Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 19 APRIL 1989

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

4848 19 April 1989 Papers

WEDNESDAY, 19 APRIL 1989

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. L.W. Powell, Isis) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Establishment of Nuclear Waste Dump at Redbank From Mr I. J. Gibbs (99 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to prevent the establishment of the proposed nuclear waste dump site at Redbank.

Boothville Hospital Funding From Mrs Nelson (174 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to provide contingency funding to allow Boothville Hospital to remain open. Similar petitions were received from Mr Sherlock (71 signatories) and Mr Gygar (122 signatories).

Education (General Provisions) Bill From Mr Austin (18 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to reconsider certain parts of the Education (General Provisions) Bill.

Proposed McKellar Development, Cairns From Mr De Lacy (2 407 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that the proposed McKellar development at Cairns is not allowed to proceed. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Commissioner of Land Tax for the year ended 30 June 1988 Division of Sport, Department of Education for the year ended 30 June 1988. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950-1987 Fisheries Act 1976-1984 Regulations under— Fisheries Act 1976-1984 Education (Student Work Experience) Act 1978-1989 Reports— Golden Circle Cannery for the year ended 30 November 1988 Queensland Canegrowers Association for the year ended 31 December 1988 Brisbane and Area Water Board for the year ended 30 June 1988. Ministerial Statement 19 AprU 1989 4849

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Referral of Wolffdene Dam Project to Public Works Committee Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (2.33 p.m.), by leave: I want to stress to this Parliament and the people of Queensland that the National Party Govemment stands tall as the most accountable Govemment in Australia. Part of that process of accountability is the establishment of a Public Works Committee. I take this opportunity to take the process of accountability a step further by announcing that the first matter which this Govemment will refer to the Public Works Committee is the Wolffdene dam project. That means that once the committee is up and mnning, the issue of the Wolffdene dam can be dealt with in a full and open manner on an aU-party basis. Unlike the Labor Govemments in Westem Australia, South Australia and Victoria, my National Party Govemment has nothing to hide. As Premier of Queensland, I assure honourable members that, in the years ahead, the policy of open Govemment will be a feature of the Queensland political scene.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Electric Shock at Home of Member for Archerfield; Security Guard Service at Stanwell Power Station Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Mines, Energy and Northem Development) (2.34 p.m.), by leave: Early this moming in this House, the honourable member for Archerfield sought answers to questions about an incident in which his wife suffered a mild electric shock at their home on 23 January of this year. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr TENNI: It is clear from some of his remarks that Mr Palaszczuk's understanding of electricity supply industry matters is insufficient to support a reasoned approach to his demands. Recently, the honourable member has made various statements to the media about the problem which, unfortunately, led to his wife's receiving the shock. The honourable member does not seem to realise that, if he had wanted answers, he could have obtained them by asking questions of the right parties rather than by going to the media. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr TENNI: As the honourable member has now raised the matter in this House Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Archerfield under Standing Order 123A for persistent inteijections. Mr TENNI: As the honourable member has now raised the matter in this House, I will try to answer his questions and put his mind at rest on various matters. Firstly, I emphasise as strongly as possible that at no time did any employee of the electricity supply industry say to Mr Palaszczuk or anyone else that his wife had received a 130-volt shock. Mr Palaszczuk: That's where you're wrong. Mr TENNI: I can provide the honourable member with some statutory declarations. The shock that Mrs Palaszczuk received was mild. Honourable members should make no mistake—a 30-volt shock is mild, no matter how unpleasant it might seem to 4850 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement be at the time that it is received. A significantly higher voltage than that and/or conditions vastly different from those applying in that incident are required to create a situation in which injury might result to any person. Although I appreciate the honourable member's concern for his wife's welfare, I must stress that the two incidents involving children, to which he referred, bear only a very superficial similarity to that incident. In those cases, faults caused the Uve electricity supply to be connected directly to earth, meaning that the full 240-volt potential might have been involved in those unfortunate accidents. Mrs Palaszczuk's shock could more tmthfuUy have been described as a little tingle. In fact, during the investigation of the incident it was described in that manner. Only 30 volts were involved—certainly not the 130 volts to which the honourable member referred. Mr Scott interjected. Mr TENNI: If the honourable member waits a while he will know. That 30 volts resulted from an out-of-balance condition which existed between the earth and the neutral cables on the supply to the homes of Mr Palaszczuk and his neighbour. The live conductor was not involved at aU. The possibility of the voltage in Mrs Palaszczuk's "tingle" being near 130 is extremely remote. The honourable member made the suggestion that none of the three gangs working on restoration of supply in these two faults knew what the others were doing. That is just plain mbbish. Of course they knew. The first gang made a temporary repair to the first fault; the second gang made a temporary repair to a second fault and the third gang made the permanent repair on the Monday morning. Each knew the other had worked in the area and each would have been made aware of the nature of the repairs. For the honourable member's benefit, a brief explanation of electricity industry procedures is needed to ensure that he fully understands the following points I am about to make. If any shock or other accident occurs in the electricity system, the electricity board in whose area the event occurs must report on it to the Queensland Electricity Commission. This applies whether the fault is in the supply system or on a customer's premises. It must be reported to the QEC. There never has been any requirement for the board or the QEC to make a report to any member of the community. Should the incident involve the work of an electrical worker, whether he is a board employee, a contractor or a contractor's employee or whatever, the QEC must refer the matter to the Electrical Workers and Contractors Board for investigation and any action that the board deems necessary. This normal procedure was followed in this instance, and the worker, a SEQEB employee, appeared before the EWCB and was dealt with accordingly. As the board felt in this case that the worker did not fully observe the recommended reconnection procedure, the usual penalties were applied. As the EWCB felt some concem over the worker's practices, it considered there might be some need to upgrade training in this area to avoid similar incidents in the future. It has called for a response from SEQEB over what actions might improve its workers' training. The honourable member should understand that no purpose would be served by placing waming notices in supply pillar boxes; the problem is best approached at the training level. After making this explanation, I tmst that Mr Palaszczuk will accept that no-one has conducted a search for a scapegoat in this matter but that normal procedures have applied. When a house-holder's electricity supply is disconnected for a lengthy period, as was the case while the permanent repair was being made, it would be natural for the repair crew to feel pressure at the need to reconnect power speedily. Perhaps this quite understandable feeling might have led to the error, but it does not excuse it. Finally, I must advise the honourable member that there is absolutely no link at all between the circumstances behind this incident and the industry's move to vary regulations conceming electrical inspections of contractors' work. The changes to regu­ lations becoming effective from 1 May merely seek to have the worker carrying out a Ministerial Statement 19 April 1989 4851 job on a consumer's premises accept responsibility for his own workmanship. Inspections of the supply mains and the main switchboard on a consumer's premises still will be carried out by the board-employed electrical installation inspectors. All electricity board workers are expected to test their own work and accept responsibility for it. In future, contractors and their employees also will be expected to do the same. There wiU not be any lessening of safety standards and Queensland's already good safety record will not suffer if contractors and their employees are as good workers as we believe they are. I tum now to the matter of security guard services for Stanwell Power Station, which was raised by the honourable member for Nudgee, also early this moming. There is absolutely nothing sinister about the way in which this contract was awarded. It is squeaky clean. In November last year, tenders were invited by the Queensland Electricity Commission for the provision of security guard services at Stanwell for three years. Six companies submitted tenders, the lowest of which was received from Sylvia Holdings Pty Ltd. The tender in question was originally submitted in the name of Securaguard Intemational Pty Ltd which, at the time of tendering, was in the process of being incorporated. Owing to delays in the process of incorporation, Sylvia Holdings Pty Ltd undertook to substitute itself in lieu of Securaguard Intemational Pty Ltd. From then on the tender was referred to as Sylvia Holdings Pty Ltd, which assumed responsibility for the tender. Sylvia Holdings Pty Ltd is certainly competent to perform this type of work. The directors have experience in operating security companies in Victoria, South Australia and, more recently, in Queensland. Mr Vaughan: What about the price? Mr TENNI: I will give the honourable member the price. He should not panic. The tender from Sylvia Holdings Pty Ltd, originally submitted by Securaguard Intemational Pty Ltd, was the lowest tender in both absolute terms and also on a comparative cost basis. There was no advantage to the QEC in accepting a higher-priced tender. During post-tender discussions, Sylvia Holdings advised that its tender price included the cost of paying its employees the site allowances applicable to work on the Stanwell project. In order to conform to the QEC's normal practice of reimbursing such allowances, Sylvia Holdings advised the commission that its nominated site reimburse­ ment allowance was included in its tendered price, and that effectively reduced the price by $148,274.88. This was not taken into account during tender evaluation, but it was proposed to make the appropriate adjustment when awarding the contract. Subsequent to receiving the tenders, the scope of work for security guard services was reviewed and the QEC determined that cost-savings could be achieved by eliminating some services and deferring the start of other services. I am sure that Mr Vaughan would agree that any reduction in the overall cost of Stanwell Power Station is desired. The security guard services contract is what is called a partly Mr Vaughan: Did they have a private inquiry agent's Ucence? Mr TENNI: Yes, it did have a licence. Mr Vaughan: At the time of the contract? Mr TENNI: I seek leave to table the licences and to incorporate them in Hansard. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wolston! Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following documents— 4852 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement

(Form 3) Invasion of Privacy Act 1971-1981 (Section 10 (6)) Invasion of Privacy Regulations 1986 SUBAGENT'S LICENCE License No. S 4527

NAME OF LICENSEE Richard FRANKS

TYPE OF LICENCE Subagent

PERIOD FOR WHICH On and From 31 March, 1989 LICENCE IS IN FORCE To and Including 30 March, 1990

RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 23 Oak Court, Minyama Waters

REGISTERED ADDRESS 23 Oak Court, Minyama Waters

EACH OTHER PLACE OF BUSINESS

NAME OF EMPLOYER Sylvia Holdings Pty. Ltd.

ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER 23 Oak Court, Minyama Waters

Conditions and restrictions subject to which licence is issued:

The abovenamed is hereby licensed subject to such conditions and restrictions as are shown herein in accordance with the provisions of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971-1981.

Dated at Brisbane this 31 March, 1989

Licensee's Signature Deputy Registrar of Commercial Acts

NOTE.—Regulation 8 of the Invasion of Privacy Regulations provides that where any change occurs in respect of any of the particulars contained in a licence, an application under Section 12 of the Invasion of Privacy Act shall be made by the licensee within 7 days from the date of such change. r n Mr. R. Franks, c/- Sylvia Holdings Pty. Ltd., 23 Oak Court, MINYAMA WATERS, Q. 4575. L J Ministerial Statement 19 April 1989 4853

(Form 2) QUEENSLAND Invasion of Privacy Act 1971-1981 (Section 10 (6)) Invasion of Privacy Regulations 1986 PRTVATE INQUIRY AGENT'S/CREDIT REPORTING AGENT'S LICENCE (Where the Ucensee is a corporation) License No. C 0215 NAME OF CORPORATION SYLVIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD TYPE OF LICENCE PRIVATE INQUIRY AGENT

PERIOD FOR WHICH On and From 31 March, 1989 LICENCE IS IN FORCE To and Including 30 March, 1990

REGISTERED ADDRESS 23 Oak Court, Minyama Waters

EACH OTHER PLACE OF BUSINESS

NAME OF SECRETARY

NEIL MCGRATH 6 Eliza Court, TuUamarine, Victoria

NAMES OF DIRECTORS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS

JOHN DOUGLAS STUART MCIVER 9 Stradbroke Way, Werribee, Victoria SYLVIA JEAN MCIVER 9 Stradbroke Way, Werribee, Victoria FRANCES MARINA BONNANNO 9 Stradbroke Way, Werribee, Victoria PETER DOUGHTY 39 Iluka Drive, Werribee, Victoria RICHARD FRANKS 23 Oak Court, Minyama Waters

Conditions and restrictions subject to which licence is issued: The abovenamed corporation is hereby licensed subject to such conditions and restrictions as are shown herein in accordance with the provisions of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971- I98I.

Dated at Brisbane this 31 March, 1989

Signature of secretary/director/ Deputy Registrar of Commercial Acts executive officer of licensed corporation NOTE.—Regulation 8 of the Invasion of Privacy Regulations provides that where any change occurs in respect of any of the particulars contained in a licence, an application under Section 12 of the Invasion of Privacy Act shall be made by the licensee within 7 days from the date of such change. r n Sylvia Holdings Pty. Ltd., 6 Synnot Street, WERRIBEE. VIC. 3030. L J 4854 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement

Mr TENNI: The security guard services contract is what is called a partly lump sum and partly schedule of rates contract giving the QEC the option to vary, if it wishes, certain services for which rates have been provided. The price quoted by Sylvia Holdings for a reduction in the scope of works was $118,878.96 and was in accordance with its tendered rates. The net contract sum, including the reduction for reimbursable site allowances and a reduction for a change in the scope of the contract reduced the tender price by Sylvia Holdings to $743,855.40. Compared with the original tender price, this represented a net saving to electricity customers of more than $267,000. I now refer to the matter raised by Mr Vaughan conceming a private inquiry agent's licence, which I have tabled. In order to ensure that the contractor would comply with the necessary statutory requirements, clause 2.1 of the specification states— "The contractor shall possess a current Private Inquiry Agents Licence and tenderers shall submit evidence thereof with their submission." In this instance Sylvia Holdings submitted sufficient evidence that it, being a reputable operator of security related services and managed by qualified directors, would be capable of obtaining a Queensland licence before it became the contractor. In fact, Sylvia Holdings did obtain a licence before starting work on the contract. Quite clearly, there was no back-door dealing in awarding this security contract to Sylvia Holdings. The honourable member for Nudgee should provide me, in confidence if necessary, with the names of his informants in order that their erroneous impressions can be corrected. Indeed, if Mr Vaughan takes his obligation to the tmth as genuinely as he takes his obligation to party politicking, then he has a clear moral obligation to lay these pathetic lies to rest for ever.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Federal Government Drought Relief Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (2.46 p.m.), by leave: Mr Speaker Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Wolston under Standing Order 123A. Mr HARPER: Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the tme position in relation to plans made by the Federal Finance Minister, Senator Walsh, that were reported in the media this morning. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caims! Mr HARPER: Senator Walsh's statement, based on a memo written by me to the director-general of my department, follows a selectively leaked report quoted in the Courier-Mail yesterday. I say "selectively leaked" because it led to the Courier-Mail totally misrepresenting the intent of the memo. Mr Scott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook is wamed under Standing Order 123 A. Mr HARPER: Again it demonstrated the orchestrated campaign of media manip­ ulation in which the Labor Party, to its great discredit, has indulged. Let me refer first to the original announcement last week by Senator Walsh that drought assistance had been axed. Ministerial Statement 19 April 1989 4855

An Opposition member interjected. Mr HARPER: The interest taken by members of the Opposition in drought relief assistance and in the plight of primary producers in this State is made obvious by their lack of interest in the tme facts. As I was saying, last week Senator Walsh said that drought relief assistance had been axed. It is revealing to note that, at the same time, the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Kerin, also released a statement announcing a review of drought financing. Senator Walsh's sensationalistic announcement—obviously aimed at the headUnes— proved to be such an embarrassment to Mr Kerin and to the Hawke Labor Govemment— and, I should add, to Mr Goss and his colleagues on the opposite side of the Chamber— that he was forced to put out a clarifying statement the very next day. Now Senator Walsh is once again grandstanding by referring my stolen memo to the Treasurer. It is designed purely and simply to try to keep this gigantic beat-up mnning. Yesterday I provided the original memo, along with other original documents, for inspection by members of the parliamentary press gallery. Indeed, I gave them photocopies of the original document. Today I seek leave to table a copy of that memo and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— Minister for Primary Industries POSTAL GPO Box 46 Brisbane, Qld 4001 OFFICE State Law Building Cnr Ann & George Streets, Brisbane TELEPHONE (07) 227 4800 TELEX 145359 FACSIMILE (07) 229 0260 22nd January, 1988. MEMORANDUM: DIRECTOR-GENERAL A suggestion has been made to me in regard to Independent Property Drought Declarations; and as it is one which I believe would be beneficial to all parties I wish to pursue its introduction. Essentially the suggestion is for a preliminary declaration which would not entitle the landholder to droughted property status or benefits available to droughted properties, but would provide a certificate for Taxation purposes and should tend to encourage improved husbandry practices. A livestock owner faced with an impending drought, or a livestock owner whose application for an Independent Droughted Property status was rejected, could be provided with a certificate which read after the style of— "Although this property does not presently meet the criteria for declaration as an Independently Droughted Property it is my/our opinion that it would be good husbandry practice to reduce stocking rates on the property in view of adverse seasonal conditions which have prevailed over a period of... months." It is contended that this certificate would facilitate the use of Section 36 (a) (a) (a) of the Taxation Act by the livestock owner who could claim that abnormal sales were of a "forced" nature. N. J. HARPER Minister for Primary Industries and Member for Aubum Mr HARPER: My intention was to make it perfectly clear to anyone wanting to know the tmth that, contrary to the allegations being made by Walsh and his cronies, the memo contains no suggestion of my supporting any illegal or improper course of 4856 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement action. Anyone who examined the Courier-Mail article of 18 April 1989 would see how selective use of documentation can lead to the public and the media being provided with a total distortion of the facts, and how the media can be totally misled under such circumstances. Anyone who reads the entire memo will clearly see that I was requesting my department to explore legal possibilities, following a suggestion put to me by various mral-based bodies. In view of the fact that Senator Walsh had full access—and I emphasise "fuU access"—to the entire stolen memo, and not simply to the extract leaked to the media, it is a sad reflection on his inteUigence—or, perhaps more correctly, on his integrity—that he has made such an inept analysis of its contents. The possibility of tax concessions being available for droughted farmers is one of a number of changes I have canvassed since becoming Minister for Primary Industries in an attempt to improve guide-lines relating to drought relief I believe that the Federal Govemment should be pressured to use its tax powers to enable earlier management decisions to be taken in order to minimise the effects of impending drought conditions. I believe an impending drought declaration, which could be issued at a time leading up to the onset of drought, could encourage better management practices and so minimise the adverse effects of deteriorating seasonal conditions. In my efforts to improve drought relief—I say again, without any assistance from the Federal Govemment—I have also introduced computerisation to cross-check stock movements over a period of years preceding a drought period. When in place, this measure will provide a more efficient means of determining whether an application for drought subsidy on transportation of stock or fodder actually related to normal stock movements and fodder purchases, rather than to drought mitigation. Furthermore, I have instigated the revitalisation of local drought committees throughout the State to improve the drought declaration process and promote more reasonable attitudes to land care. I have established a technical departmental committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the drought relief scheme, and my department is co-operating fully with the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee in fumishing detaUed information for its review of the administration of drought relief I have referred seven case-studies to Crown law to establish whether those recipients of drought relief have breached Queensland law by their actions. At my instigation there has been a further enhancement of computer records and payment systems for increased security through the cross-referencing of claims. The people of Queensland should be made aware of the tme statistics relating to the allocation of drought relief Whilst it is convenient for the Labor Party to inform the media that 16 per cent of the drought relief claimants received 76 per cent of the drought reUef made available, the Labor Party chooses not to explain that these figures are in keeping with the fact that around two-thirds of Queensland's beef cattle are carried by just 15 per cent of our establishments. The disappointing thing about all of this is that the media have fallen for the Labor Party's cmde manipulation of facts and figures.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Declaration of Rights of Victims of Crime Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General and Minister for Corrective Services) (2.54 p.m.), by leave: The spontaneous formation of the Victims of Crime Association of Queensland after a public meeting held on 1 June last year represented a milestone in the emergence of community awareness that the victims of criminal offences are frequently the forgotten element in the criminal justice process. For many decades the processes of police investigation and criminal trials have focused almost exclusively on the rights of offenders. They have focused on the right of an accused to faimess during the investigative process, and to fairness during the course Ministerial Statement 19 AprU 1989 4857

of criminal trials and subsequent appeals. Whilst no-one can deny that this foundation of the criminal justice process is essential, it cannot be denied that there has been little said or done at a formal level to consider the rights of those whose lives are, often times, randomly and indiscriminately violated by criminal activity. This is not to say that the people of Queensland have not been served weU by individual police officers or those involved in the administration of justice. Many victims speak in glowing terms of the humane and caring approach which has been adopted by our guardians of the law. It cannot be denied, however, that until recent times the fiiU impact and devastation of lives which occurs as a result of criminal activity has not been appreciated. Furthermore, there have been many community agencies estabUshed in recent years whose major concem is repairing the damage done to the people of Queensland by criminals. In recent months I have had the opportunity of speaking with many people who have been involved in providing assistance to victims. I have been impressed with their motivation and their obvious concem. Through agencies such as these, and the broad range of Govemment services which are available to victims, we are now approaching the stage where victims are able to have services made available to them on a broad range of fronts to assist their complete recovery. No-one should live in fear in our community and, sadly, this has often been the case. As part of the Queensland Govemment response to crime victims, it must be pointed out that Queensland has the most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme in Australia. In fact, the level of payments which may be made under the legislation is double and three times that of other jurisdictions. This does not mean that difficulties may not arise with this scheme, and I am prepared to consider any realistic proposals to ensure its continued effectiveness. Furthermore, specific provisions have been incorporated into the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Bill, which has been passed by this House. As a final measure, I am pleased to announce that the Queensland Govemment has now adopted a comprehensive policy with respect to the rights of crime victims which is to be implemented by all agencies of the Queensland Govemment. This declaration addresses those areas of concem which were covered by the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, and follows closely a similar document developed in South Australia. The declaration has been drafted in consultation with the Queensland Police Department and the Director of Prosecutions, and I have been assisted by representations made by a number of people and organisations including the Victims of Crime Association. I seek leave of the House to table the Declaration of the Rights of Victims of Crime in the State of Queensland and to have this declaration incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME IN THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND 1. In this Declaration "Victim of Crime" means any person or persons who have suffered harm of any kind including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their capacity to function within the community, through acts or omissions which are in violation of the criminal laws of Queensland and includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependents of such persons, and any person who suffers harm in assisting such persons. 2. The victim of crime shall have the right to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity at all times and should be afforded with such necessities as may be reasonably required by them to assist in repairing or retaining their dignity immediately after the commission of an offence and for a reasonable time thereafter. 3. The victim of crime shall have the right, upon request, to be informed about the progress of investigations being conducted by police or other relevant authorities provided that such information shall not be released in circumstances where disclosure might jeopardise

82865—164 4858 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement

the investigation of the relevant offence or related offences or endanger the life or safety of any person or persons including the victim. 4. The victim of crime shall have the right to be advised upon request of the charges laid against the accused and of any modifications to such charges and the reasons for such modifications. 5. Before determining whether to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, the prosecuting officer shall give consideration to the rights and interests of the victim and the consequences of such a decision on the rights and interests of the victim. 6. The victim of crime shall have the right to have a comprehensive statement taken at a time reasonably proximate to the time of the offence or initial investigation, which shall include information regarding the harm done and losses incurred in consequence of the commission of the offence. 7. The victim of crime shall have the right to be advised upon request of the reasons for the taking of a decision by a prosecuting officer not to proceed with a charge. 8. The victim of a crime shall have the right to have property held by the Crown for purposes of investigation or evidence retumed as promptly as possible, and inconvenience to victims should be minimised wherever possible. 9. The victim of crime shall have the right to be informed about the trial process and of the rights and responsibilities of witnesses. 10. The victim of crime shall have the right to be protected from unnecessary contact with the accused and defence witnesses during the course of trial. 11. The victim of crime shall have the right to not have his or her residential address disclosed unless such disclosure is necessary and material during the course of criminal proceedings. 12. The victim of crime shall be entitled to have his or her need or perceived need for physical protection considered during any determination in respect of bail for the accused whether prior to, during or after the trial where such need or perceived need has been brought to the attention of the prosecutor. 13. The victim of crime shall have the right to be advised upon request of the outcome of all bail applications and should be informed by the prosecuting officer of any conditions of bail which are of relevance to the victim. 14. The victim of the crime shall be entitled to have the full effects of the criminal offence upon him or her made known to the court either by the prosecutor or by information contained in a pre-sentence report including any financial, social and psychological harm done to or suffered by the victim where such harm has been brought to the attention of the prosecutor. 15. The victim of crime shall have the right, upon request, to be advised of the outcome of relevant criminal proceedings and to be fully appraised of the sentence, when imposed, and its implications and the rights of the accused and the Crown in relation to the matter. 16. The victim of crime shall have the right, upon request, to be advised of the outcome of parole proceedings. 17. The victim of crime shall have the right, upon request, to be notified of an offender's impending release from custody but only for offences of personal violence or offences of a sexual nature where a sentence of imprisonment greater than 12 months has been imposed on the offender or where an order relating to the protection of that person has been made by a court. 18. Police, justice, health, social service, correctional officers and other persons concemed should receive training to enable them to address the rights of and to meet the needs of crime victims and to deal with them in a sympathetic and reassuring manner regardless of whether any legal proceedings are commenced in relation to the alleged offence. 19. Victims of crime shall have available to them a reasonable system of compensation which is adequately publicised, not subject to unreasonable delays and which is reasonably accessible to victims. Procedures for restitution and other avenues of civil redress also shall have particular regard to the needs of victims of crime. Ministerial Statement 19 April 1989 4859

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Financial Operations of Aboriginal and Islander Councils Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders—Minister for Community Services and Ethnic Affairs) (2.57 p.m.), by leave: In recent weeks much media hype and speculation has centred on the pending Auditor-General's report on the operations of local govemment councils constituted under the community services Acts. The facts are that out of the $44. Im of State, Federal and local govemment moneys received and expended by councils, cash shortages amount to $21,268, which is some 0.03 per cent of the outlays. Accounting mistakes have led to overpayments totaUing $ 122,000, most of which I expect will be recovered. CouncUs have advised that already over 50 per cent of this amount has been recovered. Some overpayments are the result of creditors being paid more than once or, for example, wages paid at an incorrect rate of pay. There is a lack of evidentiary documentation in regard to other similar accounting deficiencies. For example, there are no invoices for amounts totalling $341,000. Even though there are some worrying entries, I clearly indicate to this House that this money has not gone astray. Spot checks were made on Badu Island, Boigu Island and Coconut Island and they found that almost half of that figure could be accounted for. An amount of $91,200 is involved on Badu Island, and the biggest item is payment to a carpenter/ builder. The work that this man was paid for was most certainly carried out, but no records or details of the work were kept. If controls are not in place, money will go astray in the future. On Boigu Island, except in respect of $400, there are no invoices for the expenditure of $29,000. As a result of a spot check, the biggest amount was found to be for a Boral Cyclone fence. That fence has been erected around the dam on that island. On Coconut Island, there were no invoices for the expenditure of $19,000. The biggest item in that was to the Department of Community Services itself which will provide the invoices to that council. What I am saying is that, most certainly, $21,000 has gone astray. Out of $44m, that is miniscule. Mistakes account for $122,000. Everybody makes mistakes. Half of that money has already been collected and we hope the other half will be collected over the next few months. The other amount relates to controls, and that matter is very weU in hand at present. A significant amount of rent is uncollected. The houses belong to the councils. If they choose to have a policy of no rents and no repairs, that is their business. Of course, both the ACC and the ICC have a policy of private ownership. There are some grave teething problems and these difficulties are reflecting themselves in these rent arrears. These are being addressed. Collections from canteens have always been of concem and, from an auditing point of view, have raised many problems. If the councils persist in attempting to own and run operations such as these canteens, these problems will continue. However, at the end of the day I have always found—and I think everybody else has found—that the ACC is a rational and reasonable body. It is the will of the ACC to lease out all the canteens to private ownership. On a number of occasions I have stated to the House that this Govemment imposes three tiers of auditing and oversighting upon the councils, which are the most oversighted and audited organisations, both public and private, in the State of Queensland. I wish to point out to the House that to some degree the worsening situation in September reflects the burgeoning increase in the expenditure of the councUs, which, in 1986, was $6.7m; in 1987, $ 15.2m; and in 1988, $44. Im. That indicates clearly that the department's actions throughout the last five months of tightening controls and putting an administrator into Stephen Island were most certainly justified. 4860 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement

There have been speculation and innuendos about maladministration and of huge sums of money having gone astray, but now we have the report. Not only does it vindicate this Govemment's faith in self-management and in the ability and honesty of the State's first Queenslanders, very few of whom have had the educational opportunities that most of us enjoyed, but also, although the document points to a number of areas that require strong and serious commitment to improvement, it clearly states that in the financial year in question, out of an expenditure of $44m, only $21,000 has gone astray. Therefore, far from being an indictment, as so many fondly hoped, this report is a rather ringing endorsement of and loud attestation to the efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness of the admiiustration of the councils and the oversighting of that administration by the Auditor-General and the Department of Community Services. It is an admirustration of which this Govemment can be justifiably proud.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Business Licence Centre Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Minister for Industry, Small Business, Technology and Tourism) (3.03 p.m.), by leave: I wish to inform the House of a Govemment initiative that will greatly assist the business community of Queensland. The Govemment is establishing the Queensland Business Licence Centre, or, to put it more simply, a one-stop shop to provide information for people going into business or expanding their businesses. Primarily, the centre will supply information and application forms for all State Govemment licences, permits and approvals that are required for starting or expanding businesses anywhere in Queensland. Mr Davis: Wow! Mr BORBIDGE: I can imagine such a comment from the honourable member. He would not know what a business was. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will continue with his statement. Mr BORBIDGE: This new service, which should be operational by the end of the year, is aimed at streamlining what has often been a most time-consuming and costly procedure. At the present time, anyone wishing to establish or expand a business must ring or write to a number of different Government departments to obtain information about the required licences, approvals and permits. As a result of consultation with business and industry groups, it has been decided that a one-stop-shop service be implemented to reduce this unnecessary burden and thereby encourage new development and expansion. Opposition members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: If this initiative is not of interest to honourable members opposite, I can assure them that it is of a great deal of interest to the business community. The Queensland Business Licence Centre will operate a 008 telephone service, which will be available from anywhere in the State for the cost of a local call. Through a central computer system, the operator will be able to gain access to information on the licences required by a business as well as the names, departments and phone numbers of relevant officers to which the businessperson should speak. The creation of the centre will bring many benefits to businesspeople, including— • cost-savings to business by reducing to a few minutes the time taken to find out which Government licences, permits and approvals are necessary; • reduction in the cost of administering the Govemment licensing system; • helping to establish more business in Queensland by simplifying procedures- Personal Explanation 19 April 1989 4861

• attracting more interstate and overseas business to Queensland; • demonstrating the Govemment's commitment to business and industry; and • reducing the uncertainty many people intending to enter business experience when they need to know about Govemment regulations that affect their business. The Queensland Business Licence Centre will take approximately six months to develop. By the end of this year, anyone in Queensland will be able to gain access to the service. I am proud to announce this most worthwhile new Government service, which I know has the full support of the Queensland business community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Allegations by Member for Chatsworth of Misuse of Ministerial Expenses Hon. T. R. COOPER (Roma—Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services) (3.06 p.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this place the member for Chatsworth suffered from delusions of grandeur in relation to his accounting and mathematical ability. I refer, of course, to his interpretation of my ministerial expenses. The member was at odds with the Leader of the Opposition when he implied some sort of wrong-doing on my part. As reported in the Sun of 22 November 1988, the Leader of the Opposition said, "No suggestion of misuse of expenses could be drawn from the report." I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support of my integrity, in spite of his remarks on a program last night. In view of the bucketing that the member for Chatsworth has given the Opposition Leader in the corridors of this House of late, I can certainly understand the member for Chatsworth being at odds with him. I draw the attention of the House to my reply in this place on 23 November 1988 to a question from the member for Chatsworth. Part of that reply reads— "All my accounting has been carried out according to the requirements of the Auditor-General, and it is available for anyone to see." I repeat the words "it is available for anyone to see". Mr Mackenroth: What is avaUable for anyone to see? Mr COOPER: Exactly what I was talking about. Members of this House will be interested to know that no-one, including the member who asked the question, availed himself of my invitation. I remind honourable members that during the last session of Parliament this House was treated to a virtual feast of information about my Chief Office expenses. At that time, I answered several questions on the issue and made my position quite clear. No-one was left in any doubt that those expenses were fully documented and accounted for. I therefore can only assume that the member opposite has grasped at his last straw to stop himself drowning in his various deceits of the past two weeks. It is unfortunate that the member for Chatsworth must try to develop a higher profile by using personal attacks and smears on Ministers to enhance his aspirations for the deputy leadership of the Labor Party. I do not intend to use up any more of the valuable time of honourable members by rehashing old questions. Opposition members are trying to gain cheap political mileage with their usual smear tactics.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (3.09 p.m.), by leave: I wish to correct the record on two recent misrepresentations made by the junior Minister for Industry in relation to my forthcoming visit to China. 4862 19 April 1989 Question Upon Notice

The first misrepresentation relates to the Minister's remarks on 13 April that I have somehow interfered in this Government's negotiations with the Shanghai authorities on the proposed sister-State relationship. It is impossible to sustain that contention given that, to date, I have had no direct contact with the Shanghai authorities, nor have I criticised the agreement; indeed, I have welcomed it. The second misrepresentation concerns the Minister's contention that the Labor Party and I are somehow jumping on the bandwagon of the Ahern Government's initiatives in relation to China. For the Minister's information and for the information of all members, I seek leave to table a copy of a Courier-Mail report dated 4 July 1988 headed "ALP plans strong China links: Goss". That report was based on a speech I had just delivered in Charleville on the need for a sister-State relationship with China. The misrepresentation is this: on the Minister's own admission, that speech was made at least one to two months before he said that Cabinet first considered the matter, which was in August/September last year. Furthermore, the Minister should be aware that my invitation Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. The date to which I referred was when Cabinet formally—not first—considered the agreement with Shanghai. Mr GOSS: That is not a point of order. To clarify the position, I will quote the Minister's statement in Hansard. He said— "... I make the point that, in August/September last year, this matter was fully considered by Cabinet and the Cabinet Budget committee." There is no reference to "formally" or "first" or anything else. The point of misrepresentation is simply that the speech and the statements that I made pre-dated Cabinet consideration. Furthermore, the Minister should be aware that the invitation from the Chinese Govemment to me to visit China in May this year was extended in October/November last year, which was some six months before the announcement of the Premier's intention to visit China. I conclude by expressing the hope that there can now be an end to partisan remarks and that we on all sides of the Parliament can embrace the spirit of the motion of which I give notice that I will move tomorrow.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Leivesley Report on Fire Services Mr BURNS asked the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services— "(1) What is the total cost of Dr Leivesley's report on fire services including salary, wages, travel costs, board members meeting fees and committee fees or payments for all persons involved in compiling the report? (2) Does Dr Leivesley's report say that $167m is needed to fund upgraded services, $0.5m in 1988-89, $52.5m in 1989-90, $43.6m in 1990-91 and $37.2m in 1991-92 plus a $34m overdraft, making a total of $167.8m needed to fund fire services, although a member of his Govemment, namely the Member for Callide, says that she has been advised by him that, "An upgraded fire service would cost an additional $10m per year."? (3) Will he explain the difference in costs between Dr Leivesley's report and the figures of the Member for Callide? (4) Is Dr Leivesley's report to be ignored?" Questions Without Notice 19 April 1989 4863

Mr COOPER: (1) An amount of $250,000 was provided in the current Estimates to fund the review of fire services. As some accounts are still outstanding, total costs of the review are not yet available. I am advised, however, that payments made to 31 March 1989 amounted to $179,189. The foregoing does not include the salaries of certain departmental officers who were involved in the review mostly on a part-time basis and whose salaries were met by their own departments. Likewise, the travelling costs and so on of certain fire brigade personnel were met by the respective boards. Wherever possible, travel costs were minimised by holding meetings in conjunction with training sessions. (2 and 3) The figures quoted by the honourable member are contained in an appendix to Dr Leivesley's report. Those figures include capital costs for new fire stations, appliances, equipment, a training facUity and so on. Such capital items would be funded by loan borrowings, with such loans being serviced over a number of years. Having regard to the foregoing and aUowing for the practicality of implementing the proposals outlined in the report and costed in the appendix, I would confirm that the figure said to be quoted by the honourable member for Callide would be very close to being correct. I might add that it is very gratifying to see that at long last the correct cost to the Govemment of these reforms, that is, approximately $ 10m, is being recognised. I congratulate the member for Callide on her grasp of the financial implications of this report. The question of the outstanding overdraft is a matter independent of the upgrading of the service. (4) No. As the honourable member is aware, the report has been issued as a Green Paper. The responses to the Green Paper are currently being evaluated and I hope to be in a position in the near future to make a submission to Cabinet on the matter. Wide consultation has taken place with all interested parties, and I am confident that the basic thmst of the report, which includes— (a) a career structure for full-time professional fire-fighters; (b) the urgent identification and fulfilment of increased manpower needs; (c) risk mapping for all areas of the State; (d) the replacement and upgrading of fire-fighting equipment and services; (e) greater emphasis on fire prevention; (f) special attention to chemical hazards and the fire risk in high-rise tourist and business areas; and (g) more effective management, will be implemented in full.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tabling of Ministerial Expenses Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer him to an answer that he gave to a question that I asked of him in this House on 22 November last about the tabling of information on ministerial expenses. The Premier advised the House that State Cabinet had agreed to the following— "... the tabling of a full schedule of the ministerial expenses of my Govemment. That decision will be implemented as soon as possible." Yesterday the Premier provided to this Parliament information on Ministers' travel costs. I ask: when is the Premier going to present details of Ministers' spending for the first 13 months of his Premiership in the categories for which information is held by the various Ministers' departments but continues to be withheld from the public namely, Brisbane entertainment expenses; liquor and other beverages; other Brisbane 4864 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice

expenses; special purchases; incidental expenses; and cash advances—all of which were referred to in the question posed by me on 22 November last year? Mr AHERN: The schedule of travel costs was provided to the House yesterday in a form that is designated by, and suitable to, the Federal Govemment of Australia. It is acceptable federally. It is acceptable to the Federal Labor Party, and it is surely therefore acceptable to the Federal Leader of the Opposition, so it was used as a model. The other figures relating to gross expenditures wiU be included in tables relating to the Financial Statement.

Cash Advances of Minister for Police Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to his Minister for Police spending up to $500 a week and, on average, $150 a week from cash advances when he was Minister for Corrective Services. I ask: as Treasurer of Queensland, is the Premier aware on what his Minister would need to spend up to $500 a week from cash advances and, as Treasurer, can he be satisfied that the total spending by the Minister was expenditure of a strictly official nature and that none of it was spent on items that could be considered as of a personal and/or private nature? Mr AHERN: The Minister answered that question earlier today by way of a ministerial statement.

Contracts involving Members' Salaries Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: can he advise whether members of Parliament are allowed to enter into contracts with other organisations which involve their parliamentary salaries? Mr AHERN: I have a very important issue to bring to the attention of the House today. It is getting towards the end of the session, Mr Speaker, and I hope that a little levity will be allowed by you. I have in my possession a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the State CouncU of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party held on 4 March 1989 at the William Galloway auditorium at which Mr Goss, among others, was present. Certain issues arise from those minutes. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to table my copy of the minutes, of course, under Standing Orders, I must respond to that. One of the items under the heading "Treasurer's Report" is as follows— "P. Lucas sought information as to whether there was any provision in the Rules for the non-endorsement of members who are in arrears with their levy payments." The report also states— "J. Bird replied that the amount covered all elections held ... Moved: 'That State Council direct the Administrative Committee not to accept a nomination from any sitting politician who is in arrears with the Parliamentary Levy Fund.'" The report goes on inter alia— "H. Linacre" Government members: Hamish! Mr AHERN: That is him—Hamish Linacre. As I was saying, the report states "H. Linacre spoke in relation to John Gayler." Questions Without Notice 19 April 1989 4865

The following motion was finally moved and carried— "That the Party seek legal advice on ways to recover debts of ex-members of Parliament and that a report be given to the next meeting of State Council from the Party's solicitors on the legal viability of the matter." It does appear that the legal advice that has been given is that, in future, a contract with members of the Australian Labor Party will be sought before endorsement. In other words, the Labor Party is going into VEAs. Apparently this is all to fund the "Sorry, Bemie" campaign. What a farce!

Effect on Queensland of Privatisation by Federal Government of Government Instrumentalities Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: can he advise the House of the likely impact on Queensland if the Federal Government proceeds with the privatis­ ation of Government instmmentalities? Mr AHERN: The likely consequence to Queensland of the Federal Govemment doing anything like that is an absolute cataclysm in the Australian Labor Party in this State. At the meeting of the State Council of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party to which I have already referred, the following motion was moved and passed— " 1. That the Government desist in talking about or even considering privatisation of any of the present Government assets. 2. That in future if the private sector again turns down worthwhile projects the Federal Government will set up new public industries to manufacture, sell and export these goods." In other words, the socialisation of industry in this country is apparently the policy of the State Council of the Australian Labor Party. That is farce No. 2.

Access to Departmental Accounts of Minister for Police Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the Minister for Police, I refer to his claims this morning on ABC radio that he had made an offer last November for anyone to inspect his departmental accounts of his ministerial expenses and cash advances. I also refer to the fact that a search of Hansard and relevant newspaper clippings shows that the only offer of access was as is outlined in Hansard on 23 November 1988, as follows— "All my accounting has been carried out according to the requirements of the Attorney-General and it is available for anyone to see." Will the Minister inform the House whether he expects Opposition members to believe that that statement meant that his books were open for all of us to see, or did he in fact mean what I think anyone would read into it, that is, that we were all able to see the Auditor-General's report? Mr COOPER: The offer was very genuine. Is it not funny that after six months— Mr Goss: Why doesn't it still stand? You've got your snout in the trough. You've been caught out. Mr COOPER: The Leader of the Opposition has been caught out. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Mr GOSS: I withdraw the suggestion that he has been caught out. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the suggestion that the Minister has his snout in the trough. 4866 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice

Mr GOSS: I do not withdraw that—in deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the suggestion that he has got his snout in the trough. Mr COOPER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was an obviously despicable statement. A very genuine offer was made six months ago. No-one made any requests to me at aU. The honourable member is adopting purely political smear tactics by regurgitating this matter at this time. As far as I am concemed, the offer has lapsed.

Expenditure of Departmental Funds by Minister for Environment, Conservation and Forestry Mr MACKENROTH: Nobody could read into that statement what the Minister has said. I direct a question to the Minister for Tourism and the Environment. I refer to the Minister's use of departmental funds An honourable member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: No, it is not that. I refer to the Minister's use of departmental funds for personal expenses Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I wonder if the honourable gentleman could Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Industry will remain seated. Mr MACKENROTH: I direct my question to the Minister for Environment. I refer to his use of departmental funds for personal expenses, and I ask: has he ever used departmental funds to pay for private entertainment? Did he attend a function at a Brisbane restaurant on 11 July 1986? Was the function a birthday party for the Minister? Who else attended the function? Was the cost of the function charged to departmental funds and included in the departmental expenditure category of entertainment expenses— $800 worth? Mr MUNTZ: I reject the insinuations by the member for Chatsworth. Never have I abused expenses. They have all been covered by the Auditor-General's report, which has been tabled.

Granard Road Interchange Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, I refer to a question without notice asked by the honourable member for Lytton, Mr Burns, about what is known as the Granard Road interchange, and I ask: are the cost and time estimates derived from the press release of the Australian Federation of Constmction Contractors, as quoted by the honourable member, correct, taking into account the current situation with regard to road-funding? Could the Minister or officers of the Main Roads Department commit $3m more than is necessary for the constmction of the interchange? Mr GUNN: The honourable member is quite correct when he asserts that neither 1 nor the Main Roads Department would commit $3m more than necessary for the constmction of a major roadworks project. There has clearly been a misunderstanding on the part of the Australian Federation of Constmction Contractors and the member for Lytton about the cost of the Granard Road interchange. The total allocation of $ 13.1 m approved by the Government includes provision for the costs of relocation of services, design of the works and, of course, the cost of supervision and administration, all of which were added to the Main Roads estimate of constmction costs of $7.9m. That is where the honourable member became a little confused. Mr Burns: I got it from the Australian Contractors Association. Questions Without Notice 19 April 1989 4867

Mr GUNN: That organisation as well as the honourable member made a mistake. It is this $7.9m constmction cost estimate that should be compared with the range of tender prices between $9.5m and $10.5m quoted by the honourable member for Lytton. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GUNN: The honourable member misunderstood it. I could have fixed it up very quickly for him if he had asked me to do so. As honourable members can see, in this case there is a considerable saving of $ 1.6m in undertaking the work with Main Roads acting as the project manager. I repeat that the saving is $1.6m. Whether or not the private sector could do the job any more quickly is debatable. The project has to be staged to allow traffic to flow, and I doubt whether substantial savings in time could be made without incurring additional costs or seriously inconveniencing motorists. Obviously the contracting industry is disappointed that in this case a single contract for the full project was not awarded. I understand this, as I have great confidence in the ability of that industry to efficiently carry out the constmction of public works in this State. However, on this occasion, I am equally confident that considerable savings can be effected by splitting the work into a series of smaller contracts that will mn concurrently; in other words, using the resources of the private sector but in a different way. Given the shortage of funds as a result of the Federal Govemment's reduction in allocations for roads, the Govemment had no choice but to make those savings of $ 1.6m.

Co-operation of Public Servants with Public Accounts Committee Mr BEARD: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the question asked yesterday by the member for Sherwood and to the reply in which the Premier alleged that the honourable member's question was party political and in which he did not give an assurance about future guarantees for public servants who may be called upon to testify before the Public Accounts Committee. I ask: will the Premier give his personal guarantee—just "Yes" or "No" will do—that public servants will not be discriminated against in any shape or form if they give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee's investigation into alleged malpractices in the payment of drought relief or into any other matter? Mr AHERN: The answer was given adequately yesterday. I have communicated with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the issue is settled to his complete satisfaction.

Health Department's Needle-exchange Program Mr BEARD: I ask the Minister for Health: can he give the House his personal assurance and guarantee that needles are being exchanged strictly on a one-for-one basis in the Health Department's needle-exchange program? If he cannot do so, will he give the House his undertaking that any discrepancy in this matter will be treated as a matter of the utmost urgency? Mr I. J. GIBBS: The Government is undertaking an initial trial of a needle- exchange program in the Valley, which is working very well. I do not believe that I or anyone else could give an undertaking that that program will operate absolutely on a one-for-one basis. Many volunteer groups that are working in the Valley are doing a tremendous job. One Anglican church group is about to introduce a mobile bus. Dmg-arm is working there. I launched a program for a group known as Quiver. They are survivors of the drug worid who are doing a marvellous job. Although they are putting themselves at risk, they are trying to gain the confidence of young people who are involved in the 4868 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice dmg scene and to get them away from it. They are trying to ensure that the spread of AIDS in the second wave does not affect those young people. There is no way that I can give any assurances other than to say that the Govemment will manage that program as well as possible with the many volunteers who have their heart and soul in it and who should be given the greatest blessing in the world for being there. The honourable member's question is not really relevant. Let us do the best we can with a marvellous project.

Housing Mr PERRETT: I direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Housing. In view of the Federal Labor Government's economic mismanagement, which has produced record housing interest rates, and Labor's cuts in assistance to the first home owners scheme, what was the outcome of the Housing Ministers conference in Canberra last Friday? Mr GUNN: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this subject. This Govemment is very proud of its contribution towards public housing in this State. Last Thursday and Friday in Canberra, I attended the Housing Ministers conference. 1 will return there this Friday. I was able to inform the conference that, during this financial year, the State Govemment has increased spending on public rental housing by approximately 40 per cent. This year the budget for public rental housing exceeds $100m, which will allow the Queensland Housing Commission to provide an additional 2 300 units of accommodation comprising houses, pensioner units and one-bedroom welfare units. For the information of honourable members, I point out that the Housing Com­ mission has 29 000 rental houses. A consideration of the growth in public rental stock during this decade highlights Queensland's real performance in that aspect. Between June 1980 and June 1987, Queensland had the highest growth in public rental stock of any State, registering a 51.8 per cent increase. The all-States average was just over 36 per cent. Over that very same period Queensland recorded the highest average annual rate of increase with 6.1 per cent, compared with the national average of 4.6 per cent. Those figures were provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health. Since the beginning of the 1984 agreement, which ran from 30 June 1983 to June 1987, Queensland recorded an average annual rate of increase in public rental stock of 7.2 per cent—second only to Victoria over that period. South Australia recorded a 5 per cent increase and Western Australia recorded a 3.2 per cent increase. At that Housing Ministers conference the need to make the first home owners scheme more effective in the current housing market was recognised strongly. The Commonwealth has indicated that it will review the scheme in the context of this year's Budget, which is good news. Input from all States is being sought, and Queensland will make a submission within the next two weeks. Queensland will recommend strongly that first home owners scheme benefits be adjusted in real terms to 1983 levels. That is what this Govemment would like to see. Such an adjustment would increase the maximum benefits available to the vicinity of $12,000 or $15,000, compared with approximately $7,500 in 1983. The increased amount would be a deposit for first home owners. A strong need exists to reintroduce the option of a single lump sum. That view received substantial backing at the conference. The Queensland Govemment believes that the first home owners scheme benefits should be indexed to the CPI. The Federal Govemment indexes taxes, but it does not index benefits such as this. Eligibility under the scheme should be extended to include the custodial parent in a marriage break-up. When the first home owners scheme was introduced it was excellent, but its capacity to help home-buyers has been seriously eroded by the Federal Government. If the Federal Govemment is serious about helping first home buyers, it should act to boost Questions Without Notice 19 April 1989 4869 first home owner scheme benefits as a form of compensation for the adverse impact that its high interest rate monetary policy is having on housing, which is leading us, no doubt, into a recession in the very near future.

Westpac Banking Corporation Productivity-enhancement Scheme; Alexander Proudfoot International Mr BURNS: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: is he aware of a report that appeared last Friday, 14 April, in the Australian Financial Review in which the Westpac Banking Corporation admitted that a productivity-enhancement scheme named 3P, which was recommended after a $6m study by management consultants Alexander Proudfoot Intemational, is "flawed" and has "caused problems"? Is that the very same firm that is presently engaged in certain productivity inquiries that were initiated by this Govemment within various State public service departments, including the Stamp Duties Office? What State Govemment departments are being studied by Alexander Proudfoot Intemational? What is the purpose and what is the cost of each inquiry? Is it a fact that some of the firm's experts are being paid $1,700 a day plus accommodation and retum week-end air fares to Sydney and Melboume? Was that firm required to produce an interim report on the Stamp Duties Office by the end of last month, but has it sought and been given a two-months' extension? What extra cost is involved in that extension? Is one of the purposes of that firm's assignments on behalf of this Govemment the introduction of a productivity-enhancement system similar to the one that Westpac says, after spending $6m, is flawed and has caused problems? Is this Govemment doing the very same thing? Mr AHERN: I do not have all that information readily at hand. I do not believe that the honourable member would expect me to carry it with me. The company to which the honourable member referred comprises a well-respected group of intemational consultants with a very high reputation who are doing work for this Govemment in the Treasury Department. I am not aware of what work they are undertaking in relation to pay-roll tax, land tax and in other Govemment departments such as the Stamp Duties Office. Those issues are being carefully studied by this group of consultants. We are very happy with the work that has been done so far. It is important to have a group of well- credentialled consultants to work with a steering committee. The consultants are taking a very, very careful look at the job. I am very happy with the work so far. I am not aware of the article to which the honourable member makes reference, but no doubt they are. The issue will be closely monitored by us. The work so far has been splendidly done.

Skilled Migrants for Country Areas Mr HYND: I ask the Minister for Community Services and Ethnic Affairs, as Minister responsible for immigration in Queensland: can he advise this House what assistance can be secured to enable country areas to obtain people with skills that are vitally needed for the proper functioning of a community when such skills cannot be secured from within Australia? I further ask: can the Minister assist in securing such people? Mr KATTER: 1 thank the honourable member for the question. I pay tribute to his very hard work in developing policies for this Government in relation to this matter. It gives me some joy to relate to the House that, following three separate ministerial conferences, the Govemment has been able to secure some concessions from the Federal Govemment. It has agreed to give five extra points—and approximately 80 points are needed before a person is allowed into Australia—if people are prepared to live outside of the big cities, the metropolitan areas of Australia. 4870 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice

It has taken nearly three years to get to the stage at which some satisfaction has been received from the Federal Govemment. However, the satisfaction falls far short of what this State requires. Numerous people in this State—probably 100 000 or 200 000— are sorely lacking services without which a community simply cannot operate. The country communities need people such as refrigeration mechanics, electricians, chemists and, sadly, in some cases, even doctors and dentists. There is a shortage of people in those professions. No matter what the circumstances, people with those qualifications are not allowed into Australia to go to any of the outer-metropolitan towns if they are not accepted as having those skills which are required. In fact, people in almost all of those professions that I have referred to cannot get into Australia at present. For those who say to me that people are not interested in coming to this country, I indicate that at present 100 000 stateless Poles are living in Germany. Obviously, numerous people would be available with the skills that are required in these country centres, if they were allowed into this country. To those people who say, "You can't pin them down in a country area", I say, "Yes, we can." They can be allowed in on a work visa with self-employment status for a period of one, two or three years. After they have spent three years in some of the harsh outback places of this State and other States, they most certainly deserve Australian citizenship. That is the proposal that was put forward. I commend the honourable member for having been part of the formulation of that proposal. I am quite confident that ultimately—most certainly with a change of Govemment federally—the Queensland Govemment will obtain satisfaction in relation to those proposals.

Monitoring of Child-care Facilities Ms WARNER: I ask the Minister for Family Services: as the Early Childhood Resource Unit in the Family Services Department was disbanded in 1983 and as the number of child-care centres has almost doubled since that time, could he inform the House of the current measures that are being used to monitor standards in child-care facilities. Mr SHERRIN: The monitoring is a joint process that goes on between represen­ tatives of local govemment authorities throughout this State and officers of my depart­ ment. As the honourable member should be aware, most of the officers are based in regional offices. For a number of years, local government has had responsibility for carrying out the surveying side of child-care centres, such as the pedestal numbers, the size of the centres, safety requirements, child-proof fencing and so on. Local govemment does that quite well. My department has a number of specialised officers located throughout the State who have a responsibility for monitoring the employment qualification of supervisors and other staff who wish to work in child-care centres. It is a joint responsibility. Currently, child-care regulations are under review. A Green Paper was published last year by my predecessor, the Honourable Peter McKechnie. Currently, I am in receipt of responses from a wide range of people in the industry to that proposal. At the same time, an investigation is being undertaken by the Brisbane College of Advanced Education into the concept of self-regulation in the industry. I expect to receive that report within the next two weeks. From that point, I will be able to take a recommendation to the Govemment on future changes, if any, to the regulations and the ways in which they will be monitored.

Administration of Community Services Portfolio Ms WARNER: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the fact that the Auditor-General has reported that 19 of the 27 Aboriginal communities have experienced financial mismanagement. Given that the Minister for Community Services has contin­ uously masked his lack of support for communities by calling for self-management Questions Without Notice 19 April 1989 4871 without giving proper assistance, and given that the Commonwealth Govemment is becoming increasingly concemed about disbursement of Commonwealth funds—for example, for the Doomadgee water supply system—and given also that the Premier has already demonstrated a lack of confidence in the Minister by insisting that a task force investigating financial mismanagement should report directly to him and not to the Minister, would the Premier agree that that all demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the Minister's capacity to deal with severe problems within the Community Services portfolio? Under those circumstances, does he agree that he should immediately seek the Minister's resignation from Community Services, as he did from Northern Development? Mr AHERN: The issue of a task force reporting to me was obviously necessary because of the interdepartmental nature of the problems that existed. Not only is the Department of Community Services involved, there are also other departments Mr De Lacy: But have you got confidence in him? Mr AHERN: I have confidence in my Minister. Ms Warner: Which other departments? Mr AHERN: If the honourable member does not know, she should go to those areas and have a look. A number of other departments has an interest in these matters. Mr Goss: Have you expressed confidence? Mr AHERN: I have expressed confidence in my Minister, but I do not have confidence in the Federal Minister's administration—neither does the Prime Minister. When honourable members consider what the ATSIC proposal means—that is, that a black Parliament will be established in this country with a budget of approximately $800m, in spite of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee of the Federal Parliament and the Federal Auditor-General are in open criticism of such a proposal— obviously there is a total lack of accountability. Millions and millions of dollars are openly wasted. I would have thought that the Australian Labor Party might be hiding its head on this issue. Labor's administration has been wasteful in the extreme. Money has been plastered all over these communities, with no thought at all being given to accountability measures. The privately expressed views of Federal Ministers about the wasteful policies of Mr Hand would curl your hair, Mr Speaker. There is no doubt at all that the Federal Government is wasting huge amounts of money. In future, I think that the honourable member should hold her piece because this will become a very big issue as this ATSIC proposal is advanced by the Australian Labor Party. It is not wanted by the Aboriginal communities, and it is certainly not wanted by Queenslanders.

Federal Government's April Economic Statement; State Government's Priority for Expenditure Mr De LACY: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his reaction to the Federal Treasurer's April statement wherein it was stated that promised increases in expenditure on basic services, such as education, health, police and prisons may have to be curtailed, and I ask: will the Premier undertake to "prioritise"—which is one of Baudino's words—State Govemment spending cuts? In other words, will he undertake not to make cuts in expenditure or proposed increases in expenditure on basic services until he has obliterated altogether spending on socially and economically useless items such as party-political advertising, public funding of defamation writs, futile action against World Heritage listing and legal costs of private companies involved in industrial battles? Mr AHERN: The Federal Govemment and its various arms spend in excess of $80m on advertising each year, which is about $5 per capita. The Queensland Govemment 4872 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice has the lowest per capita advertising expenditure of any State Govemment. It amounts to approximately $4 per capita. That assessment has been provided by an independent authority that has looked into this issue. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cairns! Mr AHERN: Labor is completely hypocritical on this issue. The honourable member for Cairns referred to the Federal economic statement. I ask him to explain to the people of Queensland how this statement can be justified by all the largess promised to Australians by the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer. At the same time, these measures are to be financed to a large degree by taxing the States through cutting back substantially on the loan programs and financial assistance grants to the States. This is gross deceit and political hypocrisy. The Labor Party will pay the price, because there is no way in the world that the Labor Party can explain its actions away in any fireside chat. It is a cmde political ploy to take money away from the States and give it out to the electors in the hope of winning a Federal election at some time in the future. The issue will be carefully addressed by this Govemment and it will carefully consider its priorities. However, blame must be laid on the Federal Government in respect of this Govemment's aim to provide additional teachers, policemen, nurses and prison officers, because Treasurer Keating's measures have prevented this Government from providing these additional services. I ask the honourable member for Cairns to tell the unions, "Sorry, Paul Keating has taken away a very substantial part of the hope that was given this year in Queensland." That is where the problem lies. The responsibility must be sheeted home to the ALP in this State and to its Federal mates.

Government Expenditure on Basic Services Mr De LACY: In directing a second question to the Premier, I refer to his previous comments that Queensland would pay a price in terms of the numbers of additional teachers, nurses, policemen, etc., and I ask: is he aware that receipts from State taxes and charges for the first half of this financial year are mnning at $132m ahead of Budget estimates, which promises a windfall tax bonanza in the vicinity of $250m for the full year? In addition, I ask: rather than promoting the spectre of further expenditure cuts in basic services, will the Premier endeavour to increase expenditure from the current abysmally low levels to at least the national average? Mr AHERN: The honourable member has not studied the total picture. It is obvious that the increase in interest rates has cost this nation and State dearly. The ALP cannot mn away from responsibility in these matters because its Federal mates have made these cut-backs. The ALP must take responsibility for that. This year there has been some enhancement in revenues, but the cost increases have been bigger than those budgeted for. The honourable member knows what Federal Treasurer Keating's estimates in respect of the CPI were. He must look at the reality. The honourable member is a mile out on his figures, as he was in relation to the trade deficit. These costs are real for this Government and have had to be absorbed. I counsel the honourable member to look at the total picture, and then he will understand that this coming year very substantial cuts are projected for this State by his mate Paul Keating. When I speak to employees up and down the State, I will tell them where the real responsibility lies. Questions Without Notice 19 AprU 1989 4873

Development of Bribie Island Land Mr NEWTON: In directing a question to the Minister for Land Management, I refer to a statement made in the Bribie Times by the ALP candidate for Glass House, Mr Jon Sullivan, conceming a parcel of land on Bribie Island released by the LAC for public expressions of interest that the land was the most suitable development proposal to blend in with the natural environment, and I ask the Minister: what are his views about this statement? Mr GLASSON: It is quite obvious that a person only has to become an endorsed candidate for the Labor Party to adopt the tactics put in train by the Opposition Leader; in other words, to make accusations that are completely without foundation. This invokes a fear in people's minds that there is something sinister happening. Mr Goss interjected. Mr GLASSON: I inform the Leader of the Opposition and his candidate for Glass House that the 47 hectares of land on Bribie Island for which tenders were called for development is an inferior low-lying parcel of land that will lend itself to only one type of development; either a canal or a lagoon type of development. I turn to the accusations made and to the cynicism of Mr Jon Sullivan in adopting these tactics. The article appearing in the Bribie Times entitled "Candidate questions Bribie land release" states— "Mr Sullivan said that he had been made aware about ten days ago of a meeting between the Minister and an unnamed Bribie developer." Mr Davis: Who was it? Mr GLASSON: That is what I would like to know. The honourable member for Brisbane Central can tell me who it is. This is relevant because it concems the ALP's candidate. I am checking the matter. Every time an interview is conducted or a deputation is received, a detailed transcript is kept of what transpires. The only time that 1 ever received a deputation from developers on Bribie Island in relation to pastoral land that could be suggested as being one and the same parcel of land as that under discussion was in 1987—but he found out 10 days ago! I shall put it in its right context. The first application was made by Cardno and Davies Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of Jural No. 11 Pty Ltd. Mr Gunn: That is Davis' company. Mr Davis: How dare you! Mr GLASSON: Yes, that is the honourable member's company. The proposed development was intended to be an extension of the existing lagoon development, which is immediately to the north. Again, more importantly, it was considered that there was no right to priority on the allocation of that parcel of land. The chairman of the commission recommended that it go to public tender. In that 1987 interview I was asked if consideration would be given to allocating that land, and it was again indicated that the land would go to public tender. By virtue of a Cabinet decision of 20 March 1989, expressions of interest were called for on a parcel of public land to be developed by the successful tenderer, whoever it might be. There is absolutely no chance that anyone has received priority treatment, or special treatment, in relation to that parcel of land.

Legalisation of the Playing of Two-up Mr WHITE: In asking a question of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, 1 refer him to the recent decision of the New South Wales Government to legalise the playing of two-up on Anzac Day. 1 now ask: as many diggers enjoy a game of two-up 4874 19 April 1989 Questions Without Notice on Anzac Day, bearing in mind that it is coming up at the end of the month, will he give consideration to legalising it on Anzac Day, as the New South Wales Govemment has done? Mr CLAUSON: I thank the honourable member for this question because it poses some serious questions based on history. I am the first to acknowledge that back in the days of the trench warfare in Flanders, France, the playing of two-up was something to pass the time away. In those days, young men lived from day to day and had to find ways of passing the time. Two-up was one of them. It did not matter whether or not a person had any money in his pocket, because the chances of surviving those horrendous conditions in Flanders were certainly very slim. The young men of that era in that place had little to look forward to in life. However, they used the money in their pockets to play the game of two-up. In this day and age people have to be more socially responsible. With inflation and the national debt the way they are, it is important that people not be encouraged to squander their financial resources on illicit gambling activities behind the tin shed at the RSL. As a result of the inept economic management of this nation, it would be socially irresponsible to allow this to occur, particularly where the circumstances are conducive to the squandering of funds by family men on this day of remembrance. In those circumstances, it is a matter that should be put off until a brighter economic day dawns in this country.

Payment to President of Wolffdene Dam Protest Committee Mr LINGARD: In asking a question of the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, I refer to recent meetings at which dissatisfaction has been expressed about those people who are organising the Wolffdene dam protest committee. I now ask: is he aware of allegations that the president of that organisation has made arrangements to be paid for his services from the protesters' fighting fund? Mr NEAL: A number of documents have faUen off the back of tmcks into the hands of the protesters' committee and I might also say that some of those tmcks have been coming the Government's way and some things have fallen off the back of them. As the Premier indicated this morning, the Government has nothing to hide on the Wolffdene dam issue, which will be referred to the Public Works Committee. It has been brought to my attention that Mr Milligan, the self-styled "Mr Hard Done By" of Wolffdene, has arranged to be paid a consulting fee for his work on behalf of the protest committee. Honourable members would be aware of the term cheque­ book journalism, but in the Albert valley something entirely new has appeared. This is a case of protest payment. I understand that Mr Milligan has been paid a fee for his services and that the balance owing is about $500. In addition to this, Mr Milligan, who is the new president of the protest committee, has arranged to be paid $300 a week for his services. I bring that to the attention of the House in the hope that anyone in the Albert valley contributing to the protesters' fighting fund will be made fully aware that Mr Milligan appears to have brought new meaning to the term community protest. To supplement his life-style, Mr Milligan has discovered rent-a-protester. He may now be able to list his occupation as professional protester. I also hope that Mr Milligan's nice little earner is fully declared not only to the people in the Albert valley contributing to the fighting fund but also to the Australian Taxation Office.

Proposed Introduction of Water-meters to Brisbane Mr CAMPBELL: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to yesterday's Sun, which stated that, when water-meters are installed, Brisbane City Council rate-payers will pay an average additional amount of $90 each half year. I refer to the Premier's Fair Trading Bill 19 April 1989 4875 public statement several weeks ago that that was a new form of taxation by the Brisbane City Council. I ask: if the electors and citizens of Brisbane fulfil local govemment requirements, will he support them in a petition for a referendum on the introduction of water-meters to Brisbane? Mr AHERN: It is a matter for the local authority.

Milk Quotas and Drought Relief, Use of Ministerial Discretion Mr CAMPBELL: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: what proportion of requests for ministerial discretion are exercised on milk quotas and drought relief? Mr HARPER: It would be difficult to give a specific answer to such an inquiry. For instance, in applications for drought relief, when an application is lodged a period of six months after the effective movement has taken place, the drought secretariat is required to submit to the Minister recommendations so that the Minister may exercise a ministerial discretion. I could not tell the honourable member how many of those requests have been referred to me or how many have been approved. On only one occasion have I had the need to refer the application back for further advice and inquiry by the secretariat. As to the type of interpretation that was made by the drought secretariat in the case of Mr Stiller—I do not recall any other cases of that nature. I am fairly confident in saying that there would be very few cases. An occasional application may have been made, but I do not recall any. As to the member's suggestion that I have a ministerial discretion on milk quotas— I point out very clearly that no room for ministerial discretion exists on the distribution of market-milk growth. If the member had been following the debate in the House, he would appreciate that fact.

New High School at Clermont Mr SMYTH: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, 1 refer to the recent announcement by the member for Peak Downs, Mr Lester, that a new high school will be built by the National Party Govemment in Clermont, which is in Mr Lester's electorate. I ask: has land been resumed for that much-needed and overdue project? On what date will the project commence? How many students will the high school accom­ modate? Is it just another pork-barreUing exercise by Mr Lester? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I recently visited Clermont. At present, two sites are controlled by the one administration. When a new high school is declared, no new land will need to be acquired. As my property officers are currently investigating the project, I am unable to give exact details about the date at which it will commence. The honourable member commented about pork-barreUing. I gather from that statement that the member believes that the people of his electorate are not being looked after. The record will show that all electorates in Queensland are looked after extremely well. 1 find the reference to pork-barreUing distasteful. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

FAIR TRADING BILL Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister for Public Works, Housing and Main Roads) (4.10 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to certain unfair or undesirable trade practices, to regulate the supply of goods and services, to provide for consumer authorities and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. 4876 19 April 1989 Fair Trading BiU

First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister for Public Works, Housing and Main Roads) (4.11 p.m.): On behalf of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Fair Trading Bill is the most significant piece of consumer-protection legislation ever introduced in Queensland. This legislation, which is the culmination of protracted and exhaustive investigation, replaces the existing consumer-protection legislation in this State and takes up the uniform provisions currently in place throughout the rest of Australia. It will provide the Consumer Affairs Bureau with teeth to tackle those unscmpulous businesspeople who have previously shown scant regard for the interests of Queensland consumers. It will assist this Government to convince con men and rip-off merchants that there is no place for them in this State. The legislation will apply to all people involved in business, including the professions. This is consistent with the legislation that has been introduced by all other States as well as the Commonwealth. It is important to point out that it is not intended to commence a witch-hunt among professionals. Any complaints would be viewed strictly on their merits and would be referred to the appropriate professional associations in the absence of any compelling reason for the bureau's involvement. There are occupations which can be best regarded as borderline professional. The bureau has from time to time experienced problems with certain individuals involved in altemative medicine. The new provisions will enable these problems to be addressed. This legislation is not, however, expected to have any significant impact on the recognised professions. The adoption of the uniform fair trading provisions in common with all other States and the Commonwealth means that industry will benefit from a certain and consistent environment. Consumers also gain as they will be afforded a new level of protection. No longer will unethical traders be able to use their superior position to impose harsh and unreasonable conditions in contracts with consumers. Conduct that is misleading or deceptive will also be prohibited and, together with the unconscionable conduct provisions mentioned above, will attract a range of remedies to enable effective enforcement. Certain other provisions in the Bill are also uniform with the legislation of the other States and the Commonwealth. These provisions prohibit— • making false or misleading representations about a number of specific aspects relating to the supply of goods or services; • misleading advertising directed at persons seeking employment; • offering gifts or prizes with intent to mislead; • bait advertising—where goods advertised at a special price are not reasonably available for supply; • referral selling—where a rebate is given only if a consumer helps to obtain further sales; • accepting payment without intending or being able to supply as ordered; • misrepresenting a business activity that can be carried on from a place of residence or that involves the investment of money and the performance of work; • harassment or coercion of consumers to make them buy or pay for goods or services; and Fair Trading BiU 19 April 1989 4877

• asserting a right to payment for unsoUcited goods or services, including advertising services, or for the making of an entry in a directory. In addition, the Bill incorporates the model legislation for door-to-door sales developed by Tasmania replacing the present Door to Door (Sales) Act 1966-1973. This achieves further uniformity with the other States and remedies inadequacies in the present Act. The new provisions restrict the times when door-to-door dealers may call to 9 a.m.—5 p.m. on Saturdays and 9 a.m.—8 p.m. on weekdays, with Sundays and public holidays excluded completely. This will spare many of our elderly citizens and rural consumers from the inconvenience and, in some cases, intimidation that can accompany door-to-door selling activity outside of those hours. Unlike the present legislation where only certain goods and services are covered, everything will now be covered unless otherwise prescribed. Another important change is the extension of the cooling-off period to 10 days and the requirement that no money can be accepted—not even a deposit—during that time. Goods may be left with a consumer, if a trader desires. If, however, the consumer cancels the contract within the cooling-off period, his liability is restricted to any damage he has caused to the goods. The warranty provisions adopted from the existing Consumer Affairs Act now express a requirement that if any warranty is communicated to a consumer, it must be in writing. This will prevent a trader from making off-the-cuff remarks about goods or services being guaranteed, if he is not at least prepared to back up his claim in writing. The information and safety provisions currently contained in the Consumer Affairs Act have been extended to include services and to prohibit or restrict the supply of goods or services likely to adversely affect a person's mental and psychological as well as physical health. This results from the previous inability under the Act to address the problem of "victim" and "horror" toys. Attempts by Federal authorities to obtain a voluntary ban on such items have failed dismally. A further new provision relating to safety has been adopted from the Factories and Shops Act. This prohibits the sale of refrigerators, icechests and iceboxes which might end up as death traps for young children. Most people are aware of the assistance the Consumer Affairs Bureau provides to individual consumers, but the bureau also serves a valuable purpose for the economy of Queensland. This role will be furthered by the new legislation which seeks to promote fair and honest competition. Misleading advertising, which aims to gain an unfair advantage over ethical competitors, will be prohibited. Competition, which lies at the very heart of our economic system, will be strengthened. Businesses will be obliged to compete to a greater extent on the fundamentals of price, quality and service to the obvious benefit of all Queenslanders except con men and rip-off merchants. I would like to take the opportunity to praise the efforts of the bureau's dedicated staff, who work tirelessly to provide advice and assistance to consumers and to keep Queensland as free as possible from the scurrilous conduct of a smaU minority of traders. All honourable members would know that I have been most active in waming consumers and taking positive action to protect them. Much effective protection is generated by the behind-the-scenes activity of the bureau. This may involve enlisting the help of a finance company to exert pressure on a "shonky" car yard which relies on its finance. The bureau might also request assistance from newspapers and magazines to refrain from publishing advertisements which promote certain products. The community is generally unaware of much that is done to assist it. One miUion misleading and deceptive letter-box pamphlets weighing 9 tonnes were destroyed under my direction. These had been intended for distribution on behalf of that notorious parasite Robert Clark also known as Bob Turner and as "King Con". The pamphlets promoted CAL-BAN 3000, an alleged weight-loss compound, which had been the subject of previously successful prosecutions by the bureau. They also promoted the flowering "Chinese Empress" tree which is claimed to grow more than 4 metres in one year and has been the subject of previous warnings I have issued to consumers. 4878 19 April 1989 Fair Trading Bill

It was also Queensland which put paid to Peter Foster's plans to start another Bai Lin tea empire with his absolutely worthless Diet Patch promotion. It was Queensland which sent him packing for the United Kingdom with his tail between his legs. This legislation wUl enable Queensland to take out injunctions against the Fosters of the world to protect the interests of consumers and honest businesspeople alike. I have no intention, however, of looking back on past successes and being lulled into complacency. The market-place is dynamic and new practices are emerging on a regular basis. This Bill will enable the bureau to more effectively address a constantly changing environment by virtue of its remedies and enforcement provisions. The remedies are new to consumer legislation in this State but are commensurate with the provisions recently introduced by the other States based on the Commonwealth's Trade Practices Act. I have already mentioned injunctions as one of the remedies available. This will include the power for a court to grant an interim injunction restraining conduct where it is particularly blatant and where delays in obtaining final evidence would create a potential for serious loss by consumers. Provision also exists for corrective advertising orders to be sought through a court where it is considered necessary for a business to correct a wrong impression which has arisen in the community through its false advertising. Similarly, we will be able to impose, through a court, a requirement for a trader to disclose particular information to all prospective consumers. This might be useful to caution consumers, for example, about the operation of the 60-day fixed price clause in the event of continued activity in Queensland by Mansard Properties Ltd, trading as Designed for Living by Mansard. The courts will also be able to award compensation to consumers, make variations to contracts, direct refunds and order the provision of spare parts or the supply of specified services where these orders are appropriate. Where some fly-by-night operator has profited from conduct that offends against the proposed Act, the courts will have power to freeze the ill-gotten gains. It will then be up to the bureau to obtain the necessary evidence for the court to record a conviction and make any necessary orders for compensation, refund or payment of any fines. The provisions goveming the powers of inspectors, including the powers to obtain information, remain largely unchanged from the existing provisions of the Consumer Affairs Act. The power to obtain warrants to search premises has been extended to those premises where services are performed or related records are stored. The need for this extension of powers was brought to light recently when bureau officers attempted to follow up a tip-off that a certain garage was actively involved in winding-back odometers. They were not able to obtain the necessary warrant because that section of the Consumer Affairs Act referred only to goods. The BiU picks up many of the existing provisions of the Consumer Affairs Act with little or no change. These include provisions relating to the Consumer Affairs Council, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, the Consumer Affairs Bureau, the Consumer Safety Committee, formerly known as the Product Safety Committee, the manufacture and sale of shoes, restrictions on references to consumer authorities, limitation of action, preservation of secrecy, and service of documents. The benefits of this Bill are many and they are not restricted to any one section of the community. They stand to serve the entire community by providing for strong and healthy competition. The bureau will be able to pursue its objective of an equitable, competitive, informed and safe market-place backed by sound and proper legislation. Consumers will gain from the added measure of protection, which also covers transactions by the business and farming sectors in their capacity as consumers of goods and services. Industry and commerce will benefit not only from the promotion of competition but also from uniformity with the major provisions contained in legislation in other States. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4879

This will lower costs in some areas and above all help business to operate in an atmosphere of certainty. On the passing of this Bill, the following Acts will be repealed— • the Consumer Affairs Act 1970-1987 • the Door to Door (Sales) Act 1966-1973 • the Mock Auctions Act 1973 • the Unordered Goods and Services Act 1973-1974. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Hamill, adjoumed.

REGULATION OF SUGAR CANE PRICES ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 5 April (see p. 4144). Mr CASEY (Mackay) (4.26 p.m.): The Minister for Primary Industries in the State of Queensland speaks with more hypocrisy than any other Minister in this State—and that is really paying him a tribute. In his second-reading speeches on this and other Bills, he has mouthed on about the destmctive policies of the Federal Labor Govemment as being the reason why this legislation was being introduced. However, let us face the facts. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I both well know, the amendments contained in the Bill were proposed in a Green Paper that was circulated right throughout Queensland and the sugar industry in August 1987—nine months before the sugar embargo contro­ versy arose in this nation. The Minister had the hide and the audacity to come into this Chamber and tell honourable members that that was one of the reasons for the legislation. What a hypocrite he is! In his second-reading speech he deliberately misled the Parliament. However, it was a convenient smoke-screen for the problems that he is experiencing within the National Party, particularly with National Party back-benchers. Honourable members saw an example of that during the past week. On a number of occasions this legislation has been deferred and put further down the notice paper to allow the National Party caucus to dmm some sense into the Minister. Even National Party members who represent sugar-cane growing areas were trying to stop the Minister from proceeding with the legislation—I might add th^t only a few National Party members did that—because they knew that on his head and on their heads would rest the problems that the Minister would bring upon the sugar industry. Last week in the House I named the members representing sugar-cane growing areas who are members of the National Party. Mr Tenni, who is a ministerial colleague of the Minister for Primary Industries, co-operated with the Minister on the introduction of this legislation. I know that Mr Menzel and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, exerted some effort to have something sensible inserted into this legislation. The member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, has gone along with Mr Harper and everything that he has wanted to do. So also have the Minister's other colleagues from the Mackay district—Mr Muntz and Mr Randell. They sat in this Chamber and agreed to everything contained in the legislation. 1 will make sure that I keep telling the people in the sugar-growing areas exactly what is the opinion of those members. Mr Slack, Mr Powell and Mr Austin, who is the Minister for Finance, have agreed with the legislation. Mr Simpson, who comes from the Nambour area, and Mr Gibbs, whose electorate includes the Rocky Point area and who is another ministerial colleague of the Minister for Primary Industries, both supported Mr Harper on this amending Bill. The resultant row that will develop within the sugar industry in this State will be on their heads. 4880 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

The biggest untmth that has been perpetrated by Mr Harper is his assertion that he had massive consultation with the sugar industry about this legislation. What a load of garbage! What a load of rot that he has tried to tell the people of Queensland! I have spoken with representatives of the Australian Sugar Milling Council, the Australian Cane Farmers Association, cane-growers' executives and mill-suppliers' committees from Beenleigh to Mossman. All of the submissions that those organisations have made to Mr Harper objected to major aspects of this legislation. As recently as yesterday the Courier-Mail reported that the Herbert River executive has come out strongly against the proposals that Mr Harper wanted to introduce in this legislation. Everybody's comments are the same, namely, that the Minister has failed to properly communicate with them and listen to their submissions. I know what was in those submissions. I have seen copies of a joint submission on certain aspects of this legislation that was sent by the industry to the Minister in March of last year. Because the Minister has taken no notice of them, he is now on the nose with the sugar industry. During that period many of this Govemment's leaders have failed the industry and displayed a lack of intestinal fortitude. Instead of considering the politics of the sugar industry in this issue they have been playing National Party politics. I am not talking about the party politics of the sugar industry; I mean the pure politics of the sugar industry which, over the years, has stood firmly on certain aspects of sugar legislation. In fact, since 1915 when a Labor Government first introduced this legislation, the sugar industry has benefited from this legislation. But now it has gone down the chute. There is no greater example of a lack of intestinal fortitude in some people—and only some people—than in those people within the Queensland Cane Growers Council, which is supposed to be representative of the industry. Every cane-grower in Queensland is compelled to be a member of the Queensland Cane Growers Council. Recently I saw a letter dated 17 April 1989, which was sent to Mr Harper, the Minister for Primary Industries, by Mr Soper, the president of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, who commented that Mr Harper had claimed that he, Mr Soper, had given total support to the legislation. Mr Soper claimed that he had never indicated his unqualified support for this Bill. Mr Soper and I have been close personal friends since we were boys at school together in Mackay. Nonetheless, I visited Ayr last week. At the end of Mr Harper's speech to the Queensland Cane Growers Council, Mr Soper gave a crawling and grovelling vote of thanks to Mr Harper. He said that there were some aspects of the amendments to the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act with which the council is not happy. Then he added the words, "I guess we will just have to live with them." I am sure that Mr Harper will not deny that that is what Mr Soper said publicly last week in Ayr in front of cane-growers. Yet in recent days, in a letter to Mr Harper, Mr Soper said that he does not agree with him; that the reaction to such a statement by him is completely wrong. Prominent leaders of the sugar industry from Cairns to Brisbane have spoken to me since then. They said that they could not believe what Fred Soper said and that they could not go along with him. That will create a devil of a row at the next meeting of the Queensland Cane Growers Council when delegates from all parts of the Queensland sugar industry assemble in Brisbane. The way in which Mr Harper has been able to act and bully this legislation through his own party back-benchers—most of whom do not know the first thing about this legislation and do not understand the industry itself—and the member for Burdekin is probably the worst in that respect—is unfortunate. The leaders of the sugar industry are not prepared to fight for it. If they are not prepared to fight for the sugar industry, surely they must expect that Ministers such as Mr Harper will play them off a break. If they are not prepared to project their industry's policies, they must suffer the consequences. The sugar industry is very large. It is also very angry—and so it should be. Under the Sugar Acquisition Act and the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act the sugar industry Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 April 1989 4881 in this State has enjoyed a glorious position. It has been the major agricultural industry in this State—stmctured with industry control under Govemment legislation. Under this legislation, it will become Govemment controlled under Govemment legislation. The man who will have all the say in the operations of the legislation will be the Minister rather than the industry itself through its organisation. The Central Sugar Cane Prices Board has always been the umpire of the industry, which has respected and obeyed it. Various industry organisations have not necessarily liked the board's decisions but they have accepted, respected and obeyed them. Now that board will have its teeth pulled. Ministerial direction will replace the powers of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. The system of peaks and assignments throughout the industry will be destroyed by this legislation because powers wiU be taken away from the industry and given to the Minister. If the Minister decides to transfer peak and assignment from one district to another, he can do so, and there can be no appeal whatsoever by any person or any sector of the industry. It is no wonder that some National Party back-benchers from sugar industry areas have been trying to dmm some sense into the Govemment on this particular matter, because it is contrary to what has happened in the past. We will see ministerial direction and ministerial opinions. There will be no avenue for appeal. In recent days we have seen the results of the Minister's discretion in relation to drought reUef matters and the controversies that they have created, not only here in Queensland but throughout AustraUa. Recently, this House passed wheat industry legislation. The same discretionary provisions were placed in that legislation as appear in this legislation. There is ministerial control over the wheat industry. Even yesterday this House dealt with legislation conceming ministerial control over the dairying industry, although, because this is a cow-cocky Govemment, the Minister has always had that control. Last week the fishing industry legislation allowed for ministerial control. All of our primary industries wiU be subject to ministerial control. Finally, the last bastion has now fallen. The sugar industry has fallen to ministerial direction, aU because of the inadequacies of back-bench members of the National Party and their inability to understand the legislation and because they would not stand up and fight this Minister. I give an assurance that other members of the Australian Labor Party and I will keep up the fight right through to the next State election in all of the National Party held sugar areas. Mr Stoneman: Till there are no cane-farmers left. Mr CASEY: The first area will be that of the honourable member for Burdekin, the biggest traitor of them all. I do not see this Minister bringing in similar controlling legislation for the beef and the wool industries. No fear. The old UGA brotherhood is better than that of the coppers. There is no way in the world he will bring in controlling legislation and upset the United Graziers Association, from whence he came into this Parliament. However, he certainly is doing so in relation to the sugar industry. The Minister actually has the hide to claim that he had extensive consultation with the industry on these matters. The real story is shown in the Australian Sugar Milling Council press release of 12 April, which was only last week, wherein it was indicated that there has been insufficient consultation with the Minister. That remark was made by a council which represents sugar mills from Mossman to Beenleigh. In late March, the Australian Canegrower, the joumal of the Queensland Cane Growers CouncU, stated that the acting chief of the industry said that over a period of five months the Minister had three half-hour discussions with the total industry about the aspects of this legislation. I ask: is that the sort of treatment deserving of the greatest industry in this State? Is that the sort of treatment deserving of the milling operations of our greatest secondary industry? Is that the sort of treatment that is deserving of an industry that provides so much to the economy of 4882 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill this State—the sugar industry? That industry is the life-blood of towns and cities from Beenleigh to Mossman. Mr Deputy Speaker, they include your township and my city. Mr Stoneman: That Labor is trying to kill. Mr CASEY: Including the Ayr/Home Hill area of the honourable member for Burdekin. The sugar industry provides the life-blood of his area, yet he is prepared to sign it away to give this Minister the ministerial powers to control the industry as he sees fit. Even Mr Soper, more recently renowned for his crawling attitude to the Minister last week in Ayr, in his letter of 17 April to Minister Harper stated— "Greater co-operation and consultation between your staff and that of cane­ grower and milling organisations would be of distinct advantage to all concemed." At the last minute even Mr Soper is prepared to tum round and say that the industry is not being consulted by the Minister. As I said earlier, only in recent days have I spoken to sugar industry leaders all the way along the coast. The Minister ought to hear what some of them are saying about the lack of consultation between him and the industry. Mr Wilkinson, the chairman of the Herbert River district executive, was prepared to come out publicly in the media only yesterday and clearly signify how he felt about the consultation that has occurred with the Minister. Sugar groups from Mossman to Beenleigh have pleaded with the Minister. They have begged the Minister; they have even swom at him and tried to bully him in some respects in an attempt to get him to change his mind on certain controversial aspects of this legislation, but to no avail whatsoever. All the way along the line the main objection has been to those ministerial powers allowing him to direct the board as he sees fit or, in fact, to take over rezoning of assignments in uneconomic or exceptional circumstances, as is stated in the legislation. In other words, the Minister will have the power to decide himself and to not refer the matter to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board which, as I stated earlier, is the umpire that has always existed within the industry. This problem has not arisen as a result of any Federal Government actions. The Green Paper was presented by the Minister in August 1987. At that time he spoke about his ministerial powers and wanting to have rezoning power in relation to exceptional or uneconomic circumstances. The joint industry submission on that paper, which was given to the Minister in March 1988, clearly stated that it wanted that power removed. However, it is still there. It is still in the legislation that the Minister has presented to the House. On numerous occasions Mr Harper has said publicly, and in this House, that he has an ongoing commitment to implement only those legislative changes that have the backing of the sugar industry. I ask the Minister: what about this legislative change? He cannot say that this has the backing of the sugar industry. The Minister cannot say to the industry that it has an interest in the clauses dealing with that power in any way, shape or respect whatsoever. This matter must be left in the hands of the central board. This legislation virtually gives the Minister power to fix individual miU and farm peaks in Queensland. As I said earlier, the legislation completely destroys the current system of mill peaks and farm assignments throughout the State. The central board and its advisers—not the Minister—are the best people to determine any economic or exceptional circumstances. All honourable members would know what has happened because of National Party cronyism in Queensland. It has aU been revealed by the Fitzgerald inquiry and the Opposition does not want to see it extended into the sugar industry in any shape or form. Members of the Opposition want to keep cronyism out of the sugar industry in every respect. They want to ensure the sugar industry remains free to control its own affairs by legislation, as it has done over a long period since the Sugar Acquisition Act Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4883 was first introduced by a Labor Government in 1915. The central board is the authority that is competent and capable of performing that task. The legislative changes that are contained in this Bill do not stop cane-growers from applying, in cases involving mill closure, for a transfer of assignment. The Bill does not spell out the priorities attached to transfer within a particular region. This legislation is deficient and open to manipulation as a result of the failure on the part of this Government to include appropriate provisions in the Bill. I make the accusation in Parliament now that the provision relating to transfers is designed only to assist CSR Limited and the Burdekin cane-growing area, especially CSR in the Burdekin district. I ask honourable members who have not already done so to go to the library and study what is known as the McGowan Intemational Pty Ltd report published in November 1988 by a steering committee set up by the mUUng group, CSR Limited. All honourable members would know where the intent of this legislation originated. The McGowan report set out to consider the future of the Burdekin area. The report clearly put forward a recommendation that, within the next eight years, the assignment in the Burdekin should be increased by 35 per cent. It is evident that the report concluded that 35 per cent could be taken from the area without doing anything whatsoever to alter current milling capacity, other than introducing continuous cmshing that has been rejected by the industry in the Herbert River district at this stage. It was to be achieved by a reorganisation of milling in the way that sugar-cane is transferred from one mill area to another. I have no objection to that. If CSR Limited thinks that it has milling capacity that can be used in that area, I do not object; but it has no right to wreck the industry in other districts of Queensland to achieve that goal. It has no right whatsoever to shatter existing sugar legislation that has stood the test of time in this State in order to achieve its objective of co-ordinating all its milling operations and controlling the cane-growing industry in the Burdekin and Herbert River areas. Of course, it has had control of the Herbert River area for a long period. One would only have to refer to the recommendations and summary in the report to see what the steering committee decided to do and what it desired to do with mill amalgamations, inter-mill transfers, and transfers from other districts in order to achieve the 35 per cent. The report shows clearly that by inter-mill transfers and various other devices, there is no hope whatsoever of achieving a 35 per cent increase within eight years. I believe that an increase of only 12 per cent is possible by various forms of shuffling and reorganisation, unless transfers of assignments from other areas are obtained. The Minister should look at what is happening in some sugar-growing areas of this State. If he did, he would very quickly see what CSR intends to do to obtain an increase of 35 per cent within a period of eight years. Any dill would know what will happen to the Hambledon mill during that period of eight years. Honourable members would already be aware of the Daikyo purchase of the Cannon farm that will take a major producer out of action after this season. Everybody in the area would know what will happen in the future. The Hambledon mill is for the chop; it will disappear. The surrounding canelands will be taken over and in a matter of a few years the operations of the mill will become non-viable. It will reach the stage at which no-one will want to buy it. The Mulgrave co-operative and others will not want to buy it. The situation is altogether different from the Pleystowe mill that was taken over by the Mackay co-operative when the rationalisation program was implemented. Pleystowe was a well-mn mill. It had spare capacity that was able to be integrated into the Mackay co-operative to the benefit of each member of the association. However, within a few short years, the Hambledon mill will be of no use to other co-operatives at all. The assignments and mill peak will slowly disappear. CSR will be able to put a foot in the door and provide the Minister with an out when people in the area complain. CSR will offer aU types of incentives for people to transfer their assignments and peaks to the Burdekin area. Hambledon is only one area; I am sure that CSR will be looking for non-viable farms hell, west and crooked to get 4884 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill the sugar-cane down to the Burdekin area and make up the 23 per cent shortfall. That is how it will achieve the increase of 35 per cent within the eight years that is stated in the McGowan report. Nobody can tell me that that is not CSR's plan. Anybody who has been associated with the sugar industry—particularly suppliers to CSR mills—will know and fully understand that that company would go to any lengths to achieve its aims in the sugar industry. It wiU do anything to manipulate the industry in order to obtain the transfers it requires. It will find exceptional circumstances and economic hardships that will give this Minister an excuse to carry out the transfers it needs. I have news for CSR. It will be in for a shock when a change of Government occurs at the next State election. It will not be able to carry out its manipulation. There is no way in the world, if I become Minister for Primary Industries in the next Labor Govemment in this State, that any transfers that are an obvious manipulation by CSR will be approved. The industry wiU be able to get back to organising its own affairs. Mr Menzel: They might make you the Premier if Labor wins. Mr CASEY: I doubt that, but the honourable member for Mulgrave can assure the growers in his electorate that a Labor Party Govemment will look after them a damned sight better than the National Party Govemment does. Mr Stoneman: It won't be the cricket 11. Mr CASEY: When the honourable member for Burdekin retums to his electorate he can tell the growers that, if they want to remain a part of a good, strong and viable industry that is controlled by the industry itself and not by CSR, they should tum out and vote for the Labor Party at the next election. Mr Stoneman: What about John Kerin? He's public enemy No. 1. Mr CASEY: I will mention Mr Kerin during the debate on the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment Bill. I will not stretch my friendship with Mr Deputy Speaker by starting to discuss that Bill during the debate on this legislation. Mr Stoneman: You won't talk about the embargo. Mr CASEY: Mr Stoneman is like a dummy in a Punch and Judy show; he mouths off what the Minister, Mr Harper, has told him to say about this legislation. He yaps and yaps that it is the Federal Govemment's fault, but he needs to be reminded that it is the exercise of ministerial powers that will destroy this industry. These ministerial powers were laid down by this Minister nine months before there was any word whatsoever that the Federal Govemment would lift the sugar embargo. The honourable member cannot blame the sugar embargo in any way. The total blame lies with the Minister for Primary Industries in this State, Mr Harper, and no-one else. The Minister must accept responsibility for what will happen. He is enforcing his own intentions conceming the 5 per cent increase in assignments in Queensland against the wishes of the people in the industry. I spoke about that matter last week, and I will not strain the tolerance of the House by repeating it. Mr Harper: What about peaks? Mr CASEY: The Minister has referred to this 5 per cent increase throughout the State. He asks, "What about peaks?" I told the Minister about peaks last week and I have told him about them previously during question-time. The Minister must continue to use the peak system of assignments in Queensland. If mills are to be forced to spend the necessary capital to enable them to cmsh the farmer's sugar-cane, they must be given a substantive guarantee that they wiU receive the cane before they make any capital expenditure. That can be achieved only through the peak system. An assignment means nothing whatsoever to a mill; peaks are the things that count. Because of the way in which the Minister is allocating assignments Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4885 and intends to implement this legislation in the future, the mills have no guarantee that the assignment will go to them. The Minister maintains that mills can enter into commercial negotiations with some other mill in another area and grow their 5 per cent in that area. The average farmer has approximately 3 hectares—an area the size of a pocket handkerchief—which can be transferred to someone else. If that person obtains enough land, he can make a pretty good deal for himself However, this creates an awful—shocking—administrative problem for the sugar industry. Everyone closely asso­ ciated with the industry knows about this, but the racketeers within the National Party who want to manipulate the scheme are using the Minister as a front in order to achieve their goals. If one wants to look at an example of the hardships that can be foisted upon people through Govemment legislation, one only has to visit the Babinda area, talk to the ex- Goondi growers and ask them about the deal that they were given under the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Act of 1987. In that case a determination was made by someone in the Govemment, rather than by someone from the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. This legislation contains a small amendment that will improve the growers' lot in the future, but it is still not what the people in the industry want. They have clearly told this Minister that they want the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Act totally repealed because of the hardships that have been forced upon the Goondi growers under that legislation. All the back-bench members of this Govemment, including the honourable member for Mulgrave, voted for this legislation. As I said earlier, the industry organisations told the Minister for Primary Industries in a joint submission to the Green Paper that they would not accept ministerial directions, and they are still telling him that. From May to September of last year I visited every sugar-cane growing area in Queensland and talked to either every executive or every individual mill suppliers' committee about the Minister's Green Paper. This was my right and it was the correct thing to do. Without exception, they told me that they did not want ministerial direction and they wanted removed from the legislation the clause that laid down that the Minister would direct where peaks and assignments will go in the case of exceptional circumstances or so-called economic hardship. The Govemment is not worried, even though the industry, through its joint submission, told the Minister that it did not want that provision to remain in the legislation. Despite that, clause 21, which amends section 33 of the Act, spells out loud and clear exactly what this Minister wants to do. He is still going ahead with this provision. What is wrong with his back­ benchers? They have not stopped the Minister or stood by the executives in their electorates and put their opinions forward. This provision creates a number of problems. If it goes far enough, I ask: what will be the future of the investment in bulk sugar terminals as a result of changes in the industry? Unquestionably, in some areas there will be deterioration. Caims is a classic example of where the problem might first arise when these transfers are allowed, because of the current mmblings within the industry in that area. Already people are saying, "So and so up at Babinda is ready to sell his farm into the Burdekin area. He is just waiting for the new amendments to the legislation to go through." Many people know about it. The Brisbane bulk sugar terminal has already been lost and I will speak more about that matter during the debate on the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment Bill later this evening. We cannot say that the Federal Govemment is to blame for ministerial transfers. Nobody else can be blamed for this legislation. The Queensland Cane Growers Council and the sugar-milling council have both clearly rejected this move. It is only the Minister who wants it. Before one of the half-hour discussions between the Queensland Cane Growers Council and the Minister, that body quite clearly said that this was still a matter for concern. It was listed for discussion with the Minister. The Australian Canegrower of 26 September listed the main issues to be raised by the council at its 4886 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

September meeting and subsequently with the Minister. The matters for discussion were: assignment transferability between mill areas, permits to harvest cane from unassigned land—that is, the roaming provisions—policies for future growth, the definition of mill areas and the mechanisms to ensure the position of existing growers is not prejudiced. All those points relate to exactly what I am speaking about. They were all discussed with the Minister again in September last year. Not one of them is related in any way whatsoever to the lifting of the sugar embargo. They are all to do with this legislation. One of the changes made to the legislation when it was last amended in 1986 relates to the roaming provisions. We have all seen what has happened in this regard. Certainly that provision has been used expeditiously and well in most areas of Queensland, but it has been manipulated in the Burdekin. Grower David Cox last year grew more than 30 000 tonnes on a 4 500-tonne assignment. I admit that it is risk cane, but there was no risk in this respect: the mill was obliged to take it. There was a risk in growing it and in profitability, but he had an adequate water supply from the Burdekin Falls Dam and adequate land. As prices were mnning well, it was not really a risk. I know that it will take a while for him to get a return. I have previously been personally critical of the man, but I talked to him up in Ayr last week. All I say is: good luck to him, because it is the industry that has allowed the changes that have enabled him to manipulate the industry. Unfortunately, because of the failure of the industry to stand strongly and hit the Minister on this matter, these changes will come into effect as well. That will bring more David Coxes onto the scene and consolidate their position. The villains in this are not really Cox and the people like him. The villains are those who are getting Cox to work for them. They are sitting back and doing nothing and hoping to make money out of his working for them. Mr Stoneman: What would they have done last year in the drought? Mr CASEY: Good luck to him, as I said earlier. They are just sitting back and letting him make money for them. Despite talks of a drought and all that sort of thing, I do not think that would have depleted the supply in the Burdekin last year. Let me say quite clearly that that type of operation was never the intent of the last amendments to the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act to come before this House. It has happened because the door was wide open. The legislation has allowed for that manipulation. The door is more than open. The opening of the door on this occasion in the sugar industry is worse than the scene that we witnessed at the soccer match in England the other day. Just as the opening of that door in England destroyed a number of people, this will also destroy the farmers in the industry. The sugar industry in this State was designed to establish as many family farms as possible throughout Queensland. To allow fairness in the industry, the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act came into being and the central board and a series of local boards were set up. That was designed to put more people on the land and to break up and get rid of the old plantation system under which most who were involved in the industry were mendicants and slaves. It was designed to rid the industry of the absentee land­ owners of previous years. In the case of the Burdekin at the moment, the absentee land­ owners are not David Cox; they are those who are sitting back and giving their assignments to Cox so that he can grow the cane for them. Under this legislation, that will be seen more and more. With this legislation, the industry will go round and round in the same circle out of which it broke 50, 60 or 70 years ago. That is how far back in time this Govemment's legislation is taking the industry. I will deal with the temporary transfer of cane from one mill area to another. I believe it should be only on a temporary basis. The Bill is a little indistinct. It appears that, once ministerial approval is given, the transfer will be not on a permanent basis. The transfer of cane on a temporary basis is okay. Last year in the Mackay district that was used to great benefit by the big Mackay sugar co-operative. During intermittent wet weather, when all mill areas were not able to cmsh, the tramline rationalisation scheme Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4887 that they have adopted there, thanks to the support and finance from the Federal Govemment for that proposal, was used to enable the cane to be cmshed in one mill area only. By bringing the cane into that area in that period of intermittent wet weather, enormous cost savings were made. I wish to point out that section 45 of the existing legislation has the power to grant a mill exemption from cmshing cane and section 33 enables rezoning to another mill by the central board if that becomes necessary. There is still an opportunity in Queensland for benefit to be derived from mill amalgamation. Again, the Mackay co-operative is a classic example of how that has already been put to good use. With the closure of North Eton mill after the last 1988 crush, there has been some rationalisation this year. After next year's cmsh, when Cattle Creek mill is closed, there will be a further rationalisation program within the industry that wiU improve it even further. There has to be a bit of give and take within the industry. Of course, it is quite capable of organising itself on a district basis, and has done so. The main reason why the Mackay sugar co-operative was formed is that it has had the full support and co­ operation of the trade union movement. The workers were prepared to go to continuous crushing, provided that in the long term they finished up with an additional shift. Although two sugar-mills will be closed, not one worker will lose his job. In fact, they have all been satisfactorily accommodated into the mill of their choice. In the 1988 cmsh, in all the mill areas of the Mackay sugar co-operative, not one hour of the cmshing season was lost through industrial action. It was the first time in many years that any district in Queensland could make that claim. That was achieved because all sections of the industry co-operated. Because they are determined to make the co-operative work, they will continue to co-operate as an industry. The sugar industry does not want outside interference from Minister Harper or the member for Mackay or anyone else. It is quite capable of organising its own affairs. Provided the Govemment stmctures the legislation to enable the industry to do that, it will have no problems. The Government should not stand over it and tell it what to do. At this stage, I will refer to some aspects of the legislation that concem me, and I will say more about them in Committee. Representatives of the sugar industry have informed me that they have some concems about the legislation. I have already touched on my first concem, which relates to ministerial direction and the way in which the Minister will have power to control the industry instead of the industry controlling its own affairs. I tum to the clause headed "Obligation of cane-grower disposing of sugar-cane grown on assigned land". The Act describes how the cane-grower sends his cane to the mill, and various other conditions that he must adhere to. This legislation introduces a paragraph which deals with chemical residue. The Opposition agrees that such a paragraph should be incorporated in the legislation. However, this one goes too far. Initially, the chemical residue problem arose in 1987 as a result of the big scare in the beef industry. No-one associated with the sugar industry wants to see chemical residue becoming a problem. However, when one knows the way in which harvesting operates within the industry, one realises that the legislation is unfair to the growers, because the paragraph refers to sugar-cane that has been exposed to a prescribed chemical or a prescribed chemical in a prescribed quantity. It talks about sugar-cane that has present in or on it the residue of a chemical. I agree with that, because it indicates that some form of testing has been carried out that proves that the cane is contaminated by a chemical that has been sprayed and, therefore, it ought not to be processed for human consumption until it has been passed by an inspector. However, the legislation goes too far. It talks about cane that has been exposed to a prescribed chemical. That means that any cane-inspector can visit a farm and say, "That cane has been alongside an area where you have been spraying a certain chemical, therefore all that cane cannot be taken to the mill." 4888 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

In the far-northem parts of the State—not so much in the Mackay area, and not so much in the Burdekin or the Bundaberg areas—severe problems occur in the period Febmary/March/April when vine grows amongst the cane. If the problem is not addressed by a chemical spray, the vine takes over the cane and destroys its viabUity. Because sunlight does not get through to the leaves of the cane, it achieves a very low c.c.s. At that stage, the cane-growers cannot go in and weed the vine out, so they must aerial spray. That creates the possibility of spray drifting onto another grower's cane. There is no reason why a cane-inspector cannot come in and say, "That cane has been exposed to a chemical, therefore you cannot take it into the mill." Some form of proof that cane is contaminated must be required under the legislation. As you would know, Mr Speaker, with mechanical harvesting, farmers know weeks ahead which blocks of cane will be harvested and when they will be harvested. A cane-inspector can take samples of cane to establish which block of cane will be harvested. If the cane has chemical residue, it can be tested at that time by the cane-inspector. If he suspects that the cane has been exposed to some form of chemical that may be over the prescribed limit, it can be tested. The legislation ought to be changed to ensure that only cane that has present in or on it the residue of a chemical may be rejected by the mill. The clause relating to sugar­ cane being exposed to a prescribed chemical ought to be deleted from the legislation. It is most unfair and it is unnecessary in the legislation. The deletion of that clause wUl not create a residue problem for sugar-mills. Another aspect of the legislation relates to an inquiry into the pooling system in the sugar industry. It is not my role to tell that inquiry what it should or should not be doing. I am concemed about one aspect of the personnel of the inquiry. I was very pleased with the initial group chosen, that is, Mr Justice Matthews, Mr Andrews from the Sugar Board and Sir Leslie Price, a very eminent person in primary industries in Australia. Sir Leslie Price was from another industry but he knew pooling systems, pooling arrangements and primary industries inside out. Unfortunately, Sir Leslie Price could not accept appointment as a member of the inquiry, and the Minister has chosen as the new member Mr Don Watson, a former president of the now defunct ASPA. At the outset, lest there be any suggestion that I am trying to give this bloke a bagging, let me say that Don Watson and I have been personal friends for a long, long time. He and I go way back to my own days in local govemment, before I became a member of this Parliament. 1 know Don Watson, I like him and I am good friends with him. However, unfortunately, Mr Watson is the chairman of a land-locked mill, and no matter what the recommendations of the inquiry might be, he has been placed in a compromised position. In faimess to the people of the Burdekin area, where there is more discussion about the pooling system than there is in any other part of Queensland at present, I think somebody should have been chosen from outside the industry altogether, as was the case with Sir Leslie Price. It is unfortunate that Don has been placed in this position. No matter what recommendations might be made as a result of the inquiry, unfortunately, he is the person who will be shot down by the industry. Mr Harper: He is only one of three, isn't he? Mr CASEY: That is certainly so. He is only one of three. However, the chairman of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board is accepted through­ out the industry as an eminent person who has no persuasion towards either the grower or the miller. In the same way, Mr Andrews, as chairman of the Sugar Board, has been accepted because of the good and valuable work that he has done. John Andrews has been a very good chairman of the Sugar Board. I will say more about him when honourable members debate the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, Don is virtually the only direct industry representative. I hope that he does not get shot out of the industry. However, with my knowledge and understanding Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4889 of the industry, it is quite clear to me that, no matter what recommendations are made as a result of the inquiry, there will be a hell of a lot of criticism within the industry. Not everybody will be satisfied. Don Watson will come in for severe criticism from various sections of the industry. That is unfortunate. As I have said, Don is a good friend, I personally like him very much, and I admire him for the work that he has done in other ways and in other places for the industry. There is one matter that I want to touch on. If I mention it now, it might save me from having to deal with it at the Committee stage. I refer to the failure of this industry and this legislation to recognise the Queensland Mechanical Cane Harvesters Association. Cane has been harvested mechanically in Queensland for 25 years. Mr Menzel: They've been on to you. Mr CASEY: It is not a matter of their being on to me. Ever since I first became a member of this Parliament, I have been one of those who have projected the cause of the cane-harvesters. In many respects, this industry has failed to look quickly enough at changes. Twenty-five years is a long time. In that time there has been no reaction to their situation in the industry. Mr Menzel: They're the only ones who make money in the industry. Mr CASEY: They may be the only ones who are making money in the industry. However, what must be recognised is that, these days, the investment that many cane- harvesters have in a harvesting contract outfit is far greater than the investment that many farmers have in their farms. The cost of a harvester, two haul-out tractors—or even three, so that there is always a spare—the bins, the maintenance program, and the special type of equipment that is needed in some of the far-northem and very wet areas of this State in order to carry out harvesting, represents an astronomical investment. Many cane-harvesters have a much bigger investment in their equipment than cane-growers have in their farms. Yet nowhere in legislation are the cane-harvesters recognised. Nowhere in the local board awards is recognition given to their organisation. Recognition is given to the method of harvesting, but no recognition is given to the cane-harvesters' organisation. One of the great traditions of the sugar industry has always been that there is recognition on a three-way basis, that is, the grower, the miller and the employees, whether they be employees of the mills or employees of the cane-growers. Harvesting techniques have changed. Cane-cutters have given way to more-skilled tradesmen who use modem equipment such as haul-out tractors. There has been a failure within the industry to recognise the organisation that represents the cane-harvesters, and it is about time that that recognition was given. This legislation has great meaning for a great industry. In the long term, some provisions in the legislation could cause serious problems for the industry. Even at this late stage, I plead with the Minister to take note of the submissions that he has received from the sugar industry and to be prepared to consider the amendments that the Opposition will be moving. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (5.20 p.m.): I support the amending legislation. As has been pre-empted and suggested by the member for Mackay, I am certainly a supporter of the Minister and of the legislation, because I am a supporter of the industry. I make no bones about the fact that I am not a producer of sugar-cane and, therefore, sugar. I have never been a cane-farmer. I say that with some regret. However, as the parliamentary representative of some 800 cane-farmers in my electorate, with whom I communicate on a daily, weekly and yearly basis, and as a result of interfacing with the local mill suppliers' committee, the local cane-growers' executive and, indeed, executives throughout the State, I believe that I have gained some understanding of the intricacies of the industry.

82865—165 4890 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

One thing I have been able to do is stand back and take something of an arm's length view of the way in which things are proceeding in the sugar industry and the way in which things are proceeding generally in primary industry. If any primary industry thinks it is possible to stand still and to maintain things as they were in the good old days without going down the tube, it is kidding itself There is no way in the world that primary industry or any other industry will be able to survive in the current climate, which will continue to change, unless it is flexible. The 800 or 850 Burdekin farmers, who are divided into four mill areas, are probably like many other farmers throughout the State. Those farmers and their executives do not necessarily agree 100 per cent with every facet of the Bill. I am not aware of any Bill that has had total community support; there is always a knocker of some sort. Although there is broad support for the Bill, throughout the State there are certain pockets of people who have what I would regard as a narrow vision of it. Suggestions have been made that the legislation should be stood aside and discussed more widely. I say without reservation that if the Govemment waited for 100 per cent support for legislation, it would never get anywhere, and the sugar industry would die. The industry must face the fact that embargoes have been imposed. I take Mr Casey's point that, when the Green Paper was circulated by the Minister, the embargo was not publicly on the cards. However, that proves that circumstances do change, that we live in a volatile and dynamic world and that increasingly the sugar industry will be at the mercy of the whims of the world. Mr Kerin has said, "You can go out now and fight for your livelihood with the rest of the world." Many of the people we are fighting are protected by subsidies provided by other Govemments. However, even though the assistance that is being provided to primary industries is the least assistance that has ever been provided, the Federal Govemment is saying, "You go out and battle on your own." Before the annual general meeting of the QCGC that was held recently in Ayr, I had travelled with executives and people involved in the sugar industry. Following cyclone Aivu, which devastated a large number of farm and sugar-cane properties in the Burdekin region, I had an opportunity to talk to cane-grower leaders. Although it has been estimated that probably about 10 per cent of sugar-cane grown in the Burdekin region has been damaged, hopefully it will be less. However, the loss in sugar terms is not known at this stage and will not be known until cmshing is completed. It is known that some farmers have suffered a loss of up to 30 per cent of their crop. Those farmers will have to battle with those losses as well as with the losses they suffered during cyclone Charlie last year. I know one grower from the Rita Island area whose loss last year was about $60,000 and who thinks that his loss this year will be between $30,000 and $40,000. Those losses are very real losses because they will reduce the farmer's income considerably. Some very bad circumstances will be encountered. I retum now to my contacts with the grower organisations and some of their leading lights. I have spoken to growers from Mossman as well as to growers in my own district. Recently, at the annual general meeting of the QCGC in Ayr I spoke to growers from areas such as the Herbert, Caims, Isis, Prosperine and Mackay. It is interesting that in those discussions and in previous discussions not a single person indicated violent opposition to this legislation. I have been to those areas and heard the statements that were made. I see that Mr Casey has mn for cover because he knows that Mr Courtice is going to receive a mention. Mr Courtice is the public enemy No. 1 of the sugar industry in this nation. Mr Harper: Enemy No. 1 to primary industry. Mr STONEMAN: There is no doubt about that. The general manager of one of the cane-growers' organisations stated categorically that his organisation was not political. Opposition members would have to acknowledge that the charter of such organisations states that they cannot be political. They all have to vote one way or the other. Because they are very sensible, honourable members Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4891 understand the way they vote. The general manager stood up in front of 300 or 400 growers and said without doubt and without fear of contradiction that the No. 1 enemy of the great sugar industry is Brian Courtice. Make no bones about that! As the Minister said, this is the gentleman who is the enemy of so many other primary industries. It makes one wonder what sort of information must go back to Mr Kerin when such persons damn an industry to such an unbelievable degree. The general consensus among the people to whom I spoke in Ayr and prior to that was that there was no major opposition to the legislation. People were saying, "We do not necessarily agree 100 per cent with the Bill. However, you must proceed with it. It is for the good of the industry; therefore, go ahead with it." That came across loud and clear. No legislation is perfect and no legislation is set in cement for ever. To those people who are concemed, I point out that the legislation might benefit the millers more than anyone else. The capacity of farmers to gain certain benefits from the Bill throws the ball very squarely back into the millers' court. The millers have been saying, "We want more throughput; we want more capacity and we want more cane grown because a market exists for it." Mr John Andrews of the Sugar Board has endorsed those remarks. The millers have been saying, "Give us more cane to cmsh so that we can produce more sugar and sell more sugar." Now that the ball is in their court, they will have to put up with it. To the growers in my district I say that if there is any extension of cmshing under terms that they cannot tolerate, that is their business and they have every right to oppose it. The growers in my district certainly have that right. Last year, an arrangement was entered into under which the terms benefited both the millers and the growers. This year, the farmers are saying, "Some of the profits that we believe you will gain by an extension of cmshing times or by continuous cmshing should flow back to us." I think that the farmers are correct. Not only the farmers but also the people whom they employ are affected. It must be understood that the sugar industry is made up of not only millers, farmers, mill workers and farm workers but also the families that it supports, the towns and the people who provide finance and other community services. The positive benefits of the sugar industry can be readily seen. Opponents of this Bill have taken a very narrow view. With both eyes open they are looking along the barrel of a .22 calibre rifle and aiming it at their industry. They cannot continue to maintain a narrow view. They must support the long-term prosperity of the industry and allow flexibility. If flexibility does not exist, young people will not support the industry. Recently I read somewhere that the average age of cane-farmers is about 57, which is a frightening prospect. Mr Beard: That's nearly as old as you are. Mr STONEMAN: That is bordering on being as old as I am. The honourable member is right I am sure that in all electorates countless young men are being forced to leave farms because their fathers cannot afford to hand over their farms and set themselves up in retirement. Young people must educate their families, so they leave the industry. Before very long we will reach a cmnch situation, which is of the gravest concern to me and, I am sure, the whole community. Flexibility that allows young people to re-manage their affairs must exist. As to roaming—I am amazed that people in some mUl areas and some honourable members seem to be saying, "If we cannot have roaming and take advantage of the various benefits that this Bill introduces, no-one else can, either." How ridiculous! For the first tiihe in history this legislation enables the whole industry to receive the benefits of expansion. If those people who proclaim that the industry should stand still or be as it was in 1915 are not prepared to give young farmers and the industry an opportunity to expand and be flexible, they are very poor representatives of the industry. Practices in all 4892 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill industries must change. We cannot maintain a single, narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned attitude. Changes must occur in cattle-breeding and plant varietal attitudes. If we said that the cane that was grown in the early days was sufficient and should not be changed, and if no flexibility existed in the breeding program, where would we be? If we were still trying to mn British-breed cattle—which are wonderful cattle that have their place in the British-breed type of softer country—what would we do? If we were still trying to mn cattle with no tick resistance and poor tolerance to heat and sunlight, where would we be? Because cattle-breeders have been flexible, the cattle industry has improved. I am not trying to draw a parallel between the sugar industry and cattle industry organisational stmctures. I am saying that the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and sugar industry breeding experts are seeking constantly to increase capacity, production and efficiency of practices and breeding. Millers cannot adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude. They must become more flexible. They cannot be seen to be standing over farmers. I know many farmers who are concemed about that. In some instances I do not believe that the situation is as bad as they say, but perhaps it is worse in other instances. I do not pretend to know the whole industry. Unless the flexibility that is inherent in plant-breeding and cattle-breeding flows through into the legislative process and the attitudes of Govemments, and if the Courtices and the Kerins are allowed to continue, there will be no sugar industry or other primary industries. Farmers are battling high interest rates, which in many cases did not apply in 1915. Farmers used to get six months' credit and that was that. Now they are facing 15, 16, 18 and 20 per cent interest rates. Farmers are battling under conditions that they have never faced before. Mr Casey: They lose part of their assignment and roam all over the place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! The member for Mackay! Mr STONEMAN: Rexibility must continue into the future. I am proud to be part of the Govemment that recognises that. Some honourable members have implied that special ministerial powers exist. The honourable member for Mackay spent most of his time waving a red flag and trying to create a monster out of nothing. As to the 15 per cent of sugar-cane that is allowed to be grown on land in other mill areas within the same mill region, provided that consent of both the home local board and the local board for the other mill is obtained—a consultative process takes place in all areas. However, in some circumstances over which the Minister exercises his powers, no process that assists all farmers exists. I believe that the Minister made the point that very few farmers are in need of assistance. It is sad that some of them are situated in my electorate. For the benefit of those blinded, tunnel-visioned members opposite, I point out that some people have no option or flexibility within their mill areas to shift their farming operations. They are a long way from tramlines. Yet the Opposition would say to those farmers, "You shall go down the drain. We are not prepared to consider that there is a necessitous situation that the Minister should be able to recognise and therefore allow you to be assisted to stay in the industry." Two or three farmers in my electorate are in a necessitous situation. One in particular is a young farmer. The others are getting on a bit, so they will not be as badly affected. Because that young fellow's neighbours are getting on a bit, he will be driven from the industry. I made the point earlier that the industry does not have enough young farmers. Yet Mr Casey and the Labor Party would say that the Minister is unable to recognise a circumstance that is a special case; that can be held up as a special case; that can give Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4893 this guy and others like him—and I understand there are very, very few—a chance to survive. The Labor Party says that he should be driven out and sent bankmpt just so that an archaic state of mind can continue. That is unreasonable and unfair, and in no sense is it democratic. These individuals—although I am unaware how many there might be—will be able to present a case whereby they can go to the Minister. That does not mean that the Minister will say "Yes" willy-nilly, as Mr Casey would indicate, across the board, thereby threatening the whole industry. There is no way in the world that that is viable or that it will happen. It just cannot be done. I make the point that those extreme cases do exist, and I support their recognition within this Bill. Because the legislation recognises that a 5 per cent productivity increase can flow within a mill area or a region and ultimately across the State, for the first time the growers within the industry will have the capacity to participate in the benefits that were not available to them previously. For the first time they will be able to show a little bit of entrepreneurial flair; they can get together and increase their viability. They wiU be able to participate in something that was previously enjoyed only by the lucky ones— and some of them are in my area—who had extra land. Not all the mills in the Burdekin area are flush with land. For instance, the Inkerman mill has no additional land. The Pioneer mill has very little land. The Kalamia mill has almost no land. The land that it does have additionally available is of such quality and so close to the coast that it is not sufficiently viable for that mill to grow cane upon. The Labor Party would say, "No, no. We want you all to be land locked. You can't take the benefit. Just because of an arbitrary line that is drawn on a map, you can't move 100 yards over there and maintain viability." I defy anyone to explain to me the logic of not being able to allow some flexibility in respect of the roaming and the 5 per cent productivity increase. The checks and balances are in place. The mill suppliers in both instances are able to have their input. They are all concerned about cmshing capacity. They are concerned that there not be a swamping of cane coming in. Therefore, the Minister will be given the powers set out in this legislation. The time of cmshing is of concem. I am sure that sooner or later many areas wUl have to undertake continuous cmshing. I do not believe that should happen without the benefits flowing two ways—not only to the miller but also to the grower. That is a matter that the millers and the growers will decide between them. This Bill does not preclude that. There is no command that works against the grower. Although the Burdekin has a high c.c.s., for instance, other growers in other areas tend to think they have the same cost stmcture. That is not the case. The Burdekin certainly has a high c.c.s., and it is certainly one of the great sugar-producing areas in the world and one of the great areas of the future. But it also has high pumping costs, high fertiliser costs and high land-levelling costs. Cane is hauled a long distance to miUs. I was intrigued when in an earlier piece of legislation a statement was made about the tremendous haul from one northem mill to another. I point out that the growers who live at Dalbeg on the Burdekin River and are part of the Invicta mill area have to haul cane the distance equal to that from the Hambledon mill to TuUy—50-odd miles, or 80 kilometres in metric terms. They face huge distance haulage problems and other problems associated with different soil types and so on. It is not all beer and skittles. I do not believe that the sugar industry as a whole necessarily wants to pull up its stakes and go to the Burdekin. Sugar-farmers who live in other parts of the State have established their homes, their farms and their operations. However, if they do want to expand and make a fiiture for themselves in this great industry, they should be allowed to gradually do that. The Minister has never made any suggestion that the industry will be deregulated. He has said publicly that deregulation is not on. 4894 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI

I must also make clear—and I say this to my colleagues on this side of the House as weU as those on the other side of the House—that the Burdekin growers—the industry generally—do not want progress in that area at the cost of other industry growers. Under no circumstances do they want that. I know of no Burdekin farmer who says that some other farmer should be disadvantaged because he is in an area of lesser production simply because the Burdekin is seen to be a higher production area. I have said that on countless occasions. I have said it in the north; I have said it at Innisfail, Mackay or wherever I happened to be, either as a part of the Minister's committee or travelling as an individual. I say categorically that there is no way that the Burdekin in any way, shape or form wants to progress to the detriment of other areas. That is just not on. I certainly will not be a part of it. In conclusion, I would like to take up the point raised by Mr Casey about the young entrepreneurial farmer who seems to raise a great deal of ire in some circumstances— David Cox. This guy took a tremendous risk in preparing land on which he did not know what he was going to grow. Because of the circumstances that arose, he helped other farmers. He saved other farmers by entering into contractual arrangements when they were in extreme drought circumstances. He was able to help. It was recognised finally by the mill suppliers' committee, the district executive and everyone involved that, had that not happened, growers would have gone to the wall. I think that set of circumstances will apply in other areas. David Cox has shown that a short-term problem can be overcome. I take my hat off to him. I am sure many other people do. Yet many people also seem to take great delight in kicking him because he is innovative; kicking him because last year he saved some farmers. Whether or not he made some money himself—and I hope he did, but I suspect it was minimal—is yet to be known. He has to get through this year and next year, and he still has huge costs to service without real security. I hope that other David Coxes exist throughout the State. The real beneficiaries are the droughted farmers and the land-locked farmers who are desperate to survive. If this Bill provides flexibility, I believe that will benefit the industry. I am saddened, however, that other honourable members cannot see the wood for the trees. In conclusion, I state that the embargo that has been imposed since circulation of the Green Paper has put the industry at greater risk than any other circumstance that I have been aware of over a period of many years. It has divided this State from the rest of the nation. Obviously, drought relief assistance will be paid at the whim of Senator Walsh. Courtice is public enemy No. 1.1 would have to say that Mr Casey is misleading this House in respect of absentee growers in the circumstances that I have outlined in relation to David Cox. As I have said, no absentee land-owners had sugar-cane grown by David Cox. Droughted cane-farmers in the same mill area assisted in alleviating a very difficult situation and, because of that, they may not be able to continue. I believe that this legislation represents a tremendous leap forward for the industry. Under no circumstances would I state that I do not believe the Bill will require further amendment and improvement; but that is all part of the survival of this industry. It is also the case with all other industries. I am very proud to support the Minister and the sugar industry by facilitating the passage of this Bill. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (5.46 p.m.): In rising to participate in this debate, I observe that this debate is a mirror image of what occurred in 1982, 1984 and 1986. This debate is different only because the ignorance of Govemment members is evident to a greater extent. The previous speaker, the member for Burdekin, has just demonstrated his lack of understanding and knowledge of the history of the sugar industry in Queensland. The only reason that any Government input, regulation and control of the sugar industry was engaged in is that millers such as CSR were taking advantage of the growers. Mr Casey: If Mr Stoneman had his way, they would still be blackbirding the kanakas. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4895

Mr CAMPBELL: That is so. Queensland would probably not be a member of the Commonwealth, either. In the early part of this century, millers were refusing to take sugar-cane from the growers at any price. That is why the Labor Govemment set up regulation and control to ensure that millers had to take sugar-cane that was grown in a specified area known as a mill area. That was done to protect the interests of the growers. All that occurred in 1915 when the Sugar Acquisition Act was passed and in 1922 when the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act was introduced. These days, it is interesting that the industry still wants to be able to make decisions that affect the industry without the Govemment, through this Minister, imposing its will on the industry. I refer to a report in the press that was pubUshed in 1986 before it was proposed to change provisions that are similar to those contained in this Bill. I refer to section 33A of the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act. It was pubUshed on 3 June 1986 and referred to ministerial discretion in the operation of section 33A that related to assign­ ments. The report in the News-Mail, "Decision on Cane Board welcomed", stated— "Queensland canegrowers yesterday applauded the State Govemment's decision to scrap proposed legislation designed to give the Govemment greater control of the sugar industry. Meeting in Brisbane yesterday, the Queensland Cane Growers' Council unan­ imously endorsed the Cabinet's decision not to implement section 33A of the amended Regulation of Cane Prices Act. The legislation would have allowed the Cabinet to override some Central Sugar Cane Prices Board decisions. Council chairman Mr. Fred Soper said the Govemment's decision reaffirmed its sensitivity towards the interests of the sugar industry. 'It will be welcomed by all canegrowers.' " Apparently, the Queensland Govemment has decided not to listen to representatives from all sections of the industry. It intends to override a fairly substantial majority of cane-growers who would prefer to see the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board as the ultimate authority. I believe it is important to realise that during the past six years, this National Party Govemment has progressively weakened the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board by making ministerial directives that override decisions made by that board. One major decision that comes to mind is the closure of the Goondi mill. If reference is made to the Queensland Government Gazette of Saturday, 14 June 1986, it can be seen that the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board made a very lucid and logical decision on the closure of Goondi mill and the rezoning of mill areas. In the end result, the board decided that the Goondi mill should not be closed. Since that decision, the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board has been overridden by the Queensland Govemment. The Queensland Govemment has imposed its owoi party-political decisions on the sugar industry. What has happened as a result? In 1989, the sugar industry is in a disastrous mess. MiUions of dollars have been spent; mills such as the Goondi mill have been forced to close; and there has been a forced rezoning to make growers take their sugar-cane where they did not want to take it. Despite all that, the Babinda mill can stiU be described as being in a state of financial distress. It was suggested that Babinda was negotiating to be taken over by the Bundaberg Sugar Company Ltd, but that will not happen. It has also been suggested that to ensure its survival, it may become part of a single, large co­ operative. I still do not know whether that will happen. Nearly three years after the Queensland Govemment decided to close the Goondi mill and interfere with the Babinda mill, it is not allowing free market forces to enter the industry, or allowing the people in the industry to make that decision and put their case clearly to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board so that ultimately that body will make the decision. Instead, the Queensland Govemment has interfered; Bills have been passed through this Pariiament, such as the Sugar MiUing Rationalization (Far Northern 4896 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Region) Act; powers have been taken away from the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board; and the result is a mess. Millions of dollars of Queensland tax-payers' money have been spent and the industry is no better off. In fact, not only is it in a worse position, but also this Govemment is forcing higher transport and production costs on sugar-cane growers. This Govemment is taking away the powers of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, reducing and diluting those powers and making what can only be regarded as party political decisions. This has done nothing for the Queensland sugar industry. These decisions are always taken during an election year because nothing has been done in the mean time. It happened in 1984, 1986, 1987 and it is happening in 1989. The Opposition spokesman on Primary Industries showed up the weaknesses of the proposed legislation. There has been lack of consultation with the industry, because there has been no full and frank discussion of the proposed changes. Even after the production of a Green Paper, and the retum of recommendations to the Minister, this Government included new amendments in the legislation that were not part of those recommendations. This is to the detriment of the industry. In addition, there has been lack of support. The Opposition spokesman on Primary Industries and I have both received letters from people within the industry stating that they do not agree with the changes proposed under this legislation. There is one reason why they do not agree; the Government is taking away and weakening the power of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, which is the ultimate judicial body of the sugar industry, and transferring that power to the Minister. Mr Harper: What do you think about the embargo? Mr Casey: That is the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment Bill. Mr CAMPBELL: As the Opposition spokesman has stated, I will fuUy discuss the sugar embargo during the debate on the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment BUI. The honourable member for Burdekin made the point that the removal of this embargo had nothing to do with this Bill. Mr Harper: What about the member for Hinkler? Mr CAMPBELL: It is disgusting that there have been personal accusations made about the member for Hinkler and his comments about the sugar industry. If the Govemment wants to attack the honourable member for Hinkler, it should attack him on the basis of his arguments, not him personally. I always attack a person on the basis of the issue, and I will continue to do so, as in the case of the misleading propaganda put out by Mr Tumer and the former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! I call on the honourable member to retum to debating the provisions of the Bill. Mr CAMPBELL: I am referring to the former Minister for Primary Industries who moved amendments to this legislation in 1986.1 cannot understand why you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have said that I am not speaking about the provisions of this Bill, because the same amendments that are proposed to amend section 33A of the Act were proposed back in 1986. My point relates directly to aspects of the Bill. There has been deceit in the sugar industry for many years. The honourable member for Burdekin stated that the Queensland Cane Growers Council is a non-political organisation, but it did not take a very strong stance when it knew that lies were being told about the aid to the Bangladesh sugar industry. When I attended a technologists' conference, I heard a member of the Queensland Cane Growers CouncU support those lies without having any factual base for his support. It was unbelievable. The matter of the Rural Reconstmction Board funding for the sugar-cane industry and the fact that some co-operative mills allowed levies to be imposed for the National Party throws doubt on the statement that the QCGC is a non-political organisation. The honourable member for Burdekin stated that any primary industry will survive only if there is flexibility, and I agree with that statement. Flexibility can be implemented Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4897 in the sugar industry as has been done with aspects of the roaming provisions. I appreciate the advantages of roaming, but some people are taking advantage of the system to the detriment of the industry. Rorts are occurring in the system. It reminds me of the book Catch 22 when Milo's father told him how he made all his money out of not growing pigs. It is the same sort of situation. Growers will give their assignment away to people in other mill areas and, because they have got the licence, they will be making money out of not growing sugar-cane. I do not believe that that is what the Minister or the industry wants. This Parliament should not permit such an abuse of the system to occur in the sugar industry. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 7.30 p.m. Mr CAMPBELL: Before the dinner recess I was speaking about assignments and the possible abuse of the roaming provisions that could lead to a catch-22 position. People would actually make money out of not producing cane. I am very concemed about that. In the debate on this legislation in 1986 the Opposition warned the Govemment of those possible abuses. The three major parts of the debate on that occasion related to sections 32, 33 and 37. On this occasion the Govemment has had to again amend those sections, which is exactly what the Opposition predicted. On that occasion the Bill was mshed through. Even today not all members of the Govemment accept the amendments in the Bill. The comer-stone to the control of the sugar industry is assignments and mill peaks. The amendments are making the Act more confusing and more complex, which I believe to be going in the wrong direction. The Government should be simplifying the legislation. The problem is that the legislation has become too complex and too confusing. I would not want to be quoted on what I am about to say, but perhaps the stage has been reached at which we should consider whether assignments in the sugar industry are worth while. I say that because things have become too complicated. Mr Harper: Completely deregulate, do you think? Mr CAMPBELL: As the consistency of decision-making from the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board is now being taken away and its authority is being reduced by ministerial decisions, perhaps we should be looking at going further. Personally, I do not agree with that, because I believe that free-market forces do not always operate in the best interests of an industry. However, I do not really agree with the direction in which the Government is going. I will tell the House why. In the last three or four years, on any occasion on which the Govemment has intervened and overridden the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board and the basis of the whole legislation, the result has been a mess. Political interference has not only brought about poor results, it has also brought outright bad results through increased costs and conflict caused within the industry, which has not helped at all. As 1 say, at no time has political interference helped the industry. An example of what I am saying is what has been achieved in Bundaberg without political interference. Bundaberg has exhibited flexibility, and the changes have been of benefit to the industry. The people have been able to adapt to the changes and adopt new technology without the need for political interference. There have been rezonings between mills and the closure of mills, which have gained acceptance by both growers and millers. Not once did the industry need the passing of special legislation to try to impose the will of individuals on the industry. Those changes have been to the benefit of the industry in Bundaberg. The miller has been able to become more efficient and the growers who have had to adjust have done so, but that has been done within the Act and without ministerial influence. In addition to that, it has succeeded. Every time there is Govemment interference, it does not work. I welcome the extra deregulation brought about by the introduction of the concept of mill regions. Within groups of mills in a region there can be the movement of cane. 4898 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Under permit between the mills, cane from one mill area will be able to be cmshed in another mill area. If the Govemment wants to make some adjustments to the industry, why even have mill regions? Perhaps in the southem region some consideration should be given in the long term, mid-term or even short term to closing the Rocky Point or Moreton mills. Why should that consideration be restricted to the southem region? I can understand the need for short-term adjustment; but, if everybody is to go up to the Burdekin, as the honourable member for Burdekin says will happen, and if such an amount of adjustment is to be allowed by the Bill, why stop there? I can see some short- term practical advantages in the idea of regions, but I question the rationale behind the move. Perhaps in the long term there will not even be regions. In the long term, it would be better if politics were kept out of the industry. It would be better if the Minister did not have a discretion to override the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, because that would keep the arguments within the industry. There will be winners and there will be losers. However, if experienced people are in the industry—most of the people on the board have many years of experience—the Govemment should let them make the friends and the enemies through decisions that they believe are in the best long-term interests of the sugar industry. At present, decisions are being made—regardless of whether they are to the detriment of the cane-growers or not—in order to protect the political hide of the member for Mulgrave or the member for Burdekin. Mr Harper: When? Mr CAMPBELL: The Govemment introduced an Act of Parliament to protect the Babinda mill. The Minister cannot tell me that, after three years, the changes that were proposed for Babinda have helped very much at all. I do not have the financial statements from the Babinda co-operative, but it seems that it wants to be bought out. Mr Menzel: That's not tme. Mr CAMPBELL: It seems to be. Approximately 75 per cent of the growers support the take-over of the Moreton mill by Bundaberg Sugar Co. Mr Harper: Seventy-two or 73. Mr CAMPBELL: How far can the Govemment take an Act? Mr Stephan: You do know where Babinda is, don't you? Mr CAMPBELL: I know where Babinda is. 1 am told that it is one of the wettest places in Queensland, and there is no way in the world that supporters of the Govemment there could obtain fraudulent drought relief Overall, the Opposition supports the Bill. Babinda is effecting changes. Over the last four years in the sugar industry, that has happened. At a Christmas party last year, Mr Roy Diecke, the managing director of Bundaberg Sugar Co., said, "The industry needs a statesman to lead it." He said that basically because the industry has no-one who can lead it into the future. It has been left up to Mr Kerin to drag the industry into change, which is not the way that it should be done. The industry should lead the way. However, it has not. The industry is confused. There is fighting between mill areas, between millers and growers, between co-operative mills and proprietary mills, and between the refiners. That has occurred because the industry has not had leadership. There is no leader in the Govemment for the sugar industry, nor is there one within the Queensland Cane Growers Council. It is regrettable that the industry does not have a statesman to lead it into the future so that it is not dragged, as it has been over the last four years. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 AprU 1989 4899

Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (7.40 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I support this legislation, which carries out the wishes of the cane-growers of Queensland. Deregulation was forced on the cane industry when Mr Kerin blackmailed the cane-growers of Queensland by denying them a reasonable floor price when prices were low. Prior to that deregulation, the cane-growers of Queensland were happy with the regulations and controls in the sugar industry, which some people thought amounted to overregulation. I agree with the honourable member for Bundaberg, Mr Campbell, that Mr Kerin was wrong and that he was dragging the industry into something that it did not want. Honourable members have witnessed the damage that Mr Kerin is causing by the proposed deregulation of the wheat industry and the pineapple industry. People have claimed that regulation of the sugar industry is socialistic. Under socialism, the properties are owned by the Crown. Mr Casey: That's mbbish. Mr SIMPSON: It is not mbbish. The Labor Party in Queensland illustrates why Mr Casey is so wrong. When it was in power, it had Govemment-owned butcher shops. That is a typical example of Labor Party policy. It wants to own the farms. That socialistic policy has not been successful in the Labor Party's comrade country, Russia, where the primary producer is limited by being forced to use his skills and work with the elements to grow a crop or provide a product to feed and clothe a nation. Under the socialist system in Russia where the farms are owned by the State, it is not working. The people were beginning to starve and the system had to be changed. Mr Casey would do the same in Queensland as his comrades in Russia have done. When Labor was in office in Queensland, that was its policy. Mr Kerin, with the tools of so-called private enterprise and deregulation, is attempting to min the primary producers of Australia. From the latest balance of trade figures, it is obvious that there has never been a time when there should be greater support and encouragement for primary production in this country. Through this legislation, the Government is effecting the wishes of cane-growers who have been forced into deregulation by Mr Kerin, who blackmailed them by withholding a reasonable floor price for cane unless they deregulated. This Govemment is sympathetic towards and has listened to the industry. The sugar industry is quite complex. The sugar has to be milled. If there is an insufficient milling capacity, the product—which is very perishable—will not last very long. Unlike many other primary industries, which do not involve products that have a short life, the sugar industry is very dependent on a good working relationship with the mills. The industry has sought to go along the line of deregulation. However, there is one aspect in relation to the mills in my area that concerns me. Most of the cane-growers who supply the Moreton mill, which is in Nambour, are situated in my electorate. Others are situated in the electorates of the Premier and the Minister for Finance. 1 point out for the benefit of readers of Hansard that single mills are those that do not adjoin other mill areas. If single mills such as Moreton mill close down, they do not have the capacity to transfer their assignments, their production and their business of cane-growing to another mill. It is just too far from Moreton mill either to Rocky Point or Maryborough. The Moreton mill has gone from being mn by a local private company to being run by Howard Smith. A major boiler explosion occurred at that mill and caused a melt-down. If it had not been for the tremendous capacity of Howard Smith at that time, it is almost certain that the mill would have folded. The previous owner would almost certainly have folded and left the producers—as almost happened with Howard Smith mnning it—in the grave situation of having no mill. Had that happened, ovemight the cane-growers would have found themselves having to try to form a co-operative. I have just remembered that honourable members have to declare any pecuniary interests. 1 had better declare my pecuniary interest in sugar-cane as a producer. 4900 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

The capacity of Howard Smith enabled it to rebuild those boilers and to withstand the subsequent years of loss. That was of great importance to the viability of the growers in the area. However, it has made them very mindful of how vulnerable they are not only to the non-viability of the mills but also to the board rooms of companies. Howard Smith, of course, sold out to the Bundaberg Sugar Co. While I am still on the topic of Howard Smith, I might say that that company would not have been able to sustain the losses that it incurred in its sugar-mill but for the tremendous profits that it was making out of the salvage business. The salvage of the Anro Asia, which ran aground at Caloundra, and another ship that ran aground a few weeks later in Westem Australia provided that company with many millions of dollars profit. That enabled that mill to survive, even though it was not a paying proposition. As I have said, the mill has been taken over by the Bundaberg Sugar Co., which was already in the sugar business. That company has given every indication that that is the business in which it intends to stay. It has also shown a flair for the tourist side of the industry. As in any business, sugar companies need to diversify so that they are not dependent on the foibles of one market alone. The sugar industry is affected by the fortunes of supply and demand and prices throughout the world, which rise and fall. Concem was held that at a board meeting it might be decided that the Moreton mill was not as viable as it could be and would close down. I had better mention for the benefit of the readers of Hansard that the Government Whip is making a sign at me. I suppose he has been out celebrating. An Opposition member: That's nice. Mr SIMPSON: It is nice. I tmst that he enjoyed it. Mr Beard: Some of them might not know his name—FitzGerald. Mr SIMPSON: Yes, Tony FitzGerald. I had better be careful what I say. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr SIMPSON: The concem of the Moreton mill suppliers is that the producers might be able to find altemative uses for their land; in other words, form a co-operative and take over the mill, or make some other arrangement. As I have already said, the product cannot be carted to Rocky Point or Maryborough. That is critical to the future of the cane-farmers. Many cane-farmers have no viable alternative use for their land and, like me, intend to continue with cane production. That is the end of the story. The cane-farmers are geared for it and they have a major investment in it. In addition, of course, under the regulations, the cane-farmers are bound to produce and supply to the mill, whether they are operating at a profit or a loss. I hope that, in the coming months, the Minister will hold discussions with the industry to see whether more notice can be given to cane- farmers who supply single mills. I am pleased that Mr Stoneman reassured me that there is no desire to raid the people from my mill area to encourage them to go to the Burdekin. That was a matter about which cane-farmers were concerned. I was also pleased to learn that the Minister is in possession of letters that indicate Mr Soper's support for the legislation. However, I am concerned about the forces that are making the viability of cane-production so critical, that is, rising costs. The Federal Labor Govemment has been very unsympathetic. It has introduced a capital gains tax and its receipts from taxation have reached record heights. It is incredible that the Federal Government could be so out of touch as to abolish drought relief in a country that is known to be racked by drought. It really shows, as Churchill once described it, the envy of the socialists. The Federal Government hates the farmers; that is what it amounts to. The Federal Government has imposed fuel taxes and has required farmers to fill in application forms for fuel rebates. Many deductions for expenses incurred in Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 April 1989 4901 implementing conservation measures are no longer allowable. They are the matters that worry me. Pressure is being applied to the sugar industry and to other primary industries. The pressures that are being applied to farmers in the sugar industry are Ukely to force them off their farms. The Labor Party had the gall to remove the sugar embargo. Also, it allowed a flood of pineapple products into Australia. Mrs Whitlam said, "Australia can obtain all the food it needs from overseas." Previous- Labor leaders have said, "Farmers have never had it so good." It is appalling to think that the Federal Govemment adopts such an attitude. It does not care that it is pushing up the costs in the sugar industry. It is now playing with the CPI and doing all manner of things. It is hell-bent on mining private enterprise, particularly primary industry. A watchful eye must be kept on the Federal Govemment. At least the Queensland Govemment is sympathetic towards and concerned about primary production and decentralisation in this State. It is not concerned only about providing cheap food for the cities, as Labor members are. The Queensland Govemment is concemed about decentralisation. Members of the Opposition think that as long as cheap food is being provided for the cities, the farmers can live in poverty. Mr Campbell: That's mbbish. Mr SIMPSON: I heard the honourable member once say, "Only attack the argument; don't attack the person." However, a week ago in this Chamber he attacked an individual about a matter in my electorate conceming a proposed development on the north shore. He attacked the individual, not the argument. He is being hypocritical. Mr Campbell: You mean Barrie Loiterton? Mr SIMPSON: Yes. The honourable member recalls that. I am referring to his attack on Mr Loiterton, which was very unfair. The honourable member made his attack under parliamentary privilege. He ought to make his accusations outside this Chamber. Queensland has a strong and stable sugar industry. This Govemment provides the maximum opportunity for it to seek its own regulation. That is what the Govemment is endeavouring to do now. Only time will tell whether that will work. I am sure that the Minister will talk to representatives from the industry. An understanding of primary production has been lost by Opposition members and is unknown to members of the Liberal Party. Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party's feeling towards the sugar industry is not one of hatred; it is one of ignorance. If necessary, the Minister will improve on the legislation to keep a great industry thriving and contributing towards Australia's future. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (7.57 p.m.): I think that it can be taken as read that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cooroora, does not like the Labor Party very much. I am joining in this debate as a representative of a non-sugar-growing area, which is obvious. I say that at the outset because I do not think that disqualifies me from speaking. Mr Casey: Mr Beard Mr BEARD: I listened with great interest to Mr Casey. Mr Casey: At least they must use it out in Mount Isa, because your Mount Isa footballers have plenty of energy. Mr BEARD: I thank the honourable member. The Mount Isa footballers will never die in memory while he listens to my speeches. I listened with great interest to the Labor speakers. Mr Campbell, in particular, showed a great depth of knowledge of the sugar industry. He also showed an understanding of the problems of that industry. He said that if the Govemment is going to start deregulating the industry, it should deregulate the whole industry. I do not think that he actually meant that. However, if the Government is going to go part of the way, he 4902 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill put that forward as a proposition to be considered. To look at drastic solutions where there are drastic problems is the sign of a positive-thinking mind. I was very interested to hear what the honourable member said. The legislation is very complex. A while ago I laughed at one of the speakers who said, "I almost change my mind every time I hear a different speaker." As I said, the legislation is complex and the problems are difficult to solve. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the legislation is of fundamental importance to the Queensland sugar industry. He said— "... change is not undertaken without clear need and then only following extensive consultation with all sectors of the industry ..." I think that the need has been well established, if not prior to this sitting today, certainly by speakers who have spoken on the legislation this afternoon and tonight. The Minister added— "Extensive responses were received from the sugar industry and from support industries: such was the interest that the closing date for comment was extended twice. The quality of the responses was also excellent. The resultant BiU"— which honourable members are debating now— "is the result of an exhaustive analysis of these various points of view." Fifteen months after the original closing date for comment on the Green Paper, we are now debating a Bill that encompasses 30 pages of changes. I understand from discussions that I have had with people in the industry—believe me, when one comes from Mount Isa and when one is going to debate a sugar Bill, one has extensive discussions with people in the industry Mr Casey: Did you understand what they said? Mr BEARD: I point out to Mr Casey that I understand economics and that I understand the way the industry works. I do not have to drill a face in a mine to be able to talk to miners about dealing with people. I have spoken to a wide range of people in the industry. They told me that they were notified by press release on 6 April of the introduction of the legislation into the House. That press release advised them that it was expected that the debate on the legislation would be held in the week commencing 17 April, which indeed it is. They had not seen copies of the Bill. As a result, they had 11 or 12 days within which to examine a 30-page document, integrate it with the principal Act and analyse the effects of the numerous changes involved. That followed 12 months during which the legislation was drafted and when much consultation could have taken place with the industry. Mr Harper: And did. Mr BEARD: I beg to differ with the Minister on that issue. I accept the reliability of the people to whom I spoke. Whereas the Minister received numerous submissions about the legislation from the industry, he had very few discussions with the industry. 1 underline the word "with". The classic example occurred in Ayr last week, which was referred to by a previous speaker. At that time the Minister made a speech but received very little input. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to read an article from one of your old favourite publications, namely, the Herbert River Express of yesterday's date, Tuesday, 18 April 1989. The front-page headline reads, "Growers want to be heard on prices legislation". I intend to quote fairly extensively from that article, which was Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 AprU 1989 4903

written by a joumalist who is in touch with the people in the industry, presumably knows what he is talking about and listens to people in the industry. The article states— "The Queensland Canegrowers Council is pressing for urgent talks with Primary Industries Minister, Mr Harper to ensure the cane prices legislation is not mshed through State Parliament before further consultation with growers. Speaking in Ingham after a meeting of elected representatives of the Herbert River district's 700 canegrowers. District Canegrowers Executive chairman, Mr J. W. Wilkinson said the QCGA needed to quickly alert Mr Harper all was not well with the legislation introduced into Parliament last week. Growers needed to ensure the Bill was not mshed through to become law, until further consultation took place with industry on matters of concem, Mr Wilkinson said. He said members only recently received a copy of the Bill and had been advised by the Member for Hinchinbrook, Mr Ted Row that the Bill was set down for final reading today. 'It is clear there are several areas where the Bill is at odds with QCGC poUcy,' he said. 'As a member of the QCGC, I am aware of the position which we put to the Minister on the Green Paper on this legislation and I am equaUy aware that there has been no further consultation on the matter. 'The QCGC had asked for a draft of the proposed legislation before it was introduced. 'We didn't get a draft, but that would be okay if we have an opportunity to have the present Bill amended after consultation with the industry.' Mr Wilkinson referred to the provisions goveming the transfer of cane from one mill area to another as an example of where growers wanted their Mill Suppliers Committee to have a power of refusal. Under the legislation, mills would be able to simply apply to the cane prices board to transfer cane and the Board would be empowered to conduct a hearing and make a mling under such conditions as it thinks fit. 'We have every confidence in the Central Board but we have a deep conviction about growers having the right to send their cane to their assigned mill and not being herded from mill to mill without their consent,' he said. 'There is also a need for the Central Board to be given power to award increases in the price of cane where cmshing seasons are extended by the reftisal of millowners to gear themselves up for crops which might be expected to flow from the roaming and free transferability of assignments allowed since the 1987 season as well as the current expansion.' " The article continues, but I do not intend to read it all. I am sure that honourable members have got the gist of it. I am trying to convey the deep concems of people in the sugar industry that they were not consulted sufficiently and that more of their viewpoints should have been taken on board before the legislation came before the House. Mr Ardill: It is too late now. Mr BEARD: It is too late. Obviously the Bill will be passed through the House tonight. In common with Mr Campbell, who expressed reservations, I do not intend to oppose the Bill. However, the Minister and his officers should take on board the serious concerns that have been expressed by people in the industry. As well as having only 11 or 12 days within which to prepare their opinions on this Bill, people in the sugar industry were preparing for their participation in the hearings into the price-pooling arrangements, which were held on 11 and 12 April of last week. As a result, many of 4904 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill the people within the sugar industry could not begin to study seriously the proposed legislation until after the pooling hearing finished at about 2 p.m. last Wednesday, 12 AprU. On a couple of occasions it has been said to me—and previous speakers have mentioned it—that the details of this legislation are complex. Because the industry was unable to view the Bills prior to their introduction into the Parliament, many people within the industry feel that the Minister should have involved them much earlier in a more consultative mode. In saying that, I am aware that I am speaking about a Minister whom I have frequently complimented on the presentation of Green Papers and the taking on board of serious community concems. That is why I am rather surprised that, according to the best advice that I have, he has not taken on board the industry's concems at this time. Approximately 16 months have elapsed since the Green Paper was issued. During that period I have taken some time to study the legislation, which is suddenly being mshed through this Parliament. Because I believe that these issues must be taken on board, I have gone into some detail with this legislation. On this occasion I am hearing from all sides that, although the Minister received numerous submissions from the industry, he has had very few discussions with it, particularly with the smaller growers. As a result, when the Bill is passed it will lose some credibility and acceptance. I tum now to the content of the Bill. The most noticeable feature is that the Minister has taken considerable power away from the industry. With some qualifications, I accept that. Putting power into the Minister's hands has something to commend it. Ministers come and go with Parliaments as people change their minds. Statutory authorities tend to go on for ever. There is some sense in placing a great deal of discretionary power in a Minister, who is, after all, answerable to Parliament, can be criticised for what he does and, hopefully, will react to it. The legislation gives the Minister power to make several key decisions without regard to the recommendations of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. As an example, clause 32G states— "The Central Board, upon being requested to do so by the Minister, shall consider and provide to the Minister its recommendation as to whether or not the total area of lands assigned to mills under this Act should be increased and as to the extent of any such increase, expressed as a percentage of the total existing area of such lands." The subclause immediately following states— "... the Minister may direct the Central Board to assign lands to mills to the extent of any increase determined by the Minister." The next subclause states— "The Central Board shall assign lands to mills in accordance with the Minister's directions ..." A proposed amendment requires an assignment-holder to apply in writing to the Minister to have his assignment cancelled or varied. Inter alia, clause 33A states— "If the Minister decides that he will not refer the application to the Central Board he shall notify the applicant in writing, but his decision not to so refer the application shall be final and conclusive." There are a couple of other examples that have the flavour of authoritarianism about them and they are similar in effect to the examples I have already mentioned. As 1 said, there is some sense in having this discretion with the Minister, but the power must be exercised with great discretion. From further amendments it would appear that the Chairman of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board is given authority to dispense with the rights of mortgagees, lessors and sublessors as they pertain to the disposal of assignment. A further amendment gives the central board power to redirect sugar-cane. This power has been exercised previously Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4905 under enabling legislation and problems have occurred. I understand that the Goondi/ Mourilyan situation is a good example. Such massive redirections of cane present to the mill-owners the alternatives of either putting a pretty hefty capital injection into the mill to increase its capacity or facing up to continuous cmshing for the season, with the lack of flexibility this impUes. Many things can cause hold-ups to cmshing—any number of eventualities—which could extend the season weU into the summer with a consequent loss of c.c.s. and lower retums to the farmer. The Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech that there are some safeguards built in, such as public hearings, statutory declarations, keeping of registers, and special circumstances to be demonstrated before extraordinary executive power is exercised. I sincerely hope that this power will be used in the best interests not only of those in the industry but also of the people of Queensland and Australia. The sugar industry faces numerous problems. It is the most highly regulated industry in Australia. Australian producers use more expensive labour than anywhere else in the world where sugar is produced, even in Florida. The Federal Government is causing massive changes in the stmcture by removing the embargo on sugar imports. New South Wales growers are planning to refine their own sugar Mr De Lacy: Don't you agree with removing the embargo? Mr BEARD: Yes. Steady, steady. Anything such as that, which involves the bringing- down of a stmcture, has to take into account the possibility of severe dislocation— steady, steady, steady. Mr De Lacy: I was just wondering about your Liberal values. Mr BEARD: My Liberal values are still intact. But massive changes have been caused to the stmcture. I am starting off by outlining problems that are being faced by sugar-producers, and that is one of them. I do not think the honourable member would deny that. New South Wales growers are planning to refine their own sugar to sell on the domestic market, which will upset a complicated and long-standing arrangement for all Australian cane-farmers to share equally in the higher-paying domestic market, by potentially increasing their share of domestic sales from around 5 per cent to around 25 per cent. This could also render a large bulk shed and loading facility in Brisbane, buUt mainly for New South Wales sugar, superfluous to the industry's needs. Taking all of these problems into account, it is obvious that there is a need for flexibility, and that deregulation must be carried out to some degree, otherwise it will be forced onto the industry against its will. As the honourable member for Bundaberg pointed out, the Bill contains provision for some deregulation, particularly with regard to the setting-up of mill regions. But because of the historic structures and systems in place for more than 70 years, the pace must be steady, steady—giving the growers the chance to accommodate to the changes. This legislation is more complex than it need be. It is more insensitive to valid grower concern than it should be. I believe it is deficient in areas in which opportunities could have been taken to overcome some of the problems. As I said earlier, Mr Campbell spoke with great feeling about confusion and a lack of leadership in the industry. Nevertheless, from the contacts I have made, the legislation seems to have the general, if qualified, support of a majority of people in the industry. I have spoken to growers, millers and industry groups in areas from Ingham to the Burdekin, from Mackay to Brisbane, and I have taken several unsolicited calls from people who were concerned about this legislation coming forward tonight. Mr Veivers: Are you going to buy a cane farm? Mr BEARD: I will not declare it if I do! 4906 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

These concems that I have outlined tonight are shared by all. As I said earlier, the Minister should take note of this. In some cases, where the feeling is very strong, the concem has grown to the extent that the Bill should be opposed and retumed to the Minister for further study. There is a feeling that CSR in particular and the Burdekin region have done pretty well out of it. But so many people whose opinions I respect have assured me that the broad thmst of the legislation meets urgent needs of the industry. It is probably tme to say that Queensland needs this legislation in one way or another, and pretty urgently at that. Looking at the big picture, then, which I think we must do as legislators, and acknowl­ edging the concems, members of the Liberal Party will not oppose the Bill; but I expect that, before long, we will see it back in the House at least once for amendment. Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (8.12 p.m.): This Bill should probably be property called the Burdekin Bill. I believe that the greatest benefit to the sugar industry will occur in the Burdekin area. Of course, that will make some people happy and others will find it to their detriment. Recently the central board decided that there should be a 5 per cent increase in assignment. Fair enough. The Act needed to be amended to make that possible, because it is the wish of the industry. I think some dispute has arisen about whether or not the 5 per cent can be sold or distributed anywhere within the Queensland sugar industry or within regions only. This Bill restricts it to regions. I do not think that anybody has any worries about that. One might privately wonder about the wisdom of that in the long term. I do. However, if that is the wish of the industry, fair enough. The Bill contains many provisions. I feel that after the Bill was introduced, it should have been discussed in detail at a meeting of the Queensland Cane Growers Council so that at a later time, if amendments need to be made, the Government will not be forced to amend it, which I am sure will happen. Once the floodgates are opened, they are pretty hard to close. I am worried particularly about the discretion of the Minister to allow the sale or transfer of assignments in cases of hardship. Mr Casey: Particularly that Minister. Mr MENZEL: I think any Minister will be faced with a situation in which people will come to their local member with the greatest hardship case of all times and demand to see the Minister. Mr Harper: You should talk to them in Innisfail and see what they think in InnisfaU. Mr MENZEL: I do talk to them; that is tme. One could talk to growers right throughout the State. Even the prosperous growers in the Hambledon area just south of Cairns have made arrangements to sell their land so that it can be redeveloped. They are probably receiving millions of dollars for their land. This is where the anomalies exist. Unfortunately, it might backfire. If people know that their land in the Cairns area can be sold for millions of dollars for urban development, they might, at the next opportunity, sell their assignments to the Burdekin mill or to some other area. It is a double-edged sword—they will benefit both ways. I do not think that that action is in accordance with the spirit and original stmcture of the sugar industry. In my view, it is wrong; it is just plain greedy. It is very gradually breaking down the security of the assignment system. At some time in the future, whoever the Minister may be, he or she will be convinced that there is a good reason to allow a person to transfer his assignment from one mill area to another. The assignment could be to any area in Queensland, and not necessarily to the Burdekin area. It could even be a transfer from the Burdekin up to Babinda, for that matter. Irrespective of the circumstances, however, people will say that it is a political rort and that it is cormption. If a National Party Government is in office. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BiU 19 AprU 1989 4907

people wiU say that the assignment was transferred because the people involved were members of the National Party. The Minister will be ostracised and accusations wiU be made without any basis whatsoever. It does not matter which poUtical party is in power because the Minister will be accused of many things that he or she should not be accused of Accusations can lead to a great deal of suspicion. People can find ways to appear as though they are in bad financial circumstances with a view to convincing the Minister that they are suffering hardship. I reaUy beheve that that is the wrong approach. The BiU clears the way for research bodies such as the BSES to appear before the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. Qause 28 amends section 42 (a) and empowers authorities to make recommendations in relation to mill areas. These bodies can make themselves appear to be fighting for a peak to be assigned to a particular mill area. I point out that the BSES is funded by all cane-growers in Queensland. I think that even the State Govemment provides a subsidy for that establishment. Mr Harper: Only a milUon bucks. Mr MENZEL: That is all. That organisation really does not need a special privilege to appear before the board to give one area an advantage by aUocating extra peak by virtue of the fact that sugar-cane is being grown as an experiment. After aU, that cane can be crushed as No. 2 pool cane for a lower price. Special experimental classifications are just not necessary. I am reminded that in the early days of the sugar industry, CSR owned a thousand acres at Green Hills in the Hambledon area. A few years ago, the company sold the farm, which was classified as an experimental farm. Even in those days, a thousand acres was a fair size. Really, it was a plantation. The sugar-cane was classified as experimental cane to get round the provisions of the Act that applied at that time. What would stop a mUl in the Burdekin or in an\ other area from buying large tracts of land, or using grazing properties that have already been purchased, and classifying the land as an experimental farm? A loophole in the Act can be used to classify the crop as experimental cane. It is a loophole wide enough for a mail train to be driven through. At present there are enough problems associated with roaming and the recommen­ dation on roaming made by the Savage committee. I alwa>s held reservations about that recommendation because I beUeve that the system is a rort. This Bill permits 15 per cent roaming within the region, instead of aUowing it to take place only in a mill area, which is presently the case. People try to justify the change by sa>ing that the board in the mill area fi^om which the cane comes has to agree, and that the local board in the miU area to which the cane is assigned also has to agree. NaturaUy, the board in the area to which the cane is being assigned will agree. Of course, it could also be argued that the board in the mill area from which the cane comes probably would not agree if the move meant a reduction in the capacity of the mill. I can inform the House from personal experience—and 1 am sure that >ou, Mr Deputy Speaker, woiUd have had simUar experience through your involvement in the sugar industry—that it is very difficiUt to resist local pressure and sustain an argument to prevent people from roaming. Wh\ shoiUd a local board prevent people from doing that when they can put up a good argument in favour of that move? I reaUy do not beUeve that the local boards wiU be an effective mechanism to prevent an open-slather situation developing. The Opposition spokesman on Primary Industries referred to sugar-cane that may be affected by chemicals. In my view, clause 29 is too wide and gives miU-owners too much power. From time to time, cane-growers stand up to the mill-owners, but it is not always correct to think of proprietary sugar-mills only as the big bad wolf of the industry. Co-operative mills can also be very hard on growers. If a co-operative mUl manager or board wanted to cmcify an individual grower, it could quite easily accompUsh that aim. 1 ha\'e seen it happen. Very Uttle sugar-cane grown in Queensland would have no contact with chemicals. I am sure that ever\ honourable member in this Parliament is in favour of the control 4908 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill of chemical spraying to ensure that sugar-cane and other primary products are not contaminated. I have grave reservations about aerial spraying. I do not like breathing in poison that is floating around in the air and I do not expect anyone else to have to do so. From time to time I have raised in the House the matter of chemical spraying. By the same token, pre-emergent spraying, ground spraying, etc., are a very important part of the sugar-cane industry and are used extensively. Today every cane-farmer would use some kind of chemical spray. Because this provision is so wide and open, it can be wrongly interpreted and used as a lever by certain mill-owners to pull a cane-grower into line. There are stirrers who might step out of line, but people should not be cmcified. The Cane Tester Examining Board will be abolished under this legislation and a Cane Quality Evaluation Advisory Committee will be formed. This is to streamline the industry and reduce costs. The Government must be careful that the controls and safeguards used when the sugar-cane is tested at the mill are not abolished. I believe that the growers' representative on this committee should be the growers' representative on the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, whoever he may be, because that person is responsible to every cane-grower in Queensland. When the position becomes vacant, any cane-grower in Queensland is eligible to be appointed to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. Of course, that does not happen. There is a very good growers' representative on the board who knows his job, and his appointment is never opposed. However, if there were two growers' representatives on the board, every cane-grower in Queensland would be eligible to vote in an election to select those representatives. The Minister should consider the appointment of the growers' representative on the Cane Quality Evaluation Advisory Committee, because he is accountable. I am not happy about the way in which this provision has been drafted, because, if this so-called deregulation occurs, many mill-owners, co-operatives and other people in the industry would be happy to completely abolish the controls of the testing service, or whatever it is called. They could then say, "Chemists in the mill test the cane that comes through and everything is right." Honourable members know that it is not always right and on many occasions, even with the present controls, things go astray. Sometimes cane has to be re-checked by the cane-tester after a complaint is made and an error is found to have been made. There is no doubt that cheating would result and there was a good reason why that provision was included in the legislation in the first place, even if it was 100 years ago. Honourable members in this House maintain that the industry must move with the times, and that is correct. The idea has not changed. There should be an arbitrator watching every rake of cane that goes into a mill to ensure that there is no cheating. Many years ago in TuUy, the chief chemist and others were caught cheating, in spite of the Cane Tester Examining Board being in place. Cheating can occur even when there is supervision, but it is fairly rare. I am concemed about this legislation. The average cane-farmer in Queensland is unaware of the contents of this Bill. I appreciate the fact that Jack Smith, the deputy manager of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, who is in the gallery tonight, has sent me a copy of the letter written to the Honourable Minister by Mr Soper, the chairman. It is correct that Mr Soper said, "Let the Bill proceed", and I am surprised that Fred has gone along with the idea. Mr De Lacy: Do you think Mr Soper always represents the views of cane-growers? Mr MENZEL: I do not know. Does the honourable member for Cairns always represent the views of the Labor Party? He might sometimes represent the views of the National Party. It is open to interpretation. Fred Soper has a difficult job and I do not intend to condemn him. He is entitled to his point of view. I do not always agree with him or anyone else in the sugar industry. It is my right to disagree with him and his right to disagree with me. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4909

Mr Campbell said that in the last few years the Government has been interfering with the Acts and overriding the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. When the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Bill was debated in this House, cane­ growers were not in favour of it. It was debated openly in Parliament. Mr De Lacy: No, it wasn't. It was gagged and pushed through. Mr MENZEL: No, it was not. It was debated and every honourable member in this House was given a chance to vote on it. Mr Casey: The Leader of the House put a time-limit on it. Mr MENZEL: I do not remember that. If a provision is enshrined in legislation that gives the Minister of the day the power to direct where assignments can go, that is totally different from a provision that is voted on in this House, because this Parliament represents the people. I should correct a few comments made by the honourable member for Bundaberg. The Babinda mill is quite viable and was not for sale. Because of its viability, it is the subject of a take-over. Mr Casey: Seventy-two per cent of them voted in favour of it. They couldn't get the necessary 83 per cent. Mr MENZEL: I will explain that, too. That figure is not correct, anyway. I shall correct that, as well. Obviously the Bundaberg Sugar Co. thinks that the Babinda mill is quite viable, and has increased its offer on three or four occasions after the local co-operative mills have expressed interest. It is a viable and profitable mill which is doing quite well. Mr Austin: That is why we supported it. *• Mr MENZEL: That is right. The Govemment is to be commended for doing what it did at the time. Once a take-over offer is made to any company or co-operative, under the Companies Act the directors have an obligation to give share-holders the opportunity to accept or reject that offer. A meeting of Babinda share-holders was convened so that the directors could get an indication of what to do. The notices sent to share-holders set out the value of everyone's share in the mill. The cane-growers had been going through a lean time and had large mortgages. When some of them saw that they would get $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 as their share in the mill, and as many of them were desperate people, they jumped at it. The indication given at that time amounted to 76 per cent of the vote. However, at the formal meeting the actual vote was 70 per cent, not the 72 per cent that Mr Casey stated earlier. Mr Casey: They missed out by 5 per cent rather than 3 per cent. Mr MENZEL: I think the almighty dollar was dangled in front of people's eyes. I do not think it would be any different, no matter which people or which companies were involved. Mr Casey: As an old Babinda man, you would say there were a lot of Judas Iscariots there. Mr MENZEL: No, I would not say anything on that. I do not appreciate people putting words into my mouth. The Government should be promoting co-operative sugar-mills. The amendment that releases the former Goondi cane-growers from that five-year bond once the QIDC loan has been repaid is detrimental to Babinda. 1 am quite shocked and annoyed that it is in the Bill. I am opposed to that clause. The people have accepted the fact that the bond was for five years. It has been going for two or three years, so there is not that 4910 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill much longer to go. My understanding is that the QIDC loan was at a rate 1 per cent higher than could have been obtained commercially. There was some division about this on the board of directors. At a share-holders' meeting, one of the directors blamed the chairman, Mr Savage, for stifling the opportunity to go out and obtain a loan from a private bank so that 1 per cent interest could be saved. I do not know how much tmth there is in that. Mr Casey: If you wanted to have a major amalgamation, you would not want that restriction of five years there, would you? Mr MENZEL: No. When that package is put together, there is nothing wrong with the Govemment looking at all the circumstances and bringing in further legislation. Mr Casey: It's not the Govemment; it's got to be the growers in all those areas. Mr MENZEL: Yes, once the growers, or the share-holders, whichever way one wants to describe them, have put the package together. The executive of the Caims Cane Growers Association is not happy with the Bill. It has been quoted from another northem area how the Caims association feels about it, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be well aware. It is all very well for the Queensland Cane Growers Council, the Minister or the Govemment to say that the legislation can be amended later, but, as I say, if the floodgates are opened, a stream of people will go down to the Burdekin. I know that has been denied, but down the track we will just see what happens. As a member of Parliament, I get numerous requests. I have been informed by the secretary of the Cairns district Cane Growers Association that every week he has half a dozen or more people wanting to know when the legislation will be changed so that they can go down to the Burdekin. I get those sorts of requests all the time. People from Innisfail, Babinda and everywhere else are saying that all the time. I would say it would be the same in the electorate of Cooroora and everywhere else. Mr Casey: The Minister is encouraging them all to go knocking on his door to do it now. Mr MENZEL: It is not a matter of encouragement; he is giving them that opportunity. It will not be long before the Minister regrets that. From my experience in the sugar industry, I feel that he would be better off leaving it in the hands of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, which, under the Act, already has the power to transfer assignments from one mill area to another—and not just across the border. An example of that is the A. Gerbanas case. He claimed that he was in a bad way in Babinda because his ground was too low, and he was transferred to the Burdekin area. I understand that he since regrets that decision and has told people that he wants to go back to Babinda, where he was doing better than he is now. I do not want to go into that any further. I want to demonstrate that the board presently has that power and from time to time it has exercised it, but the board is very, very careful and tries to get some sort of mutual agreement between the areas before any transfer takes place. As I say, that reserve power is presently there and I believe that any Government that brings in legislation such as this is looking for trouble. Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (8.36 p.m.): The Minister's second-reading speech states— "The Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act has provided the basis on which the Queensland sugar industry has prospered for three quarters of a century, despite poor seasons, depressed world markets and of more recent time, the destmctive sugar industry policies of the Federal Labor Government." There has been a lot of criticism of the Federal Labor Government by previous Govemment speakers. I intend to quote again from the Minister's second-reading speech. He said— "... change is not undertaken without clear need and then only following extensive consultation with aU sectors of the industry which will be affected." Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4911

Mr Harper: Is that what the Feds did? Mr EATON: I do not agree with the lifting of the embargo, either. I have great respect for Mr Kerin and I have spoken to him. Even though I do not agree with him on this occasion, he is in a bind in which he is attempting to sell more Australian goods on the world market. However, other countries are saying, "You have embargoes on sugar, we have protectionist policies for our primary producers, and you are asking us to lift ours. You set an example. If you lift your embargoes, we will lift ours." The Govemment has put itself into a no-win situation. Mr Harper interjected. Mr EATON: That is possibly so. I know John Kerin well. Out of all the Federal Ministers, he is the one for whom I have the greatest respect and in whom I have the greatest tmst. Although I disagree with him, we have discussed the matter. Other members of the Labor Party disagree with him as well. Mr Harper: He's pretty strong on it. Mr EATON: Yes. However, he is doing what he believes is best for the nation. Therefore, the sugar industry may have to suffer a little to help other industries on the export market. Mr Harper: He wants to reduce the price of food. Mr EATON: Not particularly for that reason, but Australia wants to compete on the world market with all its products. The sugar industry in Queensland is being affected because Mr Kerin is attempting to save the nation and not merely one industry. In cases such as that, there must be a lot of give and take. Mr Harper: He wants cheaper food for Australian consumers. Mr EATON: The Queensland Govemment is saying that it wants the cheapest products for its constituents. That is part of any Government's policy. If a Govemment is to assume responsibility for the care of the State or the nation, that should be one of its ultimate aims. However, a balance should be stmck between needs and desires. I will retum to the Bill and draw an analogy between what the Minister said in the first part of his second-reading speech when he spoke about the destmctive sugar industry policies of the Federal Labor Govemment and what he then went on to say about consultation taking place. I draw attention of honourable members to the initial alteration to the Sugar Act, which the Minister said has been in force for 75 years and has served the industry well. The Opposition agrees with that statement. However, in 1982, when the Government wanted to introduce an amendment to the Sugar Acquisition Act, no consultation took place. At that time, there was much controversy along the Queensland coast. The then Minister for Primary Industries, who is now the Premier, travelled up the coast to some meetings at which I was present. He received a hot reception. The sugar-producers and farmers left no doubt in his mind what they wanted. However, he had no say. He was a pawn of the Government and had to introduce that legislation. I believe that he did not really want to do it, but he was told by the powers that be that as the Minister for Primary Industries it was his job to do that. If any consultation took place following those meetings, the advice was ignored completely. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "Change to the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act is not something imposed by the Queensland Government as such—rather, it is a response to changing industry needs and expectations." However, when the Federal Government makes changes, it is painted in a different light. Mr Harper: They forced us into it. 4912 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Mr EATON: The Queensland Govemment said that those changes were destmctive to the sugar industry. No-one forced the Queensland Govemment to make amendments to the Sugar Acquisition Act. No-one forced the former Minister to cancel the Sugar Board hearings in Innisfail. If he thought that the decision was not going to go his way, he had the trump card of power up his sleeve. Therefore, while the sugar board was sitting in Innisfail, he brought in an Act of Parliament to look into the rationalisation of the industry, to close the Goondi mill, to take over the Babinda mill and to address many other problems that existed at that time. When the Premier stepped in and brought in the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Act, we found that the Sugar Board Mr Harper: The Premier didn't do that. Mr EATON: Well, it was at the Premier's instigation. The Minister did it at the instigation of the Premier. The Minister might try to protect the Premier, but all honourable members know why it was done and how it was done, and we know what happened to the Sugar Board, which was headed by a judge who was a man who was impartial and had authority. He was the head of a statutory authority, yet he was overmled by an Act of Parliament, because that was the only way that the Govemment could halt the inquiry at that time into the problems at Babinda and Goondi. Anyone who knows anything about sugar will be aware of those facts. Mr Veivers: He wouldn't sacrifice the sugar industry for other industries that were already failing, surely? Mr EATON: No, there is no sense in that policy. I think that the honourable member knows that. The member for Mackay outlined adequately the problems with the legislation. The representatives of the various sections of the sugar industry are not happy with the Bill. The majority of cane-farmers in Queensland are not happy with it. They feel that the Govemment has mshed the legislation. Despite the fact that the Minister emphasised in his second-reading speech that there should be consultation, not enough consultation has taken place. The Government proposes to reduce the members of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board from five members to a chairman, a growers' representative and a millers' representative. In special circumstances, perhaps the Opposition would agree with some reductions in the membership on that board, because the Government makes provision for consultation with experts in certain sections of the industry. However, other members have already pointed out that, because members with expertise are not on the board, malpractice or a lack of proper administration may cause other problems that could have repercussions in the industry. It is sad to see the effect that the downtum in the sugar industry has had on so many families. The sugar industry was once a great and proud industry. History shows that primary industry has its ups and downs. However, in the last few years a large number of cane-farmers have gone broke—they have been sent bankrupt. After spending a life-time in the industry, many cane-farmers have had to walk out with nothing. Mr Harper: And that's what your Federal mates are going to do to them again next year. Mr EATON: That is the one fear that I have in regard to the lifting of the embargo. One only has to remember what happened in 1981, 1982 and 1983. If the sugar terminals and the storage depots are full of sugar, where will the crop be stored? The embargo provided protection. Although there is much criticism of the tariffs Mr Harper: You know that won't have any effect at all. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4913

Mr EATON: If ever I am wrong in my life, I hope that I am wrong on this occasion. The sugar industry has picked up a little since 1981 and 1982. Things are not quite so bad now as they were then. The farmers have told me that last year they had a reasonably good year. All the cane-farmers have had to tighten their belts. They have become more conscious of expenditure. There has been no overcapitalisation, as happened in the boom years. During the boom years salesmen were at fault. They were selling cane-farmers tractors by telling them, "If you buy a $40,000 tractor, you will not have to pay any tax." However, it got out of hand. Instead of paying $10,000 in tax and being free of debt, they were saving the $10,000 in tax and had to pay off a $30,000 debt on a tractor, and the same thing happened the following year. The farmers were overcapitalising and increasing their debt. I should give the accountants a roasting because, in some instances, the farmers acted on their advice. One accountant did have the courage to acknowledge that what I have said is right. However, he said, "What you have to remember is that sometimes the farmers came in and did not want to pay tax. They wanted to know how to get out of paying it." I think that everybody has leamed a lesson from the hard times. The mistakes that were made should be put down to experience and avoided in the future. It is a credit to the cane-farmer that, as a result of hanging in and putting up with the hardships, he is one of the most proficient and efficient producers in any industry in the world. The cane-farmers have used technology to their advantage in order to produce a top-class product that can be sold overseas. Up to 80 per cent of the crop is sold on the overseas market. The farmers have had that protection Mr Harper: Stability. Mr EATON: That is right. A cane-farmer used to be able to go into a bank and borrow money because the bank manager followed the industry and he knew how much he could lend the farmer. If a farmer had an assignment of 1 000 tonnes, the bank manager knew that he could probably lend him $10,000. If a farmer had an assignment of 2 000 tonnes, he could borrow twice as much. That is how it worked in the sugar industry, as well as in other primary industries. It must be remembered that it was the State Govemment that made the first changes to the Sugar Acquisition Act, which was introduced in 1915. It has stood the industry in good stead through wars, depressions, floods, droughts and cyclones. The cane-farmers have survived all those things. The one thing that they will find it hard to survive is man-made interference. That is what has brought many an industry to its knees. One only has to watch the news Mr Harper: They asked for it. Mr EATON: They are not asking the Labor Party. The feedback that the Labor Party is getting from the cane-farmers is negative. The millers are not happy about the transfer of assignments. I would not like to be in the Minister's position. I kno\^ of the personal hardship that many farmers in my electorate have endured. I will not talk about other areas; I will stick to my own area. When I was elected as a member of this Parliament, there were three sugar-mills and approximately 2 500 farmers in my electorate. Not all of the farmers in my electorate supply the local mills; some of them supply the TuUy mills. I know of the personal hardship that those people suffered. In 1981 and 1982 I wore a track to the Rural Reconstmction Board, the Commonwealth Development Bank and the Agricultural Bank making representations for those farmers who were suffering severe hardship because of the downturn in the sugar industry and who were facing an insecure future because of 4914 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI the break-down in the ISA, that is, the International Sugar Agreement, that had protected the industry. Mr Randell: You are missing the point. The thing that crippled most farmers was high interest rates. Mr EATON: That is also correct. Prior to 1983 the Primary Industries Bank of Australia—PIBA~was charging high interest rates. That was under the Doug Anthony/Eraser Govemment. I agree that any Govemment that allows interest rates to get too high stands condemned. I do believe that Govemments can control interest rates. If they cannot, they should take appropriate action. The banks are pulling the strings at present and everybody is dancing to their tune. Mr Randell: What has Hawke done about it? Mr EATON: He has not done much about it. However, tonight he said that he believes that interest rates will not rise again. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr EATON: Members of the Govemment do not mention the fact that, when the Hawke Govemment came to power, money was made available to farmers under what was called RAS, that is, the Rural Assistance Scheme. Under that scheme, only 85 per cent of the money borrowed had to be paid back. In one instance, the Queensland Govemment, under the Premiership of Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen, received $20m-odd at an interest rate of only 4 per cent and had to pay back only 85 per cent of that amount. The State Govemment was allowed to charge the farmers an extra 1 per cent in interest. One could count on one finger—not one hand— the number of farmers who received that concessional interest rate. This Govemment lent that money at interest rates of 12 and 13 per cent, yet only 85 per cent of it had to be paid back. So this Government got 15 per cent of that money for nothing. The annual reports of the Rural Reconstmction Board wiU prove what I am saying. This Govemment would put $10m into consolidated revenue and then draw it out and lend it to the mills. The figures in the Govemment's own reports will bear that out. Mr Stephan: The Labor Govemment complains if Queensland lends money at low interest rates. Mr Harper: They say it's a rort. Mr EATON: It has been a rort. That is why the farmers are not happy about it. The Govemment was not making that money available at low interest rates. It was investing it on the daUy money market and making money for itself Mr Simpson: It was all controlled by an agreement. Mr EATON: It was not controlled. That money was given to the Queensland Government. What I am saying is home out in the Govemment's own annual reports. Members of the Govemment cannot tell me that they do not know about it, but one does not hear them mentioning these sorts of things. Members of the Federal Government, people in Queensland and those in other parts of Australia know only what they read. What do they read? The former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, said that the Queensland Govemment provided $170m to the sugar industry. Although a lot of that money was never distributed, he added up the guaranteed loans on which he did not have to outlay one cent. Farmers had to borrow money and pay back interest as well as the principal. However, the former Premier claimed that that money was provided by the Queensland Govemment, and it was included in the $170m. He criticised the Federal Govemment because it provided only about $50m. One does not hear about such things, but one hears about the circumstances Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4915 in which the Govemment gave $800,000 to Howard Smith Industries. I am sure that the Minister knows about this. Howard Smith wanted to stay in the sugar industry, so it approached the Govemment and said, "We want a loan or a grant to stay in the industry." What happened? Mr Harper: They didn't get any grants. Mr EATON: Howard Smith received a grant from the Federal Government under the sugar stabilisation Act. Although $800,000 was provided, what happened 12 months later? After stating that it wanted to stay in the sugar industry, Howard Smith sold its interest to Bundaberg Sugar. The Government provided $800,000 of tax-payers' money to help that company. Millions of dollars were poured into the Babinda sugar-mill. I know that a lot of that money was loan money and that it must be repaid. I agree with what was done, because when it is necessary to save a town and an industry, assistance must be provided. Labor Govemments have been masters of doing that in the past. If one examines Labor's record, one will see that it was under a Labor Govemment that the South Johnstone sugar-mill was established and built. When it became a viable proposition, it was handed over to the farmers and became a co-operative. A State Labor Govemment built the whole Babinda township, not only the mill. Mr De Lacy: The Govemment is trying to dismantle it. Mr EATON: The honourable member is correct. All the land is governed by the Babinda Township Act. It is not subject to a special lease or to the Land Act. Mr Harper: Did Foley do that? Mr EATON: I cannot remember the Labor Premier's name. I think that Foley was in office after the war. It would have been during the time when Gillies was in power, which was back in the early days. A Labor Govemment in Queensland introduced the Sugar Acquisition Act. I am not trying to give any extra kudos to that Labor Government. At the time, the members of the Govemment were faced with making decisions during hard times. The decisions that were made have tumed out to be correct because they have applied in the industry for 75 years. The Labor Govemment looked at the problems in 1915 and came up with the only solutions. However, at the time the Govemment was criticised for the decisions that it made. Today it must be recognised that those old Labor Govemments were Govemments of the people. Mr Harper: They were not academics like you have got now. Mr EATON: No, they were not; but they had common sense. Academic qualifications are not always needed; what is needed is a great deal of common sense. Today, the members of the Labor Party have a great deal of common sense. After the next election the people of Queensland will see them at first hand. The Labor Party in Queensland will be able to put into practice what it has been trying to get the Queensland Govemment to do. If the Govemment wants to talk about what it can do for the sugar industry and for Queensland, it should look at the sugar terminals. Today, the road transport industry operates in the sugar industry. Mr Harper: That is another Kerin idea—he wants to put it all on the road. Mr EATON: We want to use the railways. Take the Babinda mill as an example. The mill is situated beside a railway line. Although many railway facilities are provided at the mill at Gordonvale, they are not used. Mr Harper: But Kerin wants to put it all on the road. 4916 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI

Mr EATON: John Kerin is not handling it. This is a Queensland Govemment matter. John Kerin could not send an ounce of sugar by road train if he wanted to, because the operations are govemed by a Queensland Government Act. He has nothing to do with the road transportation of sugar in Queensland. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There are too many raised voices in the Chamber. Mr EATON: It is typical of the Queensland Govemment to blame the Federal Govemment for everything. However, John Kerin has nothing to do with the road transport of sugar in Queensland. Mr Harper: I am glad you agree with us on that. Mr EATON: I want the Minister to use the railways more often. The Government is closing down railway stations and doing away with railway services. There is a golden opportunity to use the railway system more often and to obtain more income from it. However, sugar is being transported by road. Honourable members have referred to the use of chemicals in the sugar industry. It is well known that the use of chemicals in the sugar industry is necessary. Althou^ the use of chemicals is dangerous, cane-farmers and other members of the community are getting together to do something about the problem. Cane-farmers dislike poisons as much as anyone else. They use only those chemicals that they consider necessary. The legislation goveming the use of chemicals has been amended so that the more toxic chemicals are no longer used. Reference has been made to the fact that mills have the right not to accept cane if a certain percentage of a poison or chemical is found in it. Today, many mral residential blocks containing an area of between 5 and 20 acres are being developed. I know that there is a lot of animosity between the farmers and the owners of mral residential properties. It is possible that somebody could spray a particular chemical onto a farmer's sugar-cane, which could be banned from the mill. However, I hope that that will never happen. The Govemment receives frequent requests for the banning of aerial spraying of chemicals. I myself have forwarded on such requests. In some areas aerial spraying can cause many cases of illness. Individuals are affected by chemicals differently. Some people who are doused with chemicals may not be affected; other persons who may be miles from aerial spraying can become nauseated. The same protection should be afforded to everyone. I know that the cane-farmers are doing everything they can to overcome the problems caused by the aerial spraying of chemicals. However, poisons are part of the sugar industry. The people in the industry must learn to handle them more carefully so that the people and the industry are protected. Chemicals that are used today are more toxic than those that have been used previously. I always refer to an old friend of mine who has passed away. He would eat only the scrappy vegetables from his garden because he had a motto: if the insects won't eat it, neither will I. That person lived to a ripe old age. I think that his motto had something going for it. He would only buy vegetables with holes and gmbs in them. I have always remembered that. I turn now to the Goondi mill and CSR. I have already mentioned how Howard Smith received a $800,000 grant to stay in the industry. CSR has some of the greatest operators of any business in this State. If it does not have the best brains and the best con men in the business, it goes out and buys them. I would like to see this Govemment employ some of those fellows who are working for CSR. They are a jump ahead of everybody and I acknowledge their brilliance and credibility. This Govemment could learn from CSR. Mr Veivers: You haven't got shares in CSR, have you? Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 April 1989 4917

Mr EATON: No, I do not have any shares in that company. It is not going to give me any, either. CSR has astute businessmen who know how to operate. They got rid of the miU in Innisfail. They did not care about the farmers or anybody else. Even when the farmers wanted to buy out that mUl, CSR was not prepared to provide terms. It knows how to operate. The Goondi mill has just about been pulled down. It is now just a relic. Only two mills are left in the area. The Govemment was not much help. When the farmers were considering taking over that mill as a co-operative, the Premier of the day brought in the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Act, the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board had to call off the hearing and everyone had to come back to Brisbane. That is an example of how the Govemment can have an effect not only on an industry but also on an industry authority that is supposedly impartial and immune to outside interference. Nobody could ever taint the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board with allegations of influence or bribery. It has always been headed by a judge. During all of those years it was not interfered with. It made decisions on an honest basis of fact and realism, not on what was going to benefit someone down the road, this company or that company. When the Govemment found that it could not influence or interfere with that board, it introduced an Act of Parliament that beat the board. One cannot beat an Act of Parliament. After everybody had shifted up to Innisfail, set up communications for the hearing in the show society's hall and the hearing had been in progress for a couple of days, when it looked as if the board's decision might go against the Govemment, the Government mshed through an Act of Parliament and everybody packed up and came home, despite the air fares and the costs involved in setting up that hearing. This Govemment is fairly determined in its efforts to get its own way. I am concemed about the long-term stabilisation of the industry, which has not been stable for the past few years. Fear and uncertainty have been expressed within the industry. The honourable member for Mackay, Mr Casey, mentioned the average age of cane- farmers. Not only in the sugar industry but also in other industries, farmers are old people. Young people cannot afford to get into the industry. The sugar industry has had a great opportunity to play a role in helping young farmers get onto the land in Queensland. The last couple of sales in the Burdekin region were of reasonably cheap blocks that should have been put up for ballot. Nobody would have objected if the Government had reserved two or three of those blocks for ballot on a leasehold basis. The Govemment cannot expect young people to have enough money for reserve prices of $100,000. Under the old system people were able to go onto the land. The banks knew that the industry was stable and protected and that the Govemment was behind it. Because of the stabilisation of the industry, bankers knew that they would get back their money. Today, the sons of those very same farmers almost need to be millionaires to get onto the land in the sugar industry. Even a small farm costs a quarter of a million dollars. Mr Harper: It's time that the Labor Party got the economy on its feet again. Mr EATON: Yes, I agree. It is a bit slow at getting on its feet. We have to wait until the Minister goes wrong to prove him wrong. If he goes right, we will all be happy. In the mean time we have to sit and sweat it out. Mr SLACK (Bumett) (9.04 p.m.): Honourable members have already canvassed most of the issues contained in this legislation. Because the hour is late, I do not intend to speak for very long. Most of the concems that have been expressed relate to whether or not the Minister and his Govemment consulted with the industry. The honourable member for Mount Isa referred to that aspect, as did Mr Casey. Mr Randell: How much consultation did the Federal Govemment give before it introduced the embargo? 4918 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Mr SLACK: Exactly; none. It went straight ahead, having told the sugar industry nothing about it. I will come back to that in a moment. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that the Green Paper—the dis­ cussion paper—was released at the end of 1987. The sugar industry would have been made aware that the proposals were in the pipeline. Up to this point in time considerable discussion has taken place with the sugar industry on both an individual and a collective basis. The honourable member for Mackay claimed that I and other members of the National Party do not know what we are talking about and that our backgrounds Mr Casey: I said it is about time you got on the side of the industry instead of the side of the National Party. Mr SLACK: That is where I differ with the honourable member. The Government has consulted with the industry. One of the first promises that I made when I entered this Parliament was that I would consult with the industry, and I did on this occasion. I have consulted with representatives of the industry in my electorate and received feedback from other electorates. The industry has indicated to me that, although it has some reservations about certain aspects of the BiU, it supports its passage at this sitting of Parliament. The industry realises that this legislation is important. That is where Mr Casey is wrong. The Govemment is aware of the feedback from the industry. Obviously Mr Casey is not. Mr Casey questions this Govemment's knowledge of the industry. He claims that the industry is completely offside. However, I would not like to follow his example. Mr Casey: Are you saying that the industry is happy with the consultation that has taken place? Are you saying that? Mr SLACK: I am saying that consultation has taken place. Whenever it is proposed to make changes in an industry, there will always be reservations about that change. The people involved will always wonder how it will affect them. Quite often they will not be informed, but that is not necessarily the Govemment's fault or the Minister's fault. It has always been recognised that the sugar industry is a very diverse industry and that different points of view are put forward by people from different areas. The general concept was that this Bill would be introduced in this session. Let us be fair to the Minister. It is unfair to say that no consultation has taken place in this instance. Those in the sugar industry have known for quite some time that this legislation was in the wind. They have had the opportunity to meet and talk about it. Whether they have done so or not is their business. By the same token, the Minister has given them the opportunity. A Green Paper was released. I support the Bill. The Minister has indicated that he will look—naturally, a Govemment always looks—at problems that may eventuate through administration. That is the other matter about which the honourable member has voiced some concem, especially as it relates to where cane assignments will end up. In that regard, the local boards will impose checks and balances. Naturally, as a Minister, the Minister must have some powers, because he is responsible to the people and he must wear the decisions that he makes. To say that a Minister within a Govemment should not have that power is to say that the Government itself should not have any power and that all the power should be handed over to appointed boards, elected boards or public servants. That is not a fair way to go. It is not a responsible attitude to this Bill. I have every confidence in the Minister's making the right decisions at the right time. Naturally, some concern has been expressed about any decisions that he will have to make in relation to cases of hardship. The Minister's jurisdiction in relation to that has been mentioned by people within the industry. Some say the board should have jurisdiction. However, the Minister is a responsible Minister. He understands his responsibilities. There are instances in which he will be required to make a decision, Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 AprU 1989 4919 and he is prepared to make that decision on advice and in good faith. That has to be accepted as being reasonable. Mr Casey also made some reference to what he claimed was Mr Harper's hypocrisy, or said that he was hypocritical in what he brought in. Mr Casey said that the Minister is completely on the nose with the industry. He even attacked members of the Queensland Cane Growers Council and, relative to Mr Fred Soper, he said that Mr Soper groveUed in a vote of thanks to the Minister at a meeting recently. Just prior to that the honourable member said that he was a friend of Mr Soper. I would hate to be considered as an enemy of Mr Casey. Mr Casey: I have told him worse than that at times. Mr SLACK: I am aware that the honourable member used the same term in referring to another personality within the industry. He led up to that by saying that he was a friend of that particular person, and then proceeded to bucket him. Mr Soper has indicated his support for the BiU. He is the leader of the sugar industry. Although he said that he has some reservations, he is prepared to support the passage of this Bill because he believes that it should be passed. If it is not passed, what happens to people in land-locked areas in relation to their 5 per cent entitlements? They have to be provided for. Mr Casey said quite a bit about the Federal Govemment. He spoke about the embargo and the notification and consultation. The honourable member for Mulgrave asked the question: what consultation did take place relative to the embargo? The answer is quite simple: none. Mr Casey: I will tell you on the next Bill. Mr SLACK: No consultation took place with the industry. That is my understanding of the situation. The honourable member knows Mr Casey: This Bill has got nothing to do with the embargo. Mr SLACK: The honourable member has spoken about consultation. I am talking about consultation. There is no doubt that the honourable member wishes to distance himself from his Federal counterparts, and he is on record as saying so. An article in the Australian Canegrower states— "State Opposition Primary Industries spokesman Ed Casey said this fortnight the Senate Inquiry into the embargo could have been of some use if it had conducted its enquiries two years ago with its report available 12 months ago before the decision to lift the sugar embargo was taken. Mr Casey said the Federal Govemment had to realise that sugar was the total, major or partial economy of at least eight or nine Federal seats in Queensland and 19 or 20 State seats. He said every worker and business person living in sugar growing areas knew and understood the industry which was more than could be said for every politician in Canberra. The Senate Inquiry this fortnight held public meetings on the sugar industry in Mackay and Bundaberg." I relate that to the question of hypocrisy. When it was not known that the embargo was likely to be lifted, how the hell Mr SPEAKER: Orderi Mr SLACK: I retract that remark. How could the honourable member have expected the Senate inquiry to know something that it could not be expected to know about in the future? If the honourable member accuses the Minister of hypocrisy, he would have to be accused of exactly the same thing. Mr Casey: Are you saying I said that? Mr SLACK: It is here in the Australian Canegrower of 10 April 1989. It is a quote from the honourable member. 4920 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Mr Casey: What does it say? Mr SLACK: I have just read it. I advise the honourable member to refer to Hansard tomorrow moming to check what I have said. Reference was also made to the Federal member for Hinkler. I do not want to refer personally to Mr Courtice, but the member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, raised a question about Mr Courtice's credibility and his standing in the sugar industry. I want to refer to an article in the Australian Canegrower of 10 April 1989 in which Mr Courtice made certain comments in response to a question in relation to the sugar industry and called for Mr Harper's sacking relative to drought relief matters. The article states— "A Federal MP has called on State Primary Industries Minister NevUle Harper to resign over allegations that some Queensland farmers misused drought relief funds. Brian Courtice, Labor Member for Hinkler said in any other State the Minister would have been sacked for 'presiding over a system so brimful of rorts.' " I might add that he had no proof of that allegation whatsoever. All he had was a leaked document that he referred to in part, but that is beside the point. The article continues— "He called on mral organisations to lobby for Minister Harper's resignation. In response, QCGO Acting General Manager Jack Smith said that canegrowers were too busy assessing the enormous damage the Federal Govemment had caused to the orderly marketing of sugar to pay any heed to Mr Courtice. He said if Mr Courtice's knowledge of drought relief measures equaUed his knowledge of sugar matters, a carrier pidgeon could carry the load. Mr Smith said Mr Courtice had already sold out his fellow canegrowers on the issue of the proposed loss of the embargo." I have read two statements from the Australian Canegrower that appeared in the same issue and related to a Federal member. I point out to the honourable member for Mackay that, by his own words, he has questioned the Federal member's ability. I have supported the accusation made by the member for Burdekin. I can say unequivocally that I support the Minister's action in introducing this BiU. Although some cane-growers have reservations about certain aspects of it, they have indicated to me that they wish this legislation to be brought before Parliament, debated and passed. If any problems arise, there is no question that the Minister and this Government would be responsive. Of course, those problems could possibly arise in the area of administration. Members of the Opposition are using scare tactics to outline what the implications of this legislation might be. The implications they perceive may not necessarily eventuate. Mr De LACY (Cairns) (9.17 p.m.): My contribution to this debate wiU be brief because the hour is late. The Caims cane-growers executive is strongly opposed to certain clauses in this legislation, as the member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel, pointed out earlier. I think it is important for me to register that opposition during this debate. Mr Menzel aptly stated that the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act Amendment Bill could easily be given the short title of the Burdekin Bill because the Burdekin district will reap the benefit when the provisions of certain clauses in the legislation are implemented. It did not surprise me that the member for Burdekin vigorously supported the Bill—as well he might. After all, he and his area will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the member is becoming the Rasputin of the sugar industry. He has influence over the Minister and over the Govemment. He is able to have legislation brought before the Parliament that tends to benefit his electorate. Despite the protestations made by the honourable member tonight, that benefit is derived at the expense of other areas, particularly areas that I represent in far-north Queensland and the superwet belt represented by the honourable member for Mulgrave. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4921

Mr Beard: Do you think it is because of his charm? Mr De LACY: I do not know what it is. However, I very much doubt that it would be because of his charm. It must be something else. Mr Casey: It is certainly not his good looks. Mr De LACY: No, certainly not. The honourable member for Burdekin is beginning to play the same role in the sugar industry as that played by the famous "Triple H" trio in the dairy industry. It is not good for the industry as a whole that certain people are able to wield influence out of all proportion to the positions they hold. The honourable member for Mulgrave mentioned the sale of caneland, which is a matter that has always concemed me. In the area of my electorate, some farmers are selling their land as real estate for huge sums of money. I agree with the honourable member that those owners should not have the right to sell off their assignment in addition to the land. The celebrated sale of Cannon's farm obtained a price of $23m. It is almost obscene that a person can sell a sugar-cane farm for real estate, obtain a price of $23m and also wish to sell off an assignment. That is not right, and the industry should look into those transactions. The member for Mulgrave also mentioned ministerial discretion. All honourable members would know what I am referring to in terms of this legislation. The provisions relating to ministerial discretion in this legislation are wrong. The Bill creates a number of loopholes. I must say that, despite the shortcomings of the member for Mulgrave as a parliamentary representative in the sense that he has never adequately represented all sectors of his electorate, when he speaks about the sugar industry he certainly speaks on behalf of the farmers in his region. When the honourable member speaks about the sugar industry, I cannot find much to which I can take exception. The honourable member speaks to the growers in his region and to the cane-growers executive, and so do I. Fundamentally, the honourable member beUeves in the regulations that support the industry and he understands the way that the industry has been stmctured historicaUy. Of course, the industry was stmctured by a Labor Govemment, and members of the Opposition believe in the regulatory stmcture of the industry as well. 1 believe that this legislation is another example of the manner in which the present Minister has failed primary industries in this State. The Minister has certainly failed to direct the complex, regulated and troubled sugar industry and the dairy industry. I suppose that those industries will always be confronted by problems. However, they have not been resolved or sorted out by the Minister, despite his intervention and imposition of his will time and time again. His will has not been imposed for the best reasons. The imposition of his will has not created a more efficient dairy industry or sugar industry, and it has not created a more equitable industry. I beUeve that his intervention has been carried out for reasons unrelated to the efficiency of those industries. The Minister likes to get his own way and at times I believe that he is driven by a megalomania. That message comes back to the members of the Opposition who come from the mral sector. I do not know what sort of a perception or image the Minister has of himself, but as I have travelled around Queensland the impression I have gained, is that he is not highly respected in the mral sector because of the way in which he goes about his tasks. It is great sport for members on the Govemment side of the House to attack Federal Minister Kerin over many of the decisions that he has made. I know that almost every person involved in the sugar industry does not support the removal of the sugar embargo, but Minister Kerin is still held in high regard. I am amazed at the way in which farmers say that, although they do not agree with Mr Kerin on certain matters, they beUeve that he is a good Minister and they respect him because he understands their problems. Mr Kerin will go down in history as one of the better Federal Ministers for Primary

82865—166 4922 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Industries. All of the sanctimonious claptrap that came from Minister Harper and other Govemment members about Mr Kerin's trying to change the sugar industry so that the cities can have cheaper sugar is a load of nonsense. I can tell honourable members the reasons why the sugar embargo is being removed. The honourable member for Mourilyan, Mr Eaton, mentioned some of them. Mr Kerin is the Minister for Primary Industries for the whole of Australia, he oversees Australia's role in the Caims group and he is trying to negotiate a freer world trade in agriculture. Unless a freer world trade in agriculture is established, Australia has a very bleak future indeed. Mr Randell: How good did they do in Canada at the GATT talks? Mr De LACY: They are making limited progress, but countries such as Canada and the United States and the trading blocs in Europe have large populations and they can engage in domestic trade. Australia is in big trouble unless freer world trade is established for its major commodities. Members on the other side of this House should support the Federal Govemment and the Federal Minister who are making progress and leading the way. That is the only way to save the industry. This Govemment's small and narrow-minded approach does not do it any credit and, in the long term, will not do the primary industries of Australia any good either. Mr Kerin also believes in free enterprise. Members on the other side of the House have spoken about free enterprise. Mr Kerin does not believe that there will be cheaper sugar in the cities as a result of the removal of the sugar embargo; but he believes that the regulations within the industry are creating a cost. If some of those regulations can be removed, more money from the sale of sugar will flow back to the farmers. That is a free-enterprise argument. I do not happen to agree with that or with Minister Kerin in that regard, but at least he is consistent. Govemment members talk about free enterprise in a sanctimonious and self-righteous way. Honourable members in this House hear it time and time again. Yesterday I understand that the Premier addressed a seminar. He meandered on and on, impressing no-one, but finished off by saying that Queensland was in good hands because it has a free-enterprise Govemment. Someone asked him, "If you believe in free enterprise, why are you opposed to the deregulation of the sugar industry and the wheat industry?" The Premier's mouth opened and closed three or four times, but he could not even answer the question. This Govemment is hypocritical and does not understand what consistency is all about. Mr Stephan: Have you heard of organised marketing? Mr De LACY: I am not against that, but, in one breath Govemment members talk about free enterprise, and in the next breath they talk about organised marketing and regulations. It is inconsistency and hypocrisy. When they criticise Mr Kerin, honourable members are being exposed for the frauds that they are. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr De LACY: How would the honourable member for Cooroora know? He does not know whether he is coming or going when he talks about free enterprise. Mr Simpson: You have had no business background; that's your problem. Mr De LACY: Here is the economist himself I have more business background than he has. Mr Simpson: You have not. Mr De LACY: I have mn more businesses, and I have been a farmer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! Continuous cross-fire will not be tolerated, and the honourable member for Caims will proceed. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BiU 19 April 1989 4923

Mr Randell: What sort of crops did you grow? Mr De LACY: I was a tobacco-farmer. The first 20 years of my life were spent on a tobacco farm and I was a farmer for six years. Mr Stephan: You didn't do very well. Mr De LACY: No, I did not do very well, but I was a farmer. Many other farmers did not do very well either, and I am not ashamed to stand up and say it. Mr Hobbs: A tme failure. Mr De LACY: A tme farmer. Do honourable members know the old story about the farmer Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Caims will retum to debate the Bill. The conversation that is occurring in the Chamber is not to be encouraged. Mr De LACY: I could still beat most of these blokes down to the end of a row. The two pillars of the sugar industry have always been, on the one hand, the sugar embargo and the Commonwealth/State agreement on domestic pricing, and, on the other hand, the peak and assignment system. The Federal Govemment is removing the embargo system and this Govemment is opposed to it. In addition, the Opposition spokesman, Mr Casey, and the State Labor Party are opposed to it. The Opposition is not ashamed to make that statement. However, the first step towards removing the peak and assignment system is being taken tonight. How can Govemment members argue that Mr Kerin is destroying everything in the sugar industry whilst this Govemment is kicking out the other pUlar of the sugar industry? Mr Harper: Why? Mr De LACY: It is because the Minister wants to indulge himself and prove that he is the strong man in the sugar industry. He does not have to face the people in the industry. If he had listened to what they said, these clauses would not be included in the legislation that this House is debating tonight. He sent out a Green Paper, gave the people in the industry a fair trial and then took them out and shot them. That is great consultation! He took no notice of the submissions they sent in. He should talk to some of the sugar-cane farmers in my electorate. I was talking to a person who is the spokesman for the industry today. He started to complain about the Minister and I began to defend the Minister. I said, "He is a bit punch dmnk. Every time he tums around, somebody is hitting him." This bloke said, "They ought to hit him a bit more. They haven't hit him enough yet." I promised that I would not speak for long. In conclusion, let me say that the Opposition is particularly concemed about the ministerial discretion clause. We take exception to that because it is the first step in the breaking down of the peak and assignment system. The growers will start transferring cane from one region to another region. Once that happens, it will affect the building blocks of the sugar industry. That stability that we have all been referring to and with which we in this Chamber agree— nobody argues about it—is starting to collapse and cmmble. The Minister and all his colleagues who will vote for this legislation tonight—aU of the people who wiU not have the intestinal fortitude to support the amendments that we will move—will go down in history as the people in State Parliament who started this decline. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (9.30 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. Unworthy though the misstatements of the Opposition spokesman may have been, nevertheless I must rebut what the member for Mackay said about the Queensland sugar industry. Let us get a few facts straight and let us get a few of these things clear in our minds. It might do well if the member for Caims listens, too. 4924 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Firstly, I will deal with the 5 per cent productivity increase. It was the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board—that rightly hallowed independent institution of the cane industry—which, after hearing the cases put by all parties in the open, rather court-like atmosphere of its sittings, recommended to me that the increase be 5 per cent, not 9 per cent or 10 per cent. The member for Mackay might like to know that I took that decision, not because of any self-indulgence as a Minister, not because of any idea that I should dictate to the industry, but because the industry asked for it and because the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board—I will repeat it again, that rightly haUowed institution of the industry—recommended it. Because that recommendation was soundly based, I approved it. I did not make the decision; I approved the recommendation. This evening in the House the member for Mackay has disclosed his embarrassment at hearing the chairman of the Queensland Cane Growers Council tell the annual meeting of members in Ayr last week that his cane-growers' organisation was satisfied with the legislation before us today. Only 24 hours earlier Mr Casey had been misleading this House with his claims to the contrary. I wonder how he felt as he listened to the chairman and the general manager, Mr Bolton, castigating his Australian Labor Party colleagues. But did he tonight stand up and admit that he is at odds with the industry's views in these matters and say that he disagrees with the solid industry rejection of an increase in peak? No way—not Mr Casey! And he talks of hypocrisy. Amidst all of that distortion of the tmth, the honourable member further totally misrepresented my close relationship, understanding and philosophical agreement with the Sugar Board. Tmly, in sugar industry matters the member for Mackay is beyond belief Be that as it may, I have always been available to talk with industry representatives and I do not intend to change now. I am quite prepared to have further consultation. I will have further discussions with the industry in regard to this legislation to consider any concerns that may arise as it settles into place within the industry stmcture. I appreciate that some supplier groups, mill-supplier committees or cane-grower executives may not have enjoyed the intemal discussion within their organisations. However, that has not been the fault of the Govemment. When I attended the annual general meeting of the Queensland Cane Growers Council in Ayr last week, I spoke to the president of the organisation, not in the conference, not in the annual meeting, but outside it. We spoke eyebaU to eyebaU on not fewer than three occasions. One of those was well and tmly witnessed, and listened to, by people who can certainly verify it. On not fewer than three occasions when I asked him the direct question, as close as I can remember his words—and I think my recollection is fairly accurate; these virtually are his words—he said that, although there may be a few minor hiccups in the legislation, there is nothing sufficiently significant for him to seek amendment. I thank him for his frankness and constmctive understanding. That the spokesman for the Opposition would call a contribution of that nature "grovelling to the Minister" is tmly incredible. Although it has undertaken a consultative process, this Govemment will not abnegate its responsibility to the total cane industry. There will always be a diversity of sectional interests. The final decision—the final responsibility—must always devolve on the elected Government. It is not unnatural that the member for Mackay should try to gain a little credibUity in the cane industry. He certainly has lost heavUy through his support for his coUeagues. This evening, the member for Hinkler has been referred to. I agree with the member for Bundaberg that we should not become personal; we are talking about philosophical arguments. Therefore, I do not intend to follow the track of the member for Hinkler. However, recently, I read that Mr Greenwood, a vice-president of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, indicated that the member for Hinkler does not even know the difference between the Sugar Board and the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. We were treated to rather pious platitudes by the Opposition spokesman. What will happen to the export terminals and the handling facilities now that the honourable member's mates in Canberra—the same dictators of Labor policy in Queensland—have decided not to renew the traditional sugar agreement and to do away with the sugar Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 April 1989 4925 embargo? What will the Labor Party do to protect those grower assets—not only in sugar but also in wheat? The member for Caims spoke about John Kerin. I, too, have a great respect for John Kerin. He is a man to whom one can talk and a man whose word one can tmst. He is not the person whom I am criticising; it is the Australian Labor Party with which I find fault. The honourable member for Mackay talked a lot of nonsense about ministerial control. Quite frankly, that is really not worthy of comment. What is worthy of comment is the member's admission in the late stages of his speech when he said, "You won't satisfy all sections of the industry." I agree whole-heartedly with that remark. I repeat that the Opposition spokesman said, "You won't satisfy aU sections of the industry." Yet his earlier remarks would have suggested that the contrary should be expected of the Govemment. In regard to the member's remarks on chemical residue—the reason for the "exposed" provision—and I hope that he is listening, because I am trying to be helpful. Mr Casey: You are not making sense, but I am listening. Mr HARPER: I will repeat it. In regard to the member's remarks on chemical residue—the reason for the "exposed" provision is that formal proof may not be avaUable when cane is destined immediately for cutting or delivery to the mill. It is vital that the risk of chemical residue is resolved. The cane should not be cmshed and the possibUity of contaminated cane contaminating juice added to the cmsh should not be allowed to occur. That is the logical reason for that "exposed" provision. The member for Burdekin made a meaningful contribution to the debate. I appreciate his support, as well as the support of the cane-growers whom he represents. He referred to the division between Queensland and New South Wales which has resulted from action taken by the Federal Labor Party in lifting the embargo on sugar. How right he is! Yesterday, I had lunch with two gentlemen from the Northem Rivers district of New South Wales who were representatives of the New South Wales cane-growing industry, both the grower and milling sections. They came at my invitation and we had a very cordial discussion. Make no mistake about it, the Labor Party has achieved disunity in the cane industry between Queensland and New South Wales. However, is that not what the Labor Party wants? It takes pride in its objective to reduce the cost of food. It is no good any member of the Labor Party in this House denying that fact. It is fact. Its objective is to reduce the cost of food, including sugar, of course. Mr Campbell: What's wrong with reducing the cost of food? Mr HARPER: The honourable member agrees. He asked, "What's wrong with reducing the cost of food?" At least he is an honest member and he takes pride in the fact that that is the policy of the Labor Party. How will the Labor Party achieve that objective? The answer is: by reducing retums to the farmers. It will not be the mill employees, the middlemen or the retailers who lose; it will be the farmers. However, that does not worry the Labor Party. What a betrayal by the Labor Party of the whole sugar industry! It will be the whole sugar industry that suffers. There will be so-called cheap, subsidised overseas sugar dumped into Australia filling the storage spaces to which the honourable member for Mourilyan referred. His concems are real. When the terminals and the bulk-storage facilities are full and the sugar is pouring in from Fiji, from other underdeveloped countries and from other competitors without any tariff being imposed—the honourable member for Bundaberg may well laugh; however, if he has done his figures, he knows that in 1992 sugar will be coming into Australia with a 10 per cent tariff. With low prices, what will 10 per cent do to protect our sugar industry? Absolutely nothing! It will be the whole industry that suffers. The so-called oversubsidised cheap sugar will be 4926 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill dumped in Australia. There will be price-cutting competition between Queensland and New South Wales, and farmers will go broke, mills will close and workers will lose their jobs. Make no mistake about that. I must say that the member for Bundaberg is honourable. When I cast my mind back to one of his predecessors in the seat of Bundaberg, I realise that Clem Campbell is certainly no "Bombshell" Bames. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr HARPER: The member for Cairns is old enough to remember him. In case he does not, I will tell him a few facts about Mr Barnes and the Labor Party at that time. The Labor Party then was different from the present Labor Party. I think that Clem Campbell deserves the respect accorded to an honourable member. I noted his support for the operation of free market forces and his suggestion of complete deregulation of the industry. That is interesting. His suggestion was taken up by the honourable member for Mount Isa, who was generous enough to say, "Perhaps it was a rash statement and he didn't really mean it." However, I think he meant it. Mr Beard: I think he did. Mr HARPER: I agree with the honourable member for Mount Isa. I think that the member for Bundaberg really did mean what he said. However, he then started to worry that some of his socialist colleagues might not like it. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the member for Bundaberg said that he supports the operation of free market forces and suggested that there should be complete deregulation of the industry. Of course, that is the direction in which the Labor Party is heading. Well might the honourable member ask, "So what? Isn't that what Labor needs to achieve lower sugar prices?" The member for Cooroora, who represents the cane-growers of his electorate, has grave concerns for the mill in his area. I appreciated his remarks. He understands that although the Green Paper was issued before the Labor decision to kick the sugar industry was announced, the responses certainly had regard to the Labor Party decision to lift the embargo. The Green Paper was a discussion paper, not a policy paper. Members of the Opposition seemed to think that it was a policy paper. They should know better. Members of the public might not know the difference between a Green Paper and a White Paper. However, the Opposition spokesman should know the difference. This was a Green Paper. It was not a policy paper. The concems of the sugar industry as a result of the decision by the Labor Party to lift the sugar embargo have been recognised in this Bill. I tum to the contribution of the member for Mount Isa. It was interesting to hear what Mr Wilkinson is reported to have said in the media. What a pity Mr Wilkinson did not mention his concerns to me when we were standing around, killing time during the luncheon adjoumment. Mr Wilkinson and his mill manager spent time with me exchanging pleasantries. What a shame Mr Wilkinson did not mention his concems to me then or at the annual meeting last week! The member for Mount Isa does not understand that a Bill is the property of this Parliament. However, I can assure him that at the draft stage, in its lay form, the legislation was discussed extensively and was made available to the executive members of the organisation. Contrary to what has been said on numerous occasions by members of the Opposition, it is not simple to achieve total agreement on anything in this industry. I want it to be clearly recorded again that the member for Mount Isa conceded that the legislation does have the general support of the industry, albeit with some qualifications. The member for Mulgrave is not in the Chamber at present. However, for his benefit, I must point out that assignments for experimental boards are awarded by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI 19 April 1989 4927

The member for Mourilyan seemed to agree that Labor is out to get cheaper food into Australia. He also referred to road transport. How hypocritical of members of the Labor Party to talk in this Chamber about the use of the railways when it is the Labor Party that has threatened the States and tried to force them to use road transport. That was done by John Kerin, no doubt the mouthpiece of the Australian Labor Party caucus—the people who govem the Labor Party in this State just as they govern it in Canberra. It was the Labor Govemment that said, "We will legislate to override the traditional rights of the States to determine these issues. We will insist that road transport be used." And the member for Mourilyan claimed in this Chamber tonight that that is wrong! In regard to the comments by the member for Mourilyan about ministerial discretion— I suggest that the honourable member talk to the members of the executive in Innisfail, because that is where the idea was planted in my head. I think that the honourable member will find that they will be proud to say that it was their representations that led me to believe that that clause should be included in the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you: how closely in touch is he with his executive? The member for Bumett made a sound, commonsense contribution. As a member of my parliamentary committee, he knows that extensive consultation has taken place. Finally, of course, honourable members heard the member for Caims. He gave himself away. He obviously does not even know the circumstances under which the decision not to increase peaks was made. I dealt with that in opening my comments about the contribution made by the member for Mackay. During the last couple of weeks honourable members have dealt in this House with legislation affecting four major Queensland primary industries—wheat, fisheries, dairying and, now, sugar. Each piece of legislation has been a massive undertaking requiring months of consideration and discussion. I take the opportunity tonight to record the Govemment's appreciation of assistance given willingly and constmctively during the preparation of these four major Bills. As to the wheat industry—I particularly record the names of the immediate past president of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, Mr Rod McLeod; his successor, Don McKechnie; and the executive officer of that organisation, George Houen. I very particularly want to express appreciation for the understanding contribution made by the chairman of Bulk Grains Queensland, the State Wheat Board, Ross Bailey and Don Christmas. As to the fishing industry—I thank the officers of the Queensland Fish Management Authority, particularly Scot Spencer and Phil Pond, and of course the late Peter Conaty, and more recently Ted Loveday. As to the dairying industry—the untiring contributions of people such as Pat Rowley, the President of the Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation; Sam Doumany, the Chairman of the Queensland Milk Board; Henry Cooper and Les Fossey within that board; and, of course, the board's legal adviser, Andrew Knott, have been tremendous. As to the sugar industry—I thank Fred Soper and the many respondents to the Green Paper, particularly at miller and supplier levels. The members of my parliamentary committee have been untiring in their efforts and understanding. Mr Deputy Speaker, you were a member of that committee, as well as Mr Booth, Mr Nevrton, Mr Slack, Mr Elliott, Mr Hobbs, Mr Lingard and Mr Stoneman. Finally, but certainly not least, my legislation branch headed by Mr Kidston, who is sitting in the lobby tonight, and Parliamentary Counsel—those officers have given very dedicated service not only to the Govemment of Queensland but also to these four great industries. To all who have assisted in this massive and important task I express my personal thanks. Motion agreed to. 4928 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt BUI

Committee Hon. N. J. Harper (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the BiU. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr CASEY (9.58 p.m.): For the first time there will be included in the Act the formalisation of the existing regions of the sugar industry. There is a recognition of the stmcture of the way in which the industry is set up in this State. The changes in the areas are set out in the clause. Later I shall deal further with this aspect. During the second-reading debate Govemment members, particularly the Minister, referred to the sugar embargo. It is quite clear that the sugar embargo should have been dealt with under the next Bill to be debated, namely, the Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment Bill. Govemment members should not have referred to the sugar embargo during the debate on this Bill. I would be quite happy to debate fully the activities of the Federal Govemment and what is happening with the sugar embargo during the debate on that BiU. Further guide-lines are being laid down for the different regions of the sugar industry. Nobody denied the Minister's statement that the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board set up the recommendation for a 5 per cent increase in mill peaks. The criticism of the Minister was that he set the guide-lines as to how the 5 per cent ought to be dished out to the various sugar-growing regions in Queensland. Under the Minister's instmctions, within the guide-lines he wants to transfer some of that 5 per cent productivity increase to different regions as long as people can come to some commercial arrangement with somebody. As a result, a hotchpotch of little 3-hectare blocks will be transferred, say, from the Mossman mill area to Rocky Point in the southem area of Queensland. What a lot of rot! In common with Govemment back-benchers, the Minister talks about the great gloom and doom and the loss of farms in the sugar industry, yet in the same breath he says that the sugar industry is so prosperous that the Govemment is increasing the industry's productivity by 5 per cent. The industry has said, "We could do with 10 per cent." Which is it going to be? Who is the hypocrite in all of this? It is certainly the Minister. The Minister stated that I should be embarrassed about what Mr Soper said in Ayr. I was not embarrassed, but many people in the audience were embarrassed by his comments. I feel quite sure that the industry was not happy with his remarks and would not be happy with the Minister's remarks in this Chamber this evening. As to the formalisation of regions—each region has expansion possibilities. There is no question about that. I have spoken to executives and other people who are involved in all mill areas in the industry. With very rare exceptions, they have indicated that, if they cannot have expansion within their own mill areas, they will take it within their regions; but they do not want it to be outside their regions. That goes for the people in the Burdekin area, too. There is no way in the world that they want peak and assignment to be transferred to any other region in Queensland. They are confident that they can cater for it in their own area. Each region has its own problems. For instance, farmers in the Mackay region are happy to accept a continuous cmshing system within the industry. They have introduced four shifts so that the crop can be cmshed continuously in the existing mills. That makes for greater efficiency and that is the way they want to go and are prepared to operate. They have the full co-operation of all sectors of the industry in the maintenance of that continuous cmshing system. On the other hand, as Mr Row would be able to inform honourable members, people in the Herbert River region will not have a bar of continuous cmshing. Each region is different and has a different way of mnning the industry. All regions want to stay that way and keep growers within their regions. That is the problem that the Government faces because of the way in which this legislation is drafted. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4929

The Burdekin and Mackay regions are the State's best sugar cane growing areas. Because a large co-operative has been established in the Mackay area and because the growers own and operate the mills, all of the profits remain in the region. They do not need to be dictated to by CSR or any other body. They can attend annual meetings and have their say about what they want to do. I turn now to some of the other smaller mill areas, such as Maryborough, Rocky Point and the Moreton region, to which the honourable member for Cooroora referred. Those areas have problems. In the future, if expansions occur within the industry, those areas will experience further problems. I am sure that future expansions wiU occur within the industry. I do not believe that the Govemment wiU stop at 5 per cent. The sugar industry is expanding throughout the world. The Govemment talks about meeting the competition from the EC. Recently I read about the history of the industry. During the 1880s, the big worry in the industry was that the European beet-growers were being subsidised so that they could seU sugar on the world market. What is new? What has happened during the past 100 years? We are just following a cycle. That is always on. There will never be a time when Australia does not have to compete with the other exporting countries of this world. Our producers will always have to sell hard on the available world markets. They will always have to pmne costs down to the bone to produce sugar at a low cost that will maintain their competitiveness in the industry. I have a great deal of faith and confidence in the industry. I believe that it can be competitive and will remain so. One thing that Gary Bolton said in Ayr with which I agree is that the sugar industry has the ability to go ahead. All of these aspects must be considered constantly. I accept that the industry needs constant adjustment. We should maintain the successful formula that has set up and is maintaining a strong and viable industry. The regional establishment within the mill areas should be maintained. Mr HARPER: I was pleased to hear the honourable member concede the soundness of the regions set out in the Bill. It is most unlikely that increased assignment will need to be located outside a region. I take this opportunity to read from a brochure that was widely circulated. It states— "If you genuinely cannot obtain access to suitable land on economic terms in your own mill area, and can have your mill and mill suppliers' committee authen­ ticate that, you are free to seek access to suitable land in another mill area within your region. You may then apply for your 5% increase in assignment over that area. Of course, the approval of the recipient mill and mill suppliers' committee would be necessary. The same arrangements would apply if your mill was unable to accept additional cane." It seems to me that the honourable member really has not taken that into account in his remarks. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr CASEY (10.08 p.m.): I would like the Minister to clear up a matter in this clause. In the Green Paper he spoke about a sharing of the costs of matters before local boards, that is, costs of appeals and costs of hearings. That matter has not been directly included in this BiU. However, this clause amends the existing section 15A of the Act. It refers to the payments to local board members of fees and allowances. It sets out that the chairman will be paid from the Sugar Cane Prices Fund; the growers' representative by the mill suppliers' committee; and the millers' representative by the mill itself 4930 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

This represents a departure from what has been happening in most mill areas. At present, all of those persons are paid directly out of the Sugar Cane Prices Fund. It will simply mean that the mill suppliers' committee will have to impose an additional levy on growers in order to meet that additional cost. Mr HARPER: The award of costs is not included, and that was at the request of the growers' organisation. The whole purpose of this clause is to more equitably distribute the costs. I think the honourable member would understand that some local boards meet more frequently than others. Under the proposed new section, only the chairman of the local board shall continue to be paid fees and allowances from the Sugar Cane Prices Fund. Other members shall be paid by the bodies they represent. The amounts that are so paid shall be, of course, approved by those bodies. That will mean that if the growers whom those bodies represent agree that a meeting be held every day of the week—to take it to an extreme—they will agree to pay the costs, and those costs will not be shared and wiU not be home by bodies whose members want them to meet only once a month—to again take it to an extreme. The point is that the cost of providing that local board in future will be home by the people whom it represents. That has general industry acceptance. If I have not clarified it for the honourable member Mr Casey: I understand what you are getting at; it is a new principle that is being introduced. Mr HARPER: That is right. It is a new principle. The industry believed that it would be a more equitable principle. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr CASEY (10.11 p.m.): During the second-reading stage I canvassed most of the points in relation to this clause. This is the first aspect of the Bill that provides ministerial direction and allows the Minister to take over the power of the central board to set and determine guide-lines, etc., for the operations, under certain conditions, of the business of the local board. The board has to comply with that direction given by the Minister. Because this is the first clause that relates to ministerial direction, to which the Opposition is strongly opposed, the Opposition intends to oppose it. Mr HARPER: The reason for that provision is that the central board itself has indicated that, although it had the power, it was reluctant to issue those guide-lines. The member for Caims is not in the Chamber, but I can assure the Committee that there is nothing egotistical about it. I forget the word that the honourable member for Cairns used. It was a beauty, but I forget it. Mr Beard: "Megalomaniac". Mr HARPER: 1 thank Mr Beard. It is a good one, isn't it? As the central board was not prepared to do that, it was felt that the Minister, having the ability to require those guide-lines to be issued, could take a hand where the industry wanted it; not where the Minister wanted it. I very much believe that the Government should keep out of these industry matters as much as possible. Mr CASEY: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I must add that I am quite surprised that the board would want to pass over these particular powers. It just shows that we ought to be looking a Uttle bit further towards Labor's proposal, whereby only one major authority should be set up to control the sugar industry and look at all aspects of it Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4931

The Labor Party strongly supports the proposition in the Bill that will give more power to the boards. That was one of the major recommendations of the Savage 100- day committee's report. It has always been the policy of the Australian Labor Party that the central board should control these matters and that they should not be controlled by the Minister. Question—That clause 12, as read, stand part of the Bill; put—and the Committee divided— In division— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! I advise honourable members that for further divisions during the Committee stage of this Bill, the beUs will ring for two minutes. AYES, 54 NOES, 25 Ahem Knox Ardill Alison Lee Braddy Austin Lickiss Bums Beanland Lingard Campbell Beard Littleproud Casey Berghofer McCauley Comben Borbidge McKechnie D'Arcy Burreket McPhie De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill Fraser Perrett Hayward Gamin Randell McEUigott Gately Row Mackenroth Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Milliner Gilmore Sherlock Palaszczuk Glasson Sherrin Smith Gunn Simpson Smyth Gygar Slack Vaughan Harper Stoneman Warburton Harvey Tenni Wamer Henderson Veivers Wells Hinton White Hobbs Hynd Tellers: Tellers: Innes FitzGerald Davis Katter Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 13 to 16, as read, agreed to Clause 17— Mr CAMPBELL (10.23 p.m.): This clause refers to assignments. During the second- reading debate, I referred to the complex and confusing legislation that presently applies to assignments. I put forward some propositions that were taken out of context by the Minister, who constmed them as my support for free market forces and opposition to sugar industry regulation. I must point out that the comer-stone of sugar industry regulation is assignments and peaks. I support them. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There must be less noise in the Chamber. The honourable member is trying to make his point. Mr CAMPBELL: This is now very complex and confusing legislation. If one goes back approximately 20 years to the original Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act 1962- 1966, one finds that there were three subsections under section 32 dealing with assign­ ments. In 1986 the section was changed from section 32 to section 32A through to section 32G and there were two and a half pages of amendments to the original Act. This legislation extends section 32 right through to section 32G, which is another six pages. The original Act was fairly simple, but now a total of eight pages of amendments 4932 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill have been made to section 32 conceming assignments. This legislation is becoming very confusing and complex. Mr HARPER: This amendment expressly enables local boards to handle the substitution of lands following assignment, as well as intra-mUl area transfer of assignments. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr CASEY (10.26 p.m.): Clause 18 concems the extension of the roaming provisions. The original roaming provisions were somewhat ridiculous because they only applied for one season. Many farmers did not take advantage of them for the simple reason that sugar-cane is a monoculture and, once planted, four, five or even more crops can be harvested. Clause 18 tidies up this provision and is a worthwhile amendment. I draw attention to the way in which the roaming provisions have been manipulated by some people. The industry must take a very hard look at those practices and cut them out. If not, Queensland will drift back to the old plantation days in the sugar industry. That would not be in the best interests of this industry, which has always been based on the family farm. I still believe that this clause is not very tidy, because, once the grower has appUed for the number of seasons that he requires under the new provision, he still has to notify the local board every year of what is happening. In this age of computers, once a permit is granted for a number of years, the local board should have a record of that permit and the grower should not have to continue to notify the board each and every year until he wants to withdraw the permit. Mr HARPER: I believe that the honourable member is supporting the amendment. I take on board the point that he has made. If the industry wants this provision changed further, the Government will consider it at some time in the future. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20— Mr HARPER (10.28 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 11, after line 5, insert— '32G. Total area of land under ss. 32A and 32C permits shall not exceed 15 per centum of assignment. It shall not be competent to a Local Board to issue a permit under section 32A or 32C, or to approve under section 32D the issue of a permit under section 32C, to a person who is the holder of land assigned to a mill so that in relation to any season the aggregate of— (a) the area of land in respect of which the permit is issued; and (b) the total area of land in respect of which all other permits under sections 32A and 32C issued to that person as the holder of that land assigned to a miU have been so issued, exceeds 15 per centum of the area of the land so assigned. Subject to the foregoing the holder of land assigned to a mill may apply for and be issued with any number of permits under sections 32A and 32C having effect in relation to a particular season.' " Mr CASEY: The amendment is acceptable to the Opposition. In fact, I wished to speak to this clause to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the way the legislation was stmctured could have led to a loophole. The legislation did not restrict growers to not more than 115 per cent. I accept that all the checks and balances are in place and that approvals have to be gained from local boards and mill-supplier com­ mittees, but this amendment closes a loophole that could have been, and by some people Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4933 would have been, used. I had intended to ask that this point be looked at in the future, but the amendment overcomes any difficulty that I saw. Clause 20 has some bad aspects to it. It is a very big clause on which I could speak for ages and ages. Most of the points I wished to mention I have already covered in the second-reading debate. I do not wish to go any further other than to support the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Mr HARPER: I move the following further amendment— "At page 11, line 6, omit— '32G' and substitute— '32H'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr CASEY (10.32 p.m.): In the view of the Opposition this clause is the cmx of the Bill. It was the main basis of my argument during the second-reading debate. We have a total opposition to ministerial control of the transfer of assignments and peaks from one region to another. It is the provision that the industry is most upset about, because it gives the Minister the power to take over the sugar industry. As this clause is the key to the legislation, this is crunch-time for members of the National Party. At least the honourable member for Mulgrave was prepared to remain outside of the House during the last division and I am sure that he will not tum up for the next one. Anybody on the Government side of the Chamber who is in any way interested in the sugar industry and who really has the intestinal fortitude will cross the floor and vote on this side in favour of the sugar industry. If the Liberals have any intestinal fortitude, they will vote on this side, too. During the last division I saw them sneaking over in the back comer with the Government. They are trying to improve their score. The National Party has cited the score of the Liberals voting with the Labor Party. Conservative circles are most upset about that, so the Liberals are trying to improve their score by voting with the National Party. We in the Opposition will not surrender the industry to ministerial direction. It is the National Party that will surrender the industry. Therefore, I move the following amendment— "At page 12, line 23, omit— 'may' and substitute— 'shall'." The purpose of the amendment is to take away the Minister's power. It would mean that, when somebody applies to him to transfer an assignment, he shall refer the application to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. The Labor Party and the industry want such applications determined by the central board. The Queensland Cane Growers Council, the Australian Cane Farmers Association and the Australian Sugar Milling Council—the three major organisations in the industry—all want this matter determined in this way. It is only the National Party that does not. Mr Warburton: And the Liberals. Mr CASEY: Of course, and the Liberals will back the National Party, despite their mouthing of pious platitudes during the debate. 4934 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill

Should this amendment be successful, I will move a further amendment to delete all the words on lines 25 to 28 inclusive. That would take away the ministerial power altogether. According to the Minister I do not know the difference between a Green Paper and a White Paper. His Green Paper mentioned the exercise of ministerial discretion under exceptional circumstances or in cases of economic hardship. The Bill uses exactly the same words. In this case there is no difference between the Green Paper and the White Paper as presented to this Parliament. They are exactly the same. This is the provision that the industry is objecting to every inch of the way. It gives the Minister the power to make a determination on an application and that determination shall be final and conclusive. There will be no appeal whatsoever. The old format of the board as it has been known down through the years has simply been tossed out the window. This is the cmx of the Bill. This is what allows the Minister to take over the peak and assignment system in the Queensland sugar industry.

Mr HARPER: The amendment suggested by the Opposition is not acceptable to the Government. The decision has been taken in consultation with the industry, and the Govemment is satisfied that it will be in the best interests of the industry. Question—That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 54 NOES, 25 Ahem Knox Ardill Alison Lee Braddy Austin Lickiss Burns Beanland Lingard Campbell Beard Littleproud Casey Berghofer McCauley Comben Borbidge McKechnie D'Arcy Burreket McPhie De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill Fraser Perrett Hayward Gamin Randell McEUigott Gately Row Mackenroth Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Milliner GUmore Sherlock Palaszczuk Glasson Sherrin Smhh Gunn Simpson Smyth Gygar Slack Vaughan Harper Stoneman Warburton Harvey Tenni Wamer Henderson Veivers Wells Hinton White Hobbs Hynd Tellers: Tellers: Innes FitzGerald Davis Katter Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr CASEY (10.42 p.m.): I seek an explanation from the Minister on a particular aspect of this clause that is headed "Central Board may recommend mill peak" and relates to section 42 of the Act. The part of the clause to which I refer relates to the additional mill peak allowed for the growing of sugar-cane for research or cane-breeding purposes. I hope that that refers to an extension of the work of the Sugar Experiment Stations Board and not to somebody wanting to apply for an increase for plant varietal rights. That needs proper control and must be watched closely at all times. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4935

In the Mackay region, a plot has been opened up on the Sarina range. I would not like to see that plot being assigned to the Plane Creek miU or any other miU. I cannot see any reason for this clause and I wonder why it has been included in the legislation. Mr HARPER: There is no intention to do anything along the lines indicated by the honourable member. The clause provides that the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board may recommend an increase in mill peak on the basis of increased cane for sugar-cane research or for breeding purposes. The decision will be taken by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mr CASEY (10.45 p.m.): During the second-reading debate I canvassed at length the problem of chemical residue. I am not entirely satisfied with the way in which the Minister answered my queries during his reply. The Opposition insists that there be some form of proof of contamination before the cane can be rejected. It should not be able to be rejected merely on a suspicion held by the mill-owner. Sugar-cane is not sprayed just before harvesting. In most areas, the latest that spraying would take place would be in the March/April period, and then only of fiiUy developed cane that had vine or something growing over it that necessitated aerial spraying. One cannot get into the cane at that stage. Once the cane reaches a reasonable stage of growth by January and into Febmary, one cannot get into the cane with machinery to spray it. The wet weather has usually removed any residue that may have become lodged on the cane. It is most unlikely that a residue problem would arise at that stage. The Opposition does not believe that the excuse that the Minister gave was very logical. It was far from logical, when one takes into account the practices in the industry. It may be different in the wheat industry and a lot of other industries. It is certainly different in the fmit and vegetable industry and the orchard industry. Weeks before the cane-harvester moves in, it is known which particular block of cane will be cut and which block the harvesting is going to be moved to. In many cases, a cane-inspector from a mill takes a trial sample to see what the c.c.s. reading is. If there is any residue, it ought to be detected at that stage. If any residue is detected, the harvesting can be moved from that block to another block until it can be argued and sorted out. The Opposition wants to ensure that the residue problem is taken into account. It is addressed in the legislation. However, 1 move the following amendment— "At page 19, omit all words after '1988' in Une 40 to and including 'quantity' in line 41." That still would not prevent the part of the legislation from taking effect that deals with the situation in which the sugar-cane has present in it, or on it, the residue that is mentioned in the legislation. The Opposition does not want to stop that. The Opposition wants to ensure that chemical residue does not contaminate this food source. Nonetheless, I think that the Govemment has to be fair to the grower. With the growing practices and the harvesting practices that are adopted by practical farmers— and the honourable member for Mirani would back me up when I say this—there should be no reason for anybody to say that the cane was exposed at that particular stage. Mr HARPER: The amendment is not acceptable to the Govemment. During the second-reading debate I indicated the serious concern that this Govemment has in regard to chemical residue. I point out that at that time I did not make an excuse for this amendment. There is no need for an excuse. I gave the honourable member a reason, and that is quite different. The reason is very, very clear. Members of the Government recognise that we in Queensland are mere mortals and that accidents will happen. The 4936 19 April 1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill honourable member for Mackay may believe that accidents will not happen in the sugar industry; but accidents can happen. I will wait till the member for Mackay has finished talking so that he can hear the reason. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr HARPER: There is presently an obligation, and that should not exist if there is a risk of contamination. The Govemment does not want to see a grower being required to supply the cane if by chance, by accident, that cane has become contaminated. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided—

AYES, 54 NOES, 25 Ahern Knox Ardill Austin Lee Braddy Beanland Lickiss Bums Beard Lingard Campbell Berghofer Littleproud Casey Booth McCauley Comben Borbidge McKechnie D'Arcy Burreket McPhie De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill Fraser Perrett Hayward Gamin Randell McEUigott Gately Row Mackenroth Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Milliner Gilmore Sherlock Palaszczuk Glasson Sherrin Smith Gunn Simpson Smyth Gygar Slack Vaughan Harper Stoneman Warburton Harvey Tenni Wamer Henderson Veivers Wells Hinton White Hobbs Hynd Tellers: Tellers: Innes FitzGerald Davis Katter Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clause 30— Mr CASEY (10.55 p.m.): It was my intention to move a similar amendment to clause 30 to that which I moved to clause 29. Clause 30 relates to mill-owners, whereas the previous clause related to growers. However, it is not my intention to proceed with that amendment. Mr HARPER: The Government does not accept any similar amendment. Mr Casey: I didn't move it. Mr HARPER: The Government would not accept any such amendment. I outlined the reason for that in the debate on the previous amendment. The provision is a safeguard—nothing more, nothing less. Clause 30, as read, agreed to. Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act and Another Act Amdt Bill 19 April 1989 4937

Clause 31— Mr HARPER (10.56 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 20, line 27, after '21 days' insert— ', or such other period as may be approved at any time by the Central Board,'." Mr CASEY: This is only a machinery amendment, which is quite acceptable. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33— Mr CASEY (10.57 p.m.): In the second-reading debate I canvassed at some length the redirection of sugar-cane. Clause 33, which is a rather large amendment, contains some good points and some bad points. However, the good points required by the industry outweigh the bad points. I have experienced circumstances in which sugar-cane has been redirected to another mill. During the last cmshing season, the Mackay Sugar Co-operative was able to transfer sugar-cane for the benefit of growers and the millers— the growers being the owners of the mills. At one stage conditions became very wet. During the drying-out period, because sugar-cane was redirected from one mill to another mill and cmshed there, growers received an economic advantage. If the sugar-cane had not been directed to another mill, it would have been lost. At the tail-end of the harvest period, sugar-cane that was left over at certain mills was able to be cmshed by mills that had almost finished cmshing the sugar-cane from their regions. It was possible to crush the sugar-cane while it was still of high quality, and that was very important. The extension of the cmshing season becomes a problem, particularly in the Herbert River area. CSR Limited is not prepared to put in the capital required to redevelop the mills so that the growers can have a short cmshing season and take advantage of cmshing their cane when it is at its best quality. That is a matter that must be addressed by the industry, which must be empowered to investigate those matters. Because the growers in the Herbert River area were not prepared to introduce continuous cmshing, a controversy developed. The Opposition accepts that the growers are entitled to hold that opinion in relation to their own district. In this instance, CSR did not want to go along with the proposal because it did not want to put up the capital that was required for the mill. Unco-operative proprietary mills that operate in the sugar industry should be examined more closely. The redirection of sugar-cane will be under the control of the central board. The Minister will not be able to put his hands on it and have a say on what should happen. Already some provisions have been inserted in the Act to allow for transfers under certain conditions. The legislation widens that provision. Because of that, the legislation has to be watched very carefully. If the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board does not keep a very watchful eye on and very close control over this provision, the pooling arrangement with certain sugar-cane will be upset. Ostensibly, a payment is made out of a No. 2 pool instead of a No. 1 pool, which deprives a grower of what rightfully ought to be the proper return for his cane. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clauses 34 to 52, as read, agreed to. Clause 53— Mr CASEY (11.01 p.m.): This clause relates to the Sugar MiUing Rationalization (Far Northern Region) Act—in other words, the Babinda mill and its problems. 1 strongly assert that in 1987, that Act was introduced against the wishes of the industry. It was certainly opposed strongly by the Labor Party. However, this Government got its way. In no time at all further strife developed at the Babinda mill. 4938 19 April 1989 Ministerial Statement

I hope that the Babinda mill can overcome its problems. Although it has a greater throughput, peak and capacity, it also has a greater debt, which was increased when this Govemment forced it to buy the Goondi mill and then sent it a stamp-duty bill for $300,000. That mill was then forced to borrow an extra $300,000 to pay the stamp duty on a transaction that had been forced upon it by legislation of this Government. That put it into further debt, created further equity problems and put it further behind. Mr Eaton: It was a bit different from those fellows who got the cheaper stamp duty, wasn't it? Mr CASEY: Yes, it was a little bit different from those fellows who got cheaper stamp duty. I hope that Mr Fitzgerald is able to pick them up. This amendment makes the Act more flexible and requires the former Goondi growers not to enter into any transaction with any other mill on either a shorter or longer term than the proposed five years. Perhaps this clause was included because of the offer by the Bundaberg Sugar Co. to take over the mill. For a long time I have advocated that all of the mills in the far-northern region of the State from TuUy to Mossman should have enough sense to set themselves up as a major co-operative so that they can strengthen their position in the industry. The Minister knows full well the great commercial advantage that has been achieved by cane-growers in the Mackay region because of the way in which they amalgamated, rationalised their mills and got together with all of the co-operatives in the area. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Chamber will come to order. Mr CASEY: Whilst we have been at loggerheads on some aspects of this legislation, both the Minister and I support the rationalisation and amalgamation of the major co­ operatives in the Mackay area. If the mills from TuUy to Mossman are prepared to get together as a co-operative, I envisage advantages for the far-northem region. I realise that because some central mills still exist, difficulties will be experienced. Those problems, which must be overcome, are not too big a hurdle or barrier for the mills. If TuUy, South Johnstone, Babinda and Mulgrave get together they can form a major unit within the sugar industry. Bundaberg Sugar Co. has already taken over the Mourilyan mill. It is now chasing Babinda, which includes the former Goondi growers. It is only a matter of time before the Hambledon mill disappears. If those other mills do not get together, that company will be a major force that will control that growing industry in far-north Queensland. Many facets of the industry were based on the co-operative system with the growers controlling and owning their own mills and controlling their own industry. It is a shame that this legislation will remove some of that industry control. Because of the way in which land sales in the Cairns area, to which Mr De Lacy referred, are eroding assigned caneland and the peak that is supplied to the Hambledon mill, the mill will shortly disappear. CSR recognises that fact in its annual report. Growers in that region will need to merge with another group, which I hope is a major far-northern co-operative. Clause 53, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Errors in Credit Regulations 1988 Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for Corrective Services) (11.07 p.m.), by leave: On 15 December 1988, His Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council and Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4939 in pursuance of the provisions of the Credit Act 1987, made the Credit Regulations 1988. On 9 March 1989, in pursuance of the provisions of section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act, I tabled a copy of the regulations as printed by the Govemment Printer and appearing in the Government Gazette of 17 December 1988. It has been brought to my attention that the document which was tabled differs in a number of minor respects from that which was made by His ExceUency the Govemor, as a consequence, in almost every instance, of printing errors which occurred at the Govemment Printing Office. A number of these errors were corrected by an errata notice which was printed subsequently in the Government Gazette. In order to remove any uncertainty as to the validity of the regulations, and in accordance with the requirements of section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act, I seek leave to table the Credit Regulations 1988 as were approved by the Governor in Council. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (11.09 p.m.): I move— "(1) That the Legislative Assembly approves the establishment of a register of members' interests to take effect from the date of the passing of this resolution by the Legislative Assembly and to continue in force in this, the forty-fifth Parliament of Queensland, unless and until amended or repealed by the Legislative Assembly. (2) That within 28 days of the passing of this resolution of the Legislative Assembly, or in the case of a member elected subsequently at a By-election, within 28 days of making or subscribing an oath or affirmation as a member of the Legislative Assembly, each member shall provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests, a Statement of the Member's Registrable Interests and the registrable interests of which the Member is aware of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House and in the form attached and marked Appendix 'A', and shall also notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of that alteration occurring in the form attached and marked appendix 'B', provided that in respect of items 1 and 7 in the Statement of Registrable Interests, a member shall, within 28 days following the expiry of each successive period of six months from the date of the passing of this Resolution, notify any alteration of those interests in the form attached and marked Appendix 'B'. (3) That the Statement of a Member's Registrable Interests to be provided by a Member shall include the registrable interests of which the member is aware of any children who are wholly or mainly dep>endent on the member for support and shall cover the following matters:— (a) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding com­ panies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business tmsts and nominee companies— (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the tmst, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (ii) in which the member or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support is a tmstee (but not including a tmstee of an estate where no beneficial interest is held by the member or dependent children), indicating the name of the tmst, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the tmst; 4940 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests

(c) real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) registered directorships of companies; (e) partnerships indicating the nature of the interest and the activities of the partnership; (f) liabilities indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concemed; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating the name of the bank or other institutions concemed; (i) the nature of any other assets (excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources provided that a gift received by a member or dependent children, from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be registered unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist; (1) any sponsored travel or hospitality received; (m) any other interests where a conflict of interest with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. (4) That— (a) the registrar of members' interests shall be the Clerk of the Parliament who shall maintain a Register of Members' Interests in the forms attached and marked Appendix 'A' and Appendix 'B'; (b) the Register of Members' Interests shall be available for inspection by any person under the following conditions— (1) a person may, during the normal business hours of the office of the Clerk, inspect the entries made in the Register in relation to a particular member on providing to the Clerk the person's name and address. (2) a person inspecting an entry in the Register shall not provide to the Clerk as his name, a name other than his full and correct name, or as his address, an address other than his correct residential address. (3) the Clerk shall cause to be recorded in the Register, in such manner as he thinks fit but so that the information is readily available to any other person who later inspects the relevant entries, the name and address of each person who has inspected those entries and the date on which the inspection was made. (d) no photocopies are to be made of entries in the Register. (e) a person shall not publish or comment on information contained in the Register unless the information published constitutes a fair and accurate summary, or the comment is a fair comment, and it is published or made, without malice, in the public interest. (5) That any member of the Legislative Assembly who— (a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests by the due date, (b) knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests in accordance with this Resolution, or Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4941

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the registrar of members' interests, shall be guilty of a contempt of the Legislative Asembly and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly." 4942 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

APPENDIX 'A'

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

STATEMENT OF REGISTRABLE INTERESTS

Notes:

(1) It is suggested that the accompanying Explanatory Notes be read before the return is completed.

(2) The information which you are required to provide is contained in a resolution agreed to by the Legislative Assembly on It consists of the Member's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Member is aware of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support.

For the definition of a dependent child see the introduction to the Explanatory Notes.

(3) If there is insufficient space on this form for the information you are required to provide, you may attach additional papers for that purpose. Each paper attached to this form should be signed personally by you and dated.

(4) The completed form is to be forwarded to The Registrar of Members' Interests c/- The Office of the Clerk of the Parliament.

Surname Other Names

Electoral District , Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4943

SHAREHOLDINGS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COMPANIES (INCLUDING HOLDING COMPANIES) INDICATING THE NAME OF THE COMPANY OR COMPANIES

Name of company - (including holding and subsidiary companies if applicable)

Self

Dependent Children

2. FAMILY AND BUSINESS TRUSTS AND NOMINEE COMPANIES -

(i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest

Name of trust/ Nature of its Beneficial nomi nee operation Interest company

Self

Dependent Children 4944 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

(ii) in which the Member or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support is a trustee (but not including a trustee of on estate where no beneficial interest is held by the Member or dependent children) indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust.

Name of trust/ Nature of its Beneficiary of nominee operation the trust company

Self

Dependent Children

3. REAL ESTATE, INCLUDING THE LOCATION (SUBURB OR AREA ONLY) AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS OWNED.

Locati on Purpose for which owned

Self

Dependent Children

4. REGISTERED DIRECTORSHIPS OF COMPANIES

Name of company Activities of company

Self

Dependent Children Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4945 PARTNERSHIPS INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE INTERESTS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTNEnSHIP

Name Nature of Activi ties of interests partne rship

Self

Dependent Children

6. LIABILITIES INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY AND THE CREDITOR CONCERNED.

Nature of liability Creditor

Self

Dependent Children

7. THE NATURE OF ANY BONDS, DEBENTURES AND LIKE INVESTMENTS

Type of investment Body in which investment is held

Self

Dependent Children 4946 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

8. SAVING OR INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, INDICATING THE NAME OF THE BANK OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS CONCERNED-

Name of bank/institution

Self

Dependent V Children

9. THE NATURE OF ANY OTHER ASSETS (EXCLUDING HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL EFFECTS) EACH VALUED AT OVER $5000

Nature of any other assets

Self

Dependent - Children

10. THE NATURE OF ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL SOURCES OF INCOME.

Nature of income

Self

Dependent Children Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4947 11. GIFTS VALUED AT MORE THAN $250 RECEIVED FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES, OR AT MORE THAN $100 WHERE RECEIVED FROM OTHER THAN OFFICIAL SOURCES PROVIDED THAT A GIFT RECEIVED BY A MEMBER OR DEPENDENT CHILDREN, FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OR PERSONAL FRIENDS IN A PURELY PERSONAL CAPACI.TY NEED NOT BE REGISTERED UNLESS THE MEMBER JUDGES THAT /VN APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY BE SEEN TO EXIST.

DetalIs of gifts

Self

Dependent Clii Idren

12. ANY SPONSORED .TRAVEL OR HOSPITALITY RECEIVED.

Details of travel/hospitality

Self

Dependent Children 4948 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

13. ANY OTHER INTERESTS WHERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH A MEMBER'S PUBLIC DUTIES COULD FORESEEABLY ARISE OR BE SEEN TO ARISE.

Nature of interests

Self

Dependent Children

Signature Date Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4949

APPENDIX 'B'

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

REGISTER OP MEMBERS' INTERESTS

NOTIFICATION OF ALTERATION OP INTERESTS

Name:

Electoral District:

The following alteration of interests is notified:

ADDITION

Item Details

DELETION

Item Details

Signature

Date

NOTE: The completed form is to be forwarded to The Registrar of Members' Interests c/- The Office of the Clerk of the Parliament. 4950 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests

In my ministerial statement to the House yesterday I outlined the reasons for the establishment of a register of interests for all members of Parliament. I reiterate my earlier comments that the establishment of such a register will be a major accountability measure and will significantly strengthen and reinforce the emphasis currently being placed by my Govemment on accountability and open govemment. Since the proposal was mooted and finally presented, this matter has prompted some discussion amongst honourable members on both sides of the House. I want to say with all the conviction that my 21 years as a member of Parliament can muster that it is absolutely vital that this particular proposal be adopted by the Parliament of Queensland at this time. In this day of the Fitzgerald inquiry and all of the associated issues that were canvassed for two years before that inquiry, there is no way in the world that this Parliament can any longer escape the sorts of checks and balances that apply to contemporary Parliaments around the world today. We simply have to accept that when one offers to be a member of Parliament and to accept public office, one accepts a very onerous duty. The media scmtiny is very, very tight. Being a member of Parliament is a job that totally preoccupies us from early morning till late at night. The workload is overwhelming. But there is an absolute requirement that certain standards be set, that necessary checks and balances be built into the system of parliamentary Govemment today. They are very necessary here. Tonight I recommend to the House that it implement this register, which I believe is a reasonable response to this problem that we face. There is no doubt that there are members of Parliament who differ from me as to the modus operandi by which this issue is being addressed. I can understand that. I want to say to those members who are being critical that they are entitled to have their point of view; that the Government will listen to reasonable argument. If submissions are put forward that will enhance this proposal, they will be considered by way of amendments. If during our experience with this innovation in this Parliament, concems are expressed and they can reasonably be formed into rational argument, we will respond to them. I will certainly personally do so. I know some members have expressed concem that dangers to property and persons might lie as a result of this action. I cannot see it personally, but if those arguments are properly made, I stand ready to respond to them in a reasonable manner. There has been some debate in respect of the proposal relating to spouses. I realise that in this pre-election atmosphere a certain amount of irrationality suddenly intmdes into the debate. Mr Comben interjected. Mr AHERN: It always comes from the honourable member for Windsor. He is irrational all of the time. But in a pre-election atmosphere it infects others. I draw the attention of honourable members to item 13 on page 11 in the register document itself which relates to "Any other interests where a conflict of interest with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise." It would seem to me that, if a member has to ask himself about that catch-all at the end—whether there is any part of his possessions or his associations where a conflict of interest might foreseeably arise—he is duty-bound to declare it there. In this day and age, spouses—mostly women, of course—are working with business interests. There is a legitimate concem within the community, and a concem has been expressed by Labor members' spouses about having to reveal all of their business interests simply because they are married to a member of Parliament. I would think that that is a reasonable concern felt by those people in this day and age. I think there is a legitimate concem among those people about privacy upon which there is no need to intrude. In respect of Ministers' interests, what is proposed is a much more comprehensive system involving much greater detail. In respect of the special position of Ministers of Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4951 the Crown, spouses' complete interests will have to be listed and lodged with the Premier in a manner that is similar to the way in which interests are listed and lodged with the Prime Minister. I inform the House that this register is necessary. It represents a reasonable response to a need. It comes with my very, very strong recommendation. A Govemment that carries a substantial claim to accountability needs a register of personal interests of members with a tougher prescription in respect of Ministers. It is absolutely vital, especially when one looks at other Parliaments throughout the world. The register is necessary; the proposal is before the House, and it is recommended to the House tonight. 1 believe in it very, very strongly. I recommend it strongly to honourable members. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (11.15 p.m.): I do not propose to go over the ground that the Premier has covered. In the interests of brevity and because of the lateness of the hour, I formally second the motion moved by the Premier. Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (11.16 p.m.): It is interesting and encouraging to hear the Premier say that this move on his part is absolutely vital. He could not go far enough to stress the importance of this proposal. A point that must be fairly made, which highlights the characteristics of this Premier and his leadership, is that if this proposal is so important and so vital, why has it taken him nearly a year and a half as Premier to deliver the goods? Why, yet again, has dithering occurred? Why, yet again, has delay occurred? Why has that happened if this move is so important? Honourable members would acknowledge that it is relatively easy to bring in these measures. As honourable members are about to witness, it simply involves the passing of a motion. No complicated drafting is involved. Numerous examples from around the country and around the world are available and those provisions can be adopted. Why has the Premier taken so long to bring this proposal forward? Is it just because of dithering and delay? Is the delay an attempt to conceal something that concems someone? Has a difficulty arisen in overcoming that problem? I do not know. However, there has been a clearly unwarranted and inexcusable delay. Perhaps it can be attributed to the psychology of the individual. The House should note that in spite of the fact that the Premier regards this measure as absolutely vital, the same type of delay that accompanied legislation in respect of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee has occurred. Comments made by the Premier correctly identified a loophole in the terms of the proposal that relate to spouses. The Opposition will be moving an amendment to relevant paragraphs of the proposal, including paragraph (2), a number of subparagraphs in paragraph (3), and Appendix "A", to include a reference to interests of the spouse. I recall that in the Premier's code of conduct that was published last year, he made play of the fact that he would require from his Ministers a summary of their business, financial and other personal interests and that he would keep a public register of pecuniary interests. At that time, the Premier went on to state that that would have to be done by the time the first Cabinet meeting took place in January. Of coiu-se, the public register has still not been made available by him, notwithstanding his claim that Ministers had complied to the letter; that he held all the declarations; and that he had done so for some months. The point I make is that the Premier never pubUshed them; yet he is the Premier who uses the words "openness" and "accountabUity" in every sentence. Unfor­ tunately, he does not demonstrate openness and accountability in every act. If one refers to paragraph 5 of the ministerial code of conduct, one sees the genesis of the very significant loophole left open by the Premier. The paragraph states— "5. When the interests of members of his or her immediate family are involved, the Minister should disclose those interests on a confidential basis to the Premier ..." 4952 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

Thus the loophole is twofold. FirsUy, the Premier leaves it to the Ministers to decide whether or not the interests of their immediate family are involved. Secondly, if they are, the disclosure is held on a confidential basis. The public cannot see the potential for a conflict of interest. I believe that that is a significant loophole. I believe it is inexcusable in the circumstances and designed to conceal something. I do not know whose interests it is designed to conceal. Reports from the Premier's colleagues and from members of the back bench have identified two Ministers who have a problem with disclosure of the interests of their spouses. I do not know how accurate those reports are, or whether they are just malicious comments coming from disaffected individuals. Nevertheless, the loophole causes concern for people who are seeking complete openness and accountability in relation to decla­ rations that the Premier has promised. In relation to the two-stage loophole to which I have referred, it is important to record the false and misleading claims made by the Premier to this House, to the public and to the press on numerous occasions. Quite deliberately, he has sought to mislead the Pariiament and the public by suggesting that this proposal is modelled on the Commonwealth Parliament's scheme, and that he is foUowing the example of the Prime Minister. The relevant paragraph of the Commonwealth Govemment's guide-lines is paragraph 2.15 under the heading, "Declaration of Interests". The relevant part of the paragraph explains how Ministers are required to notify the Prime Minister of their private interests on an annual basis. It refers to Ministers' submitting their retums to state their own private interests and, as far as they are aware, the interests of members of their immediate families. The paragraph goes on to state that the information is tabled in Parliament. The remainder of the paragraph discusses the requirements in more detail. I seek leave to table the relevant part of the paragraph and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— 2.15 Ministers are required to notify the Prime Minister of their private interests on an annual basis. In submitting their retums Ministers state their own private interests and, as far as Ministers are aware of them, the interests of members of their immediate families. This information is tabled in the Parliament ... Mr GOSS: It is important that this false and misleading claim by the Premier is recorded. In Canberra the public can see the potential for a conflict of interest because privacy is respected to the extent that the spouse does not have to declare the full extent of the wealth or interest. For example, if the husband or wife of a Minister has shares in a certain bank, he or she only has to nominate that he or she has shares in a bank and does not have to say, "I have got one million National Bank shares worth $6 each." That information is kept back from the public. One can see the potential for a conflict of interest if the Federal Cabinet or Federal Parliament is dealing with an issue affecting that company. The tme extent of the value—the full details—is kept in a confidential register held by the Prime Minister. This Premier claims to hold such a confidential register on behalf of his Ministers, but the Opposition has to take his word and the word of his Ministers on that. The public of Queensland has seen the standards of the National Party Cabinet when it comes to being open and honest with the public and to the question of conflict of interest. That matter was exposed dramatically and in a very raw way during the Fitzgerald inquiry. This National Party Government and Premier continue to say, "You can't see the books. Tmst us. We've got nothing to hide, but we are going to hide the books." As a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry, the Queensland Government not only has to be honest, but also has to prove that it is honest. The pubUc requires a higher standard than this. I understand that within the privacy of the party room, the Minister for Family Services referred to this register as a Clayton's register. That is exactly what it Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4953 is, and the loophole brands it as such. I agree with that Minister, if in fact he made that comment. Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister finds the remarks offensive and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw them. Mr GOSS: I am happy to do so, and I understand his embarrassment, given the current precarious nature of the matter. Mr Sherrin: Wake up to yourself Mr GOSS: I am not aware if the Minister is in Mr Henderson's 20 or not, but we will find out after 13 May. When trying to cover his tracks on this spouse loophole, the Premier has resorted to the device of saying, "I am respecting the position of women in our community. They are not chattels." I differ with the Premier on his use of that example, because any regulations should apply to all Ministers, whether they are men or women. It is not a question of wives or spouses being chattels; it is a question of openness and account­ ability that occurs elsewhere, but not in Queensland. There are different mles in Queensland, and these mles continue under this Premier as they did previously. When asked the question, "Won't these Ministers put the assets, shares. Gold Coast unit, the non-repayable loan or the no-interest loan into their wives' names to hide them?", the Premier offered this assurance to the people of Queensland in an article appearing in the Sun— "Mr Ahern said he was 'quite sure' there would be no widespread transfer of politicians' financial or business interests to their spouses' names. 'Besides, that carries quite a few risks into today's contemporary life,' he said." The assurance that he offers is that his Ministers will not transfer their interests to their wives in case their wives take the money and mn. I am sure that he knows more about his Ministers' personal affairs than I do, but what a pathetic assurance to offer the public! The only tme assurance is to provide the openness and accountability that he talks so much about. I wish to refer to another significant loophole that the Premier has not dealt with that is contained in paragraph (3) (k) of the motion. That paragraph states that gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources—and he refers to gifts from other than official sources—must be declared. Am I correct in assuming that the sky's the limit when it comes to a gift to a spouse? Mr Ahern: No. Mr GOSS: Because the Premier has said, "No", I ask: where is the requirement— because I have not heard of it yet—that there has to be a declaration if somebody gives a spouse a gift of a much higher amount? Mr Ahern: I wiU answer it. Mr GOSS: The Premier says that he will answer it, but the Opposition does not see the safeguard included in that provision. It appears to be open slather when it comes to gifts. Paragraph (3) (k) goes on to state that, provided the gift is received by a member or dependent children—not a spouse—from family members and other persons, it need not be registered. It appears to the Opposition that that is another area where this register is defective. The Premier has referred to the chattels argument and the fact that Ministers will not transfer property to their wives because of the risk that they will clear off with the

82865—167 4954 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests money. He has tried to fudge the issues when it comes to a genuine comparison with Canberra, and, rather than simply do the honest, straight-out thing and provide for declaration, as occurs in Canberra, his fourth line of defence in relation to the spouse is to refer to item 13 in appendix "A" of the notice of motion, which states— "Any other interests where a conflict of interest with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise." Once again, the Minister is saying to the public of Queensland that they must tmst the Ministers to declare their interest if they think there is a conflict. It goes back to the same standards that he applies in point 5 of the code of conduct. If the Govemment acts in the right way and the interests are declared on this confidential register, I ask: how will anyone ever know if the Govemment has done the right thing or not? It is the old principle of justice being done and being seen to be done. There is no way that the Premier can argue that it is being seen to be done in Queensland. The Premier is just saying what he has always said. When as a Minister he sat in Cabinet for eight years and when he sat in the House as Whip for eight years and got the numbers for Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier went along with it all. It was different then from what he now says privately in all the board rooms, where he blames Bjelke- Petersen for the lot of it. It was a different story for those 16 key years. It is the same old story. Privately in the board rooms up and down Eagle Street the Premier criticises Bjelke-Petersen, claiming that he was responsible for keeping things hidden in those days. Now the Premier says, "Tmst us." Mr Ahern: You are obviously not going into any board rooms today if you are reciting that sort of tripe. I don't talk that way at all. Mr GOSS: Yes, the Premier does. Mr Ahern: Nonsense! Cite me one case. Mr GOSS: I have heard the Premier. Government members interjected. Mr GOSS: People on the back bench have heard him, too. They know whom he blames for it all. I am not concemed about his false denials now on this issue; I understand that he is a bit sensitive. The point is simply that the standards of those years that he now criticises and what they used to say when he was a loyal Cabinet member of the former Premier can be summed up by the concept, "Tmst us." That is what he says now, yet he says it is a new standard. It is a variation on an old standard and I do not think that it is good enough. Members of the public realise that the loophole is there. As I said publicly the other day, it is a loophole large enough to take a Gold Coast unit, a non-repayable loan, shares in a quarrying company or whatever. Yet the Premier says, "Tmst us." Although the Opposition accepts that this motion is a smaU step in the right direction, it regrets that the Premier has tumed back and is not going aU the way. By whom he has been rolled back, we do not know; but he has been rolled back, and it is not good enough. Accordingly, I move the following amendments, which the member for Cairns will second— "In paragraph (2), after 'of which the Member is aware of add— 'the Member's spouse and of "; "In paragraph (3), after 'of which the member is aware of add— 'the member's spouse and of "; "In paragraph (3) (b) (ii) after 'in which the member' add— 'the member's spouse'"; Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4955

"In paragraph (3) (b) (ii) after 'held by the member' add— 'the member's spouse'"; "In paragraph (3) (k) after 'gifts received by a member' add— 'the member's spouse'"; "In Appendix 'A' Note (2) after the words 'of which the Member is aware' add— 'the Member's spouse and of "; "In Appendix 'A', in each of the nominated categories of registrable interests (1) to (12) make provision for the registrable interests of Members' spouses by adding to the left-hand column of each table— 'spouse'." Mr De LACY (Caims) (11.33 p.m.): I rise to second the amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Although the Opposition welcomes the Premier's motion tonight, in terms of appeasing members of the public, who are that angry because of the way in which they see that they have been betrayed over the last two or three decades, it is too little, too late. I never cease to be amazed at the way in which the Premier can now stand, beat his breast and claim to be leading the way in Australia in terms of accountability, when even on this smaU issue he has not gone as far as the other States or the Commonwealth. In another day and in another age perhaps he might have been able to say that we in Queensland did not have to go as far as the Commonwealth because that is a bigger picture that is painted on a bigger canvas. After all, the Commonwealth spends more money and has a bigger Budget than Queensland. But the fact is that it is Queensland which now has the reputation Australiawide, if not worldwide, as the cormpt State with the cormpt Govemment. Government members interjected. Mr De LACY: It is the talk of Australia. Whenever we go interstate and speak to people, they talk about the Fitzgerald inquiry and about corruption in the State of Queensland. The reason this State has had such cormption is that this Govemment has never been accountable and has never had the procedures and processes in place. Now that the Govemment is presuming to put some processes in place, it is not going far enough. There is a need not only to be open and accountable but also to be seen to be open and accountable. The Govemment has failed because the Premier has not gone far enough in this simple motion. It is flawed because that one vital element has been left out: the pecuniary interests of spouses do not have to be registered. In this day and age, what an incredible omission that is. Let us face it—what made this into an issue? Can honourable members recall the evidence of former Cabinet Minister Russ Hinze before the Fitzgerald inquiry of all the non-repayable loans, low-interest loans and penthouses on the Gold Coast? Mr Hinze said a number of times that there was no conflict of interest because he was not the one involved in the companies; it was his wife. As members of Parliament, I am sure we aU understand the way in which our spouses are part of the political process. Our spouses are even written into our entitlements in a number of important ways. To have a pecuniary interest register that does not insist that the interests of spouses are also required to be registered really makes a joke of the motion. As has been reported, it is a Clayton's register. There is an easy loophole; there is a way of getting out of it. I am really amazed that the Premier beUeves that he can claim to head an accountable Govemment and that he can go to the people on the issue of accountability. The Govemment's lack of political acumen and lack of poUtical perception amazes me. I hope that the Govemment goes to the people on the issue of accountabiUty, because the people of Queensland do not see the Govemment as being accountable! 4956 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests

This motion will do nothing to convince them otherwise. It is like the other effort at accountability by the Govemment in relation to ministerial expenses. Last year, when former Minister Don Lane spoke before the Fitzgerald inquiry about the misuse and abuse of ministerial expenses and cash advances, the Govemment's standing in the community went right through the floor, and that is where it has remained. What is more, when the Govemment put guide-lines in place, it did not address the very heart of the problem, because it left the Minister with the right to approve his or her own expenditure. That is where the problem starts; Ministers cannot be tmsted. It has been proven that the Ministers cannot be tmsted. However, the Govemment still has a system whereby we must tmst the Ministers. The Commonwealth and most other States have taken away from Ministers the power to approve their own ministerial expenditure and have put it under the control of a separate department altogether. If the Govemment adopted that approach, in one fell swoop it would solve the problem; however, it was not prepared to face up to it and it was not prepared to address it. This motion wiU be seen for what it is—merely a sop to the public. Let me state that the public will not wear it any more. The Govemment has dug itself into this hole, and it wiU not get out of it. It may have had a chance had it gone all the way. However, going half-way is simply not good enough. The Opposition does not believe it is good enough, which is why it moved the amendment to the motion. In the interests of the parliamentary system and the political process in Queensland, I urge all members to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. At present, the Parliament is not held in very high regard. In fact, it is held in very low regard. It is incumbent upon all honourable members to do what we can to pick the reputation of the Parliament up off" the floor. The only way that we can do that is not only by being accountable but also by being seen to be accountable. I second the amendment to the motion. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.40 p.m.): It is relevant to think about where we have travelled in the last 18 months. We started off on one of the major features of the Fitzgerald inquiry, which was the abuse and misuse of power. I do not recall too many back-benchers being involved in references in the Fitzgerald inquiry. I recall Ministers and friends of Ministers being alleged to have engaged in some sort of abuse and misuse of power. We moved from a situation in which we were talking about ministerial accountability in this Parliament for the spending of public money to the focal point, the high point of accountability by this Govemment, which is a target on members of the back bench disclosing their private affairs. We have gone from a refusal and a latter-day conversion, which is still incomplete, about ministerial expenses—which, after all, is the spending of public money—to a focus on members of the back bench and their obligation to disclose their private affairs with the sanction of the total penalties of this House. The ministerial code of conduct is not attended by any sanction. There is no penalty for a Minister who breaches his code of conduct, but there is a penalty for a back­ bencher, or the Minister so far as he is a back-bencher, in relation to the affairs of disclosure in this Parliament. It is a nice, cosy, private arrangement with the Premier as to what happens to a Minister. What is the significance of that distinction? Why does the boomerang and the heat come away from the Ministry back onto the back bench? It is to give a semblance of—a gesture towards—accountability. In 1979, the Federal Parliament, at the request of the then Prime Minister, set up a committee consisting of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court, Sir Nigel Bowen, assisted by a very eminent stock-broker and a former Commissioner of Taxation. They looked at the question of accountability of public duty and private interest. Really, it is a study on conflict, because it is conflict that is supposed to be the issue, not the salacious interest that everybody will have in the affairs of all members of Parliament by trying to speculate what they have and what they have not, and whether they have disclosed Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4957 it all. In that analysis, they looked at the question of whether there should be an importable register and they looked at the question of whether there should be differing standards for Ministers and back-benchers. In chapter 8, the report said— "The highest standards of conduct are demanded of Ministers, going beyond those which apply to them as Members of Parliament. These higher standards are a consequence of the unique role of Ministers as members of Cabinet, as the officeholders ultimately responsible for admiiustering departments, and as the holders of various statutory powers. For Ministers, certain parts of the Code of Conduct"— I will refer to that shortly— "take on extra significance, and must be enforced more stringently." The report refers to their obligation to give all their efforts towards the discharge of ministerial functions. The report said— "Ministers, as a consequence of the nature of their public duties, are particularly liable to be placed in conflict of interest situations." I remind members on the back bench that everything that they do is up front. What they say and how they vote is on the record of the Parliament. The same appUes for a committee of the Parliament. Their attitude on a law is tested in debate and is on the record. What the Ministry does is in secret, except so far as some parts of it will be announced or will appear in the Queensland Government Gazette. There is Cabinet confidentiality and decisions in secret. Ministers, not members of the back bench, decide how much public money is spent, who gets the contracts, who gets the appointments or whether there is a ministerial rezoning. That is why the committee which made the report rightly focused on the exceptional and higher duty of the Ministry. The report also states— "The range of govemment affairs passing under Cabinet consideration is virtually coextensive with the total responsibilities of govemment. Nevertheless, only a small proportion of govemment decisions is taken collectively at the Cabinet level, and the individual Minister acts on his own responsibiUty in respect of many important matters involving his own department. Moreover, many govemment decisions must, by their nature, be taken secretly without the fact that they have been taken, or the circumstances in which they were taken, being revealed. It is particularly important that adequate procedures for avoiding and resolving conflicts of interest be available to Ministers." That commission recommended against the interests of back-benchers being the subject of an obligatory register. That was its advice. I will deal with the arguments later. As to the Ministry, the commission stated— "In recommending that Ministers should be subject to a compulsory system of registration with limited access, the Committee is conscious that it has come down strongly against such a requirement in the case of the ordinary Member or other officeholder." The commission drew a clear distinction and left the heat where the heat should be. I remind honourable members that Ministers are not punished for a breach of their code of conduct as set up by the Premier. It is the back-benchers who are liable to the penalty of the contempt of this House for their failure to comply with the register. It is a slei^t of hand, but it is absolutely typical of the sleight of hand that honourable members expect and the double standards that honourable members get in this Chamber from this Govemment. 4958 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member for Sherwood continues, there is a procedural matter that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. It is my mling that the House is currently debating the amendments moved by Mr Goss. When those amendments have been dealt with, honourable members wiU then be debating either a new motion or, altematively, the original motion. Mr INNES: Mr Speaker, does that mean that one gets the chance to speak in the next debate another time? Mr SPEAKER: Order! If Mr Goss' motion is carried, the honourable member would not then have a second opportunity of speaking. If Mr Goss' motion is lost, then the honourable member would be speaking to the original motion. Mr INNES: Mr Speaker, I need to develop this argument in order to fully answer Mr Goss' amendments. I want to indicate that the broad principles involved in the matters contained in the amendments moved by Mr Goss have been under consideration by other eminent authorities in Australia and elsewhere in the world. Similar inquiries have been conducted in the United Kingdom and in other places. The essence of Mr Goss' amendments is the extension of the compulsion of registration to affect somebody else's privacy. In his position, Mr Justice Bowen presides over matters of conflict of interest. The Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal finds its ultimate appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. So honourable members are talking about people of great eminence and great practical common sense, who identified and understood the difference between the obligations of the Ministry—who are the people most likely to have conflicts of interest—and those of an ordinary member of Parliament. The reality was that that commission would not require, and recommended against requiring, that ordinary members of Parliament have compulsory registration. Therefore, by force of reasoning, of course, it came out against the obligation to extend to a spouse. That is a point that the Liberal Party makes. The Liberal Party will oppose that motion. Let me make that quite clear. The Liberal Party will oppose the motion to extend it to wives. It is very easy to engage in the special pleading that goes on. However, I recall that there were Labor Ministers' wives who objected to the registration of their interests, and did so in rather spectacular fashion. Mr Goss: And John Spender's. Mr INNES: Yes, indeed. Mr De Lacy referred to the contempt with which members of Parliament are nowadays associated. In dealing with the matter of compulsory registration, the Bowen inquiry found that the allegations that are made on a partisan basis—the mud-slinging that goes on in Parliament—were one of the problems in relation to lowering the status of members of Parliament. Over the last three months, in New South Wales accusations and counter-accusations have been made based upon a compulsory and public register brought in by Mr Wran. Mr Wran brought in this great new gesture towards honesty and public accountability, and it did not do anything to prevent his own Corrective Services Minister from being the only Minister in the Federation of Australia to be gaoled for cormption. It did nothing to prevent that. It was hypocrisy. It did not succeed. As I have said, over the last three months in New South Wales there has been accusation and counter-accusation against members of both sides who have failed to reveal, or forgotten to reveal, the entire nature of their property holdings. Mr Henderson: Why did Mrs Brown refuse to list her assets in the Federal sphere? Mr INNES: She is a rather interesting lady. Can I say that I do not hold a brief for Ms Jan Brown. Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4959 I would have thought that most members of Parliament—and certainly most conservative members of Parliament—do recognise that people have a legitimate interest in their privacy. I will guarantee that amongst the membership of the Labor Party and in the homes of thousands of people who vote for the Labor Party there are women who, unbeknown to their husbands, save something out of their house-keeping money. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr INNES: Ken Vaughan's wife is one. That gives those women a little sense of independence. It is money that they can spend and for which they are not totally beholden to the male's pay packet. It is not fraud; it is not an intention to cheat anybody; it is just a little bit of one's own independence, one's own self-determination. That is what one comes down to when one looks at the position of ordinary members of Parliament. The Bowen report targeted the real problem, which is the conflict of interest. It detailed a code of conduct that this House could use, which the Liberal Party position would be. We should have a code of conduct, not a public register, reinforced by an annual private register. There should be a positive obligation on all of us to declare our direct or indirect pecuniary interests publicly. We should have them recorded if we are facing a vote or a consideration in Committee in which we have a conflict. Rather than having a swan around the world and a ferret into everybody's affairs through access to the public register, the direct responsibility should be left on all of us to make the declaration. If there is any substantial question raised about it, the Privileges Committee, the Ombudsman or the continuing commission into crime could check the private register to see what we said about ourselves. That provides a good starting point for any breach of the privileges of the House or prosecution for a criminal offence. That was the balance that the Bowen committee found and the balance that attracts the Liberal Party. Honourable members should think about this register. Of course, the newspapers will have a field day with it. They will want to inspect it to see whether a member has declared everything or what the implications are of the nomination of three or four bank accounts. Other people could have access to the register. I am sure that most honourable members, as I am, are visited by insurance salesmen at their electorate offices asking to see the electoral roll so that they can dmm up some business. Very shortly, they will probably be checking out the register to see whether they offer a better package than the companies with which honourable members have insurance. As to insurance—the Premier obviously failed the test and his own motion because it is fairly clear that he has to nominate the insurance companies with which he has an insurance policy, and the type of insurance. The Premier's declaration did not do that. Thieves could use the register. To show another little inconsistency—honourable members have heard about the wife escape clause; but if we reaUy mean business about conflicts, why do we not nominate where land is? Nominating the suburb is one thing; but it might be very relevant to some of the conflicts that have been revealed in this State to know exactly where land is and to see where other land, which might be the subject of ministerial rezoning, is located. I wonder why there is no identification of land. It is perfectly clear that there is lots of interest. I notice that the specification of the location of the land is not required. Although land is not identified, it is perfectly clear that everybody knows where each member lives. In a declaration of personal interest, a member is required to nominate items valued at more than $5,000 that are not ordinary household and personal effects. What happens if a member owns some expensive antiques or some paintings? Is that setting up the member by nominating that he has something worth while in his house that separates him from other members? Most members live in a suburban environment in which the protection is: why should someone break into my residence rather than someone else's? Like a lot of other people, I have had my residence broken into. I do not particularly want to nominate a 4960 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests list of items—I am not saying that I have them, but it may well be that some members do—that would attract thieves. Mr Veivers: I'll sell you a good blue cattle dog. Mr INNES: When a person is out in good blue-cattle-dog country, it is all right; but my next door neighbours might not Uke my blue cattle dog. There are consequences for ordinary individuals. I suppose that all honourable members are out and about for six nights a week and leave their wives at home. The wives have to live with a sense of vulnerability and they do not want identification of property or anything else. The Liberal Party does not believe that the Govemment has found a proper balance. The Liberal Party believes that the Labor Party, typically, wants to expose everything, drag everybody down and stop anybody with any assets from entering Parliament— entering public life. To reveal all it suits the Labor Party at the moment, but the Labor Party cannot comply with what is done in New South Wales. The record of the Labor Party working under the system is that it cannot keep the mles. Sometimes the mles wUl be too difficult to keep. I foreshadow that the Liberal Party will be moving an amendment. The Liberal Party believes that the second part of the second paragraph is too tortuous. Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have given a mling that we are debating Mr Goss' amendments. I understand that the Leader of the Liberal Party has foreshadowed other amendments. Are we having a cognate debate on this matter and are aU amendments thrown in, or are we going to debate Mr Goss' amendments Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sherwood at one stage appeared to be off the subject. He has retumed to the amendments and is referring to them. He is perfectly at liberty to foreshadow amendments. He is not at liberty to move them. Mr INNES: I foreshadow the amendments because it is part of the argument that one develops against the extension of the invasion of privacy and the removal into unreality that is the essence of the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. The amend­ ment that I foreshadow, which is relevant if we vote on the early amendment first, is that it becomes far too complicated to nominate every change of property within 28 days. I have spoken to Federal members of Parliament and to members of Parliament in other States who have said that in the ordinary course of life they might have taken something on lease or paid something off. Even in comparatively modest households there is a constant change of a person's liability. If a back-bencher who is wdthout any problems of conflict of interest is buying and selling a few shares, that constitutes a constant requirement the non-observance of which puts him in breach of the resolution and in contempt of the Parliament. What we are about is serious and should not be for the cheap, short-term gain of political mileage. The Govemment has proposed the provision as a loophole big enough to drive a home unit through. The argument is not good enough. There is a bigger principle, and bigger things are on foot today. The Liberal Party opposes the extension into the privacy that it concurs spouses have. In this motion there is an attention on the privacy of back-benchers, which is a diversion from the real attention that should be paid to the people who have real and actual conflicts of interest—the Ministry. In a package that the Liberal Party would propose—and it cannot amend the Govemment's package to achieve this because it is a more total concept—there would be a code of conduct for all members backed by a register of interests of limited access, with a far more comprehensive and compulsory code for the Ministry of the type indicated in the Bowen inquiry. Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4961

The Liberal Party will oppose the amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I have foreshadowed one amendment and I foreshadow another amendment at a later stage. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (12.01 a.m.): The Govemment does not support the Leader of the Opposition's amendments. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 13 on page 7 of the register document, which relates to any other interests where a conflict of interest with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. That is the paragraph in which potential conflicts of interest involving spouses would necessarily have to be stated. Mr Goss: It is on a discretionary basis. That is the problem. Mr AHERN: The document is to be filled out on a discretionary basis. Mr Goss: No, it's not. Mr AHERN: It certainly is. It requires a member to fill it out. To extend it further would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. As to the extent to which conflicts will arise—they are required to be stated. That is not an unreasonable course. It is interesting that the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party has stated, as I understand it, that the Liberal Party is against a general register of pecuniary interests for members of Parliament generally, including Ministers. The Liberal Party is saying that all that is required for rank-and-file members of Parliament is a code of conduct, not a register of pecuniary interests that can be accessed by the public. Mr Innes: A code of conduct plus a registration of interest. Mr AHERN: The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party seeks to qualify his statement. When he rises again he should qualify it further. It is something that honourable members and the public need to know. If the Liberal Party is not in favour of any publicly accessed register Mr INNES: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that the Premier is misrepresenting the position. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will have an opportunity later in this debate to point that out. Mr INNES: 1 find the words of misrepresentation offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member finds the words offensive and asks that they be withdrawn. Mr AHERN: I withdraw the offensive words. However, I point out to honourable members that the whole burden of the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party's statement to the House rested on the Bowen report. That was his advocacy to represent the ideal model. The ideal model recommends against a register of pecuniary interests for rank- and-file members. Readers of Hansard will find it passing strange that the Liberal Party appears to embrace that course of action. When the Leader of the Liberal Party speaks later during this debate, he can clarify that further. The issue of spouses has raised ire. Mr Mackenroth: That incorporates a lot of people. Mr AHERN: It does. The spouses issue has been determined by this Govemment as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 4962 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

The extent to which a conflict of interest does arise will be covered by the paragraph to which I have referred without an unnecessary invasion of privacy. The Govemment opposes the Leader of the Opposition's amendments. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intend that there be no further debate on the amendments. Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 24 NOES, 56 Ardill Ahem Knox Braddy Alison Lee Bums Austin Lickiss Campbell Beanland Lingard Casey Beard Littleproud D'Arcy Bei^ofer McCauley De Lacy Booth McKechnie Eaton Borbidge McPhie Gibbs, R. J. Burreket Menzel Goss Chapman Muntz Hamill Clauson Neal Hayward Cooper Nelson McEUigott Elliott Newton Mackenroth Fraser Perrett Milliner Gamin Randell Palaszczuk Gately Row Smith Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Smyth Gilmore Sherlock Vaughan Glasson Sherrin Warburton Gunn Simpson Wamer Gygar Slack Wells Harper Stoneman Harvey Tenni Henderson Veivers Hinton White Hobbs Tellers: Hynd Tellers: Davis Innes FitzGerald Comben Katter Stephan Resolved in the negative. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.13 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "Delete all words in paragraph (2) after 'Appendix "A", and shall' and insert— 'lodge a statement in like form within one month of each anniversary of the first lodgement.'" I understand why the words in the existing paragraph are in their present form— it is to try to keep a current reflection of the real situation with regard to members' affairs. I point to the experience in the Commonwealth Parliament, the New South Wales Parliament and elsewhere, where the words "liabilities"—which can be a quite small matter—and "interest"—which although being quite small can be the subject of and the reason for the register—are used. In those Parliaments, because the transactions that are obliged to be in the register are so extensive it has simply proved practically impossible to keep a register current every time a change in interests has occurred and has been filed within 28 days. That has not come about because of any intention by people to defraud or cheat; it is merely because it is impossible to keep up with the paperwork that results from the very busy lives that parliamentarians lead. It is perfectly sufficient for there to be an annual registration of interests. There is bound to be some discrepancy within a year. That is understood. But at least it provides a bench-mark each year that can be used if there is any question raised about the matter of conflict of interest. It stops members from falling into contempt of the House simply because they are busy and because comparatively minor changes in their situations can make them liable to fall into contempt of the Parliament. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4963

The second amendment to paragraph (4) deals with the vexed question of the access to the register of interests. In moving an amendment to this paragraph, let me make the position crystal clear. Firstly, the Bowen report states that back-bench members should not be obliged to register their interests. I have stated that, ideally, in a package totally controlled by the Liberal Party, a code of conduct would be introduced that obliged all members to identify a conflict of interest, direct or indirect. Mr SPEAKER: Order! On a matter of procedure, I inform the honourable member for Sherwood that, as he has moved an amendment to paragraph (2), it may be appropriate if the House deals with that amendment before he moves on to his second amendment. Mr INNES: I think it would be simpler. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.16 a.m.): Bearing in mind the late hour and the example shown earlier by the Leader of the House, I take pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the member for Sherwood. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (12.17 a.m.): This particular amendment is not acceptable but the other amendment that has been circulated is. I point out that this matter was thought through at the time that the proposal was brought before the House. It was thought that an annual statement was not really good enough. In matters involving regular transfers, such as shares, honourable members will note that there is a particular provision for the updating of that information every six months in order to take account of the difficulty referred to by the honourable member for Sherwood. As I said earlier when I presented this proposal to the House, the register will undergo a trial between now and the election. If particular difficulties arise, the issue will be addressed in the review process that is proposed. I point out that in the penalties that are prescribed, the responsibility to address what is a contempt of the House rests in the hands of this Parliament. All of the circumstances would be considered by the House in relation to any action taken on contempt. I suggest that safeguards are provided. During the next few months, the Govemment will have a look at this procedure to see how it operates in practice. I do not think there is any need to dilute the proposal at this stage. 4964 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 10 NOES, 70 Beard Ahem Hobbs Innes Alison Hynd Knox Ardill Katter Lee Austin Lingard Lickiss Berghofer Littleproud Schuntner Booth McCauley Sherlock Borbidge McEUigott White Braddy McKechnie Bums Mackenroth Burreket McPhie Campbell Menzel Casey Milliner Chapman Muntz Clauson Neal Comben Nelson Cooper Newton D'Arcy Palaszczuk Davis Perrett De Lacy Randell Eaton Row Elliott Sherrin Fraser Simpson Gamin Slack Gately Smith Gibbs, I. J. Smyth Gibbs, R. J. Stoneman Gilmore Tenni Glasson Vaughan Goss Veivers Gunn Warburton Hamill Wamer Harper Wells Harvey Tellers: Hayward Tellers: Beanland Henderson FitzGerald Gygar Hinton Stephan Resolved in the negative. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.26 a.m.): Paragraph (4) deals with the register of members' interests, and I move the foUowing amendment to that paragraph— "Delete all words in paragraph (4) (b) (2) and insert— '(2) a person inspecting an entry in the Register shall— (i) not provide to the Clerk as his name, a name other than his full and correct name, or as his address, an address other than his correct residential address; (ii) produce some proof of his identity satisfactory to the Clerk; (iii) state in writing his reasons for inspecting the Register.'"; "After paragraph (4) (b) (3) insert— '(4) the Clerk shall inform a member forthwith upon any inspection of his entry, the name and address and reasons given by any person inspecting that entry in the Register.' " I will detail my reasons for moving this amendment and the position taken by the Liberal Party. I have referred to the Bowen report of 1979 that spoke out against a compulsory register of ordinary members' interests. The Liberal Party believes that a total package over which the Government had control would do two things: firstly, it would go further than the Bowen report by providing limited access, but an annual register and declaration of members' interests; and, secondly, it would have a code of conduct. Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4965

Mr Ahern: Who would access it? Mr INNES: It would be accessed by the ombudsman on the basis of spot checks. Mr Ahern: Not the public? Mr INNES: No, not the public directly. It could be accessed by any criminal enforcement organisation or by the Privileges Committee if there was any question raised relating to conflict of interest, but—and this is very important—there would be a positive code of conduct obliging each member of Parliament to declare any direct or indirect pecuniary interest and have it recorded in any proceeding of the House or Committee of the House. Therefore, rather than having to swan around at large, there would be a direct obligation on members to so indicate when they realise that a conflict is looming. In the policing of any conflict, access would be given to an independent record of the interest declared by the member in order to see whether that member had verified or underlined his or her own interests in order to resolve the conflict. The motive for having a public register is a matter of sensitivity. The Bowen report dealt with the arguments for and against compulsory registration. In one of the arguments for compulsory registration the report stated— "It is said that democratic institutions are under attack and that there is a loss of public confidence in Members of Parliament." That was precisely Mr De Lacy's contention. The report goes on to investigate that proposition and states— "The fact appears to be that the reputation of Members of Parliament, the view which the community has of them, depends upon the standard of their actual performance from time to time." The reputation of members of Parliament can be restored by good performance on their part. The report continues— "It appears to be part of the conventional wisdom in federal politics"— and I suggest that the State is no different— "in Australia that if what is called the 'credibility' of an opponent can be damaged or destroyed, this is worth votes. A consequence of this is that there is on both sides of Federal Parliament a search for ammunition to be fired at this target and an almost constant barrage of denigration proceeding both ways. Members of Parliament appear to spend a good deal of time denigiHting other Members of Parliament. Perhaps this has always been so, but because the Committee has spent upwards of a year looking at the question of loss of confidence in politicians, it was constantly forced upon its attention." The report went on to state— "Indeed, it seems plain enough that a register might well be treated by some as a welcome additional source of ammunition, not only as regards the information disclosed in the register, but as a basis for allegations of culpable deficiencies in the disclosures. Another matter which has troubled the Committee is that even those who advocate the introduction of a register of interests as a means of restoring public confidence do not seriously suggest that, had such a register been in force, it would have had any relevance to the alleged scandals which have occurred. From the studies made, it believes that in most cases information contained in a register, however extensive, would have had little or no relevance to the matters forming the basis of the allegations. The Code of Conduct which the Committee has recommended in Chapter 4 recognises the need to guard against the situation where private interests conflict with public duty." 4966 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests

In this amendment we seek to fortify the solemn question of the privacy of members of Parliament unless that privacy can properly be impugned. We believe that the register is not there for the pmrient interests of members of the public for improper motives. If it is to be used, it is there for serious purposes. The people who want to inspect it can say why they want to inspect it. We cannot stop them, but at least they have to give their reasons and prove their identity. An Opposition member: Why? Mr INNES: Because I have already pointed out that it can be a basis of information for thieves, salesmen and all sorts of people. Surely it is reasonable to know who is making an inquiry about the affairs of a member of Parliament, particularly when there is no requirement that the person have a substantial reason for making the inquiry. Surely to God we are entitled to know who the person is. If something happens to property, it might help to find somebody. One of my staff" recently told me that, two or three days ^fter enrolling at a video shop, his video was stolen. These things happen today in our society. Anybody who says they do not is more motivated by the politics of the situation than by any sincerity. A look at the operation of these things elsewhere would show that they do not have the effects that have been suggested. I am simply attending to something that is a solemn matter, that is, the privacy of members of Parliament, whether they be members of the Labor Party, the Govemment or the Liberal Party. We all have our rights. They should not be impugned unless there is real and good cause. Let us put the obligation on the stickybeaks just to say who they are and why they want the information so that we can know who is^ inquiring about our affairs. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.34 a.m.): In seconding the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sherwood, I wish to say that we must never forget that the real problem that started all of this has been with Ministers who meet in secret and make decisions of consequence, not with back-benchers who debate in public and whose votes are recorded in Hansard. Everything is open. The essence of what we are about and what we are doing should be to account for public moneys spent or to declare personal interests in a matter under consideration, not to pander to the pmrient interests of snoops. People who want this information should be called upon to establish their bona fides. I realise that a moment ago I may have said something that cast aspersions on some Ministers. That was unintended. The meaning of my first statement is that Ministers do meet in secret and do make decisions of consequence, therefore there is a far greater reason for a record of tMfeir interests to be held. There are far more influential members of the community whose interests should be declared publicly than parliamentary back-benchers. Media-owners, journalists and lobbyists of all descriptions come to mind pretty quickly. They have far more influence on what happens than do parliamentary back-benchers. I just do not think that we should be throwing out the baby with the bath water in what we are doing here. This amendment seeks to have those who want to view this information establish their bona fides and, therefore, has my full support. Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (12.36 a.m.): The Opposition does not support the amendment, basically because it achieves nothing at all. All it will do is intimidate members of the public who may have a genuine interest in examining the register. Government members interjected. Mr GOSS: When I say that the amendment will achieve nothing at all, I think members should be realistic and realise that, within a very short period of time of this register being established, certain representatives of the media will obviously inspect the whole lot and publish the whole of it or any parts of it that they consider to be of interest. That is the reality. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4967

All members have seen the experience of the Premier, who tabled his interests the other day. They were immediately extensively published. The curiosity of the media and the public in respect of such matters is obvious to all members. Mr Innes: Curiosity is not relevant; conflict is. Mr GOSS: What a silly interjection. The point is that the amendment will achieve nothing, because the material that will be disclosed on the register will be published and it will be available through the media, in any event. All that the amendment does—whether it is deliberate or not, I do not know—is seek to intimidate members of the public. As I have said, it achieves nothing. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that we are debating the amendment to paragraph (4). Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (12.38 a.m.): I seek clarification from the Premier on paragraph (4). Did I understand him to say that he will accept this amendment as it stands, or in part? Mr Ahern: As it stands. Mr ELLIOTT: That being the case, as honourable members have had no opportunity to discuss the amendment, I would like it to be examined carefully. What concems me and many other honourable members Mr Casey: Do you want a 10-minute recess? Mr ELLIOTT: I do not think that we need time out. I am happy to discuss it in the Chamber. I thought that I heard a member say earlier that a penalty could be imposed upon a person who misused the register. Honourable members have witnessed an example of someone leaking information from a committee that was set up recently by the Gov­ ernment. The Public Works Committee legislation included a penalty for people who abused that trust. I suggest that this motion should contain a similar provision. I feel strongly—and so do many other members—that people should not be able to use the register to impugn the integrity of members without their having some redress from Mr Speaker or the Privileges Committee. The provision of a penalty for the misuse of information would ensure that honourable members are not abused by a misuse of the register. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (12.40 a.m.): I have some reservations as to how this procedure will work in practice. However, as I said at the outset, this is a new proposal for Queensland and we are prepared to monitor the situation. If, in the opinion of honourable members, the proposed amendment provides a safeguard by not making information available to be misused, we are prepared to accept it. I am advised that, if somebody contravened the wish of the House in respect of the use of the information, it would constitute a contempt of the House. Mr Lee: No. Mr AHERN: I am advised that it would. I would expect that it would. When the House itself has laid down a certain procedure, if it is contravened knowingly, it would seem to me to be capable of being interpreted as a contempt of the House and punishable accordingly. These new procedures write in some additional safeguards. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept them. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (12.41 a.m.): Although I understand what paragraph (4) is trying to achieve, I see some problems with it. Obviously, the proposed amendment 4968 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests is attempting to achieve some responsibility on the part of people who will view the register. Mr Innes: It doesn't go as far as I'd like it to go. Mr SIMPSON: It is a difficult area. A person may view the register and take notes of information in it. Although that person can be identified, if 50 people had access to the register, one would not know who was responsible for leaking information. If a person violates the mles in respect of use of the register, it will be impossible to find the person who is responsible. I do not believe that the amendment will achieve what it sets out to achieve. We are relying on people being honest and doing the right thing, but they do not always do that, which causes me concem about the proper use of the register. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (12.43 a.m.): The Premier inade a statement which caused me to consult the documents before us. The motion contains no suggestion that a person who misuses the information from the register, who is not a member of Parliament, is in contempt of Parliament. It may be that civil action can be taken by a member who is aggrieved by the way in which information is used. However, the Parliament has no right to act in the matter. For that reason, the amendment of the Leader of the Liberal Party attempts to at least put the member of Parliament on an equal footing with those who are investigating his affairs. After all, anybody in the community will be able to see the personal affairs of a member. It is desirable that the member know who is investigating him. That person is not obliged to be concemed about crime or to be an enforcer of the law. It could be one's next door neighbour or somebody with whom one is having an argument. It could be the lawyers of someone else who is suing a member Mr Innes: Or just the press sensationalising it. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes, somebody just wanting to publish the information, which the Labor Party obviously wants to do, or a business opponent or people who are out to blackmail a member. A whole list of people can get access to the information. It is not unreasonable for a member of Parliament to know who is seeking the information. If it is good enough for a person to know a member's affairs, it is good enough for the member to know that somebody is looking into his affairs. After all, the information contained in the register is normally regarded as private. What we are principally concerned with is the conflict of interest—propriety. It is not about a member's affairs; it is about whether or not a member is honest in his dealings as a member of Parliament and as a Minister. That is what this register is about. This Parliament does not want to find itself in the position in which the New Guinea Parliament finds itself More members of Parliament in New Guinea have lost their seats because of their failure to keep their records up to date than because of misconduct. The other day a member of the Parliament in New Guinea lost his seat because he lodged his return one day late. An honest person who was not accused of any crime lost his seat because he was one day late in lodging his return. All these sorts of things will occur. Honourable members have witnessed what has happened in New South Wales. In that State members of all political parties have got themselves into enormous difficulties trying to keep the register up to date. That has not been accepted by the Govemment or by the Opposition. However, the Government should at least give the member of Parliament an equal chance to look after himself in the public arena on matters that may be quite unrelated to propriety or his conduct in the Parliament. Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has already spoken to the amendment, and I have to rule him out of order. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4969

Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (12.47 a.m.): I want to pursue the point that has been made by the honourable member for Nundah. I think it is an important point and something that all honourable members should think about very carefuUy. The aim is that the register will be used as an arbiter or as a bench-mark in terms of a conflict of interest. Therefore, the only circumstance under which the material should be published, or should become public knowledge, is when it is established that a conflict of interest has in fact occurred or is occurring. Mr Mackenroth: Are you going to vote for this, then? Mr HENDERSON: What I am saying is that it ought not be pubUshed purely for the sake of satisfying curiosity. I think that honourable members should be aware of that. In my opinion, as members of this Parliament, we need to monitor this register over the coming 12 months. I would be dismayed if the information supplied by honourable members of this Parliament was to be published in much the same way as the information supplied by the Premier was published today. Mr Mackenroth: You are fooling yourself if you think it's not going to be. Of course it will be. Mr HENDERSON: We probably are fooling ourselves. Nonetheless, I think that the point made by the honourable member for Nundah is a worthy one. I think honourable members should take note of it, and I think that the register should be policed very carefully. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.48 a.m.): I do not think honourable members have read the whole motion. Honourable members are debating an amendment to paragraph (4)(b)(2). If honourable members read paragraph (4)(e) they will find that it states as follows— "(e) a person shall not publish or comment on information contained in the Register unless the information published constitutes a fair and accurate summary, or the comment is a fair comment, and it is published or made, without malice, in the public interest." The motion does not contain a penalty for a breach of that provision, and the amendment suggested by the Liberal Party does not provide a penalty. What the Liberal Party is suggesting is that as long as someone tells the Clerk his name, he can read the register. It is a public register. What have members of the Liberal Party got to hide? What are they trying to run away from?

The information will be published in the Courier-Mail or made known on the television the day after the 28 days are up. If that provision is deleted and the motion states that the information cannot be published, then the motion will protect someone. But, in reality, how are we going to find out whether a member of Parliament has told lies in his documentation? The only way to find out is if members of the public come forward and say, "That bloke did not tell the tmth." That is the only way that a public register will work. If the Government is going to restrict the number of people who can read the register, then it is doing it because it is worried about someone finding out that the tmth has not been told in the register. These protections are not necessary. If a member tells the truth and has nothing to hide, it will be in the paper. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. The best thing honourable members can do is be prepared to stand up for the information that they have included in the register. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (12.50 a.m.): The question of contempt of the Parliament was raised. There seemed to be some disagreement amongst honourable members as to 4970 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests whether an individual outside could be held in contempt. Under the heading "Disobe­ dience to Rules or Orders of Either House", Erskine May states— "Disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application or require a particular individual to do or abstain from doing a particular act, or contravention of any mles of either House is a contempt of that House." An honourable member interjected. Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member is wrong. It says "a particular individual". When he is referring to a member. May specifies "a member". It says "a particular individual". Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call for the vote, I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that paragraph (4) contains a misprint. The subparagraphs are numbered (a), (b) and then (d). It should in fact be (c) and then (d). That will be rectified in the official record. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 56 NOES, 24 Ahern Knox Ardill Alison Lee Braddy Austin Lickiss Bums Beanland Lingard Campbell Beard Littleproud Casey Berghofer McCauley Comben Booth McKechnie D'Arcy Borbidge McPhie Eaton Burreket Menzell Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Muntz Goss Clauson Neal Hamill Cooper Nelson Hayward Elliott Newton McEUigott Fraser Perrett Mackenroth Gamin Randell Milliner Gately Row Palaszczuk Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Smith Gilmore Sherlock Smyth Glasson Sherrin Vaughan Gunn Simpson Warburton Gygar Slack Warner Harper Stoneman Wells Harvey Tenni Henderson Veivers Hinton White Hobbs Hynd Tellers: Tellers: Innes FitzGerald Davis Katter Stephan De Lacy Resolved in the affirmative. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (12.56 a.m.): I wish to speak on a couple of other matters that follow on from paragraph (4). Am I in order to speak now? Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order. I understood that we had another clause to be debated, clause (5). Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the benefit of the honourable member for Aspley, I point out that we are in the House, not in Committee. The question before the House at the moment is the amended motion. Order! In view of the state of dress of the member for Bowen, I ask him to remove himself from the Chamber. Mr ELLIOTT: I wish to raise some general points that may be more specifically handled in Committee. However, I will raise them now and we can see how we go. Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4971

An honourable member: There will be no Committee. Mr ELLIOTT: I am not trying to go into Committee; I am just saying that the matters may be dealt with in more detail later. Firstly, I turn to children's bank accounts. Honourable members have espoused what we are trying to do. We must make sure that we are dealing with practicalities and that we are not doing things that can be seen by the public or by us as being totally impractical or stupid. We have said that gifts of $250 or more should be taken into account. If that is so, I suggest that it is a nonsense to include in a register children's tmst accounts for which members are tmstees. I am not suggesting that we go as high as $250; for argument's sake, let us consider an amount of $100. Having heard the amendment that was agreed to previously, I would hope that we would not find ourselves in a situation in which children may be intimidated in some way or another at school as a result of matters being disclosed by the press. Other children could say to the children of members of Parliament, "We have seen that you have bank accounts." Those bank accounts may have been given to those children by their grandparents, and the parents of the children may act as tmstees. As I understand the register, members would be required to declare those bank accounts. The second matter relates to assets valued at more than $5,000. Farms and other businesses use various items of machinery, which can be bought and sold regularly. Every 12 months I take to my accountant details of such transactions. At that time it is possible to sort out that information. Members should consider whether a blanket value is being placed on machinery—that would not worry me—or whether they will be required to keep a list of individual items of plant and machinery, which really would have no bearing on how they vote in this House. It cannot possibly be constmed to have any effect on whether or not I have a chisel plough, a hay-baler Mr Milliner: A header? Mr ELLIOTT: Or even a header. What possible connection could that have to how I vote in this House? Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (1.01 a.m.): I get the feeling that this is the first occasion on which this issue has been discussed widely by many honourable members. It is a tragedy that honourable members have had only 24 hours within which to consider something about which debate should have occurred over 18 months. It is so easy—particularly with an imminent by-election—to get into the cut and thmst and the blood and guts of the whole argument. If any honourable members have long-term ambitions in this Parliament, this issue will affect their lives constantly. Earlier I tried to move an amendment designed precisely to accommodate the type of situation of the honourable member for Cunningham. I did not know his situation. By talking to members of other Parliaments I ascertained that a monthly retum period was unrealistic and that a 12-monthly period was more reaUstic. Despite the action of their leader, Mr Goss, I have seen some members of the Labor Party indicate by body language their concurrence with some of the sense that one is making by talking about the issue tonight. Honourable members heard from Mr Vaughan about his domestic situation. In common with tens of thousands of other wives in Queensland, Mr Vaughan's wife keeps by a bit from her house-keeping and has some of her own property. Let us get away from this nonsense and talk about some reaUstic human situations. If we do, I think that we might decide that what we have done tonight is wrong. Some honourable members have debated and voted on party lines without, fraiUdy, applying what they are doing to their own domestic situations and, more importantly, their future. Not one honourable member wishes to be questioned for contempt of ParUament. We do not want this debate to start on the issue of contempt. 4972 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

It would be tragic if the press waltzed in here, printed details of every member's interests and that became the starting-point of a debate or just blind allegations. People would say, "That could not possibly be his situation. He has got so much property that he must have done it by rorts." As Bowen said, it would lead to allegations and counter- allegations of a purely political nature—nothing to do with whether a member has a genuine conflict of interest. Initially I should have asked the Government not to proceed with the debate. From the reactions of Govemment members, it is obvious that a proper debate did not occur in their party room. The implications of what we are doing have not been considered. It is regrettable that we are now getting the production of everyday events, which indicates that what we are doing is ill thought out. Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (1.04 a.m.): I wish to raise two particular issues relating to the motion. I shall refer to comments that were made by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt and elaborate a little on what was said by the honourable member for Sherwood. This is not just a matter of where conflicts of interest might arise. The reality is that we are attempting to determine that no member of Parliament is able to gain from a decision that is made either in the House or by the Cabinet. The keeping of a register is a means of determining what members own or any investments or associations that they may have. Most of the motion deals with that issue adequately. However, paragraph 4 (e) states— "a person shall not publish or comment on information ..." It is my personal view that all words after the word "Register" should be deleted. To satisfy the demands of the House and the public, it is necessary only to keep the register and for information to be available to suitable and relevant people. It is not necessary for that information to become public for the curiosity of scribblers. The Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong in parliamentary terms. The honourable member for Chatsworth is saying, "You have to be a fool if you do not think that, 24 hours after the 28 days is up, everybody's interests will not be listed in the Courier- Mail." That is not the objective as I see it. I do not believe that it is appropriate. It may be the honourable member's objective. It may be a Labor Party political tool for the election. But in my view it is inappropriate and unnecessary. I would like the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to take note of my comments. This Government has given a commitment to monitor this register. If, 24 hours after the 28 days, a list is published, we would have to say that it was done with malice and not in the public interest. It would simply not be done for the purpose for which this Government is establishing the register. It would be done simply for curiosity— not for a specific reason. At that point nobody would be standing to gain by any decision that might be made by Cabinet or this House. Although I support the motion, I state my reservations on the public record—not in private—that it is not necessary for all available information to be published. The paragraph to which I have referred states that it is all right to publish as long as it is done nicely. That is not appropriate. I have very grave reservations about paragraph (5) (c). I believe that we are pre­ empting future decisions of this Parliament. I am cognisant of the fact that the paragraph provides for "knowingly fails to provide a statement", "knowingly fails to notify any alteration" and "knowingly provides false or misleading information". However, it then states "shall be guilty of a contempt" and "shall be dealt with by the House accordingly." I suggest to honourable members on both sides of the House that those words should be amended to read "may be guilty of a contempt" and "may be dealt with by the House accordingly." Register of Members'Interests 19 April 1989 4973

We should never pass in this House a motion that commits the Parliament to future action. Honourable members should be given the opportunity to debate those matters when they arise. That would not weaken the motion in any way. I believe that it gives an opportunity in the future for someone to have a fair hearing. I do not think it is appropriate for us to act as the judge and jury tonight on what might possibly happen in the future. I would certainly Uke to hear the views of other members on that subject. In fact, I would remind honourable members that it is common practice in all legislation in this Parliament, as far as I know, to use the word "may" rather than "shall". It is most unusual for the word "shaU" to be used in legislation or resolutions. I believe that the word "shall" should be replaced by "may". Mr Burns interjected. Mrs NELSON: I say to the member for Lytton who asks, "Why?" Mr Burns: That is not so. There's a lot of legislation that says "shall". Mrs NELSON: In penalty terms, sometimes. We are not taUdng about penalty units. We are talking about a judge and jury situation. We are pre-judging. We are saying "shall be guilty and shall be punished". It is not up to us tonight to say that. What we should say is "may be guilty and may be punished", and then give the House the opportunity to decide what the penalty unit shall be, after the decision has been made and not before. It is up to the House what it decides to do, but that is my very firm conviction. I think we skate on thin ice when we act as judge and jury as a result of a resolution. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (1.09 a.m.): I concur with what the honourable member for Aspley has said. Quite clearly, it will take the prerogative of the decision-making away from this Chamber. It would be grounds for taking action; it would be grounds for punishment. My interpretation—and I am not a lawyer; I would like to know the legal interpretation—of the "shall" is that it takes away from this Chamber the right to find for or against a particular matter and how to deal with it. Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must inform the Premier that, if he wishes to speak now, he must close the debate. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (1.10 a.m.): From talking to the ParUamentary Counsel on several occasions, not particularly about this matter but on other pieces of legislation, it is my understanding that in legal terms "shall" and "may" are treated the same. Mr WHITE (RedcUffe) (1.10 a.m.): Obviously, like many other members of the House, I have grave concems about this matter. I do not think any of us has any qualms about dealing with the whole subject of conflict of interest. If there is a genuine conflict, I think it is only reasonable that the personal affairs of a member of the House should be laid open to the public, as it were—if there is a genuine case. But here, as a number of members have said during the night, all of us will be exposed to busybodies. As we all know, certain elements in the media quite indiscriminately have published stories about members of this House—members who have been here for many, many years and who have an honourable reputation. We all know what happens when questions are raised by innuendo. I can predict what will happen with this. A member's photo will appear in the paper and there will be the innuendo and the whole messy business associated with it. The reputation of many members of this House will be tamished. Over the years, that has been seen. Mr Speaker, you have been a member of this House since 1974. Some of us have been here for a lesser period of time. I think the member for Nundah has been here for more than 30 years. It is getting worse as time goes on, and unfortunately Honourable members interjected. 4974 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr WHITE: My apologies to the honourable member for Nundah, who is one of the most respected members, if not the most respected member, of this House. It is tme that many honourable members will have their names tamished by this legislation. Mr Davis: Not by me. Mr WHITE: I have seen Opposition members in action and I know what they will do. The Leader of the Opposition has already pre-empted himself as to what the Labor Party approach to this will be. Just because somebody happens to be in this place, has worked hard all his life, has put up his assets and they are exposed Mr Wells interjected. Mr WHITE: It is all right for Opposition members; they will have a nice salacious time. As far as I am concemed, I think we are a mob of fools if we go along with the motion that has been moved, regrettably, by the Premier tonight. I know that over the years this has occurred. All honourable members will regret it. Mr Lingard: Do you think the Broncos will win again on Sunday? Mr WHITE: I am only interested in the Redcliffe Dolphins. The other issue that some members have referred to is that valuables that have been collected and very often handed down from grandparents to their grandchildren will be listed. They will be open for exposure to thieves—people who will to take advantage of that information to rifle honourable members' homes. Reference was made earlier tonight about the problem that Mr Innes referred to of somebody putting his name down at a video shop and then having his video machine stolen. This is a matter of considerable concem. I would hope that all members of the House, irrespective of the party to which they belong, will consider these matters very carefully before they allow themselves to be unfortunately tamished by irresponsible people in the media. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (1.15 a.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "In paragraph (4) (e), omit all words after 'unless' and substitute— 'there is some reasonable ground for believing that a member is, has been or is likely to be guilty of conflict of interest.'" In speaking to that amendment Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the honourable member continues with his speech, it would be helpful to me and, I would imagine, to everybody if he would read paragraph (e) as he proposes it should read. Mr SCHUNTNER: Yes, Mr Speaker. Paragraph (e) would then read— "(e) a person shall not publish or comment on information contained in the register unless there is some reasonable ground for believing that a member is, has been or is likely to be guilty of conflict of interest." The point of the amendment is to make a distinction between two matters that seem to have become mixed up. The first is that the motion as it stands would allow for publication on the basis of curiosity. Previous National Party speakers in this debate have expressed their desire not to see that happen. I believe that many other honourable members share that view. However, there will be grounds for publication if a conflict of interest is evident. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4975

Many times during this debate it has been said that the real point of this proposal is to prevent conflict of interest. If reasonable grounds exist for believing that conflict of interest is occurring or may occur, there would be no constraint on the person looking at the information, publishing it or commenting on it. However, if this amendment is accepted, it will not allow somebody to publish or comment on information just for the sake of satisfying curiosity. The point made by the Leader of the Opposition earUer was that 24 hours after 28 days had elapsed, all details of all members would be published through various media channels. Most honourable members felt that that was aot the desire or the intention of the proposal but that it was proper to have public access. Public access could occur if a conflict of interest was at stake. Let me emphasise the point that access is not altered. This amendment does not alter the earlier part of the proposal in which access by anyone is provided. All it does is place a constraint on publication or comment, on the basis that reasonable grounds exist for believing that conflict of interest has occurred. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling on a seconder, I ask the member to read the paragraph as he envisages it should be read. On the piece of paper that has been handed to me, the word "and" appears after the word "interest". I cannot foUow it. Mr SCHUNTNER: Paragraph (e) would read as follows— "(e) a person shall not publish or comment on information contained in the register unless there is some reasonable ground for believing that a member is, has been or is likely to be guilty of conflict of interest." Mr SPEAKER: Therefore, the word "and" should not appear in the honourable member's amendment? Mr SCHUNTNER: That would be correct. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (1.20 a.m.): I have pleasure in seconding the amendment. In supporting it, I point out that there are mles in Standing Orders regarding conflict of interest and contempt. Those provisions are very relevant to this amendment. Earlier, the Honourable Leader of the House saw fit to correct me in regard to the matter of contempt committed by people who misuse the information and who are not members of Parliament. With respect, I would point out to him that the section in Erskine May to which he refers does not apply to this Parliament because the matter is already covered by provisions in the Standing Orders. The first relevant part of the Standing Orders that is operative in relation to this proposal is Standing Order 158, which appears on page 37 of the current edition of Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly 1988. The heading is, "No Member Pecuniarily Interested May Vote". The provision reads— "158. A Member shall not be entitled to vote either in the House or in a Committee upon any Question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed." The reason for the register is to establish whether a member is in contempt of Standing Order 158. The reason for the register in this modem society is the fact that many channels of communication are available and a great deal of information can be researched. It will facilitate the Parliament knowing whether or not a breach of Standing Order 158 has occurred. That is what I am referring to. I am referring not to a register in isolation, but a register in relation to the laws that already exist in Queensland, such as the Criminal Code, a number of other statutes and the Standing Orders of this Parliament. The register is valueless if it has no relevance to the historical position as revealed by the statutes and Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 333 can only be used when the Standing Orders are silent on the matter, and the Standing Orders of this Parliament are not silent in regard to contempt or conflict of interests. The relevance of this resolution, when it has passed 4976 19 April 1989 Register of Members'Interests through this House, is that it relates directly to the provisions of the Standing Orders, the Criminal Code and the Constitution Act 1867-1978. That is why there is the register to establish and identify whether any member or Minister has a conflict of interest as a result of any debate or decision requiring the approval or ratification of this House or validation by Orders in Council, etc. In regard to contempt which arises not only for members of ParUament, but also members of the public. Standing Order No. 317 states— "When it is made to appear to the House that any person has committed any of the offences enumerated in the forty-fifth section of the 'Constitution Act o/1867,' a Motion shall be made, and the Question put, that such person be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House, on a day and at an hour to be named, and if the Question passes in the Affirmative, a copy of the Order of the House"— and the punishments follow. Is it seriously considered that when someone frivolously obtains information from the register and uses it in a way that is prejudicial to the member, this Govemment will go through the process of summoning that person to the bar of the House to deal with that contempt? The answer to that question is definitely, "No." A member would rise on a matter of privilege and, if necessary, if the matter is serious enough, he or she would have the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges. Such a committee did not exist when the original Standing Orders were drafted. However, the Constitution Act 1867-1978, to which this Standing Order refers, clearly states the conditions under which contempt of anybody in the community may be established. Section 45 appears on page 14 of the current Constitution Act. It sets out that the Legislative Assembly is empowered to punish for contempt, and the conditions under which contempt occurs are as follows: disobedience to any order of the House or of any committee duly authorised in that behalf to attend or to produce papers, books, records or other documents; refusing to be examined; assaulting, obstmcting or insulting any member; the sending to a member of any threatening letter; the sending of a challenge to fight a member; the offering of a bribe; and the creating or joining in with any disturbance in the House. I have not given you, Mr Speaker, the courtesy of examining this document, but I seek leave to table clause 45 of the Constitution Act and to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— 45. Houses empowered to punish summarily for certain contempts. The Legislative Assembly is hereby empowered to punish in a summary manner as for contempt by fine according to the standing orders of the House and in the event of such fine not being immediately paid by imprisonment in the custody of its own officer in such place within the colony as the House may direct or in Her Majesty's gaol at Brisbane until such fine shall have been paid or until the end of the then existing session or any portion thereof any of the offences hereinafter enumerated whether committed by a member of the House or by any other person— Disobedience to any order of the House or of any committee duly authorized in that behalf to attend or to produce papers books records or other documents before the House or such committee unless excused by the House in manner aforesaid. Refusing to be examined before or to answer any lawful and relevant question put by the House or any such committee unless excused by the House in manner aforesaid. The assaulting obstmcting or insulting any member in his coming to or going from the House or on account of his behaviour in Parliament or endeavouring to compel any member by force insult or menace to declare himself in favour of or against any proposition or matter depending or expected to be brought before the House. The sending to a member any threatening letter on account of his behaviour in Parliament. The sending a challenge to fight a member. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4977

The offering of a bribe to or attempting to bribe a member. The creating or joining in any disturbance in the House or in the vicinity of the House while the same is sitting whereby the proceedings of the House may be intermpted. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The question of frivolous, vexatious and capricious inquiry of the register that could and would be used—I am quite sure—to the detriment of the member and his family is quite unrelated to his conduct in the House or the confUct of interest. These situations should be prevented as far as possible, and the amendment moved by my colleague attempts to do just that. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (1.27 a.m.): The hour is late and I am at loss to know how this amendment will prevent the publication of a member's register of his interests. It seeks to add the words that there is some reasonable ground for believing that the member is, has been, or is likely to be guilty of conflict of interest. Someone will simply say, "I think you are all potentially guilty of conflict of interest", and publish the lot. What is this Govemment supposed to do about it then? It wiU happen, and the question is whether the register should be public or not. This issue has been debated and the Govemment has decided it will go ahead with the register. In this event it might as well be made public and the Govemment should be open about it. The Leader of the Liberal Party stated that I did not actually fit it to the forms, which is tme. I will have to do that after the motion passes throu^ this House. I have done it this way in order to indicate that there is no great peril or problem associated with it. This is a fairly standard experience in all Westminster Parliaments. The Government will monitor the situation, study it and listen to arguments and, if there is a need for amendment, the Govemment will react to genuine cases. I have taken advice in respect of the words "may" or "shaU", as raised by the honourable member for Aspley, and I am advised that the points she has raised are not correct. This Parliament cannot bind another Parliament in terms of what it will or will not judge to be a contempt; that is something for that Parliament to decide. Nobody can say to a Parliament, "You shall establish a certain offence as a contempt." The members of one Parliament will not vote just because a motion of a previous Parliament says that they have to; it just does not work that way. So in this context "may" and "shall" have the same effect. This debate has gone on for a very long time. I really believe that the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha has come up with a quite nonsensical, unworkable amendment that will not achieve anything at all. I suggest that it will be seen as a nonsense and should be rejected. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (1.30 a.m.): I wish to refer firstly to the debate about "may" or "shall". Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has nothing to do with the amendment. Mr INNES: I was just taking the same leave as other people had taken. It is a very short point. "May" and "shall" are quite different. With regard to the amendment, there is no duty or right for the public to know everything about every member of Parliament. The issue which is addressed, and is intended to be addressed, by a register of interests and by all the studies is the matter of public duty conflicting with private interests. It is a matter of conflict of interest. There is not a right for everybody to know everything about every member of Parliament, his family or anything else just because they would Uke to know. It is supposed to be directed towards the prevention of conflicts of interest. For either the Leader of the Opposition or the Premier to say that everybody has the right to know is wrong. That is not the purpose of the register. The amendment is not nonsensical. It addresses the issue of conflict of interest. As paragraph (3) (e)—it is wrongly (e), it should be (d)—is presently worded, newspapers 4978 19 April 1989 Register of Members' Interests can publish the information on a whole width of things unrelated to conflict of interest. No doubt they would just put forward the standard media claim of the right to know. The purpose of the amendment is to home in on what is the justification for this intmsion on privacy, that is, whether it relates to a conflict of interest. This amendment addresses that matter directly. Has the person been guilty, is he guilty, or is he about to become guilty of a conflict of interest? In those circumstances, it would be proper to publish. It seems to me that the amendment narrows the width of the paragraph and homes in on the specific question that should be addressed in this House tonight. The Premier's justification of his remarks is that it happens everywhere in the Westminster system. I thought I had amply demonstrated that people of far greater wisdom had looked at the issue and had decided quite different things. Mr Ahern: One report. Mr INNES: The same issues were referred to in other reports cited in that document. What is interesting is that the two parliamentary systems with the highest degrees of mles with regard to matters of cormption and conflict and with maximum provisions for disclosure are Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, where corruption has been rife. The two with the highest level of mles and the greatest provisions for disclosure are the two with the most consistent cormption. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has moved away from the amend­ ment again. Mr INNES: Mr Speaker, I am dealing directly with the argument raised by the Premier in dealing with the issue. Some room should be left for personal privacy, unless that privacy is overmled by another right, that is, the right of the Parliament to avoid conflicts of interest, and some sense of responsibility should be left for members of Parliament. Register of Members' Interests 19 April 1989 4979

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 10 NOES, 69 Beard Ahem Hynd Innes Alison Katter Knox Ardill Lingard Lee Austin Littleproud Lickiss Berghofer McCauley Schuntner Booth McEUigott Sherlock Borbidge McKechnie White Braddy Mackenroth Bums McPhie Burreket Menzel Campbell Milliner Casey Muntz Chapman Neal Clauson Newton Comben Palaszczuk Cooper Perrett D'Arcy Randell Davis Row De Lacy Sherrin Eaton Simpson Elliott Slack Fraser Smith Gamin Smyth Gately Stoneman Gibbs, I. J. Tenni Gibbs, R. J. Vaughan Gilmore Veivers Glasson Warburton Goss Wamer Gunn Wells Hamill Harper Harvey Hayward Tellers: Henderson Tellers: Beanland Hinton FitzGerald Gygar Hobbs Stephan Resolved in the negative. Motion, as amended, agreed to. The House adjoumed at 1.44 a.m. (Tl lursday).