongs to the people of Queensland and, as such, it is Queensland money. Therefore, it is fair that the people of Queensland should be entitled to ask for and receive a fair and equitable refund of the amount of money that they are paying by way of taxation. Whether the money is collected by the Commonwealth Govemment or comes through a State authority is totally irtelevant. Perhaps when the per capita system of calculating housing reimbursements to the State is finally introduced, it will bring a long overdue degree of equity and faimess to the system. I commend the Minister on the mnning of his department, despite the fact that he is not presently in the Chamber. In general, he does a very, very good job. I have been extremely happy with my approaches to the Housing Commission for assistance. I wish to conclude by reminding members of the House that, when it comes to the subject of the Queensland Housing Commission, I can speak with some degree of experience, if not expertise. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (4.9 p.m.): I consider the new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to be a good one and I am pleased that the Queensland Govemment is co-operating with the Federal Govemment in this very vital area. Housing matters are remarkably free of the abuse that the Govemment is continually hurling at Canberta. That abuse is usually a smoke-screen to hide the shortcomings of the Bjelke- Petersen Govemment. The Federal Labor Government realises its responsibility to ensure that the popu­ lation is well housed. It also realises how vital the housing industry is to the nation's economy. The agreement dispels the myth that only Liberal-National Party or National Party Govemments are interested in home-ownership. I will touch briefly on the pensioner unit aspects of the Bill. An amount of $6.5m has been allocated for pensioner units in the 1984-85 financial year. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell the House how many units have been constmcted and will be constmcted this financial year, and also their locations. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, I am approached frequently by pensioners in my electorate who find that the upkeep on their homes is too much for them. They would love to move into pensioner units. If they did that, more two and three-bedroom houses would be available for young families. In most cases pensioners prefer to live in the same suburb in which they have lived for a long time. Whenever I attend pensioner functions, it always comes as a surprise to pensioners when I mention to them that the Housing Commission builds pensioner units in places such as Bribie Island. The pensioners, especially the men, have expressed a great deal of interest. Bribie Island, with its fishing and bowls, would be an ideal place to live. The two blocks of accommodation that have been built in Inala by the Housing Commission in Crake Street and Osprey Street have been an outstanding success. The Crake Street block of 20 units, which is tenanted by 20 elderly ladies, is located in the civic centre. I must admit that a great deal of diplomacy is required when I am called to referee a dispute involving the ladies. On the other hand, the Osprey Street block is a mixed block which is tenanted by single men and women and a couple of married pensioners. Although a few minor hiccups occurred in the beginning, all seems to be very calm and settled now. I point out to the Minister that there are only a few blocks of land left in Inala suitable for pensioner units. Following the outstanding success in Crake Street, there is another large block at the civic centre that the Brisbane City Council will rezone immediately. Behind my office in Skylark Street there is also vacant land, as there is in Bittem Street. All those blocks are suitable for pensioner units. The blocks are at a bus stop and only a few hundred metres from shops. I would hope that the commission would look once again at that land and put it to good use. 3804 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

The suburb of Acacia Ridge, which is also in my electorate, is in need of a block of pensioner units. Unfortunately, there is no vacant land in that suburb. However, some years ago the Anglican Church in Acacia Ridge had its large block of land for sale. I understand that the Housing Commission made inquiries about its price, but it was too high. It seems strange that churches do not show a great deal of social conscience with land sales. Although I applaud the concept of the provision of home loans to persons on low incomes, I feel that the concept is poorly advertised. In fact, I think that there is virtually no advertising of those home loans. I do not recall seeing an advertisement in the newspaper notifying people of the scheme. Government departments spent $5m in promoting themselves, but I cannot find where the Housing Commission spent one cent to advertise the home loans scheme. People come to seek my assistance to obtain rental accommodation. Having explained the scheme to them, I find in many instances that they are eligible for a loan. At present, there is a long wait-time, and that disillusions the applicants. I urge the Government and the commission to spend some money to promote this scheme. If the Brisbane Park Authority can spend $50,000 to promote itself, I am sure that the commission can spend money to advertise its schemes. Although the rental assistance scheme is admirable, it has some weaknesses, not the least of which is the necessity for applicants to wait for one month. People must be on the commision wait-list for a month before they are eligible for assistance. In many cases, that means moving into a caravan park for a month. The problem of the storage of fumiture and personal belongings arises. If the responsible officers of the welfare agencies are prepared to certify that a case is genuine and urgent, the rental subsidy should be made available immediately. The rental subsidy is vital, as emergency shelter is virtually non-existent. Inala has only a few houses available for emergency shelter. The Catholic Church has one and the community house has another. Three months is the longest period that a person can stay in those houses. On many occasions a woman has to leave the family home— usually with children—to escape violence. Finding emergency accommodation is an enormous problem. The Govemment, through the Housing Commission, will have to involve itself in providing more emergency housing. Welfare organisations must also receive more assistance. I support the Bill, as it is a genuine attempt to improve the housing of the people of Queensland. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (4.16 p.m.): I support the Minister in his introduction of this Bill and for his handling of his portfolio in connection with subsidised housing generally. I will take up a point made by the previous speaker. He said that the Queensland Government is trying to hide its own shortcomings by criticising the Federal Government. I can assure the honourable member for Archerfield (Mr Palaszczuk) that any criticism of the Commonwealth Government by members of this Govemment is certainly justified and highlights deficiencies. The agreement in existence between the Queensland Government and the Com­ monwealth Government is working reasonably well, although it is not without its problems or shortcomings. The Government is trying to assist people who need a roof over their heads. Much of my time is taken up in advising persons who come into my office seeking assistance. The Minister said in his second-reading speech— "The principles and objectives of the agreement are largely unaltered from recent agreements. Put simply, the agreement provides for the Commonwealth to pay advances and grants to the States for home-ownership assistance to people not Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3805

able to achieve it through the private market and for rental housing assistance for people in need who, for various reasons, are unable to obtain adequate accommodation themselves. The agreement encourages the introduction of loan subsidy schemes for housing. Queensland, I am proud to say, is a Commonwealth leader in this field." The Housing Commission does faco a number of problems. As stated previously by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson), abuse of houses by some tenants is a problem. I emphasise, "some tenants" They take it for granted that if the house is knocked about, the Housing Commission will fix it up. I know of one instance in which a young lad in a fit of rage put his fist through a fibro waU and then had the audacity to complain to the Housing Commission that the wall was not thick enough to withstand his fist. That damage has to be repaired. I repeat that those tenants are in the minority. However, they make it more difficult for people who genuinely need a Housing Commission house, and also cause delays when the house is vacated and repairs and maintenance must be carried out. Many of the cleaning-up operations are massive tasks. I know of instances in which the undemeath of a Housing Commission house has been used to dispose of waste for quite some time. Usually, several tmckloads of mbbish have to be removed by Housing Commission workmen from undemeath residences after they have been vacated. The maintenance of reasonable standards and respect for the Housing Commission property are difficult to sustain when accommodation is treated in that fashion. I tum now to decentralisation of the Housing Commission's activities. The Housing Commission is working towards achieving that objective. Housing Commission estates should not be concentrated in one locality. I realise that at times it is difficult to adhere to those objectives, because the lowest priced land is usually land that is released in blocks and then subdivided by the Housing Commission. The natural outcome of that procedure is that a number of Housing Commission houses are erected in one locality. The land component in the cost of constmction of a Housing Commission home is therefore less expensive than would otherwise be the case. Another objective of the Housing Commission is to provide housing in different areas of cities and towns. Interspersed land is not always readily available within the price range that can be paid by the Housing Commission; nor are houses that are of relatively recent constmction. If they were available, the needs of the commission could be met more easily. An aspect of the commission's activities that is very much appreciated in the community is the provision of pensioner units. Although pensioner units are a reasonably recent innovation of the Housing Commission, demand for the units has increased. It is important that pensioner units be provided, and I compliment the Minister for the number of pensioner units that are provided by the Housing Commission. The units are reasonably small, but that is more because of design than necessity. Pensioners do not wish to spend too much time on cleaning, and are happy to live independently as a couple or alone, without too much hardship. In many cases, it is fortunate that pensioners do not bring a great deal of fumiture into the units. UsuaUy if an excess of furniture becomes a problem, it must be disposed of or given away. People generally appreciate the efforts that the Housing Commission has made in the provision of pensioner units. I am pleased to acknowledge that at the present time another 20 or 22 units are proposed in an area of my electorate. Tenders have been called for constmction, and I can assure the Minister that their constmction will be appreciated by the older people in the community. Mr D'Arcy: Too many. 3806 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Mr STEPHAN: It is not a case of constmcting too many pensioner units. Country areas are nice places to live in, and the provision of pensioner units is appreciated by country residents. The people who occupy the units are very approachable, and I have found not only that the pensioners make pleasant neighbours but also that everything works in very well. The other topic I address is the provision of crisis accommodation. It is provided in three or four different segments to cover as many different kinds of crisis. I instance the problems of youths mnning away from home because they are unable to get on well with parents, and wives who have been assaulted by their husbands. I am pleased to say that the women's refuge segment is coping reasonably well. However, it is a sad commentary on the life-style in the community generally that an increased need for crisis accommodation emerges. I wonder which way society is heading when young people are unable to live happily with their parents and are ejected from the family home. It is sad to realise that youths to whom I refer have nowhere to go and many of them can be found resting their heads under bridges or in railway stations. It is a very real problem, and it seems to be getting worse. I mention briefly the interest subsidy made available by the Housing Commission to low-income tenants. It is very much appreciated by those people, who have no other means of obtaining housing accommodation. Although the State Govemment is providing the subsidy, the Commonwealth Government, in its wisdom, is requiring that the amount of subsidy be paid back at the end of the term of the agreement. The State Govemment has taken the bit between its teeth and said, "We won't send the bill to the tenant, we will pay it ourselves." I believe that the State Government should make that payment. It must be remembered that when the tenants first signed a tenancy agreement they knew that there would be an interest subsidy, so they did not expect to have to pay back that subsidy at the end of the term of the agreement. I compliment the Minister for his initiative. That matter has probably got nothing to do with this legislation, but it is certainly of great concem to those people who can afford only Housing Commission accommodation. I have also come across a problem concerning self-employed persons who occupy Housing Commission accommodation. I have heard that a couple of honourable members are buying their houses through the Housing Commission. I have had problems in trying to determine the income of self-employed persons for the purpose of working out the percentage of their income that they would have to pay as rent. This is particularly difficult in the case of self-employed persons on a low income. Whenever I have made representations to the Minister or the Housing Commission on behalf of such people, they have been treated with compassion and understanding. It must be realised that a number of self-employed persons receive an income that is not as high as the basic wage. For instance, from time to time people engaged in primary production, particularly in the fishing industry, receive no income at aU and thus find it very difficult to pay their way. When I have made representations on their behalf, it has been a delight to deal with the Minister and the commission. They have made life a lot easier for those people who would otherwise have had great difficulty walking the street and holding their heads high. I compliment the Minister and the commission for their attitude to those people. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (4.28 p.m.): The latest Commonwealth housing agreement was originally intended to inject $500m into the Australian economy, but the Federal Government has now increased that sum to $620m in the next 12 months. Of that amount, Queensland will receive approximately $82m. Certainly the injection of those funds has been reflected in the activities of the Queensland Housing Commission. I am pleased to see that upsurge in Housing Commission activity. In Woodridge this has meant a reduction in the waiting-time for a Housing Commission house. At one stage, a person might have had to spend three years on the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3807 waiting-list, but because the commission has been able to do a more efficient job with the additional money, that waiting-time has been considerably reduced. The waiting- time in my electorate for approved cases is now about four to six months. Other members have referred to the need for more pensioner units. Even in Woodridge, which has a young population, it is found that there is a need for that type of accommodation. Vacant houses are being filled rapidly, so one and two-bedroom pensioner-style units are urgentiy needed. Plenty of serviced land is available in the electorate. I am always amazed that the Housing Commission has found it attractive to build houses out in the scmb rather than in close proximity to fully serviced areas. In the early days, the Woodridge area was in the sticks. In those days the Housing Commission virtually built the area, which now has massive shopping centres and good, fast, rapid transport to the city, but the Housing Commission has moved once again into the sticks. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr D'ARCY: It has moved into the electorate of the honourable member for Fassifem. He does not really want massive housing development, but he is getting it. My point is that serviced Housing Commission land is available close to the centre of Woodridge, but the commission is not using it. Some time ago I raised that point with the Minister. In all fairness, he took cognisance of my representations, and quite a number of contracts were let for housing on land owned by the commission in this area. It seems that I wiU have to keep jogging the memory of the Housing Commission. It may be that it forgets that it owns the land. I emphasise that land within the Woodridge area should be developed. The Housing Commission has land available in many streets in Woodridge. The Minister should be aware that fully serviced land, close to shopping centres and transport, is available for Housing Commission homes and pensioner units. The old Mayes site is not fully developed. I have mentioned privately to the Minister and written to him recently about the large tract of land that the commission owns in Jacaranda Avenue. That is where the Logan city centre and council chambers are built. For some time the council had been trying to take this land from the Housing Commission. I have submitted to the Minister that all of the land should not go to the council. The State Govemment's need for offices in that area is becoming evident. Some of the land should be reserved for departments administered by the Co-ordinator-General and the Public Service Board, and for the building of police stations, court houses. Health Department offices and offices for other departments that are necessary in the Woodridge area. The Minister should then develop the rest of this rather large area of land. I have written to the Minister about it. I hope to get some action on it or the pressure on the Minister may become too strong for him to withstand. I am sure that the downtum in the Queensland economy worries all honourable members. For too long the Queensland work-force has relied on housing constmction and non-residential building constmction for employment, particularly in south-east Queensland. Real estate prices and prices generally in Queensland are not improving. Economic conditions are improving in the southem States, particularly in manufacturing, which means that more jobs are becoming available. Unfortunately, Queensland is falling further behind. That should concem the Minister particularly and should stir the Govemment to spend more money where it is needed. There is no sign of the south­ east comer of Queensland picking up. Building on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast is in the doldmms, and the Brisbane area is reasonably static. Some of the near westem towns on the Darling Downs are also in the doldmms. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that, although building approvals improved considerably during 1983-84 in Australia generally, they remained static in Queensland. The slow-down that was evident in Australia in 1982- 83 did not continue in 1984. The new dwelling commencement figures confirm that the considerable improvement in housing constmction in Queensland was not evident. 3808 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Current housing constmction levels have stabUised in Queensland and show little sign of improvement for the rest of this financial year. In constmction, the position is worse. This category includes roads, bridges, railways, harbours, electricity generation and distribution, water resources and urban infrastmcture. Queensland suffered a worse fall—that is, 24.7 per cent—in constmction activity during 1983-84 than any other State in Australia. The latest figures show that the $21 Im worth of constmction work completed in Queensland in the September quarter of 1984 was a 15.9 per cent decrease on the same quarter in 1983. The decline for Australia was only 2.6 per cent. Obviously, the constmction industry in Queensland has suffered a dramatic downturn from the buoyant conditions that prevailed during 1982-83. Queensland's constmction rate is now significantly worse than that in all other States. I tum to the non-residential building sector, which includes office buildings. Recently, reference has been made to the number of cranes operating in Brisbane. A number of projects, such as the Jupiters project on the Gold Coast, have been proceeding. In general, the office building sector in Queensland has suffered a dramatic decline. The value of commencements and work done on non-residential buildings in Queensland confirms that that activity recovered strongly and peaked in mid-1984. A probable slow-down can be expected, with activity stabilising. I would expect that the figures for 1985 will show that the building industry in Queensland is suffering greatly. The great building boom in south-east Queensland is over. There is a decline in the building industry, and that is reflected in real estate prices. It is up to the Minister for Works and Housing to ensure that his department holds up its end. I hope that a greater level of building activity will take place in Queensland than has occurred in the last couple of years. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (4.37 p.m.): I also congratulate the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton). Although it may seem platitudinous to do that— Mr Fouras: He is only bringing in Commonwealth legislation. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Obviously, the honourable member for South Brisbane knows very little about the history of this legislation. It is not something that suddenly arrives on the table. It comes about as a result of a good deal of discussion and negotiation. That takes up an enormous amount of the time of the Minister and his officers. Agreement has to be reached so that legislation can be introduced uniformly in each of the Parliaments across the nation. That is not something that happens ovemight. That is why I am congratulating the Minister and his officers. They have looked after Queensland. They have been able to agree on a uniform approach throughout the nation without the loss of autonomy or the right to determine the destiny of the funds within the limits of Government pohcy. In the last 25 years, successive Treasurers and Works Ministers in this State have done a remarkable job in negotiating housing agreements. This was a particularly difficult agreement and required an enormous amount of the time of the Minister and his officers. It is not a Commonwealth Act; it is a Commonwealth and State agreement. After an enormous amount of negotiating, agreement has been reached. When the new agreement was first mooted, there was diverse opinion throughout the nation as to what should be done and what policies should be adopted. In a previous debate, I mentioned that some people are anxious to socialise the housing industry in Australia, to make all housing public housing. We remember the protests that were held outside the meeting-places in which the negotiations were taking place. The people involved in those protests are keen to see aU housing in Australia come under the thumb of the Government. I am pleased that the Queensland Govemment has stood out against those moves, even though some other State Governments have not done so. In our society there is room for welfare housing and for housing financed through private enterprise agencies. Labor Governments in this State were opposed to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3809 establishment of building societies and all approaches were rejected. It was not until Queensland had a conservative Govemment that buUding societies were allowed to operate. There is plenty of room for banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions to participate in housing. However, welfare housing plays a vital role in providing a base level that the community cannot go below. A major change of policy permitted people firstly to rent Housing Commission homes and then to buy them. That policy has been followed by other States. Mr Innes: The Labor Party doesn't like it. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: It opposed the legislation because it was contrary to its policy. Anyone who owns his own home is regarded by the Labor Party as a little capitalist. Mr Fouras: That's mbbish, and you know it. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That is the philosophy of the Labor Party and it has been expressed a number of times by leaders of the honourable member's party in this Chamber and in public. Labor Party members cannot escape that philosophy. This Bill proves that it is possible for State and Federal Govemments of different poUtical persuasions to reach agreement, even though it may take some time to do so. I emphasise that point because many people advocate that the only way to achieve uniformity in this nation is with a single-Government decision. However, this legislation proves that multi-Govemment decisions can be made and agreement can be reached in the respective State Parliaments with their different political compositions. When those housing agreements were first begun after Worid War II, very little progress was made in achieving welfare housing for the people of this nation. Some honourable members can probably remember the days of the housing camps in Brisbane and in provincial cities of Queensland. Camps were set up at Victoria Park, Kalinga Park and New Farm. Mr Kaus: Holland Park. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes, a camp also existed at Holland Park. Those camps were in existence for years and people were bundled into that ghetto­ like accommodation. That was the policy of the Labor Party. It did not care a damn about trying to raise the standard of living of those people. I can remember canvassing some of those areas as a candidate. The Labor Party's record of looking after people in welfare housing was disgraceful. Labor Govemments did not lift a finger to help them; it was considered that those people had been helped because they had been placed into these housing camps. I am sure that some honourable members can remember the long streams of huts or barracks at Victoria Park. I am speaking now about the camps that were still in existence 10 or 15 years after the war. One of the excuses used at the time was that building materials were in short supply. In 1957, although there was no shortage, the housing camps still existed. The philosophy of the Labor Party was to keep the people in these camps depressed; it had a vested interest in keeping them in that depressed situation. The social problems emanating from such a life-style were very serious. Many people can recall with a great deal of sadness the distress and trauma of living in those conditions that were forced onto them by Labor Party Govemments. A conservative Govemment changed that housing policy. Using the same amount of money, allowing for an escalation of funds, and changing the housing policy, a coalition Govemment let the first big contracts to provide decent housing and individual homes. On that particular occasion it was under the aegis of Sir Thomas Hiley, the then Treasurer of the State. At that time housing came under the direct control of the Treasury. 3810 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement BiU

Those changes of policy have led to a lifting of the standard of housing in this State. That could have been done by Labor Governments, but they refused to do it. That major change of policy occurred in the late '50s and early '60s, with the same amount of money simply applied in a different direction. That led to a lifting of the standard of the houses provided for people who were unfortunate enough to require welfare housing. In those days the waiting-lists were enormous. Every member of Parliament would receive at least one or two applications a day from people wanting Housing Commission accommodation. Every week a Labor member used to ask a question as to how many people were in the different categories of applicants on waiting-lists. Thousands of people were on waiting-lists to get a house. They had to wait not months but years. Enormous improvements have been made. The standard of houses has greatly improved. Recent changes in policy have catered for the accommodation of single parents in beautiful houses, which are environmentally designed and situated in the various suburbs of Brisbane and in the provincial cities of the State. The accommodation provided under the present system to single parents is the envy of many people. Single parents have special problems, but the policy has provided them with very sound accommodation. I congratulate the Minister on his special interest in their plight. Those honourable members who have this type of accommodation in their electorates well know its high standard. It is environmentally attractive and avoids the types of constmction that in the past created ghettos. Mr Innes: There was significant pioneering by Mr Lee in that. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes, as Minister for Works, the honourable member for Yeronga certainly kicked that project along. He created a very ambitious program. Although the Federal Government boasts that this agreement mns for 10 years, in fact it is only a three-year agreement. Although it forecasts the future and lays down guide-lines for 10 years, the agreement is subject to review every three years. That is the only shortcoming in this new legislation. If "review" means a bit of fine tuning and perhaps tidying up some aberrations, I agree with a review; but if "review" means a complete renegotiation of the agreement with major principles involved, Queensland has some problems ahead of it, particularly as the previous agreement was negotiated in the atmosphere of a Federal election campaign. I feel that the Federal Govemment did not achieve all it wanted to achieve in this previous agreement, because it was frightened of the political consequences. I counsel the Minister—because of his own philosophy, I am sure he does not need my counselling—to watch very closely for any changes that the Federal authorities might try to make to this agreement in three years' time and regard any approaches from them with a great deal of suspicion. Fortunately, in three years' time a Federal election atmosphere may again be present, which might give Queensland a little muscle to help prevent any departure from the sound principles for providing funds for welfare housing. One problem for Queensland has always been that it has never received its full share of the available funds. Queensland has never received its full entitlement. Because certain other States had different systems for looking after their money, systems that were designed 30 years ago, they received special benefits that were not granted to Queensland, which has never achieved its full per capita entitlements. Mr Fouras: In 1992 we'll get there. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: In 1991 we will get there. Queensland has been deprived of many millions of dollars because of that history and those circumstances. In addition, it has suffered at the hands of other people and the Federal Government because it refused to change its policies in regard to the management of certain funds. Queensland was told that if it wanted to manage the funds Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3811 in a certain way, it would not receive as much money. Queensland has had to put up with that. I do not think that the people have suffered because of the inteUigent way in which the funds have been managed in this State. I am sure that Queensland is receiving more value for its housing dollar than New South Wales or Victoria. Even the members of the Labor Party in this Chamber would not support the policies pursued in New South Wales. In that State, enormous monolithic edifices house thousands of people, including babes in arms. Tall stmctures were built in ghettos in Victoria and New South Wales. Those States are trying to kid people into believing that they are being housed. Enormous social problems are being created by placing people willy-nilly into those gigantic stmctures. The suicide rate is enormously high. The stress between families has reached tremendous proportions. However, those States proudly say that people have been accommodated in adequate housing. I am pleased to say that in the last 25 years, the Queensland Govemment has never allowed that situation to develop, even though it might have been tempted to do so in order to obtain many more millions of dollars. Such a proposal will never be supported in this State. However, that is the way in which the Labor Government treats people. It constmcted housing camps at Kalinga Park, Holland Park, Victoria Park and New Farm. Mr Davis interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: If it had remained in office, accommodation of the type which can be found in Sydney and Melbourne and which is causing many problems would have been provided in Queensland. That is the Labor Party's short-cut way of looking after people. The honourable member for Brisbane Central has never been genuine in his life. He is the last person who should interject, because he was the person who depressed the standard of living of the taxi-drivers and the service station proprietors. He used ACTU Solo to undercut other service stations. He is the type of person who depresses the economy because of his vested interests. If he had his way, his electorate and the rest of Brisbane would be a giant slum. He has a vested interest in having people begging for help. That is the socialist approach. The Liberal Party does not share his views. I congratulate the Minister, and I hope that, in the triennial review of this legislation, he will stick to his guns and stay with the policies that have worked so well for Queensland. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (4.54 p.m.): The Bill is most commendable and I am sure that it has the support of all members of this Assembly. The basic and primary principle of the agreement is to ensure that every person in Australia has access to adequate and appropriate housing at a price that is within his or her capacity to pay. Certain accusations made by the honourable member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) should be answered. He asserted that the Labor Party does not have a policy of private ownership of housing for ordinary Queenslanders and Australians. I remind the hon­ ourable member for Nundah that in 1976-77 great concem was expressed about the way in which building societies were being conducted in Queensland. At that time, the Govemment was not prepared to safeguard the interests or ordinary Queenslanders but was prepared to sell them down the drain. It was the late Kevin Hooper, MLA, who, under threat of suspension in Parliament and a pile of writs, was prepared to fight for the rights of and protection for the ordinary Queenslander and his savings. Former Ministers and the Government put pressure on the late Kevin Hooper, MLA. However, he was prepared to fight for the rights of the ordinary Queenslander and safeguard his savings. Mr Davis: He fought the good fight against people hke the honourable knight and Norm Lee. 3812 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Mr CAMPBELL: That is so. Those Ministers have much to answer for. I commend the actions of the late Kevin Hooper, MLA, and of all Labor Party members. At that time, the Government and its Ministers were prepared to put the interests of their financial lackeys before the security of ordinary Queenslanders. The honourable member for Nundah said also that Queensland has never received its full entitlement in relation to housing grants. I remind the honourable member that under Commonwealth Liberal-National Party Governments and Commonwealth Labor Govemments there have been occasions when Queensland's National Party Govemment has refused to take up its full allocation. In 1984-85, the Queensland Government wiU be allocated $3.5m by the Common­ wealth Govemment under the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme. However, this Gov­ ernment wUl take up only $2.4m. It is not prepared to take up the additional $l.lm. In 1983-84, the Queensland Government received Federal funding of $3.2m, but it only took up $1.6m. During those two years, the Queensland Govemment could have used another $2.7m of Commonwealth money to provide housing for the less fortunate in the community. I can substantiate that claim by referring to the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Under the Treasury Department Appropriation Account, it says, "State Rental Component—Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme. Appropriations— $700,000. Total expenditure—$100,000." $600,000, or 85 per cent of the funds aUocated, was not spent; in other words, the State has not used its full allocation. The Bill provides assistance on a need basis in the area of public rental housing, income-related assistance to tenants and home-ownership assistance. I will make several points about public rental housing and renting by the Housing Commission. A need exists to decentralise the administration of the Housing Commission so that much of the red tape can be reduced, thereby helping the tenants and the Housing Commission in the smooth management of the whole operation. At present, there are problems. People seeking information from the Housing Commission must ring Brisbane. I put it on record that the staff of the Housing Commission is very helpful. However, it is difficult for ordinary people who do not have a telephone to get any information, because everything must be directed to Brisbane. I know of a case—and cases of this type are probably the most disturbing brought to the attention of members of Parliament—involving an invalid pensioner and his wife. In 1982, the couple to whom I refer placed their names on the waiting list for a Housing Commission house. They did not have any children. In August 1984, the gentleman went back to the Housing Commission office in Bundaberg and inquired when a house would be available. At that stage, the couple had been waiting for a Housing Commission house for two years. He was given a piece of paper that said, "You are on the waiting list, B priority, for a two-bedroom unit." In Febmary this year, that man again inquired when a unit would be made available and he was told by the Housing Commission officer in Bundaberg, "There is no accommodation available for you in Bundaberg. Because you have no children, you cannot have a two-bedroom house." Because the couple I referred to had no children, the only kind of accommodation that could be provided for them was a one-bedroom house, and that category of accommodation was not available. However, lo and behold, after waiting a period of two and a half years, the category that would have fitted the couple for Housing Commission accommodation has been exhausted in Bundaberg. I stress that that invalid pensioner couple had waited for a long time, only to be told that assistance could not be provided. A problem also exists in the provision of new housing accommodation. I refer to a person who was able to move into a new Housing Commission house in the expectation that it would have been properly finished. It should be remembered that, because the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement BiU 6 March 1985 3813 eligibility requirements are so stringent, people virtually must have next to nothing to qualify for accommodation in the first place and most people who move into Housing Commission dwellings have very little money. When the person I referred to moved into the house, it was found that no clothes-line, car-tracks, car-port or letter-box had been provided. I regard the provision of such things as basic, and I wish to draw the inadequacy of new home accommodation to the attention of the Minister. The interesting factor is that the people I refer to do not have much money; yet they must provide curtains, floor-coverings and some of the other basic requirements that should have been provided by the Housing Commission. Surely the tenders that are called for the constmction of the dwellings could include the provision of such things as car-tracks, car-ports, letter-boxes and clothes-lines. Another problem is caused by the Housing Commission centring its computer operations in Brisbane, especially when mistakes are made. One of the most serious recent mistakes was in the calculation of rent. On many occasions, people have contacted me about the rent that is being charged or the arrears that have been collected, and the problem is a recurring one. Only two weeks ago an aged female pensioner told me that her rent had been increased from $20 to $22, and finally to $29 a month. That lady was heart-broken and disappointed by the tone of the letter that set out the arrears that were owing. However, the real problem was that a mistake had been made by the computer. Elderly people who do not have much money are frightened when such action is taken, but the problem was exacerbated when the person I have referred to was unable to obtain a satisfactory answer to her inquiry from the local Housing Commission office, which was to the effect that the matter would have to be checked out in Brisbane. Because the staff in country areas—I believe they are in most cases genuinely over­ worked—do not have time to follow up inquiries, people who rely on the services of the Housing Commission are left in a quandary that has a very disturbing effect on them. Such problems could be overcome if the inquiries could be followed up immediately. I tum now to the problem of home-ownership. I instance the case of a person who is in the process of obtaining a divorce and requires a home loan from the Housing Commission to finalise a property settlement agreement that will enable the original family home to be retained. Under the present regulations, funds cannot be provided by the commission under such circumstances. The Housing Commission will not provide funds to establish a family home when the applicant already occupies a home. A change needs to be effected to overcome problems presented by the regulations. It seems ridiculous that the Housing Commission could provide funds to enable a person to buy another house after ownership of a previous home had been altered. In such circumstances, compassionate consideration should be given by the provision of finance through the Housing Commission to allow people who are involved in property settlements to remain in their own homes. Government members expressed concern about the amount of money that the Federal Government has provided. I remind Government members that the Commonwealth will provide $530m to all States in Australia in the first year. In the following two years it will provide $510m. I now want to deal with that aspect of the Bill that concerns State matching grants. I hope that in the future this Government will not repeat its past actions of not taking up the full aUocation of funds made available by the Commonwealth Government. It is very important that the full allocation be taken up in future. I also want to deal with home-purchase assistance. Govemment members have repeatedly made the point today that this Government does everything possible to help people acquire their own home. I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again: under the freeholding requirements in this State why is it less expensive for primary producers to freehold land than it is for the ordinary, battling Queenslander? 3814 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Mr Menzel: Aren't primary producers ordinary Queenslanders? Mr CAMPBELL: I can say that there are some primary producers who should receive concessions just like ordinary Queenslanders. But why should the ordinary battler not receive the same benefits as primary producers under the provisions of the Land Act? The figures I am about to cite might interest Government members. A person who buys a freehold block of land from the Housing Commission for $ 12,000 ends up paying $19,680. A person buying an urban block from the Lands Department for $12,000 will pay $12,000 over 30 years, and a person buying a mral block from the Lands Department for the same amount will pay $12,000 over 60 years. Something has to be done about that sort of inequity. I have another two questions that I would like the Minister to answer. The first relates to the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme. How much has been provided to date under the mortgage relief scheme? I believe that last year the amount was very small. Perhaps the guide-lines are too tight to allow the scheme to be used effectively. Although some changes have been made concerning freehold, I again ask the Minister: Will he introduce the same freeholding arrangements and conditions for ordinary Queenslanders as apply to primary producers? I believe that it is only right and fair to apply to pensioners and ordinary Queensland families the same conditions as apply to primary producers. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (5.8 p.m.): It is always interesting to follow an Opposition member when one enters a debate such as this. One could be forgiven for gaining the impression that it is the Labor Party and only the Labor Party that is interested in the average person—the ordinary battler, as the honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) referred to him. One hears the biased self-righteousness, which is so typical of socialist ideology, creeping into debates such as this. It does the honourable member for Bundaberg and his colleagues no credit, because the vast majority of members, indeed, I beheve all members—whatever their political commitment, affiliation, belief or philosophy—believe in a fair go and equality of opportunity. I know that there is a line of thought in the Labor camp that there should be equality rather than equality of opportunity, but 1 resent the imputation that members on this side of the House are not interested in looking after the average person. Indeed, all Govemment members represent electorates containing just as many ordinary, average Queenslanders and battlers as members opposite do. Mr Davis: "Sufferers" Paradise! Mr BORBIDGE: Even though the honourable member for Brisbane Central is not in his usual place, I will take that interjection. From time to time in this Chamber one notices a definite commitment by Opposition members to denigrate, mbbish and mn down the Gold Coast. That is a shame. That sort of inane interjection from the member for Brisbane Central probably demonstrates why the Labor Party is flat out obtaining 30 per cent of the primary vote in electorates on the Gold Coast. It is interesting to listen to honourable members opposite gloss over the financial discrimination practised by Canberra on a whole range of financial matters as they affect the people of Queensland. Whether it be Medicare or housing, we hear the same old story. Mr Menzel: Have you heard about Canberra deliberately holding back the first home-owner's grant? Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Mulgrave has reminded me of the difficulties that the Federal Government is having in administering its first home-buyer's scheme. It is quite relevant in this debate to mention that the Federal Govemment is delaying payments. Indeed, the overall efficiency of the Federal Government in admin­ istering that scheme is not as good as it should be. Mr McPhie: It is holding back Medicare money. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3815

Mr BORBIDGE: It is holding back Medicare money and road tax money. It is not very often that honourable members opposite stand up for Queensland and say to the Federal Government, "How about giving us a fair go? How about giving us our entitlements?" They will not do that, but they will enter this debate to criticise the Queensland Government for the very efficient use of existing resources. The legislation before us is important. It puts into law the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which will be in existence for 10 years with a triennial review. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, it should be of the utmost concern to honourable members on both sides of the House that Queensland does not yet receive per capita funding from the Commonwealth and that it will continue to lose millions and miUions of dollars until it achieves per capita funding in 1990 or 1991, which is when that long overdue fact of life will start to appear on the horizon. That is a most unfortunate situation. I had hoped that, over the years, the Queensland Government would have achieved a greater degree of support from honourable members opposite in trying to secure per capita funding. Despite all this, the Housing Commission has been in the forefront in providing housing and home-ownership. In fact, its reputation or record is a very good one. Its wait-list is among the shortest in the country. It is making extremely efficient use of existing resources. When talking about a housing Bill, it is fittingt o refer to the importance of home-ownership. According to figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Queensland has the highest level of home-ownership in Australia. It should be noted that the 1984 Household Expenditure Survey, reveals that 43.8 per cent of people in Queensland own their homes outright. That compares with the national average of 39.6 per cent. A further 27.2 per cent of Queenslanders are buying their own homes. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member is a little sensitive. Mr Fouras: You are saying that 43.8 per cent of people own their own homes? Mr BORBIDGE: I am quoting from figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its 1984 Household Expenditure Survey. That reveals that Queensland has the highest rate of home-ownership in Australia. I repeat that 43.8 per cent Mr Menzel: That does not seem to please members of the Opposition. Mr BORBIDGE: That is so. I wonder why the honourable member for South Brisbane is so sensitive on this issue. A further 27.2 per cent of Queenslanders are buying their own homes, 20 per cent of homes are rented privately, 4.5 per cent are rented from the Govemment, and 4.5 per cent of the people live rent free. That is a considerable achievement, in view of the fact that over the years Australia has had the highest rate of home-ownership in the world—and Queensland leads Australia. That is a tribute to the Government, to the Minister and, indeed, to the housing policies pursued over a considerable period. Mr Davis: That is another untme statement made by the honourable member for "Sufferers" Paradise. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member doubts the figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I can provide the honourable member with the information. It might help to enlighten him. I thought that the Australian Bureau of Statistics was mn 3816 6 March 1985 Commonweahh and State Housing Agreement Bill

by the Commonwealth Government. We know that the members of the Labor Party in this place believe that the Commonwealth Government can do no evU. Of course, when we start to refer to figures that embarrass members of the Labor Party, they do not particularly like it. Recently, a great deal of progress has been made in reducing the considerable wait­ list that has existed in my electorate and on the Gold Coast. Mr Davis: Have you got any Housing Commission houses in "Sufferers" Paradise or not? Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, I point out that there is a large Housing Commission estate in my electorate. As a matter of interest, the people in those houses return a very respectable vote for the National Party and the Govemment. That shows how ignorant of the facts some Opposition members are. The people in that Housing Commission estate have received a lot of support from the Govemment, and they appreciate it. Mr Miller: It is Surfers Paradise, not "Sufferers" Paradise. Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend the honourable member for Ithaca says, it is Surfers Paradise. I take exception to the remarks of the Opposition Whip. That shows the contempt with which the members of the Labor Party treat my electorate and the people who I have the privilege to represent in this place. While that sort of inane comment is made by a senior Opposition member, such as the Opposition Whip, it is hard to see the Labor Party getting much further down the track. As I was saying before I was so mdely and ignorantly intermpted, a great deal of progress has been made in eating away at what has been a considerable wait-list on the Gold Coast. In common with other growth areas in the State, the Gold Coast has experienced particular problems with people moving to the area and requiring Housing Commission accommodation. At present, a major project is proceeding in my electorate to build pensioner units at a cost in excess of $400,000. It is appropriate to highlight the significant and substantial advances that have been made, slowly but surely and positively, to erode that wait-list on the Gold Coast. It is also worthy to comment on how attitudes have changed over the years. The income-based rental scheme is now accepted by the Labor Party, by most Opposition members and by the Federal Government. When this innovative proposal was introduced into Queensland, the Labor Opposition moved a motion for the adjoumment of the House. On 16 September 1982, the Opposition's Housing spokesman at that time, the honourable member for Chatsworth (Mr Mackenroth), amongst other things, said that the new, dreadful scheme that the Government was introducing would lead to the break­ up of families by forcing young people to leave the family home, would force families to leave established family homes and seek accommodation in an already overcrowded private rental market, and would lead to a further escalation of rents in the private rental market. That has not happened. It is another example of the Labor Party's being proved wrong. Now we see the majority of members in this Chamber supporting an agreement that accepts that income-based rental scheme. I support the legislation. Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (5.19 p.m.): The member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge) said that he was keen to ensure that a fair go and equality of opportunity were given to people and that he would look after the battlers. I am not sure whether he is aware that, for at least the last 10 or 12 years, his Govemment has been wearing ideological blinkers and has not realised that the real poor in our community are not those people who receive low incomes or social security benefits but those who receive low incomes or social security benefits and also have to rent homes in the private market. Almost 20 per cent of Queenslanders are renting in the private market, and only 4 per cent of Queenslanders are being accommodated by the Housing Commission Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3817 with subsidised rents. Many of those people make up the real poor in Australia, and almost 2 million Australians live below the poverty line. For some time. Government members have been saying that three-quarters of housing funds should be put into home purchase assistance programs because most people want to own their own home. As Opposition members have explained on many occasions, we have no argument against people wanting to own their own homes. However, we are fair dinkum about giving people a fair go and about providing equality of opportunity. Opposition members believe that public rental stock should be increased. The Queensland Government has used far less of its available resources than any other State to provide houses in the rental stock market. In South Australia, the number of houses available for public rental on a per capita basis far exceeds the number in Queensland. Opposition members subscribe to the policy that has been adopted in South Australia. The Opposition fully supports this agreement that wUl come into effect on 1 July. The Bill sets out in general terms the conditions and obligations of the Commonwealth and the States, and the funding and administrative arrangements for the housing programs contained in it. It deals also with rent formulas and home purchase assistance programs. The Bill has instituted a number of programs that are worthy of special mention. The objective of the new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is to alleviate housing-related poverty. This Government is not cognisant of that fact. People on low incomes and pensioners are paying 60, 70 or 80 per cent of their wages and pensions in rent in the private rental market, and they are the real poor in our society. Little has been done to provide housing assistance for such renters to help them survive. The agreement provides that rental housing assistance funds may be used by the States in accordance with a number of provisions. I would like to debate some of those provisions because the Government does not adopt a fair go principle in many instances, even though the honourable member for Surfers Paradise suggested that it does. Clause 30 (d) of the schedule states that the State may use rental housing assistance funds— "to provide funds to such voluntary, non-profit, charitable bodies, rental housing co-operatives and other housing management bodies or groups as are approved by the State Minister;" The Victorian Government has allocated many funds to rental housing associations and to non-profit and charitable groups. Those groups have individualised stocks of private housing to allow people to decide for themselves how the communities are to be mn, and these have proved tremendously successful. Clause 30 (e) of the schedule states that funds may be used— "to enable housing to be let to such charitable bodies, rental housing co-operatives and other organisations as are approved by the State Minister;" The Queensland Government has shown no indication that it wiU allocate funds for such schemes. The BiU provides also that the States may allocate funds to local govemment bodies for the provision of rental housing. The TownsviUe City Council is involved in providing rental housing. It would be highly commendable of the Govemment if it decentralised the monolithic Housing Commission.

Clause 30 (1) of the schedule states— "to provide housing advisory services related to public housing;"

How much does the Government do in that regard? The New South Wales Government sets up offices in every new housing development to help the new dwellers on new estates. The New South Wales Government provides that sort of funding. There is no indication that the Queensland Government would do that. 3818 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill

Clause 30 (m) of the schedule states— "to provide rental subsidy for eligible persons renting private housing;" As was said before, approximately 20 per cent of Queenslanders rent privately and only 4 per cent rent public housing. Among that 20 per cent are the real poor, the real destitute in our society. Because people are having to wait for two to three years to get into public housing, the Government ought to consider some sort of subsidy scheme. When I was first elected as the member for South Brisbane, I could get a woman from a refuge into Housing Commission accommodation in a very short time. Now, regardless of how destitute a person is or what the difficulties are, welfare housing cannot be found. I wish to take a few minutes to comment on the contribution of Sir William Knox. That was one of his worst performances. His speech was ill directed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I ask the honourable member for South Brisbane to refer to Sir WUliam Knox as the member for Nundah. Mr FOURAS: I am referring to the member for Nundah, who is the leader of the Liberal Party—the leader of the six-pack. He is the leader of that group of members who call themselves Liberals. The member for Nundah said that the record of Labor looking after people in welfare housing is a disgrace, yet what does one find in the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. For this year the Commonwealth Govemment has guaranteed $500m. For the following two financial years it has guaranteed $5I0m, but it is actually allowing $623m to be given in the form of grants. A consideration of payments for housing for the six States for 1984-85 reveals that the total Commonwealth payment is estimated at $564.07m. That is double the amount of only $255,219,000 given in 1981- 82 by the tories opposite, by the people who claim they are fair dinkum and concerned. From 1981-82 to 1984-85, the payments to Queensland have doubled from $33.5m to $76.9m. So the argument of the member for Nundah that the Labor Party has a poor record in looking after people in welfare housing falls flat. The honourable member for Nundah claimed that the efforts of the coalition Govemment have been a great performance. Mr McEUigott: He was grovelling. Mr FOURAS: Yes, he was grovelling. He is missing his place on the ministerial benches; he is missing his lurks and perks. He is also missing being a part of the Government. He was making a plea to the Minister for Works and Housing to take the Liberals back, because they are feeling very, very uncomfortable on the cross benches. However, I advise the Minister to leave them there because to take them back would not be worth the effort. They really are where they belong. I wish to speak briefly about the special programs instituted by Labor Governments and augmented by a Government that supposedly, according to those opposite, does not understand what a fair go means and has a disgraceful record. For 1984-85, the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme allocates $21.7m. That scheme allows bonds to be paid and provides relocation assistance, housing information services and assistance in meeting rents and mortgage repayments. Queensland's share of that amount is approximately $3.5m. That aUocation has to be matched on a dollar-for-doUar basis, but the record of the Queensland Government in matching these sorts of grants is absolutely disgraceful. I serve notice on the Minister that if that $3.5m is not matched and allocated to needy people, I will call him to order when the report is received from the Auditor- General. That will reveal how much of that money was taken up. It would be appalling if those Government members with their ideological blinkers did not consider the plight of the people who needed bond assistance, relocation assistance and mortgage and rent assistance. I warn the Minister that if any of that money is not used, the Opposition will want to know why. It is very important that that money is used. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3819

I am pleased to note that the State Government has allocated $30m from Commonwealth Loan Council borrowings for housing. For a long time, money has been available at a subsidised rate of interest of 4'/2 per cent, and the Queensland Government has refused to accept its responsibility to obtain that cheap money for housing. I am pleased that the Government has seen that stupid and useless waste of cheap money that it has previously forgone. An allocation of $ 12.6m was made for crisis accommodation in Australia. Queensland's share is $2,054,000.1 am aware of horrendous problems faced by young homeless people. I hope that a great deal of that money is used to provide accommodation for them. A program should be implemented by the Minister as soon as possible. Those children who cannot find accommodation are at great risk and ought to be given some help. I commend the Federal Government for finding funds for local government and community housing programs. I note that in the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement an amount of $7m has been allocated for 1984-85. $10m has been allocated for the following two years. Although the sum of $ 1.1 m allocated to Queensland is not a princely sum, I believe that it will allow some programs to be commenced and a learning process to be implemented by community groups. I belong to a community housing group at East Brisbane. It is conducted by the East Brisbane Community Centre, which I helped to form in my electorate. It undertakes a large number of welfare programs. That group discovered that two women who had lived in a particular area for a lifetime rented a house that the owner decided to sell. Under those circumstances, they would have had to shift to another church and leave the community groups to which they belonged. At their age, that would have been a traumatic experience for them. The East Brisbane Community Centre purchased that house and is paying it off. That organisation is concerned about keeping people in the community where they belong, where they can relate to other persons and where they can lead a normal life in their retirement. Such support should be given on a wider basis than has been given previously. I will keep to my commitment to speak for only 15 minutes. When the Minister commences to wave his arms, I am worried that one day he might fly out of the window. Despite what anyone might say about the Minister, the Opposition would hate to lose him because he is not such a bad fellow. The member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) criticised the Labor Government for not providing funding on a per capita basis similar to that in all the other States. Mr Miller: Why not? Tell us. Mr FOURAS: When I raised this matter in this Chamber about six years ago, a National-Liberal Government was in office. If one looks at the history of why that money was lost, it is quite simple to see that it was lost because of the ideological blinkers worn by Government members. They refuse to accept money for rental accom­ modation. The Government did not believe in putting poor people into rental housing; it believed only in giving them money to buy their own homes. The Government will not accept the reality that increasing numbers of people in the community cannot afford their own homes. Because of that, money was lost. What happened? The Government made approaches to the former Prime Minister (Mr Fraser). Mr Fraser said, "All right. You have been naughty boys. We will give it to you gradually and you will have it back in 1991-92." Queensland lost countless millions of dollars. It is absolutely disgraceful that the honourable member for Nundah (Sir William Knox)— the leader of the six-pack in this House—criticised the Federal Labor Government. In relation to public housing in this country—on only two occasions has money been generated at an acceptable level, and those occasions arose when the Whitlam Government was in power between 1972 and 1975. That boosted the economy. As a result of increased funding, approximately $ 1,500m will be spent on housing to provide jobs as well as accommodation. That is double the expenditure formerly provided. I am 3820 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement BUI happy to support the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I commend it to the House. The Federal Labor Government is to be congratulated on its performance in the provision of funds for housing. Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Minister for Works and Housing) (5.36 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments this afternoon. I thank them also for the agreement they reached on an equitable sharing of the time available for the debate. Perhaps the honourable member for South Brisbane (Mr Fouras) abused the agreement to an extent, but on occasions we do not mind listening to him. Given the changes that have been introduced into the Parliament to afford honourable members a greater opportunity to consider legislation, it is astounding that today the House has been subjected to so many irtelevant matters raised by Opposition members. This Bill deals with the agreements between the State and Federal Govemment for housing funding. However, Opposition members have spent time speaking about Housing Commission staffing. Builders Registration Board complaints and school residences, to mention just a few topics. What happened to the claims by Opposition members just a few years ago that they needed sufficient time to study a Bill so that they could speak on it? The honourable member for Rockhampton North (Mr Yewdale) more or less accurately summarised the provisions of the 1984 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. He spoke about community housing and the local government community housing program. He will be interested to know that proposals for allocation of funds under that program are being considered by the advisory committee required under the guide-lines agreed to by the States and Commonwealth. A number of these proposals include submissions from rental housing co-operatives. They are being considered together with aU other submissions. The funds available for distribution are not large, amounting only to $1,145,000, which will not satisfy aU submissions received. For crisis housing, the commission has funded from a number of sources the purchase of more than 150 houses. They are being controlled by 25 different organisations in all parts of Queensland. The honourable member for Rockhampton North launched a personal attack on the appointment of two new directors to the commission. Obviously, his information was obtained from disgmntled unsuccessful applicants. As I said in answer to the honourable member's previous question about these appointments, the directors appointed were considered by the Public Service Board and the Commissioner of Housing to be the most suitable of the applicants who applied for the positions. I agreed with the recommended appointments and submitted them to the Governor in Council for approval. I do not intend to comment on the specific remarks made concerning the officers. However, if the commission is to continue to innovate and be the most efficient housing authority in Australia, it must employ officers who are capable of carrying the commission forward into the 1990s and beyond. That would certainly not be possible if the experienced officers who have fed the honourable member for Rockhampton North with ill-informed rubbish were promoted to those positions. I assure honourable members that morale in the commission is high, and under the new leadership future appointments will be aimed at maintaining its efficiency and effectiveness and retaining its position in the forefront of Australian public housing. I turn now to the construction of teacher accommodation at Byfield. My department called tenders on three occasions. On the first occasion, the lowest tender received was $96,250. On the second occasion, the lowest tender was $93,920. Finally, with the inclusion of an alternative module in tender documents, Deane submitted a price of $91,278. The honourable member for Rockhampton North claimed that housing is in a mess. I am glad that Queensland is not in the mess that the Labor States of New South Wales Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3821

and Victoria are in. The waiting-list for Housing Commission rental housing in Queens­ land continues to be reduced. In the past year, it has fallen by 11 per cent—a drop of 1 200. In the meantime, waiting-lists in New South Wales and Victoria continue to rise. New South Wales, which has twice the population of this State, has a waiting-list of 57 000—almost seven times that of Queensland. In Victoria, which has 1.6 times Queensland's population, the waiting-list is 24 000, or three times that of Queensland. In Victoria, the Labor Govemment's Housing Minister said recently that he doubted that the waiting-list could be reduced. The honourable member for Pine Rivers brought the debate back to the issues that have been included in the agreement by reminding us of the home-ownership role that the Housing Commission plays in the community. The interest subsidy scheme allows low-income families to acquire a home. If it were not for that scheme, such families would be forced to rent accommodation in public housing indefinitely. The interest subsidy scheme is a model scheme that has been adopted under the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. With only minor amendments, it is being adopted in almost all States of Australia, and New Zealand has also expressed interest. I believe that the almost universal adoption of the scheme that has been pioneered by the Government is ample proof of the benefits that are made available through the scheme. I suggest that Opposition members should talk to low- income families who have become home-owners, and listen to the praise that those people have for the benefits of the scheme. The honourable member for Townsville South talked a great deal of uninformed waffle about housing matters in Queensland, and he referred to the need for Govemment assistance to be provided to lower-income families to make the acquisition of a home a reality. The honourable member failed to mention, however, that the income-geared home-ownership finance scheme that operates in Queensland has been very successful. That was a scheme that the Queensland Government pioneered—a scheme that has become so successful that the Federal Labor Government endorsed it as a scheme that should be adopted by other State Govemments. The honourable member also failed to mention the innovative second loans scheme that is designed to overcome what is referred to as the deposit gap. That scheme has also proved to be very popular with people who want to realise the dream of home- ownership. The honourable member spoke also about the Govemment's obligation to build more homes. I point out that that obligation is being met. Housing Commission expenditure on land and homes wUl be $76.3m for this financial year, which represents an increase of more than 28 per cent on the amount allocated for last financial year. The honourable member may also wish to know that asistance in home-ownership will reach a record level of $105.4m in the year 1984-85, which represents an increase of 14 per cent over the amount allocated for the previous financial year. I have no doubt that the Government would be able to perform even better if, under the terms of the agreement that is being discussed, the proper per capita share of Federal funding was being paid to the State Government. If that were the case, an additional $20m would be available, which would enable the provision of more housing for those people in the community who need it. I wish now to refer to the capital gains tax, because it has some bearing on the issues raised in the debate. A capital gains tax wiU dampen investment in private properties that are available for rent. That will mean a tightening of the market, as money will be invested in altemative areas. As a result, rents will be increased and less accommodation will be available, and there wiU be less opportunity for investors to operate in the private rental market. I ask: who suffers first? The answer is that the most vulnerable people—the low- income earners who are the least able to pay high rents— will be forced onto the waiting- lists for the provision of public housing. However, the inevitable corollary to that 3822 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill dilemma is that the responsibility will fall back on the public sector. I suggest that when the Federal Government is considering the introduction of a capital gains tax, thought should be given to injecting funds into the provision of housing so that the backlog can be reduced. I thank the honourable member for Archerfield for his comments. I was particularly interested to hear the comments that he made about people who, as they grow older, wish to move from standard rental housing to pensioner units. I point out that that suggestion is similar to a policy that the Housing Commission has advocated. Having said that, I stress that it is not a step that would ever be made mandatory. What the Government has suggested is that people who have watched their children grow up and move away, and who no longer need the standard three or four-bedroom home, might wish to move to another smaller Housing Commission rental unit, such as a pensioner unit, which will make the standard house available for a younger, growing family. Inherent in that proposition are problems that relate to smaller unit availability in a suitable area. It is very often the case that a suitable area is the area in which they presently live. To date, not a great demand for the smaller, self-contained units has emanated from people who are already housed in detached housing accommodation. I take on board the points that the honourable member for Archerfield has raised about constmcting more pensioner housing in his electorate, and I assure him that further consideration will be given to that proposal. Advertising of the Housing Commission's home purchase assistance schemes has been undertaken a number of times by publication in newspapers that are circulated throughout the State, and the advertisements have received periodic publicity in the news columns of newspapers. The schemes have proved to be very popular. As a result, the Government will be providing $ 105.4m for this financial year towards the provision of such assistance. I thank the honourable member for Gympie for his remarks. I assure him that everything will be done to distribute public housing, thereby avoiding a concentration of housing such as has occurred at Inala. The honourable member is aware of the level of co-operation that has been rendered by Housing Commission staff and the attitude that has been displayed by the State Government. I listened to the honourable member for Woodridge when he spoke about the land that will be used by Government departments. I inform the honourable member that the Department of Works and Housing has already obtained for Government purposes a portion of the land that has been referred to. Other land held will be used progressively for housing, and the construction of pensioner units will also be considered. It does seem as though the Opposition's mission in life—at least for the life of this Parliament—is to spread doom and gloom, and to downgrade as much as possible the achievements of the State Government. Honourable members have heard nothing from the Opposition about approvals that have been registered recentiy. I will tell honourable members why: because in December Queensland reported a record month in the value of building application approvals, and that record reflects the very active role that the Queensland Government has taken in job creation through its capital works program. I inform Opposition members that in December 1984, building application approvals amounted to $332.7m, which represented an increase of $77.6m on the value of approvals for the previous month. Whereas in Queensland the value of building application approvals increased by more than 31 per cent in December 1984 as compared with the value of those approved for the previous month, the total value of all building applications that were approved throughout Australia actually declined by 13.8 per cent over the same period. However, honourable members have not heard anything about that from the Opposition because that fact does not fit in with the Opposition's philosophy of doom and gloom. In fact, Queensland, with 16 per cent of the nation's population, accounted for almost 26 per cent of the value of all new building approvals throughout Australia in December 1984. Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill 6 March 1985 3823

The member for Woodridge mentioned action by this Govemment. It has been very active this year. I have already mentioned increased spending on rental and home- ownership assistance. I also draw to his attention the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program, which will provide employment for a great many people. Part of that money has been allocated to public service housing. The honourable member for Nundah pointed out that the agreement is not a Commonwealth document. It is, as he said, a Commonwealth/State agreement. It is also interesting to note that Queensland's policies meet the requirements of the agreement. The waiting-time, as the honourable member pointed out, has shortened. Now accommodation can be provided in areas where adequate housing is available in approximately one month—the shortest time of any housing authority in Australia. I appreciate the honourable member's comments about the fact that the accommodation being provided by the commission, whether for rental or purchase, is being constmcted by private enterprise. The honourable member for Bundaberg spent a great deal of time discussing the case of an applicant seeking a two-bedroom house. I have heard of that case before. But it is governed by a particular set of circumstances which he himself has mentioned— that in such cases families with children are given preference. I am sure that he would not suggest that it should be otherwise. What the member for Bundaberg has failed to mention—and his omission tends to paint a picture of neglect for Bundaberg—is the very large-scale building program in that city in recent years. In fact, in the past two years, more than $3.5m worth of approvals has been made for family, pensioner and crisis housing in the Bundaberg area. That has provided approximately 130 additional rental residences. The case that the member for Bundaberg mentions is one which could be assisted by providing single bedroom units that are not specifically used for pensioner accommodation. The commission does provide some of those units throughout the State, and consideration is being given to providing a number of such units for Bundaberg. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Surfers Paradise remind the House of the social benefit policies that this Govemment has introduced into public housing. I agree with him that the Government has done more than a Labor Government could or would have done, and it has achieved that goal despite Queensland's not having received its proper per capita allocation of funds. Housing Commission tenants are good people. Unfortunately, they receive a lower wage than most ordinary Queenslanders, but I commend them for the work they do. Many Housing Commission houses that I visit are weU maintained and have nice gardens, and I am proud of those tenants. A great many Queenslanders are availing themselves of the services provided by the commission. It provides housing for rental and purchase. The member for South Brisbane bemoaned the efforts being made by Queensland in the housing field and pointed to Labor States such as New South Wales as an example to be foUowed. No thank you! The fracas that occurred last week in Glebe was symptomatic of the pathetic state of pubhc housing in New South Wales. In fact. New South Wales is probably a prime example of a State in housing crisis. New South Wales accounts for the lion's share of the unhoused in this nation. The latest report puts its wait-list at 57 000. That is almost seven times the size of Queensland's wait-list, although New South Wales has just twice Queensland's population. Surely the honourable member is not serious in recommending the New South Wales example as the one that Queensland should follow. The honourable member referred to funding. Once again he failed to take into account the money that goes into Queensland's home-ownership assistance scheme to help low and moderate income families into homes of their own. If Queensland did not provide that assistance, in the main those people would turn up on the wait-list for rental housing. The commission earlier undertook a survey which underlined the 3824 6 March 1985 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Bill correctness of the Government's policy of providing a choice. The commission surveyed almost 500 rental applicants and the results showed that, given the opportunity and the necessary assistance, 74 per cent would prefer to buy their own homes. Has the honourable member for South Brisbane any knowledge of the Victorian Housing Commission venture into rental subsidy? The scheme ran for approximately six months. It became unaffordable and impossible to administer. The scheme was dropped, and Victoria has no intention of returning to rent subsidy. I would also remind the honourable member that New South Wales does not have rent subsidy. The funds for mortgage and rent relief should be fully utilised during 1984-85. I thank all the other honourable members, to whom I have not had the time to reply, for their contributions to the debate. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, schedule, and first and second schedules, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wharton, by leave, read a third time. The House adjourned at 5.52 p.m.