Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 1986

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

QUEENSLAND

Parliamentary Debates [HANSARD]

Slegtslattue Assembly

THIRD SESSION OF THE FORTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT—continued (Second Period)

TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 1986

Under the provisions of the motion for special adjoumment agreed to by the House on 10 December 1985, the House met at 11 a.m. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Wamer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Sewerage and Water Supply Act Amendment Bill; Gateway Bridge Agreement Act Amendment Bill; City of Brisbane Market Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill; Factories and Shops Act Amendment Bill; Holidays Act Amendment Bill; Local Govemment and City of Brisbane Town Planning Acts Amendment BiU; Queensland Theatre Company Act and Another Act Amendment Bill; Stamp Act and Another Act Amendment Bill; State Housing Act Amendment Bill; Petroleum Act Amendment BiU; Pay-roll Tax Act Amendment Bill; Petitions 18 February 1986 3495

Main Roads Act Amendment Bill; Local Govemment Superannuation Bill; Elections Act Amendment Bill; City of Brisbane (Variation of Refuse Contracts) BiU; City of Brisbane (Garbage Services) BiU; Auctioneers and Agents Act Amendment Bill; Anzac Day Act Amendment Bill; Suncorp Insurance and Finance BiU; Ambulance Services Act Amendment Bill; Industry and Commerce Training Act Amendment BiU; Land Sales Act Amendment Bill (No. 2); Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill; Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2); Queensland Law Society Act Amendment Bill; Queensland Industry Development Corporation Bill; River Improvement Tmst Act Amendment Bill; Queensland Marine (Sea Dumping) Bill.

PAPER CIRCULATED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that the following paper was ordered to be circulated during the recess— Brisbane Market Tmst twenty-fifth report, for the year ended 30 June 1985.

ELECTIONS TRIBUNAL Judge for 1986 Mr SPEAKER announced the receipt of a letter from the Honourable the Chief Justice intimating that the Honourable Mr Justice James Burrows Thomas would be the judge to preside at the sittings of the Elections Tribunal for 1986.

APPLICATION OF SUB JUDICE RULE Criminal Proceedings Against Mrs Judith Callaghan Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received legal advice to the effect that criminal proceedings have commenced in respect of Mrs Judith Callaghan, former executive director of the Queensland Day Committee, and that I now regard that matter as sub judice.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Booloumba Creek Catchment Area From Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (1 227 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will relocate logging activities to areas outside Booloumba Creek Catchment area and increase the national park in that area. Environmental Park, Boondall From Mr Vaughan (8 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU declare the Boondall Site an environmental park. 3496 18 Febmary 1986 Papers

Traffic Flow, Old Cleveland Road From Mrs Harvey (216 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to have traffic arrows installed at the junction of Old Cleveland Road and Cavendish Road and for the establishment of a clearway between Harries Road and French Street to prevent diversion of traffic through suburban streets.

Legislation for Negotiated Employment Contracts From Mr Bailey (8 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide legislation for negotiated employment contracts. One Vote, One Value Legislation From Mr Campbell (145 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will revoke present legislation on electoral boundaries and replace it with legislation based on one vote one value. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the James Cook University of North Queensland for the year ended 31 December 1984. The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under the James Cook University of North Queensland Act 1970- 1984 Orders in Council under— State Housing Act 1945-1984 State Housing Act 1945-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 State Housing Act 1945-1985 State Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957-1984 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Mines Regulation Act 1964-1983 Electricity Act 1976-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Electricity Act 1976-1984 Industrial Development Act 1963-1981 Grammar Schools Act 1975-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Regulations under— State Housing Act 1945-1985 Architects Act 1985 Mining (Fossicking) Act 1985 Mines Regulation Act 1964-1983 Education Act 1964-1984 Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1984 By-law under the Education Act 1964-1984 and the Acts Interpretation Act 1954- 1977 Rules under the Coal Mining Act 1925-1981. Ministerial Statements 18 February 1986 3497

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Report on An Inquiry into Sexual Offences Involving Children and Related Matters Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (11.6 a.m.): I seek leave to table the report prepared by Mr D. G. Sturgess, QC, Director of Prosecutions, following his investigations into sexual offences involving children and related matters. On 17 December 1984, Mr Des Sturgess was appointed to undertake an inquiry into child abuse and related matters, such as child pomography and prostitution. I had earUer announced the acceptance by Mr Sturgess of an invitation to become Queensland's first Director of Prosecutions, an appointment which this tmly eminent barrister assumed on 14 January 1985. On 1 March 1985, an interim report was presented to me and at the end of November a final report was completed by Mr Sturgess, QC, as a result of his inquiries. Many hundreds of hours had been spent in interviews with children, prisoners, welfare workers, police, parents and the general public. An invitation to discuss the subject with Mr Sturgess had been advertised, and wide community participation resulted. In this way, information which would not otherwise have become available was gathered; people who would not have approached an inquiry having "court house atmosphere" came forward to unburden themselves in an atmosphere of confidentiality. I commend Des Sturgess and those of his personal staff who were closely involved in the preparation of the report. Obviously they have been called upon to consider and to investigate areas and behaviour in society beyond the normal experience of the great majority of us. This report contains material which will shock every thinking member of the community. It will trouble the conscience of every person who might have suspected a situation of child exploitation but tumed a blind eye. It contains case histories of children subjected to the most revolting, degrading treatment imaginable at the hands of adults, often family friends or relatives whom they tmsted implicitly. It deals most comprehensively with an extensive range of sensitive issues involving the abuse and exploitation of children. It must surely go without saying, therefore, that such a document must be handled with the greatest degree of sensitivity. The lives of a great many people are scrutinised. To suggest that State Cabinet had deliberately suppressed the report, as claimed by the Opposition, is nonsensical. Cabinet first considered the report on Tuesday, 14 January, when it held its first meeting for 1986. Now, barely one month later, I seek to table the report at the earliest opportunity afforded by Parliament. At the outset, the Govemment acted swiftly, first in acknowledging that a problem existed and authorising the necessary investigation and now by presenting the report to Parliament, all within a 14-month period. Let it not be suggested that, in its decision to table the document, the Govemment has been influenced by publication of extracts from it in last week-end's press. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I assume that the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General is making a ministerial statement? Mr HARPER: I have sought leave to table a document. Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did not get leave of the House. I ask him to table the document.

70589—118 3498 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

Mr HARPER: I seek leave to make this ministerial statement. Leave granted. Mr HARPER: A week ago, I sought Cabinet's approval to present the report to Parliament, and signalled my intention publicly. Since receiving it at the end of November, I have said many times that the Sturgess report does not embarrass the Govemment. Its tabling is proof positive that this Govemment is determined to attack with a vengeance the menace of child exploitation. We are determined to bring the problem out of the closet, to educate people in identifying vital signs, and to make the community in general aware of behavioural pattems which could indicate a situation of neglect, abuse and exploitation! My department has already implemented certain recommendations flowing from the report, such as the appointment of female barristers to deal specifically with child abuse cases, the investigation of offences and the laying of charges, and suggested amendments to the Criminal Code, which will ensure that evidence from children who have allegedly been sexually abused will be heard and considered by juries—that perpetrators of such dastardly acts will no longer be able to shelter behind the technicality of "uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice". However, the total report, comprising both interim and final reports, contains many other recommendations which need to be considered carefully before action is taken by the Govemment to implement them. Many of these recommendations will no doubt be controversial and will require detailed consideration not only by the Govemment but also by the general community. For my own part, I invite comment—responsible comment—from all sections of the community that the Queensland Govemment serves, and I promise to have regard to that comment in making my recommendations to the Govemment for legislative change. In tabling the report, the Govemment is giving the community a chance to appreciate fully the nature and extent of the problems that have surfaced, in the hope that those interested might bring their minds to bear on possible solutions to these most complex issues. I hope that members of this House, and particularly the media, will not seek to sensationalise individual elements of the Sturgess report or seek to cater to the puerile- minded in the community. The issues dealt with in this report are too important for that. I do not intend to table annexures to the report—photographs, sexual publications, videos and equipment. I believe that honourable members opposite would agree with me in that regard. Nor do I intend making public the index to names. Those names are known to our law enforcement agencies. I table the interim report and volumes 1 to 3 of the report by Mr D. G. Sturgess, QC, on An Inquiry into Sexual Offences Involving Children and Related Matters. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table. I move that the report be printed. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. Changes in Ministry Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.14 a.m.), by leave: I desire to inform the House that on 6 Febmary 1986 His Excellency the Govemor— (a) Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable William Angus Manson Gunn as Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer of Queensland; Ministerial Statements 18 February 1986 3499

Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable William Hamline Glasson as Minister for Lands, Forestry and Pohce of Queensland; Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable Brian Douglas Austin, Dip.CE, MIEAust., as Minister for Health of Queensland; Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable Martin James Tenni as Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services of Queensland; Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable Geoffrey Hugh Muntz, AAIV, as Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs of Queensland; Accepted the resignation tendered by the Honourable Robert Carl Katter as Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs of Queensland; effective on and after 6 Febmary 1986. (b) Accepted Yvonne Ann Chapman to be a member of the Executive Council of Queensland; (c) Appointed— the Honourable William Angus Manson Gunn to be Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police of Queensland; the Honourable William Hamline Glasson to be Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Siirveying of Queensland; the Honourable Brian Douglas Austin, Dip.CE, MIEAust., to be Minister for Health and Environment of Queensland; the Honourable Martin James Tenni to be Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services of Queensland; the Honourable Geoffrey Hugh Muntz, AAIV, to be Minister for Corrective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation of Queensland; the Honourable Robert Carl Katter to be Minister for Northem Development and Community Services of Queensland; the Honourable Yvonne Ann Chapman to be Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs of Queensland. I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Queensland Government Gazette Extraordinary of 6 Febmary 1986 containing the relevant notifications. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the Queensland Government Gazette Extraordinary on the table. Appointment of Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Acting Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.16 a.m.), by leave: I also desire to inform the House that His Excellency the Govemor, by virtue of the provisions of the Officials in Parliament Act 1896-1982, has authorised and empowered the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, KCMG, MLA, Premier and Treasurer, to perform and exercise all or any of the duties, powers and authorities imposed or conferred upon the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing by any Act, mle, practice or ordinance on and from 17 Febmary 1986 and during the absence of the Honourable Russell James Hinze, MLA.

Auditor-General's Audit of Selected Activities Within the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport and the Queensland Film Corporation Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.17 a.m.), by leave: I desire to inform the House of certain matters brought to my attention by the Auditor-General in relation to an audit which has been carried out of selected activities within the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport and the Queensland Film Corporation. 3500 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

In so doing, Mr Speaker, in accordance with your mling I do not intend to make any comments on another related matter other than to confirm that certain court proceedings have now been set in train. Let me say at the outset that I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense that has been appearing in the media in recent weeks that the inquiries carried out by the Auditor-General came about as a result of demands made by the Leader of the Opposition. That is absolutely untme and is a load of mbbish. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that when a ministerial statement is being made, I require complete silence. I will name any member who is provocative in that regard. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor any other member of the Labor Party had anything to do with the investigation carried out. The inquiries resulted from an investigation by a Govemment auditor last August, long before the Leader of the Opposition had even heard of the matter. If he had known of it, the Leader of the Opposition most certainly would have raised it in Parliament before the House rose on 10 December last. The first comment he made appeared in the press on 16 December. I realise that the Leader of the Opposition is very concemed about his leadership of the Labor Party. I share his concem. He never knows at what time of the day or night the move to replace him will be announced. Opposition members can smile and laugh. Jack Houston was deposed as Leader of the Opposition only months before a State election. All honourable members know the result of that little exercise. The present Deputy Leader of the Opposition ended up with his cricket eleven. Honourable members know how he performed—or did not perform. Since 16 December 1985, the Leader of the Opposition has been making loud noises, claiming some form of Govemment cover-up. That is absolutely untme and, again, is a load of nonsense. It is what honourable members have come to expect fi"om the Australian Labor Party, whose members could not care less about justice or the tmth. That is the way the Lalior Party operates. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Let me set the record straight. Last year, the auditor carrying out an audit of the Queensland Film Corporation came across a number of payments made by the Queensland Film Corporation which, in the view of the auditor, required further audit inquiries. These inquiries, in August 1985, concemed the recipient body of the funds. Subsequently the Auditor-General decided that his inves­ tigations should be extended to other payments made in selected areas of the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport. On 7 Febmary 1986, the Auditor-General called on me and handed copies of his report to me and to the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. Mr Warburton interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! On several occasions I have wamed the Leader of the Opposition that I will not tolerate any interjections when a ministerial statement is being made. I now wam him under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The members of the Opposition are the only ones who know anything about covering tracks. All the time they try to cover their tracks, and usually they are unsuccessful. Ministerial Statements 18 February 1986 3501

The Auditor-General informed me that he had conducted an interview with Mr Allen Callaghan, the Under Secretary of the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport, on Wednesday, 29 January 1986. On Friday, 31 January 1986, the Auditor- General had delivered to Mr Callahan a letter requesting certain explanations and information, which was required to be provided to the office of the Auditor-General by 12 noon on Wednesday, 5 Febmary. Mr Callaghan submitted his resignation as from 3 Febmary 1986. The main recommendation in the Auditor-General's report was— "This report be referred to the SoUcitor-General and the PoUce Department for examination and determination as to whether, and on what basis, action under the Criminal Code or any other law should be instigated." On 7 Febmary, I immediately arranged for action to be taken in accordance with the Auditor-General's recommendation, and the matter is now in the hands of the PoUce Department. The present position is that police inquiries are in hand and further action in the matter will depend on the completion of those inquiries. I have given instmctions to ensure that the other recommendations contained in the report of the Auditor-General are implemented forthwith. That brings me to the question of the release or otherwise of the report itself That is a difficult area, because police investigations have begun and neither the Govemment nor any other party should do anything that may impede the progress of those investigations. Mr Davis interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Brisbane Central under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: As Premier, I made clear to the Auditor-General my desire to release the report but sought the advice of the SoUcitor-General as to the legal consequences of such action. While accepting the overaU principle that Parliament has the right to consider any matter, honourable members in this place must also accept that Parliament is not an altemative fomm to the courts. In that context, I deplore the actions of the Leader of the Opposition over the past five weeks in attempting to conduct a kangaroo court into matters that were being properly investigated by the proper authorities. A number of his statements were false— the type that one would expect from him—and all were designed to use innuendo for some cheap political advantage. The Leader of the Opposition is the perfect example of an unscmpulous person prepared to poison the stream of justice before it begins to flow. If honourable members wish, I will repeat that statement, because that cap fits him very well. This House and its members should deal in facts, not poUticaUy motivated half- tmths. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Chatsworth may laugh, but I wam him under Standing Order No. 123A. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Honourable members will find that it is not a laughing matter. I repeat that this House and its members should deal in facts, not politically motivated half-tmths. In summary, the advice from the Solicitor-General was that although the mle of sub judice would not apply because no charge has been laid in relation to the activities 3502 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

of Mr Callaghan, any action to table the report should first take account of the consequences of that action on the poUce investigation presently in train. Accordingly, advice was sought, through the Commissioner for Police, fi-om the officer in charge of the police investigation. That advice, provided by Detective Inspector D. T. Flint, stated inter alia— "Without presuming to advise on a course of conduct as fjir as the tabling of documents is concemed when Parliament resumes I would submit with respect that such a course would seriously inhibit sensitive police enquiries . . ." It is therefore in the interests of justice that the report Mr McLean interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Bulimba under Standing Order No. 123A. That is his final waming. I assure the honourable member that if he continues interjecting, I will take further action. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is therefore in the interests of justice that the report not be tabled at this time, pending the outcome of poUce investigations. In this regard, I should also inform the House that the Auditor-General has advised Mr WARBURTON: I rise on a point of order. The Premier insists on suggesting that the tabling of Auditor-General's reports in this Parliament is his responsibility. I would like a mling on that from you, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the Auditor- General, not the Premier, has the discretionary power in the tabling in this Parliament of documents for which he is responsible. Mr Speaker, is the Premier speaking on behalf of the Auditor-General in this matter? Mr SPEAKER: Order! At this particular time there is no point of order. I wiU mle accordingly, if necessary, later on. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition knows— I have told him on many occasions—that the Govemment is guided completely by the Auditor-General, the Crown Solicitor and the PoUce Department, which carries out the investigation. It is as simple as that. If the honourable member cannot understand that, he should not be Leader of the Opposition. Mr Kruger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Murmmba under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is obvious, judging by the jovial attitude of Opposition members, that they do not realise the seriousness of their responsibiUties in this House, where they are expected to show some respect. It is in the interests of justice that the report not be tabled at this time, pending the outcome of police investigations. In this regard, I should also inform the House that the Auditor-General has advised that it is incumbent upon accountable officers to include reference to the audit in their annual statements to Parliament as required under Section 37 of the Financial Admin­ istration and Audit Act and Treasurer's Instmctions flowing from the Act. Furthermore, the Auditor-General has stated that he has a responsibihty to ensure that Parliament is appropriately informed on matters arising firom audits to which, in his opinion, the attention of the House should be drawn. That is quite clear. Mr Doyle has advised that the necessity for such specific action on his part and the content and timing of any reference to the matter by special report or otherwise would be determined by him having regard to events flowing from the report. Ministerial Statements 18 February 1986 3503

There are a couple of matters that can be cleared up here and now. The first concems the series of uninformed statements by the Leader of the Oppositon regarding the acceptance by the Govemor in Council of the resignation of Mr Callaghan. I remind the House that, in my press statement of 4 Febmary 1986, I stated that the acceptance of Mr Callaghan's resignation in no way constrained the Govemment from taking whatever further action may be appropriate having regard to the outcome of audit procedures being conducted by the office of the Auditor-General. Again, the Leader of the Opposition has shown his ignorance of the legal position, the powers of the Auditor-General and the common law rights of those whom the Auditor-General may wish to question. In simple terms—so even the Leader of the Opposition can understand—the acceptance of the resignation in no way reduced the power of the Auditor-General to pursue matters or question Mr CaUaghan, nor did the acceptance of the resignation assist Mr Callaghan to evade his obligations under the law. That is quite clear. The SoUcitor-General was consulted before the decision was taken to accept the resignation. I lay upon the table of the House the opinion of the Solicitor-General in respect of this action. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table. The opinion clearly vindicates the decision by the Govemor in Council, as hon­ ourable members ultimately will see. So, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He was wrong also when he told the media that expenditure of a committee estabUshed under the auspices of my department was not subject to audit by the Auditor-General's Department. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I understood you to say at the outset that all matters relating to the Queensland Day Committee are regarded by you as sub judice. Now we have the Premier and Treasurer talking about the Queensland Day Committee, though not by name. The Premier and Treasurer is referring to the Queensland Day Committee in his statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to point out to honourable members that I have seen the statement made by the Premier and Treasurer. I assure aU honourable members that there is nothing in it that is sub judice, as far as I have mled. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a further point of order. At the commencement of this session today, you rose to your feet and gave a very brief but concise mUng on sub judice. You said that all matters in relation to the Queensland Day Committee were sub judice. I am now pointing out to you that the Premier and Treasurer, although not using the words "the Queensland Day Committee", is in fact referring to that committee in his ministerial statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is also my decision that the statement does not refer to the committee in those words. No point of order has been made out. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a further point of order. I give notice that tomorrow I will move that the ruling given by Mr Speaker conceming the application of the sub judice mle not applying to the ministerial statement of the Premier and Treasurer be dissented from. Mr SPEAKER: So be it. 3504 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to move that so much of Standing Order No. 117 be suspended as will permit immediate debate on a motion of dissent. Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 49 Braddy Yewdale Ahem Lester Bums Alison Lickiss Campbell Austin Lingard Casey Bailey Littleproud Comben Bjelke-Petersen McKechnie De Lacy Booth McPhie Eaton Borbidge Menzel Fouras Cahill Miller Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Muntz Goss Clauson Newton Hamill Cooper Powell Kruger Elliott Randell Mackenroth FitzGerald Row McEUigott Gibbs, L J. Simpson McLean Glasson Stephan Milliner Gunn Stoneman Palaszczuk Gygar Tenni Price Harper Tumer Scott Hartwig Wharton Shaw Harvey White Smith Henderson Underwood Innes Vaughan Jennings Veivers Katter Warburton Tellers: Knox Tellers: Wamer, A. M. Prest Lane Kaus .Wilson Davis Lee Neal PAIR D'Arcy I Hinze Resolved in the negative.

RESUMPTION OF MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.39 a.m.): The next few paragraphs that I intend to read make it quite clear that certain other matters are the subject of court proceedings, not expenditure, by the committee, of funds from my department. So, as every member has seen, the Leader of the Opposition was wrong once again. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong in the allegations he made.- He was wrong also when he told the media that expenditure of a committee established under the auspices of my department was not subject to audit by the Auditor-General's Department. His statement was false. It was typical of the incorrect, misleading information that he had peddled to the media since before Christmas. He was equally wrong a few moments ago in moving the motion that was defeated. Funds are aUocated to the committee in the estimates of my department, and those funds are audited annually by the Auditor-General, as happened in this instance. The audit found no anomalies in the expenditure of those funds. That, again, is a matter on which the Leader of the Opposition seems to be out in the bushes, mnning around in circles. Certain other matters relating to expenditure by an officer of the committee are the subject of court proceedings. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition can understand that. The Leader of the Opposition, by making uninformed statements, has not done anything to assist the investigations that were put in train conceming those and related matters. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3505

In conclusion, I assure the House and the public that, unlike the Opposition, the State Govemment has set out to ensure that justice will be done in these matters.

ECONOMIC POLICIES OF AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.41 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That this House condemns Australian Labor Party poUcies that are deterring initiative in Queensland businesses and industries and which are placing a growing burden on the tax-payer through moves such as the fiiel tax, higher interest rates, capital gains tax and the faUing dollar." ALP policies are affecting industries across Australia generaUy. If I cared to, I could cite many other examples. In Labor's mral policy speech deUvered by Prime Minister Hawke for the 1984 Federal election, he said, "Special needs of country people will have a high priority." Honourable members should be interested to hear that again. He went on to say, "One percentage point drop in interest rates meant a cut of $35m in farmers' interest biUs." WTiat a shameful policy speech that was! In the 14 months since the December 1984 election, no fewer that five farmers' rallies, with attendances as high as 40 000, have been held protesting against the Labor Govemment's policies. That has never happened before in the history of this nation. Threats have been made of cheque book strikes, blockades and revolts; threats have been made to send to different departments forms with differing code numbers and reference numbers. To make matters worse, interest rates have increased by a massive 7.5 percentage points, to 21, 22 or 23 per cent. Interest rates are two to three times higher than those of our major trading partners, thus offsetting any benefit from the floating of the dollar. Labor in Govemment has been an absolute disaster for mral Australia. Not since the 1920s has the farming community been so united and so vocal against Labor Govemments. Mr Scott: Didn't you read The Courier-Mail this moming? The sugar farmers are deserting you. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I reply to that interjection by saying that, at the appropriate time, I will be touring the north and aU the sugar-industry areas. I will teU the people in the sugar industry how hypocritical are the honourable member, the Labor Party and Mr Kerin. Without doubt, Labor in Govemment has been a disaster. Labor in Govemment has meant financial min for country Australia and many businesses because of high interest rates, insecurity through negative mral, but pro-union, policies, and hardship caused by lack of assistance and by verbal abuse. The Treasurer of AustraUa, Mr Paul Keating, accused farmers of being tax cheats, and the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin, said that they were whingers and were panicking over interest rates. Would not anybody panic if he was in debt up to his chin and had to meet interest rates of 22 and 23 per cent? Mr Vaughan: Do you support the demonstrations? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I support anybody who tries to defeat the Labor Govemment in Canberra and keep Opposition members out of office in Queensland. Mr Scott: You tried to stop marching in Brisbane. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member should not worry about that. He should not lose any sleep over it. 3506 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

In fact, since Labor won office at the national level at the 5 March 1983 election, more than 40 benefits have been removed, or adverse budgetary decisions have been made, to the detriment of mral people and those in small business. As if it is not enough for Labor to slash benefits and introduce anti-mral policies! Labor's taxes are taking $5 bilUon from AustraUan farmers. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. When a motion is debated in this Chamber, as the Premier and Treasurer is doing, the proper procedure is for copies of that motion to be circulated. If that does not happen, how can the Opposition be expected to respond? Government Members interjected. Mr WARBURTON: Well, that is the procedure. If Govemment members do not want to follow the procedures, that is their business. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am advised that copies of the motion will be distributed to honourable members as soon as possible. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition should know all those matters without having to be told them. Because he and his colleagues in Canberra do not act responsibly in these areas, the Govemment has decided to try to inform them of these matters. On average. Labor has taken about $20,000 a farm in taxation. It seems that smaU business and the farming community are Labor's milking cows. Labor in Govemment and Opposition members have no understanding of farming and mral communities. No-one in the Federal Cabinet has a personal knowledge of the effect of Labor's policies, particularly its oil and interest-rate policies, on farmers and small businesses. Only Primary Industry Minister Kerin was a farmer, but his experience was gained from raising chickens, and that ended 15 years ago. Mr Brown and Mr Cohen have some background in farming. To make matters worse, virtually no busi­ nessman in the Federal Cabinet has any understanding or appreciation of these matters. A quick glance at the Opposition in this Chamber shows that no-one within its numbers has mral experience. Opposition members are union men and support union activities and policies to the detriment of Australia's competitiveness on the world markets. The Hawke Labor Govemment and Opposition members should have leamt a lesson from the former discredited Whitlam Labor Govemment. Whitlam's electoral decUne began in the bush when he decided to abolish the bounty on superphosphate, which was introduced in the 1940s. He then went on to tell farmers, even though they were in the middle of a drought, that they had never had it so good. Between 1972 and 1975, there was an unprecedented attack on mral AustraUa. It left a litany of disaster, such as the cutting of tax concessions for water and soil conservation and for fencing, which resulted in high inflation and record unemployment. Rural antagonism towards the current Labor Govemment is now a fact. As hon­ ourable members would have read in the press recently, a farmer in New South Wales, who was a member of the Labor Party until recently, said, "Nifty and Hawke, they treat everyone beyond the mountains Uke the back end of the dog." That was said by a former supporter of the Labor Party. For the former discredited Whitlam Govemment, the trigger for decline was superphosphate; but, for the Hawke Labor Govemment, numerous triggers for farmers, smaU businessmen and industry have built up resentment. Mr De Lacy: Will you explain how the falling dollar has affected the farmers? Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3507

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The thought that the honourable member cannot understand that defies description. For the benefit of Opposition members, I shaU list some of the triggers so that they may hear them and digest them, and thus make a conscious decision to support the motion. The Hawke Labor Govemment has been responsible for forcing up interest rates to record levels, to about 21 per cent, which is two to three times the level of the rates of most of our trading partners. Average young single-income couples with a family, who are unable to meet high, increased payments owing to the high interest rates, are being forced to sell their first homes. There is a crisis in housing and home-ownership. Homes are being repossessed or people are being forced to take personal loans up to 25 per cent to keep a roof over their heads. High interest rates are crippling progress and incentive in industry and smaU business. Honourable members all know that yesterday, industry groups came out waming the Govemment that high interest rates could easily drive the economy into a recession, and it can be seen everywhere. Interest rates have also added to farm costs, which are forecast to be $12,800,000,000 in 1985-86, or 7 per cent above the 1984-85 estimate. Nearly half of the increase is attributable to the rise in interest payments. Total indebtedness to institutional lenders in June 1985 was estimated to be about $7.2 bilUon, which was 21 per cent above the previous June estimate. Indebtedness now is forecast to reach $8 biUion in June 1986. Further, the Federal Labor Govemment has been foisting on industry and mral sectors the prices and incomes accord, which, through wage indexation, has increased wages and thus costs. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics lists the cost of mral labour as being one of the very significant farm cost increases and problems. The refusal to recognise the need for wage flexibiUtyan d the pushing on with the 3 per cent productivity pay case superannuation deal with the ACTU is another very serious error on the part of the Canberra Labor Govemment. That 3 per cent productivity claim is estimated to cost $3.1 biUion, and in Queensland it wiU mean $425m in extra wages. Productivity has already been distributed. It is future productivity that is important. But, of course, under the ACTU/Hawke Labor Govemment accord, the unions have no concem for the future. The wage claim currently under way before the ConciUation and Arbitration Court will add $2.3 bilUon to the nation's wages bUl, and $31 Im here in Queensland. The Hawke Govemment has also removed the investment aUowance on plant. According to the AustraUan Bureau of Statistics, as a consequence, compared with last year's figures, machinery sales are down by as much as 50 per cent on the same equipment. The Hawke Govemment has also refused to lower fuel costs in the face of big faUs in world oil prices. Indeed, the fuel excise rose only a couple of weeks ago. Farmers use about 2 bilUon Utres of fuel a year. If the fuU effect of the drop in oil prices—6 to 7c a Utre— was passed on to farmers, the mral sector would save $140m a year, which would mean that a farmer would save about $1,100 a year. The cane-farmers need such help drasticaUy. Last November, the West German Govemment dropped the retail price of fuel by l()c a litre. In Australia, and in Queensland, there is the sad spectacle of Federal Labor mral back-benchers—and I am sure this would apply to honourable members opposite—not wanting to give any special fuel concessions to the farm or small business sectors. Where does this leave honourable members opposite? Do they or do they not support special fuel concessions to this sector of the community? In arriving at their decision, they should take on board that their Federal counterparts abolished the 4c petroleum products fi'eight subsidy scheme to save $116m and indexed the excise on petrol and diesel fuel to the CPI. The poUcies of Opposition members' Federal ALP counterparts have been responsible for— introducing the capital gains tax, after promising not to do so; 3508 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

limiting the amount of farm losses that can be written off against off-farm income; doing nothing about tariffs on farm machinery and related materials; ignoring Govemment over-regulation of industry; and providing industrial protection to the unions. Honourable members know that the plight of the wheat-growers in New South Wales may be sheeted home to union militancy at the receiving depots and wharves. Much of AustraUa's lack of competitiveness on world markets and the reputation of not being a reliable trader is the result of two decades of increasing trade union lawlessness. I remind honourable members opposite that 15 years of this lawlessness was presided over by Prime Minister Hawke when he was with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. My word, during that time he fostered problems in Australia. That is what Labor is responsible for—that and many other things. It is a very sorry record. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in 1986 the gross income of the family farm will be $6,700. To force people to live at that standard is absolutely terrible. In 1985- 86, the real net value of mral production is forecast to fall by 24 per cent, foUowing a faU of 13 per cent in 1984-85. For smaU-businessriien and farmers there are no 38-hour week, flexi-time, productivity payments, national superannuation schemes, 17'/2 per cent annual leave loadings and many other similar luxuries. A recent opinion poU pubUshed in The Weekend Australian shows that there is growing community concem about high interest rates and the state of the economy. About four out of 10 Australians believe that the country is in serous trouble. It has not taken an opinion poU for the State Govemment to know that the AustraUan economy is in trouble and that it has been placed in that trouble by the irresponsible poUcies of the Hawke Labor Govemment, egged on by the ACTU and supported by honourable members opposite. It took the Westem AustraUan election for Labor to discover rural Australia. We aU witnessed the cynical regional political pressures of Premier Burke in securing an $llm fertiUser subsidy for Westem Australian farmers. The hand-out backfired. But what do smaU business people, country people and towns people have to do to get recognition, help and assistance from this ham-fisted Hawke Labor Govemment and honourable members opposite? Small-businessmen and farmers are not fools. Despite the generosity of Prime Minister Hawke and Premier Burke, Westem Australian farmers StiU voted against them. The National Party picked up an extra four seats. No wonder Prime Minister Hawke and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) were too scared to address a major rally of 8 000 farmers in Canberra the other day. Isn't it amazing? They would not even go up to talk to them. What a scandal! Furthermore, there are increasing signs that the Hawke Labor Goverament wiU not pass on the fuU flow-on of the fall in world oil prices and wiU refuse to give special concessions to the rural sector. As honourable members know, the Queensland Goverament is to initiate High Court action on this matter. Tax cuts scheduled for September 1986 and July 1987—if they go ahead—will be given at the expense of mral producers and with the cash kept from not allowing the full 7c flow-on. The Hawke Labor Government is a captive of the prices and incomes accord and the unions. The ACTU has insisted on tax cuts, wage indexation and a 3 per cent productivity increase. The big losers are farmers, small business and industry which have to finance this accord by having to withstand 21 per cent interest rates, hi^ petrol prices, a falUng doUar, increasing costs, rising inflation and falUng business investment. Today, honourable members opposite have the opportunity to do something positive by voting with this Govemment and repudiating the Hawke Labor Govemment's interest rates, now about 7 per cent higher than they were this time last year, the 3 per cent Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3509 productivity claim by the ACTU, which wiU cost $3 biUion in wages, the wage claim to cost $2.3 biUion and the current oil parity pricing policy, which is costing car-drivers an extra $6 a week at the bowser. If Opposition members care for Queenslanders, they wiU support this motion. I hope that honourable members opposite are not so naive that they wiU put all the blame for the oU parity pricing policy on the former Fraser Govemment. It was introduced to encourage oil exploration. At that time Australia was lagging. The policy has worked, to an extent. Here in Queensland we have seen the development of the Jackson oil-fields and the discovery of large reserves of natural gas. It is necessary that I inform honourable members of, and place on record in this House, the activities and the poUcies of the Federal Labor Government and the ACTU, aided and abetted by members of the Opposition. Labor started the fuel debate with the election promise to cut petrol prices by 3c a litre by forgoing the $3.23 per barrel price increase. That was another big lie that the Federal Govemment told. I suppose that I should not use the word "Ue". To put it another way—the Federal Goverament did not keep its promise; on gaining office, the Labor Party immediately reneged on its promise to reduce petrol prices. It is time that the Hawke Goverament got its economic priorities right. I ask Opposition members to send a message to Canberra to urge the Federal Goverament to lower petrol prices for families and to provide fiiel concessions for farmers; to give interest rate reductions; to scrap the capital gains tax; to forgo the current wages claim; and to cease support for the 3 per cent productivity claim. I commend the motion to the House. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (12.1 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer and strongly endorse the contents of it. It is entirely appropriate that the Queensland Goverament focus attention on broad economic issues that are presently affecting this State and nation. It is vital that there be sustained, informed national debate on these issues. I am more than happy for such debate to include objective discussion about this Goverament's management of the Queensland economy. I do not apologise for our role. It has been pitched in the right direction, given the means available to us. I believe that we have the proper package and have taken the right decisions. Of course, any State Goverament action is very severely restricted by those economic factors that are the major responsibility of the Federal Goverament of the day. So it is quite appropriate that we examine such issues. Big Goverament, big unions, big employers and the big media have all agreed, it seems, to ignore the present interaational economic context in which we Uve, leaving AustraUans generally sociaUy isolated. The success stories and the mistakes being made round the world go unreported, and Australia's strategies and policies are not compared with what the rest of the world is doing today. That is a serious mistake, since AustraUa is an exporting nation, greatly dependent on the interaational scene. We cannot be isolationists. It just simply is not available to us to make that choice; yet our economic planners are obsessed with trying to do just that. Right now, AustraUa's approach can be summed up as a short-term fix that is going to create long-term economic health problems. The symptoms wiU be very hard to repair, no matter what type of Goverament eventually tries to do it. Ours is an era of easy solutions, with an ALP Federal Goverament seeking easy answers and telUng a willing constituency that the solution to the nation's economic problems is essentially simple and painless to achieve. Certainly, a few Australians have benefited by this approach, have accepted the short-term fix, and are to some extent enjoying some of its delusions, illusions and haUucinations. 3510 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

The ALP's short-term fix has been a large dose of Govemment spending and a Govemment-sponsored accord between big unions and big employers, with assurances of indexed wage increases in retum for a period of some industrial peace. A short-term boost usually happens when this sort of thing is first embarked on, as it has been embarked upon round the world from time to time. It does produce some economic growth, a few more jobs and a relatively short period of some comfort before the withdrawal symptoms start to set in, as they are starting to set in here and now. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chamber will come to order. Far too many members are on their feet. Mr AHERN: The nasties are starting to appear—high inflation rates, record interest rates and unrest by fixed-income groups. Those dependent on exports to survive are starting to express serious disquiet and concem. Australia is an exporting nation. That will always be the case, and Australia must export well. Our manufacturing industry is stmggling to survive. Producers of economic wealth in the manufacturing sector in New South Wales and Victoria are in serious decUne with quite massive shedding of manufacturing capabUity, and that is happening at a time when world exports of manufacturing products has increased by a factor of seven—700 per cent in the past decade. The world trade in manufactured items is booming, yet in AustraUa the Federal ALP has been sponsoring deindustriaUsation. Mr Fouras: What have you done for the Queensland manufacturing industry? Mr AHERN: I wiU come to that in a moment. The only area in which AustraUa is leading the Westem World right now under Hawke is in inflation. The Hawke Govemment can rightly claim to be leading the intemational inflation stakes. In the December quarter, Australia's inflation rate jumped by an alarming two per cent to a high 8.2 per cent. Germany has annual inflation of 1.8 per cent, Japan 1.9 per cent, USA 3.6 per cent. United Kingdom 5.5 per cent. Australia's 8.2 per cent looks pretty sick by comparison, yet the Federal Govemment is pressing employers further and further with its ridiculous indexation to exacerbate the situation. In the last 60 years, the indexation option has been tried—and rejected—by several nations, yet in Australia the Federal ALP insists on reliving it aU, with all its failures. The petrol price decision—or, rather, indecision—is another major economic issue that is clearly the responsibUity of the Federal Goverament, yet cmcially affects the operations of the State. It has been estimated that a $5 a barrel drop in the price of cmde oU means a one per cent drop in inflation across the USA. No-one on the poUtical scene in the USA would dream of suggesting that such an advantage not be passed on. It will certainly be passed on in the USA and it will happen elsewhere. It wiU make Australia's competitors even more competitive. Australia's intemational competitiveness wiU further deteriorate unless the full amount of oil parity pricing is passed on to consumers. Surely it has to be. Australia's high interest rates now forcing up inflation must be arrested. It is frightening that our producing sector is being asked to pay 25 and 26 per cent interest rates on borrowed capital for working purposes. Again, the overseas experience provides policy clues. The Federal Govemment must consider a flexiblelabou r situation, geared more closely to economic productivity, taking into account the opportunities offered by new technology and new management practices. It must give more imaginative support than was given previously to our economic wealth-producing sectors—primary, mining, secondary and tertiary; develop sophisticated responses rather than the big-govemment, big-business, big-union schemes that appear to be today's fashion; that is—the steel plan, the car plan and the ship-building plan. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3511 which, in my view, wiU not provide the solutions that Australia needs. At the same time, industry is being starved of the advice and help needed in respect of Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr Davis: What about the noise on the other side of the House? We can't hear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not want any directions from the Opposition. I insist on reasonable silence. Mr AHERN: At the same time, industry is being starved of the advice, help and support systems needed in respect of the interaational solutions—management systems, new technologies, new design strategies, total quality control, new marketing opportunities, and so on. While hundreds and hundreds of millions of doUars are being poured into car plans, steel plans, ship-building plans and so on, very few dollars are provided for the interaational-type solutions. Federal programs are needed to assist smaU business. The voice of small business in the primary, secondary, mining and tertiary fields, or in the service field, must be heard. The United States of America is now the most successful job-generator of the Westera World. Over the last 10 years, in the United States, 20 million new jobs have been created. That represents a net increase. At the same time, the European Economic Community has suffered a net loss of 3 million employment opportunities. The EEC has more than half the unemployed people of the Westera World. Clearly, the United States of America has provided the successful model. Its success results from cutting down the size of goverament, by looking to the private enterprise sector to generate economic wealth and employment opportunities, and by offering sophisticated support systems and taxation incentives to enable the developers in the private sector to create new jobs. Incidentially, over the last decade, the United States Goverament has been progressively phasing down capital gains tax and eventually aims to phase it right out. What is happening in this country? The tax is being brought in at the top rate. The Business Council of AustraUa got it right when it said— "Sustained economic growth is critical to achieving many of Australia's economic, social and poUtical goals. Higher out-put in sales represent the principal means of reducing the undesirably high level of unemployment and of providing jobs for a growing labour force. Expectations of high personal incomes, of increased levels of public goods and services and of improved social security support can be met only by increases in the size of the economic cake. Mariy of the Govemment's policy commitments, including that the trUogy promises on fiscal policy and the tax trade-offs proposed in the accord mark 11, are predicated on the continuation of historically high rates of economic growth. Economic growth provides a conducive environment for stmctural adjustment of AustraUa's labour and capital resources necessary to achieve a more efficient, outward-looking and intemationaUy competitive stmcture. Finally, a larger economic cake makes it easier to provide larger slices for some groups without reducing the slice left for others. However, there are a number of clouds on the horizon which threaten the achievement of these high rates of real economic growth over the next few years. These developments include the marked deterioration of the current account of the balance of payments, depreciation of the AustraUa dollar, the rising overseas debt burden, rising inflation that rates double or more of those of our major trading partners, record high nominal and real interest rates, relatively low (although growing) levels of investment, tightness and an upsurge in industrial disputes." 3512 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Clearly, Australia has had a quick fix, which wiU create long-term problems for the Australian economy. It is right and proper that, today, the Queensland Pariiament express its concera. I wish to comment on the role played in this State by the Federal Opposition, particularly spokesmen for the Liberal Party of AustraUa who have preoccupied themselves with criticism of this State Govemment's economic performance, and left alone the performance of the Federal Govemment, which ought to be their prime consideration. I call attention to these serious economic issues and ask members of the Liberal Party what they are doing to bring them to the attention of the Queensland and national electorate to make certain that everybody understands the problems and adopts the only solution that is avaUable. I wiU not mn away firom any argument relating to the role of the Queensland Goverament in generating economic development. Mr De Lacy: You will not address yourself to the argument. Will you explain how the devaluation of the Australian dollar has affected the mral industry? Mr AHERN: I wiU make a copy of my speech available to the honourable member for Cairas, who will have to consider that matter in an across-the-board context. I acknowledge that the mral industry has benefited by devaluation of the Australian dollar, but the total context of the AustraUan economy shows serious danger signs. The AustraUan Business Council has pointed that out, as the Queensland Govemment has today. I reiterate that I will not mn away from any argument that relates to the role of the Queensland Govemment in generating economic growth and development. I reject totally the argument that the role of the Queensland Goverament in formulating an appropriate policy to promote economic development has been anything less than completely adequate. The critics conveniently choose to ignore what the Goverament has set out to do with the limited means available. The Goverament recognises the enormous problems that the malaise in the sugar industry has created. Queensland's 7 000 cane-farmers have had to batten down the hatches in relation to spending, and the services that depend on that great sugar industry have also had to tighten very significantly. The massive investment in mining-resource infrastmcture has almost ceased now that Queensland's mining industry has entered the production phase. In that regard, Queensland, with its vast mineral resources, has been harder hit than any other State. However, with those two issues aside, which have occurred owing to circumstances weU beyond the Goverament's control, it is clear that on every parameter this Government's economic performance has been exceUent. Over the past decade, there have been indices of tremendous growth in virtually every sector. The Goverament has generated a massive increase in capital spending through the State Budget of last year. Mr Innes: What about the last two years? Mr AHERN: I am coming to that. The raUways electrification was brought forward to assist heavy engineering and metal producers. Several industries have received Govemment assistance to come to Queensland, and so broaden the State's economic base. An imaginative strategic planning exercise is under way to determine the economic development of private industry in Queensland for the next 25 years. A comprehensive study that shows the stmctural changes that have taken place in the Queensland economy since 1960 AVUI be the data base for the strategic development plan, a plan that wiU lay down what support systems are required to ensure healthy and vital Queensland industry up to and beyond 2()00. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3513

Job-creation has been the No. 1 priority of the Queensland Govemment, during all its years in office, and in that respect it has been demonstrably and undeniably successful, despite the misinformation propagated by the ALP. Mr Hamill: What about the statistics? Mr AHERN: I am about to come to those. The honourable member should Usten. Indeed, in the area of job-creation the Queensland Govemment has been the most successful in Australia. The latest figures show that between December 1984 and December 1985, 70 300 new jobs were created in Queensland. Mr Wilson: How many were lost? Mr AHERN: That is a net increase. Can the honourable member not add up? That was an impressive increase of seven per cent. More importantly, in terms of this particular debate, that achievement represents over one-quarter of all jobs—all jobs—created in Australia in that period. Further, it should be noted that manufacturing employment in this State—I invite Opposition members to answer this point—increased strongly in the year to November last, rising by 11 300 or 8.9 per cent. Mr Hamill: Tell us about the current rate of unemployment in Queensland compared with that in other mainland States. You don't want to answer that one, do you? Mr AHERN: I will, if the honourable member wiU listen. That increase mns counter to the national trend in the same period, when manu­ facturing employment, in total, declined significantly—in fact, by 18 900 jobs. During the past 12 months there has been, in this State, an increase in the manufacturing area alone of 11 300 jobs, whereas throughout the rest of Australia there has been a decline of 18 900 in the number of people employed in manufacturing. In the area of job-creation, the Queensland Govemment has demonstrated clearly and indisputably that it is the national leader. The figures show that the Goverament's economic development policies have achieved a great deal for Queensland and Queens­ landers. Despite the carping criticism daily directed at the Goverament by members opposite, those poUcies have wide community support. Successful Goveraments around the world are promoting economic development through private enterprise. That is the only sensible strategy, the only strategy by which any sort of a sensible result can be achieved. That is this Govemment's strategy. It is the strategy that Australia should be pursuing. But, unfortunately, whilst the ALP remains in power, short-term political popularity will always gain favour over long-term economic necessity. Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (12.20 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "That aU words after the word 'That' where it appears in the first line, be deleted, and that in their place there be inserted— 'this House deplores the standard of the Queensland Govemment's finan­ cial administration, and the misuse of pubUc funds that this lack of financial responsibility has aUowed to occur. The House further deplores the way in which the Queensland Goverament has procrastinated in respect of the problems in our depressed sugar industry—its electricity price rip-off, the fire levy fiasco, the ever-increasing cost of living, the soaring State taxes and charges and the fact that Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment of any of the mainland States. The House condemns the Queensland Goverament for its rorting of the electoral system, its economic incompetence and the way in which it has deserted our mral sector in particular. We condemn this National Party Govemment for continuing to put itself first and the Queensland people last.'" 3514 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Today we have seen a very deliberate ploy by the Premier and the members of the National Party Govemment to cover up fraud, cormption amd mismanagement in the Premier's Department and a department administered by the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. That is what my amendment is all about. The Govemment has no interest in this debate. Very shortly, most of the Ministers, and probably the Premier, will drift away. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Premier will make his point of order. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition has no justification in any shape or form for speaking about cormption. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that word. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It has been determined in this ParUament on previous occasions that a word such as "cormpt" is unparliamentary. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term. Mr WARBURTON: I will withdraw it. It is interesting that the Premier should move his motion against the Federal Govemment, in a desperate and very purposeful attempt to distract attention from the public funds scandal that has been mnning rife in this State since September. The Premier and the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts knew about those matters in 1985. I intend to canvass some of the points today, whether those honourable gentlemen like it or not. Questions will be raised in my speech. I hope that the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts at least has the gumption to stand up and answer them. If the Govemment intends to prevent question-time from being held this moraing, I will put the questions very shortly and see how good the Premier and the Minister are. I intend to respond to the desperate move by the Premier to save his back. The Premier is totally irked by the Australia Labor Party's being democratically elected at the Federal Level at two consecutive elections. Quite frankly, the Premier of Queensland makes Marcos look Uke Mickey Mouse. Very recently, I heard a moraing radio report of a speech made by Marcos. The likeness of his speech to those of the Premier was unbelievable. I heard Marcos saying that if there was any sort of civil disobedience, irrespective of whether or not the cause was right, it would be stamped out. From whom have we heard similar statements? From the Premier! I put to the House that Marcos and the Premier would make a good combination. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation. I will not tolerate the type of interjections that are taking place. They are comments, not interjections, designed to dismpt proceedings. I will not tolerate any dismption of the proceedings. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he get back to some relevancy in his debate. An Opposition Member: What are you talking about? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member wiU not question the Chair, or I will put him out. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you that what I am about to say is very relevant. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3515

I tum to the Premier and Treasurer's obsession about the Federal Govemment. After aU, that is what his speech today was about and that is what all of his speeches are about. The latest indication of the public's acceptance of the Federal Labor Govem­ ment was published in The Bulletin last Wednesday, 12 Febmary. The poll found that Labor's vote was 50 per cent, that the vote of the conservative forces, that is, the Liberal and National Parties, was only 42 per cent, that the vote of the Democrats was 6 per cent, and that the vote of the others was 2 per cent. That is in stark contrast to what is happening in the Queensland mral sector. FinaUy, the people in that sector have woken up to this National Party Govemment. The Premier and Treasurer's efforts in trying to save the sugar industry have been absolutely pathetic. He has procrastinated. The way in which he went into that area recently and stopped for short periods at places such as Babinda did him no good. We arrived in that area after the Premier and Treasurer had left and the words spoken by the people in that area would make his hair stand on end. They did not appreciate the stunt by which the media showed the Premier and Treasurer to be caring for the people of the north. He has shown no care for them. His Goverament puts itself first and the people of this State last. We can argue untU doomsday about the economy and the matters in my amendment. It is quite obvious that the economic mismanagement of this State by the National Party Goverament is causing pain and harm to the people of Queensland. The Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahera) is not in the Chamber at present, but, last year, his department engaged a professor from the James Cook University to look at the state of the economy in Queensland and the Goverament's decentraUsation poUcies. What did he say? He said that the Goverament has no decentralisation poUcies. When the professor came south and addressed an economic symposium, he made the StartUng revelation—something that the Opposition knew, by the way—that the Gov­ erament has no economic policy or strategy. Under the Premier and Treasurer's regime, this State is just wandering along. The people of Queensland are being harmed, but the Goverament will not get its head out of the sand. I have referred to financial mismanagement. Quite frankly, if this stunt had not been pulled this moraing, we would have been talking about affairs within the departments of the Premier and Treasurer and of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. I assure the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister that, despite these rotten stunts that the Government is prepared to puU in this Chamber when the heat is upon it and when its back is to the wall, those answers will come out. As I said, back in 1985, the Goverament knew about some of these rorts. In some respects, what the Premier and Treasurer said is tme. He was certainly cognisant of what was occurring. He knew that there were investigations. But what he and others did was try to suppress the information. If the Opposition had not come out as it did, and as I did in December, this matter would not have seen the light of day. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot accept that statement. This is very important. The whole matter was under investigation. We were not at any time suppressing any investigation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I take it that the Premier and Treasurer is raising a point of order? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Following Mr Speaker's announcement this mom­ ing that certain matters are sub judice, I suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition gets any closer to those matters than he is at present, I will have to act. There is really no point of order at this stage. 3516 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr WARBURTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, to put your mind at ease, I say that I respect the mles of sub judice. I do not intend to do anything today that will prejudice anybody who is charged and who is likely to appear before the court. That is why I raised with Mr Speaker earlier the point that the Premier had in fact breached Mr Speaker's own mUng in the course of his ministerial statement. Let honourable members look at the position at present, because there is no need to go back much farther than that. Most people in Queensland are aware of what has occurred, and they are fully aware that the Opposition is pursuing this matter on their behalf That is what we intend to do. An advantage has been given to the Premier and the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie), and no doubt some other Ministers. They have copies of the Auditor-General's report. The Premier has said in the Chamber today that he is not going to table the report because of such and such, and he has tabled an opinion that I have not had an opportunity to read. Nevertheless, I understand the Premier's dilemma. What has been happening? The Govemment has the information and the Opposition, the Parliament and the people of Queensland do not have it, and the Govemment has been mnning around trying to mend fences. I wiU come to that shortly. The Govemment knows what is in the Auditor-General's report. It is aware of the problems that he has raised. What has occurred? The Goverament has been racing around trying to fix the problems before the Opposition can get to the seat of those problems. I intend to mention very shortly some of the matters that the Oppositon wants to canvass with the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie), because they are the very cmx of the problem. I refer to the Auditor-General's reports for 1983-84 and 1984-85, which show the Minister's travelling and expense aUowances when travelling in Australia and overseas, totalUng $16,332 and $25,404 respectively. As you wiU remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, full details of ministerial expenses used to be tabled regularly in Parliament. Because of the criticism that was forthcoming from the Opposition year after year when those detaUs were tabled late in each calendar year, brief comment is now made about ministerial traveUing expenses and, of course, very little comment, or no comment, about the other expenses incurred. Can the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts assure the House that all his ministerial expenses for travel in Australia and overseas—and the Minister is rather famous for his travel—for accommodation, car hire, air charter, raU trips, and the Uke, for the two years that I mentioned were drawn fi-om the two amounts that appeared in the Auditor-General's report? On some occasions, were they paid for out of Queensland Film Corporation funds or out of fiinds fi-om the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation? That is what the Opposition wants to know. Those questions wiU be asked later, so the Minister will have an opportunity to respond in due course. I refer to the Minister's trip in New Zealand in late July and early August last year, which I beUeve was following a one-day seminar in Rotoma. All this revolves around my amendment, I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Opposition is talking about financial mismanagement, the rorting of the system. During that visit to New Zealand, the Minister and others in his entourage decided to have a bit of a look around for three or four days. They travelled by hire car to WelUngton and eventually finished up in Auckland. Members of the entourage were to stop at a chateau, but there were problems in the snow country and that did not occur. I ask the Minister to teU the House who accompanied him on that motor tour. Were the CaUaghans with the Minister, or Mr CaUaghan? Was that trip organised by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation? Can the Minister explain why the total Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3517 cost of that excursion, which I think would be about $3,000 or $4,000, was met by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation? I will examine what has happened in more recent times. I have a report that the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie) was rather white-faced when, in the company of his acting under secretary (Mr Stan Wilcox), last Thursday, 13 Febmary, he visited the Queen Street office of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. I am told that the Minister's unusual visit resulted in the recaUing of credit cards. I understand that the man who originally issued them was Mr Kennedy. What the Opposition wants to know—and it wants to know today—and the public wants to know is what happened that made that action necessary? Why on earth would credit cards have to be recaUed. One does not have to use one's imagination, does one? Were the holders of the credit cards rorting the system? If so, how much public money is involved? What was the Minister doing whilst all this was going on? Contrary to what he says, he is the person responsible for his department, he is responsible for what happens in that department, and he is responsible for the actions of the people within that department. When problems arise, he has to bear the bmnt of the repercussions. As Minister, that is his responsibUity. I now tura to another matter. I preface my comments by reminding the Minister that he is responsible for the activities of the Queensland Film Corporation and the actions of those who administer the corporation. Let me put this to the Minister. Can he teU the House whether large sums of money have been laundered by debiting them against the Queensland Film Corporation as payment for gifts to film industry administrative bodies in other States or to members of such bodies? I ask that because the Minister is the one who presents the annual report to Parliament, he is the Minister who presents the financial report, and he is the Minister who is supposed to vet that financial report, understand what it is about and assure the House that what he is presenting is the tmth, the whole tmth and nothing but the tmth. What the Opposition wants to know is whether, recently, the acting Auditor-General approached the New South Wales Film Corporation to inquire whether it received a gift ffom the Queensland FUm Corporation. Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the acting Auditor- General's inquiry was the first knowledge that the New South Wales FUm Corporation had of supposedy being the recipient of a gift firom the Queensland FUm Corporation? All of these things are happening under the very noses of Ministers of this Govemment. If they are to rise in this House today and say that they did not know about these things, or if they are to teU the House that those things are done by somebody else Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen interjected. Mr WARBURTON: If the Opposition is to beUeve aU that nonsense that the Premier and Treasurer put forward that, because a bank teUer does something, the bank manager should not cop the crow, let me remind him of a statement that he made some time ago, one that no doubt was the brain-child of one of those who is currently under review—Mr AUen Callaghan. Mr Premier, when you fly with the crows, you get shot down with them. I assure the Premier and Treasurer that his days are numbered. I wiU not pursue this matter any further at the moment, but it wiU be pursued— and pursued vigorously—by the Opposition. I can assure the Premier and Treasurer of that. I can assure the Minister that the Opposition wiU not let go, because this matter has grave poUtical consequences for the Goverament in 1986. The Premier and Treasurer knows that it has grave political consequences, which is why the system of Parliament has been rorted today, just as other things have been rorted by people in the Government's employ. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: What do you mean by "rorted"? Mr WARBURTON: The Premier knows what I mean by "rorted". 3518 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

FinaUy, I wiU comment on the things that the Queensland Goverament is presumably concemed about. I will talk about petrol prices and about this Govemment's concem for the motorists and other people using fuel in this State. What about third-party insurance and the debate that took place in this Chamber? Government Members interjected. Mr WARBURTON: Opposition members were wamed under Standing Order No. 123A for interjecting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chamber will come to order and the Leader of the Opposition wiU contintie with his speech. Mr WARBURTON: I remind honourable members about what happened with the third-party insurance debate. The Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police (Mr Gunn) led the debate for the Govemment. Not on one occasion could he justify what he had done. He cannot justify the savage hike in third-party insurance premiums. That is very significant. When the Queensland Goverament talks about caring for motorists or people in the mral sector, which is a user of fuel, it is very insincere. Frequently, mad price wars occur in this State. Some consumers think that, because they can purchase fiiel for 43c a litre, it is Christmas-time. What is the Queensland Goverament doing about the problems that are inflicted on the people who seU petrol? What is the Goverament doing about the petrol companies that regularly infUct that madness upon the people of this State? Members of the Goverament know that the Federal Goverament controls the wholesale price of petrol and that the State Goveraments control its retaU price. They should not go screaming about the price of petrol when they control its price. From a pemsal of recent newspaper articles, one can see what is happening. New South Wales is acting to reduce the mral interest burden. Mr Gunn interjected. Mr WARBURTON: It is tme. The tin-miners are seeking talks with the Federal Govemment because they connot get anywhere with the Queensland Govemment. In a recent newspaper article, under the heading "Wrong advice on sugar", the Queensland Govemment receives the criticism that it deserves. The Queensland Gov­ emment knows full well why many people in the sugar industry are in dire straits. The Queensland Govemment encouraged the expansion of the sugar industry in the late 1970s and the early '80s, On this occasion, because of pure poUtical bastardy, the Queensland Govemment is procrastinating on the sugar deal that should be put into place. On Thursday, 13 Febmary 1986, the The Australian Financial Review, under the heading "Queensland 'handing out bread and circuses' whUe economy suffers", an interesting quotation appears. I have not read a quote in an economic report that better describes this Goverament. It states— "Yet a pseudo-Christian conservatism which panders to greed and self-seeking in the guise of enterprise, and, laced with judicious measure of bread and circuses, shrewdly exploits parochial loyalties, has powerful appeal." That describes the Queensland Goverament perfectly. For the benefit of those people sitting in the public gallery who are interested in the resumption of Parliament today, it is worth repeating that undoubtedly there were expectations among the pubUc about what would occur. It is a different matter as to whether those expectations where well- founded. The Opposition did not pull any punches or try to hide the facts. Members of Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3519 the Opposition wanted to pursue their evidence of financial maladministration in the departments. I will not mention the Premier's Department. The Premier and Treasurer ought to be ashamed of himself, because he had total responsibility for the Queensland Day Committee, which is headed by Sir David Longland. I want to know what that committee has been doing whUe these events have been occurring. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: That account was audited and found to be in order, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows. Mr WARBURTON: The Opposition will find out. Time wiU tell. No doubt the courts will find out what has occurred. The Opposition will assist the courts with the information that is has. Another cause for concem, of course, was Mr McKechnie's department. It does the Minister no good at all to suggest that he has no responsibility for what happens within his department or for the actions of his departmental officers; nor does it do the Premier any good to protect him, to protect that sort of concept. I can come to only one conclusion—and I say this with absolute certainty—that is, that the Premier has one reason and one reason only for propping up the Minister. I believe—and I will say it to his face—that in the circumstances the Minister should resign. On no other occasion on which the head of a department has resigned in such circumstances has the Minister involved got off scot-free. On no other occasion has a Minister just lain back and said, "Well, it has got nothing to do with me. He is only the head of my department." Allen Callaghan was only one of the top public servants in this State, who were pandered to and appointed to their positions by that man opposite who is wearing a red tie—the Premier of this State. Opposition members know what Allen Callaghan did for the Premier; they know what he was, and they know that he was the Premier's mentor. Allen Callaghan was the man who stood by the Premier's side. He was like Brych and aU the people he has nurtured over the years. I tum to the Premier's explanation for the resignation of Allen Callaghan. That explanation bears repeating. On the Premier's own admission—and I think that he is sorry that this information got out—the Auditor-General of this State required Mr Allen Callaghan to produce certain information by midday on 5 Febmary. That was the position. That information first came fi-om the office of the Premier. As I said, I think that after that occurred, the Premier was probably sorry that he had let the cat out of the bag. I understand that a couple of days prior to that date, Mr Callaghan gave his resignation to the Minister (Mr McKechnie). The following day, after the Premier retumed from north Queensland, which would have been on Tuesday the 4th—it could have been the 3rd, but I think it was the 4th—what occurred? It was a flying minute, as it is called. The resignation of Allen Callaghan was grabbed, and he was unceremon­ iously kicked out. The Premier, who had access to the contents of the Auditor-General's report, knew quite weU that the Auditor-General wanted information on the following day, and he knew quite well that he had other options, that the Ministry had other options. The Premier need not have accepted Callaghan's resignation. He could have been suspended. The Premier need not have done anything about that resignation untU the Auditor-General had seen whether Callaghan responded. However, the Premier accepted the resignation, and I suggest that he did so very deliberately. The position is that if the responses were not in the Auditor-General's hands by midday on the 5th, departmental action could have been taken against Callaghan, and that would have been the position. That is what the relevant Act says. The Premier accepted Callaghan's resigiiation in undue haste. He wanted him out of the way. Unfortunately for the Premier, obviously he is not out of the way. I conclude by saying that if there is one thing on which I agree with Mr Callaghan, it is that the Premier is very definitely in fairyland. 3520 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr BURNS (Lytton) (12.49 p.m.): I second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised and disappointed by the way in which the Goverament has defended the motion that it moved today. The speech that the Premier made was the worst speech that I have heard him make in the years that I have been a member of this Pariiament. For 20 minutes the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) spoke about America. He told the House aU about a tour of the USA at a time when people in this country are paying the highest taxes and charges in the world because of members on the Govemment side. People in Queensland are paying the highest electricity tariffs and the highest charges for third-party insurance because of this Govemment's mismanagement and mishandling of the economy. The Premier and Treasurer wants to blame someone else although, over the last two years, Brisbane recorded the lowest cost of Uving increases of aU capital cities whUst at the same time it recorded the highest charges for State and local govemment services. The present Goverament has been in power for 27 years or so, and people iii the country areas are now moving, in their hundreds, out of country towns into the cities, despite the fact that the present Govemment was once caUed the Country Party Govemment. Is it any wonder it changed its name? Is it any wonder it calls itself the National Party, a city-based party? Members of the National Party should travel to country areas where even the pubs are closing down because of the mismanagement of this Govemment. Throughout the country electorates represented by members of the National Party, people are closing down shops, including chemist shops, and members who sit opposite are responsible for the mismanagement that has been evident for a long time. All the economic indicators show that Queensland is performing badly. Moreover, most young people are crossing the border and looking for employment in the south. The Premier and Treasurer made a statement recently about the number of young people coming to Queensland. However, because there are more jobs in the south, more young people are leaving the State than are moving into it. We all know who is coming here. It is a geriatric Joh State! All the oldies are coming here because Sir Joh keeps selling them the story that he beUeves in low charges. I see the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services (Mr Katter) shakes his head. The Parliament should be debating economic management in the form of the $10,000 cheques that the Minister gave to a couple of Aboriginal and Islander people. I read in the newspaper that the Premier and Treasurer had said, "The Federal Goverament gives them all this money. They won't work. They don't need to work. They get more money than they can spend... if an Aboriginal came and held his bare toe up, they'd lick it." I suggest that the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services has had two big black feet in his mouth—those of Eric Deeral and George Mye. The statements I have referred to were made by the Premier and Treasurer, and appeared in the National Geographic. While that magazine was circulating, the National Party Minister for Northera Development and Community Services was giving cheques for $10,000 to George Mye of Damley Island and Eric Deeral, formerly of Hope Vale, but now of Caims. The Premier and Treasurer presented the cheque for $10,000 to Mr Mye. Mr KATTER: I think it is important to draw the attention of the House to the remarks that have been made, which are impugning and reflecting Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! If the Minister wishes to take a point of order, I ask that he state that he is taking a point of order. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The statements made by the "gentleman" opposite—and I use that term guardedly in this case—reflect upon me. I would ask the honourable member for Lytton to withdraw those words. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3521

If you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are not prepared to direct him to withdraw those words, I state clearly to the House that his statement that $10,000 was sent to each of the two men he mentioned is entirely and totally incorrect. I point out that the cheques went to the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council and the Island Co-ordinating Council. Mr BURNS: I withdraw my remarks because I can take the matter up later. I have the Minister's letters, so I will be able to prove my point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am still on my feet. I suggest that, in the light of the fact that the honourable member for Lytton has indicated that he will withdraw certain remarks that have offended the Minister, the matter has been settled. Mr BURNS: Let me now say this: Eric Deeral was given $10,000, and the cheque was made out Mr KATTER: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr BURNS: Of course he was given $10,000. The cheque was made out to him, care of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Mr BURNS: He put it into his account, so deny that! Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. This gentleman is flagrantly misleading the House and making remarks that reflect upon the integrity of a person who is not here, and therefore unable to defend himself However, that is not the point of order that I wish to take. My point of order is that the honourable member is misleading this House. A cheque was made out to the chairman of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council, not to Mr Eric Deeral. The cheque was sent specifically, care of Mr Eric Deeral, to demonstrate clearly the separation involved in those two titles. He is the chief executive officer of the ACC. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Lytton acknowledge the Minister's explanation of the circumstances in relation to the cheques that were mentioned. Mr BURNS: I will acknowledge the Minister's explanation, Let me say again that the cheques for $10,000 were made out to the chairman of the Island Co-ordinating Council, George Mye, and the chairman of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU, Eric Deeral. Eric Deeral got the money, put it in his account and spent it. The Minister wrote each of them a letter. Does he want me to quote the details of the letter? The letter to George Mye reads— "I have much pleasure in enclosing a cheque for $10,000 for the Island Co­ ordinating Council. This funding has been provided to assist the council in defraying some of the costs associated with the time devoted by the chairman to council affairs. I am only too well aware of the many long hours which are required of a chairman to successfully undertake his role and tmst that these funds are some recompense to you for the disadvantages placed on your family and community life. With best wishes for a happy and holy festive season." I'm sure it would be happy with 10 grand to bust up without working for it! A 10 grand donation! Mr KATTER: I rise to another point of order. 3522 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr Fouras interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. I have asked the Chamber to come to order. I will not tolerate any loud interjections at this stage. I ask the Chamber to remain silent while the Minister takes his point of order. Mr KATTER: My point of order is that what the member for Lytton has just said reflects upon me. He might claim that it reflects upon Eric Deeral, but the honourable member has just said that the man took $10,000 for doing nothing and put it in his pocket. That is a flagrant lie. He has worked extremely hard for a protracted period, and I can most certainly supply information on that to this House. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member interjecting will be sent out in a moment. I suggest that if the honourable member for Lytton wishes to draw attention to certain facts relevant to the matter that he is discussing, he use less innuendo in relation to the Minister, otherwise we will be here all day listening to points of order. Mr BURNS: I do not know how I could use less innuendo; I read the Minister's letter. Eric Deeral is the defeated National Party member for Cook who was rejected by the people of Cape York Peninsula in 1977. I am told that Mr Deeral recently resigned from the Hope Vale council, under pressure from other councillors and the people, because of his unacceptable activities with the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services and allegations of lining his pockets—and line his pockets he did! The $10,000 cheque given to him through the National Party Minister never hit the deck. It was quickly banked in Mr Deeral's bank account and spent. The National Party Minister claims that— "The request for money came from both of them—from their organisations." Mr Katter interjected. Mr BURNS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I might point out that you have made a number of mlings about persistent interjections. I was named after one laugh this moming, yet that bloke has not shut up since I began speaking. I challenge the Minister to table the minutes of the Island Co-ordinating Council and the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU in which a decision was made to request these $10,000 cheques for the chairmen. The Minister told the Telegraph that the co-ordinating councils asked for those cheques. The minutes of the co-ordinating councils show that no such request was made and that the Minister did not tell the tmth when he made that statement to the Telegraph. Does the Minister want me to withdraw that? Now I will say that the Minister did tell the tmth. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. On a number of occasions this Govemment has received requests from the ACC for $250,000. A similar request was made of the Federal Goverament. Naturally I am disappointed that not more than the $10,000 could be made available. So that answers that point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The chair wiU be resumed at 2.15 p.m. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Mr BURNS: Before lunch, I was speaking to the Opposition amendment that this House deplores the standard of the Queensland Goverament's financial administration, and the misuse of public funds that this lack of financial responsibility has allowed to occur. Before the luncheon recess, I challenged the Minister for Northem Development Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3523

and Community Services to table the minutes of the Island Co-ordinating Council and the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council at which the decision was made to request $10,000 cheques for the respective chairmen. I am assured that the minutes do not show any such record. No money for the chairmen's personal use was requested by the councils. I am told that there is no record in the minutes of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU that the money was received and that the council had then decided to pass it on to Mr Deeral. I wiU now examine the Minister's handling of this matter. The Minister asked his department to issue two cheques to cover operating expenses of the councils. The cheques were drawn and made out to the chairmen. I have previously read to the House the letter to George Mye. I wiU not read it again. In it, the Minister spelt out specificaUy that he wanted the money given to the chairmen themselves to cover the long hours that they had worked for the communities. I make this point: How many other people who have worked long hours voluntarily have been given $10,000 gifts from the public purse? I cannot find any. Mr Scott: Where is the accountabUity? Mr BURNS: We will ask the Auditor-General to look at these matters. We hope that he will be able to produce a report on them giving some details on how the money was aUocated in this way. Was the money appropriated as personal gifts for two National Party stooges, or two National Party agents—that is, Mye, who is to be a candidate, and Deeral, who was a candidate? The Minister and the Premier have claimed loud and long that the National Party Govemment's policy for Aborigines and Islanders is one of self-management, yet the Minister provided $10,000 cheques to the council chairmen without a request from the councUs, and proceeded to direct the councils how to spend it—to give it to the chairmen to cover their personal expenses. George Mye was smarter than Eric Deeral. He hung onto his cheque. I bet that he will now launder it through the councU. The National Party Goverament was laundering public money for its Aboriginal and Islander cronies. The National Party Government wanted to give these two National Party agents $10,000 each from the tax-payers—from the public purse—but Eric Deeral was too quick off the mark and spent it. What of George Mye? In the Telegraph of Tuesday, 11 Febmary 1986, the National Party Minister said— "There are literally dozens of Aboriginal and Islander people doing similar jobs for the Federal Govemment and who are receiving upwards of $30,000 annually." Does not the Minister know that Mr Mye is paid $30,000 a year by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, through the council? I wonder whether that is accounted for or is tax-free? Does not the Minister know that Mr Mye is provided with a State public service house, free of charge, on Thursday Island? Mr Mye gets the house free of charge, but other public servants have to pay rent for such housing. They live in substandard, overcrowded conditions, while the Mye mansion is empty most of the time. Does not the Minister know that Mr Mye rarely uses this house, that there is a housing shortage on Thursday Island, and that Mr Mye also owns two houses on Damley Island? Is the Minister aware that this gentleman, this Mr Mye, who is given $30,000 in wages and a $10,000 gift of tax-payers' money, is the principal of George Mye and Son, store-keepers of Damley Island, a firm that is reportedly ripping off pensioners and others by charging exorbitant prices when goods are in short supply and by way of high interest rates for credit loans by devious methods of credit manipulation? Public servants who work in the Minister's department have to pay rent and put in a claim for any out-of-pocket expenses, but Mr Mye, on $30,000, a free house and so on, is given $10,000 as a gift to cover out-of-pocket expenses. We have seen the concem of the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services for his 3524 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

staff. He could not care less for them. He blames them for his own incompetence and inefficiency. Has he ever given them credit in this House, or defended the public servants on his staff? Not once in his life! A recent issue of The Gympie Times carried the headline— "Katter attacks employees of own department, says they are destroying plan." How many Ministers in a responsible Govemment would attack their public servants in such a way? As I said, Mye is smarter than Deeral, and most of them, in my opinion, are smarter than the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services. The cheque went to Mye. Sur Joh Bjelke-Petersen: You are suddenly attacking the Torres Strait Islanders. Mr BURNS: No. I am interested in the mismanagement. Today, the Premier moved a motion referring to the management of funds. He is on record in the National Geographic as talking about the Federal people giving money to Aborigines. He is giving money away in $10,000 lots to his National Party cronies. I emphasise that it is money from the public purse. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: The Federal Govemment has given away hundreds of millions of doUars. Mr BURNS: I point out to the Premier that Deeral's dollars went down the drain ovemight. I want to know why the public was required to pay $10,000 to the Premier's National Party stooges. The Premier and Treasurer said that the bank-manager is not sacked if a teller is caught with his fingers in the till. Here is the opposite—the Minister has been caught. Now it is up to the Premier and Treasurer. He should honour his words and sack the Minister. Is this matter being examined by the Auditor-General, as occurred in another case? It must be examined by the Auditor-General and his report tabled in this Chamber, because the Minister is directly involved. He requested the cheque and passed on the money. These two members of the National Party were given $10,000 gifts from the public. Mye was given the cheque at a ceremony on Daraley Island, which was held on 13 December to enable the Premier and Treasurer to hand over deeds of tmst. According to an article in The Sunday-Mail of 15 December 1985, when handing over the deeds the Premier and Treasurer said— "This is the title to your land. It is yours as sure and soUd and strong as it can possibly be, so no-one can take if from you." No-one can take it from them aU right, because most of the envelopes handed out that day were empty. The Goverament even shammed that. The only deeds handed out were those that the chairmen themselves got—only three or four. In every other envelope that was handed out there was no deed. But Mye got $10,000 in his envelope. The other poor old Aborigines and Islanders got empty envelopes. That is the way in which the National Party operates in the islands. An Opposition Member: Lucky envelopes. Mr BURNS: Yes. The sham and hypocrisy of that empty-envelope ceremony typifies what the National Party stands for—empty envelopes, empty gestures, empty vessels. The National Party says that Mye and Deeral were not paid off with public ftinds for their political deeds on behalf of the National Party. I do not believe it. Mr Scott: Isn't the Premier against land rights? He was up in Darwin saying how terrible they were. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3525

Mr BURNS: The Premier and Treasurer has two standards—double standards. Does he deny that Mye and Deeral met with the National Party's organisational hatchet man, Sir Robert Sparkes, in Cairas last year? He can deny it if he likes, but I have Mye's letter and Deeral's letter saying that they met Sir Robert Sparkes. The Premier and Treasurer cannot deny that, as the Minister for Northem Development and Com­ munity Services was trying to do previously. He denied sending out his own letters. Whilst on that subject, it might be interesting to discover who paid for poor George Mye to fly to Caims and back to address a National Party meeting on 9 November 1985. Let us talk of empty promises. I direct the attention of honourable members to what the Minister said in this House on 10 December 1985. In a ministerial statement dealing with a report on progress of Community Services Acts and amendments to Lands Act, he said— "It is with great surprise that I advise this House of the most extraordinary change. Gone is much of the listlessness and apathy, the neglect of children, unemployment, the ever-flashing frequency of dmnkenness and violence. In its place is a grovring feeUng of hope, responsibility and determination. It is with great pride, Mr Speaker, that I advise the House of increased productivity, increased profitability, qualitative decreases in crime and dmnkenness, injuries from violence and illnesses from neglect.

A few years ago, malnutrition, neglect and anaemia were constant problems in children, but this year, at Yarrabah, for example, only four children have been treated for anaemia. The crime rate has dropped 'clean in half in at least two communities where accurate records have been kept. In the last year, I have spoken with most serving officers and, with the exception of one community, all have recorded marked decreases in crime as well as in the number of disturbances. The last time police were called in to quell dmnken rioting—unfortunately, in the past, a regular occurrence—was November 1983, with no reported riots since." The Minister made that ministerial statement on 10 December 1985. Twenty-one days later there was a dmnken riot at Yarrabah, and a few weeks later a murder. That was a remarkable statement for the Minister to make on the last day on which the Parliament sat last year. The Premier and Treasurer, who spoke of licking Aboriginal toes, should assist this National Party Minister who has two black feet in his mouth—Mr Mye's and Mr Deeral's. At least Deeral showed some shame and self-respect when he resigned over some of his misdeeds. Minister Katter, who has been shown for what he is—a manipulator of others' money, a manipulator of people and one who led his charges into fraud and showed them how, a Minister who misled his Premier into being a party to fraud, and a Minister who has duped this House—should have the common decency to foUow the lead shown by Deeral, and resign. I tura to the economic problems about which the Premier and Treasurer was conceraed and about which all people in Queensland should be conceraed. When we talk about the State's performance, we should be looking at the key indicators. During the September quarter of 1985, Queensland was the only State to experience a downtum in private sector constmction of projects other than buUdings. Why? This is a private enterprise Govemment. Why was Queensland the only State to experience a downtum? In the September quarter of 1984, the value of prime contracts for works by the private sector, such as dams, bridges, pipelines, industrial plant, highways and roads, was $66.Im in Queensland. In the September quarter 1985, the figure feU to $52m—a drop of 21 per cent. The drop is in the stuff that the Govemment is controUing, the stuff that 3526 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Govemments buUd, the stuff that Goveraments spend money on, the stuff for which this Govemment is directly and personally responsible. Other States experienced significant rises in private-sector constmction other than building. On a national level, the value of such contracts rose by 96.3 per cent, whereas in Queensland the value went down 21 per cent; yet the Govemment has the hide to move a resolution conceming the economy. Other key indicators show that Queensland's economy is still performing at a level below that of most other States, and that of Australia as a whole. For the calendar year 1985, Queensland had the lowest growth of any State for new motor vehicle registrations. What are aU the new people coming here doing—riding bikes? Are they walking? They are not buying cars. The figures show that Queensland's growth rate of 4.2 per cent was almost half the national growth rate of 8 per cent. The tourist industry in Queensland experienced modest growth in the September quarter last year. Guest accommodation at hotels and motels rose 3.6 per cent compared with the previous September quarter. Queensland's performance was behind that of Victoria, New South Wales and Westera Australia. In the three months to November 1985, retail sales in Queensland grew by 12.2 per cent, with only Tasmania recording a worse result. Queensland and Tasmania both experienced falls in the number of new telephone connections during the December quarter last year. People are not having the phone connected; they are not buying cars; they are not staying in the State's motels. What are they doing? The people who come here must all be hiding in caves. Westem Australia recorded a growth in telephone connections of 9 per cent, whereas the number in Queensland went down. The Opposition can go on and talk about Goverament charges. Brisbane has recorded the highest increase in State and local govemment charges for the past two years, in a State that says, "We don't charge you." Joh says, "We are the low-tax State, believe me.", but the statistics show that Queensland is a high-charge State. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the increase in State and local govemment charges in Brisbane is calculated as being almost twice the average of the eight capital cities—twice the average! State and local govemment charges rose by 23.6 per cent in Brisbane between the December quarter of 1983 and the same period in 1985. The lowest increase was in Perth, in a Labor State, which was 7 per cent. All the other capitals were 12.1 per cent, but Queensland's charges went up 23 per cent in this low- tax State. State and local govemment charges are things that the Opposition can sheet right home to the Govemment; they are the Government's responsibility. I do not want to hear the story about migration. Sometimes the Premier says it is a thousand a day; sometimes he says a thousand a month or a thousand a week. It depends to whom the Premier is talking, but it is always a thousand in some period. That is not tme. The intemal migration survey revealed that the net number of people moving into Queensland has declined steadily from a peak of 38 500 in 1981-82 to 9 500 in 1984-85. The Govemment says that there is an unemployment problem because all the bludgers come up and take the jobs of Queenslanders; they are all up here on the dole. That is not tme either. The survey showed that in the 15-to-45-year group Queensland suffered a net loss of 2 600 people during 1984-85. So people in the 15-to-45-year group are leaving the State. Why are they leaving? Employment projects were a major consideration for many people moving from the State. Overall, 21 600 people who left Queensland cited employment as their reason, whereas 19 700 people who shifted here from other States came for the same reason. So there was a net loss overall. The flood has become a trickle. The latest figures show that in January Queensland had an unemployment rate of 9.6 per cent, compared with the national average of 8.5. Queensland had the highest jobless figure of any State in the nation. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3527

Mr Veivers: They're a mob of hicks, aren't they? Mr BURNS: Of course. They are a mob of hypocrites. Youth unemployment, more than anything else, rose in January, with more school- leavers looking for jobs. Today, the govemment had the hide to quote the number of jobs it created. The honourable Minister for America, who spent about 20 minutes of his time talking about the USA and high technology, talked about new jobs. The Premier, in his press releases, takes credit for the Community Employment Program, which is funded with Commonwealth money. All economic indicators show that Queensland is performing poorly. More young people are now going south looking for work. Most immigration into this State is by retirees. As I said, it is geriatric Job's State. Queensland's rate of unemployment is still the highest of the mainland States. Its youth unemployment is higher than the Australian average. Business bankmptcies are growing faster in Queensland. The number of industry disputes is more than double the national average. Queensland's average weekly eamings are the lowest in Australia. New housing commencements and private capital investments are still declining in Queensland when those in other States are showing improvement. A more recent study of Queensland's economic problems—the second Day report—summarises the appalling performance of the Queensland economy over the last year. The study stated that it is extremely difficult to dispel the overall impression of a grope-and-hope comic opera parody of responsible economic management. The Premier mns round this State shouting, "Develop, develop!" But, like the emperor without any clothes, he is unable to see that nothing is happening behind him. The Govemment's economic management of Queensland is appaUing. Over the last two or three years, it has the worst record of any Govemment in Australia. In the past, Queensland developed not because of any action of this Govemment but because the Westem World wanted the State's resources. Any fool could have been in power and done well at that time—and one was! However, when Govemment action is necessary to counter economic decline, all one sees from this Govemment is the Premier mnning round and saying, "There's no crisis. There's no crisis!" The Deputy Premier mns round beside him saying, "It's a hiccup. It's a hiccup!" It is a hiccup, aU right! I will now highlight a few headlines on Queensland's economy. The Australian Financial Review of 13 Febmary carried the headlines, "Queensland is handing out bread and circuses while the economy suffers", and "Queensland a red tape State in the following study conducted for the Govemment by Emest Savage". The Goverament has been in power for 27 years. It cannot blame the Labor Party for all of the red tape, which has been implemented in this Parliament by this Goverament. Another headline was, "Surprise, surprise—Queensland the supposed free enterprise State, has more regulations than any other". That information comes from the report of an inquiry that it instituted. The Australian Financial Review of 12 Febmary carried the headlines, "Wrong advice on sugar says report, a study from Townsville's James Cook University concluded that CSR and the Queensland Govemment were to blame for contributing to the massive problems facing the sugar industry." Today, The Courier-Mail reported that another study shows that cane-growers blame the Queensland Govemment for many of the problems in the industry. Because tin-miners have been shafted by the Queensland Goverament, they are seeking talks with the Prime Minister. When it comes to action and when it comes to this State Govemment accepting its responsibilities, nothing happens. What has this Govemment done to face the problems of mral industry in this State? After all, it is the National Party—the Country Party—and it represents mral 3528 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party people. One would think that after 27 years of a National Party Goverament, the mral industries in this State would be buoyant. It has, as members, all of these fellows who rorted the boundaries and rigged the system so that they could have their National Party cronies mnning round out there looking after them. One would think that aU the mral industries would be flourishingbecaus e it has aU the experts on the Govemment benches, who have been in power for so long, to look after them. They have been in a position to introduce all the legislation that is needed to protect mral industries. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr BURNS: Yes, Leisha Harvey, Brian Cahill and all those other mral experts on the Govemment benches. They are supposed to be there to help and advise the Goverament on these matters. What has the Govemment done? Last week, the New South Wales Goverament announced that it would offer interest subsidies to mral producers who are suffering. The New South Wales Govemment will offer interest subsidies of up to a half a miUion dollars for loans under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. The NSW Labor Goverament will also subsidise, for one year, up to 25 per cent of interest paid on commercial loans, yet the Queensland Goverament—the National Party Goverament, the countryman's Govemment—does nothing. Interest rates are a problem, so why does not the Queensland Govemment try to do something about them, just as the other States have? Why is it that Queensland has to blame somebody else? Why is it that it is always the other fellow down in Canberra who does it? Why isn't the Queensland Govemment doing something about interest rates? It blames the banks for high interest rates, but it does nothing about controlling interest rates of building societies, over which it has direct control and responsibility. When has the Govemment done anything to control the interest rates of building societies? Mr Randell interjected. Mr BURNS: No, the Govemment has done nothing. If the Govemment believes in interest rate control, and as the Premier claims that the Federal Goverament should do something about the banks, the Queensland Gov­ emment should put its money where its mouth is and do something about the interest rates charged by building societies. The member for Nundah would remember the legislation, but the best fellow is the member for Yeronga, who was the Minister responsible for building societies at the time of the great collapses. He would remember what the legislation says. If the Govemment believes in interest rate control, why does it not do something about it? Mr Casey: The Premier reckons he can get low interest rates for Turkish electricity subscribers. Mr BURNS: Yes, that is right, but there is no cheap electricity for Queenslanders. There is no doubt about that. When one talks about the mral crisis Mr Scott interjected. Mr BURNS: I will talk about petrol because, obviously, the Premier and Treasurer does not want to talk about farmers. He has not interjected once on behalf of the farmers. Obviously, they are important only in the media releases, not in the Parliament. Have honourable members noticed what a mess the Govemment makes of handling the Parliament? Do honourable members realise why this Parliament does not sit very often? It is because every time Parliament sits, the Govemment makes a mess of it. Every time Parliament sits, the Govemment gets further in the mire. The Parliament does not sit very often because the Govemment cannot handle a system under which it has to face questions and debate issues. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3529

Mr Innes: What is your betting this year? Mr BURNS: I think that this session wUl last about four weeks and that ParUament wiU not sit again untU the National Party has rorted the election. Goverament members also gripe about the price of petrol. It was the National Party Premier who proposed that a 2c a Utre tax on petrol be used for road-funding. He took the credit for it. He said, "I want you all to pay an extra 2c a Utre on your fuel. It is my idea." Although the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr ElUott) was once the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, he might retura to that position. Honourable members wiU recall that, as chairman of a National Party transport committee conference about three years ago, he proposed to replace motor vehicle registration fees in Queensland with a petrol tax. That proposal was accepted by the National Party. However, at that stage the Liberals must have had some influence on the members of the National Party, who decided that it was poUticaUy unwise to adopt the proposal. The poUcy accepted by the National Party was that everybody should pay for road use by payment of a tax on petrol and that aU motor vehicle registration fees should be replaced by a petrol tax. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr BURNS: Honourable members can hear the honourable member for Cooroora making a loud noise. When I entered the Chamber this moming, I expected him to be wearing Mr Speaker's wig and gown. I read in a newspaper that the honourable member said, "They told me that I can be Speaker, but I don't want the job." Does any honourable member believe that? Whenever the honourable member for Cooroora interjects, hon­ ourable members should recaU that he was going to be Speaker but he did not want the job. Honourable members will recogiuse in future how valuable his interjections are. Petrol prices in Australia are high because the Fraser Govemment aUowed the petrol tax to become such a large part of Goverament revenue. It started the scheme. I issue a chaUenge to members of the Queensland Goverament. If they want to do something about petrol prices, why do they not implement some of the recommendations of the National Party Goverament's own study into petrol pricing in Queensland by the Auditor- General's Department? If they are really conceraed about petrol prices, they have the controls to do something. They had an Auditor-General's report and an inquiry that Ulustrated the rorts that were occurring in Cairas and westera Queensland and the outrageously high petrol price differential. They ignored the rigging of prices by transport companies. I suppose that road-funding is included in the motion before the House. Three years ago, for every dollar spent by the Commonwealth on road-funding, Queensland spent $1.60. Now, for every dollar spent by the Commonwealth, Queensland spends 60c. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen interjected. Mr BURNS: The Premier and Treasurer should not talk about people on country roads; he never travels on them. He flies over them and waves to the people below. The people of the north did not like his flying visit during cyclone Winifred and his msh back to the Gold Coast. The Premier and Treasurer flew in and out. He did not examine the problems experienced by the people in the north. He should get out of his plane and see for himself the problems experienced by the Uttle people who are catching the buses, working on the roads and paying high fuel prices and the Queensland Goverament's high charges. They are getting a bit tired of old Joh flying round the world or mshing off to Turkey to have discussions on the constmction of a power station. It is time that the Premier and Treasurer spent some time speaking to the people of Queensland. Today, he made a fool of himself in this Chamber by moving a motion that has got out of his hands because he is out of touch. He is old-fashioned, out of date and out of touch.

70589—119 3530 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (2.38 p.m.): Honourable members have just heard a great deal of rhetoric from the honourable member for Lytton. However, his speech contained no logic. He is concemed only about the price of petrol for his outboard motor so that he can get down to the river and catch fish when he should be working for his constituents. He did not utter one word in condemnation of the actions of the Federal Govemment. He referred to a shortage of funds for roads. However, he did not refer to the 62c in the dollar that the Federal Govemment receives from the sale of fuel. The honourable member for Lytton is now leaving the Chamber. Some of that 62c in the doUar should be retumed to the people of Queensland. The Federal Govemment has reduced spending on education, mral roads and local authorities. Opposition members should get out in the field and Usten to what the local authorities are saying. Local authorities are putting off men everywhere. Because of a shortage of funds, the Nebo Shire CouncU, which is in my electorate, has put off men. Shires were supposed to receive 2 per cent of the income of this nation. The Federal Govemment said, "It is too bad. It is too much for you." It is now providing only 1.8 per cent of that income. Mr Burns interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind honourable members that they are not aUowed to interject other than from their usual seat. The honourable member for Lytton is the offender in this instance. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Lytton spoke about CEP money. What a great deal that is. The CEP money is put up by the tax-payers of this nation. This State is entitled to a share of that money. The Federal Govemment is cheating this State out of that money. Mr BURNS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Mirani said that the CEP money was tax-payers' money. I say that the money that this Govemment gave to Mr Deeral and Mr Mye was also tax-payers' money. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I accept the honourable member's explanation. However, there is no point of order. Mr RANDELL: That is the sort of frivolous statement that Govemment members have come to expect from the honourable member for Lytton. It is about time that he stood up for this State and showed some concem for the people of this State. I am very apprehensive about the economic policies and management of the Federal Goverament—or, should I say, mismanagement. The Federal Goverament is dictated to by the ACTU. It is bringing this great nation to complete chaos, coUapse and ruin by cmshing the mral sector. Certainly, its policies are designed to do that. Mr Deputy Speaker, you wiU recall that a previous Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and Primary Industry Minister tried to do that between 1972 and 1975. They were just amateurs compared with the people in Govemment today in Canberra when it comes to Ues, deceit and broken promises—broken promises that are aided and abetted by members of the Opposition in this place. That Govemment paid the penalty and was thrown out of office, just as the present Federal Goverament will be. I seem to recall that in the 1974 State election, the Labor Party in this House was reduced to a cricket team, and that will happen again this year. Next time there wUl probably be 10—assuming that the Labor Party gets a team together, because I believe that there is such dissension within the ranks that it cannot even agree on who wiU stand. The tragedy, though, is that this nation will go so far down the drain under this Federal Govemment that AustraUans will be called upon to make enormous sacrifices in order to avoid total coUapse. I wam honourable members that mral Australia is on Economic Policies of Austrahan Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3531 the move. As honourable members know, country people are slow to rouse, but now they are seething with anger. Country people have had enough. They have had enough of a Federal Goverament whose policies are designed to squeeze the Ufe-blood out of mral people and to bring hardship and min to decent Australians who Uve in the bush. I ask honourable members to bear witness to the heartless and cmel attitude that the Federal Goverment has adopted with the great sugar industry. Words are aU the mral people have got from Mr Kerin and Mr Hawke—words, words, words! In 1983 the Federal Govemment promised to give help. Where is that help? Where is the $150m that Mr Hawke is dangling like a carrot? He is saying, "If you wiU deregulate your industry and go to min, we wiU give you some of that." The cane-growers of this nation and the miUers of this State have had enough. If Mr Hawke has that money, let him give it now. He should not ask for deregulation. He should give the money now. Why do not members of the Opposition stand up and say that? I have not yet heard one Opposition member support the State Govemment and the Queensland Cane Growers CouncU in trying to get some money from the Federal Govemment. All Opposition members have done is knock, knock, knock. Mr Deputy Speaker, you wiU remember the mral protest at the Canberra tax summit. It was a resounding waming to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of a backlash of discontent. Mr Davis interjected. Mr RANDELL: I can remember the honourable member for Brisbane Central making the frivolous remark that cane-growers went down to Canberra to visit houses of Ul fame. That is what Opposition members think. The honourable member for Brisbane Central made that remark in this House. Another Opposition member said that mral people are rabble-rousers. Let that go into Hansard. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Mirani has just said that I said that certain farmers went down to Canberra to visit brothels. I did not say that. I read from Matilda, which stated that they could not keep up the supply. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The point of order taken by the honourable member for Brisbane Central was rather frivolous. If he takes any more like that, I wiU deal with him in another manner. Mr RANDELL: That is typical of the attitude of the Oppostion. Not one Opposition member is at aU concemed about mral people. Mr Deputy Speaker, you wUl recall that the Prime Minister spoke to those people at the tax summit. He said, "I wiU provide a package that wiU give reUef to mral people." Honourable members are still waiting for that package. That was a broken promise, Uke so many others. AU honourable members will recaU Mr Hawke's promise to the sugar industry. He has promised tax reforms. He has promised the mral community that it has nothing to worry about. Let me read what the Prime Minister had to say about the imposition of a capital gains tax—and I ask aU honourable members to Usten to this. On 16 Febmary 1983, as part of the 1983 Federal election campaign, Mr Hawke had this to say in his poUcy speech— "... I never break my promises. And let me make the point so that even my opponents can understand it: and let me make it beyond aU their powers of misrepresentation and distortion—there will be no capital gains tax!" Despite what the Prime Minister said, what has the Australian community been given? What about petrol parity pricing? Let me cite what was said by the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) at the 1980 National Press Club luncheon. Members of the Opposition can check the speech if they wish to. 3532 18 February 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr Keating said— "... we wiU freeze the price for 12 months; We'U adjust it subsequently by consumer price index or import parity,whichever is the lesser. It's a tax policy, not an energy poUcy, and we wUl put an end to it." What has the Hawke Goverament done? It has increased the price of petrol, and it is anyone's guess what petrol wUl cost, because the figures are beyond comprehension. However, it represents another burden being placed on people who Uve in the mral sector. For this nation, the importance of the mral sector cannot be overstated, because it provides an average of 42 per cent of this nation's export income. Mr Davis: Nobody takes inflation into account. Mr RANDELL: I would like members of the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Brisbane Central, to Usten to what I am saying. The rural sector employs, directly and indirectly, more than a miUion people. Members of the Opposition are supposed to represent working people, but they are letting their interests go down the drain. Furthermore, the mral sector produces 90 per cent of the nation's food. The Federal Govemment should wake up to the fact the Australian farmers are not prepared to sit by and watch their liveUhood being eroded by Labor's discrimination. They are not prepared to see their Ufe's work go down the drain. The National Farmers Federation has put the total level of Govemment-imposed farm costs at $2 biUion, or $11,793 per farm, and I wish to emphasise that point. After aUowing for concessions, the net cost penalty on the farm sector is put at $1.18 biUion, or $6,942 per farm. Rural Australians have been seriously penaUsed. In recent years, overall Uving costs have increased dramaticaUy and have been worsened by the recent reduction in petrol subsidies to country areas in the order of $116m. And the honourable member for Lytton (Mr Bums) talks about petrol prices! I wiU have more to say about the question of parity pricing at a later stage. The average farmer is in an unenviable position because of an unsympathetic Govemment, industrial troubles, increased costs and low world prices for some goods. Farmers cannot stand another onslaught of increased costs and charges in an attempt to hide the economic bungUng of the Federal Govemment, which has reduced this nation to the level of a South American banana repubUc. AU honourable members should be concemed that 10 per cent of the national Budget is paid in interest on Australia's national debt. That is an interest-oiUy component, which has not been helped by the seven economic packages produced by the AustraUan CouncU of Trade Unions-Hawke Labor Govemment coaUtion that has operated over the past 35 months. The mral sector has been discriminated against by the Federal Govemment's fiddUng with the Australian economy. Time after time, the mral sector has been savagely discriminated against but has not received any help from members of the Opposition in this House. As the Premier and Treasurer has pointed out, approximately 40 benefits have been removed by adverse budgetary decisions taken by the Federal Govemment which have impacted against the mral sector. Mr De Lacy: How much support has your Govemment given to the mral sector? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Caims knows how much support has been given to the mral sector. How much support has been given by the Federal Govemment—not one cent! The honourable member for Cairas should go out and talk to the farmers and the miUers and then show me one cent that has been given by the Federal Goverament to those involved in the sugar industry. I reiterate that not one cent has been given, and I wiU demonstrate it to members of the Opposition. Members on the opposite side of the House should not think that they can get away with Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3533 accusations against this Goverament, because they probably wUl not be taking their seats at the next session of ParUament. Although 40 benefits were taken away from the mral sector, imagine what would happen if but one concession were taken away from people affiUated with the ACTU. This nation would grind to a halt. However, there is no need to worry about that, because the Federal Govemment does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the ACTU. The Federal Govemment is being dictated to by the ACTU, and that is why it has cmshed the mral sector. Mr Campbell: What about CSR? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Bundaberg should check himself because he is a man who talks about a capital gains tax and a wealth tax that should be imposed on the mral sector. Let it be well known that that is the kind of thing supported by the honourable member for Bundaberg. Mr Casey: When will the required price support figure be known? Mr RANDELL: I think that the honourable member for Mackay should leave this subject-matter alone. I have something in store for him, but the time is not yet ripe, because time is Umited. The Hawke Govemment's effort almost rivals the former, discredited Whitlam Govemment's hit Ust. At present, there are unsympathetic Labor Goveraments in four States—Westem AustraUa, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. The Labor Goveraments of aU those States are antagonistic to the mral sector. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr RANDELL: Why does the honourable member not Usten and leam instead of talking mbbish? Victorian dairy-farmers and wheat-farmers are in revolt over freight rates. State taxes and unsympathetic poUcies. In South Australia, grain-growers are in a desperate position but are not receiving assistance. In Westem AustraUa, it took the recent State election to make Premier Burke discover mral Westem AustraUa. He knew nothing about it until then, although he is now crying crocodUe tears over the fact that the same farmers have deserted him. Everyone knows of the cynical exercise by the Hawke Goverament in attempting to extract an $llm fertiUser subsidy for Westera AustraUan farmers. It backfired. Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is far too much audible con­ versation in the Chamber. It is impossible for the Chair to hear the member on his feet. I do not want to hear any comments about anything; I want sUence. Mr RANDELL: As I said, the fertiUser exercise landed Premier Burke and Prime Minister Hawke in a poUtical furore and showed up the blatant cynicism of Labor in its attitude to the bush—pork-barrelling at its worst! In New South Wales, Premier Wran has been antagonistic towards every sector of the mral community. Nowhere in AustraUa is the bush so united and so vocal against the Federal Labor Govemment as it is in Queensland. The Queensland National Party Goverament totaUy supports mral industry. The National Party Govemment goes about its business quietly and confidently while honourable members opposite are knocking the State's economy. Mr Davis: Who won the election? Mr RANDELL: Labor won, but it lost. The National Party won five seats in Westem AustraUa. 3534 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of AustraUan Labor Party

The National Party Govemment of Queensland totally supports the mral sector in its quest for fuel concessions. If the full flow-on from the reduction in oil prices was passed on, a sugar farmer could save $1,100 a year. Opposition Members interjected. Mr RANDELL: Opposition members would not even know about the crippUng cost of fuel to a farm; they have never gone into it. Farmers pay 62c a litre for fuel. If the reduction in oil prices was passed on to farmers, they could make their farms viable, but not one word is heard from Opposition members about crippling taxes. What about scrapping the 3 per cent productivity claim, which would save Queensland $432m, or dropping the wage claim currently before the Arbitration Commission, which would save $300m? Mr Veivers: A mob of whingers. Mr RANDELL: Now an Opposition member is calUng mral people whingers. I suggest that the Federal Govemment should drop the capital gains tax and set its economic parameters to bring about a fall in interest rates of 6 to 7 per cent. High interest rates are probably the most savage blow farmers, particularly sugar farmers, have suffered. Farmers borrowed money at 13 to 14 per cent; but under the Labor Govemment in Canberra, in some cases those interest rates have increased to more than 20 per cent. Queensland farmers, and, indeed, Australian farmers, are the most efficient in the world, even though they tiU some of the harshest soil in the world; but they have to be competitive. I ask honourable members opposite: How can farmers be competitive on the world market when interest rates and fuel prices are two to three times those of Australia's major trading partners? Although one hears a lot of drivel from Opposition members about the problem being caused by the State Govemment, it is obvious that the problem comes within the Federal Govemment's sphere of responsibility. What about Deputy Prime Minister Bowen? He had the hide to say to farmers, "We can import food more cheaply than you can produce it." What a hypocrite he is. If the man on the land was given a fair go and had some of his costs reduced, he could compete against any nation in the world. Opposition members are not even interested in the miUion people connected with rural industries who wiU lose their jobs. Belatedly, the ACTU/Hawke Labor coalition Govemment's advisory bodies are saying that there are underlying weaknesses in the AustraUan economy. What an understatement! Those bodies are saying that the mral sector is bearing a disproportionate share of the cost of those weaknesses in the same way that it has had to bear a disproportionate share of adverse budgetary decisions. One does not have to be an economist to work that out. Surely honourable members opposite must appreciate that agriculture can contribute greatly to an improved national trade position. It already provides a major share of the nation's trade. Queensland is the leading export State. Instead of involving themselves in negative, trivial pursuits such as economy- bashing. Opposition members should occupy themselves by lobbying the ACTU/Hawke Labor coalition Govemment to provide assistance and to introduce positive policies to assist mral Australia. Then, and only then, they might stave off the inevitable of being reduced to a cricket team, as they were in 1974. Members from north Queensland should remember that. I ask: Should the mral sector be sacrificed and have to carry the burden of luxury policies of the Federal Govemment that takes its orders from the ACTU and some big business? We on this side will never forget that it is the ordinary Australian Uving in mral Australia, and the miners, who, over a long period, have built up the prosperity of this nation. The time is long overdue for the Federal Goverament to revise its poUcies drastically. It must think of areas other than the golden triangle encompassed by Canberra, Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3535

Sydney and Melbourae. What happens in mral Australia wiU have a drastic effect on the people of AustraUa. I am sure that the member for Mackay knows an old saying that is very tme, namely, when the mral sector sneezes, the whole of Australia trembles. I go a step further and say that, if the mral sector faUs, this nation wiU crash and everything that our forefathers and pioneers worked and slaved for will be lost for a long time. I urge all honourable members to support the Premier's motion and send a message to Canberra saying simply, "Support the bush." Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (2.56 p.m.): I intend to support the motion moved by the Premier. However, I am surprised that he chose today to move it. It was not long ago that I proposed a similar motion, which still stands as item 15 on the Business Paper. At that time, Govemment members walked out of the House. It is a pity that my motion could not have been moved at that time and supported so that we could have given some lead to the AustraUan community on where we in this Parliament stood relative to the iniquitous actions of the Commonwealth Goverament. The motion moved today by the Premier substantiaUy covers the motion that I proposed, which was to the effect that the Federal Goverament's tax package and its aUeged reform of the Australian tax system would substantiaUy increase the cost of govemment; destroy incentive, thrift and pmdence; cause widespread unemployment; create confiision and uncertainty; destroy normal business planning for the future; establish a new and anti-social tax on employing people; not reduce the level of taxation; substantiaUy increase administrative costs of private enterprise; and appeared to breach section 114 of the Constitution. That is an outline of the motion of which I gave notice on 5 November last year. I do not know who advised the Premier to move this motion today, but it was very unwise advice. During this part of this session of ParUament, there wiU be no Address in Reply debate and no Budget debate. All of the debates in this part of the session would have been Umited to legislation, but the Premier has provided a fomm, possibly inadvertently, for certain people in this House to unload a good deal of garbage that they have been saving up to unload under privilege. It is a pity that this motion was moved today. Nevertheless, it has been moved. I hope that it wiU be supported overwhelmingly by the House. An Opposition Member: Why? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Because it is a fact that the poUcies of the Federal Labor Govemment have crippled this nation. They have been deliberate poUcies aimed at increasing interest rates. That was not accidental. The policies were designed deliberately to increase interest rates, in the belief that they will self-correct. In the meantime, people will lose their livelihood. They wiU go to the waU, unable to meet their commitments. Mr Randell: It's already happened. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: It is happening, and there are more in the pipeline. The Federal Labor Govemment made a policy decision virtually to wipe out the mral sector of this nation. The Federal Govemment's decision was just as deliberate as that of the Communist Goverament of Russia when it wiped out the kulaks because of the independence of the mral section of the nation, which is a feature of most nations that have a very large mral economy. The Russians discovered how to do this by simply assassinating people by the millions. I am referring to the kulaks in southem Russia, the people who were able to hold their own against all comers as independent people. The Federal socialist Labor Govemment has discovered a new weapon to wipe out the mral economy—by deliberately encouraging high interest rates that is exactly what it has done. Tens of thousands of people in the community are facing poverty. They are the wealth-creators of this nation, and they should not be facing poverty. They are being deliberately hog-tied and destroyed by a poUcy of high interest rates. I am amazed 3536 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party that anybody in this nation who understands what the socialists are about would even dream of trying to defend them or support them. I tum to petrol prices. The Govemment in Canberra has a vested interest in maintaining high petrol prices in this nation. The poUcy that was laid down was related to the Arabian cmde oU price on the world market. Mr Vaughan: By Fraser. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes. It meant that when the price on the world market was increased, the price to the consumer in Australia was increased. That policy was designed to encourage the search for oil in Australia. It also provided that when the price of oU on the world market feU, the price of fuel in Australia would fall, too. They were the mles. When the formula was devised, everybody understood it. Now, the price of oil on the world market has decreased and the Federal Govemment has decided that it has to fiddle with the system and find some excuses for maintaining the high price of fuel. The Federal Govemment caUed a Cabinet meeting for Monday of this week to deal with this problem. Because it was too hard a problem to solve, the meeting was canceUed. The Federal Govemment has a vested interest in maintaining high petrol prices in this nation. It has been punting on the accord and aU the other wonderfUl ideas that it had, at the expense of people generally. Mr Davis interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The honourable member knows that the price is cheap, because he is the man who undercut everyone else. He knows aU about petrol pricing. We know all about ACTU-Solo Davis. He is the man who destroyed the independent service station operator. As I say, the Federal Govemment has a vested interest in maintaining a high fuel price in this nation. The cost of fuel should not be measured by the price per Utre; it should be measured by the cost of a joumey. Although fuel prices in Australia are somewhat lower than they are in some European countries and in America, the jouraey that the average AustraUan makes is considerably greater than the jouraeys undertaken by people in those countries that I have mentioned. In spite of the fact that the cost of fuel is a little lower in Australia than in some other countries, the cost of transporting a product in Australia is the highest in the worid. That should be understood. The Federal Goverament is not prepared to make a decision about the price of fuel, which would result in a reduction of at least 6c a Utre. Mr De Lacy interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Is the honourable member in favour of maintaining the high price of fuel? That is the policy of his party. The Goverament in Canberra does not really care about the wealth-producers of the nation. It has its own particular philosophy. Several Federal Ministers have decided that they want increased fiinds in the next Budget. It does not matter if the nation cannot afford those increases. Mr Hamill: Do you support the deregulation of interest rates, as Mr Howard does? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The interest rates in this nation are too high, they can be reduced, and the honourable member knows that. But it is the policy of his party to maintain high interest rates, usurious rates. It is about time that something was done about them. Mr De Lacy: Do you belong to the Katherine West faction? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: No. I look now at the Federal unemployment scene. Mr Hawke promised the nation at the last election that he would create 500 000 new jobs in this nation. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3537

Mr Vaughan: He has done it. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: He has done it? Fine. But what about aU the jobs Mr Hawke has wiped out? There are now 623 OCX) registered unemployed people in this nation, plus another milUon who are not registered. The Federal Labor Goverament is claiming credit for this situation. There was once a Federal Labor Miiuster in the Chifley Govemment who claimed that 2.6 per cent unemployment in this nation was too high and unacceptable. At present, unemployment is up to 8 to 9 per cent in the nation. It went over 10 per cent last year and has every prospect of going up again this year. This is aU because of a Goverament that does not care; it does not care about unemployed people. Mr Hawke's advisers invented Priority One to make Mr Hawke more popular with young people. It spent several mUUon dollars on a number of promotional campaigns around Australia, including rock concerts and what-have-you, to try to convey an impression to the young people of AustraUa that the Hawke Goverament was conceraed about their pUght and the problems facing them. That money coiUd have been spent on creating job opportunities for people. Not a bit of it was spent on that. Several mUUon doUars was spent on Priority One in the media and on rock concerts to give Mr Hawke a better image with young people. About 35 per cent of the 623 000 registered unemployed people are young people. At this moment in this nation, nearly 200 000 young people are being turaed away from tertiary education. The Federal Govemment has a responsibihty to provide places for tertiary education in this nation. Those places are being deiued to dedicated young people and to people whose parents are prepared to make sacrifices. Those young people are being denied the opportunity of being given training that wiU enable them to get the jobs that are being created for the twenty-first century. Those young people who have been denied the opportunity of receiving tertiary education now wUl be the flotsam and jetsam of the twenty-first century, because they wUl not be trained adequately to handle the jobs of that age. They wiU be the future unemployed. They are already facing the prospect of unemployment in the immediate future. The genuine interest of the Hawke Govemment in the young people of the nation is very much in doubt. When the Hawke Goverament has a poUcy of deUberately increasing interest rates to 20 and 21 per cent, is it any wonder that young people who have jobs and commuiuty responsibUities and who have famiUes are not even able to buy their own homes? The sociaUst Goverament in Canberra is anti-capitaUst, particularly anti Uttle capitaUsts who own their own homes. That is the sort of phUosophy that the Federal Goverament espouses. I wiU now deal with taxes. The average and most frequent payment of tax in this nation at the moment is about 47c in the dollar. The maximum rate wUl soon be 49c in the doUar, a reduction from 6(k;, which is subject to review later this year. There is considerable doubt whether the tax package reduction that was offered last year wiU in fact come about. Mr Campbell: What about the taxation that Howard promised? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: What about the taxation that the Federal Goverament is about to implement now? Employers who have to provide homes for their employees wiU now be taxed on the benefits that they give their employees. What is the social reason for that? Why wiU mining companies, resource companies, the public service, the railways, banks and a number of other institutions in the community be hit with this tax? Mr De Lacy: You know what the social reason is: people were receiving salaries in a non-cash form. That was becoming a big lurk. People were dodging tax. 3538 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I see. Is the honourable member saying that the employees of the mining companies in the mining towns of Queensland were enjoying a lurk? He seems to ignore the fact that to get the job they have to live in those towns, the fact that the circumstances under which they Uve require some sort of assistance to encourage them to continue to Uve there, and the fact that the companies virtually had to provide houses in order to get people to work there. They are comfortable, modest homes. Mr Vaughan: Most reluctantly. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: WeU, they did it. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! In the Chamber today I have mentioned afready that members should not interject from other than their proper place. The member for Nudgee is now offending in that respect. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Now that they have provided those faciUties for employees, the companies are to be taxed at some exorbitant rate per house per year, simply because they were generous enough to provide these facUities in the first place to encourage development. The multiplier effect alone from having all of those employees in the development towns is of enormous benefit to the Federal Goverament fVom PAYE taxation, sales tax and all the other taxes that flow to its coffers from the efforts of resource development companies in the Northera Territory, Western Australia, Queens­ land, and, to a lesser extent, other States. A great deal of money from those developments has flowed into the coffers of the Federal Govemment, which now intends to tax mining companies even further. That wUl make it even more difficult for those companies to provide the facUities that their employees are entitled to have to maintain a reasonable standard of Uving. For the benefit of the honourable member for Caims (Mr De Lacy), I point out that those employees are not enjoying lurks and tax dodges as he claimed that they are, nor are the public servants and the employees of the Railway Department round the State, who Uve in modest accommodation provided by the Railway Department and the pubUc service. Nobody can say it is luxurious; very often it requires upgrading. It is very modest, yet State Govemments wiU be taxed on every house that they provide for their pubhc servants. The raUway departments of every State wiU be taxed on every house that they provide for their employees. Whose coffers will that come out of? It wiU come out of the pockets of the tax-payers, out of the pockets of the users of the railways— that is, out of the pockets of the consumers. That wiU be laundered through the public service and the railways in the various States to go back into the coffers of the Federal Goverament to help make its accounts look respectable. Nobody in his right mind would ever have dreamt of such an iniquitous tax being imposed on the community. It is the community that pays. The money will not come out of the personal pockets of the Commissioner for Railways or the Ministers; it will come out of the pockets of the users of the railways and out of the tax-payers' of this State to be recycled back to Canberra. This method of taxation is a device used to pretend to people that they are not being taxed; but the Federal Goverament is ripping it off the public in large lumps. In doing so, it is prejudicing those States and those areas of the nation that require this type of development, and it is this type of development that creates wealth for the nation. It enables the people who Uve in Sydney and in Melboume to live in reasonable cfrcumstances. It is that type of wealth, which is the wealth of the nation, that gives the nation its standard of Uving. Yet we have a Govemment in Canberra that is deliberately trying to depress those areas of Australia that are eaming Australia's wealth and maintaining that standard of living. It is an iniquitous system. The tax on thrift and pmdence—that is, the capital gains tax—which has been announced by the Federal Goverament, but the effect of which wiU not be felt by the Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3539 community for some years to come, in many cases is not understood by the community. The capital gains tax wUl certainly destroy the abiUty of people in this nation to look after themselves more adequately in their senior years. It is about time that this ParUament expressed its concera about the actions of the Federal Goverament, and I am sorry that the Goverament did not support me on this in November last year. Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (3.14 p.m.) It comes as no surprise to any person on the Opposition side of the Chamber or any political observer in Australia that, today, he would see the National Party in its panic-stricken state, as it is at present, divideid on its back bench and bereft of ability, because the only person it has been able to put forward in this debate so far was the poor, shallow honourable member for Mirani (Mr RandeU). Where was the Minister whom the Goverament has been trying to cover up in this debate? He was present in the Chamber this moraing. So far, honourable members have been robbed of question-time. When the Premier and Treasurer rose to his feet to move the motion before the House, the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts scuttled out of the Chamber and has not been seen since. His name does not appear on the Ust of speakers for this debate. The debate is a sham and a cover-up for the Goverament's ineptitude. It is a cover-up to protect the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. It comes as no surprise to Opposition members to hear the Liberal Party supporting the motion moved by the Premier and Treasurer. Why would the Liberal Party not support this motion? At present, the Liberal Party is described nationally and in this State as a party void of talent and stricken by political jokes. Recently, the Liberal Party was waraed by the business community in Queensland and in the Federal sphere to get its act together. It was waraed that it is not performing, that it is losing ground in the electorate, and that it will not retum to Goverament in this State either in coaUtion or in its own right. The Liberal Party has been criticised by major business people in Australia and by its own Federal president, the man who orchestrated the poUtical assassination of Andrew Peacock. I refer to the man who went round as a poUtical bagman on behalf of the financial heavies and the banks of this country and who leaned on Liberal Party members to undermine Mr Peacock to put up the political clown who now leads the Federal Liberals, namely, John Howard. He is ably supported by the prince of clowns in the Liberal Party in Queensland, Sir WUliam Kiiox. Today, the leader of the Queensland Liberal Party attacked taxation reform by trying to instU in the electorate a fear that the Federal Labor Goverament wiU not proceed with taxation reform later this year. That was a deUberate untmth. The Prime Minister is on record on numerous occasions as promising that taxation reform. The leader of the Liberal Party attacked the initiative of the Federal Labor Goverament's Priority One program, which wiU create youth employment in the community. By his criticism of that program, he obviously does not support it. It is obvious that he also does not support the Community Employment Program. If he looked at his own electorate, he would find that the program has been very generous in job-creation. It has enabled improvements to be made to clubhouses, the completion of roadworks, etc., in his electorate. The leader of the Liberal Party is out of touch with poUtics in this State. The Opposition has been reUably informed that a recent survey conducted in a number of electorates in this State showed that, when persons were asked the name of the leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, they could not provide the correct answer. When told that it was Sfr WiUiam Knox, more than 50 per cent of the respondents said, "Sfr BiUy—we thought he was dead." What an indictment on the leader of the Liberal Party! I retura to the person who this morning moved the motion before the House. He is none other than the Premier of Queensland. He is also the so-called Treasurer of this State. He lent great dignity and presence to his high office when, last week, he opened the casino on the Gold Coast. He almost had people roUing and laughing in the aisles with his sole comment about the financial affairs of this State. He put out his arms and 3540 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

said to everybody, "Look at the marvel of this place. You can see how much money it wiU tura over by the number of ashtrays that are spread throughout the establishment." What a financial genius he is! Today, the Premier and Treasurer attacked the financial poUcies of the Federal Labor Party and the financial poUcies espoused by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party. The Premier could only be described as the original tax-evader of Queensland, the man who was described by a judge on the bench as being involved in activities at that time which bordered on criminal fraud. The Premier was the man who more than anybody else Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I consider that the innuendo of the honourable member for Wolston and his reference to the bench are close to being unparUamentary. I ask him to withdraw those remarks and his reference to the bench. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw the statement. The fact is that that statement was made by a judge on the bench when ^ving a judgment. Long before that, the Premier was the person responsible for creating the precedent in Queensland for the professional tax-evaders of today, such as Brian Maher, Lloyd Faint and Brian DonneUy. The Premier is the man who could be aptly described as the best adviser to President Marcos on electroral reform. He is the man who coiUd be best described as the best adviser to Baby Doc DuvaUer from Haiti on reform of human rights. The Premier is the man who can Ust among his closest associates and business friends the likes of the late WUey Fancher, who was charged and convicted for false pretences. The Premier is the man who supported the likes of MUan Brych, who is now serving a goal sentence in the United States. He is the man who has supported Shrian Oskar's coming to Queensland to estabUsh an oil-seed plant, a man who is now facing extradition to answer criminal charges in Australia. The Premier and Treasurer is the financial genius who has presided over Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. I do not care what the honourable member for Wolston says about me, because everybody knows the honourable member; he is adept at telUng Ues. However, his statement about WUey Fancher being charged and aU the rest of it is a pack of Ues, as the honoiuable member weU knows. Mr R. J. GIBBS: There is no point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Wolston acknowledge the Premier's remarks conceraing the person referred to. Mr R. J. GIBBS: As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Buras), the Premier is the gentleman who has presided over the highest electricity prices ever in this State. He is responsible for the highest motor vehicle registration fees and the highest thfrd-party insurance hikes anywhere in Australia. The Premier is the man who has presided over the decUne in living standards, to such a degree that the people of this State pay more for milk, bread and meat than people in any other State in Australia pay. The Premier and Treasurer is the man who has presided over a Goverament that spends less on education, health, welfare services, housing and Housing Commission assistance than any other Goverament in this country spends. The Premier is the man who is responsible for the depravation and the moral standards that Goverament members always want to talk about. In the last two years this Goverament—ably aided and abetted by the Liberal Party—has been responsible for one of the most shocking, disgusting and indescribable reports in relation to child poraography and chUd abuse in this State. That report was commissioned by the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General (Mr Harper). Next year, this Goverament would have been in office for 29 years, so nobody else can cop the crow. Nobody else can cop the CT&W for the position in which Australia Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3541 finds itself today, because the Queensland National Party's Federal counterparts were in office for aU but six of the last 36 years. Many of the problems in Queensland are not the fault of a Labor Goverament. If Goverament members want to talk about morals, I wiU happUy talk about morals. This National Part Govemment—as I said, aided and abetted by the Liberal Party- has presided over a massive increase in the estabUshment of massage parlours, brothels and iUegal gambUng casinos. You name it, this Govemment has turaed a bUnd eye to it Somebody said last week that the answer to chUd poraography and chUd abuse is the appointment of the new Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affafrs (Mrs Chapman). Someone caUed her the "Stainless Steel Lady". I confidently predict that in the months ahead she wiU become known as the "TinfoU Tootsie" of the National Party. She wiU prove to be ineffective in the portfoUo and a poUtical Ughtweight. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, honestly, it is surprising how low the honourable member for Wolston can go. I think he oug^t to withdraw that statement because his referring to an honourable member in the way he did is absolutely shameful. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must agree with the Premier and Treasurer that the honourable member's comments are unparUamentary. I ask him to withdraw the comments made in reference to the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs. Mr R. J. GIBBS: If the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs finds the remarks offensive, I would have thought that she would take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I find the remarks offensive, and I am suggesting that the honourable member withdraw them. I have control of this Chamber, and I ask him to withdraw the remarks. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, you are to be admfred for your Sfr Galahad approach, and I wiU withdraw the remark accordingly. Even so, although the Premier and Treasurer talks about people being low, I have never been able to get into the gutter of this ParUament, because the Premier and Treasurer beats me to it every time. The Premier and Treasurer is the man who has postiUated throughout the nation concera for the mral sector, and he is the man who spends milUons of doUars of tax-payers' money by frivolously flying round in jet afrcraft paid for out of the pubUc purse, and now operates his own private fleet of aircraft to such an extent that, if civU war were to break out in some of those smaller African nations, he could probably hfre himself out as a one-man air force. The Premier and Treasurer is the man who is responsible for overseeing a decUne in the sugar industry in Queensland and is the man who has seen so many primary producers in this State go to the waU. Let me quote what appeared in The Courier-Mail this morning, and I point out that these are not my words, Mr Deputy Speaker. The article is headed "Support for National Party sours in sugar community", and it reads— "A social impact study released yesterday shows traditional Babinda National voters are preparing to desert the party in droves. The study, compUed by students and staff at James Cook University, TownsviUe, suggests desertions by canegrowers threaten to scuttle the Nationals and put Labor in a winning position at the next State election.

It showed a slump in support for the Nationals to 39 percent compared with 52 percent at the last State election. Labor made a decisive gain on voting intentions jumping from 44 percent at the last election to 51 percent. 3542 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

The survey included a cross-section of farmers, sugar mill workers and the local business community. Of the farmer vote, support for the Nationals was down from 88 percent at the last election to 73 percent. Support for Labor federally also firmed from a healthy 54 percent to 58 percent. The researchers said the Nationals had lost ground to Labor over the lengthy delay in getting a sugar industry rescue package in place. 'More people are blaming the Nationals for the impasse than are blaming Labor,' they said." That survey is a case in point, because it is a fact of Ufe that the group that supposedly caUs itself the people who support the mral community, this National Party Goverament, is paying lip-service to the mral community. Members of the National Party Goverament are no longer worried about the mral community, and at long last the people who Uve on the land are seeing the hard, cold facts of poUtics for themselves. They reaUse that this Goverament is a charade and that the Premier and Treasurer, is the man who has travelled round this State in his afrcraft and landed at different places, simUar to a modera-day version of John Wesley Hardin, who landed with a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other to back-blast people over rightful entitlements. It is worth whUe talking about the financial expertise of the Premier and Treasurer from the time that the flat-tax proposal was first floated and then reappeared at the tax summit held in July 1985 and finaUy revamped in September. Since its appearance at the tax summit, it seems to have attracted some academic respectabiUty by the favourable treatment that it has received at the hands of the media. Along the way, various experts and friends of the National Party, such as John Stone, the former Secretary to the Treasury and now self-acclaimed expert on aU issues, and Professor Michael Porter of the economics department at Monash University, have endorsed the proposal and added to its attractiveness. At the tax summit, the Premier and Treasurer advocated a 25 per cent flat tax with a general rebate of $1,150 tapering to nU in the range of $35,000 to $30,000 with existing dependent spouse, and related rebates tapering to nU at the same level as the general rebate. The Premier and Treasurer also wanted Federal Goverament programs to be slashed by 7.5 per cent, with the exception of social welfare and interest payments. No doubt that means that the Federal Goverament shotUd cut back by 7.5 per cent on payments to the States, including Queensland. A major fault with that package is that it would mean a significantly increased tax burden for low-income-earaers and middle-income-earaers. That is an important point, because the only people whom the National Party supports in this State to ensure that they get the big bucks in thefr pockets are some of the Premier's high-falutin and high­ flying friends in the business community, such as Keith WUliams in the tourist industry. Mr WilUams and Jim Kennedy are self-made miUionaires, and they achieved that status on the backs of the working people of this State. Those people, who have rorted and exploited the tourist industry, are the same people who are now coming to the Premier with the proposal that the State's financial problems can be solved right across the board if, for example, youth wages are cut. It is said that more young people in the community wUl be employed if the young kids in the community are paid substandard wages. Of course, it does not work that way, and the Premier knows it. The additional profits go into the pockets of the people who support the Premier, the people who Une up in their droves every year to pay $100,000-plus, either in cash or in favours, to ensure that their names appear on the Queen's bfrthday honours Ust and they become Sfr So-and-so or Lady Muck. This State is being mn by a sickening cabal of big-business firiends and cronies of the Premier, professional bagmen who have achieved thefr positions through favours rendered. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3543

I wiU now retum to the tax debate. As I said, the flat rate tax proposal wotUd mean that low to middle tax-payers with dependants would be even worse off, because the dependant rebates shade out with higher income levels and they would get insufficient benefit from the reduced marginal tax rates further up the scale. Tax-payers with a dependent spouse and children and on incomes up to $28,000 would be worse off. The proposal would also add over $1 biUion to the Budget deficit. On 16 September, the same week in which Paul Keating was to announce his tax reform package. Sir Joh paraded John Stone at the Parkroyal Hotel in front of 640 guests in what was to become one of the last big fringe-benefits luncheon dodges in Brisbane. Stone supported the concept of flat-rate tax as advocated by Sfr Joh, but suggested that compensation should be given to those in the lower income groups who wovUd be "genuinely" adversely affected. Stone also wanted to Umit Govemment spending to real growth of 3 per cent per annum, which is quite different from the National Party's proposed slashing of Federal spending by 7.5 per cent. Professor Porter, a hard-Une conservative, has also varied his proposals over time, but his latest seems to be based on a 26 per cent flat-tax rate and a tax-free threshold of $3,000 phasing out at $11,000. I tum now to one of the more important ingredients in the flat-tax proposal. Looking at the Premier's and Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen's case, they have a combined income of over $132,000 from their parliamentary salaries and should pay income tax of $59,(X)0. With their flat-rate proposal, they would pay only 25 per cent of $132,000, that is, $33,000 and save the cream of $26,000. Why is there this push for a flat-tax policy? Obviously, it is designed to help the Premier and his big-business friends, those cronies of his who, as I said, are paid off with knighthoods or poUtical favours. They are the people who are aUowed to operate unfettered and unchecked in their development poUcies throughout this State. They are able to set up business on Govemment land. But that is not all. Not only does the Premier aUow them to do that; he then appoints them to boards such as the board of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation so that they receive inside information about what is going to be done. It is the oldest trick in the world. They then go out the back door and tell their friends and cronies, put a few doUars in their pockets and get them to buy some land on their behalf That is what is happening, and everyone knows it. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member, by the statements he has made, has gone to extreme lengths to downgrade himself in the eyes of this House. He knows that they are completely untme. To even think of making such statements, he must be thinking of the way that the Labor Party operates. I ask the honourable member to withdraw his statements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is provison in the Standing Orders of the House whereby the imputation of improper motives is considered to be unparUamentary. I ask the honourable member to withdraw his imputations of improper motives on the part of the Premier. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I did not make any imputations against the Premier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In my opinion, the honourable member did. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Very weU. If that is the case, I wiU withdraw. The Premier seems to be very touchy today. He knows that he is becoming ever more vulnerable in the community, that a ground sweU is starting against the National Party, against himself, and against the poUcies that he espouses throughout the State— the division, the confi"ontation and the violence. I finish on a note that the Premier certainly will not find appetising, and I make no apology for it. Over the years, the Premier has appeared in this ParUament as riding 3544 18 February 1986 Economic Policies of AustraUan Labor Party the moral horse round Ausfralia. He has pointed his finger at the Labor Party stance on social issues, but I point out that he is the only person in this Parliament, the only poUtician in this House, who owns a property that has been found to have marijuana growing on it. The Premier may deny that, but he cannot tmthfuUy do so. He cannot deny it. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Wolston is referring to a case of which everyone is aware. It was one of John's employees who grew marijuana and it happened to be on our property. As the honoiirable member knows very weU, it had nothing to do with us. That puts the record sfraight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I consider that the Premier's explanation covers the situation. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I hope that the legislation wUl be made retrospective because, in that case, he wUl do 25 years in Boggo Road. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (3.37 p.m.): In supporting the Premier's motion, I make brief reference to the pitiful, pathetic contribution to the debate made by honourable members on the Opposition side of the House. I wiU deal first with the untmths uttered by more than one Opposition member about thfrd-party insurance. In doing so, I inform the House of the following rates of compulsory thfrd-party insurance on a State-by-State basis, as at 14 Febmary 1986— State $ Queensland 168 Victoria 181 South AustraUa 168 New South Wales (under Premier Wran and the Labor Party) 213 AustraUan Capital Territory 235 In typical manner. Labor members today have consistently said that Queensland has the highest thfrd-party charges in AustraUa. They made deUberate attempts to mislead the House and the people of Queensland. They attempted to suggest that Govemment charges and taxes in Queensland are substantially higher than those elsewhere. A comparison of the Budget papers of all State Govemments reveals that, if New South Wales rates were levied in Queensland, Queensland would have an extra $2 5 5m; that if Victorian State taxes were levied, Queensland would get an extra $320m; if South AustraUan rates were levied, Queensland would get an additional $160m; if Westera AustraUan rates were levied, Queensland would get an extra $72m and that, if Tasmanian rates were levied, Queensland would get an additional $128m. If the average of aU States were to be levied, the Queensland Treasury would be better off to the extent of $ 187m. If a comparison is made of the figures in the various State Budgets, it wiU be noted that, on a per capita basis for the 1985-86 tax year, the tax per head of population is as foUows— State $ Queensland 399.44 Victoria 737.94 New South Wales 654.17 South AustraUa 627.34- Westera Australia 517.40 Victorians pay $338.50 more State taxes per person annuaUy than Queenslanders. New South Welshmen pay $254.73 or 1.5 times more. South AustraUans pay $227.90 more. It is a matter of pubUc record that Queensland has no Uquor, petroleum or tobacco taxes, financial institutions taxes or pay-roll tax surcharges. Previously, reference was made to Westera Australia. The people in that State are not left out, either. They pay $115.96 more State taxes per person annually than Queenslanders. Economic PoUcies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3545

As is typical of the members of the Labor Party in this Chamber, they have tried to paint the picture that the Queensland economy is not going as weU as it should. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I present to the fraudulent members opposite, those people who could not teU the tmth if they wanted to, some information as at 11 Febmary 1986, which is the most up-to-date information that I have been able to obtain. At present, Queensland has the highest annual population growth rate of 1.5 per cent, compared with the national average of 1.2 per cent. Queensland recorded the second hi^est annual retail sales growth of all the AustraUan States of 11.1 per cent. Brisbane had the lowest annual inflation rate of aU the State capitals. It had the lowest quarterly inflation rate of aU the State capitals. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: As the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology reported to the ParUament, and I repeat it for the thick member who is incapable of Ustening, Queensland created more jobs than any other State in AustraUa for the year ended 31 December 1985, when 70 300 jobs, or 28 per cent of the national total, were created. Queensland had the highest employment growth rate of aU the Australian States for the year ended 31 December 1985—7 per cent—compared with the national growth rate of 3.8 per cent. Queensland's statistics were 2.8 times the employment growth rate in New South Wales and 2.1 times the employment growth rate in Victoria. Queensland had the fastest annual labour force growth rate. Queensland is the leading export State. It recorded an annual increase of 63 per cent in job vacancies. Tuming to building figures—Queensland recorded 22 per cent of house commence­ ments in AustraUa for the September quarter of 1985. With 16 per cent of the nation's population, Queensland recorded 19 per cent of residential buildings completed in AusfraUa for the September quarter of 1985, and contributed 22 per cent of the value of non-residential buUding in Australia in the same quarter. Qearly, the Labor Party has no credibiUty and it should not be criticising the outstanding economic performance of the National Party Govemment in Queensland. Members on the Govemment side of the Chamber are more than pleased with what the Govemment has been able to achieve, particularly taking into account the impediments that have been placed before it by the Goverament in Canberra. On 16 Febmary 1983, just three years ago, the Prime Minister, when speaking at the Sydney Opera House on the occasion of the launch of Labor's election campaign, gave a promise, an undertaking, a firm commitment to the people of Australia. Mr Hawke said— "And let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it and let me make it beyond aU their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There wiU be no capital gains tax." The Prime Minister of AustraUa Ued to the nation. A Uar is leading the Federal Goverament. Mr Vaughan: When did he say that? Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable member had been Ustening, he woiUd have heard me say that that is what the Prime Minister said on 16 Febmary 1983 when speaking at the Sydney Opera House on the occasion of the launch of the Federal election campaign. He said one thing and did another. Opposition members, judging by thefr comments here today, have been entfrely consistent with that hypocrisy. 3546 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

What did the Prime Minister have to say in the same speech about petrol prices? He said— "As part of Labor's anti-flation package and in recognition of the burden of extra taxation levied by the Govemment—" that is, the Eraser/Anthony Govemment— "on people afflicted by the wage freeze, Labor will reduce the price of petrol by canceUing the January 1 oU pnce increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by the order of 3c a litre." What happened when Prime Minister Hawke and his cronies—the friends of the honourable members opposite—were entrenched on the Treasury benches in Canberra? By 1985, 26 months into office, the ALP had increased petrol prices by over 10c a Utre, or 45c a gaUon. How can the Prime Minister or, for that matter, the Labor Party ever be beUeved again? The fact is that the people of AustraUa are now confronted with record taxes, record interest rates, record fuel taxes and a record intemational debt. The motion that has been moved by the Premier is both timely and relevant. AustraUa's system of govemment and the private enterprise economic system that has made this nation great are under sustained threat by an orchestrated campaign of smear, misrepresentation and deceit. If any evidence was needed of that, honourable members only had to hear the contribution by members of the Labor Party to this debate. The ALP and the ACTU, the "coaUtion" Govemment of AustraUa and comrades in arms, are engaged in a deliberate and premeditated strategy of socialism by stealth and deception. Those who dare oppose them—people such as the Premier, his Ministers, his other Government members and its supporters—are ridiculed,slurre d and undermined; they are branded as extreme or reactionary. Mr Vaughan: They are, too. Mr BORBIDGE: That comment shows the warped sense of priority of the honourable members opposite. Australia faces a crisis that cannot be glossed over by the fraudulent charisma of a man who has shown that he cannot be believed or tmsted in the office of Prime Minister, and by the poUtical party that he leads. It has abandoned any justifiable claim to credibility. This nation faces the prospect of its employers being forced to finance a national superannuation scheme that has the primary purpose of making the Labor Party and the ACTU an immensely wealthy industrial and political force that wiU be answerable to no-one. Small business and the tourist industry have been hit by a vicious tax assault bora of the poUtics of envy and prejudice. Already it has been estimated by groups such as American Express that up to 35 000 hospitality industry jobs are at risk—jobs occupied by the very people whom Opposition members claim to be representing in this House. If anyone has been sold out by any political party in the recent history of AustraUa, it is the employees in the tourism and hospitality industry. They have been sold out by the fraudulent and phoney actions and rorts that have been perpetrated by the Labor Party. It has been estimated that up to 10 per cent of aU restaurants will close as a direct resuU of the de facto ascendancy of Mr Simon Crean to the office, if not the title, of Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. One miUion tax-payers wiU be subject to the new fringe benefits tax—but not, of course, the Prime Minister himself, who is making other arrangements. According to a report released by the OECD, Australia is now No. 7 on a list of interaational debtor nations and is fast closing in on nations of the Uk of Ai:gentina and Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3547

Mexico and a host of other Third World countries that AustraUa seems to spend most of its time voting with at the United Nations. Take the report on the Australian doUar that appeared in The Australian today. It says, "The doUar eased yesterday." Have not the people of AustraUa come to accept that as a famUiar trend? That report reads— "The dollar eased yesterday. After opening at US70.20c, just below Friday's close, it feU to US69.65c before picking up to close at US69.70c. It feU against all the other major cturencies. The dollar is worth 49.21 p." The AustraUan doUar and the Australian economy are making this nation the laughing stock of the world. With the nation's pitiful level of pubUc debt, that has now even been acknowledged by the OECD. At present, the Commonwealth Constitution is being revised by an unelected people's commission dominated by Labor Party hacks, failed politicians and rock stars. Members of the commission with any standing in the community have been swamped and submerged. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: If they had any decency, they would keep off it, wouldn't they? Mr BORBIDGE: As the Premier and Treasurer said. If people with any decency were invited to join that commission, they would stay away from it. It is a kangaroo court. The Federal Goverament has taken away from the Constitutional Convention, from democratically elected people who hold office in this country, the right to recommend what changes should be made to the Constitution and have placed it in the hands of a people's commission. That is the sort of terminology that one expects to find in Eastera Europe or some of the banana repubUcs in South America and Africa. EarUer, I referred to the capital gains tax, a taxation device that is having considerable effect on the electorate that I represent. It is not so much the investors but the smaU people who are being hurt. Pressure on rental accommodation on the Gold Coast is substantial. Investors are not building the units, the apartments, the houses and the flats as they were before. Why should they be taxed for doing so, over and above the nation's afready excessive and outdated system of paying for the excesses of Goverament? As a result, rents are up and the less fortunate in our community suffer. It is ALP mentaUty that they think they can hit the big man and can hit and hurt private enterprise without reaUsing that the bottom Une is that it is the average man, the man who is battUng to eara an income to look after his family, who suffers. It is interesting to note that, since the Labor Party came to power in Canberra, sales tax has increased by 70 per cent, PAYE taxation has increased by 41.5 per cent, company tax by 7.7 per cent, income tax other than PAYE taxation has increased by 40.4 per cent, and total tax has increased by 35.7 per cent. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister promised the nation that it would not, AustraUa now has a capital gains tax. Also, it now has a de facto death tax and increases across the board weU over and above the rate of inflation. Of course, AustraUa also has a fiinge benefits tax. If Prime Minister Hawke's Ues and the Labor Party's deceit in regard to a capital gains tax can be glossed over by some form of strange party logic, thefr actions in regard to fuel prices cannot be. I welcome the fact that the Goverament of Queensland is Ukely to pursue this matter in the courts if those honourable members opposite and thefr coUeagues in Canberra refuse to pass on to the community the faU in the interaational price of oU. The ALP cannot have its cake and eat it, too. Goverament members have seen the Opposition in this House support the capital gains tax, support the fringe benefits tax and support the tax on the tourism and hospitaUty industry. Govemment members have seen them participate in the seU-out of smaU business and be wiUing accompUces in the undermining of our primary industries. 3548 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party

Mr Campbell interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Bundaberg mentioned electricity. It was the actions of this Govemment 12 months ago that preserved the supply of electricity to the people of Queensland and brought about measures within the South East Queensland Electricity Board that saved that authority $31m. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Opposition members opposed that aU the way. The Goverament's actions have enabled it to give the people of Queensland the lowest increase in electricity tariffs for 13 years. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Honourable members know that the member for Nudgee and his leader are old cronies of the Electrical Trades Union. In fact, they used to work for that union. How dare the member for Nudgee even comment on the price of electricity when, 12 months ago, he was one of the strongest supporters of the Australian CouncU of Trade Unions, the Electrical Trades Union and the Queensland Trades and Labor CouncU in trying to dismpt the supply of that essential service to the people of Queensland. As expected, as this debate proceeded, honourable members witnessed the total support of the Labor Party in Queensland for the fuel tax, for high interest rates, for interaational debt and for big Goverament. Under the oU parity pricing poUcy, if the price of oU increases the Federal Goverament has no hesitation in increasing the cost to the tax-payer. However, if the price drops, it mns for cover. The Motor Trades Association estimated that the Federal Labor Goverament takes 62c out of every doUar spent on petrol. That is typical of its double standards and dupUcity. However, only 24 per cent of Labor's national fuel tax is being aUocated to roadworks. Despite that massive tax-gathering mechanism, Queensland's funding for arterial roads tlUs financial year has been cut by $10m by the poUtical aUies of those who sit opposite. They have ignored the recommendations of the National Association of Road Funding Authorities, of which the Federal Goverament is a member, calling for a 25 per cent boost in road constmction for Queensland. The fact is that, unless a political gun is aimed at its head, the Labor Party has no intention of passing on to the tax-payer cheaper pefrol at the bowser. The Queensland Goverament's decision to pursue this matter in the courts if Labor continues with its present deceit is a responsible action that has been welcomed throughout AusfraUa. The ALP has once again been caught out as the pickpocket of AustraUan poUtics. The issues that I have detaUed and others included in the motion moved by the Premier and Treasurer confirm the contempt that the ALP and the ACTU have for those people in our community best able to lead a lasting economic recovery. The ALP has viciously assaulted smaU business, the tourism and hospitality industry, primary producers, the mining industry and employer groups who wiU not co-operate with it in creating a new poUtical, social and economic order in AustraUa. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion moved by the Premier and Treasurer. Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Buraett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the amendment be put." Mr Casey interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Leader of the House has moved that the motion be put. Naming of Member 18 February 1986 3549

Mr CASEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, you also have a Ust there that indicates that I am the next speaker in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member wiU resume his seat. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen interjected. Mr Casey interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Mackay under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr Casey: You're hard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under Standing Order No. 142, at any time during a debate, and whether a member is speaking or not, another member can move that the motion be put. I therefore accept the motion. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given the caU to the Minister in charge of the House. That is my mUng. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. There is also a provision under Standing Orders for a point of order to be taken at any time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wiU not accept a point of order. I have wamed the honourable member under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr CASEY: I am waiting for you to sit down so that I can take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to leave the Chamber for arguing with the Chafr. Mr CASEY: I am rising to bring forward a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under Standing Order No. 123A I have waraed the honourable member for Mackay once. I now ask him to leave the Chamber for arguing with the Chafr. Mr CASEY: Am I being sent from the Chamber because I sought a point of order under the Standing Orders Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not accepted the honourable member's point of order. I have accepted the caU from the Minister in charge of the House. I have asked the honourable member to leave the Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A for denying my mUng. Mr CASEY: I have not denied your mUng. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has. I have asked him to leave the Chamber. Mr CASEY: I am seeking a point of order.

NAMING OF MEMBER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under Standmg Order No. 124,1 now name the honourable member for arguing with the Chafr. 3550 18 February 1986 Suspension of Member

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (3.59 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members have just witnessed a most flagrant defiance of your ruling. I think that the action of the honourable member is absolutely disgraceful. I move— "That the honourable member for Mackay be suspended from the service of the House for the rest of the week." Question put; and the House divided— In division— Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If there are any more unparUamentary comments, I wiU send someone else from the Chamber. AYES, 48 NOES, 30 Ahem Lane Braddy Wamer, A. M. Alison Lee Bums Wilson Austin Lester CampbeU Yewdale Bailey Lickiss Casey Bjelke-Petersen Lingard Comben Booth Littleproud De Lacy Borbidge McKechnie Eaton CahiU McPhie Fouras Chapman Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Clauson MUler Goss Cooper Muntz Kmger Elliott Newton Mackenroth FitzGerald Powell McEUigott Gibbs, I. J. Randell McLean Glasson Simpson Milliner Gunn Stephan Palaszczuk Gygar Stoneman Prest Harper Tenni Price Hartwig Turner Scott Harvey Wharton Shaw Henderson White Smith Innes Underwood Jennings Tellers: Vaughan Tellers: Katter Kaus Veivers Davis Knox Neal Warburton HamUl PAIR Hinze D'Arcy Resolved in the affirmative. Mr WARBURTON: I give notice that tomorrow I wiU move that your mling that the member for Mackay be not aUowed to take a point of order be dissented from. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr CASEY: Mr Deputy Speaker is on his feet. When he sits down, I wiU leave the Chamber. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: He is defying the Chafr again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackay wUl now leave the Chamber. Mr CASEY: As soon as you take your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wiU obey the mUng of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Mackay wiU now leave the Chamber. Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 Febmary 1986 3551

Mr CASEY: I cannot while you are on your feet, sfr. Whereupon the honourable member for Mackay withdrew from the Chamber.

ECONOMIC POLICIES OF AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY Resumption of Debate Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wiU now put the question. The question was that the Premier's motion be agreed to, since which it has been proposed that the question be amended by omitting aU words after the word "That" with a view to inserting the words outUned by the Leader of the Opposition. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the House moved that the question be put, and that motion has not yet been put to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise to the House. The question is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition be put. Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 29 Ahem Lane Braddy Wilson Alison Lee Bums Yewdale Austin Lester Campbell Bailey Lickiss Comben Bjelke-Peterser I Lingard De Lacy Booth Littleproud Eaton Borbidge McKechnie Fouras CahiU McPhie Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Menzel Goss Clauson Miller Kmger Cooper Muntz Mackenroth EUiott Newton McEUigott FitzGerald PoweU McLean Gibbs, I. J. RandeU Milliner Glasson Simpson Palaszczuk Gunn Stephan Prest Gygar Stoneman Price Harper Tenni Scott Hartwig Tumer Shaw Harvey Wharton Smith Henderson White Underwood Innes Vaughan Jennings Tellers: Veivers Tellers: Katter Kaus Warburton Davis Knox Neal Wamer, A. M. HamiU PAIR Hinze D'Arcy

Resolved in the affirmative. Mr BURNS: I rise to a point of order. As I understand it, the Leader of the House moved that the amendment be put. Before you caUed the teUers, Mr Deputy Speaker, you stated the question as being that the question be put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House moved, in effect, that the debate be adjouraed. Mr BURNS: With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard the Leader of the House move that the amendment be put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It should have been that the question be put. Under Standing Order No. 142, at any time during a debate, and whether a member is speaking 3552 18 Febmary 1986 Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party or not, a motion may be made that the question be now put and the Chafr is obliged to accept the motion. That is what I did. Mr BURNS: The question is that the amendment be put, isn't it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the Premier's motion be agreed to. Mr BURNS: No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to another point of order. I do not think that there is any disagreement on the floor of the House about what I am saying. Mr Deputy Speaker, you stated the question as being that the question be put, and it has been put, but the motion was that the amendment be put. The question moved by the Leader of the House was that the amendment be put. There is no disagreement on that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no disputation so far as I am conceraed about what I am now going to put. This encompasses the amendment. The question was that the Premier's motion be agreed to, since which it has been proposed that the question be amended by omitting aU the words after the word 'That' with a view to inserting the words outUned by the Leader of the Opposition. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 29 Ahem Lane Braddy Wilson Alison Lee Bums Yewdale Austin Lester Campbell Bailey Lickiss Comben Bjelke-Petersen Lingard De Lacy Booth Littleproud Eaton Borbidge McKechnie Fouras CahiU McPhie Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Menzel Goss Qauson Miller Kmger Cooper Muntz Mackenroth EUiott Newton McEUigott FitzGerald PoweU McLean Gibbs, I. J. Randell Milliner Glasson Simpson Palaszczuk Gunn Stephan Prest Gygar Stoneman Price Harper Tenni Scott Hartwig Tumer Shaw Harvey Wharton Smith Henderson White Underwood Innes Vaughan Jennings Tellers: Veivers Tellers: Katter Kaus Warburton Davis Knox Neal Wamer, A. M. Hamill PAI R Hinze D'Arcy Resolved in the affirmative. Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (4.23 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "That aU words after the word 'That' where it appears in the first Une be deleted, and in thefr place there be inserted— 'this House deplores the economic mismanagement by the National Party State Goverament—'" Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Buraett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the motion be put." Mr FOURAS: "'. . . and the unscmpulous, unauthorised, illegal use of funds.'" Economic Policies of Australian Labor Party 18 February 1986 3553

Mr WHARTON: I move— "That the question be put." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Orderi The Minister in charge of the House has, once again, moved that the motion be put. Under Standing Order No. 142, regardless of whether or not a member is on his feet, I am obliged to accept the motion. The question is, "That the Premier's motion be put." Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The question is, "That the motion be put." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 29 Ahem Lane Braddy Wilson Alison Lee Bums Yewdale Austin Lester CampbeU Bailey Lickiss Comben Bjelke-Petersen Lingard De Lacy Booth Littleproud Eaton Borbidge McKechnie Fouras CahiU McPhie Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Menzel Goss Clauson Miller Kmger Cooper Muntz Mackenroth EUiott Newton McElUgott FitzGerald Powell McLean Gibbs, I. J. Randell Milliner Glasson Simpson Palaszczuk Gunn Stephan Prest Gygar Stoneman Price Harper Tenni Scott Hartwig Tumer Shaw Harvey Wharton Smith Henderson White Underwood Innes Vaughan Jennings Tellers: Veivers Tellers: Katter Kaus Warburton Davis Knox Neal Wamer, A. M. HamiU PA:I R Hinze D'Arcy Resolved in the affirmative. 3554 18 Febmary 1986 Ministerial Statements Question—That the motion (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 47 NOES, 29 Ahem Lee Braddy Wilson Alison Lester Bums Yewdale Austin Lickiss CampbeU Bailey Lingard Comben Bjelke-Petersen Littleproud De Lacy Booth McKechnie Eaton Borbidge McPhie Fouras CahiU Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Miller Goss Clauson Muntz Kmger Cooper Newton Mackenroth Elliott Powell McElUgott FitzGerald RandeU McLean Gibbs, I. J. Simpson Milliner Glasson Stephan Palaszczuk Gunn Stoneman Prest Gygar Tenni Price Harper Tumer Scott Harvey Wharton Shaw Henderson White Smith Innes Underwood Jennings Vaughan Katter Tellers: Veivers Tellers: Knox Kaus Warburton Davis Lane Neal Wamer, A. M. HamiU PAI R Hinze D'Arcy ved in the affirmative.

RAILWAY PROPOSAL Proposed Deviations—North Coast Line, Caboolture to Gladstone Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) laid on the table working plans, sections and books of reference of the proposed deviations of the North Coast Line at Eumundi, Gympie, Oakhurst-Aldershot and Benaraby-Parana, together with a report of the Commissioner for RaUways thereon. The commissioner's report was ordered to be printed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Clerical Errors, 1984-85 Annual Report of the Department of Harbours and Marine Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister Water Resources and Maritime Services) (4.33 p.m.), by leave: I draw the attention of the House of the inaccurate and misleading statements of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is weU known outside this Chamber for telling tall stories about boating and fishing matters in this State. Last week, for the benefit of the media, the member for Lytton made a clumsy attempt to beat up a number of clerical errors in the 1984-85 annual report of the Department of Harbours and Marine and to falsely portray them as a serious example of financial mismanagement within the department. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that this is a continuation of ministerial statements that were commenced this moraing and that the same mles apply. Honourable members are wamed accordingly. Ministerial Statements 18 Febmary 1986 3555

Mr TENNI: The facts are that the errors to which I refer occurred in the report's financial statement as a result of a faUure to thoroughly check a set of figures prepared for the Goverament Printing Office on a word processor in the department. As the honourable member for Lytton (Mr Burns) weU knows, the actual formal record of the department's accounts had afready been certified as tme and correct by the Auditor-General. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This moming, I wamed the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A. That was his final waming. I assure him that the list of members waraed under Standing Order No. 123A stUl appUes. Mr TENNI: The ridiculous claims of financial mismanagement that were made by the honourable member for Lytton are nothing more than a weak attempt by the ALP to deliberately mislead the people of this State about the very high standard of competency within the Department of Harbours and Marine. I remind the House that the department handles a budget well in excess of $ 100m a year with an absolute minimum of criticism and complaint from the boating public and port-users of this State. It is the height of hyprocrisy for a politician, who is weU known for using the fishing and boating faciUties of this department with great regularity, to tum round and smear the reputation of the very same pubUc servants who do such a good job for Queensland's boating pubUc. Since becoming the responsible Minister, I have taken immediate steps to ensure that clerical errors within reports, no matter what the circumstances are, do not recur. As far as I am concemed, that is the start and the finish of this stupid allegation by the ALP of financial mismanagement. To suggest, as the honourable member for Lytton has done, that the clerical errors amount to financial bungUng within the department must rate as one of the tallest stories he has ever told. I seek leave of the House to table those accounts of the Department of Harbours and Marine referred to by the honourable member for Lytton, for the 1984-85 financial year, which, I repeat, for the benefit of honourable members opposite, carry the official seal of the Auditor-General of this State. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table. Auditor-General's Report on Selected Activities of the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport and the Queensland Film Corporation Hon. P. R. McKECHNIE (Camarvon—Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts) (4.37 p.m.), by leave: In his statement to the House this morning, the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) outUned certain matters pertaining to my portfoUo. As members are aware, there are matters that are the subject of the Auditor-General's report into selected activities of my department and the Queensland Film Corporation that cannot be discussed because of legal impUcations. However, I wish to set the record straight on matters that are not sub judice and that do not impinge upon current police investigations. I first remind the House that on 24 December last year I issued a press statement to the effect that the Auditor-General—an officer of the Queensland ParUament—said that an advanced audit of my department and the Queensland Film Corporation would take some weeks, and—to use his exact words—"UntU it was finalised, it woiUd be quite improper to speculate on the outcome or on the validity of any unsubstantiated allegations or inferences". I abided by that request, but the Opposition has not. One has only to compare the actions of the Leader of the Opposition with those of his counterpart in New South Wales to see the contempt shown for the Auditor-General's request. 3556 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

Recently, a senior staff member of the New South Wales Minister for Finance (Mr Debus) was suspended following aUegations related to irregular invoices. The Leader of the Opposition in that State has at all times behaved in a proper manner and has left the matter in the hands of the investigating officers. The Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament (Mr Warburton) has not displayed the same dignity and has, instead, sought to gain cheap poUtical points at the expense of justice. He has attempted trial by media, and he stands condemned for his behaviour. On the occasions that the Leader of the Opposition made accusations regarding matters outside the advanced audit, I sought and obtained permission from the Auditor- General to clarify two specific matters. One dealt with the signature on the 1984-85 annual report of the Queensland Film Corporation, which was in fact that of the former Auditor-General (Pat Craven) and not that of the present incumbent (Vince Doyle). That mistake has been admitted by the printing company, OgUvy and Mather. The company said that Mr Doyle's signature was not clear because it was partly obscured by his official stamp. To overcome having to obtain fresh master signatures, the company referred to the previous annual report and took a bromide of the then Auditor-General's signature. Ogilvy and Mather has apologised for "this most embarrassing and uncharacteristic mistake". The other matter raised by the Opposition dealt with an alleged discrepancy in Queensland Film Corporation expenses when comparing a figure of $83,106 in the 1983- 84 annual report with a figure of $84,514 in the 1984-85 annual report. This was due simply to the Auditor-General's different method of comparing figures. There is no discrepancy. Furthermore, the Opposition, through its campaign in the media, asked why did I "not approve $15,000 as required ... by law" regarding a certain funds transfer. The answer is that there is no legal requfrement for me to give approval for general industry assistance of this kind. This view is supported by the Solicitor-General. The next stab in the dark by the Leader of the Opposition conceraed the 1984-85 unforeseen expenditure of the Chief Office of the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport. He made reference to unforeseen expenditure relating to video legislation and ministerial trips overseas. It is normal procedure for aU departments to review expenditure throughout the year to take account of unforeseen expenditure. I could not presume that Parliament would pass the video legislation for implementation in 1984-85, and even slow learaers, such as the Leader of the Opposition, should recognise the enormous amount of goodwill estabUshed in taking koalas to Japan and the necessity of the Queensland Govemment being represented at the Brisbane Olympic Games bid in BerUn. These visits were not aUocated at the time that the Budget was brought down. The ministerial expenses designated to me were tabled in Parliament and in line with the Treasurer's Instmctions. On the four matters that I have raised, the present Leader of the Opposition has been proven wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Further, the Leader of the Opposition today made claims in this House that cannot go unanswered. Regarding my vist to New Zealand this financial year—the Leader of the Opposition indicated that I attended a one-day seminar. That so-called seminar was the 14th annual Sport and Recreation Minister's CouncU meeting, which was convened by the Federal Ministerial Statements 18 Febmary 1986 3557

Labor Govemment and hosted by the New Zealand Labor Govemment. Just to show the Leader of the Opposition that other Ministers were there, his Federal coUeague Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. I made very Uttle mention of the one-day seminar. I was referring to the four-day excursion that the Minister took foUowing the seminar. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr McKECHNIE: I wiU come to that in a minute. I wiU continue to prove that it was a ministerial councU meeting. The Federal coUeague of the Leader of the Opposition (the honourable John Brown) attended the seminar in his red jump suit. He looked lovely, I might add. Les Johnson, the High Commissioner for AustraUa in New Zealand, a former Labor Minister in the Whitlam Goverament, also attended the seminar. So much for jobs for the boys, which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned on another occasion. The chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation asked that I become famiUar with New Zealand tourism, and aUocated one of his officers to assist. Sfr Frank Moore's reason was that New Zealand is now our major interaational market, and whatever New Zealand does on the domestic scene affects the number of visitors who come to Queensland. He also said that the growth of tourism from the northera hemisphere to the southera hemisphere meant that we have to now market Australasia as a tourist package. As Minister for Tourism, I have to be aware of what is happening in New Zealand, and what better way is there to do that than to save money and do it while I had to be in the country, anyway? Finally, I reiterate that my ministerial expenses wiU be tabled in the House in the normal manner, in line with the Treasurer's Instmctions. Regarding claims about the use of credit cards within the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation—I am satisfied that the current poUcy of issue is administered effectively. I have investigated this personaUy, and I have recommended a general tightening of the procedure for the use of credit cards, simply to streamUne current usage. The Leader of the Opposition has jumped on the Westminster bandwagon, with his caU for my resignation. If this principle were to apply across the board, there would be at least seven of his Labor colleagues in AustraUa during recent times who should have done the same. Here are some examples: the Federal Minister for Local Govemment (Mr Uren) did not resign over the Morosi housing grant; the Premier of New South Wales (Mr Wran) did not resign over a contempt of court charge involving the Dfrector of Public Prosecutions; the former New South Wales Minister for PoUce (Mr Crabtree) did not resign over the AUen affafr; The Deputy Premier of New South Wales (Mr Mulock) did not resign over the superannuation fund crisis; the Premier of Victoria (Mr Cain) did not resign over the Nunawading voting irregularities; Mr Cain also did not resign over the Murray affair, or over the 40 poUce and senior State public servants who accepted heavUy discounted or free afr tickets; and the South Australian Premier (Mr Bannon) did not resign over the Beazley affafr. Mr Goss: Are you saying that they should have resigned? Mr McKECHNIE: No, I am not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for SaUsbury under Standing Order No. 123 A. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi I beUeve I wamed the member for South Brisbane this moming. 3558 18 February 1986 Ministerial Statements

Mr Fouras: No, you did not wam me this moming. Mr SPEAKER: Then I wam the honourable member now, under Standing Order No. 123 A. Mr McKECHNIE: I repeat that the South Australian Premier (Mr Bannon) did not resign over the Beazley affair, and, of course, Mr Debus did not resign when his senior staff member was suspended in the case that I mentioned earlier. Mr HamiU: He was in good company; Mr Hinze did not resign, either. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Pursuant to Standing Order No. 123A, I ask the honourable member for Ipswich to withdraw from the Chamber. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Ipswich to leave the Chamber. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: When the member for Ipswich has left the House, the Leader of the Opposition may do that. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, the member for Ipswich has not been wamed. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wiU not have the Leader of the Opposition arguing with the Chafr. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! I waraed the honourable member for Ipswich only a few minutes ago. Mr WARBURTON: No, no. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the honourable member for Ipswich please leave the Chamber? Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Would the honourable member for Ipswich please leave his seat? Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, you are obUged Mr SPEAKER: Orderi I am on my feet. Mr WARBURTON: Oh, you went to sit down. I rise to a point of order. Under the Standing Orders, you are obliged to wara the member under Standing Order No. 123A before you order him out of the Chamber. The honourable member for Ipswich has not been waraed under Standing Order No. 123A, and you cannot, therefore, order him from the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have wamed him under Standing Order No. 123A. I wrote it down here, and I have it. The member will withdraw from the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Ipswich withdrew from the Chamber. Mr McKECHNIE: I would like very much to answer the other criticisms raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but I, for one, intend to respect the wishes of the poUce and the Auditor-General. I can assure this House that the Auditor-General's report reflects that there was nothing fundamentally wrong in the prescribed financial or general administration procedures or practices of my department. Cop that! Questions Upon Notice 18 February 1986 3559

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

1- Special Electricity Meter-reading Fee Mr VAUGHAN asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the $10 special reading fee which the South East Queensland Electricity Board charges electricity consumers for reading meters other than for normal readings— (1) Why is this charge not Usted in the schedule of fees prescribed by schediUe A, section 111, "Electricity Authorities" of the regulations under the Electricity Act? (2) How long has this fee been imposed on electricity consumers? (3) Why was this fee increased from $1.50 to $10 in August 1985? (4) Do other electricity distribution boards throughout the State charge this fee and, if so, are the fees charged by the other boards the same as those charged by the South East Queensland Electricity Board? (5) If not, what fees are charged by the other boards? (6) Is the fee the same for all consumers? (7) If not, what are the fees for other consumers? (8) As the $10 fee is imposed on consumers without thefr agreement, even though, as I understand the matter, SEQEB claims that this fee can be imposed pursuant to section 129 (m) of the Electricity Act, is the fee a legal charge? (9) If not, should it not be discontinued and refunds made to those consumers who have been forced to pay the fee? Answer— (1) Because it is for a service not required by statute. (2) Not known with certainty, but a fee of this kind has been charged at least since 1940. (3) To recover the costs involved in providing the service. (4) See (5). (5) Capricomia Electricity Board $5 Far North Queensland Electricity Board $5 Mackay Electricity Board No charge North Queensland Electricity Board No charge South West Queensland Electricity Board $2.50 Wide Bay-Bumett Electricity Board $20 (6) Within each board, yes. (7) See (6). (8) The consumer who wants a special reading is advised of the cost before the service is rendered. Special readings are normaUy required by consumers for thefr own purposes; for example, where the account is in the name of an owner and a tenant is vacating the premises. Some consumers who are temporarily vacating premises ask for a special reading, rather than the altemative of having the supply disconnected, where there is no charge for reading the meter. (9) If the service were discontinued, consumers would be inconvenienced. There are no grounds for refunding the fees previously charged, as a service was actuaUy rendered and costs incurred. 3560 18 Febmary 1986 Questions Upon Notice

2. Financial Assistance to Sugar Industry Sfr WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Primary Industries— With reference to the lengthy and protracted negotiations between the Federal Govemment, the State Govemment and representatives of the sugar industry regarding assistance for that industry— What are the detaUs of agreements so far made? Answer— Despite numerous promises made to the sugar industry over several years, the Commonwealth Goverament has yet to make any firm commitment to assist this vitaUy important Queensland and Australian industry. On the other hand, the Queensland Goverament has made a fijm commitment, contingent on the Federal Goverament's funding price support, to provide a grower-assistance package totalUng $170m over three years. The Queensland Goverament is afready meeting the additional interest cost of $3m on funding to increase the 1985 season first-deUveryadvanc e from $150 to $170 a tonne and is providing a further $4m over the next three years for general industry research, including research into potential alteraative crops to sugar cane. The Queensland Goverament wUl also fund an increase to 75 per cent in interest rate subsidy to growers who have loans under the Rural Adjustment Scheme, and wiU make available up to $100m in grants, loans and guarantees to meet the fiiU cost of the adjustment assistance scheme for mUls. The Queensland Goverament has also agreed on a form of deregulation which, although gradual, wiU have a significant impact on the economic viabiUty of the industry. Given the cfrcumstances, I think the time is now more than appropriate for the Commonwealth Goverament to provide its much mooted price-support package. I am sure that the Commonwealth Goverament will not have missed the point that the interaational sugar price has doubled recently to about 6 cents a pound, thus making the Commonwealth's financial commitment under the price-support scheme substantiaUy less than was previously indicated. In view of the substantial financial assistance afready provided or committed and the extent of deregulation agreed to by the Queensland Goverament, I caU on the Commonwealth Government now to meet its responsibility to a sugar price-support scheme.

3. Review of Thfrd-party Insurance Administration Sfr WILLIAM KNOX asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for PoUce— With reference to recent announcements that there was a review being undertaken of compulsory thfrd-party insurance administration— What administrative changes to compulsory third-party insurance are contemplated? Answer— The Government has asked the Committee of Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Compulsory Third Party (Personal Injury) Insurance to reconvene for the purpose of examining— the possibiUty of periodical payments as a method of paying out damages awards; and the desfrabUity of introducing a no-fault scheme of compensation. It is expected that the committee will be in a position to submit its report in the next month or so, and the Goverament will then decide the appropriate measures to be taken. When Queensland found it necessary to raise its third-party insurance premium for a standard family car to $168, that decision made headlines in all the daUy newspapers. Questions Without Notice 18 February 1986 3561 so I was greatly surprised recently to see a headline and about a three-inch column article stating, "Thfrd-party premiums soar". That article related to New South Wales and stated— "More than 3.5 milUon vehicles in NSW were hit by a 22.5 per cent rise in third party insurance premiums yesterday. The increase, the first since March 1 last year—" in one year— "means premiums for an average famUy car wUl rise from $174 to $213. A spokesman for the Department of Motor Transport, Mr Ross KeUy, said the increase was to cover the system's escalating costs." I mentioned on that occasion that the third-party insurance in Victoria was in such a mess that it was in deficit by $1 bUUon. I have here a report that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Melboume paper The Age. It indicates that a big rise in thfrd-party rates was rejected by Mr. Jolly. The article reads— "The State Govemment has rejected a committee recommendation that would have seen third party insurance premiums rise 170 per cent, from $181.15 to $5(X).40 a year." I emphasise that the Queensland premium is $168. The article continues— "The Treasurer, Mr Jolly, said yesterday that the Govemment would not sanction such a large increase being forced on motorists. He said the Govemment expected to announce big reforms to the thfrd party system next month, which would secure it financiaUyan d remove the ineqiuties of present insurance arrangements. Mr JoUy said: 'The recommendation (of the committee), which was based on the retention of the current, inefficient third party system highlights the urgent need to overhaul the system and replace it with pne that is efficient and equitable'). Mr JoUy said the committee's recommendation reflected the spiralUng costs of administering the third party system. The State Insurance Office common law payments for motor accidents have increased 31 per cent a year over the past five years and biUs this financial year are expected to reach $470 miUion. About $60 miUion of the expected pay-out would go in legal fees for common law actions, which have been rising at a rate of almost 28 per cent a year. Mr Jolly said the premiums committee had considered recommending a premium increase of 103 per cent, which would have meant an annual charge of more than $380. He said: 'The 103 per cent option had been aimed at making the existing thfrd party system fuUy funded for the next financial year alone. The committee has since decided that the recommended premium should be aimed at fuUy funding the SIO's present liabiUty over a minimum of 10 years.' "

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Trust Account, Queensland FUm Corporation Mr WARBURTON: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: Did a tmst account function in the name of the Queensland Film Corporation or an officer of the corporation during the 1984-85 financial year? Does that tmst account StiU exist? Have any financial problems conceming the tmst account been brought to the Minister's attention? If so, when and what action has the Minister taken? Mr McKECHNIE: I point out to the honourable member that he shovUd be weU aware that certain matters have been in the hands of the poUce.

70589—120 3562 18 Febmary 1986 Questions Without Notice

Mr Warbmton: How would I know that? Mr McKECHNIE: I am saying that certain matters relative to certain questions are in the hands of the poUce. I say to the honourable member that he should be very careful what question he asks or he wiU be party to causing problems so far as the poUce investigations are concemed. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. I take extreme exception to such a comment coming from the Minister. If he cannot answer the question, that is fafr enough, but to suggest that I wUl be under the scmtiny of the poUce because I have asked a fair question in this Chamber is quite unreasonable. If the Minister and the Premier would show me the Auditor-General's report, I would know what question to ask. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow question-time to be tumed into a debate. Has the Minister finished his answer? Mr McKECHNIE: Mr Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to the Leader of the Opposition that we aU have a responsibihty to see that justice is brought to bear in this matter. All I was saying to the Leader of the Opposition was that, in the interest of justice, he shoiUd be cautious about what questions he asks, because it may make it difficult for the poUce to do thefr job if the Leader of the Opposition tries to get me to answer certain questions. That is aU I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition. Organ-transplant Donor Endorsement on Drivers' Licences Mr NEAL: I had intended to ask a question of the Minister for Transport but, as he is not present in the Chamber, I shall direct it to the Minister for Health and Envfronment. I ask: Does the Minister favour the suggestion that drivers' Ucences be endorsed to identify organ-transplant donors so that the State Govemment special medical unit can be given every possible assistance in its Ufe-saving work? Mr AUSTIN: As the honourable member suggested, the question shoiUd be dfrected to my coUeague the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for the issue of drivers' Ucences. However, the question does involve my portfoUo. The medical profession within my portfoUo has been consulted on this matter by the staff of the Minister for Transport. There are ongoing discussions, and it is hoped that, at some time in the near future, the Goverament wiU consider the feasibiUty and possibiUty of that endorsement appearing on drivers' Ucences. I understand that some medico-legal questions still have to be resolved with the medical profession relative to seeking that endorsement on licences. As soon as those matters are resolved, I am sure that my coUeague the Minister for Transport wiU be able to make a suitable announcement as to whether the Goverament intends to continue with that proposal. Enforcement of Multibrand Beer Sales in Carlton Hotels Mr BURNS: Is there an acting Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General? If not, I wiU ask the question of the Premier and Treasurer. I am sorry that I have to do so. It is surely not a question that he would know a lot about, but he is responsible for the operation of the State, so I have to ask him this question. I ask: Is the Premier and Treasurer aware that Queensland's leading brand of beer— Fourex—is avaUable in only token quantities in a significant number of Carlton hotels in Queensland? Is he aware that, recently, the Licensing Commission served notices on a number of CarUon tenants and managers that they should make Fourex avaUable in reasonable quantities? Can he explain why officers of the Licensing Commission have been told not to proceed with the enforcement of the mtUtibrand clause, particularly in regard to the commission's recent investigations and letters of show cause on a number of (Darlton hotels in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast? Questions Without Notice 18 February 1986 3563

Is the Premier and Treasurer aware that ties of trade in regard to brewers have been outlawed in AustraUa yet, in Queensland, this southera brewery giant holds tenants in contempt? If they do not abide by the company poUcy, it deals with them. One brewery metes out Fourex to its tenants in quantities that some of the Premier's Ministers would spUl in the course of an average party. WiU the Premier and Treasurer ensure that the Licensing Commission is allowed to enforce multibrand sales in Carlton hotels? Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member would probably be sur­ prised if I answered that question fuUy for him. In order that I do not surprise him, I ask him to put the question on notice and I wiU give him an answer tomorrow. Mr BURNS: I do so accordingly. Teachers' Handbook for the Prevention of ChUd Abuse Mrs HARVEY: I dfrect a question to the Minister for Education. He wiU be aware of the contents of the teachers' handbook for the prevention of chUd abuse, which was compUed by the ChUd Abuse Research and Education Committee and is presently in the process of being printed. Can the Minister give an assurance that any teacher who shows active concera for the welfare of suspected chUd abuse pupUs wiU receive the support and backing of the Education Department? Mr POWELL: The committee, of which the honourable member is the chairman, has been working very hard in preparing a booklet that can be given to teachers to give them an understanding of thefr rights and responsibUities regarding child abuse. That booklet has been scmtinised by my department and the Crown law office. It is now being printed and, in the near fiiture, >\dU be suitably transmitted to schools so that aU teachers wUl have a copy. As the booklet has been scmtinised by officers of my department, it therefore has the support of my department. Teachers who have occasion to report chUd abuse wiU certainly have the support of my department and, it is hoped, the support of other departments to ensure that that abuse is investigated thoroughly. Teachers are in a difficult position. I assure the honourable member for Greenslopes and other honourable members that, when teachers report cases of suspected chUd abuse, they wUl have my department's support. Restoration Work on Queen Alexandra House, Coorparoo Mrs HARVEY: I ask the Minister for Works and Housing: Can he advise the House as to the progress on the restoration work at Queen Alexandra House at Coorparoo? Further, can he advise on the extent of the restoration of this historic home and give some indication of the amount of money to be expended on this vital part of Coorparoo's heritage and on its conversion to a unique place for the purpose of promoting communication and community spirit for the people of the Greenslopes electorate? Mr WHARTON: Ffrstly, I commend the honourable member for her efforts in trying to resurrect this great heritage buUding and making it something of worthwhUe use in the Greenslopes electorate. There is no doubt that the honourable member has worked for quite some time to provide what is a very historical buUding. Queen Alexandra House is a very historical building. I understand that it was the home of Mr NickUn and that it was used for a TAFE coUege. It is being restored for the benefit of the people in the Coorparoo area, to be used as a community meeting place. It is not only historical but wiU also help aU the people in the Coorparoo area. At the present time, it is being repaired and maintained. About 40 per cent of that work has been carried out. Somewhere in the vicinity of $85,000 is being spent on the house. I assure the honourable member that when work is completed. Queen Alexandra House wUl be a very worthy buUding to be used for a very worthy cause in the interests of the people of Coorparoo. Fuel Prices Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: What reason does he think is behind the Federal Goverament's delay in passing the reduced cost of world fuel prices on to industry? Does he beUeve that this delay shows that Mr Hawke is trying to wriggle 3564 18 Febmary 1986 Questions Without Notice out of giving any concession to fuel-users and that such a move now casts doubt on the sincerity of Mr Hawke's stated intention to introduce a tax concession package in September? Sfr JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The whole history of the Federal Goverament is one of reneging on promises, making statements and denying them the next day and so on. The people of AustraUa were promised that if the Federal Labor Party was put into office, there would be a 3c a Utre discount on petrol immediately. Instead of that, the price of petrol went up dramatically. It has been going up dramatically ever since. The Federal Labor Goverament did promise at one stage that if the price went down world­ wide, it would also go down correspondingly within this nation. Of course, now the Federal Goverament is trying to renege on that promise. The Prime Minister, very cleverly, is putting his toe in the water a Uttle bit to ascertain the reaction, and is saying, "It might be 2c a litre, it might be 3c; we are not quite sure yet." He is trying to gauge pubhc reaction. If the Prime Minister does not give the people of AustraUa the whole amount, the Queensland Goverament wUl take legal action against the Federal Govemment in the Supreme Court. Q-Net; Satellite Trial, Mount Isa School of the Afr Mr STONEMAN: In asking a question of the Minister for Education, I draw his attention to an interview given by the Opposition spokesman on education, the Honourable member for Ipswich West (Mr Underwood), on ABC radio foUowing the launch by the Q-Net program and Aussat of the Mount Isa School of the Afr sateUite trial with eight selected students. In that interview, the member for Ipswich West claimed that the trial was a National Party election-year gimmick and, among other irresponsible remarks, he claimed that the cost of implementation of a State-wide program would be of the order of $ 150m to $200m. Does the Minister agree that this totally inaccurate and iU-researched statement is proof positive of the Opposition's lack of understanding of the concems and educational problems of hundreds of famUies throughout isolated areas of Quensland, and highUghts the contempt with which the ALP approaches positive initiatives, such as the Mount Isa trial, which has the support of every State Education Department in this nation? Mr POWELL: I did not hear the reported statements of the Opposition spokesman on education. I am not in the habit of ensuring that I hear what he says, anyway. One of the most common problems that people have in working with decimals is that they tend to put the decimal point in the wrong place. I can only suggest to the House that the Opposition spokesman made that mistake when he did Ws sums because $150m to $200m, as quoted by the honourable member, woiUd be about 10 times the cost of the trial if it was given to every child in this State who is ctirrently on School of the Afr. I think it is fair to say that those who witnessed the launch of this trial and those who have taken the trouble to avail themselves of the departmental information on it are simply in awe at the way in which the trial was launched and is now working. To caU it an election year gimmick is to apply the standards of the ALP to the work of this Goverament. Whenever the standards of the ALP are applied, the end result is wrong. The sateUite trial is being watched by people round the world, particularly education authorities, because it is the first time anywhere in the world that a sateUite has been used to beam educational work into a person's home. In other places, education programs have been beamed into towns, where people have gathered to watch it, but it has never before been trialled in this manner into an isolated area. Questions Without Notice 18 Febmary 1986 3565

The Queensland Govemment is the first to do it. Of course, the Govemment took the initiative in renting one of the transponders in the first sateUite. In doing that, the Queensland Govemment estabUshed yet another first. Rather than caUing it a gimmick, the Opposition spokesman on education should be trying to inform himself and his supporters, if he has any, of just exactly what the trial is aU about and where it is leading. With regard to the total cost—honourable members would reaUse that costs are fluctuating wildly as technology becomes more advanced. To forecast the cost at this stage for the total number of children who could be served would be nearly impossible because, in 12 months' time, that cost could be completely changed. I can only suggest that people who are interested in chUdren's education, particularly in distance education—that is, education for those who live in the far-flung areas of this State—are very excited about the trial. I am certain that it wiU be successful and it wiU bring a new era to remote-area children and give them a far better understanding and a far better education. Far from being a gimmick, it is a genuine trial. It is just one further advance by the Queensland Education Department in teaching children in remote areas. The costs that have been suggested by the Opposition are nonsense. Railway Station, Beams Road, Carseldine Mr CAHILL: I ask the Minister for Transport: Could he inform the House as to the progress of constmction of the proposed park-and-ride raUway station at Beams Road, Carseldine, and its expected completion date? Mr LANE: Work has already begun on the constmction of the railway station at Beams Road, Carseldine. Subject to extraenous matters such as wet weather, the station wiU be open for use by the public by late June this year. Criticism by Mr P. HoUingsworth of State Education System Mr CAHILL: I ask the Minister for Education: Has his attention been drawn to a story on page 7 of today's Daily Sun regarding the study of physics, chemistry and mathematics, in which an engineer criticised preparation in Queensland's secondary schools for engineering and science courses? Are students deserting engineering and science courses for the humanities? Is a remedy needed, or is Mr HolUngsworth's statement uninformed? Mr POWELL: I have read the article that purports to suggest that students entering tertiary courses are now less prepared in subjects leading to engineering than was previously the case. I am disappointed that Mr HoUingsworth does not give any data to substantiate his aUegations. I would be interested to hear him or the university authorities substantiate such a proposition. If it is tme that the chUdren from Queensland high schools are not being prepared well enough in physics, chemistry or other subjects leading to engineering, I would like to know, and I would certainly investigate that matter fully. The proposition has not been advanced to me before. Because of the requfrements of the Federal Goverament as to places in tertiary institutions, very few places are avaUable in engineering. Consequently, the TE score required of students to enter that particular faculty is extremely high. Therefore, those students who are successful in obtaining a place are the cream of those who have done maths and science in secondary schools. Therefore, when that is borae in mind, I am interested in those comments. As to Mr HolUngsworth's accusation that students are taking what he calls soft options in humanities—One would find those persons undertaking courses in the human­ ities and doing very good work in that area objecting to the engineer's opinion that the humanities are a soft option. It is a very unfair way of describing study in the humanities. It is as difficult for those who choose that field of study as it is for those who choose a field that is not in the humanities. There is no evidence to suggest that in tertiary 3566 18 Febmary 1986 Questions Without Notice education there is a desertion by students from the maths/science area to the humanities. Like many others who criticise education, Mr HoUingsworth is criticising it from a personal point of view and referring to a somewhat imagined golden era of education on which nobody can quite put his finger. If I can find the hard data, it wiU be researched. Application by Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services for Licence to Carry Ffrearm Mr MACKENROTH: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services: WUl he confirm that in 1977 he applied for an received a Ucence to carry a concealable firearm, namely, a Beretta .22 caUbre pocket pistol? WiU he advise whether he has a current Ucence to carry a concealable firearm and on what occasions he finds the need to carry that firearm? Mr TENNI: In answer to the honourable member for Chatsworth—yes, I did have a concealable firearm. I do not know what year it was. It was in the 1974-77 period. I had that firearm for 10 or 11 months. I surrendered it to the poUce in Mareeba. Since that time, I have had no concealable firearm because, quite frankly, I beUeve that such firearms are very unsafe to handle. Since that time, I have never applied for a licence to have a concealable firearm. Mr Mackenroth: Why did you have it? Mr TENNI: Why I had it is my business. Lacoste Shirts Mr INNES: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: Is it tme that he has received representations from the honourable member for Barron River (Mr Tenni) that Lacoste shirts be prohibited from sale in north Queensland, north of the Tropic of Capricom, or surrendered by people on arrival in north Queensland and kept in safety nets untU they leave? Mr McKECHNIE: It is good to have a little levity in the House. I do not think the honourable member was serious in asking that question, and I see no reason to answer it. Bulimba and Tennyson Power Stations Mr BAILEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Mines and Energy, I refer to the fact that the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) has accused the Govemment of squandering money on antipoUution eqiupment for BuUmba and Teimyson Power Stations. Now, of course, the decision has been taken to put those power stations out of commission. Some concem has arisen in the community as a result of these allegations. Can the Minister put the concera of the community to rest by explaining the need for this equipment, even if there were plans to close these power stations down when the decision to purchase the equipment was implemented? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I expected to be asked such a question today, and I have some information on this matter. As a matter of fact, I thought that a member of the Opposition would have asked a question. That is why I am prepared for it. It is a fact, of course, that quite a deal of refurbishing of Bulimba and Tennyson Power Stations was carried out. Honourable members must remember that Tennyson "B" Power Station is still in operation. The pollution control equipment—fabric filters, in fact—instaUed at BuUmba and Tennyson Power Stations was essential for their continued operation to help meet the State-wide demand for electricity. At the time that decision was made, the Tarong Power Station was being constmcted. Constmction of that power station had been speeded up by 17 months. It took tremendous organisation to speed it up to that extent. In the meantime, these other power stations had to be kept working much longer than their normal Ufe. Questions Without Notice 18 February 1986 3567

OriginaUy, it had been planned to close both BuUmba and Tennyson Power Stations. However, a review of electricity requirements based on the state of the economy in 1980 indicated that it was essential that those power stations be kept operating, perhaps into the 1990s. Who was to know what would happen? The review was based on the fact that this State had about a 9 per cent growth rate at that stage. It is interesting that, since the Hawke Federal Labor Govemment came into office, the growth in aU industry in Australia has not been very good. Perhaps much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Federal Govemment. To keep these power stations open, it was necessary to meet a dfrective from the Afr PoUution Council and certain safety requirements of the Division of Occupational Safety. It is rather strange that, at that time, the Minister in charge of afr poUution control was none other than the former member for Greenslopes, Mr Bill Hewitt—a member who from one end of the State to the other has criticised this Goverament about power stations. Of course, the Govemment had to abide by its own laws, and should do no less than that. In late 1981, tenders for the fabric filters were called. I ask all honourable members to note that the date was 1981 and not about two months ago, as some people who wish to mislead the pubhc have stated in the newspapers. I repeat that fabric filter tenders were caUed in late 1981 to replace the old mechanical filters which had previously been instaUed in the 1950s. The power station was stiU operating 30 years after it was commissioned, whereas it is usually the case that a power station is closed down, decommissioned or put into moth-balls after a period of 20 to 25 years. Other capital expenditure at the Bulimba Power Station included a demineraliser plant and tanks, vacuum de-aerators, stores, buildings, storage for flammable Uquids, a canteen and toUet faciUties. Who was the Minister in charge of the Division of Occupational Safety at that time? I think it might have been the honourable member for Nundah (Sfr WiUiam Knox), so let us examine the tmth of this matter. In those days, a coaUtion Govemment was in power. The decision was made to instaU all of that equipment in the power house, and rightly so. I point out that aU of those contracts were awarded between 1981 and 1983. During the major part of the construction, a company named Flakt, a Swedish firm, had a black ban imposed upon it for six or seven months, and for that period there was almost no progress. That project was brought to a standstiU because of action taken by trade unions. The trade unions might have been able to get away with it in those days, but I can assure every honourable member that there is no way in the world that they would today, nor will they in the future. It was as a result of action taken by the trade unions that the member for Yeronga (Mr Lee) had to endure the poUution caused by the power station for a much longer period than was necessary. Let me now tum to some facts conceraing a loud-mouthed, irresponsible member of Parliament who has been casting aspersions and spreading innuendos about the electricity industry and the member for Yeronga (Mr Lee). On Tuesday, 30 March 1982, a question was asked by the honourable member for Yeronga of the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. At that time the Minister was, I think, the former member for Greenslopes, Mr BiU Hewitt, or it might have been the former member for Ashgrove, Mr John Greenwood. What does it matter, anyway, because neither gentleman is a member now. The question was about smoke and faU- out from the old power stations at Bulimba and Tennyson, which had been on standby for many years. The answer given by the Minister reads as follows— "FoUowing discussions between the Air Pollution Council and the Queensland Electricity Generating Board, strict new anti-pollution measures wiU be taken at both the Bulimba and Tennyson Power Stations. A bag-filtering system, which wiU greatly reduce the smoke and ash fall-out, will be installed. From 1 June 1983, the QEGB will be required to comply with a new low level of particle emissions of 180 mg per cubic metre of exhaust gas from both stations. The Air Pollution Council 3568 18 February 1986 Questions Without Notice

wiU closely monitor the performance of the new bag-filtering system to ensure that this standard is met. The QEGB has advised the Air PoUution CouncU that both stations are expected to remain in use untU approximately 1991 to meet the growing demands for electricity in Brisbane." I am reminded by one of my coUeagues that the Minister of the day was BiU Hewitt, who attacked the electricity industry unmercifully. On 14 September 1982, during the Adjourament debate, the honourable member for Yeronga (Mr Lee) posed a further question in the House about the Tennyson Power House. He said— "As honourable members know, the Tennyson Power House, commonly known as the 'shower house', is within my electorate." Mr FOURAS: I rise to a point of order. I just draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, that the Minister has been answering the question for eight minutes. He should have made a ministerial statement. He is wasting the time of the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the honourable member's attention that it is the prerogative of the Minister to answer a question as he likes. Mr I. J. GIBBS: It is very important that I answer this question properly because of the innuendos that have been made and the embarrassment caused to the Honourable Norm Lee, who was a Minister Sfr Joh Bjelke-Petersen: Who put the innuendo around? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I think it was one Angus Innes from Sherwood. Sfr Joh Bjelke-Petersen: The one who made an ass of himself in what he said about Turkey? Mr I. J. GIBBS: Yes. I wiU deal with that project shortly and teU him a few home tmths about it. He has a mind like a laser beam—about as narrow as that. Mr Lee continued— "Many years ago through my representations soot arresters were instaUed, but unfortunately they were never totally satisfactory. After years of complaints from many of my constituents, who year after year have been showered with soot, I have finally received a letter from the Queensland Electricity Generating Board stating that it wUl spend $18m on new arresters, which is more than the costs of the original powerhouse. I congratulate the QEGB and the Govemment for what they have done. They have shown that they care about people and about poUution throughout Brisbane. I am pleased to be able to announce this evening that I have received the foUowing letter from the QEGB—" That letter to the honourable member was signed by Mr Fred McKay, who was the general manager of QEGB in those days, informing him in fiiU of what was to take place. I now tura to a proposed development in the Yeronga electorate Mr Fouras: We can aU read Hansard, Mr Gibbs. Mr I. J. GIBBS: Someone told me that the honourable member coiUd not read, and that is why I am helping him out. At 3.30 a.m. on 30 March 1983, the Honourable Norm Lee spoke about a proposed development in the Yeronga electorate A Government Member: It was a full moon. Questions Without Notice 18 February 1986 3569

Mr I. J. GIBBS: It was a fuU moon, and Angus was not here. Mr Lee said— "Too often we knock the departments and the Ministers who mn them and we very seldom give thanks to them. On this occasion I would like to thank some of the departments and make reference to some of the things that have happened in my electorate. I thank the QEGB for spending $18m on the Tennyson Power Station to reduce the emission of soot throughout the electorate of Yeronga. That cost is larger than the original cost of constmction of the powerhouse. Over many years my electorate has been showered by soot from the Tennyson Power Station. For too long a few persons have suffered for the benefit of Queensland." I should mention another question about soot emission at the Tennyson Power Station that was asked on 15 December 1983 of the Minister for Mines and Energy. Mr Lee asked— "(1) Is he aware of a feature article in a recent edition of'The Courier-MaU', namely 'The Trendy left and the fossUs', together with a photograph of the Tennyson Power Station making its contribution to the 'greenhouse effect'? (2) How much money has been or is being spent on the eUmination of soot emission from this power station in order to give my constituents the same Uving conditions as other residents of Brisbane?" . That is important. Why should a few people close to that power station suffer for the rest of the people in Queensland who receive the power generated by that station? Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister has been speaking for 13 minutes. He is making a joke of question-time. I move— "That the Minister be no longer heard." Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr DAVIS: He is making a farce of question-time. I move— "That the Minister be no longer heard." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 27 NOES, 48 Braddy Ahem Lane Bums AUson Lee Campbell Austin Lester Comben BaUey Lickiss De Lacy Bjelke-Petersen Lingard Eaton Booth Littleproud Fouras Borbidge McKechnie Gibbs, R. J. Cahill McPhie Kmger Chapman Menzel Mackenroth Qauson Muntz McElUgott Cooper Newton McLean Elliott Powell Milliner FitzGerald RandeU Palaszczuk Gibbs, I. J. Row Price Glasson Simpson Scott Gunn Stephan Shaw Gygar Stoneman Smith Harper Tenni Underwood Hartwig Tumer Vaughan Harvey Wharton Veivers Henderson White Warburton Innes Wamer, A. M. Tellers: Jennings Tellers: WUson Davis Katter Kaus Yewdale Prest Knox Neal PAIR D'Arcy I Hinze Resolved in the negative. 3570 18 February 1986 Questions Without Notice

Mr I. J. GIBBS: I shaU continue with the answer. Again I refer to the question that was asked on 15 December 1983. In the second part of that question, the member for Yeronga asked— "How much money has been or is being spent on the eUmination of soot emission from this power station in order to give my constituents the same Uving conditions as other residents of Brisbane?" At that time, power was being generated in a very old power station that was not equipped with the correct poUution gear. The honourable member for Yeronga did a marveUous job in ensuring that that poUution gear was instaUed. The answer to the question asked on 15 December 1983 was— "(1) Yes. However, the photograph used by 'The Courier-Mail' was out of date. (2) More than $ 17m, to ensure that the station operates well within Air PoUution CouncU requirements." Now I wUl go back to the electricity strike. During that strike, that power station poured out electricity and kept the people in Brisbane supplied with power. The men in that Uttle power station and in the power station at Bulimba did their best to pour out as much power as they could. If the Tennyson Power Station had not been equipped with the poUution gear, it would not have been able to operate at fuU bore to save the situation. The men at that power station have been looked after with redundancy payments, and I wUl speak about that matter at a later time. The co-operation of the men was marveUous. I just cannot understand what the member for Sherwood is on about. If he had represented the area that the honourable member for Yeronga represents, we would have heard him yeUing from the tree-tops. He would have wanted $100m—an unlimited amount—spent on pollution gear for that power station. He would have said, "Fix it, or I wiU lose the election." The honourable member for Sherwood has double standards. One minute he is a greenie and the next minute he is going crook about acid rain buming the paint off cars. He was not representing the area, so he woiUd not know what he is talking about. He has double standards, double principles and is a de facto greenie. He is a four-wheel- drive fellow and an academic. As the Premier and Treasurer said in The Sunday Mail of 16 Febmary, the biggest thing he ever did was to import a pin-striped siut. According to the ALP, a political survey has come up with some surprising findings in the segment dealing with the public perception of poUtical leaders. Some of the voters were under the impression that the State Liberal leader. Sir WilUam Knox, had passed away. I am glad that he has not, but it is lovely to see the honourable member for Sherwood trying to bury him. Investigation into Queensland Elecfricity Industry Mr BAILEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Mines and Energy, I point out that there has been a call by a member of the junior Opposition party for an investigation into the electricity industry, a suggestion of two-monthly biUs, a proposed project with Turkey, and other somewhat spurious statements. Could the Minister assure the House that the Queensland Electricity Commission is indeed in fine shape, that two monthly bills are afready issued in several Queensland areas, and that there is no need to waste money on an inquiry into this effective industry? Mr I. J. GIBBS: It is amazing that the honourable member for Sherwood has taken over the Opposition role as spokesman on electricity. He does not know what he is talking about most of the time. There is only one thing I can advise the pubUc—never take him on as a barrister and pay him good mdney, because, based on his utterings of recent times, he would not be able to put up a good case for them, anyway. Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Bill 18 February 1986 3571

I wiU deal with the honourable member's criticism of the proposed project in Turkey. AustraUa as a whole has grown up. It is fuU of technology now. Not so many years ago, Australian industry had to go overseas for technology. In the mining industry and the electricity industry, AustaUa has the most up-to-date technology in the world. In fact, Australia has the biggest electrical growth of any country in the world, and Queensland has the biggest growth of any State in Australia. Queensland has the latest technology in electricity. AU electricity authorities in AustraUa are trying now to help private enterprise with that technology. My coUeague the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology (Mr Ahera) is leading a group to China on technology in the manufacture of mining equipment, and so it goes on. He is going to sell AustraUan technology to a place Uke China. The group led by the Minister wiU offer the Chinese the technology currently avaUable to Govera­ ments and electricity authorities throughout AustraUa. The Queensland Electricity Commission has the latest technology in the world for the type of power station that a company named Seapac has been working towards for two years perhaps to get the opportunity to constmct a power station in Turkey. Seapac is to be congratulated as a company. The Queensland Goverament has been backing private enterprise, and its technology and its advice to this company for two years is now starting to bear fhiit. The project wiU be an enormous advantage to Queensland and it wiU not cost—as, by innuendo, the honourable member for Sherwood impUed— the people of Queensland one cent. In fact, they wUl make milUons out of it if it aU comes off, and it wiU be tremendous for the work-force and for export. It is at a critical stage of development and I wiU not say too much about the other side of it Sfr Joh Bjelke-Petersen: He has made a big ass of himself. Mr I. J. GIBBS: As the Premier said, he has made a big ass of himself He is known as "The Mouth". Every time he opens his mouth, something comes out, but it is nothing that matters very much. Most of the time he does not know what is coming out, anyway. The honourable member for Sherwood is supposed to be a leading Liberal. He is supposed to represent the people who lead the business of AustraUa, yet, as I said previously, he has a mind as narrow as a laser beam, and that is about the width of his vision. The honourable member for Sherwood needs to take a good look at himself because, if he keeps up his present actions, he will simply go down the tube. He reaUy does not know what he is on about. UntU he does, he ought to be quiet. Mr SPEAKER: Order! the time allotted for questions has now expfred.

VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 2884) on Mr Turaer's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr KRUGER (Murmmba) (5.50 p.m.): As I have had some time to consider the legislation, I am pleased that it is to be debated this evening. In the dying stages of the sittings before Christmas, one minute the BUl was to debated and the next it was not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! WoiUd those members who wish to leave the House, please do so in sUence. Mr KRUGER: As I was saying, on a few occasions prior to Christmas, the legislation was to be brought on at short notice. At that stage nobody had had a chance to consiUt those who work in the field of veterinary services. 3572 18 February 1986 Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Bill

I have now had the chance to speak to a few of the veterinary surgeons whom I know in the Brisbane area. The House should know that I deal with some of the most acceptable and most qualified vets in the country. They are very good in their practice and also are very good, honest people to talk to. They are very pleased with the various aspects of the BUl. Because of their high standing in the veterinary field, that is a good recommendation. The legislation was originally produced in 1973 and this is its first amendment. That shows that basicaUy the legislation is pretty sound, but that there is a need for some variation. The legislation is designed to provide protection to the consumer by ensuring that only siutably qualified people provide a veterinary service for fee or reward, and to prevent veterinary surgeons from taking undue advantage of thefr coUeagues or misleading the public. In the past I have been aware of instances when veterinary surgeons have taken undue advantage of thefr coUeagues. However, the most important aspect is that on occasions some veterinary surgeons have taken undue advantage of people in the community. I know for a fact that a small number of veterinary surgeons charge astronomical fees for services rendered on famUy pets. Unfortunately, it wiU be very hard to stamp out that practice unless people in the community gain some idea of the cost of services. The more I talk to people who take their pets to veterinary surgeons, the more I reaUse that they are unware of what the cost of services shoiUd be. Only recently, when a woman came to get a bitch from me, the veterinary surgeon said that if the bitch was in season it would cost an extra $20 to have it spayed because the job is then messy. I do not beUeve that that extra $20 was warranted, but it is an example of the sorts of things that go on. Some veterinary surgeons wUl spay a bitch for between $40 to $50, but another vet wiU charge between $80 to $90. It seems that some sort of price control is necessary. If that control is not possible, perhaps recommended prices should be published. In his second-reading speech, the Minister mentioned speciaUst services. As is the case with doctors and other professionals, when vets become speciaUsts they feel that they are entitled to charge a Uttle more money than the ordinary practitioner charges. That is generaUy understood and accepted in the community. However, I feel that a recommended price stmcture for services offered should be pubUshed. Perhaps that may be a long way off. Perhaps the association could pubUsh recommended charges now, but of course they would not always be adhered to. Another important aspect of the legislation is the protection of members of the public who take animals to vets. One thing that worries me is the number of occasions on which a vet is called out on a week-end to examine an animal which has what is supposed to be an enormous problem. The vet goes out at aU hoiu-s of the day and night and on many occasions treats what is reaUy a minor aUment that covUd easUy have been deah with in ordinary surgery hours. That sort of thing happens with doctors as weU. I do not beUeve that vets have the best of lives from that point of view. The vets I deal with are exceptionally good people and are very, very caring for animals. Once, I found myself in trouble with one of my doctors when I suggested that he was not as caring as the veterinary surgeon to whom I had taken one of my pets the day before. It is true that some veterinary surgeons care more than some doctors. Although I do not wish to complain about the medical profession, it is certainly relevant to mention that. The registration of veterinary specialists and the power of entry to seek records are major features of the legislation. It is something that is very important and a matter to which I shaU retura later. Under the provision for registration of veterinary speciaUsts, a veterinary surgeon will need to obtain special skiU and prove that the special skiU was gained in practising Veterinary Surgeons Aa Amendment Bill 18 February 1986 3573 veterinary surgery for a period of at least five years. I know one veterinary surgeon based north of Brisbane who has done a great deal of work with broken-down greyhounds. He has pinned broken bones in the legs of some greyhounds, and those greyhounds have raced again within six months. That veterinary surgeon is certainly an expert in that field. His quaUfications are recognised widely, and he has done a great deal of training. He is a young person who travels to America and lectures in different places on his techniques. If a veterinary surgeon has trained at a university, obtained a degree and has been clever enough to obtain basic quaUfications, is it necessary for him to undertake an additional five years' practical experience before he is entitied to be registered? The knowledge gained by some pieople in three or four years could not be obtained by others in 50 years. It is a matter that I would like the Minister to consider. Although the proposal of five years' praptice is worthy of a trial, at a later time it may be possible to reduce that period. Reference to the Advisory Committee on Registration of Veterinary SpeciaUsts is possibly the only way round the problem of having an advisory committee consider the regisfration of veterinary speciaUsts. The five-year arrangement to which I have referred could be a subject for that committee's consideration. Although, on the face of them, the powers of entry and the powers to search, interview, coUect and take away samples may sound reasonable, I am conceraed when one considers what happened recently with Dr BayUss and the furore that occurred when certain files were taken away. Admittedly, those files related to humans and unbora persons. However, the rights of inspectors to take away records remains a matter for consideration. Reasonably free access shoiUd be given to such records within the precincts of the veterinary surgeon's premises—for example, his cUnic. Although I am not saying that the files should not be accessible to the powers that be, a problem exists with inspectors being able to take away records. The taking of photographs and seizing of records is a slur on the intelUgence and standing of veterinary surgeons. It is acceptable that an officer must obtain permission or a warrant before he can enter premises that are used exclusively as a dwelling-house. I do not think that anybody coiUd object to such a provision. If somebody resides in a house in which records are kept and they are requfred by the powers that be, there is no problem in obtaining a warrant to enter that dwelUng to obtain the records. If the records were not kept for iU intent, nobody would object to providing them. It is only a matter of the formaUties that must be undertaken. The tribtmal proposed to be estabUshed is one of the most acceptable arrangements that I have seen introduced into this Chamber, and it is obvious that a great deal of thought has gone into its estabUshment. I understand that the tribunal wiU comprise a chairperson with legal quaUfications and two veterinary sui^geons. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m. Mr KRUGER: Prior to the dinner recess, I was taUdng about the Veterinary Tribunal of Queensland. I think that it is fafr and reasonable that a tribunal be set up comprising a chairperson and two veterinary sturgeons. The chairperson wiU have some legal knowledge, and the two veterinary surgeons wiU not be appointed by the board members. One wiU be nominated by the Minister, It is the general practice that the Minister have some say in the stmcture of boards. The other member wiU be nominated by the Queensland Division of the AustraUan Veterinary Association. That is a fafrly good balance of representation for the hearing of disputes. Complementary to that is the right of appeal to the District Court in Brisbane against the decisions of the tribunal. Both sides can have legal representation. Without that, it could become top heavy. If in fact the problem is serious enough to get to the legal eagles, I think it is reasonable that both sides be aUowed representation. 3574 18 February 1986 Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Bill

I beUeve that the penalties provided in the BiU are reasonable in this day and age, particularly when veterinary surgeons are dealing with the pubUc. If veterinary surgeons have not performed in the manner that they should, it is reasonable that they be charged or gaoled, if necessary, for a reasonable time. The days of the smaU-time charges are no longer with us. I tum to the amendments providing for a committee of medical practitioners to be estabUshed in the case of a veterinary surgeon being medicaUy unfit to practice. Although it is not likely to occur frequently, it is certainly reasonable to provide in the legislation that, if a veterinary surgeon is medicaUy unfit, his or her name can be removed from the register. That is fafrly weU covered in the BiU. It is certainly reasonable to aUow university graduates, who may have a degree, although the graduation ceremony has not been performed, to practise untU such time as that ceremony is carried out. That is quite OK. It happens in other fields. I have a daughter who is now practising accountancy. Her ceremony wUl not be held untU some time in April. The same right of practice ought to apply to veterinary surgeons. The provision for registration for a Umited period of up to 30 days is reasonable. It seems to me that, if a racehorse-owner wants to bring a top racehorse to Queensland for a period to do a few sprints, rather than use local vets whom he may or may not know, it is qiute reasonable that his own vet from interstate be aUowed to practise for a short time in the same way as a local vet would. Other provisons of the legislation deal adequately with any problems that may arise. As I said, from discussions that I have had with veterinary surgeons generaUy in the south-east comer of this State, whom I have known for some time, I know that although they are not always happy, they accept the legislation quite readUy. Veterinary surgeons believe that most of the amendments are in the best interests of veterinary surgeons generaUy and the pubUc. At no time should honourable members lose sight of the fact that control is needed on both sides. Most veterinary surgeons, who undergo a good deal of training to enter that profession, would not want to do the wrong thing by the pubUc. Mostly, members of the pubhc are seeking good service. There could be room for a couple of amendments in the not-too-distant future. Certainly, they are not matters that I want to delve into too deeply tonight. I did suggest that the five-year period of practice before a veterinary surgeon becomes a speciaUst could be considered later. It all depends on quaUfications and the abiUty of the veterinary surgeon to perform. I suppose one's abiUty to perform and one's abiUty to produce the goods are what count in any profession, particularly when it involves dealing with the pubUc, and, in the case of veterinary surgeons, with animals and pets to which people become so attached. Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (7.19 p.m.): The Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment BUl has much to commend it. The depth of discussion and consultation that went into its preparation is quite obvious. For that, I commend the Minister. It is a habit that some of his coUeagues could weU acqufre. In future, in cases and hearings that are brought before the tribunal, the revised procedures that are to be followed could also stand as a model for other organisations and other Ministers to consider. The Minister's second-reading speech is also a model of enUghtenment, and I refer particularly to that part in which he mentioned the tribunal that has been replaced. He said, "It is then requfred to hear the chaige^ render the judgment and determine the penalty," or, in other words, to be judge, jury and executioner. As the Minister so clearly stated, this is "obviously unsatisfactory", and so it is. I hope that other Ministers recognise that, simUarly, other tribunals and bodies that are required to hear facts should not be judge, jury and executioner and that those bodies should be subject, as the Minister for Primary Industries has pointed out, to the right of appeal against the tribunal's decision to the District Court in Brisbane. Veterinary Surgeons Art Amendment BUl 18 February 1986 3575

The Minister also referred to the unsatisfactory situation which used to arise when bodies had to lay charges, hear charges and make judgments on charges brought by a particular body, and then determine the penalty which was to be imposed. That situation inevitably led to an unsatisfactory resuU. There is a long history of the common law of England, which is now the common law of Australia, condemning that procedure out of hand. Again, I commend the Minister for Primary Industries, because this is an enUghtened move and one for which he should be greatly praised. Another aspect to which I draw attention and for which I commend the Minister is the inclusion of a legal practitioner on the board. Many members of this Assembly and people elsewhere, usuaUy because of unfortunate ignorance, seem to want to condemn the involvement of legal practitioners in tribunals that hear cases, such as the ones I have afready mentioned. Yet, virtually every week I hear of weU-meaning people, who are often highly trained professionals in fields not related to the legal system, being caUed upon to make judgments in law that they are not quaUfied to make. The workers' compensation medical boards would be classic examples of that, because on them good doctors who are honest, dedicated and highly trained are requfred to do more than a medical practitioner is requfred to do. They are requfred to make legal decisions on the effects of legislation and regulations, and are requfred to lay down mhngs that greatly affect the rights and privUeges of a subject. When that happens, someone who has received appropriate legal training should be involved to oversee what occurs. In this legislation the Minister has included such a provision, and that is another reason why I say it could weU serve as a model. Bearing in mind the battles that have been fought in the party-rooms over recent years, I find some of the aspects of this legislation quite staggering. For instance, the BiU provides that a warrant be obtained before a prescribed person can enter into a "part of any premises which part is used exclusively as a dweUing house". That is a provision that should form part of aU legislation of this kind. I would like to beUeve that the inspfred approach demonstrated by the Minister is one that wiU be found in future legislation that is passed by this Parliament. However, because this BiU seems to have been drafted by people who are different from those who draft most of the legislation that comes before the House, I have my doubts that that wiU eventuate. But that does not decrease the desfre on my part or on the part of the Liberal Party—and, I would hope, on the part of the whole Assembly—to commend the Minister for Primary Industries for the provisions contained in this BiU. Other aspects of this legislation are equally commendable. For instance, I cite the provisions relating to registration that is permitted before formal quahfications are actuaUy conferred. Such a provision reflects a commonsense approach, which is good, and again I offer the Minister my congratulations. The BiU also provides for registration for a Umited period, and who would quarrel with that? The BiU is model legislation, and I commend the Minister. I whole-heartedly support its presentation to the House. Consideration of the BiU gives honourable members an opportunity under the provisions of Standing Orders to range a Uttle wider over issues that relate to the practice of veterinary surgery and general veterinary activities in the State of Queensland. The matters I wish to raise and offer suggestions about concem the chronic shortage being faced by proper and appropriate research institutions in obtaining a supply of animals. The University of Queensland veterinary school is a classic example. Over recent months, honourable members would have witnessed pubUcity that has been given to weU-meaning animal Uberationists. I beUeve that those people are weU-meaning, although quite often they are iU-informed in thefr points of view. As a result of thefr protests, organisations such as the Brisbane City CouncU have withdrawn support for appropriate institutions and have indicated that a supply of animals for those institutions would no longer be able to be maintained for bona fide experiments. I suggest that there is a need for an accreditation of research estabUshments using Uve animals in thefr programs. There needs to be open, pubUc accountabiUty of those 3576 18 February 1986 Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Bill institutions, with a code of ethics laid down that everyone can accept as appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances. It is a fact of Ufe that great advances in medical and veterinary science, related both to humans and to animals, can come, or at least can come far more swiftly, only if proper experimentation can be carried out on animals. It is not just diseases and conditions such as heart attacks that are involved. In the case of animals, it relates to the treatment of sprains and breaks. I am led to beheve by people involved with greyhounds that greyhounds that previously would have had to be destroyed have, as a result of experimentation, now been able to be saved. In addition to being saved, they have also been able to be returaed to fuU and vigorous health. That can happen only if appropriate bona fide research estabUshments can obtain the supplies of animals that they need. It is quite vaUd to say that pubUc authorities such as the Brisbane City CouncU and community organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cmelty to Animals need to be assured that if they co-operate with programs to supply animals for research, those animals wiU not be misfreated. It would not be a very complex task for the Minister, being responsible for primary industries and therefore for animals in this State, to put together very quickly a body of broad pubhc acceptance that could come up with a code of ethics and practices for bona fide research estabUshments. Some things that might be considered are that in aU experiments with a medical purpose related to health care or the prevention of disease in humans or animals, proper anaesthetics were used at aU times, that animals on which the experiments would eventuaUy prove fatal would be destroyed without regaining consciousness, and that animals be provided with proper veterinary care if they were to be aUowed to recover consciousness. Simple provisions such as those could easUy be brought together and drawn up in a code of practice, if one wanted to caU it that, to be used by research schools. Such a code of practice would be welcomed by those research institutions that are genuine. I am not talking about those places about which one hears horrendous stories of rows of rabbits and dogs having muck squirted in thefr eyes to determine whether cosmetics wUl work or not; I am talking about bona fide medical research. I suggest to the Minister that he would find Uttie difficulty in assembUng a team that could advise him on how to constmct a code of ethics. If he could do that, he would find great community acceptance and kiU a number of bfrds with one stone. He would, for a start, reassure the pubhc that institutions such as the university veterinary school are operating in a proper and appropriate way. Amongst those who are informed there has never been any question about that. Other institutions within the university and other simUar seats of leaming and medical experimentation are appropriate places to which to send animals. The pubhc needs this reassurance. The institutions need this seal of approval, and organisations such as the RSPCA need to be able to pubUcly justify thefr actions in making animals available to such institutions. The matter needs consultation, agreement and publicity, and I am sure that the Minister can be assured of getting great pubUcity if he was to come up with an appropriate set of guide-Unes and to announce them to the pubUc or, better stiU, to caU for subnussions on appropriate guide-Unes with an undertaking to act on those submissions. There is no need for great sheafs of regulations to do this. The pubUc would be quite happy, and so would the institutions involved, if the Minister was merely to issue over his signature a certificate or letter stating that he and his officers were satisfied that the XYZ institute was complying with the code of practice as publicised and approved by the officers of his department. I ask the Minister to take on board those suggestions and institute such a system in Queensland so that the problems that the institutions were having and are still having can be overcome, not just immediately but in the future. It is a system that I beUeve would gain broad pubhc acceptance. It would encounter no opposition, apart from those Stock Act Amendment BUl 18 February 1986 3577 extremist fringes of animal hberationists, and would, I am sure, do him and his Goverament great credit. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries) (7.30 p.m.), m reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In the main, the Opposition spokesman on primary industries supported the BiU and clearly indicated that the legislation had broad industry support. He mentioned the formation of the tribunal, as did the honourable member for Stafford. It is a good innovation in that it does away with the Caesar to Caesar approach and gives people a final right of appeal to a court. The honourable member for Murmmba referted to speciaUst registration involving five years after a de^ee has been gained. It is reasonable to expect that five years should elapse before speciahst registration can be obtained. Those seeking speciaUst registration have to appear before a national committee comprising people from the other States and New 2^aland. The honourable member for Stafford said that the tribunal could be used as a model for other legislation. I hope that it wUl be adopted in many other fields. The honourable member also referred to the legal practitioner serving on the tribunal. I thank him for his support in this matter. I take on board the comments made by the honourable member for Stafford about the chronic shortage of research animals. He put forward a reasonable proposition that is worthy of investigation. However, this matter rightly comes within the ambit of the Minister for PoUce, who handles this area. As the honourable member said, quite often animal Uberationists are iU informed. Many of them want to ban the mulesing of sheep and other practices used in mral areas. I can only assume that they have not seen a sheep die of fly strike. I again thank the two honourable members for thefr contributions to the debate on this legislation. It has the broad support of Pariiament and the industry at large. Motion (Mr Turner) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 42, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Thfrd Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Tumer, by leave, read a third time.

STOCK ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 2920) on Mr Turaer's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr KRUGER (Murmmba) (7.34 p.m.): Once again we are deaUng with legislation that is certainly involved. However, it seems to be fafrly clear cut and based on the best of intentions. The three main aspects of the BiU relate to the furtherance of the bmceUosis and tuberculosis eradication programs, the strengthening of more general disease control measures and the deregulation of boarding kennels and pet shops. As the Minister has pointed out, several minor amendments are being made to the legislation as a result of experience gained. Of course, the State is close to being classed bmceUosis-free. The Minister stated that it is expected that Queensland wiU be declared free from the disease towards the end of 1988. That wiU be a reasonable achievement. Certainly, the owners of stock have made quite a contribution to achieve that end. 3578 18 February 1986 Stock Act Amendment Bill

Only 141 herds are stUl considered to be infected with tuberculosis. The Minister made that statement, and I have no reason to doubt it. As time passes, because of the expanse of country, those herds will create major problems. The stock in some of those areas wUl be difficult to handle. I would like to know what money has been provided in the Budget to cover the cost of the measures that are to be implemented. Those measures include compensation for reactors and destock cattle, compensation for unmusterable or unmarketable stock for on-property testing subsidies, various freight rebate schemes and capital improvement and carry-on finance. Even though only 141 herds are involved, quite a lot of money could be needed to meet the cost of implementing those measures. Although it appears that there is only a smaU section of the program to be covered, I am interested to know what cost wiU be involved. It seems to me that problems will be encountered in cleaning up those 141 herds and that the cost could be far in excess of what is expected at this stage. I note that the Commonwealth Govemment has come to the assistance of the State again with the provision of a Uttle more than one-third of a milUon doUars for the constmction of a 200-km fence to assist eradication in the Nicholson River district of the Gulf of Carpentaria. That fence wiU be effective in the future cleaning of herds. Later in his speech, the Minister referred to those parts of the legislation that aUow inspectors to move in and organise the cleaning-up process if the criteria are not met or if stock-owners do not comply with orders. Fences can be erected to overcome the problems that are created for neighbouring properties with clean herds. It seem to me that the erection of such fences would be a good starting point. Reference is made to property-owners who may not be able to comply with eradication orders because they are unable to muster stock on their own properties. The foUowing questions should be answered: What is the time gap for the fUU legal period before alteraative measures may be undertaken? Is it expected that the owners wiU co­ operate by writing to advise of their problems? Perhaps a person might have a problem but does not wish to bring it to the attention of the authorities. He wiU not say, "It has got me beat. Will you step in and take over the program?" I reaUse that that is not the end of the matter. The authorities—in this case the inspectors—wiU have legal rights to move in and do what has to be done to try to clean up a herd. That could lead to an involved and messy situation. There are rough characters in some of the remote areas and they might not always be willing to oblige. I am wondering about the co-operation that might be expected from those people. The intent of trying to clean up those areas is very good. If they are not cleaned up, they could have an effect on neighbouring properties whose OAvners have done the ri^t thing in cleaning up their stock. We do not want a situation in which the dog is chasing its taU. That would not be the most effective way of overcoming the problem. As I say, the intent is good. I certainly hope that there are not too many problems with people who do not wish to co-operate. The Minister has in fact talked about the methods avaUable to make sure that people co-operate. There are certain losses to them. If they have not co-operated, of course, they are not entitied to the money available normaUy under the eradication scheme. One of the other major parts of the BiU is the necessity for constant vigilance of more general aspects of disease control. The Minister referred to the Avian influenza problem, and the problem experienced recentiy with the possibiUty of the poultry disease spreading in Victoria and the process of preventing stock coming into Queensland being a Uttle too slow. He has explained the reason for the need for more speedy action. I appreciate that and I think that it is worth while. Of course, it does not preclude the Minister's going into the Queensland Government Gazette and producing to the people what he has actuaUy done. So there is cover for anybody who is worried, and certainly it wiU speed up the procedure of overcoming the problem of something sUpping through Stock Art Amendment BiU 18 February 1986 3579 and being spread in this State because of the slow procedure that might otherwise take place. Put simply, it cuts the red tape. Another matter of concera is the one that the Minister spelt out about the animal pathogens in the container that was damaged at the airport, and the need to overcome that problem. That is a good, commonsense approach. Certainly we have learat by experience that a very serious problem could arise quickly. As the Minister pointed out, there was no problem in that case, but there certainly could have been, and it is something to be aware of aU the time. There again, the Minister has acted fafrly quickly in bringing forward this legislation. One of the other major points is the extension of the concessional permit system, which wiU aUow for the multiple daUy movements of stock from border points to selected abattoirs on the Darling Downs. The abattofrs on the Darling Downs wiU be receiving cattle regularly. I can be quite compUmentary on the fact that, if these people are going dfrect, there is no real problem with the legislation being changed in this way. It means simply that a person can move freely. The Minister pointed out quite clearly, in his second-reading speech, the different points that wUl be able to be used and said that the problem wiU be overcome because the operation wiU be kept disease-free so, really, he has fiiU control. If need be, the permits can be canceUed at short notice and action can be taken. The Minister has covered the situation fairly weU. I also compUment the Minister on the proposal covering people out on horse-riding excursions, whether they be pony club kids or mums and dads taking thefr kids for a horse ride. There have been some unnecessary requfrements in getting permits in clean areas. Many people have discussed the pony club situation with me. I understand there could be some sort of permit for pony clubs if the movements were restricted and watched closely. I am the first to admit that, if there are any problems with disease, the legislation ought to be amended immediately, but, as long as the State can be kept free of disease and there is no problem with movement, the provisions covering movement of stock or problem areas can be canceUed, or stock can be put in different areas. The Minister has made it quite clear, and it is pretty logical what can happen regarding part of a property being closed off if a disease breaks out or a particular species is to be isolated from otiier stock. GeneraUy speaking, the problem is pretty well covered and I think that this legislation is something Uke the previous piece of legislation, which has had quite a deal of thought put into it. There is one other point that is relevant to boarding kennels and pet shops. Boarding kennels have been something of a problem over the years. One thing that I would sound a note of waming about is the fact that some of the people to whom I have spoken who mn boarding kennels, and some of the people who take their pets to boarding kennels, have said to me that they have been very pleased that the DPI inspection takes place. They have been more concemed and more satisfied with the DPI inspections than they have been with local goverament inspections. I tmst that when the Minister considered leaving the inspections to local authorities, he brought to thefr notice the need for very regular and very strict inspections of boarding kennels. Most of the boarding kennels in south-east Queensland that I have seen are very weU mn and very hygenic. Local authorities have imposed the usual restrictions with regard to the movement of sludge and simUar matters. I simply bring to the attention of the Minister that he should keep himself informed, so that if local authorities become lackadaisical in thefr inspections and there is some reason for thinking that the job is not being done as weU as the officers of the Department of Primary Industries did it in the past, he can take action. In saying that, I do not condemn local authorities. It is simply that in the past this has not been one of thefr responsibiUties. I know for a fact that in my electorate the local authority has not been 3580 18 Febmary 1986 Stock Act Amendment BiU

anywhere near as regular in its inspections as the Department of Primary Industries was previously. I hope that the Minister has taken that on board. The only problem relative to the deregulation of pet shops as provided for in the BUl is whether the Govemment has control over the movement of certain pets. In saying that, I have in mind past proposals to introduce legislation controUing fish and bfrds. I tmst that the Department of Primary Industries, or whichever authority has responsibihty over those matters, is keeping a close watch on that. It appears to me that the deregulation might create problems in cases of bird or fish smugghng. Once again, that could come about because local authorities might not have the expertise of the Department of Primary Industries. I consider that, apart from the matters I have mentioned, the legislation is quite reasonable. As I said at the beginning, the BUl looks to be a massive document, but as one reads through it one sees that there is nothing wrong with it. Stock-owners and those who move stock are quite happy about the relaxation that has been provided for by the concessional permit. That also appUes to those in pony clubs and others who wish to go riding at week-ends. They are very pleased with the relaxation, which wiU faciUtate thefr undertaking those excursions. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (7.47 p.m.): In supporting the passage of the Stock Act Amendment BiU through the House, I am pleased to note the comments of the member for Murmmba, who also supported the legislation. I suggest that the work that has gone into this BiU is much the same as that which went into the Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment BiU, which has just been dealt with. The officers of the Department of Primary Industries have been very co-operative and the Minister has been only too wilUng to have his committee fully involved. I beUeve that that helps to get legislation into the right sort of shape before it is presented to the House. I am pleased also that much consultation took place with the United Graziers Association, the Cattlemen's Union and the Department of Primary Industries. Over the Christmas recess, the Minister's committee had the chance to take the BiU to members of those organisations and thrash out its provisions. As a result, the House has before it legislation that goes a long way towards further improving service to the beef industry and other stock industries in Queensland. Of course, because of the downturn in the grain and sugar industries, the beef industry wUl play a more important role in the nation's export eamings. The Stock Act first came into being in 1896 as a result of the consoUdation of a number of Acts. The legislation has since been refined in various ways. I notice that a fafr percentage of the BiU before the House deals with assisting the BTEC program, which is a nation-wide program involving the expenditure of huge amounts of money. The industry is a long way down the track towards making that program a reaUty and has reached the stage that it cannot afford to aUow it to faU. Some of the measures introduced in the BiU wiU assist in achieving that and tidy up the loose ends. I am aware that on Cape York Peninsula and in the far north of Queensland a few remaining areas have to be cleaned up. Because of the large holdings, those areas present special problems. Some of the properties up there stiU have unfenced boundaries and feral cattle—scmbbers or whatever one Ukes to caU them. That presents aU sorts of problems. Those who undertake mustering in that type of country are not always assured of a clean muster. In addition, I have been told by the owners of the big properties that when stock are mustered over big areas there is a stress factor that causes stock losses. Because of that, the owners do not want to be involved in any more musters than necessary. Therefore, it seems that the steps taken in this BiU wUl assist in that regard. The member for Murmmba has mentioned already the special powers given to the Minister with regard to destocking and the buUding of fencing. The BiU provides for an arrangement under which the Minister and a property-owner can draw up thefr own program for destocking a property. I^ a property-owner deems that his property is Stock Art Amendment BiU 18 Febmary 1986 3581

unmusterable, the Crown can step in and undertake a muster, but no compensation wiU be paid to the property-owner. I consider that to be quite reasonable. I am also pleased that the BUl provides for the purchase of infected stock. Anyone who buys infected stock wiU be assured of a refund. The definition of "infected stock" has been improved to include the complete draft of those stock rather than only some of them. I understand that that wUl overcome one or two problems. The BiU wiU refine further the concessional permit procedure. It is something that has been accepted in the bush in the last couple of years. Property-owners who hve some distance from town wiU not need to arrange for a permit to move thefr stock backwards and forwards. OriginaUy, provision was made for property-owners to move stock on a concessional permit within 65 km. Honourable members would reaUse that the further west one travels, especiaUy in the Maranoa, Warrego and central Queensland districts, 65 km between properties is not very far. The wording has been changed to "within the same ownership". It seems that the Cattlemen's Union and the United Graziers Association find that acceptable. Of particular interest to some of the people in my electorate is the movement of cattle to and from clearing dips. Some persons in the northera part of the Condamine electorate are in the buffer zone. Before they can seU thefr cattie, they must have them cleared through a dip and inspected by the stock-inspector. It involves some hassles on their part. They will be pleased with the BiU. I have some sympathy for those persons. I know of a couple of property-owners who have not had ticks on thefr properties for years but, for the good of the whole nation and the beef industry, have been kept in that buffer zone. Through no fault of thefr own, they have gone through the ritual of having thefr stock sprayed and cleared. I know that at present the department is considering some changes in the Cadarga area. As long as the industry is not put in danger, whatever can be done within reason to help those property-owners is very welcome. The honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger) also mentioned concessional permits being used for the movement of stock across the border to abattoirs, at places such as Tenterfield, that are not very far from the Queensland border. That is a sensible move. Obviously, the stock are under good control. Should diseased stock be lost as a result of a tmck overtuming or when driven by foot, the BUl places an onus on the drover or the tmck-driver to notify the department and the property-owner immediately. The BiU provides for the destmction of contaminated stock. That is something that should be done for the good of the industry. As to the quarantine provisions—the BiU is now specific and a particular species is named rather than aU the stock on mn. That is good sense. FoUowing an outbreak of influenza in poultry not long ago, although the influenza did not affect the other species of stock on properties, whole properties were quarantined. The BiU contains some improvements in the control of stock entering Queensland from the southera States. The Minister wiU have the power to act more quickly. Once again, that wiU be for the good of the industry. Wider powers are given to the Minister and his department in the searching and cleansing of vehicles and other things associated with stock. The BiU provides for the seizure of permits and way-biUs to help officers carry out thefr investigations to make sure that diseases are contained. The animal hberationists should be pleased with the provision that gives inspectors the power to prevent the further transport of stock that have been injured. Although animal Uberationists may have high ide^s, they are not specific enough about the matters about which they complain. It is weU known to people in the stock industry that stock produce most or grow fat more quickly under ideal conditions. Any primary producer worth his salt follows the best husbandry practices he can. At times, primary producers become alarmed when animal Uberationists shoot with a shotgun when they could be 3582 18 Febmary 1986 Stock Act Amendment BiU shooting with a pea-rifle. I beheve that animal Uberationists could commend many primary producers in Australia for the way they handle thefr stock and, by monitoring thefr diet, looking after the quaUty of water and controling diseases, make sure that their stock do not undergo unnecessary stress. In fact, it can be said that animal husbandry practices in Austraha are probably as good as those anywhere else in the world. No doubt local authorities wiU be pleased to get dogs and cats under thefr control. That is a minor point, about which the honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger) spoke. There seems to be some agreement between the various departments. I tura to the increase in penalties to $1,000. Many people in my part of the world are very much aware of stock-steaUng. They would also like to see the penalties raised for that offence because they believe that stealing of stock is a very premeditated action. Increased penalties have been caUed for for a long time. I think it is appropriate to make that comment now, even though it might not apply to this BiU. With new methods of moving stock, it is possible to move them 400 or 500 miles in a night. That being the case, it is more difficult for the pohce to catch offenders. It becomes a more premeditated crime. Remembering that these days stock are worth so much more, I beheve that wherever the Goverament can, it should press to increase the penalties for Stock-steaUng in order to help to protect the industry. In conclusion, I commend the BiU. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and the manner in which he has worked on the committee, and I thank the officers of the Department of Primary Industries for thefr assistance. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (7.56 p.m.): I, too, congratulate the Minister and the officers of the Department of Primary Industries on the presentation of this BiU. It is a step in the right dfrection. I am sure that, in saying that, I speak for aU members of the Liberal Party. It must be very gratifying to the mral industry to note some of the figures that are contained in the Minister's second-reading speech. It is expected that by the end of 1988 the tuberculosis eradication scheme wiU be completed throughout Queensland. Queens­ land wiU be a disease-free State. That wiU be a wonderful thing. When one considers the size of Queensland, it is certainly no mean feat to have a disease-free State. There now remain only 141 herds, from a total of 34 000 herds, that are infected with this disease. I beUeve that the department, the Minister and aU those conceraed are to be congratulated. The eradication of tuberculosis from cattie is a wonderful thing for the meat trade of Queensland, and of AustraUa, too, for that matter. The figures show that trying to eradicate this disease has been weU worth whUe. The target of having no TB- infected properties by 1990 is gratifying. In my opinion, the Govemment is providing tremendous assistance to people in the far west and in the outback. Some property- owners in those area find it very difficult to muster thefr stock. It is certainly very helpful to those owners to receive some monetary assistance in regard to cattie that are unable to be mustered. The Minister, who comes from the west himself, fiiUy understands that sometimes the only way to eradicate those stock is by desfroying them. That assistance wiU be important to many of those people, who, I am sure, are just as anxious as people nearer the coast to get rid of this very contagious disease. Some monetary assistance wUl be given towards the constmction of strategic fences to assist in the eradication progress in the Nicholson River district of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Some protection is provided for property-owners. That protection is provided—and I quote from the Miruster's second-reading speech—"when an owner advises in writing— and I repeat, 'in writing'—of his inability to comply with the order." Because a property-owner is to be given notice in writing, the legislation provides a safeguard so that inspectors cannot simply thunder in and destroy stock at wiU. It is pleasing to see in the legislation such a provision that wiU offer protection to owners. Stock Art Amendment Bill 18 February 1986 3583

The BiU provides for greater equity because it removes some of the more cumbersome requfrements contained in the existing Act. I refer to the provision that relates to obtaining permits to take horses through one area into another, which, I assume, is intended to include people who are involved in camp-drafting and the like. I have a property in the Roma district, and I reahse that camp-drafting is one of the few ways in which people who Uve in the area can relax. It is one of the few pleasures that can be enjoyed by people who Uve under such harsh conditions. It is pleasing that those people will now be able to move about without the necessity of obtaining a permit, which previously involved the production of a way- biU and a stock declaration certificate. I note that the legislation is also intended to make more specific the measures that wiU be used to control disease in a property placed under quarantine. In his second- reading speech, the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Turaer) pointed out that "at present, the quarantine notice imposes a blanket imposition upon aU stock on that quarantined property." I informed the House that I have had personal experience of this blanket imposition on a property known as Fairfield, which is situated in an area to the south of Roma. Approximately 500 head of cattle were brought from QuUpie and, although they had been tested at QuUpie, when they subsequently arrived at Roma, three of them were suspected of having contracted tuberculosis. It was unfortunate that those cattle had not been detected before they arrived at the Roma property. However, I point out that at no time did those cattle mix with other cattle. The affected cattle were put into one paddock, which did not so much as adjoin a paddock containing other stock, because another paddock always separated the stock. Despite that, the whole property was placed under quarantine, and that caused financial difficulty. Because of the quarantine restrictions, other cattle were not able to be sold. Fattened stock that were ready to go to market were not so drastically affected by the quarantine restrictions, but the store stock were unable to be sold. Although the contaminated cattle had at no time been in contact with other stock on the property, financial difficulty was experienced because of the quarantine restrictions. I therefore welcome the amendment because I beheve that a blanket quarantine restriction should not be imposed over an entfre property when contaminated cattle do not come into contact with other stock. The cfrcumstances that I have described wiU probably never occur again, because cattle from the QuUpie area would possibly be included in the 34 (XK) herds that have undergone the tuberculosis eradication treatment. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I welcome the provisions contained in the legislation. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (8.4 p.m.): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate, but before doing so, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Turaer) on bringing forward this legislation and pursuing the matters that are the subject of the BUl. There are two or three matters I wish to comment on, the first of which is concessional permits. When concessional permits were originaUy considered, it was feared that they would be troublesome, but, although some departmental officers have experienced difficulty with them, it appears that they have been a success. The fact that some extension is now being made is proof that the Minister feels the same way. The department should be looking at the use of concessional permits in certain cfrcumstances. Today the department, when deahng with the average land-holder, is deahng with someone who has a great knowledge of his property and the problems that can occur if he does not do the right thing. In those cfrcumstances, there is a good chance of concessional permits being a success. Thefr introduction had been a step in the right direction and should be pursued. It is only right that the Minister should pursue the eradication programs to the end. In the early days, many people copped a fair whipping because under these programs thefr herds were substantiaUy reduced, and so it is only right that, if possible, the 3584 18 Febmary 1986 Stock Act Amendment BiU programs should be carried through to a conclusion. I do not know whether it wiU ever be able to be said that Queensland wiU be 100 per cent disease free, because somewhere along the line outbreaks wiU occur. I might be wrong, but smaU outbreaks could occur. I suppose that eteraal vigilance is the only way in which such outbreaks can be prevented. If it is necessary, fences should have to be erected, because I do not see any reason why the programs should be halted or messed round with at this late stage when the number of infected herds has been reduced to 141. That figure surprised me, as it did the member for Yeronga and the member for Murmmba. But, like the member for Murmmba, I am prepared to beheve that that figure is correct and that within a short time, perhaps a generation or so, one can look forward to Queensland's being free of both TB and bmceUosis. As I said, I am surprised but pleased. I accept that there seems to be a determination to go on and finish the job. There is not much point in not deahng with outlying pockets of infected cattle, unless it is absolutely impossible to reach them, because not deahng with them only means that there is likely to be another outbreak. Both the State and Federal Goveraments have spent a great deal of money on the programs and it is only right that they should be carried through to thefr conclusion. I rose to support the BiU. I do not intend to talk about pet shops, because that is an area about which I do not have a great deal of knowledge. I point out that I do not doubt what was said about them. I do agree with what the honourable member for Yeronga said about pony clubs. I hope that the legislation covers those people taking horses to camp drafts and rodeos. Anything that makes it easier for people to be involved in that sport wiU be appreciated. The number of people attending rodeos and bushmen's carnivals has increased dramaticaUy in the last 10 to 15 years. Because they enjoy it so much, a number of people have even bought hobby farms so that they can have access to horses and the sport. Although late in the afteraoon after an event it can be a nuisance to have to comply with certain regulations, nevertheless there are times when regulations have to be strictiy enforced. I compUment the Minister and the department on the greater degree of common sense that they have shown by putting forward some of the changes spelt out in the BiU. Nevertheless, I stiU want to see the two eradication programs completed to the best of the department's abiUty. On the issue of freeing up regulations to help sporting organisations, I support any move in that dfrection as well. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Wartego—Minister for Primary Industries) (8.9 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable member for Murmmba for his contribution to the debate insofar as he supported the BiU. In my second-reading speech I explained in detaU the objects of the BiU. The honourable member inqufred about BTEC funding. It has now cost the industry and the State and Federal Govemments about $300m since the start of the scheme about 10 years ago. There is no tuming back on it. The costs to the industry have been high. Certainly the program is now operating in areas where the cost to clean up those herds is escalating, but the amount of money is diminishing and there is no way in the world that we can tum back now. Mr Kruger interjected. Mr TURNER: No, the honourable member did not indicate that we would be tuming back. There is no suggestion that the Goverament wiU tura away from furthering the clean-up that has been achieved. On the matter of operating costs—70 per cent is provided by the industry and 30 per cent by the State. In matters of compensation, 75 per cent of the cost is met by the Commonwealth and 25 per cent by the State. The costs of additional measures are met on the basis of 50 per cent by the Commonwealth and 50 per cent by the State. As I said, we have a 10-year program which is reviewed every 12 months. If people do not perform within 12 months, action has to be taken to ensure that the scheme progresses. I should say that, with very few exceptions, people throughout the State have been very Adjoumment 18 February 1986 3585 co-operative. After aU, it is in the interests of the industry and the people conceraed to achieve clean status for thefr herds so that they may have access to markets at a better price. The department has good relations with local goverament authorities and expects co-operation in the inspection of registered boarding kennels. Most controls over pet shops are exercised by the National Parks and WUdlife Service in the various areas. The member for Condamine supported the legislation. He has a thorough knowledge of the industry and, as a member of my BiUs committee, has in-depth knowledge of the legislation. He spoke particularly about problems experienced in the Gulf country through stress factors. I am sure that all honourable members are aware of the great distances, the heat and the rainy seasons in that area which create exceptional problems. He spoke of the problems experienced in maintaining tick barriers. We appreciate that, at times, some people may be disadvantaged, but it is very important to retain the tick barriers and control areas to prevent the spread of ticks into clean areas. He spoke of the very important improvements in quarantining. He dealt with many facets of the BiU, and I thank him for his support. The honourable member for Yeronga supported the BiU. I thank him for his congratulations on the progress of the BTEC agreement. My officers are doing a first- class job in this campaign throughout the State. I take this opportunity to congratulate them on the role that they have been playing. The honourable member also spoke of the problems associated with finding tuberculosis or bmceUosis in a recently purchased herd, and he supported the changes to the legislation to overcome them. I point out to honourable members who referred to permits that horse-owners can obtain a five-year concessional permit to move horses to sporting events. Unless stock is being moved to a ticky area, the total exemption from permits apphes only to horses that are ridden or led. The honourable member for Warwick spoke of the importance of having fencing to eradicate disease in Gulf areas. Fencing has been undertaken in the Nicholson River area. On certain properties, it may be necessary to erect strategic fencing for a final clean-up. The honourable member also referred to the clean-up date. It is hoped that free status throughout the country will be achieved by 1992. The honourable member correctly stated that we cannot leave pockets of unclean land. I am sure that neither the industry nor the owners of clean areas wUl aUow the Govemment to stop the program when the goal is so close. As the honourable member said, the permit changes are widely acclaimed by most people. They wiU go a long way to overcoming some of the problems that we have experienced in the past. I again thank aU honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion (Mr Turaer) agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 35, as read, agreed to. BUl reported, without amendment.

Thfrd Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Turaer, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Buraett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjoura." 3586 18 February 1986 Adjoumment

Cyclone Winifred Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (8.17 p.m.): I draw attention to the lack of Goverament initiative after cyclone Winifred. On the Monday foUowing the cyclone, the Premier and Treasurer and Mr Whiting, who are respectively the leader of the State and the leader of the State Emergency Service, visited the area. A lot of initiatives should have been taken by those two men. They came into the area by heUcopter and made a first-hand inspection. I believe that they saw most of the area that had been affected by the cyclone. The people in the area were left wondering why the State Goverament did not take many initiatives. On the Monday afteraoon, Mr John Kerin, together with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) and the deputy director of the Natural Disasters Organisation, also visited the area to look at the devastation caused by cyclone Winifred. A lot of concem has been expressed about the formula used by the State and Federal Goveraments after a disaster has occurted. Firstly, a disaster area is declared. Under the formula, the State Goverament spends the first $ 10.75m. After the expenditure of $ 10.75m, and up to $17m, the Federal and State Governments make a contribution on a doUar-for-doUar basis. After the expenditure of $17m, the Federal and State Goveraments make a contribution on a $3 for $1 basis. Mr McPhie: Mr Kerin didn't know that. Mr EATON: Mr Kerin did know that. Mr McPhie: No, he did not. I saw him on television. Mr EATON: Mr Kerin knew, and the Premier and Treasurer knew. I was present when the Premier and Treasurer explained the formula to the people in the shfre haU Ubrary in Innisfail. The formula was explained by Mr Kerin in the shire council meeting room. They made identical statements. They both knew the formula. Mr Kerin said that if the State Goverament sought any assistance under the guide- hnes of the disaster rehef system that had been set up, the request had to be made to Canberra by Mr Whiting, E>irector of the State Emergency Service. Apparently, some of the requests were not made. People in north Queensland want to know why those requests were not made to Canberra. Mr Whiting, at the Premier and Treasurer's request, could have requested Hercules aircraft to fly in vehicles, equipment and hne gangs to get the power supply back on in north Queensland. That is a very sore point with the residents in that area. The last of the power lines was enei^ised at 6 p.m. on 15 Febmary, which was 14 days after the cyclone. Some people up there stUl do not have power, which is not really the fault of the electricity board. It is because of lack of numbers and lack of maintenance gangs in north Queensland as a result of the Goverament's pohcy relative to electricity. The sacked SEQEB workers offered to come to north Queensland for nothing and to work just for their tucker and a place to sleep. They were insulted. The Premier issued instmctions that they were not to be employed. The Govemment could have got the SEQEB workers or other gangs from local authorities flown in, with thefr vehicles and equipment, by Hercules aircraft at no cost to the State Govemment. It is no good sending men into an area like that unless they have the equipment to carry out the maintenance and the repairs that are needed. That is a sore point with the people of north Queensland. I will be asking tomortow, if I get the opportunity to ask a question, why those requests were not made to the Federal Goverament. This is a State election year, and probably the State Goverament did not want the Federal Goverament being seen in too good a light. When cyclone Althea hit TownsviUe, the army was brought in straight away, and the soldiers were known as the "green angels". The people of TownsvUle loved the army Adjoumment 18 Febmary 1986 3587 for the work it did in restoration and repair work after the cyclone. The same opportunity existed in north Queensland after cyclone Winifred. Although the army officers were not on the door-step and had to be mng at the army camp at TuUy, they had the men to answer a request for assistance but could not make them avaUable because permission had not been sought by the State Goverament of the people in Canberra. I tried to short-circuit the system and go straight to Canberta, because I could not get in touch with the SES director. I tried for over an hour to telephone him, but his number was engaged. Then I tried to telephone Canberra dfrect, but they knew the system and would not take any notice of me. They kept giving me wrong numbers such as National Parks. Mr McPhie: And so they should! Mr EATON: I can understand that, too. I am very disappointed at the effort put up by the Government of Queensland. The Premier and Treasurer did not come out strai^t away and declare a disaster area, something that the people of north Queensland were waiting for. On Monday, two days after the cyclone, the Premier was asked and he said, "Yes, I am going to declare a state of disaster." When asked on another occasion, he said, "It wUl be declared a state of disaster."

State and Corporate Travel Centre, Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (8.22 p.m.): I wish to address myself to the activities of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Those activities should cause great concem to any member of this House who has a commitment to free enterprise. I do not wish to canvass the corporation's accounts and similar matters, which, no doubt, wiU be raised at some length in this Chamber. I am more concemed about the thmst that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has shown in recent months. The Govemment claims—and it is supported in this by members of the Liberal Party—that this is a free enterprise State in which encouragement should be given to private business to expand and in which support should be given to private companies; yet honourable members have already seen the incredible act of a so-caUed free-enterprise Govemment in introducing Govemment equity into tourist resorts, particularly at Port Douglas. Now the Govemment is to begin mnning State tourist resorts in Queensland. If any persons in this State ever visited the Jenolan Caves resort when it was being mn by the New South Wales Govemment, that alone should be a great enough ai^ument against State Govemment involvement in such enterprises. Mr McPhie interjected. Mr GYGAR: I hear the honourable gentleman opposite defending the Government's actions. I wonder whether he would care to explain to the House how it fits in with the alleged free-enterprise policies of the party that he says he supports. However, in the last couple of weeks the activities of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation have given even greater cause for concem. I refer to the estabUshment of the State and Corporate Travel Centre. Is it any wonder that operators and tourist agents throughout the State are absolutely outraged about this latest piece of socialism from the State Goverament? I would like to quote from a letter that has been circulated widely to people, to offices and to corporations in this State. 3588 18 Febmary 1986 Adjoumment

It says in part— "The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has taken the initiative by estabUshing a Corporate Travel Division to offer a range of services that Australian Political and Business Leaders require and deserve. The State and Corporate Travel Centre has been specifically designed to handle Govemment, Semi-Govemment, and Business travel accounts of large multinational Companies and Corporations." That is a classic example of State bureaucracy in action. In any other place the estabUshment of such a body would be described as sociaUsm, but, because of the professed predUections of this Govemment, in Queensland it undoubtedly has some other interesting name. To me, socialism occurs when the State mns something. Socialism mns wild when the State forms new bodies in competition with private enterprise when the State afready has a share of the market that cannot be denied to it. In particular, that relates to Govemment and semi-Govemment institutions. Does anyone seriously doubt that the State and Corporate Travel Centre wiU get all of the business from the semi-Govemment institutions? Does anyone doubt that certain moral suasion will be used to lean on business-leaders of large companies and corporations that do great business with the Govemment so that they toe the hne and deal with this new sociahst entity, the State and Corporate Travel Centre? As I have said, travel agencies throughout the State are outraged by this move. They became concemed when the Port Douglas project was launched and they found that the anti-sociahst, free enterprise Govemment of Queensland was to mn its own tourist resorts. Now the anti-sociahst State Govemment of Queensland is setting up its own travel agencies. Something must be done to look at the operations and methods of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation to ensure that we put a stop to these sociaUst activities once and for aU, otherwise the days will soon be gone when these transparent caUs about free enterprise will be believed by anyone in Queensland when they are mouthed by a Goverament that supports agencies of sociahsm such as this. Housing Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (8.26 p.m.): I wish to speak about a matter of growing concem to many Queenslanders, a concem that they share with people round Austraha. That matter is housing and the difficulties that are being experienced increasingly by both home-seekers and people in the housing industry. The problem has been caused by the Federal Labor Govemment's ill-considered and uncaring approach to these matters. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BOOTH: Honourable members opposite think that high interest rates are a joke, but they are hitting people other than farmers. If ever a Goverament should hang its head in shame, it is the Federal Labor Goverament. Mr Campbell interjected. Mr BOOTH: I intend to highlight the actions of honourable members opposite. One of the most remarkable things about these actions of the Federal Goverament has been the sUence of Labor members in Queensland. That silence can be taken only as a clear sign that the ALP in Queensland condones its Federal counterpart's policies and has washed its hands of the plight of home-seekers, particularly the poorer members of our community. No-one on the Opposition benches spoke out about the cuts to the Federal Goverament's First Home Owners Scheme that hit particularly at the lower-income- earaer wanting to get into his own home. It is telUng—very teUing indeed—that that scheme is now falUng short of its lending target. In fact, recentiy the Premier of Westera Adjoumment 18 February 1986 3589

Australia (Mr Burke) stated that FHOS would be underspent by $50m this year. He is not of the same political colour as the party of which I am a member. Firstly the Federal Labor Goverament cut loans to borrowers and now it finds that it wiU not be able to aUocate the miUions of doUars that should have gone to home-seekers. What a disgrace! What a deplorable situation! On top of those actions were the anti-investment moves such as the introduction of a capital gains tax and the ban on negative gearing, which were introduced as part of the Keating tax package and are now proving successful in pushing investors out of the private rental market. Where are the champions of the home-seekers who are facing a ti^tening rental market and higher rents? They cannot be found in the ALP, because, once again, it has been mute on this matter. The high interest rate pohcy introduced by the Federal Goverament is sapping the hfe-blood of so many smaU businesses, the mral industries and the housing industry. I cannot understand how any Labor man can sit down and accept the high interest rate policy of the Hawke Govemment. That policy is a disgrace and something should be done about it. Mr Stephan: They are very quiet over there. Mr BOOTH: Yes, they are very quiet. Members of the Labor Party have told us that they have a low interest rate policy, but interest rates in the nation are now at 20 per cent. The Hawke Govemment claims that increasing interest rates wiU help the value of the doUar. WeU, that has not helped the doUar much yet. If it had not been for the actions of the Federal Goverament, the dollar would not be at its present sickening level. Once again, on this matter not a word was heard from the Labor Party in Queensland. The silence of the Opposition is deafening. The Queensland Goverament has not been silent. It has repeatedly waraed of the consequences of the Federal Goverament's poUcies, or lack of them, and what they wiU mean. But actions speak louder than words, and the Queensland Govemment has significantly stepped up its assistance to home-seekers. Both rental and home-ownership funding saw significant increases in the curtent Budget. With the cut-back in housing finance through traditional lending sources, increasing demand has been made by home-buyers for assistance from the Housing Commission. To cater for that demand, the Housing Commission has considerably expanded its processing of housing loan applications. In the first seven months of this financial year, loan approvals to borrowers through the commission totaUed more than $90.7m. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent on the value of loans approved for the same period in 1984-85. Compared with the same period last year, the number of applicants granted loans in the seven months to the end of January this year has also increased by just on 44 per cent. The Housing Commission has continued to expand its home-purchase funds to help meet the growing need to lower-income-eamers and wiU significantly exceed its original target of $ 130m for the financial year. In fact, it expects now to lend approximately $145m to help Queenslanders into thefr own home during 1985-86. That is a good example of the State Goverament's real care for the home-seekers of our community. The present disastrous interest rates wiU wreck the housing industry. They wiU deny most of the young people in this fair land the opportunity of owning thefr own home. Worse than that, the confidence of small businesses and everyone thinking of investing in a community project wiU be sapped. Time expired. Welfare of Women in Queensland Ms WARNER (Kurilpa) (8.31 p.m.): I draw the attention of the pubUc of Queensland and, specifically, the members of this Assembly, to just one aspect of how the National Party Government is behaving in a way that is disastrous to the welfare and benefit of 3590 18 Febmary 1986 Adjoumment women in Queensland. A whole range of issues needs to be documented, some of which have afready been raised in respect of rape law reform and women's services. I draw attention to the behaviour of the Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General (Mr Harper). In 1985, he embarked upon what can only be described as a cmsade on behalf of the so-caUed Right to Life oiganisation and against women in Queensland. His desfre was to stamp out abortion in Queensland regardless of the wrong that he may faU into in so doing. It has never been adequately estabUshed who authorised the raid on the Greenslopes Fertihty Chnic in May 1985. The Minister defended those raids, arguing that iUegal practices may be occurring. Those raids were subsequently deemed by the courts to be iUegal, and the files were ordered to be retumed. Who was the criminal in that instance? Not content with leaving that mistake behind him and knowing the poUtical odium into which it brought the National Party Goverament, having conducted himself in a totally irtesponsible manner with those raids, incurring at the same time a disapproval rate of 70 per cent of the people in Queensland who were polled on their attitude to the raids, and totally disregarding curtent standards and attitudes on the subject of abortion, the Minister pursued his vendetta. Mr Borbidge: Whose standards? Yours? Ms WARNER: They are not my standards. They are the standards of the general community. They are the standards that have been upheld in the courts of this State. It is a reasonable, humane interpretation of the law. Those are the standards to which I refer. The Minister, not content with the debacle of the raids, prosecuted Dr Bayhss and Dr CuUen under sections 224 and 282 of the Criminal Code in a vain attempt to close down the Greenslopes chnic. That can only be described as an obsession on his part. The recent decision in The Queen v. Bayliss and CuUen was a sound decision based on the humanitarian principles of the welfare of the woman conceraed and existing law and precedent. That case was oufrageously prosecuted by the Dfrector of Prosecutions (Des Sturgess) who seemed to be more intent on pursuing his contention that sections 224 and 282 of the Criminal Code were enough by themselves to close down the cUnic than he was in the particular circumstances of the case. Judge McGufre reiterated the spirit of the British case of The Queen v. Bourae 1938, which was reinforced by Justice Menhennit in 1969. Those decisions, which were based on some understanding that danger to hfe meant something other than immediate death, were reinforced, and Queensland was no exception to that law. The prevaiUng common law is quite clear and has been upheld in Queensland. The Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General has disputed the court's mhng in The Queen v. BayUss and CuUen and has said that he will appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal regarding the judge's summing-up. If the Minister does that, he wiU undoubtedly lose. Judge McGuire is not known for his controversial judgments. His decision is supportable within the law. If the Minister faUs, as he is bound to, in order to preserve his dignity, and his vendetta, he would have to legislate to change the law, and that would be contrary to contemporary public opinion. It is an undisputed fact that, in recent years, the majority of people polled support the availabiUty of abortion within the first trimester. In a democracy, the Govemment should take heed of public opinion poUs. The Minister should drop his vendetta against Queensland women. He should listen to his own National Party secretary and drop the whole issue. The actions of the Minister throughout the whole affair can be constmed as nothing better than harassment of women in Queensland. Adjoumment 18 February 1986 3591

In the Ught of the continuous bungling of the issue by the accident-prone Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, he should for once do the honourable thing and resign. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (8.36 p.m.): I rise in this Adjoumment debate Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is no indication on the hst given to me by the Whips that the honourable member for Windsor was to speak. I caU the Minister for Education (Mr PoweU). Mr Comben: He's not on his feet. Hervey Bay City Council; Allegations by Member for Bundaberg Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (8.37 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the hst that I had, I was last to speak. I apologise for not standing. From time to time, members of ParUament have the opportunity of bringing matters of interest to the attention of the people of Queensland. It is unfortunate that, by using this fomm to castigate other members of Parliament, members of ParUament occasionaUy abuse that privUege, which is based on tradition. I rise in this Adjoumment debate to rectify an erroneous castigation of one of my constituents by a member of this Parhament. The instance to which I refer occurred on 27 November last year during the debate on the Local Govemment and City of Brisbane Town Planning Acts Amendment BiU, when the honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr CampbeU) rose in his place and talked about the Hervey Bay City CouncU. Although the honourable member for Bundaberg lives in the Isis electorate, I think it is wrong for him to take it upon himself to speak about matters pertaining to the Hervey Bay City CouncU when he has not even bothered to ascertain the facts. Evidently, the honourable member for Bundaberg obtained a letter from the Hervey Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association, whose members took it upon themselves— for reasons best known to themselves—to write to the honourable member for Bundaberg on a matter of rezoning in the Hervey Bay City Council area. The honourable member for Bundaberg, in his eagemess to get up in Parhament and attempt to castigate a particular person, did not bother to check the facts. In fact, during his speech, the honourable member for Bundaberg had the temerity to say that the member for the area does not hsten to those people. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I listen very carefuUy to my constituents and decide whether they are attempting to lead me up the garden path or not. I can also assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Hervey Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association led the honourable member for Bundaberg well and tmly up the garden path. Of course, the fact that a former counciUor on the Hervey Bay City Council is a member of that association and also a member of the ALP, and is feeding the other members with erroneous information is beside the point. In his speech, the honourable member for Bundaberg quoted from a telex sent by that association, which stated in part— ". . . three out of the present eleven aldermen have indicated dissatisfaction with the way that present council business is being conducted and that they would not be averse to resignation or even the appointment of an administrator." Tonight, I call upon those so-called three aldermen to stand up and be counted and resign from the councU, because it is obvious that they are trying to subvert the work that the councU is doing. The present Hervey Bay City CouncU, which was elected in March 1985, is an exceptionally good councU, and one that works very weU indeed. The councU is doing its very best for the city of Hervey Bay, which contrasts with the efforts made by the previous council. During his speech, the honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr CampbeU) castigated Alderman Bob Graham simply because Alderman Graham decided to take on a subagency 3592 18 February 1986 Adjoumment for K.R. Darling Downs products. This gentleman was operating the subagency from his own home, using his own phone number. I wonder whether the honourable member for Bundaberg has asked for a rezoning for his residence because his telephone is used by him as a member of Parliament. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that such should be the case, simply because Alderman Graham is an alderman on the Hervey Bay City CouncU. I stress that he is a very good alderman, and that he should not be castigated erroneously in this place simply because he has taken on a subagency for a particular company. The honourable member for Bundaberg also stated that the planning and development committee of the Hervey Bay City Council had decided, prior to its election in March, to impose conditions on a development in Hervey Bay. The development was being operated by Rolfroght Pty Ltd, of which Alderman Graham—at that time, Mr Graham— was a director. One of the conditions was the payment of a bond of $lm as a guarantee for this particular project. It would be clear to the simplest-minded person in this House—and even the honourable member for Bundabei^ should be able to understand it—that if a bond of $lm is placed on a company in an area such as Hervey Bay, it is most unUkely that the project would go ahead. I ask honourable members to consider why the imposition of such a bond should have occurred. Clearly it is the case that the previous chairman of that town-planning committee, a feUow caUed Cassey who was also a real estate agent, was trying to obtain land for a development which would be in competition with the Rollroght development in Hervey Bay. It is therefore fairly clear that Mr Cassey is the person who is leaking the information to the honourable member for Bundaberg, who fooUshly comdemns Alderman Graham in this House for having a vested interest. I emphasise that at the relevant time. Alderman Graham was not a member of the Hervey Bay councU when this matter was brought to the attention of the people at Hervey Bay. When Alderman Graham stood for election to the council, it was made clear by him that he was a director of that company. Envfronmental PoUcy of the National Party Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (8.42 p.m.): The recent kilUng by crocodiles of two young women in north Queensland has been a tragic blow to thefr famiUes, and I am sure that every member of this Assembly feels sympathy for the families of those victims. Members of the Opposition certainly sympathise with members of the famihes who remain. The response to those tragedies by the former Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) is symptomatic of the care and concera felt by members of the National Party for the environment. It is to this topic that I wish to address my remarks this evening, because in this State there is no doubt that the National Party has declared war on the envfronment. When two deaths are caused by crocodUes, what is heard from the National Party? "Eradicate the crocodiles!" Mr Randell: Have you ever been up there? Mr COMBEN: Yes, I have, but I did not go swimming in places where that was not the standard practice. All northera parUamentary representatives would know that there are some places where people should not go bathing. However, I tura my attention to the response of the former Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni), who advocated eradication of the crocodiles. The record of the reaction by the Queensland Goverament should be compared with what occurted in the Northera Territory in 1979- 80. At that time, two tragic deaths were similarly caused by crocodUes, but the Northera Territory Goverament decided that crocodUes were a plus for the Territory because they were a tourist attraction, and were part of the environment. The Northera Territory Goverament decided not to exact retribution by eradicating the crocodUes, but decided instead to ensure that members of the pubUc were protected. It did that in a two-pronged way: firstly, it introduced a program of pubhc education Adjoumment 18 February 1986 3593 about crocodUes; and, secondly, it introduced a scheme to farm crocodUes, which especiaUy included crocodiles that had become troublesome in other areas. Six years later, the result of that pohcy is that no further deaths have occurred in the Northera Territory. At a very young age, school-children are wamed of the dangers associated with crocodiles. A massive campaign was conducted throughout Northera Territory schools to instmct children that crocodUes were old territorians. They are told that crocodiles have a special place in the environment of the Northem Territory and that they should not be interfered with. Children are told, "They don't come up into your house, you don't go into their creeks." An Opposition Member: Do you know that Martin Tenni has a crocodUe caUed Big Martin? Mr COMBEN: No, I did not know that, but I am sure that one day it wiU get him. As I was saying, the chUdren of the Northem Territory were educated about crocodUes. Signs were placed wherever the public were hkely to go aU over the Northem Territory, and brochures waming of the dangers were handed out. The result has been keen public awareness of the problem and no further deaths. That is in total contrast to what has happened in Queensland. The Queensland Goverament has been content to say that crocodUes should be eradicated when it should be adopting a more positive approach. CrocodUes are a plus for this State. Of course, when a problem crocodUe appears, it should be removed from the water and placed in a farm to be kiUed for its skin or used for breeding. That is what happened in the Northera Territory and what should now be done in this State. But nothing hke that is done, because it might cost a few doUars. It is typical of this Govemment that it looks for the simphstic, the boon- type solution to an envfronmental problem. When one looks at other areas of envfron­ mental concera in Queensland such as the mangroves Mr RandeU: If you saw a member of your famUy menaced by a rogue crocodile, would you destroy it? Mr COMBEN: Of course I would, and I could do so under legislation that was passed last year. I am not talking about people being menaced by rogue crocodUes all the time; I am talking about the public being educated so that they do not put themselves in a position where they could be attacked. When one looks at all types of environmental concera, one must point out that nothing is being done, and that mangroves and wetlands are being desfroyed, particularly in Moreton Bay. There is a host of smaU decisions, and the end result of small developments, such as those in Raby Bay, the Pine River area and the Boondall wetlands, is that the whole of Moreton Bay vitil soon be tumed into a sterUe stretch of clean water with no fish or any other hving organisms at all. That wUl occur because the fish habitats and nurseries are quickly being destroyed. National parks form a smaUer percentage of Queensland than of any other State. National parks form only 2 per cent of the State Mr RandeU: That's not right. Mr COMBEN: It is right. Because the Govemment doctors the figures to increase the figures to 10 per cent, it includes forestry and envfronmental areas, but national parks form only a disgraceful 2.8 per cent of the State. Time expired. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjoumed at 8.48 p.m.

70589—121