Legislative Assembly 2451 31 October 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 320

THURSDAY, 31 OCTOBER 1991

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

PETITION The Acting Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Child-care Legislation From Mr Elder (58 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Child Care Bill 1991 and promote the development of associated regulations. Petition received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Queensland Cultural Centre Trust Queensland Performing Arts Trust Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training. The following papers were laid on the table— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (Q Super) Board of Trustees of the Government Officers’ Superannuation Scheme (Gosuper) State Service Superannuation Board Queensland Industry Development Corporation—Government Schemes Division Queensland Industry Development Corporation—Government Schemes Division Venture Capital Fund Queensland Harness Racing Board North Queensland Racing Association Trustees of Willows Paceway Trustees of Albion Park Paceway Report of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies for the 18 months ended 30 June 1991 Report of the Board of Trustees of the Townsville Grammar School for the year ended 31 December 1990 Statute under the University of Queensland Act 1965. Legislative Assembly 2452 31 October 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Railway Noise Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: This Government has placed a high priority on the importance of improving the environment. Often, people see the environment as only national parks, trees and mountains. Mr Comben: No, I don’t. Mr HAMILL: And perhaps some lakes. We sometimes forget that the environment includes the cities and towns in which we live. The Transport Department has a major contribution to make in improving the quality of urban life. This year, public transport in south-east Queensland will receive some $140m in financial support from the Goss Government. This reduces the pressure on the urban road network and allows road funds to be spent in country areas. Indeed, 80 per cent of our State road budget is spent in rural and provincial Queensland, in areas outside Brisbane. However, although transport provides a substantial amenity to the community, it also generates noise. Noise from road transport, from trains and from aeroplanes impacts on our daily lives. For the first time, the Department of Transport is developing a comprehensive transport noise policy. The department is already well advanced in investigating the issue of road noise. Today, I am pleased to announce the examination of noise created by rail operations in the urban areas of Queensland. There has been a great deal of concern in the community about the noise impact of rail operations on the urban environment. Being the first of its type in Queensland, the rail noise study will provide detailed scientific information on the nature and extent of the incidence of rail noise and identify means to address any examples of extreme inconvenience created by such noise. Queensland Rail is in the process of engaging an independent consultant to conduct a series of field studies in urban areas around the State. The consultant will also be required to review any similar studies in other parts of Australia and internationally. The consultant is expected to begin the study prior to Christmas. Rail generates many social, environmental and economic benefits through the provision of passenger and freight services, particularly in urban areas. A major freight train is equivalent to 120 semitrailers. As can be seen, if rail freight services were not there, urban areas would be faced with a severe impact from a major increase in heavy vehicles on our road system. I do not promise to eliminate all the noise generated from rail passenger and freight operations in suburban areas. However, the intention of this study is to undertake a thorough, detailed examination of the rail noise issue to enable reasoned and achievable actions to limit the inconvenience of the noise impact of rail operations. This move is a further demonstration of this Labor Government’s commitment to improving the quality of the urban environment.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Education Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: I rise on a matter of great importance to Queensland education. Since coming to office, the Goss Government has made education its No. 1 priority. In only two Budgets, education spending in Queensland has risen by more than $260m in real terms. We now spend more on education than any other Government in Queensland’s history. This achievement is all the more remarkable when we consider the savage cut-backs imposed Legislative Assembly 2453 31 October 1991 on education in other States. Thousands of teachers have been sacked in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, and schools in those States have been severely disrupted by strikes and other stoppages. In contrast, the Goss Government has increased the number of teachers in Queensland by more than 1 500, including more than 600 outside the south-east corner. In addition, Queensland teachers, who under the Nationals and Liberals were the worst paid in Australia, now enjoy the same salaries as their counterparts in other States. The No. 1 priority of the Goss Government is to provide Queensland children with the best education system in Australia. To do that, we have to not only reward our best teachers but also ensure that the standard of teaching is maintained and improved in our schools. From the start of 1992, a new category of teaching position—the advanced skills teacher—will be created. Advanced skills teachers will be the finest practitioners of their art in our schools. They will be paid more than any class room teacher in Queensland’s history. In return, they will be expected to be leaders in their field and serve as a role model and inspiration for our younger teachers. In 1992, approximately 5 000 ASTs will be appointed to schools throughout Queensland. To ensure fairness and equity, the number of positions will be allocated to schools on the basis of staff numbers. This means that each school, regardless of whether it is in the country or the city, will receive its fair share of positions and, indeed, the Government will guarantee that schools with as few as three teachers will be granted at least one advanced skills teacher. As can be appreciated, given the enormous responsibility facing these teachers, these positions are reserved for the very best. That is why AST positions are based on set criteria and a set proportion of our teaching force. I appreciate that, in selecting the best, some will miss out. I also appreciate that in selecting the best, our teachers will be subjected to a level of competition they have never previously experienced. But for the sake of our children, we have to ensure that the very best teachers will be selected. However, as a reformist Government we must listen to the views of our teaching professionals. Some teachers have expressed concern about the quota of 5 000 AST positions and some have raised heartfelt concerns about how they will relate to their colleagues in the staff room if they are rivals for a position. However, while the Government is sympathetic to the position of teachers, there is a greater challenge facing our schools. We have made some important progress in education in Queensland. We cannot jeopardise that progress now by going down the same road to ruin as other States have done. In Victoria, where no quota exists, the Government has been forced to sack thousand of teachers to pay for an open- slather position on advanced skills teachers. Unlike Governments in other States, the Goss Government will not sack teachers, particularly at a time of recession. We will not compromise the welfare of our children by making teachers the scapegoats for these difficult economic times. Similarly, we will not compromise the integrity of these new positions. That is why they are tenured for three years and subject to performance review. I appreciate that many teachers are not accustomed to being judged and selected by their peers, but in these tough economic times competition is inevitable. It is important to realise that teachers, through their union, chose a selection system based on written applications only. Teachers are now having second thoughts and would prefer interviews. They must now look to themselves and their union on this matter and not criticise the Government. The Department of Education proposed interviews but reluctantly agreed to the teachers’ position. The department and the union also agreed that AST positions should be reserved for teachers with at least nine years’ experience. This requirement narrows the eligibility for these positions, but it is comforting that it is still possible for teachers under 30 years of age to qualify for AST status. Younger teachers will therefore not be discriminated against. Legislative Assembly 2454 31 October 1991

In smaller schools, the level of competition for AST positions will be far less than it will be in larger schools. Indeed, the Government recognises the diversity of schools within our education system. Given the Goss Government’s commitment to improving the quality of education in rural and provincial Queensland, I have asked the Department of Education to adopt a flexible approach to this situation and explore options which could accommodate the needs of smaller schools. Some teachers are concerned that they will be transferred out of their school to make way for incoming ASTs. However, because teachers are selected at the school level, the vast majority of ASTs will come from within the school. Teachers already serving in the school will therefore have a great advantage and the new positions are not expected to have a major impact on transfers. Nonetheless, there will be significant changes in our schools as a result of the introduction of advanced skills teachers. It could be argued by some that the process is perhaps moving too fast. However, Queensland teachers have been waiting for these changes for many years. We owe it to them to fully recognise their efforts and abilities as soon as possible. If we delay, we will not be able to appoint these teachers until 1993, and no parent or teacher would want that. It should also be remembered that the new arrangements will be reviewed by the Industrial Commission after 12 months so there is an opportunity for the independent umpire to have a look at how the system is operating. This Government recognises that the process of change involves give and take on both sides, and where people are involved mistakes are sometimes made. But despite the enormity of the challenge before us, we have a responsibility to future generations of Queenslanders to go forward and provide the best quality education within the Government’s resources. I am confident that the people of Queensland understand this and will respect this Government for having the courage to finally bring our long- suffering education system out of the stagnation inflicted on it by the Nationals and the Liberals. I am also confident that teachers will ultimately reap the benefits of the introduction of AST positions. In the short term, there are a number of legitimate concerns to overcome and the Government is prepared to work with teachers in sorting these out. I believe our teachers are responsible professionals and that in the interests of our students they will choose to act cooperatively and positively in the resolution of this important issue.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Annual Report of Queensland Law Society Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: In tabling the annual report of the Queensland Law Society, I also feel that I am obliged to honourable members to draw attention to an error which appears in the former president’s introduction. On the first page of the report, the former president writes— “It is with some considerable regret that I notice that the State Government has launched an inquiry into the distribution of interest earned on solicitors’ trust accounts.” All honourable members would know that the inquiry is an inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. It is not an inquiry of the State Government. It is an inquiry of this Parliament. When the Public Accounts Committee was established by the previous National Party Government, with the full support of the then opposition parties in this House, every member understood that what was being established was a committee of the Parliament, not a committee of the Government. It is surprising that not every member of the legal community is aware of this fact. On the next page, the president writes— Legislative Assembly 2455 31 October 1991

". . . there is as yet no need to concern ourselves because we have the express undertaking of the Attorney-General that the re-allocation of those funds is not on the agenda and all the Government wishes to do is increase the amount of interest paid by the banks on the free funds at their disposal.” I should make it clear that, at the time that I made a statement to the Law Society vaguely like the one which is repeated in the report, I was giving the Law Society an indication that the Government supported attempts—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Is it appropriate for the Attorney-General to be canvassing certain matters that are before a select committee of this Parliament? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr WELLS: I am trying to explain this on behalf of the Parliament. I make this point on behalf of the Parliament, not on behalf of any other body. I would like to continue to correct the error contained in the report. As I was saying, I was giving the Law Society an indication that the Government supported attempts by the Law Society to obtain an improvement on the rate of interest which was paid by the banks in respect of moneys to go to legal aid. This conversation was prior to the commencement of the Public Accounts Committee’s investigation. I did not purport to be setting the agenda of this Parliament, or any of its committees, least of all the Public Accounts Committee. I note in passing that the rate of interest paid by banks in respect of those moneys has not increased, despite continued negotiations and some indications of a willingness to accommodate requests for an improvement. I note further that the Public Accounts Committee is proceeding with its investigations. Along with the other members of the Government, I await with interest its final recommendations.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development during Question-time Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.17 a.m.): I have to inform the House that the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development will be absent from question-time today.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.18 a.m.): I seek leave to move a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of Committees, Mr Campbell. Legislative Assembly 2456 31 October 1991

Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the negative. Mrs SHELDON having given notice of a motion— Mrs SHELDON: I table Dr Waller’s letter.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Language Other Than English Program Mr PALASZCZUK asked the Minister for Education— “With reference to the successful LOTE program in operation in Queensland— Is there scope to extend the program further in the Inala cluster of schools to include the Vietnamese language?” Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourable member for his question and, in doing so, I acknowledge his interest in the Vietnamese community in his electorate. The major objective of the LOTE program is to increase significantly the number of young Queenslanders with skills in the languages and cultures of other nations, particularly those with whom we have a geographic or economic relationship. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now ask the member for Southport for the last time to cease interjecting. Mr BRADDY: The priority languages identified under the program are Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, French and German, although other languages are also taught in our schools and will be maintained in the future. Both Inala and Darra State Schools currently have Commonwealth-funded bilingual programs in Vietnamese which cater for the needs of recently arrived students of Vietnamese background. Commonwealth/State negotiations are proceeding on the issue of funding of community languages and, Legislative Assembly 2457 31 October 1991 depending on the outcome of those negotiations, there may be room for additional funding for Vietnamese. It is certainly the view of the Queensland Government that the Commonwealth should provide sufficient funds for that purpose. With regard to LOTE—Inala is currently involved in a LOTE cluster which teaches German; however, should there be a demonstrably sustained demand for Vietnamese within a cluster of primary schools and should that demand lead to the viability of classes in that language at nearby secondary schools, consideration could be given to the introduction of Vietnamese as part of the LOTE program in the area. The choice of language for any LOTE cluster is made only after significant consultation between the schools involved and their communities, and with due regard to issues such as continuity of instruction and availability of qualified teaching staff and quality programs. If all of those conditions are met within the context of the overall objectives of the LOTE program, there would be scope for further investigation of the honourable member’s proposal.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Funding for Victims of Crime Association Mr COOPER: I ask the Premier: given his own views and the current illegal status of prostitution in this State, can he justify to the House the fact that an organisation known as SQWISI—Self-help for Queensland Workers in the Sex Industry—which represents prostitutes is buying condoms and lubricants—I repeat “lubricants”—with taxpayers’ money when another organisation known as VOCA—the Victims of Crime Association—has had its funding slashed by the Goss Government from $250,000 to $50,000, that is, to a point where it will have to cease operations? Further, I ask: is that in line with the Premier’s views on State Budget priorities? Mr W. K. GOSS: I do not have detailed knowledge of that matter myself. I can only bow to the expertise of the Leader of the Opposition in those matters. However, I am informed by the Minister for Health that the program to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was commenced by the National Party Government—by the then Minister for Health, Mr Ahern.

Waterfront Reform Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I refer to reports today that waterfront reform in Brisbane is frustratingly slow and lags far behind Sydney and Melbourne where reported spectacular productivity gains have been achieved since employers and waterfront unions finalised enterprise agreements. As such agreements have now been struck for all major ports except Brisbane, and in view of the decision yesterday by the Industrial Relations Commission which takes Australia a step closer to productivity bargaining, I ask: what action will the Minister take to facilitate an enterprise agreement being achieved on the Brisbane waterfront—— Mr SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister for Transport. Mr Hamill: There’s more. Mr COOPER: The Minister can get half smart if he likes. As Brisbane is dragging the chain, would the Minister not regard that as a reflection on the outdated industrial policies of the Government in which he is supposed to play a more enlightened role? Mr HAMILL: I welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition. It shows quite clearly how out of touch the Opposition in this House is with the state of industrial relations and, indeed, the state of the waterfront in Brisbane. Legislative Assembly 2458 31 October 1991

Mr Cooper: That’s why it’s lagging so far behind. Mr HAMILL: I welcome the interjection from the honourable member, because the question that he asked indicates that members of the National Party still think that the Brisbane waterfront languishes in the uncompetitive regime that they in Government fostered. When the National Party was in Government, everybody knew that P and O had the port of Brisbane in a stranglehold. There was no competition in stevedoring in the port of Brisbane, yet the Leader of the Opposition insults the intelligence of every member of this House when he asserts that no enterprise-based agreements have been reached in the port of Brisbane. Indeed, some weeks ago, I reported to this House that Strang Patrick, the other stevedore and competitor of ConAust, had already negotiated an enterprise-based agreement in the port of Brisbane, achieving a 46 per cent increase in productivity in the port. What the Leader of the Opposition is asserting is that, because ConAust has yet to finalise its negotiations on an enterprise-based agreement, the process of waterfront reform in Brisbane lags behind that in the rest of the country. Through the Strang Patrick agreement, Brisbane was one of the leaders in achieving enterprise-based agreements. I urge the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any influence whatsoever on his old mates at P and O, to get them to the negotiating table and to follow the lead of Strang Patrick in the port of Brisbane. The Opposition must make sure that the other stevedore—the one the National Party protected for so long—gets to the negotiating table and achieves the same sort of productivity improvement that its competitors are already enjoying in the port of Brisbane. Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders will cease interjecting.

Mr D. Martindale Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Health: is he aware of the inclusion of Mr Don Martindale on the list circulated by the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Merthyr, and is this the same Mr Don Martindale who, in the past, has been praised for his industrial relations expertise by the member for Roma and the member for Auburn? Mr McELLIGOTT: When the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Merthyr play their cute political games, they seem to ignore the fact that they are reflecting on the professional competence of the people whose names are on the list. I appreciate this opportunity to put on the record my complete confidence in Don Martindale and his appointment to head the industrial relations section of Queensland Health. I have no doubt that responsible members of this House would understand that, given Mr Martindale’s background as long-time State secretary of the Professional Officers Association and assistant State secretary of the Trades and Labor Council, he brings to that position a wealth of experience and competence. This question further gives me the opportunity to read into the record of this House two references as to Don Martindale’s ability that bear noting. First of all, I quote from an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin of 13 October 1990— “Mr Cooper said POA secretary Don Martindale should represent public sector unions on the PSMC rather than through the downgraded role given to unions on the advisory board.” Further, I quote from a media release issued on 18 February 1991 by Neville Harper, shadow Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and member for Auburn— Legislative Assembly 2459 31 October 1991

“The National Party will restore confidence in the Public Sector Management Commission by ensuring direct union involvement in its processes through the appointment of a commissioner having acknowledged practical ability—such as that possessed by Mr Don Martindale.”

Drought Relief Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: can he inform the House of what support the Government has received for its work in providing assistance for the primary producers affected by the current severe drought? Mr CASEY: It is very important for the House to note the great work that has been done by this Government during the current drought in conjunction with Queensland’s primary industry sector. I strongly praise various primary industry organisations for the way in which they have worked hand in hand with the Government in an endeavour to look at problems as they arise and at ways in which we can change and organise drought relief so that it reaches the people who really need it. That is the important difference between what the Labor Party has done in Government and what was done by the previous Government. In recent days, Mr Lindsay Hall, Chairman of the Queensland Farmers Federation, publicly praised the Goss Government for the way in which it has approached the question of drought relief and the problems caused by drought in the State. In recent days, additional praise has come from cane-growers, dairymen, grain-growers, the Cattlemen’s Union and the United Graziers Association. One could hardly consider the United Graziers Association to be an enclave of the ALP, yet, on national radio yesterday morning, Mr Bonthrone said that he thought the State Government had done a very good job with drought relief. He said there was no question about it. At the moment, particularly, what is wrong with members of the National Party is that they do not like primary industries organisations talking to any Government other than their own. That is where the real problem is, and that is why there has been so much criticism. The only people who are criticising the Government’s efforts at the moment are National Party members of Parliament, simply because they are not in control of the agenda, and this Government is taking action that the former Government never, ever took before. They can organise any meetings they like throughout the entire countryside because the truth of the matter is that this Government has taken action that they never took when in Government. The establishment of the Drought Information Centre on the ground floor of the Primary Industries Building in Brisbane has been one of the great successes. To date, more than 3 000 calls have been received by the officers who are manning the instant telephone access on a 008 number at no more cost to individual producers than the cost of a local call. They are receiving calls from people all over the State. Mr Stoneman: Absolutely hopeless! Mr CASEY: The member for Burdekin tries to make allegations about some of the most dedicated people in the Department of Primary Industries who are working from 8 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock at night giving out information to people who are telephoning them from right throughout the State of Queensland, which is something that members of the former Government never did. The Rural Adjustment Scheme has been extended. Mr Warburton: And the people are thankful for it. Mr CASEY: There is no question about the fact that the people are very thankful for it. Every week, I visit the Drought Information Centre. Yesterday, at lunch-time, I sat down and talked to those officers at the centre. It was gratifying indeed to hear the phone calls coming in and the way in which the inquiries were being handled by those officers. Legislative Assembly 2460 31 October 1991

This Government is providing assistance for grain-growers in the form of freight subsidies that have been widened, and there is also a new fodder register. All these things are initiatives that have been set up. There are also feed barley exemptions, molasses deals and sorghum deals. In conclusion, I remind the House that things are just so different now from the way they were under the National Party Government and from the way in which the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts found that drought relief assistance was being handled in Queensland when it carried out its investigation. The people of Queensland should continue to be reminded that, as part of the drought relief scheme administered by the National Party in the seven-year period 1982-83 to 1988-89, $26.6m was spent in subsidising the movement of cattle to agistment, yet only $8.5m—which is one-third—was spent on bringing cattle back to properties. What did the taxpayers of Queensland actually do? Mr Speaker, they paid $16m to $17m to help graziers in Queensland send their cattle to the butchers.

Mater Hospital Superintendent, Dr J. Waller Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Minister for Health: in view of his unprecedented attack on the superintendent of the Mater hospital, Dr John Waller, who in the public interest has rightly drawn attention to the need for cut-backs in services owing to inadequate Government funding, does he have confidence in this hospital superintendent’s ability to manage this major Brisbane public hospital, or is Dr Waller going to be the victim of the same political thuggery he displayed against Dr Bruce Chater of the Rural Doctors Association, and any other medical professional who speaks out? Mr McELLIGOTT: I am always amazed at the way the Liberal Party Leader can distort the facts. I am on the public record as saying that I have complete confidence in the clinical ability of Dr John Waller, who is the medical superintendent of the Mater adult hospital. What I said in the House and publicly yesterday was that I doubted the wisdom of his circulating the memorandum, which is clearly not based on fact, in that he referred in his first sentence to cut-backs in budget. The memorandum states— “Our budget for this financial year has been drastically cut.” That statement is not true. Yesterday, I referred to the precise figures showing that the budget for the Mater hospital was increased from $86m to $90.6m. Even the member for Callide and, indeed, the member for Toowong would interpret that and understand that as not a cut to the budget. What has occurred at the Mater hospital is that, through careful financial management, the hospital’s executive has recognised that, if expenditure continues at present levels, by the end of this financial year the budget will be exceeded. As good and responsible economic managers, they are now looking to ways of ensuring that overexpenditure does not in fact occur. I certainly reject any comment at all suggesting that I have misplaced my trust in the medical superintendent at the Mater hospital. I challenge the Opposition or members of the Liberal Party to prove otherwise.

Regionalisation of Health Services Mr BEANLAND: In directing my second question to the Minister for Health, I refer to the speech he made to the corporate executive retreat of Queensland Health on 25 August 1991 in which he stated— “I continue to hear reports of cut-backs in services. I certainly have not ordered any cut- backs, and if they are occurring, then I want to know why. We should not be funding regionalisation by cutting services.” I ask: why are cut-backs in services occurring? Is it because he has not allowed sufficient funding for wage increases? Are the closure of beds and the reduction in outpatient Legislative Assembly 2461 31 October 1991 services at the Mater hospital symptomatic of the funding problems that the Minister’s regionalisation policy is causing? Mr McELLIGOTT: Again, I find the member for Toowong’s interpretation of the written and spoken language quite extraordinary. The point which I was making on that occasion, and which I have made repeatedly, is that there is no reason at all why health services in this State should be reduced in any way. I expressed my concern to the regional directors at that particular workshop and said that I would not accept the restructuring of Queensland Health and the regionalisation of Queensland Health as excuses to reduce services. I think that members of this Parliament would support that view. Recently, the Health Department Estimates were debated in this Parliament and nobody on the Opposition side of the Parliament demonstrated that there had been a reduction in allocations to Queensland Health in the recent State Budget. It is simply not true to suggest that this Government is reducing health services, or effecting cuts in the State Budget. However, it is interesting to point out that the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is the member for Toowong, in his document Political Update October 1991, criticised the Government for increasing expenditure in areas of Government administration. He stated— “The Queensland Budget looked typical of many other Labor Budgets—an increasing percentage of the State’s wealth going to finance Government expenditure.” One cannot have it both ways.

South-east Queensland Public Transport System Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Minister for Transport to the recent implementation of the improved transport service in the Inala/Durack area, and I ask: will the Minister outline to the House the progress of the improvement of the public transport system in the whole of the south-east Queensland area. Mr HAMILL: I thank the honourable member for the question. His interest in public transport is well known and well documented in this House. In fact, it is worthy to note that, after many years of neglect by the Brisbane City Council and the intransigence of the previous State Government in respect of those services, under this Labor Government the people in the bayside area of Wynnum and the people of Inala now have the opportunity to use the service provided by Brisbane City Council buses. Recently, the South East Queensland Passenger Transport Study Report was delivered to me. This Government is moving very quickly to implement a number of recommendations in that report to improve the quality of passenger transport, not just for the people of Brisbane, but for the people of south-east Queensland in general. Members of this House would be aware of the substantial increase in funding for urban rail in the State Budget. A $277m program over three years has been implemented to improve the capacity of urban rail to cope with the enormous growth taking place within the region. This Government is moving quickly to implement improvements to the passenger transport network, particularly in relation to ferries. The Government is cooperating with the Brisbane City Council to improve the quality of ferry services and the coordination of ferry services with other transport means. Significantly, among the recommendations of the SEPTS report was the establishment of an integrated information system, under which a passenger can ring up to ascertain what passenger transport links, whether they be ferries, buses, rail or whatever, are available. That work is currently being undertaken and I expect that in the very near future that system will be established in the Transport Department. The department is also working on an integrated ticketing system. Integrated ticketing is now available in the Inala, Wynnum and Redcliffe areas. That system is a further substantial improvement in the passenger transport amenities in those regions. Work is also being carried out on integrating timetables to coordinate services. Again, that was a recommendation from SEPTS which this Government is currently implementing. This Government is paying particular attention to other recommendations in the SEPTS report. It has been clearly identified that there is inadequate coordination of services. I mention particularly the Pine Rivers area. This matter is of particular interest to the honourable member for Pine Rivers, Mrs Woodgate, who has already asked questions in this House on that point. Mrs Woodgate has been a keen advocate of passenger transport Legislative Assembly 2462 31 October 1991 improvements. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. While the Minister was away overseas, this question was answered last week by the acting Minister Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAMILL: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my answer. The areas of particular neglect identified in the SEPTS report were Pine Rivers, Goodna, Ipswich, Woodridge, and the area of Springwood around the hyperdome. The Government has targeted those areas for improvement and those areas will reap the early benefits of the implementation of the SEPTS report by the Department of Transport.

Disabled Children Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Minister for Family Services to a recent spate of articles raising concerns by parents who have disabled children in relation to the lack of services and funding, and I ask: will the Minister inform the House whether the Government will attend to these concerns, and if so, what action do the Minister and the Department of Family Services intend to take? Ms WARNER: I thank the honourable member for the question. Recently, there has been considerable community debate about the changes that are occurring in the area of services for disabled people. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on 30 July this year the Commonwealth/State disability agreement was signed. For the first time, the Government has an opportunity to clearly delineate the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government and the State Government in the area of disabled people. That agreement provided that the Commonwealth Government would service disabled people’s employment needs and that State Governments would take responsibility for accommodation and other services. Part of that agreement was that the States would introduce disability legislation that would mirror the Commonwealth legislation. I am pleased to say that my department has issued a discussion paper on the principles and issues that should be covered by legislation. My department is also currently involved in a nine-week consultation process that will lead to legislation coming into this House, hopefully, in the near future. That process is under way. The community is involved in the very serious debate about what the levels of responsibility should be, the exact role of the non-Government sector, the responsibility of the Government, and the principles under which services should be provided. One of the principles that I think is clearly emerging as a focus is that people with disabilities should have their needs catered for as expressed by those individuals, rather than those individuals being herded into large institutions where there is a degree of regimentation and uniformity. The design of the legislation and the desire of the future services will be to cater to the individual needs of people who have disabilities rather than provide blanket arrangements. I am also pleased to say that part of the Commonwealth/State disability agreement was to provide extra Commonwealth funding. Of an amount of $245m Legislative Assembly 2463 31 October 1991 disbursed throughout Australia, $145m in additional funding has been transferred to the States and $100m to provide for growth funds. In that area, I think that people with disabilities can look forward to a brighter future over the next few years. I might say that people with disabilities have suffered considerable under resourcing and lack of funding by the neglect of the previous Government. Of course, this is a mechanism by which, in full cooperation with the Commonwealth and the other States, we can improve the level of resources going into the disability area. Another feature of the Commonwealth/State disability agreement which will be very much appreciated is the fact that there will be a reduction in administrative red tape. There will be the minimising of gaps which have occurred in the past in relation to psychiatric disability services for children. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister is debating the question.

Government Projects Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his demand on his Canberra colleagues to generate jobs, jobs, jobs, and also to the fact that two projects stalled by his Government, namely the upgrading of the port of Townsville and the sale of the Gladstone Power Station to facilitate expansion of the Boyne Island smelter, have been listed for fast tracking by both the ACTU and the Federal Government. I ask: why is it necessary for the Federal Government to fast track projects in respect of which this Government has now had two years in which to progress? When will this Government start to accept responsibility for its own inaction? Mr W. K. GOSS: The question betrays a fairly fundamental ignorance or, alternatively, an attempt to mislead the Parliament and the public in relation to these two issues. Firstly, in relation to the resolution of the power station, the member for Surfers Paradise well knows the issues there. The issues relate to the need to satisfactorily protect— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise has asked his question. Mr W. K. GOSS:—the interests of electricity-consumers and taxpayers. This Government is not prepared to act in the way the previous Government did when, in a desperate political bid to stave off a leadership threat from the member for Roma, to the surprise of all concerned—including the prospective buyer—the previous Premier attempted to sell an asset for well below the value that had been provided to the Government. Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Flinders under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: That matter is subject only to the resolution of a satisfactory price. There are sensitive commercial issues involved in which the Federal Government can play a role, and that has been raised by the State Government with Senator Button and the Federal Government. In relation to the importation of nickel ore through the port of Townsville, that is not something that is within the control of the State Government, and the honourable member should know that. The situation there is that the company previously controlled by Mr Bond lodged an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a Federal tribunal, and it is the company, the refinery, or the banks that now control that asset, that are pursuing that appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This Government has no power to intervene in the proper proceedings of a Commonwealth tribunal—no power whatsoever. The company is determined—— Mr Borbidge: Tell us about the conditions being imposed by the port of Townsville. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Surfers Paradise to cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: The member for Surfers Paradise completely misses the point, Legislative Assembly 2464 31 October 1991 and that is that it is the company—not the port authority, the company—which is choosing to pursue the Halifax Bay jetty option, and it is doing that through—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS:—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is taking an inordinate period of time. I think the company should think again about its position. However, we cannot force the company to withdraw the appeal in relation to the jetty and get it to pursue what is our preferred option, that is, importation through the port.

Waterfront Reform Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a further question to the Premier, I refer to reports that, under this Government, waterfront reform at the port of Brisbane now lags behind every other major Australian port. I ask: what action does the Premier, as the head of this Government, intend to take to restore the previous good reputation of the port of Brisbane that was usurped by his Government following meetings between Ministers Warburton and McLean and Mr Tas Bull of the Waterside Workers Federation shortly after a substantial financial donation was given to the Queensland ALP? Mr W. K. GOSS: That fairly grubby allegation was raised by this person well over a year ago. There is no foundation to it whatsoever. I think this morning the Minister has quite adequately put the case which shows that the results are there, that productivity at the port has improved under this Government. In relation to one agreement, there has been a 46 per cent improvement in productivity. Mr Randell interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Stop squawking! The other example is this: the Nissan motor vehicle company has made the decision to import all of its motor vehicles for the whole of Australia through the port of Brisbane because of its`1 productivity and the reforms that this Minister and the new board have undertaken. The port of Brisbane, in terms of its productivity and its reform process, is proceeding—— Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine. Mr W. K. GOSS:—very well, and for the member for Surfers Paradise to talk about political donations, when he is an associate of a Premier who takes $100,000 bundles of cash in brown paper bags, is a joke. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. At 11 a.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Sixteenth and Seventeenth Allotted Days

Estimates-in-Chief, 1991-92

Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (11.01 a.m.): I move— Legislative Assembly 2465 31 October 1991

“That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $312,914,000 for Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (Consolidated Fund).” This Budget consolidates the first instalment made to this department and to the people of Queensland in Labor’s first Budget last year. That Budget saw the beginnings of a social justice strategy based on rational planning, community consultation and clear priorities. Together with the restructuring of the department, this has resulted in better participation, consultation and information flow between Government and community, and greater coordination—put simply, a more efficient and equitable delivery of services to Queenslanders who are in need. With this Budget, we have endeavoured to ensure that through every program of the department our capacity to deliver services right throughout Queensland is maximised. I will begin with community services development, where our goal has been to improve the capacity of the non-Government sector and local government authorities to provide a range of human services and activities to meet local needs. Through this large program, the department provides for the active support of church groups, local government authorities, welfare organisations and community groups in the provision of human services, community development, community education activities and prevention strategies. Separate work units have been established in this program. They are the Office of the Ageing, the Office of Child Care, the Office of Disability, the Community and Youth Branch, and the Policy and Grants Co-ordination Branch. This structure is reflected at regional level, with various specialist staff maintaining responsibility for the particular target groups, which include people with disabilities, families who are homeless, socially isolated, in crisis, or affected by domestic violence, and families requiring quality child-care. This year, the Community Services Development Program will administer grants totalling $50.7m and incur capital expenditure of approximately $9.4m. This expenditure will allow the funding of more than 1 200 services comprising community-based organisations and local authorities to respond more effectively to local community needs. The funds will be allocated under 16 funding programs providing services ranging from child-care to supported accommodation, to respite care for carers of people with disabilities. Some programs are jointly funded by the Commonwealth, some State funded, and some Commonwealth funded and State administered. Funds may be allocated for capital purposes as recurrent funding to assist with salaries and operating costs, or provided on a one-off, non- recurrent basis for a specific purpose. Increases have been achieved in the level of financial assistance available to the community sector, but even this level is still below that sought by the communities. Careful planning, targeting, consultation and collaboration between Government and non-Government sectors is necessary to minimise the perennial problem of funding shortfalls. Obviously, if a Government’s resources are to be used with maximum effectiveness, there needs to be a very strong emphasis on needs-based planning. We have tried to ensure that the department’s financial and human resources are focussed on areas of the State where few services presently exist, where existing church and community services are not viable, or where communities are highly disadvantaged on a comparative basis. Many rural areas fit this criteria and will benefit from this approach. Unfortunately, a number of community groups and organisations have yet to grasp that access to funds is no longer a matter of political pressure or sophisticated submissions but is subject to the real needs of local communities in Queensland. The focus of our 1991-92 Budget initiatives is, appropriately, Queensland families. The Government’s commitment to families will continue throughout the year with a $4.5m family package of initiatives which will enable community organisations to provide a range Legislative Assembly 2466 31 October 1991 of services in city, rural and remote areas. The package will increase the potential of established church and community organisations to provide services by assisting them with the costs of effective operation. Services will include family support, counselling and care for abused children. Families where breakdown is threatened or has occurred, and families for whom there are a lack of existing services and helping networks, will be targeted. Under the package, there will also be enhanced services aimed at reducing domestic violence and minimising its aftermath. This is against the background of the first 22 months of the operation of the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act, under which a total of 7 624 protection orders were sought. Some 3 593 interim protection orders were granted and 5 373 protection orders were made by the courts. An increased recurrent allocation of $850,000 for a full year will go to the domestic violence initiatives program, bringing our total commitment to $1.3m on a full year basis. Additional funds have been allocated under the package for the establishment of a 24-hour domestic violence telephone counselling and advisory service. Funds will be directed to regional domestic violence services providing information to women escaping domestic violence and to the community, as well as to advocacy services, individual and group counselling for both victims and perpetrators, and crisis intervention. The package directs new funds of $883,000 for a full year to alternative care and intervention services for abused children whose own families are unable to provide adequate care. This includes funds for community groups to recruit and train foster-parents. This will also include funds to encourage and assist existing services to adjust their arrangements to local needs, and will enable them to attract and retain staff. An increased recurrent allocation of $1.24m for a full year has been allocated under the package to the newly established family and individual support program. This program consolidates seven previously separate funding programs—the Family Support Program, the Family Welfare Community Development Worker Program, the Neighbourhood Centre Program, the Budget Counselling Program and the Volunteers Training Program, the Subsidy for Social Workers Scheme, and Grants to Community Organisations. This establishes a total commitment to the family and individual support program at $5.7m over the whole year. As a result of the increased funding, the department will engage in regional planning, in consultation with the community sector, to develop family and community centres, building on existing services. Services funded under the program will encompass direct services to individuals and families, including counselling and home support services; assistance in developing and integrating community services and developing informal support and self- help groups; and the provision of information and community education. Outside the family package, the Government is maintaining its commitment to strengthening the social viability and safety of Queensland communities. In the area of child abuse prevention, there will be an expansion of personal safety education training, the development of new child abuse prevention resources, and recurrent funds to assist five community organisations distribute information about child abuse and its prevention. In the area of supported accommodation, the Government has maintained its commitment for financial resources to be made available to respond to the very real needs of homeless people. The Government has met its commitment to matching available Commonwealth growth funds under the joint Commonwealth/State Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Some $1.5m of growth funds will be provided in 1991-92 to fund new services under this scheme. In relation to child-care—the Government is continuing to honour its pre-election commitment to provide an additional 6 000 child-care places in its first term. $13.4m is budgeted for child-care expenditure in 1991-92. The Government has given high priority in its 1991-92 Budget to improving the number, range, quality and appropriateness of child-care services in Queensland. Among a range of initiatives, funds will allow for the Legislative Assembly 2467 31 October 1991 construction of 10 new long-day care centres and occasional care centres, and 40 existing centres will be renovated. In mostly smaller, rural areas throughout the State, 240 limited-hours occasional care places will be established, and there will also be an expansion of vacation care and outside school hours care programs. New services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families will be established in far-north Queensland. An Office of Child Care has been established in my department to monitor, coordinate and assist child-care services in Queensland. One of its important functions will be to advise the Government on future directions for child-care in Queensland. A ministerial advisory committee on child- care has been established and includes representatives throughout the child-care industry. It is a diverse and dynamic group which will ensure that all the issues, from the grassroots, are addressed by the Government. On 4 September this year, the Child Care Bill was introduced into the House. Passage of this Bill will enable the Government to ensure the provision of adequate standards of child-care for all Queensland families. The State has played an enhanced role in the whole child-care area since the election of this Government, assuming a responsibility left derelict by previous administrations. As I have said elsewhere, it is one thing to engage in rhetoric about the importance of the family and of children as our greatest resource, but quite another to back that up with real initiatives for real families. Real families need support, and quality, accessible child-care is one of the bread-and-butter needs in the nineties and beyond. In the area of ageing—the Government has maintained and enhanced its commitment to Queensland seniors through the Seniors Card and an enhanced range of discounts and subsidies available through it. Since this initiative was introduced on 1 December 1990, some 226 000 Seniors Cards have been issued. A concessions directory has also been launched to provide information to Queensland seniors on a range of discounts from Government and business available to them as holders of the Seniors Card. The current limit of $160 per annum for pensioner rate subsidies will be increased to $180 per annum with effect from the first billing period after 1 January 1992. The Seniors Card recognises the uphill battle that many older people face in making ends meet. By offering concessions on everyday but vital goods and services, it seeks to make life a little easier for senior citizens. The Office of Disability has been actively consulting with community groups concerned and involved with the provision of support to people with disabilities, their families and other carers. New State disability legislation has been proposed and negotiations are continuing with the Commonwealth to transfer funding for community groups to my department. I turn now to the Intellectual Disability Services Program, which provides a range of professional services to a target population which includes people of all ages with various levels of intellectual disability. Generally, they require high levels of support and a complex array of specialised services, including assessment, therapy and training, counselling and support and accommodation services. The present year will be one of consolidation, with particular emphasis on the provision of individualised services for clients. This includes a review of personal accommodation needs for those people residing in the disabled persons ward at the Maryborough Base Hospital, and for children and adolescents living at the Sandgate Centre, to assist in relocating these people in various community accommodation settings. Similarly, the long-term accommodation services for children throughout the division will continue to be reviewed to consider whether other sorts of accommodation more suited to their ages might be provided or obtained. More flexible options in respite care are Legislative Assembly 2468 31 October 1991 also being developed, including in-house support and out-of-home stays with other families. Cooperation will continue with the Department of Housing and Local Government as well as with non- Government service-providers who have been funded by that department to provide accommodation services with ongoing support. Two new houses provided directly by the division will be opened in Ipswich. These custom-designed houses will meet the particular needs of people with profound multiple disabilities, allowing them to move into homes in an ordinary neighbourhood setting while continuing to receive the high levels of support that they need. A similar accommodation option will be provided for people from the Sandgate Centre. I turn now to protective services, where undoubtedly heightened community and professional awareness has contributed to a steady increase in the number of child protection notifications coming to the attention of my department. In 1990-91, there were 7 181 notifications involving 11 390 children. Abuse or neglect was substantiated in 31 per cent of these cases. A further breakdown of the substantiated cases of child abuse reveals that physical abuse accounted for 30 per cent; sexual abuse, 22 per cent; emotional abuse, 15 per cent; and neglect, 32 per cent. In the 1990-91 financial year, the department’s sexual abuse counselling support services provided therapeutic services to 62 families affected by sexual abuse out of a total of 98 referrals. Currently, 1 590 children in the care of the department are placed with 1 000 foster families. The present system of payments for foster care is based on a contribution towards the costs incurred in caring for a child rather than on any concept of full reimbursement or remuneration. Increases made this financial year include $20 a week in the allowance paid to foster-parents caring for young people 12 years and over. This will assist 503 foster families caring for 644 children. This brings Queensland up to par with the national average allowance for this age group, and will assist foster-parents in meeting those exceptional costs of caring for adolescents, of which we are all aware. There has also been an increase in the payment of placement grants, payable at times such as the start of primary school, secondary school or further studies. In addition to this increased direct financial support, negotiations between the department and relevant State and Federal Government departments have commenced to overcome economic barriers to the maintenance of children or youths in foster care. Negotiations have been held with Queensland ambulance services to provide ambulance cover for all children in State protective care, and with the Commonwealth Department of Social Security to amend existing legislation to enable children in care to automatically qualify for entitlement to a health benefits card. It is timely and appropriate that I take this opportunity to put on record the debt of gratitude we owe these special families who have taken on the none-too-visible job of caring for children, many of whom have been severely abused or neglected. A warm family environment is something that many of us take for granted. These foster-parents have made room in their own families for a child, or sometimes two children, who would otherwise grow up without the familiar bonds of a stable family. They deserve our thanks and our support. In the adoptions area—on 1 June this year, new legislation was implemented to allow birth parents and adopted persons over 18 to receive identifying information about adoptions made under Queensland law. Provision was made for either party to object to contact and to the disclosure of identifying information. Where no objection has been lodged, people affected by adoption have been able to receive identifying information about their birth relatives. Trends for general adoption indicate that there are still far more applicants wanting to adopt than there are children available for adoption. In the 1990-91 financial year, there was a slight decline in the numbers of infants placed for adoption. Legislative Assembly 2469 31 October 1991

During the year, 210 adoption orders were made, 115 of which were for non-relative children. I turn now to juvenile justice. There has been ongoing debate about the incidence of juvenile crime and about appropriate ways of dealing with it. During 1990-91, 4 048 children appeared in the Children’s Court in Queensland—an increase of 10 per cent. Appearances for offences involved a total of 14 615 charges—nine per cent more than the previous year. Fifty-nine per cent of these appearances were for theft and breaking and entering offences. The department has placed a renewed emphasis on juvenile justice issues, focussing on proposals for new legislation. Discussions and consultations with other relevant Government departments and a range of legal and non-Government organisations are continuing. Restructuring has also affected the Bureau of Ethnic Affairs, which is now a compact unit providing policy advice across different Government organisations. It is widely consulted, and liaises with a broad range of community groups and organisations. To implement its objectives, the bureau has undertaken initiatives such as a series of community forums, the establishment of a multicultural resource centre, and an outreach program to improve community relations. Cross-cultural awareness training is offered by bureau officers as a precursor to access and equity strategies in Queensland Government departments. During the financial year, the bureau was also called upon to deal with a number of community concerns, including the establishment of a special hot line during the Gulf war for people experiencing harassment or discrimination; assistance to the local Kurdish community; and convening a series of meetings with representatives from all local Yugoslavian groups, at which all agreed publicly not to allow the Yugoslavian problem to transfer to Queensland. In the past financial year, 23 ethnic community groups received community assistance grants totalling $42,000. As to Aboriginal and Islander affairs—this year’s Budget continues to reflect a change of emphasis in services being provided by other specialist agencies, rather than by my department. Services will continue to be provided by those agencies best equipped to deliver them. In this context, we have already seen the responsibility for health in Aboriginal communities transferred to Queensland Health. This year’s Budget sees the transfer of electricity generation to the Queensland Electricity Commission. As a result of these decisions, the amount allocated specifically to the Division of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is reduced, but the service delivered to the consumer will be improved through the increased allocation in the budgets of other departments for activities related to Aboriginal and Islander people. In my own department, there is an increase in the amounts allocated to the Community Services Development Program specifically for Aboriginal and Islander services. The Budget contains a significant increase in the amount of money allocated for the provision of infrastructure for projects including the Mornington Island water supply, the Doomadgee weir, and the commencement of a jetty or similar berthing facility at Seisia on the tip of Cape York. Funding levels for Aboriginal and Islander councils throughout the State are maintained. These funding levels will be supported by an increased emphasis on training. During the course of this financial year, the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 will require significant expenditure by my department. These Acts allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to lay claim to a number of areas throughout Queensland. The successful pursuit of these claims will lead to further requirements for Government expenditure in terms of service delivery and infrastructure. Both the Aboriginal Coordinating Council and the Island Coordinating Council will continue to receive support in this Budget. Legislative Assembly 2470 31 October 1991

There have been several important reports which the Government has been addressing. The legislation review committee has provided a comprehensive discussion paper as a prelude to the completion of its final report, which will make a series of recommendations on changes to the legislation. This report is consistent with the work of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee in that it recommends that Aboriginal and Islander communities be given the opportunity to develop the sorts of structures that accurately reflect the cultural values of the society in which they live. The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee provided a comprehensive report that addressed the problems that were caused by difficulties in the financial administration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and which manifested themselves through the regular production of adverse audit reports. The committee pointed out—and I agree—that until there are substantial changes made to the governing structures of these communities, there will be little, if any, improvement in the quality of audit reports emanating from the Auditor-General. The Public Works Committee has produced a detailed report on Aboriginal and Islander housing which will provide the basis for the development of a strategic plan for the delivery of Aboriginal and Islander housing in the future. Because of changes made in the approval process under the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement, this year it will be possible to construct a larger number of houses than was the case previously. The election in December 1989 of Queensland’s first Labor Government in 32 years meant that Queenslanders have begun at last to enjoy equality of opportunity through the social justice policies implemented by this Government. This is apparent across all portfolios, but is particularly visible in mine, where people and areas long neglected have begun at last to see redress. Regardless of their personal, social or economic circumstances, all Queenslanders can now benefit from a fairer distribution of resources and access to services. Our first Budget last year began that process. This Budget consolidates it. My department, through the programs and policies that I have just outlined, will continue to deliver that redress. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Fund and Trust and Special Funds). Mr SLACK (Burnett) (11.24 a.m.): As was outlined by the Treasurer in the presentation of the State Budget on 5 September, the allocation for Family Services, Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and ethnics has been increased over and above the rate of inflation. Let me point out that this is only to be expected at a time when so much pressure is being placed on people within our communities. Families, whether they be of Aboriginal background, ethnic background or whatever, are experiencing very tough and trying times. Our Federal Treasurer admitted recently that Australia is experiencing the worst recession in 60 years. It must be bad when he actually admits it. I do not have to remind members of the effects of the drought, which, in many parts of the State, is the worst ever recorded. Needless to say, the drought is subjecting many country people to horrific strain, both from financial pressures and from the sheer mental anguish of seeing both stock and crops die. Members are also aware that for many years commodity prices have been below the cost of production, so the people to whom I refer have no reserves to cope with the added burden of drought. The effects of the drought will impact everywhere—on small businesses, large business, people’s jobs and, of course, those people who provide welfare services within our community. Queensland has fared marginally better in the unemployment stakes, but, for those out of work, the figure is still far too high at 9.8 per cent. The frightening part about it is that there is little prospect of any improvement. Latest estimates indicate that the level of unemployment will exceed 11 per cent. School- leavers will come onto the job Legislative Assembly 2471 31 October 1991 market at the end of the year in a climate in which businesses both large and small, farmers and other people are still going broke. Fourth-generation and fifth-generation farmers and businesses are failing. Obviously, something is radically wrong within our system when I go out in my electorate and see the lifelessness and hopelessness that is expressed in people’s eyes. The main responsibility lies with the Commonwealth, as economic policy and the control of taxes and expenditure are very much the prerogative of the Commonwealth, but the State obviously has a responsibility to help where it can. It does have a part to play in setting the ground rules to engender prosperity within the State. It has always been a very strong contention of mine that economic development and/or the maintenance of a prosperous economy are needed to maintain community and welfare services. Indeed, individual and family welfare are then basically provided for without the need to turn to the State for support in most cases—a factor that seems to go over the heads of many within the Labor Party. I turn to the Budget allocations for Family Services and look to where, in these desperate times, the extra money is being allocated. According to my calculation, the allocation for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has increased by 38 per cent, made up mainly of capital expenditure on housing. Community services development saw an increase of 32.6 per cent, while ethnic affairs did not receive any increase, nor did protective services and juvenile justice, when the incidence of juveniles involved in crime is increasing at an alarming rate. Considerable prominence was given in that Budget to the $13.4m allocated to child-care, but no encouragement is given by society to mothers to remain at home to mother their child for at least the first 12 months of that child’s life. Added benefits in the form of rate relief have been provided for the holders of a Seniors Card, but nothing has been done to address the problems faced by many of our senior citizens who are struggling and, because of the harshness of the means test, are not eligible for the Seniors Card. Many of the benefits provided for under the Seniors Card are already available to pensioners, and the people who would really benefit from them are missing out. I do not deny for one moment the availability of the card to pensioners, but many people in that age bracket—between 65 and 70—have saved for all of their lives, have moderate income and would definitely benefit from being able to obtain a Seniors Card, yet because of the means testing they are ineligible to obtain one. Having looked at where the extra money is being allocated, it would now be appropriate to consider what has happened within the sphere of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs over the past year. Apart from the ongoing commitment to increase expenditure on child-care, Aborigines and Islanders and the proposed changes in most aspects covered by the Minister’s department, much has been happening between the State and the Commonwealth with respect to disability services, to which the Minister referred during question-time and, of course, during her speech on the Estimates. In accepting responsibility for the provision of services for disabled people, it is important that members of the Committee are aware of the volume of concern now being voiced Australiawide about Federal implementation of the Disability Services Act. After all, we as members will have to deal with the concern at electorate level. It should be permanently recorded that the following matters were raised in this Chamber— Will the State Government have specific guidelines for the various disabilities, or will we make the same mistakes as the Federal Government and leave it all up to bureaucratic interpretation? Are the Minister and Cabinet aware of the findings in May 1990 of the Senate standing committee on accommodation for persons with a disability? I refer particularly to both clause 1.11 on page 11 where it was acknowledged that the “extent of the problem in unmet need for supported accommodation was unknown” Legislative Assembly 2472 31 October 1991

and to paragraph (a) on page 76, where it is stated that the “degree of intellectual disability is not necessarily an issue”. It would seem logical that the degree determines the level of support required, and the level of support of dollars required. How do we know we have enough money if we do not know the need? In the Sun on 20 January 1991, the Minister herself acknowledged, “We know there are not enough (facilities), but more facilities cost money.” Is the Committee aware that psychiatric disability has not had a high priority for funding at Federal level under the Disability Services Act? In fact, according to Hansard C51, Estimates Committee C 14 May 90, it had received no funding under the Act up till May 1990. Is the Committee aware of the alarming rate at which waiting lists for services are growing? Do members realise the repercussions within our education system and on our disabled youth of the Federal dictate, which becomes law in November, to increase the invalid pension eligibility age from 16 years to 20 years? Unless the Government addresses these problems, the passing of the buck for inadequate and inappropriate services must now end with this Government in this Chamber and at this time. As honourable members are no doubt aware, as Opposition spokesperson many complaints and concerns are brought to my attention. Some of them are no doubt unfair and not substantiated, but there is a well-documented series of genuine grievances. Many relate to the inefficiency, low morale and general uncertainty that pervades the department. Claims have been made in relation to cronyism and/or political vendettas within the department. People are still employed on temporary appointments and changes have meant a lack of cohesion and direction. I have even heard the claim made by officers of Family Services that all the Minister is interested in is Aboriginal and Islander matters. Many prominent Aboriginal and Islander representatives complain that, although the Minister was a supporter of their cause when in Opposition, she has now deserted them. They cannot get to see her and they feel that she is listening to people who do not represent the general feeling of Aborigines and Islanders. A Government member interjected. Mr SLACK: These are the complaints that I am receiving. To me, the saddest thing is the refusal on the part of this Government to provide adequate supplementary funding to independent, community-based self-help welfare organisations. Obviously, a pattern is emerging that it is the aim of this Government to have welfare and support organisations Government controlled and operated. The Government is not comfortable with privately sponsored welfare. It is philosophically opposed to organisations such as the Abused Child Trust and is determined to eliminate those types of organisations by refusing to provide supplementary funds during their time of need. I have mentioned the Abused Child Trust, whose treatment by the Premier and the Government was absolutely disgraceful. Many other organisations, such as Lifeline, St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army and church organisations have had their pleas for funding fall on deaf ears, while the Minister has funded such things as Government operated and controlled child-care. A classic example of the starvation of funds—and this is an absolute scandal—is the situation pertaining to the Queensland Talking Book Library for the Blind. Honourable members must allow me to outline what has happened to date with the Talking Book Library. For the benefit of honourable members—the Talking Book Library for the Blind was set up over 40 years ago. Money donated by blind people and their supporters was invested in a trust, the interest from which was to be used to enable tapes of novels to be sent by mail to blind people throughout the State. The whole concept has been very Legislative Assembly 2473 31 October 1991 successful. Some 990 blind people from centres as diverse as Longreach and Karumba are gaining pleasure from the taped novels that they receive through the post. In the past, whenever there was a shortfall between the interest from the trust and the operating expenses of the library, the National Party Government of the day made up the difference. But what happened when this compassionate Labor Government took office? In the last two years, except for the employment of one person who has been with the library for 40 years, not a cent has been provided. Therefore, valuable trust capital is being used to cover operating expenses, so much so that, unless augmentative funding is provided, the trust money will soon be used. The Minister has sent out letters to constituents who have complained and asked what the future of the library will be but not once has the Minister considered the trust money that is being used to fund the library, which is depleting at a rapid rate. What will happen to all those blind people who depended on receiving their regular novel when the money runs out? If nothing is done, the dedicated service and commitment of present staff and volunteers will no doubt go by the board. Despite repeated requests, representations and appeals, nothing has happened to alleviate the desperate situation of the library, which has been forced to make major cut-backs. However, honourable members will be pleased to know that the Minister's department has recently made some moves to indicate that it is addressing the problem of funding. This is happening after two years, when a significant amount of the trust fund has been used. Ms Warner interjected. Mr SLACK: More than $400,000 in trust money was held, and when the National Party was in Government, the interest on that money was used to fund that library. If it was not enough, the National Party Government topped up the difference. This Minister has failed to do that, and it has been two years. The Minister cannot use the excuse that she was unaware of the problem. She was obviously aware of it and has refused to do anything about it. Shame on the Minister for allowing that service to fall by the wayside. It has a tremendous potential to help blind people. There are up to 17 000 potential members of that library throughout the State. The funding should be increased, not discontinued, which is effectively what the Minister has done. Another area where there have been funding cut-backs is the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland which is, as the Minister is well aware, a very worthwhile supportive organisation for the ethnic communities within this State. A press release by the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, from its annual general meeting held on 16 October 1991, states— “This is the first year that we have not received one cent of assistance from the State Government towards the running of the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, in total disregard of the fact that we are deluged with requests to serve on committees, provide detailed submissions to various review bodies and to administer a number of projects. In the light of the current attacks on the philosophy of immigration and multiculturalism, the Government may feel comfortable with this position but the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland represents 18% of the Queensland population and our willingness and ability to advise and counsel Government should not be undervalued. The policy of starving the Bureau of Ethnic Affairs of funds is extremely shortsighted and ignores the benefits to be gained in economic efficiency when all people from a non-English speaking background are able to fully contribute to the economic well being of this State.” I point out to the Minister that these are not my words, but the words of people who live in the communities. They need supporting, not disregarding. Legislative Assembly 2474 31 October 1991

A very disturbing aspect of all the complaints I get is the reluctance on the part of those affected adversely by Government actions to come forward because of fears of recriminations. The fear is very real that, if they are seen talking to me or the department becomes aware that they have talked to members of the Opposition, their job prospects will suffer. For a Government that prided itself on whistle-blowers’ legislation and accused members of the National Party of political discriminations when we were in office, all I can say is that we were amateurs by comparison with it. However, I will say that the Minister, her office and her department have always been courteous and helpful whenever I have had cause to seek information, assistance or relay a complaint. There is also no doubt that, while conditions are as bad as they are, this places additional strain on the Minister and her officers, but it does generally concern me that so much of this budget and the previous budget’s allocation is going into reorganising the Minister’s department rather than getting through to the people who need it most. With the increased involvement of Government in so many areas, such as child-care and welfare, we will see the emergence of the bureaucracy of the Family Services Department. As with other departments, no doubt the PSMC will create further unhappiness and contribute to ongoing low morale. I would have thought that it would have been more prudent for those in charge of the department to have waited until the PSMC had completed its investigation and furnished its report before any major restructuring took place, as further disruption must occur as a result of its investigations. The creation of the five regions within the State has not been without criticism, as it is considered by many that the regions are far too large. I turn now to Aboriginal and Islander Affairs—an area which 12 months ago I was accused of neglecting in my Estimates speech. There is no doubt that this Government has committed a considerably increased sum of money to this area of its Budget. The Opposition has never argued that Aboriginal and Islander communities are not entitled to education, health, housing and job opportunities, similar to those enjoyed by other communities. The Opposition also recognises that Aboriginal and Islander people have special problems that need to be addressed. If an argument arises, it is not related to the need but, rather, to the method. It is also fair to say that, as Aboriginal and Islander people become more aware and better educated in the ways of the white man, as they say, these demands will increase. Too often in the past, however, money has been provided without accountability. I am pleased to say that, through the establishment of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works and the strong stand being taken by the Auditor-General, the requirement for accountability is being brought home as the increasing demands for responsibility of running the communities are being met by the Government. However, I see an ongoing problem in respect of the approach to providing benefits for those Aboriginal and Islander people who reside within an Aboriginal or Islander community, and in respect of providing benefits to those people of Aboriginal and Islander descent who reside within the community at large. While health, housing and jobs are vitally important, of paramount importance, to my mind, is education in language and form that Aboriginal and Islander people relate to. In many instances, it is not because the health, housing and job opportunities do not exist; rather, it is a case of the lack of understanding or knowledge—call it what you will, Mr Chairman—on the part of Aboriginal people, in particular, who do not know how to avail themselves of resources that are available to them or the consequences of not availing themselves of what is provided for them. This is the major problem. Having said that, I should also recognise that many Aboriginal people are not prepared to accept their responsibilities and demand extra purely on the grounds that they are Aboriginal. Too many hide behind their being of Aboriginal descent and, if there are attempts to bring them to account, claims of racism are made. People are often condemned for talking about the nastier side of life within the communities. Unfortunately, that side has to be recognised and addressed. I receive too many complaints of rent not Legislative Assembly 2475 31 October 1991 being paid, tradesmen and builders not being paid, alcoholism, thieving and vandalism, for that aspect of social behaviour to be ignored and swept under the carpet by the Government. I instance, for example, claims for payment for building construction at Woorabinda not being met; juvenile justice for Aboriginal children being hard to enforce by police because of protection rules and regulations; problems with tendering at Pormpurraaw—and the list goes on. I would hope that the Minister has had these matters investigated. Education that is geared towards university, TAFE colleges and what we do in our communities is not relative to many Aboriginal communities. There is no doubt that there needs to be a different approach in this regard, and it just shows a complete lack of appreciation or understanding on the part of the Premier when he berates a community for children not attending school and threatens to withdraw the teachers from the school unless the children attend. This is a simple answer that may appeal to some people, but it demonstrates the Premier’s real lack of understanding of, or compassion for, the problems of the Aboriginal people. While I am talking about Aboriginal and Islander people, let me also say that members of the Opposition are all aware that some sections of the Labor Party are very much attuned to land rights for Aboriginal and Islander people. We are also very much aware—as are Aboriginal and Islander people—that this Government perpetrated a very cruel hoax on Aboriginal and Islander people when it promised land rights and built up undue expectations over that promise, when the realists among members of the Government knew that they could not, and would not, deliver. As I said in the debate on the Land Act amendment, the provision to give title through claim to land within communities to absentee descendants of Aborigines would cause all sorts of problems. It is pleasing to see the Government address this in legislation before the House. Along with the recent community council elections, many changes are taking place. There appears to be emerging a determination on the part of many Aboriginal and Islander officials to clean up their communities by dealing with the unruly and disruptive elements within the communities. Coincidentally, it appears to be the women who are accepting an increasing responsibility in this role. Only recently, I was visited by members of the Minister’s legislation review committee, who were proposing increasing autonomy for Aboriginal and Islander people within their communities. Obviously, as I pointed out to them, there would be some adverse reaction if that autonomy went outside the bounds of what is available to a local authority serving the community at large. I am pleased to say that the committee was very conscious of that fact. I would like to pay a tribute to the many Aboriginal and Islander people who work tirelessly for the betterment of their people. They have a genuine desire to see the realisation of racial equality. Then there are also those who do not help the cause through their outspoken, radical approach—well-intentioned as some of them may be. Much good work is being done by those who have jobs within the system because, by their very presence, they provide an inspiration and basis for self-esteem for many others of their race. As was acknowledged by the justice committee, the proportion of inmates in correctional centres who are Aboriginal and Islander people is far too high, and the Opposition supports the Corrective Services Commission in its endeavours to at least halve that percentage. Last year, much was said about the increase in the allocation—$216m to $233m—to the Department of Family Services, Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. On balance, taking into consideration inflation and the money spent on reorganising the department, there would have been no more money available to those in need than when the National Party was in Government and, in many cases, as I outlined, less money. Unfortunately, by its Legislative Assembly 2476 31 October 1991 approach, this Government is losing many of its voluntary contributors, which must also be costed into the equation. Regrettably, when local input falls away as voluntary positions are taken over by professionals, people tend to lose their feeling of having a meaningful input. In that regard, I am not referring only to the Department of Family Services. I am not singling out that department in any special way in this instance. This applies across the board. I cite the example of hospitals boards, and their abolition, and the fire services and ambulance committees. Those committees have not been completely abolished, but there has been a drawing away of their power within the system that they operated under previously. The whole community attitude subtly changes. This could be best described by the term that I heard used the other day when somebody referred to the hospital in my area as “the” hospital, when it was previously referred to as “our” hospital. This is something of which the Minister has to be very aware. People start to drift away. Consequently, when the supporters of this Government make a comparison between its performance in the Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs area and that of the former National Party Government, all aspects should be considered. The National Party did not have the problems that this Government has because the economy was in much better shape. That cannot be denied. Press releases are being issued everywhere revealing that people are experiencing major problems because of the economic conditions. The National Party had a much more contented and effective public service—and the Minister cannot deny that the public service is very unhappy at the moment—and Queenslanders got better value for money. As the Minister is well aware, one can give two people the same amount of money and get two completely different results from the expenditure of that money. The need for assurances of continuity of ongoing funding is of paramount importance to many organisations. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the detrimental effect on the cost-effectiveness and the overall efficiency of programs when funds are allocated on an annual application basis. Without the assurance of future funding, undue strain is placed on Treasurers, employees and those within the community who benefit from many much-needed programs. I am pleased to see that the Minister is nodding and is accepting that point. This Government is seeing that situation recurring. I am not saying that it did not happen in the National Party’s time in Government; it did. However, that is something that needs to be addressed, and there is an increasing need to provide funds on an ongoing basis. I would like to emphasise the Opposition’s complete belief in the need for the support of the family unit as the basis of our society. It is the Opposition’s belief that initiatives that are undertaken by any Government should always be considered in relation to what effect they will have on the families within our society and, if it is not a positive effect, then they should not proceed. However, if measures are necessary to help families through hard times, whether they be emotional or economic, then the State has a responsibility, either directly or indirectly, to assist, without in any way interfering in what should be the rights and responsibility of the family itself. Finally, I would like to address one other aspect that the Minister referred to in her Estimates, and that is the area of foster care. I have received several complaints in relation to foster care. There is no doubt in my mind that a complete review needs to be undertaken of what is happening within that area. I have received complaints about children who are under the care of foster-parents not being adequately controlled. I have not received just one complaint; I have received several complaints about that problem. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need for a close look by the Minister and her department into what appear to be problems that are emerging in the area of foster care. I am relaying to the Minister the complaints that I have received. I have not verified those complaints. I am not in a position to investigate those complaints to the extent that they Legislative Assembly 2477 31 October 1991 need to be investigated. By the same token, the people within the department and community workers have relayed to me a similar feeling about what is happening in the area of foster care. Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (11.51 a.m.): At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Minister on the way she has handled her very difficult department over the last 12 months. I would also like to congratulate the department itself—its administrators, its policy-makers, and especially its service- providers—because there is no doubt that the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has an enormous and very difficult workload. I do not think that the department ever deals with any easy issues. On Tuesday, in the Estimates debate on Administrative Services, honourable members heard a number of speakers refer to that department as the “Department of Good News”. Probably all members look upon the department in that way because it is the engine room of the Government. It is the department that builds schools and other buildings. It leaves a tangible record of its achievements for both the members of this Parliament and their constituents to see. The Department of Family Services, in contrast to the Department of Administrative Services, deals with the difficult issues, such as individuals in crisis, families in crisis, and people in trouble generally. It is this bread-and-butter work of the department that largely goes unrecognised by the community. If the Department of Administrative Services is the engine room of the Government, the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is very much the heart of the Government. I would like to address some of the bread-and-butter issues. I was disappointed in the address that honourable members have just heard from the shadow Minister who, I feel, failed to mention the major bread-and-butter issues, such as child abuse, domestic violence, and the difficult issues that comprise a large part of the workload of the department. I would like to talk about the issue of child protection. This issue, of course, comes under the protective services program. A very large part of that program is involved with the issue of child abuse. In 1990-91, 7 181 notifications of suspected child abuse and/or neglect were received. I might add that I am referring to the annual report of the department. That is an increase of 3.7 per cent over the numbers in the previous year. The notifications involved 11 390 cases and 9 438 children. Abuse or neglect was substantiated in 31 per cent of those cases, and while the number of notifications increased during the year, the number of substantiated cases of abuse or neglect decreased by 6 per cent from the record high in 1989-90. Obviously, those figures reveal the enormous workload of the department in this very difficult area. Each case involving those 9 438 children presents a very difficult problem for officers of the department in terms of assessing and substantiating the case, and in terms of management. It requires tact and understanding, sensitivity, the wisdom of Solomon and also, I might add, courage to deal with children and parents in these situations. It is good news that the number of substantiated cases in the last year has fallen, but the workload nonetheless continues. As the Minister mentioned, if one looks at the break-down of those 3 500 substantiated cases, one sees that 1 080 were of physical abuse, 532 of emotional abuse and 758 of sexual abuse, and cases of neglect numbered 1 130. The department continues its very difficult work in this area, and obviously, as a result, a substantial number of children are placed under the care and protection of the director-general. This is obviously necessary in many instances to ensure that those children do not suffer further abuse and that they are given the care and the love needed to recover and to go on to lead meaningful lives thereafter. The annual report shows that during the year there were 2 659 children under care and protection orders. If we look at the type of care provided to those children, we note that 40.8 per cent of them under care Legislative Assembly 2478 31 October 1991 and protection orders are still in home placement. That is an important point to note. I think it represents an achievement for the department in that it shows that when children are placed under the care and protection of the director-general, the aim still is to solve the problem within that family which caused the abuse or neglect, and get the children back into their homes with ongoing review and follow-up by the department. That is happening in 40.8 per cent of the cases. In 38.2 per cent of cases, children are placed in foster care. The Minister and the shadow Minister have mentioned in different ways the importance of foster care. It obviously remains a vital matter in the care of children under care and protection orders. It is in this area in particular that a lot of work has been done in this Budget to enhance the role of foster-parents and foster care. First of all, the high priority to recruit good foster-parents has been recognised, and to do this an internationally recognised recruitment and selection program for foster-parents is being implemented. There has been the purchase for each area office of The Challenge of Foster Care, a respected training package from the UK, to assist in developing and implementing standards for the recruitment, selection and training of, and support for, care-providers across the State. There are a number of initiatives in this Budget to make it easier for people to be involved in foster care and to remove the financial disincentives. There is an increased allocation of $795,000 to assist with the costs of caring for children in State protective care. There is an increase in the rate of foster allowance by $20 per week for young people 12 years of age and over, which will assist 503 foster-families caring for 644 children. There is an increase in the payment of placement grants when children start primary or secondary school, or continue studies after completing Year 10. This initiative will assist 743 children. There is an increase in the rate of foster allowance for all children by 3.5 per cent in accordance with the consumer price index. This increase will assist 1 560 children and a thousand foster-parents. The purpose of these increases is to remove some of the financial disincentives to being foster- parents, and also to make sure that we have the right people available who are interested in providing care for these children. In this important area of protective services, it is worth noting that this year there will be the release of a discussion paper on child protection and alternative care, and that will canvass the issues on this very sensitive topic. Usually, the only time these issues ever achieve prominence in the newspapers is after, perhaps, a particularly chilling episode of child abuse when the court case is reported or where there is a dispute between parents and the department over the action being taken by a department. As I said before, it is a very difficult issue. Courage, and also the wisdom of Solomon, are needed. I think it is good that at an appropriate time, all the issues associated with this question are going to be discussed fully by the community, and reviewed. I turn now to the matter of domestic violence, which is, of course, not a new problem. It was recognised by the former Government when it introduced the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act in 1989. The annual report of the department shows the great progress that is being made in this very difficult area. In the last year, there were 4 667 applications under that Act for protection orders, and that was a marked increase from 2 957. Protection orders were granted in 3 356 cases—an increase from 2 017. It is important to note that the applications for protection orders were lodged by the aggrieved person in 57 per cent of cases, compared with 42 per cent in the previous year. As well, applications by police have shown a corresponding decrease, with 41 per cent of applications last year, which was down from 56 per cent the year before. Those figures show clearly that the very difficult hidden problem of domestic violence is being recognised and being brought out into the open and that, obviously, many of the initiatives provided by the department are having success in that area. In the past year, many initiatives have been introduced in regard to dealing with domestic violence. Awareness Legislative Assembly 2479 31 October 1991 campaigns that are aimed at providing a greater understanding of domestic violence by the general community have been conducted. National and Statewide advertising campaigns have been conducted, as well as the publication of information kits, video and training manuals, information brochures, information for medical practitioners, and brochures for both victims and perpetrators in 11 different languages. The Domestic Violence Unit provides policy advice and administers the Domestic Violence Initiatives Program under the secretariat of the Queensland Domestic Violence Council. In 1991-92, recurrent funds of $1.3m have been made available under the Domestic Violence Initiatives Program. In addition, further funds of $365,000 have been made available for the establishment of a 24-hour telephone counselling and information service. Again, that initiative shows that the department is interested in helping people in rural areas with those problems. The purpose of the program is to assist women experiencing domestic violence to establish a safe, non-violent domestic environment for themselves and their children. The program will seek to achieve that outcome by providing financial support to church and community organisations at a regional level. It will fund programs that will provide information to clients and the community regarding domestic violence, advisory services for individuals, service coordination strategies, individual and group counselling for both victims and perpetrators, and crisis intervention. That whole range of initiatives, especially the increased funding for the 24-hour hot line, will go a long way towards further increasing the awareness throughout the community of the services available to both the women involved—the victims—and the perpetrators of domestic violence. Hopefully, the progress that we are making in solving this community problem—the annual report reveals that it is more widely recognised and more in the open—will continue. Obviously, it is a very deep-seated problem requiring a fundamental change in attitudes for a total solution. However, as the community becomes more aware of it and accepts that it is a problem that needs fixing, the situation will improve automatically. I turn to a few of the organisations in Toowoomba that provide a wide range of services with the help of the Department of Family Services. I mention the work of the Toowoomba and District Youth Service, which receives substantial funding from the department. That organisation, run by Kevin Saide, provides a wide range of services to young homeless people, including emergency accommodation for young people in crisis, and short to medium term accommodation to assist people while it helps them to find a job and get back on their feet. It also provides a range of counselling services, works with at- risk families to try to prevent young people in crisis becoming homeless, and even reunites young people with their families. I commend also the work of Fatima Home, which provides residential care for a number of children under care and protection orders. Again, that institution is heavily funded by the department. I congratulate the Minister on managing to increase its budget this year. That organisation tends to deal with the very complex problems of emotionally upset young people, which are not easily fixed and which are very labour-intensive and very difficult to solve. As well, I mention The Haven, which is another organisation that provides assistance to young people. Although it has had a bit of a chequered career, it has managed to get itself out of a bit of trouble in the past 12 months. However, this Minister, along with the Minister for Housing, has managed to solve its recent acute funding problem, which looked like causing it to lose its purpose-built facility, and the good work of that organisation will now be able to continue. Finally, I commend the work of the Reverend Noel Park and Darling Downs Lifeline. Darling Downs Lifeline provides an extensive range of services to people in crisis throughout Toowoomba and the whole southern region, especially in the area of domestic violence and counselling for people who have been sexually abused. Time expired. Progress reported. Legislative Assembly 2480 31 October 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Statement by Special Prosecutor on Bjelke-Petersen Case Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (12.06 p.m.), by leave: Because the case of the Queen against Bjelke-Petersen has been a matter of continuing controversy, I bring to the attention of the House the fact that this morning the Special Prosecutor, Mr Doug Drummond, QC, exercised his independent discretion to have the indictment returned. For the interest of honourable members, I now read the reasons provided by the Special Prosecutor on which he relied in reaching his decision— “Statement by Doug Drummond, Q.C. regarding the decision in the Bjelke-Petersen case 1. I have decided that Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen should not be re-tried. Full reasons for this decision have already been given to his solicitor. 2. While I do not intend at this stage to make any further statement about the matter, I believe that it would not be publicly acceptable for me simply to state my decision without explaining my reasons. To announce reasons in a case such as this is in conformity with the practice of other Australian prosecuting authorities. 3. It is generally in the public interest for there to be a further trial where, as here, there is an inconclusive result to a criminal trial. However, the accused is well known as a former Premier of the State who has often been at the centre of public controversy. In such a case, the fact that the trial of such a person ended with a deadlocked jury would probably be accepted as a proper conclusion to the prosecution, because it could be seen as a reflection of the fact that there remain in the community people of strong views both for and against the accused. 4. However, the actual circumstances in which the jury failed to agree, which include the evidence put before the court concerning the jury foreman’s support for the accused and his link to the ‘Friends of Joh’ organisation, may well have given rise to a public perception that the result of the first trial is unsatisfactory. 5. It is this factor which requires the Crown to reconsider the position it adopted at the outset of the trial, namely, that there would be only one hearing. 6. On 19th September, just before the start of the trial, the prosecution informed the Court that, while it would not be possible to canvass the question of perjury if the accused were tried on the corruption count, if the issue of corruption could be adequately dealt with on the trial of one of the two perjury counts (as in fact occurred), then the prosecution was prepared to state that, whether there was a conviction or an acquittal on that perjury count, it would not seek to bring the accused to trial on either the corruption count or the other perjury count, at any future time. 7. The Crown adopted that view essentially because of the accused’s advanced age. The accused, at 80 years of age, is one of the oldest persons to be brought to trial before a judge and jury in Queensland. If the Crown were again to put on trial a person of the accused’s age, that could give rise to public concern that the conduct of the prosecution may be oppressive. It is also relevant that a second trial can be expected to be a greater ordeal for such a person than it is for a younger person even where, as here, there has been no suggestion that the accused is in ill health. Legislative Assembly 2481 31 October 1991

8. Another major reason is the uncertainty about whether two overseas residents, one an important witness, the other an essential witness, will be prepared to return to Brisbane if there is a retrial. I have been in contact with both witnesses over the past week and a half. The prosecution has no means of compelling the attendance of either of these witnesses. Each has declined to give an unequivocal assurance that he is willing to return to Brisbane voluntarily. The circumstances concerning each witness are such that, in the absence of an unqualified assurance of his willingness to return, there is a high probability that neither witness will make himself available to give evidence at a further trial. The opinion of senior and junior prosecuting counsel, with which I agree, is that, while the Crown case in weakened form might be able to be put to a jury without the evidence of the first of these witnesses, the evidence of the second witness is essential. In the absence of this second witness, the prosecution does not have any means of ensuring that the testimony he gave at the first trial can be put before the jury at a further trial, without the consent of the accused. Such consent has been sought, but is not forthcoming. 9. There are two other considerations of lesser importance which also point to the correct decision being to terminate proceedings now. 10. Firstly, if the accused was still in a position of authority and still wielded political power, the public might well feel disquiet that a decision to terminate the proceedings without a further trial could be the result of pressure brought to bear upon the prosecuting authority by the accused. The accused is no longer in such a position. Reasonable people should therefore be able to accept that my decision to terminate proceedings”—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I ask the Attorney whether the document to which he is referring was issued outside the court, and is this an attempt to give that document privilege? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Honourable the Attorney. Mr WELLS: The Special Prosecutor continued— “Reasonable people should therefore be able to accept that my decision to terminate proceedings is in no way the product of improper influence or pressure exerted by or on behalf of the accused.” Mr BORBIDGE: I move that the Attorney-General be not further heard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not accept that motion. It is out of order. I call the Honourable the Attorney. Mr WELLS: The Special Prosecutor continued— “11. Secondly, immediately after the jury was discharged on Saturday night, 19th October, 1991, the accused saw fit to make statements asserting his innocence, asserting that the prosecution case was without any foundation and challenging the prosecution to put him up on trial again. He made these statements in circumstances where it is clear he intended they would receive the greatest possible publicity, as in fact occurred. In contrast to the position the accused then adopted, his legal representatives, in a detailed and considered submission made on his instructions, have now asked that the prosecution terminate proceedings against him by entering a nolle prosequi. That is, the accused is no longer asserting that the question of his guilt or innocence should be resolved by jury verdict, but is content to let the matter rest without a jury of his fellow citizens giving their verdict on his conduct. Legislative Assembly 2482 31 October 1991

12. One final matter requires comment. A few media outlets chose to publish details of what is claimed to be the final vote in the jury room.” Debate interrupted.

PRIVILEGE

Statement by Special Prosecutor on Bjelke-Petersen Case Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.14 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. The point of privilege that I raise is very serious. What the Attorney-General is doing here today is unprecedented. He is giving parliamentary privilege to a statement that has not been made in the courts but has been made outside and may be the subject of further action. I suggest, with respect, that the Attorney-General is demonstrating a degree of protection for certain people. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter of privilege. Mr BORBIDGE: He is giving it privilege. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Privilege concerns the rights of members in this Chamber. The matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with the rights of members in this Chamber. I call the Attorney.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Statement by Special Prosecutor on Bjelke-Petersen Case Debate resumed. Mr WELLS: The Special Prosecutor continues— “A few media outlets chose to publish details of what is claimed to be the final vote in the jury room. I do not know whether this information is correct or incorrect; I have made no attempt to check it. In contrast, most sections of the media acted with proper restraint and did not seek to publicise this sort of material. I accept that the publication of what is claimed to be the final jury vote has the capacity to prejudice the accused, if he were to face a further trial. However, the clear trend of recent decisions of authority is that, where material prejudicial to an accused has been published, the matter is to be dealt with by suitable directions to the jury or, in an appropriate case, by an adjournment of the trial, rather than by terminating the prosecution altogether. I do not therefore regard these publications as requiring a decision that there should be no retrial”—— Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Legislative Assembly 2483 31 October 1991

Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Surfers Paradise to cease interjecting. I am taking a point of order from the member for Flinders. Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, you should be the embodiment of, and the protection mechanism we have to honour, the constitutional rights that every single person in our society has. Unless we are proved guilty, it is our right to be presumed innocent, and that right is being removed here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BORBIDGE: I move that the Attorney-General be not further heard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled on that matter. Mr BORBIDGE: I seek leave to move a motion without notice to suspend Standing and Sessional Orders so that the Attorney-General be not further heard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I warn the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 124. I have made a ruling on that. The member for Surfers Paradise is challenging my ruling. I now warn him under Standing Order 124. I have ruled that the motion that the Attorney- General be not further heard is out of order. I have ruled that, and I will not debate the issue with the member. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, with respect, I accept your ruling. Therefore, I seek leave to move a motion to suspend Standing and Sessional Orders. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is out of order. I cannot accept that motion. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Honourable members interjected. Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, what the legal—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already told the member for Flinders that his point of order was out of order. I suggest that he does not waste the time of the House. Mr KATTER: I am not taking that point of order. I am not wasting the time of the House. I could not get my mouth open for the rabble that was screaming over there. What has been attempted to be done in the legal systems of the State is being done here today. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is out of order. He will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr WELLS: “I do not, therefore, regard”—— Debate interrupted.

PRIVILEGE

Propriety of Attorney-General Mr BORBIDGE: I rise on a matter of privilege. I move that the propriety of the Attorney- General in making this statement be referred—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter of privilege. I have warned the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 124. I ask him to leave the Chamber. I name the member for Surfers Paradise.

NAMING OF MEMBER Mr MACKENROTH: I move that the member—— Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, if you want this entire Parliament to be brought to a halt, you will continue in this way. You will take the lot out, I am telling you now. You will take the lot out if you want to proceed down this track. We are not going to sit and listen to this. Legislative Assembly 2484 31 October 1991

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12.18 p.m.): I move— “That the member for Surfers Paradise be suspended from this Chamber for 14 days.” He got carried away. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to have quiet before I put that motion. The motion is that the member for Surfers Paradise be suspended from this House for 14 days. Question—That the member for Surfers Paradise be suspended from the service of the House for a period of 14 days—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Surfers Paradise withdrew from the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Statement by Special Prosecutor on Bjelke-Petersen Case Debate resumed. Mr WELLS: The statement continues— “I do not, therefore, regard these publications as requiring a decision that there should be no retrial, and have put them aside in coming to my decision.” Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, we are not going to listen to him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Legislative Assembly 2485 31 October 1991

SUPPLY

Estimates—Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. You will take my matter of privilege. You walk out of the Chamber. What sort of a Speaker are you? Keep out of the chair. Oh! Fantastic! The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr COOPER: You will not get any order, not after the way this House has been abused by the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Landsborough. Mr COOPER: Mr Chairman, you might as well take my matter of privilege, because I will not sit down. You are trying to ignore me. I will stay here till hell freezes over. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr COOPER: Mr Chairman, I will stay here until hell freezes over. You will take my matter of privilege. The CHAIRMAN: Order! An honourable member: I rise today to speak in the Estimates debate—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr COOPER: Mr Chairman, as a matter of privilege, I submit that the actions of the Attorney- General are unprecedented in the history of this Parliament, are an absolute disgrace and are a blot on the democracy of this State. I therefore move that the actions of the Attorney-General be referred to the Privileges Committee. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is out of order because it has nothing to do with the work of the Committee. Mr COOPER: Mr Chairman, that is a cop-out. I do not care what advice you are getting, Mr Chairman. It is a cop-out because the Speaker himself walked out of the Chamber. You can ignore me as much as you like, but I will not go away. I am going to ignore the advice that you are getting. Debate interrupted.

NAMING OF MEMBER The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 124. I name the honourable member. Mr COOPER: You can warn me under anything you like. Mr MACKENROTH: I move that—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr COOPER: Why don’t you get the Speaker back in and let him do your dirty work? The CHAIRMAN: Order! You are warned under Standing Order 123A. Mr COOPER: What happened to 124? Aren’t you allowed to do it under 124? I would prefer a 124, if that is the way you want it. If you want to bring this House to a stop, you will do it. You are going the right way about it. It is all at the feet of the so-called Attorney-General. Legislative Assembly 2486 31 October 1991

SUPPLY

Reporting of Progress Debate resumed. Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Chairman, as it is quite obvious that the Leader of the Opposition—— Mr COOPER: He will not go. Mr MACKENROTH:——does not wish to be here, I move— “That you do now leave the chair, report progress and ask leave to sit again”— so that we can get rid of him. Motion agreed to.

Resumption of Committee of Supply Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Speaker, I move that the—— Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr MACKENROTH: Just wait until I move this motion. Mr COOPER: I won’t wait. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Cooper, I have to take that motion. It is procedural. I have no choice but to take that motion. I will take your matter of privilege next. Mr MACKENROTH: I move— “That the resumption of the Committee be made an Order of the Day for a later hour of the sitting.” Motion agreed to.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12.23 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move— “That the Leader of the Opposition be suspended from the Chamber for seven days.” Mr COOPER: I rose on a matter of privilege previously, Mr Speaker. You said that you would hear my matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER: No, you have been named. Mr COOPER: You said that you would take my matter of privilege. You walked into the Chamber and said that you would take it. Who are we going to believe? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was not aware that you had been named, Mr Cooper. Mr COOPER: You are not that far away. Mr HARPER: Mr Speaker—— Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition was named in Committee. I put the motion that he be suspended for seven days. I ask that you put that motion. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr COOPER: I saw you were here. Legislative Assembly 2487 31 October 1991

Question—That the Leader of the Opposition be suspended from the service of the House for a period of seven days—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Roma withdrew from the Chamber. Mr HARPER: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege——

SUPPLY

Estimates—Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Debate resumed. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Because of the unruly behaviour in the Chamber, the debate will resume at 2.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.35 to 2.30 p.m. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members, before lunch, members were raising matters not of the business of the Committee of Supply. Under the Standing Orders, it is out of order to seek leave to move a motion without notice in Committee or raise other matters that are not relevant to the Estimates before the Committee. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (2.31 p.m.): I move— “That Mr Chairman report progress so that the member for Auburn may raise a matter of privilege.” Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 2488 31 October 1991

PRIVILEGE

Statement by Special Prosecutor on Bjelke-Petersen Case Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (2.32 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege relating to a statement being read into the record of this House by the Attorney-General which clothed the Special Prosecutor with powers he would not have if he was not afforded the protection of the Government. I give notice of dissent from the ruling of the Honourable Speaker when he indicated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he would not accept his motion that the Attorney-General be not further heard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Auburn has put that in writing. I will accept it.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Debate resumed. Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough) (2.33 p.m.): Owing to the limited time allocated to me to speak to the Estimates, I will focus on a few salient issues. Mr Comben: It is the same as everybody else. Mrs SHELDON: If the honourable member is going to sit in the Chamber, I ask him to listen. Mr Welford: How many years do you want? Mrs SHELDON: It would take a few to speak to the honourable member, I would imagine. Government members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members on the Government side! Mrs SHELDON: I will focus on a few salient issues, as I said. The Family Services budget Estimates give an unrealistic outlook on services to be provided to the needy for the next 12 months. It would appear that the Community Services Development Program provides funding to community groups, local government authorities and welfare organisations and that it therefore funds regional community development officers. I note that the goal of the program is to “increase the capacity of the non-government sector and local government authorities to provided a range of human services and activities to meet community needs.” The program is further described as providing “active support to human services, by means of grants and through the provision of advice and assistance to community groups, local government authorities and welfare organisations.” The estimated 1991-92 outlay for salaries, wages and related payments in this program is only twice the actual outlay for 1990-91. It is to be hoped that sufficient of these increased resources are to be directed towards the family support types of services that are designed to prevent families from reaching a crisis or break-down point, thus becoming users of statutory services. It would also appear that many more programs are to be instituted under this program heading. Thus, the actual increase in funding may tighten spending in certain areas. The present wage to a community development worker who is provided to regional areas under the program is not realistic, and the allocation of 10 hours per week only for administrative assistants makes community development work difficult because it ties the Legislative Assembly 2489 31 October 1991 worker to the centre. I note that the Minister’s Family and Individual Support State Plan 1991-92 mentions upgraded salaries, and I hope that this will be carried through. The work performed by the community development worker is exacting both mentally and physically, and back-up assistance is essential. In the past, resources for the provision of advice and assistance to community groups have been minimal. More active professional support is needed. This support could extend to the provision of workshops to educate community management committees as well as providing informed training and support for employed community workers and volunteers. The Estimates for the Community Services Development Program rely on revenue from the Charities and Rehabilitation Development Fund, which is to be financed from a special levy to be applied to gaming machine turn-over in hotels. It is very risky business indeed to allocate and promise services that are based entirely on projected and assumed revenue, which has yet to be demonstrated by experience. It would be an unhappy and unfortunate scenario if the revenue from gaming machines is not the huge windfall that is expected by the Government simply because it will seriously jeopardise services that are desperately needed by the community. Of course, the Government feels fairly assured of its gaming machine revenue because it has made sure that it gets the lion’s share of any profits that are made. However, this should not lull the Minister into thinking that the anticipated $3.4m to be raised for this program from the gaming machine revenue is a certainty. I ask the Minister to give her unequivocal promise that, in the event the money does not come through, the programs set out and planned will go ahead, notwithstanding. Another major concern of many community services organisations is the current wave of domestic violence. I wish to quote an article that appeared in today’s Sun under the headline “Country violence blamed on State”. It states— “Domestic violence, child abuse and suicide are at alarming levels in rural Queensland and State Government regionalisation programs are to blame, according to Lifeline’s annual report. Lifeline Darling Downs and south-west Queensland director Reverend Noel Park said in his report that the organisation had never experienced the level of violence now taking place in rural areas. Rev Park said the State Government’s withdrawal of services under its regionalisation programs had caused total frustration throughout the community which, in turn, led to violence.” This issue and other issues relating specifically to women are matters of concern to me. The Budget document mentions “negotiations on the rationalisation of roles and responsibilities between State and Commonwealth governments”. The fundamental view of Commonwealth/State relations to which this statement refers has serious implications for Queensland women. Many essential services that are provided to women are funded under a joint Commonwealth/State program, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which is known as SAAP, or in the form of tied grants or specific purpose programs. It is claimed by this Government that the devolution of authority to it through untied grants will reduce administration costs and allow for more efficient distribution of resources on the basis of need. However, the States have had a poor track record in providing much-needed services for women. This Government’s track record on issues affecting women does not fill me, nor many community-minded groups and people, with confidence in respect of its priority to women’s needs. I fear that services to women would suffer greatly in the event of the joint Commonwealth/State tied grant system being dismantled. Throughout Queensland, women’s refuges and related service workers have called for a joint Commonwealth/State women’s service program. Failing this, they have requested the maintenance of a joint Commonwealth/State supported accommodation Legislative Assembly 2490 31 October 1991 assistance program to ensure a consistent policy and services on a national basis. It is necessary for the Federal Government to be committed financially to these programs. I note that $365,000 will be provided for a 24-hour Statewide telephone counselling and advisory service. In 1990, the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs called for tenders from organisations wishing to provide such a service. Tenders were received from Lifeline and the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council, both suggesting budgets in excess of $700,000. In view of this, the Government’s allocation is totally inadequate and it will depend on workers being prepared to volunteer their services, or to be grossly underpaid. These circumstances make it extremely difficult to attract and retain the highly skilled people required for such a service. This is now an issue of the provision of adequate service for women and a prospective industrial issue for workers who would, in the main, be women. I am personally aware of the submission made by Lifeline on the Sunshine Coast to the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs regarding a detailed domestic violence counselling program. Lifeline’s application proposed four interrelated programs which addressed the various issues surrounding domestic violence and family life. The nominated programs included personal counselling, which was specifically directed towards therapy for victims and perpetrators; Men in Control, which includes an initial 12-week course, then ongoing courses, and specific professional telephone counselling for men aimed at preventing domestic violence; the Parents Anonymous Group, which enhanced parenting skills; and a family forum therapy group. The total proposal was to establish a network of professional counsellors for the perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. The submission was detailed and prepared by professionals with hands-on experience, but it was rejected by the Minister’s department as being “too expensive”. A further downgraded submission, involving telephone counselling by experienced non-professional counsellors guided by professionals, was totally ignored. Details of the 008 number proposal by the Minister’s department have yet to be released, and it is therefore impossible to comment on its content and anticipated impact on curtailing the growing trend of domestic violence in our society and assisting its victims. I hope that the Minister’s plan under the Domestic Violence Initiatives Program and Awareness Unit is primarily to assist and encourage the prevention of domestic violence, rather than to pick up the pieces afterwards. Community organisations catering for care for the aged will feel the pinch in the next few years with the recent Budget cut-backs in Federal bed allocations. State involvement will become almost compulsory if existing standards of accommodation and services are to be maintained. I note that there has been no future planning for this possibility, and I fear that the aged will find themselves without adequate assistance in essential areas such as housing. I would like to see the Government taking a more active role in services for the aged by providing funding to non-Government community groups that are taking on this burden. The Seniors Card is one of the Minister’s major failures. The omissions of exact figures and details of the Seniors Card in the 1991-92 Budget papers are obvious. The Government has been vocal in declaring its change to the Pensioner Rate Subsidy Scheme which, the Budget papers state, will cost “$1.4m in 1991-92 and $2.9m in a full year.” This is an enigma. I have assumed that wherever “1991-92” is written in the Budget papers, it refers to a full year. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this so that I can advise the many senior citizens in my electorate who are interested to know just what they will be getting out of this year’s Budget. Legislative Assembly 2491 31 October 1991

The Labor Party’s 1989 pre-election seniors policy clearly stated that over three years $14m will be directed to the funding of the Seniors Card. However, this Government’s 1990-91 Budget promised only $12.8m over three years, with $4.8m in the first year. I am not in a position to comment on this year’s allocation because as yet I do not know what it will be, due to the ambiguity of the Budget documents. However, if last year’s Budget is anything to go by, the Government has broken its pre- election promise by cutting back funding of the Seniors Card by $2.2m. The policy also stated that certain concessions under the Seniors Card would be given for long-distance bus travel, driving licence fees, gas rebates, telephone rebates, specialist medical equipment such as hearing aids and physiotherapy and podiatry services. None of these concessions has been forthcoming, which is possibly due to the cut-back in funding. Further, Labor’s policy stated, “The Queensland Seniors Card will act as a universal concession identification for the full range of age concessions”, which I take to mean pension concessions. Those fortunate enough to be eligible to have a Seniors Card will be better off using their pensioner rebate card for certain concessions because they will get a better deal. For example, this year the registration fee for a four-cylinder car was $327. Concessions with a pensioner card will reduce that fee to $223.50, whereas with a Seniors Card the registration fee will be $256.50. That is $33 more, which for many age pensioners is a very significant difference. That is yet another broken promise made by the Labor Government, which stated that the Seniors Card would also “increase the range of concessions available to all card-holders including those eligible for concessions under present arrangements”. In fact, the only additional concession full social security pensioners receive under the Seniors Card is half-fare rail travel throughout Queensland. As these pensioners receive two free train tickets anywhere in Queensland each year they will, in essence, receive no extra Government concessions at all. Perhaps the answer to the reason why the Minister broke these promises is that the whole concept of the Labor Government’s Seniors Card program is one of guilt. Why else would the card’s logo be “Repaying the debt”? Surely Queensland’s senior citizens deserve better than that. Despite the difficulties in which the Western Australian Labor Government seems to continually find itself, at least its attitude is slightly better than that of the Queensland Government in describing its Seniors Card as “A part of the care and respect program for seniors”. Perhaps this is why that State is able to supply its card to all those over 60, irrespective of whether those people receive a pension or not, unlike the Queensland Labor Government, which seems intent on means-testing everything, including its gratitude. Innumerable seniors have expressed their disappointment at not being eligible for the card simply because they were able to work hard and save hard, and they now struggle to survive without a pension. They are on a fixed income which, due to Labor’s poor economic performance and the recession that we have to have, is shrinking rapidly. They have said, quite rightly, that the Labor Government feels they deserve thanks only when they turn 70. The department’s ethnic affairs program would appear to be downgraded this year if the cut in funding by $64,000 is any indication. The Minister has described the goal of this program as being— “. . . to increase the initiatives for the development of and participation in a cohesive multicultural society in Queensland.” Previous programs in which the Minister has verbosely declared “increases in services” have usually been followed by an increase in funds—at least on paper. However, a cut in funds to ethnic affairs surely indicates a cut in services. Legislative Assembly 2492 31 October 1991

Some months ago, the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs announced a Multicultural Access and Participation Program—MAPP—which was an initiative of the Bureau of Ethnic Affairs. This was seen as a most significant move towards the Government’s declaration of its access and equity policy in relation to people of non-English speaking background. However, true to this Labor Government’s form, since this announcement nothing further has been heard of MAPP, and many are concerned that a valuable policy document which should lead to the development of access and equity strategies across Government departments is lost in the system—or perhaps axed due to its cost. It is indeed true that women and men from a non-English speaking background are doubly disadvantaged in a society dominated by Anglo/Australians. The intellectually disabled did not rate a mention in the 1991-92 Budget related documents. The increase to this program by 2.9 per cent is a pittance when compared to the relative percentage increases in other programs. Surely the intellectually disabled in our community deserve better services than are currently provided. I was saddened to read recently that at least 12 intellectually disabled Sunshine Coast people will miss out on Endeavour Foundation programs next year because of a shortage of places, caused as a direct result of Government funding cuts. Although these cuts may have been made, in the main, by the Federal Government, the State Government has done nothing to alleviate the situation. I am aware of the disability discussion paper, and of the move to devolve all services from the Commonwealth to the State. I am also aware of the move to integrate the disabled into the community and remove them from homes and workshops. Should this proceed without due care and caution, it could have disastrous effects on the disabled themselves, and on their families and carers. What the Government has chosen to ignore is that there is a significant number of people with an intellectual handicap who just cannot be absorbed into the work force simply because their disability is too severe to make such a move practical. Most non-Government programs for the disabled are self-funded, with only a small grant coming from the State and Federal Governments. Time expired. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (2.47 p.m.): I commend the member for Landsborough for her perseverance. In preparing my speech for the Budget Estimates of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I thought it would be useful to go over my contribution to last year’s debate for some reference point for comparisons with this and last year’s budgets. It is pleasing to note that in a number of very significant areas the specific issues which I raised in the context of last year’s debate have in fact been picked up, and that significant progress has been made. I could cite as an example the concerns which I raised last year in regard to the Mornington Island sewerage scheme, which had been funded some years earlier at substantial cost, but was inoperable because of an inadequate water supply. I believe it is most important that we recognise that in this year’s budget an allocation of $3m has been made towards the construction of a major dam project on Mornington Island which will not only eliminate current water supply shortages, but which will also be able to accommodate an expanded population on the island into the future. I should also acknowledge that this is a project jointly funded by the State Government and by ATSIC. I mentioned in last year’s debate the fact that I believed it was undesirable for the department and/or Aboriginal and Islander councils to be involved in the generation and maintenance of power supplies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities. This year, once again I am pleased to see that the transfer of this responsibility to the relevant electricity authorities has been agreed. There will no longer be any provision in the Legislative Assembly 2493 31 October 1991 budgets of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs for this service. The end result should be a better supply of power for consumers in those areas. In last year’s debate, I spoke at some length about the need for Aboriginal and Islander councils to receive support from the department through training and advice to better equip councils to satisfactorily discharge their financial responsibilities. Since then, a great deal of effort has been put into improving the capacity of Aboriginal and Islander councils to manage their financial affairs. The department, in conjunction with Aboriginal and Islander councils, produced accounting standards which were published by the Minister in June 1991. However, it is acknowledged that there is unlikely to be a significant improvement in the management of Aboriginal and Islander administrative requirements until there are substantial changes to the governing structures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils as recommended by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. In a few minutes, I will return briefly to that committee’s report. That is not so, however, in respect of departmental accounting arrangements—that is the Minister’s department—and it is very pleasing to note that the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee has complimented the department on improvements to its own accounting arrangements, and those improvements are regarded in most circles as long overdue. Councils have also been provided with training and support services from the Division of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs on the basis of those councils specifically requesting training and assistance, rather than the previous system whereby people simply visited to try to get the books in order prior to the arrival of officers of the Auditor-General’s Department. That was an unsatisfactory system, and, of course, under those circumstances many councils got qualified audits. The department has also been undertaking work in improving the operation of Aboriginal community stores as a prelude to handing them over to Aboriginal control. The Government is not rushing this process, as those stores are in many cases the only means of regular food supplies in isolated locations, and their survival as an essential service is absolutely critical. I can comment that as I have travelled around the Aboriginal and Islander communities in the remote parts of my electorate, I know that the stores have caused some contention. Obviously, the councils and people within those communities believe that it is their responsibility ultimately to run those stores, and they are an essential service in those communities, but it is important that the department gets the administration and accounting of those stores in order before it hands over the responsibility to any council or any Aboriginal person or group. Particular attention has been paid to improving the provision of quantity and variety of fresh fruit and vegetables. This is another important issue. Because of the isolated location of the communities, it is accepted that there are particular difficulties in maintaining a regular supply of those items. But it is a critical health issue that the people in Aboriginal communities have access to proper nutrition, particularly through the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Earlier, I mentioned that the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee had recognised improvements in the department’s financial administration. It is interesting to see some of the novel approaches to accountability which have existed in the past under the previous Government. Honourable members will be surprised to learn that, until this year, the accounting arrangements of the Aboriginal community stores were such that the previous Government had no idea as to whether those stores were profitable or not. It is vital that the department, in handing over those stores to Aboriginal control, does not encumber people with more headaches and more financial constraints than those with which they must presently contend. Earlier, I referred to the fact that, before the responsibility for the stores is handed over, it is most important that their books and their financial status be made shipshape. After considerable effort, figures are now being produced on a proper accrual accounting basis which clearly show the profit and loss of Legislative Assembly 2494 31 October 1991 the operations of those stores. That information is essential for any community or Aboriginal group who may wish to take over the operation of the stores. I now turn to a couple of other specific initiatives provided in the Budget. Firstly, I will deal with problems with water supply that have been experienced in another Aboriginal community, that is, Doomadgee. On a number of occasions in the past in this Chamber, I have spoken about the problems that have been experienced there. The shortage of water is obviously a significant health problem for that community. The Budget allocates a contribution of $1m for the completion of a weir across the Nicholson River at Doomadgee, which will be completed before the commencement of this coming wet season, thus ensuring that the Doomadgee community has adequate water supply. Once again, I mention that that is a joint project between the State Government and the Federal Government providing finance through ATSIC. I commend ATSIC for continuing that initiative. I also mention briefly a matter that was raised regarding the provision of funding for the sewerage supply at Doomadgee. When I spoke earlier about Mornington Island, I spoke about the problem that was caused there because the sewerage scheme was put in place before a sustainable year-round water supply was guaranteed. Obviously, it is important, before a sewerage scheme is installed, there is an assurance that in the future there will be adequate water to operate that scheme. That is what is occurring at Doomadgee. This year, the Government has contributed funds towards the upgrading of the water supply, and in subsequent years it could look at funding for the sewerage supply. The Thursday Island suburb of Tamwoy has been provided with a common effluent drainage scheme which will include provision of ablution facilities and hot water to all Tamwoy houses. Anyone who has visited Thursday Island, particularly Tamwoy, would note that there are many old and dilapidated houses in that suburb. There is presently a program of replacing and regenerating those houses, which is much appreciated by the residents there. In Tamwoy, particularly, there are many elderly people who live in houses which at present still have ablutions blocks in the backyard. Of course, with the provision of the effluent drainage system, they will be upgraded at least to flushing toilets. In the 1991-92 financial year, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils in the north will be provided with in excess of $20m for the provision of new housing. Although much of that money is allocated through the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement under the Aboriginal housing rental program, it is important to recognise the role that the department plays in administering those funds. Of course, housing is another key issue in all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait island communities throughout the Cook electorate. It would surprise some members of the Committee to know that some of the communities have average house occupancy rates of around 10 or 11 people. Badu Island, with which the member for Somerset would be familiar, is one of those places that has a significant problem with overcrowding of houses. Housing is an important initiative, and it is also a very important health initiative. There will be significant changes in respect of Aboriginal and Islander affairs arising out of the preliminary work undertaken by this Government to set future directions in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. Some of those changes relate to reports from parliamentary committees. I refer to the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee report into the financial administration of Aboriginal and Islander councils. Following a series of critical reports from the Queensland Auditor- General, that report determined the way in which Aboriginal and Islander councils were administered. The report concluded that the failure to satisfactorily account for the finances allocated to Aboriginal and Islander councils was a result of a combination of factors, but the most important was clearly the structural problems associated with those councils. The all-Aboriginal legislation review committee is currently examining the Community Services Act, and the initial discussion paper would indicate that this committee is reaching similar Legislative Assembly 2495 31 October 1991 conclusions to those reached by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. The Parliamentary Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, also conducted a major investigation into the provision of housing to Aboriginal and Islander people throughout Queensland. The committee undertook a comprehensive examination of the Aboriginal housing rental program administered by the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. The committee made a number of recommendations which will provide a basis for the future direction in the delivery of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing services. The findings of the committee will be drawn together in a strategic plan prepared by the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, and the Department of Housing and Local Government. I mention that the Division of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is also continuing to provide a heavy equipment service for improvements to roads in the northern part of the Cook electorate. It will be doing so, however, increasingly on a cost-recovery basis. The provision of those services on a cost- recovery basis reflects a genuine desire to recognise that self-management involves the provision of funds to buy a service rather than having a service thrust upon people. One of the other programs which the Minister has initiated and which I wish to commend during my brief comments this afternoon is the child-care program for Aboriginal and Islander communities. A couple of months ago, I had the pleasure of speaking with representatives of women’s organisations on many Aboriginal and Torres Strait island communities, and I can assure the Minister and her department that the funding for those child-care facilities is much appreciated. Child-care needs are no less in Aboriginal and Islander communities than they are anywhere else. I would like to refer briefly to the comments made by some of the previous speakers, especially the shadow Minister, the member for Burnett. I was the one who criticised him last year for not mentioning Aboriginal affairs in his speech. I must say that I was a little disappointed in his effort. Perhaps we would have been better off with the status quo. Mr Johnson: At least you took notice of him, didn’t you? Mr BREDHAUER: I always take notice of speakers on the other side of the Chamber. He said that too often in the past money has been provided without accountability. I might add that that occurred under the Government of which he was a member and that under our Government those responsibilities are being met. The challenges are being met by members of the Aboriginal and Islander community. He spoke at some length about the need for education. He mentioned education for jobs. Unfortunately, there are not many jobs available in most of the Aboriginal and Islander communities. I agree that there is a need that education be tailored to the particular needs of the community, but that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs; that is the responsibility of the Minister for Education. A review of that matter is under way and a report is due in the near future. Unfortunately, the Liberal spokesperson, the member for Landsborough, did not get around to the subject of the Division of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. That typifies the attitude of the Liberals to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister and her staff—Norma Jones, Janice, Jay, Kathy and others—with whom I have had significant dealings over the past 12 months and whom I have always found to be extraordinarily helpful and patient. Many of the problems are complex and take a lot of working through. I really appreciate the efforts that they have made to help me and the constituents of the Cook electorate. I would also like to thank members of the land rights implementation unit. Although I have not spoken about that unit, it will be a significant issue. I mentioned it during the debate on the Lands Department Estimates. I would also like to thank members of the department and the service-providers for their efforts. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 2496 31 October 1991

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (3.03 p.m.): During this time of recession and drought, the Budget Estimates for the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs are absolutely critical. Many of the services provided by the department are essential to the survival and the modest well-being of people within our community who, through no fault of their own, have been less fortunate in terms of intellectual handicaps or health, or their own family circumstances. Sadly, many of the resources of this department have to be spent on crisis situations such as supporting organisations which assist abused women and children, destitute families and poor families which have suffered problems through unemployment. This subject is very near and dear to my heart. I have spent a lot of time in the electorate of Toowoomba South visiting almost every agency involved with family services. However, the enthusiasm that I have for this topic was somewhat dulled this morning by what happened in this Chamber. The Attorney-General has joined in a conspiracy with the Special Prosecutor. At approximately 11.45 a.m., the Special Prosecutor’s Office received a phone call from the Attorney-General’s office. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. That matter is not before the Committee of Supply. I ask the honourable member to return to the Estimates. Mr HORAN: As I said, my enthusiasm for this topic was sadly dulled this morning. I do believe that I must say that the Attorney-General has used the Parliament to give privilege to statements which would have seen the prosecutor gaoled if he had made them in court, and the prosecutor would clearly have been in contempt if he had stood and made those statements before a judge. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. I ask the honourable member to return to the Estimates. I now warn him under Standing Order 123A to come back to the Estimates. Mr HORAN: As I said, this topic of family services is extremely near and dear to my heart and I feel very intensely about it. I feel that what happened this morning has absolutely shamed the debate on this important topic. I feel that I have to say that the facts of the matter are that the Crown failed to convince any court of the guilt of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It then sought to blacken the reputation of a man never found guilty and make its case through the media. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It appears that the honourable member is deliberately disregarding the authority of the Chair. I order him to withdraw under Standing Order 123A. Whereupon the honourable member for Toowoomba South withdrew from the Chamber. Debate interrupted.

CHAIRMAN’S RULING

Motion of Dissent Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (3.06 p.m.): Under Standing Order 118, I move— “That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from and that the member for Toowoomba South be further heard.” The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before that motion can be debated, I must have it in writing. I have received in writing a motion of dissent. The debate is to go no more than 30 minutes and no member may speak for more than five minutes on the motion, which concerns the order that the member for Toowoomba South withdraw under Standing Order 123A. The honourable member must now speak to that motion. Legislative Assembly 2497 31 October 1991

Mr HARPER: The member for Toowoomba South was inviting to the attention of this Committee the shocking display that we witnessed in the Chamber this morning when the Attorney- General, who has long espoused the separation of powers and the need for Government to be aloof from the judiciary and, I would imagine, from influencing or having influence on or being influenced by the Special Prosecutor. We all appreciate the very significant and onerous role in which the Special Prosecutor has been placed by circumstances—— Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. The member is debating an issue that is not relative to the reason that the member for Toowoomba South was asked to leave the Chamber. He was asked to leave the Chamber because he was not debating the issue before the Committee. That is the matter about which the dissent motion was moved. I believe that he should be speaking to that issue. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Auburn must speak to the motion of dissent, which relates to my ruling that the member for Toowoomba South was disregarding the authority of the Chair. The member must speak to that motion. Mr Katter: Don’t take a direction from him, Clem. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Flinders! That was an unparliamentary remark. Mr KATTER: I apologise, Mr Chairman. Mr HARPER: Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling. I am speaking to the direction given by you to the member for Toowoomba South to desist from discussing the shocking performance that honourable members witnessed this morning. The member for Toowoomba South was merely exercising what I believe is his right to tie in his concerns in regard to community services and family services with his concern about the rights and privileges of people not only in this Chamber but also in the community. The member for Toowoomba South was endeavouring to point out that, this morning, in his view, the Attorney-General had sought to blacken the reputation of a man never found guilty, and to make his case through the media. In that context, Mr Chairman, I believe that your decision as Chairman not to allow him to tie in the right of members of the community in exercising their responsibilities within the area of community services—within the right of the family—— Mr Wells interjected. Mr HARPER: If the Attorney-General wants to join in the debate, let him do so. It will take more than his old, university-philosopher tactics to get over the problems that he has brought upon himself today during the debate. What I am talking about—and what the member for Toowoomba South was endeavouring to talk about—is a gentleman who, together with his family—and this should be of concern to the Minister for Family Services—has been denigrated. The member for Toowoomba South was endeavouring to indicate that, at a meeting shortly after 11 o’clock this morning, the Labor Party decided that it would dig its man out of the hole. The member for Toowoomba South was suggesting that the Labor Party attempted to turn the Parliament of Queensland into a Star Chamber and that it set out to do what the legal system would not do. That was the message that the member for Toowoomba South was endeavouring to deliver to the Parliament. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowed the honourable member to speak. He is not speaking to the motion of dissent. He will come back to the motion regarding my ruling that the member for Toowoomba South was disregarding my authority under Standing Order 123A. Legislative Assembly 2498 31 October 1991

Mr HARPER: I put it to the Committee and, in particular, to you, Mr Chairman, as Chairman of Committees, that the member for Toowoomba South was not knowingly disobeying the ruling that you were giving. Time expired. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Leader of the House. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (3.10 p.m.): What we have seen here today—which was evidenced by the way that the member for Toowoomba South totally disregarded the ruling from the Chair—is the National Party in this place totally abusing the Standing Orders. Earlier today in this Chamber, we saw a disgraceful display in which the Deputy Leader of the National Party threw a copy of the Standing Orders of this Parliament across the Chamber and hit one of the clerks at the centre table. Members of the National Party have deliberately defied the rules of debate in this Chamber. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I appreciate the tolerance of the Chair while I was speaking to the dissent motion. However, I draw your attention to the fact that the Honourable the Leader of Government Business in the House is not speaking to that motion either. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Leader of the House. Mr MACKENROTH: As I stated quite clearly, what honourable members are debating here today—and it was evidenced by the way in which he behaved when he was asked to return to the debate in hand, that is, the Estimates of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs—is that the member for Toowoomba South deliberately defied the ruling of the Chairman. Once again, he was asked to return to the debate. He was then warned under Standing Order 123A. He disregarded that warning, and once again came back to another issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate of the Estimates of the Minister for Family Services, which are being debated today. It was a deliberate plot by National Party members in their attempt to get thrown out of this Chamber. We saw the plot being hatched. It will be interesting to see how members of the Liberal Party behave in relation to this. We saw the plot being hatched. Before I came back into this Chamber five minutes ago, I was told that the member for Toowoomba South deliberately disregarded your ruling, Mr Chairman. It was quite apparent that, during the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, if a member started to bring up a matter relating to the Attorney-General, he would be asked to resume his seat. But it went further than that. When the motion of dissent was moved, the member for Auburn went totally off the subject, and then took a point of order on me when I started to talk about the unruly behaviour today of National Party members, who have done themselves no good in Opposition. By the way in which National Party members have behaved in the Chamber today, they have made complete fools of themselves. Mr FitzGerald interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Lockyer! Mr MACKENROTH: I hope that, having raised that point of order, the member for Auburn certainly does keep the debate, which has 22 minutes left, completely on the subject and keeps matters that are not absolutely relevant out of it. The Government supports the Chairman in his ruling in relation to matters that should be relevant to the debate. Certainly, the matters that were raised, or that were attempted to be raised, by one of the newest members of this Chamber had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. It is a shame that he had to be fed to the wolves by the National Party. National Legislative Assembly 2499 31 October 1991

Party members will be judged on their tactics, and they will be judged as having failed once again. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.17 p.m.): I rise in the debate on the motion of dissent against the suspension of the member for Toowoomba South when he was debating the Family Services Estimates. Because of what happened in the Chamber earlier today, I can understand his concern. When he was debating the Family Services Estimates, he was obviously indicating clearly to the Committee that an attempt was made by the Attorney-General to smear the family of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen himself. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I advise the honourable member for Toowong to return to the motion of dissent. I have already allowed great discretion to the member for Auburn. I advise the member for Toowong of Standing Order 123A and I direct him to return to the motion of dissent. Mr BEANLAND: The member for Toowoomba South indicated to the Parliament what a great disservice was being done to the Parliament and to the separation of powers, about which we hear so much wonderful rhetoric from the Labor Party. It is quite clear that the member for Toowoomba South was pointing out that events which took place here earlier today indicated the Government’s total disregard of the separation of powers. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Toowong is not speaking to the motion of dissent. I have asked him twice to return to the motion. I now warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr BEANLAND: Quite clearly, by the actions that ensued in the Chamber earlier today, a grave slur is being cast on the Parliament and on the judicial system of this State. When the member for Toowoomba South rose to speak to the Family Services Estimates, he was highlighting that fact. In this State, we have a judicial system—a system of justice—under which families are brought up. One of the articles of faith of that system of justice is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Where is the Attorney-General? It is quite clear that this is a—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Toowong is not speaking to the motion of dissent. He is deliberately disobeying the Chair. I order him to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order 123A. Whereupon the honourable member for Toowong withdrew from the Chamber. Dr WATSON: I move dissent from that ruling under Standing Order 118—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is out of order because we are already debating a motion of dissent. Dr WATSON: This is on your ruling now. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Yes, I will listen to that when this debate is finished. I call the Attorney-General. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (3.19 p.m.): It is appropriate at this stage to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the Special Prosecutor was appointed under a statute that was passed unanimously through the Parliament—a statute that was introduced by the National Party. In that context, it is inappropriate for the dissent motion to be moved. The dissent motion that was moved was nothing more than an attempt by the Opposition to—— Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Mr GUNN: I rise to a point of order. This man is not speaking to the motion at all. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I cannot listen to two points of order at the same time. Legislative Assembly 2500 31 October 1991

Mr KATTER: The point of order is that the Attorney-General is not speaking to the motion at all. This is more outrageous than what was said by any person who has spoken today. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Attorney-General. Mr WELLS: The dissent motion that was moved and the speeches that were made on that dissent motion are not in fact directed towards the Chair at all; they are directed towards creating a public demonstration. Opposition members are committed to producing a public demonstration of their own rowdiness, a demonstration of their own inability to preserve or to observe the Standing Orders of this place. The demonstration in which they are engaged is rowdy and unruly and is contrary to the principles of this Chamber. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. With due respect to the Chair, the Chairman allowed me on behalf of the Opposition and the Leader of the House a degree of levity. Mr Mackenroth: I didn’t get any. Mr HARPER: That is a matter of opinion. I suggest that two other honourable members of the Committee were removed from the Chamber for doing no more than the Attorney-General is presently doing. I invite the attention of the Chairman to that fact and suggest that, if it is good enough for two members on the opposition side to be removed from the Chamber, it should be good enough for the Chairman in his discretion to consider removing the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Attorney-General to speak to the motion. Mr WELLS: Yes. My argument is that the dissent motion was not moved in good faith, and that is an argument as to why that dissent motion should be defeated. The degree of unruliness, the degree of unlawfulness and the degree of impropriety in the behaviour of Opposition members is almost unparalleled. We are seeing a deliberate attempt to obstruct the procedures of the Chamber. With this demonstration, Opposition members simply want to achieve notoriety. It is the kind of demonstration that, if it had occurred in the streets when the National Party was in Government, would have been banned. Mr Chairman, that unruly behaviour is designed for one purpose only—to multiply dissent motions and to multiply controversy over procedural matters in order to obstruct the business of the Chamber. They want to put as great an exclamation mark as they possibly can over a series of issues that have nothing to do with the debate that is before this Chamber. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. Under no circumstances was the member for Toowoomba South unruly, which is what the Attorney-General is endeavouring to say. Under no circumstances was he unruly at any stage. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. The honourable member is reflecting on the Chair, because I made the ruling that the member for Toowoomba South was grossly disorderly. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. He was not unruly. He was quiet and steady. He was going along steadily, and the Attorney-General is endeavouring to say that he was unruly, and I totally disagree. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Attorney-General. Mr WELLS: The reference that the honourable member was making was a reference to an officer appointed under a National Party statute. It was obviously just an excuse to be ruled out of order by the Chair. It was a red rag being waved in order to try to get a reaction from the Chair. Legislative Assembly 2501 31 October 1991

Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Would the Chair please explain to me the relevance of what the Attorney-General is saying to the motion, compared with the relevance of the remarks made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beanland? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Attorney-General. Mr WELLS: We are not debating that. The proposition that I put to the Chamber—— Time expired. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (3.25 p.m.): I rise to support the motion of dissent concerning the eviction of the member for Toowoomba South from this Chamber. He was speaking in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Family Services and it would be generally agreed throughout this State that the epitome of the family structure in Queensland is the Bjelke-Petersen family, which is held in high esteem. It is an extraordinary situation when a member seeks to rise and express his disquiet at the processes and when the Attorney-General has clearly lost all credibility due to this gross perversion of law. The Bjelke-Petersen family is supported by the member for Toowoomba South, and today that family has been held in contempt by the attitude of the Special Prosecutor because of his incompetence and defamatory statement—and I repeat “because of the incompetence of the Special Prosecutor and his defamatory statement”—outside a privileged arena. That is an attack on the very foundations of law and order in this State. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I must draw your attention to the matters being raised by the member opposite. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this dissent motion. It is quite obvious that Opposition members are going against the ruling that you made earlier, Mr Chairman. Mr STONEMAN: I again make the point that the debate on the Family Services Estimates would be the most appropriate of all the Estimate debates in which to raise the matters mentioned by the member for Toowoomba South. I ask: what are we here for if not to defend the family? I defy anyone in this State to say that there is a greater representation of the family than the Bjelke-Petersen family, which was supported by the member for Toowoomba South. The ALP has shown absolute contempt for both the judicial system and Parliament and should justify itself to the electorate. This whole project has been politicised and the Government has sought to overcome the deficiencies and ineptitude of the Special Prosecutor. It is beyond belief. By undertaking these actions and the actions referred to by the member in his speech, the Attorney-General can no longer be regarded in any way as fit to hold the office of first law officer of this State. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the member to return to the debate on the dissent motion. Mr STONEMAN: I am debating the motion hard and fast. That is the point made by the member for Toowoomba South. Surely, he was going to the core of the Family Services debate by defending the family, and the Attorney-General sought to do exactly the opposite. He set out to do what the legal system could not do. The member for Toowoomba South—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowed the honourable member great latitude, but I must ask him to come back to the motion of dissent against a ruling under Standing Order 123A that the member for Toowoomba South was deliberately disobeying the Chair in that I asked him to return to what I believed to be the subject of the debate. That is what this debate is all about. The honourable member for Burdekin has wandered far and wide from the subject, and I ask him to come back to the motion of dissent. Legislative Assembly 2502 31 October 1991

Mr STONEMAN: Surely, if a member is unable to raise points such as those raised by the member for Toowoomba South in this Chamber in defence of a family—one that for so many years was regarded as the first family of this State—we may as well not be here. That is the very basis of this debate on the Estimates of the Family Services Department. It is all about support of the family. The member for Toowoomba South—a person who has a family he can be proud of in his own right—has been evicted from the Chamber. His son represents the nation at football, yet this man has been sent from the Chamber for trying to uphold the principles and values that were laid down for so many years by the number one family in this State. If that process is to be defamed by people such as the Attorney-General, who came into the Chamber and sought to overcome the ineptitude of a Labor Party crony, I do not know why any of us are here. Time expired. Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (3.30 p.m.): I rise to speak in the debate on the motion of dissent with a considerable amount of vigour because, quite frankly, I am disgusted by the member for Toowoomba South’s very thinly disguised attempt to talk about the welfare of one family in this State when, really, what this debate is about is all Queenslanders— Government members: Hear, hear! Ms WARNER:—and the most disadvantaged Queenslanders—— Mr STONEMAN: I rise to a point of order. Surely it is reasonable for the member for Toowoomba South to instance a family—— Ms WARNER: I am debating this at the moment. The member for Burdekin has had his go. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Burdekin is confusing the debates. There is no point of order. Ms WARNER: I find it amazing that people want to continue to debate, even when they have had their turn and blown it by not being able to keep to the subject. The subject matter that is before the Committee today is the disadvantage that a large number of Queensland families have suffered. Mr Littleproud: No, it’s not. Mr Gilmore: No! Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Ms WARNER: That is the subject of the Estimates that we are debating. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. The Honourable Minister has misunderstood your earlier ruling, Mr Chairman. On a number of occasions, you have ruled that this debate is a motion of dissent against your ruling. The Honourable Minister is talking to her Estimates. The subject matter at present is not her Estimates; it is the question of the validity and rightfulness of your ruling. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I would like to take up that point. What I am talking about is the fact that the member for Toowoomba South strayed very much from the matter that he was supposed to be talking about, which was the Estimates of the Minister for Family Services. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Katter interjected. Ms WARNER: This is directly on the subject. Legislative Assembly 2503 31 October 1991

Mrs SHELDON: The member for Toowoomba South was discussing the Family Services Estimates. He was referring to families in Queensland. Possibly, the Minister thinks that some families are more equal than others. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Ms WARNER: What the member for Toowoomba South said when he strayed from the matters that were before the Committee was that he was so personally distracted by what had occurred in this Parliament earlier today that he was not able to stick to the issues that are before us, which is the welfare of the most disadvantaged Queenslanders compared to the fortunes of one of the most previously advantaged Queenslanders in this State. To what lengths—— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a further point of order, Mr Chairman. Is the Minister for Family Services debating families in this State—ones more equal than others, ones more disadvantaged than others? What an incredible performance! The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Ms WARNER: To what lengths will the Liberal and the National Parties go to defend their former hero? To what depths will they descend? What depths of depravity will they descend to in order to defend their former hero? Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a further point of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Ms WARNER: How much further will they go to ensure that the privileges of the past go on into the future? Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Chairman. Ms WARNER: How much further will they go? Mrs SHELDON: I ask the Minister to withdraw her statements. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mrs SHELDON: I find the Minister’s reflection—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. An honourable member interjected. The CHAIRMAN: I call the member for Landsborough. Mrs SHELDON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I find the comments of the Minister for Family Services, with reference to the Liberal Party and to me in particular, offensive. I ask her to withdraw these terribly ill-founded and very biased comments. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I did not hear—— Ms WARNER: No. I did not say anything about the honourable member. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Ms WARNER: I did not say anything about the member for Landsborough. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I did not hear any personal remark, so there is no point of order. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, what I said—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I did not hear the remarks, but I do not believe that there were any personal or offensive remarks made about the member for Landsborough as an individual. They were directed to the party as a whole, and that is not the basis for a point of order. Legislative Assembly 2504 31 October 1991

Ms WARNER: What I said was: to what lengths will the Liberal and National Parties descend— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Ms WARNER:—to defend their former hero— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Chairman. Ms WARNER:—a man who single-handedly abused all the families in Queensland for 20 years and more. Mrs SHELDON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! Is there one rule for the Minister and one for others? Mr Elder: That is a reflection on the Chair. Mrs SHELDON: The Minister did actually comment on the Liberal Party. I found that comment offensive and untrue, and I ask her to withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Perhaps I should explain to the member for Landsborough that a point of order can only apply to remarks that reflect personally upon an honourable member. A member cannot take a point of order in relation to offensive words if they are directed to a party as a whole. The remarks were not out of order. Mrs SHELDON: With respect, Mr Chairman—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The time for the debate has expired. Question—That the Chairman’s ruling (Mr Harper’s motion) be dissented from—put; and the Committee divided— In division— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Tellers for the “Ayes” are the member for Barambah and the member for South Coast. Tellers for the “Noes” will be the member for Port Curtis and the member for Archerfield. Order! I appoint the member for South Coast and the member for Currumbin as tellers for the “Ayes”. Order! The honourable members on the affirmative side have called, “Divide!” They do not wish to be appointed as tellers. I therefore rule that the division is lost. Mr HARPER: Mr Chairman, I rise—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Auburn is not speaking from his usual place. He will not be recognised by the Chair. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the member for Moggill to move his motion of dissent.

CHAIRMAN’S RULING

Motion of Dissent Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.37 p.m.): I move— “That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from.” I rise to speak to this motion of dissent from the ruling of the Chairman with respect to the Leader of the Liberal Party when the Chairman decided to dismiss the honourable member from this place under Standing Order 123A. I must admit I came into the Chamber this afternoon to find that it had closed down early because of what went on this morning, for which I was not here. Legislative Assembly 2505 31 October 1991

A Government member: You’re never here. Dr WATSON: I was out doing other things at the time. I am a little bemused by the ruckus that is going on. I think if one is going to look at these things, one has to consider the context in which the member for Toowong, the Leader of the Liberal Party, was considering the issue. I remind honourable members that it is tradition for the debate in Committee to be a little broader than it is the House. In fact, that was one of the reasons why Committees of the House were originally developed. The Committees of the House were developed back in 1610 to enable debate wider than that permitted within the House. So when one is considering an issue, as the Leader of the Liberal Party was doing at the time—and a very important issue, the issue of whether or not the member for Toowoomba South was wrongly dismissed from the Chamber and whether or not the member for Toowoomba South was dismissed from the Chamber because he had introduced spurious arguments into the debate—one must take into account the context in which the honourable member was considering it. That was what the member for Toowong, the Leader of the Liberal Party, was attempting to do. He was attempting to suggest that when one looks at the context in which the debate was taking place, one had to go back to what happened this morning—one had to look at what the Attorney- General was doing and at what the Government was doing. One has to consider whether or not the Government was using its numbers in a particular way to take advantage of this place in a way in which it was never meant to be taken advantage of. The history of our country and the Westminster system is such that although privilege is given to members of the House, and although members of the House can do things which ordinary people in our society are not permitted to do, when honourable members are given those privileges, there is some responsibility on members, particularly when a member is part of the Executive arm of the Government and is the Attorney-General of the State. There is a particular responsibility on members to exercise their judgment on the privileges that are given to them by society, privileges for which our forebears fought, going back to Magna Carta and the later problems between the King and the House of Commons. Those kinds of issues are particularly important. When one is judging whether or not the Leader of the Liberal Party was addressing the question—and that is the central issue here with respect to the Chairman’s ruling—and whether or not the Leader of the Liberal Party was addressing the issue of the exclusion of the member for Toowoomba South, one has to consider the context of the debate. One cannot judge that issue, and the Chairman was wrong when he tried to judge that issue out of the context in which the debate was taking place. The Chairman was absolutely wrong when he decided to judge the member’s argument in a narrow fashion. That is inappropriate, and it is particularly inappropriate in terms of the range of debate in Committee. It is inappropriate in terms of the judgments that have been made, and it is inappropriate in terms of looking at what went on in this Chamber. It does no good for the Parliament, and it does no good for the members of the Labor Government who sit back there, hide behind their numbers, and think they can run this place any way they want. It does no good for the Chairman of Committees to make a narrow judgment on one particular argument. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (3.40 p.m.): There are two key issues before this Committee. One is the relevance of the speech of the member for Toowong, and the second is the authority and dignity of the Committee of the whole House. This is a motion under Standing Order 118 of dissent from the ruling of the Chairman. It turns on the ruling made by the Chairman under Standing Order 123A. That order provides that the Chairman of Committees may, after warning such member, order any member whose conduct in the Chairman’s opinion continues to be grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber. The question then is whether there is any basis upon Legislative Assembly 2506 31 October 1991 which the Chairman of Committees might have formed such an opinion. That brings one to the question of whether or not the conduct of the member for Toowong, the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, could be said to be grossly disorderly. My submission to the Committee is that the conduct of that member was indeed grossly disorderly for it offended against Standing Order 108. That provides that a member may speak to any question before the House, and that applies similarly to Committee. The honourable member for Toowong was not speaking to a question before the Committee. The question before the Committee at that time was whether or not the motion of dissent should be agreed to with respect to the removal of the member for Toowoomba South from the Committee under Standing Order 123A. The member for Moggill has sought to justify the conduct of the Leader of the Liberal Party and member for Toowong by relying upon an argument that his speech was relevant to the context. This appears to be a frank concession that the speech was not directly relevant to the matters in issue in that debate, and reinforces my argument to this Committee that the speech of the member for Toowong was irrelevant to the question before the Committee. Instead of focusing on whether or not the power given by the Standing Orders to the Chairman was properly exercised, the member for Toowong sought to take the debate outside those rules and return to the matters of heated controversy which so inflamed this Chamber some hours ago. It is for that reason, as a matter of logic, that one must reject the motion of dissent currently before the Committee. But having said that, Mr Chairman, there is a further and more powerful reason why one so should do, and that is that the conduct of the member for Toowong seen in the context of that debate amounted to a disgraceful attack upon the good order of this Committee. I refer members of the Committee to chapter IX of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. They set out rules of debate. The question is whether this Committee is to put its house in order or whether it will be allowed to descend into disorder, and in that respect this Committee should well support the proposition that the conduct of the Liberal Leader was a disgraceful example to young people and a disgraceful example to all citizens genuinely concerned with law and order, for order was defied by his actions today in this Committee. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (3.50 p.m.): I support the motion moved by the member for Moggill. I have listened to my learned colleague on the Government side put forward an argument that the member for Toowong, the Leader of the Liberal Party, was off the subject, so therefore, Mr Chairman, you had every right to remove him from this Chamber. I draw your attention, Mr Chairman, to the action that you took when the Attorney-General spoke in the same debate a speaker or two prior to that. The Attorney-General got widely off the subject that was under discussion. He diverged onto other subjects. Mr Chairman, your attention was drawn to this by the acting Leader of Opposition business, Mr Neville Harper, the member for Auburn. You ruled that the Attorney-General was correct and could continue with the debate. However, when the member for Toowong rose to his feet and engaged in the wide-ranging debate that you had allowed other members to engage in, you suddenly decided that he was off the subject. Mr Chairman, you allowed the Attorney-General to go as wide as he wanted to go, but as soon as the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Toowong, got to his feet, you decided that he was off the subject. Mr Wells interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I know the Attorney-General can join in the debate by way of interjection but, in line with what the member for Yeronga said, he is the guilty person who put this Chamber into disarray today. There is no doubt about that. The member for Yeronga said that this Parliament needs to come to order, that we have to respect the Chair. Mr Chairman, with great respect, I believe that your ruling is wrong. I believe that Legislative Assembly 2507 31 October 1991 had the Attorney-General had any respect for this Parliament, he would not have abused this Parliament and abused the powers of privilege of this Parliament to do the dirty deed that he wanted to do—for whoever, I do not know—which was what caused the disruption in this Chamber today. Mr Harper interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: As the former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice said, the member for Yeronga supports the dignity of this Parliament and the Westminster system on the one hand and, on the other hand, he corrupts the doctrine of the separation of powers. I do not know whether he has ever heard of it before. He has very selective amnesia, as does the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. I would just like to remind the member for Lockyer at this stage of the actual motion that honourable members are debating. The motion that has been moved by the member for Moggill under Standing Order 118 is a motion of dissent from my ruling that the Leader of the Liberal Party withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order 123A. The debate is about the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party; it is not about the behaviour of the Attorney- General. Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is a motion of dissent concerning the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who deliberately disobeyed the Chair at that time. I would like the member to speak to that motion. Mr FITZGERALD: Mr Chairman, I accept your explanation of what we are debating. However, I disagree with your ruling on the ground that, in the same debate in which the Leader of the Liberal Party was asked to withdraw from this Chamber, you allowed the Attorney-General to widen the terms of that debate quite considerably. Then you turned on the Leader of the Liberal Party selectively and refused to allow him to widen the debate for the same reasons. That is why I disagree with your ruling that the Leader of the Liberal Party should leave this Chamber under Standing Order 123A. With great respect to you, Mr Chairman, a fair and independent chairman would attempt to have a balanced view. If a chairman allows the debate to be widened, he should extend that privilege to members on both sides of the Chamber. I said also that the Attorney-General alone was the person who caused great disruption in this Chamber earlier, yet he was again allowed to widen the debate, as a result of which the Leader of the Liberal Party was asked to leave this Chamber. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (3.55 p.m.): Mr Chairman, I also support the motion moved by the honourable member for Moggill under Standing Order 118 to dissent from your ruling to suspend the Leader of the Liberal Party. Earlier in this place, the member for Yeronga suggested that the way in which the honourable member for Moggill argued the case against your ruling was not a proper way for it to be done. I will attempt to paraphrase what he said as accurately as I can. He said that the context was not important and that it was the ruling that was important, and the ruling was being disobeyed. However, I wish to raise the question that was raised earlier by other members in a slightly different way. How can the context not be important? Part of the context includes a precedent which was set for the member who spoke prior to me—the precedent by which you, Mr Chairman, allowed other speakers to indulge in a wide-ranging contribution, yet, when another member, the Leader of the Liberal Party, sought to make equally wide-ranging, relevant statements, he was not allowed to do so. Why is that context not important? Surely a precedent has been set in this place. After all, the Parliament should be supreme. Only a few minutes earlier, one rule was applied to a Minister, whose actions and comments I will not comment on, otherwise my remarks will be ruled to be irrelevant. Why should not the context be important? I suggest that the analysis of our learned, legal colleague from Yeronga is Legislative Assembly 2508 31 October 1991 fundamentally flawed. The best precedent that we can follow is not even the precedent that was quoted by the honourable member for Moggill—honourable as that precedent may be. The precedent finds its roots in democratic history—in history for which honourable members opposite have absolutely no respect. The precedent and the context about which we are talking are those which were set by this Parliament, and this Parliament, under its own Rules and Standing Orders, should be supreme. Even if a ruling is made by the Chairman, with whom we greatly disagree, that ruling and that precedent should be respected. Mr Welford: That’s precisely the point. Mr SANTORO: When the honourable member for Yeronga gets up and says that the context is not important, he is saying that the previous latitude, the previous ruling, the previous acceptance of comments by the Chairman are not relevant. That is just not on. Mr Chairman, you cannot in the space of 10 minutes have one rule for one member and a different rule for the Leader of the Liberal Party. That is what we are debating. The honourable member for Stafford is a moron, because he does not seem to understand that basic principle. We also must look at the overall context within which this debate has taken place. I will not comment on the substance of what the Attorney-General said. However, this morning, the Committee was interrupted by the Attorney-General who, for whatever motives of his own, for whatever conspiracy, for whatever form of McCarthyism, came into this place and said, “Let’s interrupt the Committee.” It has been said that we are interrupting the integrity of the Committee at this point in time, but when the Attorney-General asked that the Committee report progress so that he could make his statement, there were no howls of disapproval from any Government members. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr SANTORO: That is right, because we respect the democratic right of people in this place to have their say. We did not seek to gag the Attorney-General from using privileged information. We hear a lot of rubbish about Government members having qualifications. Yet a mate of another suburban lawyer comes in here, disregards the precedent that had been set five minutes earlier by the Chairman and then says, “It’s not relevant.” Well, this Parliament is supreme. I am saying two things: in not supporting this motion, Mr Chairman, you are indulging in cronyism. You are looking after your cronies on the other side of the Chamber and you are not looking after the legitimate rights of members on this side of the Chamber. All you are doing is indulging, as the Leader of the Opposition said, in McCarthyism. It is not good, it is not right and it is about time that the bleeding civil libertarians on the other side of the Chamber started demonstrating some respect for civil liberties and, more importantly, for the liberties of members of this place. Time expired. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (4 p.m.): Earlier today, the Attorney-General joined in a conspiracy with the Special Prosecutor. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have tried to explain once or twice my ruling regarding Standing Order 123A in respect of which this motion of dissent has been moved. I will read out the Standing Order we are supposed to be debating. Standing Order 123A provides— “(1) The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after warning such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber. (2) A Member ordered to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber under this Standing Order must do so forthwith, and must, during the remainder of the day’s sitting, absent himself from the Legislative Assembly Chamber. Legislative Assembly 2509 31 October 1991

(3) Without prejudice to any other right power or remedy of the House or of the Speaker or the Chairman, the Speaker or Chairman may without further warning but otherwise in the manner provided in the Standing Order as to Order in the House name any Member who having been ordered to withdraw under this Standing Order fails to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber or to absent himself from the Legislative Assembly Chamber during the remainder of the day’s sitting.” That is what we are talking about. Under the practice, one warning is usually given and then the Standing Order is applied. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I accept fully those things that you have said. The Attorney- General used the Parliament to give privilege to statements which would have seen the prosecutor gaoled if he had made them in court. The prosecutor would clearly have been in contempt if he had stood and made that statement before a judge. The facts of the matter are that the Crown failed to convince any court of the guilt of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It then sought to blacken the reputation of a man never found guilty and make its case through the media. The prosecutor went outside the court and made statements which—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Flinders! I just went to the trouble of reading Standing Order 123A and advising honourable members that what we are speaking about is the motion by the member for Moggill concerning the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party. That is what we are discussing. I would like honourable members to appreciate that we are discussing the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party. I believe that the honourable member should speak to that motion. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, to explain the validity of what I am stating here, I point out that the Leader of the Liberal Party felt very, very strongly along the lines that I am outlining here, and the reason for dissenting is in the context of what is reasonable. The prosecutor went outside the court and made statements which would have made him liable to a defamation pay-out. At a meeting shortly after 11 o’clock, Labor Party members decided—and let them deny this—that they would dig their man out of a hole, that man being Mr Drummond. The Labor Party attempted—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is unparliamentary. The honourable member cannot have avowed motives and assign them to different members of the Chamber. That is out of order. Under Standing Order 123A, I ask him to return to the debate on the motion. Mr KATTER: I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman, but I am trying to explain the reasonableness or the unreasonableness, with all due respects to you, of the decision which we consider was badly made. The Labor Party then attempted to turn the Parliament of Queensland into a Star Chamber. It has set out to do what the legal system did not do. The Attorney-General has lost all credibility over the most gross perversion of the law. He can no longer be regarded in any way as fit to hold office. That is the reason why the Leader of the Liberal Party was proceeding in that direction. Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order. Not only is the honourable member persisting with this irrelevant issue, but I suspect that he is reading from the very same speech that was used by Mr Horan and probably by Mr Stoneman. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr KATTER: The Attorney-General can no longer be regarded in any way as fit to hold office as the first law officer of this State. The Attorney-General has lost all credibility over the most gross perversion of justice. The Labor Party has proven that it has been engaged in a long-term conspiracy with the Special Prosecutor, it would appear clearly Legislative Assembly 2510 31 October 1991 now on the record, aimed at smearing National Party figures for party-political purposes. The ALP has shown absolute—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like to advise all members of Standing Order 124, which states— “Whenever any Member or Members shall persist, after warning by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, in the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may name such Member or Members . . .” I wish to advise honourable members of that because I am warning all members in Committee now of Standing Order 124. I will regard any further attempt to stop the debate on the Estimates as being deliberately against Standing Order 124. Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (4.05 p.m.): I stand to support the motion of the member for Moggill, which related very much to what happened in this Chamber this morning. It was an absolute disgrace. I feel that the ALP has shown absolute contempt for both the judicial system and the Parliament and should justify itself to the electorate. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that an Attorney- General can be allowed to stand in this place and absolutely mouth all sorts of platitudes that go right outside of what he is allowed to do and besmirch people who are great family people. I am talking specifically about the Bjelke-Petersen family. This morning, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was found not guilty in another place, and this morning in this place the Attorney tried to find him guilty. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Southport! We have had great debate about the Attorney-General and about Bjelke-Petersen, but I believe we are now talking about the motion of dissent from the Chairman’s ruling. I refer the honourable member to Standing Order 123A. The motion concerns the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party. I would like the honourable member to come back to that matter. Mr VEIVERS: Mr Chairman, with all due respect to the Chair, I will come back to that. I felt that the member for Moggill was maligned when he was asked to leave the Chamber. He was endeavouring—— Government members: Toowong. Mr VEIVERS: Toowong, I meant. The member for Toowong was maligned when he was asked to leave the Chamber. He was endeavouring to point out—and point out very well indeed—what the Attorney-General had attempted to do. Mr Chairman, the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party was thrown out of this Chamber by you for no good reason at all. Once we saw the member for Toowoomba South hoisted out of this place for endeavouring to do the right thing, that did not surprise me at all. He was upset. He was talking about family services and then he felt that he was so grossly upset about what had happened this morning that he would get on to that subject, and he was thrown out of this Chamber. Actually, what Mr Santoro said about McCarthyism being rife and rampant in this place is quite true. The member opposite who is supposed to stand up for civil liberties, Mr Foley, got up and mouthed the greatest platitudes of all time. It is all right while it is going his way, but when he has to stand up for people whom we represent, he does not stand up for civil liberties at all. Mr Elliott: He dogged it. Mr VEIVERS: The member for Cunningham puts it very succinctly—he dogged it. It was disgraceful to see that happen. Yet he stood on his feet and attempted to keep the Attorney-General above where he should be, that is, down in the depths. Legislative Assembly 2511 31 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Southport will return to the debate on the motion of dissent from the Chairman’s ruling relating to Standing Order 123A concerning the behaviour of the Leader of the Liberal Party. Mr VEIVERS: I was talking about general behaviour in this place. This morning in this Chamber, we saw the total degeneration of the Westminster system. Unfortunately, members who were trying to debate this issue to the best of their ability, and using this Chamber as it should be used, were thrown out for no good reason at all. I believe that is abhorrent. This Parliament has sunk to the lowest depths. Question—That the Chairman’s ruling (Dr Watson’s motion) be dissented from—put; and the Committee divided—

DIVISION Resolved in the negative.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Debate resumed. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is time for the Minister to reply in the Estimates debate. I call the Minister. Mr HARPER: With due respect, Mr Chairman—— Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (4.13 p.m.), in reply: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank honourable members for their—— Mr HARPER: Mr Chairman, you previously acknowledged—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! What matter is the member speaking to? Mr HARPER: I am rising under Standing Order 118. I am moving dissent from the ruling of the Chairman that the failure by the honourable members for Barambah, South Legislative Assembly 2512 31 October 1991

Coast and Currumbin to come forward as tellers indicated that the members on this side of the Chamber did not wish to appoint tellers and that the division was lost. NAMING OF MEMBER The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. I have warned all honourable members that I regard comments like that as persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House. I name the member for Auburn under Standing Order 124. I will report that to the Speaker.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.14 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move— “That the member for Auburn be suspended from the service of the House for 14 days.” Question put; and the House divided—

DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Auburn withdrew from the Chamber.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Debate resumed. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the Standing Orders, I must call the Minister for Family Services. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I seek leave to move a motion without notice. Legislative Assembly 2513 31 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: The member cannot do that. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I want to raise a matter of privilege. The CHAIRMAN: I call the Minister. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I want to move—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr LITTLEPROUD: I call the Speaker, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN: Order! We are in the Committee of Supply. I have just reported a member to the Speaker. We must then come back into Committee of Supply. Under the Sessional Orders, it is time for the Minister to respond. That is the Sessional Order and the Standing Order that I must adhere to. Ms WARNER: I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. I respect the ruling of the Chairman, but I would like an explanation. Surely, as a member of Parliament—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. At 4.25 p.m., The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $312,914,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (Consolidated Fund). $30,221,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (Trust and Special Funds).

Resource Industries Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (4.25 p.m.): I move—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Chairman, I would like a point of clarification. I respected your previous ruling, but I have a concern that the Speaker was in the chair previously when I called for a matter of privilege and I was ignored by the Speaker. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Standing Order 170 is headed “Speaker to Resume Chair in Certain Cases”. I suggest that the honourable member reads that Standing Order because that is the one under which I—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: He was in the chair. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Standing Order 170 states— “If any sudden disorder arises in Committee, or a Message from His Excellency the Governor is announced, or the time is come for doing anything which the House has ordered to be done at a stated time, Mr. Speaker shall resume the Chair without any question being put. In either of the two former cases, when the matter has been disposed of, the House shall again resolve itself into the Committee without Question put.” Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. Legislative Assembly 2514 31 October 1991

NAMING OF MEMBER The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn all honourable members that they are persistently and wilfully disobeying the Chair in Committee, and I now name the member for Condamine under Standing Order 124.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.25 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move— “That the member for Condamine be suspended from the House for 14 days.” Question—That the member for Condamine be suspended from the service of the House for 14 days—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Condamine withdrew from the Chamber. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Resource Industries Debate resumed. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Minister for Resource Industries. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (4.28 p.m.): I move— Legislative Assembly 2515 31 October 1991

“That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $49,146,000 for Mining, Energy and Electricity, Department of Resource Industries (Consolidated Fund).” Mr STONEMAN: Mr Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr STONEMAN: Mr Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising.

NAMING OF MEMBER The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have given a general warning under Standing Order 124. I now name the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 124. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Chairman, under what Standing Order?

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.33 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move— “That the member for Burdekin be suspended from the service of the House for 14 days.” Question put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. In division— Honourable members interjecting— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fassifern and the Minister for Education will come to order. Whereupon the honourable member for Burdekin withdrew from the Chamber. Legislative Assembly 2516 31 October 1991

SUPPLY

Committee—Resource Industries Debate resumed. Mr VAUGHAN: During last year’s Estimates, I spoke to the Committee about a new emphasis that this Government is placing on the Resource Industries portfolio—that is, a commitment to the philosophy of sustainable development. In practical terms, this meant continuing Government support and encouragement for a vital sector of the State’s economy, while improving the regulation, practice and technical support for environmental management within that sector. I believe that considerable advances have been made towards this goal of sustainability or, as I prefer to describe it, development without destruction. On one side of the scales, this Government and the mining industry have drawn up and agreed upon Queensland’s first environmental code of practice for mining. The code of practice and its realistic implementation schedule have been endorsed by the industry’s peak representative body, the Queensland Mining Council, and I believe it provides a framework within which responsible mining development can continue. On the other side of the scales, the Department of Resource Industries is moving towards targeted improvements in its services to the mining industry and the public via an internal restructuring and the completion of a network of 10 district offices. This Government accepts that it has responsibilities not just to protect the environment for future generations but also to ensure valuable industry, such as mining, prosper so that the next generation has jobs, opportunities and a State to live in that is as economically healthy as it is at present. The Department of Resource Industries provides a range of services and manages an approvals system which is integral to the operations of the mining industry. Those services must be reliable and accessible and the approvals system must be rational, transparent and well managed if industry is not to be unnecessarily hampered and valuable revenue and employment opportunities lost to the people of Queensland. The introduction of the Mineral Resources Act, the progress of the regionalisation program, and a new policy emphasis from a fresh, forward-looking Labor Government were among the factors which started the process of change within my department. Rather than wait for the scheduled Public Sector Management Commission review, which is now under way, the department decided to review itself last year. The core activities of the department were identified and its goals set as being— providing opportunities for responsible mineral and energy development; optimising the financial return to the State from mining and energy activities; and achieving a high standard of environmental, occupational health and safety performance in the mineral and energy industries. Five divisions have been created to help the department meet these goals, these divisions being Minerals, Energy, Geological Survey, Policy and Coordination, and Corporate Services. In May this year, an interim strategic plan was drawn up and noted by Cabinet. Most of the department’s functions in servicing the State’s resource industries will be concentrated in the Minerals and Energy Divisions and the Geological Survey Division. Both the Minerals and Energy Divisions will carry out all tasks such as tenure assessment and grants related to its particular commodity area. In practical terms, this means that the Energy Division will be responsible for releasing land for coal exploration, awarding exploration permits for coal, examining mining lease applications, and environmental management plans for coal, rather than having land releases handled in Legislative Assembly 2517 31 October 1991 one area, tenures in another, and environmental matters in yet another. The intention is to create clearer guidelines regarding management responsibilities as well as providing an easily identifiable point of contact for industry, the public, and other Government agencies. It is also intended to speed up the processing of tenures, which is an issue that my department and I are very aware of, and which is seen as a major issue for the current year. In each division, clients and objectives have been identified and major priorities have been laid out, as those members who have examined the department’s annual report will be able to see. During the restructuring, which was conducted with input from the PSMC, a number of critical issues were identified for attention. Those issues included— helping to resolve development versus conservation land use issues; maintaining and improving the Queensland mining industry’s competitiveness; and improving the efficiency of the department’s service to industry and the community. The coming year’s activities and program Estimates that I will outline to honourable members today will show that the Department of Resource Industries, and the Government as a whole, has those issues clearly in its sights. Before I go on to the program details, I will briefly outline the mining development that has continued in Queensland in the stable political and financial environment provided by the Goss Government. Mining continues to be this State’s single biggest revenue-earner and most valuable industry, earning the people of Queensland more than $226m in royalties, as well as providing more than $5 billion in export earnings. The industry employs 20 000 Queenslanders, as well as supporting up to another 34 000 jobs—many of them being in regional areas. Of course, the mining industry, like other industries, has not been immune to the sharp slow- down in world economic growth in 1991, which was a phenomenon beyond this Government’s control. Despite an increase in the quantity of commodities mined, the total value of mining production fell by 1 per cent to $5.053 billion, which is an excellent performance, given the international economic climate and the substantial fall in commodity prices. Coal exports continued to rise, with the value of coal exports in 1990-91 up 1.7 per cent on 1989-90 figures to $3.271 billion. A total of 78.4 million tonnes of coal was produced, which is an increase of 4.6 per cent on 1989-90 figures. During the past year, a number of significant projects have been announced. Earlier this month the Premier and I announced approval for the proposed new $370m north Goonyella export coal mine, which is expected to create 260 permanent jobs and earn $200m annually in export revenue. Work has already begun on the site and the mine is expected to reach full production of three million tonnes of coal per year by the end of 1993. It will be second only in size to the Gordonstone mine, which is set to be Australia’s biggest underground mine, with an annual output of four million tonnes of coking and steaming coal when it reaches full production in 1994. Approximately 400 people are already working on construction of the Gordonstone mine, and the first coal should be produced late this year. In July this year, another major energy project was sealed when the Premier signed an agreement with his South Australian counterpart, Mr John Bannon, for the sale of Queensland gas to South Australia. Under the contract, nine joint venturers in the south-west Queensland gas project will sell 300 petajoules of natural gas over 10 years to South Australia. The project involves a 12-month, $180m construction phase creating 600 jobs and involving the construction of a 190 kilometre pipeline from the Jackson gas fields in south-west Queensland to Moomba in South Australia. In the past year, Queensland’s gas pipeline network has already expanded with the opening of the Gladstone to Rockhampton State gas pipeline extension. Legislative Assembly 2518 31 October 1991

The pipeline extension, the first major State-funded project approved by this Government, was integral to the development of the $200m Queensland magnesia project in Rockhampton. The Q-MAG project turned out its first product this month and has projected sales of about $600m over the next six years. Even more exciting is the number of down-stream processing opportunities using Australian technology which could flow from the huge Kunwarara magnesite deposit on which Q-MAG is based. The most advanced of these opportunities is a magnesium metal project at Gladstone which is approaching the pilot plant stage. Another investigation under way into a value-adding project is the joint venture examining coal bed methane west of Mackay and Rockhampton. The major partners, Mount Isa Mines and a subsidiary of Japan’s Mitsubishi Gas and Chemical, aim to build a major methanol plant producing between $150m and $230m of methanol a year and employing up to 100 people. Meanwhile, prefeasibility studies continue at the Century base metals deposit north west of Queensland’s existing base metals giant, Mount Isa. Only a fortnight ago, I inspected the site with CRA Exploration and was advised that if the mine goes ahead it will produce export earnings of $500m a year. CRA hopes that Century can be fully operational by 1995, and will produce about five million tonnes of zinc a year—about 10 per cent of the world’s zinc. Another announcement of which the Government can be proud is our move to open the way for a potential $800m sand-mining project at Byfield in central Queensland. The package, announced by Mr Comben and I, opens the way for the definition and development of potentially economic resources of heavy mineral sands while protecting areas of high conservation value. It epitomises the balance which we have sought to bring to mining development in Queensland. As I said earlier, a major step forward in finding that balance has been the development of a new environmental code of practice for the State’s mining industry, a code which I announced jointly—and I stress that point—with the Queensland Mining Council’s chief executive, Mr Michael Pinnock. The aim of the code is to protect the environment during mining, and return the land to a stable, useful form after mining. The code provides clear goals and guidelines for environmental management, and incorporates a financial carrot-and-stick approach to reward responsible miners and encourage improvement in the non-performers. Over the coming year and beyond, my department will continue to formulate advice and technical guidelines for miners using an environmental activity allocation which is up 12 per cent on last year. This funds a total of 13 environmental positions, which will be divided between the Minerals and Energy Divisions. I must again emphasise that this new code was developed in close consultation with industry, leading to its endorsement by the Queensland Mining Council as well as some acknowledgment by the environmental movement. I believe it is quite an accomplishment to achieve this level of consensus in the current climate of environmental politics and debate, and I offer this as further proof that this Government is balancing the scales. Having set the frameworks in place for this balanced development, it is vital that the required human and financial resources be provided within the department to allow them to be implemented. I can assure the Committee that this will be the case, as I will demonstrate by outlining the activities of the department’s new divisions in line with the programs outlined in Budget Paper No. 3, at pages 286 to 305, for those who wish to follow closely. The energy program budget of $11.627m includes $5.806m for the department’s Energy Division. One of the Energy Division’s tasks is to manage and encourage the efficient use of the State’s energy resources. The efficient use of energy is now an international priority, particularly given the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. The Goss Government has recognised this and taken a number of steps to further the efficient use of energy in Queensland, Legislative Assembly 2519 31 October 1991 including the establishment of an energy information centre in Brisbane. The energy program budget includes more than $120,000 for the operation of the centre, plus the cost of salaries, to allow the centre to provide independent advice to an increasing number of clients. In its first five months of operation, the centre handled inquiries from 1 200 customers, and energy advisers have been invited to speak at a number of seminars to promote efficient energy use and design. Also within the Energy Division allocation are funds for the Government’s energy management program, set up in name alone by the National Party, but allocated real resources by this Government in a bid to cut the Government’s $50m electricity bill. One of the program’s most high profile recent activities has been to begin an audit of energy use within Parliament House and the Parliamentary Annexe, which is scheduled to be completed early next year. Among the priorities for the Energy Division in the coming year will be improving the processing of tenure applications and renewals, and implementing the new environmental management policy for coalmines. More staff time will be spent on clearing the backlog of mining lease applications and renewals and establishing a system to ensure faster approvals. Three environmental officers will be devoted full-time to help and advise industry on gradual implementation of the new environmental policy at coalmines. The Energy Division will play a major role in the development of a State energy policy following feedback from the community and industry on the discussion paper entitled “Energy Policy Directions for Queensland into the 21st Century”. The discussion paper was released in February this year and represented a major step towards developing strategic energy policies for Queensland. I hope to announce the first initiative from that process by the end of this year. The minerals program budget of $26.901m includes $13.433m for the department’s Minerals Division. The Minerals Division will give priority this year to speeding up tenure processing as well as improving access to land by releasing land previously restricted from exploration and mining. This will include negotiating with various Government departments and other organisations to ensure prospective areas remain available for exploration and mining. One of the activities during the current year will be to complete a review of the first 12 months of operation of the Mineral Resources Act. I set up a monitoring committee to oversee the first year of the Act to see how it worked in the field, and I am pleased to say that indications are that the small number of problems which have arisen can be handled. Most of these involve the recreational sector and small operators, and once I receive a report from the monitoring committee, some minor amendments to the legislation may resolve outstanding issues. During the year, the Minerals Division will continue to provide technical assistance to miners on environmental management, as well as spending scarce resources on some of the legacies of our predecessors. This includes the Horn Island gold mine in the Torres Strait, where $2.2m has been allocated for decommissioning and rehabilitation, a legacy from when the miner went into receivership and only a $500,000 security deposit was available for the clean-up operation. The department’s 10 regional offices are funded from this division, and almost half a million dollars, plus the cost of salaries, has been allocated to their operation this year. I opened the final link in the office network at Winton earlier this month, completing a regionalisation program which has doubled the number of my departmental offices outside Brisbane. These regional offices will provide a far superior service to miners and explorers than previously, giving them fast access to information and expertise in the regional areas where they operate rather than having to refer to a Brisbane head office. Within the Minerals Division budget is another project I am very proud to have initiated, and that is the Gympie mine shaft program. The Budget includes $1.3m this year for this important public safety program, under which this Government is finding and sealing abandoned and potentially dangerous goldmine shafts. We estimate it will take about four years and Legislative Assembly 2520 31 October 1991 around $4m to locate and make safe the 1 500 or so old shafts under Gympie, and to protect the lives and property of people of Gympie City and the Widgee Shire. The department’s Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station at Redbank has been allocated a budget of $4m from the minerals and energy program budgets. The station, known by the acronym SIMTARS, helps the mining industry achieve a high standard of safety and health performance and to develop and apply new technologies. I had SIMTARS reviewed last year, and implemented changes in its operations which I believe have improved its ability to fulfil its primary role of improving safety in Queensland’s mines. Over the coming year, SIMTARS will continue to expand its gas detection and analysis systems which are now installed in all major underground mines in Queensland, and may soon be sold interstate and overseas. SIMTARS will also broaden the range of training services it offers to the mining industry and consolidate its recently acquired role in the new Queensland Centre for Mining Technology and Equipment, part of the Federal Government’s multimillion-dollar boost to research in Australia. The Corporate Services Division, which includes a policy and coordination division, has a budget of $24.605m, apportioned across other programs. A policy unit that I set up last year has been expanded into a policy and coordination division in an ongoing effort to raise the level of policy analysis, development and advice within the Resource Industries portfolio. The emphasis is on taking a consultive approach to the formulation of policy—talking to industry, other Government departments and the wider community—to ensure that policies are framed with community benefit in mind. Included in this program budget are two important allocations: $9.863m for the Queensland Centre of Advanced Technologies at Pinjarra Hills and $2.656m for the Torres Strait islands electrification project. The Torres Strait electrification project will provide a reticulation electricity supply to around 3 000 people in the Torres Strait. Work has already started on the project, which will bring mainland standard electricity to 13 islands by the end of 1993. The Pinjarra Hills centre will become the new headquarters for the CSIRO division of geomechanics and will concentrate on research in mining and energy resources and civil engineering. Research at the centre will help foster value-adding and downstream processing of minerals in Queensland. The Corporate Services Division budget also includes an allocation of $480,000 for the Queensland Coal Board, an increase of $18,000 over 1990-91. The Committee may recall that I had the board reviewed and subsequently moved to upgrade its role and resources accordingly. The board has now assumed that role, becoming a major Government adviser on the State’s multibillion-dollar export and domestic coal industry. In the coming year, the board will provide Government with a wide range of advice, including analysis of trading patterns; new technologies and trends in coal utilisation; and collection and validation of scientific and technical information to provide a pro-active view of coal in the Asia/Pacific region. The geological survey program budget includes $5.302m for the department’s geological survey division and an apportionment from corporate services. The division collects geological data through a regional mapping program and makes regional assessments of the mineral and energy potential of the State, a service vital to the mining industry and the Government. Not only does it assist the industry in exploring for new resources, such as Century, but also the division’s information allows the Government to make intelligent land-use decisions and manage the State’s resources. I turn now to the other part of my portfolio—the Queensland electricity supply industry. The Queensland Electricity Commission and the seven electricity boards have achieved their targets and continue to offer Queenslanders a secure, reliable electricity supply. This has been done while maintaining the lowest average prices of any mainland State. This performance must reflect on senior management, and I speak here particularly Legislative Assembly 2521 31 October 1991 of the former Electricity Commissioner, Neil Galwey, who retired earlier this year. Mr Galwey gave more than 42 years of service to the electricity industry in this State and, during the brief period of our formal association, the commissioner was highly professional in providing advice to me as Minister. His expertise is obviously widely recognised as, shortly after his retirement, he was appointed chairman of the board of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Returning to the industry, the level of future demand for electricity in Queensland continues to be driven by growth in population and associated economic activity. Queensland’s population and economic growth have exceeded the national average and are expected to remain high, with projections showing Queensland’s share of the national population will increase from about 17 per cent now to around 20 per cent by the year 2030. These forecasts mean that, as the market for electricity continues to expand, opportunities will be created for implementing further efficiencies between the production and use of electricity. I have encouraged the electricity industry in the application of demand side management techniques. This year, QEC and the electricity boards will continue to pursue a variety of demand side management options aimed at avoiding unnecessary expansion of the electricity system. The industry is active in encouraging consumers in energy efficient practices and purchases, and in looking for opportunities for private generation of electricity from otherwise waste products. In the current year, the boards and the commission have budgeted around $8m for consumers’ advisory services, which include energy efficiency programs and campaigns—a figure which represents an increase of 40 per cent on the previous year. The QEC maintains a strong interest in alternative energy sources for electricity generation. Development of a geothermal generation project continues at Birdsville, and assessment is progressing on the recovery of coal bed methane and its potential as a fuel source for future generation. In addressing the program Estimates, I will start with the finance and debt servicing program, the goal of which is to continually reduce the electricity industry’s debt to equity ratio to the year 2000. The QEC manages the industry’s debt to minimise interest costs and their impact on electricity prices. During 1991-92, the QEC will pay out $550m to service and repay loan debt, reducing debt to $3.145 billion, while assets are expected to increase to $8.3 billion. Also included in the program is a payment of $15.4m to consolidated revenue as a capital guarantee fee on Government-guaranteed borrowings, a fee designed to put Government-owned enterprises on a more commercial basis. I turn now to the power generation program and power transmission program, which together total $877m and ensure adequate generation capacity and reliability at the lowest economic cost. Of that amount, $333m will be spent on acquisition of new power generation assets, and $50m is for power transmission capital works. The focus of the power generation program is currently the Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton, Queensland’s largest construction project. That project is on target to meet a scheduled commercial load date of March 1993. The work force employed on the project reached 791 in June 1991 and is expected to peak at just under 1 000 people next year. Another area of emphasis in this year’s program is the refurbishment of Gladstone and Swanbank Power Stations. As load growth develops, the reliable and cost-effective operation of those stations will be of increasing importance in meeting the demand, particularly in the period before the commissioning of the first Stanwell generating set. This program includes a planned further reduction of $25m in the value of coal stockpiles at power stations. I turn now to the Corporate Services Division. This program has been allocated $61m in these Estimates, and includes $22m for the Government’s pensioner electricity rebate scheme. Electricity prices in Queensland are very competitive both internationally and Legislative Assembly 2522 31 October 1991 nationally, and retail electricity prices in 1991-92 will increase by less than half that of the Consumer Price Index. In the longer term, the industry forecasts retail price increases to be no more than half the CPI until 1996. The outlook for the immediate future will be for a continuation of price stability and commercial responsibility. The orientation to demand side management will deliver value to electricity- users and encourage the wise and efficient use of electricity to improve utilisation of the State’s resources. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the people in both areas of my portfolio, that is, the Director-General of the Department of Resource Industries, Paul Breslin, and his staff, the Acting Electricity Commissioner, Keith Hilless, and the management and staff of the Queensland Electricity Commission and the electricity boards. I include in that acknowledgment the members of the State’s seven electricity boards, whom I appointed in June this year. For the management and employees in both areas of the portfolio, the past year has been a time of change under a new Government with new policies and new ideas. Moves towards change can bring reactions ranging from vehement resistance to enthusiastic welcome. I believe that the people in my portfolio area are responding positively to change. These comments apply particularly to the Department of Resource Industries which, as I have explained, has been restructured and is currently under further review by the PSMC. I believe that this process will help the Department of Resource Industries to provide an even better service to the public and to the mining industry. I am happy to say that I look forward to continuing to work with all the staff within my portfolio in managing Queensland’s resource industries in the best interests of the people of the State. I commend to the Committee the Estimates of my portfolio. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed I will allow full discussion on all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Fund and Trust and Special Funds). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (5.02 p.m.): The Estimates of the Department of Resource Industries reveal two things. Firstly, Treasury depends on the mining industry in a substantial way to contribute to the size of the State income cake. Secondly, there has been no increase in funding for the important functions of the department in providing services to the mining industry. As far as the industry is concerned, it is all take and no give. The industry pays a large amount in payroll tax, which is not identified in the Budget. Mine-workers and companies that operate at a profit pay substantial income tax. Together with other primary industries, the mining industry is the backbone in providing export income for Australia so that we can continue to enjoy our very high standard of living. On the other side, royalties have increased from an actual amount of $227.5m in 1990-91 to a budgeted estimate of $239.8m for 1991-92. Even though demand for departmental services has increased, the department’s size has been contained. The department is in a state of very low morale, and this concerns me. With regard to departmental morale, my views differ from those of the Minister, who said that a number of changes were forced upon the department last year and that at present the Public Sector Management Commission is reviewing the staff and their functions. If the Minister thinks that such a review does not disturb staff, he should look at any of the other departments that the PSMC has been through. He should not try to convince this Committee that everything in his department is well and that everybody is happy while that assessment is going on. I am afraid that the wool has been pulled over his eyes and that he is listening to only one or two people who want to tell him that they are happy and that everybody underneath them is happy. I do not believe that to be the case. In his annual report, the Director-General of the Department of Resource Industries indicated that the— Legislative Assembly 2523 31 October 1991

“. . . Government called for a new direction for the Department of Resource Industries. A new organisational structure was developed and managers and staff of the Department all contributed to a strategic planning process which resulted in a re-evaluation of the Department’s fundamental purpose and goals.” Further in the report, he stated— “The response by staff to the new directions we have set has been pleasing and even though we are not through with change yet, I am confident that we can work together to meet our goals.” I wish the director-general of the department every success, because I believe it is important that the department settles down and works hard to service the industry which is entrusted to it. If the Minister was in touch with his department, he would be aware that these changes and the reviews by the PSMC have unsettled his staff. Departmental officers want to know where the department is headed. They should be assured by the Government that the environmental section is needed in the department to monitor mining operations and to give advice to the Minister. I believe it is vital that the Minister retain environmental advice to him from departmental officers. This function should not be handed over to another department. The Honourable the Minister for Environment has no sympathy for the mining industry. He has a program for increasing the size of the State’s national parks and is on record as saying that it is not his concern if potential mineral-bearing land is locked up before its resources are fully evaluated. That is why I say that the Minister for Environment should not be the final arbiter of what is environmentally acceptable or not. He certainly can have his say in Cabinet, but this Minister must have his own environmental advice. Mining titles must stay with the department and certainly not be hived off to the Lands Department. Mine safety must stay with the department, and it must not go off to another department. I note that the SIMTARS has received no real increase in funding. Mine safety research is vital to maintain safe working conditions for our coal-miners. We should never forget the disastrous Moura No. 4 explosion in 1986 and other tragedies that have occurred in the coalmines in the past. While no-one is ever confident that the dangers of coal-mining can be eliminated, I think it is important that every step possible is taken to try to ensure that they do not happen in the future. The Government has reneged on its commitment to review the coal rail freight rates. From what I could hear of the Minister’s speech, I believe that he did not touch upon that point. When this Government came to power, it promised the people of Queensland that it would review coal freight rates. It reviewed them, all right, but it has done absolutely nothing about them. The Government has not even addressed the problem of coal freight rates. Mr Dollin: We have kept our promise. We reviewed it. Mr FITZGERALD: The honourable member for Maryborough said, “We have kept our promise. We reviewed it.” That is all the Government ever intended to do. I take his comment as being an indication of what the Government believes is fair and proper action. I am rather disturbed that this issue has not been addressed by the Government. I accept fully that the freight rates vary from company to company and that the history of freight rates in coal-mining in Queensland has created a problem. Now is the time to address the problem and make those tough, hard decisions that have to be made by Government. As they come on stream, coalmines have different arrangements. The coal industry is well and truly established in Queensland. From now on, the coal-mining companies should know that the rules are the same for everybody. Legislative Assembly 2524 31 October 1991

The Government has presided over a Queensland coal industry that is coming under increasing cost pressures. Because of the changes to work practices in that industry in New South Wales, new mines are coming into production in that State. The Minister announced with some pride that a new mine is opening in Queensland, namely, the North Goonyella mine, but failed to say that what is happening in Australia at present—because the changes in work place practices have given New South Wales underground mines and mines a greater advantage than mines in Queensland—is that New South Wales is putting more coalmines into production. On the international scene, they are our competitors—whether we like it or not. One of Australia’s major customers for coal is Japan, which has announced that it will diversify its source of supply for coal. I know that counterclaims have been put forward by industry to the effect that the percentage of coal burnt in Japan—both coking and steaming coal—will increase, and that Australia should maintain the same percentage of that market as it has at present. However, I am rather disturbed to hear that, under the direction of MITI, Japanese companies are looking to South Africa, which is coming back into the coal supply industry on a large scale. As well, Indonesian coals are being developed by companies that operate in Australia. We do have competitors out there, and unless we address the problems we will not maintain our share of the major Japanese market or our share of the world trade. Coal companies now need a clear message from the Government that rail freights will be adjusted, so that we can improve the mining industry in Queensland. Those rail freights should be reviewed. The rail freight tax—and I deliberately refer to it as a tax—should be identified so that the public of Queensland can see what income is derived from that source. I believe that it should be identified. It does not show up in the Estimates or in the Budget. It is hidden among the profits of the Railways. The Estimates do not reveal the profit to the Government from rail charges. I believe that the Coal Board should be abolished. That board was created to ensure domestic coal for home consumption during the war. Mr Pearce: We won’t have that. Mr FITZGERALD: I know that. I would bet that the Government would not have that. This Government has expanded its role not only to keep statistics but to advise the Minister on policy matters. This function should be performed by the department. If Australia continues to enjoy the standard of living that it enjoys, we must have a good, hard look at what direction we should be heading in the future. Mr Pearce: Once again, you are knocking the work force. You are knocking the coal-miners themselves. Mr FITZGERALD: I am not knocking coal-miners at all. I do not know where on earth the honourable member got that idea from. I am certainly not knocking coal-miners. There can be no dispute that Australia depends largely on the mining industry to pay for our standard of living. This has not changed since the gold rush days of the 1850s. According to the latest statistics on exports—during 1989-90, our total exports from Australia were $49.1 billion. Of that sum, $11.835 billion came from mining industries. That is a massive amount. I compare that with the agricultural sector—agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. During that same period, total exports in that sector were $7.409 billion. That shows how extremely important the mining industry is to Queensland. As to the value of minerals produced by Queensland and Australia during 1988-89—the latest figures that I have available—the mining sector in Queensland produced $4.3056 billion. The total value of Australian mineral production was $17.626 billion. Mining is extremely important to Australia, and very important to Queensland. Legislative Assembly 2525 31 October 1991

Compared with other developed countries, the standard of living in Australia is continuing to fall. If we are to earn more from our mining exports, two things should take place. Firstly, we must continue to encourage exploration for minerals, and then develop the resources. Secondly, Australia must process more of its mine products in Australia so that we have a value-added benefit to the economy. As to the first point on exploration and development—I say again in this Chamber that Australia has continued to restrict the area of land that can be explored. In Queensland, this Government is implementing a policy of doubling the area of national parks. The Minister for Environment has stated that he does not give any consideration to the mineral potential of the proposed national parks. Mr Pearce: That’s incorrect. Mr McGrady: That is not true. Mr FITZGERALD: The Minister for Environment has made that statement publicly. We cannot afford the luxury of locking up our resources without knowing what it is costing us. I remind the Committee that, on processing our mine products, the Australian mining industry largely mines the product and generally exports it without further processing. According to a recent magazine article about bauxite and aluminium exports—Australia produces about 35 per cent of the world’s bauxite; about 30 per cent of the alumina in the world; 10 per cent of the aluminium; and about 2 per cent of fabricated aluminium. Therein lies a problem. Australia will never be the clever country if we continue to mine and export our mine products without a value-added process. Australian mining companies are now embarking on a program of entering into joint ventures with overseas countries and companies. For example, most of our zinc is refined overseas, with companies involved in Germany and Japan. I am sure that we will see further projects in South East Asia as their economies—particularly the Thai economy, Taiwan and some of the Malaysian economies—really get going. The heads of some of those companies believe that it is not economically viable to undertake mineral processing downstream in Australia; that it is better to send the raw product overseas. Mr D’Arcy: Because it suits them for a series of other reasons. Mr FITZGERALD: The member says that it suits them for various reasons. Silver and lead are refined in England. We do minimal processing of silver and lead in Australia. The story goes on. Virtually all our refining is done overseas. We have to ask ourselves: does Australia need a mineral processing and refining industry? If the answer is “Yes”, what do we have to do? There is no doubt in my mind that companies must be offered tax incentives. Maybe when the GST package is released, people will realise that export industries will receive support and benefits under that taxation regime. Companies invest in places where they will get the best return on their capital investment. Mr Pearce: You want to take the benefit away from Queensland. Mr FITZGERALD: The honourable member for Broadsound says that the National Party wants to take the benefit away from Queensland. What does the honourable member on the Government side of the Chamber say about the Yabulu nickel refinery? What support has he given to ensure that mineral processing takes place in Australia? There is a worked-out deposit at Greenvale. A company at Yabulu has a complete processing plant and is trying to import raw product from overseas to process the nickel ore in Australia, but is being impeded by red tape. I do not know where the honourable member’s voice has been crying—probably in the wilderness. The Government has made no attempt to expedite a decision so that that metal-processing industry can be established firmly in Australia—and in Queensland. That means jobs, jobs, jobs, as Government members are so keen to talk about. Legislative Assembly 2526 31 October 1991

Mr DAVIES: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the Committee. Up to 4 million tonnes of nickel ore has been imported into Townsville already. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! There is no point of order. Mr FITZGERALD: I accept the honourable member’s interest in the debate and I accept that nickel ore is being imported, but the honourable member knows the quantities of nickel ore that must be imported every year. The quantities that are being imported at present certainly will not maintain that plant at anywhere near full production. When the ore body at Greenvale is depleted, unless the Government can substantially increase the quantities of ore that are being imported, the Greenvale plant will lie idle. The Government is trying to hang the cost of the outer berth largely on the company. The Government has absolutely no credibility when it says that it favours and supports the importation of ore into this country. The other matter of concern in Australia is that, in order to increase our mining industry, we must encourage further the education of mining industry engineers and other people involved in the industry so that they can take their place throughout the world. That is largely happening. Australian companies now spend substantial amounts of money on overseas exploration and mining. I cite the example of the extremely profitable Porgera mine with which Mount Isa Mines is involved in New Guinea. BHP is involved in the Escandida mine in Chile, and CRA and other companies carry out mining operations in Indonesia. Companies are doing work in Africa. It is excellent that Australian exploration companies are world leaders in certain fields and carry out operations throughout the world. That will give great employment opportunities to Australian engineers and to Australian mining industry personnel. It is excellent. I support that totally. For too long, Australia was the domain of American, German and English companies that mined in Australia in the early days. It is great to see the hands of the clock turning round and Australia taking its correct place in the world. Australians have also excelled in developing new techniques. I cite the example of the flotation methods and the various refining techniques that have been developed by companies in Australia. That technology is now being exported to countries throughout the world. In relation to overseas exploration—it concerns me that, in the past couple of years, there has been a lack of exploration for oil and gas in Australia. I know that the Minister has taken steps to make available more areas of land for exploration. I wish him well in that and I hope that companies will come to Australia to take up the offers that were made to them. It is interesting to note that the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association—APEA—forecast that in 1991 it would expend $144m on onshore exploration and $374m on off-shore exploration. Australian companies overseas were going to spend $242m on exploration and $294m on the development of mining operations. That gives honourable members an idea of the balance. Australian companies now look for oil and gas overseas, and the same thing occurs in the other mining operations. In the last 11 minutes that are allocated to me, I will turn to the electricity industry, the other part of the Minister’s portfolio. Before doing so, I pay tribute to Neil Galwey, the retired commissioner. He retired from the Queensland Electricity Commission, from memory, on 19 July. I wish him well and every success. On behalf of the members of this Parliament—and I know that the Minister has already spoken about this—I thank Mr Galwey very much for his contribution to the economy of this State and for contributing to the healthy state of the electricity industry. The electricity industry epitomises what the National Party Government stood for in this State. The industry is a success story. As the Minister said, Queensland now has the cheapest electricity on mainland Australia, and it will continue to be cheaper than that supplied in the other States. Because of the advantages that were brought about by the National Party Government and the Queensland Electricity Commission over a period, Queensland has a great opportunity to Legislative Assembly 2527 31 October 1991 be the leading State in Australia in mineral-processing and in the efficient use of electricity. I know that the Minister spoke about the need to control the demand for electricity. Experts have advised him on what can and should be done about that. I say to the Minister: do not rely on the new, efficient light bulbs and the use of microwave ovens instead of conventional ovens to dampen dramatically the demand for electricity. Electricity can be saved, and I hope that most people do save electricity so that more and more power stations do not have to be built. It is a fact of life that the demand for electricity continues to increase. As the Minister correctly stated, the population of Queensland will continue to increase. One cannot deny that the trend is evident. Over the last couple of years, the consumption of electricity rose quite sharply. There has been a dampener this year because of the recession we had to have, according to Paul Keating. People demand electricity for washing machines, dishwashers and lights for domestic use. They are not willing to do without electricity. Back in 1982, we were consuming 11 138 gigawatt hours of electricity for the year. Up until 30 June 1991, we had consumed 22 324 gigawatt hours of electricity, so demand has doubled in that period of nine years. That is a tremendous increase. Unless the Minister takes steps to plan for the next power station, he will leave Queensland in the dark. I am sure that is the last thing the Minister wants to do. The Labor Government took over an electricity industry that was in extremely good shape. All the statistics show that Queensland has by far the most efficient industry in Australia. We have a lot of supply problems because of the long transmission lines needed in Queensland, but fortunately we have excellent coal reserves. Because of these recognised efficiencies, Queensland could supply more and more power for eastern Australia. There has been a gradual rise in the number of kilowatt hours per domestic consumer per year. In 1982, the figure was under 6 000 kilowatt hours per consumer, but that has increased steadily over the years until in 1990 it reached 6 333 kilowatt hours per consumer. The figure in 1991 is only 3 kilowatt hours per consumer less than it was 12 months previously. The impact will be very minimal. Unless this Government calls for tenders for the supply of coal, gas or methane gas for the generation of power in the very near future, it will find that Queensland will be short of electricity in the years ahead. Most members would be well aware that it takes approximately 10 years to plan a power station. There has been a terrific gap. Tenders were almost ready to be called when there was a change in Government. This Government has sat on its hands for two years. It has even procrastinated about the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme, which when one looks at the big picture is an extremely small project. It takes only half a year’s annual growth in terms of the supply of electricity. The debate about the Tully/Millstream project is whether it is needed for the Cairns area and north Queensland. Dr Clark: No, it is not. It is a peaking station. Mr FITZGERALD: It is a peaking station, but it fits into the overall plan and is necessary for the supply of power in north Queensland. It has a 600 megawatt capacity. I know that three 200 megawatt turbines will be installed in the mountain. Kareeya Power Station is a very small station, but it continues to generate electricity throughout the day and not run just at peak hours. This hydroelectric scheme is necessary for north Queensland. I ask the member for Barron River if she can advise whether she supports the Tully/Millstream power station project and whether she is willing to go on record that she does not support it. I would like to know whether this Government supports it. There has been nothing but duck-shoving and pussy-footing around the issue ever since this Government came to power. The Government did not even believe the environmental study that had been done by the commission and wanted an independent study. It put the Legislative Assembly 2528 31 October 1991 matter on hold, but the recommendation came back that the project could go ahead. Now, because of the World Heritage listed area, the Government has sent it off to Canberra for another assessment to be made. The people in the region and Queenslanders generally have a right to know if the Government is supporting the project. Does the Government want it or not? The Government is asking the commission to make the decision, but it has to make the decision itself. Even though this area was listed on the World Heritage List, the area was proposed as a prospective site for a power station and the assessment was carried out on that basis. The honourable member for Barron River will have to tell honourable members whether she supports that. QEC’s achievements in electricity demand management over the last 20 years have been impressive and have played a significant role in Queensland’s advance from being the most expensive electricity supply State in the early 1970s to being the least expensive electricity supply State by the late 1980s. Public statements about Queensland’s backwardness in respect of demand management are completely without foundation. In this area, QEC’s public statements have been modest and accurate. Queensland has left New South Wales and South Australia way behind in electricity demand management and has an excellent record for minimising generating plant investment and minimising or flattening out the peaks in electricity demands which are costly to provide. The Minister will know that they have been quite effective. For instance, in the farming regions day-time charges were imposed on electricity and farmers encouraged to irrigate at night-time. I come from a farming background, and I know that farmers bought extra solid-set irrigation lines so that there would be a low filtration rate from the plants at night-time. This enabled them to irrigate for long periods. They do not irrigate during peak hours because it is too expensive. They only irrigate during the peak day-time hours if they have to. They always try to manage their properties efficiently and use the most electricity at night-time. That is what has happened in the past. I do not think that the new wattage light bulbs will really be the saviour of this Government because of its failure to provide for the next power station or bring it on line as soon as possible. One thing that would be the saviour of the Government would be to prolong the recession in Queensland and hound business away from this State. However, apart from that, if the Boyne Island smelterworks expand, the Government will need additional power generating capacity to enable that project to go ahead. An expanded plant can be built more quickly than a power station can even be constructed. Even if the Government was game to do a deal to sell off the existing Gladstone Power Station at whatever price could be obtained, the capacity generated by that power station would have to be replaced by another plant. There is no way in the world that a project of that type can be expanded by assuming that Gladstone Power Station will be able to look after that increased need for electricity. I believe that many honourable members forget that although coal-fired power stations are very expensive, they also wear out. It is imperative for Queensland to have sound planning for the future in the mining and electricity industries so that Queenslanders can enjoy the high standard of living that was achieved under the National Party Government which was in power for so long. If mistakes are made by this Government, it will take a long time for the National Party to rectify the problems after it gets rid of this Government from office. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (5.32 p.m.): The new environmental code of practice is the latest and most significant step forward in this Government’s progress towards establishment of responsible mining development in Queensland. In this Government’s first Budget, the initial step was to increase funding by around 200 per cent to the environmental management section of the Department of Resource Industries. This ensured that sufficient human resources are provided to ensure appropriate scrutiny of, and technical support for, the mining industry’s environmental management practices. Legislative Assembly 2529 31 October 1991

Reviews of the existing systems were put in place and, after many months of consultation, have resulted in the new environmental code of practice. It needs to be stressed that this code is not something that is imposed on industry from above by an overzealous greenie Government. The Queensland Mining Council endorsed the code, and its own chief executive, Michael Pinnock, announced the scheme to the media in company with the Minister. The thrust of the new system is to coordinate environmental management plans in all mine planning, which is, in essence, the old axiom, “Prevention is better than cure”. At the centre of the policy is the Environmental Management Overview Strategy, which describes the miners’ environmental management plans for the entire life of the mine until the lease is surrendered. An environmental auditing process is being set up so that consultants can provide a report on rehabilitative performance and planning. The audit will confirm whether miners are complying with their strategy, which has to be approved by departmental officers. Field audits will be carried out by the department on a priority and random basis. Miners will receive a rating based on their environmental management performance. Category one miners—those that demonstrate environmentally sound performance—will pay the lowest rate of security deposits, while category six miners will pay the highest. Miners can move up through the categories as their performance improves. The security deposit system is designed to provide a real financial incentive in that it rewards the companies that perform well and burdens those that do not. Importantly, it also protects the public purse when things go wrong—unlike the system that existed under the previous Government. Mr T. B. Sullivan: What does it protect? Mr SCHWARTEN: It protects the public purse—that elusive item that is ensconced in Treasury that everybody talks about yet nobody has seen. Mr Foley: Like the Holy Grail. Mr SCHWARTEN: It is more or less the Holy Grail. I believe that one day the public purse will be put on public display for all the public to see, and there will be no more controversial people having strings attached to it or hands in it, or anything of that type. The previous Government paid lip-service to the security deposit system, which has left the present Government with million-dollar bills to pick up at Horn Island and in the Conondale Ranges. A committee comprising industry and departmental representatives has been set up to implement the policy and provide a point of consultation. The new code of practice and the associated system of security deposits provide clear goals and guidelines for environmental management, a regulatory and planning framework, and monetary incentives. The Department of Resource Industries will continue to formulate advice and technical guidelines which will provide techniques for miners to use for environmental protection, waste management and rehabilitation. Existing coalmines will be given 10 years to implement the policy while all other existing mines will be given five years. That five-year timetable is particularly relevant to the area I intend to represent after the next election—the electorate of Rockhampton North—which will include the Byfield area. Mr Fenlon: And you will win it, too. Mr SCHWARTEN: I certainly intend to win it. Earlier this year, Cabinet approved a plan under which 20 000 hectares of national park were created. The way was opened for a potential $800m mineral sand-mining and processing facility at Byfield. If that project proceeds, the joint venturers—RZ and Strategic Minerals—will be required to provide their life-of-mine strategy and a realistic security deposit. Many stages have to be completed before the project goes ahead—and I wish to emphasise “many stages have to be completed before the project goes ahead”—including the completion of a full environmental impact study and opportunities for objections, and a full public hearing in the Legislative Assembly 2530 31 October 1991

Mining Wardens Court. The same commitment to consultation that was shown in the successful development of the environmental code of practice is being employed in the case of Byfield. The Minister has invited local conservationists to join the advisory body, which has input into formulating the guidelines for the EIS. Mr Pearce: Are you happy with what the Minister has done in that area? Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection made by the honourable member. I am very happy with what the Minister has done in that regard. I believe that the Minister has bent over backwards to encourage input into the EIS process. A long time ago, I learned that it is not possible to win the fight from outside the ropes. It is my view that people who call themselves conservationists now have the chance to stand up and be counted and be part of the process to ensure that all the things about which they are concerned are part and parcel of the EIS process. In my view, it would be a great tragedy if the conservation groups do not seize this opportunity with both hands and participate. I understand that their concern is that, somehow or another, they will be railroaded, or tied into a policy at the end of the day. I think it is a bit short-sighted, on their part, to use that sort of argument. Quite frankly, I believe that at the end of the day they will make their own judgments about whether or not the system has worked, and they will not necessarily be obliged to wear the consequences of the EIS. I again make a plea to the conservationists in that area to get out there and be part of the EIS to make sure that the issues that they see as being relevant are, in fact, included in that EIS process. I might digress marginally here to point out that recently, I happened to visit the area with the honourable member for Broadsound. I was absolutely astounded and disgusted to see the area littered with bottles, cans, and various other bits and pieces of rubbish. I also noted the large wheel tracks in the sand dunes. The place is being environmentally damaged. In conjunction with the honourable member for Broadsound, I have already spoken to the Minister for the Environment, and I believe that a management plan is just around the corner. That is the sort of commitment that this Government makes to that area. I again encourage those conservation groups to participate in the EIS program. Should mining go ahead, I believe that the Capricorn Coast community should have confidence in this Government’s demonstrated commitment to environmentally responsible mining, and I say that with a great deal of confidence. I can understand why these groups do not trust Governments, as they have seen environmental damage being wrought on the country hand over fist. I can well understand their distrust, but I think that this Government’s record speaks for itself. I think that this Government has been in there making sure that the environment is protected and that jobs are created. I do not think that one can obtain a fairer balance than that. I now turn to the State gas pipeline. In July, the $20m Gladstone to Rockhampton State gas pipeline extension was opened by the Premier. The extension was the first major State-funded project approved by this Government. I campaigned strongly, as did the Minister himself, to gain Cabinet’s approval for that pipeline. The construction of the $200m Queensland magnesia project has shown that decision to be the right one. The Q-MAG project, which will be the world’s largest single producer of high-quality magnesias from natural magnesite, began production in July. Ninety-five per cent of the project’s production capacity will be exported, making the project one of Queensland’s leading value- added mineral export earners, with projected sales of refined magnesite of about $600m over the next six years. The Queensland Metals Corporation, one of the three joint venture partners in the project, was quick to see the benefits of value-added processing, with a tonne of magnesium ore selling for $60 and a tonne of magnesium metal selling for $4,000. Magnesium metal is one of the metals of the twenty-first century, and consumption is set to rise from 250 000 tonnes to one million tonnes by the year 2000. Its strength and lightness make it increasingly attractive to automobile manufacturers which Legislative Assembly 2531 31 October 1991 are under increasing pressure to produce lighter vehicles with lower fuel consumption and lower emissions. The Queensland Metals Corporation is negotiating with joint venture partners to build a $30m pilot plant in Gladstone, which is to commence in 1993 as part of its prefeasibility study for a proposed new $600m magnesium metal project which could produce 60 000 tonnes of magnesium metal a year and could be up and running by 1998. However, the timing of this depends on market development. This project has attracted both Federal and State attention as a project which could be progressed with appropriate Government support, and this proposal is being considered. Three other core projects have been identified. The first is the Enviromag project, which is now in the research and market development stage to determine grades of product and the size of the market. Bulk samples have been produced at QMC’s Rockhampton laboratories for trial by the water treatment and paper industries. The Enviromag project is a joint venture with ICI Australia and has drawn a lot of interest from the pulp and paper industry, which is keen to reduce chlorine usage. The CSIRO has a vital role to play in the development of magnesium-based industries and products. The Queensland Metals Corporation and the CSIRO are looking at two other potential projects, the first being CEMAG, in which the Queensland Metals Corporation and Queensland Cement and Lime have joined forces to look at magnesia-based cements and building materials; the second being FLAMEMAG, which is a project that is looking at magnesium hydroxide, which is a flame retardant. According to the Queensland Metals Corporation, if both of these projects become a reality, the combined capital expenditure will be $1 billion by the year 2000. This year, the State gas pipeline unit will have a budget of $24.6m. The budget will be used in part for maintenance, providing a 24-hour surveillance for the pipeline, and promoting natural gas to potential customers. The unit’s major priorities this year are to fulfil contract obligations to existing customers, and to find other customers. The Minister is already examining proposals for the reticulation of gas within Rockhampton, which would bring a relatively cheap, clean energy source to local businesses and homes. I am aware of that project. I believe that the honourable member for Lockyer, in his speech, raised the issue of electricity conservation. I believe that alternative projects such as this reticulation of gas into people’s homes will, in fact, lessen the burden on our State electricity grid, and accordingly will place less demand on coal-fired power stations. Of course, the environment has to be the winner out of that project. The south-west Queensland gas project is another project to develop the State’s gas resources, which will eventually provide another link in the gas pipeline network. In July this year, the Premier signed an agreement with his South Australian counterpart, Mr John Bannon, for the sale of Queensland gas to South Australia. Honourable members might recall that we spoke about that recently. Under the contract, 300 petajoules of natural gas will be sold over 10 years, and the first gas will be transported to South Australia by 1994. The initial $180m construction phase is expected to last 12 months and create 600 jobs. It will involve the construction of a 190-kilometre pipeline from the Jackson oilfields in south-west Queensland to Moomba in South Australia. This project will return more than $50m to the people of Queensland in royalty revenue. It opens the way for the future development of Queensland’s south-west gasfields and the continued development of Queensland’s natural gas pipeline network. The project will also help to secure gas supplies to the Queensland coast by the eventual construction of a gas pipeline from Jackson to Roma. The companies involved in the project, the south-west Queensland gas parties, have already agreed to contribute towards building a pipeline to connect the gasfields of the south-west corner of Queensland to the east coast. Ready markets for natural gas will also help boost exploration expenditure for petroleum. Construction is set to begin by the end of the year, and the first gas is due to be delivered Legislative Assembly 2532 31 October 1991 to South Australia by 1 January 1994. Only this month, the project cleared two administrative hurdles. Time expired. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.46 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Estimates for Resource Industries on a day which I guess will become a very auspicious day in the Queensland calendar. In the northern hemisphere, 31 October is Halloween. In Queensland, it is the first Thursday after daylight-saving commences and, of course, is a day on which we have seen perhaps the greatest ever abuse of parliamentary privilege. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Will the member resume his speech on the Estimates? Every member of this Committee is under a warning under Standing Order 124. I remind the member of that, and ask him to return to the Estimates. Dr WATSON: Of course, I am talking about the Estimates on this thirty-first day of October, which I think is particularly relevant. As I said, it is an auspicious day for Queensland. I am going to talk about a particular part of the Estimates that covers a very small section of the Minister’s very wide portfolio. Before doing so, perhaps I should echo the thoughts of the member for Lockyer, and add my congratulations to Neil Galwey on the efforts he has put into the electricity industry over quite a number of years, and wish him all the best in his retirement. The role of State Governments in the Australian economy is changing. For a number of reasons, it has come under increasing attention in the last few years. Firstly, there has been a growing realisation of the inefficiencies in the provision of State Government services, and that these are adversely affecting business costs, and, I think, the competitiveness of Australian industry generally. The second aspect which I believe impacts on these developments is that the Prime Minister’s new federalism, which I guess has been also championed by Nick Greiner in New South Wales, has raised that traditional question of the relationship of State and Federal Governments with issues such as the division of tax powers, and like issues. The third thing which is affecting the role of State Governments in the Australian economy is the marked differences between the States on the impact of the recession that Labor has induced over the past 18 months to two years. When one examines the performances of the various States, the impact of the recession as it flows through each of the various economies can be seen. In Queensland, it has hit one of the important areas, something which has sustained our economy and sustained our standard of living for quite some time, and that is, of course, the area of business investment. Queensland’s proportion of business investment or fixed private capital investment has been falling for most quarters over the past 12 months and, of course, Australia’s private fixed capital investment has fallen drastically over the past 12 months, and is expected to fall just as much over the forthcoming 12 months. This is demonstrated in the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures, and, of course, was highlighted as part of the Federal Budget. With respect to the future, all the recent surveys have indicated that business investment in Queensland and Australia continues to operate under a significant cloud, and the indications are that it will to continue to fall over the next 6 to 12 months. The current business conditions in Queensland are still not positive. Most businesses in Queensland expect poor or very poor trading conditions in the foreseeable future. They also believe that we have a very poor or poor climate for investment. That is particularly important, because when we are talking about the industries such as mining and electricity which are the subject of these Estimates, critical to their performance is the encouragement of investment. It is particularly disturbing when one sees statistics which indicate that the mining industry itself is one of the most pessimistic areas with respect to Legislative Assembly 2533 31 October 1991 expected performance in the Australian economy. The fall in the demand for their output is one of the reasons for below-average performance in Queensland industries—the mining industry in particular—as part of the Australian economy and that fall in demand can be broken down into a number of components. I wish to address a couple of those components in the time remaining to me. One component is the increased overseas competition. The second is increased Australian competition. The third is some unexpected factors which basically come down to the economic policies adopted by the Federal Government in particular, but also State Governments; and the final factor is changes in consumer tastes. I will examine the issue of competition in the coal industry, and particularly how it affects the relative positions of Queensland and New South Wales. We often hear the Treasurer contend that State taxes alone are the overriding factor in business decision-making. Those who are involved in business understand that that is far from the correct position. In order to elaborate, it is worth examining some of the facts about the coal industry. First of all, when one examines the figures for 1989-90 and 1990-91, one discovers that New South Wales has increased considerably its exports of black coal, particularly when compared with what has occurred in Queensland. In 1989-90, New South Wales exported 42.75 million tonnes of black coal and Queensland exported 61.27 million tonnes. In the same period, New South Wales exported 41.1 per cent of Australia’s black coal and Queensland exported 58.9 per cent. In 1990-91, New South Wales exported 51.26 million tonnes of black coal and Queensland exported 61.92 million tonnes. In that period, New South Wales exported 45.2 per cent of Australia’s black coal and Queensland exported 54.8 per cent. The change in the competitive positions of Queensland and New South Wales has something to do with that relative change in export performance. It also has something to do with the development of coalmines. Earlier, the member for Lockyer addressed this matter, although perhaps he did not give sufficient details. At present in Queensland, three mines are being developed: Gordonstone, which is under construction; Ensham, which is before the courts, principally because of interference by the Government in that process; and North Goonyella, which is the subject of a feasibility study. In New South Wales, six mines are being developed: Bulga, which is under final study; Dartbrook, which is under final study; and Glennies Creek, Hunter Valley No. 2 mine, Clutha-Western and Narama, which are under construction and are adding significantly to the quantity of black coal being mined. Why is that occurring? It is occurring because the competitive position of Queensland has changed relative to that of New South Wales. In Queensland, mining costs are increasing for a variety of reasons. One reason is that the open-cut mines, which Queensland has dominated for the past decade or two, are now facing increasing overburden costs, because the overburden that they have to strip before mining is increasing significantly. Secondly, the newer mines in Queensland tend to be long wall coal developments, which are more consistent with the developments in New South Wales, which have been underground mines and, more recently, long wall coalmines. The relative costs of production in New South Wales and Queensland are coming closer, which is to the relative detriment of Queensland. When conditions are changing in the mining industry, it is important that Governments do not interfere in the process and interrupt or complicate the changes that have to take place. I turn to the rail costs issue. There is no question that that issue has had an impact on Queensland mining. We may not like it, but over the past few years the relative positions of Queensland and New South Wales have changed, which has had a major impact upon the competitive position of Queensland. For example, the Industry Commission’s draft report on rail transport that was published earlier this year found that the figures that were the most reliable were produced by Easton. That report revealed that the average costs to produce coal and the average revenue that the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 2534 31 October 1991

Government derives from coal have tended to remain fairly constant. The excess—that supernormal profit that is being generated in New South Wales on a per tonne basis—has fallen; whereas, in Queensland, the reverse has occurred. In New South Wales in 1986, the average cost per metric tonne was $2.84 and the rail revenue was $7.80 per tonne, which produced an excess of $4.96. By 1990, the cost for Hunter Valley coal increased to $3.84 and the revenue that the New South Wales Government received decreased to $7.29, producing a lower excess of $3.44. However, in Queensland in 1985, the average rail costs were $3.03 and, in 1990, they were $4.10. The average revenue to the Queensland Government has increased from $9.99 in 1985 to $11.38 in 1990 and, in the same period, the excess has moved from $6.96 to $7.28. That has made the relative position of Queensland mines compared with the position of mines in New South Wales—and they are our major competitors on the world market—worse. When one combines that with naturally occurring phenomena which make the position relatively worse, one realises that the development of Queensland mines is significantly less than it could be. This very critical area of the Queensland economy and the Queensland industry has to be looked at with far greater sympathy by the Minister and his colleagues. If they do so, I think that they will start to adjust the costs which the Queensland Government is imposing. If they do that and lower those costs, in the long run they will create a more competitive industry and a better future for all of us. Sitting suspended from 6.02 to 7.30 p.m. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (7.30 p.m.): First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister, Mr Ken Vaughan, on the stewardship which he has shown over the past two years in this portfolio, and also, of course, Mr Paul Breslin, with whom I have most dealings in relation to mining matters. I also acknowledge the presence in the Chamber tonight of Keith Hilless, whom I have known for many, many years. For the past weeks, this Committee has been debating the Estimates of the various Government departments. Most of the Ministers and the departments are proud of the fact that expenditure has been increased and, to some extent, some people tend to believe that the higher the percentage increase, the more successful that particular Minister has been in running his or her portfolio. But tonight we are discussing the portfolio which really pays the bills, or, to use the words of another person, “brings home the bacon”. I refer, of course, to the mining industry, an industry to which I am proud to belong and a community which I am proud to represent in the Parliament, not forgetting the fact that it is the saviour of this State and, indeed, this nation. For almost 200 years, over 80 per cent of Australia’s exports have come from either what we mine or what we grow. Of all the changes that have occurred in Australia, one thing has remained constant, that is, the overwhelming importance to our economy of our great primary industries. For two centuries, the balance between the rural and mining sectors has changed backwards and forwards, but currently mining is the major contributor. This Committee should understand that the Australian mining industry is world class, as are the men and women who make up this industry. Those outback mining communities have fought the tyranny of distance, have overcome droughts and floods and so many other obstacles that I believe they deserve the thanks of the people of this State. I repeat: the Australian mining industry is world class. It has large, world-class resources with prospects for funding more. It employs world-class geologists, mining engineers and metallurgists, using state-of-the-art high-tech equipment and processing techniques, many of which were developed in Australia. It has a skilled, world-class, educated work force operating and maintaining some of the world’s great mines and utilising modern, efficient, integrated transport systems. Our mining infrastructures are amongst the best in the world. Regretfully, as a nation we have sought mainly to rely on Legislative Assembly 2535 31 October 1991 these advantages rather than build on them. Just in case the perspective of some members in this Chamber is that Australia is one big quarry, as some ill-informed members of our community would have people believe, I point out that mining disturbs less than 0.02 per cent of Australia’s land area and can rightly claim to be Australia’s most efficient form of land use. Some 42 per cent of our wealth comes from 0.02 per cent of Australia’s land area. In the past 25 years, this industry has built, at no cost to the taxpayer, 30 new towns, 12 new ports, 20 airfields, 2 000 kilometres of rail line, dams too numerous to mention and thousands of kilometres of road. Currently, about 2 million people are employed or sustained by the Australian mineral-producers. Last year, Governments in Australia at State, Federal and local levels collected over $5 billion in royalties, taxes and profits. Last year, despite a slowing world economy and an easing of world commodity prices, this industry invested $5 billion in new or expanding products. All of us in this Chamber know that times are tough, and it is at times such as these that we realise just how much we depend on our world-class mining industry. Last financial year alone, mining royalties earned the people of Queensland more than $226m. This is the mining industry of 1991. We are fortunate that our mining and minerals processing industries continue to provide employment for Queenslanders, considerable revenue for the State Government and invaluable export income for the nation. The mining industry continues to show other sectors of the Australian economy just how it should be done. The industry is internationally competitive and stands on its own two feet. It applies “clever country” principles to its operations, invests in innovative research, uses home-grown technology and even sells that technology to the rest of the world. The mining industry takes the long- term view and concentrates on forward planning, investing millions of dollars in exploration for economic deposits which are crucial to its continued existence. The industry underpins value-added mineral- processing. Copper, nickel and the majority of bauxite mined in Queensland is refined in this State, while most of our silver and lead is smelted before being exported, along with a big share of our alumina. The mining industry is a force for decentralisation and has created the towns which I mentioned before. There is no doubt that the mining industry’s contribution will continue to grow and the industry will continue to invest in new developments here in Queensland. The world-class copper/lead/zinc/silver mine at Mount Isa, one of the world’s great mines, is currently undergoing a $200m upgrade to improve its competitive position well into the next century. Development of the 3 000 to 3 500 copper ore bodies and associated cooling plant, the introduction of new concentrator grinding circuits, upgraded power and water supplies and application of the MIM-developed Isasmelt technology in the lead and copper smelters are changing the face of mining and mineral-processing at Mount Isa. The technology is being developed here by Mount Isa Mines with the primary purpose of improving the cost efficiency of Queensland’s mining industry, but another valuable spin-off is in technology sales overseas, which I mentioned briefly before and which have earned the company tens of millions of dollars. The ISA process, developed by MIM in Townsville, is now used in Europe, the Americas and, indeed, the United States of America, while the newly developed Jameson cell is being sold internationally to improve mineral recoveries. Twenty kilometres up the road from Mount Isa, at MIM’s Hilton mine, production this financial year is expanding to one and three quarter million tonnes. MIM has also started mining at the Tick Hill goldmine, which is expected to produce 100 000 ounces of gold a year. The carbon-in-pulp plant, which is now under construction, will be finished by January. Tick Hill was a Greenfield discovery in 1989 by Mount Isa Mines staff. Legislative Assembly 2536 31 October 1991

The activity in base metal mining is reflected in exploration for base metals. Last financial year, base metals were the main minerals sought, and expenditure on base metal exploration increased from 31 per cent to 44 per cent of total mineral exploration expenditure in the first three-quarters of 1990-91. Most of the activity is concentrated in the north-west of the State—an area which I am proud to represent—where there has been a dramatic increase in interest, and results to date are very encouraging. One of the main reasons behind that dramatic interest is the startling discovery, in April last year, of the massive Century deposit, 250 kilometres north west of Mount Isa. Century will produce annual export earnings of $500m a year. Feasibility studies are currently under way. Century is expected to be fully operational by 1995, and will produce about five million tonnes of zinc a year—about 10 per cent of the world’s zinc. The mine will have a work force of about 300 people. Ore will be mined, crushed and concentrated on site and then piped as slurry to the Gulf of Carpentaria for export. The Century deposit is an excellent example of just what can still be done and found in Queensland. CRA Exploration discovered the resource, estimated at 140 million tonnes, despite the fact that the terrain in the area had not been explored for more than 100 years. The Century deposit, and the wealth that it can generate for the State and nation, also makes us realise that we have to capitalise on our comparative advantage and push ahead with mine development while maintaining balance in the environmental debate. An essential part of the groundwork for continuing mining development is exploration. With its bank of geological data, the Department of Resource Industries provides the feedstock for explorers. This year, the Geological Services Division has a budget of $5.3m. This represents 0.01 per cent of the value of the minerals produced in Queensland—a small, worthwhile investment compared to the possible returns that basic geological data can provide. The division’s major priorities will be to contribute substantially to two national geoscience mapping accord projects. Greater access to geoscience data will be provided by the development of a geoscience and resource database. This database, which will complement the existing mining tenures database, will form part of the minerals resource location and information network—MERLIN—giving Government and industry a world-class information system. This is part of a push by the division to tailor its products and services to the needs of its clients, and develop formal liaison with the exploration industry to enhance the provision of services. In July this year, the division held a public seminar to tell the industry, geoscientists, other Government departments, universities, consultants, research agencies and other people about its work, and to get feedback on private sector needs. I am pleased to see the department looking closely at the delivery of services to clients, especially in the area of processing tenures. As the member for an area of heavy mining and exploration activity, from hobbyists and small miners to some of the biggest in the country—or, indeed, the world—I am aware of the need for efficient processing and provision of information by the department. The regionalisation program, which has just been completed, is a major step forward, especially in areas such as Mount Isa. Almost half a million dollars has been set aside for the operation of the 10 regional offices throughout the State. This does not include costs for maintenance of and communication systems for the mining tenures database—the computerised information system linking all of these offices to a central database in Brisbane. The miners and explorers now no longer have to make constant referrals to a Brisbane head office for information about the area where they are operating. It also means that local land-holders or prospective buyers can check quickly and easily about mining tenures over property. The presence of a registrar and a field office locally can also help reduce the potential for conflict over land use between rural land-holders and miners. The regionalisation program is an investment in improving the operation of the mining Legislative Assembly 2537 31 October 1991 industry today, while another project—the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies at Pinjarra Hills—is an investment in the industry’s future. These Estimates contain a further $9.9m of the State’s planned contribution of $20m toward the establishment of the centre. The Government’s total contribution is made under a 25-year agreement with CSIRO. This will cover building the centre, relocating staff and equipment and buying computer equipment. The centre, which will become the new headquarters for the CSIRO Division of Geomechanics, is a strategic move by the CSIRO to ensure that its research will have closer associations with the industries that it serves. The centre will be completed in the middle of next year, and will concentrate on research in mining and energy resources and civil engineering. It will also help foster value-adding and downstream processing of minerals in Queensland. I could not complete this address to the Committee on the mining industry without paying tribute both to the membership and the officials of the trade union movement in the City of Mount Isa. Those men and women, who have led the nation in terms of industrial relations, have been an integral part of the development of this industry. I mention people such as the late Alex Pavusa, Mr Dave Harris—— Mr Johnson: Do you remember Pat Mackie? Mr McGRADY: The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He would not have a clue. He should go back to his property. Mr Johnson: Were you in Mount Isa when Pat Mackie was there? Mr McGRADY: I was there. He should sit back and listen to what I am saying. As I was saying, I mention people such as Alex Pavusa, Mr Dave Harris, Mr Joe Doherty, and the present leadership of the Australian Workers Union—Mr Roy Harris and Mr Tim Broad, Mr John Kirkpatrick and Steve Hardwick of the TLC, and Alderman Graham Saunders of the Federated Clerks Union. I believe that the Department of Resource Industries has the duty to lead this industry and be an advocate for it at every available opportunity. The Queensland mining industry is of world-class status, and is an industry of which this Parliament, this State and all the people of this State should be proud. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (7.46 p.m.): Before I begin tonight, could I simply express my feeling of deep unhappiness at the scenes that were carried on here today. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! No, the member may not express that. She is speaking to the Estimates of the Department of Resource Industries. Mrs McCAULEY: Well, I have done it, anyway. Mr McGrady: She is apologising on behalf of her colleagues. Mrs McCAULEY: I am definitely not apologising. When the member for Mount Isa comes onto the Opposition benches, he will see how impotent he is in Opposition to counteract scenes of unprecedented—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will resume the Estimates debate. Mr Turner: He’s a oncer. Mrs McCAULEY: No, he will not be back. He is a oncer. I have never heard anyone say a bad word about the Minister. People say that he is a nice, harmless fellow. Unfortunately, it is sad but true that the Minister has presided over the demise of a vibrant, vital department and seen its replacement by a bureaucratic, inefficient and unacceptably out-of-focus department. That is a great shame. It is one of the greatest shames that the Goss Government has to bear. I am not speaking as the wife of the Chairman of the Australian Coal Association or as the wife of the General Manager of Callide Coal Fields, because we do not discuss those sorts of matters. I am speaking Legislative Assembly 2538 31 October 1991 simply as an informed observer who mixes a lot with mining people and gets a lot of feedback about the sorts of problems that the mining industry in general encounters. At present, the Public Sector Management Commission review is under way in the Department of Resource Industries. Every department that Coaldrake has laid his hands on has fallen into tremendous chaos. Judging by its past record—for example, with the Health Department, which was absolutely disastrous—I fear greatly that the problems being encountered in the Department of Resource Industries will be compounded by the recommendations that that review will bring down. The review is being imposed on an already underfunded and totally constipated department. That is very unfortunate. One has only to read the comments of the director-general in his review in the annual report to realise that. He stated— “. . . we are acutely aware that changes to the Mineral Resources Act and a number of our procedures, resulted in lengthy delays in processing tenure applications. We realise this is unacceptable and we are working hard to rectify it”— thank goodness for that— “and hope that halfway through the new financial year we will have lowered tenure processing times considerably as well as cleared out the backlog of applications. 1991-92 will see us working hard to consolidate our recent changes and turn them into productivity improvements and increases in the quality of our services.” I welcome that. Unfortunately, however, he goes on to say— “However, consolidation is unlikely to occur without some more changes and our new organisational structure may require some minor adjustments to ensure we are delivering the right results. The Department will also continue to face budget constraints . . .” To me, that is a rather negative note, a note that sounds a clear bell of warning that all is not well in the Department of Resource Industries. As I say, that is unfortunate. It was a dynamic department. It always had new projects on the go. It was a hive of industry. Things got done. Now I hear that, if people telephone the department and want things done, nothing happens, nothing happens and nothing happens, and it just goes on and on. When I was on the other side of the Chamber, the Mineral Resources Bill was introduced, and the prelude to that was a great deal of discussion, consultation and many talks and meetings. The process went fairly slowly. When the Bill was introduced, there was strong opposition to it. When the National Party introduced that Bill into the House, I well remember listening to the Minister making his speech when he was the Opposition spokesman, and he never, ever said, “We oppose it.” Labor Party members did oppose the Bill; they voted against it, but the Opposition spokesman sat squarely on the fence. He never said, “We oppose it.” The Labor candidate who stood against me at the last election said, “We will repeal it.” Labor Party members walked away and left him hanging, because the Bill was never repealed. In actuality, the legislation seems to work quite well. It was a very good idea to form a review committee. I know some of the members of that committee, such as Warren McLachlan from Monto. I know that he is a very sound-thinking fellow and would probably have a considerable, valuable input into that review committee. I will be most interested to see what the committee says—if the Minister makes it public—when it hands down its report, which I believe will be fairly shortly. The introduction of that legislation meant that approximately 10 000 registered holders of mining and exploration tenures had to make a transition to a new range of permits, claims, licences and leases. It was difficult in the beginning, but the bogies that were touted when the legislation was introduced have not come to pass. I am rather pleased about that. I will be interested to hear what that review committee has to say in due course. Legislative Assembly 2539 31 October 1991

When I read the annual report of the department, I was interested to see a page about sustainable development. This “ecologically sustainable development” is one of the buzz words that are a darned nuisance. It is on a level with “biodiversity”. Ecologically sustainable development happens to be something that has been cottoned onto and fastened onto. It is a means to stifle a vibrant growth industry, an industry that is fighting already the fact that the value of the Australian dollar is too high, interest rates are too high, rail freight rates are too high and all of those outside influences. Matters such as ecologically sustainable development provide another big headache unless they are treated properly. I am very, very wary of the sorts of ideas that are being promoted under the name of ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity because, unless we are very careful, we will tip the balance in the wrong direction and we will end up doing what Mr Goss has done to a great extent already, that is, to stifle growth in this State. It is worth while mentioning how this ecologically sustainable development came about. In Australia, sustainable development was brought to the forefront with the establishment by the Commonwealth Government—and that should have rung some alarm bells for a start—of nine ecologically sustainable development working groups in late 1990. The task of those working groups was to develop implementation strategies for sustainable development in a whole range of areas such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, energy use, etc. Membership of the nine working groups was drawn from industry, unions, community groups, conservation organisations, the CSIRO, ANZEC and State and Commonwealth Governments. That is where the problem lies. Industry is only one small facet of that group. There are the unions and community and conservation groups, as well as the bureaucrats from both State and Federal Governments and the people from the CSIRO. That is not the sort of group I would be looking at to develop a strategy or a program for an industry that is as vital to this country as the mining industry. The four fundamental goals of these working groups were the improvement of individual and community well-being and welfare that does not impair the welfare of future generations; the provision of equity within and between generations—God knows what that means—recognition of the global dimension; and the protection of biological diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and systems. Mr Comben: Boring. Mrs McCAULEY: It is right up the Minister’s alley. I am pleased that the Minister is in the Chamber because he probably wrote this—and that is the problem. As I understand it, biological diversity is measured by carrying out a survey of a cross-section of the animal and plant life in a specific area and saying, “There are 15 grasshoppers, 23 beetles, and there are so many this and so many that.” The land has to be restored to that level after it has been mined. I am concerned about the whole issue because those sorts of vague, negative and general statements are not a bit helpful to our industry. I strongly support reclamation work in mines and I was pleased that the Minister took steps to make sure that this reclamation work was up to scratch. I have visited many mines in Queensland and I know that some of them are not up to scratch. We must be sensible and realistic. We cannot expect miracles because reclamation work cannot be carried out on land that will be reworked at some time in the future. The Government cannot expect a company to spend money by reclaiming an area if, two years later, the mine is stripped back on that land. There are many of those sorts of problems involved in reclamation work in Queensland. The other problem is our climate. Recently, I visited a restored coal mine in the United States. It was superb—the cleanest, neatest and greenest coal mine I have ever seen in my life. If I had not seen it for myself, I would not have believed it. The mine was situated in an area that had very high rainfall and almost anything grew. Queensland mines have problems. We have not had much rain this year and do not have a very high Legislative Assembly 2540 31 October 1991 rainfall anyway. My son was working on a reclamation project for three months last year and planted a trial plot with various types of trees, grasses, etc. He was very disappointed with the results of that project because it did not rain much. They are back to square one. They will have to start all over again this Christmas and hope that it rains so the plants can grow. Reclamation is not always easy. I turn now to the electricity industry. I am proud that the Stanwell Power Station is in the old Callide electorate and that it is progressing so well. There have been very few industrial problems during construction, which has contributed significantly to the economy of the central Queensland area. This power station will certainly be needed after the demise of the Tully/Millstream project. Queensland will need another power station like Stanwell before too much longer. The Stanwell project will be finished either next year or the year after and, if the Tully/Millstream project does not go ahead, Queensland will be short of power. The Stanwell Power Station is on target to meet a scheduled commercial load date of 1 March 1993 for the first of its four 350 megawatt coal-fired boiler-turbogenerator units. This date was initially set at 1989, but this was deferred and the commission was flexible. Stanwell’s multiflue chimney, which is 210 metres high, towers over the countryside. For honourable members who have not visited the area before, when one suddenly catches sight of the chimney through the trees, one gets quite a shock. It is one of the world’s tallest chimneys, built in a tropical cyclone region, and was the subject of a merit award by the Concrete Institute of Australia for excellence in concrete and in recognition of its numerous technologically advanced features, notably its state of the art analysis and design. The other unique feature of Stanwell is its skills development program, which provides construction skills training to over 250 of the work force employed by contractors. That resulted in increased participation by the local community. Finally, I wish to mention a problem created by QEC in the Boyne Island area that concerns some people by the name of Tucker who own a little vegetable farm right near the smelter. Another power line has to be built to the Boyne Island smelter and the Tuckers are trying to stop this line being built across their property. They want it to be put with the other power line. I am rather disappointed that the member for Port Curtis has not bought into this debate, because I know that if the National Party had still been in Government that power line would not be going through that area. It would be put somewhere else, because I could have spoken to the powers that be and had it shifted. Unfortunately, no-one seems to want to give on this issue, even after Sir Harry Gibbs brought down a report following his inquiry into community needs and high voltage transmission line development in which said he did not think that there were problems. Time expired. Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (8.01 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to take part in the debate on the Resource Industries Estimates. It is this Government’s responsibility to provide a reliable supply of affordable energy to Queensland business, industry and members of the general public. As a Government, we should ensure that present and future Queenslanders benefit from the use of their energy resources. It is an important part of a social aspect of energy policy objectives. The State’s endowment with natural resources, including energy resources, is the joint property of all Queenslanders and they need to be managed for the benefit of the people of Queensland. This means that the State Government, on behalf of the people, should receive a fair share of the proceeds of the development of the State’s resources. The State must also provide an environment in which exploration and development of resources will proceed when this is dictated by world and local energy markets. This responsibility covers the allocation and administration of mining tenures, and the provision of information to support exploration. These two issues interact as a means of obtaining a safe return from resource development, which affects the attractiveness of potential projects. Legislative Assembly 2541 31 October 1991

The Queensland electricity supply industry provides power to approximately one million domestic and business customers throughout the State. The QEC is responsible for generation and transmission of energy, and seven electricity boards are responsible for power distribution in various areas. One of the busiest boards in Queensland is the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board, whose headquarters is based in Maryborough. This board has more than 72 000 consumers, including more than 2 000 who use power for irrigation, 200 of whom now come under the newly finished Isis irrigation scheme which was finished, I might add, with credit due to my good neighbour, Bill Nunn—the livewire member for Isis. In the last 12 months, the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board has connected more than 3 000 new consumers to the State electricity grid, and 1 200 of those were in the Hervey Bay area. This makes it one of the fastest-growing areas in the State—which is another feather in the cap of my good neighbour, the member for Isis, Bill Nunn. The increase in demand in this area which originates partly from the Isis irrigation scheme has been such that the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board has had to build a new substation near Childers to cope with extra demand. This substation is the biggest single project in the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board’s capital works budget for the next two years and will cost $3.7m. This sort of growth in demand is a sure sign that people have confidence in the Wide Bay/Burnett area and the bright future that it has. This confidence is due in no small way to the excellent representation this area receives from three excellent, very hard-working and progressive Labor members of Parliament, namely, the member for Bundaberg, Clem Campbell, the member for Isis, Bill Nunn, and me. I consider myself fortunate to have two such good neighbours. The member for Burnett, Doug Slack, represents an electorate that takes up part of the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board’s region. He is another nice chap, but he got mixed up with the wrong crowd when he was a young fellow and joined the National Party, which is a bit of a pity. All the growth and development in the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board’s region makes a lie of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and others about this region. They came up to Maryborough and spread doom and gloom. They told half-truths about World Heritage boundaries and claimed that the region is doomed. They did their very best to talk the region down, but the figures I have mentioned show that their claims are false. Future figures will show how this area is marching to prosperity under Labor. Last week, a Maryborough company, Hyne and Son, won a contract to supply timber poles to the North Queensland Electricity Board. This contract will provide 188 man-weeks of work to the district, and the value of the contract is $1.32m. Hyne and Son were chosen from six tenderers from Queensland and interstate to supply 4 000 timber poles. Hyne and Son have been suppliers to the seven electricity boards for many years, and have proved themselves to be reliable, competitive suppliers. This contract will be a further boost to the Wide Bay/Burnett region and further gives the lie to the gloom and doom that can be heard from members of the National Party and the Liberal Party. More good news from the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board is that the board will install a computer system worth $400,000 which will speed up inquiries and save thousands of dollars by improving efficiency. This computer system will be used mainly for mapping and drawing up technical plans and designs. This system is compatible with a system used by the Queensland Electricity Commission, which will allow the board to readily exchange information and tips on usage with the QEC. This will be another great asset to the region. This is good, positive stuff—the complete opposite to the type of information that the multipolicy Liberals and Nationals like to broadcast around this State. The members of those parties have a different political colour for each region. When the Liberals are in Brisbane, they are very green. When they go to Maryborough, they put a Legislative Assembly 2542 31 October 1991 great squirt of yellow in the green, which comes out as a sort of cacky yellowy green—the sort of green that would allow logging on Fraser Island or in national parks—and, when they return to Brisbane, they can be regarded as green again. The only place they are truly green is around the gills. The new connections and increase in demand are a sign of growth, but, contrary to what many conservation groups say, the electricity industry does not promote the use of more and more electricity. Under this Government, electricity boards have been encouraged to increase their demand management activities. In the current financial year, the QEC and the boards will increase their spending on advisory services by 40 per cent to approximately $8m, and this will include energy efficiency promotions. An investigation by one of the electricity boards has shown that the average Queensland householder can cut 10 per cent off his or her lighting bill by installing compact fluorescent lamps. Earlier this month, the Minister launched a campaign by the same board, SEQEB, to enlist Queensland children in the drive for energy efficiency. The campaign involves the use of colourful stickers and posters. It is just one of the many publications and promotions that all of the boards carry out to try to encourage consumers to be more efficient in the use of electricity. Of course, electricity is not the only form of energy that is used. Queensland consumers need advice about other matters, such as transport, and about other energy forms, such as gas and solar power. In order to provide independent advice and comparisons of various energy sources, the Government has set up an energy information centre. It is worth noting that Queensland is the last mainland State in Australia to have one of these centres established. It took a Labor Government to do it! The centre provides impartial advice to consumers about how to design and run their homes, their offices and their motor vehicles in an energy-efficient way. This centre has a toll-free number for regional callers. I know that the Minister will eventually like to open more centres outside Brisbane when funds become available. This year, almost $180,000 has been allocated to the continuing operation of the energy information centre. This will allow the centre to continue its many and varied activities. Some of those activities planned for the current year include seminars, trade displays and visits by members of industry institutes such as the Housing Industry Association, the Queensland Master Builders Association, and the Building Designs Association. The centre will also participate in relevant media feature supplements and exhibits and expand its contacts with and use of the media to inform the public. Energy efficiency can help save the environment as well as helping consumers cut their energy bills. In tough economic times, advice on saving money is always welcome. The energy information centre is just one of the energy initiatives which this Government has taken. This Government believes it should lead by example. As such, the Government has its own internal energy management unit which has the job of advising Government departments and agencies on how to improve energy efficiency in the activities of those departments and agencies. The unit was given a name by the National Party, but no resources. The National Party used to do the same with schools. However, this Government has allocated the human and financial resources to the unit so that it could achieve something. For example, there have been energy audits at a couple of south-east Queensland police stations, and of Parliament House itself, at the request of the Speaker and his Parliament House Environment Committee. Of course, energy efficiency is just a part of the broad area of energy policy. Little work had been done on developing energy policy in Queensland until Labor came to power. Predictably, it seemed to have been put into the too-hard basket by the conservatives who were not inclined towards forward-planning. Fortunately, this Government has put the policy development process in train with a discussion paper Legislative Assembly 2543 31 October 1991 entitled “Energy Policy Directions for Queensland into the 21st Century”, which was released earlier this year. The theme of the paper was to ensure that the Queensland energy sector operated in a manner which was economically efficient, environmentally responsible, and socially acceptable. The paper prompted more than 70 submissions from industry, conservation groups and the general community. Those submissions are being closely examined now and the Minister expects to be able to announce the first initiative from that process by the end of the year. Energy policy is important to Queenslanders because of our reliance upon it in our every day lives and the effects that its use has on the environment. It is also important because the energy supply and costs affect decisions made by business and industry in relation to location and expansion. Of course, Queensland’s most valuable export product, coal, is also an energy resource. Energy issues are too important to be left to ad hoc decision-making. I am pleased that the Labor Government has bitten the bullet and has sat down and properly planned its future. I congratulate the Minister on his hard work and the good management of his portfolio over the last two years and I commend the Minister’s allocation of funds to this area of policy development. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (8.12 p.m.): In responding to these Estimates tonight, I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about my own electorate for a change and cover some of the areas that concern not only myself and my office, but certainly my constituents who deal with the department all the time and are having some serious concerns about the department. I would like to begin by talking about the marble industry in Chillagoe. For those members of Parliament who are unaware of the fact that Chillagoe produces very high-quality marble products, I point out that it has the potential to be an important industry in that region. However, there have been some major concerns about the development of that industry. I might add that it is one of the few industries that Chillagoe is ever likely to have that has the potential for value addition. Honourable members have heard ad nauseam in this place about the importance of value addition for agriculture and mining products. Over the years, there have been a number of companies that have been set up in Chillagoe, not only to quarry marble but also to slice it and to put it into slab form, or billet form, so that the marble can be taken away for further uses. A tile factory was set up in Cairns to handle these billets of marble. Regrettably, there have been numerous companies set up, and numerous companies have gone bankrupt because of the difficulties of terrain, the difficulties of marketing, and the lack of understanding of the product that these companies were dealing with. There were all sorts of problems that interposed between those difficulties and a successful outcome, and what Chillagoe has had is a series of very, and notably unsuccessful, outcomes. It is important to also record in this place that there are a number of different quality marble products coming from the Chillagoe region—marble in different colours, different textures, and so on. What I am trying to impress upon the Parliament is that marble has the potential to be an important factor in the economy of that remote region of Queensland. This is where the Department of Resource Industries enters into the debate. Marble in Chillagoe has been declared to be a mineral under the meaning of the Act. Instead of being a quarry product, it has become a mineral and is, therefore, under the auspices of the department, and royalties are being paid. I know that there is a long history to this and I do not attempt to denigrate the Minister, except to say that I believe that the Minister could and should have taken some steps because, over a period of years, the royalties in respect of marble- mining in that area can grow to as much as 10 per cent of the gross return from the mine. The opportunity, therefore, for people to develop an industry in this remote area, in this difficult terrain, in this dry and remote part of western Queensland, is limited by the royalty that is taken from that industry by the Legislative Assembly 2544 31 October 1991

Queensland Government. Over the years, I have been approached by a number of companies and I have approached the Minister—in fact, there is a letter in the mail; I am sure it will not be sitting on a desk in the bowels of the Minister’s department—— Mr Vaughan: It is probably in your electorate office. Mr GILMORE: I would be delighted if it is. The problem was that I am having trouble getting answers out of the Ministry, but that is by the by. What we must do is ensure that this industry has an opportunity to get going; that it has an opportunity to provide for the community out there a real and meaningful long-term mining operation which can provide employment in the region. I will now deal with the area of rehabilitation and bonds lodged in respect of it and matters associated therewith. I recently had a most peculiar item come across my desk. A small company wanted to set up a treatment plant at Stannary Hills. There is no more remote or miserable part of Queensland. It is dry and bony, and it has been mined out over a hundred years. These people wanted to establish a new treatment plant on land that had been previously mined. That is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable proposition. The land had been dug up by alluvial tin-miners over the years, and the country was bare. The department, through its environmental officers and through its environmental policies, has imposed ridiculous bond requirements and rehabilitation requirements on a new company that has come into an area to do something worth while on previously mined land. Those people are not going to mine the land again. All they want to do is set up their plant next door to an existing dam. At present, the requirements of the department appear—it is not certain—to be so repressive that this little industry is not going to get started. This is fairly typical of what is happening in remote Queensland at present in respect of a number of issues. I have spoken to the Minister recently on the matter of surveys of small alluvial leases, and I have his assurance that in fact something is going to be done. However, I want it recorded in this place that over the last 18 months there has been a considerable wind-down in the number of people who have been prepared to put their money at risk in these small, remote alluvial claims—that is gold and other minerals—because it costs them $700 a hectare to do surveys. They cannot afford to go about and do these sorts of things on alluvial claims with a finite life. Some of these claims have a six to 12 months lease life. There is also the problem with the size of the leases that are allowed under these circumstances—two hectare leases. There is simply no room for a mine, a plant and a dam on two hectares. It cannot be done. That is my understanding of the situation. Mr Vaughan: I think you’ve been given a bum steer. Mr GILMORE: If the Minister would elucidate shortly, I would be pleased, because I will be taking this up with his department in any case. A Government member: Hallucinate? Mr GILMORE: I ask the Minister not to hallucinate, but to elucidate. The lack of mines inspectors is causing a problem in these areas. It is easy for the department to blame past practices on miners only. Certainly—most certainly indeed—a number of people who have been involved in the mining industry, particularly the alluvial industry, over the years have not done the right thing in terms of rehabilitative effort. That is patently obvious to anybody who flies over some of those regions, and if one drives over it, it is more obvious. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the Mines Department has had inspectors in this region all of this time—over the last 20 or 30 years, including, of course, the previous Government’s time—and those mines inspectors were obviously aware of what was happening. They cannot claim that they were plant inspectors or anything else, because they were there and they knew what was happening, and they obviously chose to make no effort in respect of rehabilitation. Legislative Assembly 2545 31 October 1991

Mr Vaughan: They were implementing your Governments’ policies. Mr GILMORE: I just said that. I accept and acknowledge it. There is no problem at all. But what I am saying is that the Minister’s Government cannot now proceed forthwith and blame miners for all the shortcomings in respect of the previous practices. I thought I would just raise that subject. One other matter that has come to my notice on a number of occasions is that of prospectors and miners travelling through properties, going about their lawful and legal business, properly organised and obeying the law, but without the department knowing where their vehicles have been. On a number of occasions infestations of parthenium weed have come from these vehicles. As the Minister is no doubt aware, many of these people are bringing tip-trucks and other vehicles through the district for their mining and prospecting operations. They get a bucket, and they tip four or five metres of sand in the back just as ballast to weigh the vehicle down. When they get to where they are going, they up the hoist, tip it out, and, bingo, before you know it, the land-owner has got himself a problem. These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed with urgency by the department. I would like to spend a few minutes on the Tully/Millstream project and the Mount Molloy to Mossman transmission line, which is currently being addressed by the department. I will start with the Mount Molloy-Mossman transmission line. This transmission line is a duplication of a line which goes from Chalumbin near the Tully/Millstream, around the back of Mount Garnet and down to a little substation just south of Mareeba. We are planning a duplication of the power line from that substation through to Mossman. The planning effort that has gone into this has been quite extraordinary, involving aerial photographs, negotiations with land-owners, and all those sorts of things. However, interestingly, on every map and plan of a power line that I have seen, the departmental officers, either deliberately or unconsciously, have stuck religiously to private land. Wherever possible, they have avoided Crown forest leases or Crown forest reserves. They have certainly avoided World Heritage areas wherever possible. So the only people to suffer any penalty whatsoever for the installation of this very important new initiative are private, and mostly freehold, land-holders. I ask the Minister: why is it that it is departmental policy—if one looks at some of the maps, it is fairly obvious that wherever possible Crown land has been avoided—to avoid Crown land? Is it a problem that the department has with the greenies? Is it a problem that the department has with the Government? Or is the department simply determined to destroy the virtue of freehold land in that region? I ask the Minister to look at the maps. If he does, he will be horrified. The maps are quite clear. Freehold land is marked in red. I see that the Minister is nodding his head. Of course it has happened; there is no doubt about it. The Government is keeping those facilities out of Crown land. I wanted to raise that matter because it is an important principle that, wherever possible, those kinds of transmission lines should stay away from people’s properties. In the Bilwon region, there were no fewer than five properties with less than 10 acres, and the power line went through the middle of them all. It could have been moved a short distance so that it went through a forestry reserve which contains no millable timber and which is 30 kilometres from the nearest World Heritage area. It is unfortunate and unsustainable. In the few minutes remaining to me, I turn to the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. The redistribution of electoral boundaries has placed the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme almost in the centre of the proposed new electorate of Tablelands. That has not focused my attention on it any more than it has been in the past. In the past two years, I have been in Ravenshoe more times that I have been in the town of Atherton. The people of Ravenshoe have suffered a grave injustice. They have lost their major industry—the timber industry. Politicians of all colours have visited the town and Legislative Assembly 2546 31 October 1991 promised them all sorts of things and made wonderful statements about what would happen in the future, none of which have come to pass. The town is in desperate straits. It probably has the worst economy in the whole far-northern region. In my 45 years in far-north Queensland, I have never known that region to be worse. We have dangled in front of those people this magnificent carrot, the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme, which has the potential to provide approximately 700 jobs during the construction phase. It takes 132 hectares of rainforest and several thousand hectares of other forests out of the World Heritage area. I understand that the Queensland Electricity Commission has purchased privately rainforest of excellent virtue in respect of conservation value to replace that 132 hectares—which was broken up into many small parcels—to give it to the World Heritage people so that they retain the integrity of the World Heritage area. Yet it is still not good enough! I understand that the Government has indicated a commitment to the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. The Minister’s indications of commitment have fallen far short of his responsibilities in respect of that proposition. He should be in Canberra every second day of the week to convince the Federal Government that it should—and must—proceed with the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, because it really does not affect him. He can sit back and say, “Well, I’m a fat cat. I’m sitting here and its a lovely place to be.” The people of Ravenshoe will be very badly affected if the scheme does not proceed. They will have no future and no hope for the future. There is no possibility of the creation of long-term jobs that will last for four or five years other than through the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. Time expired. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (8.27 p.m.): It is a pleasure to enter into this electrifying Resource Industries Estimates debate. Mr FitzGerald: Who wrote that for you? Ms ROBSON: I wrote that myself. Dr Watson: An enlightening speech. Ms ROBSON: I will switch honourable members on with an enlightening speech. I intend to give some background information on the Queensland electricity supply industry. It is important that members do that as well as talk about individual issues in their own electorates. The QESI consists of the Queensland Electricity Commission, which is responsible for the generation and transmission of electricity, and seven electricity boards, which are responsible for distribution in their own areas. The Queensland Electricity Commission receives no funds from consolidated revenue, but its budget for the year is included in the Resource Industries Estimates. The major points that I wish to make relate to, firstly, operational and financial management; secondly, major projects; and, thirdly, demand side management and environmental responsibility. As to operational and financial management—the report commissioned by the industry during the year selected the Queensland electricity supply industry as one of the most efficient in the country. Despite the national economic downturn, the QESI has been able to meet its financial objectives on pricing and achieved a significant reduction in its debt to equity ratio. Over the past 12 months, debt has been reduced by $180m, or 5.2 per cent. The QESI was able to achieve that while borrowing no new funds, increasing assets and maintaining the lowest electricity costs in Australia. The level of prices is significant not only to domestic consumers who have a right to a reliable, affordable electricity supply but also to business and industry. Energy prices are a major consideration for any company planning expansion or new operations, particularly value-adding industries where energy input is a large part of their production costs. However, electricity costs Legislative Assembly 2547 31 October 1991 must also be balanced against financial responsibility for reducing debt. In the past year, electricity prices in Queensland rose just 3 per cent and the QESI has the long-term aim of maintaining price increases below half the CPI till 1996, as outlined in the annual report tabled by the Minister in the Chamber. The operational efficiency of the electricity generation system obviously directly affected costs. The major projects upon which the QEC has embarked are refurbishment projects at two older power stations in Queensland, which will extend their operating lives and preclude the necessity to build more. Those two projects are at Swanbank at Ipswich and at Gladstone. Both Swanbank and Gladstone are peak load stations brought into the State’s electricity grid to augment the highly efficient base load stations, Tarong and Callide B, which were both completed in the past decade. The benefit to the electricity consumer in general is that operational costs are contained. The benefit to the communities of Ipswich and Gladstone is fairly evident in that the extended operating life of the power stations guarantees ongoing local employment—another wonderful Labor objective that we are achieving beyond expectations. Swanbank Power Station was built 25 years ago. The refurbishment program under way there will extend its life and cost-effectiveness well into the next century. As one of its earliest major decisions in January 1990, the Goss Labor Cabinet approved the $25m refurbishment for Swanbank. Five of Swanbank’s 10 generating units were mothballed about two years ago because the QEC had overestimated demand. Swanbank is now being automated and the generating units previously mothballed are being brought back into operation to meet the forecast demand. The first of those units should be on line in February 1992, and the others will follow progressively until the project is completed in early 1993. The QEC is also looking at other ways of possibly extending Swanbank’s life. Gladstone Power Station was commissioned about 15 years ago. From the end of 1993, a new, competitively priced source of open-cut coal will come from Boundary Hill mine at Callide in central Queensland. During the past year, significant improvements have been achieved in the operation of the station by the application of modern technology. The budget for the next five years of refurbishment includes $26m for work to reduce flue dust emissions. The next peak-load station to come on line in Queensland will be the Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton. Stanwell is Queensland’s major construction project, and at present a work force of almost 800 is on the site. The project is on schedule to provide its first commercial power on 1 March 1993 from the first of its four generating units. One of the most worthy features of the project is the Stanwell skills development program, which last financial year provided construction skills training to more than 250 people. The aim of this program has been to teach skills to local people and therefore increase local participation in the project. As well, an environmental scientist on site is coordinating environmental management. This includes a joint tree- planting trial with the Queensland Forest Service, monitoring of local vegetation and watercourses. I will now address the demand side management and environmental responsibility area. With the encouragement of the Minister, the industry has improved its consultation with the environment movement. An environmental policy is being developed by the Queensland electricity supply industry. One of the successes during the year was the industry’s participation in the ABC Green Train. Approximately 250 000 people visited the QESI carriage where the theme “Plan it for the planet” encouraged them to use energy efficiently. The industry has been actively encouraging the promotion of the efficient use of electricity and other demand side management techniques in line with this Government’s energy policies. As the Minister has pointed out, expenditure on energy efficiency campaigns and promotion will increase significantly in the current year. In the Brisbane area, in which my electorate lies, the South East Queensland Electricity Board has been particularly active. The latest initiative has been a promotional campaign Legislative Assembly 2548 31 October 1991 targeting children with a colourful calendar and stickers teaching them about energy efficiency. Mr FitzGerald: What do you reckon the consumption per head will be? What do you reckon you will achieve? How successful do you think the campaign will be on a per capita basis? A 10 per cent, 5 per cent drop in consumption? Ms ROBSON: The honourable member has to admit that it is better than not doing anything at all. Quite clearly, I cannot estimate what the overall effect of a campaign, which is localised in the Brisbane area, will be on the whole of Queensland. I am saying that it is going to have a positive effect; it cannot have a negative effect. During the past year, SEQEB conducted a home-lighting trial, testing the effects of so-called smart lights or compact fluorescent lamps. This practical trial demonstrated that, by using those bulbs in the most commonly used lights, an average Queensland home can reduce its electricity consumption for lighting by 10 per cent. Mr FitzGerald: You hadn’t read that far; that’s why I caught you. Ms ROBSON: I had read it, but that was not the question the honourable member asked me. I always try to address the questions that Mr FitzGerald asks me. SEQEB alone produces a dozen publications about the efficient use of electricity and has a 1991-92 budget for customer advisory services, which includes the efficient use of electricity, of $3.818m, an increase of almost 40 per cent on that in 1990-91. All the boards and the QEC fund the Customer Technology Centre at Milton, which researches and develops new and improved technology. The centre provides technical advice and testing facilities to improve efficiencies in electricity usage in the commercial, industrial and rural sectors. The comment I would like to make about that particular innovation is that it is something that the community at large had sought for a long time. One of the things that I can clearly remember lobbying for many years ago was the disclosure of energy use, particularly on whitegoods. It is extremely important for an informed consumer who goes out into the marketplace to buy one of the growing range of energy products that we use in our homes that some information is available as to what sort of a drain that product will be on his or her electricity supply so that some good, comparative shopping can be done, thus getting the best model possible. The setting-up of this technology centre at Milton is certainly a step in the right direction. That information must be available. It has been available in other States for many years. I am delighted that it is now available in Queensland. I also want to congratulate the Minister on the initiatives he has undertaken through the energy audit of the parliamentary precincts. Mr FitzGerald: The lights are going tonight, aren’t they? Ms ROBSON: That is a matter that really needs to be seriously addressed. It is a great problem that is created by members who do not take the responsibility for even turning lights off and on in their own office. I have never been able to see the need to have three major light switches in an office turned on for 52 weeks of the year, five days a week. I think we are all quite capable of switching a light off as we go out. When lights are left on, a tremendous demand is placed on the air-conditioning system in this building, which contains many offices. I am really pleased that the Minister and the Speaker have undertaken to look into this problem. Mr Schwarten: I always turn my light off. Ms ROBSON: Oh, you do not! You leave it on all the time. Let us keep to the truth in this place. That energy audit is a major innovation on which I congratulate the Minister. It will not only save the taxpayers of Queensland a considerable amount of money but also set a fine example that we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. It is with great pleasure that I support the Minister’s Estimates. Legislative Assembly 2549 31 October 1991

Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8.38 p.m.): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Resource Industries. We must realise the value of energy resources in our community. I am sure that the Minister realises what a great impact they have on our everyday lives. For that reason, we should be considering alternative energy sources. When we think of energy and mining, we often think of ending up with a great hole in the ground. Far more emphasis should be placed on renewable resources and far less emphasis on mining. I point out that I am not trying to belittle the mining industry. This country is very fortunate to have such a wide range and tremendous amount of minerals from which to choose. The cost of accessing those resources has been comparatively small. However, as we dig deeper into the ground, the process becomes more expensive and so, too, does the end product. For that reason, we should be placing more emphasis on utilising wind power and solar energy. Many people talk about environmental impacts, the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. By making greater use of wind power and solar energy we could help to cut down on those environmental impacts and make Australia a better country in which to live. I have already mentioned the cost of recovering our mineral resources. At this stage, I cannot help mentioning that Gympie is an old gold-mining town. In the past, efforts were made to reopen the old gold fields of Gympie. For a while, that project looked promising. Unfortunately, it did not eventuate. One of the main reasons was that the cost of digging down to a level of 900 metres, getting machines down there and bringing up the ore and other metals becomes quite expensive. I was disappointed by the decision to wind down that particular project. After considering the costings and the returns from gold-mining, I began to realise why that decision was made. According to the annual report of the Department of Resource Industries, the estimated quantity of gold bullion produced fell to 43 553 kilograms, 15.8 per cent lower than in 1989-90. That coincided with the decision by the Federal Government to remove the tax exemption on gold as from the beginning of this year. The removal of the tax exemption and associated tax write-offs would have had an impact on gold bullion production. As well, gold prices have not been as good as they could be, and that has not helped in the recovery of that very fine metal. I turn now to hydroelectricity as an alternative energy supply. In recent times, Tasmania has come in for criticism. Because of the vast amount of rainfall that Tasmania receives, it would be a wonderful area for the development of hydroelectric power. Because of the decision not to build particular dams in Tasmania, and because of the possible environmental impact on the forests, it was decided to wind down that development. At the same time, Tasmania is very short on power. In fact, last Christmas when I visited Tasmania, it was quite common to expect electricity black-outs. People are entitled to a constant electricity supply. Mrs Woodgate: Were you questioning the decision of the High Court? Mr STEPHAN: I am questioning the fact that Tasmania does not have a steady supply of electricity. I wonder what the member’s attitude would be if she went to cook her evening meal, turned on the stove, found that there was no power and had to do without electricity for a couple of hours. People have come to expect—and, in many cases, demand—a reliable power supply. But it does not exist in Tasmania. We should also be considering the production of cheaper power supplies. We are suffering a drought. If ever we needed additional water supplies, including dams which have the dual purposes of water conservation and hydroelectric power, surely this is the time to do it. I suppose that people who are prepared to pay ever-increasing power costs and do not worry about the source of supply would not worry about the provision of cheaper power. We should be utilising the power of the wind much more than we do. I am aware of a couple of individuals who, in an inventive frame of mind, put together a wind machine to utilise the power of the wind. Those people need financial backing. This Government should be supporting them, Legislative Assembly 2550 31 October 1991 and providing all the encouragement that it can give them. I have already mentioned that Gympie was an old gold-mining town. Although the Minister has visited Gympie from time to time, he has not called in to see me, something about which I am disappointed. Mr Vaughan: I can’t find you. Mr STEPHAN: If the Minister cannot find me, he cannot find Mary Street, either. My office is in Mary Street. I would have been pleased to see the Minister. I turn to the capping of mine shafts. Over a long period, mine shafts in the Gympie field have been a problem. They have been difficult to find. The fact that a few holes had to be dug here and there to find the exact location of the shafts has not helped, either. When the shafts have appeared and fallen in either underneath or right beside houses, the occupants concerned have not been very pleased. For that reason, the decision to cap those shafts—a project that will continue for quite a few years, I guess—is certainly appreciated. We need to be sure that all of the shafts have been found, because it is always on the cards that a shaft will be found underneath someone’s house. I turn to the miners’ homestead leases that are still in operation in mining towns and are in the process of being transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of Resource Industries to the Lands Department. I support that decision, but I do not agree with the possibility of the mining homestead leases, which are fully paid-up leases, being viewed in a different light by the Lands Department than they were by the Department of Resource Industries. It is an ongoing hassle for many of my constituents. They have miners’ homestead leases, which are fully paid up. They are now told that, when the leases are transferred to the Lands Department, there is no such thing as a fully paid-up lease in the Lands Department, so they will have to start paying leases again. Mrs Woodgate: Nothing to do with this Minister. Mr STEPHAN: It does have something to do with the Minister because they are miners’ homestead leases. I can understand that Government members would be worried about it, because it is an embarrassment for them. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I am talking about what is happening now with the transfer of the miners’ homestead leases, which are fully paid up. The Lands Department will not consider them to be fully paid up. An honourable member interjected. Mr STEPHAN: Gympie saved Queensland in 1867, and it looks like it might save Queensland again in the next couple of years. I turn to power supply. Much has been said about drought relief and other measures that have been taken to assist people in the drought. If the Minister really wants to give assistance to producers under drought conditions, he could extend the concessional rates that are available for the use of power in the night-time to the use of power in the day-time. With the requirement to pump extra amounts of water with very little return when farmers are not getting any assistance from the elements, the cost of the power used for pumping is quite exceptional. In relation to that—I have sent a letter to the Minister and I ask him to give consideration to the possibility of extending those concessional rates to irrigators under these extremely dry conditions. That would be a positive step that could be of assistance to many producers, and I assure the Minister that it would be very much appreciated. In the past couple of years, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein and the resulting oil supply squeeze have stressed the importance of a go-it-alone policy for Australia. Far more effort needs to be made to enable Australia to be self-sufficient in the supply of petroleum and petroleum products, even to the extent that we should utilise more of our natural gas as an alternative energy supply. The annual report states that Legislative Assembly 2551 31 October 1991

369 000 cubic metres of LPG is produced. Possibly, there is far more of that product in the country that we could effectively utilise. The report also contains details about the various discoveries of petroleum in this State. They have been relatively small. The report states that the fields have produced 74 million barrels of oil, 28 million barrels of condensate and 7.4 million litres of natural gas. Uprisings in other countries and actions by people who have the attitude of Hussein give us all a bit of a fright and give Australians a reason to be self-sufficient. In addition, when there is a scare such as that and the possibility of fuel shortages, the price of fuel increases. From time to time, certain people have commented that one way in which to overcome the shortage of fuel under those conditions is to increase its price. However, an increase in the price of fuel only makes our goods and services much more expensive than they would be otherwise. For example, seven or eight years ago when Mr Hawke came to power, Mr Whitlam made the comment that 37c a litre was far too expensive and that the price of petrol would be reduced. However, instead of being reduced, the price was increased by 4c a litre and has increased fairly regularly ever since. Time expired. Mr PEARCE (Broadsound) (8.53 p.m.): I have pleasure in joining this Estimates debate on the Department of Resource Industries. In the short time allocated to me, I wish to bring the position of the Queensland coal industry to the attention of the Chamber. That industry has had a profound influence in shaping the modern, economic and social character of Queensland. In particular, central Queensland is sitting on a reef of coal that will help maintain the region’s prosperity well into the twenty-first century. The great central Queensland coal rush had humble beginnings and even the early pioneers—men with considerable foresight—would not have considered in their wildest dreams that the mining industry would have expanded to what it is today. The coal industry in Queensland is not only a major producer of export dollars and revenue for the public purse in excess of more than $1 billion per annum, but also a major employer. More than 10 500 people work in this State’s coal industry and thousands more rely on the industry indirectly for their livelihoods. The coal industry has built and supported many regional towns and many small businesses and industries within those towns. As a mine-worker for more than 11 years and the representative of an electorate which includes the mining communities of Dysart and Middlemount—— Mr McGrady: They are good people, too. Mr PEARCE: They are excellent people. Coal-mining communities are the friendliest communities one could ever find in Queensland. I am always interested in the general welfare of the mining industry and in particular of the people who work in it, that is, the men and women who work at the coalmine sites, together with their families who live in the coal-mining towns scattered throughout central Queensland. The towns of Dysart and Middlemount are in my electorate of Broadsound, but after the next State election I will also represent the mine-workers and their families who live in the coal towns of Tieri and Blackwater. Every honourable member in this Chamber is well aware that coal is the single most valuable commodity produced in this State, and its development must be properly managed by the Government to maximise the benefit to the community to which that resource belongs. This is why I personally, together with the mining industry work force, congratulate the Minister for what he has achieved through the revamping of the Queensland Coal Board. The Queensland Coal Board and its relevant legislation have been in existence in this State for approximately 40 years. However, under the former National Party Government, the Queensland Coal Board was seen as a Claytons board, with its only function being to act as a collector of statistics. However, under a Labor Government—and to the credit of this Minister who is committed to the industry—the new Legislative Assembly 2552 31 October 1991

Coal Board, under the chairmanship of Greg Watson, is now providing the vital link between Government, the coal companies and the work force and is playing an important role as a useful and effective policy adviser. Many coal companies operating in Queensland’s coal fields are also competitors by virtue of their involvement in overseas coalmines. It is therefore imperative that our upgraded Coal Board—the guardian of our public resources—should be appropriately funded. The member for Lockyer will win no friends in the coal industry by calling for the Coal Board to be abolished. The National Party has always taken sides with the coal-producers on this issue because it sees the Coal Board as a threat. This year, the new-look Coal Board has been allocated $480,000 from the Corporate Services Program, which is an increase of approximately $18,000 or 4 per cent over 1990-91. The board has now assumed its upgraded role with the appointment of a full-time chairman who has lengthy coal-mining experience and who has the support of two full-time staff members. The board is now a major Government adviser on this State’s multibillion dollar export and domestic coal industry, and some of this advice will include refined analyses of trading patterns, new technologies and trends in coal utilisation and the collection and validation of scientific and technical information to provide a pro-active view of coal in the Asia/Pacific region. This year, the board will upgrade the coal industry employees’ health program which has been of little benefit to the workers in its current form. In New South Wales the coal board was most efficient when looking after the health of mine-workers. When I came to Queensland as an underground miner, I was absolutely disgusted by the fact that the Queensland Coal Board played a very small role in determining the health of underground mine-workers. I wish to stress the point tonight that I have recently found that, after working in the industry in Queensland for five years, I will be unable to return to underground mining because of the dust. In New South Wales I would have had an examination every two years, which is a must for Queensland. Underground coal-miners must have regular health check-ups because of coal dust on the lungs. In the past, terrible deaths have occurred. People have suffered because of this terrible disease. I am therefore pleased that this Government’s commitment to the health, safety and welfare of coal-miners in this State stretches further than just the Coal Board’s activities. The Government also makes a major financial commitment to the health, safety and welfare of miners in three other areas—through its coal-mining inspectorate, the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade and the Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station at Redbank. SIMTARS—as the Redbank station is known—has been allocated almost $4m in this Budget, which is roughly the same in dollar terms as the funding that the station received last financial year. SIMTARS provides state of the art technology and scientific capability to help the mining industry achieve a high standard of safety and health performance and to develop and apply new technologies. The SIMTARS facility is unique in Australia. Comparable operations are located in only a few of the other major mining countries of the world. It employs only 50 people, including scientists such as physicists, applied chemists, occupational hygienists, mining, mechanical, civil, electrical and electronic engineers, computer scientists, other professional officers and technical staff with wide-ranging mining and general industrial experience. Funding for SIMTARS comes from three sources—the State Government, external research grants and fees for the services which it provides on a commercial basis. The State Government’s contribution has been provided from the energy and minerals program. Seventy per cent of the contribution comes from energy and 30 per cent comes from minerals, reflecting SIMTARS’ emphasis on coal research. Methane gas and the risk of ignition poses a constant fear for underground mine workers. I recognise that SIMTARS has developed a number of mine gas systems, which are Camgas, Segas Legislative Assembly 2553 31 October 1991 and Safegas, and has ensured that they are all installed in major underground mines in this State, thereby protecting the lives of miners and the multimillion-dollar investments of mining companies. These are world-leading technological break-throughs, and negotiations are in progress to implement their use in New South Wales and overseas. The continued productive operation of SIMTARS has the support of mine workers. As a representative of a mining electorate, I urge the Minister to closely monitor the performance of SIMTARS to ensure that it is funded in such a way that it will continue to work efficiently. Mr McGrady: I am sure he will. Mr PEARCE: I am sure the Minister will because he is deeply committed to the industry. The centre was designed to prevent disasters in coalmines. It is of the utmost importance that adequate funds are provided to finance future investigations into underground mine safety. Over the past year, some very exciting research has been undertaken by SIMTARS. I am told that staff at the research station have achieved a world break-through in water-jet drilling research. This has considerable potential for improved safety and productivity in the coal-mining industry. I do not know very much about these innovations, but I would like to have the opportunity one day to inspect the research and find out the ways in which it will contribute to improvements in the industry in the future. Following a review set up by the Minister and the changes made, SIMTARS has implemented improved management and business systems and has demonstrated its ability to compete in the marketplace on a truly commercial basis. SIMTARS is expanding its fee-for-service activities and is also expanding the range of training services that it offers to the mining industry. This year, it is also working to consolidate its recently adopted role in the new Queensland Centre for Mining Technology Equipment, which is known as CMTE. This is part of the Federal Government’s million-dollar boost to research in Australia. The centre lists major participants such as the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre at the University of Queensland, the Division of Geomechanics, Processing and Engineering, within the CSIRO, Minerals, Energy and Construction and the Australian Industries Research Association. Another area in which a most important commitment has been made to miners’ safety is the mines rescue brigade. It was established in 1909 by the former Department of Mines in an effort to improve mine safety. The rescue brigade now has approximately 280 volunteer members throughout Queensland, and the most recent occasion when many of these volunteers were used was after the 1986 underground mine explosion at Moura. The Minister acknowledges the important role played by the mines rescue team and the need for them to be well trained and well equipped. Mr McGrady: And they are, too. Mr PEARCE: They certainly are. Just recently, on the last Saturday in August, the Minister and I were invited to watch the Queensland mines rescue brigade teams compete in the twenty-first E. K. Healey Cup at Southern Colliery, which is owned and operated by Capricornia Coal, which is south west of Middlemount. The competition was established in 1971 by a former Under Secretary for Mines, E. K. Healey, and has been run annually ever since then. The six-person mine rescue team is trained in first aid, fire-fighting and rescue procedures—all of the skills that may be needed in the case of a mine emergency. I might add at this point that if it were not for the efforts and skill of a mine rescue team member, I probably would not be participating in this debate tonight. Without his expertise, knowledge and training after an accident that took place in a mine, the circumstances and outcome might have been very different. Mr McGrady: What is his name? Name him! Legislative Assembly 2554 31 October 1991

Mr PEARCE: I do not want to name him, but if the member really wants to know, it was John Rowan who provided that valuable assistance. The competing teams each represent Queensland’s five mines rescue stations at Booval, Blackwater, Collinsville, Dysart and Moura. The Moura team, led by Captain John Blyton, won this year’s competition. I join with the industry in congratulating them on a magnificent performance. The brigade is funded by Government, industry and the Workers Compensation Board. This Government is committed to ensuring that there is a well-trained and well- equipped mines rescue brigade that is ready at all times to serve the coal industry. This commitment represents more than a mere compliance with a legal requirement under the Coal Mining Act. It is vital to maintain the safety of in excess of 10 000 Queensland miners. I will continue to have discussions with the Minister in an effort to ensure that the safety of underground mines is not compromised. In conclusion, let me say that almost $1.6m has been allocated to the department’s 14 coal inspectors who are stationed in Brisbane, Mackay and Rockhampton. These inspectors are located in those areas so that they will have ready access to coalmines in the West Moreton fields at Ipswich and the central Queensland mines. They certainly play a very important role by going out into the coal fields, visiting the workplace and ensuring that legislation and regulations are adhered to. All this is done with the aim of protecting mine workers. I support the Estimates presented by the Minister. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (9.07 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Resource Industries Estimates and to deal particularly with the amazing decision made by the department to award the contract to remove asbestos from the Tennyson Power Station to Denivel Destructions at a time when the company is being prosecuted by the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations for totally ignoring this Government’s workplace and safety policy and the asbestos code. Are the people of Queensland going to see a deliberate flouting of the asbestos safety code whereby the avarice of Denivel Destructions has led to unsuspecting workers being exposed to asbestos poisoning, or mesothelioma. This is a particularly virulent form of lung cancer that recently took the life of Rear Admiral David Martin, the former Governor of New South Wales, and totally destroyed the lives of the workers at Wittenoom. I will just read from today’s Sun— “Asbestos contract decision blasted. Conservationists have slammed a State Government decision to award an asbestos-removal contract to a company facing court action over allegedly inadequate safety practices. Brisbane firm Denivel Destructions has won a $2.4 million contract to remove asbestos from Brisbane’s Tennyson power station, regardless of the outcome of a hearing in the Rockhampton Magistrates’ Court on December 2.” To put it in perspective, I am sure that all the senior Ministers in the Government knew what was going on before this contract was actually awarded. I have a letter here dated 17 October from the office of the Premier, in which he says— “You wrote to the Premier”— it is written by his private secretary— “on 19th September, 1990, concerning the delivery of materials from the Rockhampton Power House site to your Bajool site at Wacol which were found to contain asbestos.” I am sure that the Bajool site is at Rockhampton. So the Premier had full knowledge, and so did the Minister for Resource Industries. In another letter the Resource Industries Minister stated— “I refer to your letter . . . regarding asbestos contamination.” Legislative Assembly 2555 31 October 1991

I also have a letter from the Minister for Employment Training and Industrial Relations. It is his obligation, obviously, to enforce the workplace health and safety regulations and to enforce the asbestos code. The Minister also has the responsibility for workers compensation. I wonder what sort of compensation claims will be forthcoming from this disaster. So, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations was well aware, the Minister for Transport was well aware, the Minister for Environment and Heritage was well aware, and the Deputy Premier was aware—— Mr Santoro: Do you think there is a cover-up? Mr DUNWORTH: I do not know whether there is a cover-up, but there is certainly something sinister. Here there are workers who were told nothing of the dangers involved with asbestos, yet under the asbestos code of practice and guidelines, workers must be fully advised of the risks. They were told nothing of the danger. They were supposed to be provided with full face masks, with breathing equipment, and with full protective overalls. The overalls they were provided with were inadequate, they did not fit, and they were usually torn. There was no advice given as to the danger associated with asbestos. The masks that the workers were provided with had filters that were supposed to be changed every four hours. Those filters were not changed every four hours; they were only changed about every four weeks. At times, the masks were not even worn. Asbestos was removed in a dry form and there was no double bagging. Overalls were taken home by workers, which is strictly forbidden under the code, to be washed in the same wash load as nappies and other clothing. Mr Coomber: The families are at risk. Mr DUNWORTH: The families are at risk. Unsuspecting workers, and their families, with no knowledge of the dangers, were exposed to asbestos. I would like to read out from a couple of statutory declarations—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): I understand that this matter is before the court and is set down for trial in December. Mr DUNWORTH: A question was answered by the Minister concerning this matter last Thursday. It has been on the Cathy Job program three times, the ABC show The Investigators, on TV in Rockhampton, in the local press, and it is also in today’s Sun. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr DUNWORTH: It cannot be sub judice. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: If it is before the court, it is sub judice. I suggest that the member moves on to other parts of the Estimates. Mr DUNWORTH: I would like to quote from a statutory declaration from one of the workers. It states— “The wife of Warren Davidson would collect the bath towels from the decontamination unit, the smoko room and the toilet block. She would take them home and wash them in her washing machine at home. She also used to bring an 18 month old child into the smoko room and you could see the child’s foot prints in the asbestos on the ground.” Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: What is the honourable member’s point of order? Mr SCHWARTEN: My point of order is that I would like to clarify for the record that that statutory declaration was made in my office at Rockhampton. I believe that the honourable member is claiming credit for something over which he has had no control. Legislative Assembly 2556 31 October 1991

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr DUNWORTH: Irrespective of where those statutory declarations were signed, I have another statutory declaration from a David William Mackay. He was offered 14 weeks of employment and a bonus of $5,000 to act as a leading hand. He acted as a leading hand, and his statutory declaration states— “There were problems with the number of filters supplied for the half masks. There was never enough pre filters or filters for those masks. The prefilters would get wet and instead of being issued with a new filter you would have to wring it out to then reuse it. Once the main filter got wet you couldn’t breathe through it and you would only be breathing in moisture.” Obviously, he is deeply at risk. I have one statutory declaration here from John Ellison Jackson, in which he states— “The requirement of the Australian Standards is that full facial masks be worn by all personnel working in asbestos contaminated areas.” The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I have asked the member for Sherwood to move on to something else because I believe that to be sub judice. Mr DUNWORTH: I will move on to the awarding of the contract at Tennyson, which has nothing to do with the Glenmore Power Station or, rather, has nothing to do with Denivel Destructions flouting the asbestos code. I would like to make a few other observations. Firstly, in January 1990, a company called Asb-Tech Services was awarded the contract to remove the asbestos from Tennyson Power Station. I have a copy of a letter in which it was awarded. It states— “Further to the Letter of Acceptance dated 1 December 1989 for your quotation”— and it goes on to state— “The Contract Sum is four million nine hundred and sixty-seven thousand five hundred and ninety-one dollars . . . Before commencing work, you are required to forward evidence of insurance in accordance with the requirements of the Specification.” That letter also states that that company has to put up a deposit of $150,000, which it did, and it states— “RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKS You are required to accept responsibility as the Principal Contractor as defined in Section 6 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 and sign an Instrument of Appointment. That instrument will then be lodged with the Director of Accident Prevention.” So it was vital that Asb-Tech complied with the Workplace Health and Safety Act. That company was awarded the contract. Then, interestingly, on 9 February 1990 there was another letter from the Queensland Electricity Commission. I seek leave to table all this documentation at the conclusion of my 15 minutes, Madam Temporary Chairman. Leave granted. Mr DUNWORTH: The letter from the Queensland Electricity Commission states— “The Commission now withdraws the offer made to you on 25 January 1990.” The company was offered the contract, it fulfilled the conditions, and the offer was withdrawn. Interestingly, that contract was put out to tender, and prior to that there were solicitors involved. There was quite a bit of correspondence. There was a demand from the Legislative Assembly 2557 31 October 1991 commission for a complete outline of all the directors of Asb-Tech Services, Queensland, and what their addresses were. It also wanted to know the details of titles. After that offer was withdrawn, Morris, Fletcher and Cross wrote a letter in the following terms— “As the circumstances surrounding the engagement of our client for the above project are known to you, we will not dwell on those facts. However, in the light of the attitude the Commission appears to have adopted in its letter of 9 February 1990, we feel constrained to make some comment on the events which have passed. As you know our client submitted its tender on 22 November 1989. This tender contained some very detailed conditions and qualifications regarding the tender for works which were due to commence on 1 January 1990.” It goes on to say that Asb-Tech Services actually moved all its equipment onsite. It was onsite doing the job, and then all of a sudden it was pulled from under the company. The story goes a little bit further. The same job was put out for tender, and the tenders were—— Mr Nunn: Is this still Denivel? Mr DUNWORTH: Honourable members are not allowed to mention the word. The job went out to tender and, strangely, we have just seen that it has been awarded to Denivel Destructions, which is a party to a court action by this Government. The Tennyson Power House is in the electorate of the member for Yeronga. It borders my electorate. If that company is going to run to form, we will find that the workers will have no protection whatsoever. The company will do in Brisbane what it did in Rockhampton, where it carried dry asbestos uncovered right through the heart of that city. It will carry dry asbestos straight through the heart of my electorate, onto Oxley Road, past three primary schools, across the road heading towards the—— Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. Madam Temporary Chairman, the issues that the honourable member is raising are matters that relate to the court case that is to come before the Magistrates Court in Rockhampton. Dr Watson interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr SCHWARTEN: Could I just explain, Madam Temporary Chairman? The points that are being raised here are matters of evidence that are being tendered in the court case in Rockhampton. I do not believe, in the member’s own best interests, that he ought to proceed with them. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! While there is no point of order, I will again warn the member for Sherwood that if these matters are before the court they are sub judice. Mr DUNWORTH: Madam Temporary Chairman, as I said, we have already had a question about this matter answered in the House. It has been on the radio three times. It has been on nationwide television. I will move on to the awarding of the contract at Tennyson. I have here the list of tenderers. An interesting comment appears on the back of it. It states— “If asbestos regulations are relaxed, then prices can be reduced considerably, but if the Act is to be enacted, the costs are higher than the lower range of bids currently on offer at Tennyson”— the lower range of bids. Let us have a look at who has won the contract, and let us have a look at who is in the lower range of bids. They are well-known companies that have been involved in asbestos removal for many, many years. I refer to companies such as Rico, Barkly, Associated A. Their tenders ranged from $14m to $20m, but Denivel Destructions Legislative Assembly 2558 31 October 1991 won the contract, and its tender was $2.7m. So we are talking here about a difference in some cases of $11m—quite unbelievable! The letter from the Queensland Electricity Commission also states— “During the past few years it is believed that a number of asbestos contracts have been contentious and results for Q.E.C. may not have been as good as may be expected.” The points I want to make are: why does the Government remain silent even though the health of up to 200 workers has been threatened at North Rockhampton? What will be the cost to the Workers Compensation Board? Why has the Government given a contract to Denivel Destructions to remove asbestos from the Tennyson Power Station when that company is already being prosecuted for alleged health offences? Why is this Government tolerating the “Deen Brothers of asbestos removal”? Is Denivel Destructions now the “Deen Brothers of asbestos removal”? Is it not true that the only reason this company wins contracts is that it can cut costs by endangering the safety of workers? Perhaps the Minister could answer those questions in his summing-up. The Ministers whom I have mentioned and the member for Rockhampton North are all aware of the problems, and this Minister has done nothing. I am aware of the input of the member for Rockhampton North. Is the reason why Denivel got the contract at Tennyson that, once again, it will break the safety rules to remove asbestos? Time expired. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (9.22 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Estimates of the Minister for Resource Industries, and I do so with some pleasure because the mining industry is a very important industry to the economy of the regions which are represented by the Cook electorate, the gulf and the cape area. We have a very interesting cross-section of the mining industry throughout the Cook electorate, and I would like to commend the Minister from the outset for the amount of time he has spent travelling and visiting mining ventures of all sizes and varieties throughout the Cook electorate over the past two years. He has been to most of the major operations in my electorate. I understand that he has visited most of the major operations throughout the rest of Queensland. He has also found time for the small miners. Recently, he conducted a three or four-day trip through the Palmer River area and looked at both the historical and current aspects of mining operations there. It is a credit to the Minister and his staff that he has been very much a hands-on Minister in what is a very practical and important industry to the economy of my area and also to the economy of the State. My electorate contains a range of mining operations, including prospective mining operations such as the one at Century, which the member for Mount Isa has mentioned. I will not go into detail about it; considerable discussion has been held about it both in this Chamber and publicly. Suffice to say that it is one of the most significant prospective mining industries that Queensland has seen for many years. I will talk briefly about a couple of the major mining operations currently proceeding in my electorate. I refer, first of all, to the Kidston goldmine, which is one of the largest goldmines currently operating in Queensland. The second operation is the Comalco bauxite-mining operation in Weipa. In recent times, a number of interesting prospects have been in the offing with Comalco. I refer particularly to the feasibility study which has been investigating the prospect of establishing an alumina refinery at Weipa. We are aware that we need to introduce value-adding to many industries in Queensland and throughout Australia. The alumina industry is one of those in which, by refining the bauxite one stage to alumina, we are able to add substantially to the value of the product. What is more, potentially, a refinery at Weipa could extend the life expectancy of the mining operation in Weipa by many years—some say 100 years and some say more—which would provide significant employment in that area. I commend Comalco for the work that it Legislative Assembly 2559 31 October 1991 has been carrying out in that regard. In these times of economic restraint, it is not easy to be looking at major investment projects such as an alumina refinery would be. However, that company has been attacking that research with some vigour and enthusiasm. The person who has been coordinating that study at Weipa is a fellow by the name of Denis Bourke, who has now left Weipa. However, over the past two years Denis and I have come to know each other quite well. I appreciated the courtesy and the cooperation which I received from Denis in his efforts to keep me posted on where that project was heading. Of course, Comalco has also been involved in exploration for energy sources—oil or gas—in a range of places, most recently off the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. It has taken an important role in the mining industry of Queensland. I mention also the community-minded attitude which Comalco takes. The member for Mount Isa talked about Mount Isa Mines and the contribution which it makes to the City of Mount Isa. Likewise, Comalco has always been very community minded, not merely to the community of Weipa but to the whole region of the Cape York Peninsula. For example, today I consulted with people from the Queensland Royal Geographic Society who are planning a wet season scientific research project on heathlands on a property in Cape York Peninsula. Comalco has been providing some work to assist that research project. It does not confine itself merely to its own operations; it also provides an important community role. This year, Comalco has encountered some difficulties at Weipa. Similar problems have occurred with mining operations in many places. The work force in Weipa was reduced and there were some redundancies. As well, discussion was held over the normalisation of the town process. Although I have taken an active role in representing the interests of the miners of the town of Weipa on that issue, basically my concern has been to ensure that adequate consultations and negotiations with all members of the community in Weipa are undertaken. I mention also Mitsubishi’s Cape Flattery silica mining operation, which is near Hope Vale. We also have some more unfortunate examples of the mining industry in the Cook electorate. I refer briefly to the former Barrack mine at Croydon. The Minister knows that there have been a range of concerns in the township of Croydon about the mine since it has closed down. The major concerns have been about the prospect of contamination of water supplies. Once again, I appreciate the efforts that the Minister and his department have gone to in order to reassure me and the people in the Croydon area that those matters have been adequately considered and contained. Probably the worst problem, which I would like to spend a few minutes on, has occurred at the Horn Island goldmine. Once again, I know that the Minister is very much aware of the problem. He has visited Horn Island on a number of occasions, most recently on a trip with the FNQEB about three weeks ago to inspect the former goldmine at Horn Island. I suppose it was an ambitious project when it started. It disturbed a large area of land on Horn Island. When the company announced that it was closing down and going into receivership on Christmas Eve 1989, putting 150 local people out of work, there was great disappointment in the community, and there have been a number of problems since then. The department and the Minister retained the $500,000 deposit which the mine had paid. As well, a major auction of plant and equipment at Horn Island recouped approximately another $500,000. However, that $1m is only about half of the prospective clean-up cost, which is anticipated to come to slightly over $2m. That mine is an example of the legacy that can be left by the mining industry. It is also an example of the reason why this Minister has taken an active interest in ensuring that the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act are applied to try to prevent such problems from arising and to try to prevent such imposts on the taxpayers of Queensland. Once again, I express my appreciation to the Minister for his swift attention to the problem of some chemicals on the Horn Island goldmine site approximately three months ago. That matter was brought to my attention by local residents and I contacted the Minister. Expressions of interest were quickly called and a tender was then let for the Legislative Assembly 2560 31 October 1991 clean-up of those chemicals. They have now been totally removed from the island, eliminating any potential environmental threat in the area. Of course, in the Cook electorate there are not just major mining operations such as those I have mentioned. There are many small miners, from fossickers to people who I guess are hobby miners. Over the last 12 months in particular, a steady stream of people who mine in the Georgetown area have expressed to me concerns about the requirement for survey of mining leases and the cost of the bonds. I have taken up those concerns with the Minister. While people have not always been perfectly happy, I appreciate the efforts that the Minister has made. Turning to another area of the Minister’s Estimates, I want to talk briefly about power supplies for the outer islands of the Torres Strait. That is an issue that has probably been done to death in this Chamber, but it remains an important issue for the Torres Strait Islanders in my electorate. The tenders for the erection of the power poles and for the wiring of the houses have been completed. The process of beginning to install the diesel generators is now under way, and by the end of 1993 that project will probably be completed, bringing for the first time electricity supplies to many of the islands in the Torres Strait. There is also another very major project in terms of energy supply occurring in another part of the Cook electorate. I refer, of course, to the extension of the grid power line from Kidston to Karumba. This is a $40m project which has been undertaken by the electricity commission. It involves a 420 kilometre- long power line from the Kidston goldmine, which is basically north west of Townsville, to Karumba in the Gulf of Carpentaria. That power line will provide flick-of-the-switch electricity to approximately 1 000 consumers in Georgetown, Croydon, Normanton and Karumba. It will also mean that electricity can be extended to other rural properties in the area, representing a significant improvement in service for those people. At present, those towns rely on noisy diesel generators. As the power is connected, there will be a process of winding those down. While I am talking about electricity, I want to mention the problems that have been experienced, particularly by the fishing industry in Karumba. The Far North Queensland Electricity Board currently buys electricity from Raptis, a major fishing company at Karumba. That electricity is purchased for about 40c per kilowatt hour. The supply is then reticulated around the local community. Unfortunately, under arrangements which were agreed to by the previous Government, restrictions were applied. The first was limiting the size of electrically powered motors which could be used. This affected the users of commercial and industrial machinery. The second restriction was that there was no supply to any industry engaged in the exploitation of natural resources. In a town such as Karumba, that meant that no power supplies were connected to the fishing industry, thereby greatly disadvantaging the people in that industry. The extension of the grid power line to Karumba will mean that all of the people all the way along the line and, most importantly from my point of view, the fishing industry in Karumba will have access to a regular reticulated power supply. That affects refrigeration in particular, which is of vital interest to the fishing industry. When talking about mining issues—I know that members opposite have mentioned problems that have occurred in other States and problems that have emerged in Queensland over negotiations between potential mining ventures and Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities. I want to mention this briefly tonight. Although I do not want to dwell on it, I think it is important that the mining industry in Queensland realise that it is an important issue. We do not want to have major confrontation, as appeared to be the case at Coronation Hill in the Northern Territory. I think it is important that the mining companies adopt a responsible attitude and seek negotiations in consultation with Aboriginal and Islander communities to try to reach agreement over mines. Likewise, I think it is important that Aboriginal and Islander communities adopt a responsible attitude Legislative Assembly 2561 31 October 1991 and realise that there are to be gained from the reasonable exploitation of Queensland’s mineral resources benefits not just for themselves but also for the entire economy of Queensland. I beseech both parties in those circumstances to do whatever they can to cooperate to reach mutually agreeable arrangements so that mining can be allowed. However, the concerns of the Aboriginal and Islander people should be respected, particularly as any operation may affect their land or sacred sites. I want to talk very briefly about energy conservation. I believe this matter was covered well by the member for Springwood. It is an important issue. It is important that we are able to convince the people of Queensland that we are serious about changing attitudes that we have had in the past in regard to the profligate use of energy and that we are prepared to rigorously pursue the issue of energy conservation. Finally, I congratulate the Minister and his departmental officers, in particular, Brian Hibbett and Jan Martin. Time expired. Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

K. T. S. Tulsi The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! Before I call the next speaker, I wish to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of K. T. S. Tulsi, the Additional Solicitor General of India. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

SUPPLY

Estimates—Resource Industries Debate resumed. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (9.38 p.m.): I thank the Minister for the opportunity to contribute to the Estimates debate on the Department of Resource Industries. I would like to speak briefly on the question of energy policy. Last year, the Minister issued a discussion paper on future directions for a Queensland energy policy. This is the first discussion paper of its kind ever issued in Queensland. It is good to see that finally we have a Queensland Government which is taking seriously the issue of energy policy. Throughout the seventies and eighties, there were occasional discussions about the issue of energy and the future courses of energy use. Only within the past few years have the environmental imperatives of international energy use driven home to us the importance of a more responsible and more rational use of energy in our society. Hopefully, the input and analysis that go into the process of policy development arising out of the discussion paper issued by the Minister will help our Government develop a comprehensive and well-designed energy policy that looks beyond only next year or the year after, looks beyond the immediate growth parameters that were the mind-set in which previous Governments operated, and looks to the long-term future. It is the long-term future that really is going to matter if Governments are going to start making decisions that really count, especially in relation to energy policy. Many of the decisions that we make today determine the course of energy policy a decade or two decades down the track. In the past, there has been a general tendency amongst energy commissions Legislative Assembly 2562 31 October 1991 throughout the country to overestimate growth forecasts and a general tendency to pitch themselves for growth, which we now know is simply not sustainable in the long term. I note that there has been a significant increase in commitment to environmental factors on the part of the Minister. The annual report of the Queensland Electricity Commission addresses specifically the new and increasing emphasis being placed on finding an appropriate balance between the commission’s responsibility to protect the environment and the need to provide energy for customers’ needs. Increasingly, this will become a difficult balance to achieve. In the past, the environment has not figured in the energy policies of the State Government, or perhaps anywhere near enough in the future plans of the Queensland Electricity Commission. Far too often, the previous Government was ready to fast-track development and growth simply for its own sake. This has now been brought under scrutiny, simply because any Government that is forward looking, and any Government that takes the long-term future seriously, cannot commit itself to an unbridled path of growth simply because it is seen to have some sort of spin-off in terms of economic development for the State. In terms of energy policy, our economic development must be planned, not only to take account of the benefits of energy projects that might yield energy-producing sources but also to take account of the potential long-term costs of those projects both environmentally and socially. It is good to see the commission placing a renewed emphasis on its responsibility to protect the environment. One of the important controversies that has arisen recently and which arises specifically out of the issue of electricity forecasts and the forecasts of future demand for electricity is the whole issue of the Tully/Millstream power station. In normal circumstances, hydroelectric power is a very clean source of power. To the extent that hydroelectric systems can be developed throughout the State, especially where they can relieve the load on coal-fired or fossil fuel powered power stations, hydroelectric power is clearly a desirable alternative. Of course, one of the difficulties in this particular case is that the Tully/Millstream project is within a World Heritage area. During his contribution, the member for Lockyer mentioned that the World Heritage qualities of the wet tropics World Heritage area are not dependent entirely on whether or not the power station goes ahead. But really, that is not the issue. It is not a question of whether the implementation of the power station will deprive that area of its World Heritage qualities. The real issue is that, because the area has World Heritage qualities, it is especially important that we be careful and cautious about establishing a power station in that area. For that reason, the task force was established by the Government, with representatives from the QEC and various Government departments. That task force obtained independent consultants’ reports in relation to that matter. It has now reported, and its report is currently the subject of further investigation. The issue of environmental sensitivity is a difficult one for our Government in this circumstance. Clearly, there is an established need for further electricity supply. I believe that the precise extent of future demand cannot be quantified with a good deal of certainty. However, it is clear that, simply because of population growth in Queensland, there is likely to be some measure of growth in the demand for energy. Of course, one should note that, during the past year, the growth in energy sales has been significantly less than it was in a number of previous years. There was a consistent yearly growth in excess of 6 per cent until the past year, when it fell to something like 3.5 per cent. Part of that may be attributed to the recession. It may also have something to do with the increased consciousness that ordinary consumers have in terms of their use of energy and the capacity that they have for conserving energy. Previously in this debate, a number of speakers have expressed the view that there is no really significant avenue for energy conservation in the domestic sector. I do not accept that analysis. Although each unit of domestic energy used might be small, when Legislative Assembly 2563 31 October 1991 one multiplies the number of units of domestic energy used throughout houses across this State, one realises that there are massive opportunities for energy conservation in our State. I believe that we can do a lot more to encourage the conservation of energy in Queensland. I am very pleased that the Minister has established the independent energy advice centre. Recently, I visited the Victorian centre, which is an outstanding example of what promotion can be committed to energy conservation amongst domestic consumers. Because commercial and industrial energy use constitutes such a large proportion of energy use, it is also important that energy audits in the industry and commercial sectors be explored as well. I believe that a lot more can be done in this regard. It may be that we need to establish some form of coordinated approach arising out of the energy policy discussion paper which enables all energy sources to be assessed responsibly. Time expired. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (9.46 p.m.), in reply: I thank the members of the Committee for their contributions to the debate. I particularly acknowledge the efforts of the members of my caucus committee and the other Government speakers. The detail of the speeches on both sides of the Chamber demonstrates that members realise the importance of the resource industries sector to this State. In my response, I will address, firstly, members’ comments about the mining industry. The Government recognises that it is its proper role to facilitate and manage the responsible development of the mining industry in the interests of all Queenslanders. I believe I have outlined here today exactly how the Government is working to do just that, and I cannot understand how the member for Lockyer can say that the Government is not doing enough to encourage the industry. As the member for Mount Isa explained, the department now has a network of 10 district offices, which will use their half a million dollar a year allocation for the 1991-92 year to provide a much-improved, on-the-spot service to the mining industry as well as to the community. Rather than having to refer to Brisbane, would-be explorers and miners can find out about the availability of land and existing tenures in their area and get expert advice at their local office. Having those offices in the regions will bring relief to some of the problems raised by the member for Tablelands. The member for Lockyer and his colleague the member for Callide appear to have been very selective in quoting from the annual report, which I hope the Committee has noted was provided in advance of today’s debate in the interests of informed discussion. Members talk about change being forced upon the department. I must correct them there. On page 65 of the annual report is a description of the process that the department went through of its own accord. For those who do not have access to the report—it mentions that, from the start, staff were involved. The director-general and senior officers of the department will be put out that the member is not giving them credit for having the initiative themselves to improve their own organisation. The Public Sector Management Commission is now looking at the restructured department but, having been involved in the department’s internal review, at the invitation, I might add, of the director-general, it is not expected that the PSMC will want to make major structural changes. As the member told us, there is change in the international marketplace and in other factors affecting the mining industry, and my department has recognised that and is moving with the times. I understand that after so long without change the prospect of change can cause concern, but I am confident that this will be resolved. As to the member’s unusual comments about retaining within my department environmental management, the administration of tenures and responsibility for safety—I can assure him that I agree totally, although I have absolutely no idea why he thinks that anything else would be the case. In fact, as the member for Rockhampton North pointed out, the Government has increased the allocation in the department for environmental Legislative Assembly 2564 31 October 1991 management in line with the Government’s emphasis on environmentally responsible development. I am aware of the member’s interests in that area, especially as it relates to the Byfield mineral sand project proposal, which is in his new electorate. His opponent in the contest for the new seat could have benefited from the debate considering his very new interest in the subject of Byfield but, unfortunately, he was not able to join us this evening. The member for Rockhampton North also mentioned the extension of the State gas pipeline and the very exciting developments of the magnesia industry in central Queensland, of which he has been a keen proponent. The member for Lockyer said that Queensland should process more of its raw materials. I could not agree more, which is why the Government went ahead with the pipeline extension to Rockhampton and why it has committed $20m to the CSIRO Centre for Advanced Technologies at Pinjarra Hills. I cannot let pass without comment the hypocritical remarks about coal rail freights from both the member for Lockyer and the member for Moggill. I remind both of them that the rail freight regime was drawn up by a Liberal Treasurer and presided over for years by a coalition Government. I cannot understand how their system has become so evil now that it is administered by the Labor Party. I respect the expertise of the member for Moggill in the field of economics, but I point out just one statistic to him when he argues about how Queensland’s rail freights are creating some kind of imbalance in development between Queensland and New South Wales. The Queensland Coal Board, which existed for 32 years under the Government of the member for Lockyer and which he now wants abolished, informs me that in cents per ton per kilometre Queensland rail freights are, in the main, on a par with those of New South Wales. The Coal Board also keeps me reliably informed about other international developments, including the annual shadow-boxing—I repeat “annual shadow-boxing”—by our major Japanese coal-buyers when they make noises about diversifying their suppliers to try to get a better deal out of the Australian suppliers. The member’s comments about land access and national parks are also misguided. I can assure him that more than adequate consultation is undertaken before—and I repeat “before”—any land is restricted by any Minister from exploration or mining. For a start, legislation requires my colleague the Minister for Environment and Heritage to refer any national park proposal to me for comment. I point the member for Lockyer to the Queensland mining and conservation package as an example. It demonstrates exactly how consultation works and how the Government ensures that places with mineral potential remain available for exploration and mining. In the past year alone, several areas of the State were made available for opal, coal and petroleum exploration. As to the matters raised about the electricity industry—I am disappointed that the member for Lockyer cannot see the potential for improvements in energy efficiency in Queensland. In comparison, the Government is acutely aware of the need to plan for energy needs, as is the Queensland Electricity Commission. The member is scaremongering for political purposes when he talks about leaving Queensland in the dark. I can assure him that I watch closely the future electricity needs of the State and discuss that regularly with the acting commissioner to ensure that Queensland will continue to have a safe, reliable and secure electricity supply. On the matter of the power line referred to by the member for Tablelands—I assure him that there is no policy to use private land and that, where easements are taken, owners are compensated and do not lose the use of their land. Also, I wish to advise the member that in respect of the area of mining leases—and I believe he mentioned an area of two hectares being too small—it is a matter for the miner himself or herself to indicate the area he or she desires when making application for a lease. Mr Gilmore interjected. Legislative Assembly 2565 31 October 1991

Mr VAUGHAN: I am sure that the honourable member said “leases”. The honourable member for Sherwood will be aware that Denivel Destructions is involved in a matter before the courts, yet he stood in this Chamber and discussed elements of the case. My advice from Crown law—as I indicated in this Chamber in answer to a question the other day—is that any such discussion would affect the fairness of the hearing, yet the honourable member went ahead and raised the issue. I wonder what his motive was. Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. If that is the case, I ask the Minister why he answered the question that was on notice concerning the matter. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. Mr VAUGHAN: I did not answer the question in the way the honourable member wanted me to, and I did not elaborate on the facts of the case, as the honourable member did here tonight. I wonder what the honourable member’s motives were or are, because he could not have done a better job if he was trying to get that company off the hook. I would like to elaborate on the various matters raised by the speakers in this debate, but unfortunately time does not allow me to elaborate in detail. However, I conclude by sincerely thanking all members who spoke in this debate for their contributions. At 9.55 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Resource Industries (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $49,146,000—Mining, Energy and Electricity, Department of Resource Industries (Consolidated Fund). $1,519,457,000—Mining, Energy and Electricity, Department of Resource Industries (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (9.56 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Liquor Act 1912.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (9.57 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This Bill reflects the very serious concern that this Government has about the problem of under- age drinking. The illegal sale and consumption of alcohol by under-age Legislative Assembly 2566 31 October 1991 patrons is an increasing problem in our community, and added to that are the accompanying problems of violence, vandalism, and poor health associated with alcohol abuse. The Government has acted decisively and positively against this problem by introducing Card 18 Plus. This move has proved popular and has been welcomed by the overwhelming majority of licensees. By increasing the penalties for supplying minors with alcohol, this Bill serves to reinforce the Card 18 Plus scheme. Existing penalties in the Liquor Act are totally inadequate to deal with the increasing problem of under-age drinking. The maximum a licensee can be fined currently is $200—a prospect that the small number of unscrupulous licensees must find hardly threatening. Under the new penalties, a licensee will be liable for a maximum fine of $15,000 for supplying an under-age person with alcohol. After two convictions, licensees may be called upon to show cause why their licence should not be forfeited. Anyone else supplying a minor with alcohol will be liable to a maximum penalty of $2,400. The Bill has been introduced now in order that the new penalties be in force for "schoolies week" next month. I am sure all members would agree this annual orgy of binge drinking is a sorry commentary on our society. A heavy responsibility is placed on licensees to ensure that under-age drinking does not occur. Correspondingly, a licensee is permitted to request a person to produce proof of age, and if the evidence produced is not acceptable, the licensee may refuse entry to the premises. A distinction is drawn between the licensee and other persons such as bar staff. The ultimate responsibility rests with the licensee to ensure that no under-age patrons are supplied with alcohol on the licensed premises. The level of fines reflects this distinction. A further distinction is drawn for offences committed by an under-age person, and again the level of fines reflects the Government's attitude. The Government has no wish to impose unduly harsh penalties on under-age persons, but the fine must be sufficiently large to deter people from committing offences. The fines in the Bill are maximum penalties only. It is, of course, always a matter of discretion for the magistrate in each case as to precisely what level of fine is imposed. The only form of proof of age that will be acceptable is either a Card 18 Plus, a driver's licence or a passport, all of which have a photograph and a reference to date of birth. Interstate equivalents will also be acceptable. This Bill has not altered the existing law with respect to under-age drinking. It has always been an offence to supply liquor to a minor either on or off licensed premises. What this Bill does is increase the penalties to a level in tune with the times. The Bill also provides legislative support to the Card 18 Plus scheme. It creates offences for attempting to make, use or obtain false forms of identification or allowing another person to use someone else’s card. A minor who commits such an offence will be liable to a maximum penalty of 25 penalty units or $1,500. Any adult convicted of making false evidence of age will be liable to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or $2,400. The Liquor Act currently prohibits the letting or subletting by the licensee of a bar or the right to sell liquor on part of the licensed premises to another person. This Bill will amend the Act to allow such letting or subletting with the prior permission of the Licensing Commission. This will allow the owners of large complexes to be the holder of one licence for the entire complex, and to let or sublet the right to sell liquor to various operators. This amendment reflects the reality of the needs of commercial and tourist operators. It will give added flexibility to those persons who are permitted to operate in this manner. The person who holds the licence for the whole complex will continue to be responsible for all the requirements under the Liquor Act. All lessees or sublessees will be subject to the normal scrutiny of the Licensing Commission before approval will be granted in a particular case. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2567 31 October 1991

REFERENDUMS AND ELECTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.03 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Referendums Act 1989 and the Elections Act 1983.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.04 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to address issues which could arise and cause difficulties in the effective conduct of a referendum which will be held to allow the people to determine the issue of daylight-saving. It is notable that this referendum will be the second occasion during the term of this Government that people of Queensland will be given the opportunity to directly decide a matter of significant public interest. The daylight-saving referendum will only be the second occasion since 1923 that a State referendum has been held. Daylight-saving is a difficult issue on which many Queenslanders have expressed strong views. It is not a party political question, but rather it is a life-style issue, intimately affecting everyone and one which the people can, and should, finally decide. Referendums on daylight-saving have been held in other States: in Western Australia in 1975 and 1983; in New South Wales in 1976; and in South Australia in 1982. Turning to the specific changes this Bill will bring about, it must be said that the 1991 four-year term referendum illustrated a number of problems with this type of legislation. This Bill will overcome these problems and ensure that the 1992 referendum can be conducted efficiently and effectively. The most significant change is that a new provision will be inserted in the Act dealing with the distribution of the “Yes” and “No” cases. At the moment, the primary means of alerting electors of the pros and cons of a Bill or question is by direct postage. However, this Bill introduces an option whereby electors may be alerted to the arguments by either direct mail or newspaper advertisements, with the latter becoming the primary means of doing so. With the exception of Commonwealth constitutional referendums and Western Australian referendums since 1983, all other States either alert electors by means of newspaper advertisements, or have no provisions on the matter. Under the Bill, if both the majority of those favouring the “Yes” argument and the majority of those favouring the “No” argument agree, then the arguments can be distributed by post, but only in that event. If the newspaper option is adopted, the Bill requires the arguments to be published in at least two newspapers circulating throughout the State on at least two occasions, one being the day before the referendum. The Bill also reduces the maximum size of arguments for or against a referendum issue from 2 000 to 1 000 words. To ensure that the arguments are presented fairly and equitably, it is proposed that the Electoral Commissioner be given the discretion to determine the format for production of the arguments submitted. These changes will result in a considerable saving of public moneys, but still ensure that the arguments for and against a Bill or question are brought Legislative Assembly 2568 31 October 1991 to the attention of the public. In addition, if both a majority of those supporting and opposing the Bill or a question agree, then the more costly direct mailing option can be adopted. In accordance with the recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, the State will in future be using the Commonwealth electoral rolls and, therefore, to avoid public confusion, the Bill provides for the adoption of Commonwealth general postal voter eligibility criteria. The Electoral Districts Act 1991 currently provides for the printing of electoral rolls as at the date that EARC determines the new electoral districts. As a later roll will be produced for the conduct of the referendum, no worthwhile purpose would be served in producing the roll as required by the Electoral Districts Act. Accordingly, the Bill eliminates this unnecessary and expensive requirement on this occasion. The remainder of the Bill contains machinery provisions which address a number of administrative matters to enable the referendum to be effectively conducted. In particular, the State electoral boundaries may not be settled, should there be a legal challenge to the EARC redistribution. Furthermore, the possibility that the Australian Electoral Commission may not be able to produce the rolls in time to conduct the referendum must be addressed. Accordingly, the Bill contains powers similar to those contained in section 8.7 which was inserted in the Act by the Referendums Legislation Amendment Act 1990 and which give the Electoral Commissioner the administrative and legislative flexibility to deal with a multitude of problems which could arise with the conduct of the referendum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Gilmore, adjourned.

SUGAR MILLING RATIONALISATION BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.08 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for certain rationalisation of sugar milling operations, and for other purposes.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.09 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” In 1915, the Government of T.J. Ryan introduced the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act, which was a great start of an era for the sugar industry in Queensland. At that time there were 45 sugar-mills in Queensland. After this season, there will be 25. Mills close for economic reasons. Mills also amalgamate. Over the decades, transport, delivery and crushing technologies have improved. Work practices have changed, including the introduction of continuous crushing. Competition for land can reduce regional capacity. There has been a concentration of ownership of sugar-mills by way of sale, amalgamation and closure. Three major corporations, CSR, the Mackay Sugar Co-operative, and Tate and Lyle, control about three quarters of the milling capacity in Queensland. These Legislative Assembly 2569 31 October 1991 factors have led to the 20 or so closures over the last 76 years, and it is highly likely that there will be further closures for the same reasons. There is no hiding the fact that the sugar industry has been highly regulated. In the past, when a mill ceased business for whatever reason, the mill was not closed down, but exempted from the obligation to carry on its business. The exemption was granted by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. This legislation is a little more honest than the previous Act. It allows for closure of the mill by the determination of the Queensland Sugar Corporation, subject to appeal to the Sugar Industry Tribunal. Mill closures can be highly emotional. Only a few years ago, the Goondi mill closed down. Its business was transferred to two adjacent mills, Babinda and Mourilyan. Nobody is satisfied with the way that closure was managed. This House was required to consider three Bills. The issue divided three sugar growing communities, and residual bitterness continues to this day. This Bill is designed to create an environment where further mill rationalisation can be debated in a logical and well-informed manner. I am not suggesting that the Bill will stop mill closures from being emotional issues, but it will do one thing which the previous Government ignored, and that is to let the sugar industry go about mill rationalisation in an orderly manner. The Sugar Milling Rationalisation Bill will complete this Government’s first term commitment to major reform of the sugar industry legislation in Queensland. The Bill will complement the Sugar Industry Act which went through the House earlier this year, and has been in effect for about four months. That Act deals with ongoing industry management, and was not intended to deal with the major issues which must be faced in mill rationalisation. Milling rationalisation is fundamentally about more efficient use of resources. It is therefore vital that the mill transport infrastructure be preserved and transferred to the mill which will assume the closing mill’s business. Much of the Bill is directed towards mechanisms for orderly transfer of easements and rights of way. I take this opportunity to thank my colleague the Honourable Bill Eaton for the assistance he and the officers of his department, particularly Mr Paul Skehan, have afforded my officers and the Parliamentary Counsel in preparation of this Bill. The Bill also allows for the administratively efficient transfer of assignments and farm and mill peaks. During the extensive negotiations which led to the Sugar Industry Act, it was clear that industry did not want the corporation to have the broad rezoning powers which had vested in the Central Board. They wanted local control over assignment transactions, and this Government respected their wishes. However, to allow for efficient implementation of mill closures, the Queensland Sugar Corporation will have power to effect alterations in assignments as required to implement a closure once it has been determined that the closure should take place. Similar changes may be implemented in regard to farm peaks and consequential adjustment of mill peaks, and to easements registered in the corporation’s register of easements. The Bill affords significant protection to cane-farmers involved in any closure. The corporation must to be satisfied of three things in considering an application— that the closure is reasonable; that adequate provision is made to minimise economic detriment to assignment-holders; and that the new mill is capable of crushing the additional cane. In addition, the corporation is to satisfy itself that the owner of the closing mill is properly compensated for the value of plant and other assets. This is to ensure that the larger, more powerful mill—owners are not able to take unfair advantage over smaller mill—owners, particularly cooperatives, where the growers may stand to lose both ways. Parties dissatisfied with decisions of the corporation may appeal to the Sugar Industry Legislative Assembly 2570 31 October 1991

Tribunal. Thus, points of law may be debated in their proper forum, the tribunal, while the corporation is free to make its decisions upon administrative grounds. Appeals lie in regard to the closure application itself, and to the consequential decisions about which assignment holders are allocated to which mill and so on. Not all mills are in a position to transfer their business to another mill. In those circumstances, the corporation’s considerations will be somewhat different, although couched in the same terms. The objective will be to retain as much industry expertise as possible, and to allow those cane-farmers who wish to remain in the industry the opportunity to move their assignments to other mills. The farm relocation provisions of the Sugar Industry Act are available to allow this readjustment to take place. This Bill will be placed into immediate use. Only a matter of weeks ago, the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, at what was probably its final meeting, approved exemption of Hambledon mill from its obligation to crush sugarcane, and the rezoning of all assignment-holders to the Mulgrave mill. This implemented a commercial arrangement reached between the owners of the mills in question. However, the agreement is subject to the integrity of the mill transport system being preserved. Honourable members may note that the Bill allows the Hambledon mill closure to proceed under this Bill, even though it was effected under the now repealed Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act. As it happens, many of the Hambledon mill’s easements were registered under the Real Property Act. This creates a legal difficulty which is addressed in this Bill, and which the Mulgrave mill’s owners will, it is understood, use to ensure that the economic transportation of cane to the mill can continue. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Randell, adjourned.

FRUIT MARKETING ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 23 October (see p. 1987). Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (10.15 p.m.): The Opposition does not intend to oppose this legislation. It provides for changes which both the National Party and the industry accept the need for. The fruit and vegetable industry is one of the most important industries in the State, providing much of the fresh and preserved produce which finds its way onto tables in Queensland. It is also a great source of revenue for the State, with major sales in the southern States, particularly in the area of tropical fruits. As in all crop-raising industries, Queensland has a good reputation for quality produce. Queensland growers are amongst the most efficient in the nation. The growers themselves have always controlled marketing through their own organisation, the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, or the COD as it is known. It has always operated for the benefit of the growers, and that of the consumer. The COD has served this State well over the years, but times change and the way we organise our commerce has to change as well. I find it very gratifying that producers have played a major role in the changes which this legislation formalises. Indeed, I would be very surprised if there is a grower in the State who has any major disagreement with the new structure into which growers have had so much input. Government can learn a lot from this sort of consultation with primary producers regarding their needs, and it is hoped it will use this process again when major changes are required in other primary industries. As I said a few moments ago, we have no major problems with this legislation. There are, however, a couple of points to be made. The major one concerns the stamp duty payable on the transfer of assets from the COD to the new marketing organisation. We Legislative Assembly 2571 31 October 1991 take the view that the Treasurer should be prepared to waive all stamp duty on these transactions on the basis that there is no real change—and I stress “no real change”—in the beneficial ownership of those assets. COD has always been owned by the growers themselves, and so is the new marketing organisation. The only transfer of real ownership is a paper one. With assets amounting to, I believe, something in excess of $30m, stamp duty would be substantial—probably over $1m. That would be a heavy burden for the new organisation to carry, bearing in mind that primary industries, and particularly the fruit and vegetable industries, are doing it very hard at the present time. As I said, I believe the Treasurer should be prepared to forgo that income in these special circumstances. I certainly hope the Minister will press that point strongly with his colleague. Our other main concern is with the role of the administrator, should one ever have to be appointed. We hope and trust that situation will never arise; but if it does, we trust that the Minister of the day will keep a close rein on the administrator. He does seem to have very wide powers. We would normally have something to say about a Bill as important as this one being passed so quickly and with such little debate. However, in this case, the full agreement of the industry, and the unusual circumstances relating to the dates of the financial year for the COD Cannery, make speedy passage desirable. The Opposition is pleased to be able to support this legislation. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (10.18 p.m.): In rising to speak on the Fruit Marketing Organisation Amendment Bill, I indicate that it has the support of the Liberal Party. The Cannery Board, which operates as the Golden Circle Cannery at Northgate, has taken a ballot, and will, under this Bill, change from a statutory body and become an unlisted public company. This ballot received 92 per cent support, so generally the industry is greatly in favour of it. The cannery will continue to trade in its present manner. There will be no changes to operations or to ownership, and the existing share-holders will have all their rights protected. We believe the supplier share-holders will benefit greatly, and they will also be protected from take-over by the memorandum and articles of association. The COD has been subjected to an extensive report by Price Waterhouse, the management consultants, the merchant bankers Hambros Australia Limited, and solicitors Cooper, Grace and Ward. All honourable members know something about the problems of the COD. I think there was a debt of $17m. With the acquisition of transport companies such as Bagleys, it is obvious that some restructuring was needed. The recommendation was made by this group to separate the organisation into a statutory growers representative body and a grower-controlled trading arm. I believe that there was no discontent and that the recommendation was supported. The COD will become a grower representative body so that the trading arm, which I think will be called Freshmark, will be separated from it. The COD will consequently become an unlisted public company that will be controlled by its growers. The Liberal Party would also like to support the member for Barambah and the Opposition spokesman for Primary Industries in his request to have the stamp duty dropped on this transaction, because I would like to remind the Minister that I believe it has been waived on a number of occasions, particularly in relation to the amalgamation of dairy cooperatives. The Liberal Party, with pleasure, supports the Bill. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.21 p.m.): I would like to take part briefly in this debate on this Fruit Marketing Organisation Amendment Bill. I am disappointed in a way that the COD has had to take this particular step as a matter of necessity more than anything else, bearing in mind that it did have a loss of about $15m, mainly in the trading section. This is a disappointment, bearing in mind that so much of this would have come from grower support and grower money that has gone across into that particular area. The trading arm of the growers is being separated from growers’ services, and it will be a separation of the Legislative Assembly 2572 31 October 1991 commercial operation that will allow COD to actively pursue grower representative functions. As a matter of interest, these functions will consist of— consultancy and advisory services to growers; research activities; providing insurance agency services to growers; facilitating financial arrangements for local associations and sectional groups; conducting a nursery business for research and development; facilitating transport of produce out of the Granite Belt by train; providing other services to growers that would be approved by the Governor in Council; grower representational issues; and industry advertising and promotion. A couple of these areas I believe need comment, and one of them is in the area of research. The COD has always been involved in research with the DPI. They have worked hand in hand, and I would like to think that DPI contributions for research will continue or increase rather decrease, as they are at present. There seems to be a growing need for advisory services. I also mention the area of transportation, and the transport of produce from the granite belt. In the past, one of the COD’s great strengths was the transportation system that was provided by the Railway Department. Through that solid base provided by the transportation system, the COD was able to expand and contribute to the fruit-growing industry. Since the change to road transport, the COD has encountered a few problems. The change to road transport may have been one of the major reasons why problems have occurred. The trading sector can be defined as commercial activities such as Sunshine Produce, COD Transport, Bagley Transport, Container Exchange and Granite Belt Merchandising. As a result of this Bill, those commercial activities will be transferred formally to a corporate structure known as Freshmark Limited. Those commercial activities have contributed greatly to the industry through the provision of ripening rooms and the packaging that has been carried out by Sunshine Produce. Those activities have been providing the COD with a competitive edge and ensuring a quality product. Great emphasis was placed on the appointment of an administrator to the COD. I wonder why the major part of the Bill deals with the rules and regulations governing the appointment of an administrator. There is little likelihood of the COD going into receivership and requiring an administrator to be appointed, bearing in mind that it is the grower representative and is funded by levies. The COD in Queensland has always been the envy of other States. It has provided a strong base for Queensland’s fruit and vegetable industry. I believe that it was necessary to include the stamp duty provision in the Bill. If Queensland is prepared to waive stamp duty, hopefully, New South Wales and Victoria will adopt a similar practice, although I realise that Victoria would be a hard nut to crack. Another important provision is the one that allows the Cannery Board to move away from its status as a statutory body and form an unlisted public company under the Corporations Law. Although the Northgate cannery has not been a part of the COD, it has been involved with the COD to a limited extent as part of a sectional group. Now the Golden Circle Cannery will stand on its own. It is one of the largest canneries in Australia. It produces a competitive product at a competitive price. Its product is well recognised, and I hope that the cannery is encouraged. I support the Bill. Legislative Assembly 2573 31 October 1991

Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.27 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate. It was pointed out clearly by the Opposition spokesman that consultation on the Bill had occurred. That is one of the hallmarks of the Goss Government—its determination to continue consultation on these matters with all sectors of the industry. In this case, because of the wide spread of growers who contribute to the fruit and vegetable industry in Queensland, it was necessary for the COD to hold major grower meetings throughout Queensland. At those meetings, some points were not accepted by all growers, but this Bill puts into place the points that were accepted so that they could be put into legislation and the COD would have a better opportunity of separating from its trading arm, which was the desire of all growers. The members for Barambah and Sherwood both referred to the stamp duty aspect. This aspect is not as clear cut as it was in other types of transfers that we have seen in the past, such as the one with Queensland Cotton and others where the money was going directly into a particular structure. The structure here is different. However, discussions on the matter have been continuing with Treasury, and a concession has already been granted. The difficulty is that both New South Wales and Victoria have to be considered. Sunshine Produce, which was the trading arm of the COD, has major capital investments in those areas. I foreshadow a technical amendment to the Bill. It gives the Golden Circle Cannery an opportunity to chose its articles of association when it becomes a corporate body. That has been achieved by agreement with the body concerned. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. E. D. Casey (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr CASEY (10.30 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 22, after line 25, insert— ‘(4B) For the purposes of subsections (4A) and (5A) (viii) and despite the provisions of the Cannery Agreement, the Cannery Board may by resolution adopt any memorandum and articles of association (not inconsistent with this Act or the Cannery Agreement) which are to be its memorandum and articles of association under the Corporations Law upon the registration of the Cannery Board under that Law.’ ” Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 16, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 2574 31 October 1991

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (NMRB) BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 23 October (see p. 1980). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.33 p.m.): The Opposition supports this legislation. As was outlined in the Minister’s second-reading speech, it is an important piece of legislation which expedites a quite complex and important commercial interaction in the banking community of this country. It has been accepted and acknowledged by Governments throughout the country. The ANZ banking group made some important undertakings to the Commonwealth Government in that respect, and this legislation is complementary, mirroring that being introduced in other Parliaments throughout the country at present to achieve an expedition of this matter and to reduce the likely costs on the corporation and on the individual investors in the bank. It is for that reason that the Opposition is pleased to support the legislation. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.34 p.m.): I rise also to indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting this Bill. As indicated by the Minister, its purpose is to facilitate the merger of part of the businesses, assets and liabilities of the National Mutual Royal Bank Limited and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group so that they can comply with a Reserve Bank requirement to merge before 15 November this year. We understand that there would be some significant practical difficulties in trying to complete the merger through contacting every share-holder and policy-holder of those organisations. This legislation is complementary to that being proposed in other Parliaments of this country. Under the circumstances, we have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the Bill. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.35 p.m.), in reply: I thank both the member for Tablelands and the member for Moggill for their contributions and their support for the Bill. It is a commonsense approach to facilitating this merger between the ANZ Bank and the National Mutual Royal Bank. Again, it demonstrates how the private sector and the public sector can work together to facilitate this merger in the best interests of the share-holders and depositors involved in those institutions. Once again, I thank the members for their contributions. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 33, Schedule and Preamble, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.37 p.m.): I move— “That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday, 12 November 1991.” Legislative Assembly 2575 31 October 1991

Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (10.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “Omit— ‘12’ and substitute— ‘5’.” The Opposition wishes to have the House return on Tuesday, 5 November, so that it can discuss what happened this morning. In a situation such as that which occurred this morning, the Speaker needs to appreciate that the role of the Opposition is to outline its policy on what is happening in the House. Clearly, today, this has not been possible, and that is why I have moved this amendment. The Attorney-General made his decision to read the Special Prosecutor’s statement into the Parliament under parliamentary privilege. He made that decision after approaches from the press, who believed that they could not report the matter unless they had the protection of parliamentary privilege. In a phone call to the Special Prosecutor, the Attorney-General was asked by the prosecutor to read the statement into Hansard. This must be one of the most despicable interferences of the process of the courts that we have ever seen. Clearly, by taking this action, the Attorney-General and the prosecutor have intervened in the process of the courts by taking away Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s right to take legal action in regard to those statements. Clearly, it shows direct collaboration between the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General. Today, the Opposition in this House has exhausted all possible avenues in order to bring the Attorney-General to account for his unparliamentary conduct. In response to Opposition and Liberal Party efforts, the only answer has been the big stick—not allowing points of order, and not allowing matters of privilege. Our members have been made scapegoats by a Labor Government that seems set on having a one-party system of Government in this Chamber. In the past 12 hours, every principle of democratic justice has gone by the board, as our members have been castigated for pursuing what would normally be considered their democratic and parliamentary rights. Obviously, we could not continue to have members suspended from the House in this way and continue our role as an effective and vigorous Opposition. On behalf of members on this side of the House, I express our pride and support for our leaders and those members who sacrificed their parliamentary attendance today in the name of parliamentary democracy. They were standing up for what they believed in, and they were sentenced for their efforts. We need to focus clearly on what sparked this whole sordid episode. That clearly lies with the actions of the Attorney-General. It was the Attorney-General who decided—after consultation late this morning with the Special Prosecutor’s Office—to come into this House and endow a statement with parliamentary privilege, which was totally unwarranted. The Special Prosecutor was in a tight corner, and the Attorney-General’s sole aim was to get him off the hook on a statement which, if it had been made in court, would have been tossed out. The Government has responded by denying every principle of parliamentary justice under the Westminster system. It was a sad and sorry effort by a Government that came to power promising parliamentary reform and accountability. Today, Labor pushed democracy down and out of this Parliament, and members opposite should hang their heads in shame. Members of the Opposition also wish to return to this House on Tuesday because there are questions that are unanswered. I refer to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, who has been removed from this House for seven days. The Premier should have answered that letter from Russell Cooper, which states— Legislative Assembly 2576 31 October 1991

“Dear Mr Goss I have examined the Hansard record of your answer to my question in the Parliament yesterday regarding a dinner meeting at the home of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Drummond QC. Your answer was unequivocal in its denial. Contrary to your assertions, I am not in the habit of raising such matters without cause to do so. Either I am being misinformed or your reply is ‘inaccurate’. It would greatly assist me in considering how to further deal with the matter if you could consult your diary and inform me of your whereabouts, in particular, on the evening of Sunday 29th September 1991 and the evenings of Friday 27th September, Saturday 28th September and Monday 1st October 1991. I would appreciate your prompt reply as, if it is necessary to raise the matter again, I would not wish to do so while you are overseas next week.” Mr SPEAKER: Order! I require a seconder for the amendment. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.43 p.m.): I second the Opposition’s amendment before the House. I totally support what the Opposition spokesman has said. I endorse everything that he said. Today, the action of the Government was a shame. I was ashamed of the parliamentary process. I firmly believe that what happened today was the greatest travesty of justice that I have ever seen. I believe that the Government was trying to offer protection to a document so that other actions could not take effect in another place. I believe also that the Attorney-General was wrong. I believe that either he did it deliberately, under instruction, or else he is a complete fool. I do not believe that the gentleman is a complete fool. I believe that he did it quite deliberately, and under instruction. It gives me pleasure to second this motion. I believe that there is a lot to be dealt with in this House, and that we should not be adjourning for a couple of weeks. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.44 p.m.): The Government opposes the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. We do so for a number of reasons. The most important one to members of the Opposition would be that, last year, on the first Tuesday in November, the Parliament sat and, almost without exception, members of the Opposition came to me and said, “For goodness’ sake, never sit again on Melbourne Cup day.” At the beginning of the year, when I sat down to look at the sitting dates, I considered the very strong arguments that they had put to me that we should not sit on Melbourne Cup day. Of course, we are not sitting next Tuesday—the first Tuesday in November. Another important point to take into consideration when one considers when the Parliament should sit next is that today we witnessed a disgraceful act in this Parliament by the Opposition—by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other members. A number of members were named, and were dealt with by this Parliament. In moving the motions for those people to be suspended from the Parliament, I took into account the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been suspended for 14 days. When the Leader of the Opposition was named, I moved that he be suspended for seven days to allow him to be back in the Parliament on the next sitting day. Opposition members interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: Members opposite are not very good with a leader; I would not like to see them operate all day without one. I believe that, for the Parliament, it is important that the Opposition has at least one of its leaders or deputy leaders here controlling the Titanic. Perhaps, come 5 November, somebody on that side of the House Legislative Assembly 2577 31 October 1991 would want to sit in one of those two seats. That is probably what it is all about. Today, the Opposition abused the Parliament, the Standing Orders of the Parliament—— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr MACKENROTH: The Attorney-General will enter this debate to answer the matter raised in relation to his statement, which was quite proper. Mr Lingard: It is not relevant to the amendment. Mr MACKENROTH: Of course, it is relevant in this debate. Mr Lingard: I’m not asking you; I’m asking Mr Speaker. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member tried that in Committee. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Fassifern to withdraw those comments. They were unparliamentary and disrespectful to the Chair. The member will withdraw and apologise. Mr Lingard: I withdraw and apologise. Mr MACKENROTH: Today, the Opposition certainly abused the Parliament. When members of the Opposition look at the television tonight and read the newspapers tomorrow, they really should be ashamed of themselves. Mr Hobbs: He did you right over. Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Borbidge could not do me over if he started a year before me. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr MACKENROTH: By the way in which they behaved today, members of the Opposition brought this House into disrepute. At lunch-time, I sat down and thought to myself, “If I had got myself into this terrible mess that the Opposition has got itself in, how would I handle it?” I thought, “The very best thing that I would do is nothing. I would go back into the Chamber at 2.30 and let the Estimates debate continue.” But no, members of the Opposition did not do that. They wanted to continue with it, so they raised their point of privilege. I thought, “I will give them a helping hand and let them get that done.” We let them get that done but, of course, they did not reach the stage at which they could be kicked out, so they decided to try something else. They ran around here for 20 minutes and hatched up a scheme whereby they put the member for Toowoomba South up to get kicked out—deliberately. They then continued on. The biggest joke is the way in which members of the Opposition brought the Liberal Party in with them. Today, we saw the reformation of the coalition—— Mr Connor: And you hated it. Mr MACKENROTH: I love it. Does the honourable member know why I love it? The further those two parties get back into bed together, the better it is for the Labor Party. That is the way it will be. The Leader of the Liberal Party was ejected from the Chamber and ran straight down to Mary Street, or wherever it is, to the office of the Leader of the Opposition to confer with him. Can honourable members believe it? That party that tries to tell us that it is independent, that it does not belong with the National Party, has now made a reconciliation. The Liberal and National Parties are now back together. What we really would like to know is: is that true? Quite truthfully, the Government will have to consider the resources that those parties will get once they come back into coalition. Legislative Assembly 2578 31 October 1991

Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Cunningham to cease interjecting. Mr MACKENROTH: The member for Fassifern also read out in the Parliament a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier, which I guess was delivered some time today, because he could only have looked today at yesterday’s Hansard. The letter said that, if the Premier did not answer it, it would be necessary to do what the honourable member did. How ridiculous! The member deliberately did that so that he could get the letter into Hansard as a privileged document. There is no doubt about it. Members should look at the content of the letter. The Leader of the Opposition might as well have said, “I have been given information and I would like you to inform me as to where you were on Saturday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday and every second Tuesday of the month for the last 10 years.” How ridiculous! If the Leader of the Opposition had any information, he would not have asked questions such as that. Yesterday, I listened closely to the Premier and he gave a very clear answer—I repeat, a very clear answer—in relation to the so-called dinner. It was a very clear answer, and the member has deliberately used that in the Parliament tonight in an attempt—— Mr Palaszczuk: To muddy the waters. Mr MACKENROTH:—to muddy the waters, an attempt to raise again that issue which yesterday the Premier quite clearly and quite distinctly told members opposite was not true. The member is abusing the Parliament tonight while the Premier is not here. As I said, the Government will oppose the amendment for two reasons: so that the members of the Opposition can watch the Melbourne Cup, and also, and most importantly for members of the Opposition, so that they can have their leader here with them to lead them further into disaster. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (10.52 p.m.): There is a legal maxim, which is known very widely outside of legal circles, and that legal maxim is volenti non fit injuria. Loosely translated that means that one cannot complain of an injury that one inflicts upon oneself. What happened here today is that one by one these lemmings now departed the scene stood up and cut their own throats, had themselves turfed out of this place and now the sorry remnant of this ragbag coalition is standing here and saying to us, “Would you please postpone Parliament until we have finished doing our penance?” They do not deserve it, because all they had to do to avoid the sorry plight they found themselves in was to behave like civilised human beings. It would not have taken much; it would not have been impossible for them to restrain themselves sufficiently and not to stand up and take spurious point of order after spurious point of order when the Chairman of Committees had said to them that that sort of obstructionism is not on. It would not have taken more restraint than it would take a child to keep away from eating all the candy in the kitchen. But, no; they were having so much fun with this gratuitous self-immolation that they were engaging in that they decided they would continue. The only thing that stopped them was that they knew that if they kept going for long enough they would have fewer people than the Liberals and they would no longer be the Opposition. They did all this because they were frustrated; because they were enraged; and because they were suffering from infantile rage at their inability to gag the Special Prosecutor. That is what it comes to. I ask: why do those people over there want to gag the Special Prosecutor? Why do they want to cover up the Special Prosecutor’s reasons? That is what it was, Mr Speaker, an attempted cover-up. But the worst thing about the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the tactics adopted by the honourable members on the other side of the House was that they were elevating a cover-up into a fundamental principle. They were saying to us that somehow our insistence on allowing freedom of information to the people of Queensland with respect to this matter was a breach of democracy. They Legislative Assembly 2579 31 October 1991 say it is a breach of democracy to tell the people of Queensland what their own employee wants them to know. The Special Prosecutor wanted the people of Queensland to know his reasons. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr WELLS: The people of Queensland wanted to know the Special Prosecutor’s reasons; history wanted to know the Special Prosecutor’s reasons, and for their own devious purposes one lot of intellectual vandals did not want the Special Prosecutor’s reasons to be known. What were those purposes? They came here absolutely enraged. An attempt had been made outside of this place to bluff the media out of printing the Special Prosecutor’s reasons and what they feared was that giving this document to history—reading it into the historical record, reading it into the document which, more than any other document in this State is the repository of this State’s history—would guarantee that that information became public. I do not know that the media would have been bluffed by the tactics that were used. I do know that some of the media had taken a decision to run it anyway. I would consider it very surprising if the statements contained anything that was defamatory. That is my opinion and it obviously was the Special Prosecutor’s opinion. Nevertheless, history deserved to know the information. There is some rubbish, some nonsense and some garbage talked by those people over there in that they suggest that it is inappropriate somehow for the Attorney-General to repeat the words of the Special Prosecutor in the Parliament of this State—some nonsense about the separation of powers or disrespect to the District Court. There was no matter before the District Court. The matter was conclusively finalised by the officer who had the power to finalise it—the one officer and public official who solely and by himself has always had the discretions in this matter. That officer was the Special Prosecutor. He finalised the matter. There was no matter before the courts. No further prosecution will be brought against the accused Bjelke-Petersen in respect of the matters contained in the indictment which was returned today. Likewise, there is no question of a breach of the separation of powers. These people have never understood the concept of a separation of powers. Mr Milliner interjected. Mr WELLS: I note the comments of my learned junior, the Honourable the Minister for Justice, that the people opposite think that the concept of the separation of powers is a brewery term. Mr Mackenroth: Last week it was collusion with the Special Prosecutor to have him back before the jury. This week it is collusion not to have him back before the jury. Mr WELLS: As the Honourable the Minister for Police points out, one cannot win with these people. They will twist what one says, whichever way one goes. I would like to explain for the Opposition just once more, and with feeling, the concept of the separation of powers. It relates to the Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The constitutional doctrine does not relate to the division of functions between various parts of the Executive arm of Government like, for example, the functions of the Attorney-General and the Special Prosecutor. That is not a constitutional doctrine. The rules which govern the relationship and the division of functions are administrative rules and rules established by statute, but it is not the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. It has nothing to do with it. Under his statute, the Special Prosecutor is independent. He exercises his discretions independently of the Government. He has never, in respect of his consideration of whether or not to bring a prosecution in any of the cases in respect of Legislative Assembly 2580 31 October 1991 which he has brought a prosecution, consulted with the Government—never, ever. So the question of the separation of powers is not relevant. The proposition that was put by these people under the rubric of this fallacy that the doctrine of the separation of powers was relevant, or under this delusion that somehow there was still a matter before the District Court, was that it was inappropriate for me to repeat the words of the Special Prosecutor. Under his statute, the Special Prosecutor—— Mr FitzGerald: Did you talk to him today? Mr WELLS: Yes—as the world knows. I informed him—— Mr Elliott: Tell us whether you spoke to him or not. Mr WELLS: Before I made the statement that I made in this Chamber, I informed him that I was going to make it. Of course I did, as a matter of common courtesy. The proposition advanced by members of the Opposition is that it is somehow improper for me to repeat the words of the Special Prosecutor in this place; but, under his statute, the Special Prosecutor is required to provide a report to me every year, and every year I come into the House and table it. I make the statement, “I table the report of the Special Prosecutor.” Members of the Opposition have sat through that exercise once or twice, and they did not complain then. They were quite happy for the report of the Special Prosecutor to be laid on the table. It may be, or it may not be, that the reasons for the Special Prosecutor’s decisions will be contained in his next report to the Parliament via the Attorney-General. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cunningham! Mr WELLS: I do not know; that would be a matter for him, but it would not be at all inappropriate if they were so contained. It would be a perfectly normal, simple, administrative practice for him to advise the Parliament of this State of the reasons that were operative at the particular period of his life when he made the decision. What is being said by members of the Opposition is complete, utter, arrant nonsense. What we have here is the infantile rage of an Opposition that does not understand what it is all about; the infantile range of an Opposition who, to do them credit, were at least not prepared to back away from their friends in need. They did not back away from the defendant Bjelke-Petersen, or attempt to dissociate themselves from the defendants Muntz, Harvey, Lane or Austin. The best that can be said for honourable members opposite is that they have the courage of their colleagues’ convictions. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order 123A. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (11.04 p.m.): A couple of the contributions that have been made to the debate—namely, those made by the Leader of the House and by the Attorney-General—differ considerably in quality. The speech made by the Leader of the House was flippant and menial, and will be very quickly dismissed; but I am afraid that the other two-bit lawyer in this Parliament, the Attorney- General, has utterly and totally blown the cover off what happened today by what he has just said. I will begin with his concluding statement, which was that at least the Opposition does not back away from its friends. I point out to the Attorney-General that today the Opposition did not back away from standing up for its right to be able to speak freely in this Parliament and not just look after its mates— Mrs Woodgate interjected. Legislative Assembly 2581 31 October 1991

Mr SANTORO:—as people such as the honourable member for Pine Rivers constantly do. The opposition parties did not back away from their fundamental right to speak in this Parliament. Mr Coomber: Could we speak in this place today? Mr SANTORO: Members of the opposition parties were not allowed to speak in this Parliament today, and I will get to the reasons why. The Attorney-General said that the Special Prosecutor provides an annual report to him as Attorney-General, and that that report is presented in Parliament or is spoken about in the Parliament by the Attorney-General. Mr Welford: It is tabled. Mr SANTORO: I will take the interjection made by the member for Stafford. It is tabled; so why could not the opinions of the Special Prosecutor, which would have been contained in the annual report, be presented with the annual report? Why was there such a need to make an exception? There was no need because, as the Minister said, the Special Prosecutor is obliged to report annually to Parliament. On this occasion, he made an exception. Mr Welford: What about the public’s need to know? Mr SANTORO: I will get to the public’s need in a moment. In one breath, the Minister—this learned, legal gentleman—is saying that the Parliament is supposed to receive a comprehensive parliamentary report, including the opinions of the Special Prosecutor in relation to this case, and then in the next breath he says, “No, we won’t wait. We will make a special case.” As the Minister said, and as the nincompoop from Stafford says, the public demands to know. Mr WELFORD: Mr Speaker—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to withdraw those remarks. Mr SANTORO: Of course I withdraw the remarks and apologise to the very sensitive member for Stafford—the would-be member for Everton. As the member for Stafford says, and as the Attorney- General and the other Government speakers who have been seeking to deceive this Parliament in the debate have said, the public interest demands it and the only way that history can be recorded is by the utterances that are made in this place. Let me test that proposition by examining what has happened in this Parliament, by examining what is happening in the media, and by examining what the Attorney- General has said. The Attorney-General said that by indulging in certain tactics today, the Opposition sought to gag the Special Prosecutor and sought to indulge in a cover-up. Mr Welford: That’s right. Mr SANTORO: That is what he said. Hansard will record that that is precisely what he said. Let me analyse what he said, which was that the media had already published the Special Prosecutor’s comments. How can the Attorney-General state, with the knowledge that he has indicated he had, that the media has published the comments widely already? This is confirmed by members of the media to whom I have spoken and who readily acknowledge that their legal advisers have gone through those comments and come to the conclusion that they are not defamatory. They also indicated that they had decided to publish the comments. How does the Attorney-General’s theory that Opposition members are trying to indulge in a cover-up and gagging the media stack up against the reality that started to unfold at 10 a.m.? It just does not stack up. The honourable member can smile and knowingly seek to confer with his Ministers, but that sort of posturing just does not deny the fact that there was no cover- up and no gag because the information and the opinion was being published. Legislative Assembly 2582 31 October 1991

Let me have a look at the other motives. The honourable member was not exposing it because he genuinely thought that the opposition parties were indulging in a cover-up. There was no cover-up. The material has been published. Could it be that the Minister was seeking to protect any possible action because he may have thought that it was defamatory? If it was defamatory, I would suggest, what sort of quality of opinion was it? I do not want to cast aspersions on the competence of a Special Prosecutor who hitherto, I believe, has handled his duties with competence, but what the Minister is saying if he says that he wants to make a statement under privilege—and that is what the Minister suggested—is that he does not have confidence in the Special Prosecutor. What the Minister is saying is that the opinion that he seeks to publish needs the protection of this place. I suggest that if that is the reason—— Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the point. If that is another reason, then I suggest to the Minister that he has real problems. The opposition parties deny that there is any cover-up going on here and we deny that there was any need for the Minister to seek to give that information under privilege. In relation to the statement that the Minister has to give this record to history—what a joke! That opinion by the Special Prosecutor will be the most talked about and most publicly reported opinion in the history of Queensland legal cases. The Minister knows that. The Minister did not have to record that opinion in this place so that history could embrace it in its fold. The Minister knows that he did not have to do that because by 12 o’clock the ABC and every other media outlet—— Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: The Attorney-General is being torn to bits and Government members know it. They know that the Attorney-General’s argument does not stand up. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr SANTORO: When people read this debate in Hansard, they will realise that the opposition parties were not gagging and that the statement did not need to be tabled in Parliament so that history could embrace it. In fact, what I am suggesting happened is that the Minister sought to continue the conduct of his vendetta. What I am suggesting is that this Government is not being honest in the way that it deals with the State’s legal institutions. The Minister had no reason to come into this place and do what he did. I have tried to read the Minister’s mind by analysing what he has said, and I have tried to look at what has happened in relation to the public record. I will assume that the Minister had an honourable reason. The opposition parties accept his statement that there were compelling reasons for him to make his statement in Parliament, and it was so important that the Minister had to come here and make the statement. The opposition parties granted the Minister leave to make the statement. The opposition parties agreed with the motion from the Leader of the House that the Minister be granted leave. What happened was that the important business of the House was interrupted. The opposition parties agreed that the Minister could interrupt the Estimates debate, agreed that the Minister could have his say, and then what the opposition parties did, through various mechanisms that are available in this place—— Mr Ardill: You were not in the Chamber. Where were you? Mr SANTORO: I was here. Through the mechanisms available in this place, the opposition parties sought to have their say. What we also sought to do was to interrupt the Estimates debate. Nobody denies this. It is a matter of public record. In common with the Attorney-General, the opposition parties sought to interrupt the Estimates debate so that we on this side of the House could also have our say. If the Attorney-General, the Leader of the House, and the members opposite had taken a reasonable attitude and given the opposition parties the benefit of airing opinions on a very important issue, just as the Legislative Assembly 2583 31 October 1991

Minister did, I suggest that some of the provocative behaviour that occurred in this House that provoked the Speaker of the House to throw people out would not have occurred. Sure, the debate would have been hot and the statements would have been controversial, as were the actions of the Minister as I have sought to prove; but at least members in this place would have been afforded the opportunity of speaking on something that was of great concern to them as well. That is why the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other people—— Mr Dollin interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maryborough! Mr SANTORO: I appreciate the interjection. I have managed to get some water down my throat. If the opposition parties had been afforded that courtesy, one that should not be denied to any member of this place, then I suggest the behaviour that we saw from both sides of the House would not have occurred. I will return to my first point, and I will deal briefly with the fairly lightweight excuses and flippant remarks that were made by the Honourable the Leader of the House. He said, “We do not sit on Melbourne Cup day.” What a pathetic excuse for opposing the amendment before the House! Mr Mackenroth: I said that members of the National Party asked me not to sit on Melbourne Cup day. Mr SANTORO: Let me rephrase that statement. The Leader of the House suggested that the National Party, or the Opposition, had suggested to him, “Let us not sit on Melbourne Cup day.” Things have changed. They want to sit on Melbourne Cup day. What I suggest to you is that if you really want an answer to your objection in regard to Melbourne Cup day, let us sit on Melbourne Cup day like the rest of Brisbane and Australia, take a break, watch the cup, and then come back in here and finish off the issue. It is very, very simple. That flippant objection just does not carry any weight whatsoever. The other point that the Honourable the Leader of the House made, and which I want to refute particularly on behalf of the Leader of the Liberal Party, was that members got themselves kicked out deliberately. On behalf of the Leader of the Liberal Party and on behalf of other members, I totally reject that suggestion. In fact, what those members did was seek to uphold their intrinsic right to be able to speak in this place. That is what they did. As far as Government members’ barbs about our siding with members of the National Party are concerned, we will side with any party in this Parliament—including, from time to time, Government members—when we believe that they are doing the right thing. When we in the Liberal Party believe that the members of a party are doing the right thing, we will side with them. Today we sided with the members of the National Party because, together with them, we sought to uphold the rights in this place that the Government members so wantonly trample on. As I said earlier on in my contribution to a dissent motion, for a party that believes and mouths civil liberties, for a party that in Opposition so often voiced concern about the way the procedures and the Standing Orders in this place were being trampled upon, for a party that mouths its belief in the supremacy of the Parliament, today has been a very sad indictment on its lack of sincerity in that belief. Let me recap. It was such an important issue of public interest that every media outlet was going to publish it but, nevertheless, the Minister said, “I am going to have to give them a bit of a hand”. It needs to be recorded that what happened in this place today was a joke. It was an absolute joke! Historical anthologies, feature articles, and books about Queensland’s political history will be written that will cover that particular incident without the necessity of it having to be referred to in Hansard—valuable as Hansard is. It is an absolute joke for the Minister to suggest that. In view of the lack of legitimate Legislative Assembly 2584 31 October 1991 excuses as detailed by the Minister, one can only suspect ulterior motives. I am not going to articulate what those ulterior motives are. Suffice to say that I believe they obviously exist because the Minister, unlike the media, obviously believed that protection by privilege was necessary. One of the last points I wish to make—and, with respect, Mr Speaker, this should be of particular concern to you—relates to Mr Mackenroth’s threat. The Minister may wish to deny that it was a serious threat. Mr Mackenroth: It was contained in a letter that was sent to your leader when he asked for privileges for a group of people who are not a party. He was told—and it was reported in the media—that he would be granted privileges as a party except if he went back in coalition. I would be happy for you to go back in coalition. It was not a threat. Mr SANTORO: Mr Speaker, there you have it—a cowardly back-down by the Honourable the Leader of the House; another totally lightweight excuse for a very threatening, pathetic statement made by the Leader of the House. Just like the Attorney-General, his explanation as to why he said things, as to why he did things, is utterly and totally lightweight. I remind the Minister and members opposite that he said that he would consider taking away the resources of the Liberal Party. That is what the Minister said. He has no legal basis, no reported basis—no basis whatsoever—for making that suggestion. As far as I am concerned, it is another threat by members of the Labor Government to the integrity of the processes within this place. What has been witnessed today in this place is the unmitigated, unethical gagging of members on this side of the House. Not only have we seen cronyism practised in this Chamber in the form of preference being given to one group of people over people on this side of the House, not only have we seen McCarthyism practised by the Minister, but now we see—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the remarks just made by the member for Merthyr—that we have seen cronyism in this Chamber in which members on this side were treated differently from members on the other side—are a reflection on the Chair. That can only mean a reflection on the Chair in this Chamber. He said “in this Chamber”. Mr SANTORO: Not only have we seen all of those things that denigrate legitimate processes in this place, but now we see the blunt, crass, physical threat of the Minister. It is the ultimate indication of just how low those people on the other side of the Chamber will sink to get their own perverse and perverted way. On this side of the House, we simply will not cop it. We will keep on standing up for our rights and for the dignity and the holiness of this place. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (11.24 p.m.): Today, we have witnessed the last angry gasp of the Bjelke-Petersen era. Four and a half years of suppressed rage made an outburst today in this Chamber. We saw one of the threats to parliamentary democracy in this State. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Cunningham that he has already been warned. Mr FOLEY: This National Party, aided and abetted by the Liberal Party, did so much for so long to attack the institution of this Parliament, and that can be done in one of two ways. It can be done, as it was done by the Nationals and the Liberals during their decades of rule, by an arrogant, ignorant, overbearing Executive, or it can be done by an arrogant, ignorant, rabblerousing Opposition—— Mr Elliott interjected. Legislative Assembly 2585 31 October 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cunningham is trying my patience. Mr FOLEY: Or it can be done by an arrogant, ignorant, rabblerousing Opposition which defies the authority of the rules of debate of the Parliament itself. For if we are to establish in Queensland a true parliamentary democracy, we shall need not only to take a check on the excesses of the Executive but also to restore the central role and the central authority of Parliament in the great debates of this State. It is appalling to hear the member for Merthyr lament of the right to speak freely. What more serious attack on the right to speak freely in this Chamber could there be than the persistent and concerted defiance of lawful authority seen on the part of the National Party and the Liberal Party in the Chamber today? One feels the ghost of Cromwell when one looks—— Mr Santoro interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Merthyr will cease interjecting. Mr FOLEY: —at the conduct of such members of Parliament as those opposite. If we are to debate the question of whether we should go from this place and have those members go back to the people of Queensland for an extra week in order that the winds of common sense might blow through them, then I say: let the people of Queensland be given a chance to speak directly to the members of this House and urge some common sense upon them—urge them that freedom means that Parliament is supreme, that Parliament is a place where matters may be debated vigorously, but where the rules of debate are followed and where the authority of the Speaker and the authority of the Chair are respected. That is the difference between those who are committed to liberty in a parliamentary democracy and those who sit on the other side of the Chamber and who have been angry for so long over these last four and a half years as they have seen their evil empire dismantled by the Fitzgerald reform process. They have seen swept away the electoral system that was so corrupt. They have seen an Executive made accountable to the Parliament, and they find the institution and the values of Parliament so alien to them now in Opposition as they were alien to them in Government. There are none so blind as those that will not see. There is one hope, however, Mr Speaker, that these people might possibly be capable of learning. I am an optimist. Notwithstanding all of the evidence that we have seen today, I believe that the members of the Opposition are capable of learning. If only they would talk to the people of Queensland! If only they would allow the arrogance and ignorance, bred over so many years of reaction, to be exposed to some common sense! Look, for example, at the two fallacies that have penetrated their debates today. Look at their absurd arguments about the separation of powers. Mr Turner: Who have we got here—Dr Billy Foley? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr FOLEY: I see that the honourable member finds the separation of powers amusing. It is such a novel proposition that it has become now a hackneyed proposition. Let me in the spirit of educating the honourable member remind him of where it came from. Honourable members might like to know that it was Montesquieu who first wrote of that when he spoke of the spirit of the laws. But no matter how many legal texts honourable members look at to try to figure out the separation of powers, there is one thing they need to know before they can figure it out, that is, that it is based not on the letter of the laws but on the spirit of the laws. And it is based upon the spirit of freedom upon which a parliamentary democracy so much depends. It might be excusable if one were to allow them merely to treat this Chamber as an exercise in occupational therapy for dealing with their four and a half years of suppressed rage. But, unfortunately, in the course of their outbursts they have sought, through speeches in this House, to attack the integrity of Legislative Assembly 2586 31 October 1991 some of the fundamental institutions of our legal system. It has been an extraordinary day to see the attack upon the Office of the Special Prosecutor. In his report, Mr Fitzgerald, QC, predicted that there would be those enemies of reform who would strive to discredit the institutions that were established in the wake of those—— Mr Santoro interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Merthyr under Standing Order 123A. Mr FOLEY: It was astonishing, extraordinary and deeply saddening to hear the observation of the member for Burdekin, who accused Mr Drummond, QC, of incompetence and ineptitude. It was an absolutely extraordinary accusation to make. I rise to speak in defence of the integrity—— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego under Standing Order 123A. Mr FOLEY: I rise to speak in defence of the integrity of, and the high professional eminence enjoyed by, Mr Drummond, QC. But it is not he as a barrister about whom we are talking. We are talking here of the importance of institutions in the rule of law. These frolics of rage engaged in by members of the Opposition do much damage. It is apparent from reading the Fitzgerald report that he sought to restore to Queensland some respect for the legal institutions which might transcend the pettiness of political debate. It is sad that, years down the track, we still see, in times of political controversy, the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party seeking to drag the very institutions of the law into the heat of the political debate. Most disappointing of all has been the performance of that party of radical opportunism that sits in the corner, that is, the Liberal Party. This Liberal Party has, by its actions today, abandoned the traditional approach which it adopted in this Chamber, namely, that it supported traditionally the authority of the Speaker and the Chair. One even saw the Liberals support the authority of the Speaker and the Chair in a vote two days ago in this House. But since then, the political forces have moved to chide them for their independence and bring them back to the herd. Dr WATSON: I rise to a point of order. The member for Yeronga is misrepresenting the situation. In fact, we moved a dissent motion. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the member for Yeronga. Mr FOLEY: What we have seen today has been persistent, repeated, concerted defiance of lawful authority—the lawful authority of this Chamber upon which our liberty and our rights to free speech so much depend. This party which bears the misnomer of “Liberal Party” will go down in the history of infamy as being a party willing to seize what it saw as the radical opportunism of the moment and join with the National Party instead of supporting the principles involved in maintaining the authority of the Chair and the authority of the Speaker. It is not because this is some abstract authority which descends upon this place; it is because Parliament derives its authority from the people, and the Speaker elected by the Parliament derives authority from that body which ultimately derives authority from the people. When we attack persistently, as members of the National Party and Liberal Party have done today, the authority of the Speaker and the Chair, we attack the very Chamber which gives the citizens in a parliamentary democracy the opportunity to have their cases put and their representations made before the House. We have been here too long today, Mr Speaker. Let us go from this place. Let us hope that these members, notwithstanding their previously being impervious to the common sense of the Queensland people, will benefit from a week’s absence so that even they might return and look forward, after their outburst, to building a better Queensland in Legislative Assembly 2587 31 October 1991 the future, now that this four and a half years of suppressed rage has gone from their system. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.36 p.m.): In this place, it is traditional that, when we follow a speaker, we answer the charges and the points that he or she has made. I will not say that the honourable member for Yeronga made no points, because one comment he made was that the evil empire has been dismantled. I think Queensland was called the “midnight State”, or some name similar to that. However, I would strongly recommend to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that he watch last week’s Channel 9’s Sunday program, in which it was said that, with the incoming of the great social reformers opposite, the number of ads for prostitutes had increased threefold; that the number of advertisements on television for prostitution, which were nil before, are now screened in this State at a rate of some seven or eight every evening. The program recommended strongly that one drive through the Valley, where a whole corner block is taken up by people following those sorts of occupations. This was the empire of evil that was going to be dismantled. I do not know, but I have friends who assure me that it is now far easier to place a bet in the city than it was ever before. That program interviewed the illustrious leader of members opposite, who has managed to hide behind Mr Hamill to get the dirty work done; and today, the Attorney-General, Mr Wells, to do his dirty work for him; and on a previous occasion, Mrs Warner. It is about time that members opposite forced their leader to do his own dirty work in this place. The point made constantly and continuously—ad nauseam, some might say—by the Honourable the Attorney-General was that history needed to record what had happened. So the ALP side—the Government side—of the history books was able to be written. When we attempted to put our side—and it should be remembered that the previous speaker waxed lyrical by quoting people such as Montesquieu and referring to going by the law and fairness and reasonableness and justice in this place—members opposite were allowed to disrupt the entire Parliament of Queensland to put on the record their side for the history books. The point was made by the spokesman for the Liberal Party that all day every media in Australia reported the issue ad nauseam. He also wondered whether it needed to be brought into the House. But the Government decided to stop, because the history books had to record their version of today’s events. When Opposition members attempted to put their version of today’s events on record, we were stopped continuously and continually, so much so that something like seven of our members of the National and Liberal Parties were thrown out, some of them for two weeks. Mr Nunn: Who stopped you? Come on! Mr KATTER: Government members voted for each suspension. Some people in this place have worked with timber. However, they sold out their mates, and removed their jobs in the timber industry. However, it would appear that they have brought into this place their own timber between their ears. The fairness in this place consists of one side being able to put its story, but when the other side attempted to put its story, seven of its members were given between seven days’ and 14 days’ marching orders from this place. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders should be careful not to reflect on the impartiality of the Chair. Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, I am sure that everyone who has sat in that chair in the last few days has acted in a most honourable manner. One of the most disgraceful events that I have seen in Parliament—which, strangely enough, was not picked up very much by members on this side of the House, or by the media, but to me it was absolutely appalling—was the post-trial intimidation of a juryman. That terrified me. As I have said in this House on many occasions, I am one of those people who, since 1984, unfortunately has had to look at going before the courts. I thank some members opposite, because for a Legislative Assembly 2588 31 October 1991 little while they were in the very same situation because of events that occurred up north. However, I do not intend to go over that tonight. Having been in that situation, it filled me with great terror to think that anyone who had a National Party bias and sat on a jury—and there are nearly 100 000 members or former members of the National Party in this State, so it would be pretty hard to pull together a jury without one of its members being someone who is very committed to the National Party—knew that, after the trial, if the decision went my way, that person would be torn to pieces in the media for being a National Party supporter. That is called post-trial intimidation, and goes to the very heart of the system. When one talks about launching a massive attack upon the system—a massive attack was launched upon that particular person. Not only was he a jury member, but the rest of the jury panel considered him to be of such quality that, in fact, he was made foreman of that jury—not his choice, not our choice, but that of his peers on the jury. The decision to launch that attack was made by none other than someone with legal training—the Premier of this State, Mr Goss. He made that attack continuously. For me—all I can say is that some of the rage that the Premier has seen is not the result of the past four and a half years. To my mind, because I could see its seriousness, much of it came from Mr Goss’ intimidatory post-trial attack. If another jury were selected, no-one of National Party bent would be allowed on it. Of course, ALP supporters would be allowed on it, because they are not members, just workers for the party, so one cannot prove that they are ALP members. Anyone who went in Bjelke- Petersen’s favour would have a vicious attack mounted upon him in this coward’s castle. That was what was going to happen. As to the appointments that were pending in the Court of Appeal—under no circumstances do I want to be seen to be reflecting in any way upon the people who have been appointed to those positions. A Government member: You did the other day. Mr KATTER: I apologised to the House for that. I am embarrassed by the mistake that I made. I state to the House that the impropriety of the Government in bringing forward the Court of Appeal appointments at a time when their arch political opponent was before the courts in this State was absolutely deplorable. No fair-minded person could ever have considered that to be a reasonable thing to do. Whilst it most certainly would not have influenced the men appointed to the court, most certainly it was a deplorable thing for the Government of the day to do. Again, that filled me with rage. I am talking about putting the record straight. That is what the Attorney-General gave himself permission to do, and then spent the rest of the day preventing us from doing so. If we are putting the record straight—I was absolutely appalled when I heard what Bjelke-Petersen was charged with. I must say—and this is the first time that I have been able to say this, because it was decided that the court action would be fought in a different way, so I could not say it; the matter was sub judice—that at all times I was absolutely certain in my mind that Bjelke-Petersen was deadly determined to secure that contract for the Kern Corporation. On many occasions, I discussed it with my colleagues. Whether or not Bjelke-Petersen indicated at times that he was going in some other direction, I would never stay convinced of any view other than that he was backing Barry Paul, who he considered as much the same sort of person as Thiess, that is, a great Queenslander—people that we had to back against outsiders every time. He was very one-eyed on that subject. The fact that I, as the then Minister for heritage, was not even interviewed by the prosecution was a derogation of the principles under which we have always operated, that is, that a prosecuting attorney takes a fair and objective view of whether there is a valid case. I do not know how that could have been done without calling the two Ministers for Education during that time, and the Minister for heritage. I went down to the courts. The prosecuting barrister was brought from Sydney. That barrister from Sydney and a boy Legislative Assembly 2589 31 October 1991 seemed to be the only people who were game to walk into the courtroom to do the dirty work for people whose names I do not want to mention. That barrister, who would get a job in any abattoir in the world boring pigs to death, said that the Premier’s Department had recommended Kern Corporation. Of course the Premier’s Department recommended Kern Corporation, because its boss wanted Kern Corporation to get the contract. Yet, here was a man being prosecuted for going in an entirely different direction, which to me was quite staggering. I have done my best in other places to get the point across. A precedent exists for what is occurring here. One must say that when a man is 80 years of age, he is getting near to the end of his time. I do not want to put the evil eye upon the good old ex- Premier of this State. However, when Justice Murphy was a few years away from death with terminal cancer, the Liberal Party Government of the day decided to remove the action against him. No statement was made afterwards by either the Liberal Party or the National Party that Murphy was a crook. This morning, Bjelke-Petersen was derided in this place under exactly the same circumstances by none other than the Attorney-General. The first time that I ever set foot inside a parliamentary Chamber was when I went into the Federal Chamber. Billy Wentworth rose to state again the charges that had been laid against Dr Jim Cairns, which was a terrible thing to do because the courts had decided that Jim Cairns was innocent, just the same as the courts have decided—because they are not proceeding—that Bjelke-Petersen is innocent. Mr Milliner: You know he’s a crook. Mr KATTER: This is the thing that worries me greatly. My honourable colleague the member for Nicklin and I were left on the back benches of this House for 10 years because we constantly fought with the then Premier about the reverse onus of proof. With a twinkle in my eye, I might say that the former Premier has probably changed his attitude towards the reverse onus of proof. Our fight in regard to the reverse onus of proof was worth the honourable member for Nicklin and I spending 10 years on the back benches. So many of our forebears died to deliver that British principle of justice that says that one is innocent until proven guilty. When I said that tonight, five Government members immediately said that that the former Premier is not innocent. They have been condemned by their own mouths. They do not believe in that principle of justice, and that comes through consistently in the legislation that Government members introduce into the House. I return to the precedent. When Billy Wentworth stood up and made his statement, Jim Cairns flew around the table and attempted to king-hit Billy Wentworth in the House. I was staggered. Three people held back Jim Cairns and Billy Wentworth was immediately thrown out by the Speaker. When Opposition members in this House attempted to condemn and criticise the Attorney-General for having taken exactly the same action as that for which Wentworth was thrown out of that House and over which Jim Cairns nearly king-hit him, not only did Opposition members fail to get the protection of the different people in the Chair at the time—and I regret to say that—but also—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr KATTER: I withdraw those remarks unequivocally and I apologise. The Speaker was not in the Chair, anyway, but I withdraw and apologise. When Mr Wran was found innocent by the courts, people on all sides of the political spectrum said that he was innocent. When it was decided that Mr Sinclair was innocent, people on all sides of the political spectrum accepted the judgment of the independent adjudicators. This morning, because Government members could not assassinate this man in the courts, they attempted to do it in this House. That is extremely reprehensible. If Opposition members did react with great anger and great rage, I am proud to be a member of a party whose members reacted in that way. Legislative Assembly 2590 31 October 1991

Members of the Opposition stood aside and allowed the courts to undertake their process, so much so that four of our colleagues went to gaol and our long-time leader was before the courts for nearly four years of his life. When a similar situation arose with the colleagues of the ALP before the Cooke inquiry, the Labor Party Government passed validating legislation in the House to protect them. In this Chamber is a so-called former president of the Council for Civil Liberties. Terry O’Gorman must be utterly ashamed to be occupying the position that was once held by someone who has just demonstrated the most hypocritical attitude that I have ever heard in this House. This goes to the very heart of what we are debating. I will now quote statements made on the 7.30 Report this evening by Mr Mackenroth, a man long on mouth and short on brain. I hope that I can read the writing on this piece of paper. I know that Government members are all embarrassed, but they should look at it positively: there will be an opening in Cabinet for them. Of course, the honourable Mr Foley is scratching himself. He blew to forties tonight. I am told that Beattie and Elder are now at even money. The quote is— “The Attorney had to make that statement because the prosecutor had issued the statement and certain parties had intimated to the media that, if they used certain parts of that statement, they would be in trouble or in contempt.” The Government could not have the laws taking their free and unfettered fair course. It could not have legality and the due process of law. It had to stop this. How dare the courts make a fair decision! So the Government came in here and gave protection. The Government acted to frustrate the due processes of law—something that members of the Opposition did not do. Unfortunately, many of us might regret it, but the fact of the matter is that we did not do that, and four of our colleagues went to gaol. I will refer to one of the friends of the Government. Initially, I did not think that he was a friend but, after seeing the efforts made by the Government to protect him, I must consider that he is a friend. Let the Attorney-General be condemned by words coming from the mouth of the Police Minister, the Leader of the House. The Government has the Leader of the House, who says that the Government has to go into collusion and act to frustrate the course of justice, and the Government also has that unspeakable fellow of whom Government members can be proud as Government Whip. He is not in the House tonight, and that is probably a good thing for all Government members. I think that covers the statements that have been made in this place. The most articulate proponent of the Opposition’s position was Mr Mackenroth on the 7.30 Report, when he clearly stated that the Government came into this House, not to put history on the record as the Attorney-General said, but, as Mr Mackenroth so eloquently put it tonight, because certain parties had intimated to the media that if the media used certain parts of that statement they would be in trouble. “We had to stop them from getting into trouble and from being in contempt”, said Mr Mackenroth. So much for truth and honesty! One Government member is telling a flagrant lie to this House, and I will leave it to members in this House to decide who it is. The Attorney-General said that he came in here to put history straight, and he was able to put his idea of history. However, when we attempted to put it, seven of our colleagues were given a 14-day shower. There is very little fairness and justice. As for the phrase used by the previous speaker, “the evil empire being dismantled”—if there ever was one, it is being constructed very quickly by people who showed their arrogance in this place by laughing, sneering and throwing us out one after the other because we had the temerity to try to have our say in this House. If Government members have sat in silence today and felt ashamed of what was taking place—and I am ashamed to admit that I know the feeling—all I can say to them is that there are people on the Government side of the House whom the Government must get rid of. Amendment negatived. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.