Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3137

THURSDAY, 20 MAY 1993

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Runcorn Heights State Primary School From Mr Robertson (323 signatories) praying for the construction of an additional classroom block at the Runcorn Heights State Primary School. Petition received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid upon the table of the House— (a) Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing (Mr Gibbs)— (1) Queensland Government Youth Policy—a statement of Principles and Objectives (2) Youth Profile—Queensland Young People : Facts & Figures

(b) Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development (Mr Hamill)— Queensland Transport Policy—A Discussion Paper

(c) Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts (Mr Wells)— Royal Queensland Theatre Company—Report for 1992

(d) Minister for Health (Mr Hayward)— Review of the Mental Health Act— Background to the Review Defining Mental Illness Treatment of People with Mental Illness The Forensic Provisions.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr LITTLEPROUD (Western Downs) (10.03 a.m.): In view of the Auditor- General’s report, I seek leave to move a motion that the House censures the—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The member will resume his seat. Is the honourable member seeking leave to move a motion without notice? Mr LITTLEPROUD: My apologies. 3138 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 50 Beanland Veivers Ardill Mackenroth Connor Watson Barton McElligott Cooper Beattie McGrady Davidson Bennett Milliner Elliott Bird Nunn FitzGerald Braddy Pearce Gamin Bredhauer Power Gilmore Budd Purcell Goss J. N. Burns Pyke Grice Campbell Robertson Healy Casey Robson Hobbs Clark Rose Horan Comben Smith Lester D’Arcy Spence Lingard Davies Sullivan J. H. Littleproud De Lacy Sullivan T. B. McCauley Dollin Szczerbanik Mitchell Edmond Vaughan Perrett Elder Warner Quinn Fenlon Welford Rowell Foley Wells Sheldon Gibbs Woodgate Simpson Goss W. K. Stephan Tellers: Hamill Tellers: Stoneman Springborg Hayward Pitt Turner Laming Hollis Livingstone Resolved in the negative.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS Report and Transcript of Evidence Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (10.10 a.m.): I table the following report from the parliamentary Committee of Public Works: report into the Cairns Court House, police headquarters and watch-house complex. I move that the report be printed. Ordered to be printed. Ms SPENCE: I also lay upon the table the following transcript of evidence: Cairns Court House, police headquarters and watch-house complex—transcript of a public hearing held at Cairns on 19 April 1993. The Government is to be congratulated on the establishment of such an excellent facility in Cairns. The courthouse complex is serving its design purpose well and is a vast improvement on the previous inadequate facilities. The report just tabled contains recommendations which are required to be responded to in this Parliament by the responsible Ministers. I commend the report to the House and look forward to the relevant Ministers’ responses to the committee’s recommendations in due course. Finally, I thank committee members and research staff for their input into and support for this report.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Manual Arts Facilities in State Secondary Schools Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Education— “(1) What is the estimated cost of bringing all manual arts facilities in State secondary schools up to safety and health requirements as set out in the Workplace Health and Safety Act? Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3139

(2) How much money has the Government specifically allocated in its Budget for that purpose? (3) How can he allow thousands of students to use those facilities while at the same time imposing heavy fines on private businesses which do not conform to the requirements under the Act?” Mr COMBEN: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. (1) What is the estimated cost of bringing all manual arts facilities in State secondary schools up to safety and health requirements as set out in the Workplace Health and Safety Act? ¥ The objective of the Workplace Health and Safety Act is that work environments are safe environments. This does not necessarily require investment in upgrading works. It is not the intention of the Act to force organisations to make additional investments. Rather, a review of total work situations is expected and, if necessary, institution of revised work practices, management systems or physical changes may be adopted. It is not expected that the solution to any problems is an injection of money. ¥ Given that upgrading physical facilities may need to be balanced against sound management practices, the Department of Education has implemented a strategy of effecting local management of safety concerns in schools. This management is undertaken through the progressive establishment of Workplace Health and Safety committees in all schools which undertake ongoing identification of potential hazards and risk assessment. ¥ Once identified, hazards are ranked and prioritisation of action to overcome these is undertaken by the Principal. This action may consist of changes to work practices, reducing class size for certain activities, discontinuing certain activities or seeking rectification through Capital Works or Maintenance funding. ¥ The Workplace Health and Safety Act contains practicability provisions which acknowledge that remedial action for effective resolution of safety concerns may occur over time. While duty of care is paramount, these provisions allow for the scheduling of essential rectification works on a Maintenance or Capital Works Program. ¥ The Department of Education has devolved responsibility for Maintenance and Minor Capital Works to Regional Offices. Responsibility for rectification of safety hazards would rest with the relevant Regional Office and timing of such work would be dependent upon Regional priorities and the amount of funding available. ¥ The planning of new manual arts facilities takes into consideration Workplace Health and Safety legislative requirements. (2) How much money has the Government specifically allocated in its Budget for that purpose? ¥ The Department of Education is conscious of safety hazards in the workplace and of the importance which sound management practices play in the elimination or reduction of such hazards. ¥ As a catalyst to the principles of occupational health and safety management which aims to minimise, correct and control health and safety concerns, the Department has allocated funds towards — establishment of key occupational health and safety personnel in both central and regional offices — training programs for health/safety advisers and teaching staff, including manual arts teachers ¥ Fourteen dedicated occupational health and safety staff have been appointed in the Department. A progressive implementation of school based safety committees is under way. These committees are undertaking an audit of safety issues at each school prior to a balanced risk assessment and prioritisation of remedial action. 3140 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

¥ Funds have been allocated from Maintenance and Capital Works Programs for essential rectification of safety hazards in manual arts teaching spaces. Allocation of funds has been based upon both school and regional priorities. (3) How can he allow thousands of students to use those facilities while at the same time imposing heavy fines on private businesses which do not conform to the requirements under the Act? ¥ Responsibility for the administration of the Workplace Health and Safety Act rests with my colleague the Honourable Matt Foley MLA, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. ¥ The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 provides for an incremental phasing in of compliance with its legislation requirements in different industry sectors. Education is a "service" industry, the timeline for full compliance, in accordance with the Act is July 1994. ¥ The Department of Education is already bound by its "duty of care" provisions. The Department is conscious of the timeline for compliance with the legislation and has been proactive in — establishing mechanisms for risk identification and auditing of work practices — appointment of relevant personnel — initiating training programs — encouraging workpractices/codes of conduct for reducing safety hazards — recognising Workplace Health and Safety concerns in review of facilities design — progressive rectification of safety hazards through maintenance and capital programs. ¥ The Department of Education is aware that the Division of Workplace Health and Safety of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations may impose fines in the case of blatant breaches of the legislation. The Department of Education accepts that it is under the same obligation as industry to comply with the legislation (in accordance with timelines for compliance outlined in the Act) and does not expect nor receive any favourable treatment. ¥ The Department believes that its actions to effect sound management of risks through identification, prioritisation, local management, and programmed remediation will ensure self regulation and compliance with all aspects of the legislation.

2. Bureau of Emergency Services Mr COOPER asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services— “With reference to the Government's track record for bureaucratic empire building and the current PSMC review of the Bureau of Emergency Services, with its proposed new Operations Support Division, which seems certain to get the green light— (1) Will he guarantee that the PSMC's review processes will not lead to a loss of operational positions in order to staff the new Operations Support Division? (2) Will he table a report by Mr Michael Kinnane to the Bureau of Emergency Services' Board of Management, concerning the establishment of the Operations Support Division?” Mr BRADDY: (1 and 2) The Bureau of Emergency Services conducted an internal assessment late last year on the advantages and disadvantages associated with establishing a new operations support division designed to coordinate the various technical services sections currently located in each division of the bureau. The premise of the exercise was based on providing a mechanism for coordinated and practical operations support to enhance service delivery in the field. At the time, it was made clear that no such organisational change would proceed then or at any time unless endorsed by the Government after the PSMC review process. Such Government endorsement would only be received if the PSMC review indicated that the unit Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3141 provided a necessary component for more efficient field operations within the bureau. This proposal, along with others which bureau members believed would support better operational efficiencies within the bureau, was to be assessed on its merits as part of the PSMC review process which is currently proceeding. The report referred to by the honourable member in his question is a working document which was prepared for discussion within the bureau. The document is policy advice to the director and does not set out the bureau’s policy which, as I indicated earlier, would be decided by the Government after receiving the PSMC review report. It is not appropriate to table the report in this place. The honourable member’s speculation that an operations support division seems certain to get the green light is just that—speculation based on little information and a lack of understanding of the PSMC review process. The Government is determined that out of the PSMC review of the Bureau of Emergency Services will come a bureau and divisions of the bureau which are operationally based with maximum efficiency. This review is designed to have the maximum number of staff working in operational positions and administrative and bureaucratic processes cut back where necessary.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Auditor-General’s Report on Aboriginal and Island Councils Mrs SHELDON: I ask the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs: how many adverse reports by the Auditor-General does she have to receive outlining misappropriation of public funds, stealing, illegal loans, etc., before she will take action to end what amounts to benevolent apartheid? Ms WARNER: Can I take the last part of the honourable member’s question first? We are not involved in apartheid, benevolent or otherwise. If the honourable member had taken the time to read the Auditor-General’s report, she would have noted that the audits from the councils have been qualified in some respect in every year since they have existed, which was 1985. The reality of life on Aboriginal communities is significantly different from that of downtown Toowoomba or Caloundra. In relation to the understanding that Aboriginal people would have of the rather sophisticated processes of accounting and the importance of those processes—I think that they are less concerned about those matters. It does not really seem that relevant when they are living in places as remote as—— Opposition members interjected. Ms WARNER: I am talking about how Aboriginal people would be viewing this situation. To try to resolve that problem, the National Party—— Mr Littleproud: Tell us about your performance. You are the one who has to answer to the Auditor-General. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Western Downs! Ms WARNER: Mr Speaker, if members opposite want me to answer the question, I think they have to listen to the answer. An Opposition member: No, we don’t have to. Ms WARNER: If members opposite do not want to listen, I will not answer. When it was in Government, the National Party carried out the accounting work for Aboriginal councils via what was called the transition team. That team actually carried out that work for those councils. All of the problems of self-management and accounting which have now been exposed were covered up by that process. 3142 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

This Government will not be involved in any level of cover-up. The Auditor- General’s report exposes life in Aboriginal and island councils—warts and all. There is nothing better than having an up-front accounting mechanism by which people know exactly what problems exist. We will struggle with Aboriginal communities to resolve those up-front problems revealed by the Auditor-General’s report. We will not be involved in covering up; we will not be involved in hiding the problems under the carpet. The reality of life in Aboriginal communities is that a level of systemic disadvantage exists, and that must be undone. That will not occur simply via accounting mechanisms. It will occur through Aboriginal people taking full responsibility for their own lives and using their own capabilities—not having hand-outs or Governments doing it for them.

Auditor-General’s Report on Aboriginal and Island Councils Mrs SHELDON: That is a case of absolute ministerial irresponsibility. In directing a further question to the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I refer her to page 7 of the Auditor-General’s report on the audits of the Aboriginal and island councils. The Auditor-General reports cash and/or stock shortages from enterprise operations amounting to $277,561; theft of cash wages in transit totalling $44,000; lack of documentation on payments to creditors totalling $871,958; and lack of supporting pay sheets for $519,000 in wages. I ask the Minister: why has she allowed this disgraceful situation to continue, and what action has she taken to clean up this financial mess? Now that the Premier has told her the answer, she might be able to enlighten this House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, let us get something straight about question time. Members will ask one question and then they will ask the next question. I will be annoyed if honourable members add comments to their questions, as the Deputy Leader of the Coalition just did. That serves only to stir up this House. I suggest that honourable members ask their questions, then listen to the answers. Ms WARNER: Make no mistake: if any moneys are stolen from Aboriginal councils or if any clear fiddling of books occurs, the people responsible for those crimes will be punished with the full force of the law. I repeat—there will be no cover-up of the reality of life on Aboriginal communities, as occurred for years and years during the National Party Government, under which systemic disadvantage was levelled at Aboriginal people. The theft of $17,000 from the Boigu council payroll on Horn Island, the theft of $19,000 from the canteen at Darnley Island and those matters to which the honourable member referred have all been reported to the police for proper and appropriate investigation. They are matters for criminal prosecution rather than being simple accounting procedures or administrative matters. Non-contact Time for Teachers Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer him to the call by the Queensland Teachers Union for the introduction of 210 minutes’ non-contact time for preschool, primary school and special school teachers and the planned industrial action next week which will disrupt students’ learning, and I ask: can the Minister inform the House what would be the cost of that proposal to the Department of Education? Mr COMBEN: The cost to the Education Department in this State of 210 minutes of non-contact time to each preschool, primary school and special school teacher would be $98m. In general terms, my commitment is to the students of this State. This Government will do everything it can to ensure that their educational needs are the first priority. At a time when every other State Government in Australia is reducing its Education budget, the Queensland Government is increasing it, and it will continue to do so to ensure that we provide the best and most appropriate educational standards to our students. They will be our first priority. Mr Elliott interjected. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3143

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order 123A. Mr COMBEN: Over the past three years, 2 700 teachers have been employed and teacher salaries have risen from being the lowest in Australia under the former Government to now being on a par with the best in Australia. That can be compared with the sorts of policies being implemented by the Liberal Government in Victoria. In that State, the Education budget has been cut by more than $320m; 2 175 teacher positions have been slashed; 830 school support staff positions have been axed; 3 500 cleaners have been sacked—— Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr COMBEN: That Government has forced the closure of 55 schools, as the member for Cook said, and it has reduced funding for capital works by $70m. The Queensland Teachers Union says, “Just spend another $98m.” When I have asked the officers of that union from where do we get the money, they have said, “Increase taxes.” At present, they are using their members’ funds to conduct a survey to show that the people of Queensland want increased taxes to pay for improved benefits for teachers. Mr W. K. Goss interjected. Mr COMBEN: I certainly agree with the Premier. If we had an extra $98m, we could build approximately 10 new high schools or at least 30 new primary schools; reduce class sizes by up to four students per class; triple our current school grants program; expand our Computers in Schools program 10-fold; or massively expand our LOTE program by a factor of five. At the end of the day, I will be taking into account what parents are saying and what students need, and I will be making sure that we make the best decisions for the benefit of students—not enhancing teachers positions at the cost of students.

Alleged Ministerial Intervention in Rezoning Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning, I refer to statements in the Courier-Mail of 19 May 1993 by the Deputy Leader of the Coalition, Mrs Sheldon, in which she states that the Minister had indulged in a ministerial rezoning and placed himself above the law, and in which she further states that this case should cause concern for every local authority in Queensland. I ask: can the Minister outline to this Parliament whether he has a statutory role to play in rezonings? Mr MACKENROTH: I am aware of the statements that have been made by Mrs Sheldon, the member for Caloundra, in relation a block of land on the north coast. Mr FitzGerald: A ministerial rezoning. Mr MACKENROTH: No, it is not a ministerial rezoning. The land was zoned Rural, and it is still zoned Rural. It definitely cannot in any way be regarded as a ministerial rezoning. Under sections 4 and 7 of the Planning and Environment Act, as the Minister I have a statutory role to play in the rezoning of land, because the Executive Council takes recommendations from me. Mrs SHELDON: You complained about the previous Government using that provision. Mr MACKENROTH: If the honourable member listens for a minute, I will explain the situation fully to her. When a rezoning comes from a council to the Executive Council, a range of matters have to be considered, such as taking into account the input that Government departments have had in relation to the Government’s policies, the objections that have been received in relation to different areas and the representations that have been made by members of Parliament, particularly local members of Parliament. 3144 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Yesterday, I signed a letter to a member of Parliament in acknowledgment of a letter that I had received, which simply stated that that member had received representations on behalf of a constituent in relation to his objection to a rezoning of his property. The letter went on to say that the member would appreciate my consideration and response. In other words, the member wanted me to take some action in relation to a council’s rezoning decision. That is what that letter asked me to do. The local member asked me, as the Minister for Local Government, to please take some action, as she was not happy with what the council had done. That letter came from none other than the member for Caloundra, Mrs Joan Sheldon. She wrote this letter to me on 12 May, and then on Tuesday, in Parliament, she accused me of a ministerial rezoning. A couple of days before, she had written to me, asking me to interfere in a council decision, because it suited her. That is without a doubt one of the most hypocritical things that I have ever heard.

Auditor-General’s Report on Aboriginal and Island Councils Mr LITTLEPROUD: I refer the Minister to her reported statement in the Courier- Mail in relation to the Auditor-General’s report on Aboriginal and island councils, which quotes her as saying— “There have been no allegations of misappropriation.” In view of cash shortages, stock shortages, and unsubstantiated payments to creditors totalling more than $1.5m, not to mention the theft of cash wages in transit, I ask the Minister: on what basis can she claim that there has been no misappropriation involved? Ms WARNER: The reality is that although the report found that there were shortages of money and that it could not account for them, on the other hand, it could not definitely say that there had been misappropriation. The matters of theft have been reported to the police, and that is a different process. I will refer to a letter that I received from the Auditor-General, in which he states quite clearly that in no way is he being openly critical of either the Government or the councils in relation to the whole issue. There may very well be individuals within the system who are not doing the right thing. As I say, it is the department’s task to find those individuals and bring them to justice. However, the reality is that the whole council cannot be blamed for that issue, because it is the crimes of individuals that the department seeks to uncover. As I said before, the department will do so in an open and accountable fashion; it will not cover it up. The Auditor-General’s report will be investigated fully, and if the department can bring those individuals to justice, it will do so.

Auditor-General’s Report on Aboriginal and Island Councils Mr LITTLEPROUD: In directing my second question to the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I refer her to page 2 of the Auditor- General’s report on Aboriginal and island councils, which states— “It was anticipated that the form of financial statements would be prescribed by the Minister, however no prescriptions have been made to date.” In view of the misappropriations and abuses that are occurring, I ask the Minister: why has she not complied with the relevant Acts by providing councils with the prescribed form of financial reporting? Does this not constitute gross negligence on her part? Ms WARNER: The honourable member misunderstands the situation. The reality is that the Auditor-General is doing just that—he is following the Act in terms of the processes and formats of the accounting mechanism. Mr Littleproud: The Act prescribes it. Ms WARNER: I do not know why the honourable member asked the question if he does not want to listen to the answer. The point that I wish to make—and I will Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3145 explain it very carefully and very slowly so that the honourable member understands—is that under the accounting mechanisms contained in the Act, the Auditor-General is applying fairly complex mechanisms. What we are trying to do with the chairpersons of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council and the Island Coordinating Council—— Mr Littleproud: You haven’t done what is in the Act. Ms WARNER: So that everybody understands the process, there has been consultation with those communities and with those chairmen to develop an accounting procedures manual which will allow for the prescribed form to be given to the Auditor- General. Until that occurs, he follows the Act of Parliament. Once that occurs, he will follow the form that the department will develop with those communities. However, those matters cannot happen—— Mr Littleproud: The Act was passed in 1984. Ms WARNER: I do not recall that the previous National Party Government developed such forms for the Auditor-General. I do not understand why the member opposite believes that it has suddenly become imperative that the Government does that. The department has been involved in the long, tedious and painful process of trying to undo the mess that the previous National Party Government created with that Act in 1985. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Western Downs under Standing Order 123A. Ms WARNER: The department will accomplish that task with the cooperation of Aboriginal and Islander people. Bearing in mind their rights as citizens, it will not treat them like children. It will not be patronising. It understands that they have only one way to go from the position in which the previous National Party Government left them, and that is up.

Commonwealth Grants Commission Determinations Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Premier: can he inform the House what case the Queensland Government has put to the Federal Government in response to claims by New South Wales and Victoria that, under the Commonwealth Grants Commission determinations, they are subsidising States such as Queensland? Mr W. K. GOSS: I believe that it is important that all members in this State put the lie to the claim that is being made by the New South Wales and Victorian Governments that they are subsidising States such as Queensland under the policy known as fiscal equalisation. We have just seen the start of the campaign from the Premiers of those two States. In the next couple of months, we will see an increasing campaign in the lead-up to the Financial Premiers Conference in July to say that the policy of fiscal equalisation should be removed. A very aggressive campaign is going on, targeted at both the national press and the Federal Treasury. I have been at pains to point out to the Prime Minister that the sort of so-called economic rationalist approach being taken by those two southern States is, in fact, a smokescreen for their own financial mismanagement and the fact that they are overspending and have lost control of their own Budgets. What needs to be reinforced in the public debate time and time again is, firstly, that fiscal equalisation is simply a policy that enables all State Governments to deliver to Australians, no matter where they live, an equivalent level of services. It recognises the fact that it is more expensive to deliver a particular community service in Boulia than it is in Bendigo, for example. It is simply about equity and a fair go for all Australians. One really must question the competence of the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales if they cannot deliver their services substantially cheaper when they have much shorter lines of servicing and much more concentrated populations. 3146 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Recent figures calculated by the Queensland Treasury show what the real problem is in Victoria and New South Wales. I point to two statistics. The argument from New South Wales and Victoria that they are subsidising lower taxes in States such as Queensland is completely spurious. The root cause of their budget problems is their own fiscal mismanagement and their lack of discipline. I cite two statistics. The Commonwealth Grants Commission figures for the year 1991-92 show that the combined deficit of New South Wales and Victoria on a per capita basis was $296.48, compared with a surplus of $56.68 per capita in Queensland. So that is the first part of their problem—a big deficit. The second point—and I think that this is the most telling point—is expenditure. This is the real source of the problems of New South Wales and Victoria, to which they will not admit. The Commonwealth Grants Commission report, as analysed by our Treasury, shows clearly that expenditure in New South Wales was $275.72 per capita higher than in Queensland. That is $1.6 billion. If they get their spending under control, they will not have a budget problem. In Victoria, they are spending $394.59 per head higher than in Queensland. That is $1.8 billion. Those figures are for 1991-92. Their situation has not improved a great deal. All they have done is continue to complain and blame others for their own problems. For New South Wales and Victoria for the 1991-92 year—excessive spending of the order of $3.4 billion. If they get their budgets under control, they will have no problems.

Student Literacy Skills Mr LIVINGSTONE: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to recent media statements from the Opposition spokesman on Education, the member for Merrimac, Mr Quinn, about an Education Department report on students’ literacy skills. Mr Quinn has criticised the report and claims that it is inaccurate. I ask: can the Minister provide to the House a response to this claim? Mr COMBEN: I can, and with great pleasure. The 1992 Assessment of Performance Program report considered for the first time ever an assessment of literacy skills of our young students. We have never before been able to compare year to year. Tragically, the very positive outcomes from that report have again been attacked by Mr Quinn, who is perpetrating the myth that our young students today cannot spell as well and are not as literate as we were 30 years ago. The reality is that our young people today are spelling better and are more literate. The report was very comprehensive. It was done with the assistance and imprimatur of the Australian Council for Education Research, which expressed great confidence in the re-scaling process and in the comparisons derived from it. The comparisons were not exact, but with a cohort of 6 000 students they were close enough to be able to show the slight but significant improvement in literacy. Mr Quinn: Why did you reduce the sample from 20 000 to 6 000? Why did you cut the number of schools down? Answer those. Mr COMBEN: It is a great compliment to the $15m literacy project introduced by my predecessor, Mr Braddy. That $15m being spent on literacy provides new resources in schools, enhanced professional development for teachers in Years 1 to 9, and the introduction of a new English language arts syllabus emphasising literacy throughout Queensland by next year. Originally, we had a cohort of some 20 000 students to make sure that the standards existed across-the-board, because if we had taken a small cohort it might not have been adequate to go across Queensland. When it was clear that the cohort was showing that the standards were the same for the second year, we could then do it with a better sample of only 6 000.

Detention of Aboriginal Children Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3147

Mr LINGARD: In directing a question to the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I refer to the recommendation of the Aboriginal deaths in custody royal commission that “Aboriginal legal services and parents be immediately notified that a child has been detained.” I also refer to an incident in which a 14-year-old boy was found by the Cherbourg community police to be sniffing petrol. He was taken to the Murgon office of the Family Services Department, seen by the Government Medical Officer and then transported to Brisbane, where an attempt was made to have the boy admitted to a mental hospital—all without authorities notifying his parents. I ask: does the Minister condone those actions, and will she take action to have this matter investigated? Ms WARNER: As I understand the report to which the honourable member is referring, which is the report from the Aboriginal child care agency, when the police brought the boy to the Family Services office, the Family Services Department was reported not to have accepted custody of him without contacting his parents. We were commended for that action. The process by which children are taken into custody without their parents being fully informing of their whereabouts is something that cannot continue, which cannot be condoned and is a practice within the police force that we are trying to eliminate.

Heiner Inquiry Documents; Mr P. Coyne Mr LINGARD: In directing a second question to the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I refer to her statement of 18 May 1993 that the disposal of the Heiner documents was done to reduce the risk of legal action. I table a copy of the minutes of a meeting between the Family Services Department and the Queensland State Service Union regarding Peter Coyne and the terms of reference for the Heiner inquiry. The then Director-General of Family Services officially accepted those written complaints against Peter Coyne, which legally became official departmental records. Coyne had a statutory right of access to those records and to other Heiner documents. The Minister’s department possessed records stating Coyne’s intention to sue for defamation, in which those documents would be a central and vital feature. Coyne’s solicitors asked for access to those documents, but the Minister’s department—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a statement rather than a question. I will let this one get by, but I warn members that questions that debate an issue will be ruled out of order. Mr LINGARD:—realised that those documents were damaging to the department. I ask: what did the Minister do to prevent those documents being shredded? Ms WARNER: I ask the honourable member to put the question on notice. Apart from the fact that it is fairly biblical in length, the particular documents to which he is referring are unclear. If he puts it on notice, I will find out which documents he is referring to. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the honourable member do so accordingly? Mr LINGARD: I put the question on notice.

Speed Limit Review Mrs EDMOND: In asking a question of the Minister for Transport, I refer to the editorial in the Courier-Mail earlier this year which suggested that traffic in Queensland might profit from a review of State speed limits. I ask: what is the Queensland Government doing to ensure that speed limits in both urban and community areas are appropriate? Mr HAMILL: It is indeed a case in which the Department of Transport is examining the basis upon which speed limits in the State are struck. That report will be with me in 3148 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly about a month’s time. The agenda for that review is to establish whether the speed limits that we apply in this State are appropriate to modern day road use. The Travelsafe Committee has put its mind to this issue, and a number of suggestions have been made that on our open roads and on our better constructed dual carriageways there ought to be an increase in the permissible speed limit. As well, a number of local authorities have suggested—I agree with them—that there ought to be greater flexibility in urban areas to establish appropriate speed limits, particularly in suburban streets which are not carrying arterial traffic. As the honourable member would be aware—because this policy was implemented after a good deal of lobbying from herself—we have had considerable success and a lot of praise with our implementation of school zones with a reduced speed limit around schools. That has certainly enhanced school safety. I believe that reduced speed limits on suburban streets will enhance the quality of life for residents in those areas. I urge local authorities to address that issue. We will be acting shortly on the findings of our review, which will probably lead to a more appropriate level of speed permissible on Queensland’s roads.

Police Clustering Mrs EDMOND: I thank the Minister for his encouraging answer. I direct my second question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In January last year, the system of police clustering was introduced in the Toowong police division on a trial basis. Since then, all of the Mount Coot-tha electorate has been covered by police clustering based on the Toowong and Red Hill stations. I ask: can he inform the House on the outcome of police clustering in that area? Mr BRADDY: The basic principle behind police clustering is to enable the Police Service to pool police resources among stations so that more police are available to serve their community at an operational level. Between January and June last year, a pilot police clustering program was conducted at Indooroopilly, Kenmore, Toowong and Torwood. The results were more than satisfactory; indeed, they were very encouraging. We have discovered that for a comparative period after police clustering as compared with an earlier time there was a 20 per cent reduction in major crime. For example, after its introduction to the Red Hill area, breaking and entering offences there have been progressively reduced from 101 in September 1992 to 40 in February 1993. The initial idea to have more police available certainly has worked. In the Toowong cluster, for example, staffing increased from 23 to 41, while in Red Hill it increased from 16 to 41. With the Toowong cluster, we found that there was a reduction of approximately 16 per cent in breaking and entering offences. Through cooperation with the management of shopping centres in the Toowong cluster, there has been a significant reduction in motor vehicle theft and unlawful use of motor vehicles from shopping centres. That was reduced from 39 in November 1992 to 20 in February 1993. During that same period, within the Red Hill cluster the incidence of motor vehicle theft and unlawful use was reduced from 18 to 8. The concept has been extremely successful both in deploying more police officers for operational policing and in its major aim of reducing crime and solving crime. The geographical areas once required to be patrolled by mobile patrols have been greatly reduced and we are now able to provide 24-hour patrols within the three areas that have been targeted. As a result, the police cluster concept has been implemented within the entire metropolitan north region, and it now includes the police divisions of Red Hill, Bardon and The Gap. It has been an extremely successful program. I commend the police for their planning of it and the resultant operational efficiency.

Availability of Water for Urban and Rural Consumers Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3149

Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer to the increasing demand for water in most of Queensland, particularly in areas of substantial residential growth, and to the heavy demands for water—for example, from the Barambah Dam—previously allocated for primary production, and I ask: what charges are being considered for water for residential use and for primary producers? Will primary producers be assured their allocation of water purchased will be available? Mr CASEY: Firstly, in answer to the latter part of the question, the primary producers of Queensland can be assured that, in accordance with the storage capacity and the rainfall in the various regions of the State, water will be available. However, at present, there are serious deficiencies of water in several areas of Queensland mainly because of the very dry weather conditions and low rainfall that we have experienced for the last three years. I am sure that the member, in common with all honourable members, would be aware of that. I have spoken with members from both sides of the House about water stores in their particular electorates, and some have major cause for concern. Unless Queensland receives a reasonable rainfall during the year and a very good wet season, 1994 will bring with it very serious problems for our water storage areas. Mr FitzGerald: That’s not the question—the competition between urban and rural consumers. Mr CASEY: The honourable member should just be quiet and go back to his little funk hole. I will answer the member’s question because he is seriously concerned about this problem, as are all Queenslanders. It is something that not I, the Water Resources Commission or local members can do anything about. I think that the member would realise that. Part of the honourable member’s question referred to the fact that, for the first time in this State, the Goss Government has undertaken studies of the water resources for the next 50 to 100 years in relation to all requirements—whether it be for irrigation, urban supply or for industrial purposes. The major study was conducted in south-east Queensland, and it settled the major controversy about the Wolffdene dam that was left on our plate when we came to office. That is progressing well. The latter part of that study was conducted in the honourable member’s own electorate. The Mary River catchment study was released recently, and the study of north coast water requirements is currently the subject of further consultation in the community. As I understand, members of the community are very happy with the way in which that study is being presented and with the opportunity for input and the opportunity to undertake their own form of consultation. The third major point I make is that, in consultation with the Premier immediately after the election, we initiated in Queensland a study of the overall resources of the State. It is a major deal. I will be direct and frank in saying that for too many years in this State the determination of where major water storage and development went was made on political grounds and on political bases. This Government wants to get right away from that because, obviously, in the future, water is going to be too scarce a commodity in this State. We are conducting a major study in this State. We are bringing together many reports that have been issued throughout the years—by the previous Government, by this Government and even some reports that were issued in the days of the former Labor Government of this State. They will be coordinated into a major package which, for the first time, will give Queensland an overview of where we ought to go to get the best return for the development of our water resources in this State.

Gympie TAFE College Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, I refer to reports and concern regarding the future of the Gympie TAFE College, and I ask: is it correct that this college will be attached to the 3150 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Sunshine Coast, thus reducing its economy? Is it correct that employees are to be sacked and will be required to reapply for their own positions? Mr FOLEY: I am aware that there is currently a review of the proposal to amalgamate the Sunshine Coast Community College and the Gympie TAFE college. That process has included the preparation of a discussion paper entitled A Proposal to Increase and Improve TAFE Services at the Sunshine Coast and Gympie. That discussion paper was prepared by my department, and the paper is designed with a view to encouraging input from industry, the community, TAFE staff and other stakeholders in order to determine the most appropriate way of proceeding. No decision has been made upon the proposed amalgamation. The amalgamation, if it were to proceed, would be designed to rationalise and enhance the provision of vocational education and training services in that area. Certainly, far from there being reductions in employment in the TAFE system, the whole thrust of this Government has been to increase training opportunities and to increase employment opportunities. That is why there has been a 90 per cent increase in the funding of TAFE facilities during the course of the Goss Government. So, certainly, this is not a process designed at slashing jobs, nor is it a process designed to limit the provision of TAFE services. Throughout the State, TAFE colleges exist with a number of campuses. They perform a very important and vital function, and I know that many members of this House have spoken with me about their desire for further TAFE facilities in their electorates. That expansion and development of the vocational educational and training system results in pressure on TAFE to improve its output, and so it is necessary from time to time to look at the most efficient, effective and equitable ways of organising that. That is what the process of review on the Sunshine Coast and Gympie in the TAFE sector is all about.

Provisional Heritage Listing of Castle Hill Mr DAVIES: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I refer to articles in yesterday’s and today’s Townsville Bulletin relating to an application to list Castle Hill on the heritage register. I ask: can she explain the actions she intends to take relating to these matters? Ms ROBSON: I thank the honourable member for his question on an issue about which he has expressed concern to me over the period since this provisional listing has been considered. Our concern is that statements made by the Mayor of Townsville, Alderman Tony Mooney, which were quoted in yesterday’s Townsville Bulletin, make some serious allegations about officers of the Department of Environment and Heritage. Firstly, I must say that I am very disappointed that a person who holds such a senior position should make accusations against public servants who have no right of reply. The article in the Townsville Bulletin begins with a claim by Alderman Mooney that “Department of Environment and Heritage officers altered an application which led to the provisional listing of Castle Hill as an historical site”. This claim is fundamentally wrong. The article also states that I will make a decision within the next month on whether to make permanent the listing of Castle Hill on the heritage register. This is also incorrect. I do not make decisions on any heritage listing. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms ROBSON: As we continually say in this House, the Heritage Council makes decisions on heritage listing. On 17 March this year, an independent assessor was appointed to consider objections to the provisional listing of Castle Hill on the heritage register. That report was received by my department on 17 May. On 28 May, the Heritage Council will consider the assessor’s report and decide whether or not to proceed with the permanent listing of Castle Hill on the heritage register. In yesterday’s newspaper article, Alderman Mooney is quoted as saying that documents procured by the Townsville City Council under a freedom of information Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3151 request showed that officers involved in researching and processing the applications to list Castle Hill had acted outside their normal duties. Specifically, he says that a Mrs Helen Lucas, who is a heritage research officer in my department’s Northern Regional Centre, had been involved in doing research which was added to this application by the North Queensland Conservation Council before it was sent to the Heritage Council for consideration. According to Alderman Mooney, Mrs Lucas is a member of Friends of Castle Hill—a group which he says “has strenuously opposed any development on Castle Hill”. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms ROBSON: The reason why Alderman Mooney knows that Mrs Lucas is a member of the Friends of Castle Hill is because this information was freely provided to him by my department’s northern regional director. We gave him the information. It is absolutely not a secret that she is a member of that organisation, but she was never involved in the North Queensland Conservation Council’s preparation of its application to the Heritage Council to list Castle Hill. She only provided advice, in accordance with her duties, on the department’s requirements for listing that application. She was not directly involved in the processing of the departmental application material provided to the Heritage Council for consideration. Nor was Mrs Lucas “the officer responsible for processing the NQCC application”, as claimed by Alderman Mooney. As soon as Mrs Lucas had passed on information, which she was requested to research and prepare as part of her normal duties, she no longer played an active role in the department’s preparation of the Castle Hill application. It is very important that be understood because she has had unfair accusations made against her. Alderman Mooney’s claims that “the original application by the North Queensland Conservation Council was doctored before it went to the Heritage Council and the department” are false and are rejected absolutely. Finally, Alderman Mooney’s claim that another departmental officer, Pauline Semple, had highlighted a number of “gross inaccuracies” in a briefing note on this issue prepared for my predecessor, Mr Comben, is also rejected. The information to which Alderman Mooney refers was supplied to Ms Semple by the Townsville City Council’s planning department by telephone on 11 May 1992 and subsequently by correspondence. It related to the number of units in the proposed development. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is debating the question.

Commercial Research and Development Funding Mr DAVIES: I ask the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development: will he outline the State Government’s moves to support commercial research and development in Queensland? Mr ELDER: This is a very timely question because Queensland needs to undertake research and development to turn raw materials into finished products. In other words, this is the value-adding process that this Government is committed to encouraging. The reality of life is that after years of neglect by the previous coalition and National Party Governments in this State, who thought that all we had to do in Queensland was either dig it up or grow it—that old mine and paddock approach—Queensland is now facing greater difficulties in attracting Federal funding for research and development. The problem was that, generally, Canberra bureaucrats tended not to take Queensland research and development seriously. As the member for Mundingburra is well aware, Queensland has some 16 per cent of the population but receives only 7.2 per cent of available Federal funds for R and D. This Government has had to fill the gap. This Government spends $150m a year on research and development. In contrast to that, Victoria, which receives some 27 per cent of Federal funding, spends only $75m a year on research and development. This 3152 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Government has had to address that particular inequity. As the Premier said earlier, one looks for a fair go. One hears complaints coming from New South Wales and Victoria, but they do not talk about the biases in these particular areas of funding. As I said, we have had to deal with this problem, and we are particularly interested in supporting private companies in their research. As a Government, this year we have committed a further $2m to supporting the Queensland grants for industrial research and development. As I say, that is designed to particularly focus and target private company research. A good example of it is in the Townsville region. Mr Davies would be aware of B. E. W. R. Marine and its owner, Mr Terry Dodd. That company is making permanent moorings on the Great Barrier Reef. Through the support from the Government, it has developed a screw that drills into the reef, and all that is left on the reef is an eye. The old way of doing it was to have concrete blocks floating around the reef, which over a long period did the reef considerable damage. I know that the Minister for Environment would support that sort of research by those private companies. An Opposition member interjected. Mr ELDER: The honourable member should not make folly of it; this is a serious matter. Because the Government has supported that research and development, Mr Dodd expects export orders in the Maldives, Indonesia, Thailand and other archipelagos bordered by reefs. By helping him, by creating that opportunity, the Government is providing more job opportunities in the member’s electorate and providing opportunities for that company in the export field. It is only one of many fields in which the Government has helped, such as information technology, communications, biomedical research, pharmaceutical research and general manufacturing. It is important to note that the Government recognised that there was an inequity. It has put the processes in place to enhance opportunities for those businesses and, in the long term, to enhance job growth in this State.

Electricity Prices Dr WATSON: In directing a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, I refer to the loan guarantee fee introduced by the Goss Government which has been levied on the Queensland electricity supply industry for the past three financial years, including this year. When introducing that levy, the Treasurer indicated that it would not lead to increased charges for consumers. I ask the Minister: over the past three years, has that fee impacted adversely on costs to consumers for electric power used by them? Mr McGRADY: It is rather a silly question because the policy of the Queensland Government on electricity price increases is that prices will not increase by more than 50 per cent of the CPI. For the past six years, that has been the case. That is the answer to the honourable member’s question.

Electricity Prices Dr WATSON: In directing a further question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, I note the Minister’s reply. If he is correct in his assertions, why has the average revenue per customer risen from $1,554 per customer in 1989-90—the year before the levy was introduced—to $1,599 per customer in 1991-92, while the actual operating costs, excluding the levy, have fallen from $649 per customer in 1989-90 to $629 per customer in 1992, yet average consumption per customer remains at the same level? Mr McGRADY: Mr Speaker—— Mr FitzGerald: Dunno! Mr McGRADY: Do you want an answer? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should address his answer through the Chair. I ask for order on the Opposition side, too. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3153

Mr McGRADY: Mr Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, the bottom line is that, whether the Opposition likes it or not, the price of electricity in Queensland is cheaper than it is in any other State in the Commonwealth. Recently, I was at a goldmine—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must warn the member for Southport. The member for Southport is getting a reputation for being warned every day this week under Standing Order 123A. I keep him to that. I warn him again. This is definitely the last warning for the week. I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A. Mr McGRADY: Recently, I was at a goldmine in north Queensland. Mr Connor: Yes, change the subject. Mr McGRADY: I will sit down. If you think that you are going to ask questions and then try to give the answers, you are welcome to it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been a nice day. I suggest that the Minister answer the question through the Chair. Mr McGRADY: Recently, I was at a goldmine in north Queensland. The company involved had a similar operation in Western Australia. The price of its power in Western Australia was 250 per cent more than the price that it pays in Queensland. The policy of the Government is that there will be no increases of more than 50 per cent of the CPI. The member for Moggill can use all the figures that he wants in this House. The bottom line is that the price of electricity in this State is cheaper than it is in any other State in the Commonwealth.

Hospital Rebuilding Plan Mr BREDHAUER: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer the Minister to State Cabinet’s approval this week for a major health capital works and hospital re-equipping program, and I ask: can he advise how that fits in with State Government policy on Aboriginal and Islander health? What impact will it have on conditions for remote area health workers? Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for his question. Everyone in this House would acknowledge his longstanding commitment to improving health care in the remote area communities that make up his electorate. The $1.5 billion 10-year hospital rebuilding plan will enable the Goss Government to implement its already stated policies aimed at improving the historically neglected state of health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this State. There can be no doubt that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have a much lower health status than any other Australians. That is principally a result of years of neglect by successive conservative Governments. The second part of the member’s question is equally important because it highlights the need to provide suitable facilities and staff accommodation as a basis for recruiting health professionals to work in remote areas. The first year’s schedule of the 10-year program contains provision for the construction of health worker accommodation worth a total of $5m at six locations on Cape York. That accommodation will be built at Lockhart River, Pompuraaw, Aurukun, Kowanyama, Wujal Wujal and Bamaga and should be completed by the middle of next year. A lack of suitable accommodation has caused difficulties in attracting and retaining staff in many areas on the cape, which means that some communities at different times have been deprived of basic health services. However, even with staff, a lack of health facilities has meant that the people living in the cape’s remote communities were not getting what I considered was fair and equitable access to the standard of health care to which I believe, and the honourable member believes, they are entitled. That is why the program’s first year also contains provision for $7.7m for the completion of primary health care centres at eight locations 3154 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly in the Cape York/Torres Strait region. Those eight centres, worth a total of $10.8m, are being built at Horn Island, Lockhart River, Kowanyama, Aurukun, Napranum, Pompuraaw, Wujal Wujal and Mapoon. The first of them should be opened by the middle of next year. The commitment from this State Government to upgrade facilities will make it easier to attract staff, so providing those remote communities with a better standard of health care. Under this Government, the rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to adequate health care is at last being recognised and, more importantly, addressed.

Business Opportunities in Weipa Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the Minister for that answer. My second question is to the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development. The Minister is aware of the importance of the small-business sector to regional economies, even in remote areas. I ask: can he advise what support his department is giving to the identification of business opportunities in Weipa? Mr ELDER: I thank the honourable member for his question. In terms of business opportunities, I arranged for my department to conduct a Future Search workshop in the Weipa area. That will be held on 1 June. We expect that some 150 people will attend that workshop. As we all know, Weipa started off as a company town, but as time has gone on it is appropriate now that we take a broader look at the development of Cape York. The number of people living in Cape York has increased significantly over the last few years. They are self-starters and goers. As the member for Cook realises, it is important that they have a say in the future development of that area. The workshop is all about getting the whole community together to talk about their general economic direction, to talk about the future instead of depending on one particular industry. However, it is not just talk. Officers from my department will be there and they will follow up what we believe will be real outcomes from the Future Search workshops. More importantly, though, they will be focused outcomes. At the end of the day, that is what Future Search is all about—realistic outcomes, particularly from those community-minded and community-generated meetings. At the end of the day, we as a Government are about economic growth and job opportunities. The best plans for that are those that actually come from the community, not necessarily those from a centralised bureaucracy. Again, that is where Future Search helps. In keeping with the honourable member’s commitment to his electorate, I will take up his invitation and visit Weipa and Thursday Island in the next couple of months and take the opportunity again to talk to people about what I believe will be positive outcomes from that Future Search workshop. The other significant assistance measure will be through the department’s offices in Cairns. Now that we have regionalised that particular area of the north, we will send, on a regular basis, officers throughout north Queensland to assist those communities. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.

MOTOR VEHICLES SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Motor Vehicles Safety Act 1980.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3155

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (11.12 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill provides for important changes to vehicle inspection arrangements in Queensland and reflects clearly the Government’s commitment to reducing the number of unsafe vehicles using our roads. The particular provisions of this Bill represent the first stage of a vehicle inspection strategy developed by the Department of Transport. This strategy involves a greater focus on random on-road inspection of vehicles and on the auditing of approved inspection stations, as well as providing for the initial implementation of self-regulation initiatives for the transport industry. A number of recommendations of the parliamentary Travelsafe Committee will also be implemented. The objective of the Bill is to provide for changes to motor vehicle inspection arrangements which will— reduce costs to the transport industry by providing more flexible and convenient inspection arrangements; reduce waiting time for industry at Department of Transport inspection centres; free resources within the Department of Transport for an improved on-road vehicle inspection program and improved monitoring of approved inspections stations (AIS); implement parliamentary Travelsafe Committee recommendations on vehicle inspections; introduce prescribed penalty notices for defective and unroadworthy vehicles and minor breaches by approved inspections stations; and provide powers for Department of Transport inspectors to stop vehicles and require information for vehicle inspection purposes. I will explain to honourable members the benefits these changes will deliver. Firstly, key recommendations of the parliamentary Travelsafe Committee to combat unroadworthy vehicles have been addressed in the proposed amendments. The first of these amendments will focus on random inspection of vehicles to raise community awareness and encourage a high standard of vehicle care throughout the year. Secondly, the changes proposed will provide for improved auditing of approved inspection stations and will also require second-hand caravans and trailers to undergo roadworthy inspection before sale. Each of these initiatives is important in itself. However, I have also taken the opportunity to begin the process of encouraging industry to take more responsibility for its standards of operation through self- regulation. Currently, vehicles over four tonnes gross vehicle mass require an annual safety inspection. While the Department of Transport inspects vehicles over eight tonnes, vehicles weighing between four and eight tonnes are inspected by approved vehicle inspection stations. This Bill provides for revised inspection arrangements which will include the inspection of 8-tonne to 16-tonne vehicles by approved inspection stations. It also provides for approved inspection stations to specialise in the inspection of particular types or classes of vehicles; and for transport operators who meet performance standards for vehicle maintenance and safety to inspect vehicles in their own fleets. This self-regulation initiative will deliver benefits to both industry and Government through reduced costs, improved efficiency and improved compliance with road transport and safety laws. As well as reducing costs to industry, these initiatives will reduce waiting 3156 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly times at Department of Transport inspection centres as well as freeing up inspection resources. It is the intention of the Government to allocate these resources to two important areas identified by the Travelsafe Committee. Firstly, the focus of inspection of commercial vehicles will shift from annual inspections to random inspection of those areas of vehicle safety which present the greatest risks to the community. Furthermore, this random inspection program will include private passenger vehicles as well as commercial vehicles. The program will be enhanced through the use of four mobile vehicle inspection units, which will operate throughout Queensland. This will raise community awareness of vehicle safety issues and create strong deterrents to those who currently drive unroadworthy vehicles. The second area provides for more effective auditing of AIS stations. The Act provides for immediate action to be taken against AIS stations which fail to perform or which act illegally. Transport companies which are accredited to carry out their own inspections will also be subject to audits. I have outlined the strategies being pursued in this new legislation to increase vehicle safety. The Act also contains provisions which provide the necessary powers to implement these objectives. Firstly, the Bill requires the department to have an approved program in place for vehicle safety inspections which outlines the objectives and strategies adopted and establishes principles and guidelines within which transport inspectors will carry out their duties. Secondly, the Bill provides for Department of Transport inspectors to stop all vehicles and require information and assistance from drivers for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the applicable vehicle safety and performance standards. Department of Transport officers are not presently authorised to stop non-commercial vehicles for on-road vehicle inspections and must therefore be accompanied by police officers on every inspection. The authorisation of Department of Transport inspectors to stop these vehicles will allow more flexible and efficient utilisation of skilled resources in both the Department of Transport and the Queensland Police Service. It will also provide for an overall increase in the number of random on-road inspections of motor vehicles to reduce the incidence of unsafe vehicles on the roads. Of course, joint vehicle inspection centres with the Police Service will continue at most locations. Initially, I intend to restrict new operational powers to clearly signed check points only for a minimum of six months from the commencement of the Act. This will allow stringent operational policy guidelines for inspectors to be established and extensive officer training in implementing these guidelines. Furthermore, the regulations giving effect to the interception provisions of this Act will specifically exclude the mobile interception of non-commercial vehicles at night. Substantial safeguards have been imposed on the use of these powers. Honourable members can be assured that the Department of Transport approaches the task of inspection of vehicles with a great deal of respect for the needs of the motoring public. Inspectors will be easily recognisable by their uniform, vehicles and easily identified inspection sites. The Bill represents a significant step forward in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of vehicle inspection arrangements and, ultimately, the safe use of our roads. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

EDUCATION (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.18 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of capital assistance for capital projects to certain non-State schools, and for other purposes.” Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3157

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Comben, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. P. COMBEN (Kedron—Minister for Education) (11.19 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I table my speech notes and seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I present to the House a Bill which will provide for the implementation of a new needs- based Capital Assistance Scheme for non-State schools. The objective of the Bill is to authorise the provision of assistance to non-State schools on a needs basis for capital projects which consist of the planning, construction, alteration, extension, relocation, renovation or upgrading of certain educational facilities. Capital assistance has been provided in the past under an interest assistance scheme which gave subsidies on loans taken out by non-State schools for capital projects. Under this scheme, virtually all capital projects in non-State schools were eligible for assistance and the larger the interest payments, the larger the amount of assistance. Schools which were able to raise loans for capital projects were able to benefit from a State subsidy whereas those schools which could not afford to raise loans were not able to benefit under the scheme. In the 1991 Budget Speech, the Treasurer announced that the interest assistance scheme would be replaced by a new needs-based scheme to fund non-State schools for capital projects. The new scheme demonstrates that the State is committed to an equitable distribution of resources between the State and non-State sectors in the provision of funding for capital works in schools. The Education Minister in Queensland is Minister for all students and not just those who attend Government schools. The Queensland Government takes this responsibility seriously, as exemplified by this legislation. Non-Government schools have played an integral role in Queensland education for more than a century. This important role is being, and has been, recognised through increased levels of funding provided by both State and Federal Governments in recent times. These reforms to achieve greater equity in funding to the non-State sector were introduced by my predecessor, Mr Paul Braddy. I remain committed to the non-State sector, and am overseeing a working party which is currently looking at future funding arrangements for the non-State sector. I hope that from this will come a theoretical framework which will provide a consistency of all funding to non-State schools. The development of Queensland’s scheme for needs-based funding for capital works has required extensive consultation with the relevant non-State school authorities—the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools of Queensland. Both of these organisations, who will play a significant role in administering the scheme on behalf of the State, strongly support the new scheme. The proposed legislation provides for two capital assistance authorities—one to be nominated by the Association of Independent Schools of Queensland and one to be nominated by the Queensland Catholic Education Commission. Each non-State school in Queensland seeking assistance under the scheme must become affiliated with one of the authorities. Schools seeking assistance under the scheme will submit applications to the Minister for Education through the authorities, which will assess applications using prescribed criteria. As the scheme is to be needs-based, the assessment criteria will be based on: the condition and number of existing facilities in the school in relation to the level of facilities needed; and the financial situation of the school and its supporting community. The application of these criteria will ensure that there must be a genuine educational need for the facility and that funds are directed to those school communities with the greatest financial need. The Bill does not allow funding under the scheme for facilities which are not normally provided by the State in State schools. Swimming pools, for example, will not be eligible for funding under this scheme. Nor does the Bill allow funding for the acquisition of land or for 3158 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

facilities which have religious worship as a principal function. The single exception to the requirement that funding is similar to that provided to State schools applies to boarding facilities. The State does not have any boarding schools, but it is considered reasonable to assist non-State schools in the provision of boarding facilities if a genuine need can be established. Once the capital assistance authorities have assessed the applications, they will make recommendations to the Minister for Education on the level of funding for the applications, and they must give reasons for their recommendations. The Minister will decide on the amount of assistance to be given to each project. It is recognised that, in the time between a school making an application and the actual calling of tenders for a project, there could be a significant shift in costs. The proposed legislation therefore provides for a school to apply to the Minister for Education, through its authority, for the amount of grant to be reviewed. The authorities will be required to make payments to their affiliated schools for approved projects using the capital assistance funds that have been provided in bulk by the Minister for Education. Schools will, however, only be able to receive grants on certain conditions. These are that at least 25 percent of the value of the approved works has been completed and that the school has entered into a written agreement with its capital assistance authority. The agreement will set out the obligations of the school receiving capital assistance. These obligations will include a commitment to use the facility for educational purposes for 20 years, to allow a person authorised by the Minister for Education to inspect the facility and to provide certain accountability information to the authority. The use of capital assistance authorities will ensure that the assessment of applications will be done by those with a sound appreciation of the needs of the schools which are seeking funds. The Bill provides for the Minister for Education to provide administrative funds to both authorities to assist them to offset costs associated with undertaking their functions under the proposed legislation. One of the important features of the new scheme enshrined in the proposed legislation relates to the high standard of accountability. This will ensure that State funds cannot be misused. Each authority is required to establish a Capital Assistance Fund and to pay into the fund all amounts received from the Minister for Education for the purpose of providing the approved assistance. Each year, the authorities must provide to the Minister for Education audited statements of their Capital Assistance Funds and amounts received to offset administrative costs. In summary, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Capital Assistance Scheme to provide assistance for schools which can demonstrate a genuine educational and financial need. The Bill ensures that the new scheme will be administered effectively and efficiently at minimum cost to the State. I believe this new scheme will make a significant contribution to capital facilities in non-State schools. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Quinn, adjourned.

DAIRY INDUSTRY BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 13 May (see p. 2810). Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (11.20 a.m.): It has taken the Queensland dairy industry a long and agonising time to get to this point. I pay tribute to the Queensland dairy industry. It is one of our great primary industries; one that has always been able to meet the needs of the times; one that has seen many changes over the years; and one that has coped with and met the challenges as they have occurred. We have seen the industry go from one which was export-orientated to one which now caters particularly for the domestic market. This legislation is just one result of Labor’s headlong rush to deregulate everything, to rationalise everything and to expose Australia’s primary production sector to the cold winds of outside competition. That competition is often unfair and it is generally subsidised. It is always destructive for Australian industries and Australian jobs. It is invariably imposed on us in the name of a discredited academic theory known Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3159 as economic rationalism. That theory is behind the rush into zero tariffs. It is behind encouraging other countries to dump their substandard produce on the Australian market. It is behind insisting that anti-dumping cases cannot be resolved until irreversible damage has already been done. The economic rationalists look only at models. They ignore reality such as the need to maintain viable industries and to maintain employment. They ignore reality such as the impact of seasonal conditions for long production processes such as farming. Because they ignore reality, they generally get it wrong, as they have done with most of their meddling in primary industry. This legislation is all about deregulating the dairy industry, which is already one of the most efficient in the world. Long ago, it adjusted to world markets. In the 1960s, when Britain opted to become a member of the European Economic Community, it abandoned Australian-supplied dairy produce. That caused a huge shake-out, and a massive contraction in the Australian dairy industry. It caused a lot of pain to dairy farmers throughout Queensland. Many districts in Queensland, including my own electorate, were developed on a dairy industry. As I look around that area, which is representative of many other areas in this State, I see the relics of dairy farms. In scores of Australian country towns, I see former dairy factories lying abandoned as a result of the hard times that that contraction brought to the industry. The dairy industry was a family orientated enterprise, and it still is. However, in the 1950s and the 1960s, as it was orientated towards export, the factories in those country towns were producing long shelf life products, such as butter and cheese, and the quality of the product that those factories produced was acknowledged by the fact that their products were able to win gold medals and awards against competition from around the world. Of course, today, as I said earlier, the industry is orientated towards the domestic market. That, too, has brought changes. The dairy breeds of the past that were bred to produce high butterfat levels, such as the jersey—or the Guernsey—and, to a lesser extent, the Australian Illawarra Shorthorn, have disappeared in favour of the predominant breed today, the Holstein-Friesian. Of course, that breed of dairy cow produces more milk, less butterfat and a higher protein level. That is one way in which the industry is meeting the needs of today. At this time it is appropriate to pay tribute to the work carried out in the artificial breeding industry in this State, particularly at Wacol. It is sad that the Stock Amendment Bill, which is before the House, has tucked away in the back of it the deregulation of the artificial breeding industry in Queensland. The dairy industry is the one industry that has benefited more from that particular centre than has any other livestock industry. It gave the dairymen—who, I believe, implement about 60 per cent of the work that is carried out at Wacol—access to top and proven sires that would not otherwise have been afforded to them to improve their strain of dairy cows and the production of their herds. One has only to look at the records of the dairy industry today to see how far dairymen have come in that regard. Of course, changes have occurred in other areas, particularly in the processing area, and this Bill will see vast changes brought about in the distribution area. I will talk about that later. However, the dairy industry has come a long way from slab dairies with dirt floors and head bales—relics of which still stand testimony to the hard work of the dairy farmers—to the transport of the product to the factories in those country towns, which was originally achieved by horse-drawn vehicles—— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): I am aware that it is less than nine hours since the House rose and we are all a bit tired, but I think that the members of this House will fall asleep if the honourable member continues his speech at this pace. I am tolerant, and I understand the hardships that we are all facing, but I think that the honourable member is making this a painful exercise, and the Chair will not tolerate it. Mr PERRETT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that I still have 52 minutes on the clock. The dairy industry is one of Queensland’s great industries. Dairy farmers rise before daylight. I am trying to paint a picture of the dairy industry and I believe that, as this Bill is about the restructuring of the dairy industry, I am entitled to do that. 3160 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the honourable member’s point. What I am saying is that it is a painful way to do it, and that he is capable of moving his speech along a little faster. Mr PERRETT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry—— Mr Stephan interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie is warned under Standing Order 123A, and he will not continue to cast aspersions on the Chair. Mr PERRETT: Madam Deputy Speaker, now that you have that out of the way—— Mr STEPHAN: I rise to a point of order. I did not make comments about the Chair; I made comments about members opposite. Mr PERRETT: Members on the Government side of the House would be the first to point the finger if I did not make all the representations that I want to make and highlight the relevant points of this Bill. I referred to the artificial breeding industry, and I will certainly have plenty to say about that matter when that Bill comes before the House. Over the years, the dairy farming industry was a ready means of employment for young people who were reared in the country. Today, they are placed in the dole queue. The industry has been prepared to meet the changes, and I have been trying to make that point. There was also another rationalisation when New Zealand started to flood this country with its manufactured dairy products. The industry has met that challenge, and coped with it very well. More processors had to give up, and more farmers had to go out of dairying. We did not need another crack at the industry. But it has happened in every State, and now it is Queensland’s turn. We will not seek to block the legislation, since the dairy industry has gone to a lot of expense and effort to negotiate a package that its leaders say it can live with. It has had to do that because of Labor’s blind determination to deregulate anyway, and because Labor Governments all over Australia have deliberately created a climate making a regulated Queensland industry an orphan. There was a time when Queensland refused to blindly adopt a policy or a process simply to follow other States or the Commonwealth. There was a time when the Queensland Government did what was right for Queensland and Queenslanders. There was a time when being a Queenslander meant something more than following the crowd and being trendy. We made our own decisions, and Queensland prospered. This trendy “me, too” Labor Government is reaping the benefits of the way in which we used to do things in Queensland. But time is running out. Before long, it will be very hard to tell Queensland from Victoria or South Australia. There is yet to be a beneficial result from any of this mad rush to deregulate—to expose Australians to the worst that the world can throw at them. This legislation has the potential to expose the dairy industry to very destructive forces. Deregulation has been a spectacular failure in the banking and finance sector. Competition for lending business has led to massive problems for borrowers in small business and farming as they pay for the mistakes of the corporate high-fliers. The major problems in the wool industry today—apart from drought—stem directly from the end of the floor price and the way that it was accomplished by a Federal Labor Minister. We have already seen the result of deregulation in the bread industry—one of Mr Casey’s Bills— with consumers, smaller bakers and corner stores the real victims. I understand that we are about to see the same thing happen in the egg industry. We risk the New South Wales situation in which only the very largest producers and the supermarket chains can take any joy. It can happen to a deregulated dairy industry and, over time, I am sure that it will. This legislation provides for continued regulation—with important changes—but only for five years. On 31 December 1998, the State Government will walk away from Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3161 the dairy industry. It will be a free-for-all on processors and vendors. Maximum and minimum prices of milk will be left to the market to determine. Processors’ exclusive rights will expire on 31 December 1998. In the words of Paul Keating in another context—it will be dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, ripping and tearing. Does any member of this House doubt how the big retailers will behave when they get the green light—or perhaps I should say the “greed” light? They will do what they have done with every other supplier. They will use the market power that Labor’s deregulated environment has given them, and they will use it to the full. The big three control better than 70 per cent of the grocery trade, and they will want to do that with milk, as they have already done with the other staple—bread. Processors will disappear one by one until only the strongest remains. There is good reason to fear for the future of the smaller cooperatives in this scenario, with only one glimmer of hope. That is based on the fact that fresh milk cannot remain in the dairy-to-table pipeline for very long. At the moment, it would be impractical for a retailer to rely on milk carted from Victoria to fight a price and market share war in Queensland. Deregulation is delayed only by this legislation. It will happen at the end of 1998. The Minister promises only to keep the power to regulate farm gate prices for market milk. Thank goodness for that—because if our producers go out of business, there will be a lot of tables that will not have milk on them. That is a promise now. But wool producers know all about Labor’s promises. Remember 1990, when John Kerin said that the wool floor price, at better than 700c, was “immutable”, “cast iron”, and all the rest? Producers took his word and walked straight into a disaster. I make this promise now on behalf of the next coalition Government in Queensland—— Mr Livingstone: You’ll be on the pension by then. Mr PERRETT: Two and a half years. A farm gate price will be maintained, because without it there can be no guarantee of adequate year-round supplies of fresh milk. I hear the member for Ipswich West interjecting. Last Saturday week, when I was judging cattle at the Ipswich show, none other than the member for Ipswich West was my steward. He did a very good job. It was a bipartisan approach. We left politics out of it for the day, and we worked as a team. That is on record. I pay tribute to a man who did an excellent job on the day; but some of his interjections in this Chamber are a little inept. Queensland’s climatic and other conditions make supply management absolutely essential—to the benefit of consumers as well as producers. I turn to the most contentious part of this legislation. It deals with the future of the State’s 1 100 milk vendors. It is here that the Government demonstrates Labor’s utter contempt for small business—for those people who have decided to strike out on their own and to make their own way in the world. Many of them bought a milk run so they had a job because they could not get one anywhere else. The future for 600 to 700 vendors is very bleak indeed. Without the support of the total dairy industry, there would have been no future for them at all. I want to pay tribute to the way in which the dairy industry, the producers, the processors and the vendors have worked together to find an alternative to the Government’s original inclination. Without that industry-wide cooperation, the vendors would simply have been dumped on the scrap heap. The Minister made this attitude to people such as bread and milk vendors crystal clear a long time ago. To him the only investment was an old truck and a pair of sandshoes. That is the extent of the Minister’s knowledge and concern for family small businesses, generally financed by a mortgage on the family home. Without the prodding of the whole dairy industry, the Government would simply have let the vendors’ five-year licences expire in September of next year. There would have been no compensation and little chance of remaining in a position to make a living. Who could know what the full scenario would have been? Given Labor’s mania for deregulation, we probably would have seen processors delivering milk direct to the supermarkets, and smaller shops having to collect their own. Household delivery would have vanished. It would not have been long before the big chains were playing 3162 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly processor off against processor. Milk would have become a loss leader, used to put smaller stores and smaller processors out of the business. As in the bread industry, the little people and the consumers would pay the price for this Minister’s incompetent meddling. Thanks to the way in which the dairy industry has approached the problem, the worst fears may not be realised. For vendors who can stay in the industry, there will probably be a reasonable future for five years, anyway. For those rationalised out, there will be at least some compensation. It will not be enough—I know that it is less than the industry sought—but it is probably the best the industry could do from its own resources. It is important to note here that not one cent of money for this process is coming from the Government. The dairy industry as a whole has arranged the loan to pay vendors for their runs, and the dairy industry as a whole will repay it. Various rates of levy per litre of milk will be paid by the remaining participants—0.25c per litre for producers and processors, 2.25c for household deliveries, and 6.39c for A-class licensees delivering to supermarkets. Those levies and the proceeds of licence auctions will repay the industry loan. The Government will not spend one cent to satisfy its deregulation mania. The Government owes the industry a vote of thanks for doing the hard work of coming up with an orderly proposal for restructuring the market milk industry. It has forced industry leaders to do its job for it. The Government owes the vendors an abject apology for three long years of agonising speculation. Very soon after it came to power, the Labor Government made it clear that it saw no future for vendors. It also made it clear that it had no sympathy for them—despite its own role in putting their businesses in jeopardy. Since the first round of speculation, it has been impossible to sell a milk run for anything like its worth. Intending buyers were frightened of the Government’s unknown plans. They were also scared off by the advertisements that the Government placed regularly in the “businesses for sale” columns and the advice given by the Minister’s own people. People who have had to leave the industry in the past three years have done so under very unfavourable conditions. The value of the businesses has been deliberately undermined by a confused and uncaring Government. The Opposition is not happy about this legislation. It is not happy about the prospects for the dairy industry under full deregulation in five years’ time—or whenever the Government reneges on its promises to industry leaders. It is not happy with the wide discretionary powers built into this legislation. It does not believe the Government’s long-term commitment to a farm gate price. We do, however, accept that the package we are dealing with here is the best that the Labor Government would let the industry come up with. I believe it is important that the Minister give a couple of assurances in his reply to this debate. Will he assure the House that the Bill is capable of giving effect to the objectives set out in it? Can he assure us that no further significant action will be required to adequately bring to a conclusion the proposed rationalisation process as set out in the Bill? Mr J. H. Sullivan: Have you got a finger space between each word? Mr PERRETT: The honourable member came to me before the debate started and told me that he could not speak until after lunch. I am trying to help him. Mr J. H. Sullivan: No. I said I thought I wouldn’t be on till after lunch, but at this rate I probably won’t be on until after dinner! Mr PERRETT: With the quality of the honourable member’s interjections, it is a pity that he will be on at all. I would like the Minister to give an assurance to the House that the operation of the Bill will follow the outlined reforms approved by him in a position paper issued under his authority. Can he give an undertaking that there will be no further Government intervention or financial assistance beyond the level specified in the Bill? Can the Minister give an assurance that this restructuring will not increase the Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3163 cost of milk to the consumer and will not produce speculative trading in vendor licences, which could result in retail price rises? I also want an assurance that the Minister’s understanding of the intent of this legislation is the same as that of the industry leaders who have negotiated the package with him. I seek that assurance, because there is a great deal of discretion available to the Minister and his nominees in the administration of the dairy industry. For a start, the Minister has full power with respect to selection of the members of the Dairy Industry Policy Council, the Dairy Authority and the selection committee to pick the members of the authority. My concerns centre on Part 2 of the Bill—Policy and Administration. It should have been headed, “Getting jobs for Labor’s mates”. Honourable members should forget Labor’s terrible record for a moment and look at what is written down. They should look at the composition of the authority. There are three people with experience in milk production, processing or distribution. That sounds fair enough. But what about the three with experience in public administration, business, finance, marketing, quality assurance or industrial relations? That covers just about anyone who the party decides needs a little boost along. That is the Trades Hall clause. The boys will all be lining up for a little extra, courtesy of the dairy industry. Will it happen? Of course it will. Half the union bosses in Queensland have been put on the gravy train already. Just to make sure that there is enough to go around, we have a selection committee of seven, and there is not even a pretence that these people will be anyone but the Minister’s people. Representatives of producers, processors and vendors will be chosen by the Minister from lists submitted by the Minister’s invitees. Even the chairperson has to have a temperament that the Minister approves of. For heaven’s sake! What have we come to? That is the group which selects the unionists and others who will go onto the authority. We know who will not go onto the authority—the legislation bans industry leaders. I turn now to the policy council. Once again, we are faced with the spectacle of the Minister demanding that he be the chairman of the top policy making body of an important industry. This is the Minister who cannot even handle his usual duties associated with his portfolio. As honourable members well know, the Public Accounts Committee reckons the department is in a shambles; but still the Minister wants to take on more. There is worse to come, because the rest of the council are Ministerial nominees whose only qualifications are that the Minister wants them there. The duties for which council members will be rewarded at the Minister’s discretion are not arduous. The legislation provides for a secretariat and the formation of committees to do the work—more jobs for Labor’s mates. I hope the faith that the dairy industry leaders have placed in the Minister is well-founded, because this policy council controlled by the Minister will hold the destiny of the industry in its hands. The worst part is that all the Labor mates on the authority and the tribunal, and the Labor mates on the ad hoc committees, will draw their stipends, their travel costs and their meeting fees from the dairy industry’s own funds. They will be an added cost burden on the farmers, processors and vendors. The industry leaders have been forced into the position of putting a lot of faith in the Minister and the Labor Party. They now have to hope that their faith is well-placed. The key to this legislation may be found on page 14. In essence, the Bill covers two and a half lines. It states— “The functions of the Authority are— (a) to administer this Act subject to the Minister’s overriding power of direction . . . ” I repeat—“subject to the Minister’s overriding power of direction”. Nothing else matters. The future of thousands of farmers, processors and vendors depends on the goodwill of the Minister. I congratulate the dairy industry and its leaders for their persistence in gaining as much as possible for the people they represent. In all the circumstances we can simply hope for the best for an industry vital to Queensland. 3164 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Before closing, I feel that I must comment on the quality of drafting evident in this Bill. The standard of this Bill is far below the standard of what should be placed before the Parliament of Queensland. In many aspects it is not definitive. It is typical of many Bills coming before the House, and one has to wonder if it is all a shonky attempt for a future take over by Labor’s academics. I must ask why this Labor Government is prepared to accept such shoddy, incompetent work. Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West) (11.49 a.m.): At the outset, I want to say that I support this legislation, which will replace the Dairy Industry Act of 1989. I congratulate the Minister and all of the people who have shouldered a tremendous workload over recent years in an effort to come up with the best possible solution that they can to the problems that we face. One of the great strengths of the Goss Government is that it is prepared to sit down and consult with other sections of the industry—something members of the Opposition have not been very good at over the years. They only spoke to those people who carried a green card. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the implementation of a comprehensive program of reform designed to enhance the competitive position and long-term viability of the Queensland dairy industry. In Australia, the dairy industry has had a very high degree of statutory intervention at all levels of the production and marketing chain, including price control at all levels in Queensland. Other States and the Commonwealth are moving to reduce intervention levels over the next five to seven years. In recognition of that, and with a view to securing a long-term future for the industry, the Government established a dairy industry review committee to conduct a detailed look at what options we had to reform the industry. The committee report was released in late 1991, and the Queensland Dairy Industry Policy Council was established to, among other things, recommend a program of reform. I am sure that all honourable members support the view of having a new, modern Act as we head towards the year 2000. There has been a population explosion in south-east Queensland and, in particular, growth in the Ipswich and West Moreton district, and I am sure that my colleagues hope for that great growth to continue. This Bill will be good for the producers in the west of my electorate and, certainly, it will be very good for those people who are employed in the industry, particularly by Queensco. I mention that company in particular because of its links with my electorate, or certainly with the Ipswich district. One hundred people are employed at the Booval depot; Toowoomba has 200 people employed; Woodford, 70; Caboolture, 95; Gympie, 12; West End, 30; and Milton, 30—a total of 537 people. When we consider the growth in the south-east corner—and we are told that growth rate will be somewhere in the vicinity of 70 per cent—we must consider the huge production growth in the milk industry as a result of that additional population. A recent survey showed that in 1986, 450 000 000 litres of milk was sold. As we head towards the year 2000, it is estimated that 570 000 000 million litres will be sold—a substantial increase. When we look at the lucrative market, particularly in Brisbane, we can see that great benefits will be gained for companies such as Queensco and for the producers. I hope that will provide an increase in the number of jobs in those areas, particularly with an increase of 70 per cent in the population. Members of the working party acknowledge that as technology advances, new liquid milk-based dairy products will be developed to the advantage of the Queensland consumer. I suggest that that will be of advantage not only to the Queensland consumer but also, hopefully, to South East Asian consumers as well. My colleague who sits opposite commented earlier on the decline in the export market. I think we have a lot of work to do in that area and I would hope that, as time goes on, we will see a very big improvement in the export market, particularly in South East Asia where the European Community has been dumping products for years. If we work a lot harder in that area and apply new technology, we will reap significant gains for the industry and the people whom I believe members on both sides of the House support. The objectives of the legislation are numerous and it would be impossible to note all of them, but I will refer to some of the main ones, which are— Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3165

To provide for the establishment of a new, expertise-based Queensland Dairy Authority—QDA—to replace the existing Queensland Dairy Industry Authority— QDIA—which has a current membership largely drawn from representatives from industry. To formally establish a Queensland Dairy Industry Policy Council— QDIPC—representative of all industry stakeholders to provide advice to the Minister, the Government and the proposed QDA on policy issues impacting on the Queensland dairy industry and to require QDA to consult with the QDIPC on industry policy matters. To provide sufficient powers to the new QDA to effectively administer an industry proposed, voluntary restructuring scheme. I cannot overemphasise that the restructuring will be voluntary and it will not be as a result of the heavy hand of Government. People will have a choice. I appreciate that people who have vending licences have grave concerns for their future, and I am sure that all honourable members would sympathise with them. However, one only has to look back over many years—and not just the years since this Government came to power—to see what has been happening. For example, groceries are no longer delivered to homes unless people pay extra for the service. Butchers no longer deliver meat as they used to, and there is no longer the widespread delivery of bread as there used to be. People have to pay extra if they want those services, and the situation will be no different in relation to milk vending. Another of the important objectives of this legislation is to provide for the introduction of arrangements in Queensland that mirror provisions in other States which ensure that where milk is sold as market milk, farmers are paid for that milk at the market milk premium price regardless of whether that milk is sold in Queensland or elsewhere. For the benefit of honourable members opposite who have knocked the Bill, I reiterate that the new legislation will include provisions to ensure that farmers are paid market milk prices for all milk sold. Mr Stephan: What does it actually mean? Tell us what it means. Mr LIVINGSTONE: That is something that the member for Gympie should support instead of making his miserable interjections. He should be supporting this legislation and telling people that this legislation will ensure that farmers will be looked after and will be paid the amount they should be paid. If the member for Gympie listened for a while, perhaps he would learn something about the Bill that he has not taken the time to read. Earlier, I referred to other changes in the industry’s organisation. As I said earlier, current membership is mainly derived from industry representatives. The new organisation proposed by the Bill will be comprised of people who have expertise. It will not be a matter of which political party those people support and it no longer matters whether they hold a green card. If people have expertise to do the job, they will get the job. People will work on the Queensland Dairy Authority because of their ability and not because of the people for whom they vote. The new Queensland Dairy Authority will consist of an independent chairman, three members with experience in milk production, processing or distribution, and three members with experience in business, finance, marketing, quality assurance, industrial relations or public administration. Mr Perrett: This is a job for your union mates. Jobs for the boys! Mr LIVINGSTONE: I take the interjection made by the Opposition spokesman. This Government will employ people who have the qualifications to do the job and not simply, as the previous Government did, because of the political party for whom they vote. In conclusion, let me state that, given the aim of the industry and the Government to complete the modernisation of the distribution sector and the restructuring of the Queensland dairy industry by 31 December, it is essential that the necessary legislation be in place no later than 1 July 1993. I support the Bill and I would hope that members opposite do likewise. 3166 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Western Downs) (11.48 a.m.): In rising to speak to the Dairy Industry Bill, I make the comment that during this time of severe rural recession, probably one of the bright spots on the horizon is the dairy industry. That is possibly because a lot of it is established on the east coast, but it also certainly reflects to some extent on the capacity of the people who have been involved in the industry for a number of years. Mr Perrett: If reflects on the management by the people in the industry. Mr LITTLEPROUD: It certainly does. At the outset, I will refer to what I see as the development of the dairy industry in Queensland. I will then discuss the changes that have been brought about and the way in which this legislation is part and parcel of handling the nature of the change that is with us today. My understanding of the industry’s history is that this Parliament passed the closer settlement Act in 1905 or 1906. As a result, land became available in much smaller parcels and closer to the railway lines, especially the western line in Queensland, through the South Burnett district and in other places. People from other parts of Australia migrated to Queensland and took up land on the liberal terms that were offered. They realised that because butter could be processed locally and exported, it was a product they could put on the market. At that time, I do not think it was possible to chill or freeze beef and send it overseas, and there certainly was not a market big enough for wool. These people needed a product, and dairy products fitted the Bill. Allied to that, of course, was the production of a few pigs and the rearing of poddy calves. I have gained a good understanding of the history of my own electorate of Western Downs. As I drive throughout the electorate, I find that it is not uncommon to come across old pepperina trees and sets of cattle yards that have long since been abandoned, and front gates that are no longer used. It did not take me long to realise that these objects were all that remained of the dairy farms of 1915, 1920 and 1925. Those farms have long since gone from most parts of my electorate. Nevertheless, they played an important part in bringing people into the west, and they made great use of the new railway line that was built in that part of Queensland, which gave them access to the markets. Part and parcel of that growth of the dairy industry was the organisation of the people in the industry. I have fond memories of the Chinchilla branch of the Queensland Dairymen’s Organisation. It seemed to be the big business of all the people in the community. When they gathered for dances, something to do with the dairymen’s organisation always had to be discussed. I was always a bit of an outsider because my father had grown up on a dairy farm and he had determined that, when he became independent and had land of his own, he would be a beef producer, not a dairy farmer. I will always thank him for that because I was never very much attracted to the idea of milking cows morning and night seven days a week, especially on weekends. If a sporting function were held, some of us could stay late and enjoy ourselves and others would have a fight within the family as to who would have to go home first to start milking the cows. It was not a very good quality of life. That is what led to a big change in the dairy industry in my part of Queensland. It was not that the industry did not remain very viable and people were not doing well out of it; however, they saw an alternative in clearing their land and growing wheat. The quality of life was so much better. The returns were not any better and probably the input of capital was higher, but people opted to do that. They turned over paddocks of rhodes grass and oats to paddocks of wheat. On the weekends, they could go away and enjoy themselves without having to rush home to milk the cows. They could go away for holidays without having to call someone in to look after the dairy. They did not have to worry about a sharefarmer and all those sorts of things. In the late fifties and early sixties, in my part of Queensland the number of dairy farmers diminished, which had an effect on processing. The common theory at that time was that all the factories were owned by a local cooperative and that the local QDO people organised it. When they became unviable, the Darling Downs Dairy Organisation bought those factories. In Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3167 some cases, it closed them, and in other cases it kept them operating for a number of years. Now, all the milk on the Darling Downs goes to Toowoomba for processing. Better transportation has made that possible. Fewer suppliers has also made it necessary. It is worth noting that the QDO was the breeding ground for quite a few prominent people who became members of this House. I mention the late Vic Sullivan, who had a history in QDO matters before he was elected as the member for Condamine. Last year, Des Booth retired from Parliament. Des Booth cut his teeth in various commodity organisations, and certainly with the QDO. The late Russ Hinze also had a great interest in the dairy industry before he entered this House representing a south coast electorate. The QDO was a breeding ground for people who looked forward to being able to look after the interests of the industry, seen change and faced up to the realities of rationalisation, which is still happening. I suppose that it is driven by matters such as improved technology and commercial competition from the most efficient processors. We must also take into account section 92 of the Constitution. We in Queensland cannot isolate ourselves, put up the barriers and say that it is a Queensland dairy industry. We are part and parcel of the Australian scene. In more recent times, the closer economic relations agreement between Australia and New Zealand has had a further impact on what must eventually happen. Recently, I attended some of the annual conferences of sections of the Queensland dairy industry, where I listened to the producers and the processors talk about changes necessary for all sectors the industry to remain viable. When legislation dealing with milk entitlements and all those sorts of things has been passed through this House, some members who have interests in the dairy industry have been pretty vocal about it. They have been very able at putting forward their point of view, as have all the people outside who are vitally interested in the industry. On top of that, the processors are being realistic about the competition from Victoria. With better refrigeration and transport, producers in Victoria have the capacity to flood Queensland markets. Events outside Queensland have driven us to change. The legislation is the result of an agreement that a total restructuring of the industry was needed. I pay tribute to all those people—the producers, the processors and the vendors—who have seen fit to say—— Mr Pitt: And the Minister. Mr LITTLEPROUD: He and the department are the instrument to put it together. In general, I agree with the restructuring. Consultation took place between the Government and the various industry bodies. Consultation has also taken place with the member for Barambah, our shadow Minister, members of his committee and those of us who have some interest in the dairy industry to make sure that we understood the legislation and that we were conversant with the opinions being expressed by the various sectors—the producers, the processors and the vendors. I sum up my understanding of the restructuring this way: the farmers seem to be satisfied that they will retain their viability. They were always keen to retain stable prices. That has been assured. They were also keen to retain stability of production. That is assured to a fair degree, but I understand that some people in the industry feel that, down the track, further changes will occur to which they will have to adjust. Accordingly, they are going into the production of manufactured milk as well as retaining their whole milk entitlements. They are looking after their future. The farmers, led by Pat Rowley in the QDO, are happy with where things are going. They are considerate of the role of the other people in the industry, and they are prepared to go along with the total restructure. Because the processors do most of the marketing, they are always driven by the cost of production and the marketplace. Honourable members must agree that, over the years, they have changed the range of products that they produce. They have reduced the number of people in the processing market. Mergers have taken place, and we have seen the introduction of better equipment, better workplace practices and a reorganisation of the industry itself. 3168 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Last year, I was at an annual conference. I recall a prediction that, by the turn of the century, there would be only six major producers in the dairy industry along the east coast of Australia. Honourable members can understand why all those mergers of the major processor bodies in Queensland took place in recent times. They looked ahead, saw what is going on and moved accordingly. My only concern about the legislation is for the vendors. First of all, they had an understanding that some of the runs were not viable and that there needed to be some way of getting people out of them. I suppose it was something similar to what happened in the hotel industry a number of years ago. At that time, there were too many hotels in existence, so a scheme was introduced under which the industry put in some money and that enabled some fellows to relinquish their licences with a bit of honour, to get out and relocate, so that the number of licences servicing the public would be reduced. The same sort of thing can happen for the vendors. They agree with that. However, it seems to me that the matter that concerns them most—and I speak up on their behalf—is the insistence by the Government and the Minister that, when the vendors’ licences come up for auction, it will be an open auction. I could not help thinking that there were some sort of double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Government in this regard. I know that the next speaker for the Opposition, the member for Nerang, will go into great detail about the interests of the vendors. The shadow Minister, the member for Barambah, has already spoken about those concerns. To me, it seems that the Government is applying double standards. The Government is a part of the political part of the ALP which is very closely affiliated with the ACTU, which engages in closed-shop practices. A person cannot get into a certain job unless he belongs to a union. The Government insists on a preference clause under which people who belong to a union are given first preference if a job comes up in certain industries. The Government has a safety net to ensure that there is a minimum wage for employees and for people who are made redundant, such as the waterside workers. If the Government is so committed to looking after people, why would it not comply with the wishes of people who are already established and who have an investment in a certain industry and say, “Let’s keep it a closed auction for those people who already have a commitment to it and an understanding of it”? The previous speaker, the member for Ipswich West, said that vendors can in fact opt to stay as they are rather than go into the auction system. I appreciate that. That is something that has been negotiated. However, I return to the basic point that the Government seems to be applying double standards. It should in fact comply with the wishes of the vendors that it not be an open auction, so that those people within the industry have first pick of the pups. Other than that, I support the Bill. I congratulate the people in the industry on working with the Minister for this total restructuring of the dairy industry in Queensland, which is one of the bright spots on our rural scene. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (12.10 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to support this Bill, which effectively replaces the Dairy Industry Act of 1989. I must say that, having listened to the two Opposition speakers, I did much prefer the contribution by the member for Western Downs. At least he was positive—he usually is on issues such as this—and he offered some constructive comments. He gave an interesting thumbnail sketch of the history of the dairy industry, tinged with a degree of nostalgia. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I think most of us would accept that the dairy industry is one of the pioneering industries of this State. If we are going to be nostalgic about anything, perhaps it should rank there as well. I cannot miss the opportunity to comment on the contribution made by the member for Barambah. I do not want to talk about the mode of delivery or anything like that. However, I was rather disappointed at the tone of his speech. It seemed more like a eulogy. It would have been a great hit at a funeral. It certainly had nothing to do with a bright future for the dairy industry, which I think is what this Bill will deliver to the whole dairy industry in this State. Mr Casey: After that, he has become known as the undertaker. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3169

Mr PITT: Undertaker or udder taker? It is one or the other, anyhow. The deregulation nonsense being put forward by some members of the Opposition to the extent that this is a plot by Labor Parties nationwide is almost at the stage at which we should not even respond to it. However, I think one more time will not hurt. It is not the aim of the Labor Party to deregulate. The aim of the Labor Party is to provide practical responses to economic and market realities. I think that is what this legislation actually does. I have here an article from the Courier-Mail of 18 November 1992. The headline reads “Cheaper milk is on the way”. It states— “Brisbane consumers will eventually get cheaper milk under a radical overhaul of dairy marketing arrangements . . . ” It is not uncommon for the Courier-Mail to focus on the metropolitan area and talk only about the consumer. There are more people involved in this industry than just the consumers, although their considerations must be looked at as well. It is definitely attractive for consumers. I applaud cheaper milk, if it is possible. But more important is the fact that the Bill will modernise the milk distribution sector of this industry. Mr Stephan: Do you think there should be cheaper milk? Mr PITT: I think there should always be the opportunity to provide cheaper products wherever we can. I think that should be the aim of a sophisticated market. The member for Gympie will get his chance later on, and if I can understand what he says, I will attempt very carefully to decipher it. The brief overview of the reform that this Bill brings to the dairy industry indicates that it is a five-year plan to restructure the milk industry. A significant element of the reform package is this five-year transition period which will enable the industry to adjust to change with a minimum of disruption. The Dairy Industry Bill sets out a five-year program for the industry as a whole. I think this is the first time we have looked at all sectors of the industry in total. It includes the removal of regulations for milk prices; the removal of the existing processor franchise system; a voluntary, industry-funded milk vendor restructuring scheme; retention of price control to the producer, and provisions to ensure that milk sold as market milk in Queensland or elsewhere is paid for at the market milk price. The Bill also provides for significant alterations to industry policy development and administrative functions. The existing Queensland Dairy Industry Authority is to be restructured and renamed the Queensland Dairy Authority. The Queensland Dairy Industry Policy Council will advise the Minister on policy and make recommendations on price control. As I understand it, more than 80 per cent of vendors have indicated that they will participate in the proposed distribution restructuring scheme, which involves acquisition of milk runs to be restructured into new supermarket and shop runs. Five new categories will be established. One category concerns existing runs whereby the vendors have elected not to participate in the scheme. However, four other new categories are being created. The first category refers to runs being established purely servicing supermarket outlets, with a weekly total white milk litreage for the run of up to 60 000 litres. In this case, supermarkets are defined as being places such as Woolworths, Coles, Franklins, Bi-Lo stores, and hypermarkets. The second category includes runs established purely servicing wholesale outlets other than defined supermarkets. Those runs have a weekly total white milk litreage for the run of up to 14 000 litres. The third category includes household runs with no wholesale litreage attached. It is proposed to allow an optional household delivery fee of up to 2c per litre, except where the package size is less than one litre, in which case it would be up to 2c per package. The final category covers runs established by a combination of the first three categories, excluding those vendors to which I referred who are not taking part. Generally, that mixed category will apply in country areas. The proposals bring Queensland into line with other States, following the negotiation last year of new national milk marketing arrangements. I take the point made 3170 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly earlier that Queensland should not have to follow anyone blindly. The sad fact is that we are reaching this stage a little late. The other States realised that these steps were necessary, and they have taken them already. If Queensland had taken these steps a little earlier, some of the anguish experienced over the past 12 months because of the restructuring process may have been avoided. Current restrictions on milk marketing and distribution, including price controls post farm gate, will end on 31 December 1998. Exclusive processor milk market franchises will cease as from the end of 1995, with the introduction of an annual area licensing arrangement until the end of 1998. This process must be funded. Both Opposition speakers were critical of the Government for not putting in the dollars. However, this is not one of those circumstances in which the industry should be seeking outside help. The industry can fund this process itself, and it has done so. It has come to the party. It is their industry, their future, and it is to the credit of the Minister and of the industry that they have formulated a package in which the funding for change comes from the industry itself with no impost being placed upon the people of Queensland. The QDIA has secured $60m through loans, and it hopes to raise the remaining $29m by auctioning the new licences. I turn now to the contributions being requested of producers to help fund this restructuring. The producers themselves—— Mr Stephan: Being placed on them. Mr PITT: It is being placed on them with their agreement, and I believe that the honourable member accepts that. Producers will contribute 0.25c per litre, a similar amount will apply to processors. Retailers will contribute up to 0.6c per litre. Vendors are divided into three groups: non-participants, 2.25c per litre; participants, which includes the tendered litre arrangement, 2.25c per litre; and participants looking after the supermarket portion, who have an additional fee of 4.14c per litre. The supermarket sales for the restructured runs will contribute a total licence fee of 6.39c per litre, if my mathematics are correct. However, in some country areas, a restructured run may consist of mixed categories. The Category A litreage will attract a licence fee of 6.39c per litre, and a Category B litreage will attract a licence fee of 2.25c per litre. The value of particular runs has been determined by arriving at what is titled a calculated consideration. That has some degree of complexity, and I want to place on the public record the methodology that has been used. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Before a document is incorporated it in Hansard, it is usually examined. I give the honourable member leave to table the document. Mr PITT: I request that leave. Leave granted. Mr PITT: Occasionally, Queensland Country Life does not give this Government the credit that it deserves. However, its issue of 4 March 1993 contained an article headed “Milk vendor change to protect farmers”, which stated— “The overhaul of Queensland’s milk distribution system, including halving the number of vendors, has been a hard but necessary decision to maintain our industry’s competitiveness with other states. The gradual disappearance of the bottle clinking, pre-dawn deliveries of milk to front doorsteps will provoke a tug of nostalgia, but the horse-drawn carts and pint measures of warm milk of yesteryear had to disappear too, forced out by economic reality. By re-drawing new vendor areas to make them more economically viable, the industry has moved to give the distribution and vending sector the same efficiency Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3171

boost which has been achieved with better farm production and processor amalgamations. It would seem that the quarter cent per litre levy on farmers to help fund the change is a small price to pay for protection against a flood of border-hopping milk from deregulated interstate suppliers.” That was a very positive comment. As all honourable members are aware, over the past couple of decades, processors have undergone restructuring. Much of that involved efficiency considerations. However, in this case, efficiency is not only the aim. We are looking to protect the future of the farmers involved. If no milk industry exists, there is also no milk distribution and no milk consumption, and farmers are wasting their time creating the product. More importantly, we are aiming to protect our industry against southern producers, particularly those in Victoria and our Kiwi friends across the Tasman. Extensive changes in the farm sector over the past 15 years, which have seen increased viability, have also resulted in producer numbers being consolidated from 10 000 down to the present level of 1 800. A similar process will result for milk vendors. A consolidation of the number of vendors will also occur. A complex formula will set the level of compensation that each vendor will receive as a final payout, depending on the level of acceptance. Those choosing to leave will receive 75 per cent of their payout on 1 July and the balance in 1994. The drastic reduction in vendor numbers will allow a major reshaping of milk delivery systems with the elimination of the many small, uneconomic runs. It is accepted generally by those members who have a substantial network of milk vendors in their electorates that some of those people are struggling. I believe that some of them were the victims of hype. They purchased runs that were well and truly overpriced. They found themselves in a situation in which the population had drifted and the demographics had changed. They ended up with a run that was not all they had hoped it would be. I trust that this system will be one way in which such vendors can leave the industry with some grace, rather than eventually going out the back door. The supermarket and retail delivery runs surrendered for compensation will be available at public auction. I noted the comments of the member for Western Downs. I am sure that the Minister will address his concerns adequately. Thirty-six per cent of milk is home delivered. I believe it was inevitable that, over time, that percentage would gradually fall. However, to place that percentage in perspective, in Victoria, only 4 per cent of milk is home delivered, and in New South Wales, 18 per cent of milk is home delivered. I do not believe that in the foreseeable future the percentage in Queensland will drop to those levels, as we in this State have become very used to the system of home delivery. I understand that the new arrangements will still guarantee a minimum of three days a week for milk delivery. The licence fees that are applicable will be collected by the processor on behalf of the authority at the time of the purchase of the white milk by the vendor. I note also that in my electorate, the reaction to this legislation was mixed to start with, but it has now been receiving favourable comment to the extent that most people are now in favour of the legislation. They have come to understand its true ramifications. I appreciate that there were some concerns. However, a review mechanism is built into the legislation, and that is as it should be. Any vendor who considers that the decision of the authority warrants reconsideration during the operation of the scheme may, in fact, request a review. I understand that there is a time limit of 28 days after receiving advice about the decision in which to ask for a reassessment. In the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation, the Milk Vendors Association was quite vocal in its campaign against it. I received telephone calls, letters, faxes and 3172 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly visits from its representatives. To put it quite bluntly, the association attempted to come the heavies on most backbenchers. They were threatened with electoral annihilation. In common with the other 88 members of this House, I believe that very few of us give in to that sort of pressure. It may be that the Milk Vendors Association was out of touch with its membership—at least, that is the way it appeared in my part of the world. The membership was not really sure what was going on. The Milk Vendors Association was doing a lot of leading, but it was not doing very much instructing on the true nature and intent of the legislation. I believe that the association has done itself a disservice by going down that path. However, thank goodness, in the end commonsense prevailed and the association that represented those members, along with other sectors of the industry, has come to the table and discussed the issue, which has led to this workable proposal. The legislation in effect modernises and restructures radically the Queensland dairy industry. The restructuring proposals have been developed by the industry through the Dairy Industry Policy Council. At this stage, that council has focused on marketing. I point out that the sugar industry has a similar policy council, which also received a great deal of criticism in its infancy but is now widely supported by the people involved in that industry. I imagine that the same thing would happen to the Dairy Industry Policy Council. The industry has recognised that, because of changes in the national and international dairy scene, it is necessary to alter existing marketing arrangements to enable the industry to remain competitive and to enable it to remain viable. The current restrictions on milk marketing and distribution, including price controls post farm gate, will end on 31 December 1998. It is hoped that by that stage the industry will be in a very solid position, which will enable it to cope with any other commercial problems that it may face in the future. The strength of this legislation is the fact that it was worked through by the industry and Government over a period, and in an extremely cooperative manner. As I said before, it will involve existing vendors being paid out for their current runs at an established rate and the rationalisation of distribution runs in the various wholesale and retail categories. The scheme is fully funded by the industry, and that is as it should be because it will be the long-term beneficiary. In addition to those changes, I understand that the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority will be restructured and will become a seven-member authority that will include members from outside the immediate industry who have a wide range of skills. I notice that there was some criticism of allowing people other than those people who are actually involved in the industry to have a say. That is rather short-sighted and narrow-minded criticism because, although I admit that the expertise of people involved in the industry is important, people from outside the industry offer an objective viewpoint, rather than the subjective viewpoint that is offered by those people who work inside it. I congratulate the Minister on broadening the horizons of that organisation. The legislation also formalises the establishment of the Dairy Industry Policy Council which, since the middle of last year, has been operating on an interim basis. It has the full support of all sectors of the industry and, in the Minister’s own words, it will provide an orderly timetable that will allow this reform to take place without disruption to the industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it appropriate to ask now for the incorporation of that document in Hansard ? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Having viewed the document, I am prepared to put the question to the House. Leave granted. The calculated consideration is subject to validation by the Authority of the “total”, “caretaker”, “leased” or “tendered” litreage supplied. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3173

The calculated consideration of your run has been based on: ¥ The average white milk litres purchased per week over the period from 1 July 1992 to 31 December 1992 after adjusting for any litres supplied on either a “caretaker”, “leased” or “tendered” basis. ¥ Calculated price per weekly litre for your run is obtained by either: (i) Actual price paid per weekly litre, excluding plant and equipment; or (ii) Regional average price per weekly litre. (a) The actual price per weekly litre was used if your run was purchased since 1 January 1985. The following principles were used to arrive at the figure: ¥ any vehicles or equipment stipulated in the contract have been deleted from the purchase price where they have been specified; ¥ where vehicles have been designated but no cost has been specified for the vehicle. $3000 has been deducted; ¥ where the run value only is specified in the contract no adjustment has been made for vehicles or equipment; ¥ where runs specify many items such as houses, cold rooms, equipment and litreage, an individual assessment of these items has been undertaken to establish the consideration. (b) The regional average price per weekly litre was used for all runs purchased prior to 1 January 1985. The State was broken up into sixteen regions and the average price paid per weekly litre for existing licences purchased since 1 January 1985 used. The regional average was also used in the following cases: ¥ Where no run value at the time of purchase is included in Authority records, the regional average has been used even if the run has been purchased since 1 January 1985; ¥ Where runs were purchased prior to 1 January 1985 and have been expanded with other run acquisitions, a regional average has been used to establish the consideration per weekly litre. Mr PITT: I congratulate the Minister for the leadership role that he has played in the formation of this legislation. I also congratulate all sectors of the industry on coming to grips with a very difficult problem and providing a solution which is workable and which will be in the best interests of the industry as a whole. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (12.28 p.m.): Again, the Minister for Primary Industries is messing around with another industry in Queensland—the staple food items of milk and associated dairy products. At this stage, the Opposition does not believe that there is much alternative to some form of restructuring within the marketplace. However, the Opposition must question the process whereby this is occurring. Honourable members have been told that the restructuring package is industry driven, that the industry representatives have come up with this process and that the Government is purely concurring with their wishes. However, it is very important to note that the industry does not support the deregulation in five years’ time. The Government has a wide range of responsibilities. Of course, it must consider the consumer. Honourable members must ask themselves, “Is this process being fair on the consumer and all facets of the dairy industry?” Firstly, as I understand it, the vendors have taken up the offer generally of the restructuring package. They have thrown their licence into the pool for it to be restructured, redrawn and resold by auction. The Government will maintain that it is a voluntary process and, therefore, it has wide industry support. The truth, of course, is different. The truth is that, as a result of the talk of deregulation, as a result of additional taxes being imposed on each litre that the vendors sell—whether or not they restructured—and also as a result of additional regulation regarding their trucks, storage and so on, the vendors have effectively been forced into this process. 3174 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

We then have to look at those vendors who are being forced into the process. The basis upon which many of those milk runs have been valued is quite flawed. It is a very complicated formula that does not allow for inflation. In many cases, it does not allow for the time that a vendor has held his or her run. We have the ludicrous situation in which particular vendors in the same area—and this happened around the Surfers Paradise area on the Gold Coast—were receiving two or three times as much as their counterparts in adjacent areas. These anomalies are really unacceptable. We then have the manner in which this restructuring was done, the period that the vendors were given within which to comply with the restructuring package, and the lack of consultation with the industry. Many vendors have approached their local members throughout Queensland—— Mr Casey: Do you know that that consultation has been going on for three years? Mr CONNOR: The Minister might have been speaking to the industry, but until the past few weeks the vendors had no idea whatsoever of what he intended to do. They had not seen the legislation. They had no idea what was going on. The Minister gave them about a month within which to determine their whole future. As Mr Pitt said, many vendors have complained to their local members throughout Queensland. But the moment that they have been identified, they have been approached by their industry bodies telling them to keep quiet or the Government will react. Basically, they have been told, “Take what you can get, or you will get nothing.” That is the typical, heavy-handed manner which this Minister uses. We then have to look at the process of restructuring those runs. What guarantees do we have that this restructuring package will not allow one large company to take a monopolistic position within the market distribution? In fact, rumours are running rife around the industry that one major transport company is behind all this. Those within the dairy industry believe that that large transport company will buy up all the runs in the strategic areas so that, over the next five years, it will be in a position to totally dominate the dairy industry for decades to come. I ask the Minister to comment in his reply on whether or not he believes that this legislation will properly cover that position. We then have to ask ourselves whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that this sort of market dominance does not occur. We look for an answer to this from the Minister. What assurances or guarantees are there that the individual players will not be given a strategic position within the industry? Is the Government going to put a limit on the size or the percentage of the run that any individual player can hold during the five-year changeover period? One could say that if someone is in a position to be dominant in the market, it must be because the level of service or price that the person is giving is more competitive. This will be the case in five years’ time when there is full deregulation. But in the interim, we have a Government-controlled monopoly for those who have the licence for the next five years. Once an individual operation has control over a particular area for a particular time, it will be very difficult for others to enter the marketplace, especially if it is a major transport company that has vast areas already under its control. It is essential for the wellbeing of the marketplace that one individual cannot dictate price both at a retail level and to the producer, and that an individual does not get too big a market share. Subject to these questions which, as I said, are the anomalies in relation to the compensation to the vendors, the period that they were given to comply with what were at the time unlegislated propositions, and the potential for a large individual operator to get a controlling interest in the whole marketplace, it would seem that we must—it has already happened—bend to the inevitable. But just as the Minister was not prepared to listen to the bread industry, and just as we predicted would happen, the Minister was back here within months. He may find that he will live to regret the manner in which he is going about this process at the moment. The Minister will gleefully broadcast the fact that this restructuring package is the result of in-depth industry consultation—as he did before—and that it is an industry- driven restructuring package. But without a doubt, the most important aspect of this Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3175 whole debate centres around the fact that the deregulation of the dairy industry distribution is a decision of this Government. The question was put to the industry: would it have preferred that the restructuring package did not end with deregulation? The industry said, “Yes.” I will say that again. If the industry had a choice between deregulation or regulation, it would choose regulation. I remind the Minister of what his colleague the Deputy Premier thinks of the so-called economic rationalists who want to deregulate everything. I might add that he has a certain novel way of putting it. One also must question why this Minister is not allowing for some form of limitation to the size or the position of a player buying runs in this distribution package. In other words, what is there to stop a major transport company or, for that matter, a major supermarket chain, from taking a position within a particular type of restructured package? Mr Hollis: You are repeating yourself. You have already said that twice. Mr CONNOR: I have not spoken about a supermarket chain. For instance, let me take a supermarket in the A group which takes a monopolistic position within it. It takes key runs around Queensland, so that it has control over the distribution into that type of operation. In other words, it could have a market share such that it would have a sufficient influence over the marketplace to be able to start dictating terms to the market. I can assure the House that this is a major fear of the industry, not just the individual members but the individual groups, too. They argued emphatically that there needed to be some restriction on those buying the restructured runs. They might be more viable, and they might end up with a lower cost structure, but that does not necessarily mean that the lowest cost structure—the lower price—will be passed on to the consumer. This low cost structure might simply line the pockets of a monopolistic transport company or supermarket chain. The other question that arises in this debate is why the distribution is being deregulated, yet the production is not. We have a regulated marketplace in the supply, known as the supply management or the entitlement scheme, which survives—granted, restructured; but it is still an ongoing, regulated marketplace. Just the same as the Minister wanted to have it both ways with the bread industry originally—he felt that the industry could be a little bit pregnant and partially deregulated it to have a minimum wholesale price but no minimum retail price—that was an effective way of deregulating a marketplace. His folly was soon to be found out. He did not admit it, of course, before the election, but he had to come in here after the election and throw out his own legislation. Or was that the idea from the start? If that is the case, is the Minister intending the same for the dairy industry—knock off the vendors first and have a go at the farmers later on? When talking about the authority in his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— “To ensure that the appropriate expertise is present in administration, and with a view to acknowledging public interest aspects . . . ” He went on to outline how the board would be comprised. When we see how the board is set up in the legislation, we find that, unlike in the previous Dairy Industry Act of 1989, there is no representative of consumers. As well, the authority has no representative of consumers. Yet the Minister stated in his second-reading speech— “. . . with a view to acknowledging public interest aspects . . . ” Mr Casey: Do you know who the representative of the consumer was, selected by your previous Government? Mr CONNOR: I am talking about the legislation. It is not in the legislation. The Minister has thrown the consumers to the wind. He is not interested in the consumers. I find it very hard to understand how the Minister can acknowledge public interest aspects without having the biggest player in the whole equation represented. Supposedly, this whole legislation and restructuring is to, in the Minister’s own words, “enhance the competitive position and long-term viability of the Queensland dairy industry”. According to the Minister, this change recognised the important community 3176 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly obligations of such an authority. Yet the most important persons in the community—the consumers—are effectively disfranchised from the legislation. They are not represented on the council or the authority. One has to ask why this Bill is being processed through the House. Is it to ensure that the consumer is looked after? Or is it going to be a little club where the consumer does not count? That really is the big question. Why has the Minister chosen to remove the consumer representative from both the council and the authority? I have a problem also with the make-up of the council. It has quite a wide-ranging brief. Are the members of the council entitled, subject to ministerial discretion, to a level of remuneration? So we have as the chairman of this overriding council the Minister, or his nominee, and basically any number of other people whom the Minister considers appropriate. How many people will the Minister have on the board? Earlier, he said that it is already constituted, but will it remain the same? Nothing is spelt out in the legislation and there is no provision for regulation. Will there be 10, 15, 50 or 100 people? And what level of remuneration and expenses will they receive? What do the current members receive? Is the board just going to be filled with cronies? Is it presently filled with cronies? Is the Minister going to use this clause to have a partisan, political group that will override the authority? Or is the Minister proposing to have some sort of limitation on that? This clause has the potential for a great deal of abuse. There is no accountability at all. There is not even accountability to the Governor in Council. The Minister can appoint to the council anyone he likes. He is the chairman of the committee and he determines the conditions on which the members of the council hold office. Quite a large group of people could be used for political purposes, as we have seen in the recent EARC report into media units and the like. That becomes extremely expensive for the taxpayers of Queensland. As we saw, excluding the ministerial minders, that unit is costing Queensland $36m a year. That certainly could go a long way towards helping the poor farmers during the drought. The Bill states— “The Council is to operate under a constitution approved by the Minister.” The council consists of a group of people who are possibly there at taxpayers’ expense. It is chaired by the Minister. Those people have wide-ranging powers. The Minister determines how long they will serve—it is totally arbitrary—the remuneration and expenses they will receive, and the constitution under which they will work. The council also has a secretariat and can appoint committees, and regulations will determine how those committees operate. I gather that individual members could chair those committees, or certainly be involved in them. Clause 10 (2) states— “Regulations may be made governing the constitution, and regulating the proceedings, of a committee.” Through those regulations, committees could obtain significant powers—all flowing down from that council where the Minister has unfettered powers. It is important to note that this council is a totally new creature. The previous legislation did not contain such a creature. It is something that the Minister has dreamed up, I expect because the industry wanted an independent chair, and initially the Minister said, “No.” Then, by way of compromise, the Minister has come up with an overriding body with additional expenses, secretariat and powers to somehow or other get the industry off his back, because he is determined to get a certain level of support from the industry but still maintain control. In his second-reading speech, the Minister made no mention of the council, but he made a lot of the fact that the new board will comprise “an independent chair, with members being selected by selection panel process”. So the Minister is telling only part of the story and presenting to the industry a picture that is not necessarily how the legislation will work in practice. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— “The Bill also maintains the option, which has always been available, for a home delivery charge. Vendors consider maintenance of this option to be Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3177

necessary to assist in ensuring the long term viability of this type of run. It seems only reasonable that, where consumers demand this extra service and are in a position to pay, vendors should be able to receive a return for this effort. This practice should reduce any cross subsidisation which has occurred between shop and home delivery customers in the past.” The Minister is basically saying that, because the home delivery runs are going to be separated, the vendors, to remain viable, will be forced into charging an additional fee for delivery. I want to quote from the April 1993 issue of the Retailer, a publication of the QRTSA, the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association. Page 31 of the annual report states— “One of the proposals is for an additional charge for home delivery at the optional discretion of the vendor, which should see a reduction in home delivery volume and the experience of other States leads us to believe that the majority of these sales will go to the small store sector, not the large store sector.” The Government is taking the store deliveries away from vendors who are presently delivering to homes by effectively allowing big business into that sector and, as the Minister said, stopping the cross-subsidisation of those home deliveries. The potential is that those store deliveries will be taken by a large transport company or a similar large business, and the vendors will be left with home deliveries. As a result of the extra cost, consumers will end up moving away from home deliveries and into making their purchases from corner stores. So under this Government vendors really only have the choice of going broke slowly or going broke quickly. If they do stay with their home deliveries, as the Retailer magazine says, there will be a very quick move away from home deliveries towards increased purchases from stores. So the market share of the stores will increase. The market share of those who are delivering milk to stores will increase at the expense of small vendors delivering house to house. If one was cynical, one could say that one of the aims of this Bill is to get rid of another section of small business in Queensland. By auctioning these runs, the Minister has made it quite clear to the industry that he is going to allow anyone to take part. He has made it clear that any player, no matter what size, will be able to take a piece of the action. I believe that, in the not too distant future, we are going to see the end of vendors as we know them today. In turn, we will have an industry in which the majority of sales will be made by stores to which deliveries will be made by one or two large transport companies. Gradually, the practice of home deliveries will cease and the small vendor, with the exception of those in the country areas, will become a thing of the past. The Labor Government is successfully getting rid of another section of the small business community. It is really quite simple—it cannot unionise small business, but it can unionise big business. Vendors will be replaced by unionised employees. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.48 p.m.): While listening to this debate on the restructuring of the dairy industry, I thought it was last night’s debate regurgitated. Honourable members would remember the union bashing and the statements that it is always going to be Labor’s mates who are appointed to organisations. It is interesting that the Opposition always refers to two levels: the Government has one level of acceptable behaviour, and it has another. It is interesting also that it can descend to this level during any debate. It happens all the time. Mr J. H. Sullivan: They have more standards than they have chins. Mr CAMPBELL: They do have more standards than chins. The Opposition somehow believes that because a person may not have a background in the dairy industry, the cane industry or the pastoral industry, that person cannot do the job. I will tell members opposite what happens when unionists and other people who do not necessarily have the same background as members of the National Party are given a job—they do it well. I want to address what happens when such as unionists and people from other businesses are appointed as directors. Let us consider what the Government 3178 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly has done with Suncorp. Its board comprises representatives from all over the community, including people with union backgrounds. Last year, Suncorp paid an $80m dividend to the Queensland Government. QIDC, with a $70m capitalisation, made a $15m profit. Its board is comprised of people whom the Opposition says should not be on that board. What about the Queensland Industry Corporation? The expertise of the people who have been appointed to its board has seen a 3 per cent higher return on investment than the industry average. Opposition members should not tell me that the Opposition has a mortgage on the appointment of capable directors. The member for Western Downs and the member for Barambah took us down memory lane—the pity of small industries and factories in small country towns having closed down. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, and the problem of the milkman’s horse not still being here today. I used to visit my grandmother’s farm, and I loved milking the cows and separating the milk and the cream. It is nice to have those memories, but those days are gone. We are in 1993—seven years before the dawning of the next century. We have new technology. We no longer talk about 10, 12 or 15 cows; we talk about herds of up to 200 cows. We have milk tankers, not milks cans; we have the pasteurised milk, not whole milk. Rather than glass milk bottles, we have plastic containers. The industry has changed, and it is about time. We have to remember that the industry players have accepted that there has to be change to make certain that they keep up with modern techniques in the industry today and maintain productivity. We have heard completely opposite views from speakers on the other side. The member for Barambah said, “Please let this be the last change. We have had three agonising years of consultations that the Government has forced on industry. We want no more; let this be the end.” It is not going to be the end because this is a dynamic industry; it has to change and it will continue to change. When it is not allowed to change, that is when it will get into trouble and revert to the time of the dinosaurs. The industry knows that change is necessary, and it will accept that change. The member for Barambah said, “We’re sick of all this consultation.” The member for Nerang said, “Why wasn’t there any consultation? No-one was told about it.” They are opposing statements. The member for Nerang said that there has to be more consultation and that the industry did not know what was going on. We are damned if we do, and we are damned if we don’t.That is how it goes, but we have come to expect that from the National Party. During the Federal election campaign, Mr Katter had his own policy and it did not matter what his political party said. In other words, members of the National Party just say what their supporters want to hear. However, it should be remembered that the industry is headed for the year 2000. It seems to me that this Government is damned if it does and it is damned if it doesn’t. Members of the Opposition are behaving as though the Government has not listened to the industry, but that is not the case. This legislation reflects exactly what the industry wants and the position that the industry has reached. People in the industry realise what will happen in 1998 if there is no regulation, and they are taking the industry through an ordered restructuring, which simply has to be done. I wish to cite the remarks of a person who is not a beloved supporter of the Labor Party but who can see the industry’s position quite clearly. I refer to the President of the Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation, Mr Pat Rowley, who stated— “There needs to be a lot of quiet, steady change in the industry before restrictions on milk marketing and distribution are completely removed in 1998. It is better for the whole industry to slowly release the handbrake from now on rather than relying on the Big Bang theory, leaving the industry to suddenly react in 1998.” In other words, the restructuring is the way that the industry wants to go. Representatives of the industry do not want to leave it until 1998 to start making Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3179 improvements, and they have been working hand in hand with the Government during this restructuring program. What is interesting is that members of the Opposition are suggesting that the structure that is being proposed by this Bill is not what the industry wants. The exact opposite is the case; this restructuring is exactly what the dairy industry has been asking for. I cite other remarks made by Pat Rowley in the Queensland Dairyfarmer— “The QDO has also continued its push heavily for a strong, up-front Dairy Industry Policy Council with absolute responsibility for setting all policy for the dairy industry.” The Government is setting up a policy committee. Mr Rowley went on to state— “The Queensland Dairy Industry Authority should then have an administrative role only and be required to consult with the Policy Council on all policy matters.” That is exactly what is being set up. What more can this Government do for the industry when the Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation asked for a particular structure and that is the structure that is provided? In spite of that, members of the Opposition come into this Parliament and say that that is not really what the industry wants. Members of the Opposition cannot have it both ways, and it is about time they realised that. Previous speakers in this debate were continually union-bashing. I have to say that if one was seeking an example of the abuse or use of people in industry, one could not go past the National Party. If anyone has used the dairy industry, it has been the National Party—the Charlie Holms and the Russ Hinzes. Members of the Opposition should not come into this Parliament and say that this Government is looking after its mates. All I can say to them is that they should not judge this Government by their own standards. This restructuring process did not just happen; it has been brought about as a result of consultation. In September 1991, a Green Paper was circulated. It was then that this Government recognised that the dairy industry is a significant part of this State’s economy. It employs in excess of 9 000 people and its products have a retail market value of some $400m annually. Since the early 1970s, the industry has been subjected to a major restructuring, with the number of farms falling by 80 per cent and their associated processing plants falling by about 50 per cent. Yet, despite this decline, in recent years the dairy industry has been able to maintain production levels. Although the restructuring program is under way, the Government has had to make certain that when it comes to deregulation of the Australian dairy industry, Queensland will be able to take its fair share of the market. If the Government does not do that, this State will not get a fair share, and I will tell honourable members the reason why. In terms of production and productivity levels, Queensland is not quite up with the other States. For example, the production rate per cow in Victoria is 30 per cent more than the rate in Queensland, and the production rate in New South Wales is 25 per cent above Queensland’s, and in Western Australia, the production rate is 42 per cent greater than that of Queensland. The situation could arise in the future whereby those States could send their products to Queensland. Basically, that is the threat that could arise in 1988. If milk is allowed to be brought in from Victoria and New South Wales, Queensland may not have any producers by 1998. That threat exists and, by 1998, it could become a reality. It is important for this legislation to be put in place. Over the last five years, changes have occurred in the milk vending sector. For example, human consumption has increased by 3 per cent a year, while at the same time manufacturing has reduced. It is important to realise that we have a different market and that the industry is changing its orientation towards a human consumption market, which will be a niche market in the future. Honourable members should also be aware that dairy farmers and milk producers have not always wanted vendors. In many cases, farmers and producers have been the greatest critics of vendors, but it was in the light of the need for restructuring of the milk vending sector that the Government’s proposal contained in this legislation was 3180 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly accepted by the dairy farmers. An article in the Queensland Dairyfarmer on 15 November 1992 states— “A restructured vending sector is an important feature of a sound, long-term dairy industry. QDO state president Pat Rowley said Queensland milk vendors had an important role to play in a deregulated national and state dairy industry. ‘If we want to repel the invader and to consolidate what we have already gained in this state, we have to include the vendors, ensuring they become a sensible marketing arm of our processors. That may or may not cost us money, but is important for our future,’ he said. ‘The rationalisation scheme presently being proposed by the vendors and needing to be in place as quickly as possible, would be funded primarily by their own money.’ ” It is worth noting that the dairy farmers are also prepared to offer input into the scheme. This legislation has been introduced because the industry has got together with the Government. The process has been difficult, but it has been based on a consultative approach that is being directed towards creating a stronger dairy industry for the year 2000 and beyond. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (2.30 p.m.): I join in the debate on the Dairy Industry Bill to point out briefly that the Opposition, in general, supports the legislation. I have a couple of concerns. The dairy industry has been very important to our economy and to the development of Queensland. It is for that reason that so many members on the Opposition side of the House are interested in any changes that may occur to it and the reason why they occur. I will comment on some of the comments made by the member for Mulgrave when he spoke. Mr Gilmore: The new Minister for Primary Industries. Mr STEPHAN: Is that the new Minister? He commented on the fact that we need cheaper milk. I am disappointed that Mr Pitt took that point of view. He was saying that people in the dairy industry, or primary industries generally, are second-class citizens and should do with less than what the rest of the community has. It is a misnomer to expect cheap food in this country. Mr Pitt: Are you speaking on behalf of the producers or the processors or the distributors? Mr STEPHAN: I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which contains producers, processors and distributors. The honourable member must realise that those people need to be paid and paid adequately. It is all very well to say that he only wants to keep more money in his pocket and get cheap food. However, it does not work out that way, if the honourable member is to carry his weight and the rest of the community is to carry its weight in providing a return for investment, a return for service and a return for work. Mr Beattie: How many dairy farmers have you got? Mr STEPHAN: Certainly not as many dairy farmers as there were 10 or 15 years ago, but there are still a lot of dairy farmers. Mr Beattie: What have you been doing? You haven’t been looking after them. Mr STEPHAN: They are producing just as much now as they were about 20-odd years ago. Mr J. H. Sullivan: We gave you some more territory and you still haven’t got—— Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member did not give me any more territory at all. I am surprised that he should mention that. I was led to believe that EARC drew the boundaries. Now the honourable member is saying that he gave the territory. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3181

Mr Casey: If you blokes want to have a chat amongst yourselves down there, we will put the next speaker on. Mr STEPHAN: I thank the Minister for his protection. Government members were molesting me a little bit. I started off by saying that the dairy industry and all primary industries need and deserve reward for what they are doing. I do not believe that anyone in this House—I would like to think that no-one in this House—would want to take advantage of a particular section of the industry simply to get cheap food for those who want to put their feet up and to live a life of luxury in comparison to what the dairy producers are doing. Mr Vaughan: You advocate lower wages for workers, though—you do or your party does. Mr STEPHAN: The Government is running down the workers—— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! I ask the member for Gympie not to be led astray by Government members and to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr STEPHAN: Thank you for your protection, Madam Chair. I would not like to think that they would lead me astray but, as you have mentioned that, there is every possibility that it might happen. Taking that a bit further—it is not good enough to think that people with an investment, people who are willing to put their money on the line, deserve a kick in the pants at every opportunity, and that people whom they employ deserve full protection. If the Government protects one section, it should protect every section. If that section is putting up money, surely it deserves some support. The member for Mulgrave also mentioned vendors. He was concerned because a lot of vendors rang him up before the election. The vendors were concerned before the election and for 12 months before that, also. They had a genuine concern. They were trying to get some sort of clarity, some sort of answer, so that they would know what was happening with the industry and with their business. They wanted to know whether or not they would be in business, whether or not they could expand or what would happen. To say that they were trying to manipulate and use the political environment at the time is not in line with what was going through their minds. They had investments at stake. They had a concern about what would be in store for them. They wanted to know what was around the corner. The member for Ipswich West made a couple of comments on the number of people who are involved in the industry now. Certainly, fewer people are involved in the industry now, as the Government members commented. However, because of different technology and equipment, they are producing just as much milk now as they were producing 20-odd years ago. It has left a vacuum in the community. It has resulted in a great change in the community. A lot more money is invested in the dairying industry. Far fewer people are involved in the industry. Any downturn in that industry will have a devastating effect on individuals and on the industry itself. It is very important that any changes at all be watched very closely and that any changes that are made be made for the betterment of the industry and not only for the sake of change. I turn to a statement made by the member for Ipswich West, when he quoted the Minister’s second-reading speech, referring to— “. . . provisions to ensure that milk sold as market milk in Queensland or elsewhere is paid for at the market milk price.” I asked the honourable member to explain what that meant. I am not sure what it means. I know that the Minister is addressing the possibility of milk coming across the border. I know that he is addressing the situation in which a factory that is in close proximity to the border can or may at some time or another get milk from one side of the border or the other. Under those circumstances, I do not really think there is a great problem, but there could be a variation in prices. 3182 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

I believe also that there is legislation in place in other States to try to stop trading across the border. My question is: does section 92 of the Constitution apply, and what effect does it have in overriding one or other of the clauses in this Bill? I know that, in other primary industries pursuits, industry leaders have tried from time to time to restrict trading across the border. But section 92 of the Constitution says that trade across the border shall be unrestricted. I am not saying that what is trying to be done by this legislation is wrong or incorrect. I am asking about the practicality of this and whether it will work. Can the States bring in legislation that will override Commonwealth legislation? I doubt that that is the case. I ask: if this legislation is challenged in court, what is the outcome likely to be? It is not much good passing this legislation and going away with the idea, “She’ll be right; don’t worry about it” and finding out later that what is in place will not do the job that it was thought it would do. Mr Bennett: Would you say that again? I never heard it. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member would not understand it either, as far as that goes. But coming from Port Curtis, he has a different—— Mr Bennett: Don’t be funny. Mr STEPHAN: I am not trying to be funny. Port Curtis has a different arrangement with its dairy industry than other parts of Queensland have. I know that there is a quota. Mr Bennett interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I beg the honourable member’s pardon. What was that? I thought the honourable member had an intelligent comment to make. The Port Curtis Dairy Association has an arrangement different from the one than exists in the southern part of Queensland. I thought that the honourable member might have been trying to tie that into comments that I was making. In his second-reading speech, the Minister spoke about a voluntary industry-funded milk vendor restructuring scheme to improve vendor efficiency while maintaining a full range of service to customers. The scheme is voluntary only to the extent that the industry has almost been told that it shall restructure, that it shall cost it money and that it shall find the money for it. In all of this, I cannot see any mention of any Government guarantee on the loans that will have to be taken out to put that in place. Mr Hollis: You haven’t read the Bill, no doubt. Mr STEPHAN: I have read the Bill. Can the honourable member tell me where there is any mention of a Government guarantee for the funding of that particular scheme? I do not believe it is there. The Minister spoke about a voluntary scheme, but it is only voluntary because the people in the industry have been told to do it and that there is no other way for them. The money involved in the repayment scheme will come from the auction that will be held for the distribution of the licences, and levies will come from the industry, whether they be from the vendors themselves or the producers. Category A litreage will attract a licence fee of 6.39c a litre; category B—vendors—will attract a licence fee of 2.25c, and a producer will have to contribute 0.25c a litre. So that money is coming from the industry. It is coming from the people involved. However, I would like to see the Government at least give some sort of guarantee that if the industry gets into difficulty—and it very seldom gets into difficulty—that it would see fit to put in place a bit of support for the industry. When we are dealing with the production of this particular industry, we need to ensure that it contains producers whose supply is going to be consistent. With that goes the need to ensure that feed is going to be available for the cattle. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I am having a bit of difficulty hearing the member’s speech. Mr Dollin interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maryborough! Mr STEPHAN: Thank you for your protection, Madam Chair. The final point to which I would like to refer is that of consistency of supply, an aspect of which Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3183 producers must be sure. They in themselves must have the capacity and the ability to produce a constant supply when they have their quotas. In turn, they will need to have a guarantee that feed will be available for their cattle. When we look around at the present time, we see that the possibility of that happening is becoming more difficult. It is not impossible, but it is becoming more difficult. I stress again the importance of water, and its availability and cost, to ensure that feed is available for primary producers. This is a very important issue. An increasing demand is being placed on the water supply by many different sectors of the community. In addition to that, it should be remembered that there is a move to increase the cost of water to users. As I said before, if dams and other water conservation schemes are put in place, they will be there for a long time. It is not proper that the first people to use such schemes should pay the entire cost of the scheme. Mr Bennett: There is a study going on in water resources in Queensland at the moment. Mr STEPHAN: A study might be being undertaken. However, as a result of that study I can see that the cost of water will be increased up front to anybody who wants to buy a megalitre of water. Rather than disbursing the cost of a water storage facility over future generations, the first user—whether it be the primary producer or the householder—will be made to pay for the entire construction costs of it. Mr Vaughan: That’s not right. Mr STEPHAN: I maintain that, because that asset will serve future generations, its cost should be spread over a longer period. It is similar to making a person pay the total costs of a vehicle that will be used by that person’s children and grandchildren. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Gympie to address his remarks to the front of the room. The Hansard staff find it very difficult to take down his remarks when he is talking to the back wall and not through the microphone. Mr STEPHAN: During a time of drought, feed for stock is a major problem. Water is a valuable commodity because it assists in the production of fodder and is used to water stock. However, supplementary food sources may be required, and they may or may not be available. At present, grain growers are experiencing much difficulty. That will impact on all primary industry. It is vitally important that milk producers meet their forecast quotas. Unless the Government is doing everything possible to assist that cause, it is falling down in its duty to those producers and to the community in general. I support the Bill in general. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my inquiry regarding section 92 of the Constitution. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (2.47 p.m.): The State Government’s role is to create the structures that will allow our primary industries to respond to market challenges—domestic and international—in an increasingly competitive climate. The Goss Labor Government has had unprecedented success in that area, because it has had the benefit of a Minister and a Cabinet with the will to carry out those responsibilities. After years of National Party and Liberal Party rule, rural Queensland was in a precarious position. Without action to provide primary industries with more appropriate frameworks within which to operate, the prognosis for rural Queensland was not, and is not, promising. The Minister, Mr Casey, aims to review and reform our primary industries. Queensland will be better for his stewardship of the portfolio. Mr Veivers interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will have his turn. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Certainly, no-one could have failed to notice in the lead-up to the 1992 State election the acknowledgment from the grain and sugar industries that reforms brought about by this Government had ensured the continued viability of those industries. How those words must have wounded members opposite, who regard themselves as the possessors of all wisdom with regard to primary industries. I admit 3184 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly that, before coming to this place, I could not have visualised supporting any level of deregulation in any of our primary industries. In essence, I supported the orderly marketing regimes that had been introduced by previous Labor Governments in Queensland. Let me make it quite clear that this is one Bill in respect of which I am proud to proclaim my support. The deregulation of the dairy industry, as outlined in this Bill, provides a graphic representation of the difference between the Labor and non- Labor parties. It shows why my colleagues and I—people with social consciences—are members of the ALP, and why members opposite—who are like T. S. Eliot’s hollow men: “We are the hollow men; we are the straw men”—are proud to follow the feral abacus. It shows why we are in Government and why they are Opposition—and they will remain so for some time to come. This legislation achieves the industry imperatives without consigning people to the scrap-heap—I repeat, “without consigning people to the scrap-heap”. The Government could have introduced legislation that would have achieved deregulation overnight, to the extent that deregulation is indicated. I have no doubt that a conservative Government would have done just that. As I have said, we chose not to do so. We chose instead to develop a scheme that provided for a transitional period, so that all participants in the industry had an opportunity to review and restructure their own participation in a stable industry scenario. Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for that slight pause. I thought that the member for Southport wanted to interject, but he has zipped his mouth. In his second-reading speech, the Minister indicated— “The Australian dairy industry has been characterised by a high degree of statutory intervention . . . In Queensland, this includes price control at all levels of the marketing chain, exclusive market area franchises held by processors, exclusive distribution area licences, milk runs, and statutory production controls (entitlements) in south Queensland.” The issue that seems to have generated the most heat in this debate is the “predicament” of vendors, as referred to by the member for Nerang and the member for Gympie. They claim that vendors have had this system forced upon them. Who has forced it upon them? Mr Veivers: That bloke sitting over there. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Let the record reflect that the member for Southport has identified the Minister for Primary Industries. This process was not forced on vendors by the Minister for Primary Industries. This vendor rationalisation scheme, if one wants to use that term, was put together by the vendors themselves. They took it to the Industry Policy Council. According to the Queensland Dairy Farmer of 13 September 1992— “Milk vendors have outlined to the rest of the Queensland diary industry their proposals for a scheme to rationalise and restructure their sector.” I ask the members for Nerang and Gympie to bear those words—“their proposal”—in mind. Mr Connor interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Dear, oh dear—the honourable member is very thick. That is because they wanted that scheme, you goose. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caboolture will confine his remarks to the Bill rather than cast aspersions on the member for Nerang. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will defer to your instructions, but I ask you to appreciate that it is difficult. The restructuring of the Queensland dairy industry vendor sector has been a product of the vending sector itself. In excess of 90 per cent of vendors have taken up those proposals. Of course, there will be some malcontents, and those malcontents have worked out that they can take their complaints to the member for Nerang, because he looks for a headline with every breath he takes. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3185

Who could fail to remember the member for Nerang looking for satanism in an underpass on the Gold Coast? He found it. Who could fail to remember the member’s disgraceful behaviour in this Parliament over corrective services? The reality is that this Government is bringing in a policy that has been put by the vendors to the industry in total, and it has been accepted by the industry. Mr Connor: Do you want to have a look at this? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: If the honourable member brings it over to me, I will have a look at it later. The member for Western Downs suggested that a closed auction should be conducted for the new vendor licences. When one considers what is happening in Canberra at the moment with pay TV, that is an interesting concept. In that regard, members from the coalition parties in Canberra insisted that there not be a beauty contest for the pay TV licences. However, the member for Western Downs—a leadership aspirant—is telling us that the Government should hold a beauty contest for the wholesale vending licences. There must be some consistency in the arguments brought forward by members opposite. What is the future for vendors? I believe that my colleague the member for Mulgrave spoke about this issue quite well. However, on 4 March, an editorial in Queensland Country Life , which is not a newspaper that is known for its fawning support for the Labor Party, stated— “The gradual disappearance of the bottle clinking, pre-dawn deliveries of milk to front doorsteps will provoke a tug of nostalgia, but the horse-drawn carts and pint measures of warm milk of yesteryear had to disappear too, forced out by economic reality.” What is the economic reality—— Mr Connor interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: If the honourable member would listen for a moment, he may learn something. What is the economic reality for vendors in the face of a do- nothing Government? An article in the Sunday Telegraph of 28 February 1993 states— “Home deliveries, as a proportion of total milk consumption, have fallen from 60 per cent to 35 per cent in the past decade as a result of cheaper supermarket prices and ageing populations in some areas.” So home deliveries, over the last decade, have been on the slide. In March this year, Mr Casey indicated that the proportion of home deliveries was 36 per cent. In Victoria, home deliveries represent 4 per cent of total milk consumption, and in New South Wales it is 18 per cent of total milk consumption. The reality for the vending sector is that as supermarkets sell milk products and fresh milk at a cheaper price to consumers, home deliveries will fall. If the Government had left the situation for another decade before it bit the bullet and picked up something for those people in the milk vending sector, their runs would not be worth a brass razoo. In essence, the vending sector is coming out of this process very well. I was rather touched by an article in August last year that indicated that the Queensland Farmers Federation President, Lex Buchanan, who is a Gympie dairy farmer—I am sure Mr Stephan knows him quite well—indicated that when he was a young fellow, there were 32 000 dairy farmers in Queensland, and now there are 1 843. Mr Connor: Thirty-two thousand? Three thousand two hundred! Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am quoting him. When Mr Buchanan was a young fellow, there were 32 000 dairy farmers in Queensland, and now there are 1 843. Key people in the industry estimate that by the year 2000 that figure will be reduced to 1 450. Why is the number of dairy farmers being reduced? Because the dairying industry has been transformed. It is now a high-technology industry. Many members in this place would have worked on dairy farms at which cows were milked by hand. That is now done by machinery. It is a high-technology, value-adding industry producing $1.7 billion worth of product that is transformed into $4.6m worth of output. Farm output is increasing by 3186 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly approximately 6 per cent a year. I acknowledge the Target 10 program that has been conducted between Queensco, which is a major cooperative in my area, and the Department of Primary Industries. That project is aimed at increasing production per cow. Honourable members might wonder why such a project was necessary. I will outline to honourable members what is happening to the number of cows in Australia. The number of dairy cows in Queensland—and in Australia—is at an all-time record low. Although 40 years ago Queensland might have had twice as many cows as it has now, today, cows are producing more than twice as many litres of milk per annum. So production per unit is improving, and to do that requires a lot of effort from the farmers. The Government must ensure that the farmers will be well looked after in this industry. That is important also. The Government has looked after the vendors, and it must look after the producer as well. The vendors have been well treated by this Bill and by this rationalisation program. I will say it once again because, unlike a computer, I have to input the information into Opposition members more than once. The vendors brought the scheme to the industry, and the industry approved and agreed with its implementation. The member opposite should not worry about those malcontents who are running around giving his ribs a tickle, because they are playing him for a fool, as did other people in another sector. This Bill introduces what is called section 38 legislation, that is, post farm gate deregulation, if you like. This brings Queensland into line with Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. It is essential that that production be there. Members opposite, with the exception of Mr Connor, I am sure—— Mr Beattie: Why with the exception of Mr Connor? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Because he does not know what happened more than five minutes ago. Members opposite will remember the Industries Commission report. I think that the draft report was released in 1991, and the main report was released in 1992. Several recommendations on the dairy industry were made in that report. The cost of interventions in the dairy industry were put at $280m. As a result of that report, there is no doubt that Queensland markets are going to be opened up to milk from interstate. Section 38-type legislation will ensure that our farmers have the incentive to produce their product year round. An Opposition member: I have a farm. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am very interested to hear the member opposite say that he has a farm. I turn now to the processing sector of the dairy industry. As honourable members would know, the Queensco Unity Dairy Foods cooperative has a major plant in my electorate, and it had two plants in my former electorate. That cooperative provides about 150 to 160 jobs for people from my electorate. The recent amalgamation between the Queensco cooperative and the Darling Downs Unity cooperative went ahead with generous support from this Government, which agreed to an ex gratia payment of $1.5m of stamp duties to enable that amalgamation to go through. In 1987, the then Minister, Mr Harper, commissioned a report by Professor Langdon. The Green Paper that was issued as a result of that suggested that there would be two cooperatives in Queensland, one in north Queensland, that is, on the Atherton Tableland, and that the other cooperatives should merge to form one cooperative. That proved to be too difficult a task. But there are moves within the industry for further amalgamations. I am concerned that Professor Langdon is now associated with an organisation called Australian Consolidated Foods. He is preying on Queensland cooperatives, particularly PCD and the Malanda group on the Atherton Tableland, in an effort to set up an eastern seaboard cooperative. There are other problems in terms of interstate legislation in the setting up of an eastern seaboard cooperative. I would prefer to see the entire Queensland cooperative sector in one Queensland cooperative, with the proprietary company, QUF, providing the opposition. I urge the Minister and those existing cooperatives to do whatever they can to see whether we can achieve that single cooperative for Queensland, and to beat off what I Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3187 am sure are very generous financial offers coming from south of the border but, nevertheless, not offers that I believe are appropriate for Queensland at this stage. The position paper, which was circulated within the industry by the Minister in March, covers very concisely the matters that are brought to us in the form of this Bill today. Some of those things are very obvious. One of the issues that I want to talk about briefly, which has great ramifications for the operation of the Queensco Unity cooperative, is the provision in the Bill that means that Queensco will now be able to have QUF pay freight on the milk that is taken in large quantities by people who service the Brisbane franchise area. Under the existing scheme, as I understand it, QUF can demand the milk. It can also tell Queensco that it does not want it without giving much notice, and Queensco is required to pay the transport. If the milk is not required, even though it has been prepared for delivery to QUF, QUF then has to make other manufacturing arrangements for that milk. Some sections of this Bill will mean that QUF will be paying for the transport costs of that milk. Perhaps it will be a little less tardy in its dealings with Queensco in this regard. I know that dairy farmers in my electorate, and particularly Queensco, look forward to being able to access the Brisbane fresh milk market in 1998. I am sure that they will compete very positively in that sector. This Bill is one of the better pieces of legislation that have been brought into this House. It displays that this Government does have the will; that it will bite the bullet; and that it will go about industry restructuring. The most important thing is positioning our industries to meet the challenges. I am very pleased to support the Minister on this legislation 100 per cent, as do those people from my electorate—— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Mr Beattie advises me that I have some visitors from my electorate in the gallery. “Hello” to the people from Toorbul. Time expired. Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! I would like to acknowledge in the gallery this afternoon Dr Saad, the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Malaysia, and James Nachipo of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Welcome to Queensland. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

DAIRY INDUSTRY BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (3.08 p.m.): I take no pleasure in seeing this legislation about to be forced through the House by a Government that knows nothing about the dairy industry, and cares even less, as we heard from the previous speaker. The honourable member was a port packer for Ansett Airlines and now he is an expert on the dairy industry. There are not many on the Government side of the House who know much about this industry. I am angry about the legislation, because I am a dairy farmer and I can see real problems for the farmers a bit further down the track. It might take five years or seven years, but the farmers will pay very dearly for the Minister’s meddling in this industry. I have also been a big businessman. How does one get a small business under this Government? Like me, one gets a big one and then it gradually gets smaller. I know that there will not be too many vendors feeling good about this legislation. 3188 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Government claims that this Bill has the support of the dairy industry. At page 8 of the Bill, the Government even tries to blame the industry—like the goose who spoke previously—for this horrible new legislation. It states that this is restructuring in accordance with proposals originating from the industry itself. What a terrible, dreadful untruth! Sure, the industry has negotiated with the Government. Sure, the industry is saying that this is the best it can get. But I remind honourable members that this is the agreement that they reached at the point of a gun. It is like offering a condemned man the choice of how he goes. The executioner then runs around saying the bloke has chosen to be hanged, shot, or whatever. That is a Clayton’s choice, and the Government knows it. The dairy industry had no option here. The Government heavies went along and said, “Look, we are going to deregulate the dairy industry whether you like it or not. Come up with some proposals, or we will do it for you, and you won’t like the result.” That is nothing but blackmail, pure and simple. The dairy industry had no option other than to go along with the Minister’s plan. He should not attempt to give me the story about this happy union between the dairy farmers, the processors, the milk vendors who are going to get it in the neck, and the kind, caring Labor Government. What a load of codswallop! The farmers know that the Labor Party would throw them to the wolves if they could get milk in from somewhere else a bit cheaper. Mr Beattie: When was the last time you milked a cow? Mr VEIVERS: I milked a cow two weeks ago. When did the honourable member milk a cow? It was a long time ago, because he is too busy driving around in that new Saab that the union has supplied the money for. He is a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The member for Southport will return to the Bill. Mr VEIVERS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was provoked. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the member should exercise more self-control and return to the Bill. Mr VEIVERS: Then Labor Party members could tell people how good they are at cutting the cost of living. But it does not work that way. Milk has to be pretty fresh, and bringing it from Victoria is not a good option—yet. The cooperative processors know that the Government wants nothing to do with them. The Labor Party only likes to deal with big business, because that means big unions and a lot more control to the union heavies. The vendors have known for a long time that they were the first ones to lose out. As soon as he got his feet under the desk, the Minister put the vendors on notice. Someone on this side of the House has already told us about the comment about the only investment being an old truck and a pair of sandshoes. I will not go into that. He had to say that, because the unions wanted the vendors out of business. They want milk carted around by companies that have to employ union labour. There is no place for owner-operators in Labor’s grand scheme of things. Milk vendors have been to see just about every member on both sides of this House. The only ones who would listen to them were on this side of the House. The Labor blokes knew the vendors were doomed, because the Minister wanted them out. The vendors have also had to stand by for three years watching the values of their runs eroded by constant speculation that they would be wiped out. The Government has even deliberately blocked the sale of runs by using departmental officers to warn off prospective buyers. There has been a consistent campaign to make sure vendors would be grateful for any little crumbs that come their way. They are sure getting the crumbs under the scheme that the Minister has forced the dairy industry to accept—and to fund on its own. The Government has effectively stopped the sale of runs for realistic prices, and now it expects vendors to be happy with payouts as low as 75 per cent of the real value. The Minister should not talk to me about an amicable settlement. The dairy industry is putting the best face on things because it has nowhere else to go. The member for Brisbane Central must have fainted. He has not interjected for a while. He should not expect me to rush over and give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The dairy Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3189 industry is in big trouble from 1 July. The children in the gallery can go home and tell their parents that I was fighting in this place for private enterprise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will get back to the Bill. Mr VEIVERS: The dairy industry will be run by a bunch of ministerial cronies—by Labor cronies bludging on a payroll met entirely by the dairy industry itself. This legislation sets up a policy council to guide the industry’s future. Instead of going into great detail on the council’s membership, this Bill should just say “Ed and his mates”, because that is what it amounts to. The only qualification is that the Minister wants a bloke on the council. The chairman will be the Minister himself. How about that! He is the most incompetent Minister in the Government. He is the bloke who has millions of dollars in cheques lying around on his desk or someone else’s desk and does not take any responsibility for it. And he cannot even find out who left them there or who did what. He cannot run a department, but he still wants to sit around with a few of his mates and run the great dairy industry. They will be union mates, of course, because that is how Labor does business—union mates or blokes who want to get on side with the Labor Party. There is going to be a dairy authority. The Minister gets to decide who goes on the selection panel—that is seven jobs for his union mates. They pick the members of the authority, and that is more jobs for his mates. The legislation even makes it just about mandatory that the unions have to have a few spots on the authority. What is worse is that the dairy industry leaders are barred from membership. Isn’t that nice? Make them go along with the restructure, then ban the top leadership from a role in running things. The entire dairy industry will fall into the hands of the unions and the Labor camp followers. Anyone who thinks that that is a great idea must spend like the member—he has left the Chamber, so I cannot speak about him—well, the member for Brisbane Central, who spends a lot of time in the garden, I believe, talking to fairies. What about a consumer representative on the board of the authority? There is no consumer representative. Even Vilma Ward would have been all right. The Minister could probably not have handled her; she would be too tough. The Minister and his mates will be in charge of the price setting mechanisms and licensing the processors. I can guarantee that there will be some fiddling to get rid of the cooperative processors by the farms that are supplying the milk. Those co-ops are very important because the farmers get a decent return producing the milk that goes to them because they own it. It is not quite the same with the big outfits such as QUF that have to supply profits for dry shareholders. Mr Beattie had not thought of that. Mr Beattie: No, I certainly haven’t. Mr VEIVERS: They are not going to get this one; we will be fighting all the way. They owe their loyalty to the shareholders, and the farmers do not get a good look in at all. During the first five years, I believe that the co-ops will be in for a very lively time. At the end of licensing, the large outfits will be well-positioned to move in on the co-ops and pick them off. The farmers had better look out then, because market milk entitlements will be worked out to the commercial advantage of the big companies. For the time being, the Minister and his mates will have a big influence on the entitlements available to farmers. I warn the farmers to watch out for a few paybacks. I am sure that the Labor Party will use that opportunity for getting square. Mr Livingstone interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I take the interjection from the member who used to be with that terrific council in Ipswich which is now upside down and totally all about. It has bribed and corrupted, and no-one will look into it. The member was probably at the heart of it, if the truth be known. What a bad lad he is! He then comes into this place—— Mr Beattie: That’s what happens when you drink milk. Mr VEIVERS: If I waited for the honourable member to shout, I would be a very old man. Every farmer should be worried about the power given to Labor’s mates to set the farm gate price. I wonder how many of them know about the clause that says the 3190 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly price should reflect an Australiawide consensus? We have a bit of Bob Hawke in the Bill. The term “Australiawide consensus” also means that for union people and all the big bosses prices will be down and profits will be up. How many people want the farmers from Victoria, where conditions are entirely different, effectively setting the farm gate price for Queensland, especially if large Queensland interests have a major interest in the Victorian industry as well? Because the council and the authority will be able to set the standards for every aspect of dairy industry operations, the cost to the industry and the amount of paperwork will go through the roof. The unions will get a foothold everywhere—in the transportation of the milk and in all the processing in every plant. They will run the distribution depots. It will be a bit like the unions in America—the teamsters— that get hold of the transport sector and tie it all up. That is what the dudes in the Labor Party want. An Opposition member interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I take the interjection from the honourable member. Tom Barton would know all about that. He is already planning how he can get his fingers into that bit of money for the union. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will come back to the Bill before the House and he will address his comments through the Chair. Mr VEIVERS: I will take heed of your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. When this settles down over time, the dairy industry will be heavily unionised. The returns to farmers will be down and red tape will have increased. Farmers will have to toe the line with union bosses on all aspects of their operations. They will have to toe the line with the big processors in order to keep their entitlements. The smaller cooperative processors will be put under enormous pressure by fully unionised operations. After 1 July 1998, they face the risk of being swallowed. The worst suffering will be on the part of the distribution sector—the vendors—who have already suffered so much during the past three years. I would go so far as to say that the leaders of the vendoring industry—their representatives—have sold them out to the Minister. Mr Beattie: Attack the association. That’s right. When you can’t get your own way you attack the association. Mr VEIVERS: Is the honourable member deaf? They sold them out to this Minister. The member should listen to his local vendors, although he would not have too many vendors in his electorate. The Government has demanded that the industry foot the bill for reducing the number of vendors from about 1 100 to 400. That means paying out vendors for their current runs, a restructuring of runs and the allocation of new runs. The prices being offered for some of the current runs are ludicrous. In my electorate on the Gold Coast, there are differences in offers for runs that nobody could understand. In the heart of Surfers Paradise, a run has been operating for 25 years. It is one of the largest runs on the coast. The owner has been offered $19.25 per litre for his operation. Next door, a bloke has been operating his run for seven years. It is half the size of the other run. However, he has been offered $40 per litre. Is that fair? Is that equitable? It is madness! The Government should not start on this industry, because if it does, it will get into trouble. The Minister, in common with a lot of other Ministers—no hands on experience—does not understand the industry or the examples of some of the inequities that I have just mentioned. I hope that the Minister will try to fix them because there are lot of people who are angry and feel sold out. Representatives of the vendors have come to see the Minister or his departmental officers in the lobby, and I believe that they are not getting a fair go. I believe that the Minister has fair and reasonable attitudes, and I know that he will look at that aspect. It is not just terrible; it is damned awful. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3191

I am very worried also about the way the new runs are going to be allocated—the lucrative runs. The A and B class licences are going to be auctioned, and there is every opportunity for some very nasty shenanigans there. What about the possibility of a big distributor out-bidding everyone else for a series of the big runs based on supermarket and shop deliveries? The nature of the supermarket runs is such that a few deliveries would be made each day to any particular supermarket. An operator with a suitable fleet of trucks could easily handle a group of supermarkets and shops. Is that not right, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr Casey: You could do that now under the present Act. Mr VEIVERS: Yes, but it is much more equitable and they are not being unionised or overridden. The operator will have a stranglehold on milk distribution in that area. The small shops will be at the mercy of that big operator. The Minister should just think about what would happen if that operator was a subsidiary of a particular supermarket chain. How does the Minister think that the corner stores would get along then? They would not have a chance. The lucrative licence should be restricted to people who have a history of involvement in the industry. It was their industry until the Government decided to wreck it. When it comes to getting what is left of a profitable industry, they should have some sort of an advantage. There should be legislative provisions enabling these licences to stay with small operators. They are an ideal father- and-son operation. The Minister should remember that the supermarkets or carriers aligned with them do not have to bid for these licences. Later on, they can buy up all of them if they want to. They will not mind paying a bit more for the licence if it puts the smaller operator under pressure or out of business. Mr Beattie: You’re running out of steam. Mr VEIVERS: No, I will never run out of steam. That is good, long-term business practice, and that is how they do it. It is now history that the Minister for Primary Industries was directly responsible for the shambles in the bread industry. The Minister introduced defective legislation and the big operators drove trucks straight through it with the result that vendors were going broke, small bakeries were going broke, and a good, competitive industry that gave everyone a fair go was destroyed. Mr Beattie: That’s not true. Mr VEIVERS: Bread has just gone up another 15c. Mr Nunn: That is a good old-fashioned method of pricing. Mr VEIVERS: The member is so tight, he would not even buy it. We now have a bread industry that is dominated by a couple of large bakers and most of the bread is being sold through a couple of supermarket chains. I do not want to see that happen in the dairy industry. We are entitled to hope that the Minister has learnt his lesson from the disaster he imposed on the bread industry, but I reckon he has not. In summary, let me ask the Minister what this deregulation program will achieve. Will consumers be able to buy cheaper milk? The experience in New Zealand, Western Australia and Tasmania—which have deregulated dairy industries—is that the price of milk has gone up. The prices of bread and eggs have also increased generally, so deregulation has not been in the best interest of consumers. Will the employees be better off? Employment in the dairy industry in Queensland has been extremely stable. Factories in every major provincial city have ensured that there is a decentralisation of labour and industry. The experience of other States in the bread industry has been that processing plants have been centralised in capital cities, resulting in the closure of many small country and provincial centres. At the same time, in Western Australia processors have gone broke. Workers really will not be any better off under deregulation. Will processors become more efficient? Maybe they will, but I am not too sure about that. I think we are simply setting the stage for national, southern-based proprietors to take over what would be and has been Queensland’s stable, efficient, Queensland-based dairy industry. 3192 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Beattie: You’re a socialist. You are supporting overregulation. We are the ones who are supporting a vibrant industry. Mr VEIVERS: Has the member for Brisbane Central been listening to me? He is noted for opening his mouth and closing his ears, and those comments provide a very good example of that. He has not been listening to me one bit. Mr Beattie: You are a socialist. You have not responded. Mr VEIVERS: I just did. What I want to know is: what will the Minister do about this? Will he do anything? Mr Casey: Stick around for the next two hours. Mr VEIVERS: No. I do not think he will. Does the Minister know why I think that way? It is because he really could not care less. I reckon in one and a half years’ time, he will be basking on Hamilton Island and he will not give a hoot about what happens to the dairy industry. He will be out of Parliament like a shot and take his superannuation before the backbenchers take it off him. When Mackenroth gets hold of him, he will be out of here and he will take the $600,000 or $700,000, plus the Peel report’s $16,000—let us not forget that! They drink cocktails on Hamilton Island, and the Minister will be there. Someone will say to him, “What about the vendors on the Gold Coast and in the city?” He will say, “What vendors?”, glug, glug, glug. The Minister will have to watch out. He has bad skin and he could get sunburnt and die of skin cancer. In the meantime, I hope the Minister does something about this industry. I might have been joking about his retirement, but I am serious about the dairy industry. The vendors have been mortally wounded, and I hope the Minister does something about looking after this State’s great dairy industry. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (3.27 p.m.): This Dairy Industry Bill has been brought into the Parliament by the pariah of rural Queensland. This is a last blast by this Minister; this will be his last opportunity to get even with the people in the bush—the people to whom he has been bitterly opposed throughout his entire political career. He now has the opportunity to take the upper hand, and he will leave no stone unturned. I say that this will be his last opportunity because he is the erstwhile Minister. The dogs are barking that this Minister is dead in the water. I have to tell the Minister that I am rather pleased about that. It will be nice to see a new Minister for Primary Industries, who might have some understanding of rural industries in Queensland. Mr Casey: It won’t be from your side of the House, that’s for sure. Mr GILMORE: That is all right because everybody knows that the Government Whip will take the Minister’s place. At least the member for Mulgrave is intelligent and presentable, and he has some kind of understanding of primary producers in this State. I look forward to his taking over as Minister for Primary Industries. This is the very same Minister who, a few years ago in answer to a question from me, reassured all the statutory boards and marketing organisations that he was supportive of that type of industry structure. The Minister said that there was no problem and that he had the interests of organised marketing close to his heart and soul. Mr Casey: Yes. Mr GILMORE: Yes, and now we know. Since he has been the Minister, he has systematically dismantled organised marketing in this State, and this is the Minister’s last exercise. Mr Connor: No. He’s still got more to come. Mr GILMORE: He still has more to go? That is excellent because he will be able to journey towards the end of his life, as the member for Southport said, while feeling really good about what he has done to the dairy industry. Every day, he will be able to think about the people he has destroyed in rural Queensland. Why does the Minister think that his Premier has set up the Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, as an ambulance bearer who gets around in a T-shirt with a red cross on it, trying to fix up the problems created Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3193 by this Minister and trying to take some of the odium out of the Government’s policies in the rural sector? I can tell the Minister that he is as welcome in the bush as is a skunk in a perfume shop. It would not matter where the Minister went—he would find people trying to drown themselves in dry dams to get away from him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! I suggest that the member for Tablelands come back to the Bill before the House. Mr GILMORE: In terms of economic rationalism—the Minister is the oldest rocker in town. He has decided that economic rationalism is the way to go with the milk industry. He has chosen to follow the line of deregulation of the industry because it is an easy decision for a Labor Minister to make. About two and a half million people consume milk on a daily basis, and there is a handful of farmers. The member for Caboolture mentioned approximately 1 832 dairy farmers; including their wives, that makes 3 000. Balance that against two and a half million, and certainly it is an easy decision for a Labor Government to make to deregulate in the hope of reducing the price of milk to the consumer. That is the game that we play. We know that that is the way it is with the Minister. The Opposition has never had any shortage of concern about that. We have always known that would be the way in which the Minister would do it. Unfortunately and regrettably for the people of Queensland—and I include the two and a half million people who drink milk on a regular basis—inevitably, we will end up with the price rises that the member for Southport so eloquently spoke about. The legislation goes some way towards guaranteeing a farm gate price. Clause 38 says that, after the deregulation, we can have a farm gate price. That is wonderful stuff. The trouble is that not a soul in the Parliament trusts the Minister. We do not believe a thing that the Minister says. Mr BUDD: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark very offensive. I trust the Minister for Primary Industries explicitly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a reflection against the member. There is no point of order. I call the member for Tablelands and I remind members on both sides of the House that I will not tolerate frivolous points of order. Mr GILMORE: Some of the gentlemen on the back bench are still a little green. The Minister will have retired from this place, but the opportunity will still be there for another Minister to take away farm gate pricing from the dairy industry in this State. The Minister will not care. He will be gone. He will have done his damage and fled the scene. He will not be held responsible because, after he has been here for 30 years, three minutes after he walks out of this place people will not remember him. They will be glad to forget him. The people in the bush will be glad to forget him. If I were the Minister, I would not holiday in the bush. He is the Minister for secret droughts. Nobody in the dairy industry fears change. Nobody fears change. It seems to me that change should be precipitated by Government. It is the role of Government to precipitate change, but it is not the role of Government to be the agent of that change. If the Minister thinks for one moment that the advocacy group for the dairy industry in this State is anything short of 100 per cent, the Minister is selling them short. It is the most competent advocacy group in rural industry in this State. The Minister has presumed—a failure—to set the agenda for the dairy industry in this State for the next 20 years. It is a little sad that the Minister should have taken that laurel upon his stooped and aged shoulders. It is very, very sad indeed. As the member for Southport pointed out, the dairy industry has been forced to adopt that change and forced to adopt that model, although it is clearly not the preferred model of the industry. It would have chosen a different model and introduced it in a different way. People in the industry certainly were looking forward to change. They were not afraid of it. They were prepared to drive the change, not be driven to it. That is something that the Minister and members on the back bench of the Government simply will not and do not understand. They are too busy sneaking around putting their union mates into the business. Some aspects of the restructure of the vending industry are of concern to me. I will mention only one of them. A vendor came to me seriously concerned about the prospect of losing a considerable amount of money. When he purchased his run, he 3194 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly purchased a considerable volume of potential growth. He purchased in a large growth area north of Cairns with the potential for supermarkets, shops and other things. When the calculation was made, he came into the district average and was done like a dinner. Does the Minister care? Not a bit. That person is one of the great losers of the mechanism that the Minister is putting together. Mr Casey: Didn’t you say that it was a voluntary scheme; that he hasn’t got to get in it if he doesn’t want to; that he can stay with his run if he wants to? Mr GILMORE: And the Minister will take the bulk deliveries from him, take his legs out from under him and leave him lying on the beach to bleed to death. The Minister can sit there and put forward his pious proposal that he can do as he pleases and go about it in his own way, but the Minister has missed the boat. People are being very badly treated by the scheme. It is only a few individuals. At least the majority of the vendors have told me that, as they have been forced into this, they can accept it. A number of them have been very badly treated. The Minister should not tell me that the industry put the scheme together. The Minister had people in the industry by the throat. He had a piece of piano wire and forced them into it. Mr Casey: Nobody is forced into it. Not a soul has been forced into it. It is entirely voluntary. Mr GILMORE: I want the Minister to tell me a secret to which reference was made by an Opposition member. I want the Minister to whisper in my little shell-like ear. If honourable members keep quiet, we will hear the story. I want the Minister to tell members why there is no consumer representative on the Queensland Dairy Authority. Mr Casey: Do you know who your Government wanted? Mr GILMORE: I know that under that gruff exterior beats a heart of gold that is yellow and bloody cold. Mr Casey: The chairperson of the NSW Co-operative was the person that your Government wanted as the consumer representative. Mr GILMORE: The former Government had on the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority a consumer representative who was there for years, and the Minister has taken that person away. He should tell members the secret. It cannot be hard. He should be able to come up with some kind of answer that is acceptable to the members in this House. It seems that the Minister has managed to dismantle the dairy industry to support the two and a half million consumers in this State, yet he is not prepared to give them a voice on the dairy authority. Sorry, Minister, I cannot believe that the dairy industry has gone to its own execution willingly. The Minister has done it badly. He has taken a standover KGB-type tactic, which we expect, anyway. Nobody should be surprised. The end result of that is that the Minister will have a residue of very unhappy people in the industry for a long time to come. Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) (3.37 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Dairy Industry Bill 1993, I want to speak about a number of issues, particularly a couple of clauses and a couple of other matters that concern me, that is, the make-up of the council and what happens post 1998. Although we have the assurances that the farm gate price will remain in place, I have some doubts about that being the case post 1998. First of all, the dairy industry is an extremely important industry in my electorate. It is a major part of all of the produce east and north of Warwick. Actually, we have some of the most productive dairy farmers in Queensland in that part of the world. One gentleman is producing 11 000 litres per lactation cycle, which is quite a considerable achievement. I am sure that the Minister can appreciate that. Mr Casey: How is Des going? Mr SPRINGBORG: Des Booth is going absolutely wonderfully. He is bowling, fishing, chipping burrs, fencing, repairing windmills and the whole lot. He is really enjoying his retirement. I suppose it makes us all a little bit envious about when we might leave this Chamber. As I said, that particular gentleman, Mr D. J. McLean, is actually Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3195 producing up to 11 000 litres per lactation cycle when most dairy farmers are very pleased and proud if they can get their average up to 6 000. His achievement has been quite remarkable. I have actually spoken to his wife. They run a great operation and they are very, very proud. He is the foremost dairy producer in Queensland. The reason I raise this is that over the last few years we have seen that rural industries, by and large, whether they be dairy, wheat, beef or wool, have realised that they have a problem. They realise that statutory marketing will not always be around because of the economic rationalist theories that we see today. They realise that there is corrupt world marketing which leads to corrupt commodity prices. They have to go out and become more the masters of their own destiny. For every dollar that they have put in they have learnt, they have become more technically sound and more and more aware of the innovations of the day, and they have an ability to be able to produce more for that dollar that they are putting in. That is the important point. However, it is like running a four-minute mile. It does not take all that long to get there, but getting below the four- minute mark to three and a half minutes or three minutes is what takes so long. The problem in rural industry at the moment is that we have made many dramatic achievements. Although further gains are being made, they are not being achieved at the same pace. Many of the problems in the dairy industry—and the dairy industry is probably the one industry that is standing very grand and quite strong now in Queensland and Australia compared with a lot of other industries—are related to the cost burden. We heard the member for Bundaberg, Mr Campbell, a person who has some grasp of rural issues, talking about productivity and those sorts of things. I dare say that a lot of people, through a deliberate self-deregulation process over the last couple of years, have put in train the mechanisms that have made them more cost effective. But what has the Federal Government done? What has the State Government done? I dare say that a lot of the problems and impediments to the continuing cost effectiveness of dairy farmers are really a result of the Federal Government’s pricing policies. The tariffs on vehicles probably add $3,500 to the cost of the ordinary farm vehicle. There are also the issues of sales tax on freight and fuel excise. Mr Dollin: Do you want all the tariffs off? Mr SPRINGBORG: If we are to talk about selective deregulation, why do we not talk about deregulation right across the board? We hear about the necessity for statutory marketing to be abolished and for primary products and other industries to be deregulated whilst maintaining regulation in other areas and whilst maintaining regulation in our labour market. I do not argue against a wage earner being able to receive weekly a guaranteed decent, reasonable wage. That is the only fair thing to do to make sure that he will be able to keep his head above water. But the same people who argue that argue that we have to break down the measures that have been put in place to support our industries over many years to guarantee primary producers an effective living. I would just ask for a little bit of consistency as far as this is concerned. Before I deal with a couple of other aspects of the Bill, I want to say to the Minister that I have am gravely concerned about the effect of the drought on the dairy industry. I suppose the Minister is aware of that. As he is also aware, a dairy farmer is not entitled to receive the same amount of subsidy for feed coming onto his place as a livestock producer. I suppose it could be argued that 60 per cent of his costs go in what he produces and the other 40 per cent are incurred in maintaining his herd. I have in my electorate at the moment people who are finding that all of the money they are making out of their milk is going into just keeping their herd alive because we are in the middle of this horrific drought. I think it would be quite remiss of me if I did not bring that matter to the attention of the House. Mr Casey: Don’t forget we recognised that in 1991 and gave them a 3c a litre increase in price. That is pretty substantial. 3196 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPRINGBORG: That may be the case, but the extreme drought still exists and it is causing a problem for many producers. I recognise the point that the Minister made. I would like to touch briefly on the activities of the South Coast and Warwick Dairy Co-op. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit that dairy. I was very impressed by the operation there and by the dairy’s foray into cheese manufacture. It is diversifying into other areas and making export cheeses such as camembert. That dairy is really value adding to a product. It is turning a thousand litres of milk, which might be worth a couple of hundred dollars, into a value-added product such as cheese, which is bringing in thousands of dollars. That is a great innovation. The dairy has put a lot of emphasis on total quality management and modernisation, and there is a big swing towards that today. Mr Livingstone: A lot of it comes into Ipswich. They are doing a great job. Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member very much. Last year, when I was in Indonesia on the 1992 trade delegation, it was interesting to hear a member of the establishment in Indonesia talking about Indonesia’s dairy needs going into the year 2000. He basically said that at the moment that country is looking at the Queensland dairy industry for its genetic stock. We have in this State dairy cattle of a breed which would suit that country’s conditions. He said that Indonesia has a need for something like 2 million dairy cattle just to fill the need in that part of the world. I see a great opportunity for the Queensland dairy industry to get involved there. Mr Perrett: They closed Wacol down. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is probably some indication of the Government’s regard for research. However, in Indonesia there is a great deal of interest in the Queensland dairy industry and what it has to offer. I turn now to the catalyst for this legislation. Granted, the Queensland dairy industry came up with a solution that was definitely to its satisfaction. However, a set of parameters were laid down within which it had to work. That involved the production, processing and distribution aspects of the industry. This legislation came about because of the Federal Government’s headlong charge into deregulation as a result of the recommendations contained in a couple of reports, particularly the Industry Commission report. That report wanted to see removal of all State controls over the supply and pricing of milk by 1 July 1999, and an end to regulations on pricing and supply beyond the farm gate by 1996. The report of the IC actually stated that the net effect of deregulation on retail prices for fresh milk was uncertain. That body sits in the cosy comfort of Canberra and makes recommendations which could affect the entire industry—the viability of our producers, the amount of milk which they are able to produce for the market and the regularity and price of that product. In response, the dairying industry says that milk prices will rise and farmer returns will fall. That could well be true, considering that, when New Zealand implemented similar dairy industry restructuring, its reforms backfired, resulting in dairying incomes being reduced, higher milk production and higher milk prices. Those issues must be considered before playing around with industries such as this. It is all very well to say, “We will deregulate selectively and, at the end of it, we will have wonderful prices for milk, the consumers will be happy and so will the dairy farmers, and we will all live in a fool’s paradise forever.” Quite often, that will not be the case. I hope that, at the end of 1998, the dairy industry will be stable and that its processing and distribution network is as effective as it is today. At present, many very interesting developments are occurring in the Australian dairy industry. There is a swing towards the consumption of milk but, at the same time, there is a swing away from the consumption of other products such as butter and cream which use dairy fat. The excess of dairy fat products on the market raises interesting challenges for those marketing the industry. They have to attempt to sell those products to the community. That demonstrates the way in which not only the dairy industry but also every other industry has to change. The dietary habits of the community change Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3197 constantly. What we wanted yesterday and what we wanted last year will be different from what we want in the future. However, the dairy industry has upgraded continually in a self-regulatory manner. That is a very important point that has been neglected by many Government members during this debate. The EC has a market price of $1,500 a ton for butter fat, and it subsidises that to the tune of $2,500. One wonders how we can compete effectively in that market. In a few years’ time, the all-milk levy, which is currently 45c a litre and which protects domestic producers against the subsidised EC product, will disappear. If, by that time, a satisfactory GATT conclusion has not been reached, our domestic products will be extremely uncompetitive—not because we are inefficient producers but because we have to compete against very unfair world market forces. Those are very important issues which will need consideration in the future by the State and Federal Ministers. During this debate, scant mention has been made of the 0.6c per litre contribution by retailers, the $4.5m contribution by farmers, the $4.5m contribution by processors, the $9m contribution by retailers and the $60m which will be raised from the auction of the surrendered vendor runs. That explains clearly the source of the funds which will enable milk runs to be restructured. I wish to turn once again to the make-up of the policy council. In that regard, I seek some answers from the Minister during his reply. Why is it that the policy council—which is such an important body that will consist of industry representative and which will be dictating the strategy for the dairy industry in this State—is so inadequately defined in this legislation? Under the heading “Composition of the Council”, the Bill states— “The council is to consist of— (a) the Minister or the Minister’s nominee (who is to be chairperson of the Council); and (b) the other persons that the Minister considers necessary and appropriate to represent adequately all sectors of the dairy industry and appoints to membership of the Council.” I think that definition is quite inconclusive. If the Minister and those who drafted this legislation wanted to send a positive signal to the industry, the composition of that council should have been defined much more clearly. For example, the industry representatives as well as processors and vendors should have been defined in that clause. When the Minister replies, I appeal to him to point out reason for that lack of clarity. From my reading of that clause, it may well be that the council is comprised of the Minister and one other person, the Minister and two other people who are indescribable, or nobody at all. The composition of such an important council must be defined much more clearly. I turn now to the choice of the members of the selection committee that appoints members to the authority. The legislation states— “. . . (the chairperson) who is, in the opinion of the Minister, suited by temperament and experience . . . ” I ask the Minister: what do the words “suited by temperament and experience” mean? Maybe similar words have appeared in legislation that has previously come before this Parliament, but I am certainly not aware of it. I ask the Minister to provide an explanation of those words. Is it similar to selecting cattle—one chooses those that have a reasonably calm temperament and are easy to work with? Quite a few Opposition members have asked me about the meaning of those words. In my opinion, it would have been just as effective to say, “ . . . the chairperson who is, in the opinion of the Minister, suited and who has the experience to be the independent chairperson”. I seek an explanation of those words during the MInister’s reply. In conclusion, this is a very important Bill and one that will affect my area greatly in the future—maybe positively, maybe negatively. Honourable members have heard many 3198 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly positive indications from the Government, but as I have said in the past, even though there may be that guarantee of the farm gate price, which is supposedly beyond 1998, I have experienced similar situations, such as when the former Federal Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Kerin, talked about the reduction of the floor price, saying that it will go to 700c, that it will be immutable and it will not go anywhere below that price. All of a sudden it was reduced, and then it was gone. If this necessary commodity is to be guaranteed for the consumers in Queensland—and in Australia—that farm gate price must be maintained in the future. They are my comments. When we debate this Bill, we must remember that the industry is not the culprit. It has made very, positive steps towards moving with the times, and it is now up to Government to make sure that it complements the industry and helps it to be more productive in future. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (3.54 p.m.): In common with many other members of the Opposition in speaking to this important legislation, I want to concentrate on the absolute importance of a regulated, firm and fair farm gate price. This legislation is brought before the House by reason of the competitive position and the long-term viability of the industry. In general, it covers the three major sections of the industry—the production, the processing and the delivery section—and at the outset I wish to outline the importance of the dairy industry to Queensland. It is very important to the rural industry. It is the one successful, and perhaps the only successful rural industry at the moment. It is providing moderate success to the dairy farmers of this State, and that has been achieved only through a massive amount of change. When honourable members consider the chain of suppliers of goods to the dairy industry, be they service businesses, manufacturers, storemen, transport, factory workers, they would see how important dairy farms are to the whole Queensland economy. In terms of employment, it is extremely important not only on the farm but also in the factories and the retail area. In the area of nutrition, the diary industry provides for the wellbeing of people. The other point to remember about the dairy industry is that it is an industry that has always been based on family involvement. At the moment, particularly in the Darling Downs area, families who operate dairy farms are going through extremely tough times. The 1991 drought was devastating, and this year they have had another devastating drought, broken just briefly by some two or three inches of rain last week. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! There are too many conversations in the House. I ask honourable members to conduct their conversations outside. Mr HORAN: It is also worth while noting that, during this drought, the average gross return is probably $3.70 per cow per day. With the supplementary feeding that is necessary during this drought on the downs, that return has dropped to 70c. That is even before farmers allow for direct costs. I wish to outline the history of the dairy industry. It has been the backbone of much of the rural development of Queensland, starting in the 1890s, but particularly when the soldier settler blocks were cut up after World War I. Most of the farms then—and there were thousands of them—were based on cream production. Many farmers in Queensland, particularly the beef and grain farmers on the Darling Downs, owe their very existence to their forefathers who started off in the dairy industry. The first Act in Queensland with regard to the dairy industry was the Dairy Produce Act of 1904. From the 1920s through to World War II, the number of dairy farms peaked at 33 000, which is a huge number when honourable members consider that Queensland now has only 1 800 dairy farms. At that time, it was the largest industry in the State. From 1940 to 1960, it went through a large period of adjustment, mainly changing from complete dependence on butter to milk, cheese and other by-products. During the 1960s through to the 1990s, a period of dramatic change took place. It is worth while to consider that change, because if any industry has gone through massive change, it has been the dairy industry, and if any industry deserves to reap some form of benefit from regulation and a fair price, it is the dairy industry. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3199

The industry suffered a loss of preferential trade when the UK joined the EEC. In 1978, the Commonwealth dairy products equalisation scheme ended. There was massive micro-economic reform in the areas of production; the development of pastures and silage; the disease eradication programs such as the EBL eradiation program; the rationalisation of the transport systems and costs and the rationalisation of advisory services; the introduction of herd recording; the introduction of sophisticated systems of milking; marketing to compete with margarine; movement to bulk packaging from glass to plastic containers and bulk containers; the move towards aggressive marketing developments of dairy products such as yoghurts, desserts and various flavoured milks; the introduction of the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme; the change from 32 co-ops to 4 co-ops; and access—which was probably the most important change—by all farmers to the fresh milk market. During that period, many farmers were relying purely on manufactured milk. They were supplying factories such as Nestle, Kraft and some of the smaller cooperatives, and they had no access to the lucrative market milk scheme. It was to the credit of many of those farmers who fought for their industry that they were able to obtain this access to market milk. The advent of quotas, entitlements and factory percentage quotas has seen the industry reach a position of stability and achieve some moderate success. In the latter part of this period, factory amalgamation has occurred. In south-east Queensland, three major cooperatives and one private firm exist. There has been a steady and continued decline in farmer and cattle numbers, but the magnificent thing about the dairy industry has been the quality and the quantity of production, which has kept pace steadily with demand and population growth. I said earlier in my speech that I want to concentrate on the importance of the access of farmers to this market milk share, and the need for them to have a fair price. It is a good example of a sound industry based on regulation, and the benefits that flow from a stable industry flow on to jobs and to the economy. In Toowoomba, the Unity factory is now part of the Queensco Unity Dairy Foods group, which employs approximately 200 people. It processes over 140 million litres a year, supplied by 470 farmers out of a total of 900 farmers who form this combined cooperative group. It is important to maintain stability of price and access to market milk share for the dairy industry. From a stable dairy industry flows some stability and success in all other industries, such as retail, processing and vending. I compliment Mr Pat Rowley, the president of the QDO, and a leader of our national dairy industry, for the leadership that he has shown. He has been involved in the industry for many years, as has his vice president, Mr Lex Buchanan. Together they bring to the industry a deal of wisdom, and they are well respected on both sides of the Parliament. They bring a lot of sage wisdom to the industry, and a very pragmatic approach. It is leaders such as Pat Rowley who see the importance of the maintenance of regulation for dairy farmers up to the farm gate price, while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of competition to ensure quality and supply and, importantly, to provide value for money for Queensland consumers. It is a costly industry. A modern dairy costs a lot of money to purchase, equip and operate. The cost of consumables such as machinery, chemicals, fertiliser and water is extremely expensive. The cost of a decent dairy heifer is around $1,000 a head. So it is important that this industry operates properly and that it provides adequate returns. As I said, the dairy industry is the success story of the rural industry at the moment. It is important that the Minister and his department ensure that that success continues through this legislation. The key to industry viability is a fair allocation from the market milk pool to all dairy farmers. It includes innovative, manufactured milk products such as yoghurts and various desserts. It must also have the ability to withstand competition from within Australia and from overseas. According to the whole milk intake figures for 1991, New South Wales produced 857 million litres; Queensland produced 624 million litres; but Victoria produced 3 909 million litres. So we can see the potential for competition from that particular State. 3200 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

What brought about this legislation? Perhaps it goes back to these pressures that I speak of, including the international pressures on dairying that affect, in particular, Victoria and New Zealand. Victoria really provides the base price of milk in Australia because of the competition that it can engender through that huge amount of production. There are internal pressures throughout Australia from the deregulation which has taken place in Western Australia, which is about to take place in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria and which will take place a little later in this decade in New South Wales. This process of deregulation is being driven by the Industry Commission report. This is no doubt why the member for Southport was so robust in his description of how he believes that dairy farmers have been driven to support this particular legislation. There is no point in not being pragmatic about it. There is a movement towards deregulation throughout Australia. It is important that we remain competitive, modern and in front. An eight-year plan that will eventually decrease the export support component of the dairy industry is emanating from the Federal Government. The 45c per kilogram that is collected from every dairy farmer in Australia will gradually reduce to nothing, and we will have to compete with the subsidies provided by the European Community. Therefore, it is important to have a system whereby we can compete with Victoria once it starts to experience the extreme pressure as this decade goes on and that fund declines. I guess that all members would hope that the GATT negotiations will resolve some of this international trade instability. But Queensland must face this issue of deregulation and become modern and competitive. This legislation has looked at the three sectors of farming, processing and distribution. Within the farm sector, it has maintained the critical farm gate price, supply management and the maintenance of regulation. I keep stressing how important that is. The processing sector will be maintained as a franchised sector up until 1995. It will then enter a period of three one-year licences. There is extreme concern in that sector about what will happen when it moves into that licence arrangement. From 1999 onwards, the processing sector can move to any area of the market, but the number of licences will be controlled by the Dairy Industry Council. There is also concern about the Dairy Industry Council in that it is really the peak body—the No. 1 body—that sets the policy. It will be the Queensland Dairy Authority that implements this policy. The concern is about the make-up of that council and the fact that it is not set in concrete in this particular legislation. We know that this Minister has been involved in the history of this legislation and all the negotiations that led to it. But what about future departments? Once they were removed from the way in which this legislation came about, it would be very easy for them to change the make-up of the Dairy Industry Council and really destroy the whole intent of this particular policy and legislation. Most concern has been expressed about distribution. About 18 months ago, a large number of vendors came to see me about the uncertainty of the industry, what their runs were worth and what was going to happen to them. Some of them wanted to sell their runs. They were disturbed by the uncertainty. Others vendors were concerned that their runs were worth a certain amount of money and they did not want to see the value of those runs eroded. In this particular legislation, there has been a system of contribution from all sectors of the industry—the farm processing and vending industry—to a voluntary scheme. As well, there has been a contribution from the retail industry, which has not been mentioned in this debate. There will be some $4.5m from farmers, $4.5m from processors, $9m from the retail industry, and the balance of $60m will come from vendors via the auction system and through a system of levies. The vendors are worried. But I have to say honestly that, in the past 12 months, I have not heard from the vendors in my electorate. Maybe they are now starting to realise that they have two options within this voluntary scheme. They can retain their runs until 1998, and then go into the open market system, or they can surrender their runs now, and then have the option of buying other runs within the auction system. It is moving to a category A, B and C system. A number of Opposition members raised concern about the open auction method and the fact that some of those category A milk runs could be Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3201 very attractive and could be taken over by conglomerates to the detriment of small business. I want to say something about the protection of the consumer. In talking about the need for us to maintain a fair price for dairy farmers at the gate in order to ensure the stability of this industry, we must also ensure that that is not done to the detriment of consumers. I have talked about the Victorian industry, which would be our main threat. The point is that the Queensland dairy industry has become highly efficient. It is producing a highly competitive product which would be at least equal to the Victorian price plus freight, or less. If Victoria were to compete with us, Victorian consumers would have to subsidise their own dairy industry, or Victorian farmers would have to accept a lower farm gate price. We do have a competitive position with regard to our consumers. I will conclude by pointing out the three main concerns that I have with this legislation. First of all, the Queensland Dairy Industry Policy Council has been included in this legislation to set policy. The authority administers that policy. The Bill does not spell out who is to be on that Dairy Industry Policy Council. I liken it to RIAC in the racing industry, where that body sets all the important things—dates, TAB distribution and race course development funding. In the dairy industry, the Dairy Industry Policy Council will determine farm gate prices, the allocation of growth in the milk industry—all the important issues. We will have to rely on that policy council and on the fairness of the Minister to set a policy that reflects accurately all the areas that had input into the legislation. As I said, we do not know who future Ministers will be, or what will be the attitude of their department or their Government. It is important that we do not alter the thrust and feeling of this legislation which was achieved through the hard work of so many dedicated people within the dairy industry. The second matter of concern—I speak particularly for the dairy organisations in my electorate, that is, the Queensco Unity Dairy Foods group—is the need to look at the growth which is occurring in the milk industry in south-east Queensland. At present, growth is allocated annually about 15 months after the commencement of a growth period. It is a complicated formula. There is a retention of flavoured milk and 20 per cent of the growth in that franchise area, and the balance is allocated by a formula to the other areas and the franchise area. The QUD organisation would like to see—it has a very practical approach to this—the growth in south-east Queensland measured monthly. For example, if the growth were 18 000 litres a year, the figure would be 1 500 litres a month. That growth should be shared equally by all producers in south-east Queensland. Meanwhile, the cooperatives would retain the base entitlements that they have at the moment. That would provide for future growth and it would provide an incentive for those dairy farmers who are improving their production. As well, it would provide an incentive for dairy farmers who wish to enter the industry. It would be a fair and simple system. It would allow also for the fact that, in 1996, we will move into a system in which there will no longer be any franchises, which will complicate further the present system of allocating growth funds. I know that the Minister wants to see a unanimous position in this matter from the dairy industry. It is not the preferred position of QDO at the moment, but I mention it because I know that Queensco Unity Dairy Foods represents some two-thirds of the dairy farmers in south-east Queensland. It is a fair and simple system for access to the growth that occurs throughout south-east Queensland. It is important to remember that many of the suppliers to QUD will, in the long-term future, be the ones in areas that will not be overtaken by urban growth and will continue to provide milk to industry. My final concern is: what is the intention of the department when it comes to the time to issue licences rather than franchises to the processing sector in 1996? The processing sector wonders whether they will be issued in identical fashion and condition to the way in which franchises are issued and operated upon now. If ever an industry has undergone a massive amount of change, it has been the dairy industry. It has undergone enormous micro-economic reform, and most of the impetus has come 3202 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly from within and from its own initiative and drive. The efficiency levels and the economy of scale that have been attained by this productive sector have been achieved with a great deal of pain and effort, but the key to this proven successful industry is a secure farm gate price giving a fair return for the capital, time involved and the difficulties of dairy farming, and a fair share of market milk. The entire dairy industry has shown that, on this solid platform, all sectors of the industry can share in the flow-on commercial benefits. Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (4.13 p.m.): I am pleased also to take part in the debate on this Bill. As I have moved in from the west, I have found that there are more dairy farmers in my new electorate than there were in my previous electorate. I have found the industry and its history extremely interesting, just as I have found a number of other industries in the electorate. However, I remember well the divisions that have occurred place in the past when restructuring had to take place because of Britain’s move into the EC. It certainly caused a lot of division and bitterness among various regions of the State. I believe that to a large extent that division has dissipated, and people in the industry are thankful for it. The restructuring has resulted in benefits for the industry. I endorse the remarks of the member for Toowoomba South, who gave a comprehensive run down on the industry. He has obviously taken a deep interest in it. The fact that those benefits are coming through now indicates clearly that the people within the industry were prepared to bite the bullet and get their act in order. They are to be commended for that. The pain caused by the restructuring following Britain’s entry into the EC was probably necessary, but it is timely to warn members that, although Britain looked to herself at the time and made her own arrangements—that is her right. So to is it Australia’s right to look after No. 1. I think that it is our responsibility—Australia’s responsibility—to do exactly that. But it is simply not happening. Honourable members should consider all the foreign imports coming in and the so-called level playing field and the problems that causes to our farmers. Mr Nunn: We agree. Mr COOPER: Yes, but the blokes on the other side of the Chamber are doing it. They are in Government; their party has been in power in Canberra for 10 years. I agreed with the Deputy Premier, Tom Burns, on only one point when he said that there is a heap—— Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr COOPER: For God’s sake! He said that there were a whole heap of economic wankers in Canberra and elsewhere—these dry, economic rationalists. Government members are the ones who are listening to them—and other members—and I am afraid there is an influence in Canberra—one that we do not need—that is ruining this country and ruining our producers. It is time it stopped. Honourable members have to use their good offices—as the Minister has and all of us have—to see that it stops. I agree with the Deputy Premier to the extent that they are playing economic wankers. As soon as we see the end of them the better, because they are ruining this country and influencing politicians of all parties to this country’s detriment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! I do not want to caution the member because it is a word that has been used before, but I ask all members of the House to choose their language carefully. Mr COOPER: I was not too sure what it meant; it seemed like a good idea at the time. There will not be a need to use it again. We have seen so many producers and people who are employed in those industries being detrimentally affected by foreign imports, dumping and the so-called level playing field—people who vote for the Government and for us. It is high time that it stopped, but someone has to get in there and stop it. The only people who can do that are the people in Canberra. The foreign import policies put our own producers out of work; they ruin their livelihoods. Mr McElligott: What are the alternatives? Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3203

Mr COOPER: We do not have to continually import foreign products. I know that we are getting off the topic of the Bill. Let us consider the pork industry, the fruit industries, the vegetable industries and horticulture. We are importing oranges and orange juice from South American countries. Mr McElligott interjected. Mr COOPER: The honourable member did ask. We are importing pork from Canada and collapsing the markets here. Mr Bennett interjected. Mr COOPER: No, it is not quite like that at all. We have made agreements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to come back to the Bill, and I ask Government members to cease interjecting. Mr COOPER: We will have a chat about it later, but I think we would be on the right tram. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, as I have said, the restructuring of the industry did cause divisions. We often had the south coast—where the divisions probably still exist—versus the north coast versus the Darling Downs versus Burnett and Wide Bay. I think those massive divisions were tragic. We do not want to see them occur again. We want to avoid them if we possibly can. There is a lot of unfairness and resultant bitterness, but things do seem to be fairer now. Let us try to keep it that way. I believe that south-east Queensland, for instance, is an entity in its own right. It should be considered as an entire region and should not be sectionalised into those warring factions. I think that all members would agree also—particularly back then, but even now, although it is getting a little easier to understand—that the dairy industry is a complex industry. I do not pretend to stand here and pose as an expert on that industry, but I am certainly mighty keen to learn as much as I possibly can about it and to support the industry as an entity. I also want to listen to the people who have years and years of experience who are the experts in the industry. I value the experience of people such as Mr Ivan Vonhoff, who would be well known to a lot of people in the industry, and Lindsay Volles from my electorate. I talk to them a lot about the industry. They have had generations of experience, and I want to avail myself of it. They have raised some concerns in a couple of areas. I believe that the Minister might be able to deal with them in his summing up. One that has been mentioned by a number of speakers is the composition of the authority. I want to reinforce the point—and I am certain that the Minister has taken it on board—about who will be on it and what their qualifications will be. It is absolutely vital to get it right. We must insist—I think the Minister wants to hang out the sign—that no cronies and no union hacks need apply. It has to be people who are interested only in making a success of that industry. Mr Casey: In all sincerity, can you name any crony that I have put on any of the boards? Mr COOPER: I am simply saying that we do not want to see it happen in this industry because it has, to its very great credit, put its house in order and has set an example to many other industries. I ask the Minister to please take those remarks on board. I am glad to get an assurance from the Minister that he will do so. There appears to be no provision for new entrants into the industry. They have expressed the need for what they have termed the “front end pool”. They have said that right now 700 000 litres of entitlement is available and that the growth will be around about 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent, which in south-east Queensland would equal about 18 000 to 20 000 litres a year. They want to see the region of south-east Queensland distributing this growth equitably and fairly on a monthly basis and, at the end of a 12- month period, that growth should remain just that—as a growth pool. That should be kept completely separate from the entitlement and distributed on a performance and equity basis. It would allow new entrants the opportunity of getting a start but would also act as an incentive to producers. they are, as I said, practical people who have a genuine knowledge of the industry, and I suggest that the Minister takes on board their 3204 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly suggestions. They want to know what happens at the end of 1995 or 1996 when franchises are wound up. They want to know whether the licences that replace franchises be issued under the same principles, policies and conditions as at presently. That is another question that the Minister could respond to in his summing-up. I have raised the point that, come the end of 1998, when no franchises are left, the industry wants to know how the Government and the Minister—the Minister might be able to inform us—will handle growth distribution. Will it be a case of the Government just washing its hands of the industry and leaving it to its own devices? I am suggesting that the Government should look at establishing that front-end pool to cater for the establishment of an equitable and stable industry for now and well into the future. I join with other speakers who have commended all sectors of the industry for cooperating to achieve what appears to be a reasonable consensus, given all the concerns caused by uncertainty and unknown factors and given all the circumstances of the discussions that have been going on for quite a considerable period. In common with other speakers during this debate, I place on record my query about the open auction system for milk vendors. Many complaints and concerns have been aired with me by people who are involved in the industry. They believe that milk vendors will be at the mercy of the large conglomerates and that this would not be in the best interests of competitiveness or security. Over the next five years, all members of Parliament will have to monitor the developments closely to see how the arrangements pan out and to make sure that the restructuring is carried out as smoothly and as successfully as possible. In common with other honourable members, I, too, commend the leaders of the industry—particularly people such as Pat Rowley who is a very sane, practical and sensible person. He has guided the industry for years, and I believe that all people associated with the industry can be pleased with his efforts and performance, and with the efforts of other leaders in the industry. As I said, the real test is the outcome, and we will see how things pan out in five years’ time. Both the industry and the people involved in it deserve the closest attention and the utmost assistance from all members of Parliament. After all, they have done more than their bit and have played their part in coming to grips with their own difficult circumstances, so it is now up to all members of Parliament to assure them of our support, not only in relation to the industry but also in respect of their families and their livelihoods. These people have been through a great deal in the past, and it is up to members of Parliament to make sure that they can look forward to a very productive industry. I ask the Minister to use his influence with the Federal Government to ensure that Australian industry, Australian products and Australian producers are put first so that they can be given the best possible chances of success. I am aware that the Minister has not listened very attentively throughout the debate, but I am sure he would acknowledge that he has heard the same complaints that have been mentioned during this debate repeated throughout many primary industries in this State. I hope that the Federal Government will listen to the Minister, who is in the best position to make these approaches, and at least try to get some of the primary production sector working again, which could so easily be done. I join with other honourable members on the Opposition side of the House in assuring the Minister and the industry that we will closely monitor the effects of this legislation. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.26 p.m.): In rising to take part in this debate on the Dairy Industry Bill, I must say at the outset that, as far as I am concerned, the major part of this legislation deals with the milk vendor sector. I have attended a number of QDO conferences and have made no secret of my belief that if the vendors are not looked after, the industry will be left open to multinational companies such as Coles and the big chain stores gaining the upper hand. The very next thing that would happen is that those organisations would begin to dictate terms and conditions upon which they would accept milk for their supermarket shelves, and in relation to what will be paid for advertising. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3205

Mr Veivers: Otherwise, they’ll get the New Zealand stuff in. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. They would get the New Zealand milk on the shelves. This is a matter of great importance. Mr Casey: That is why the Bill is set up the way it is. Mr ELLIOTT: Good. Mr Casey: If we don’t make the changes, we will finish up with New Zealand or Victorian milk on our shelves. Mr ELLIOTT: Right. I am particularly interested in the way this Government has gone about handling legislation relating to the vendors. Obviously, a large pool of money will be collected from various sectors of the industry to provide some sort of golden handshake to people who will walk away from their milk runs. Because of the way the industry has been structured and the regulations have been formulated, those people have built up franchise areas which are suffering a fate similar to franchises in other industries. As such, their business asset is worth less than it was, and these franchises have been changing hands in the marketplace at greatly reduced prices. I believe that most of the people in the industry have adopted a responsible attitude and have done most of the leg work associated with ensuring that a second line of defence was available as far as milk sales are concerned. I have always been a very strong advocate for milk vendors and believe that they should be treated as any other small business sector would be. The member for Southport has been a small business operator and he knows what I am talking about. Mr Beattie: He’s not small. Mr ELLIOTT: He is not all that small. I am not referring to stature. Mr Beattie: You couldn’t call him small. Mr ELLIOTT: No-one could describe him as small, no. The member for Southport has been involved in the food industry in the fruit barn sector, so he understands what it is like to be a small business operator. The vendors fit into that category, and they have a very real part to play in the dairy industry. We should look after their interests to ensure that they will be part of the industry both now and for many years to come. Another matter that concerns me relates to clause 47 of the Bill. Although we have not yet reached the Committee stage, I wish to flag my concern in relation to it. If the restructuring is not carried out carefully, companies such as Linfox, which is part of a conglomerate business in the transport industry, may decide that it is worth while to buy the milk runs, thereby organising for itself a complete monopoly. I will watch the effects of that clause with great interest. Mr Casey: There’s nothing to stop them doing that now. Mr ELLIOTT: I know that, and I will watch what happens with great interest. I believe that the auctions will start through CALM. It will be done on television in the same way as livestock sales. Is that correct? I understand that the auctions will start in Cairns, at the top end first. I will watch with great interest what happens at that end of the State to see how the sales go and who buys those franchises. That is of concern to me and it should be of concern to all honourable members. Government members keep telling us that they represent the battlers. Tom Burns, the Honourable Deputy Premier, keeps telling us that he represents the battlers. He makes a lot of noises along those lines. In my electorate, he is always talking along those lines. Unfortunately, he keeps telling those people that he gets rolled in Cabinet and he does not come back with any results for them. If Government members truly represent the battlers, they should be interested in what is happening to the small businessmen who are the vendors in the milk industry. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: I am glad that the member for Brisbane Central is interested in the vendors. I have always thought that he was a reasonably intelligent member. 3206 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Beattie interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: Damned with faint praise again! The honourable member always appears to be interested in what is going on in his electorate and probably has a fairly good perception of what goes on. I hope that he is taking on board what I say. Perhaps he has more expertise in some areas other than the milk industry. It is certainly a concern. I am going on record as saying that, from the point of view of those people whom I represent and other people with whom I have had much contact over the years who go to the QDO conferences and who are from the vendor side of the industry, we would be most concerned if a multinational corporation were to buy all of those franchises and take all of those small businessmen out of the ring. It would be a disaster for the State. Clause 17 also concerns me. The Government does not have a consumer representative on the authority, and a consumer representative ought to be on the authority. Obviously, consumers are another part of the equation. When it is all said and done, no matter what is done in the industry and what costs are loaded on, a lot of it will be passed back to the consumer. It is not unreasonable that consumers should have some sort of say in what happens in the milk industry. It would be a different matter if the Government were to deregulate the industry, throw it open and let the devil take the hindmost. That is a horse of a different colour. If the Government regulates the industry, consumers have a reasonable expectation to be involved and have an input into the whole exercise. Let us turn to the dairy farmers. The member for Crows Nest and I represent more dairy farmers than just about any other member. The member for Crows Nest probably represents a lot more than I do now. To me, the milk industry is one of the few successful stories in the rural sector. That has not been an accident. If Government members were being fair, they would have to say that, with some exceptions, there have always been problems. The minute the Government tinkers with any industry, unless it is left totally open to market forces, the Government will make mistakes. It can play around with the industry at the margins, restructure it totally or do what it likes. However, it is like any sort of equation. If water is poured into one part of a vessel, the ripple effect goes right through the whole vessel. The same applies to the dairy industry. It most definitely has had an effect. The overall effect, if we look back in history, is that we have had a fairly stable industry. It has been successful. The people are relatively viable. They are making a living, raising families and ensuring the long-term viability of a lot of rural areas. For both Government members and Opposition members, surely that is a very worthy social aim. If the Government does not do that, it will have a continuing drift away from country areas back into the city. That will do nothing other than cost the Government more money in the social security field and it will cause large disruptions of a social nature which, once again, will be reflected right down the line in all of the social problems that we see in the cities. We must be mindful to try to ensure that those farms are kept viable, which is in all of our interests. It is in the interests of the consumer to have a stable price for milk. There will always be some academic from the socialist side who will say that the Government ought to bring in milk from New Zealand because we can buy it more cheaply. I do not know about Government members, but I am not mad keen on drinking milk that has been dragged from New Zealand and carted all over this country. I will opt any day for the freshest milk that people can put on their table for their kids and which comes from dairies where people know what the regulations are. People know what the health standards are. They have absolute control over the quality standards and know what to expect. That is most definitely of great concern to all of us. With respect to the producers—I am concerned about what the Government’s attitude will be to the growth side of the market. In some instances, people have put money into their industry—into factories, irrigation and feedlot-type situations. Some dairies do a lot of direct feeding, similar to what happens in a feedlot. Obviously, all of those people have done something to increase their production, thereby giving Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3207 themselves the potential for a greater share of the market. Many other people have, by divine providence or by historic occasion, found themselves in an area of growth. I do not believe that those people in particular should have any greater expectation to receive a greater part of that growth than any other producer who is part and parcel of the dairy industry. As such, we must look at where we are going. The legislation says that by 1998 the whole industry will be deregulated. I would appreciate a further explanation from the Minister in his summing up as to exactly how he envisages that will work. Many producers will come to us in our areas and will want to know exactly what their expectations are. Some of them are wondering whether they ought to be borrowing further money, putting in herringbone dairies to improve their efficiency, or whether they ought to be buying an adjoining property, whether it is a ridge next door to run the dry heifers on, pasture improvement country, potential irrigation country or other cultivation whereby they can improve and increase the production on their existing adjoining property. It is only fair that the Minister explain to the House in detail exactly where he sees deregulation going from that point of view. Those people certainly want to know so that they can advise their families, their children and other people as to where they are likely to be when deregulation takes place in 1998. The other matter that is obviously of great concern to all of us relates to the processors. They are obviously very, very important. If the dairy industry is not going to have a realistic cost structure in relation to the throughput of market milk through the factories as well as in relation to the manufacturing milk that is going into cheese, butter and so on, it is obviously going to be just like a lot of other industries which are very efficient to the farm gate. We are probably the most efficient nation anywhere on earth in getting products to the farm gate. Unfortunately, in many industries we fall apart once the product leaves the farm gate. In many instances, that is due to work practices and historical contexts that have come about because all sorts of little side issues have been allowed to develop in work practices. Where it is practical and feasible, we should encourage the industry. I would like to think that we are probably going to see another amalgamation of some cooperatives. I think it is most desirable that in many of the country areas cooperatives work together and do not disband the facilities which they have and which are efficient. They should get together as part of an overall marketing plan and have an ability to be able to fight in the marketplace for market share. If they do all of that, they will most definitely be successful. Otherwise, the corporate manufacturing people will tend to swamp the cooperatives in the end. It is really important that all of our dairy farmers understand that and that they continue to ensure that they run the most efficient fat-free operations. I do not mean that in the sense of milk fat, I mean it in the sense of the economic fat. I see a lot of the cooperative factories. Over the years, they have installed some very efficient machinery. None has done that more so than the South Coast factory or the Unity factory in Toowoomba. I was pleased to see the amalgamation that did take place with Unity and Queensco. That has been a very successful merger. I believe that it has been in the best interests of all of the producers supplying those factories. I can only see good coming out of those sorts of mergers. They are the main points that I wanted to make. I have always had a very good relationship with the dairy industry. Over the years, I have probably attended more conferences than anyone else on our side of the House—other than, perhaps, the member for Southport in his younger days, when he was actually putting the cups on early in the morning. I do not know that he puts too many cups on any more. However, I am sure he is still quite capable of doing it. I certainly have found it a very rewarding experience to regularly attend QDO conferences. They continue to bring one up to date with what the industry is thinking. As such, I will certainly continue to attend those conferences, regardless of how many dairy farmers I represent. I have always tried to keep myself abreast of the industry. I find it a fascinating industry. About 10 years ago, I was at a QDO meeting at which everyone was jumping up and down. I said, “If I had a son and I was looking at trying to put him on to a property of some sort, the first thing I 3208 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly would do is put him into a milk farm.” I consider that it requires probably a lesser capital commitment to get it up and running than other farms. It is like owning a corner store. There is a regular cheque coming in all the time. I have always believed that the dairy industry has a long-term future, and I still continue to believe that. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (4.44 p.m.): In entering this debate on the deregulation of the dairy industry, most points that I would be concerned about have been canvassed by other Opposition speakers during the debate. It would be fair to say that most of the deregulations and reforms of recent times could be termed the disasters of the decade, and in many cases they have assisted in destroying rural towns and rural areas with the resultant closure of services. Deregulation is the catchword of the nineties. However, it has not been the panacea to cure all ills, as some people would have us believe. Primary industries is the most important industry in Australia. We hear so much said about the glamour industries of mining, but when they have mined out all the mines and when there is no more coal or other minerals available, we in this nation will still rely on the soil for what we can grow out of it or graze upon it. The dairy industry is an important industry to Queensland in general and to many country areas and towns in particular, and to their economies in creating massive employment, both directly and indirectly. The flow-on effect is enormous. We hear so much about the need for a level playing field for this country’s primary industries. During his speech, the member for Crows Nest touched on that subject. Australia is supposed to induce the EC and the United States to remove their protectionist policies. In fact, that merely allows the importation of cheap products from slave labour countries. It helps to keep the CPI down but it does nothing to help our primary producers, and eventually they go to the wall. No doubt the Minister will verify what I am about to say, because he is quite well aware of the international marketplace. Eight years ago, I participated in the international sugar agreement talks in Geneva. I talked with officials of what was then the EEC about the dairy industry here and the dairy industry in Europe. I do not have the latest figures, but it was pointed out to me that, at that time, there were 23 million dairy cattle in the EEC alone. Many people are not aware of that. Those officials told me also that there are 32 500 dairy farmers in Italy alone. The member for Caboolture mentioned that, at present, only 1 500 dairy farmers operate in this State. What is more, at that time, the EEC had 200 000 tonnes of butter stockpiled—enough to feed the entire population of the EEC for two years if not one extra pound was produced. That gives one some appreciation of the scale of primary industries overseas—the stockpiles and the protection that their products have received—and of how insignificant we are on the international scale. I turn to the legislation. It is fair to say that the other States are deregulating their dairy industries and that Queensland is the last State to move in that direction. The legislation provides that the changes are not instantaneous. It will take some five years before they are fully implemented. In relation to this legislation, industry consultation has occurred. I have had meetings with Pat Rowley and with other people in the industry. In general terms, those people support this as the direction in which the industry must move. However, if we must deregulate to fall into line with other States, we should ensure that we obtain the best possible deal for our industry and for the people who will be affected by those changes. I find one section of this legislation to be quite incredible. I refer to the composition of the QDA. The Bill states that it is to consist of— (a) the chairperson; (b) 3 persons with experience in milk production, processing or distribution . . . (c) 3 persons with experience in public administration, business, finance, marketing, quality assurance or industrial relations, nominated for appointment by a selection committee.” Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3209

It is great to have experts, but an old saying warns that one should have them on tap and not on top. It is inconceivable that the legislation does not provide specifically that at least one person who is a representative of dairy farmers must serve on that authority. Considerable concern exists throughout the dairy farming industry about deregulation. As I mentioned earlier, the track record of deregulation in our nation leaves much to be desired. In that regard, one need only consider the airline industry, the banking industry, the wool industry, the pineapple farming industry and many others. At present, nationwide milk production is at a 20-year high. That oversupply may signal problems ahead if the industry is deregulated fully. Suggestions that deregulation will stop at the farm gate are interesting, to say the least. Deregulation and price wars go hand in hand. The impact on farm prices will be enormous and it will all be downward. White milk prices will be determined by interstate prices. The member for Southport mentioned that they will be controlled in the main by Victoria. With oversupply developing, the only movement in quota milk prices will be downward. Considerable concern exists about deregulation also throughout the retail milk vendor industry. As the franchise system is withdrawn, milk wars between vendors and processors will create enormous discounting of prices, as QUF and QUD attempt to buy market share. This exposure to a volatile and unpredictable marketplace will discourage private ownership of milk runs. Processor-owned runs will breed inefficiency and servicing of only the most lucrative areas. Many small rural towns could quite easily be excluded from fresh milk deliveries, with milk being available at the larger town supermarkets only. The obvious result of such moves will be lower consumption of milk—which will not be to the benefit of the industry—higher unemployment and further pressure on small towns. Another issue of concern is that the creation of two bodies to control and plan the deregulated body is hardly deregulation of bureaucratic control; rather, it is more of the same. It is the old pyramid policy—it is wider at the top and very little flows through to the bottom. That is probably in line with many of the policies that have been implemented recently, including in the Department of Primary Industries, where so many jobs in the productive sector have been lost but an increase has occurred in the bureaucracy at the ministerial level. I believe that the Government should be looking at other means by which to assist the industry. The Government should be assisting with an EBL eradication program. It should also be giving the industry a say in the direction which it will be taking in the future. That is inconceivable. Previous Opposition speakers have covered adequately the drastic effects that this legislation will have on some milk vendors. I will not deal further with that matter. I look forward now to the Minister’s reply. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (4.51 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Some were good and some were very, very bad. More than anything, most members have referred to the problems as they see them in their electorates. Initially, I thank my committee members who have contributed to this debate—the honourable members for Ipswich West, Mulgrave, Bundaberg and Caboolture. They obviously displayed the knowledge that they have gained from spending a considerable time working on this legislation with me, travelling around the State and talking to representatives of the various dairy groups. It is a very conscientious committee. I express my sincere gratitude also to the representatives of industry for the way in which they have approached this matter. I will touch more on that later. I turn to the contributions by Government members to this debate. The member for Ipswich West displayed a great knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the dairy industry. One of the biggest dairy factories in Queensland is located at Booval in his electorate. That has provided him with an intimate knowledge of the industry. The honourable member demonstrated clearly the value that he has derived from being a member of the committee that is investigating this very important primary industry. 3210 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The member for Mulgrave gave a very comprehensive overview of the legislation. He touched on the major points that indicated where the Government is going with this legislation. I will say now, and I will stress again later, that this legislation has been worked through in conjunction with the industry. Despite the comments by some Opposition members that there has been no cooperation with industry, this legislation has been more than three years in the making. It was more than three years ago that I sat down with members of the dairy industry to try to work out their real problems. At that time, the different sections of the industry were not trying to shoot each other in the foot; they virtually had a gun at each other’s temples, and they looked like blowing the industry apart. The member for Bundaberg also gave an overview of the situation.I thought that he made fair comments when he criticised Opposition members for trying to politicise this debate. In all of my discussions with people in the dairy industry, and in all of the discussions with representatives of the dairy industry in my department, politics never came into the conversation. Mr Speaker, as you would know because you have lived in some of the dairy areas of Queensland—realistically, the Labor Party does not get many votes from people in the dairy industry. They consistently support their own line of politics, and they will continue to do so. However, at the same time, they are very interested in the politics of their industry and, as the member for Bundaberg pointed out, honourable members should have debated that in this place today, and not party politics. The member for Caboolture has had the great experience of representing an area in which the Queensco co-op was formed, and which then became the foundation for the Queensco United Dairy Group. Because of the amalgamations, it is now the major force in the Queensland dairy industry. The member has worked very hard for that industry, including, as I recall it, when the cooperatives were getting together, and in helping and assisting me to try to get the amalgamation through without the cooperatives having to pay stamp duty. At that time, the member did a considerable amount of work. This legislation is about modernisation and change in the dairy industry. As I said a short while ago, as the Minister for Primary Industries, I have spoken with members of the industry about this legislation. On that very first occasion on which I spoke with members of the various dairy industry groups and people in the farming community regarding the dairy industry, and on every occasion since then, I have said that the main aim of the Goss Government is to maintain a viable dairy industry for the milk producers, the milk processors and, more importantly, the consumers of milk in this State. The whole structure of the dairy industry on the east coast of Australia has changed greatly, and it continues to change. Some Opposition members, in their speeches, referred to the history of dairy farming and what happened when the United Kingdom entered the European Economic Community. It changed the whole context of the dairy industry. It was a major industry that produced butter for the United Kingdom, and straightaway it lost that market. The United Kingdom was more interested in buying its additional butter requirements from the Danes, the French, the Belgians, the Dutch or other members of the European Economic Community. Consequently, massive changes had to occur in the dairy industry. The first changes occurred within the farm sector of the industry. The member for Toowoomba South referred to the time directly after the war when there were 33 000 dairy farmers in Queensland. Now there are only 1 800. However, honourable members should also note that those 1 800 dairy farmers produce twice as much milk for the markets in this State, interstate and elsewhere, as those 33 000 farmers did 50 years ago. Although the structure of the dairy industry has changed, unfortunately, the old regulations relating to franchises tied up the processing sector of the industry, and dictated how distribution would operate. The types of purchases by consumers have changed greatly. The biggest change in consumer habits in the milk industry occurred at the same time as the advent of the two-litre plastic bottle of milk. Most householders now prefer to buy milk that way, Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3211 rather than in the old 600-millilitre milk bottle that used to be clanked about hell, west and crooked. That change has meant massive restructuring in the distribution sector of the industry. When I first examined the industry, the first problem that I was faced with was the big cost increases in the industry in the distribution sector, because the industry was still clinging to old methods. As for this suggestion that Linfox or some other company will come in and buy up all the runs—it can do that now. Mr Connor: We didn’t mention that name. Mr CASEY: If the member shuts up and listens, he will learn a bit. Under the current legislation, those entities can do that now. They have always been able to do it. They could have stepped in and captured the distribution system of the whole of this State, if they had wished. But they will not, and honourable members can be assured of that because of the way in which the runs will be structured in the future. The dairying industry was faced with the position that unless major modernisation and restructuring took place, it would most likely go down the tube. That fact was acknowledged by some Opposition members. The member for Cunningham referred to the competition that was going to come from Victorian and New Zealand milk producers, unless producers on the east coast of Australia got together and organised the industry in a way that would ensure that the industry could be restructured and developed in such a way that it would hold together against any outside pressures, whatever they might be. I state unequivocally that the biggest challenge facing the milk industry in Queensland is increasing supply to meet demand in the next 5 to 10 years in south-east Queensland. The biggest challenge is going to come from the growth and development of south-east Queensland, and getting new producers to come into the industry to maintain that level of supply. The members for Toowoomba South and Cunningham were correct when they said that their areas are going to be the most vital areas for the industry in the future, because that is where the growth and development will occur. In other parts of the world today, such as in the United States, feed-lot dairies are being set up. That is a more intensive way in which animal production can be maintained—in this case, the production of milk. Any member opposite who doubts what I am saying about these changes should ask some of those members from the Opposition who accompanied me on the recent trade delegation to South East Asia. We learnt where the growth will come from and how change will occur in that market. After years and years of trying to develop a dairy industry, Malaysia is now almost ready to start negotiations to import whole milk as the best way of providing milk for its consumers. Malaysia is looking at importing whole milk rather than reconstituting milk from milk powders that it buys from Australia and the European Community. Things are changing. Unless we move with those changes, the dairy industry in this State will not survive. This Bill is no different from legislation relating to the sugar industry in terms of the way in which it is structured and the way in which the Dairy Industry Policy Council and the Dairy Authority are structured. In 1991, when I introduced that sugar legislation into this House, there was much criticism to the effect,“Casey is going to take over the sugar industry. The Minister is going to control, and Labor is going to put all its cronies on the sugar industry boards.” The member for Crows Nest spoke about this issue, although not to the extent that other members did. I asked him to name one person on any of those boards who was a crony of mine or of the Labor Party in Queensland. He could not, because those board members have been chosen for their business expertise with the Sugar Corporation—in the case of the sugar industry. As to policy councils—they are the nominees of the various groups that represent the industry in this State. That is very important. Mention was made about a consumers’ representative. We are all consumers, so how does one choose a consumers’ representative? The person who talks to me most about consumer activities, and from whom I get the best advice about them, is my wife. But if I were to put her on the board, members opposite would say, “Crony.” The only comparison that I can make is the consumer representative within the dairy industry, 3212 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly who was appointed by the previous Government in this State. That consumer representative on the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority, who was chosen by former Minister Harper, was the chairperson of the major dairy cooperative of New South Wales. When I found out about that, I suggested that the then Minister might like to write him a letter, which he did. One of the other processor members from that area was appointed to fill the vacancy on the board, so there was a bit of fairness and equity in the representation for which the previous Government was responsible. As I said, with this legislation we are going down the same track as we did with the sugar industry and the grain industry. The honourable member for Western Downs said in this House that Grainco was the best thing that ever happened to the grain industry in Queensland. He is right. The people in the grain industry know that, because it is back to an industry-based group that can look after its own affairs under the cover of Government. Governments come and go. Ministerial powers and directions are used only to try to ensure that the taxpayers, the consumers and the people of Queensland generally are protected and that there are no rip-offs. This Government will be going down almost the same track with the new beef industry legislation. Again, because we have sat down and negotiated with every sector of those industries, we have obtained their opinions on the legislation. I turn now to some of the comments that were made in criticism of the legislation. The Opposition spokesman, the member for Barambah, spoke about these changes. If we do not change the industry, it will die. It was already suffering from slow strangulation. When this Government took office, the dairy industry was perhaps in the biggest mess of all industries as a result of the foolishness of previous Governments in not moving with the times. The member for Western Downs expressed concern about the vendors. Sure, the vending side of the industry was a major problem, because that was where the major cost increases were occurring. But the vendors have now accepted that, since two-litre bottles have come into being, there is major competition in the way in which milk is distributed. Only about 35 per cent or 36 per cent of milk in Queensland is distributed on a home-delivery basis. That is mainly because of the major decentralisation of the State and the way in which the provincial cities get their milk. As to the honourable member for Nerang—I once called him a boofhead in this House, and he objected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister does that, I will object. Mr CASEY: I will not call him that today. But he will do me until one comes along. As to the honourable member for Gympie—I cannot really tell members what he said because, as the Deputy Speaker said, he spent most of the time speaking to members at the back of the Chamber. The member for Southport claimed to be a big farmer and a big-businessman. The way that he spoke was a little like his football commentating. On most occasions on which I heard him commentating on the football, I thought that he was calling a different match from the one that I was watching. He stated that he was a big farmer and a big-businessman. I have always known him as “Big Mick”, and something that rhymes with it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CASEY: I did not say it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will withdraw the implication. Mr CASEY: All right. The member for Southport is not here, anyhow. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That does not matter. On the member’s behalf, I am asking the Minister to withdraw. Mr CASEY: Whatever you want me to do, Mr Speaker. The member for Tablelands spoke his usual bit of rubbish, and said nothing comprehensive or sensible. The member for Warwick spoke about the pride of dairy farmers in his electorate. He can well be proud of them, too. Warwick is a very productive dairy area in this State. Continually, people from Warwick take out some of the major prizes in the industry. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3213

The member for Toowoomba South displayed his knowledge gained from his own family involvement in the industry. As I said earlier, his area will be one of the major beneficiaries of any expansion of the industry. The member for Crows Nest admitted that he was a learner as far as the dairy industry is concerned. As was stated by another member, he now represents a major area of the dairy industry in this State. Earlier, I acknowledged that the dairy industry is a major industry in this State. If the honourable member for Crows Nest has any problems with this industry in his electorate, I am always available to talk to him about them. He would be better off listening to me than to some of the advice that came from his side of the Chamber today. The member for Cunningham is certainly keen to protect Queensland industry. However, major changes have taken place in the dairy industry. Members must realise that, particularly since the advent of the two-litre bottle, supermarkets are the major distributors of milk in Queensland; it is no longer the milk vendor. We are going down the same track as the rest of the world. Even in Victoria and South Australia vendors are slowly moving out of the system, as are the people who deliver the paper, the bread vendors and the supermarkets that used to deliver groceries to people’s homes. People who perform those services now will only do it for a fee. The member for Nicklin is not in the Chamber, but he delivered a shandy. Since his headier days in the National Party, his role has changed greatly. I thank all honourable members again for their contributions. It has been a wide- ranging debate. All members had an opportunity to say their little bit. I am surprised that the Opposition has indicated that it will oppose some of the clauses of the Bill. However, the Bill is a good one and well worth proceeding with. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. E. D. Casey (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr PERRETT (5.11 p.m.): The Bill contains a couple of clauses about which the Opposition feels strongly, and I will deal with those later. However, this clause deals with the composition of the council. It makes no provision for qualifications of members of the council. Will the Minister tell the Committee how he will select members of the council? Given the important responsibilities of the council—it decides every real policy question for the market—how will the Minister ensure that people who understand the industry have a real voice? Mr CASEY: As I said during the second-reading debate, the way in which we are formulating this policy council is exactly the same way in which we did it in the sugar industry. If the honourable member talks with members of the sugar industry, they will tell him that the new legislation is the best thing that has ever happened to that industry. There is now total acceptance of the sugar industry legislation throughout the State. That is because, at the policy council table, representatives of every segment of the industry sit down with me as chairperson on behalf of the Government and they have constant discourse with Government. It is not a matter of waiting until some problem occurs. The council looks at future problems and has papers prepared for the next policy council meeting so that a determination can be made on the spot and a recommendation comes through to me as Minister and to the Government in a direct way. It is not a matter of people slinging muck at one another in the media or constant fights at different conferences and waiting for 12 or 18 months for something to occur. It is constant and it is also done very quickly. That is how the policy council will operate in relation to the dairy industry and that is why I will personally chair the policy council, because there is that constant discourse with Government. 3214 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPRINGBORG: Why has the Minister not specified the make-up of the council? I understand his explanation as to why he is chairing the council—although I might not necessarily agree with his explanation. Why has he failed to specify in the legislation the make-up of the policy council and the minimum number of people who are required on it? Mr CASEY: I have not specified it in any of the other legislation, but we have reached agreement with the industry in relation to it. Mr CONNOR: There is no accountability in the clause whatsoever. This council has access to a secretariat and can form other committees. The Bill states that the conditions on which members of the council hold office are to be as determined by the Minister. Therefore, conditions can be extended. Clause 10 provides that regulations may be made governing the constitution, and regulating the proceedings, of a committee. There is no accountability. There is no consideration as to who should be appointed. There is no consideration as to whether the Governor in Council should approve them. As well, the council’s functions are wide-ranging. It can do all sorts of things. That is completely contrary to Fitzgerald’s recommendations. Mrs Bird: It is an advisory body. Mr CONNOR: It does not make any difference. The fact is that it has a number of powers and a wide-ranging brief. It can spend money and has a secretariat. It goes on and on and on. Mr Campbell: We have a similar policy for sugar. Mr CONNOR: It makes no difference. The decisions of that committee should at least be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. If we got a corrupt Minister in there, he could do anything with it. I am not suggesting for one moment that this Minister is corrupt. There was no provision in the previous Act for a council. This is a totally new creature of the dairy industry. As I said before, it is the principle of the thing to which I am referring. I am not suggesting that anyone on the council is likely to be corrupt. I am not suggesting that the Minister is corrupt. But what it does state is that if, in the future, we do get a corrupt Primary Industries Minister, he can use this as a vehicle for continuing his activities. Mr CASEY: The honourable member for Nerang obviously displays why I wish to call him a name that I cannot call him. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr PERRETT (5.16 p.m.): Clause 9 refers to the council’s secretariat. The costs of running the secretariat will fall on the dairy industry itself. Mr Casey: No. Mr PERRETT: I ask that the Minister let me continue, and then he can correct me. How many people will be involved? If it is not going to fall on the industry itself, what will fund the running of the secretariat? What will be the public service pay gradings? What qualifications would be necessary? What estimate has been made of the potential cost of the secretariat? If there has been no estimate, why not? The department has had three and a half years to get it right. I ask that the Minister give us an overall view as to how he sees that secretariat running because, obviously, if the industry is to run smoothly it does need the backup of a strong supportive secretariat. Mr CASEY: Very simply, the cost of the secretariat is not met by the dairy industry, it is met by my department. The person who acts as secretary at council meetings—it meets at least twice a year and at other times as required—is an administrative officer of my department who also looks after the policy council of the sugar industry, the grain industry and will mostly likely look after the policy council of the beef industry, and is already acting as secretary to the council meeting of this Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3215 secretariat. The cost of any persons on the council who have to come from other areas is met by my department. It is not a great amount at all; it is just a normal administrative arrangement set up in exactly the same way as were advisory councils, I think they were called, on pastoral work and some of the other bodies set up by the previous Government. Clause 9, as read agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr PERRETT (5.19 p.m.): Clause 12 refers to “functions of the Authority”. The Opposition has grave reservations about any legislation which contains a clause such as this. Put simply, it makes a mockery of the entire legislation. What is the point of wasting time on a Bill comprising 122 clauses when this single clause makes the rest superfluous? The Minister can direct and override the authority on any matter at all that is subject to the Act. The Government asks us to give too much power to the Minister. With this sort of provision, he becomes the absolute ruler of the dairy industry. There is no restraint on him at all, since he chooses the council and the selection committee, which then selects the members of the authority. In addition, the Minister can lay down the selection criteria for members of the authority. The way that this entire legislation is set up means that there is no necessity for the Minister to take any notice at all of anybody with even a basic knowledge of the industry. I have heard a lot of criticism from dairy farmers who think that in this whole exercise the Minister is giving himself too much power. Given the clause that says that the Minister can direct and override the authority on any matter at all that is subject to the Act, plus the fact that he is chairing the policy council, he has complete control over that authority. Why is the Minister giving himself so much power? Mr CASEY: Firstly, I suggest to the honourable member that he look at the 1989 Act instituted by his own Government. Section 29 of that Act—and, as Opposition spokesman at the time, I spoke about it when it was discussed in Committee—is headed “Ministerial Control of Administration”. It gave the Minister for Primary Industries total control of the administration of the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority. I want to point out to the honourable member for Nerang that he ought to be talking about accountability at this point, because one of the functions of the Dairy Industry Authority is accountability for the operations of the industry. It will be subject to audit and required to report to this Parliament as is usually the case. In relation to the dairy industry—I have used my ministerial powers on only one occasion since I have been Minister, and that was to direct the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority to immediately take action with the PCD over the listeria crisis that occurred in the Mackay PCD factory. It accepted that direction because it related to a serious health risk. Having done that, the QDIA then implemented much better quality controls on the entire industry. That is the only occasion on which I can envisage such a direction being given again. However, the honourable member should take note that the same principle applies to the sugar industry and the grain industry, because it is important that if something goes wrong with an organisation that the Government must be able to step in and, if necessary, take control. That is the only way it can be done—by inserting this power in the legislation. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr PERRETT (5.23 p.m.): This clause refers to the general powers of the authority. I draw the Minister’s attention to subclause (2) which gives the authority wide powers in relation to “a business in or associated with the dairy industry”. What business does the Minister have in mind? Is he talking about companies supplying equipment to farmers or processors? Is he talking about the suppliers of a calf supplement? Is the Minister aiming this provision at accountants who keep the books for farmers? I remind 3216 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly him that this clause will become the law of this State. I believe people need to know who is in the bureaucratic gunsight. Mr CASEY: I will disregard the rubbish that the honourable member has put into parts of his question and simply point out, as I said earlier, that the authority referred to in the clause is the administrative organisation in the industry. It controls the milk runs when they are auctioned out, and it does all the work in relation to that. It also sets quality control and standards, and it is responsible for the maintenance of standards in the industry. Therefore, it must have powers, as does any other corporation in this nation, to enter into contracts, to acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property. It has to have a building or a science laboratory, and it has to appoint agents or attorneys, and it may charge for services provided. It may also, by written notice, require a person who carries on a business or is associated with the dairy industry to provide specific returns or information to the authority so that it can carry out its statistical work. All of those matters are covered by this clause, and that is perfectly natural. I think that if the honourable member cared to check, he would find similar provisions contained in anything up to 50 pieces of legislation in this State. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr PERRETT (5.25 p.m.): The Opposition feels very strongly about this clause because it relates to the composition of the authority. I seek a couple of explanations from the Minister in relation to subclause (1) (c). Why has he specifically included experience in industrial relations as a qualification for membership of the authority? Does he anticipate the authority intervening in the industrial relations policies and practices of farmers and processors? Why has he not included a representative of consumers, since without them there would not be a milk industry? Consumers have a statutory right to representation on the body that is being abolished by this legislation. It seems amazing that practically without exception every person in this State would have a vested interest in the dairy industry because he or she is a consumer, yet the Minister has chosen to remove from this group of people the right to representation on the authority. The Opposition feels extremely aggrieved about that. We think that consumers certainly have a right to be represented on this authority which will control one of the staple foods of this State. Mr CASEY: I think I have quite adequately covered the second part of the honourable member’s question, but he may not have been listening at the time I did that. I do not intend to be repetitive and drag out the proceedings of the Committee. The first part of his question relates to consumers, and I inform him that I would hope all representatives on that authority will be consumers. Indeed, I hope that all members of this Parliament are consumers and would have some knowledge of milk consumption. The first part of the question related to the method of selection for the authority. Again, the member is running a little late because this clause is exactly the same as clauses relating to representation in sugar industry and grain industry legislation. The member specifically refers to a representative having a knowledge of industrial relations. The clause does not state that the representative has to be a union or employer representative, but one matter is unquestionable, that is, the dairy industry is a major employer of labour in this State. Industrial relations plays a very important role in the operations of this industry. It has always been the intention of this Government to ensure that those who are engaged in either the employment or organisation of labour will be entitled to a say in the operations of the industry. We do not look upon industries as being a bunch of producers; nor do we adopt a farm gate philosophy, as did the previous Government. We view an industry from the consumer right through to the producer and include all the people along the line who are engaged in that industry. Mr STONEMAN: I follow up the comments made by the Opposition spokesman to mention my concern from the point of view of consumer representation. Earlier in the Minister’s reply, he said, “More particularly, the Bill is about protecting consumers in this Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3217

State.” However, the Bill does not recognise consumers in any way, shape or form. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we are all consumers and, therefore, we would all have an interest. The fact of the matter is that milk cannot be compared to sugar or grain. We are talking about a highly perishable commodity that has a specific use-by date in every sense of the term. I would have thought that, at the end of the day, this legislation is all about people who produce the milk. The chain of activity is very strongly recognised, because the next clause specifically refers to producers, processors and distributors. However, the consumer is being totally excluded from consideration. Although the Minister may cast aspersions on the previous consumer’s representative, the fact of the matter is that there was no outcry, and the consumers would appear to have been happy about that. More particularly, consumers were recognised in legislation that acknowledged their existence. It acknowledged that, at the end of the day, the two important ends of the production line are, on the one hand, the farmer and, on the other hand, the consumer. All the other middle people are part and parcel of a normal sequence of activity. They are certainly involved in quality control, health measures and matters such as that. It intrigues me that the Minister for Consumer Affairs must have been sitting at the Cabinet table totally asleep. Where was he in respect of his responsibilities to those consumers in this State in allowing a Bill of this importance—a Bill that embraces one of the staple foods of our society—to be introduced? If we consider bread and milk, we have it all there in one go. The Government is using the excuse of the parallel with other industries by saying that this is the way that the Labor Party does it; this is the way that the Goss Government does it. That in itself is enough to question the bona fides of the clause. I again refer to those other components. At no stage is there a recognition that consumers have a right to be represented in that most staple area. I would be interested in the Minister’s comment. Also, where was the Minister for Consumer Affairs when the Bill was being discussed, firstly, at the Cabinet table and, secondly, in the party room? Mr CONNOR: I represent a hinterland seat on the Gold Coast, which covers a number of areas that are not serviced well with shops. As the Minister said in his speech, we are moving generally away from home delivery. If any moves are made by the authority in that direction which would affect a group of consumers, that is where a consumer representative would have to make his or her mark. That is where that person would have to stand up for those types of consumers. We have consumer associations and individuals who are experts in understanding what individual sections of the community and particular consumers have problems with. To give an example, as I said, my electorate includes hinterland areas in which a lot of people who cannot easily get to shops rely on home delivery. If a general move from the authority—— A Government member interjected. Mr CONNOR: It is independent of the economics of it. I am talking about an authority that may bring in regulation or may have some say that will affect home delivery. We are already moving down that path. The Minister said that himself. There may be ways in which the consumer representative can have an influence on the regulation that will help those people. Some people who are without cars also rely on home delivery. Handicapped people must also be considered. As I said, some people live a long way away from shops, and they rely on delivery. That is what a consumer representative is all about. Obviously, the Minister is not interested in it. He has written the consumer right out of the contract. The consumer does not even have a say. I would ask the Minister to at least consider an amendment at a later date to bring the consumer back into the equation. Mr PERRETT: I reiterate that the Opposition is concerned about the consumers. It seems that the consumers are the forgotten people of the Bill. As I said in my speech during the second-reading debate, without consumers, we do not have an industry. The Government is wrong. I want to go on the record as saying that the Government is 3218 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly wrong by not putting a consumer representative on the Queensland Dairy Authority. I take note of what the Minister said was his reasoning. In the longer term, the Minister will be proved wrong. Hopefully, when he is convinced that he is wrong, he will move to rectify the situation. Mr STONEMAN: I want to place on the record also that the Minister is not interested in addressing the concerns that I have raised as the shadow spokesman on consumer affairs. Mr McElligott interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I take the interjection of the member for Thuringowa, who surprises me. He said that, in the past, the Opposition was not interested in that. Let me read out the make-up of the previous authority. The Act states that one shall be appointed as chairman; one shall be appointed as deputy chairman; two shall be persons from the cooperative processors; one shall be from the proprietary processors; three shall be from the producers; two shall be persons having specific qualifications in the areas of finance and so on; and one shall be a person deemed to be representative of vendors. For the benefit of the member for Thuringowa, who seems to be wrapped up in refusal by the Government and, more particularly, by the Minister for Primary Industries to even acknowledge the consumers, I point out that section 11 (h) of the Act states— “one shall be a person deemed to be representative of consumers of dairy produce.” Yet the honourable member interjects and says that the Opposition was not previously interested in consumers and that we have suddenly found an interest in consumers. That section is written statutory evidence of the fact that the National Party did have a concern and we do have a concern. We have an even greater concern now because the Government has effectively removed consumers. The Minister has acknowledged that he has no interest in them, yet in his reply he said that the Bill is all about consumers. I say for the record that there is no way in the world that the people of this State can avoid the assumption that the Minister for Primary Industries does not give a hoot about what happens at the consumer end. He has thrown their representative out. He is going to put a unionist from somewhere or other on the authority. We will wait and see. There will be no doubt that another crony will go on the authority, and away we go. It will be the same pattern that we see subtly being integrated into the system of management of this State. I rue the day, particularly on behalf of the consumers who have a valid right to be involved in that most sensitive of areas, that most perishable commodity. It has no relevance to sugar and all of the other products. Certainly, we could talk more about beef. It will be interesting to see what happens. In his speech, the Minister mentioned that he will be undertaking a similar process in respect of the meat industry. I will be interested to see then whether consumers are mentioned in that Bill. If nothing else, members of the Opposition will raise the attention of the community to the fact that the community is being written out and make sure that it at least understands in the future that it must create a ruckus to get the attention of the Government that talks about the little battler, the man in the street and the people who have a vested interest in making sure that they know what goes on at their end, the final consumption end, of such an important item as dairy products. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3219

Question—That clause 17, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— In division— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bredhauer): Order! For any further divisions on this Bill the bells will ring for two minutes’ duration. AYES, 46 NOES, 32 Ardill McGrady Beanland Slack Barton Milliner Connor Stephan Beattie Nuttall Cooper Stoneman Bennett Pearce Davidson Turner Bird Power Elliott Veivers Braddy Purcell FitzGerald Watson Budd Pyke Gamin Burns Robertson Gilmore Campbell Robson Goss J. N. Casey Rose Grice Clark Smith Healy D’Arcy Spence Hobbs Davies Sullivan J. H. Horan De Lacy Sullivan T. B. Johnson Edmond Szczerbanik Lester Elder Vaughan Lingard Fenlon Warner Littleproud Foley Welford McCauley Gibbs Wells Mitchell Hamill Woodgate Perrett Hayward Quinn Hollis Tellers: Rowell Tellers: Mackenroth Pitt Sheldon Springborg McElligott Livingstone Simpson Laming Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 18— Mr PERRETT (5.45 p.m.): This clause refers to the selection of appointed members. This is the mates clause to end them all. This is the one that lets the Minister select a bunch of people who will then select more mates. It even gives the Minister the power to set the criteria for selecting the other mates. I would like the Minister to explain this clause to the Committee. In particular, I would be interested to know if this is the preferred method of the future. Also, what does the Minister require in a person with the correct temperament? Could he explain what he means by that? Mr CASEY: It means that members like the member for Barambah have to be avoided. However, if the honourable member has a close look at it again he will see quite clearly that the selection committee is made up of two processors, two producers and two people from the milk distribution system, and they are the people who sit down with a chairman appointed by me as an independent chairman. Again, I will cite the example of the sugar industry. Mr Perrett interjected. Mr CASEY: Does the honourable member want a serious answer or does he want me to pass it off? Mr Perrett: I want a serious answer. Mr CASEY: Okay. I will give the honourable member a serious answer. He should have a look at the sugar industry. We sat down and we took four growers, we took four representatives of millers, and appointed an independent chairperson. They sat down and looked at all of the applications. They put forward the names of the people whom they wanted to interview. It is the industry people who make the actual selection of those people. They make the determination of whether they want a person who is skilled in finance and who shows the way, in the same way as the sugar industry has done it. 3220 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

On that occasion, the Executive Director of Santos, a major Australian oil company based on Adelaide but which does some work in Queensland, was appointed as chairperson. He came to this State from time to time. He was totally independent. He was certainly a person with the skills, the temperament and of all of those other things to which the honourable member seems to take some objection. They sat down and they chose the people. They were not chosen by me; no-one was chosen by me. There were no cronies and no anything else. It was done in a completely independent manner, and that is the way in which this selection committee will function. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr PERRETT (5.48 p.m.): This clause refers to the time and place of meetings. I am concerned about how much notice a member must be given before a meeting can be called. The way I read this legislation, if three members and the chairperson are present in a pub, a meeting is a goer. I do not think that is good enough. No reference is made in that clause to giving a minimum amount of notice before a meeting can be held. Mr CASEY: By raising a matter such as this, the honourable member is once again tilting at windmills. At the first meeting of the policy council, a determination is made as to when it will meet again. During my reply, I stated that each year at least two meetings are held. Special meetings can be held as required and as asked for by industry or by the policy council itself. The honourable member should consider as an example the interim policy council. He should not forget that members of the industry have stated that that policy council has brought the industry together. For example, the vendors found that, for the first time, they could have a say within the confines of the dairy industry. That policy council brings the representatives together and allows them to have a say. It has obviously worked very well, because the interim policy council worked with the industry in the formulation of this legislation. In the 12 months since the interim policy council was formed, it has met on about four or five occasions. Subcommittees have been formed and, in accordance with the legislation, they have met and made recommendations. The honourable member should apply some commonsense to this matter. Mr CONNOR: I refer the Minister to section 11 (g) of the old Act, which refers to the members of the authority. That section states— “one shall be a person deemed to be representative of vendors or retailers of market milk;” The Minister is misleading the Committee. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The member is referring to the composition of the authority under the former legislation. The cross-reference with the new Bill has already been passed by this Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I think that the member is referring to the wrong clause. Mr CONNOR: The Minister just said that the vendors have stated that, for the first time, they would have a say in the running of the dairy industry. Hansard will reflect that those were the words of the Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Clause 21 refers to the time and place of meetings. The honourable member is referring to the composition of the board. The member is out of order. Mr CONNOR: I am just referring—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member is out of order. Mr CONNOR: I am just referring—— Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3221

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member is out of order. He will resume his seat. Mr CONNOR: I am just referring—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The honourable member will resume his seat. Clause 21 deals with the time and place of meetings. The clause referring to the composition of the board has been passed already by the Committee. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr PERRETT (5.51 p.m.): I seek a clarification. Clause 28 refers to price fixing. I ask the Minister: has he checked the legality of subclause (4)? I believe that the provisions of subclause (4) are in direct contravention of the Australian anti-trust laws on collusive trading. Mr CASEY: The wording of that clause is exactly the same as was used by the New South Wales Government and what is known as section 38 of the Victorian legislation. It has been checked thoroughly, and it conforms with the Commonwealth standard. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Mr CASEY (5.52 p.m.): I have been informed by the parliamentary draftsman of a drafting error in clause 32 (3) (c), which should read— “the conditions of production, collection, treatment, delivery or storage of milk”— rather than “of” storage of milk. I draw the attention of the Committee to that drafting error. Yesterday, parliamentary counsel contacted the Clerk in relation to it. I seek the assent of the Committee to rectify that minor error. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The Committee notes the Minister’s comments, and that correction will be made at the table. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clauses 33 to 45, as read, agreed to. Clause 46— Mr PERRETT (5.53 p.m.): Once again, I just ask for some clarification on clause 46, which relates to the expiry of licensing provisions. I would like the Minister to explain the precise intent of this clause. So far, I have not found two people who can agree on its intent. What licences will expire? Again, I emphasise the need for precision when Parliament passes laws for this State. For that reason, I seek clarification of that clause. Mr CASEY: The clause referred to by the honourable member is in relation to the licensing after 31 December 1998. After 31 December 1998, there will be no more licences, no more franchises and no more regulatory controls whatsoever within the dairy industry. Clause 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47— Mr PERRETT (5.54 p.m.): This is another clause that concerns the Opposition. It is very concerned that licences, particularly the more lucrative A and B class licences, could be collected by an individual and used as a means to disrupt the system. I know that the Minister commented on this point earlier. However, his comments were not to the Opposition’s satisfaction. Bearing in mind that the authority will have no consumer 3222 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly representative, there is no safeguard in the clause that will stop monopolies developing in the future and, therefore, inflicting unnecessary price rises on the consumer. For instance, if they fell into the hands of a supermarket chain, the licences could be used in a discriminatory way. In that respect, the auction system could provide the basis for market domination, and the Opposition believes that there should be a mechanism for restricting dominance in the vending area. In other words, the Opposition wants to ensure competition. Much has been said in the second-reading debate about the problems experienced by vendors. Several vendors have approached me because they were aggrieved by the restructuring scheme. I know that other Opposition members have received similar approaches from vendors, because they have contacted me about it. I dare say that Government members have had contact from vendors in their areas who have felt that they were not receiving justice. I understand that the reason for the restructuring is that there are simply too many vendors in the industry, and that that section of the industry has to be rationalised. However, in so doing, the Opposition is concerned that there is no mechanism in place that, in the long term, will protect the consumer from monopolies developing and inflicting price rises on the consumers. Mr CASEY: Practical common sense will be the protector. I know that the member for Nerang raised this matter before, so I will cover this point now. We might be able to get it all out of the road and hold the division before dinner so that everybody can have dinner in peace and comfort. The honourable member is tilting at windmills. Linfox with big B doubles will not be delivering milk to urban Nerang, urban Mackay or anywhere else. The whole system is a voluntary system. If the vendor wants to be in it, he voluntary enters into it. If he does not want to be in it, he stays out of it. Mr CONNOR: The Minister is shooting the messenger. Opposition members did not mention Linfox, so he has heard the same things as we have heard. We did not mention that name once. Mr Casey: His name was mentioned in half a dozen places. Mr CONNOR: The need for the restructuring of the dairy industry is not in dispute. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the legislation is generally much the same as the previous legislation. It has been modified in certain areas to bring about the restructuring. Where the Opposition has major concerns in relation to the vendors, it would be hardly appropriate to reject the Bill in total. However, clause 47 deals very much with the restructuring and the deregulatory aspect of the distribution. As the Opposition sees it, that is very much the problem. First of all, the Minister will be saying that the vendors agreed with it. I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention an article in Business Queensland dated 12 April this year, which states— “Last week, milk vendors around Queensland were upset and angry with their representative body. Several vendors spoke to Business Queensland but only on the basis that their names would not be published. These vendors say that ‘the Milk Distribution Association and the Dairy Industry Association have threatened that an outcry against the scheme would prompt Casey to call it off and deregulate without compensating vendors for their runs.’ It is understood vendors were told this after announcing they would seek a meeting with Casey to voice their concerns. ” This Minister extracts support for the legislation from members of the industry by saying that if they do not support it, he will deregulate it immediately instead of allowing some form of compensation for deregulation, and that those people will receive nothing. The Minister cannot for one minute say that he supports this proposal. It is similar to the case of the girl who was raped in America recently, and the defendant claimed that, because she asked for her attacker to use a condom, she supported the rape. That is effectively what the Minister is doing to the vendors. That is the level of support that the Minister has received from the industry. The Minister will say that this scheme is voluntary. Again I will quote from Business Queensland— Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3223

“Others”— meaning vendors— “say that the scheme is not voluntary, that even those who refuse to relinquish their licences will still have to pay 2.25 cents a litre levy for every litre of milk they sell.” Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr CONNOR: One vendor said that this will mean a tax of $9,000 a year imposed on his business. He said— “If I stay in the industry, it’s going to cost me $9,000 in licence fees and $20,000 to refrigerate.” An article in Business Queensland stated— “Another vendor says that he will pay $38,200 a year in levy fees, even though he will not participate in the scheme, yet another who only supplies small shops and homes will pay $6,000 a year for refusing to hand in his licence.” It stated further— “Even some vendors who have accepted the scheme say they are unhappy with it.” So what we have here is an industry that is having a restructuring forced on it. It is certainly not supportive of the direction in which this Minister is moving. I refer to a letter to the editor by Tom Moore of Glenmore Milk Supplies, which appeared in Business Queensland on 17 June— “Let’s try the bread industry—30% increase in the price of bread in the last seven months—ask the bakers, not the Government, the New Zealand milk industry—$2.50 per 2 litre bottle—with deregulation and all their milk?” He went on to say— “One thing is a certainty in the deregulation of the milk industry, the price of milk will increase.” That is what this is all about. It is another attack on small business—just as the Minister took on the bread vendors; and look what happened to them. The Minister was back here a few months later. He now has the milk vendors in his sights. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. I do not want to stifle debate, but the member is talking about things that are not contained within the Bill. The new Queensland Dairy Authority will make the determination in regard to licence fees. It is already included in the powers and functions that we have given it, as determined by the Act, and previously accepted by us. Therefore, what the honourable member is talking about is irrelevant. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The member will confine his remarks to clause 47. Mr CONNOR: Clause 47 deals specifically with the restructuring of the vendors. The Minister might like to look at that. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will get on with his speech. Mr CONNOR: The Minister has the butchers in his sights in August. His Trade Practices Commission mates in Canberra are about to deregulate the newsagents. What next? There are moves afoot to look at the taxi industry. Is this the grand plan of the Government, to get rid of all the small businesses in Queensland? If it is not, the Government is going to achieve it, anyway. We also must consider that the industry fears that a large business could go about buying the licences in strategic areas around the State to enable it to control the marketplace. It would be very simple for one company to go about buying strategic areas around the State—Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton, Mackay, and the major runs in the major cities in south-east Queensland. 3224 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that this is not the debate on the second reading of the Bill. We are at the Committee stage, when we are considering the clauses in detail. The member will deal specifically with clause 47 in relation to the scheme for restructuring distribution, rather than making lengthy quotes from magazines that talk about principles of deregulation. Mr CONNOR: With respect, clause 47 deals specifically with the restructuring, and that is what I am talking about. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! For the past minute, the member has been talking about butchers and newsagents, which have nothing to do with the Dairy Industry Bill, or clause 47 in particular. The member will return to clause 47 of the Dairy Industry Bill. Mr CONNOR: Granted, the Minister will argue that milk prices will be regulated, so the consumer will be no worse off. But in December 1998, that will not be the case. Over the next five years, that company could entrench its position so that it would be almost impossible for anyone to enter the marketplace, because it would have all the strategic areas under its control and because the Federal Trade Practices Act would be ineffectual. During the five years prior to 1998, that one large business—if it was to take over the strategic areas—would have wide-ranging powers to manipulate the marketplace. One thing is certain: this Bill does not cover the wide range of disreputable trade practices that are covered by the Trade Practices Act. What is being said is this: the Minister should ensure that we do not have big businesses putting a great number of small businesspeople out of work. Certainly, the industry needs restructuring, but we do not want a situation in which basically all the regional cities and the south-east corner vendors lose a livelihood and any opportunity that they have to re-enter the marketplace as small businessmen. We do not really want to replace 1 000 small businesspeople with one large business that may eventually be in a position to control the distribution in the marketplace. Once a business is in a position to control the marketplace, the consumer will not benefit. As well, the producer will not benefit, because in a deregulated market a sole distributor will be able to influence the wholesale price. It also needs to be considered that there are no guarantees that the industry will remain regulated to the farm gate. What is to say that this one large distribution company will not also be able to dictate the price to the producer? That needs to be remembered, because the economic rationalists here are talking about the marketplace dictating the conditions of trade. They cannot have it both ways. One cannot be a little bit pregnant. Just as they tried to partially deregulate the bread industry and very quickly failed, so, too, will they fail with the milk industry. If they allow an individual player to control distribution, it will not be long before that distributor is arguing for deregulation to the farm gate. And we know that individuals in the dairy industry are already positioning themselves for that. They know that they cannot trust this Government. They know that they have only forestalled the inevitable. It will be only a matter of time before the distributors will be telling the marketplace how much it is going to pay for its milk. This does not mean to say for one moment that the consumer will benefit. The profits will very quickly end up in the bank of a distributor. To sum it up, we cannot support this clause. We cannot support the way that the Minister is going about restructuring the vendors. We cannot support the anomalies in the compensation packages that this Government is offering. We cannot support the time frame that vendors have in which to comply with the proposed restructuring. We cannot support the way that this Minister is bludgeoning them into submission. We cannot support the Minister’s holding a gun to the head of every milk vendor in Queensland, and we cannot support the Minister’s providing the potential for this industry to be taken over and controlled by big business. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3225

Question—That clause 47, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 44 NOES, 30 Ardill McElligott Beanland Stephan Barton McGrady Connor Stoneman Beattie Milliner Cooper Turner Bennett Nuttall Davidson Veivers Bird Pearce Elliott Watson Braddy Power FitzGerald Budd Pyke Gilmore Burns Robertson Goss J. N. Campbell Robson Grice Casey Rose Healy Clark Smith Hobbs D’Arcy Spence Horan Davies Sullivan J. H. Johnson De Lacy Sullivan T. B. Lester Edmond Szczerbanik Lingard Elder Vaughan Littleproud Fenlon Welford McCauley Foley Wells Mitchell Gibbs Woodgate Perrett Hamill Quinn Hayward Tellers: Rowell Tellers: Hollis Pitt Simpson Springborg Mackenroth Livingstone Slack Laming Resolved in the affirmative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bredhauer): Order! Once again, I remind honourable members that for all future divisions on this Bill, the bells will ring for two minutes. Clauses 48 to 52, as read, agreed to. Clause 53— Mr HORAN (7.45 p.m.): I spoke on this matter during the second-reading debate, and I would like to refer to it now in Committee. This clause refers to the annual review of market milk consumption and sets out the process of how the growth in market milk is distributed by a formula which includes a retained component and an apportioned component. I bring to the Minister’s attention again that there is a very strong feeling within the Queensco Unity Dairy Foods Cooperative Association that front-end pooling should be the way to go in determining the distribution of growth in south-east Queensland. QUD services two-thirds of the dairy farmers in south-east Queensland. When the growth is apportioned, it is decided at the end of July what the growth has been for 12 months and it is then allocated at the end of October. That is actually 15 months since the first of that growth began to appear in the market. QUD believes that a better and fairer system would be to determine what the annual growth is, work on an average per month, and provide that growth every month. If 18 000 litres of growth was determined for the year, for each month there should be an allocation of 1 500 litres. This should be shared equally amongst all of the producers in south-east Queensland. At present, as a result of the retention within the formula, in high growth areas—for example, the Gold Coast—the person who holds the franchise in that area gets a certain amount of retention before the balance is distributed. So that means that the suppliers in the area have an additional advantage. I want to put forward that point. I know that the Minister wants to work on a basis of a unanimous feeling from the Queensland Dairymen’s Organisation, but I think that it is important for the Minister and his department to understand that that is a very strong feeling from the board of the QUD. Mr CASEY: The matter raised by the honourable member for Toowoomba South is a very important and a very contentious point, and it has been for a long period. Monthly allocations would provide a large administrative burden within the organisation. Contained in the legislation is the framework that allows things to happen. I have already 3226 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly talked to industry in relation to this matter. The industry is working to a formula which it will in turn, as a subcommittee of the policy council, recommend. This was a determination by the interim policy council, and it was accepted unanimously by that council. The framework of the legislation allows it to make a recommendation back to the policy council. If it is accepted by the policy council and then recommended to me, I then pass it on as an instruction to the Queensland Dairy Authority. Basically, at this time, the legislation cannot, and should not, make the determination because from time to time so many different factors will come into being which may make alterations to what is required in the long run. Mainly, clause 53 sets up the legislative framework by which it can be carried out, and it will be carried out in the manner that I have just explained. Mr HORAN: I have one more comment about it. The point has also been made that, with the elimination of franchised areas in 1998, ultimately they will have to come to grips with that because there will not be the franchised area in which to give that particular portion. The policy committee will eventually have to come to grips with front- end redistribution as franchises are phased out. The feeling is that it would be better for them to come to grips with it as soon as possible. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to support the member for Toowoomba South. His point of view is one that is held fairly widely. Although everyone has appreciated the growth that has been distributed throughout the system, it is distributed retrospectively. As such, the people who are holding the growth in those other factories are getting use from it as though they were really in two places in the distribution chain and holding it for almost 12 months. It is not unfair that some sort of system should be devised to do something along the lines of what the member for Toowoomba South suggested. As he so rightly said, it will be interesting to see how the Government handles the situation as it gets closer to 1998. Clause 53, as read, agreed to. Clauses 54 to 122, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 March (see p. 2504). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (7.53 p.m.): The last time amendments to the Electricity Act were discussed in Parliament was in 1988. I wish to cite very briefly the Hansard report of that debate and the remarks made by Mr R. J. Gibbs, who was the then Opposition’s resource industries spokesman. In his concluding remarks, he stated— “The Opposition opposes the legislation in toto. As I said at the outset, it is a recipe for disaster that will in the long run lead to increased charges for electricity- consumers in Queensland. It will mean a drastic and dramatic break-down in safety standards. It will cost jobs both within the QEC and private-enterprise small business in the community. The Opposition will not be supporting the legislation. I shall speak to the clauses later.” And so ended the sermon from the mount. My colleagues will speak at length at a later stage about some of the hypocrisy and failures of the then Labor Opposition to properly Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3227 predict the outcome of amending that legislation. At the outset, let me say that I am a far more reasonable person than the previous Opposition’s spokesman was. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! Members will leave the Chamber if they wish to speak to each other, or resume their seats. Mr GILMORE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GILMORE: The Deputy Premier has been thrown out again. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Tablelands! Mr GILMORE: Yes, ma’am. As I was saying, at the outset, let me say that I am a far more reasonable person than was the member who led the debate from this side of the Chamber at that time. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill. Now that we have some of the niceties out of the way, let me refer to some of the problems that are facing the electricity industry at present. I refer to the Minister’s second-reading speech when he was really rather naughty. I am becoming rather tired of his pious incantations, Labor’s attempts to rewrite history, and his attempts to blame the National Party in Government for all the woes of the world. On two occasions during his second-reading speech, he came at that very same trick. I suspect that he believes that anything he says often enough will become part of the State’s folk lore and will be believed. Let me tell the Minister that I am here to make sure that that does not happen. I suggest that if the Minister wants to retain his credibility, he should choose a different course in future. In part, the Minister said that his Government had been involved in open and frank consultation that had been undertaken on every one of the policy issues addressed by these amendments, and that full agreement had been reached. The Minister went on to state— “In contrast with previous Governments of this State . . . ” and then went on to speak ad nauseam about the dreadful state of affairs when the National Party was in Government. A few things will be said about that tonight. The Minister also stated in his second-reading speech— “Only after this consultation are changes made.” Last night, I was speaking during the debate on a different Bill and I felt compelled to speak about some of the consultative processes that this Government has undertaken. This evening, I would like to speak rather more specifically about the failure of some of the consultative processes for which this Minister at this very moment is responsible in far-north Queensland. The Minister is fully aware of the difficulties being faced in far- north Queensland with the establishment of new power lines. The power line to which I wish to refer is the new connection from Chalumbin near the Koombooloomba Dam to Woree, which is just south of Cairns. It is a duplication line which is designed to supply power to the people of Cairns for many years to come. Nobody denies the necessity for that power line; nor would he or she deny the people of Cairns the right to have it. Nonetheless, the Minister is overseeing a consultative process which has gone wrong, and which is not a consultative process in the real sense. In fact, I think it typifies the kind of consultative process that this Government has indulged in over the past four years. It is the type of consultative process that is designed to confound the people who are supposed to be consulted and, firstly, brainwash the people involved into believing that they are being consulted and, secondly, brainwash them into believing that if they do not become involved in the consultation process, something worse will happen to them because they have not attempted to alter the outcome. The QEC officers turned up in the Atherton Tableland area with a little map that had four lines drawn on it and was overlaid on a little map of the tableland region. It did not take a great deal of technical expertise to draw those four lines. Quite clearly, they were drafted on a kitchen table with a straight ruler and a pencil, and they were 3228 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly designed to take the shortest course between the narrowest points in the World Heritage area. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Yet, as part of the consultative process which was forced upon the people by this Government, the QEC had the appalling effrontery to tell the people of Queensland—and the people of far-north Queensland in particular—that four routes across the Atherton Tableland had been identified. The map was held up for people to see. Quite simply, no definitive studies have been done. The plan has been presented to the people, and they are expected to toe the line, as good little Queenslanders should. They are expected to accept one of those proposed routes and then fill in a form which is sent back to the QEC to say, “We have taken part in this consultation process. We have seen the form and we have agreed.” I can tell the Minister that matters are not quite as simple as that in far-north Queensland. The first thing that happened was that those people managed to have a good close look at this thing, and they realised that some of the courses or proposed routes that have been chosen go across existing or developing subdivisions. One goes across the middle of the Tinaroo irrigation dam. It is one of the most attractive tourist destinations in far-north Queensland, with a 250 kVa line going straight across the middle of it. Another line goes right across the middle of the most attractive dairying country in the tablelands region. Another one goes right across the middle of the best of the red soil farming land in the tablelands area. Another line goes across a series of centre pivots and right across the middle of an existing aerodrome. The aerodrome, which was an agricultural strip, was established about 10 years ago. At that time, the people who established the aerodrome had to pay $17,500 to divert the electricity lines away from it so that they would not have to compete with them as part of their day-to-day operations. The QEC and everybody else were fully aware that the aerodrome was there, yet the QEC proposed to put a powerline right across the middle of it. Mr Pitt: Is this near Turbot Street, is it? Mr GILMORE: No, it is near Walkamin. An Opposition member: This is the Government of consultation. Mr GILMORE: This is the Government of consultation and this is the process of consultation. The Minister got offended when he realised that the people of far-north Queensland were wise enough to be able to read a map and determine that their aerodrome, their centre pivot irrigator or something else that was near and dear to their hearts was right under the powerline. That is not a consultative process. It is KGB tactics. It is standover tactics. The Government said, “You will choose.” The people had six weeks to choose one of four options, then a decision was going to be made and construction was going to begin. Have we got news for them! It is not about to happen that way. The Minister is aware of it now, and I notice that recently he put an article in the newspaper to say that he is prepared to be kind enough to discuss a fifth option. The Minister might have to discuss a 12th option until the people of far-north Queensland are satisfied that the QEC has done its homework, has gone some distance away from the kitchen table syndrome and done some definitive studies, knows exactly what it is talking about, and can provide the people of far-north Queensland with the detail of what it is doing so that, at least if they make a choice, it is a choice made from knowledge rather than the threat of having something built across their property. In relation to penalty provisions in the legislation—in his second-reading speech, the Minister said— “This is a case of this Government fixing up a mess left by the previous National Party Government.” That is an interesting thing for the Minister to say. I suggest that the Minister is rather naughty and should not do that sort of thing. It is not nice at all. The Minister was talking about a substantive part of the legislation that was introduced in the April 1988 Bill, which allowed for self-inspection of electrical installations and those kinds of things. My Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3229 colleague the member for Lockyer will say a few things about the debate at that time. As I remember it, a lot was said by members of the Opposition at the time, some of whom had been part of the electricity industry and were horrified at the number of deaths that they said would occur in Queensland. All over the streets, thousands of people were going to be dead. Whole suburbs of houses were going to be burnt down because electricians in this State were considered by the Labor Party at that time to be incompetent, unable to do satisfactory work and unable to satisfactorily test their own equipment. As part of the debate, the member for Wolston quoted an electrician who, for the first time in his life, had to buy a piece of testing equipment. He cited that as being a dreadful thing for an electrician to need—a piece of testing equipment, for goodness’ sake. Can the Minister tell me, in the succeeding years, how many people died? How many houses were razed to the ground through faulty workmanship? Why was it that the Minister was not moved to change those sections of the legislation at the very first opportunity that he had after the Labor Government came to power? Where are the unions now that were belly-aching? Where are all the ETU members who stood up in this House and said how dreadful it all was in 1988? Now we have no changes to the legislation—none at all—because it has been shown to work well. It has demonstrated that the electricians in this State are indeed competent. Surprise, surprise—at least on the Government side of the House. The Government has not had to change the legislation. Goodness gracious me. Mr T. B. Sullivan: What does that mean? That doesn’t say anything. Mr GILMORE: Would the honourable member like me to quote something? The sermon from the mount begins again. This is a quote from somebody from the Institution of Electrical Inspectors— “ ‘Collectively, we have concerns over a number of the proposed changes to the Act and believe they will lead to:— — A lowering of safety standards in our Industry due to loss of independent inspectors and other proposed changes. — A lowering of quality standards at which electrical work is performed . . . — Serious effects on the viability of some electrical businesses’.” And it goes on. Mr Beattie: What is this? What are you reading from? Mr GILMORE: This is the Hansard record of the debate. Mr Beattie: But whose speech is it? Mr GILMORE: The honourable member for Wolston. Mr FitzGerald: One of your Cabinet Ministers—a member of Executive Council. Mr GILMORE: I have quoted one of the more brilliant speeches out of an otherwise unremarkable career. My colleague the member for Lockyer will carry the debate further along those lines. It seems to me and my colleagues that the dire predictions of the Labor Party when it was in Opposition about the legislation have not come to fruition. Indeed, so successful has the legislation been, and the cost cutting that came out of it, and the benefits that flowed to the people of Queensland, that the Minister this day has to stand in this place and admit that it was a success because he has not moved in any way to alter it. Mr Beattie: You’ve run out of steam, have you? Mr GILMORE: Do not rush me; I am going all right. In his second-reading speech, when talking about the performance of the electricity industry in Queensland, the Minister said— 3230 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“Queensland is now widely recognised as having the lowest average electricity price of the mainland States and is amongst the five lowest electricity prices throughout the world.” Well, “Hear, hear!” to that. There are a number of very good reasons for that, not the least of which has been good financial management and good planning. In fact, the QEC is a quite remarkable organisation. I would tend to disbelieve the Minister. I believe that we sit somewhere about third in the world if we talk about Queensland as against countries. I understand from this document which I have from an authoritative magazine that Australia lies third in the world for electricity prices for industry in US cents per kilowatt hour, and Queensland’s price, as we all know, is somewhat less than the Australian average. So there we go. Queensland is sitting third, and what have we got? The most remarkable set of circumstances that this State has seen in electricity planning in many, many years. The Minister stands up and he is proud of the fact that we are amongst the five lowest electricity prices worldwide, and what is he doing about it? The other day, the Minister was at Stanwell. I inform the Minister that I really did not mean to rain on his little parade. I suspect that I might have, though. And I do not feel terribly bad about it. Nonetheless, the day before the opening of Stanwell, I had the terrible affront to put out a press release which criticised this Government’s management of the electricity industry in this State. In fact, the press believed it. Lo and behold, here we are with a press release that said that the Government should not be allowed to hide behind the fanfare of the opening of Stanwell, to hide from the people of Queensland the fact that we have a major problem with power generation and power supply in this State in the year of 1998. The Government should not be allowed to hide behind that, and I was making sure that it was not. So incensed was the Minister at my having said such a dreadful thing that he actually rewrote his speech that he made at the opening of the Stanwell Power Station to deny it. He said that it was all a lie; that it was politically motivated. Goodness me! Fancy a person like me making a politically motivated speech! I could not believe it. In fact, I was cut to the quick to think that he would say such a thing. Mr T. B. Sullivan: But you haven’t denied it was lies. Mr GILMORE: What the Minister said was definitely off—definitely off. Mr T. B. Sullivan: But you still haven’t denied it was lies. Mr GILMORE: It was not lies, and I will prove it. Be gentle, because I am sensitive. The Minister said— “State denies power shortage is imminent.” This came out of one of the local newspapers up there. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Which one? Mr GILMORE: Whatever they print in Rockhampton. The article stated— “Demand for electricity will continue to be met despite claims there will be a shortfall towards the turn of the century. Energy Minister Tony McGrady rejected Opposition claims that the State faces power shortages in the next five years. Mr McGrady said National Party MP Tom Gilmore had made a cheap political shot . . . ” A cheap political shot it might have been, but I will tell you what, it hit the bone. In fact, it ricocheted and hit several bones. He was staggering along the podium denying it at the top of his voice. Indeed, he even conned the Premier into saying that things were all right—“It is okay. Don’t believe that dreadful chap. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.” Mr FitzGerald: Methinks they protest too much. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3231

Mr GILMORE: Exactly. Because I was quoting from a somewhat authoritative document. For those members opposite who have not seen it—and they probably have not because some of them are illiterate—I will tell them what it is. It is the QEC annual report, a somewhat authoritative document. And the Minister denies that it is true! For goodness’ sake! Who does the Minister have working for him whom he cannot trust to write a decent report? Mrs McCauley: He obviously hasn’t read it. Mr GILMORE: Of course he has not read it. He is too terrified to read what it might say. Would the folks opposite like me to tell them what is in it, just for fun? I will tell them. On page 23, under the heading “Generation”, the report states— “Future electricity demand is forecast to exceed the State’s planned generating capacity in 1998 . . .” And that includes Stanwell Power Station. How about that! And the Minister got up and denied it. But he was cunning. He said that all is well, until late 1990. Until the late 1990s, he said! That is interesting, because I have never mentioned a year later than 1998. I thought that was a fair sort of an estimate of the late 1990s. And so what happens in 1998? What is it that this Minister is presiding over? He is presiding over nothing. It takes more than a weekly manicure and a perm to run a Ministry, and the Premier knows that. So what happens? The Minister is not presiding over his department; the Premier is. And who is not making the decisions? The Premier is not. That is what is happening. Why is it that we are going to have a shortage of power in 1998? Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Queensland Electricity Commission is one of our favoured sons in terms of its capacity to plan in the long term, the short term and to provide proper services to the people of Queensland. And that was true. That was absolutely true until this Government was elected, and then it decided that it was going—— Mr Bennett: Why did they shut down Unit 6 of Gladstone Power Station? Mr GILMORE: Oh, charm school, break it up! Mr Bennett: You said it when Tenni was Minister. Come on, what do you say to that? Mr GILMORE: What did I do? Mr Bennett: When Tenni was Minister and he shut down Unit 6, how come the planning was so good then? Mr GILMORE: Charm school, one of these days you will learn not to lead with your head, lad. So just sit there gently and wait for it to come, because I am going to hit you. Madam Deputy Speaker, forgive me for that. Forgive me because I am getting excited here. What happened was this: when this Government got elected it could not make a decision. Four years down the track and it still cannot make a decision about the next major power-generating facility in this State. That is interesting. The Government could not make a decision because it related to the Tully/Millstream hydro-electric scheme—the most efficient next option for power generation in this State. It happens to be located in far-north Queensland. I know that the Government Whip, the member for Mulgrave, is in favour of that scheme—he has said so publicly and in this Parliament. The Government could not make a decision because it is located in a World Heritage area and because some trees will have to be knocked down. The Tully/Millstream is the most studied scheme that this nation has ever seen, yet the Government still cannot make a decision. It is all too hard. Every time a decision seems to be close, the matter is referred to another committee or the Commonwealth Government, or the greenies are blamed for delaying the matter. This Government does everything other than make a decision. In the winter of 1998, this State will suffer a power shortage, so options must be found. Because the Minister and his department—— Mrs McCauley: They couldn’t run a pie stall in Queen Street. Mr GILMORE: Exactly—they could not run a pie stall in Queen Street without giving everybody a pain in the tummy. 3232 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Milliner: That’s really nasty. You should withdraw that. Mr GILMORE: I did not mean to be nasty. I am sorry. I withdraw that nasty comment. I turn to the panic prevailing at present. The Minister said that my press release was a cheap political shot, but I just have to say this again, because it is so good. I cannot leave it alone. It may have been a cheap political shot, but it is absolutely true that the Minister and his department—and, I suspect, the Premier—have their feet paddling like a duck pretty smartly under the water. The Premier and the rest of the world well know that we are running short of power. Stanwell is the greatest, most modern, most efficient power station in the world, and that is lovely. However, by the time it comes fully on stream in 1996, there will be a two-year hiatus to 1998 and, after that, there will be a very difficult four-year or five-year period for the Minister and for his department. I intend to keep the Minister honest. What are the options? Recently, I made the dreadful claim that the Minister is looking at several options. One is Callide A. The idea is to refire Callide A. I challenge the Minister to tell me that officers of his department have not visited that area. The Minister will not do that, because that is true. Mrs McCauley: They have. Mr GILMORE: They have been to that site. It presents a problem to the people of Biloela, because a TAFE college is being run in the Callide A power station, but it will just have to be shifted. The plan is to refurbish an old, inefficient power station at a fairly high cost. The Government wants to fire her up simply because it could not make a decision, and it still cannot. What is the other alternative? Mr Beattie: Hang on. You said there were options. What about the other options? Mr GILMORE: I am working on them. I have not yet finished. The next option is Collinsville. Mr Beattie: Gas. Mr GILMORE: The honourable member has gas. I think he has eaten something nasty. I will refer to gas in a moment. The next option is Collinsville. I challenge the Minister to tell me that that option has not been considered. He will not, because it is true. They have looked at every possible option, because they are in a panic. The latest scheme is a real doozey: gas-fired turbines. Now, there is the answer. One can buy them on a trailer, slip them onto a block or wind them up and they provide instant power. There is no problem with the little old lady down the street. Her fridge or her lights will not go out in the winter of 1998. People will not freeze to death because the Minister is incompetent. Mrs Woodgate: Is that the same little old lady you talked about in the Government Owned Corporations Bill last night? Mr GILMORE: That was the one with the meter ticking over. This one has a heater. It is okay; it is a different lady. I want to talk about these gas-fired turbines. They are expensive. To replace the 600-megawatt potential of the Tully/Millstream project will cost an extra $100m—and that is the Government’s figure, not mine. That money would be wasted because the Premier, the Minister and his department cannot make a decision. It costs the Government 10 times more money to generate the equivalent of the electricity which could be generated by a hydropower station. Once again, I challenge the Minister to tell me I am wrong. He will not, because I am dead right. Because the Government cannot make a decision, this State is burying itself in very high-cost capital equipment. I want the Minister to deny that. Mrs Edmond: Because we listen to the people—something you wouldn’t understand. Mr GILMORE: Who said that? Mr Beattie: The honourable member for Mount Coot-tha. I know you are going deaf, and I know what causes it. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3233

Mr GILMORE: Hard work. What did the honourable member say? I want to take that interjection. I see that she is not game. That is okay; I will return to that later. I have here a lovely little letter under the hand of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It states— “Dear Mr Stoneman, I am writing to inform you of work about to be carried out by the Queensland Electricity Commission. The Commission is investigating generating options for the period 1998 to 2005.” What date was mentioned in my press release—the one that the Minister called a cheap political shot—the one that hit the bone, more like it. My press release mentioned 1998. The letter continued— “Part of those investigations is a feasibility study for liquid fuel gas turbines.” That is the worst possible option. The letter continued further— “The Commission has identified a potential gas turbine site in your electorate near the Mount Isa mines copper refinery, and is preparing to commence geotechnical drilling on that site.” If any honourable member wants to read that letter, I have it here. Mrs McCauley: Why is that the worst possible option? It is economical, environmental, or what? Mr GILMORE: My colleague the member for Callide asked me why that is the worst possible option. I thank her for that. I needed somebody to ask me that, and I knew that it would not be a Government member. It is the worst possible option because it is not the gas option, and it is not the gas option because we simply do not yet have access to the coalbed methane out of the Bowen field in Townsville, and that access will not be available for some years. Using distillate fuel to fire gas-fired turbines is an enormous waste of a resource. It just happens to be beneficial because one can buy it off the back of a truck, fire it up and be in business in no time at all. It does not take a smart Minister, a smart Government or a smart QEC to take that option. I want to return to why the Government has not chosen the Tully/Millstream option. I will tell honourable members why. The Premier is a pretty good politician. Mr T. B. Sullivan: No, he’s an excellent politician. Mr GILMORE: He is an excellent politician, and he is not stupid. Mr T. B. Sullivan: No. Mr GILMORE: I am glad that the member agrees with me. I wanted him to. The Premier is not stupid. He will not build the Tully/Millstream dam because in two years’ time, he does not want to go to an election when, for every night in the preceding two years, television sets have shown greenies being knocked out of trees by bulldozers. That is why he has not chosen the Tully/Millstream project; that is why he has mortgaged this State for the next generation and taken the cheap power option. The Premier has not got what it takes to make a tough decision. The Minister sits there and wears it because he is only the Minister. Hell, he is not in charge of the department! He says, “Why me?” Not only that, but the Government is going to corporatise the department shortly. That will take more pressure off the Minister, and he will not have to make that decision. The problem that we have is political interference in a planning process which is without peer in this nation, which has only two peers in the world, and which has taken many years to put together. When I rise in this place and have the “indecency” to say that the King is without clothes, I am told that I am taking a political shot and, what is more, a cheap political shot. Mrs Edmond: You wouldn’t make the mistake of listening to the people, would you? Mr GILMORE: No. Last night, I canvassed the matter of political interference in the planning process, so I will not go over that ground again. Recently, I had a 3234 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly discussion with a very authoritative gentleman who specialises in providing information which affects the decisions of very large corporations and others in regard to whether or not to invest in power utilities and other utilities around the world. He is a very authoritative gentleman. Mrs Woodgate: Sounds like Ray Connor. Mr Bennett: Who is he? Name him. Mr GILMORE: And have him persecuted by the Minister’s KGB? And have his power switched off? The honourable member should not be so silly. In any case, this gentleman was kind enough to sit with me for a few moments and chew the fat over the future prospects of Queensland’s electricity generating business. He said to me, “ While it was in the hands of Martin Tenni and others, Queensland used to have the most magnificent electricity commission. Let me tell you, it was top stuff! Three years ago, every other generating authority in this country was terrified of the QEC because of its enormity, its efficiency, and its competency. It was an absolutely wonderful thing.” He said that he would have recommended that any institution invest in such an authority. I asked him, “What about today?” He said that he now has to qualify that opinion. He has some difficulties with that now because he can see the way that this Government is interfering in business. It is an interventionist Government. Despite what we have heard about how wonderful corporatisation is going to be, this person—who is an expert on such matters Australiawide and, indeed, worldwide—said to me, “We are seeing the emergence of power generating capability in the southern States which, although it is still a rust-bucket job and is not terribly competitive at present, is heading in the right direction. They can see the way forward.” They are no longer afraid of the QEC. That gentleman said to me—these are not my words; they are his—“I believe that within three years, the QEC is going to be seen to be a second-rate option.” If we look at those options through the eyes of AMP or other large international combines that, heaven forbid, might want to invest in Queensland, we would see that they are going to invest their money somewhere else. They are not going to tolerate the wind-down of what was—and probably still is, but is going to disappear shortly—a magnificent organisation without peer in Australia and with very few peers around the world. One of the reasons he said that was that until recently the QEC was able to take advantage of its own income; to reinvest in generating capability and transmission capability; and to build power stations such as the Stanmore Power Station at a cost of $1.25 billion. However, as I said last night in another debate, this Government has chosen to take out the money. It cannot have it both ways. When I suggested that the Government was going to take between $400m and $500m out of the QEC within five years, the Treasurer challenged me and said, “You are wrong.” I bet I am wrong. I will bet that it is more than that, and if anybody would like to take me up on a casket ticket, I would welcome the opportunity. I will be in this place to see that occur. Some Government members will not, but I will want to collect on that bet. We will see a slow strangulation of this magnificent organisation. The Government is going to take out its funds. It is going to take away its capacity to provide a service to the people of Queensland at a price that has put Queensland on an industrial roll, as outlined recently by the honourable the Premier on many occasions. Mr Beattie: Corporatisation was last night. Mr FitzGerald: This Bill is about corporatisation, too. Mr GILMORE: This Bill is central to corporatisation, because embodied in it are the accounting provisions that are required under the Australian standards. A number of matters in this legislation need to be addressed. One of them is mutual recognition. It is interesting to note that the Minister was kind enough to say that mutual recognition had been operating in Queensland for some time. He did not say for how long and he did not say who brought it in. He did not give the name of the person in Australia who brought in mutual recognition for electricians. I will tell honourable members who brought it in—Martin Tenni. Yet the members of the Labor Party knocked it. If honourable members read the debates about that matter, they would see that the Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3235 members of the Labor Party thought that it was bad news. All of a sudden, Lazarus rises from the ashes, wearing a spotted tie, and says, “Well, there you go. Aren’t we smart? We are tidying up a few of the edges around mutual recognition of qualifications. Aren’t we smart?” As to the accounting standards that are encompassed in this legislation—I shall leave discussion on that to my colleague from Moggill. I should like to summarise some of the things that I have said, because they are important. I want them on the record of this Parliament, because every time that I get a chance, I am going to shove these down the Minister’s throat until members of the press are prepared to read authoritative documents, listen to authoritative statements and question this Government about what it is trying to do. It is trying to hide its own inefficiencies and its own inability. Mr Elliott: Waste all the diesel. Mr GILMORE: That is right—waste all the diesel. This Government is trying to hide its inability behind the long lead times that are tied up in the electricity industry. Everybody on this side of the House knows exactly what I am talking about. It takes years to plan a decent power station, but it took this Government five minutes of dithering to mess it up. Every time that somebody has asked the Premier to make a decision, he has looked at his feet instead of standing up, looking somebody in the eye and saying, “I will not build the Tully/Millstream for these reasons, and these are the options that we are going to examine.” The last thing that I heard from the Premier was that he was looking at an abbreviated version of the Tully/Millstream; he was going to take out the Koolmoon diversion and the Nitchaga reservoir. He was going to have a half-baked turnout that was not going to be worth anything. The QEC could have told him that 10 years ago. That is how long these studies have been continuing. I am not going to object to this legislation. I am certainly not going to oppose it. However, what I am going to oppose is this Minister’s mismanagement of the electricity industry in this State. I want the Minister to answer some of the charges that I have laid against him tonight. I want him to tell the House that he is not going to build a gas turbine operation in Townsville. I want him to tell us that, in 1998, we are going to be getting power in our homes at a price that is comparable with what we are paying now. I want the Minister to tell the House that our industries are still going to be able to take advantage of all the planning that took place over the years, and the good management. I want him to tell us all that. I want it on the record of this Parliament, because I am going to shove it down the Minister’s throat every time that something goes wrong in the next three years. Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (8.33 p.m.): I have never heard such vile and sarcastic theatre in my life from the honourable member for Tablelands, who kept members entertained for some 40 minutes. He mentioned Martin Tenni. Several years ago, Martin Tenni visited the Gladstone Power Station and he asked the staff at the power station whether the switch yard out the back was the battery bank, because he thought that they turned the switches off at 4 o’clock and came back at 7 o’clock in the morning. When we let him know that we worked night shift, he said, “Oh, you work nights at power stations?” That was the command that he had of his portfolio. The member for Tablelands spoke about gas turbines. All members would know that gas turbines are built into the system in case of power failures. If there are power failures in the system and units drop off line, the function of the gas turbines is to pick up the slack so that power blackouts do not occur. Sometimes, in the south-east corner this is unavoidable. That is why the gas turbines are there, and also for black starts. So that puts the member’s gas turbines theory to rest. In an electorate such as Gladstone, major industries have been lured by five major advantages: highly trained and skilled work forces; ample water from the Awoonga Dam, even though in these dry times it is only a metre below the overflow of the dam; excellent port, rail and road transport; and available industrial land for expansion. Last, but most importantly, my electorate has ample energy in the form of gas, coal and electricity. How we manage that industry commercially is of vital importance to the 3236 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Gladstone region and to other parts of Queensland. Gladstone has the largest power station in Queensland. I worked there for some 14 years. At times, Gladstone Power Station workers were on the receiving end from former National Party Governments, when they were shutting down units and putting people on the streets. During the SEQEB dispute, the National Party Government did some unspeakable things to the work force there. I am sure that now we would all rather forget those times. I turn now to the licensing arrangements of electricians and electrical contractors contained in this Bill, which the honourable member for Tablelands appears not to have read. Having been in the electrical industry for some 17 years, and being an electrician by trade, I always found it absurd that a qualified electrician from another State who had done an approved electrical apprenticeship had to work alongside me for some specified period and probably had to sit an exam before being allowed to work in his chosen profession. The changes that will come from this legislation are long overdue. With the advent of the mutual recognition legislation, which came into force on 1 March 1993, and which provided for interstate recognition of occupations, it was sensible to review the Electricity Act to follow suit. Also, mutual recognition is relevant to the function of the commission as the approval authority for electrical goods and to the operations of the Electrical Workers and Contractors Board. This Bill contains provision for electrical licences to be renewed every five years to facilitate mutual recognition. The States have agreed to uniform licensing, and this is consistent with the recommendations of the Tregillis review. The current issue of electrical licences in Queensland is for life. Interstate agreement on licensing of most categories of electrical mechanics has been in place since the 1980s. Following the Tregillis review of occupations in the electrical industry completed in 1989, national agreement has been reached on the recognition of electrical contractor licensing and restricted electrical licences. It is expected that agreement on the partially regulated occupations of electrical fitters, B-grade electrical mechanics and cable joiners will be finalised by June 1993. The classes of certificates of competency that can be issued by the board are electrical fitter, electrical jointer, electrical linesperson, electrical mechanic, and engineering tradesperson—electrical, who can undertake electrical fitter or electrical mechanic work. There has been wide consultation on the changes to licensing provisions. Those discussions have been held at interstate level, all State licensing boards/committees, the Department of Labour’s advisory committee working party on occupational licensing, the Department of Industrial Relations, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Electrical Contractors Association of Australia, the Electrical Trades Union, which has recently amalgamated with the plumbers and is now the EPU—— A Government member: A great union. Mr BENNETT: I am a proud member of that union. As well, there is the Metal and Metal Engineering Workers Union. The Electrical Workers and Contractors Board, as the licensing authority, demands high standards of work from electrical workers and contractors, and punishes negligence and incompetence severely. In industry, mistakes do happen and, if an electrical worker or contractor is under suspension, the social cost of being without a wage or loss of continuation of business to an electrical contracting firm can be disastrous. If the board suspends a certificate of competency or permit, the suspension may be imposed for a period determined by the board or be subject to the satisfaction of conditions determined by the board including, for example, a condition that the holder satisfactorily complete a training course or examination determined by the board. That means that, if an electrical worker or contractor has performed unsafe electrical work, the board will be able to issue a special permit on the proviso that the worker or contractor undertakes a relevant training course approved by the board. Qualifications for electrical contractors are more consistent under this Bill, and will be made consistent with those required for other contractors in the housing industry as laid down in the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3237

In Australia, Standards Australia has a well deserved reputation for the highest standard in approving standards for types of safety apparatus and, in fact, compiles the SAA wiring rules, of which reading and understanding of the book is part of the curriculum for electrical apprenticeship courses and electrical contractors examinations. This Bill provides for the recognition of Standards Australia as an electrical article approvals authority. The move recognises that the duplication of each State having its own approvals authority, although it works reasonably well, is inefficient, and the present approvals system is not understood by all the community. Hence the sensible move to a national electrical approvals scheme. At this point, it is pertinent to point out that an electrical article not registered or approved must not be sold or hired, offered or advertised for sale. Because of the life- threatening nature of faulty electrical articles, there is a penalty of eight penalty units for selling unregistered electrical articles. Being a qualified electrical tradesperson, I have seen at first hand the need for strict control of the testing or sale of electrical goods. If I may digress for a minute, I would like to stress the need for people who live in houses without earth leakage breakers to get a qualified electrical contractor to install one without delay. Laundries are often the most dangerous part of any house, because if the worst happens the presence of water and electrical appliances can be a lethal cocktail. It is also important to take into account the number of home handymen who have been killed over the years attempting their own electrical work. There have been cases of home handymen making live the chassis of electrical appliances or switching the neutral wire in power points. These are serious mishaps and prove to be false economy if a life is taken. Competition is a powerful force for efficient performance and, with the Government endorsing the national grid protocol which requires competitive sourcing of new generation equipment and open access to the transmission system, the development of a competitive market is under way. But effective competition is only likely to be feasible in the generation segment of the industry because the other two, transmission and distribution, are a natural monopoly, as their apparatus is fixed and it would be impractical to have competing forces in the transmission area. One aspect of corporatisation is that it puts QESI—the Queensland electrical supply industry—into a form which facilitates competition so that it can compete successfully with other possible entrants to the industry. That means also that, in future when the national grid is in operation, we can be getting power from New South Wales if the price is right. The Government will make the industry competitive by encouraging new entrants into the industry who will only be able to enter the marketplace if they can match or better QESI. Honourable members have spoken about some past decisions that have been politically influenced. Some of the maintenance problems at the Tarong Power Station are a result of the former National Party Government relocating that power station from where it should have been at Millmerran to Tarong. Some of the problems at that power station today were caused by direct political interference in the system. I support the Bill. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (8.43 p.m.): That was a very interesting dissertation by the member for Gladstone. I am told by people in his area that he was appointed to be Leo Zussino’s mouthpiece, but I do not believe that. I think Leo would have better taste. Tonight, I will make some points about the Minister’s second-reading speech. The first thing that struck me when I listened to his speech, and on rereading it, was that he talked about full, open and frank consultation. That would have to be a contradiction in terms. It would have to be a saying along the lines of being one of the three great lies—“I am from the Government. I am here to help you.” Mr FitzGerald: “I’ll still love you in the morning” is the third one. Mrs McCAULEY: We will not talk about the other one. That full, frank and open consultation is not exactly what the business people who were involved in those 3238 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly discussions had to say about it. I have been involved with the people in that sector for many years and have many contacts in that sector. It is interesting to compare the standards and to get the different sides of the story. This Bill really follows on from, and is complementary to, the corporatisation Bill that we dealt with last night. As I said last night in the corporatisation debate, it seems to me that, when referring to the QEC, one should apply the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” For years, the QEC has been a flagship of the way in which a Government body should be run. It seems to me that every time the Minister thinks of the QEC, he gets dollar signs in his eyes. I think that that is most unfortunate. Mr Beattie interjected. Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, but I can point these things out. I do not have to agree with that. As the Opposition spokesman said, we will see the QEC become a milking cow. I think that is sad because, ultimately, it will come back on the taxpayers of Queensland. Already, a lot of those people who ran the QEC so capably and for so long—people such as Neil Galwey, Jim Hamilton and Keith Viertel—have all gone. I cannot pass judgment on the people who are there at the moment. I know that the QEC has always been held in high regard, and I believe that corporatisation is not the way for it to go. As I said last night—and I say it again—I do not think that it will be beneficial in the long term. It will simply put dollars in the Treasurer’s pockets, and we know that he does not spend those dollars in a responsible manner. An Opposition member: And those dollars will come out of people’s pockets in this State. Mrs McCAULEY: Those dollars will come out of people’s pockets—the pockets of little old ladies, the pockets of honourable members and my pockets. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Is your party’s policy to privatise it? Mrs McCAULEY: The honourable member is a pathetic refugee from the presbytery. If he does not be quiet, I will pull his ears. Madam Deputy Speaker, save me! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mrs McCAULEY: In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the Queensland electricity supply industry has performed well over the past several years in terms of reliability of supply, price and productivity. It has performed very well over the past several years since Joh Bjelke-Petersen cleaned it up. The present Government cannot take any credit for that whatsoever. As the Opposition spokesman said, Queensland has the second lowest electricity price in the world. It is the lowest of any State in Australia. We can be proud of that. It is something that we should not jeopardise. Corporatisation will apparently make the QEC more efficient; however, it is already highly efficient. As I said before, it is the most efficient Australian producer, supplying Queensland consumers with the cheapest power available in the whole of Australia. I turn now to social objectives. Last night, during the debate on the Government Owned Corporations Bill, the Minister made much of the social agenda of the Labor Party Government. He mentioned that the essence of the strategy is the achievement of social objectives through economic efficiency. I have to tell honourable members opposite—in case they do not already know—that this industry already has a strong social impact and a very high profile in areas such as Gracemere, where the Stanwell Power Station is located. It spent more than $2.1m in Gracemere alone. When the Callide B Power Station was built, the Biloela community was fortunate to have a very wily, capable old shire chairman who managed to weasel something like $13m out of the QEC to put towards infrastructure. Mr Bennett: Political patronage. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3239

Mrs McCAULEY: It had nothing to do with politics; it was just a very smart old shire chairman getting the best possible deal for his people. He got a 50-metre swimming pool; he got a new public library; he got a new kindergarten; he got housing in an LAC development area. He worked very hard to get those things. Mrs Edmond: And the little old ladies of Brisbane had to pay for it. Mrs McCAULEY: What rubbish! They are paying the lowest price now. The QEC already has a high social impact on those areas and a high profile. I think that is good because I do not know that we would have wanted to have the Callide B Power Station in the area if we did not have the infrastructure to cope with it. We needed the newer roads, the extra kindergartens and the sorts of facilities that we got. We have the extra jobs that were brought to the area, so that is helpful. We have also the development of museum facilities for the local archives, including Aboriginal culture in that area. The Callide B Power Station is involved with that, and it did little things such as the photocopying and typing for groups such as the Biloela Eisteddfod. Those small things impacted on our community in a very big way. I wonder how much more social impact can be achieved. The social agenda for this particular industry is already in place. It is working and it is doing very well, and I give the QEC full credit for it. I think that it is doing an excellent job. Mr Beattie: Coal companies do the same thing. Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, they do. But the coal companies usually own the mining towns. Biloela is not owned by the QEC or a mining company. Biloela is a little country town, and we would like it to stay that way. It is not a mining town; it is not owned by miners. Mr Pearce: Don’t you like miners? Mrs McCAULEY: I am married to a miner; he owns a coal mine. My son is a miner. I really do like miners. In fact, I am very fond of them. I believe that the whole concept of corporatisation of the QEC was couched in very nebulous terms. When the Government talks about benefiting consumers and, indeed, the State as a whole, what does it mean? What benefits? What will it cost for these changes? Who will pay? I have serious reservations about what the future holds with the corporatisation of our electricity industry. Although the Minister made it perfectly clear at public meetings that there was no way that tariff equalisation in this State would disappear, I am afraid that I do not believe him. Labor’s track record in the bush is appalling and deplorable. I have no faith in the Minister’s assurance. However, I hope that the Labor Government will follow the recommendation of the University of Queensland Department of Economics discussion paper of October last year entitled Price Regulation and Regional Cross-Subsidies in the QESI which talks of the— “. . . need to conduct further and detailed research into all aspects of electricity pricing and cost allocation as part of the movement towards microeconomic reform . . . to enable more precise estimates to be made of the nature of cross-subsidies.” I think that that is most important. So much for corporatisation! It is interesting also that this Bill refers to rationalisation of licensing provisions for electrical workers and contractors. As the Opposition spokesman said, when the previous amending Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Labor Opposition vehemently opposed it. The Opposition spokesman, Mr Gibbs, went on at great length about how the sky would fall in and how dreadful it would be if self-regulation of the industry occurred. I must admit that, as a very new backbencher, I was worried about what would happen when inspectors no longer examined the work that was being done by contractors. I am very pleased that that has worked out well, but I think that this Government is extremely hypocritical in its attitude. It has the opportunity to reverse the original Act. After having voted against it and having spoken against it at great length some years ago in the House, members of the Labor Party now have the opportunity to 3240 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly reverse it, but they will not do that. I remember when the Mineral Resources Bill was introduced in 1989, the then Opposition spokesman, Mr Ken Vaughan, spoke vehemently against it. I listened very carefully to his speech. The Labor Party was not opposed to it at all, but did oppose it simply for the sake of doing so. When members of the Labor Party came into Government, they had the opportunity to change the whole Act, but what did they do? They shifted a few commas around and put it back in, and it was basically the same legislation. Labor members should not try to tell me that they are any different from any previous Government, because they are no different at all. Government members interjected. Mrs McCAULEY: No different! All members of the Labor Party are tarred with the same brush, unfortunately. I agree very strongly with the recommendations of the Tregillis review of electrical licensing in Australia which refers to a scheme of mutual recognition. I believe that is the way to go. I was interested to note that it will provide for electrical licensing provisions to be consistent across Australia. I take particular interest in this area because my niece is an electrical apprentice at the Callide mine. Mr Nuttall: And joined the ETU. Mrs McCAULEY: She probably has; I do not know. She is certainly the first young woman to be an electrical apprentice at the mine. It was not something that I particularly wanted her to do, but she is enjoying it. She finds it a very worthwhile exercise, so good on her. I think it is a good idea for this legislation to provide for the issuing of electrical workers’ certificates of competency to be renewed on a five-year basis rather than having them as a life-time issue. I believe that safeguard is sound, sensible and will provide for circumstances when people who are no longer practising in the industry have allowed their certificates to lapse. By virtue of this Bill, they will perhaps be able to renew or upgrade their certificate, or retrain. Mr Beattie: I’m glad we agree on something. Mrs McCAULEY: I am not hard to get along with. I just seem to be that way, that is all. I object to the Minister’s statement that this Government is fixing up the mess left by the previous National Party Government. One day very soon, because this Government will have run out of things to blame the National Party for, it will have to stop saying that. His statements are not true. This legislation does not clean up the mess. It is merely an adjustment of the original concept, which was quite a good one. As I said earlier, this Labor Government is not throwing out the previous Government’s legislation but is simply adjusting it, so it is really quite hypocritical of Government members to say they are fixing up a mess. I think it is a good idea for workers who are not performing to the required standard to undertake retraining rather than totally lose their licences. However, I have a question about the penalty provision. I would like to know whether or not the infrastructure is already in place to facilitate this retraining, or whether we will see difficulties arise such as those being experienced in the child-care industry in relation to similar retraining clauses. It is simply the case that no provision has been made for the retraining to be carried out, and that is particularly the case in rural areas. This is a matter that the Minister should address. If he will respond to it in his reply, I would appreciate it. Finally, as I said, I believe that the national electricity approval scheme’s replacement of the existing scheme is a good idea. I welcome most parts of this legislation. I now wish to speak briefly about the Callide A Power Station. I know that QEC personnel have been to Biloela and have had discussions with the local council about requirements if Callide A were to reopen. I have mixed feelings about that proposal because Callide A is our TAFE college. It has a tremendous variety of services that it provides to TAFE students in that area. I would expect all of those services and facilities to be replaced if they are tossed out of their present location. There are numerous welding workshops and the TAFE college has even had the use of the office workshops to teach office management to the students. We would be looking for a facility to replace the TAFE college if the proposal goes ahead. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3241

I know that when Callide A was closed, we were told that it was only being mothballed and no-one seriously thought that such a technologically outdated power station would be cranked up again. This shows how the Goss Government sat on its hands when it came into office. Members of the Labor Government really thought that the National Party Government had gone overboard in the electricity industry and had overcatered. As a result, this Government sat on its hands for two years and did not let any tenders. It has done nothing, and it still has not let that tender. I am waiting with interest to see who eventually gets it. It is an odds-on bet that it will be given to someone within the Callide electorate, and I welcome that; but I believe this Government has to get on with it. The idea of cranking up Callide A and Collinsville Power Stations to get this State out of a shortfall some years down the track really does not reflect well on this Government at all or in any way. I believe that is indicative of the Minister’s handling of this portfolio. I am very disappointed in him. I thought that he would do a reasonable job. Unfortunately, I am disappointed and I do not think he is doing a good job. Mr Gilmore: As a Minister, he makes a good taxidriver. Mrs McCAULEY: I think he should just go back to Mount Isa and stay there. He is a disappointment to me, and I had high hopes for him. Mr FitzGerald: He could improve the standard of Labor members in this place. Mrs McCAULEY: Exactly. Like Mr Prest did—by retiring from Parliament. Finally, I will say a brief word about the amendment that has been circulated. As the wife of a coalmine owner, people would perhaps think that I would not support alternative sources of power. Certainly, I do. This is an excellent amendment. I welcome it. It is a good idea to spend a certain amount of money each year on looking into alternative systems of power. The Government cannot close off all options. The coal may not be there forever and there may well be a cheaper and better source in the long term. I welcome that. Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Hon. F. A. Campbell Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Before I call the member for Fitzroy, I acknowledge in the gallery this evening the Honourable Fred Campbell, a former member for Aspley, who served the House for some 20 years. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (9.01 p.m.): It is disturbing for me to stand in this place as still a reasonably new member and hear the performance of the Opposition spokesman. I would have thought that it would be the job of the spokesman to take on the contents of the Bill, point out his dissatisfaction, if any, point out the good points of the Bill and, in particular, talk to the Bill. We heard the honourable member for Tablelands talk about the KGB. We heard him talk about standover tactics. He put on a greater theatrical performance than Norm Kruger, and all I can say to poor old Norm Kruger is, “Watch out. A member in here will outdo you.” The Opposition spokesman spent 10 minutes praising himself on the great press release that he issued at Stanwell. All I heard was how good it was and how he will keep reminding the Minister of what was in it. 3242 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Gilmore: I will send you a copy tomorrow. It is worth framing. Mr PEARCE: I would appreciate it. I would like to learn from the honourable member if he has any contribution to make in his responsibility as the Opposition spokesman on Minerals and Energy. Before I become too involved in the few words that I would like to say tonight, I want to go on record as thanking the Minister for the way in which he has involved his legislative committee. It has been very important to us that we have been involved in each step of the legislation and we have been able to comment on it. That is important to me because it is a learning process. If we are to understand the Bill, we must be involved. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to policy issues addressed by the Bill. One of those issues is the change by the Queensland electricity supply industries from cash-based fund accounting to accrual accounting. That is covered in Division 2 of the Electricity Amendment Bill under the heading “Accounts and financial statements”. In July 1990, the Public Finance Standards under the Financial Administration and Audit Act were issued by the Treasurer. The standards prescribe policies and principles to be observed by departments and statutory bodies with respect to their financial management, including the form and content of financial statements. The Public Finance Standards require that statutory bodies and departmental commercial activities report on an accrual accounting basis rather than on the cash accounting basis under which most agencies had previously operated. Also, in other public sectors, there is an increasing trend towards the universal implementation of accrual accounting in Government. To understand the requirements of the Public Finance Standards, the basic principles of cash accounting and accrual accounting need to be appreciated. Australian Accounting Standard No. 6 defines the accrual basis as— “the accounting basis whereby items are brought to account”— and “brought to account” in this case means recognising the financial statements. I will repeat that. The accrual basis is— “the accounting basis whereby items are brought to account as they are earned or incurred (and not as money as received or paid) and included in the financial statements for the accounting periods to which they relate.” Cash accounting records money received at the time it is banked and money spent at the time it is paid out. That does not provide enough information to measure the full cost of producing goods and services in the reporting period and excludes the value of assets and liabilities. Although cash-based accounts give an accurate view of an entity’s cash flows, accrual based accounts give a more meaningful picture of the entity’s operations during the period and of its overall financial position. Accrual accounting relates all financial activity to the period in which the activity takes place, regardless of when or whether money changes hands. Accrual accounting is more complete because it keeps track of the assets and liabilities and records changes in their values. It will show as assets the value of receivables or debtors—amounts due but not yet paid to the Crown for goods and services supplied or for taxes levied during the period. Cash accounts would omit those items. It will show as liabilities the value of payables or creditors—amounts due but not yet paid by the Crown for goods and services supplied or for taxes refundable during the period. Cash accounts would fail to mention them. Accrual accounting will report non-cash assets such as buildings, specialist military equipment and State highways and reflect changes in their value through depreciation and revaluation. Cash accounts ignore those items. It will include non-cash liabilities such as accumulated employee leave entitlement and unfunded pension liabilities. None of those is included in cash accounts. Accrual accounting will show certain unrealistic changes in the value of the Crown’s financial assets and liabilities due, for instance, to exchange rate movements. Under cash accounting, those changes would not be recorded. Although accrual reporting provides clear information benefits, it will not replace cash reporting. The latter reveals flows Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3243 affecting the Crown’s liquidity and financial requirements. Data from both systems is relevant to assessing financial performance and is provided in those statements. Some people might say: why use accrual accounting? Some of the advantages of accrual accounting can be illustrated through the following example. Suppose that, as an employer, the Crown faces a choice between paying higher salaries today and providing greater employee superannuation benefits in the future. A decision to increase those benefits instead of salaries would be reported differently under cash and accrual accounting. Under cash accounting, higher superannuation benefits might appear artificially attractive, even if they ultimately cost more. The reason is that the cost goes unreported until the year in which the liability is actually paid out as a pension. In other words, the total cost of today’s activities may not be reported for many years. This may give a false sense of sustainability to those activities and also make it harder to ensure that sufficient resources are available when the obligations finally have to be met. Under accrual accounting, the cost of higher superannuation entitlements would be reported as employees accrue the benefits, that is, as they work and earn the eventual pension, possibly years before the benefits in the future liability during the reporting period are included in the operating statement as an expense, and the accumulated sum of such liabilities at the balance date appears in the statement of financial position. Accrual reporting thus gives a clearer view where financial implications extend beyond a year. This encourages a longer-term focus in decision making. Finally, under accrual accounting the financial statements would normally include profit and loss account or other operating statement, balance sheet or statement of financial position, and statement of cash flows, which has replaced statement of sources and application of funds. It is a change in attitude and it will be able to demonstrate what cash is coming into the system and what the liabilities are, rather than some of the instances that we have picked up since we have come to Government, where a lot of departments do not even know what their liabilities are. But through this system the industry will know what it owns, will know what it controls and will know where the finance is coming in from and where it is going out to. As I am a former coalminer, this is an opportunity for me to place on record the importance of the coal industry to electricity in Queensland. Many people in this House would be well aware that this State has vast deposits of coal, but this alone does not automatically mean that we should have cheap electricity for power users. The QEC has a general strategy to ensure that all suppliers of raw energy options are able to compete. It has adopted practices to ensure that coal suppliers are in open competition for existing and future power stations; to promote diversity of competition by inviting tenders from suppliers of natural gas and other possible potential fuels such as oil; and to locate new power stations to take advantage of cheaper fuel prices. As a reasonably new member in this House, I try to do some research so that I get a better understanding of the legislation and am able to give some support to my Minister. At times, I wish that members on the other side of the House who are supposed to be putting up the other argument would do the same. In that research, I was able to glean the percentage of coal supplied to the Queensland electricity industry, and I was quite surprised to see that about 83 per cent of the total domestic consumption actually goes to the Queensland electricity supply industry. The annual coal consumption for the last five years has grown substantially from, in 1987-88, 9.495 million tonnes at an expenditure of $243m, to, in 1991-92, an expenditure of $263m with the amount of coal going into the electricity industry now getting close to 12 million tonnes. Not only do we have the coal, which is accessible and the right type of coal that we need, but, importantly, it continues to supply jobs not only in the coal industry but also in the electricity industry and wherever that flows on to. Some of the coal companies involved in Queensland that are contributing to the domestic coal market are Pacific Coal Pty Ltd, also known as Tarong Coal. That company supplied almost 6 million tonnes of coal to Tarong. The Gladstone Power Station has handled 3.25 million tonnes of coal from the Curragh mine near Blackwater. 3244 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

From the Callide coalfields we are getting 2.6 million tonnes. The honourable member for Callide has just spoken about the Callide Power Station. And about 348 000 tonnes is supplied to Swanbank from Idemitsu South Queensland Coal. As I have already said, the coalfields of central Queensland offer enormous potential for future coal-fired power stations. The important thing is—and this is where Queensland is ahead of other States—that we have been able to locate the Stanwell Power Station to take advantage of the coal reserves and the rail infrastructure that is already in place. When Stanwell itself comes on line fully, it will be using about 3 million tonnes of coal from the Curragh mine. That should be in about 1996, when the four generators are pumping out power to the power users in Queensland. The Curragh mine is one of the good mines in central Queensland. It has an excellent work force, members of which have the right attitude and are prepared to get out there and meet the markets. I think it is a credit not only to the union at the Curragh mine but also to management because they have been able to work together and produce the coal that is needed to maintain the power supply. The Curragh mine itself is located about 10 kilometres to the north of Blackwater. It has mineable coal reserves within the lease area in the order of about 90 million tonnes. The mine capacity is currently about 6.7 million tonnes per annum. The good thing about that mine is that it has not only excellent coking coal but also excellent thermal coal. At the moment, the production is about 50 per cent of each. Export coal is also taken from the mine and shipped through the Clinton facility in the port of Gladstone. The Curragh Mine has two stockpiles in that area, and I believe that they have a capacity in the vicinity of 300 000 tonnes. The mine has a long-term contract to supply 66.4 million tonnes of thermal coal to the QEC over the next 20 years. That coal will be used at Gladstone and at the new Stanwell Power Station. Environmentalists would like to see an end to coal-fired power stations. Fortunately, we have much to argue in favour of power stations such as Stanwell. I want to make a few comments about the QEC’s environmental policy. A number of important initiatives have been taken by the QEC to improve the environmental performance of its coal-fired power stations. Since the adoption of the QESI environmental policy in late 1991, environmental management committees have been formed by the power stations to oversee the implementation of the identified strategies and to meet the policies. Because of the public interest in the management practices of the industry, I feel that it is important to touch on some of the concerns raised by the environmental groups. I will deal first with air emissions. The members of this House and the public should be made aware of the truth of this matter. The media would rather pick up on the alarm bells rung by the conservation movement than take note of the significant advances that have taken place within the industry. One of those is the significant reductions in dust and oxides from nitrogen emissions at the Stanwell Power Station, which have been achieved by the use of the improved control technology now available. Gaseous emissions from the station meet statutory licence requirements. That is important. The attitude was there to start off with, and new technology is always being examined to improve the current standards. During combustion testing at the Stanwell No. 1 unit, boiler nitrogen production at full load was measured at 620 parts per million. That noxious gases figure is below the level considered to be low noxious gases emissions as produced in conventional coal-fired boilers. Mr Bennett: You know your subject well, Mr Pearce. Mr PEARCE: It is not an easy subject, but I am trying to learn. If members of the Opposition would do a bit of research, they might learn, too. I learn by doing research and talking to the people who know a little about a subject. I have a reputation for being a coal miner and for being a little slow. I do not mind being a little slow. I get out and have a go, and that is what it is all about. In fact, after three years, my hands are just starting to clear up. The dirt is still there, but I am working on it. I do not want to go back into the coal industry because I like this job. Mr FitzGerald: We would like to see you go back there. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3245

Mr PEARCE: I am sure that the honourable member would. I know that he does not like me talking about the drought, the graziers and the grain growers. I am an old Labor Party member who comes from the land. I know a bit about how those people suffer. I would like to see the honourable member give me a bit of support, because it is a bit of a battle. Mr FitzGerald: I reckon you are speaking well tonight. Mr PEARCE: I thank the honourable member very much. I am pleased to have his support. As I said before, the figure for noxious gases is below the levels considered to be low noxious gases emissions as produced in conventional coal-fired boilers. A measured noxious gases emission of 800 parts per million is considered to be a normal emission level. At Stanwell, the emission level is less than 650 parts per million. It would be fair to say—and this is a compliment to the industry—that boiler combustion is a low noxious gases producer. That is a good indication of the effectiveness of the technology that is being embraced. One issue which is of great concern to people living in the vicinity of coal- powered fire stations is the sulphur content of the coal. The sulphur content of the coal from Curragh Mine is one of the lowest. That and a relatively high ash fusion temperature both contribute to low levels of sulphur dioxide production and, hence, a very low probability of acid rain. That is important. As I have said before, the gaseous emissions from Stanwell meet statutory requirements. That does not mean that we can rest on our laurels. We have to monitor the ongoing performance of emission control; we have to conduct studies to determine whether the emissions have an impact on local vegetation; and we need to compare those studies with other power stations such as Tarong and Callide. That issue is important to me. A number of small farming operations are located in that area. The small township of Stanwell is in the shadow of the power station. Those residents have a right to know that the possibility of acid rain is being monitored. They want to know what impact that will have on their small farms and on their quality of life. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (9.21 p.m.): It is a pleasure to enter this debate. The electricity industry is an extremely important one to Queensland’s economy. It is vital not only to run the modern equipment used in our everyday lives such as videos, radios and television, but also to the whole economy of Queensland. It is very important that electricity supply is sound. It has been that way for a long period. The industry has functioned extremely well. It has generated sufficient electricity to meet the needs of our economy. Our sound electricity industry is probably one of the major reasons that Queensland has grown so rapidly. Without electricity, no industry will function. If expensive commodities such as coal and oil have to be imported from a foreign market, it certainly inhibits the growth of any economy. The success that Queensland has had over the last 20 years is due to the fact that it has had a good supply of coal, and it has been able to generate electricity at a reasonable rate for general industry. That growth probably would not have occurred if Queensland had not had this cheap, efficient source of energy. Over that period, the QEC has done an excellent job. Of course, its regional boards have given the people of Queensland an efficient and guaranteed supply of electricity. Irrespective of weather conditions, the people who work for those regional boards have shown a determination to ensure that the electricity supply is on at all times. That is pretty important for sensitive industries that need such things as coldrooms, heaters or incubators. It is essential that the electricity supply is guaranteed, and that is what people have in Queensland. Mr Beattie: A national grid will also help with that. Mr ROWELL: During the 1980s, Queensland had a major problem with strikes. I have experienced some problems myself, and I have had the need to buy supplementary electricity generating equipment. In recent times, that problem has not arisen, and I am of the opinion that the security of Queensland’s electricity supply has meant that many industries have moved to this State. However, I am concerned about 3246 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the Government’s corporatisation plans for the industry. I do not know that it will improve its managerial capacity to any great degree. Certainly, it will give the Government the ability to siphon off some funds. This newspaper article that I have indicates that, during the financial year ended June 1991, the QEC paid the Government $17.2m and, during the last financial year, another $16.5m was paid as a loan guarantee fee. That fee represented .05 per cent—— Mr Hollis: What paper did you get it from? What are you quoting from? Mr ROWELL: This article came from the Courier-Mail. It is an authentic article. However, last night, honourable members debated the issue of corporatisation, and I do not believe that there is any point in continuing that debate. I wish to address other important matters. One point that I wish to make relates to accrual accounting. I have been in business myself and I realise the shortfalls that people experience from time to time. Although this principle has been adopted by many Governments and firms throughout Australia, I cannot really understand why debtors amounts are treated as revenue at the time that revenue is earned, rather than when the payment is made. I believe that that is a valid point. If a person does not receive the money, how can that person bring it into account? Really, that is what that statement says. Mr Pearce: You can’t write a cheque if you have no money in the bank. Mr ROWELL: That is right. A person may have carried out work for somebody, but has not yet been paid for it. Mr Beattie: Part of the problem is when you write it off, you have to fit it into the equation somewhere. Mr ROWELL: Yes, but the point I make is that the possibility exists for that person not to receive the payment. I am talking about having money in the bank. I find it difficult to accept that aspect of accrual accounting as a sound accounting principle. However, I wish to refer to the guarantee system. I have written to the Minister about this matter, because it is a very important issue for people who live in farming regions, and people who operate businesses generally. The guarantee system is a means of providing a power supply for a business—a farm, or some other form of business. The system involves taking 22 per cent of the actual capital cost, and then spreading that amount over a period. That guarantee has to be met on an annual basis. I believe it runs for 10 years. Mr FitzGerald: Fifteen now. Mr ROWELL: It has varied. It has been five years, it has been 10 years, but it is now 15 years. I may be a little bit out of touch with it. However, the amount is spread over that period. There is no problem with the fact that the guarantee must be met but, unfortunately, as sometimes occurs with business, particularly farming operations because of the variation in seasons, those guarantees are not always met by consumption. I believe that there is a good case for bringing the whole matter into account over that period. At the end of the day, credits could be adjusted and rebates given for those people who are involved in that type of system. Because of fluctuations that occur from time to time in business, it certainly would make it more attractive, particularly for those people who are newly connected to the power system. It would make the system more attractive. People would consider using electricity, because it is a clean source of energy, and that is the way to go. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr ROWELL: Yes, but I am saying that people could consider alternative forms of powers, such as diesel and gas. However, Queensland has a good, clean, source of energy that is generated in its powerhouses. We have scrubbers on the chimneys so that the carbon monoxide fumes and the sulphur fumes do not escape easily. We must do as much as we can to generate this type of power for industry. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3247

Mr Beattie: A national grid will also help that. Mr ROWELL: I will take that interjection by the member for Brisbane Central. The national grid is a long way off. I believe that, because of the arrangements that have to be made between the States, the national grid is some time off. I am told that it could take about 10 years. It will probably be an advantage to the energy resources in this State. The only problem is that we have very cheap energy in this State. Will we have to absorb the costs of other States which are paying much more for their energy generation? The other very important issue raised by the member for Tablelands is: what are we going to do about the demand type of energy? What is the best option at this time in respect of a new power station? 1998 has been mentioned. It is quite possible that, because of the Labor recession, that period may be extended. We have experienced a downturn in industry. As a result, I believe that there is a reasonable case for deferment until after 1998. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Did the international recession have any effect on it, too? Mr ROWELL: I suppose that we could talk about all sorts of recessions. But it happened in Australia, and that is what we have to address. The important thing is that, one day, we will have to look for additional energy. Probably the best energy that we can get is hydro power. Mr Szczerbanik: What about sunlight? Mr ROWELL: I will get to that later. I believe that the member will find very interesting an amendment foreshadowed by the member for Tablelands. At present, the best option available for Queensland has been put forward by a number of very reputable authorities, including one that did a survey for the Queensland Department of Resource Industries in 1991. It compared the gas generation type of energy, which could be a demand type of energy, with the Tully/Millstream project. The result of that survey was that, while the authority did not agree with everything that the QEC had said about the economy of the alternative type of energy for the demand type of power station, it did say— “Despite these differences, the review analysis still shows that Tully-M is a lower cost supply option than gas turbine alternatives at the industry standard discount rate of 8%.” The Tully/Millstream project is very important to Queensland. We have dillydallied around with it. I think that the Government task force concluded in 1991. The task force went over it with a fine toothcomb. The area that will be under water will be some 4 300 hectares, including about 135 hectares of rainforest, about 2 100 hectares of dry sclerophyll forest, about 1 400 hectares of wet sclerophyll forest and 700 hectares of cleared land. The big thing about it is that it will be a major job provider for that region, which is badly in need of jobs. Probably up to 1 000 people will be working on the project at the peak of the work. When one considers a multiplying figure of 2.5 to 1, that means many thousands of jobs for north Queensland. But, once again, the most important aspect of the project is that it is the best option available at present in respect of demand energy. That survey also considered environmental issues. Particular animals are indigenous to that area, including the Atherton antechinus and the yellow-bellied glider. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Is one of those the rooting rat? Mr ROWELL: Yes, that is him—the Atherton antechinus. Another environmental issue that was taken into consideration was that tunnels need to be put between the dams so that the flow of wildlife across that area is not impeded. Another consideration related to a recreation area on the Wooroora Dam. The Tableland is badly in need of another recreational dam. That project would provide an excellent alternative industry for Ravenshoe on the Tableland. The timetable for that project’s completion was six years. That is why 1998 was critical. 3248 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The other very important aspect of that project which has not been considered widely is the use of the tail water off the turbines. The 600-megawatt unit that was proposed—whether it was two 300-megawatt units or three 200-megawatt units—would produce quite a bit of water from the turbines. At the time of the inception of the scheme, nobody would have thought that water would have been required on the wet tropical coast. But areas such as Innisfail are running short of water for fruit crops during critical periods. That scheme had the potential to pipe water up to those areas or to urban-type developments such as Mission Beach, which is growing like topsy. We have also had major drought problems in the Kennedy Valley. The project would have the twofold benefit of producing clean, efficient energy, which would provide jobs, and providing long-term water for the coastal region as it expands or requires additional supplies. The time for a gas turbine to come on-stream for a demand type of unit is 30 minutes. A hydro scheme can come on-line within a matter of 30 seconds. Currently, the Kareeya Power Station is radio controlled from Townsville. All that is required is that the signal be sent up when the demand exists, and very quickly that generating capacity can be brought on-stream either to the 72-megawatt units that exists at present, or divided by four, because it is broken up into four 18-megawatt units. That is what we could do with Tully/Millstream. It will feed all of the northern grid and go further south. The other important issue about Tully/Millstream is that it would provide a secure and safe source of energy in the event of a cyclone when power lines could be severed. However, the Government seems to be procrastinating about this very important scheme. It is a clean source of energy; it provides jobs; and it can also provide water for the coastal areas. I have been in contact with a number of people from conservation movements who are not necessarily against that scheme. That is the strange thing about it. They do not want it to expand to any great degree—I can understand their limitations—but those small pockets of rainforest—135 hectares—will be compensated by 400 hectares owned by the QEC at the mouth of the test tunnel that it installed as a ventilation shaft. Compensation will be made for the loss of genuine rainforest areas. Much of the country that the dams will inundate would not run a billygoat to 20 hectares. The land that will be covered by the Wooroora dam is very sclerophyll forest and some farmland. The other aspect of the hydro-energy plant is that it has the potential for storing energy, which is a problem if we are looking at the likes of solar energy, wind power or something of that nature. With the pumped storage arrangement with the dams on the tablelands, there is the possibility of combining a solar plant with them. The solar energy could be used during the day and, when an oversupply occurred, water could be pumped into the dams to provide an instant supply of energy. The prospects for that power station are enormous. I have seen figures for the establishment of a solar energy plant. We propose an amendment dealing with alternative energy. The big problem with alternative energy is storage. While it is being generated, it is fine; however, if solar energy is required at night or if wind energy is required when the wind is not blowing, there will be no power. There must be recognition across Australia of standards for electrical contractors. I do not have any problem with that aspect of the legislation. In principle, the Opposition supports that aspect of the Bill. However, as the Opposition spokesman on Energy said, we have doubts about other parts of it. Time expired. Mrs WOODGATE (Kurwongbah) (9.41 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in support of this Bill. As the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, we are changing five matters of policy, as well as a number of housekeeping matters and matters of an administrative nature. I will detail briefly the five policy matters that are being dealt with in this Bill. The member for Fitzroy, Mr Pearce, spoke very well on the supply industry’s change from cash-based fund accounting to accrual accounting, which change was in line with the Government’s finance standards which were issued under the Financial Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3249

Administration and Audit Act. Another policy matter dealt with by the member for Gladstone, Mr Bennett, deals with the rationalisation of the licensing provisions for electrical workers and contractors. The third policy matter relates to the amendment of penalty provisions relating to electrical workers and contractors. The fourth policy matter covers the recognition of standards. Last, but not least, the Electricity Amendment Bill will ensure that the changes to the superannuation aspect will comply with Commonwealth occupational superannuation standards regulations. I will speak briefly about the Queensland electricity industry. Every member of this House would agree that Queensland has the most efficient electricity supply industry in Australia. As the member for Callide said—I agree wholeheartedly—it is one of the best in the world. Last night, during debate on another Bill, a couple of Opposition members asked, “Well, if we do have this most efficient electricity supply industry, why are we changing it? Why are we corporatising it?” We all know that the electricity industry and the seven boards in the State have been identified as candidates for corporatisation. The question is answered quite simply. Corporatisation is intended to ensure that the superior performance of our electricity supply industry continues. Those of us who were lucky enough to attend the opening of the Stanwell Power Station—and even those who were not so lucky but saw it on television that night—heard the Minister say, during a television interview, that if we stand still in today’s economic climate we will go backwards. Most people would agree with those sentiments. In a nutshell, corporatisation will lock in the efficiencies already achieved and give the work force and management clear incentives to build upon those. That will come about by providing a commercial framework for the Queensland electricity supply industry to operate in without any conflicts from social, development or other objectives. We can deny what has been said by honourable members opposite; the industry will not have non- commercial roles such as policy or regulatory roles; instead, it will be able to concentrate on the job at hand, which is producing and selling low-cost electricity and making a return on the capital invested. All we heard from Opposition members was that it would mean price increases. The bleaters on the bleachers opposite said, “Price increases. Price increases.” To quote an old racing man of yesteryear, Ken Howard, I think we could say “it is London to a brick on” that the Queensland electricity supply industry can provide for payment of dividend and tax equivalents without price increases above the CPI. They have agreed to limit the retail tariff increases to half the CPI increases up to and including February 1995, and the tariff increases from then, 1996 onwards, are not expected to exceed the CPI. I note that, last night, the member for Lockyer said that it was a big ask for hope. Mr FitzGerald: A big ask for faith. Mrs WOODGATE: I do not know about the charity bit, but I recognise what the honourable says. I think that that is a pretty fair statement that they will not exceed the CPI, but we will just have to wait and see. Being a betting person, I am prepared to take any odds that the Opposition want to offer. The financial planning forecasts assume corporatisation as at July 1994. Provision is made in the forecast for the payment of dividends to the Queensland Government at the rate of $30m for 1992-93; $60m for 1993-94; and thereafter, 50 per cent of after-tax profit. The assumptions that I will now quote relate to the payment of income tax: no tax payable in respect of income earned in 1993 or earlier; the Queensland electricity supply industry is subject to taxation payments to the State equivalent to the Commonwealth income tax in respect of income earned from 1 July 1994; and company income tax rate of 33 per cent has been assumed. The total debt as a percentage of the total equity is, as of July 1988, over 200 per cent. The forecast at 1 July 1993 next year is 86 per cent—that is based on historical cost; 42 per cent based on revalued assets. Under the current financial forecast, which incorporates provision for taxes and dividends, the expansion of the system can be financed without incurring new debt, that is, that capital expenditure is expected to be fully funded from internal sources. I think that last night someone on the other side of the Chamber asked the question: what will be the effect of corporatisation on the employees of the Queensland 3250 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly electricity supply industry? I believe that it will have little direct effect on industry employees in the short-term. There will be no downsizing of the work force due to corporatisation, and all the benefits, for example, the wages, entitlements and superannuation, will be protected. It could well be that the increased authority, autonomy and accountability given to the Queensland electricity supply industry under corporatisation could provide opportunities for employees in the longer term. I turn now to the QESI’s pricing record in comparison with that for the rest of the world and the reasons for this and comparisons with the world’s best practices. The QEC is currently involved in an Australiawide program, coordinated through ESAA, to develop a statistical evaluation of economic and financial performance. One of the elements of this study compares productivity by measuring how well the utilities convert physical inputs of labour, capital and fuel into output over a sample of utility operations at the individual generating plant level. As I said earlier, I do not think that any honourable member on either side of the Chamber would not argue that the QEC does achieve a very high overall economic efficiency and it is the best performing electricity utility in Australia. In February of last year, the Bureau of Industry Economics published a report—I think somebody might have referred to it tonight, but I am not sure; I will have to check tomorrow in Hansard—entitled International Performance Indicators—Electricity. In that report, we can read that Australia has relatively low prices of electricity by international standards; the QESI’s power system’s capacity factor ranks highly by international standards—that is the measure of capacity utilisation of electricity assets; the availability of the generating plant is well above the US and the UK; and labour productivity in Queensland is the highest in Australia. Mr FitzGerald: Who has taken that out? Mrs WOODGATE: We will agree to differ on that; we could argue about that all night, so we might adjourn outside later. The Queensland electricity system is based on coal as our major fuel input, and Queensland has vast deposits of coal, as we all know. But that does not automatically mean that cheap electricity follows for power users. QEC does have a general strategy to ensure that all suppliers of raw energy options are able to compete freely. The QEC has adopted practices to ensure that all the coal suppliers are in open competition for existing and future power stations. It promotes the diversity of competition by inviting tenders from the suppliers of natural gas and other potential fuels, and it locates new power stations to take advantage of cheaper fuel prices. As it is late, I do not want to take up too much time. We were here until very late yesterday and I think that we are all getting a bit tired. I turn now to the QESI’s pricing record. Since 1986, the pricing policy has been to maintain increases to no greater than half the Brisbane CPI. That is good news; it was then and it is now. This has enabled the industry to maintain a favourable pricing position with respect to interstate and international suppliers. As for domestic customers—the rates are lower than those in most of the developed world, with the exception of New South Wales and some hydro generation sourced suppliers in New Zealand and Canada. As for the small commercial or industrial customers—the rates lie in the middle of the international range, however, they are the lowest offered by any supplier in Australia. In relation to the medium large industrial customers—Queensland rates, once again with the exception of Victoria and South Australia, match or better those of international suppliers sourced from coal-fired generation. Before concluding, I want to mention some of the other benefits from corporatisation of the QESI. We believe that the corporatisation will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the QESI by clarifying its objectives, increasing its accountability and making its operating environment competitively neutral. QESI will have a sole commercial objective. Any non-commercial tasks that Governments require of the industry will be funded separately. I do not know whether everybody on that side of the House has picked up on that. I think that most have, but funny statements were made last night—however, it might have been the hour—but I did pick up that some of Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3251 them just have not grasped that point. The management of the industry or its boards will be accountable for the performance to the Ministers who will agree on performance targets with the boards and judge their performance by these. To promote competitive neutrality, the corporatised industry will be liable for taxes and charges comparable to those paid by private companies. The industry will be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged in the marketplace by being Government owned. This will improve the efficiency in the location of resources within the State. I believe firmly that the factors I have touched on will combine to let our industry work force concentrate exclusively on its job without the distractions traditionally associated with being a very large public sector business enterprise of being subject at any time to political direction. We saw enough of that in the past, as the member for Lockyer said. We do not want to keep that going on for the next 20 years. We could, but we will not. We are nice people. During their salad days on this side of the House, some of the people opposite honed that art to perfection, but we let that go. As I said at the beginning of this short speech, I am very happy to support this Bill. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.53 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I join in the debate on the Electricity Amendment Bill. This legislation amends the Electricity Act 1976 but certainly does not replace it. The original Act still stands, but several amendments have been made to it over a number of years, and this Bill is another one. This is a very important piece of legislation because, as the Minister informed the House during his second-reading speech, the electricity industry is now a candidate for corporatisation. Since the Minister made his speech, the corporatisation legislation was introduced into this House and, after the debate was guillotined, was passed through all stages. We are debating this Bill in the light of the legislation that has already been passed. The Opposition supports this Bill. However, members of the Opposition have taken the opportunity of this debate to raise some points, and I will follow in that vein. I believe that this Bill sets down different accounting systems for the electricity industry that are recognised as better practice. The member for Moggill will speak to that and he is the next speaker after me, so I will address some of the other issues that arise out of this legislation. I wish to refer to remarks made by the previous Opposition spokesman in the 1988 debate on the Electricity Act Amendment Bill. I will also be examining whether some of the concerns raised by members on the Opposition side of the House with regard to corporatisation of the industry will take place. One of the questions that has been asked is whether the Minister will be responsible for the electricity industry or whether he will duck the issue and say that the corporation is responsible for any increases in charges and for answering the hard questions. I look back to the performance of the Goss Government’s previous Minister for Resource Industries, the Honourable Ken Vaughan, who answered a series of questions asked by me when I was the Opposition spokesman for electricity. On 27 November 1991, I queried whether he was responsible for changes to amounts charged for rural connections which resulted in an increase from 15 per cent to 22.5 per cent. The Minister said that I was misinformed and that the commission had made the recommendation. He said that he was simply going along with what the commission had said. If that approach is placed into the context of this legislation when it is enacted, it will mean that the Minister will abrogate his responsibility and leave it up to the commission to make decisions on electricity charges. I am not sure what the present Minister will do, but I presume that he will maintain that approach and allow the commission to run itself and make those commercial decisions. On 27 November 1991, the previous Minister also stated— “Clearly, the decision to increase the guarantee fee was one made by the boards exercising their role to manage their affairs as spelt out in the Electricity Act. Despite having had this spelt out to him in the Parliament, the honourable member for Lockyer has seen fit to embark on a public campaign to blame the Government for a decision made by statutory authorities.” 3252 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

That Minister abrogated his responsibility in relation to the increase in that guarantee fee. He passed it off to the electricity industry. In an article in the Townsville Bulletin, that same Minister stated— “Cabinet will be making the final decision . . . but obviously this is a Labor Government.” On 3 December 1991, in a ministerial statement, the previous Minister referred to a report that was published in the Townsville Bulletin, and he stated— “This morning’s Townsville Bulletin contains an article which wrongly creates the impression that this Government is considering massive price increases for electricity-consumers. I can inform the House that the report which I have received from a working party of Government, industry and trade union representatives has not recommended that uniform tariffs be scrapped.” He went on to state— “That report is yet to be presented to Cabinet and only then will a decision be made about the future of the Queensland electricity supply industry. I can assure all Queenslanders that there is no move to abolish tariff equalisation.” Who made the decision—the Minister or the board? In the future, who will make the decisions—the Minister or the corporation? Let me provide an illustration of what this Government will do. This Government will blame the corporation for any changes to tariff structures that are politically sensitive. Mr McGrady: Rubbish! Mr FITZGERALD: It did so in the past. The Goss Government’s first electricity industry Minister, Ken Vaughan, abrogated his responsibility and said that it was clearly a decision made by the statutory authority. That has blown the present Minister’s argument out of the water. He cannot be trusted. He is asking members of the Opposition to make a great leap of faith and suddenly trust him. I cannot accept his arguments. I have pointed out to the House the inconsistency in the approach of the previous Minister, and I believe that those inconsistencies will continue under the present Minister. Of course, the Treasurer says one thing one minute, and another thing the next. One of the dangers faced by electricity consumers is that they will become the milking cow of this Government. In previous debates and in this debate, a number of speakers have referred to obtaining a return on the equity that the Government has in the electricity industry. Mr De Lacy: Half a billion dollars in New South Wales. Mr FITZGERALD: I do not care if it is half a billion dollars in New South Wales. I am telling the Treasurer what Queensland electricity consumers will be faced with. The Government is saying that it wants a return on equity. Who owns the equity in the electricity industry? Mr De Lacy: The taxpayers of Queensland. Mr FITZGERALD: The consumers do. The consumers of electricity have been paying for those assets. Most of those assets have been paid off. Who has paid for them? It is the electricity consumers. Where have the returns and the profits gone that have been generated in the electricity industry? They have gone back into paying off those debts at an accelerated rate of depreciation. The Minister knows it and I know it. The debt level has been falling. The Minister has been talking about it. Mr De Lacy: You say that BHP owns BHP. Mr FITZGERALD: I do not wish to take interjections from the Treasurer because I have a lot of points to make. The Minister will demand a return equivalent to the income tax and pay that as a dividend into the State. Mr Gilmore: Plus a dividend. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3253

Mr FITZGERALD: Plus a dividend. In other words, the dividend will not go towards paying off the capital depreciation; it will not go towards enhancing the position that the consumers are in at present. It will pay the general taxes of this State. Only one thing can happen, that is, electricity prices will not be as cheap as they would have been if the Government had left the profits behind in the industry; therefore, the consumers would have paid and the consumers would have received the benefit. As the honourable member for Tablelands said, the little old lady with her electricity meter ticking over will pay State taxes, whereas she is not paying them at present. I am saying that the industry is a hollow log, because we know that the electricity industry has a lead time of 10 years for the building of power stations. The Government is starting to find out about that now. It will be 10 or 12 years before the Government will see the financial results that will be brought about by that practice. The Government will raid the hollow log. It will put the electricity industry in the position of paying a dividend when it should be preparing itself for the expansion that will take place. In my electorate alone, the industry is planning to put 500 kVa lines right through the area. That is wise planning, but that is money that must be spent in the future. It will be spent in probably 10 to 15 years’ time. That is the lead time. The Government knows that it is in strife in terms of providing electricity at the end of the decade. The Government must do that planning now. Money must be put aside now to go towards that cause, but the Government will not do that. It will start milking the cow. The Government can do it and it will do it for a number of years before the tariffs really go up. Eventually, they will go up and we will go back to McGrady, that short-term Minister for Energy in the Goss Government, who is causing the problems that will arise. I know that Government backbenchers groan when we talk about the problems that were solved in 1985 and how we achieved such productivity out of Queensland. I am looking back at the previous Government. Nobody outside the House in their right mind would say that it is not a feather in the cap of the Ministers who made those wise decisions at the time. The Minister talks about efficiencies that will be created by corporatisation. Not one example has been put forward to the House of how or where the efficiencies will come about. The Government has not given one example of it. The Government only says that there will be increased efficiencies. I would like to see where they will come about. I want to talk about the Opposition spokesman at the time when we debated the legislation that was before the House in 1988. It was the Honourable Bob Gibbs, who is now a member of Cabinet. He is the Minister’s colleague. He was the spokesman for the Labor Party at that time. What did he say about the Electricity Bill? He thought that it was horrendous. He thought that it was horrible. He made lots of statements about the Bill. Let us consider clause 32 of the Bill, which refers to membership of electricity boards. What did the spokesman say about the comparable clause in the 1988 Bill? He said— “However, I do not believe one can take away from the local authorities the right to nominate the people they wish to have as their representatives on the electricity board for a particular area. . . . The Minister is taking away that right. He is insisting that the local authorities provide him with a panel of five people, and from that panel of five he will select two members.” Mr Gibbs continued to be totally opposed to clause 105, which dealt with the membership of electricity boards, of the Electricity Bill 1988. What did the Government do with the Bill? It left it alone. It changed the wording slightly, but it did not change the intent. Therefore, although Labor Party members talked about all the horrendous things that were in the Bill at that time, they do not talk about them now. They divided the Committee on a number of clauses, but what have they done this time? Government members have backed away from those issues. The amount of credence we should give 3254 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly to the honourable member for Wolston, the Honourable Bob Gibbs, is indicated by the fact that he suggested that, in the by-election that was to be held the next weekend, a Labor Party member would win Barambah. He might have been joking the whole night long. The Labor Party candidate did not do well in that election. Mrs Woodgate: The National Party didn’t, either. Mr FITZGERALD: We eventually got it back. That is another matter. Other issues came into the debate. The member for Wolston was worried about the quality and safety of the work of electricians with regard to the change in the inspection procedures, whereby the electricity boards did not have to inspect work being done on new homes. We always knew that extensions up to a certain size could be done without the board inspectors coming around. Members of the Opposition at that time violently opposed the change. They divided the Committee on it. They talked about all the deaths that would occur. Now that we have mutual recognition of professions, what is the Government doing this time? Is it going to change the Act? No way in the world. No statistics have been put forward. The whole Labor Party was totally opposed to that change. It was a change for the better because it meant that, if the electricians were competent enough to do their own inspections on extensions, why on earth could they not do it on a small house? Although they could not do the inspection on a small house, they could do the inspection on a great big extension to a mansion or another home and it was legal. All of the Minister’s colleagues opposed that. The Minister did not, because he was not in the Parliament at the time. Another thing that the member for Wolston was concerned about at the time was— “. . . the recipe that the Minister is laying before Parliament this afternoon will exacerbate the demarcation problems within the industry.” I know that a member of the Socialist Left would know all about demarcation problems. The member happens to be in the AWU faction. He was concerned about demarcation because he did not want it in the industry. What happened to those demarcation problems? Mr Pearce: There are none. Mr FITZGERALD: There are none. However, Gibbs said on 13 April 1988 that the legislation that Tenni put before the House was a recipe for disaster. Gibbs, who was the Opposition spokesman at the time, said that it was a recipe for disaster. I spoke in the same debate and I said the electricity industry was settling down quite well and working very well and that I believed that industrially all the major problems were over. What happened is that the Labor Party was wrong again. What was said about corporatisation at that time? I will quote Gibbs. On 13 April 1988, he said— “Never before have I seen legislation which provides for a semi-Government body such as the QEC to be able to form its own private companies. If the QEC wishes, in cases in which it feels it is competent to do so, it will be able to buy into investment programs associated with other firms, research work or joint ventures. This almost reeks of the sort of irresponsible squandering of tax-payers’ dollars that we have just seen by Suncorp, for example, which has blown in the vicinity of . . . ” And he nominated a certain amount of money. He was totally opposed to corporatisation. He was totally opposed to the industry being able to stand on its own feet. And what has happened? We have all heard about the road to Damascus. The Labor Party has certainly been on the road to Damascus. But not all of the members opposite have been. I know that a lot of them are not happy with corporatisation, and that is a fact of life. I know that many of them fear that, because of what is happening, Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3255 they are going to lose control. The Minister says he has full control, then he says he is handing it over to a corporation. But we know that a lot of the members of the Labor Party were very, very upset that Cabinet came in with a fait accompli, and it does have a bloc vote, and when it started pulling in its favours a lot of the members opposite were locked into it and they were not happy. They are hanging their heads now. There is no- one to disagree with me on this particular issue at this stage. There are many passages of Gibbs’ speech that I could quote. I am afraid that I cannot quote them all; however, he did say— “On an average there have been five deaths a year in the industry.” He said they occurred from electrocution. He said that those numbers would go up. I would like to know from the Minister whether they did go up. Mr Gibbs made a reference to me as Ginger Meggs, but that must have been a normal comment from him at that time. He then said— “The Opposition opposes the legislation in toto. As I said at the outset, it is a recipe for disaster that will in the long run lead to increased charges for electricity- consumers in Queensland. It will mean a drastic and dramatic break-down in safety standards.” Wrong again! This is how the Labor Party has changed its position. The inconsistency needed to be pointed out to the House. In his second-reading speech, the Minister boasted— “Queensland is now widely recognised as having the lowest average electricity price of the mainland States and is amongst the five lowest electricity prices throughout the world.” He also said— “Corporatisation is seen as a way to lock in the gains already achieved and to facilitate further changes which will yield ongoing benefits for Queensland consumers.” He was talking about consumers, not the social welfare programs. He was talking about consumers! He then said— “I want to emphasise that the purpose of moving to corporatise the electricity supply industry is to continue to deliver benefits to Queensland electricity consumers and, indeed, to the State as a whole.” Not only will the benefits go to the consumers, but I am sure that he has in mind what benefits will go to the rest of the State. There are a couple of other matters that I want to talk about. Firstly, what is going to happen to employees in the electricity industry? I dealt with a very sad case today. A gentleman in my area advised me that he has been made an offer he cannot refuse. It is very sad. He is 51 years of age. He is the ninth employee to be put off at the Gatton substation. Eight of them have gone already. He decided he wanted to stay as long as he could. But he has been made an offer he cannot refuse. The decision of whether he will go on to the scrap heap or not will have to be his. He does not want to go. He can get his superannuation. The Minister knows what the package is. This gentleman has worked in the industry for 17 years. I know the chap personally. In fact, at one stage he worked for a sawmill in the area. He was a very good employee. Now the department has put at Gatton an engineer who was told that he had to get rid of nine employees. I ask: what will happen if storms hit the area? Before, when the local electricity workers were in the area, they would get out of bed, go out and repair the damage and power would be on within a matter of hours. If this change means that people will have to be brought from other areas into a strange area, they will not know the intricate road system 3256 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly in the valley. Therefore, this action is not without pain, because I know that not everybody is going to be happy. All the workers are not protected. Eight workers in Gatton have been put off. I presume that the ninth worker will take up the offer that he cannot refuse. Time expired. Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (10.13 p.m.): I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Electricity Amendment Bill 1993. I was very interested to hear the previous speaker being so concerned about the SEQEB workers in Gatton who have been made redundant. Let me assure him that, as one of the union officials in the electricity industry, I negotiated with SEQEB some redundancy provisions for those workers. I also wish to remind the member for Lockyer that in the bitter dispute in 1985—and I intend to deal with that later in my speech—his National Party Government was the Government that was hell-bent on getting rid of the workers and putting all the work out to contract. A Government member: He wasn’t really concerned then. Mr NUTTALL: I will take the interjection. He was not really concerned about the families at that time. In his second-reading speech, the Minister made some comments to the effect that over the last several years there has been a lot of reliability in terms of supply in the industry, in terms of price and in terms of productivity. I intend to address those matters. Productivity improvements have continued within the industry. Most of that has been done in cooperation with the work force and the unions that are working in the industry. Part of the purpose of moving to corporatise, the Minister said, was that the electricity supply industry is to continue to deliver benefits to Queensland and electricity consumers. I want to address my comments tonight particularly to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. They refer to the determination of price of electricity. Clause 29 states— “The Commission must ensure, as far as possible, that the price is sufficient . . . to meet the expenses of the Commission”— in its operations and maintenance, and— “. . . in the exercise and performance of the Commission’s powers and functions . . .” Clause 30 refers to the requirement for an electricity authority to provide in a financial year money for capital works, reserve for capital works and money for the repayment of loans. None of those things can be achieved unless productivity is improved. One of the ways in which productivity can be improved is by cooperation with the work force. For the past few years, I was an official for the Electrical Trades Union. Mrs Woodgate: An excellent official, too. Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member very much. After working as an official within that industry, I can assure members that it has taken quite some time to fix the problems caused by the debacle of 1985. One of the great tragedies of bad laws such as those passed in 1985 is that the community suffers. From the speeches delivered in this debate by Opposition members, it is obvious that they are still very sensitive about that issue. The legislation introduced by the former Government—and I intend to go through it—has now been repealed. Sadly, whenever the electricity industry is discussed in this House, the Opposition continues to bring up the 1985 debacle. It continues to open old wounds that will take a long time to heal. A number of steps have been taken by this Government in cooperation with the industry and with those within the industry who wished to work with the unions. People would realise that, since we have been in Government, the power has stayed on. The heavens did not fall in; the lights did not go out; the power stayed on. That is because the unions and the Labor Government signed a continuity of supply agreement to ensure that the power would stay on both for industry and for the people of this State. Secondly, this Government negotiated a new award for all employees. The old award Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3257 was badly outdated. Contained in the new award is a dispute-settling procedure. If any industrial problems occur within the electricity industry, a number of steps can be taken to avoid any major industrial disputation. Contractors were at the core of the 1985 dispute. In 1992, this Government negotiated a use of contractors industrial agreement. That is a registered agreement which was gazetted on 9 October last year. That agreement, which was hammered out over a long period, allows contractors to work within the industry, but it also ensures that they receive the appropriate rates of pay. It ensures that they do not undercut people but also that they receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work so that work is carried out properly. What is more, an enterprise bargaining agreement has been struck, which was certified on 16 April this year in the State Industrial Commission. All of those measures are aimed at improving productivity within the electricity supply industry. I turn now to the manner in which the National Party Government worked on productivity in the electricity industry. When the dispute occurred in 1985, the first thing the former Government did was sack 1 200 workers. It dumped 1 200 workers onto the scrap heap. Secondly, the former Government introduced some of the worst legislation to ever come before this House. The first instalment was the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Act of 1985. That legislation was flawed, and in 1988 it had to be amended. The second instalment was the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act of 1985, which refused people the right to strike—a fundamental democratic right. Then the former Government introduced another doozey—the Electricity (Industrial Causes and Continuity of Supply) Acts Amendment Act of 1985. Those Acts stood from 1985 through to 1990. All Government members remember the Labour Day march of 1986. It was one of the biggest marches that this State has ever seen. I will relay my most vivid memory of that march. As people marched from the city to the Exhibition grounds, at 10-metre intervals on each side the footpath stood the storm-troopers of the former Government. In every alleyway were parked cars and minibuses filled with police. That was the former Government’s method of improving productivity. It reminded people of the days when Pharaoh was having his pyramids constructed. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr NUTTALL: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Kurwongbah—locking up the clergy. One of the great ploys of the former Government was that anybody who spoke out against it was thrown in gaol. Its legislation contained that abhorrent provision. The legislation of the former Government relating to the electricity industry thrust this State into complete turmoil. It destroyed friendships at work, it broke up marriages and it caused a great deal of stress for those who worked within the industry. I have worked in that industry in recent years, and the bitterness is still there. Members opposite have to wear that blame. Every time the electricity industry is discussed in this House, members opposite raise the problems that occurred during their time in Government. Mr Elliott interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! The member for Cunningham will cease his interjections. Mr Johnson interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr NUTTALL: Every time that dispute went close to resolution, Opposition members would change the rules and introduce legislation. They said, “As soon as we get close to solving it, we will introduce another piece of legislation. We will keep them out.” But at what cost to the community? Millions and millions of dollars! At what cost in terms of human sacrifice? I am pleased to say that in 1990, my predecessor, Nev 3258 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Warburton, who was then the Minister for Industrial Relations, introduced the Industrial Relations Act. That Industrial Relations Act repealed that draconian legislation. Ms Spence: 30 May 1990. Mr NUTTALL: The member for Mount Gravatt is correct. It was a great day for the workers of this State. Mr Johnson interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr NUTTALL: One of the great problems that we have is that when we talk about the dispute, it hits a raw nerve. It is very sad and very unfortunate. Opposition members will have to wear it. They are branded with that for life. A number of people who were involved are still out of work today. I turn now to the improvements in productivity that the union movement and this Government have been able to effect in the electricity supply industry. I want to talk in particular about a landmark agreement, that is, the new enterprise bargaining agreement. I do not intend to speak to that at length, but I wish to cover a few major points that are contained within that agreement. An education program about how that agreement will work within the industry has been produced. Management, the unions and members of the work force have worked together, unlike the way in which they operated in the past under the former National Party Government. The work force within the electricity supply industry will receive two wage increases in separate stages. All rises will be based on increased productivity in the workplace. A number of consultative committees within the work place will assist in that process. Any changes in working practices will be negotiated on a joint basis, and they will be monitored jointly. I want to refer particularly to a couple of points that are contained within this landmark agreement. In my view, it is an agreement that will see great improvements in productivity in this State. This agreement has been signed by all 21 unions within the electricity industry, it has been signed by all regional electricity boards and it has also been signed by the Queensland Electricity Commission. It states, in part— “. . . the parties are jointly committed to increased productivity . . . an emphasis on the following:— Adopting the world’s ‘best practice’ . . . Management, Employees and Unions adopting a mind-set for change.” That would never have occurred under the previous National Party Government. The view of the members of the Opposition towards productivity is that workers are ground under the heel. This agreement also refers to developing strategies and targets to ensure that there are continued improvements in performance of work and that there is an adequate return on assets. This will be achieved jointly. The work force will be involved. The agreement refers to ensuring appropriate distribution of surpluses and control of debt and working towards ensuring that there is a real reduction in the real prices of electricity. I understand that during question time today, the Minister assured Opposition members on a couple of occasions that the real price of electricity would be half the increase in the CPI. He has said that on a couple of occasions, but in this debate this evening Opposition members have still given the tirade that prices will increase dramatically. I wish to refer to another important matter, and that is the rationalisation of unions within the electricity supply industry. I am pleased to say that there are now only two unions at the Stanwell Power Station. Those unions are the Electrical Trades Union—one of the great unions in Queensland—and the Australian Services Union—other great union in this State. Dr Watson interjected. Mr NUTTALL: No, they are great friends of ours. The AWU is working hand in hand with the other union in the industry. It realised the need for rationalisation. In terms Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3259 of working cooperatively with the industry, the unions are playing their part. In conclusion, I wish to give some examples of working patterns that are continued in this agreement. There will be the creation of new employment, better customer service and an ability to meet customer demand. There will be a better utilisation of plant, an increase in leisure time for employees and a lesser need to use contractors. As I said, this is a landmark agreement. Prior to that agreement, the operating plant in the depots of the regional boards would work only nine out of 14 days a week—they had a nine-day fortnight. The workers in the industry have acknowledged the fact that there is a need to improve productivity and have agreed to a spread of hours from 6 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. The situation now exists that some workers will work four days a week and others will work three days a week so that the plant is working a full seven-day week. The plant at all the depots will work seven days a week. That is a great contribution by the electricity workers in this State. They realised that it was important to ensure that supplies continued to all consumers. I believe most sincerely that the workers have played a great role in endeavouring to improve productivity. They have embraced the concept of improving productivity. The landmark agreement to which I refer was overwhelming endorsed by 86 per cent of the work force in the industry. The Minister, the unions and the workers within the industry are to be congratulated on this achievement. Dr WATSON (Moggill) (10.31 p.m.): It is a pleasure to join in this debate on the Electricity Amendment Bill 1993. I do not intend to speak to this Bill at length, but I believe that a couple of issues need to be addressed and perhaps given a slightly different perspective from that given to them by other members. I should like to talk about two issues that are really stimulated by the Minister’s second-reading speech. The Minister stated— “Queensland is now widely recognised as having the lowest average electricity price of mainland States and is amongst the five lowest electricity prices throughout the world.” There is no doubt that that is an accurate statement, which is backed up by the evidence that is available. It is important to understand that price is not the only factor that we must consider when judging the efficiency or effectiveness of an industry, just as price is not the only factor that we must consider when judging, for example, an investment that we might make. If we are going to make an investment in a car, we are certainly interested in the price, but we are also interested in other things such as mileage, safety and reliability. It is no different in the electricity industry or in any other industry. If we are to be internationally competitive, price is certainly one factor, but it is not the only one. It is worth noting that, in some of these other areas, Queensland does not do as well as it should. The member for Kurwongbah mentioned the Bureau of Industry Economics report of February 1992. I shall refer to some aspects of that report which the honourable member did not mention. I refer to outages per customer per annum. Queensland does not perform anywhere near as well by world standards, or even by Australian standards, as it does in terms of price. For example, on average, Queensland has two outages per customer per annum. The best place in the world, Kansai, has 0.1 outages per customer per annum. Therefore, the standard in Kansai is 20 times better than it is in Queensland. As to the average outage duration per interruption—Queensland does not do as well as other places. The Bureau of Industry Economics reported that the average minutes out per interruption was 99 minutes in Queensland. That is far worse than the average in other places in Australia such as the ACT, Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania, and significantly worse than the best place in the world, Tokyo, which was only 42 minutes. As to the average outage time per customer per annum—Queensland is 193 minutes, whereas the best places in the world, such as Tokyo and Kansai, are down around 11 minutes. I believe that the Minister recognised this in his second-reading speech when he said that we have to go a lot further. We do have to go a lot further. Electricity is critically important to the development of this State and some major 3260 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly industries. If we are going to be a truly competitive State and nation, we have to get better at these other aspects, as well as get better in terms of price. The Bureau of Industry Economics study is not the only one to reach that kind of conclusion. Peter Swan from Swan Consultants, who is a professor of economics at Canberra University, undertook a study for the Business Council of Australia, which compared Australia with the United States. The reason that he compared Australia with the United States was simply that, in terms of electricity generation, the United States has a profile similar to that of Australia. The United States tends to have basically coal- fired power plants and steam-generated electricity, with the same kind of profile of customers and electrical generation equipment. In terms of the total factor productivity, Australia reached only 70 per cent of that achieved in the United States. Queensland achieved 80 per cent, and it was the best; but there is a substantial improvement to go. If Australia had the same total factor productivity as does the United States, we could have lowered the cost to industry in Australia by $3.4 billion a couple of years ago. That is the kind of impact that increases in efficiency, reductions in prices and things like that can have on the international competitiveness of the Australian economy. Mr McElligott: What was the date of that? Dr WATSON: November 1991. The industry report also refers to that. So it is as recent as anything else that is available. Over the years, Australia has been improving in this sector, but we still have a long way to go. The other aspect that I shall mention briefly is another sentence in the Minister’s second-reading speech, namely— “Productivity improvements passed on to customers have kept electricity price rises below increases in the CPI.” I question that statement, not in the sense that the increases may not have been kept to CPI increases or below, but in the sense that that is not a good performance. When one considers the operating costs of the Queensland electricity supply industry over the past few years, one finds that they have increased at a particular rate. However, the revenue that has been achieved by the Queensland electricity supply industry has increased at a much faster rate. Mr Davies: So what? Dr WATSON: The critical thing about it is that, in the past year $125m and, in the past couple of years, $200m have been taken from the consumers of this State rather than being used to reduce the prices that the consumers, both industrial and domestic, have to pay. Mr Davies: Not subsidisation? Dr WATSON: I will get to that. That will have an significant impact upon the competitiveness of Queensland and Australian industry which happens to have a high energy component. Mr Davies: So you are going to penalise them for being efficient. Dr WATSON: The trouble is that they are not efficient. If they are efficient, they are not passing those costs on to the consumers in any way. The honourable member should remember that this is a monopoly and, therefore, is not subject to price competition. So there is some question about what they are doing. It is an issue that ought to be addressed by the Minister and by the Government. The second interesting aspect is that, if one examines the Queensland electricity supply industry annual reports, one notices that the amount paid over the past two years in interest payments has decreased drastically. There are two reasons for that. One is that they have paid off some of the loans, but the most important reason is that interest rates have fallen. That is acknowledged in the footnotes to the financial reports. Those savings also have not been passed on to consumers. Again, there has been no significant change in that aspect in terms of productivity; it is simply a question of what the cash payments are. Earlier, prices rose as interest rates rose, and prices could fall as the Queensland electricity supply industry, through no fault of its own, reduces its Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3261 interest payments. It is particularly important that, when we are looking at being competitive internationally, those exogenous changes which can affect prices and productivity of other parts of the economy do get passed on. Of course, those funds have been used to increase significantly the generation and transmission capacity of the industry. It is again significant to note that current consumers are paying not only for electricity that is currently generated—they are not just paying off previous loans—but also for future generation capacity. That is usually referred to as an intergenerational transfer of wealth. Again, that is something that ought to be considered, because it raises the prices to current consumers as against future consumers and is affecting current prices and the current competitive capacity of Queensland and Australian industries. Those are some of the matters which give a slightly different perspective to the ideas put forward by other members. They are a slight modification of some of the points that have been put forward. I do not disagree with many of the points that the member for Kurwongbah and other members raised earlier, but, if we are to be realistic and if we intend to address the issue of the competitiveness of Queensland and Australian business, particularly in the high energy using areas, we have to look also very carefully at the Queensland electricity supply industry and precisely how it is pricing the product and using the resources it does gain from its customers. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.42 p.m.): I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak to the Electricity Amendment Bill 1993. The Opposition, I understand, is supporting the Bill, but it is pretty hard to believe that it is doing so given the way that the debate has developed. I turn briefly to an issue in the far-north Queensland area in connection with the bulk electricity reinforcement through Chalumbin to Woree. The strip between Buchans Point and Babinda has been undergoing a growth spurt for the last 10 years, and a consequent growth in electricity demand. It is anticipated that that will continue for 10 more years at least. Currently, the area is served by three 132 kv transmission lines, and the Barron Gorge Power Station is expected to reach the limit of its capacity by about 1996. At that stage we are in serious danger, I believe, of facing a possible loss of supply. If that occurs, it will cause damage to the economy of far-north Queensland. After 1998, if no action is taken, there may be a need to introduce rationing to keep the load within the transmission capacity. As I mentioned, the economic cost to the Cairns community for eight hours of interruption is somewhere between $0.8m and $4m. That is a loss that we can well do without. Over the years, there have been attempts to improve our demand side management and to put in place initiatives in respect of energy efficiency. Those are long-term strategies which take 10 to 20 years to really take effect. They will only defer the need for further power rather than actually reduce that long-term need. There has been a lot of discussion as to other means of power production such as coal-fired stations, gas turbines, bagasse, wind, solar thermal, solar voltaic, hydro systems and a range of tidal action systems. The trouble is that those things are quite costly. If we use the transmission of power from the central Queensland generating facility as a basis of one, the relative costs for a gas turbine would be 2.2; to bring sugar mills into the system would be 2.2; wind and gas turbines would be 2.5; solar thermal with some sort of fuel/oil back-up would be 3.4; a coal-fired station would be 3.5; a wind-powered station would be 3.6; and a solar photovoltaic and storage would be16. All those options are certainly not economic options to be considering at this stage. There are, as I understand, a number of corridors that have been suggested by the QEC. Four corridors have been nominated. Many people in the far north suggest that perhaps more should be looked into, and I understand that the Minister has given an indication that he is prepared to do that. One of the corridors known as Alternative A traverses the current route, and it seems to be the logical thing to do to follow that route. But it also has some problems, particularly when it comes over the range and down through my electorate and the suburbs of Bay View, Woree and White Rock. The 3262 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly other three alternatives do not seem to be holding favour with the community, one of which goes through the cane land from Goldsborough Valley, up through the Mulgrave Valley, through the wetlands to Woree. Be that as it may, I understand that the community on the Atherton Tableland has shown a distinct resentment to all of the four routes, and that has been put forward here tonight by the Opposition spokesman for Minerals and Energy. The important point to remember is that, at the end of the day, we will have to have that power. There will have to be some sort of compromise in the way in which that power is transmitted. I have already approached Mr Speaker and requested that the table indicating the length of the power transmission lines, the amount of World Heritage land traversed, the distances through urban areas, pastoral and agricultural land traversed, forest land traversed and, of course, the cost be included in Hansard, and I seek leave to do that. Leave granted. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR A B C D

LENGTH (km) 136 140 119 109

WORLD HERITAGE 14 6 20 8 (km)

URBAN (km) 4.5 2.3 4.5 2.3

PASTORAL & AGRICULTURAL (km) 26 47 68 70

FOREST (km) 91 82 46 28

A P P R O X I M A T E CAPITAL COST 1992 $26 000 000 $26 000 000 $24 000 000 $22 000 000 NET PRESENT VALUE

Mr PITT: There has been a suggestion made by many people that perhaps the power line from Chalumbin should come down to the coast and go from Innisfail all the way up to the wetlands and the cane lands to Woree. The difficulty with that is it is very expensive—I believe in the vicinity of some $50m, which is twice anything else; but more importantly than that, it would not be sheltered from cyclonic activity. Anyone who has lived in the far north would be able to indicate that the danger of power lines going down from cyclonic activity is always present. The QEC has come under some criticism for the actual process involved. I am aware of two concerns that have been expressed by groups and individuals. The first concern is that the QEC has already decided on the line route, and someone suggested that that route is route D—the shortest one down through the Mulgrave Valley. They suggest that it is not genuine in its request for public comment and input. That is definitely not the case. The QEC has taken every opportunity to meet with people and organisations who express that view, and it has taken the opportunity to present its position to them. The other concern that has been expressed is that route A is such an obvious route that we are all wasting our time considering any other alternatives. There are routes which are shorter and do cost less than route A, and the QEC has a responsibility and an obligation to investigate and consider those routes, and I believe Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3263 that they will go about doing that. One of the concerns of people in the White Rock area has been debate over EMF, the electromagnetic fields. As I understand it, the adverse health effects from EMF exposure have not really ever been established. The Swedish study that is being bandied around at this stage as being authoritative is only part of the story. There are important reports, however. Professor Ahlbom, who is the author of the principal report about the residential study, came to Melbourne a week after he released that report to speak at a conference. He does not regard his study as having proved anything. However, it does show that there appears to be an association between living near high voltage power lines and small increases in childhood leukaemia. But he conceded that it is based on very small numbers over a long period, that it is another piece of the research jigsaw puzzle and that more work needs to be done. That view has been confirmed by Professor Stolwijk of Yale University who wrote last year that the studies— “. . . simply do not provide conclusive evidence for or against a carcinogen (that is cancer causing) effect of exposure to EMF.” Important points to note are that they do not really establish that exposure to EMF is a cause of cancer. They do provide some weak evidence that the possibility does exist, and I think it does highlight the fact that there is an urgent need for more study. In Australia, we are closely monitoring overseas and local research and any authoritative scientific reviews. There is constant liaison with public health authorities, and all the power generating authorities in Australia support major EMF research. There is a research project worth about $1m being undertaken by the Pacific Power Major Childhood Cancer Study. I think that, if anything, we should always err on the side of caution. It will be no good in years to come, not having taken those things into consideration, that we find that we have put people at risk unnecessarily. Some of the residents in my electorate are considering the underground option. Undergrounding will not necessarily lower the fields that people are exposed to. It is worth making the point that electric and magnetic fields occur wherever we have electricity. We have electric and magnetic fields in our homes and, in many instances, we will have fields much higher coming from appliances such as hair dryers and electric shavers than we would have coming from power lines. We have to understand that this is something that permeates right through our society. The scientific community has kept a very close watch on this. An expert group in the United Kingdom, led by Professor Sir Richard Doll, only recently described the Swedish studies as not proving anything but providing weak evidence that the possibility may exist. He has suggested that the scientific community needs to get on with good research and try to find better answers. Undergrounding power lines does not necessarily mean that people will experience lower fields. A couple of points to consider are that the people are much closer to the underground cables and that there will be technical problems with the ongoing maintenance of those lines. We must always bear in mind that there will be a significant higher community cost. Mr ROWELL: Give us the verse on the Tully/Millstream. Mr PITT: The role of the local member in this process, I believe, is important. I have a global responsibility. The cost to Government must be considered, but of course when we talk about cost to Government we translate that to eventually being cost to the people of Queensland. I have a global responsibility to look at ways of minimising disruption to the World Heritage area and to find a way that will impact least on agriculture and industry. There are also local responsibilities: reducing any disruption to the residential areas; giving due consideration to the impact on the visual amenity of the area itself; and considering other important factors. As I said before, in this case an important factor would be the effects on health from EMF. Most importantly, I believe my role is to assist members of the community to articulate and present their case. The fact remains that there is a need for power. The most environmentally acceptable option in far-north Queensland is hydroelectric power. 3264 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Earlier, I heard the member for Hinchinbrook baying in the background and he mentioned Tully/Millstream. It is no secret that on a number of occasions in the House I have mentioned that project. My view has not changed. I still think it is the best option. Through procrastination, Queensland missed a golden opportunity to have that put in place at an earlier stage. However, apportioning blame to the Federal Government, the State Government or the Greens will not solve the problem. We all have to work together to ensure that project progresses. I believe that at some time in the future the Tully/Millstream project will see the light of day. As I said earlier, I do not intend to speak at length on this Bill. Most previous speakers have covered the various parts of the Bill. I wanted to place on record the concerns my constituents are expressing in relation to the transmission line. With those few words, I am pleased to support the Bill. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.54 p.m.): While speaking to this Bill tonight, I will refer to a few matters for which the Minister is responsible. One would hope that he might do something about energy efficiency. In fact, I challenge him to tell honourable members what he has done in the area of energy efficiency. I will tell the House what he has done—virtually nothing! One might ask the reason why that is so. I think the member for Tablelands and the shadow Minister hit the nail on the head when they said that the Minister is not in charge of his own department. I can tell the House why that is so. It is because, as in most departments, the Minister has a minder from the Premier’s office in his department. These minders sit like crows on the fence and watch the Minister. They see what he is doing at question time and make sure that he is answering his questions properly. They provide input into the Minister’s department which has an adverse effect on his administration. I say that because I have attended deputations to the Minister, and I do not believe that he necessarily feels the same as the whole thrust of the administration coming from his department would suggest. I believe that for political purposes, namely, a State election and a Federal election, those people in the Minister’s department have undermined the whole issue of energy efficiency and the use of alternative technology. I wish to quote from a letter written by the Minister in respect of methane gas technology which states— “As you are aware, officers of the Department of Minerals and Energy have been investigating your proposed Methane Gas Refinery. The concept of generating an energy resource while disposing of sewage does appear very attractive. However, the evaluation by officers of the Department shows that your proposal is based on estimates and assumptions which do not stand up to detailed analysis. A copy of the report evaluating your proposal is enclosed for your information. The production of fuel gas during the treatment of sewage is already in common use throughout the world. Your claims of novelty and patentability could therefore only apply to the specific way of achieving this result. There is no evidence that the combination of technologies you propose would be more efficient or cost-effective than those systems already in operation. The department’s evaluation indicates that such a biogas refinery would not generate sufficient revenue from sales of fuel gas to recover more than a small fraction of its operating and construction costs. Accordingly, I regret to advise that I cannot recommend that the Government be further involved in your proposal. If you wish to pursue your ideas further . . .” The Minister goes on in the letter to suggest that the person to whom he wrote should inspect Luggage Point, which I am sure was a novel idea, and then went on to state— “I recognise the great deal of time and effort which you expended on this investigation, and trust that you will accept the results of my Department’s evaluation in the constructive and objective manner that is intended.” Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3265

I now wish to refer to another document. I will not bore honourable members by reading the whole document, but I will read an extract from a CSIRO letter to the same person, which states— “The technology upon which your system is based is sound, the knowledge having been available for some years. There is absolutely no doubt that it works.” The next extract is really the crux of what I believe is going on in the Minister’s department. The document states— “. . . profound changes would need to take place in society’s attitude towards dealing with waste and in our energy model.” That is the point I wish to address tonight. I believe that this Labor Government is moribund in respect of its responsibility to develop alternative energy sources. Because a State election was imminent and the Minister felt that the National Party may have derived some kudos from this proposal which could embarrass his Government, the Minister walked around the problem instead of coming to grips with it. I cannot understand why he will not address the problem and have this proposal evaluated. For $28,000, it could have been evaluated by the University of Queensland. Documents I have in my possession include a quote for $28,000 from the University of Queensland to evaluate the proposal, but what has the Minister done? He has walked away from it. Members of the Labor Party are a mob of wimps. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to make a decision or put a few dollars on the line to find out whether an alternative energy source is a goer. A segment on the 7.30 Report featured the potential for environmental problems to develop in Hervey Bay. The Murray/Darling River system is a good example of similar problems that are being experienced in the disposal of sewage effluent, and most of the problems with blue/green algae would appear to be attributable to sewage plants, which is mainly where the finger of blame is being pointed. I find it quite inconceivable that the Labor Party came to power with a mandate to do something about the environment and sources of energy, yet has simply skirted around this alternative energy source issue. Quite frankly, the Minister has not even tried to come to grips with the problem. It is quite apparent that there is very little commitment to doing anything about alternative energy sources, including the one I have mentioned. It is not good enough for this Minister to sit in this Chamber and be in charge of a Bill that relates to the future of energy in this State. In 1998, Queensland will be in the same sort of position that Victoria was in. We will be the capital of the brownouts. Queensland will be the brownout capital of Australia. Government members should wait and see. They can sit here tonight and talk about that. The Government should make a decision pretty quickly to move with the hydro- electric scheme in the Tully/Millstream or do something constructive to save energy. What has the Government done by way of legislation to try to get people to save energy? It is about time that the Government addressed that matter. Government members all pay lip-service to it. They are the greatest gunnas that I have ever seen in my life. The extreme feminists and all the extreme people on the Government side of the House who pose all the time and say that they are conservationists have not done one dammed thing. They have been in Parliament for three and a half years, and they have not done a thing about conserving energy. They have not done a thing about coming up with some alternatives in the energy field. The whole lot of the Government members should hang their heads in shame. I cannot believe that the public is gullible enough to continue to take all of the rubbish that Government members hand out—press release after press release—saying that they are interested in those matters and that they are going to do something about it. They are gunna, all right. If those people were leading the charge, they would be so far behind that they would not be seen. The whole department stands condemned along with the Government because it has not done something constructive in regard to those matters. With all the problems such as greenhouse gas and acid rain, why on earth would the Government not investigate some of those sorts of technologies rather than go continually down the 3266 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly road of the conventional sorts of power stations or, worse still, as the shadow Minister has indicated, not make a decision at all? That is the bottom line. The Government is doing nothing about it. That technology that I am talking about now was not available to the National Party when it was in power. It was only brought to my attention as the shadow Minister for the Environment after the Labor Party came to power. Obviously, the Opposition took an interest in the technology. We have been working with it. I am still working with it. I will do everything that I can to bring about its introduction. I find it quite unbelievable that, for a lousy $28,000, the Government was not prepared to make some sort of agreement with those people. Instead, the Government chose to look at the technology and say, “We do not understand this thing, so what will we do? We will damn it. We will pull it apart. We will work on it and make it look stupid so that no-one will have anything to do with it.” Many people in the industry who are in private enterprise are interested in the technology. The critique—the bit of a report—that the Government did on the technology has frightened off heaps of people who would have been prepared to do a proper scientific evaluation of it. Government members do not understand the technology. If they have a look at it, they will find that papers have been delivered by extremely eminent people around the world on all of the various fields of use of the technology. Credible papers have been delivered on those various fields. It is about time that Government members did something about it. I gave my Whip an undertaking that I would speak only for 10 minutes. I wanted to make those particular points. They are extremely important. People keep calling the Government “the Goss Government” or “the Goss Labor Government”. Let us remember that it is a Labor Government. The Premier stands condemned with the rest of the Government. The gentleman to whom I have referred has spoken to the Premier. Before the election, the Premier was all sweetness and light and indicated that he was interested in the technology. We do not see much coming from him now. Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (11.05 p.m.): I rise to speak very briefly as the final speaker on this legislation. While I have this opportunity, I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister. I am talking about the philosophy, the culture and the policy of the commission overall. I will give a local example, but it has a Statewide application. Last month, SEQEB had a power failure on the Sunshine Coast. The following power surge had an effect on two local businesses. It blew the three-phase motors on the airconditioning units. Those people had to get that fixed very quickly because the premises required that airconditioning. It cost each of those small businesspeople $600 to repair. They applied to the local SEQEB office on the coast to have the cost of those damages made good. That was knocked back. I approached the regional manager, Mr John Counter, on their behalf to see whether SEQEB would reconsider. Mr Counter was most courteous and most helpful and contacted Brisbane but was unable to help. The response was that because the damage was not caused by negligence, SEQEB could not make the damage good. The point I would like to make is that, in this modern culture of Government corporations that are becoming competitive, becoming corporatised and moving into that free enterprise vein, we should take a different approach to our customers. Our customers should be treated much better than that. If it was a private enterprise organisation and the service that was provided caused damage to a customer’s property, those people would be in there very quickly to make the damage good. It would not be a question of whether or not it was negligence. If it was caused by their service, they would fix it. I would like the Minister to consider making that change. I am not putting the case for those two constituents of mine in particular. It should be taken on board for the culture of all of our Government commissions—tonight, we are talking about the QEC—that we look on our customers as being very important people and that we give service and not hide behind the fact that there was no negligence involved. We should make that damage good. I would like the Minister to consider that and give his comments. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3267

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (11.08 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all the members who have taken part in this debate tonight. I think on an occasion such as this when the Parliament of Queensland has the opportunity to debate one of our most important industries, most of the members rose to that occasion. I must say that I was a little bit disappointed in one or two members of the Opposition for the insults and the sarcasm, but that is part of the game, and I have been in public life for many, many years and I will be around for many years to come. First of all, in arriving at these amendments being debated tonight, I would reiterate that there was full, frank and open discussion with both sides of the industry. When discussions are held with the leaders of industry, there will always be people who do not necessarily agree, and there is nothing that I or anybody else can do about that. I want to say to the Parliament that there was full, frank and open discussion. The Goss Labor Government in this State is certainly proud of the electricity industry. I believe that all members of the industry can walk around with their heads held high because they are performing a wonderful service in this State. As the political leader of the industry, I am very proud of them. To some extent, the electricity industry is like the mining industry. There is a comradeship amongst those communities, and the same thing applies in the electricity industry. The amendments that we are discussing tonight are of an editorial or an administrative nature. There is no major change in policy. Indeed, that has been highlighted today by the Opposition. There is certainly no political interference by the Government in the QEC. I will now touch on some of the comments made in some of the contributions. The first point raised by the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, was about the transmission line which has been discussed for north Queensland. Mr Gilmore told the Parliament that there has not been any proper public consultation with the route selection for this transmission line. There have been 10 public displays in Cairns and on the Atherton Tableland to inform the public, and when the preliminary impact assessment report is completed, it will be sent to an advisory body for its comment. The report will be available to the public and I will listen to their comments. As a result of representations made to me by the member for Mulgrave, I am more than happy to go to the area, to receive petitions and to listen to the points of view. But let me say that there is a program there of consultation. That consultation has been—— Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr McGRADY: The consultation is in progress now. I do not intend to interfere. However, at the end of the day when that process is finished, I will accept Mr Pitt’s invitation and I will go to far-north Queensland and I will listen and I will see for myself, and the decision will be made then. I honestly do not believe that I can be much fairer than that. Mr Gilmore: Take a clean shirt; you might need it. Mr McGRADY: I am a big boy. I can handle all these sorts of things. The other point raised by the shadow Minister was the future supply. Of course we are examining all the various options. There is no concern in my department and there is no concern in the QEC about future supply. The next project will be on stream by 1998. There are a number of options and they are all being considered. Some of the options mentioned tonight are quite valid. We can look, and we will look, at extra units for the present power stations. We cannot ignore the interconnector from New South Wales. It will play an important part in future supply for Queensland. We ridiculed the gas turbine proposal before. Let me say that this is simply an option. My information is that it is a fairly cheap option and it is one that is simply there to boost supply. The honourable member should bear with us. He should not go around frightening people. As I said, gas turbine will be considered. It is simply an option to be used in peak demand. We discussed corporatisation last night. I expected corporatisation to be raised again in this debate today, and so it should. As a result of this Bill, as many of the members of my committee have mentioned tonight, we have gone across to accrual accounting. We are preparing for corporatisation. For the first time ever, this Parliament 3268 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly and the people of Queensland will know the financial position of the QEC in this State. There is a fundamental difference between members on the other side of the House and members on this side. What is the difference? We say that the electricity industry in this State is owned by the people of Queensland. What they say is that it is owned by the consumers. If that argument is taken to its logical conclusion, they are saying that all of the profits made by BHP should be sent back to the customers, or that all of the money that the Westpac Bank makes should go back to the clients of the bank, or that all of the profit that MIM makes should go back to the customers. But as you know, Mr Speaker, that is not the case, because the profits of those companies go back to the shareholders. In this case here, the shareholders of the QEC are the people of Queensland. I make no apology to anybody for saying that. The Opposition wants to increase taxes in this State. All of the time, we sit here in this Parliament and we hear members of the Opposition saying there should be increased spending on education. The member for Toowoomba South asks that health spending be increased, and so it goes on. The Government owned corporations of this State have the liability to pay a dividend and they have the liability to pay tax. I make no apology for that to the member for Tablelands or to anybody else. As was stated earlier, the New South Wales electricity industry pays to that Government half a billion dollars per year. If the Opposition had its way, such bodies would be privatised and a massive assets sale would be held in this State. Queensland is fortunate— because its economy is in such a sound condition it does not need to sell off its assets,. As to the contribution by the member for Gladstone—again, he comes from the industry; he has worked in it for 17 years. Tonight, he made a very valuable contribution. As to the contribution by the member for Callide—all I can say is, “Oh, ye of little faith.” She had no faith at all in anybody. She talked about tariff equalisation. It seems that members opposite feel that they have a monopoly on the representation of country areas. Many Government members represent the far-flung areas of this State. Mr Gilmore: But not well, you’d have to admit. Mr McGRADY: No, they do it very well. I represent an electorate in the far north of Queensland. Do members opposite honestly believe that this Government would stand by and allow tariff equalisation to be abolished? Mr Gilmore: I didn’t raise that subject tonight. Mr McGRADY: I am not referring to the member for Tablelands; I am referring to the member for Callide, who is no longer in the Chamber. During this debate and during yesterday’s debate, she alleged that tariff equalisation would be abolished when corporatisation takes effect. I state on record that that will not be the case. In Queensland, whether a person lives in Coolangatta or Cooktown, tariffs are the same. As far as I am concerned, the status quo will remain. The member for Callide referred to the Callide A Power Station. Of course, the QEC was looking at the alternatives for the Collinsville Power Station, but once again the honourable member has her facts wrong. The QEC is not looking at the option of Callide A, but an organisation in this State has started some preliminary discussions on whether or not that could be a viable proposition. The bottom line is that if that proposal will provide jobs in central Queensland, I will take it as far as I can. The honourable member should not start to panic. I take on board the points made by the honourable member for Callide about the TAFE college. Of course, if the proposal eventually comes to fruition, that matter will have to be considered. However, I did appreciate the basic support which the honourable member gave to this proposition. I appreciate particularly her support for mutual recognition and retraining. Again, we will take that on board. The member for Fitzroy is one of the most diligent members of my committee. He comes from the mining industry and understands it. He will be a member of this Parliament for as long as he so desires. As I travel around the coal mines of central Queensland, I discover that he is considered to be a hero. Keep up the good work, Jim. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3269

As to the contribution by the member for Hinchinbrook—this may sound strange coming from me, but I thought that his was quite a good contribution. He made some very relevant points, and I will certainly take them on board. He discussed industrial relations to some extent, and he was good enough to say that the industrial relations currently prevailing in the electricity industry are quite excellent. Mr Nuttall: No thanks to them. Mr McGRADY: They are a far cry from the scenario to which the member for Sandgate referred, and I will refer to his contribution later. I appreciated the comments by the member for Hinchinbrook. I thought that he made an excellent contribution to the debate. Once again, the secretary of my parliamentary committee, Mrs Woodgate, made a very valuable contribution to the debate—as she always does. She certainly demonstrated the pride that she has in the industry. As to the contribution by the member for Lockyer—it was good to hear him acknowledge the former Minister, Ken Vaughan. I am glad to see that Mr Vaughan is presently in the Chamber. As I mentioned at the opening of the Stanwell Power Station, very few people in this State have done more for the electricity industry than Ken Vaughan has. I took over a portfolio which was in excellent shape, thanks to the dedication of Ken Vaughan. Mr Beattie: Mutual admiration. Mr McGRADY: Mutual admiration, that is right. Once again, the member for Sandgate made an excellent contribution. He made the point that members opposite are all too willing to shed crocodile tears for the workers of SEQEB and the QEC, but that is a far cry from their attitude in 1985. As the member for Sandgate said, members opposite will never be forgiven for what they did. Mr Beattie: Nor should they. Mr McGRADY: Nor should they. I appreciated the contribution by the member for Moggill. However, I must say that tonight we have had checked some of the figures that he has used both in this place and outside this place. All I can say is that those figures are very, very rubbery. Dr Watson: They come from your financial reports; they’re yours. Mr McGRADY: No, they are very, very rubbery. The points made by the honourable member were taken on board. Can I say this: I will never understand the stupidity of the leadership of the Liberal Party in this State in relegating the member for Moggill to the backbench. He is a prime example of how incompetent the Opposition frontbenchers really are. While the current regime prevails, the honourable member for Moggill will stay on the back bench, and that is a pity for Queensland, because I believe that he has a very important contribution to make. Once again, the member for Mulgrave made a very honest contribution. He has made it perfectly clear where he stands on the Tully/Millstream issue. He always made that point clear, and I think that is very honest of him. The member for Cunningham can read out letters and he can accuse the Goss Labor Government of not taking action. However, as a responsible Minister, I do not believe that I should dignify the member’s claims in this House by going into the full facts of the story. I do not believe that it is fair to the person concerned. That person came to see me in good faith, and wanted the taxpayers of this State to hand over in excess of $1m. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is not quoting facts. The amount of money was $28,000. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I am on my feet. I warn the member under Standing Order 124. Mr ELLIOTT: My credibility is at stake—— 3270 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I warn the honourable member under Standing Order 124. I say to members that under the Standing Orders, they do not have the opportunity at any stage to debate an issue with anybody. Mr McGRADY: If the member was talking about a different person, I will apologise. However, let me say that the Leader of the Opposition brought into my office a gentleman—and again I do not believe that it is fair to go into the full facts—who required from this Government a commitment to hand over in excess of $1m. Mr FitzGerald: He said $28,000. Mr McGRADY: It may be that the honourable member was talking about a different person. I asked the engineers from the department to check on a number of matters. The information that I received was that it just was not a goer. All I have to say is that when the Government controls the purse strings of this State, there is no way that it will revert back to the days of Milan Brych, or “Katter Brych”, or anything else. The Government is handling taxpayers’ money. Mr Elliott: You try to make analogies with the Horvath steam car and all that sort of thing. Mr McGRADY: As a responsible Minister of the Queensland Government—— Mr Elliott: Do you think the CSIRO are a mob of dills? Mr McGRADY: If I am advised—— Mr Elliott: Do you say the CSIRO are a mob of dills? Mr McGRADY: If we are talking about the same person, the requirement was that an office be set up on the Gold Coast and that computer equipment be purchased. As a responsible Minister of the Government, I cannot put taxpayers’ money into a scheme which the experts in my department tell me—to be cruel—is a joke. Mr Elliott: I suggest that you make a further advance to that gentleman and say, “We will purely and simply evaluate, through Queensland Professor Paul Greensfield, the $28,000.” Mr McGRADY: When this debate is finished, I am prepared to compare notes with the honourable member and, if we are talking about the same person, I will not proceed any further. If it is a different person, I will be more than happy to look into the matter. I cannot be fairer than that. The final contribution tonight was from the member for Mooloolah. Again, he spoke about the culture in the QEC. I appreciate what he is saying. However, it places costs on the industry, and people can take out private insurance. There have been instances in Cloncurry and other places where little old ladies—and that is who we have been referring to all night—have had this problem, and all of their electrical equipment has been destroyed. Again, I say that insurance can be taken out. I have had discussions— and some members of the department who are present in the House tonight can confirm that—with the Acting Commissioner to see whether there is any way around this problem. If there is a problem, particularly in the bush, and all of a sudden people lose the use of their microwaves, their stoves and televisions, somebody somewhere must be able to help. However, massive costs are involved. The matter has been addressed. In fact, I wanted some further clarification tonight before I replied to this matter. I can say that I am aware of what the member is talking about, and the department is looking into the matter. In conclusion, I say that throughout this debate, the Government has received support from the Opposition on what it is basically trying to do. I appreciate that. Tonight, members of the Opposition and Government members have taken the opportunity to go over again the matter of corporatisation. So they should, because it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this Parliament during this session. However, I say to those people who talked about tariff equalisation Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3271 that, under the scheme that some members of the Opposition are proposing, namely that the Government privatises the industry, tariff equalisation goes out the window. No private organisation would be prepared to provide power to places such as Boulia, Burketown, Mornington Island or Doomadgee. Mr Johnson: What about Boulia? Mr McGRADY: I know all about Boulia. With all due respect, the member has been here for three years, and he did not do that. Mr Johnson: You’re the Minister now. Are you going to give those people real power? Mr McGRADY: I look after my constituents. We will see what happens in the not- too-distant future, and I will have your support for what I am doing. In conclusion, Opposition members said that Government should have control of the prices. Can I just say that under privatisation, which Opposition members are suggesting, their big mates—the white-shoe brigade—are the people who would have control of the prices in this State. I thank all of those members who participated in the debate. I appreciate the support that I have received from all members. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. T. McGrady (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 19, as read, agreed to.

Insertion of new clause—

Mr GILMORE (11.31 p.m.): I move the following amendment—

“After Clause 19—

insert—

‘Insertion of new s.36AA

‘19A. After section 36—

insert—

‘Duty of the Commission in relation to alternative ways of generating electricity’

36AA (1) It is the duty of the Commission to carry out adequate investigation of, and research into, alternative ways of generating electricity that are not harmful to the environment including, for example, generating electricity by harnessing the power of the wind, sun and tides.

‘(2) The Commission must publish in each annual report under section 434 an outline of the investigation and research, and the cost of the investigation and research, mentioned in subsection (1) that are carried out by it during the year.’.’ ” 3272 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

It appears to me that of all the rhetoric of tonight, one of the areas that we have not discussed is the possibility of the development of viable alternatives in terms of power-generating capability. Clearly, of the technology that is being used at the moment, that is, thermal power, coal and gas, hydro power stations are still the best option, given today’s technology and the costs of production of power and distribution to our community. However, I believe that it is wise for members in this Chamber, and for the whole world, to consider some of the alternatives.

Any person who spends any time reading National Geographic or Australian Geographic magazines and journals, which are authoritative on these kinds of issues, would know that there is a rising concern in the community about the effects of the burning of coal, and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. We hear much about the greenhouse effect; the ozone layer, and the fact that there might be a hole in it; acid rain and its effects—and I have read some quite extraordinary articles about that—and the effects on health of emissions. There is no doubt that the alternative technologies that are available need further development. The world is looking at those alternative technologies. In this State, we are all familiar with the ever-present photovoltaic cells, particularly in the remote areas of the State, which are doing an extraordinary job, although they have limited applications in remote areas. It is possible to consider thermal power. The Minister has an operation running at Birdsville which I understand is effective and doing the job that is being asked of it. Once again, it is limited in its present application. But, nonetheless, it is worthy of consideration and further development. Wind, tide, solar developments, solar heating for steam generation—all those options are currently being studied around the world, although not necessarily to any great effect at the moment. But the time will come when those technologies finally achieve their potential. There is no question about that. It is simply a matter of waiting for the intellectual capacity of human kind to develop those technologies. I believe that we should be part of that development, and that is the reason for this amendment.

I believe that sufficient has been said about that. There is no doubt whatsoever that members in this Parliament are concerned about these issues. I believe that it is not an unreasonable request that I make of the Minister to accept an amendment that does not put a quantum on money to be spent; it simply demands that it shall be a function of the electricity commission or, finally, the corporatised body or whatever it is, to undertake annually a certain amount of research into alternative technologies and to report annually to the Parliament. That is not too much to ask. It is a step in the right direction towards a real effort, and towards developing the culture within the QEC. All members who have spoken to this Bill have praised the QEC. There is no question that it is an organisation of which, for a number of reasons, we are all immensely proud. The culture in that organisation is directed towards thermal power stations and other types of power generation of which technologists and others can quickly say, “Of course it works. We know that it works. We know what we can get out of it.” There is a bottom line to it, and there is no problem with it. However, if we can amend that culture over a period of years by insisting on these kinds of things as a first step in the right direction, I believe that this Parliament tonight will pay the people of Queensland a quite considerable service.

Mr SPRINGBORG: In rising to support this amendment moved by the Opposition spokesman, I point out that ever since coming into this Parliament in 1989, I have expressed a very keen interest in the environment and ways of preserving it, whether that be by addressing the wrongs of the past or considering alternative energy. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3273

I have given this a great deal of consideration and taken the time of this Parliament in putting forward those views.

I believe that this amendment is very conclusive. It seeks to include in the charter of the commission a certain duty to carry out adequate investigation of, and research into, alternative ways of generating electricity. I do not believe that one member of this Committee would argue against those particular sentiments. It does not quantify the amount of money that the QEC has to spend, or the amount of research that it has to carry out. However, I believe that it is a very important aspect to be included in the legislation.

Let us face it—we do not know how long some of our energy sources will last. We know that coal will last a long time. We always have the potential of uranium, if we ever need nuclear power stations. We certainly do not know how much natural gas or oil that we have. I believe that it would be a great step forward if this Committee were to include this amendment in this particular piece of legislation, just the same as the Federal Parliament debated an Aboriginal reconciliation Bill, which had the support of all sides of the Chamber.

Members of this Chamber need to be mature enough about this and take the time to consider the amendment moved by the honourable member for Tablelands. It is an extremely constructive amendment. I do not believe that it will be a great impediment to the commission. I believe that it would be a very positive step forward. I am concerned about this issue. I guarantee that the majority of Queenslanders and other Australians are also concerned about it, particularly our young people. I know that the Minister also would be concerned about this issue. We should be including this aspect in the legislation. We do lead the world in some technologies. We lead the world in solar photovoltaic cell technology. We should be proud of those things. I believe that by taking an active role and supporting an amendment such as this, this Committee could be taking an extremely positive step forward. I urge all honourable members to support the amendment.

Mr ROWELL: I support the amendment moved by the member for Tablelands. At present, a lot is occurring around the world relating to solar energy. The Californians have been investigating it for some time and have very heavily subsidised the prospects of solar energy. They have developed the Luz Power Station, which is reducing the cost of production to a level that is commercially viable. Even if Australia is not getting involved in that technology, it must be constantly watching what is happening.

Mr Vaughan: We are.

Mr ROWELL: Well, how much do we know about the Luz Power Station?

Mr Vaughan: Read the annual report.

Mr ROWELL: All right. At Longreach, the University of New South Wales has installed some very advanced solar energy technology. We must put more emphasis on that source of energy. It is a clean source of energy and it is important. We are putting some money into it, but the effort could be doubled. I am fully aware that the Government has big problems in chasing rainbows, and this matter could be viewed in that light. However, unless we are prepared to back some organisations more than we have in the past to investigate this type of technology, it will not eventuate as quickly. I support the amendment. 3274 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr McGRADY: We are basically discussing the mission statement of the QEC. Much effort is being made to discover alternative forms of energy. As honourable members probably know, with the restructuring of the electricity industry at present, I have set up a steering committee. A member of that steering committee is Professor Ian Lowe, who is a well-regarded conservationist in this State. Five working parties have also been established. I am not prepared to accept the amendment tonight, but I am prepared to recommend the principle contained in the amendment to one of those working groups.

Mr ROWELL: The amendment gives the Government the imprimatur. I do not know that there is any real legislation to support this type of concept. The member for Tablelands is giving the Government something that it can get its teeth into.

Mr SPRINGBORG: The Minister has shown by what he has just said that he is concerned and is moving in this particular direction. Inclusion of this amendment in the legislation would not hurt a bit. In the past in this place, amendments put forward by the Opposition have been accepted. I believe that all honourable members in the Chamber support the amendment. If the Minister consulted with his departmental officers, I am sure that he would find that the amendment would not cause any problems. If he accepted the amendment, it would be a great step forward for the Committee.

Question—That new clause 19A be inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 29 NOES, 45 Beanland Turner Ardill McElligott Connor Veivers Barton McGrady Cooper Watson Beattie Milliner Davidson Bennett Nuttall Elliott Bird Pearce FitzGerald Braddy Power Gamin Bredhauer Purcell Gilmore Budd Pyke Goss J. N. Burns Robertson Grice Campbell Robson Healy Casey Rose Horan Clark Smith Johnson D’Arcy Spence Lester Davies Sullivan J. H. Lingard De Lacy Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Edmond Szczerbanik Mitchell Fenlon Vaughan Quinn Foley Welford Rowell Gibbs Wells Sheldon Goss W. K. Woodgate Simpson Hamill Slack Tellers: Hayward Tellers: Stephan Springborg Hollis Pitt Stoneman Laming Mackenroth Livingstone Resolved in the negative. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn honourable members that for future divisions, the bells will ring for two minutes. Clauses 20 to 124, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr McGrady, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3275

BUILDING SOCIETIES FUND BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 November 1992 (see p. 478). Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.52 p.m.): I heard a quote from the Treasurer on the ABC Bulletin which carried the story of the Metway Bank’s loss before the Appeal Court—the process which allows this Bill to come before the House. Mr De Lacy told the ABC that relations between this Labor Government and Metway had been somewhat strained in recent times, but the Government continued to have a high regard for the bank. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I bet it does. I am sure Ned Kelly had a high regard for some banks, too, especially those with plenty of cash on hand when he staged his raid. But even Ned would not have dared dream of something like $25m from one single bank robbery. That is exactly what this Bill is all about—bank robbery on a grand scale. It will be legalised by the passage of this Bill, but it will be robbery just the same. Many people inside and outside the financial markets share that view. Mr Austin Donnelly, President of the Australian Investors Association, described the Metway Bank robbery as the sort of conduct one would expect from a Government of a country such as Guatemala. They were his exact words. That may be unfair to Guatemala, but we know what Mr Donnelly was getting at. He was referring to Governments of countries known as banana republics— similar to the countries which a former Federal Labor Treasurer was fond of talking about, or similar to the one that this Labor Government is transforming Queensland into, and rather rapidly. Who are the victims of this robbery? A big bank, the traditional target of Labor’s politics of envy and greed? No, the Metway Bank has certainly suffered through this Government’s action, but at the end of the day the victims are the shareholders and the clients. In all, hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders will suffer through this legalised bank robbery. The sum being hijacked—some $17m plus interest amounting to a total amounting to $23m—represents 22c for each Metway share which is currently trading at about $2.75. That 22c per share adds up to the after-tax profit which shareholders would have enjoyed from this investment over the past two years, and those shareholders are not the dreaded capitalists of Labor mythology. There are tens of thousands of “Mr and Mrs Average Queensland” people who make up the bulk of Metway shareholders. They are average workers, retirees, and people who just want to put aside some money for their future or for retirement. They are the real victims of Labor’s carryings-on by the Treasurer, and this is thuggery at its best. They are also the real victims of this outrageous misuse of legislative and Executive power. We know the object of this Bill is the removal of some $23m from the stakeholders of the Metway Bank, but any discussion or debate on this legislation cannot be conducted without dealing with the processes which have brought this Bill about. The Bill is explicit on the processes or mechanisms which will facilitate the Government’s grab for the fund in question. The fortunes of this Government received a fillip today when the Appeal Court agreed that the legislation was within the Government’s power—in effect, that this State-sanctioned grand larceny could go ahead. But I urge Government members, beginning with the Treasurer, not to let all this power go to their heads. They may be legally right, but they are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. Mr De Lacy: Rubbish! Mrs SHELDON: Everyone knows it. The Treasurer just wants the funds, regardless of the morals involved. Mr De Lacy: Read the court’s decision and see who is morally right. 3276 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mrs SHELDON: The court found that the Treasurer could legally do what he is doing—— Mr De Lacy: And morally. Mrs SHELDON: But it did not find that the Treasurer could morally do it. Taken in the long view, the Treasurer is financially stupid. He may succeed in clipping one of Queensland’s best-performing financial institutions of $23m, but he should think of the long-term damage to investor confidence. Does the Treasurer think that this exercise in financial thuggery has not been noticed in the board rooms of major companies and in the financial houses in the rest of Australia and beyond? Does he think that the Asian corporations which this Government and Mr Keating have so recently discovered will not be watching? In their eyes, will the Metway Bank robbery make Queensland the financial flavour of the month for investment decisions? Not on your nelly! The architects of the tiger economies of Asia know a thing or two about Government interference in business, about nationalisation of industries, about invasion, about civil war, and all the rest of it. As far as they are concerned, they have been there, done that, and did not like it much. As far as they are concerned, the bad old days are gone forever. What this is about now is hard bargaining, sticking to the terms of a deal, keeping one’s word, and turning trust into financial goodwill over the long term. Mr De Lacy: Exactly what we did. Mrs SHELDON: That is exactly what the Treasurer is not doing. Honourable members should just try measuring the morality of the Treasurer’s Bill against the Asian yardstick of good business practice or against any yardstick of just about any nation outside Cuba and a couple of the more murderous republics now emerging in the Balkans, and then especially against the background of this Bill, which includes the history of Metway and the Building Societies Contingency Fund. As we all know, the Metropolitan Building Society was one of Queensland’s biggest and most successful financial institutions which, as a good corporate citizen, contributed to the contingency fund. Then the Metropolitan Building Society became the Metway Bank. Who encouraged the board and the shareholders to take the big leap and become a bank? Of course, it was the Queensland Government, and when Metway took the big jump from building society to bank, what happened? The name change cost it membership of the contingency fund right at the time when this Government was planning its multimillion- dollar raid. All this happened despite the fact that in Metway’s previous financial life, it had contributed $17m to the contingency fund. Mr Campbell: As a building society, which is completely different. Mrs SHELDON: As a building society, but it never thought that it would have to face the day when the Government made a cash grab because it had changed its name and became a bank. That is what is so immoral and so inconsistent about this whole shoddy exercise. The Government is pocketing plenty from the raid on the contingency fund, but all members do not suffer equally; in fact, most members benefit. This legislation is all about winners and losers. Metway loses, as do all those tens of thousands of small shareholders of whom I spoke earlier. Metway’s customers lose because there is $23m less in the kitty when the board is making loan decisions, levying bank charges, paying wages, etc. Mr De Lacy: Oh! Mrs SHELDON: There is $23m less in the kitty. Is the Treasurer saying that his grab of the $23m leaves Metway richer? Mr De Lacy: It was never in Metway’s kitty. What an extraordinary comment! Mrs SHELDON: It is Metway’s money, and why should Metway not have that money to distribute to its own clients? Why should the Treasurer grab it? Mr De Lacy: Why do you stand up and talk when you know so little about it? Mrs SHELDON: I gather that the Treasurer is the font of all financial wisdom. God help us! When the Treasurer is not armed with his legislative elephant gun, when he is Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3277 exposed to picking winners in the real marketplace, his track record is not very good. The corporate landscape is littered with the bodies of the Treasurer’s economic shortcomings—the Indy, Gondwanaland, Compass, and the list goes on. They are some of the Treasurer’s more outstanding financial successes. Despite the fact that this Bill will allow the Government to get away with it, Metway believes in the fundamental justice of its case and will continue to try to recover its contributions as is its moral right as well as its duty. I must remind the Treasurer that this issue will not go away, even after he again rams yet another Bill through the House in pretty dark hours, and drag it on without other members being given an opportunity to speak to it, and when not too many people are watching. He is a bit like a thief in the night. Mr De Lacy: Who is stopping you? Mrs SHELDON: Other members were not even aware that the Bill was coming on. I must remind the Treasurer of the duties of directors under the corporations law in regard to the protection of shareholders’ interests. On those grounds alone, the directors of Metway are duty bound to pursue that matter and pursue it as fast and hard as the law allows. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mrs SHELDON: Is the Treasurer suggesting that they should carte blanche hand the Government $23m? Mr De Lacy: What they shouldn’t do is waste their shareholders’ money on legal actions. Mrs SHELDON: They are trying to look after their shareholders’ interests. That presupposes, of course, that the Government does not change those laws, too—the ones about individual rights under the Constitution, property rights and all the rest. Just wait! I guess in time the Government will change them. Metway will now pursue the matter in the Federal arena—and that is what it wishes to do—both through the Federal courts and through the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. At least, that is what it wanted to do. So to pre-empt that, the Treasurer decided that he would come in tonight to shove the legislation through the House so that Metway could not do it. There are plenty of questions still to be answered about this extraordinary Bill and about this whole sorry saga. Sadly, we will not get those answers in the House tonight. The downside of that sort of inquiry, of course—the Senate inquiry—is that the peculiar attitude to responsible financial management by the Queensland Government is given wider exposure, and Queenslanders will all suffer as a result. The pity is that the cause for such an inquiry should never have existed. The money-hungry Government should never have had the gall to embark on the Metway Bank robbery. To highlight just some of those questions, I draw the Treasurer’s attention to clause 6—purpose of fund—and ask the Treasurer whether the clause should reflect all aspects of the purposes behind the establishment of the building society fund. Should it not also recognise and acknowledge the source of those funds just for the record? Similarly, I draw the attention of the Treasurer to clause 7—the Building Societies Fund—where once again we see a manipulation of the process. A reference is made to the source of the funds, but again the Bill is silent on the original source of those funds. Anyone who is not familiar with the real history of the bulk of that $25m would be led to believe that those funds have been graciously given by the Government out of the Consolidated Fund. By reading the Bill and its Explanatory Notes, one would have no idea that that money represents some 10 per cent of the capital of Metway Bank. Alternatively, it represents the equivalent of two times the recorded profit after tax for the 1992 financial year. That translates into a loss of rights in regard to the benefits flowing from that court action of some 22c for each and every share issued by Metway. That is to say, the current share price of $2.75 would have risen 22c to $2.97. As the Treasurer can see, that represents a significant and substantial differential for all shareholders in Metway. I 3278 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly just wonder what the Treasurer would say to those shareholders—the mums and dads who have invested in Metway—if he had to explain to them just why each of them had to pay so much to achieve his financial ambitions. I know that the directors of Metway are finding that difficult, but I rather suspect that the Treasurer may have found himself in some difficulty if he had the courage to round up the Metway shareholders and explain to them his insatiable need for their money. For a start, he would have been run out of town on a rail, which may have been the real dividend out of that disgraceful financial transaction. The Treasurer should hang his head in shame to all Queenslanders, not just his many direct victims within Metway’s ambit of shareholders and clients. As far as I can tell, the Bill has no precedent in the often-colourful political history of Queensland. I know that there is public support for that move from the building society industry, and that is to be expected. I have some sympathy for its position and for the one million Queenslanders who are building society members and depositors. The proceeds of the Metway Bank robbery will help fund the regulation of a vital industry, which is central to the home ownership dreams of so many Queenslanders. However, the fact is that it was Metway’s money when it was a building society. Mr Ardill: It was not. Mrs SHELDON: It was. It was Metway’s money, and Metway has every moral right to expect a full refund now that it is a bank, notwithstanding the Treasurer’s current machinations in this House. Those machinations may make the Treasurer’s actions legal, but they will never make them right. It is a bit like the ministerial rezonings of his mate Terry Mackenroth. He and the Treasurer may be acting within their powers, but those powers are conferred on them by the ruthless use of the numbers in this House, which we are about to see demonstrated yet again this evening. There is certainly nothing moral about it. The Opposition does not support those tactics, nor can it support the Bill. Mr DAVIES (Mundingburra) (12.05 a.m.): I remind the Deputy Coalition Leader of the judgment of the Queensland Court of Appeal today on the State’s demurrer to Metway’s claim for a refund of contribution from the Permanent Building Societies Contingency Fund. The Court of Appeal—the highest court in the State of Queensland— comprising the President, Mr Justice Fitzgerald—well known to everybody everyone in this place—Mr Justice Pincus and Mr Justice Derrington, unanimously—I point out for the benefit of Mrs Sheldon—found in favour of the State and struck out Metway’s action. That is the basis of the legal argument. The honourable member is arguing that there is a moral argument. Let me quote from a letter that the Treasurer has sent out to people in Queensland who wrote to him on that issue. In that letter, he said— “In the Government’s view Metway has no moral or legal right to a distribution from the Fund.” We will talk about the moral right in a second. The legal right has been decided well and truly. The letter continues— “However, we have been advised that Metway is taking legal action to have the issue determined by the courts. Whilst legislation currently before Parliament aimed at winding-up the Fund would render legal action obsolete, in the interests of fair play and good will, I have determined that the legislation will not be proclaimed until Metway has had a reasonable chance to test their arguments in court.” In relation to the moral arguments—we must consider a number of things. Metway and Metropolitan Permanent Building Society are two different things. I do not know whether the honourable member understands the concept of the legal persona, but they are two different things. The Metropolitan Permanent Building Society ceased to exist some time ago, that is, when Metway became a bank. So Metropolitan Permanent Building Society was a building society. Metway is a bank. They are two completely Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3279 different entities. The moneys that Metropolitan Permanent Building Society—which, incidentally, includes the old Townsville Permanent Building Society—paid to the contingency fund were put aside for a financial disaster in the event that a financial disaster were to occur in the building society industry. In other words, if one of the building societies in Queensland got into trouble, that money was there to help bail it out. As I understand it, there is approximately $80m in that fund. The Deputy Leader of the Coalition should ask herself this question: if there had been a major financial disaster in the building societies in Queensland involving a sum in excess of the $80m, would Metway Bank have put its hands in its pocket and written an additional cheque? The answer to that is, “No”. Clearly, Metway would not have done that. That is the acid test. If it would not have been prepared to do that, Metway is not entitled to any of the funds that are in that fund. By inference, what Metway is saying is, “We are not part of the fund.” If the disaster had involved, say, $100m, the building societies in Queensland should have put in another $20m. They would not have had to do that, but they should have put in another $20m, because the fund was underfunded. I will guarantee that Metway would not have written a cheque. So if it would not have written a cheque to help out its mates in the building society industry under those circumstances, that is the acid test and therefore Metway is not entitled to one cent of those funds. Mr Littleproud: You have to prove that. That is hypothetical. Mr DAVIES: A number of tests can be applied. Try these couple of tests. The Metropolitan Permanent Building Society did not show these funds as an asset on its balance sheet. In fact, it wrote them off for taxation reasons, and that is fair enough. But the MPBS cannot have it both ways. Mr De Lacy: Are you saying that Mrs Sheldon is wrong when she said it was in their kitty? Mr DAVIES: It was never in the MPBS kitty, as the Honourable the Treasurer correctly interjects. It was in the contingency fund and a taxation deduction was claimed. If the Deputy Leader of the Coalition understands anything about basic accounting principles, she will understand that the money was not there; it was claimed as a taxation deduction and it was not shown as an asset. Mr Ardill: How can she understand when she keeps talking? Mr DAVIES: She does not understand anything. That is obvious from her comments on the corporatisation legislation last night and the paltry contribution she has made tonight. Another test is this: when Metway the bank, not MPBS the building society, went to the public to become a bank, did it show an asset of $17m in the prospectus or to the shareholders? Did Metway show that as an asset of the bank? They are the acid tests. If Metway did not do that, how can it say to anyone, “We own the money, therefore we have a moral right to it”? Those three simple tests which I have just outlined clearly show that Metway has no claim to this money. Firstly, Metway has lost in the court and, secondly, the Treasurer was completely fair to Metway. He did not push this legislation through. He could have, but he chose not to. So he has been completely fair to Metway. Metway has lost in the court. The Government has done the right thing. Quite frankly, Metway has no moral argument. The Deputy Leader of the Coalition spoke about the shareholders of Metway. Let me remind her that there are 1.1 million members of the building society industry. She should go and ask those 1.1 million members of the building society industry whether they want this money to be paid to Metway. Clearly, the answer will be, “No”. Let us have a look at the original intention of the fund. It was established to help out other building societies that were in trouble. Let us have a look at what is happening with the money now. What is it there for? It is there to help out members of the building society industry in Queensland. The money is not going into consolidated revenue, but it could have gone there. If Mrs Sheldon has a look at the judgment given today, she will see that the Government could have put all of those funds into consolidated revenue. It has 3280 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly not done that. Finally, in summary—the Government has done the right thing and the Treasurer has done the right thing. He could have put the Bill through. Instead, we have won the legal argument and we have won the moral argument. Metway has no case and we have no case to answer. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (12.13 a.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Building Societies Fund Bill. The long saga which has preceded debate upon this Bill surely represents the longest and most unrelenting pertinent chorus of Done Me Wrong that we have ever witnessed in Queensland. It has been sung by the Opposition and particularly by Metway Bank in relation to this matter. But the Done Me Wrong song is the same old song that has been sung by members of the Opposition. They claim that they have been done wrong because they thought that this Parliament, the people of Queensland and the Government could be bullied by a public relations campaign into favouring a particular commercial interest against the general interest of the building societies in Queensland and against the general public interest of Queenslanders. Mr De Lacy: The Goss Government does not give in to blackmail. Mr FENLON: I take the interjection of the Treasurer. The Bill represents, on the other hand, the epitome of good judgment, reason, patience, respect for the judicial system and a sense of fair play. Indeed, the Bill could have been pursued and dealt with in a very different manner, but the historical processes that have brought this Bill before the House tonight have been very responsible ones, and I commend the Treasurer on the approach that he has taken throughout. The matter gained public attention in about November 1992 when the member for Caloundra took up the matter or, should we say, became the bunny for Metway Bank on that occasion. Perhaps she should carry some responsibility for misleading Metway Bank by thinking that she could in some way have gained some sort of success from this farcical crusade. This exercise was not intended in any way to lower the regard that is generally held for Metway Bank, but that is surely what happened. The member for Caloundra chose to walk out on a very long and thin political branch with Metway Bank. No matter how much the branch bowed, shook and cracked, they kept walking forward on their inexplicably mad crusade. However, the branch has now snapped. The judgment of the Queensland Court of Appeal on the State’s demurrer to Metway’s claims for a refund of contributions from the Permanent Building Societies Contingency Fund was delivered today. The branch which the unwitting member for Caloundra went out on with Metway Bank was no doubt supported by very dubious legal advice to the effect that Metway Bank had some legal claim to the funds that were held in the Permanent Building Societies Contingency Fund, under the control of the State Government. Indeed, the Treasurer has today made very clear statements as to the effect of that decision, and I will not traverse his statements. Hansard of 5 November 1992 contains the protestations of the member for Caloundra and the abuse that she rained upon the Treasurer, which ranged from calling him all sorts of names such as a bank robber—— Mrs Woodgate: The fifth of November is Guy Fawkes night. All the crackers go off. Mr FENLON: I take the interjection from the honourable member. The member for Caloundra called the Treasurer various other derogatory terms. She claimed on that occasion that this was deeply embarrassing everyone from the backbench to the highest levels of the Government. She stated further— “Not only is what the State Government doing morally wrong, but it has become a massive public relations disaster for the ALP.” One can now see that the public relations domain was the only one in which the member for Caloundra was working. She was trying to make this a public relations disaster for Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3281 the Government, and she failed, which is now evidenced very clearly by the fact that her argument had no standing in any legal sense. Now the chooks have come home to roost. The white leghorn has landed. The matter of law has been resolved. Metway Bank seemed unable to accept the reality that was very clearly put before it when this issue first arose. With the law stripped back, the fundamental argument that was raised from the outset by Metway and by the member for Caloundra is exposed. According to a press release today, Metway was morally entitled to a share of the fund. It is clear that the vision that the Opposition has for Queensland’s future is one that is modelled upon a set of vague moral principles—not principles of law or well established practice pertaining to good government and sound commercial dealings, but a loose amalgam of moral principles. It is still not clear what moral principle would impel a Government to hand over around $18m to a specific party without any foundation in law. The Opposition should publish the full set of moral principles upon which it would propose that government be conducted in Queensland. What other moral principles does it have for the conduct of government? Perhaps the member for Caloundra has a set of moral principles that apply to every area. Today, the branch that the member for Caloundra and Metway had walked out on has indeed broken. The passing of this Bill will put an end to this issue completely and will allow the building society sector to get on with business. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.20 a.m.): Once again, the Opposition has demonstrated that it does not let the facts spoil a good story. Opposition members have claimed repeatedly that this measure is a money grab. They made similar claims about corporatisation. The fact is that not one dollar of this fund goes to consolidated revenue; it is all returned to the building society industry. If the Government wanted a money grab, it could have transferred these funds to consolidated revenue, but it did not. We have done the right thing. We have put the money back into the building society industry. That is where it came from. That decision has a sound moral basis. Today, its legal basis was put beyond doubt. One thing we have discovered about the member for Caloundra is that she is consistent—she is consistently a loser. The decision by the Court of Appeal was not an Eddie Ward decision in a State of Origin match. It was a whitewash—unanimous. The court voted three-nil. It is important that we remember that. The Opposition has been part of the self-serving and manipulative campaign run by Metway. Really, that was one organisation that the Opposition should not have backed. Metway tried to blackmail the Government for the money. That did not succeed, so what did it then do? It went to every other organisation it could think of. When Metway found out that it would not get the refund, Mr Goss challenged the bank and it went to court. Once Metway knew that it would not win in court, what did it do? It asked the Australian Securities Commission to investigate the matter. Once Metway knew that it probably would not go well there, it wrote to the Reserve Bank of Australia and asked it to investigate the matter. Again a loser, loser, loser. When it really got out the big guns, it went to the Senate. A headline appeared in a newspaper which read, “Senate committee to probe Metway dispute”. Mr De Lacy: The only people they never went to was the War Crimes Tribunal. Mr CAMPBELL: Metway did not go to the War Crimes Tribunal and it did not go to the United Nations. However, after Metway went to the Senate committee—and it even had the Democrats there—it really got out the pop gun. The Sun Herald carried an article which stated that Charles Connelly was to become involved in the matter. He trotted out the tired old section 122A, 122B argument. The outcome was loss, loss, loss and loss. Opposition members can use despicable terms such as “hijacking”, “Metway Bank robbery”, “rob Metway Bank”, “he’s a robber” and “prospect that the Treasurer will fall from grace”. However, I tell Opposition members that the Treasurer has not fallen. He is bright and strong. The Opposition has been consistent—a consistent loser. Once again, although the facts have not spoilt a good story for the Opposition, it has lost. I congratulate the Treasurer on what he has achieved. I congratulate the 3282 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly members of the Government for sticking to their guns. In addition, there was a vested interest. I know that Labor Holdings have an interest in the Metway Bank, so money would have gone to the Labor Party. However, it played it right; it played the high moral ground, and it has given the money back to the building societies, where it morally and legally belongs. The decision tonight is a whitewash for the Government. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (12.24 a.m.): I will speak very briefly to this Building Societies Fund Bill. The Permanent Building Societies Contingency Fund was set up in 1976 to provide stability to the industry at a time when building societies were having financial difficulties. It was set up by the then Government as part of a restructuring of the building society industry, which saw SGIO take over societies, and the formation of the SGIO Building Society, which later became Suncorp Building Society and the restructuring of the Combined Bowkett and Building Society Ltd to take over the operations of some building societies that failed to meet suitable prudential requirements. A contribution scheme by which remaining building societies contributed to the contingency fund to finance any future disarray in the industry was set up. That fund was called the Contingency Fund. It is to the credit of the then Government that the restructuring was largely successful. Since that time, no shareholder has lost funds and no depositor has lost funds. The Contingency Fund has not been called upon, other than to meet some costs of administration, or liquidation of some societies. The regulation of financial institutions in Australia has been changed substantially by the introduction of the Financial Institutions Scheme. Depositor security will be provided by substantially increased prudential standards, based on Reserve Bank set requirements, including risk-weighted capital adequacy rates. That means that the types of loans, the length of the loans and the security of loans extended by financial institutions are subject to various weightings according to risk. The end calculation affects the amount of capital the financial institution is required to have. A number of building societies in Queensland have moved to issue permanent capital. In some cases, those shares are listed on the stock exchange. In others, they will operate in an exempt market subject to some regulatory supervision by the Queensland Office of Financial Supervision. The Australian Financial Institutions Commission, agreed to by the States, required a uniform national approach to the supervision of building societies. The AFIC will set the prudential standards, and the QOFS will have the task of supervising and administering the day-to-day processes under Queensland legislation. This framework will open up the market. It will make it easier for building societies to compete for funds across State borders. In fact, it will make it easier for building societies to operate in a number of States. The setting of overall standards Australiawide will limit the likelihood of collapses, such as those that occurred recently in Victoria, where the legislation in that State previously allowed for riskier loans by building societies without increased prudential requirements or supervision. The formation of the QOFS comes about subsequent to the committee of inquiry into non-bank financial institutions, which reported to the Government in 1990. Following on the recommendations of that inquiry, the QOFS has been set up as a statutory authority reporting to the Parliament through the Treasurer. The board consists of highly qualified members appointed by the Treasurer, and has the primary responsibility of the determination of supervision policy. To preserve its independence, it has been decided that no board member should currently hold an executive position in the financial industry. The QOFS has the function and the power to monitor and to promote the adoption of sound practices by non-bank financial institutions in relation to prudential matters, the collection and the analysis of data, the establishment of suitable prudential standards, the evaluation of adherence to those standards and explicit powers to vary or withdraw authorisation of any non-bank financial institution that fails to meet those standards. The issue of permanent capital, or shares that are not able to be withdrawn, to which I have referred, is done subject to the provisions of the Non Bank Financial Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3283

Intermediaries Act, which protects the interests of existing members. That is carried out by the setting up of special reserves, to which existing members are entitled under certain circumstances. The lack of prescriptive precision allows an open, deregulated market in which market forces, including competition and efficiency, will prevail, while adherence to sound Reserve Bank based prudential standards will provide security for depositors. That means that building societies must identify the risks inherent in their activities, and must ensure that they are covered by adequate capital. There are also provisions that ensure that the cost of the industry superannuation is met by the societies. The Government is setting up a Building Societies Fund, with an appropriation of $25m. That will assist Queensland building societies to meet supervision costs as well as be Queensland’s contribution towards setting up the AFIC. To assist building societies to meet the capital adequacy requirements now established, this legislation is paying to those capital building societies still in existence and, therefore, those subject to funding, the cost of supervision, the cost of meeting new capital adequacy ratios and a contribution towards statutory reserves to each society. The amount paid to each society varies according to its size. It should be noted that that amount of money is being paid only to building societies that are still continuing, not former building societies. It was therefore not appropriate to make a payment to Metway. The share price of Metway was calculated by the stock market, based on financial statements and other information supplied by Metway to the market. The financial market has been set without any thought of Metway receiving a gift from the Queensland Government. Therefore, no shareholder of Metway misses out or loses by this Bill, despite the discourse provided earlier by the Deputy Coalition Leader. It is interesting to note that the Deputy Coalition Leader has said constantly in this place that the money belongs to Metway and its shareholders. I remind the Deputy Coalition Leader that, according to Metway’s annual reports, one of the ten largest shareholders in Metway is a company called Labor Holdings Pty Ltd, a company associated with the Australian Labor Party. I am sure that if this Government had introduced legislation which subsequently gave windfall gains to Metway and its larger shareholders, members opposite would be screaming and squealing like stuffed pigs, and accusing this Government of looking after its Labor mates, and of self interest and God only knows what else. Yet here they are now whingeing and carrying on because this Government has proved itself to be above the self interest, the corruption and the dishonesty of the previous National Party and Liberal Party Governments, of which many members opposite were part. This Government has proved yet again that its members do not stick their hands in the till and their snouts in the trough. Therefore, this Government will ignore the ravings of the directors of Metway Bank, which left the building society industry in 1988, and therefore, as it is no longer under the control of the building society legislation, does not suffer the costs or achieve the benefits. Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (12.32 a.m.), in reply: Today is a red- letter day for the building society industry in Queensland. The Court of Appeal, the highest court in the State of Queensland, comprising the President, Mr Justice Fitzgerald, Mr Justice Pincus and Mr Justice Derrington, unanimously found in favour of the State and struck out Metway’s action. Costs were awarded to the State. As Mr Campbell said, it was a whitewash. Tonight, I listened with interest to the Leader of the Liberal Party. As usual, she was fast and loose with the truth, as is always the case with anybody who has no policy substance. Is it any wonder that Mrs Sheldon in particular, and the Opposition members in general, have no credibility with the Queensland public? If she thought that she was doing Metway a service, I can tell her that she has done it a grave disservice. Lining up with Mrs Sheldon is the kiss of death to anyone at all. The Leader of the Liberal Party engaged in extraordinary hyperbole tonight. She is trying to imitate her honourable leader’s oily one-liners. What is she going to say when there is something worthwhile to talk about? I do not know whether there are any other words. Tonight, the Leader of the Liberal Party was comparing this honourable and proper 3284 20 May 1993 Legislative Assembly action by the Goss Government with what is going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. Can members believe that? I just want to nail a couple of the untruths that have been perpetrated here tonight. The first is that this is a money grab. I make it as clear as I possibly can that not a single cent is going to the Queensland Government. Every single cent of the money from the Building Societies Contingency Fund will go to the benefit of the building society industry in Queensland and its 1.1 million members. If we really were on about a money grab, today’s court decision says, in fact, that we could do as we like with that money. As Mr Campbell said, if we wanted to put it into our Consolidated Fund and use it to fund hospitals or something else, we would be entitled to do it. But no, we have acted in the moral, right and proper way. The second untruth is that it is immoral according to Metway, and it is immoral according to Mrs Sheldon, Metway’s apostle. Today’s decision from the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland stated— “. . . there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in the proposed conduct of the State of Queensland if it is pursued to its intended ends.” In the legal manner in which those learned justices talk, they could not say it any more clearly. Metway has no legal case and no moral case. Mr Mackenroth: You’d think that Mrs Sheldon would stand by the court’s decision, wouldn’t you? Mr De LACY: Yes. One would think that even Mrs Sheldon would have been convinced by a decision handed down by the three most learned judges in Queensland. Yet she had the temerity to stand in this place tonight and fly in the face of that decision. The third thing that I would like to nail is that we are rushing this legislation through the House to prevent Metway from taking any further action. I contrast my approach in this whole business to the approach of the Metway board. As Mr Davies said, last November, we could have passed this piece of legislation through the House. That would have rendered obsolete any legal action that Metway was proposing to take. But when it said that it was going to take legal action, I said, “Right. We will not proceed with our legislation until such time as Metway has had its day in court and until such time as its claims are tested in the Supreme Court of Queensland.” We have waited patiently, as has the building society industry, to have that tested in the Supreme Court. Today, the decision was brought down against Metway in our favour. But what have Metway and Mrs Sheldon done? Have they accepted the umpire’s decision? No! In fact, I am very disappointed by the reaction of the Metway board today as reported in its press releases and in the press. That board is not prepared to accept the umpire’s decision. It is now seeking Federal intervention. Can honourable members believe that the Liberal Party in the State of Queensland is calling for Federal intervention—calling on John Coulter to come flying into Queensland on his white charger with his Senate inquiry? I have never heard anything so absurd. Today, Metway said that it would explore a range of other options. Earlier, Mr Campbell spelt out all the options that Metway has explored. There are not many options left unexplored. As somebody said, it has done more exploring in the last few months than BHP. The best thing that the board of Metway could do for its shareholders is to get back to running a bank, instead of wasting shareholders’ money on futile legal action. Where it went wrong is that it worked its shareholders up into a frenzy, created unreal expectations, and then it could not deliver. To save face, the board had to launch into this very expensive litigation. By passing this legislation tonight, the House is not only doing the building society industry a favour, but it is also doing Metway and its shareholders a favour. The last thing they need is a mob of macho board members taking, or seeking to take, further legal action which they know, we know and everybody knows would be absolutely futile. I will make one other point about my old friend Business Queensland. I can just imagine next Monday’s edition of Business Queensland. Week after week it railed, using Legislative Assembly 20 May 1993 3285 the sort of hyperbole that Mrs Sheldon indulged in tonight, saying that the Treasurer of Queensland was a robber. They have all these powerful arguments and attribute to me all sorts of motives. They claim that the reason I am doing this is that there is a building society in the city of Cairns and I am going to deliver on behalf of that building society which has been putting pressure on me. They have been alleging a conflict of interest on behalf of the Treasurer. Many of the things they said were quite defamatory. Mr Beattie: I would sue them. Mr De LACY: I should sue them, but I cannot be bothered. Mrs Sheldon: Who said this? Mr De LACY: Business Queensland has said it week after week. I do not know whether the Leader of the Liberal Party reads that publication; I do not. However, it has been drawn to my attention. I draw to the attention of the House that the chairman of Business Queensland happens to be a board member of Metway Bank. Metway Bank is one of the most significant shareholders in Business Queensland, yet it is the Treasurer of Queensland with a conflict of interest! Honourable members wonder why I lose faith in the ethics of some of the media outlets in this State. In conclusion, let me say simply this: Metway is a great Queensland financial institution. The best thing that it can do is get back to the business of banking. It has served Queensland well in the past and it will serve Queensland well in the future. I can offer that bank the support and the cooperation of the Queensland Government. The best thing which it can do and which I am prepared to do is to put all this behind us, accept the verdict of the Supreme Court, and let us get on with the rest of our lives. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, by leave, read a third time. The House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. (Friday).