Legislative Assembly 6331 26 February 1991

TUESDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S OPINION ON SUB JUDICE RULE Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the Crown Solicitor— "I refer to previous correspondence in relation to the Speaker's ruling in respect of the C.J.C. investigation into travelling allowances and expenses claimed by Members of the Legislative Assembly and now enclose the Solicitor General's opinion on the matter. It will be seen that the Solicitor General's opinion is that whilst it is a matter for the discretion of the Speaker, who is personally charged with the responsibility of evaluating whether any particular discussions should take place in the House, if statements are to be made in the House which would adversely reflect on the position of particular individuals and specifically would suggest guilt of criminal offences, then in view of that point, the sub judice rule would be relevant and the Speaker would be entitled, in exercising his discretion, to prevent such statements." I table the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Whereupon Mr Speaker laid the document on the table. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Adoption Law Amendment From Mr Szczerbanik (8 signatories) praying for significant changes to the Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1990. A similar petition was received from Mr Berghofer (68 signatories). Proposed Highway, Mount Cotton From Mr Elder (27 signatories) praying that construction of the proposed highway through the Mount Cotton area be not permitted but that the present Pacific Highway be upgraded instead. Home Medical Aids Scheme From Mrs McCauley (32 signatories) praying that the restrictions and suspension of certain items available under the Home Medical Aids Scheme be withdrawn to enable the stated aims of the scheme to be met. Brisbane City Council Rating System From Mr Beanland (5 signatories) praying that the Parliament empower the Brisbane City Council to introduce a fairer and more equitable rating system. Primary Producer Registration Fees; Maintenance of Rural Roads From Mr Johnson (98 signatories) praying that the Parliament will take immediate action to ensure rural roads are maintained to a safe standard and take immediate action to reduce primary producer registration fees to a more equitable level. Legislative Assembly 6332 26 February 1991

Daylight-saving, Referendum From Mrs McCauley (808 signatories) praying that a referendum be held with the local authority elections to ascertain whether the State of Queensland is in favour of adopting daylight-saving on a permanent basis. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Canals Act 1958-1990 Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987-1990 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1990 Land Act 1962-1990 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1990 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1990 and Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1990 Recreation Areas Management Act 1988-1990 Retirement Villages Act 1988 Regulations under— Clean Air Act 1963-1989 Clean Waters Act 1971-1989 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1990. TOWNSVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIC UNIT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.04 a.m.): On behalf of the Minister for Health, I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the statement made by the Minister for Health in relation to the report of the commission of inquiry, and I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Ladies and gentlemen of the media, thank you for attending the release of the report of the Carter commission of inquiry in Townsville today. Access to proper standards of care and treatment for mental illness is an inalienable right for all citizens of Queensland. In his report, Mr Carter, QC, has exposed an appalling series of events and treatment practices which have no place in modern medicine or the public sector health system in this State. The Carter report closes the door on a dark period in the treatment of the mentally ill in Queensland. It can never be allowed to happen again. The findings of this inquiry paint a horrific picture of what occurred in ward 10B, between 1975 and 1987. The therapeutic community principles of treatment, the so-called "social model of psychiatry" as espoused and practised by Dr Lindsay and his disciples, has been characterised as a rigid and aggressive approach of inadequate diagnoses, care and treatment. It was the dominant treatment model used in Townsville. It developed with scant regard for proper examination of the patient's mental illness and the frequent and totally inappropriate use of chemical restraint, inflicted upon patients by unnecessarily high doses of drugs including—sodium amytal. It was these excesses and abuses of patients, their rights and their families which I first raised publicly in 1986 and which I still find totally unacceptable today. On the basis of the evidence, Commissioner Carter has exposed what has been a totally deficient, substandard, unacceptable, negligent, unsafe, unethical and unlawful treatment regime. In all, the inquiry identified 65 patients of the ward who had died in circumstances which justified closer investigation but was unable to find sufficient evidence to prosecute any person Legislative Assembly 6333 26 February 1991

in respect of the deaths. The inquiry did find however, that certain patients had been unlawfully assaulted. The commissioner reports that a number of senior officers of the Health Department had failed to demonstrate the required measure of professional and official competence and responsibility. The hospital board and its executive failed hopelessly to address the many deficiencies which were so readily recognisable in the care and treatment of patients. It must be said that the previous State Government stands condemned for its blatant inaction and inability to respond to what became an increasingly vocal chorus of community outrage and disquiet at what was occurring. The continued failure of the National and Liberal Parties to stop the practises of ward 10B is unforgivable and represents yet another example of the lack of accountability and neglect which characterised their administration of Queensland. At an individual level, the commissioner reports that much of the defence of what occurred within the ward was based upon a narrow and mindless urge to ensure professional solidarity in the defence of a professional colleague. When coupled with the demonstrable lack of Health Department official competency and responsibility uncovered by this inquiry, there are compelling reasons for the relevant professional care givers to initiate an extensive reappraisal of the way in which professional standards are assessed and maintained. It can be reasonably argued that the failure of a profession to get its house in order can only lead to the inescapable probability of increased Government involvement and regulation. An involvement necessary to protect the public. Although this commission of inquiry has finally got to the heart of what happened in ward 10B, it will never erase the suffering and injustice inflicted upon the many mentally ill persons treated in the ward and their families and friends. I do not intend to make comment upon the individuals and cases which are the subject of official findings, as they are dealt with in great detail in the report. However, I have asked the chief executive of my department to review the status of individuals currently employed or associated with the State health system who are the subject of adverse findings in the Carter report. I will also seek the advice of the Attorney General in respect of these issues. This morning I received a supplementary report from Commissioner Carter detailing those cases in which the commissioner believes there is sufficient evidence to prosecute or to initiate disciplinary proceedings. As the responsible Minister, I will pass those matters to the Director of Prosecutions for his determination of the action to be undertaken. Obviously, any further discussion of the contents of the supplementary report could prejudice future trials. In his detailed investigation of ward 10B, Commissioner Carter has laid bare the deficiencies of the past and outlined a blueprint for the future operation of treatment for the mentally ill in Queensland. It is particularly welcome that many of his recommendations will complement and enhance the substantial reforms now under way in the Queensland health system—reforms which have been initiated since I became Minister for Health. Only yesterday State Cabinet approved a submission to establish a health rights commission which would have the independent responsibility for all complaint investigation within both the public and private health sectors in Queensland. The health rights commission will be enshrined in legislation. Under the proposed legislation it will be the commission and not the professional registration boards that will examine complaints so that misplaced support for a professional colleague will no longer be a possibility. It will have a special charter to ensure effective procedures for the maintenance of the rights of patients. And apart from complaint investigation, emphasis will also be given to conciliation in disputes and the undertaking of education programs with the aim of improving consumer awareness. The health rights commission will be an independent and autonomous body working to improve the standard and quality of health care. Over the period of years covered by the terms of the inquiry, the mental health services in this State were allowed to be run down by previous Governments. To turn this situation around, the State Government, through its budgetary process, has provided additional staff resources and capital works funding for the mental health system. The best part of $20 million dollars has been allocated to provide new facilities in Toowoomba, Bundaberg, the Gold Coast and here in Townsville. Planning for medium stay rehabilitative and longer term acute facilities to serve the residents of north Queensland is already in progress. The regionalisation of health services, with a local headquarters in Townsville, will also cut through much of the bureaucratic red tape evident in the State health system and free up more resources for patient care. A feature of the dramatically restructured Health Department will be the concept of single-point accountability throughout the system. The concept of management by committee which failed so dismally to address the problems of ward 10B will disappear. Legislative Assembly 6334 26 February 1991

About the hospitals board, Commissioner Carter said "perhaps it only serves to highlight the inadequacies of vesting control of a hospital in a body of lay-persons such as a hospitals board". Queensland's hospital boards will cease to exist at 30 June 1991. All of the recommendations put forward by Commissioner Carter, as the umpire and final arbiter of what occurred in ward 10B, will be implemented in full and without equivocation by the State Government. The Attorney General will be called upon to offer advice regarding issues relating to the Criminal Code and to provide additional opinions regarding any other possible proceedings which could flow from the inquiry's findings. A special working party of the Queensland Health Council, my peak advisory body, will be established to consider all sections of the Mental Health Services Act referred to in the report and make recommendations on proposed legislative amendments. The use of treatment practices known as the therapeutic community approach will be proscribed to ensure they can never be misused again in Queensland. All staff within the mental health system in Queensland will be issued with directives regarding the appropriate codes of practice to ensure adherence to the relevant legislation. In line with the recommended reforms, I will establish a mental health review committee, to continually review the quality of care being given in the State's mental health units and hospitals. This committee is to be established as a special committee linked to the health rights commission and will operate independent of mental health services within the reorganised Department of Health. The mental health review committee—with a specific charter to ensure independent and effective professional and community review of the services provided to the mentally ill—will report directly to the Minister for Health. It will be comprised of a specialist committee in accordance with the recommendations of this inquiry. The lack of quality assurance programs and peer review mechanisms are obvious contributing factors to the appalling standard of care and treatment delivered in ward 10B. It is an understatement to say that the existing system failed totally in respect of ward 10B. Not only did it fail totally but it allowed an environment to flourish which created more problems than it cured. It is therefore appropriate that quality assurance and peer review are two cornerstones of the new principles which now underpin the objectives of the restructured Department of Health. As a matter of priority, they will be put in place through the health rights commission and other safeguard mechanisms to be built into the new look department. When I established this inquiry in May last year, the State Government demonstrated its willingness to respond to community concerns. Our commitment in pursuing this course was to ensure that those matters causing community disquiet were fully and thoroughly investigated. The Goss Labor Government was elected with a mandate to clean up the mess left by the National and Liberal Parties, both of whom must accept responsibility for allowing the appalling saga of ward 10B to continue for as long as it did. As I said earlier, the release today of the report by Commissioner Carter closes the door on a dark period in the treatment of the mentally ill in Queensland. It is my duty now to put in place the necessary reforms to ensure that what happened in the ward can never happen again. Much to the relief of the community of north Queensland, the staff and treatment practices now in place in the ward are first rate. The psychiatric unit at Townsville General Hospital is now under the leadership of Professor Basil James and Dr John Allan. Judge Carter in his findings states that the unit now "enjoys a very favourable reputation and the standard of patient care and treatment in the unit is of a high standard". In closing, I like to place on record the State Government's appreciation of the work of Commissioner Bill Carter, QC, and the efficient and professional manner with which he conducted this very important inquiry. The people of Queensland owe him their thanks and gratitude. Thank you. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Response-time of Police to Incident at Red Hill Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: Recently, some criticism has been made about the length of time allegedly taken by police to respond to a certain incident at Red Hill during which a man died after an altercation with a group of cab-drivers. Legislative Assembly 6335 26 February 1991

Allegations that it took police 30 minutes to respond to distress calls have been reported by several media outlets. However, the actual circumstances were very different, and I would like to place on record that just five minutes elapsed between the time of the first emergency call to police headquarters and the arrival of a police car on the scene. This is verified by computer print-outs from the police communications centre on that evening. The print-outs reveal that the call was received and entered into the system at 3 a.m., that it was checked and given to the radio operator at 3.03 a.m., and that a city CIB patrol responded at 3.04 a.m. and booked off the air at the scene of the incident at 3.05 a.m. This information has been offered to all media outlets but has not been reported. In the past, various criticisms have been made about the Police Service, and some of them may have been warranted. However, this is an unjustified and totally inaccurate criticism of an incident that was actually dealt with by police very admirably. I table an unpublished letter to the editor of the Courier-Mail from Police Commissioner Noel Newnham, and copies of the computer print-outs which verify my statements. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT North Queensland Games Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: The north Queensland games are the largest sporting games staged anywhere in Australia. The games are organised by a non-profit organisation, the North Queensland Games Foundation. They are held every two years, on a rotational basis, by the four major regional centres of north Queensland, that is, Townsville, Mount Isa, Cairns and Mackay. The 35 local government authorities in the 700 000 square kilometres of north Queensland support and participate in the games. This area is comparable in size to New South Wales and is home to 340 000 people. Since their inception in 1983, the games have grown, both in terms of the number of competitors present and the various codes represented. Last year, despite rain forcing a reduction in the number of sports participated in, Mackay hosted the games successfully. In the past, competitors have been drawn mainly from north Queensland, but there has been increasing support from Brisbane and country Queensland, interstate and overseas. I am advised that the North Queensland Games have grown to such an extent that they now attract more competitors than did either the Brisbane Commonwealth Games or the Melbourne Olympics. About 70 different codes of sport will be represented in the Townsville games to be held at Easter next year. As the cost of staging the games has continued to grow, funding has come from the Queensland Government, north Queensland local government authorities and private sector sponsorship. When the games were held at Mackay last year, the Honourable the Treasurer and member for Cairns agreed to provide continued assistance to the North Queensland Games Foundation. I am pleased to inform the House that I have made available the sum of $30,000 for the successful conduct of the north Queensland games. Further, I will ensure that in coming years a grant for this amount is made for the continued success of the games. This is part of the Government's commitment to sport in Queensland. The grant that I have just announced will be used to help finance the important position of a full- time executive officer for the foundation. Not only north Queensland, but also the State as a whole, will benefit from this major sporting event. The games will provide encouragement for athletes throughout Queensland and the publicity given to the region during the games will provide a boost to tourism, the State's third-largest industry. The grant that I have just announced is part of the Government's commitment to sport, to tourism and to Queensland. Legislative Assembly 6336 26 February 1991

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Mr K. Rudd, Conditions of Employment Mr HARPER asked the Treasurer— "With reference to and whilst understanding the nature of the appointment of Mr Kevin Rudd as Director-General of the Cabinet Office and in view of this Government's attitude to superannuation entitlements and as Mr Rudd has been on leave without pay from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for four years— (1) Who has been paying his superannuation contribution and has this accrued at a Federal level or at a State level? (2) Has Mr Rudd now resigned from the Commonwealth public service and, if not, is the Queensland taxpayer still funding his Commonwealth superannuation contributions? (3) How many other Commonwealth public servants have been granted four years leave without pay to take up a second job with the Queensland public service during this period? (4) What special arrangements exist to allow Mr Rudd privileges and conditions not available to other Commonwealth public servants?" Mr De LACY: (1) (a) For the greater part of the period that he has been on leave from the Commonwealth Public Service, Mr Rudd has met his own employee contributions to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, plus the difference between the required rate of employer contribution under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the rate of contribution applicable under the State Service Superannuation Scheme. For the period 27 July 1988 to 27 July 1990, Mr Rudd therefore personally paid additional contributions totalling $6,872.69 to maintain his membership of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. In other words, Mr Rudd suffered personal financial penalty in relation to his superannuation arrangements by electing to take leave to work in the Queensland Public Service rather than remain in the Commonwealth. At the same time as Mr Rudd was paying personally for the difference in the employer contributions between the Commonwealth and the State superannuation schemes, it should be noted that the Ahern Government of the time agreed to the secondment of another officer of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs to the Queensland Premier's Department. That other officer was granted leave without pay to work for the Queensland Government during which time the Queensland Government met both the salary and the full employer contribution for that officer's Commonwealth superannuation arrangements. This arrangement continued through Mr Cooper's Premiership. This demonstrates the double standards employed by the previous Government in the conditions they imposed in relation to the secondment of Commonwealth public servants, even from the same Commonwealth department. (b) In July 1990, the Government considered the question of appropriate superannuation arrangements for Queensland Government employees on leave from another State or the Commonwealth Government. The Government decided— (i) to exclude from eligibility to the State service or State public sector superannuation schemes persons appointed to posts within the Queensland Government who are on leave from the Commonwealth public service or the public service of another State; (ii) that during the first three years of office, commencing on or after 22 December 1989, the Queensland Government pay the employer contributions to the public sector superannuation scheme of which the appointee is a member, provided the appointee continues to pay any personal contributions required by that scheme; (iii) that after such period of three years, the Queensland Government contribution to the relevant superannuation scheme be not more than the rate of contribution which would be applicable were the person a member of the State service superannuation scheme; and Legislative Assembly 6337 26 February 1991

(iv) that unless the employer contribution to the appointee's superannuation scheme incorporates a 3 per cent award component, contributions be paid to Gosuper in respect of the appointee for the term or terms of appointment. (c) Other States have similar arrangements to those which have been now introduced into Queensland. Their objective is to remove disincentives to the free interchange of public servants between various jurisdictions. This is to the benefit of all Australian governments, Federal and State. (2) Mr Rudd remains a Commonwealth public servant and while working for the Queensland Government he will continue to attract superannuation entitlements consistent with other such public servants as set out in part (1) (b) to this answer. (3) Such records are not kept. (4) None. 2. Queensland Public Sector Reform Conference Mr HARPER asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to a brochure distributed with a recent edition of Business Queensland promoting a three day conference on Queensland Public Sector Reform at the Hilton Hotel late in March at a cost of $625 per person for any one day, $995 for two days and $1,350 for the three days— (1) On what basis has this conference been organised by the Sydney based firm AIC Conferences A Euromoney Company? (2) Considering most of the speakers are from the Queensland Government, who will gain financially from the conference as a result of the high cost of registration? (3) Have individual departments been authorised to pay the costs for those public servants who wish to attend and, if so, what is the total likely cost to the taxpayer of what appears to be a propaganda exercise?" Mr W. K. GOSS: (1) The firm AIC Conferences is a private commercial organisation which organises seminars on a wide range of financial and management topics around Australia. The topics it chooses for its seminars are obviously matters for that organisation. Presumably it has chosen to organise a conference on Queensland public sector reform because it believes that this is a topical matter and that there will be a significant number of people interested in that topic. The seminar is but one of a large number of conferences on public sector reform in Queensland which have been organised by both commercial organisations and professional organisations in recent months. (2) Public sector speakers will not receive fees. They participate in such conferences when there is a benefit to the public sector, and the Government, in presenting an accurate view of the activities concerned. Any profits would go to the company. (3) The question of individual departments paying for the costs of their staff who attend is a matter for individual departments to determine, in the context of their financial allocation for staff training and development. Such topical conferences on public sector issues normally attract a range of people from both the public and private sectors. I would expect there to be significant numbers of the private sector interested in learning more about Government reforms. Mr Harper: Why make a charge for it? Mr W. K. GOSS: The Government is not charging. It is nothing to do with the Government. Mr Harper: You're providing the speakers. Mr W. K. GOSS: They are not charging. Mr Harper: You are providing the speakers. Legislative Assembly 6338 26 February 1991

Mr W. K. GOSS: I have answered that. I would also note that a number of AIC seminars have related to areas concerning the public sector. For example, last year it organised a conference on performance management in the public sector in Canberra; in August last year, a four-day conference on public sector performance in Canberra; and next month in Sydney it is conducting a two-day conference on public sector budgeting. Therefore, there is nothing unique about its Queensland seminar. 3. Mudjimba State School Mr BARBER asked the Minister for Education— "What will the proposed Mudjimba State School (contained in the recent accelerated Capital Works Program) mean for the quality of education in the Mudjimba and Bli Bli areas?" Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourable member for his question. A new primary school will be built at Menzies Drive, Pacific Paradise, as part of the Government's recently announced accelerated capital works program. When it is opened next year, the anticipated enrolment of the school will be 310. In 1996, this will rise to 400. In its first year, the school, which is the latest PS88 design, will comprise 12 general learning areas, a special education unit and a single unit preschool. Tenders for the earthworks for the school were called on 23 February and will close on 8 March. Members will be aware that funding for this project is part of the Government's initiative to offset the effects of the economic downturn caused by the recession. All school projects on this program reflect a genuine need and were chosen from the range of projects on the education capital works list that could be brought forward for construction this financial year. In the case of Mudjimba, land had already been purchased and documentation was under way. The Sunshine Coast is experiencing a phenomenal population growth and the need for a new school at Mudjimba was abundantly clear. At present, pupils from Pacific Paradise, Mudjimba and Marcoola attend Bli Bli State School. In 1987, Bli Bli had an enrolment of 515 students, 747 students were enrolled in 1990, and it is estimated that by 1996, without relief, well over 1 000 students could be enrolled. Apart from the overcrowding, there is a further cost to the State in that 261 pupils travel to Bli Bli State School from Marcoola, Mudjimba and Pacific Paradise. Unless remedial action is taken as soon as possible, the resources of Bli Bli State School will be severely strained and, as a result, the total quality of education will be diminished. In fact, even with the opening of the relief school at Mudjimba, it will be necessary to plan for another primary school in the region. The opening of the Twin Waters resort and the expectation that two new caravan parks will open at Mudjimba, combined with the continuing residential development at Bli Bli, makes this a necessity. I have been kept closely in touch with the educational needs of Cooroora by the honourable member, who has brought delegations of parents and citizens to see me to explain their concerns. The new school will go a long way toward addressing those concerns and will also provide some relief for the neighbouring primary school at Coolum. The new school will therefore considerably enhance the quality of education provided to the overall Sunshine Coast region. The Goss Government is determined to establish higher quality in our education system. The construction of new school facilities is an integral part of the Government's commitment to increasing education spending to the national average and further proof that, under Labor, Queensland will finally have an education system that is at least the equal of any in Australia. 4. Patient Review Tribunals Mrs SHELDON asked the Minister for Health— "With reference to the Mental Health Services Act and the Patient's Review Tribunal and the fact that the Government knew well in advance that Judge Broad was due to retire on 31 December 1990— (1) Why didn't the Government select and appoint his successor in December 1990 to take office on 1 January 1991? Legislative Assembly 6339 26 February 1991

(2) When was the last meeting of the tribunal held in 1990? (3) When was the first meeting of the tribunal in 1991? (4) How many weeks was the tribunal without a chairman in mid-1990 and December to February 1991? (5) How does he explain his delinquency in failing to see that the tribunal was operative to protect the legal rights of mental health patients?" Mr MACKENROTH: On behalf of the Minister for Health, I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr MACKENROTH: In response to the specific questions asked by Mrs Sheldon, I would advise as follows— (1) Judge Broad retired as Chairman of the Patient Review Tribunals on 3 January 1991. His replacement Judge Forno was appointed on 31 January 1991. The four-week period in which there was no chairman coincided with part of the judges' Christmas vacation. The Department of Justice and Corrective Services has a large number of cases requiring to be dealt with by the District Court as well as providing a judge to chair the tribunals. Given the volume of work to be undertaken difficulty was experienced in arranging for a judge to be nominated for the appointment as Chairman of the Patient Review Tribunals. (2) The last meeting of the Patient Review Tribunals was held on 18 December 1990 at Wolston Park Hospital, Wacol. (3) The first meeting of the Patient Review Tribunals in 1991 was on Monday, 25 February, at Baillie Henderson Hospital, Toowoomba. (4) There were no sittings between 24 May and 30 July 1990 as a result of the chairman being unavailable due to his having to take unexpected sick leave. The tribunals were effectively without a chairman from the date of Judge Broad's retirement on 3 January to the date of Judge Forno's appointment on 31 January 1991. (5) I am advised by my department that there is no evidence that the treatment, care or period of detention of any patient was adversely affected during the period in mid-1990 the chairman was ill or during the change over period of Patient Review Tribunals chairmen in January 1991. (6) My department is currently examining the options to further streamline these arrangements. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Use by Labor Party of Redcliffe Electorate Office Mr COOPER: I refer the Premier to a letter, posted in a Legislative Assembly envelope, over the signature of one Brian Dobinson on behalf of the Labor Task Force Team in Redcliffe City. I now table a copy of the letter and its associated envelope. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr COOPER: I ask the Premier: in view of the fact that the letter is clearly a local government campaign document for the Labor Party, how does he explain the party's use of the electorate office telephone number and electorate secretary of the member for Redcliffe, Mr Hollis, as a contact point for postal votes? In view of this apparent abuse of parliamentary entitlements, will the Premier refer the matter to the Criminal Justice Commission for investigation? Mr W. K. GOSS: I have no knowledge of the matter to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. I do not accept the facts underlying the question. But let me say in relation to assistance to electors to obtain postal votes or any other assistance in relation to elections, whether they be local authority elections, State Government elections, Federal elections or in respect of referendums, it is the practice of most, if not all, members on this side of the House—and, I suspect, the practice of any with any competence on the other side of the House—to provide whatever assistance they can to electors in relation to the exercise of their democratic rights. Mr Stephan interjected. Legislative Assembly 6340 26 February 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting. Mr Harper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just called for order. I warn the member for Lockyer under Standing Order 123A. If question-time is to proceed, I will not allow members to have a chit-chat across the Chamber. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Relocation of Electorate Office of Member for Albert Mr COOPER: We will be referring it. I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to costs in excess of $55,000 a year associated with two vacant Government offices at the Runaway Bay shopping village, including the former Albert electorate office, and I ask: why was permission granted to the member for Albert to relocate his office into the Premier's electorate, in breach of rules laid down in the members' entitlements book? Why has the Minister not instructed an agent to find a new tenant for the offices in question which, as I have said, are costing the taxpayer some $55,000 per annum? Mr McLEAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Quite strangely, the lease on the office to which he refers was organised by his Government. It is the only electorate office in Queensland that has a five-year lease. It was signed in August 1989, before the last election. The rent mysteriously rose 75 per cent over the previous rental. The outgoing costs—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! I cannot hear the answer. I presume other members cannot hear it. I will not allow members on either side of the Chamber to drown out an answer. I am going to demand order. Mr McLEAN: The outgoing costs on this particular lease were extremely high, much higher than those on any other lease we have undertaken. From what I can find out, the lease was signed because of pressure from the then member for the area. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that a very detailed investigation is going on about it. Colgate Palmolive Manufacturing Plant Mr PREST: I have two questions without notice, the first being to the Premier. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. I will not allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue after the question has been answered. PRIVILEGE Albert Electorate Office Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.20 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I refer to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition that the electorate office agreed to by the Government for the member for Albert is in breach of the requirements laid down by Cabinet in the members' entitlements book. Legislative Assembly 6341 26 February 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has nothing to do with the privilege of the member for Surfers Paradise. It is not a matter of privilege. The honourable member will resume his seat. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Colgate Palmolive Manufacturing Plant Mr PREST: He is still sitting on the carrot, I think. I ask the Premier: is he aware of claims by the member for Surfers Paradise that the Gold Coast is in danger of losing Stage 2 of the Colgate Palmolive—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition for the last time under Standing Order 123A. Mr PREST: I ask the Premier: is he aware of claims by the member for Surfers Paradise that the Gold Coast is in danger of losing Stage 2 of the Colgate Palmolive manufacturing plant? Has the company indicated that it remains committed to the development? Mr W. K. GOSS: I was curious to see in the Gold Coast Bulletin an article in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Borbidge, said that the Gold Coast was in danger of losing Stage 2 of the $50m Colgate Palmolive manufacturing plant at Labrador. He said that the coast was in danger of losing Stage 2 due to the almost total indifference of the Goss Government. Mr Borbidge, who pouts and parades up and down the corridors of Parliament House, claims to be the one who is really in touch with business. Honourable members would recall his spectacular escapades as a Minister when he produced that purple, psychedelic book which is a lasting testament to his achievement. I was puzzled as to why Mr Borbidge said that the Gold Coast was going to lose Stage 2 of the Colgate-Palmolive manufacturing plant because of the total indifference of the Government. I personally met with Colgate-Palmolive executives to discuss the finalisation of the project, and they were very positive. In fact, that particular company was so embarrassed by that inaccurate, negative and—I suspect—dishonest statement by the member that it felt constrained to issue a press release to clarify the position. That press release stated that the company reaffirmed its commitment to the industrial development of its Labrador site. It also denied rumours that the second stage of the project has been put on hold. The company stated that it had gone to great lengths to ensure the winding-down of its Sydney manufacturing operations so that the Labrador project could proceed. The company stated also— "Senior management of Colgate-Palmolive has met with the Premier, Mr Goss, and has maintained contact with relevant government officers. We have received a high level of cooperation from all concerned and we are continuing to push ahead with planning and construction . . . Any rumour that out company is dissatisfied is completely false." So much for the member for Surfers Paradise! Not only is he out of touch with the business community, but he does not know what is happening in terms of commercial and industrial development in his own backyard at the Gold Coast. The question is: what is the real motive of the member for Surfers Paradise? The real motive is to do as much damage as he can to the Queensland and Gold Coast economies so that he can score points from that. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting under Standing Order 123A. He will now leave the Chamber. Legislative Assembly 6342 26 February 1991

Whereupon the honourable member for Roma withdrew from the Chamber. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that comment or I will warn him under Standing Order 124. Mr BORBIDGE: Out of respect for the Chair and the position of Speaker, I withdraw it. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not be concerned. After all, he is telling enough people that he can handle it without Russell Cooper being in the Chamber. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Fassifern under Standing Order 123A. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, my point of order is that your rulings are placing the Opposition in an impossible position. Members of the Opposition are copping personal abuse, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Government members are being treated equally. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition I request that you also glance to the right occasionally. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not accept that reflection on the Chair by the member for Surfers Paradise. He will withdraw it unequivocally. Mr BORBIDGE: I withdraw. Mr W. K. GOSS: In the circumstances, I withdraw any suggestion on my part that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can handle the job. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again warn the member for Fassifern under Standing Order 123A for persistent interjections. Anti-war Demonstrations Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Police: can he report to the House on the behaviour of Queensland police at recent anti-war demonstrations in Brisbane? Is he satisfied that sufficient restraint was used by the police? Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I am satisfied that sufficient restraint was used on Sunday during the anti- war demonstration. I place on record the Government's appreciation of the way in which police have handled demonstrations during the past year, particularly in Brisbane. During the reign of the National Party Government, police were used as political tools to arrest thousands of people each year. Last year in Brisbane, two people were arrested by police at demonstrations. One of those persons did not obey a police instruction, and the other person endeavoured to run down a demonstrator in his car. I believe that police showed restraint last year. I have discussed with the commissioner the need for police to talk to demonstrators so that we do not have repeats of what happened in Queensland in the past. I believe that police have shown restraint. However, that type of restraint will not reach the stage at which people will not obey the law and will take it upon themselves to damage Government property in the form of police cars. I was pleased to read statements and letters to the editor by quite a number of people who were involved in Sunday's demonstration that they did not agree with the minority of people who refused to obey Legislative Assembly 6343 26 February 1991 police instructions. Police have a difficult job. I know that they are ensuring that people have the right to demonstrate in Queensland. That practice will continue. However, the police will not be used as a vehicle for people to get cheap publicity. CJC Report on Gaming Machine Concerns Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, I refer to page 17 of the report of the Criminal Justice Commission into gaming machine concerns, which states— "This Commission recommends further examination of the existing and emergent technologies of gaming machine linking and surveillance and the coinless operation of gaming machines. It is concerned that proposed methods for the supply of gaming machines could restrict future options for the utilisation of technologies which could limit criminal activities." I ask: has the Minister assured himself that the specifications and expression of interest documents issued on 10 April 1990 are the most up to date available? Mr GIBBS: I am more than happy to give the member for Toowong an assurance that I do believe that the specification that was put out and the detailed examination that took place, firstly by the Casino Control Division and then by the Machine Gaming Division, is the best technology that is available, that the security measures that will be built into the legislation will satisfy fully the requirements of the machine gaming industry and that those combinations working together will ensure that Queensland has a first-rate security system and the highest grade of technology available. Gaming Machine Security Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing: in view of the assurance he gave a few moments ago as to the nature of the required gaming technology, is he aware that the Casino Control Division is requesting technology which retains data in machines for a period of 30 days; is it true that tamper-proof electronic counters which retain data for eight to ten years are now available; and will he inform the Parliament why the Government has settled on outdated technology which will reduce opportunities to uncover criminal tampering with machines? Mr GIBBS: It is a shame that the member for Toowong, the Leader of the Liberal Party, does not come out and identify the fact that he is allowing himself to be used as an agent in this House for a company called Pajazzo, which is notorious worldwide for lobbying politicians and for trying to go behind the backs of various security organisations. I will simply say this: the Machine Gaming Division in Queensland, formerly a part of the Casino Control Division, is recognised worldwide as being among the most excellent judges of up-to-date and modern technology. Its testing devices and the security systems that are currently employed, for example, in the casinos throughout this State, are recognised as first class. I have absolute confidence in the advice and the integrity of the people involved in those assessments. Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club Computer Development Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Premier: with the announcement by the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club that it will set up a computer development in Queensland, is he aware of announcements attempting to talk down the project and employment opportunities in Queensland? Mr Borbidge: You can give the same answer again. Mr W. K. GOSS: There is a curious similarity between the facts behind this question and an earlier question. I will try to be gentle, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a bit sensitive today. We have here another example of the Deputy Leader Legislative Assembly 6344 26 February 1991 of the Opposition showing that he is right out of touch with what is happening in Queensland. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Borbidge: Why were negotiations still under way two weeks ago? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A. I called out "Order!", but he continued to scream across the Chamber. He is warned. Mr W. K. GOSS: Quite simply, the member is not aware of what is happening in the private-sector development in his own area of the Gold Coast and he is not aware of the very active role that the Government is playing in terms of ensuring that we see increased development on the Gold Coast. The Government believes that Queensland in general, but particularly the south-east corner, has great potential, particularly for information-based technology developments. One of those developments that my Government has been instrumental in pursuing—and pursuing successfully—is the establishment by the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club of a facility here in south-east Queensland. Yet whenever he has the opportunity, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not only portrays his ignorance but also, as I said before, knocks Queensland, knocks the Gold Coast and knocks the positive efforts of this Government to try to increase the amount of—— An Opposition member interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is not abuse. It is simply pointing out the facts. Let me read what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin, which refers to the prospect of the club coming to south-east Queensland— "But Deputy Opposition Leader Rob Borbidge says the project is 'far from finalised and still subject to ongoing negotiations.' Mr Borbidge has called on the State Government to send a senior Minister to Hong Kong to finalise negotiations following rumours that plans were not complete. 'Things aren't going along as rosy as first thought,' he said. 'It may be lost to Queensland because other offers from around the world are being made to the jockey club.' " The facts are that my Government has successfully secured a deal involving the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club coming to Queensland. We have sent senior officers to Hong Kong, and they have sealed the deal. All that is occurring now are final negotiations on the part of the club in terms of which of its short-listed sites it will select, the rent and so on. The negative, knocking claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not only do his area, the Gold Coast, and Queensland a grave disservice but also are once again wrong and out of touch with reality. Land Tax Assessments for Charitable Organisations Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to statements made in last Saturday's Golf Coast Bulletin by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise that charitable organisations such as Lifeline and St Vincent De Paul might be hit by retrospective land tax assessments by the Goss Government, and I ask: is this true, or is Mr Borbidge wrong again? Mr De LACY: The short answer is that the member for Surfers Paradise is wrong again. The article to which the honourable member referred continued as follows— "It will be an outrage if organisations such as churches or Lifeline are to be the latest victims of the Goss Government's land tax strategy." Legislative Assembly 6345 26 February 1991

That begs the question: whose strategy is it? I am aware of concern—some of it justified but most of it generated by members of the Opposition—by religious groups throughout Queensland, and I ask the question: whose strategy is it? That concern was generated by amendments made to the land tax legislation that were passed in this House last June. When the Opposition Treasury spokesman responded to the introduction of that legislation he said— "My comments in relation to the land tax"—— Mr Elliott: When are you going to get on and do something? Mr De LACY: Is the honourable member going to listen, or not? Mr Elliott: Explain what you mean. Mr De LACY: Is the honourable member going to listen to this? Does the honourable member not like it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cunningham will cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: My comments concerning the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill will be brief. The Opposition supports the amendments. In fact, these amendments are part of the commitment given by the previous Government when delivering its last Budget. I know that members of the Liberal Party have been making a lot of noise and in the same debate Dr Watson said that the Liberal Party would be supporting the Bill before the House. Mr Connor, the member for Nerang, has also been making a lot of noise about land tax. I noticed last week that he wanted to debate it. I ask the honourable member: why did he not debate it this morning? The Government was going to let him go today. The Government did not allow him to debate the matter last Wednesday because a Matter of Special Public Importance debate was before the House. The Government was going to let the Liberal Party debate whatever matter it wanted to debate. If it was such an important issue, I ask the honourable member: why did he not bring it up at that time? He is a fraud, and he knows it. It was just a stunt. When Mr Connor spoke on the amendment, like the member for Moggill, he supported the legislation and said— "The Liberal Party supports the Bill because it is moving in the right direction." All of a sudden the Liberal Party is opposing the amendment because it makes good political business to do so. In answering the question, I wish to make a few comments about the concerns being expressed. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Treasurer does not debate the issue at length and continues to answer the question. Mr De LACY: I am answering the question, Mr Speaker, and allaying the concerns that have been expressed and generated by the members of the Opposition. The concern relates to these amendments. In the Courier-Mail, I read a letter that expressed the concern that religious institutions will now have to pay land tax on their land. The fact is that they will not have to pay land tax if it is used for qualifying exempt purposes. The amendments to the legislation standardised the exemptions applying to land tax, stamp duty and payroll tax. I can understand the concern that is expressed about vacant land and what will happen to it. I give an assurance to this House today that, if that vacant land is to be used for a qualifying exempt purpose, the Government will find an administrative way to ensure that land tax is not paid. Apart from everything else, there are no problems if these organisations are using their land for qualifying exempt purposes. They will pay no land tax if they are using it for non-commercial purposes such as religious or educational purposes. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. With the greatest of respect to the Chair, I point out that last week the Minister in charge of community services disregarded rulings of the Chair in relation to answering questions and openly—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the honourable member's point of order? Legislative Assembly 6346 26 February 1991

Mr HARPER: My point of order is that the Treasurer appears to be disregarding the previous advice you gave him concerning the debating of issues. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take the honourable member's point of order. Since I gave that advice, the Treasurer is specifically answering the question as to whether land tax will be levied on institutions such as Lifeline. He is certainly answering the question. The honourable member's point of order is out of order. I point out to the member for Auburn that I am in the chair and I am in control of question-time. I am aware of what the Treasurer is doing and do not require the honourable member's advice on the matter. Mr De LACY: I simply make the point that the Opposition is attempting to make a great deal of play out of the land tax issue. A question has been asked and I am endeavouring to give Opposition members a sensible, rational analysis of the Government's position. If members of the Opposition are not interested enough in the answer, they do not have to listen, but I am sure that many people in this House are interested. In conclusion, I point out that the amendments were introduced with the concurrence of all members of this House. The amendments have rationalised the exemptions and I give an assurance that religious bodies, charities and educational bodies will not be affected in any adverse way, unless they are running purely commercial operations. That is the way it should be, because it is a level playing field. If they are competing with the private sector, they should be paying taxes as those in the private sector do. If these organisations are using their land for exempt purposes, they will not be charged. Land Tax Act Amendment Act Mr BORBIDGE: In response to the answer that the Treasurer has just given this House, I refer to clause 13 of the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill which was presented to this Parliament last year by the Treasurer, and I ask: what is a qualifying exempt purpose? Further, I ask: can the Treasurer answer simply "Yes" or "No" as to whether or not he intends to retrospectively levy land tax on organisations involved in commercial activity, such as churches with retirement homes, Lifeline and St Vincent de Paul? Mr De LACY: The qualifying exempt purposes are charitable, religious or educational purposes. There will be no retrospective levying of land taxes. It goes back to the time when it was announced by the honourable member's Government, therefore it applies from 1 July 1989 when it was announced by Premier Ahern in his Budget Speech. It is not retrospective in that regard. There is no suggestion that Lifeline and St Vincent de Paul will have to pay land tax unless they have land on which they are conducting a commercial business. Mr Borbidge: They're selling clothes. Mr De LACY: Yes, but my understanding of it is that Lifeline and St Vincent de Paul conduct those businesses from rented premises, so there is just no question—— Mr Borbidge: Wrong. Mr De LACY: There is no question of a land tax liability. Let me say that if it is quite clear that they are carrying out a commercial enterprise on land that they own, of course—— Mr Borbidge: A nursing home. Mr De LACY: I will come to the nursing home in a minute. If they are carrying out a commercial enterprise on land that they own, then they will be subject to land tax, of course; but that does not apply in the vast majority of cases to St Vincent de Paul or to Lifeline. Mr Borbidge: The short answer is "Yes". Mr De LACY: The short answer is "No". The honourable member asked a specific question in relation to nursing homes, and I inform the House that I am currently Legislative Assembly 6347 26 February 1991 looking at the way in which these amendments apply to nursing homes—the whole nursing homes issue. Last year in this House, it was raised by Mrs Spence. I know that it is an issue, and it is a very complicated issue. I might say that if a person has a unit in a nursing home or in a retirement village, which is held on a freehold, strata title or group title basis, he will not pay land tax, on the same basis as any other principal place of residence not attracting land tax. Mr Borbidge: What about the churches? Mr De LACY: The churches now appear to be caught within the ambit of the legislation that was introduced last year. Mr Borbidge: Well, the answer is "Yes". Mr De LACY: The answer is not "Yes". There have been no assessments sent out to the churches. I am reviewing the situation. As soon as a decision has been made, I will make an announcement to the Parliament. At this stage, the short answer is "No". Mid-year Budget Review Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Treasurer: why has the Government's mid-year Budget review been put back from January until March? Is it correct that the review process may now not be completed until towards the end of this financial year? What is wrong with his Budget? Mr De LACY: The honourable member's question is based on a false premise. The mid-year review has been completed. The Government's financial estimates statistics as at the end of December are now being printed. Hopefully, they will be released later this week. They were included in the Queensland Economic Review. I hope that they will be before Parliament on Thursday, if I can get them out of Goprint. This Government has a commitment to accountability and honesty. Members of the Opposition have no problem getting statistics or figures from this Government. I do not know how many times I have to say it, but this Labor Government's Budget is on track. No other Budget in Australia—whether members of the Opposition are talking about their friends in New South Wales, the Commonwealth Government or the Government in any other State, which all have problems with the single exception of the Queensland Government—is on track. I will say it as many times as members of the Opposition want me to say it, but the final and irrevocable proof will come out when they see the figures at the end of this week. Rumours of Taxi Industry Deregulation Mr McGRADY: I ask the Minister for Transport: has he heard the rumours circulating in sections of the Queensland taxi industry that the industry is about to be deregulated? Can he inform this Parliament of his Government's policy with regard to this matter? Mr HAMILL: Rumours are an all-pervading element of public life in Queensland. Let me make the position very clear. In September 1989, when I was the shadow Minister for Transport and Labor was in Opposition, I made it quite clear at the Taxi Council conference in Bundaberg that a Labor Government would not deregulate the taxi industry. The Government has no intention of changing that position. There is no policy to deregulate the taxi industry. Those who are peddling rumours obviously have idle time, and little with which to contend during that time. Removal of Contaminated Soil, Mount Isa Mr McGRADY: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to the problem of contaminated soil in Mount Isa. I ask: can he inform the Parliament of the results of a recent visit to Mount Isa by officers of his CHEM Unit? Legislative Assembly 6348 26 February 1991

Mr MACKENROTH: Officers of the CHEM Unit recently visited Mount Isa to check on remedial work that is being undertaken by Mount Isa Mines in cooperation with the Mount Isa City Council. The report I received from them states that remedial work is proceeding to plan. They are pleased with the work that is being done and with the response from Mount Isa Mines and the city council. I understand that the work that will be undertaken in Mount Isa will be at a cost of approximately $8m to Mount Isa Mines. I am pleased that that company has played such a positive role in ensuring that the work has been undertaken and completed as quickly as possible. Role of Attorney-General Mr LITTLEPROUD: In directing a question to the Attorney-General, I draw the attention of the House to a letter in the Northern Times on 6 February 1991 written by him which clearly supports the "Yes" case in the referendum on parliamentary terms being extended to four years. I also draw the attention of the House to the Fitzgerald report. On page 138, Mr Fitzgerald, QC, recommends quite specifically that an Attorney-General should act quite independently of Executive Government and, more importantly in this instance, be seen to be free of party political bias. I ask: in light of the fact that he has publicly supported the "Yes" case in his letter to the editor, does he now concede he has been in breach of the proper conduct of the role of Attorney-General? Mr WELLS: Last week, I provided the honourable member opposite with the opportunity of receiving a briefing from my department and undertaking an inspection of my department. Apparently, the honourable member failed to understand anything that he was told in the course of that briefing. If the honourable member had taken the trouble to read any of the documents that he was given on that occasion—for example, the documents relating to the role of the Attorney-General and the Westminster system—he would have understood that when the Attorney-General is acting in respect of the discretions that are conferred upon him, he must act non-politically, and that in all other circumstances the Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown and a member of a political party. If the honourable member cannot grasp that there is a certain area in which the Attorney-General must act non-politically in respect of those discretions but that elsewhere he is just an ordinary member of Parliament and an ordinary Minister, then the honourable member will make a very unusual Attorney- General indeed, if ever a miracle occurs and he finds himself in that position. I say that because the honourable member will be unable to address his mind to the making of any decision in regard to any sort of policy because he will be convinced that he must act non-politically. Because he will be convinced that he should act non-politically, the honourable member for Condamine will be unable to stand up in this House and speak in favour of any Bill. In fact, the honourable member opposite, as well as other honourable members opposite who have put forward this fallacy, are so totally in ignorance of the basic and fundamental propositions of the Westminster system and the legal systems in which we work that they clearly ought to give up and go home. Police Staffing and Accommodation in Redlands Area Mr BRISKEY: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: with reference to the rapidly increasing population in the Redlands and the increase in crime, what plans are in place to provide the much needed extra police and resources in the Redlands area? Mr MACKENROTH: Recently, in the accelerated capital works program the Government decided that in the Redlands area a new police station would be built at Capalaba and a new district headquarters would be established at Cleveland. As well, as they are being trained, extra police are being provided. In the last calendar year, 1990, we trained an additional 400 police. At the end of 1990, we had 400 police more than we had at the beginning of 1990. That allows for having replaced people who either Legislative Assembly 6349 26 February 1991 left as a result of being disgruntled with the Police Service, retired through medical reasons, retired at the appropriate age or were dismissed. At the end of the year, the Police Service had an additional 400 police officers. As we continue with our commitment of 1 200 additional operational police in our first term, those police officers will be placed throughout the State. In relation to the Redlands area—the main projects in that area are the new police station at Capalaba, which commences construction in the next month or so, and the district headquarters at Cleveland, which will begin construction as soon as we have finalised negotiations with the council on the new block of land to enable the transfer of the station from its present location. Effect of Eastern Transport Corridor on Redlands Electorate Mr BRISKEY: I ask the Minister for Transport: can he assure the people of the Redlands electorate that the koala habitats in the Leslie Harrison Dam catchment area will not be compromised by any transport corridor development? Mr HAMILL: Let me again place on record that my attitude on the feasibility study of the eastern corridor has not changed since that study was announced, that is, that the consultative process must take into account—it would be a nonsense if it did not—the sensitive environmental issues that surround the catchment areas of the Leslie Harrison Dam. As well, it needs to look at the whole question of the viability of an additional transport corridor between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. That is why the consultancy is undertaking an exhaustive process with community input. I welcome as much input as the community wishes to make into the process. The issues that have to be examined are these: whether we need an additional transport corridor; what shape or form such a transport corridor should take; whether it should be a road corridor or a rail corridor, or some other combination; and, if it is needed, where it should go. Let me put this in the context of a broader issue facing the Government. Prior to Christmas, the Deputy Premier convened a very successful meeting in the late Legislative Council Chamber involving local authority groups, State Government groups and community organisations looking at the prospects of growth in south-east Queensland. All those participants acknowledged that enormous pressures were building in south-east Queensland, particularly in the area of providing the necessary infrastructure to cope with a massive increase in population to be experienced in south-east Queensland in the next decade. The reason that a massive increase in population is expected is that the people of Australia recognise that the Queensland Government is in a sound economic position and that Queensland is a good place in which to work and to live, and people are coming here. We need to have the infrastructure in place to meet those community needs. That is why this Government is planning for the future, not simply trying to respond to the situation after it is too late to provide adequate services for the people of south-east Queensland. Grazing in National Parks Mrs McCAULEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I refer to a recent letter from him advising that grazing should not be carried on in national parks unless for biological or other specific purposes. I ask: does that mean that, when grazing rights in national parks come up for renewal, they will not be renewed? Mr COMBEN: We will judge each grazing lease or grazing permit on a national park on its merits as it comes up for renewal. As a basic philosophical position, I am opposed to grazing on national parks. The conservation movement in Queensland is also opposed to it, and large sections of the rural community appreciate the difficulties which are presented with grazing in some parts of national parks. In some areas there is no difficulty with grazing; it is an enhancement of some of the values that we are trying to preserve. Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Legislative Assembly 6350 26 February 1991

We have not so far terminated any permits, nor do I intend to terminate any in the near future. However, some are certainly causing us concern. If the member has representations to be made, they will be well received. I will listen to the honourable member. Comments by Member for Flinders on Transport of Wool Mr BEATTIE: I ask the Minister for Transport: is he aware of considerable unrest in rural Queensland following suggestions by the member for Flinders that Queensland Railways should abandon the State's wool producers during a time of crisis in the industry? Can he give assurances that Queensland Railways will continue to haul wool from remote inland centres? Mr HAMILL: I was astonished to read in the Northern Miner that the member for Flinders was saying that wool was a natural product for road transport. Let me assure wool-growers throughout the State that Queensland Railways values their support and their trade. In fact, that trade is worth $1m to Queensland Railways. Perhaps the member for Flinders ought to convene a meeting of the shadow Ministers—I understand there are four of them—and work out a policy among themselves. I know that the member for Gregory certainly does not share the view of the member for Flinders that wool should be carted by road, not by rail. Let me also assure rail workers, who are attempting to give the wool trade an improved service, that I disagree with the member for Flinders. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired. LEAVE TO MAKE PERSONAL EXPLANATION Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (10.59 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is not granted. The honourable member can do so at a later time. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Referendum on Four-year Parliamentary Terms Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (11 a.m.): The gross incompetence of the Goss Government in handling the public funding of the "No" case for the forthcoming referendum needs to be put on record. I can remember sitting in this Chamber when the referendum legislation was debated. The Attorney- General was sitting on the Government front bench, and the Premier—a man who is learned in the law—was sitting beside him. They were giggling gleefully because, according to the advice given by the Attorney-General, they perceived that the Leader of the Opposition was making a huge blunder. I can recall that night. The Attorney-General was moving around this Chamber and through the public gallery with a well-known member of the press corps, trying to give maximum exposure to the claim that the National Party had made a terrible gaff. The Attorney-General was so pleased with himself that he was wiping the corner of his mouth. It was not long after that—in fact it was on 7 December 1990—that the Attorney-General issued a press release in which he gave the reason for his advice to the Government that there should be no public funding of the "No" case. He said— "The National Party moved an amendment altering the long title of the bill, which will automatically become the question. By doing this, Mr Cooper has placed his mark indelibly on the drafting of the referendum question." Legislative Assembly 6351 26 February 1991

I might add that the advice of the Attorney-General was thrown out of court. He went on— "According to the Referendum Act, 1989, in order to receive public funding for the NO case, the majority of the opposition must vote against the bill. And as Hansard records, there was no opposition to the third reading of the bill and no division was required." That is the ruling of the Attorney-General. He went on to say— "It seems that the Chief returning officer may be precluded by law from including the National parties arguments for a NO case by reason of their failure to oppose the bill." That was the advice given by the Attorney-General to the public of Queensland, through a press release, on 7 December 1990. Last week, I asked the Attorney-General whether he in fact referred this matter to the chief returning officer of the State Electoral Office before he gave his advice. I am sure that his answer was "No." The proper action was for the Attorney-General to refer the matter to the chief returning officer of the State Electoral Office. He is now on record as not having done that. Subsequently, the National Party challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court. It is now history that the decision by the Government was overturned; it was overruled. In addition, costs were awarded against the Goss Government. I ask: how long is it since the first law officer of Queensland, the Attorney-General of Queensland, has given advice to his Government which has been overruled by a court and, worse still, which has resulted in costs being awarded against the Government? Since then the Attorney-General has been called upon to resign, but he has not done so. I can understand why. The reason is that sitting right beside him was someone who was just as culpable. I refer to the Premier, a man who is learned in the law. The Premier was sitting beside the Attorney-General in the Chamber that night. They had obviously conferred. They were conspiring to cause the National Party embarrassment. It would not be right for the Attorney- General to resign, in accordance with the Westminster principles to which he adheres so strongly, because the Premier, who was sitting beside him, was just as much to blame. I was disappointed that this matter did not receive as much publicity as it should have. I can imagine the sort of publicity that would have been generated if it had been an Attorney-General in a National Party Government—— Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. The Government was not a party to the litigation to which the honourable member is referring. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order. I call the honourable member for Condamine. Mr LITTLEPROUD: If that was not bad enough—in an attempt to divert attention away from his gross embarrassment, the Attorney-General rushed headlong into the next expose of improper action. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I asked a question of the Attorney-General in regard to his support for the referendum in the Northern Times. He has protested strongly that he is entitled to do that. If the Attorney-General is really going to apply Westminster principles, I suggest that when he puts those sorts of political statements in newspapers, he should sign them "The Honourable Dean Wells, Member for Murrumba". There is a perception in the community that "Attorney-General" refers to the first law officer of the State. The Attorney-General knows that and he is willing to take advantage of it. An article in the Northern Times headed "Four-year term preferred" states— "Recent debate concerning the March referendum on four-year parliamentary terms needs to be commented on. Specifically, I feel it needs to be pointed out that every other State in Australia has four-year terms for their parliaments. Why should Queensland be the odd one out? Legislative Assembly 6352 26 February 1991

Secondly, it is important to note that both the Goss Labor Government and the Liberal Party wholeheartedly support Queensland having a four-year parliamentary term." Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Rockhampton North wishes to interject, he must do so from his usual place. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The articles goes on— "Only the National Party opposes this sensible reform. Russell Cooper changed his mind last year so he could run a point-scoring campaign." That is obviously politically biased. I remind honourable members that page 138 of the Fitzgerald report deals with the office of the Attorney-General and the Justice Department. It states— "Traditionally, the Attorney-General is not only a member of the Executive but the Chief Law Officer of the Crown." It goes on to say— "The Attorney-General also has primary responsibility for legal advice in relation to matters of public administration and government. The proper performance of such functions is dependent upon independence and impartiality and freedom from party political influences . . ." The Northern Times is only one publication in which that letter by the Attorney-General appeared. The letter was spread far and wide through the press. Mr Springborg: It was in the Goondiwindi Argus. Mr LITTLEPROUD: As the honourable member for Carnarvon says, it was in the Goondiwindi Argus. I am sure that the Attorney-General knew that by signing that letter as Attorney-General, he would gain an advantage. He did that on purpose to try to help the "Yes" case. The Attorney-General is going to be very disappointed on election day. Mr Wells: You are very, very slow. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am embarrassing the Attorney-General. I have quoted from the Fitzgerald report, a document that the people of Queensland have embraced wholeheartedly. The Attorney- General believes wholeheartedly in Westminster principles--and I support him in that—yet he has breached the proper conduct expected of an Attorney-General. Mr Booth: And he hasn't resigned. Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, he has not resigned. I asked him whether he would resign, and he said that the question was irrelevant. I remind the Attorney-General that if he is in breach of the proper conduct of an Attorney-General according to Westminster principles—and I respect him as being an honourable man—his chance is still there. However, I understand his embarrassment because he had beside him the Premier, who is learned in the law, and that night he also was giggling gleefully when the announcement was made by the Leader of the Opposition because he thought his advice was correct. Since then, he is on record in this House that he did not in fact seek the advice of the Chief Returning Officer. He gave his own advice. The matter then went to court. For the first time that I can remember, the advice of the Attorney-General was taken to court, was beaten, and costs were awarded against the Government. If ever there was a good example of why the people of Queensland should put aside this referendum proposal for a four-year parliamentary term, this is it. Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is clearly under a misapprehension as to whom the National Party took to court. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Legislative Assembly 6353 26 February 1991

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will conclude by saying that if ever there was an example of why the people of Queensland should vote against the proposal for a four-year parliamentary term, it is the embarrassing advice given by this Government's Attorney-General and his incompetence in handling that particular issue. Councillors G. Knell and B. Griffiths, Mulgrave Shire Council Dr CLARK (Barron River) (11.08 a.m.): The completion of the Fitzgerald inquiry ushered in a new era of accountability in political life in Queensland. As a member of this Government, I am committed to exposing official misconduct wherever it occurs. Following my resignation from the Mulgrave Shire Council on 19 March 1990, I have become aware of and concerned about certain activities of Councillors Graham Knell and Bob Griffiths, who represent Division 4 of that shire. My concerns focused particularly on the commercial activities of Councillor Griffiths and the possible rezoning of land owned by Councillor Knell. By late last year I had formed the view that possibly a conflict of interest existed. While I shared my concerns privately with some individuals, I never made such concern public because I had insufficient evidence that any wrong-doing had actually occurred. Imagine my surprise when I received a letter from Councillor Griffiths' solicitors threatening legal action against me for defamation and when, on 13 February, I read in the Courier-Mail that Councillor Knell had lodged a complaint with the CJC accusing me of trying to discredit him. At the same time, they launched an attack on the Mulgrave Shire Council alleging maladministration and so-called cushy, self-serving deals by other councillors. Mr Coomber interjected. Dr CLARK: As I indicated previously, I never had any intention of accusing Councillors Knell and Griffiths of any wrong-doing publicly because I had no concrete evidence of any misconduct. However, having been the subject of what one may describe as a pre-emptive strike, I decided that further investigation regarding my original concerns was warranted. This detective work has turned out to be very time consuming and expensive, but it has also been very revealing. Mr Coomber interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Currumbin under Standing Order 123A. Dr CLARK: Thus it does appear that Councillors Knell and Griffiths have failed to uphold the public trust that goes with holding office and failed to avoid a conflict between their private interests and public duty. I consider it my duty therefore, in the light of the forthcoming election, to put on the public record the legal opinion that I have obtained following a very thorough investigation of the affairs of those councillors. In particular, I sought advice as to the application of section 14 of the Local Government Act to the conduct of Councillors Knell and Griffiths. I also sought advice as to the application of the Criminal Justice Act to their conduct. The conclusion of counsel's memorandum of advice reads— "1. Councillor Griffiths did not, on the material before me disclose his interest in the Contract of Employment entered into between Pamela's Garden World and Kybra Pty Ltd. He was required to disclose it by the Act." That is the Local Government Act. The advice continued— "He did not on the material before me disclose it at any relevant time. Clearly the object of such legislation is to prevent members of Local Authorities from being in a position where their duty to act in good faith and in the interests of their electors could potentially conflict with their interest to themselves in respect of their own businesses or property. The issue then is really . . . simple, one poses the question— did Councillor Griffiths have, at the relevant time an interest as defined in the Act? He certainly Legislative Assembly 6354 26 February 1991

seems to have thought so himself judging from his advices to the Shire Clerk in recent months. On my instructions however, he failed in his duty to disclose, either properly or at all, his interest in his Contract of Employment with Kybra Pty Ltd. 2. Councillor Graham Knell is a Lawyer and must therefore be taken to be a man reasonably familiar with concepts such as duty to disclose and related concepts concerning conflict of interest and duty. On the material before me it is clear that Councillor Graham Knell did not comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act in respect of certain lands referred to above. It is, in my view, clear that he ought to have declared in the appropriate manner and to the appropriate person his interests prior to the matter being voted on by Council during 1990. His belated disclosure may fairly be said to be something by way of a plea in mitigation of penalty. However, in my view it is clear that he failed to disclose his interest in his own property at the crucial time. 3. Both Councillors are, in my opinion, persons to whom the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of 1989 apply. There is, on the material before me a prima facie case for reference to the Commission of the failure of each of the two Councillors to properly disclose their interests as required by the Local Government Act." I seek leave to table this legal opinion and supporting documentation. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. Dr CLARK: This opinion clearly leaves no room for any doubt in my mind that Councillors Griffiths and Knell have, as I suspected, failed to comply with section 14.4 of the Local Government Act by failing to declare their pecuniary interests at the appropriate time and that there exists a prima facie case for investigation under section 2.23 of the Criminal Justice Act. In addition, I have obtained an opinion from a registered valuer, D. J. Jones, as to the possible increase in value of Councillor Knell's land had the new town plan been gazetted. As of March 1990, Councillor Knell's land was worth $185,000. Mr Jones' opinion indicates that under the proposed zoning of medium residential density, Councillor Knell's land at Trinity Beach would have been worth between $400,000 and $500,000. Thus, Councillor Knell stood to gain in excess of a quarter of a million dollars had the plan he voted for been gazetted. It may be said that the breaches of section 14.4 of the Local Government Act by Councillors Griffiths and Knell are of a mere technical nature and are not therefore of much significance. After all, the council has resolved to object to its proposed planning scheme and return Councillor Knell's property to its former low density Residential B zoning. Likewise, Councillor Griffiths' contract with Daikyo only earned him $12,300, and the council decisions on Daikyo's developments would have been the same whether Councillor Griffiths had been present at the meetings or not. However, he did not declare his interest in Daikyo until 1 February 1991—almost three years after he commenced work with them. Similarly, the current council position on its proposed town plan does not change the fact that Councillor Knell voted twice for a new town plan that, if gazetted, would have given him a windfall profit of $300,000. It does not change the fact that he did not declare his pecuniary interest until 18 December, nine months after he voted for the town plan. But more important than the amounts of money involved or the final outcome is the fact that rules were broken—rules that exist to protect the ratepayers from councillors who may be tempted to use their public office for private gain. In this case, there was clearly a failure to declare pecuniary interests as required by law. The one aspect of this sorry saga that I find most distasteful is that Councillors Knell and Griffiths are themselves conducting an election campaign based on "cleaning Legislative Assembly 6355 26 February 1991 up" the administration of Mulgrave Shire. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking. Thus, they have made unsubstantiated claims of irregularities in council tendering procedures and town-planning and have lodged complaints with the CJC. Just last week, they placed two advertisements in a local paper, the Northern Beachcomber, which read, "Cr Graham Knell—Cleaning up Mulgrave" and "Cr Bob Griffiths—Cleaning up Mulgrave". Mr Schwarten: They should clean up their own act first. Dr CLARK: That is quite right. How can one explain such behaviour? The only interpretation that I can make is that they had hoped to direct attention away from their own misconduct and, further, that if they threw enough mud some of it would hopefully stick elsewhere. In view of the legal opinion regarding the activities of Councillor Knell and Councillor Griffiths and the imminent local authority elections, I request that the Minister for Local Government examine the evidence I have presented here today with respect to those councillors and refer it to the CJC for its investigation as a matter of urgency. It is deeply disappointing to me that, in order to deflect attention from themselves rather than acknowledging their own failure to disclose their interests as required by the Act, Councillors Griffiths and Knell have sought to accuse other members of the Mulgrave Shire Council of wrong-doing. I believe that the only honourable course of action left open to Councillors Knell and Griffiths is to resign forthwith. However, I do not in fact intend to call for or demand their resignations. I prefer to put the facts before the people of Division 4 as I have put them before the House today. People today demand high standards of their elected representatives and I believe that, on 23 March, the residents of Division 4 should make their own judgments of Councillors Griffiths and Knell. After examining all the facts of the matter and the legal opinion I have presented here today, they are the ones who should decide whether they can still trust Councillors Knell and Griffiths to act in their best interests. In the remaining time available to me, I would like to ask one further question: did Councillors Griffiths and Knell have anything to gain besides avoiding discovery of their misconduct? Again, the signs are clear. Public statements they have made suggest that they want to control the decisions of the Mulgrave Shire Council, but, as they said on 14 February in an ABC radio interview, "We've never had the numbers." They are now trying to rectify that situation. Their interest in political power is also evident by the fact that Councillor Knell put to EARC a submission in which he argued the merits of the case for Division 4 becoming a separate shire. Councillors Knell and Griffiths would then presumably have a good chance of becoming chairman and deputy chairman of a shire which currently has proposed developments worth in excess of $1.5 billion. Those developments are in addition to the existing Ramada Reef Resort, the Kewarra Beach Resort, the Coral Coast Resort and many others. Mr Speaker, I think you would agree that, by any estimation, that is quite an empire. Poker Machines Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.17 a.m.): If there is one issue which hangs around the neck of this Government like an albatross, it is the proposed introduction of poker machines into Queensland clubs and hotels. No issue more starkly demonstrates the difference between the luxury of the wild promise in Opposition and the harsh reality of actually delivering on that promise in Government. This Government and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing have failed to heed the warning signs. When their opinions have been challenged, they have indulged in a campaign of vilification against those who have challenged them. They have ignored the facts. They have pressed on regardless of the evidence. From the outset, the Minister has demonstrated a manic desire to have his own way. This is the same pattern of behaviour as is becoming increasingly evident from him in his dealings with the racing industry. When people criticise or oppose the Legislative Assembly 6356 26 February 1991 proposals, they are immediately condemned. It is not their ideas which are the subject of criticism, it is the individual critic who faces the Minister's tirade of abuse. Three particular instances demonstrate this Minister's lack of judgment and his refusal to take notice of constructive criticism. Firstly, the release of the CJC report on gaming machine concerns in June last year invoked a rabid tirade from the Minister simply because it raised serious doubts about the Government's poker machine proposals. His abuse of the commission knew no bounds. Secondly, the Minister reacted with customary hostility to recommendations by both the CJC and the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice for the establishment of an independent authority to supervise this new form of gambling. On page 12 of its report, the commission stated— "This Commission is of the view that any gaming regulatory authority should be accountable to Parliament rather than to a Minister or department." The parliamentary committee called for— " . . . an independent commission which has responsibility for all gaming in Queensland be established expeditiously . . . to establish a system of accountability at all decision making levels." Three months later, after the commission was vindicated by the Full Court, the Minister and the Premier did not even have the courage to apologise for their outbursts against Sir Max Bingham and his commissioners. Because of his intemperate behaviour, the Minister was silenced by the Premier. Today, we still await the Government's decision as to whether it will have the honesty and integrity to proceed with a genuinely independent authority or whether it will hide behind its empty rhetoric of recent months. The Minister must demonstrate his own honesty and his own integrity on this issue. The third example of the Minister's rush to judgment concerns the ill-fated proposal to have the courts ban compulsive gamblers from pubs and hotels. This ill-conceived and illogical move was designed merely to take the heat off the Government. The Minister floated the idea and slipped it through Cabinet two weeks ago. At no stage did he say how the proposal would work, how much time of the courts and the police would be taken up enforcing this ludicrous suggestion and what role publicans and club-managers would be required to play. The next five days saw the logical community response to the Minister's shameless courting of genuine concerns about the impact of gambling. Ten days ago, on a quiet news day, the Government announced the dumping of the proposal and the Minister crawled for cover with his tail well and truly between his legs. Taken alone, these three examples demonstrate little more than a propensity for the Minister to open his mouth before he thinks of the consequences of his words. Unfortunately, taken together, the Minister's words and actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of behaviour characterised by a single-minded obsession to have his own way and a refusal to take notice of any criticism. This would be of little more than amusement value did it not relate directly to an activity with enormous potential to encourage criminal behaviour. In its report, the CJC said— " . . . these are long established and well documented links between the legal and illegal gaming machine industry and organised criminal elements. Secondly, the establishment of a gaming machine industry dealing in high cash turnovers in numerous locations can be expected to contribute to an increase in general criminal activity." It is this aspect that I wish to discuss. It is the Minister's lack of attention to detail and his obsessive desire to get his own way that are creating serious concerns within the industry and the community. On 10 May last year, expressions of interest for the supply of gaming machines closed with the State Stores Board. Tenderers were required to submit details of their Legislative Assembly 6357 26 February 1991 machines, including information on manufacturers, suppliers, software, electronic components, random number generation and machine repair and maintenance. At the same time, tenderers had to indicate their ability to comply with 89 minimum requirements as well as providing the Casino Control Division with their machines. One company, Pajazzo Pty Ltd, answered all questions in detail, with the assistance of Ray, an association set up under Finnish law to operate gaming machines in that country since 1938. The operations of Ray are controlled by the Finnish Minister of the Interior and money raised is channelled to charities throughout the country. In a letter dated 10 January this year, Pajazzo Pty Ltd complained to the CJC about the entire tendering process. Two important issues are raised. Firstly, why is the Queensland Government seeking the introduction of gaming technology that is up to 10 years old? Secondly, what role, if any, are companies adversely mentioned in the CJC's report playing in the tendering process? Pajazzo Pty Ltd explains the extraordinary position in a letter, which states— "The expression of interest specifies the use of an electrical system which also uses mechanical meters and can maintain current game RAMs for a period of 30 days with the power off. Although Ray can supply machines to fit such a specification, the standard Ray machine discarded this technology some five years ago for the next generation tamperproof electronic counters which retain all data for a period of 8-10 years with the power off." Why is the Queensland Government content to accept technology from the horse-and-buggy days? The Minister must explain that extraordinary approach. Why is he placing at risk the integrity of the entire gaming machine system? How does the Minister reconcile his head-in-the-sand approach with the CJC's recommendation that calls for "further examination of the existing and emergent technologies of gaming machine linking and surveillance and the coinless operation of gaming machines"? Pajazzo Pty Ltd responded to the Casino Control Division by indicating that it could comply with all the minimum requirements specified in the tender documents. It did so in the form required by the division. The second issue concerns continuing allegations against the Ainsworth group of companies. These issues were canvassed in the CJC's report last June, which concluded— "This commission recommends that the Ainsworth group of companies not be permitted to participate in the gaming machine industry in Queensland." Although the findings are the subject of some contention, my concerns are based on other facts. The CJC discussed the relationship between Ainsworth and the firm International Gaming Technology—IGT. That firm was the American distributor of Aristocrat poker machines, which were manufactured by Ainsworth in Australia while Ainsworth distributed IGT video gaming machines in Australia. On 27 July 1983, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission delivered its decision on an application by IGT to purchase and use gaming equipment manufactured by Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd. Permission was given as long as—inter alia—no additional financing be given to Ainsworth Nominees by Leonard Hastings Ainsworth; secondly, that there be no additional business transactions between Ainsworth Nominees and Leonard Ainsworth; and, thirdly, that IGT no longer distribute slot machines manufactured by Ainsworth Nominees or Leonard Ainsworth. That order was accompanied by a similar order on 27 July 1983 in relation to IGT and the Boardwalk Regency Corporation. On 31 August 1983, another order was given by the commission concerning IGT and Claridge Ltd. I table those three documents to which I refer. All three orders prohibit dealings with Leonard Ainsworth. Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd is one of the companies involved in the tendering process in Queensland. I ask the Minister: has he satisfied himself that Leonard Hastings Ainsworth, who was mentioned unfavourably in reports of the New Jersey Gaming Commission, is an appropriate person to be involved in the Legislative Assembly 6358 26 February 1991 industry in Queensland? Has the Minister received any reports on Ainsworth's activities, and will he make them available to the Parliament? My final point draws together both streams of evidence, namely, the unusual nature of the tendering process and the influence of Ainsworth in proceedings. In its letter to the CJC, Pajazzo Pty Ltd asserted that in the middle of 1990, Mr Ainsworth indicated to a representative of the company, Mr Huan Fraser, that Pajazzo had no chance of becoming the tenderer. The reason given was that Pajazzo's machines "do not meet the specifications set out in the expression of interest". I ask: what special position does Mr Ainsworth enjoy to give him access to that information? This is a lethal cocktail—a combination of outdated technology, which leaves itself open to tampering, and the involvement of a web of companies and individuals with a dubious international record. This Parliament and the people of this State demand answers from the Minister. Let him desist for once from his juvenile tirade of abuse. Let him tell the full story behind the introduction of poker machines. Let him tell the truth. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Dump Site, Gardner Road, Rochedale Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (11.27 a.m.): No-one wants a dump in his or her backyard. Today, I speak on a matter of public importance to the citizens of Rochedale who are about to be given Australia's biggest ever rubbish dump in their backyards. This issue concerns not only the citizens of Rochedale but all Brisbane residents. It is not just about a rubbish dump, it is also about the Liberal city council's style of management—or rather mismanagement—of this city. Mr Schwarten: Incompetent. Ms SPENCE: Very incompetent. Firstly, I concentrate on the dump itself. The Gardner Road site, which is planned for Brisbane's garbage disposal for the next 30 years, is so close to residential houses that many people are within crawling distance of the site. As well, the site is 600 metres from the Mount Petrie State School and adjoins a scout den. The Mansfield High School, which is one of the largest high schools in the State, is just over one kilometre away. Noise, dust and noxious odours are expected to drive nearby residents from their homes. However, the Lord Mayor, Mrs Atkinson, is not worried. Mr Bredhauer: She doesn't live there. Ms SPENCE: That is right. Mrs Atkinson is confident that because of what she calls the NIMBY—"Not In My Back Yard"—syndrome, the dump will have little adverse political effect outside the immediate area. Thus, the nearby residents are being dismissed as whingers. Living near the dump will be unbearable from a noise perspective. Trucks averaging 22 tonnes will pass through surrounding areas to arrive at the dump site every four to five minutes from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., six days a week from Monday to Saturday. Mr Elliott: Imagine how that will affect the schools. Ms SPENCE: I agree that it will affect schools nearby. Unless one has driven through the quiet, market-garden suburb of Rochedale one cannot imagine the horrendous picture conjured up by hundreds of noisy trucks careering through the streets. Nearby residents—those so-called whingers—are concerned about the odours and dust that will emanate from their backyard dump. Mr John Ware, an environmental economist, has warned that the land-fill method of household waste disposal is outdated and is like trying to put air pollution controls on an FJ Holden—useless. The Leader of the Liberal Party just talked about the horse-and-buggy days. Obviously, this Liberal council still lives in those times. In America and Europe—— Mr Elliott interjected. Legislative Assembly 6359 26 February 1991

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member shall not interject from other than his correct seat. That is his final warning for today. Ms SPENCE: In America and Europe, land-fill dumps are being phased out in favour of waste prevention and recycling, then incineration to generate power before burying only the leftover ash. Unfortunately for the people of Brisbane, we do not have a council with vision; we do not have a council that is prepared to do its homework; and we do not have a council with the long-term interests of its citizens at heart. We have a Liberal council that is happy to take the easy solution because its members figure that it will lose them only a few votes. Ms Power: A thousand. Ms SPENCE: Yes. What we will get at Rochedale is a big hole in the ground with a plastic lining. The plastic lining that Pacific Waste plans to use to stop the rubbish leaking into surrounding waterways has failed in the United States. The Rochedale land fill will not exclude battery mercury, pesticides and plant residues. A United States study of 61 facilities using synthetic liners showed that 58 of them leaked. The assessment of the dump plan made by the Stores Board of the Brisbane City Council states— "The existing excavation has intersected the ground water table and the proposed base of the landfill site ranges from 10 metres to 2 metres below groundwater level." There is a real possibility that the dump, which will start nearly 17 metres below groundwater level, will contaminate the water used to grow food crops. There is a real possibility that the shallots we will eat next year will be grown on contaminated ground. However, the Lord Mayor reckons that only a few votes are to be lost in this issue. That is enough of those environmental matters. It has been reported that, since 1983 in the United States, subsidiaries of Pacific Waste's parent company, Waste Management Incorporated, have paid more than $17m in fines for environmental breaches. They have also been convicted of bribery and price-fixing. Their breaches include improper monitoring of ground water, modifying sites without Government approval and mixing incompatible wastes. Their track record thus far is disastrous. How can the Lord Mayor ask the citizens of Brisbane to put their faith in this American multinational, which has been called the Jekyll and Hyde of the US garbage business? Let us look at its Brisbane operation thus far. In September 1989, Pacific Waste Management paid $4.5m for the 81-hectare site along Gardner Road. In 1991, the Brisbane City Council will pay almost $10m more for the site—it will buy the land for $14.2m. That represents a 300 per cent increase in the value of the land in 17 months. To pay for that extravagance, Brisbane rate-payers will have to pay a fee to dump their rubbish at transfer stations around the city. An attendant will collect a gate fee—it has been suggested that it might be as much as $15—to take our garbage. Mr McGrady interjected. Ms SPENCE: I was going to come to that, yes. The Lord Mayor says that the amount is a secret for the moment, but we will be charged by the trailer load or truck load. Obviously, the Liberals no longer consider their hefty increases in council rates enough to cover garbage. Mr Briskey: The Liberal Party won't be around to collect it. Ms SPENCE: It will not be around after 23 March, that is for sure. Brisbane people are not used to paying to go to a dump. As the member for Mount Isa suggested, I fear that a lot more garbage will be dumped on the sides of roads or burnt in backyards and then deposited at the proposed transfer stations. Obviously, the council cannot resist yet another slug on Brisbane's rate-payers. The Rochedale dump will be more than just that. In fact, it is a prime example of the lack of respect for democracy shown by the Liberal council. In 1987, the council deliberately changed its town plan to remove the rights of Rochedale residents to object to a proposed dump. Legislative Assembly 6360 26 February 1991

The Gardner Road land was then rezoned to cater for utilities installations so that no town-planning approval or public objection period was required to establish a dump on the site. By that smart piece of manoeuvring, the council removed the rights of Rochedale residents to object to a proposed dump. The changes to the town plan in 1987 were such that they were not at all obvious to Rochedale residents at the time. Thus, their right to object to and appeal against a dump on the site was denied them at that stage. In the following three years, they were not given the opportunity to exercise those rights. The dump is one of the city's major environmental controversies of the past decade. No public examination of its details was made and no access afforded to the Local Government Court. I have been to the public meetings regarding this issue. The thousands of residents who have regularly given up their weekends to try to take advantage of their democratic rights have been ignored by the Liberal council. In common with so many Brisbane residents, they are disappointed that the Lord Mayor has not seen fit to take into account the number of people who object to the Rochedale site. The Lord Mayor, who was elected to office on the platform of claiming that she wanted to listen to and seek comment from the people, now ignores them. The consensus among residents is that the Brisbane City Council should direct more funds into recycling projects rather than simply burying the problem of the city's waste. Brisbane's current land fills have capacity to 1996. There is time to investigate options of waste-minimisation and recycling schemes. There is no reason why a system of one land fill with satellite transfer stations is better for Brisbane than the past satisfactory system of several land fills and no transfer stations. There is no reason to inflict on the people of Brisbane a $545m superdump. The city council has had years to organise correctly the city's waste-disposal needs, and now before an election it tries to squeeze through something totally unacceptable. Rochedale is not the right site. We have a huge State here. Why not use some vision in looking for alternatives? All of the public relations and all of the hype in which the city council has indulged regarding this dump decision will not make it right. It made a mistake when it gave us huge wheelie bins so that we could create more garbage, and it is making a mistake now. Health Commission Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.37 a.m.): Today, in light of the announcement of the establishment of a new health rights commission and the imminent release of the Ward 10B inquiry report, it would seem appropriate to look at some aspects of health in Queensland over the past 12 months and how the Minister has handled some of the more difficult issues. For example, the Ward 10B inquiry was an interesting saga. When he was Opposition spokesman on Health, Mr McElligott was firmly in favour of an inquiry. As soon as he became Minister for Health, he was against it and in fact had to be forced to hold an inquiry. Now that the inquiry is over and the findings have been brought down, he says that he will implement those findings "lock, stock and barrel". I think the Minister should reconsider that statement and think carefully about the last person who made such a statement before he knew what the recommendations contained. It is important that these findings be considered and feedback obtained from the medical fraternity and the general community before the Minister gives an undertaking to accept all the recommendations. Queensland is to have a health rights commission and, whilst the Minister has announced the formation of such a body, he has not fleshed out many details and, as a result, concerns have been raised . The establishment of a health commission is Labor Party policy and is a way for the Minister and the Government not to get involved in health problems. It is the way to keep itself squeaky clean, to deflect criticism from itself and allow the commission—the non-elected people—to cop the flack for the problems that may arise. For example, under this Government the Corrective Services Commission had the blowtorch treatment over prison escapees, drugs, etc., but the Minister did not. Legislative Assembly 6361 26 February 1991

It is clear that the Health Minister wants to emulate that practice. The Premier can blame the Public Sector Management Commission and Dr Coaldrake for public service troubles; the Government can blame the CJC for the inquiry into State members' parliamentary entitlements; it can blame EARC for not implementing party policy of one vote, one value; it can blame the Fraser Island commission for not stopping logging on Fraser Island; and it can blame the ambulance committee for not funding ambulances as promised. This health commission is another body that the Government can blame. The establishment of commissions in Queensland is this Government's way of not having to make a decision. It is fast becoming a rubber-stamp Government. Instead of establishing another expensive bureaucratic monolith, this Government should have revamped the Medical Board and provided for an elected chairman. For example, the body should be similar to the Queensland Law Society and the matter should be put into the hands of professionals. The latest statistics on public service numbers show that this is the new growth area and this commission will only add to it. It is fair comment that today the Medical Board is virtually another section of the Health Department. The health commission is an aggressive way of handling health problems. It will put professionals on the defensive and it will lead to overservicing, which is already a problem. Over the past five years, the use of pathology services has risen by 42 per cent. As recently as 22 February, the Federal Health Minister said that, if such an increase continued, it would affect the financial viability of Medicare. He pointed out that, in terms of diagnostic services, the increase had been pretty dramatic. He said that the Federal Government had to investigate ways to manage the growth by talking with universities, colleges and the medical profession. Further, he went on to say— "It has got big implications down the track in costs if it continues on." Statistics released last week show that Queenslanders are having more tests done and more services performed. Health professionals will practise defensive medicine and patients will end up getting the optimum number of tests for a simple barbed wire scratch. The health complaints unit was more than adequate to filter out vexatious complaints and to pass on genuine complaints to the appropriate board. A recent health complaints study showed that 90 per cent of all parties' complaints are settled with an explanation. It seems that the health commission proposal was rushed into Cabinet. Contrary to what the Minister is saying, it seems that there was very little consultation with the Australian Medical Association on the establishment of this commission. Last night on television, Dr Row, who is the spokesman for the Queensland branch of the AMA, said— "We didn't know the announcement by Mr McElligott was today and we are disappointed that he says there has been wide and extensive consultation . . . there was not." He said that there was qualified support in principle for the commission and he called for talks between the Minister, his department, the AMA and other health industry representatives in order to work out the details and operating guidelines before the health care commission goes into operation. It is quite clear that the new health commission is a reaction to the Carter report, rather than a carefully thought through policy measure. The proposed health commission will have power to investigate both the public and private profession. The Minister said it would not be a legal body and that, if necessary, it would pass its evidence to the Director of Prosecutions. This could create problems in that non-legally qualified persons are making findings against health professionals, that is, doctors and nurses, and those findings will be passed to the Director of Prosecutions for determination as to whether a case against the person who is the subject of the complaint can be mounted. This could lead to a situation where persons are damned by the commission on hearsay evidence, have their reputation damaged and, if they are in private practice, they could go broke. The Director of Prosecutions could then elect not to proceed with the matter and that person would therefore have no basis Legislative Assembly 6362 26 February 1991 to defend himself or herself. The Minister's statement seems to suggest that no legal representation will be allowed before the commission, thereby denying the medical profession the ability to be represented. It would seem appropriate for the police to investigate any complaints against doctors from which criminal prosecutions may arise, as they do in the majority of other cases. The Minister seemed to suggest further that the commission would be staffed with non-medical personnel and that the commission would also make recommendations to the Medical Board and other professional boards on matters within their jurisdiction. This would mean that non-medical persons could be making decisions on matters concerning, for example, medical ethics, and recommending the striking of a doctor's name from the list of registered doctors. This decision could be made by persons who are not qualified or sufficiently experienced to undertake such matters. It may be that this commission could deny natural justice to persons appearing before it, because all sorts of inadmissible hearsay and baseless allegations could be accepted and acted upon. If it has to proceed, the commission should only accept evidence in admissible form and be headed by a barrister, retired judge or solicitor so that all protections under the law are available. The commission should be governed by the rules of evidence and, if prosecution is necessary, the same should be expedited so that delays—such as the delays that presently exist as a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry, which finished two years ago and for which summons are still being served—do not occur. An article by Dr Peter Bayliss in a recent medical journal referred to the New South Wales Health Complaints Unit. It was interesting to note that more than 450 complaints involving medical practitioners were investigated by the complaints unit in 1989. This figure was contained in the unit's annual report, which showed that, despite a reduction in grievances overall, the number of complaints about treatment had doubled. Of the total of 1 048 complaints investigated, 481 concerned incorrect or inadequate treatment. Obstetric care complaints also increased, and there were 33 cases involving alleged physical or sexual assault. However, only 4 per cent of the complaints investigated by the unit resulted in disciplinary action. All of this information refers to patients who complained about treatment and/or doctors' behaviour. However, an ongoing problem that the Minister has not tackled is the Queensland Medical Board and its functions and composition. Previously in this House, I have spoken about the Queensland Medical Board. I presume that the director-general is no longer in charge, as Dr Wilkey has left that position. I contend, and always have, that having the director-general of the department as Chairman of the Queensland Medical Board is a totally untenable situation for all concerned, but the Minister has not yet come to grips with this problem. I hope that he does so very soon. A matter that highlights the deficiencies of the Queensland Medical Board concerns Dr Robert Cooke and the Mater's Priority Emergency Centre. The editorial in last Saturday's Courier-Mail stated— "The finding of the Medical Assessment Tribunal in the case of orthopaedic surgeon Robert John Cooke raises substantial questions for the Medical Board of Queensland and the profession generally. The board prosecuted Dr Cooke under the Medical Act . . . alleging seven instances of professional misconduct as a result of his having established a private priority emergency medical centre at the Mater Private Hospital in Brisbane. The tribunal . . . dismissed all charges brought by the board and awarded costs against it. The case, relating to advertising, awaits appeal under the curious methodology prescribed by the Medical Act. What can be seen from the finding, however, is that the Medical Board has yet to grip the wheel where contemporary practice is concerned." The tribunal's judgment stated— "The divergent views on Dr Cooke's conduct, sincerely held by quite a number of very reputable medical practitioners, strongly suggest that the medical profession in Queensland and the Medical Board need a fresh approach to the matter of advertising." Legislative Assembly 6363 26 February 1991

Time expired. Accommodation of Remote-area Students on Tertiary Education Campuses Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (11.47 p.m.): Now that the 1991 school year has well and truly begun, I wish to turn the attention of this Parliament to the very real problems that people from remote areas of Queensland are experiencing when trying to secure accommodation on the campuses of various universities located in this State. Obviously, my main concern is for the students who live in my own electorate, but the problems encountered by these young people and their parents or guardians are the same as those being encountered by many other people who live in country areas of this State. Once again, this year many parents and young students have been through a dramatic experience in trying to overcome the very real problems involved in finding accommodation in towns and cities where universities are situated. As honourable members would know, the Courier-Mail publishes a list of students who have been offered places at universities. This is followed up by a letter containing a written offer, details of administrative arrangements, and an application form for accommodation. This year, because of the floods, it took more than 10 days for that correspondence to reach students who live in Mount Isa. Let me emphasise that I am not in any way criticising Australia Post or anybody else. The delay was simply caused by the floods. However, the delay put a great deal of stress on the young people who were waiting for the correspondence to arrive. I contacted the universities in question and I was assured that allocation of accommodation would not commence until replies had been received from country people. Of course, I am not suggesting for one moment that this was not the case, but I point out to this Parliament that many young people failed to secure accommodation through the universities' accommodation sections and were forced to travel with their parents to Townsville or Brisbane. They then had to go to great expense in trying to locate suitable accommodation. I believe that when accommodation is being allocated, a weightage should be applied in favour of country students because, in many instances, students who live close to the universities have secured on-campus accommodation. In fact, a case was reported to me of a student who lived in the metropolitan area and who secured on-campus accommodation after having left his home. Then his parents let his room to another student who came from a country area. Last year, I was fortunate to be invited to address students and academics at the Cromwell college. I took that opportunity to explain the difficulties facing young people from remote areas. I explained that in many instances when the student goes to university, it is the first time that that young person has been away from home, let alone faced the traumas of setting up a new life-style with new friends and acquaintances. All honourable members would know that there is a chronic shortage of suitable accommodation for students and young people. I think it is pertinent to ask how the various universities allocate on-campus accommodation. While I believe that the exchange of students from overseas is very important both to Australian students and overseas students, I believe that one should examine the number of overseas students occupying on-campus accommodation and consider how many of our young people could take up some of those places. I am not suggesting for one moment that the present system should be abolished, but I am saying that perhaps a better balance could be established. Another issue that affects the young people who live in my electorate is that some of them simply cannot afford to gain entrance to a college or university because of the financial circumstances of their family. I believe that the Austudy level is far too low. This scheme is a wonderful innovation of the Hawke Government and has certainly helped many young people throughout Australia. However, full Austudy is available only if the family income is less than $19,000 per year. The allowance decreases as the family income increases. Even if a family receives $30,000 a year, it is impossible for it to provide some $150 a week to a student for accommodation. As a result of that, Mount Isa has some Legislative Assembly 6364 26 February 1991 very highly qualified shop assistants and waitresses. Young people in isolated areas do not have the same access to tertiary education as their provincial counterparts and are being denied the opportunity to realise their full potential. Something needs to be done to raise the income levels for eligibility, or perhaps a subsidy could be given which would go towards accommodation for those young people. The position of a young person living in a town in which a university is situated and is living in the family home is completely different from that of a young person who has to leave his home town to attend a university and incur greater living expenses. Today, I take the opportunity to urge Mr Braddy, who in the 12 months in which he has been Minister for Education has certainly made many advances in equality of education, to raise this matter with his Federal counterpart so that once again the people of Queensland can claim with justification that, no matter what a family's income is, a student still has the right to gain a suitable education in tertiary institutions throughout the State. Council Elections in Burke and Torres Shires Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.55 a.m.): I raise the issue of two local authority elections that will occur in the Cook electorate on 23 March. This matter is of particular significance to the constituents of the two shires to which I refer, namely, the Burke Shire and the Torres Shire. Both those shires are returning to elected local authority status after a period of time—vastly different periods of time, I must admit—under an administrator. Since 1986, the Burke Shire has been under an administrator. Some time after the last local authority election, the council met with some problems. I will not go into details about those problems; the Minister can elaborate further on them. At the time the council ran into some administrative problems and was dismissed, and an administrator was appointed. The person who was appointed as the administrator was Norm Gampe. As many honourable members would know, Norm has had a long history of involvement in local government. He was previously the administrator of the Cook Shire and also of the Torres Shire for many years prior to his appointment as administrator of the Burke Shire for the past two and a half years. I recognise the contribution that Norm has made to that shire. It is also important that people in the Burke Shire, in common with Queenslanders throughout the rest of the State, have the opportunity to participate in local authority elections. In recent days, media coverage has been given to the difficulties which the people in the Burke Shire have experienced in getting their nominations into the returning officer. Because of flooding in the area, peculiar problems have arisen. In the latest incident, I understand that a helicopter suffered technical difficulties in trying to rush nomination forms to the returning officer. That is presently a matter for determination by the Department of Housing and Local Government. The other election that is of more significance is the return to elected local government in the Torres Shire. Since 1948, the residents of the Torres Shire have not had the opportunity to participate in local authority elections. I do not wish to criticise previous Governments too much, but I believe the status quo became a little bit comfortable for them and the decision was not taken for that shire to return to elected local government. It is to the credit of the present Minister, the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, Tom Burns—— Mr FitzGerald: Come on, EARC recommended it, and we started it. Mr BREDHAUER: I will take the interjection by the honourable member for Lockyer. It was a recommendation of EARC. It was also something on which I had made numerous submissions to the Minister previously. Because it was under consideration by EARC, the decision was not made until that recommendation was forthcoming. Mr FitzGerald: We all supported that. Legislative Assembly 6365 26 February 1991

Mr BREDHAUER: I acknowledge that interjection. Although, as I said, I believe that the previous Government was a bit comfortable with the status quo and sat on its hands. The Torres Shire comprises the northern part of the tip of Cape York Peninsula, a mainland area, as well as Horn Island, Thursday Island, Prince of Wales Island and some of the surrounding island groups. For the first time in many years, this year those people will be able to participate in a local authority election. That is an important democratic principle and an important initiative of the Government to reinforce that recommendation of EARC and to proceed with those elections. The nominations have drawn strong fields both for the Chair and for the elected positions. About six weeks ago, I attended a public meeting on Thursday Island to discuss with the people who attended the return to elected local government. I look forward to a clean and hard election campaign and the election of a willing and dedicated group of people who will be the first elected Torres Shire Council for many years. I should also mention the role of Mr Chris White, from Cairns, who has been the administrator of the Torres Shire for a number of years and has made an important contribution. Once again, I reiterate that the democratic principle of allowing people, wherever they live, to participate in elections is one that I believe is worth upholding. I should also mention that the Minister has indicated that, because they are significant occasions, after the elections if time permits he will attend the inaugural meetings of both the Burke Shire and the Torres Shire. I hope that I will be able to accompany the Minister on those trips to Burketown and to Thursday Island, because they are important events in the lives of constituents of mine who live in the most remote parts of Queensland. It is due recognition of that fact that the Minister will go to the effort of travelling to Burketown and Thursday Island. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The time allotted for the Matters of Public Interest debate has expired. ADOPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 February (see p. ). Mr SLACK (Burnett) (12 noon): In responding to the Minister's second-reading speech, I begin by making the obvious observation that since the present Act was passed last May, considerable disquiet has arisen within the community relative to its implications. Basically, it was felt that the Act did not provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of a person's privacy, if it was the wish of that person to protect his or her privacy. In hindsight, all parties had not done enough homework prior to the passing of the legislation and have to accept some of the responsibility for having supported the Bill without demanding a longer period for public input. We should have more thoroughly checked out the position regarding adoption laws in other States. The advice of the Minister that the legislation was essentially the same as that operating in other States was accepted. Subsequently, on analysis, it was found that there were some essential differences, except in the case of New South Wales, where I understand that legislation similar to the present Queensland legislation—not the proposed amending legislation—is being introduced in that State. At the time of the introduction of the present legislation the sensitivity of the issue appeared to be recognised by the Minister, and assurances were given that a heavy advertising campaign would be undertaken by the Government to advise people of the passing of the legislation. Assurances were also given that counselling would be available for those people who required it. In addition, no mention was made of a $50 charge applying to those wishing to lodge an objection to contact. Unfortunately, the advertising did not take place, the legislation had some essential differences from that operating in Legislative Assembly 6366 26 February 1991 other States, counselling would be limited and possibly involve a charge, and, to cap it all off, a $50 charge would be imposed on those who wished to object to contact in order to protect their privacy—hardly a sensitive approach! I moved a disallowance motion to the $50 charge, but the Government would not listen. I raised the issue again during the Estimates debate, but again the Government would not listen. Although other aspects of the legislation caused concern, these were the areas in which the Opposition feels that the Government failed. However, the main failure was in not providing for a period of time for community input through a Green Paper. No doubt the Government will say that the Opposition could have called for one and, to a degree, that is true. However, the introduction of legislation is the prerogative of Government. It is the Government that has the ultimate responsibility to get it right. It can be argued that it was legislation prepared by the previous National Party Government, and there is no doubt that when the National Party was in Government similar legislation was being considered. However, such legislation had not gone before Cabinet, nor had it been approved in the party room. In light of that, it is wrong to say that the National Party would not have sought further community input before it introduced legislation. Suffice to say that the legislation lay on the table for a minimum period and there was little public awareness of its passage. To be fair to the Minister, she and her officers did consult with me prior to the introduction of the legislation, and I thank them for that. I must also put on record that the Minister, her staff and her departmental officers have been prepared to discuss aspects of the legislation and to listen to my representations on behalf of people who were opposed to some of the provisions. Having said that, I must add that it should be recognised that, prior to the introduction of the Bill, all three parties had heard from the people who were pushing for the legislation, while the other people who objected to the legislation were not heard because they were private people who did not belong to any particular group. It is recorded in Hansard that during my reply to the Minister's second-reading speech, I said— "We have no way of measuring the number of people, such as the adoptive parents, the adopted people and the natural parents, who do not want this legislation. Their desire for anonymity in itself precludes them from making any objection. I suspect that there are more in this category than we realise. Decisions have been made in the past and they do not wish to be confronted with the personal conflict to which this Bill will expose them." Those people have now come forward, and there are many more of them than was realised at the time of the debate on the present legislation. In addition, of course, points were raised which were not considered when honourable members debated the original Bill. We saw two groups emerge, both with what they considered to be valid arguments and a single-minded determination—those who believed that they had a right to know and those who believed that they had a fundamental right to their privacy. The tragedy was that no real effort was made to bring them together so that a better understanding of the other person's point of view could have been reached and perhaps some mutually acceptable compromises arrived at. I believe that a deliberate process of consultation should have been undertaken by the Minister. The Minister had her own personal point of view and was not prepared to accept that, while she may not agree with the point of view of those who were opposed to the legislation, they had an emotional involvement, too, and were entitled to have an input. When the Government could see the ground swell of opposition arising, particularly following the stupid introduction of the $50 charge upon those who wished to object to contact, it should have stepped back, accepted that something was wrong, and moved to review the legislation by asking for, and listening to, community input. If necessary, the Government could have introduced a Bill to postpone the introduction date of 1 March to give itself time to reassess the situation. In fact, I publicly called for that approach before the Premier announced that amendments were to be introduced. Legislative Assembly 6367 26 February 1991

But what did the Government do? It waited right until the last minute and, out of the blue, it announced amendments, barely leaving time to have those amendments passed before the 1 March deadline when identifying information would otherwise be given out. That is hardly the approach that one would expect from a competent Government. The Government hastily introduced amendments which it believed to be a compromise without proper consultation, with the end result that nobody is happy. The people who were in favour of the original legislation feel that the Government has sold them out, let them down, and reneged on a pre- election commitment. The people who were opposed to the original legislation accept that what the Government has done has gone a long way towards overcoming their major concern. However, there are problems that the amendments have not addressed. Both sides claim that they were not properly consulted. All honourable members know that the emotion has been intense. It is a pity that the Minister had not called the groups together, locked the door if need be, and initiated a free and open discussion so that each side could air its feelings and experiences. In this way an appreciation of each other's point of view may have evolved. Having done that, amendments could have been drafted. It could well be that this House could have ended up with similar amendments to those that it has before it today, but at least then everybody, if they were rational about it, should have accepted that they had had a fair input. This Bill is better than the previous legislation. However, Opposition members have reservations as to whether some important aspects have not been talked through by the parties involved. The emotiveness associated with the issue has not been defused. In those circumstances, the Opposition does not believe that this is necessarily the best form of legislation. It recognises that the legislation before the House does give better protection for those people who wish to maintain their privacy while, at the same time, it will not, in most cases, prevent those people who wish to gain information from obtaining it. Obviously, the May legislation needed to be amended. However, the Opposition believes that the Government panicked and rushed into these amendments without thinking them through. I come back to the point that the Government has failed by not undertaking a proper consultative process with those people involved. However, the Opposition recognises that, if this legislation were not passed, Queensland would revert to the legislation that was passed in May 1990, which has been rejected by a significant number of people. Consequently, it will not be opposing the Bill. Since becoming Opposition spokesman on Family Services, I have spoken to many people from within the adoption triangle. I have also received much correspondence. Many views have been expressed, many based on emotion, uncertainty, apprehension, and even fear. At times I have been on the receiving end of some abuse. I place on record in the Parliament my thanks to those who did contact me because that has certainly enabled me to develop a much deeper appreciation of the issues. I cannot but feel for those people involved, the relinquishing mothers, adoptees and adoptive parents. I have tried not to take sides but have recognised the genuine feelings that most of them have expressed. I have always tried to get people to recognise and appreciate the other point of view or, in this case, the emotions that are involved. Not only as a result of talking to all three groups who are involved in the adoption triangle, but also to social workers, who see many of the problems, I have formed some opinions. Only a small percentage of adoptees and relinquishing mothers have a burning desire to gain the identifying information. However, in most of those cases, it is a very real desire for genuine reasons and their feelings are intense. Equally, there is only a small percentage who really wish to stop identifying information and/or prevent contact. Those, too, are genuine and they are entitled to do so. Considering the small percentage who would be actively seeking information or objecting under the proposal put forward by the Government, it would be unlikely that those who request the identifying information would match with those objecting, but there would be some. An aspect of the legislation that does concern me is the provision of the objection to identifying information being given out lasting for life unless, of course, it is revoked in the meantime. The amendment Legislative Assembly 6368 26 February 1991 to extend the objection to contact from five years to life does not worry me so much as I believe that the critical aspect for those who wish to gain the information is the knowing and not the contact. From my discussions, I believe that those who supported the original legislation are prepared to accept that, while they believed that an adopted person over 18 had a basic right to know as that person had not been party to any agreement, the other party also had some rights, and the amendments before this House are an attempt to balance those rights. The basic right to information and the basic right for privacy—supporters of the May legislation believed that it upheld the principle of the right to information; now this veto amendment swings the pendulum too far the other way. Could the Minister, in her summing up, please explain the meaning of proposed new section 39AA (6)? Does it mean that it cannot be revoked if the person applying it dies? If that were the case, it would then mean that the person seeking identifying information would be denied it forever, even though the other party had died. I note that the Minister uses the term "indefinitely" in her second-reading speech. It is believed that this amendment, as it now stands, gives all the power—call it what honourable members like—to the other party and, by its provision, can deny access to the information for the life of both parties, thus completely voiding the principle of the right to information. The book would be closed forever, even though the objecting person had passed away and so would not be affected by the release of the information. This is where it is felt that the Labor Party really betrayed its principles and has done a complete about-face and reneged on a pre-election commitment. Could the Minister also advise the House what happens in the case where a refund of the $50 charge to a person seeking identifying information has been made and the person who has objected subsequently revokes the objection? I would also like to instance the case of many relinquishing mothers who had no other choice, at the time, than to have their child adopted. Ms Warner: What was that last point again? Mr SLACK: When a person pays the $50 charge to gain the information and the opposite person has lodged an objection, what happens then? The department refunds the $50—— Ms Warner: It is refunded. Mr SLACK: It is refunded, but does the person's name stay on the book in case at some time in the future that person revokes the objection? Ms Warner: If they wish. Mr SLACK: Could the Minister explain to the House what then happens in the system? Those relinquishing mothers would have been too distraught to know what they were doing and, ever since, not knowing what had happened to their child, they have carried all sorts of feelings of anguish. One cannot but feel compassion towards the person who has been caught up in those unfortunate circumstances. The issue to which I have just referred is outside the parameters of the argument about a person who is adopted and who may not know that he or she is adopted. That is another issue. In the case referred to, we are talking about natural mothers or people who know they are adopted. They are not people who could have to face the trauma of suddenly finding out they are adopted. In those circumstances, the Opposition is not arguing about the provision for objection to identifying information being given out as contained in the amendment but questions whether the life provision is fair. There is no doubt that, as people get older, their attitudes change. To me, there is no doubt that as we get older we are better able to cope with any trauma that may arise out of a possible reunion. In particular, I believe that, for people who have to make a decision on whether to object to identifying information being released, a different set Legislative Assembly 6369 26 February 1991 of circumstances exists for a person who is 18 than for one who is 25. Although it is accepted that, on a mathematical basis, not many seeking information would be affected by the life veto, some would be. In addition, there would be instances in which a person who has lodged an objection has subsequently died. In that situation, the veto could not be revoked. The life veto provision will also mean that, because of a feeling of never being able to know, there will be people suffering psychological and mental torment. The other aspect is that, if the provisions are too tough, people are likely to look to other ways of gaining the information Those ways could be illegal. It is also possible that help could be given by people who have a deep feeling that the person seeking the identifying information was being deprived of social justice. The end result would be that there may be more trauma than would otherwise have been the case. I inform the Minister that I have raised these problems with some of the people who support the life-long provision. I have canvassed the situation in which a person who has lodged an objection may change his or her mind or just not give it another thought. There would be many cases in which his or her attitude changes but he or she is too apathetic to revoke the objection. On the other side, there is the person who is emotionally distraught. I am pleased to inform the Minister that that position was recognised, and it would be acceptable to many—not to all, but to many to whom I have spoken, some of whom are members of the adoption privacy protection group—for the Family Services Department to write to a person, who had lodged an objection to information going out, after a five-year period from the date of lodgement of this objection. Naturally, that would occur if someone was requiring the information. However, the point was stressed that there should be no suggestion whatsoever of pressure being put on the objector, but that it be done purely on the basis of advising the person who had objected that a request had been made for information and asking whether he or she wished to maintain the objection. The Family Services Department would have the name and address of the person who had objected, there would not be many people involved and it would provide some hope for those who were seeking information. There is always the problem of someone else in the family obtaining the letter, but the chances of that happening would be much less than identifying information risks to the person concerned from other sources, considering again the small number of people who would be involved. However, to safeguard against this happening, the letter could be sent by addressed receipt registered mail, which means that the person to whom the letter is addressed is the only person who, after providing identification, can collect the letter. I inform the Minister that that would cost $8. Ms Warner: It is still a cost, though. Mr SLACK: I will explain it further. I do not see that as a problem. Adopting that method would avoid the situation of somebody inadvertently obtaining the information and betraying privacy. The Opposition supports as a way out the approach that I have just suggested. I reiterate that I have gained support for this course of action from people who are strongly of the view that people should have the right to apply the veto for life and should not be required to review it every five years. I firmly believe that the Minister failed in not bringing all parties together in an endeavour to resolve this issue as I believe that, had it been properly talked through, a more acceptable amendment could have been negotiated. As I mentioned, another aspect of this subject that I wish to canvass is in relation to the age of the person who is affected by this legislation. I have found many people who would not have objected to the existing legislation had the minimum age been 25 and not 18. Those honourable members with teenage children would be aware of the pressures on them at that age. They may have just commenced studies at tertiary level, started a new job or, even worse, been unsuccessful in seeking a job. It is a time when they can well do without the added trauma of having to make a decision as to whether they want identifying information or contact. By the age of 25, most people know where they are going in life and I believe that they would then be mature enough to make a reasoned decision. Of Legislative Assembly 6370 26 February 1991 course, the argument against this is that 18 is now the age of majority and, consequently, the age should be 18. However, I would point out that the precedent has been set by this Government when it lowered the permissible blood alcohol level for drivers under the age of 25. The Opposition believes that this approach should have been more thoroughly canvassed. Real concern has also been expressed to me about the failure of the amendment to provide for protection of those people who do not know they are adopted, recognising that, at one stage, the Family Services Department actually advised adoptive parents not to tell their adopted children that they were adopted. Then there is the situation of those people residing overseas who may be affected by the legislation. Obviously, there will need to be a very extensive publicity campaign to acquaint people with the changes that have occurred. This aspect cannot be overstressed. The Opposition recognises that it would not be possible to satisfy everybody but reiterates that it believes the Government has handled the consultative process abominably and deserves the condemnation that it is receiving from the various groups involved. Having said that, I must say that there were certain aspects of the public debate, which led to these amendments, that really disappointed me. One was the intolerant attitude of many people towards the other person's point of view or position. I also feel that some of the statements that appeared in various group literature were not helpful and would have been counterproductive to the cause of the people who were responsible for them. As I stated earlier, we in the Opposition do not agree that the amendments before the House are necessarily the best amendments, but we recognise that they will be passed by the Government. In these circumstances, all I can say is that the Opposition believes that everybody should now step back, calm down and give the amendments a chance to work. In conclusion, I feel that I must refer to an aspect that does please Opposition members. By dropping the $50 charge on the person who objects to contact and not imposing a charge on the objection to the identifying information being given out, the Government has finally accepted our arguments. Debate interrupted. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (12.23 p.m.), by leave: This morning, the Minister for Transport referred to a newspaper report in which I was quoted as saying that wool should be carried by road transport. I have never said that. In fact, I have always been very consistent in my attitude that wool should be carried by rail transport. That newspaper is one of great integrity and repute. I am sure that it made a very simple error—if, in fact, what the Minister said is correct. ADOPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (12.24 p.m.): The linchpin of the Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1990 was the unqualified right of adopted persons over 18 and birth parents who had formerly consented to the adoption of their children to receive identifying information about the other party in their adoption process. That Act also provided for the removal of the adoption contact register, by which adult adopted persons, birth parents and adoptive parents could register their agreement to contact so that reunions could be facilitated. I take this opportunity to clarify exactly the extent of the identifying information that is available to be provided, because misconceptions seem to be held by some members of the community. For adult adopted people, that information included the Legislative Assembly 6371 26 February 1991 names and dates of birth of their birth parents at the time that the consent form was signed, and of any adult brothers and sisters who were also adopted. For birth parents, it included the name, after adoption, of their adult son or daughter and the names, at the time of adoption, of the adoptive parents. It should be emphasised that the information is not current. Rather, it represents details provided at the time that the adoption consent was signed or when an adoption order was made. In certain circumstances, other relatives could also receive that identifying information. When a birth parent has died or suffers from a permanent condition that makes that person unable to apply himself or herself, that birth parent's mother or father, brothers or sisters or adult sons and daughters may apply for identifying information about the adopted person. Likewise, if the adopted person has died or suffers from a permanent condition that makes that person unable to apply himself or herself, the adoptive parents or the adult sons or daughters of the adopted person may apply for identifying information about the birth parent. Current identifying information, including an address or a change of name, is only provided to a person if the other party has written to the department with the information and has requested that it be passed on should the person apply for identifying information. People who apply for and receive identifying information will also be sent an authorisation, which may be presented to the Registrar-General of births, deaths and marriages and will allow the issuing, firstly, of a certified copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate if the person applying is an adopted person, a birth parent, an adoptive parent or a relative and, secondly, a certified copy of the amended birth entry of the adopted person if the person applying is a birth parent or relative. Copies of original birth certificates will include the words "Not to be used for official purposes". On the passage of the 1990 legislation, it was understood by all honourable members in this House that the provision of identifying information would cause anxiety to some birth parents and adopted persons. This House was confident that the objection to contact, which stood alone in the 1990 amendments, would have protected such people from unwanted contact. Let me expand on that statement. When I say "This House was confident", I mean just that. I refer to this House—all parties—and not just members on the Government side of the House. The Adoption of Children Act Amendment Bill, which was debated in this House in May last year, was supported by all parties. The member for Callide is on record as referring to it as "landmark legislation". That member stated that the legislation was a major piece of civil rights legislation. Together with many other honourable members, in the past few months I have been contacted by people who are concerned that their lives may be disrupted—as the Minister said in her second-reading speech—as a result of contact with or the release of information to a birth relative. Most of the people who contacted my office and me advised that they have been busy contacting and talking to members of the National and Liberal Parties. They volunteered to me the information that members of those parties have said that they did not fully understand the implications of the adoption legislation and that the Government had rushed legislation through without proper consultation. The member for Burnett stated that the consultative process is not exhaustive. That is not my recollection of the debate last May in this House. During that debate, the member for Callide said— "It is landmark legislation for Queensland that is the result of a very exhaustive consultative process." It is regrettable and very sad that in the hope of scoring a few points or a mention in the daily media, members opposite have chosen to go political by attacking the May 1990 legislation, which they supported. Although this House was confident that the objection to contact would have protected people from unwanted contact, this Government has acknowledged that for a minority of people, particularly older birth mothers, their extreme distress was unable to be allayed by the protections and penalties that the 1990 Act had put in place. Recognising that those fears are genuinely held, the Bill now Legislative Assembly 6372 26 February 1991 before the House has extended an extra option to further protect those people. It is clear to me that this Government has shown itself to be a Government that listens to people and understands their genuine concerns. It is a Government with a heart, and its legislation is not set in stone. Unlike the repressive coalition and National Party Governments of the past three decades, this Government does not hang out the "Not Negotiable" sign and thumb its nose at genuine concern and public opinion. The right to identifying information is now qualified by giving an option for people to lodge an objection to both the disclosure of identifying information to the other party to their adoption and to contact from them. The right to object only to contact remains. I repeat: the right to object only to contact remains. That fact has not been understood by some members opposite. Some people who seek identifying information will therefore be unable to receive it. Experience elsewhere indicates that the numbers excluded from receiving identifying information will be small and will probably reduce over time as some people decide to revoke their objections. The community no longer expects or accepts total secrecy in adoption. When I spoke in the debate in May last year, I stated— "Secrecy promotes unhealthy fantasies and induces guilt. Secrecy also promotes exploitation, distortions and deceptions. Secrecy has caused complications in the daily lives, not only of adoptive persons but also of adoptive parents and birth parents." These amendments relating to disclosure of identifying information balance the justifiable need to know about one's origins with a need to protect a small minority, usually those involved in adoptions many years ago when some degree of shame and stigma may have been a feature of the adoption process. The ability to receive identifying information remains. The amendments provide additional protection for those people who were concerned that their privacy was threatened. I am more than happy to support the Bill. Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough) (12.31 p.m.): I rise today to debate the Adoption Legislation Amendment Bill 1991, which amends certain Acts in relation to the adoption of children and for related purposes. Much controversy has surrounded this Bill and that of its predecessor in May 1990. Certain facts regarding these amending Bills must be established. With regard to the Bill that was brought into this House in May last year, no Green Paper was circulated beforehand; no widespread consultation took place; there was obviously no strategic plan by the Minister and therefore no concept of the real feelings of the broad spectrum of the community; and there was no publicity as to the actual effect of the implementation of the amendments. The Minister made a loose statement that the amendments were the same as those proposed by the previous National Party Government. That has since proved not to be the case. Certainly, misleading statements were made by the Minister as to the legislation then current in other States of Australia regarding adoption laws. After the amendments had been passed, the already mentioned facts led to, firstly, a genuine concern within the community that the rights of many people involved in the adoption triangle would be invaded. Secondly, there was general confusion amongst most sections of the community as to what effects the amendments would have. Thirdly, it showed up the fact that, due to the total inadequacy of publicity regarding the reason for and operation of the amendments, many people were unaware of their responsibilities in that regard. Fourthly, it showed a total lack of sensitivity in the handling of this matter by the Minister. As a result, on Tuesday, 19 February 1991, the Minister brought into this House yet another amendment Bill. The facts regarding the current Bill are: still no Green Paper; still very little consultation; still no submissions called for from the public to ascertain the real feeling for and need of reform of the original legislation—that is, prior to May 1990; and still a feeling of confusion and frustration within the community, especially within and amongst those most affected by the Bill, the so- called adoptees and birth parents. It would be accurate to say that I have a file two feet deep on issues surrounding adoption legislation relating to both the May 1990 and the Legislative Assembly 6373 26 February 1991

February 1991 amendments. People are genuinely concerned that their rights to privacy are being invaded and, conversely, that their rights to information are not being met. In an endeavour to help honourable members understand the complexity of the issue, I will give a potted version of the history of procedures concerning adoption in the State up to the present time. Legislation prior to 1964, firstly, allowed a birth mother's surname and first names to be given on the adoption papers and, secondly, non-identifying information regarding health, physical appearance, education etc. were given out. Because the birth mother's surname and first names were on the adoption papers, the adoptive parents could, at any time, allow their adopted sons or daughters to have that information, whether it be when they were adults at 18 or younger. It also helped adoptive parents to know their child better, because they knew some of the background and features of the birth mother. However, the birth mother was very vulnerable to disclosure because she had no means of protection should an adoptee decide to contact her. From 1964 until 1987—a fairly large span of time—the procedures changed and an aura of secrecy surrounded adoption. No names were given out and non-identifying information only, as in that already mentioned, was disclosed. I think that that led to many of the problems that we now see. When relinquishing their children during that time, birth mothers were subject to a very different set of social mores than those that currently exist in the community. If pregnancy occurred before marriage, it was regarded by many to be a social stigma and, should the girl decide to keep her child and bring it up herself, there were certainly not the social-support systems that we have now for single mothers. Therefore, social pressure was placed on her to adopt the child out. At the same time, the parents—now called adoptive parents—who adopted those children were led to believe by the department that the adoption would remain a secret, that the child was obviously, and still is of course, legally theirs, and that no procedures would be taken to allow any form of contact or identifying information to be handed out. I think that is the reason why we see consternation and genuine concern in much of the community today, because the facts are that some people, albeit a small percentage of the community, do not know that they are adopted and, as I will indicate later, would certainly be disadvantaged by current legislation. That state of affairs existed for 23 years, during which a considerable number of adoptions took place. From 1987 until May 1990, a contact register operated. It was established in 1987 and held sway until the amendments that were introduced in May 1990 took effect. The register had advantages and disadvantages. It allowed birth parents and adoptees to remain unidentifiable in the community, and both parties had a choice to seek contact and information. The contact register had certain disadvantages. It was not widely publicised. Some people who were affected by adoption did not know that the register existed. In order to have information exchanged, particularly any form of identifying information, it needed the consent of adoptive parents—a three-way consent. That applied to adoptive people under and over 18. No avenue was available to communicate to the second party that, in fact, an inquiry had been made by the first party. Therefore, in May 1990 legislation was brought into the House that allowed the release of identifying information to a wide range of people—the birth parent, the adoptee and certain stated relatives and siblings. Before that information would be given out, no consent of the adoptees or the birth parents was required. A veto system to contact only was put in place. That veto was to cost $50 and was renewable every five years for life. There were fines or gaol sentences for breaking the veto. There would be a release of original and amended birth certificates. The legislation satisfied adoptees and birth parents who felt that they really needed and had a right to know their birth circumstances. However, it is fair to state that only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of people involved in adoption had put their name on the contact register that existed between 1987 and 1990—a figure supplied by the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Neither party had the control of the timing of release of information, and this was of concern to people right across the spectrum of opinion. Legislative Assembly 6374 26 February 1991

The age of 18 is the age of consent in Queensland and Australia. However, people on both sides of this equation—those seeking privacy and those seeking contact and identifying information—said that at the age of 18 adolescents are often going through a difficult period in their growth. Often, they are starting new courses in their lives, leaving school, confronting problems besetting early adult life and going through a degree of emotional instability. Therefore, they should not be put upon at this time to have to make difficult decisions regarding very emotive issues such as the identification of their birth parent. It has been suggested that possibly the age at which this should happen should be 25 years. I am not supporting or negating this proposition, but I am merely stating it as a belief held by a cross- section of people in the community who are involved in the adoption triangle. The five-year renewal time for the veto was seen as penalising non-seeking parties and had the effect of a life-time on parole. The birth mother was disadvantaged in that her name was disclosed without her permission on the adoptee's original birth certificate. It was felt that information was available to too wide a range of birth relatives, for example, uncles and aunts by consanguinity and affinity. It was thought to be discriminatory against all adoptees, particularly those in a mixed family of adopted and natural children. It was felt that the ministerial decree allowing the release of the first name given to the adoptees by the adoptive parents was too identifying. Generally, many people considered that their privacy had been unnecessarily invaded. As a result, in February 1991, this House is debating a proposal to amend the legislation to allow a veto on information to be put in place, as well as a veto on contact, and to remove the $50 fee and the five-year renewal requirement. In other words, the veto will continue in perpetuity. This last proposal has caused concern to some people. Under this February 1991 legislation birth parents and adoptees retain some control over the release of identifying information. Now, they at least have a choice. The Department of Family Services must now be responsible for correct information being released. It has been stated that no other group of people has to report to a Government agency every five years or, indeed at all, to retain their rights to privacy and their normal life-styles. Until late January 1991, the Minister had shown no inclination to listen to the concerns of those involved in the adoption triangle. On many occasions, I had spoken about the injustices under the 1990 amendments and had put a motion on the notice paper that it be debated in this House. The Minister declined to debate the motion. The members of the Liberal Party were concerned that the rights of adoptees and birth parents were being negated. After discussions with me about possible amendments to the May 1990 legislation, the Liberal Leader, Denver Beanland, sought a meeting with Premier Goss to explain the Liberal Party's concerns and discuss possible remedies. The Liberal Party decided that because this issue was causing such heartache to so many people in the community that, rather than make a political issue of it, we would endeavour by consultation to get a just solution to the problem. As a result of this meeting, Premier Goss summoned Anne Warner and amendments were put to Cabinet. These amendments—they include some of our suggested amendments—go a long way towards righting the injustices that were present. However, they have not gone far enough, and as a result people feel that their interests have not adequately been covered. There are many people who are not covered by this veto system: those who are unaware of their adoption; those who are unaware of the legislation; those who are mentally incapacitated and unable to register a veto; and relatives of deceased adoptees and birth parents. I do not think the issue of the mentally impaired has been considered at all by the Minister. I have been contacted by parents who find themselves in this position. They have a mentally impaired adopted child. There are quite a few adoptive parents who have adopted a child and subsequently found that the child has intellectual impairments. I strongly urge the Minister to set guidelines whereby the legal friend can help people in these situations and to broadcast the facts, so that parents of intellectually handicapped adoptees can take advantage between now and 1 June to have the legal friend supervise the wishes of their adopted child who is now an adult. Legislative Assembly 6375 26 February 1991

It should be noted that the veto on information or contact does not apply to adoptions that occur after 1 June 1991. The adoptee will not have the right to consider his or her position when he or she reaches the age of 18 years. I ask: is this legislation then protecting the rights of the adopted person as it purports to do? It is of concern to some people that the veto on information will continue after the death of either the adoptee or the birth mother and that this information will be lost to them forever. A solution to this would be to have an option on the veto form whereby after, for example, a period of 10 years the person putting on the veto would be contacted by the department to see whether in fact he or she wished the veto still to apply. Both personal and family situations can change considerably over 10 years. The provisions regarding counselling are not adequate. There are no provisions for counselling for those who are denied information. Section 39E of the Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1990 regarding counsellors is of concern. I think it is fair to say that counselling generally should be provided, and should be provided by people with a recognised tertiary degree, for example, to the standard set by the Australian Association of Social Workers. However, in addition to social workers having attained that standard, they should be skilled in matters pertaining to the adoption issue. To the best of my knowledge, over 200 people have been appointed as counsellors by the Department of Family Services and have qualifications of all types. The basis to their being accepted as a counsellor seems to be that they have in one way or another been involved in this adoption triangle. However, they are not qualified counsellors and the Department of Family Services offered only two days training to those who applied. There are no guidelines set down for counselling—for example, how long it should take or where people can be referred should that particular counsellor feel inadequate to deal with a certain case. Of even more concern is the fact that a fee may be charged by the counsellor to the person seeking counsel. The charge would seem to be an arrangement between the counsellor and that person. It is fair comment to say that many counsellors would act in a very professional manner, but the way lies open for people to be charged an unjust fee. There should be set guidelines as to the level of ability of the counsellor and the rates that are to be charged. Counselling should be organised and supervised by the Department of Family Services so that the people in real need can be seen and given further counselling. The whole thing should be supervised, maintained and run by the Department of Family Services. It is the Minister's responsibility to see that this is done. It is of concern that there are no provisions for counselling for those who are denied information. It should be pointed out that Form 20, which is the objection to contact issued by the Department of Family Services and effective from 1 September 1990, may be an invalid form. This is on the grounds that it may not comply with the Adoption of Children Amendment Regulations 1990. It would appear that this Form 20 may not have been recalled, is still intact and is still the operable form that is circulating for objection to contact. The fact of the possible invalidity of this form was brought to the notice of the Minister on 24 January 1991 but to my knowledge, to date nothing has been done about it. Moreover, there is a certificate of witness in the amendment regulations of 1990, but there is none printed on Form 20. One also has queries with regard to the provisions "Authority to prosecute" in section 51 of the Adoption of Children Act 1964-1990, which state as follows— "Proceedings for an offence against this Act shall not be commenced except with the written consent of the Minister." Is this reasonable? Will it interfere with the operation of these penal clauses? How effective are these vetoed penalties going to be? There appears to be no definition of the word "contact". Will an offence occur if contact is made by a letter or telephone call, or does it need to be physical contact? It has been stated by the department that this is for the courts to decide. There is certainly no definition of "contact" in the amendment regulations of 1990. One could well ask: did the Minister deliberately or unwittingly mislead the Parliament on 10 May 1990 in Legislative Assembly 6376 26 February 1991 her speech concerning the 1990 amendments? The Minister had stated that these provisions had operated successfully in other States. This is not necessarily the case. It would be true to say that legislation similar to the amendments brought down in the House in May 1990 have been passed by the New South Wales Government and will come into effect in April 1991. It is also true to say that prior to that, the New South Wales Government had— indulged in considerable and prolonged consultation with all groups in the community; engaged in considerable publication of its intentions; set up an all-party committee, which met and discussed the premise on which the legislation should be based, and which was unanimous and independent; conducted briefings for all parliamentarians of all parties; made available an information kit to all concerned groups; and set up a massive phone-in to a hot line provided by the Minister. It is fair to say that almost none of the procedures carried out by the New South Wales Government was done in Queensland. In New South Wales, it has been legislation by consultation. In Queensland, it has been legislation by confrontation. The question has been asked, "Why is the Labor Government in Queensland intent on spending $115,000 of its taxpayers' money to implement the proposal of the Minister to set up a veto system in these amendments of 4 February?" It has been suggested that a user-pays register be re-established, which would obviate the necessity to burden further the taxpayers of Queensland. Only the adult adoptee and birth parent would need to sign the register. The adoptive parent would have no say. In order for this system to work, it would be necessary to have widespread publicity. Also, if an adoptee or a birth mother puts her name on the register, the department could notify the other party that contact had been made. It should also be stated that although the two major players in the adoption issue are the adoptee and birth parents, the role of adoptive parents in what is obviously an emotive debate has been very underplayed. In most cases, adoptive parents feel that they have been discriminated against, made to feel unworthy and that they have not done their job well at all. In 99 cases out of 100, adoptive parents, as they are currently termed, have brought adopted children up from a very early age. The children are their legal children, and they are the adoptee's legal parents. They have lavished on the adoptee all the love and care that is shown by a parent for a natural child, and they are genuinely concerned about the welfare of that child when he or she reaches the age of 18 years. Therefore, it is understandable that many adoptive parents feel that the rights of children in this situation have not been adequately considered and—I may add—so do many adoptees. With the legislation that is before this House today, the Minister has compromised herself and satisfied no-one. However, the Liberal Party will not oppose the legislation. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (12.48 p.m.): The Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1990, which was passed by this House in May last year, made provision for birth parents and adult adopted persons to object to personal contact by the other party. These objections to contact could be lodged for periods of up to five years but then had to be renewed if the person still objected to contact. Objections could also be revoked at any time by the person who lodged the objection. These provisions were based on the fact that, over time, people's circumstances and feelings change. For example, a 20-year-old adopted person may be in the middle of a demanding stage of a course of study and may decide against contact at that time of his or her life. That same adopted person may, at the age of 25 years, be about to be married, become curious about his or her biological origins, and therefore decide not to renew the objection to contact. He or she may also become interested in applying for identifying information. The Bill before the House—the Adoption Legislation Amendment Bill—provides for two forms of objections. The first is an objection to contact only. The second is an Legislative Assembly 6377 26 February 1991 objection to contact and to the disclosure of identifying information. Birth parents and adult adopted persons will be able to choose one of these forms of objection, if they so desire. However, it should be noted that an objection made under the provisions of this Bill will stay in force until revoked. It is hoped that people who make objections under these provisions will think very carefully about their decision and will consider the possibility of revoking the objection if their life's circumstances change in the future. This Bill also provides that when either a birth parent or adult adopted person has lodged an objection to the disclosure of non-identifying information and to contact, identifying information about the other person cannot be received. Similarly, when either a birth parent or an adult adopted person has been provided with identifying information, an objection to the release of his or her own identifying information cannot be lodged. These provisions have been included to ensure that all parties are treated equally. It would be grossly unfair if one party—say, an adult adopted person—had identifying information about his or her birth parent but was able to prevent that birth parent from obtaining access to identifying information about an adult son or daughter. For many years, non-identifying information about birth relatives has been available to birth parents and adopted persons upon request. Provision for the release of non-identifying information was included in section 59 of the Adoption of Children Act 1964-1990. Since the 1990 amendments were passed, the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has received many requests from birth parents and adopted persons relating to non-identifying information. In particular, many people who objected to contact have asked the department to provide a service to them in three specific areas. Because the release of identifying information is not involved, the department has been offering these services on request and will continue to do so. I will deal with the three services concerned with non-identifying information. Firstly, birth parents or adult adopted persons, at the time they make their objection, will be able to request the department to notify them should the other party apply for identifying information or make an objection. As I mentioned earlier, birth parents and adult adopted persons have been requesting this service for some time, and experience in other States indicates that people will often revoke objections once they know the other party is seeking information. Secondly, a birth parent or an adult adopted person who makes an objection may, at the time the objection is made, provide a range of non-identifying information to be passed on to the other party should he or she apply for identifying information. For example, a birth parent may wish to give information about the medical history of the family to the adopted person. Another example is information that would simply let the other party know that the birth relative is alive, well and happy. Birth parents or adult adopted persons who are unable to obtain identifying information can accept this more readily if they are provided with such non-identifying information. Thirdly, at the time of making an objection, and if they wish to do so, a birth parent or an adult adopted person may give the reasons for their objection to be passed on to the other party. There are times in people's lives when they do not want contact with their birth relative to occur because they are already trying to cope with significant events in their lives. For example, an adult adopted person, because of an impending marriage or other significant event, may not at that time want contact but would like the birth parent to know that he or she is happy and well. Again, the birth parent may be able to accept the objection more readily because there is an important reason for it. Otherwise it could be taken as a personal rejection. Although those services will continue to be offered at the request of birth parents or adult adopted persons, it is certainly not compulsory for birth parents or adult adopted persons to provide those kinds of non-identifying information. Some people may be confused or unsure about what to do about those changes. Others may require more information or some advice. Some may simply want to talk things over with someone else. Trained adoption counsellors are available in a number of Queensland centres as well as the Brisbane metropolitan area to assist people in that regard. The Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs offers comprehensive information, and some counselling services as well. Legislative Assembly 6378 26 February 1991

These amendments, although obviously not suiting every group or person, go a long way to providing all people concerned with the adoption issue with a fair system that also addresses privacy issues and provides for most people the information they seek. I have received many representations in my office from groups such as the APPG and also correspondence and phone calls from Jigsaw and associated groups. The Government has listened to all concerns and has acted accordingly. We have listened to the people. This Bill is the result of listening. Contrary to the comments by the member for Landsborough that this is legislation by confrontation, I assure honourable members that it is not. It is legislation brought about by a caring Minister and Government. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.56 p.m.): Adoption legislation is a sensitive issue. From comments made in this debate, it is obvious that people care. When the Minister put together this legislation, I have no doubt that she tried to be sensitive and to listen to all parties. However, when one is in Government, one soon discovers that one cannot please everybody. In bringing forward legislation, the Minister must listen to the points of view of all the various bodies and adopt her preferred position. I agree with other honourable members who welcome the return to the safeguarding of people's privacy. I believe that the Minister has her Cabinet colleagues to blame for this legislation coming back to the House. The issue that stirred up a section of the public of Queensland related to the imposition of a $50 fee contained in the regulations. My information is that the Minister knew that that matter would cause trouble with the constituency. She knew it would be a sensitive issue and she appealed to her Cabinet colleagues for assistance with funding. When people realised that they would have to pay $50 every five years, the problem became worse. Her Cabinet colleagues refused to assist with funding and the Minister had to find funds for the initiative. Of course, the only way to fund it was by adopting a user-pays system, which is what brought the issue back into the public forum. One good result that has been achieved is that the Government has reassessed the position, all parties have been active in providing input and the Government has had to accept a compromise. The result is that the legislation has returned to what I believe is the preferred position. I spoke on the adoption legislation when it was introduced into the House in 1983 and also on the last occasion that it was before the House. Progress has been made with access to information on persons' origins, provided consent has been obtained. It seems that the Minister has reconsidered her position and realised that those people have a valid claim. The member for Burnett stated that there are young people who have been recently adopted and there are also other adopted people who are older than us. Those people are a product of different eras and attitudes. It is a difficult predicament. I suppose that the legislation is retrospective in that people undertook their role in the adoptive process at a time when the public had a certain attitude and certain provisions of the law existed. However, those people are still alive and we have changed the law. That is why such a heated situation has been created. I agree with my colleagues the members for Burnett and Landsborough who claimed that, if there had been less haste in the Green Paper process, we may not have been faced with this problem. However, I was a Minister in a former Government and realise what it is like. Having agonised over a decision in the first place on the legislation, the Minister has now adopted another position. It is unfortunate that the legislation has had to be brought back before the House. I have already identified that the Minister has her Cabinet colleagues to blame for that. I know that she is a pretty sensitive sort of person, but she was put into a position that inflamed the issue and put it back into the public arena. I commend previous speakers, who have been sensitive about the issue. I acknowledge that it is difficult to please everybody, but I hope that this legislation will be accepted. The matter had to be addressed. I prefer this amending legislation to the previous legislation. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Legislative Assembly 6379 26 February 1991

Debate interrupted. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Report on Queensland Legislative Assembly Electoral System Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (2.30 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the report of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on an Electoral and Administrative Review Commission report on the Queensland Legislative Assembly electoral system. I table also the submissions received by the parliamentary committee in the course of this review. I wish to record my thanks for the hard work done on this historic review project by all members of the committee, namely, Mr Mark Stoneman, deputy chairman; Dr Lesley Clark; Mr Tony FitzGerald; Mr Bob Quinn; Ms Molly Robson; and Mr Rod Welford. The committee records its grateful appreciation for the fine professional assistance rendered by its research director, Ms Janet Ransley. I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the documents were laid on the table, and the report was ordered to be printed. ADOPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (2.31 p.m.): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak on this Adoption Legislation Amendment Bill. Honourable members have just witnessed the tabling of an historic report of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. That report will do for generations of future Queenslanders what needs to be done for them. It does it for adoptees and it will do it for natural children. It will do it for all young Queenslanders—including the great Batt Foley, who is here to witness the tabling of this report today—who will be greatly appreciative of the momentous step that this Government has taken to restore parliamentary democracy to the Queensland Parliament. Not only is the Government taking these steps—— Mr BOOTH: I rise to a point of order. Honourable members have just heard the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, table a report. The Clerk then called the next Order of the Day, which was the Adoption Legislation Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Stafford is speaking about that report. I think that a few things happen in this Chamber to which honourable members are prepared to shut their eyes, but this is just too outrageous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I ask the honourable member for Stafford to return to the Bill. Mr WELFORD: Under this amending legislation, adoptees will be accorded additional rights. Last year, the Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act was introduced and passed in this House. That Act provided for legislation which re-established a principle of disclosure of adoptive information which operated essentially prior to about 1964. Section 39AA of last year's legislation also provided that an adopted person or a birth parent could object to contact by a person who might be applying for information about the other party. That objection would automatically expire after five years if it was not previously withdrawn. Those objections were able to be lodged as of 1 September last year, and the information was to become available as of 1 March this year. Section 39B of the 1990 Act provided for various forms of disclosure. It provided for disclosure to the adopted person about his or her birth parents; it provided for disclosure to the birth Legislative Assembly 6380 26 February 1991 parents about the adopted persons; and, in limited circumstances, it also provided for disclosure to relatives of the adopted person or to an adoptive parent. Those provisions were contained in Part 4A of the 1990 Act. Consequent upon that legislation being introduced in this Parliament and passed with the support of all parties, there was considerable public discussion, and that public discussion is a good thing for democracy. It is a good thing that there be public discussion about the policy of matters brought before this Parliament. It is a good thing that there be public discussion about legislation introduced in this Parliament, both before and after it is passed. Human relationships are a complex matter, and the discussion that ensued consequent upon that legislation being passed last year has shown just how complex they are. Prior to that legislation being introduced and subsequent to its introduction, the Government has been conscious of the concerns of all parties to this debate. Like many other honourable members, I have received numerous representations from constituents, including adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents. There are those adoptees who wish to have access to information about their birth parents and, in particular, about their birth parents' medical histories, for example. There are birth parents who wish to locate the children whom they adopted out many years ago but who, because of the policy between 1964 and 1987, have been unable to do so. As members on both sides have acknowledged, very often those birth parents relinquished legal parentage over the children whom they adopted out without their consent and with little choice on their own part in a practical sense. On the other hand, genuine concerns by adoptees and birth parents flowed from the previous legislation. I attended meetings of the Adoption Privacy Protection Group—I understand that I may have been the only member of Parliament ever to do so—and I can understand the concerns particularly of those adoptees and birth parents whose adoptions occurred after 1964 and who say that they were advised by the department that the secrecy of those adoption arrangements would always be respected. Two concerns principally arose out of the legislation which was passed last year and I am sure the Honourable the Minister will vouch for the fact that I raised those concerns with her—not so much out of criticism of the Government's processes in introducing the legislation but out of a reflection of the genuine and legitimate concerns that many people had raised with me. The first was the question of privacy and to what extent that privacy ought to be respected. I believe that birth parents and adoptees do have legitimate concerns about privacy and that, as I say, those concerns arise particularly in respect of adoptions that occurred after 1964. As the member for Landsborough pointed out, the secrecy arrangement that occurred between 1964 and 1987 very likely created more problems than it ever solved, but, be that as it may, there were people who were under the impression that their privacy, or at least the information in relation to adoption, would not be disclosed when those adoptions occurred. The second concern that was raised was the fact that the regulations, when they were introduced, were found to contain a $50 fee for lodging an objection. Those two concerns were expressed to me and I raised them with the Minister. I am aware that after that time the Minister held extensive consultations with people on all sides of this issue, and she has genuinely and caringly sought to accommodate those concerns. The effect of the legislation before the House is that it repeals the original objection procedure, which provided only an objection to contact, and replaces it with a new objection process which applies only in respect of adoptions up until 31 May this year, for after that time the prevailing principle will be that information will be available in an unqualified way. The new objection process provides for an objection to contact as was originally provided in the previous legislation, but it also provides that the birth parent or an adopted person can lodge an objection to contact and also an objection to disclosure which, as I mentioned previously, would otherwise be made under section 39B. Legislative Assembly 6381 26 February 1991

The effect of this change really is that the substantial concern of people about privacy has now been addressed. Not only can an objection now be made to the disclosure of information, but that objection is, effectively, permanent. That, of course, also raises other concerns and I will address those briefly in a moment. So the privacy question, the first of the two concerns which I raised with the Minister, has been addressed, and, I believe, addressed in a very fair way. The fee was the second concern, and again that major concern has been addressed because only those who now seek information must pay any fee. The fee in respect of lodgment of objections has been removed. I agree that the policy that operated between 1964 and 1987 was a poor one and that the Minister was genuine and sensible in her attempts to reform that policy. I believe that, essentially, it is desirable that adoptees be told of their adoption and that birth parents have access to information about the children they have relinquished. I believe that, in general terms, it is desirable for adoptive parents to inform their adopted children about the fact of the adoption, and I think these days most adoptive parents accept the wisdom of that policy. During that short period of about a decade and a half, genuine and legitimate concerns were held by some people. I believe that the Government has shown a great deal of concern and fairness in acknowledging that concern and responding to the concern that has been raised by people throughout the community. The question of consultation was raised and I have already mentioned that the Minister held extensive consultations both before and after the legislation was passed last year. I do not think anyone in this debate has been critical of the Minister in the genuine concern she has shown for people's worries about the original position. I think it is pretty poor form for the member for Landsborough to trumpet the criticism about consultation. At least Mr Littleproud of the National Party had the grace to acknowledge that, when the Minister introduced the original legislation last year, she did so with a deal of good faith. On the same basis, this legislation is introduced today after acknowledging the genuine concerns of many people who had fears about the privacy arrangement. People in my electorate came to me with their concerns and I explained to them the full effect of what was to occur. I am inclined to agree that the objection to contact procedure may well have been an efficient and effective process to protect the interests of those who were concerned about privacy. Of course, the argument that we now hear from adoptees and birth parents who want free access to information is that the original legislation ought to have been given a trial. The risk was that, while that trial period was in progress, some breaches of legitimate privacy concerns might have already occurred. As a result, this legislation is before us now. Nevertheless, I believe that the objection to contact was, in principle, a sound approach. I believe that some of the concerns that people had about breaches of privacy may have been exacerbated and may have grown out of unnecessary fear. But, be that as it may, the fact remains that the privacy question is a genuine concern. The Government has now moved to address that concern in a most deliberate way. As I said to the meeting of the Adoption Privacy Protection Group, this is indeed a complex issue and there are valid claims on both sides. The general principle that information should be freely available and that the Government does not have a right to maintain secrecy over people's lives should be sustained. In due course, this Government will be introducing freedom of information legislation so that all information about Government decisions that affect people's lives will be open to public scrutiny. The general principle of open government is, of course, a principle which I strenuously support. The privacy concern in this particular case arose only because there was in our history a period during which the law did provide a measure of secrecy. That secrecy was acted upon by a number of people in the community who were party to adoption arrangements. One can understand their concern if that secrecy were to be removed after they had acted upon that information and relied upon it for the protection of their family life. I mentioned before that there are some remaining problems, and other members have already addressed some of those. The two most obvious of those are, first of all, t Legislative Assembly 6382 26 February 1991 the fact that the veto operates effectively for life. There is a concern—and I think a legitimate claim, particularly by adoptees who are seeking information—that if their birth parent passes away there seems to be little sense in that information remaining secret after that time. I understand there are administrative difficulties with changing the rules just because someone passes away. An obvious example of that is that someone may die outside Queensland and that information might not be readily available to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Queensland. As a result, it would be difficult to know whether a birth parent has indeed passed away. So the life veto question still remains. That replaces the principle previously proposed whereby the objection would expire after five years. That may be something which can be considered down the track. As the Opposition spokesman, Mr Slack, pointed out, people's attitudes do change throughout their life-time. Indeed, adoptees have come to me and said that they now wish to have access to the information about their birth parent, whereas when those people were younger they may well have sought not to have that access and, indeed, would have preferred that information about themselves not to be available. The second remaining issue arises in respect of those who do not know they are adopted. The argument is that, simply because they do not know they are adopted, they will not know that they have to lodge an objection. That will be a problem. However, I think in respect of both of those remaining issues it can be said that very few people will be affected. The department offers extensive counselling. Other members have spoken about the counselling that is available to people in this position. I think the general principle of the legislation that will now operate, namely, that information is prima facie available subject to objection, is the sound principle. One other concern that I have—only in very general terms—about this legislation that is now before us is that, to some extent, it distances us from what is now being introduced in New South Wales. I do not say this on any policy ground, simply on the basis that, as I have said in this House previously, I very strongly support a uniform approach to as much legislative action in this country as possible. Although that is especially essential in the commercial environment, in terms also of general principles of law that applies to people privately, it is desirable that, insofar as it is possible, the law operating in our State be consistent with the law operating in at least our nearest State, if not in the other States of Australia. I urge the Minister and her department to look at the possibility of working with other States to establish at some time in the future a uniform approach to adoption procedures. In conclusion, I should say a few words about adoptive parents. From time to time, it has been suggested that the original legislation introduced last year was in some way impliedly critical of adoptive parents. Time expired. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (2.51 p.m.): Standing here today, I feel somewhat justified seeing these amendments before the House. In May 1990, I presented to this House the Liberal perspective to the then amendments before the House. I spoke about the need to know about one's identity and, after speaking to many people in the adoption triangle, I thought at that time that I had a full and wide understanding of the problems, the issues and the future consequences of the proposed amendments to all parties involved with adoption. I raised the concern that members of the public had with the amendments, which did not address the balance between the right to information and the right to privacy. With changes to the adoption legislation, the Minister missed the real issue and now has to come cap in hand to this House with further amending legislation to allay the distress that she has caused in the community. To respond to a vocal minority group, the Minister, Mrs Warner, has opened a can or worms for more than 90 per cent of those people who are involved in the adoption triangle—in other words, the silent majority. I have received many letters from people who took the time to read the whole debate in Hansard. In their opinion, which is the public opinion—not my opinion—the Minister completely missed the point, misunderstood the adoption issues and, in fact, should resign. In particular, many people expressed fear Legislative Assembly 6383 26 February 1991 and distress about contact with a birth relative or the release of information to a birth relative. Does the Minister still believe that those fears are baseless? What else must be said or done by the silent majority, which has been forced to become vocal? I believe that when the new legislation in New South Wales becomes operative, it will generate to a lesser extent the same concerns as those expressed today in Queensland. In May last year, I informed the Minister that Victoria provides safeguards both to the adopted child and the birth parent that would satisfy members of the public who wish to retain their anonymity. The Minister chose to ignore that advice. On page 1681 of Hansard, during her reply to the debate on the Adoption of Children Act Amendment Bill, the Minister stated— "The remarks by the member for Currumbin seemed to me to be full of dark and unfounded forebodings of traumatic contact occurring between all parties at all times." I suggest that for those reasons Cabinet forced the Minister to change the legislation. The Minister stated also— "My department's concern is for the welfare and well-being of children, and adoption is a mechanism by which we can secure safe and good homes for children." I would like the people of Queensland and those present in the public gallery to know that this Minister also promotes abortion on demand and pretends to be concerned about the welfare and well-being of children. The Minister's lack of understanding of the social issue involved is indicative of the failure of this Goss Labor Government to relate to mainstream Queensland. Therefore, I believe that Queenslanders will not have to worry for much longer about the Minister's lack of coherence on this subject. The Minister stated also— "Experience in other States indicates that, when the expectation is that information will become available when the adoptee reaches the age of adulthood, there was a very small increase in the number of women who were prepared to relinquish their children for adoption because they understood that it was not a life sentence, that they were placing their child in the care of someone for a period of time, but that at some stage their maternal interests would be fulfilled and that they would be able to find out about the well-being of their child. Consequently, they were a little bit more relaxed about the adoption of the child. It was not so much that they would be throwing the child away, but just placing the child in someone else's care for some time." In other words, adoptive parents were regarded as baby-sitters. It is no wonder that the people of Queensland rejected totally the Minister's amendments. Because these amendments retreat to a better position with respect to privacy, they are supported by the Liberal Party. The amendments provide that adult adopted persons and birth parents may lodge two types of objections. Firstly, they may object to contact and to disclosure of identifying information to their birth relative. Secondly, they may lodge an objection to contact only. I believe that that will satisfy a particular section of the adoptive circle. I do not personally object to the intention of this amendment to allow a veto on information to stand for life. Once again, the rights of the individual are being respected. The individual has the right to revoke the veto, and may do so at any time. The department is showing a degree of sensitivity. Upon requests of people lodging objections, it is prepared to contact a person when his or her birth relative applies for identifying information. I encourage consenting parties to make contact. It is shameful that the full consultative process was not fulfilled before this sensitive legislation was introduced into the House last year. It has been said that this Government has introduced the first forms of social justice in Queensland. People affected by this legislation would hardly agree. Not all individuals affected by this legislation know about the changes to the law. Their awareness of changes to the Adoption of Children Act may be the most painful experience of their life-times. It seems a shame that birth relatives who are afflicted by a genetic or cancerous disease that could be treated by Legislative Assembly 6384 26 February 1991 tissue transplant are denied that process. That aspect of the legislation disadvantages everybody. I am aware that the member for Merthyr has been contacted about this issue by several of his constituents. As I said, it is a shame that the proper consultative processes were not undertaken by the Minister and her department in a similar way to those undertaken in New South Wales. The legislation in that State was available to the community. Workshops were held to make various groups aware of the proposals, and a direct hot line was installed to the relevant New South Wales Minister's staff to encourage interaction between the Government and adoptive parents, adoptees and birth parents. I am convinced that the full process of informing the public was carried out in that State. My only solution to the Minister's current dilemma is that she sought to introduce to Queensland similar legislation before New South Wales did. Perhaps there was a prize for being first. The Liberal member for Landsborough, Mrs Sheldon, stated concisely the Liberal position and provided a channel for public comment. By consulting people promoting both sides of the argument, she tried to balance the right to privacy and the right to information. That was not an easy exercise. However, I congratulate her on achieving changes to this legislation where the Minister could not. I know that in the future the Liberal view will be listened to very closely by the Minister. It is a shame that this legislation is the result of a power struggle between the Premier's Department and Mrs Warner to determine who will decide women's issues. It certainly is a shame that a sensitive issue such as adoption has become a political issue. Mrs Warner has lost the first round. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (3 p.m.): Bearing in mind the wide debate that the Bill has received today, I will make my remarks as brief as possible. The 1990 Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act provided that, for all adoptions made on or after 1 March 1991, both the adopted person and the birth parent would have an automatic right of access to identifying information once the adopted person has reached the age of 18. Under the provision, adult adopted persons and birth parents could not object to contact by the other party. The Bill before the House changes the date of commencement for those provisions from 1 March 1991 to 1 June 1991. Those provisions will change significantly the nature of adoptions in this State from 1 June 1991, and I would like to provide the House with further details. As from 1 June this year, birth parents who are considering giving consent to the adoption of their child will be fully informed of the operation of these provisions. Professional staff are available to discuss with birth parents the immediate and long-term implications of an adoption consent, including the possibility of future contact with their child when he or she is an adult. Similarly, couples wishing to apply to adopt a child after 1 June this year or adoption applicants whose names are entered on the adoption list or applicants who have been assessed favourably and are waiting placement of a child will adopt a child with full knowledge of this provision. Over the past decade or so, the sensitive and professional approach of social workers in maternity hospitals and staff of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs who have been involved in receiving consents from birth parents and completing assessments with potential adoptive parents has resulted in birth parents and adoptive parents having a deeper understanding of the feelings, needs and perspectives of all parties to an adoption. Nowadays, many birth parents provide gifts or messages for their child. Adoptive parents and birth parents exchange news of life changes and the progress of the child while maintaining anonymity. Experience has shown that birth parents and the adoptive family have nothing to fear from each other and both will be able to rest easy in future adoptions. Past secrecy may, in fact, have caused unnecessary anxiety for all three parties. Adoptive parent groups were consulted between 1989 and 1990 prior to the passage of this provision in the 1990 Adoption Act Amendment Act. They fully understand and support the need for the change introduced then and, as I stated initially, the Bill before the House does not alter the previous amendment Act in that respect, except that the date of commencement has been changed. The support that the Government has received Legislative Assembly 6385 26 February 1991 for the provisions indicates clearly the changing attitudes of the community to adoption. It is now becoming a common practice for adoptive parents and birth parents to exchange non-identifying information at the time of the adoption and later in an adopted child's life. After 1 June, adopted children in this State will grow up with knowledge of their personal background and the confidence that, as an adult, should they wish it, they may learn the identity of their birth parents and/or meet with them. Birth parents will relinquish children also knowing much more about their child's adoptive family. They too, if they wish, will be able to make contact with their adopted son or daughter. The lifting of secrecy shrouding adoptions made after 1 June is a significant reform introduced by this Government. However, the Government is aware of concerns raised by many people over the perceived disruption that could come about with actual contact or the release of certain information to birth relatives. As the Minister pointed out in her second-reading speech, evidence obtained from other States where similar legislation applies would indicate that there is little basis for such fears. Be that as it may, though, the Government has an obligation to address the situation. The Government cannot ignore the fear of distress—unsubstantiated though it may have been—and has acted to ensure ongoing confidence in the legislation. The right to information for some must clearly be balanced by the right to privacy for others. As a consequence, clause 6 of the Bill allows adult adopted persons and birth parents to object not only to contact but also to the disclosure of identifying information about themselves. Furthermore, the Bill extends the objection period from a maximum of five years to a longer, indefinite term unless the person who lodged the objection takes the opportunity to revoke it. Additionally, non-identifying information will be made available to a birth relative, should the objector be so disposed, and the birth relative will be able to have access to the reasons for the lodging of such an objection. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and her department on the sensitive attitude that they have taken on this important issue. It is therefore my pleasure to support the Bill. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (3.05 p.m.): In rising to speak in the debate, I acknowledge what was said by the National Party spokesman, the member for Burnett, and also what was said to the Minister that adoption is not an ideal issue for politicking. However, it is an issue on which the Government should try to get it right. I certainly will not follow the member for Mulgrave and congratulate the Minister, who rushed in where angels have feared to tread and caused a great deal of trouble in the community. Most honourable members would have received a heap of letters from people who are upset. I have some with me now. That proves that there was some hastiness on the part of the Minister, which was not in the best interests of the community. Fortunately—I think that I am right about this—the Bill is before the House today because the Premier said that he was not prepared to go any further. If the Minister has been reprimanded, she should take notice of that. She has made statements about abortion laws and has suggested that people do not take any notice of the law. Mr Beattie: It has nothing to do with adoption. Mr BOOTH: I know that it does not have much to do with adoption, but, to a great extent, it has something to do with the reliability of the Minister. I am surprised that the honourable member would oppose me on that, but I will not persevere with it. I believe that in such a sensitive and emotive area, an effort should be made to get it right. The Opposition does not think that the amendments are too bad. However, when they are put into practice, if they upset people some consultation should be undertaken quickly. The Government should not wait until the situation is right out of hand. Ms Warner: It will have a long lead-in period. Mr BOOTH: Yes, it did. Right from the first moment that most people heard about the $50 fee that had to be lodged they said, "This won't work." People did not accept it and today the Minister has had to come into this House rather ingloriously to retract that provision. The Minister should not ignore people's objections and their Legislative Assembly 6386 26 February 1991 objections should be noted very quickly. Previous speakers have referred to counselling. Counselling may well be available, but if people do not know that it is available, they will not be able to use it. Counselling services must be publicised to some extent. During her second-reading speech the Minister stated— "The Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1990 was passed by this Parliament in May 1990. It provided unqualified access to identifying information for birth parents and adult adoptees after 1 March 1991. It also provided for those people to lodge an objection to contact by their birth relative." It is obvious that that did not succeed in convincing the Queensland people. I know that one or two speakers from the Government side of the House said that they would like the same laws to exist in every State in Australia. I only partly agree with that. It might be an advantage to have the same laws in every State of Australia if that is what the people want. However, if Queenslanders do not want the same laws as New South Wales, for example, then there is nothing wrong with Queensland having a different law. There is nothing wrong with other States having different laws from Queensland. Queensland should be not nailed into a position that it does not want to be in simply because two or three States adopt certain laws. Mr Stephan: We don't want to follow Victoria's financial problems. Mr BOOTH: I was not thinking about following Victoria and South Australia financially. Whether it be an emotive issue such as adoption or a disaster such as Cain, Bannon and company—and I have not mentioned Mr Keating—Queensland should not follow the other States. Before I was sidetracked I was referring to the Minister's second-reading speech. At the beginning of her speech she stated— "While overseas and interstate experience leads me to believe these fears are baseless, Government cannot ignore them and must respond to the distress that is being experienced." I have seldom seen a comment such as that in a Minister's second-reading speech. If the Minister believes that those peoples' complaints were baseless, surely she would not do anything about it. The Minister says that because these provisions have caused people stress, she will do something about it. The Minister is saying that she does not think what she is doing today is right, but she is prepared to do it simply to pour oil on troubled waters. That is not good business. Every Minister has an obligation to get things right and not try to horse trade matters off by saying, "I don't really believe this, but I am going to do something different." The Minister should try to get it right. I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on another matter. I was intrigued to hear the member for Pine Rivers say that the birth certificates that will be provided cannot be used for official purposes. I cannot understand why that should be the case. Surely they can be used if they are genuine birth certificates. Adopted people are upset because they do not have a birth certificate that looks like everyone else's birth certificate. If no complaints or vetoes are lodged, I cannot understand why they cannot be used for official purposes. I am not sure whether the member for Pine Rivers knows the reason why. There may be something that I do not know. Mrs Woodgate: There's a lot you don't know about me. Mr BOOTH: I meant that there might be some reason why they cannot be used. I would like to see a quick investigation made to ensure that when these birth certificates are issued they can be used for official or any other purposes. Some people have written to me to say that they do not believe that an objection should be lodged for life. I am inclined to think that one should be able to lodge an objection for life, but problems do occur when people pass away. I know that the Minister has tried to overcome this problem in one of the clauses of the Bill. I think it is the clause that amends section 39B. I do not know if the Minister has succeeded in overcoming this problem. The legislation that is before the House today is probably the Legislative Assembly 6387 26 February 1991 best legislation that the Government can think of at the moment, but problems may develop in its practical application. Assuming that the Minister still holds her portfolio and that Mr Goss has not done something about it—— Mr Beattie: The only one who has been moved lately is you. You used to be in the shadow Ministry. Mr BOOTH: I am still quite happy and I will give the honourable member plenty of trouble whilst I am still here. It may only be for a year and a half. Mr Milliner: Is this your valedictory? Mr BOOTH: No, not really. I will give the Minister a touch up that night. Some prickles that have not been thought of will be discovered in the legislation. On the last occasion when the legislation was debated in the House some honourable members did not speak because they thought that the experts were at work and knew only too well what they were doing. However, they did not know what they were doing and the Government made a real blunder. I hope that the Government has not made any blunders today, but if it has, I hope that the Minister is big enough to look at them immediately and not wait until members get piles of paper on their desks. There is no need to do that. One of the things I wish to say today is that in my experience most people who have been adopted have been well looked after. I cannot remember any time when I have seen adopted children knocked about or abused in any way. I know a number of families who have adopted children as well as having natural children of their own and the argument often put forward by the natural children is that the adopted children get a better deal. It is probably imaginary. I am saying that adoption is a great idea. It has been one of the success stories of modern society. I think it was the member for Mulgrave who said that people are now prepared to allow more information to be provided. They are now not so secretive, and that is probably a sign of the times. People change and times change, and Governments have to change with them. I would argue that it is not in the best interests of all concerned to allow policies that are wrong to proceed for too long. I urge the Minister to try to take action fairly quickly. I hope that the passing of this legislation will be in the best interests of all concerned. I believe that a great deal of effort has been contributed by all political parties to ensure that this legislation works. I thought the Opposition's spokesman adopted a reasonable attitude during his speech. I believe it is his intention to contribute as much as possible towards making the legislation work, and I intend to do the same. As I said earlier, I hope that the passing of the legislation that is before Parliament today will be in the best interests of all concerned. However, if there is something wrong with the legislation, I urge the Minister to look into the matter quickly. Ms Warner: We tried to act in a way that was open-minded and with a fair hand. When we come back and we make the changes, because of the necessities that you are now talking about that we should respond to, you blame us for coming back. Mr BOOTH: I did not intend to say this, but last time in this Parliament the Minister argued with members of the Opposition. In spite of all the propositions that were put to her, she just bulldozed the legislation through. For want of a better term, it was the D9 approach. She said, "This will work." It did not work, and the D9 did not push anybody down. Mrs Edmond: You wholeheartedly supported it. You even claimed it as your own. You claimed the legislation as your own last time. Have a look at Hansard. Mr BOOTH: I will take that interjection because this is where Government members are all wrong. Mr Beattie: Ha, ha! Legislative Assembly 6388 26 February 1991

Mr BOOTH: When the honourable member and his colleagues came into this Parliament and set themselves up as a Government, they took responsibility for the things that they did. It is absolutely childish to come into this Parliament when things go wrong and say, "Oh, I didn't know. Somebody in the Opposition didn't tell me." That is a childish attitude. Mr Beattie: You voted for it. Mr BOOTH: It does not matter which way a member voted on the legislation, because the member for Brisbane Central knows that the legislation would not be before the Parliament today if the Minister had not dropped the pass. She juggled the pass and was not able to make the legislation work. The honourable member would know as well as I do that the Minister would not be back before the Parliament today if the Premier had not said, "You either fix it up, or else." The honourable member knows that, and everybody knows it. It is known throughout Queensland. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BOOTH: The $50 fee came in under the regulations, and that was one of the matters that caused the trouble. I hope that the regulations do not contain hidden provisions. In an emotive matter such as adoption, the Minister will not get away with proposals that are not reasonably acceptable. In my opinion, she should accept that advice and see whether or not she can make the legislation work. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (3.18 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the amendments to the Adoption of Children Act. This is the second occasion on which I have had the privilege of speaking in this House in support of amendments to the Act. Last May, when the original amendments were passed, I spoke in good faith in the belief that the amendments that were being introduced would be welcomed by adopted children and their birth parents, because it would give them unqualified access to information about themselves that had previously been denied to them. In doing so, it would also give these parties the possibility of contacting each other, if they desired it. In passing those amendments, the Government was supported by both the National Party and Liberal Party. I believe that each member who voted for those amendments last May did so because he or she truly believed that the Parliament was doing the right thing; that releasing the information to all parties in the adoption process would relieve the stress felt by so many adopted children and birth parents because they lacked information about each other. In common with many other honourable members present today, I was surprised at the opposition to the amendments proposed by the Government. While many people welcomed the freedom of information that the Government felt is the right of all people, others felt that releasing birth information, which they believed was a secret forever, was an invasion of one of their civil liberties—their right to privacy. By changing the Act, the Government will give people the opportunity to object to information on their birth being released. This Government has responded to the rights of individuals whose need to maintain their privacy obviously outweighs any other need. By virtue of this legislation, those people need only make an objection to the release of their information or an objection to contact and they can be assured of their privacy forever. From my main talks with adopted children and relinquishing mothers who do not wish their information to be released, I have gained some understanding of this need for privacy. From talks with many others who have a desperate need to find out information about themselves or their adopted children, I sincerely hope that the objections of the former will be few. This Government is aware that the legislation before the House will not satisfy all interested parties. Those who were overjoyed last May may now be disappointed if the information they seek is denied to them. However, it is the job of a Government to protect all of its citizens, and these amendments will do that. I am proud to belong to a Government that has the strength to amend its own legislation. It would have been easy for the Government to dig its heels in and say, "We Legislative Assembly 6389 26 February 1991

are right and everyone will have to live with our adoption legislation." The Government has not acted in that fashion. I know that the Minister's door has been open to those who wished to voice their objections. I take this opportunity to congratulate her on the compassion she has shown to the many individuals whose lives have been affected by this emotional issue, and on her wisdom in finding a compromise that I believe all parties involved can live with. Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (3.21 p.m.), in reply: I wish I could rise in this House and suggest, as I did in May, that the matter of adoption is a bipartisan issue. Although there may be some elements of a bipartisan approach at work in the House, a number of members have tried, in what I think is quite an objectionable manner, to play politics with a social issue that does not constitute an ideological position or any other kind of position for political parties on either side of the House. However, I show no surprise that honourable members opposite support the legislation, because they supported it last May and I think it is reasonable that they support it today. The fact is, however, that members of the opposition parties have no wisdom and leadership other than that provided by members on the Government side of the House. The Bill illustrates dramatically the approach that was not evident during the term of the previous Government. This Government is courageous and is prepared to withstand the sort of mud-slinging that members opposite indulge in. It illustrates that we are prepared to respond to the legitimate concerns of the community in terms of legislation, regardless of how Opposition members may characterise that very noble intention. They characterise it in a political way, but it has nothing to do with politics; it has to do with being sensitive and understanding of the issues. I believe that the considerable fears that people have about their birth relatives getting information about them are baseless. However, although I believe that those people can deal with their fears in another way, I cannot take those fears away from them. I am not in a position to do that, and neither are honourable members opposite. I turn now to the question of the counselling, which has been made so much of in this debate. Everybody says that there should be counselling and then all the problems will go away. The fact of life is that people quite often have concerns which do not necessarily respond to counselling. Some Opposition members suggested that people should receive mandatory counselling. I acknowledge that Mr Slack did not make that suggestion, but other Opposition members verged on that. I suggest that the worst kind of counselling is counselling of a coercive nature. It smacks of brainwashing rather than counselling. Let us get the facts right. Much has been made about the so-called lack of consultation. I point out that many consultations have occurred over a long period, not merely under this Government but under the previous Government in December 1978, January 1979, May 1979, May 1981, June 1982 and through to 1988 and 1989. In her original comments in this House, the member for Callide stated that the legislation was the result of a very exhaustive consultation process. That process had gone on under her Government. I did not think it was necessary on this issue, which is not of a political nature, to reinvent the wheel and go through that all over again. The member for Callide obviously had been in touch with previous Ministers who had confirmed that those consultations had occurred and that they were meaningful. In the debate last year, I mentioned that that legislation would not satisfy everybody and that a number of people would have a considerable amount of foreboding about it. One of the reasons that we allowed for an extensive introduction period before the information was made available was so that there could be the development of community awareness about the changes rather than just bringing them in. That would have been unfair and we did not do that. We allowed a nine-month period of lead- in to the changes that were about to occur. During that period, an enormous community debate has occurred on the subject in which all members of the House have been forced to take a vigorous part. None of the parties in the adoption triangle have left us alone for the past nine months. I imagine that other members of the House have had the same Legislative Assembly 6390 26 February 1991 experience as me, if they are honest enough to admit it. On the one hand, a number of people are in deep emotional distress about the fact that they want to know who they are, their birth information and their birth parents. They have had that anxiety for a long period and are desperate and believe that it is essential to their emotional well-being that they know that information as of right. They are very vehement on that subject. Similarly, there are those people in the process who feel exactly the opposite. They fear that information being made available. Their emotions are equally passionate and equally persuasive. During the past nine months, members of the House have been exposed to both those sorts of emotions. We have no alternative but to respond as even-handedly as we can to both sides of the argument. That is what we should do as honest legislators. We should not take up one side or the other. All of us are entitled to our private views on the subject, but that is a separate issue from how we should respond as legislators. We should try to be as even-handed as we possibly can and to balance those two extremes of emotion as best we can. That is what these amendments do. The fact that there has been much widespread publicity about the May 1990 amendment has furthered the process of some informed discussion on this sensitive issue. I suggest that the introduction of the legislation in May 1990 actually furthered that discussion in a much more focused way. It might have been uncomfortable for members of Parliament. I noticed some members complaining about the number of letters written to them. If the honourable member for Warwick is worried about people writing to him as a member of Parliament, it is a good job that he is retiring. One of his functions as a member of Parliament is to respond to the public, and one of the ways that they communicate with us is by writing us letters. Many members suggested that it was unacceptable that people should be writing letters. It is not unacceptable. It is good that members of the public approach parliamentarians about matters that vitally concern them. That is part of the democratic process which we have not seen alive and well in Queensland for so long. It is a good job that we as a Government are indicating to the people of Queensland, "Don't be passive citizens. Don't just assume that Governments do things and then move on." Governments respond to community pressure. The Government is doing its job. We are not bulldozing things through. I have been accused by honourable members opposite of, on the one hand, bulldozing things through and not listening and, on the other hand, when I have agreed to make adjustments because of information that has been presented to me, I am accused of all sorts of things. Honourable members opposite have mentioned many things. It seems that they are fairly difficult to satisfy, as are all the conflicting needs in the adoption triangle. However, with some kind of rationality, with sincerity and a fair and open mind, we will proceed down the best possible path. The suggestion that this Bill is an inadequate compromise is a strange contention because it would seem to me to denigrate the just concerns of all the parties to the adoption process. We now have a balance between the right to know and the right to seek privacy. It is a balancing act. It is a balanced position that the Government is trying to obtain. Mr Booth is right. It may very well be that a year or two down the track some other intricacies in the process will need to be addressed, and despite the fact that members opposite are going to say, "The only reason you are addressing them is because you did not get it right in the first place.", the Government will have the courage to address them. The fact is that in these social issues one does not get it right. There are no quick fixes. There is no magic wand that one can wave. The Government cannot solve people's emotional problems by the passing of an Act of Parliament. That is unrealistic, and it is an unrealistic expectation of what Governments can and cannot do. Mr Schwarten: You could do what they did and do nothing. Ms WARNER: That is right. This Government could put its head in the sand like an ostrich, which was one of the hallmarks of the Bjelke-Petersen Government but is not one of the hallmarks of this Government. Legislative Assembly 6391 26 February 1991

I congratulate the honourable member for Burnett on his speech. I think that it was a well-thought- out analysis of the debate so far. I can forgive him for some of the political jibes that he made in the process. Essentially, his information was reasonable and well articulated. However, the honourable member has asked for some clarification on some specific issues, which I will give him. He queried whether the effect of the Bill was to make it impossible for identifying information to be released, even after the death of the person who has lodged the objection. That is quite correct. In particular, it just would not be possible for the department to find out that an objector had died. Someone might die interstate. The department does not have those records or access to them. Quite a rigorous administrative process would be involved in finding out whether objectors had died outside Queensland. It is not conclusive. They may die elsewhere and the department would never know, so the objection would never be raised. It is very difficult to find out without invading people's privacy, and a number of the people who have objected to contact in the first round have indicated to the department that they do not wish to be contacted at all. Mr Slack interjected. Ms WARNER: The Government has tried to address this problem administratively, and it has just proved too difficult to do it in terms of the resources that are available, what it is possible for the department to know and what it is not possible for it to know. They could be anywhere in the world. There is also the issue that if people really want an adoption to be kept secret, why would they want the secret aired after their death? I would imagine they would argue that they would be worried throughout their lives about the possible effects on their surviving spouse or children if the secret were to be unveiled. The legislation provides for them to personally revoke it; otherwise it is a problem. The Government must rely on community awareness and the common sense of objectors and leave them to regularly review the objections in the light of changes in their lives. Perhaps one of the things that this debate has done is to stir people into thinking about what objecting means, what effect vetoes have on other people's lives, and whether or not their personal privacy is really being invaded when they consider other people's anguish. The debate does not end here today. The debate about adoption will go on, and on, and on while there are people in the community who have concerns about it. The legislation will not take away those concerns, but perhaps it will allow the debate to be held at a different level. Indications from overseas and interstate are that very few people who apply for information will find that there is an objection in place, and some objections will be modified or lifted with the passage of time. The honourable member for Burnett also asked what happens if a person applies for information but cannot obtain it. The fee is refunded. If people apply and an objection is in place, the fee will be refunded. Mr Slack: I know that. Ms WARNER: All right. I thought that the honourable member asked that question. Mr Slack: What happens when the fee has been refunded and then the objection is revoked later on? What are the mechanics within the department then? Is the person who sought the information contacted? Ms WARNER: Yes, that person will be contacted and told that the objection has been lifted. Both the honourable member for Burnett and the honourable member for Landsborough proposed that the age at which the adoptive person should be able to apply for identifying information and to lodge an objection to contact should be raised from 18 to 25. There seems little merit in that suggestion. Under the Bill,18-year-olds can lodge an objection and then revoke it at a less stressful period in their lives. In addition, it is at 18 years of age that most people seem to want to have that information. That seems to be when they are actually looking forward to being able to get that information, as an adult. Legislative Assembly 6392 26 February 1991

For the information of the honourable member for Landsborough, I point out that the age of consent is not 18; it is in fact 16. The age of majority is 18. The honourable member raised the question of how an adopted person who has an intellectual disability could lodge an objection. Because of the special circumstances and the small numbers of cases, when an adoptee who has an intellectual disability is involved, officers of my department will counsel the birth parent about the need to handle the situation sensitively and take into account the wishes of the adoptive parents. The counselling of persons seeking identifying information was raised. Let me make it perfectly clear: counselling services are available to those who seek them, but it is a private matter. About 70 counsellors have been selected and trained by the department. Those counsellors come from varied backgrounds so that they can respond to the range of counselling requests that the department receives. They are located throughout Queensland. If people want to speak to an officer of the department, they can do so on the toll-free hotline. The people involved in this process, both adopted people and birth parents, are not sick or emotional wrecks. They are capable of making informed decisions about themselves. My responsibility is to make sure that counselling is available but not mandatory. The honourable member for Landsborough also sought a definition of "contact". I refer her to the Macquarie Dictionary, which states— "A condition in which two or more individuals or groups are placed in communication with one another." The suggestion has been raised that in May 1990, I misled the House on the legislation. The passing of the Adoption of Children Amendment Act 1990 brought Queensland into line with the majority of other States in a very fundamental way. We moved from a passive contact register to a pro- active system of giving people access to information. That pro-active system was also in line with what the National Party had in mind before the change of Government, and this Government was simply continuing that process. I think that the discussions that we have had both before the introduction of the amendments in May and since then have indicated that there is a role for fair-minded people in this debate. I concur with the honourable member for Burnett, who suggested that some of the debate that has occurred on this whole adoption issue has been deplorable. Some of it smacks of scaremongering, of whipping up fears for political purposes and the airing of vested interests with very little concern for the point of view of the other person in the triangle. It saddens me to have to speak about the honourable member for Currumbin in this light. I believe that he knows very little about the sensitivities of people on any side of the adoption triangle. He tried to denigrate one side against another. I believe that that is reprehensible. He did nothing to alleviate people's fears. He simply fanned those fears for his own paltry but ill-conceived political purposes, and he will not achieve anything in that manner. The honourable member mentioned that if the secrecy that has surrounded the adoption process is removed, it may very well be that more people will be willing to give their children up for adoption. I believe that is the case, although we are aware that fewer and fewer people are prepared to do that in this day and age, and the number of adoptions is declining. It may be a very slight reassurance to those people who find it difficult to maintain their own child. Out of a sense of love and what is in the best interests of the child, they may be prepared to relinquish that child if they know that that does not exclude them from that child's life forever. That is the issue that I would like to clarify. I also point out to Mr Coomber that babies are not commodities. They are not passed from one person to another without any rights. They are human beings who have a right to know about their biological background, if that is what they desire. If that is not what they desire, then that wish is respected, too. However, I urge honourable members to respect people's feelings and emotions and not try to make political capital out of a situation that has got nothing to do with ideology or political parties. It relates to human interaction and human endeavour. Legislative Assembly 6393 26 February 1991

I regret some of Mr Coomber's comments. However, to respond to his comment about medical information being made available, I direct him to section 59(4)(e) of the 1990 amendments, which allows for the making of an application to the Supreme Court to overcome restrictions in respect of medical needs, should it be required. Because he is so crash hot on everything, I would have thought that the honourable member would have known that. I commend the amendments to the House . Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. A. M. Warner (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr SLACK (3.43 p.m.): In my reply to the Minister's second-reading speech, I referred to clause 6, which repeals section 39AA. The Minister has outlined the intention of that clause. I refer to the possibility of sending a letter to those people who have actually lodged an objection to the information being given out. That could be done five years down the track when circumstances change and when they well may not feel the same as they did when they lodged their objection. By the same token, their attitude may not have changed or they may be apathetic and they do not revoke their objection. On the other side of the fence, there is a person who is emotionally upset and who has sought the information. Under this provision, that person has no hope, because the provision is for life, as the Minister herself has admitted. The Opposition has suggested that a possible way of overcoming that problem would be to send a registered letter that can be received only by the person to whom the letter is addressed. The person must sign for the letter, which encloses a simple question as to whether he or she wishes to continue with his or her objection, because someone has sought the information. Not many people would be involved—probably only 100, at the absolute maximum. I have explained the mathematical chances of those people coming together. I ask the Minister to explore that possibility. It is not a matter of moving an amendment at this stage. It is a matter of the department and the Minister looking at that possibility and addressing a very vexed question. Ms WARNER: The issue raised by the honourable member poses a number of problems. When people lodge an objection, they will be given the opportunity then to say whether or not they want to be contacted if the other party applies for information. If, without any coercion at all, they say they would like to be contacted if the other party applies for information, the department will contact them when that application is made. The privacy of people cannot be invaded by making unsolicited contact with them, even through a certified mail procedure, because families will know what is happening. The honourable member has a family; he must know what I am talking about. If someone turns up at the door and says, "We have a certified letter for you"—— Mr Slack: They would have to collect that letter. Ms WARNER: Yes, I know. The fact is that the family will know that there is an important letter and they will ask, "What was it?" Then the person is in trouble. The Government does not wish to invade people's privacy to that degree. Mr SLACK: I can understand what the Minister is saying, and I concur with what she is saying in relation to privacy. However, I have canvassed this matter with quite a few people. Although some are against it, I have detected from the people who are supportive of the revoking clause in relation to the life veto that they are also supportive of the approach that I have suggested. I suggest that the Minister explore this matter Legislative Assembly 6394 26 February 1991 further to try to overcome what I believe are some definite deficiencies in that particular amendment. Ms WARNER: I can give the honourable member the assurance that we will do everything in our power to make sure that everybody's wishes are met. We would be very careful not to invade people's privacy. If there is a way around the issue, we will look at it. I do not think that, to date, we have come up with anything. The honourable member would be aware that it probably would be quite difficult to do what he is suggesting. Some people who put a veto on the information may go away and may not want to know anything more about it. They will not leave a forwarding address. We do not wish to be intrusive. That will be avoided at all costs. However, if there is an unintrusive way of doing what the honourable member is suggesting, we would be very interested in looking at that. Frankly, I cannot think of one. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 10, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Ms Warner, by leave, read a third time. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October 1990 (see p. 4216). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (3.49 p.m.): This Bill reflects what I believe are the evolutionary changes that have taken place in Australian society over many years. Just a few moments ago, I read the Minister's second-reading speech, in which he outlined the detail and the way in which births began to be recorded in this State. He referred to the need and the reason for it and to some of the changes that have occurred since then. These kinds of registers have a great meaning in law and they are a very important part of our society. However, at the same time they must reflect the needs and aspirations of the people within the community. The amendments contained in this Bill reflect some of the more recent changes that have taken place in our society. Some of the changes are somewhat regrettable. Nonetheless, they are real. I believe that it is right and proper that the Minister accept and recognise those changes and adapt the legislation to them. It is for those reasons that I am rather happy to support the legislation. However, I foreshadow that, at the Committee stage, I intend to move an amendment. In his second-reading speech, the Minister spoke about the structure of families these days. Where a mother is a single supporting parent, she might want to have the father's name registered on the birth certificate for all of those good, legal and reasonable reasons. However, the legislation allows the child to live with and assume the name of the mother. From that point of view, the legislation is very good. That reflects one of the changes in our society that, in recent times, has become so obvious to us all. The amendment that I intend moving in the Committee stage is an extension of that. I thank the Minister for his cooperation in having the amendments drafted so that they can be put into this legislation with a minimum of fuss. They will close up another of the unfortunate loopholes that from time to time people, through no fault of their own, simply through a legislative oversight of some years past, find themselves encased in or locked into. I suppose it is easy to understand that, in years past when this legislation was amended, such as in 1974, it was not widely accepted or recognised that the community would have as many single supporting parents as it has now. Neither did the legislation contemplate the changes that we now perceive in our community, in Legislative Assembly 6395 26 February 1991 terms of our emotional wants, to name our children as we will, either after ourselves or our spouse, be it male or female, or, indeed, in the hyphenated version. I intend to take no further time of the House. I believe that this is good legislation. The Opposition accepts it, acknowledges it and supports it. As I said before, I will move an amendment in the Committee stage. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (3.53 p.m.): I intend to speak in support of the amendments to the Act and in support of this Bill. I am delighted that the National Party spokesman indicated support for the legislation. No doubt all members of the House would realise that, prior to 1974, a disastrous situation existed with the registration of people's names and the matter was left very much to the common law. In 1974, after changes to the legislation, the name to be entered on the register of births was that of the father. As Mr Gilmore indicated, since then there have been changes in social values. It is no longer good enough for the former situation to exist. In essence, the previous legislation provided that the name to be entered in the register of births as the surname of a child was the surname of the father, where a person was registered as the father of the child, or the surname of the mother, where no person was registered as the father of the child. Obviously, this Government is trying to provide a freedom of choice—if I can use that term—via three possibilities: firstly, a father's name can be registered; secondly, a mother's name can be registered and, thirdly, there can be a hyphenated name. The father's approval is needed in all but two cases. Proposed new section 27A subsection (2) (b) (i) and (ii) provides for two exceptions: firstly, when a court order is particularly made under section 25 (1), which would obviously relate to a declaration of paternity; and, secondly, when the father is deceased. Of course, under those circumstances the father's permission would not be required. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that it is recognised that the former provision, which existed since 1974, limits the rights of parents in the naming of their children. Understandably, because of possible ramifications relating to maintenance, paternity and other factors, single mothers in increasing numbers now wish to have full particulars of the father inserted in the register of births, when the father is agreeable. The Minister stated— "However, as the child is to live with her"— that is the mother— "in most cases the mother would prefer that the surname of the child be the same as hers." That is not possible under the existing law. One of the myths that we must deal with in our society relates to the composition of the family unit. That affects not only this legislation but also matters relating to the Housing Commission and so on. There is a perception in the community that families such as mine—a husband, wife and children who live at home—are in a minority. People in single relationships and second marriages, single mothers, single parents and so on form the majority of relationships in society. Therefore, we would really be putting our heads in the sand if we were to ignore the Minister's proposal before the House. We are dealing with contemporary times. We must also look more meaningfully at the housing that is provided for people. We must cater for single parents and consider providing people with that freedom of choice. This Bill is self-explanatory. Its most important provisions are clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 of the Bill, which amends section 27A of the principal Act, allows for the registration of the birth of a child under a surname formed by combining the surnames of the mother and the person registered as the father of that child in any separated order and whether or not joined by a hyphen or under the surname of the mother of the child. The provision sets out the requirements for an application to the Registrar-General in this regard. Clause 5 inserts two new sections in the principal Act, namely, 27C and 27D. Proposed new section 27C states that this provision retrospectively extends the rights Legislative Assembly 6396 26 February 1991 of parents contained in section 27A, as amended by this proposed Act, to parents of children born on or after 1 July, 1974 and prior to the commencement of this proposed Act. That will compensate for those people who laboured under the difficulties of the legislation that applied since 1974. We must all be very sensitive and careful about retrospectivity. In these circumstances, I do not believe that there would be any opposition to it. As I said, I was pleased that the National Party's spokesman ostensibly supported that provision. Proposed new section 27D states that this provision enables a parent or parents of a child, in respect of whom the Registrar-General is requested pursuant to section 25 (1), to which I have already referred, to enter in the register the name of a person as the father of that child—effectively, to have the same rights in respect of the surname of the child as obtain under section 27A as amended by this Bill. This legislation represents a very enlightened, social approach to naming. I am delighted that the Opposition supports it. I believe that all sensible people would say that we are finally catching up with the rights of people to have the freedom of choice to adopt whatever surname they choose for their children. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4 p.m.): I rise in support of the legislation. The Liberal Party supports the concept of the legislation, there being freedom of choice in the naming of children. I am a little concerned about the retrospectivity in proposed new section 27C which relates to the entry of a change of a child's registered surname in respect of certain children born on or after 1 July 1974. I hope that that will not cause administrative problems. However, the Liberal Party certainly supports the principle. It is true to say, as other speakers have indicated, that parents have equal rights these days. There is an increasing use of hyphenated names. Many women—and, in some cases, the father—are using joint names or keeping maiden names. It is reasonable that the child's name be that of the mother or hyphenated, if that is to be the new terminology by which the family is known. It is in order with today's position that the legislation is before the House. I trust that care will be taken in relation to the proposed section providing retrospectivity to 1974. It is not that we in the Liberal Party think that many instances of retrospectivity will occur, however, changes of names must be followed up carefully, or they could create problems for Government departments as far as the administration of names generally on Government documents, wills and so forth is concerned. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (4.01 p.m.): Along with previous speakers, I support this Bill to amend the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act. Simple as it may seem, the amending Bill brings the law into line with what is a fairly common practice these days. Many parents, including sole parents, apply the name of the mother or the joint names of the mother and father to a child's surname. In a very real sense, this is a choice that parents ought to be able to make. It is a choice that parents indeed have been making for quite some time. There are a number of ways in which many great reforms are introduced by Labor Governments. In some respects, reforms such as this are introduced after a practice or a custom has already been established. In other respects, some of the great initiatives of Labor Governments lead the reforms and lead the practice of the community. I believe that the Bill is a good example of a social reform, which brings the law into line with current social values. It not only will reflect, as I say, what is a practice and a choice exercised for a number of years by many parents but also is a change in the law which signals to parents in future that they have now a legal right to make a choice about the naming of their child. They can do that at the time of birth and avoid the subsequent complex problems of changing the name by deed poll. Other speakers, including the member for Brisbane Central, have previously outlined the detail of the Bill, so I will not repeat that. In conclusion, might I make the comment that, on a day in this House when the report of the Electoral and Administrative Review Legislative Assembly 6397 26 February 1991

Committee was handed down, it is interesting that we are speaking on legislation dealing with the registration of births, deaths and marriages. It is very appropriate that we have today the birth of a new parliamentary democracy in Queensland, very probably the death of a corrupt electoral system and the death of the National Party. An honourable member interjected. Mr WELFORD: But before the small, gangly group of Liberals begins to interject, the marriage may well be theirs with the National Party again in the future. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (4.03 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to address this amendment Bill, because, as the previous speaker stated, it alludes to the changing status of our society in terms of women and children and their rights. The Bill removes an element of discrimination that has long been very irritating to most women. When we consider the parent who physically gives birth to a child and who typically, in the case of a separation, ends up in charge of a child, it is only logical to assume that that parent should have an equal say in the naming of that child in terms of the surname. It is quite inappropriate in a contemporary society to carry on a tradition that has no meaningful purpose, that is, that the name of the child should always be the name of the male. That tradition should be reviewed and we should look upon matters in a different perspective. We are entering or are already in an age when equality and discrimination are current topics, the light of which we are trying to throw upon the review of all legislation by the Government. The Bill deals with another issue of choices and rights. I feel very strongly about the feelings of children on this issue. Children need to have an identity and a self-image. It is very important to them. Quite often, I have had discussions with people who have had a dilemma with their children. They have been to see me and have talked about the dilemma that they faced in the naming of their child because they felt rather strongly that the laws of this State are inequitable. The member for Stafford alluded to deed polls. I have always found it to be rather unsavoury that a person who wishes to change his or her name must do so by deed poll, which is an expensive process for both the applicant and the bureaucracy. I welcome very much the amendment to the current law, which allows freedom of choice and recognises the rights of individuals. As I said earlier, the Bill recognises that the female parent in a relationship—or outside of a relationship, for that matter—who physically gives birth to the child should have at least equal rights to the naming of that child. I support the amendment. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (4.06 p.m.): Although the amendments proposed to the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act are quite simple, they will be significant changes in the eyes of many people. Ancient Anglo-Celtic tradition required only that a personal name, or Christian name, as we know it, be given to a child by his or her parents. That was the only name a person bore. However, by the twelfth century in England, it had become common practice to give individuals an additional identifying name. The need for that was most probably for official purposes rather than mere self-identification. The use of surnames would appear to be more a response to the system of taxation, using tenants' rolls, and for legal transactions serving the needs of the State and church administration. The custom of paternal naming in Anglo-Celtic societies is typical of all patriarchal societies. Whether for administrative convenience or the dictates of inheritance, the use of hereditary paternal surnames is well established. However, the Bill is an acknowledgment of change in our society, providing for both choice and a degree of versatility. It reflects both changing social values and community expectations. The 1974 amendment to the original Act took effect on 1 July of that year and it is this amending legislation which is also being addressed today. As it is, the parent or parents of a child have been required to register the surname of the child in one of two ways. Under most circumstances, the child takes the surname of the father. However, when no person is registered as the father, the surname of the mother is entered against the child. This Bill recognises the restrictive nature of such a practice denying parents Legislative Assembly 6398 26 February 1991 any real choice of a family name for their child. In recent years it has become quite common for married women to retain their family names. Also, many couples live in long-term de facto relationships and they, too, sense a loss of choice under the current legislation. The Bill provides for the child to be registered in the family name of either parent or, if it is desired, a combination of their family names. At present there is no doubt the existing legislation discriminates against women by giving predominance to the family name of the father. Under this amending legislation, this discrimination is removed. I am pleased that the Bill also allows parents to retrospectively change the names of their children. The date of this retrospectivity has been set at 1 July 1974 and the provisions of new section 27C will apply to parents of children born on or after that date. In conclusion, I refer to principle 3 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which states— "The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality." As the Minister has pointed out, one's name takes on symbolic significance—it is a fundamental link to one's origins. At long last, parents in this State will be afforded the same rights that exist for parents in other States of the Commonwealth. I support the Bill. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (4.09 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate this afternoon. As the honourable member for Tablelands indicated, the legislation reflects a change in society's attitudes. Today's society is more enlightened and it is only fitting and appropriate that the Government take the necessary action in this Parliament to reflect society's views. That is exactly what this legislation does. I thank the member for Tablelands for his contribution, but, more importantly, I wish to thank him for the part that he has played in this legislation. He has foreshadowed an amendment to the Bill and he has gone about it in a very professional way. He approached my department at a very early stage and we have had ongoing discussions about the matter. I sincerely thank him for the way in which he has conducted himself. I also thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central and the honourable member for Toowong for their contributions to the debate. I thank the member for Toowong for indicating the Liberal Party's support and wish to clarify the matter of retrospectivity that was also raised by the honourable member for Mulgrave. In my second-reading speech, I indicated that this legislation has a retrospective aspect for a very good reason. Many of the people who have campaigned for these changes would be unable to benefit from them because their children or some of them have already been born and their births were registered under the old Act that is amended by this Bill. More importantly, some parents have had children born in other States. Other States have provisions similar to those contained in this amending Bill. Under the present legislation, children born in Queensland can only take the father's name. I am advised that there are no administrative problems which cannot be solved in this regard. I certainly hope that allays any of the fears expressed by the honourable member for Toowong concerning the retrospectivity of this legislation. I thank the honourable member for Stafford for his contribution to this debate and for his observations. However, I make an observation that all honourable members who have spoken in this debate have missed. It is appropriate that this House is amending the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act because—for those members who are not aware of the fact—today is the Premier's birthday. On behalf of all members, I wish him a very happy birthday. I thank the honourable member for Springwood for her contribution. Quite clearly, she understands and supports what is being achieved in this very important area of social reform. This legislation affects women in a particular way, and the honourable member fully understands that fact. Also, I thank the honourable member for Mulgrave for his contribution. I have already explained the reason for the retrospectivity contained Legislative Assembly 6399 26 February 1991 in this legislation and feel sure that everyone who studies this legislation will not have any problems with it. It is a step in the right direction, and the people of Queensland will benefit from it. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. G. R. Milliner (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr GILMORE (4.13 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 5, after clause 5, insert— '6. Amendment of s. 28A. Entry of change of surname of child. Section 28A of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) in subsection (2), inserting after the word "applicant's", where it first occurs, the words "maiden name, or to her"; (b) inserting after subsection 5A the following subsection— "(5B) Where an application is made under subsection (2) to change a child's surname to the applicant's maiden name, the requirements for the husband's undertaking and consent contained in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5) do not apply." ' " In speaking to this amendment, I believe that it is appropriate for me to explain the circumstances that brought it about so that members of Parliament can understand the trauma that I hope to have redressed today. This matter was first brought to my notice approximately 18 months ago. For the whole of that time, I have been arguing this case, and I am very pleased indeed to be given the opportunity to redress this problem. I have a constituent whose maiden name I will refer to as A. She married B and, after separating from B, she had a child to a gentleman I shall refer to as C, who soon fled the scene and had little or nothing to do with either the lady or the child thereafter. It is a matter of some regret that the child's birth certificate records the name of C as the child's father, because the child has assumed the surname of the father. Soon after, my constituent, A, again took her maiden name. For the whole of her child's life, he has been known by the lady's maiden name. Some time later, she attempted to change the child's name legally back to A but, unfortunately, the legislation specifically precludes that from happening. The only name to which she can legally change her son's name is that of B. This is a curious set of circumstances in which the child's name can legally be changed back to B, which is the name of a person who is divorced from the mother and who has never had anything whatsoever to do with the child. If that were to happen, it would not redress the problem, because the child would still be known as A. It is for that reason that I have brought the amendment to this Chamber and have sought the endorsement of the amendment by this Committee. The amendment simply allows the child's name to be changed back to A, the name by which he has always been known and the name by which his mother is determined he will be known. Mr MILLINER: As I indicated in my reply to the second-reading debate, the Government will accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Tablelands. I thank him for bringing the matter to my attention. The example he gave illustrates that this is a very complex area and that there is a number of combinations of factors. I do not claim to be an expert and know everything. After the legislation was introduced, the honourable member for Tablelands approached me and brought this matter to my attention. He has had ongoing discussions with officers of my department and me. The Government is quite happy to accept this amendment. I certainly hope Legislative Assembly 6400 26 February 1991 that, as a result, the person to whom he referred will have peace of mind for the rest of her life. Amendment agreed to. New clause 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, by leave, read a third time. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (see p. 4217). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (4.19 p.m.): This legislation also is supported by the Opposition because it will enable a small anomaly to be tidied up in the business of residential tenancy. Having been involved in residential tenancies for some time several years ago, I am fully aware of some of the anomalies in the system and some of the difficulties that confront people who rent accommodation as a matter of course throughout their lives. This Bill ensures that tenants are given access to a copy of the tenancy agreement applying to accommodation. It is interesting that during the last three days at my electorate office, I came across a situation that has not yet been resolved whereby a tenant has been refused a copy of the tenancy agreement. Have I got news for somebody! It is for that reason and for other reasons that the Opposition supports the Bill. Put simply, this legislation provides for a matter of justice. It ensures that two people who are parties to a contract will both have a copy of the contract—setting out their responsibilities and rights under the tenancy arrangement—that each can peruse from time to time. It is for those reasons that the Opposition supports the legislation. I believe that it is good legislation and that it will go some way towards resolving the little difficulties that cause so much trauma for individuals in the community. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (4..21 p.m.): I rise to support the Bill. Anyone who has practised law, as I have, would be well aware that many disputes arise because of uncertainty in contracts. This amendment seeks to provide certainty when in the past there has been uncertainty. It is a sad fact of life that disputes can arise between landlords and tenants and that those disputes can take on a very unpleasant character. This legislation provides for the giving of a copy of a tenancy agreement to the tenant when a tenancy agreement is entered into. I am sure that because it will ensure that relations between landlords and tenants are maintained on an amicable basis, it will be welcomed by all people involved in the real estate industry and, indeed, by all concerned. The reform of the law relating to the position of tenants is a difficult area. It is one of those areas of law reform that has to be considered within the light of market forces and economic circumstances generally. Some would argue that the state of our law gives insufficient protection to tenants and that we should take steps to write into the legislation substantially greater protections for tenants. That view has to be tempered with the consequences upon investment in the rental market which may flow if that view were to be adopted without careful consideration. Indeed, some of the problems that I observed as a social worker in Britain in the 1970s of tenants seeking to obtain accommodation arose because of the lack of adequate housing, and that lack was in turn caused in part by a reluctance of persons with investment moneys to place their capital in dwelling houses or flats to be tenanted. That having been said, it is still important that we should continue a vigilance with respect to the rights of tenants, because we are concerned here not merely with the area of black letter law, we are concerned with the rights and responsibilities of people in their own home environments and, as such, it is most Legislative Assembly 6401 26 February 1991 important that their rights be respected. This Bill makes a modest but important step in ensuring that those rights will be respected. Mr QUINN (South Coast) (4.24 p.m.): When any Government legislates to interfere in the arrangements made between two private parties, it must do so in an even-handed manner. This Bill recognises that there are unscrupulous landlords but does not address the problem of unscrupulous tenants. It does not produce what is normally called a level playing field in that respect. At the Committee stage, I will indicate what I mean by an unfair bias towards the tenants. There is no doubt that both parties to the agreement should receive their tenancy agreement in writing and that the landlord should pay the costs of that agreement. However, in two respects—in both the major clauses in the Bill—there is an inherent bias. The first instance is when a tenant receives an agreement, takes it home, moves into the property and for some reason does not give the agreement back to the landlord until very near the expiry date. If the landlord fails to get a written notification that the tenant has received a copy of the agreement, at some later stage the tennant can deny having ever received the agreement at all and act to recover rent moneys paid whilst he occupied the premises. Without that written notification that the tenant received the tenancy agreement, unscrupulous tenants who know the legislation can take advantage of the landlord. It may not be the case with real estate agents who are aware of the law. The REIQ would most probably change the rental agreement to counter that provision. However, one should not forget that thousands of landlords who have a single rental property would be unaware of the change of the law. A tenant who is aware of the legislation can take advantage of those landlords. In that respect, the legislation is biased towards the tenant. The second way in which it is biased towards the tenant is in the circumstance in which a tenant moves into a property, the landlord or his agent gives the tenant an agreement and, upon getting the agreement, the tenant changes—as is quite often the case—a clause in the agreement, simply indicating that he does not want to clean the pool, mow the lawn or look after the yard. He initials the part of the agreement that he has changed, hands it back to the real estate agent and pays the money. On banking the money, the real estate agent has in fact endorsed the agreement when the owner or the agent has not signed the agreement. There again is a bias in favour of the tenant. Mr Beattie: Legally he is bound. Mr QUINN: Yes, he is bound when, indeed, either the agent or the landlord has not endorsed the tenancy agreement. Under the legislation, the mere banking of the money signifies that the agent and the tenant have agreed. Under the law, the money must be banked in a trust account within 24 hours. In real estate agencies, office girls normally do the banking. Mr Welford: Boys. Mr QUINN: I am sorry—boys. A tenant could walk into an agency late in the afternoon just before the bank closed. The real estate agent could bank the money. For all intents and purposes, under this legislation the agreement is in vogue yet the landlord has not even seen and probably would not endorse the agreement under those circumstances. The position could arise wherein the landlord does not agree yet the tenancy agreement is in force. In that way, again the legislation is biased in favour of the tenant. I indicated to the Minister that I would be moving some amendments to the legislation. He informed me that this is only interim legislation and that he will be looking at the whole Act at a later stage with a view to tidying up what he sees as a rather complicated piece of legislation that may not be in the best interests of both parties. However, I will be moving amendments in Committee. I hope that the Minister will look upon them favourably. Legislative Assembly 6402 26 February 1991

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (4.30 p.m.): I was interested to hear what the member for South Coast just said. I would like to start with that, because this legislation does give tenants some long overdue protection. I think anyone who looks at the area of landlords and tenants and concludes that tenants are not entitled to a copy of the agreement is really looking at it from a very biased point of view. Mr Quinn: I said they both are. Mr BEATTIE: I will come back to what the honourable member said in a minute. It must be emphasised that this Bill does not place any obligation on landlords or their agents to enter into written agreements with their tenants. It does not enforce that at all. What it says, though, is that once a written agreement is entered into, a tenant is entitled to a copy of it within 30 days after the agreement is entered into, or certain consequences follow. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, states— "If a copy of the agreement is not supplied, the tenant is not obliged to pay rent for the period during which the failure to comply with the legislation continues." That is a fairly basis principle and one that I think is not insupportable by members opposite, if they think about it. I will deal with some of the matters that were raised by the member for South Coast. He says that if there is an amendment to a clause and it is initialled by the tenant but the landlord does not sign or initial the agreement, then there is a problem. I do not know about the honourable member, but it would be a requirement of most landlords that they see the written agreement before they sign it. That is only common sense. Mr Quinn: That is not what it says. Mr BEATTIE: I am about to deal with that. Like a number of other honourable members, I have a family trust. My family trust owns a unit. In a sense, I guess one could say that I am a landlord. The normal arrangement with landlords is very simple. That is why I am quite happy to support this legislation. I think it is fair. Most landlords engage a real estate agent, who usually uses a normal, standard REIQ contract, which is for six months. It is very standard in the industry. Those agreements are signed between the tenant and the landlord. Once upon a time, when my family trust first acquired the unit, I used to sign the contracts personally as trustee of the family trust. Some time ago, my agent started the practice of signing the contract on my behalf. Initially, I was not exactly excited about that. I then got to the stage—like many other people—at which it did not worry me because I knew that it was the standard REIQ contract and that there were no amendments to which I had agreed. However, at law I am bound by the agent's signing that document on behalf of the family trust. At law, if the agent of the landlord banks money on behalf of the landlord, and that conduct amounts to acceptance of the contract, then the landlord would be in a position to be bound by that agreement. However, with all due respect to the member for South Coast, I do not think that that is an untoward situation. That is what applies in normal contractual situations at law amongst businesspeople and people in the community generally. If I authorise an agent to conduct himself in a particular way—as I do by allowing my agent to sign the tenancy agreement—I am stuck with it. If I want another course of behaviour, then I should make sure that my specific instructions to my agent are such that he knows that he is not entitled to do that without my permission. Mr Quinn: Mr Beattie—— Mr BEATTIE: I will take the honourable member's interjections. However, I ask him to let me finish what I am saying. The written instructions to the agent should be, "Under no circumstances is the contract to be signed or any behaviour commenced without my written approval", or, "I am to sign the contract", in which case, in the example suggested by the honourable member, the money should be refused. Then the problem does not arise of the money having to be banked within the period referred to. Legislative Assembly 6403 26 February 1991

Mr Quinn: I may be wrong, but I think under real estate practice, moneys given to agents must be banked within 24 hours in their trust account. Am I right? Mr BEATTIE: Yes. The same applies to solicitors. Mr Quinn: Yes. Now you can have a case where a person comes in, pays his money, puts the agreement on the table. The real estate agent is away for the day. The girl or the office boy doing the banking realises that the money has to be banked. The mere act of banking the money endorses the agreement. Mr BEATTIE: I appreciate the sincerity of the honourable member's interjection. I will reiterate the position. The honourable member said that landlords were not on an even playing field. Landlords need to be very specific and very clear about their instructions to their agent. A prudent landlord, a prudent operator, would in fact provide such instructions to his agent—— Mr Quinn: They are compelled to bank it within 24 hours. Mr BEATTIE: I am taking the honourable member's interjection as genuine. If he wants to listen to the answer, I am prepared to give it to him. What I am trying to say is that the landlord is required to comply with these provisions. Any prudent landlord would give specific instructions to his agent about the course of behaviour to be adopted. My instructions to my agent are very clear. No amendments are allowed to any tenancy agreements in regard to my unit without my permission and no conduct is permissible by the agent which would cement me into an agreement, if there is a change to that agreement. To answer the honourable member's specific query—the specific instruction that the landlord should give to his agent is that no money should be accepted, no amendment to the contract should be accepted, until that contract is signed by the landlord or he has perused it and given specific instructions to the agent. When one deals with the law and when one is putting landlords and tenants on an even playing field, one cannot compensate on every occasion for a landlord or a tenant who is not prepared to give specific instructions in terms of his legal liability. It may well be that those matters can be particularly looked at, but I do not think the honourable member's criticism is a valid one in terms of an even playing field. Mr Quinn: The practice is that if money comes into a real estate office at 3 o'clock on a Friday, that money must be banked. If the agent is out of the office at 3 o'clock on Friday, if money comes in, the mere banking of that money makes it—— Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member has made his point. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I suggest to the honourable member for South Coast that he is labouring the point. I have heard it five times; and I am sure that the rest of the House has. I suggest that the matter be left where it is. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to go on and simply say, in passing, that the instructions to the agent should be to accept no money. Then the problem that the honourable member refers to does not arise. It is that simple; end of story. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I live in the real world. I own a unit. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If I can do it, I cannot see why every other normal person cannot do it. Mr Smyth: He is not normal. Mr BEATTIE: I did not say that. This legislation provides long overdue protection to tenants. The Government is saying that tenants will be provided with a copy of the legislation and that they will Legislative Assembly 6404 26 February 1991 then be in a position of knowing their rights—they will know what protection exists—and they will also know their obligations. A contract is never a one-way street. It is an agreement, a meeting of minds, in which there is give and take on both sides. It means that a tenant will be given not only his or her rights but also his or her obligations, and the same applies to the landlord. The real attraction of this legislation for those non-interventionists around the place--I assume that includes members of the Liberal Party—is that it provides quick and direct relief without the involvement of the courts or the State. If the contract is not provided within the required period, the landlord loses his rent. I cannot imagine a greater incentive than that to ensure that a copy of the contract is provided to the tenant. I believe that what honourable members have heard is a great deal of hoo-ha from the member for South Coast about this issue, and I am delighted that he has returned to deal with this hoo-ha. If honourable members are talking about fundamental rights, they are talking about putting people on the even playing field. In most situations, the landlord is in a disproportionately advantageous position because, quite often, he is in a stronger financial position than tenants. The landlord is better able to afford legal representation, and that is why he bears the costs of preparing the agreement. I do not think there is anything untoward about that. However, because of the financial position of the landlord, it is an uneven situation to begin with. What this legislation is doing is attempting to level up the playing field a little and give tenants some hope and some opportunity to know what their obligations and their rights are. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, this Bill has been modelled on legislation in force in the Canadian provinces. It is legislation that has worked, and I believe that honourable members should give it a fair go. Those people who are whining about the particular provisions and worried about the even playing field should stop living in cloud-cuckoo-land and have a real look at how badly tenants have been treated in this State for a long period. This legislation brings Queensland into line with the other Australian States. Anybody who believes that tenants have been protected—or overprotected—in this State has really ignored the reality. It is about time that Queensland caught up to the 1990s by giving tenants some real protection. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (4.41 p.m.): I welcome this particular amendment, although I must say that I have some reservations about it in terms of the fact that it is only an option for landlords to provide an agreement. However, I understand that a full review of the Act is about to take place and I am sure that at that time something even more substantial can be done. The member for Brisbane Central rightly alluded to the fact that, by and large, tenants do not understand their rights and obligations and that, very often, landlords do not understand their rights and obligations. I am sure that all honourable members have had to deal with landlords becoming enraged and carrying on about the conduct of their tenants and, upon questioning, one finds that they have actually been undertaking practices that were in fact in breach of the Act, which very few of them seem to understand. I am quite pleased to see this amendment because the law, as it exists at present, facilitates unnecessary disputes and tensions in the relationship between landlords and tenants. Even though this Bill does not legislate that those agreements are mandatory, I believe that it will encourage a spirit of fair, reasonable and more equitable relationships between landlords and tenants. One aspect of the amendment that does concern me—I have witnessed this happen with other requirements for agreements to be drawn up—is that some unscrupulous landlords will no doubt try to make tenants pay for the costs of these agreements. I am pleased to see that the Minister has pre- empted that by stating that that will not be able to be done. I have had a close association with a Gold Coast tenants union, which is part of the State consumer movement, and its members hear constantly about the very creative and very inventive ways that landlords go about making their tenants pay for Legislative Assembly 6405 26 February 1991 various agreements, leases and all sorts of fees that they dream up, most of which are very specifically covered even in the existing Residential Tenancies Act. That is one concern that I have about this legislation. I urge all members to be aware of it and to ensure that they pass that message on to their constituents. From the tenants perspective, this legislation does level the playing field even further. It will be a stabilising influence on the rental market, flowing on from the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority. It will save the State a lot of money, and I believe it is a very sensible approach for Queensland to adopt. I also hope that, because these agreements will be in place when this Bill passes through the House, landlords do not try to avoid entering those agreements just to avoid paying the cost of establishing agreements. Invariably, whenever agreements of this type are put into place, people will try to avoid making them because it is another administrative function that they do not want to perform. I generally endorse the amendment to the Act and, as I said earlier, I welcome the fact that this is just pre-empting the total review of the Residential Tenancies Act. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (4.45 p.m.): I support the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. As the member for Yeronga said, this amending legislation will increase the certainty with which tenants and landlords enter into tenancy agreements. As previous speakers have indicated, the Residential Tenancies Act is a relatively simple Act. Throughout this year, the Minister and his department propose to undertake a comprehensive review of Queensland's tenancy laws. With a bit of luck, substantial reform might even be brought to this Parliament later this year. Until then, the current Residential Tenancies Act remains in force. I commend the reading of the Act to any landlord, to any tenant and, indeed, to any real estate agent. The Act is very short, very light reading, very simple and straightforward. Hopefully, if real estate agents read this amending legislation, their attention will be drawn to a very basic and fundamental practice— a practice which I cannot understand why any agent or landlord would not in any event have been adopting in the past. The practice of providing both parties with a copy of an agreement to which they are both a party is a basic and sensible proposition. This amendment simply requires the landlord, who is, after all, responsible for the preparation of the agreement, to provide the tenant with a copy of the agreement within 30 days of its being entered into. With all due respect to the genuine attempts by the member for South Coast to raise some concerns about the way in which proposed new section 6A might operate, all I can say to the Liberals is that they desperately need to bring back Angus Innes. The honourable member for South Coast missed the point of the amendment. I note his concerns about what is deemed to be an agreement. Proposed new section 6A (2) provides that if a tenant executes an agreement and pays the rent, and that rent is accepted by the landlord, then the agreement is taken as being entered into. I understand his concerns about that. I point out to him that, at the Committee stage, the Minister will introduce an amendment which should address that concern. The other question related to an agreement that is handed back to the landlord in an amended state. That is, if a standard tenancy agreement is delivered to the tenant for execution and the tenant executes it but also initials an amendment—for example, deleting one of the clauses—then the simple fact of the matter is that the agreement is not entered into. There is no agreement. By doing that, the tenant makes a counteroffer. A simple law of contract states that if the tenant signs an agreement and amends the wording of the agreement and hands that to the landlord, there is simply no agreement; that the agreement has not been entered into. So the matter raised by the honourable member really is not a problem. The concern about when an agreement is entered into once the form of the agreement is given by the landlord to the tenant is dealt with by the Minister's amendment. This amending legislation is eminently sensible. It is extraordinary that it should be necessary to legislate to draw to the attention of landlords the responsibility they have to provide their tenants with a copy of the agreement. Hopefully, landlords will Legislative Assembly 6406 26 February 1991 read the amended Residential Tenancies Act. Hopefully, real estate agents will be notified—and no doubt they will, through their journal—that the legislation will require that tenants be delivered with a copy of the agreement forthwith after it is entered into. That should resolve many of the unnecessary conflicts and uncertainties, particularly the uncertainties in which tenants find themselves when they are trying to exercise their rights as tenants. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (4.49 p.m.): As we know, not all Australian States have enacted residential tenancies legislation. The pieces of legislation in those States which have—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia—differ very significantly in their provisions. One common element that can be observed in each and every State's legislation, however, is a philosophical desire to minimise as far as possible Government intervention. While I agree with the broad thrust of such a stance, it is equally obvious that the underlying principle of freedom of contract is no longer applicable in its entirety in a modern society and there is a need for a degree of legislative intervention. Common law has failed to adapt the law of landlord and tenant to societal changes and alterations in commercial practices that have occurred during this century. Landlord/tenant law made good sense in the rural society of pre-eighteenth century England. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when it became more common to take out leases on developed land, it ceased to be appropriate. The Australian States inherited the English common law of landlord and tenant and until the latter half of this century very few statutory amendments were made. Equally, case law developments on old English law were not forthcoming. No comprehensive scheme has been put in place to protect tenants. Any amendments that were introduced tended to be remedial measures to specific problems. The Bill before the House in fact addresses but one problem which affects the relationship between landlord and tenant. Given the Minister's commitment to reform in this area, I have every confidence that this Bill represents only the beginning of a far-reaching overhaul of legislation currently in existence. Details supplied of complaints made to the Rental Bond Authority would tend to reinforce the notion that all is not well, given the degree of looseness of current legislation. Over the first six months of last year, the authority received approximately 23 000 complaints and queries, both by letter and by phone. Some 70 per cent of those came from tenants, with 20 per cent coming from landlords and a further 10 per cent from real estate agents. According to the general manager of the authority, most landlords complained about the breaking of lease agreements by tenants. Significantly, over 90 per cent of calls from tenants related to the slowness of repairs and maintenance on the part of landlords. The authority has given an indication that it may recommend to the Government the establishment of a regulated standard tenancy agreement. This is something which I believe has considerable merit. In his second-reading speech, the Minister quite rightly pointed out the extreme difficulty being experienced by some tenants in ensuring that their rights under the terms of a written agreement are actually adhered to. Unfortunately, some landlords and their agents have deliberately kept tenants in the dark by failing to provide them with a copy of a written agreement which has been entered into. Legislation in most other States obligates a landlord or his agent to provide the tenant with a copy of the document within a specified time. This Bill gives to tenants in Queensland the protection they deserve. Under clause 4, the Bill requires that a full copy of an agreement be supplied to the tenant within 30 days of its signing. As the Minister has already indicated, this amendment is modelled on comparative Canadian legislation that has been in force in that country for 20 years. The legislation has proved to be a great success in Canada. It differs markedly from the approach adopted in some places where statutory penalties are prescribed for non-compliance. Although at first glance a financial penalty may appear to be the right way to go, it does create problems of its own. The means by which a penalty ruling may be obtained can be a lengthy and bitter process. Court action is quite costly and, in most cases, far from resulting in simple problem resolution it sets the stage for a complete break-down in the relationship between a landlord and his or Legislative Assembly 6407 26 February 1991 her tenant. This legislation provides for the tenant to be released from rental obligations until such time as the provisions of the Act are adhered to. Additionally, onus is placed on the landlord to meet the costs of a written agreement when one is entered into. I am pleased to note that support has been obtained from organisations representing the real estate industry, as well as from landlords and tenants. The Bill deserves the full support of the House. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (4.54 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I do not intend to deal with those contributions individually. Basically, all honourable members support the legislation to varying degrees. The honourable member for South Coast indicated to me that he foreshadowed an amendment. I shall be moving an amendment which I believe may overcome some of the honourable member's concerns. I inform the Committee that a full and thorough review of the residential tenancies legislation will be undertaken. I suggest that the honourable member refer any concerns to those who will be doing that review. In that way, his concerns will be considered by all parties. It is difficult for the Government to make such a decision on the run and to think through all the legal ramifications of a foreshadowed amendment. I ask the honourable member to consider seriously putting his foreshadowed amendments before that review so that they can be considered fully. I thank all honourable members for their support of the Bill. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. G. R. Milliner (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr MILLINER (4.56 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 2, line 23, after 'agreement' insert— 'at the request of the landlord or his agent'." The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the deeming operation of proposed new section 6A (2) to the situation in which a landlord or his agent requests a tenant to execute a residential tenancy agreement. I received submissions from the Queensland Law Society suggesting that proposed subsection (2) in its existing form could have some unintended results and be capable of abuse. The Law Society claimed that the subsection as presently drafted would permit a tenant to prepare and execute on his own initiative a tenancy agreement in terms entirely unacceptable to the landlord, deliver it to the landlord and thereupon force the landlord either to accept the agreement as tendered or obtain the benefit of a rent holiday. In all events it is probable that the subsection as presently drafted would not have that effect, because the written agreement tendered in that situation would differ from the oral agreement and the rent would be paid in accordance with the oral agreement. However, I recognise that this point is important, and it is desirable to clarify the law to prevent misunderstandings or a mischievous abuse of the proposed amendments. Because my proposed amendment limits subsection (2) to situations in which an agreement has been executed at the initiative of the landlord and not the tenant, it meets the Law Society's concern. In November last year, the Law Society was supplied with a copy of this amendment, and it has not raised any further problems with the legislation. I hope that overcomes Mr Quinn's concerns. Mr QUINN: Later, I will gladly accept the apology of the honourable member for Brisbane Central. I believe that the Minister's amendment covers my concern. It is probably a neater way of doing what I intended originally. The Minister said that the Legislative Assembly 6408 26 February 1991 agreement cannot be altered by the tenant prior to the money being paid into the trust account, thus endorsing the agreement. My other concern relates to proposed new section 6A (2) (a), which could allow a tenant to receive an agreement and, at a later stage, deny that that agreement was given to him or her and could then ask for a refund of all moneys paid in rent if a landlord does not receive written advice that the tenant did sign and receive the agreement. I imagine that the REIQ and real estate agents will get around that problem by mending their tenancy agreements. However, the real problem arises for the thousands of people who rent privately. I refer to people who own units or houses either for investment purposes or as a result of being left their parents' family homes. Those people rent those homes and collect the rent themselves. If they do not know that the law has been changed, a tenant could move in, receive the tenancy agreement and, 12 months down the track, deny that he had received the agreement and subsequently ask for his rental money to be refunded. I believe that real estate agents have a Form 18 for a sole agency agreement. Unless a landlord has one of those forms signed by the tenant, at a later stage that tenant could deny ever receiving the tenancy agreement, and there would be litigation. Mr Beattie: You have acknowledgments sometimes. Mr QUINN: I am saying that, without knowledge of this legislation, landlords who rent their own premises can be open to manipulation by the tenants. That was the point I was trying to make. That aspect needs attention. A fairer method would be to put some of the onus back on to the tenant. If, after the tenant signs the agreement and gives it to the landlord, the landlord does not give the tenant a copy within a specified period of, say, 30 days and the tenant knows that, he should be required to advise the landlord that he has not received his copy of the tenancy agreement. Then if that agreement is not delivered to him within, say, 48 hours, the rent-free period should start. In other words, an onus is placed on both sides, who would both be made aware of the changes to the law. That would be fairer than the position under the amending Bill, under which not everyone will know of the changes to the law. The second part of my amendment addresses this problem and seeks to bring in the 48-hour period within which one side has to notify the other side so that the tenancy agreement can be exchanged. I will therefore move—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member cannot move his amendment now. He will have to wait until after we have dealt with this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Mr QUINN: The amendment that I propose will bring into train a 48-hour period within which the landlord has to deliver to the tenant a copy of the tenancy agreement. If that does not happen, the tenant is entitled to stay in the premises rent free. Therefore, I move the following amendment— "At page 2, omit lines 37 to 40 and substitute— '(3) (a) A tenant who has not received a full copy of the executed tenancy agreement in accordance with subsection (1) may, by written notice served on the landlord or his agent, require a full copy of the executed agreement to be given to him within 2 days of service of the notice. (b) If a full copy of the executed tenancy agreement is not given to the tenant in accordance with the notice, the tenant shall not be under an obligation to pay rent for the period during which the failure to comply with the notice continues.' " Mr MILLINER: Unfortunately, I am not prepared to accept the amendment because it places a further burden on the tenant by requiring him to draw up a written notice and serve it on the landlord, giving the landlord a further two days' grace before the Legislative Assembly 6409 26 February 1991 purpose of the legislation is achieved. It creates an unnecessary step, which only delays the necessary initiation and creates further scope for disputes between the parties. That is always a major concern. I acknowledge that disputes between landlords and tenants will arise. They always have and they always will. However, we believe that the legislation will overcome many disputes. I do not believe that the amendment moved by the honourable member for South Coast will enhance the legislation. I again invite him to put forward a submission to me or the department and we will certainly consider it. I have an open mind about these matters. I do not claim that we know everything. Again, when legislation is introduced, if honourable members have any concerns about it, they should not hesitate to get in touch with us. We are quite happy to discuss it with all members of the Parliament. If an amendment is proposed, we can discuss it—as we did with the previous amendment—and we may be quite happy to accept it. However, I am not prepared to accept this amendment. Mr GILMORE: The moving of the amendment is probably a belt-and-braces approach. However, I will support it insofar as it puts an extra step in the process and provides a little extra security. In exchanging contracts, prudent people should have a method of endorsing them so that everybody is aware of the exchange of contracts. However, as the honourable member said, in some sections of the industry, individuals are privately renting property to other people, and they are unaware of the provisions of the Act or the other requirements that are incumbent upon them. The amendment nails the legislation down properly so that there is no doubt whatsoever. I do not think that a two-day period is overly onerous. In respect of the Minister's assertion that it is difficult for people to draw up a letter of demand of some description—that is probably overstating the fact. The communication may be verbal. If it is written, it could be a short note containing only a couple of sentences. I do not think that that is beyond the capability of most people these days. The Opposition supports the amendment. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 49 NOES, 32 Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Legislative Assembly 6410 26 February 1991

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, by leave, read a third time. GAMING MACHINE BILL Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.16 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation and control of gaming machines and for purposes connected therewith." Motion agreed to. First Reading Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.17 p.m.): I present the Bill and explanatory notes, and move— "That the Bill be now read a first time." Motion agreed to. Debate interrupted. PRIVILEGE Investigation of Matters by Criminal Justice Commission; Sub Judice Rulings Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.16 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr Speaker, I refer to your rulings made on 19 and 20 February—last week—in respect of matters that are before the Criminal Justice Commission. I draw your attention to the CJC's report on poker machines, which states in its foreword— "This report is dated 30 May 1990 and represents the state of knowledge on this topic of this Commission as of that date. This topic is receiving continuing attention from the Commission." The commission referred to is the CJC. I also bring to your notice that I understand Mr Ainsworth and representatives of Olympic are to appear before the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. In view of your ruling, stated several times on 19 and 20 February 1991, that matters before the CJC should not be canvassed in this House—I ask you whether it is appropriate —— Mr Mackenroth: Oh, come on! Mr BORBIDGE: I am referring to the Speaker's ruling. Mr Speaker, I ask whether it is appropriate, in the light of the precedent that has been created by your ruling, that this legislation be introduced and debated in the House at this time? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to advise the member for Surfers Paradise that, in my view, there is no matter of privilege. Secondly, my ruling with regard to matters before the Criminal Justice Commission was strictly related to the inquiry into members' travel. The ruling was specific in that it stated that matters concerning individual members may not be raised. That was my ruling. Therefore, I rule that there is no point of privilege. I call the Minister. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that both Mr Ainsworth and representatives of Olympic are to appear before the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee and also to your consistent rulings on those dates prohibiting members on the Opposition side of the House from debating specific matters relating to a CJC investigation. Mr Speaker, my question—again, with respect—is: does the precedent established by your ruling apply in this case? Legislative Assembly 6411 26 February 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise is misinterpreting my ruling. I am only the Speaker, but it is my view that the Parliament has a right to legislate on any matter it wishes. I am going to allow the Minister to introduce the Bill. I call the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the member for Gregory that I find that statement a reflection on the Chair. I thought I was extremely clear in stating my ruling. Today, of course, I provided an opinion from the Solicitor-General which exemplified that, and which was really specific to my ruling. That is what my ruling was. I think the honourable member is impertinent. I ask him to withdraw the statement, or I will name him under Standing Order 124. Will the honourable member withdraw the statement? Mr JOHNSON: I withdraw that statement, Mr Speaker. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. With respect, Mr Speaker, I refer to the following comments of yours on page 6123 of Hansard— "The matter is before the CJC, which is a body exercising a criminal jurisdiction. It is as simple as that." I also refer to page 6126 of Hansard on 19 February 1991 which records your comments. You said— "Order! I have given a ruling. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to desist from talking about matters that are before the Criminal Justice Commission." With respect, I submit that there is no difference between the CJC's investigation in respect of members' travelling expenses and the CJC's ongoing inquiries in respect of poker machines, as confirmed in their report to this Parliament in the words of Sir Max Bingham. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been extremely patient. I suggest, as I said before, that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise is being selective in the material from which he has quoted. I went further to say that my ruling pertained specifically to individual members' being named with regard to criminal activity. I remind the House that according to the rules governing the contents of speeches in Erskine May, the following quite clearly applies— "Subject to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any matters of delegated legislation, matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate." That puts the honourable member for Surfers Paradise out of order. I have been extremely tolerant. I will not take any further points of order on this matter. I have been extremely firm. I now think that the House should get on with its business. I call the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing. GAMING MACHINE BILL Debate resumed. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.21 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be printed." Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think we missed the step whereby the Clerk reads the Bill for the first time. Let us go back a step. The question is that the Bill be read a first time. Those of that opinion say, "Aye". Government members: Aye! Mr SPEAKER: To the contrary? Opposition members: No! Legislative Assembly 6412 26 February 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the "Ayes" have it. An Opposition member: Divide! AYES, 50 NOES, 31 Resolved in the affirmative. Second Reading Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.29 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." As is the case worldwide, Government regulation is considered to be the most appropriate form of policy instrument to ensure the proper conduct and operation of gaming machines. Under existing Queensland legislation, the possession or use of any type of a gaming machine, other than in a casino, is illegal. Therefore, specific legislation to authorise the operation and repair of gaming machines in licensed clubs and hotels is necessary. This Gaming Machine Bill provides for the administration of gaming machine control functions by establishing the Queensland Machine Gaming Commission and allowing for the appointment of officers to the specifically created control body, the Machine Gaming Division. The Bill endows these officers with authorities to carry out inspections and investigations to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. Investigations into the background of members of the commission and officers of the division are required to be undertaken to ensure their good repute with particular regard to character, honesty and integrity. These provisions will allow for the efficient and effective control of machine gaming and will ensure an impeccable and secure operation. The Bill caters for the issuing of gaming machine site licences and the licensing of repairers, service contractors and all club and hotel persons who are involved in the control of the gaming operations. A thorough check of the antecedents of the people who repair or manage machine operations, involving fingerprinting, photographing, the Legislative Assembly 6413 26 February 1991 disclosure of family history, residential and employment history, financial resources and past income, and detailed checking of police records, is a requirement of the Bill. Mr Speaker, is there a meeting going on in the back of the Chamber? Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members wish to have a conversation, I suggest that they leave the Chamber. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr GIBBS: The legislation also deals with the investigation of machine manufacturers and suppliers and the evaluation of machines tendered by approved manufacturers and suppliers. To avoid corruption associated with kickbacks in the industry, the legislation allows for the Government to purchase gaming machines through public tender. The allocation of machines to clubs and hotels will be without any consideration of their preference for machine manufacturer, and a monthly rental charge will apply. All gaming machines and their associated game programs will be tested and technically evaluated to determine whether they comply with the Government's stringent guidelines and specifications. The Government will purchase a wide range of machines based on the evaluation process and on research to identify those devices which are most popular. The approved game program will be installed onto a computer chip and sealed onto a logic board by a Government inspector and housed in a secure cabinet. Only a Government inspector or an authorised, licensed repairer will be able to gain access to any of the sensitive areas of a gaming machine. When a licensed repairer accesses a computer cabinet, controls in the Bill ensure that the work will be checked by a Government inspector before any further access is made. Apart from establishing the basis upon which licences will be issued and the approval of gaming machines, the legislation provides for the control, in its various forms, of machine operations and provides severe penalties for non-compliance. The controls under which gaming machines will operate will include the requirements for the lay-out of gaming machines, hours of operation, security of keys, gaming machine access, monitoring of gaming machines and removal of unsuitable persons—which means, of course, that half the Opposition will never be able to go into a club. The procedures to be followed in respect of money clearances, the deposit of that money into a special bank account, the reading and recording of meters, monthly gaming machine reconciliations and audit of financial accounts will be prescribed. Provision is also made for the assessment and collection of all fees, taxes, levies and penalties. The legislation also provides a mechanism by which complaints related to the non- payment of wagers and improper practices can be dealt with. Before dealing with the clauses of the Bill itself, it would be advantageous to outline briefly the background to the gaming machine legislation. Since the introduction of the New South Wales legislation in 1956 which legalised poker machines in registered clubs, there has been a dramatic increase in the social programs, facilities and services, and membership size of many of the participating organisations. According to the New South Wales Liquor Administration Board's annual report of 1989-90, two out of the top five clubs in New South Wales are located on the border of Queensland at Tweed Heads, the Twin Towns Services Club being number two and the Seagulls Rugby League Club being the third-largest poker machine tax-paying club. Many New South Wales clubs are "public houses", providing a wide range of sporting and leisure activities, and most provide food, liquor and entertainment at prices subsidised by poker machine revenue. By contrast, Queensland clubs are experiencing serious financial problems resulting from a downturn in patronage and, as a result, recreational facilities in many clubs and hotels are inadequate. The deteriorating financial position of clubs has been a matter of concern for some years. The proposal to introduce machine gaming into Queensland has been advanced at various levels over a number of years and is seen as a means for clubs and hotels to Legislative Assembly 6414 26 February 1991 improve their facilities and supplement their financial positions. The identifiable reasons in support of machine gaming are— to provide direct funding for sport, recreation and welfare programs; to provide an avenue by which participating clubs and hotels can increase their financial support, in order to improve recreational facilities and services for members and patrons; to encourage the growth of tourism by the improvement of club and hotel facilities, services and entertainment; to provide additional employment opportunities in the State; to create extra revenue for the State; and to meet the legitimate wish of those who are attracted to playing gaming machines. It was clearly recognised there was a danger that persons of bad repute and influence could be attracted to the industry. By its very nature, machine gaming presents unique problems and the background of control in this area has been chequered. Too often in the past advantage has been taken by unscrupulous and criminal types of loose, inadequate or even non-existent controls to the grave disadvantage and detriment of many. A study of history of machine play in New South Wales and Nevada and, more parochially, of in- line machine play in Queensland, immediately develops extreme fear that corruption is an ensuing component of this form of gambling. The evidence recently submitted to the Fitzgerald inquiry, the allegations of large amounts of graft being passed to several persons at all levels and the allegations and criticisms raised by various Australian commissions of inquiry into the machine industry are frightening, to say the least. There have been serious allegations and criticisms of the gaming industry raised by various commissions, principally as presented in the Moffitt, Connor and Wilcox inquiries. Because of the seriousness of these allegations and criticisms, and the dishonourable history of poker machines in other jurisdictions, a great deal of thought and consideration has been given in the preparation of the construction of the Gaming Machine Bill. This Bill addresses the concerns raised and problems identified by the various reports and investigations into the gaming machine industry. A comparison of the various relevant jurisdictions and their legislation provided further insight into the inherently difficult problems that attach to machine gaming. This has ensured our gaming machine legislation is practical, easy to read and understand, and is the best yet formulated. We were mindful also of the potential impact on other forms of gambling and of the undesirable social effects that might apply to a few who lose at a gambling game to an extent where the livelihood of their family is harmed. However, these matters can be resolved, and it was decided that the positive effects emanating from the operation of gaming machines outweighed any possible residual negative effects. This legislation will allow for the efficient and effective control of gaming machines in participating clubs and hotels and will ensure an impeccable operation. The community can be assured that the potential for undesirable practices is limited. While one can never claim that later amendments will not be necessary in the light of operational circumstances, I am confident that the Bill before this Parliament is and will be recognised as being second to none in its field. It encompasses all the best features of the leading gaming machine legislation that presently exists worldwide and, in doing so, adopts the majority of the recommendations made in the Report on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations submitted by the Criminal Justice Commission. I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Part 1—Preliminary, contains the definition and explanation of terms peculiar to this Bill. The gaming machine licence authorises the operation of gaming machines in an approved club or hotel. The Bill requires all applicants for a gaming machine licence to be thoroughly investigated to ensure a high standard of integrity, honesty and financial stability. To enable the division to maintain strict supervision of all, a schedule of gaming machines identifying the licence to which Legislative Assembly 6415 26 February 1991 it applies will be issued by the director. A licensee is to display the licence and the schedule in a conspicuous position on the licensed premises. In respect of the definitions of "licensed machine manager", "licensed repairer" and "licensed service contractor", I advise that the fundamental aim of licensing those persons who are involved in the control of gaming operations and who repair and service gaming machines is to ensure operations are not controlled or influenced by criminal or even undesirable persons and that Queensland has the highest standard of machine gaming. The gaming machine licensed repairer will be the only person, other than Government inspectors, who will have access to the computer cabinet of the device in which will be housed the microprocessor and the all important game EPROM. On this EPROM is held the game program, including the random number generator, and quite rightly may be termed the brains or controlling influence of the gaming machine. It is vital that access to this area is restricted. The immediate repairs to a gaming machine, such as coin jams, hopper fills, bulb fixes, etcetera, can be attended to locally by the in-house machine manager or persons under their control. A prerequisite of the licensing of repairers and machine managers is a thorough check of applicants' antecedents, including fingerprinting and photographing. Extensive grounds exist for the cancellation or suspension of a licence. As the Government will purchase and retain ownership of the machines, it is not its intention to licence manufacturers or suppliers. Rather, official registers of recognised manufacturers and suppliers of gaming machines and recognised suppliers of restricted components will be maintained. The organisations included thereon will be defined as listed persons. Before being added to this list or roll, extensive investigations and checks will be carried out on each gaming machine company and their principal officers to ensure they are of good repute. The other definitions are self-explanatory. Mr Harper: In whose judgment? Mr GIBBS: The honourable member can be rest assured of one thing: it will not be him. The purposes and intentions of Part 2 of the Bill are also readily apparent. It creates the Queensland Machine Gaming Commission and gives the commission power to do all things necessary to carry out its functions. The functions of the commission will include the— granting of licences; cancellations and suspensions of licences; determination of machine numbers; and determination of tenders for gaming machines by making recommendations to the Governor in Council. The Bill provides the administrative machinery required for the introduction and control of gaming machines in Queensland and caters for appointments to the Machine Gaming Division. I emphasise again that this Bill provides for the investigation into the background of the machine gaming commissioners, the director, prospective inspectors and other division staff to ensure their character, honesty and integrity. As private and confidential information will pass through the hands of commissioners and staff members of the division, there are strong penalties in the Bill for breaches of secrecy. This Bill also contains a delegatory power and it provides for police and other assistance to be made available under certain circumstances. The role of the police in checking applicants for a licence is important. There could be up to 2 000 applications for a gaming machine licence from clubs and hotels and more than 6 000 applications for a machine manager's, repairer's or service contractor's licence. The division will gather most of the information on applicants and the prime responsibility of assessment will lodge in that area. However, all checking of the various police and criminal indexes in Australia and, if necessary, elsewhere will be performed by police or police-trained personnel. These checks will largely establish whether or not an applicant has a good reputation of honesty and Legislative Assembly 6416 26 February 1991 integrity. The police will be passing on to the commission and the division other information as may be useful from time to time in controlling machine gaming. Part 3 of the Bill authorises the granting of gaming machine licences to approved hotels and clubs and makes machine gaming lawful. It determines which bodies may make application for a gaming machine licence and provides for the initiation and completion of all necessary investigations to determine the suitability of the applicant to be a licensee and the suitability of the nominated premises. The commission determines the grant of a gaming machine licence and the maximum number of machines allowable. In order to maintain strict control of all gaming machines, the legislation provides for the issue of a schedule of machines supplied to a licensee and requires the licensee to display the licence and the schedule in a prominent location on the premises. Licence conditions are as prescribed by regulation and as imposed by the commission. The Bill enables the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed on a licence to be varied by the commission when it considers that a variation would be in the public interest. The gaming machine licence remains in force for two years, is renewable, but cannot be transferred to another person or to other premises. The Bill ensures strict control over gaming machine operations by requiring all interested and influential parties in the business operations of an applicant for a gaming machine licence, or the holder of a gaming machine licence whose circumstances have changed, be declared by way of affidavit. Similarly, the cessation or commencement of an executive officer or secretary of a body corporate is to be notified to the director. The director may at any time investigate a licensee or associate to ensure that he or she continues to be a suitable person. The Bill provides for the director to supply gaming machines to clubs and hotels which are gaming machine licence holders and leaves the brand of manufacture and gaming machine type to his discretion. The Bill allows for the replacement of gaming machines and the increase or decrease in the number of gaming machines applicable to a licence. A recommendation regarding a reduction in the number of gaming machines provided to a licensee will be made by the director to the commission if a reduction is requested in writing by the licensee, local authority, the Commissioner of Fire Services, Licensing Commission or on an inspector's report. Except where a licensee makes such a request, the director must advise the licensee by notice in writing of the relevant details of any submission and give the licensee the opportunity of reply. A licensee wishing to modify or relocate the gaming machine area must have the approval of the director. The director may, by notice in writing, direct the licensee to modify or relocate the gaming machine areas of the licensee's licensed premises. The licensee will be given the opportunity to make a submission in respect to this notice in writing. Clause 3.22 of this Part caters for the surrender of a gaming machine licence and is self- explanatory. An application for a gaming machine licence may be made only in respect of premises which are licensed under the Liquor Act 1912-1989. Clause 3.23 ensures that the cancellation, forfeiture, transfer or surrender of a liquor licence results in the cancellation of the gaming machine licence. A suspension of a liquor licence will result in the suspension of the gaming machine licence for the same period. Cancellation or suspension of a gaming machine licence may be made by the commission if the licensee offends in a manner set out in clause 3.24 of the Bill. Any act or omission that is a ground for cancellation or suspension must be of a serious and fundamental nature, and if this is the case, a notice is to be issued to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled or suspended. Acts or omissions that may trigger a cancellation or suspension action are necessarily widely cast and inevitably minor misdemeanours will occur. Where it is considered that such acts or omissions are not of such a serious nature that the integrity and conduct of gaming is jeopardised or that the public interest will not be adversely affected, a letter of censure may be issued. The cancellation, surrender or non-renewal of a gaming machine licence does not affect any moneys that are payable or that become payable to the Crown. Where a licence is not in force, gaming machines are not to be played and provisions for the recovery of gaming machines is also included. To protect the interests of the members and staff of a club, clauses 3.29 to 3.31 of the Legislative Assembly 6417 26 February 1991

Bill provide for the appointment of an administrator instead of cancelling or suspending a gaming machine licence. The expenses of administration and the liability for losses incurred during administration are payable by the club. Part 4 of the Bill deals with the licensing of repairers, service contractors and machine managers. Persons who install, maintain or repair gaming equipment on licensed premises, persons who enter into a gaming equipment service contract and persons who carry out duties of a machine manager are required to be licensed. Where the commission, having regard to the advice of the director, is of the opinion that any person who is an employee of a gaming machine licence holder and has the power to exercise or is exercising authority or influence over the conduct of gaming, the commission may require that person to apply for a machine manager's licence. The Bill requires a licensee to ensure at all times that at least two licensed machine managers are authorised to carry out the duties of machine manager and that there must be at least one machine manager readily available when gaming is being conducted. Licence applicants will be thoroughly checked to ensure that a high standard of integrity, honesty and financial stability is maintained. The taking of fingerprints, palmprints and photographs of applicants for one of those licences is a requirement that will immeasurably assist police inquiries and allow investigations into their background, particularly where the candidate resides interstate or overseas. All records will be held in the division. The Bill requires the disclosure by way of affidavit of all influential or benefiting parties in relation to the performance of the general functions to be permitted by a repairer's or service contractor's licence. A licence under this part of the Bill is subject to such conditions as the commission may impose in the public interest or for the proper conduct of gaming. It remains in force for two years, is renewable before the expiration of the term of the licence and is not transferable. Section 4.18 allows the director to investigate holders of licences and their associates to confirm that the licensee continues to be a suitable person to hold a licence. There is a requirement that the director must be advised within seven days of the cessation or commencement of an executive officer or secretary of an incorporated licensed service contractor. Similarly, an employer being a licensee, licensed repairer or licensed service contractor must notify the director within seven days of the commencement or cessation of a licensed employee or of the making of a service contract. Where the director is of the opinion that any act, omission or other thing that constitutes a ground under this Bill for the cancellation or suspension of a licence is of such a serious and fundamental nature that the integrity of gaming or the conduct of gaming may be jeopardised or the public interest adversely affected, the director must issue to the holder of the licence a show-cause notice. If satisfactory answers are not given, the director may recommend to the commission that the licence be suspended or cancelled. If the action of the licensee is not considered to be of a serious nature, the director may issue a letter of censure. As a lengthy period may be required to thoroughly check applications for repairers', service contractors' or machine managers' licences, particularly for interstate and overseas applicants, the Bill includes the facility for the commission to issue a provisional licence. Part 5 of the legislation provides for the supervision and management of machine gaming. Included in that part is the requirement for the licensee to install gaming machines. Play must only be allowed on a properly functioning machine in the gaming machine area and gaming equipment must not constitute a nuisance either by noise, visual display or location to persons on the premises. Additionally, the Bill requires the licensee to conduct the gaming operation in a competent and proper manner, to maintain facilities to provide maximum safety and comfort to patrons and not to allow any person to entice others to game. Approval procedures covering the installation of electronic monitoring systems, hours of operation and ancillary gaming rules are also provided. The holder of a gaming machine licence is not to extend credit in any form to enable any person to play a gaming machine. Sections 5.10 to 5.13 cover the use of gaming tokens in the conduct of gaming and ensure that players are paid their entitlement. Provision is made for the machine manager Legislative Assembly 6418 26 February 1991 to refuse payment of a bet where the machine has malfunctioned. The Bill requires such refusal to be reported to the director and the licensee. Protection for the player is provided by either the licensee or the director being empowered to reverse the refusal. The Bill requires the holder of a licence to be responsible for the security and safekeeping of all keys used in connection with the operation of gaming and that access to machines is limited to authorised persons. A gaming machine entry log for each machine is to be held inside the cabinet of a machine and is to be completed every time that the door of the machine is opened. Section 5.19 provides for the holder of a licence to obtain the approval of the commission to enter into any contract or agreement to perform in-house gaming functions. This does not include a person who is employed by the licensee or a person engaged in an honorary capacity or engaged without fee or reward. The licensee must maintain records of persons employed in gaming-related operations and report the names of those people monthly to the division. The employment of minors in machine operations is prohibited. Of course, minors are prohibited from playing gaming machines. The Bill ensures that excessive or compulsive machine players are prohibited from gaming for one month if it becomes evident to the holder of a gaming machine licence that the peace and happiness of a person's family are endangered. Licensees who ignore evidence that a family is suffering as a result of a person's compulsive gambling will have their chances of having a licence reissued severely affected. The final section of Part 5, which caters for the removal of certain persons, is easily understood. Part 6 deals with the control of gaming machines. The first 12 sections set out the requirements of the roll of recognised manufacturers and suppliers of gaming machines and restricted components and provide for authorities for various persons to possess gaming machines and restricted components. The opportunity for corruption associated with kickbacks or monetary inducements from manufacturers to employees and officials of clubs and hotels so that a club or hotel will install a particular brand of machine is eliminated in the succeeding provisions by allowing for the purchase of machines and components through public tender and prescribing the manner in which tenders will be called and determined. The Bill ensures that only approved machines will be supplied and prescribes the manner, terms, conditions and requirements for their transportation. There is a requirement for machines to be labelled with an identification number, and the prohibition of gaming on a machine whose computer cabinet has not been secured by Government seal. Only a Government inspector or other approved person can seal that computer cabinet which secures the game microchip or remove any restricted component or security seal. Unlawful interference with gaming equipment or the wilful damage of the equipment is an offence. The other sections of this part of the Bill are self-explanatory. Part 7 provides for the keeping of accounts and records, the auditing of books, accounts and financial statements and the submission of a monthly gaming machine reconciliation report to the division. Part 8 of the legislation provides for the levying and collection of Government revenue in the form of a tax on the gross monthly turn-over of gaming machines. The rate of tax is prescribed by regulation. In addition, a sport and recreation levy and a charitable and rehabilitation levy will be imposed. These moneys will be paid into special funds and will be distributed to selected programs. As a result of the introduction of gaming machines, this Government envisages being able to distribute a further $54m a year to sporting and welfare groups. A rental fee, as prescribed, will be payable by the licensee on a monthly basis. That rental will cover the interest and redemption charges on the purchase cost, a component for repairs and maintenance and a small amount for insurance and communication charges. The remaining clauses of this part relate to the machinery provisions for these taxes, levies and fees, and are self-explanatory. Part 9 of the Bill is of critical importance, providing as it does for the director to issue written directions to licensees regarding the conduct of gaming or the administration of licensed premises and for the direction to be complied with in all respects. The control Legislative Assembly 6419 26 February 1991 features are further enhanced in the clauses that deal with the powers of Government inspectors. Members will have observed that the powers given in the Bill are wide. However, to limit them would be to confine and restrict the regulation of a most sensitive industry. Part 10 of the Bill provides all of the general provisions. The clauses relating to the prohibition of licensed repairers from playing gaming machines save to the extent of the performance of their duties and the prohibition of licensed personnel from playing gaming machines on the club's premises that they are so associated with are easily understood. If so directed in writing by the director, officers of the Machine Gaming Division are prohibited from playing gaming machines provided to a licensee. It is very important to note that the Bill prevents persons from having any external influence over a club's licence application, unless so empowered, and restricts certain agreements which return any direct or indirect interest in gaming machines to that person. The penalties for bribery relating to officers of the Machine Gaming Division are severe but are indicative of the seriousness of the offence. If the impeccability of the division is to be ensured, these penalties are vital. The integrity of divisional staff should not be open to question by virtue of any business or employment arrangement with a listed person or a holder of a licence, and provisions are included to this effect. The Bill provides for the reporting of accounting discrepancies and criminal activity in relation to the operation of gaming machines to the director, defines cheating by a person or licensee and provides for various other offences against the legislation. It is an offence for any person to forge a gaming token, licence or identification card or to impersonate any person named in a licence or identification. It is also an offence for a person to represent an inspector or officer of the division or to knowingly make a false statement in any documentation. The police will be given the power of detention, search and seizure in respect of any person who has or is reasonably suspected of having committed or attempted to commit offences relating to illegal possession, operation or interference with gaming machines. The power of arrest is also provided where a person refuses to supply name and address when required by a police officer who reasonably suspects an offence has been committed under this Bill. In conclusion, I must stress that a gaming machine licence issued in this State is a revokable privilege and not a right. In ordinary circumstances, some of the powers, controls and safeguards included in this Bill could be considered excessively harsh. It must be appreciated that the proposed legislation is to cover a somewhat unique industry, which has historically attracted persons of questionable habits. Before commending the Bill to the House, I pay tribute to the director and staff of the Machine Gaming Division, who have worked under considerable pressure to prepare the drafting instructions for the Bill, which must be acknowledged as the most comprehensive and complete legislation ever to address such a highly sensitive and difficult industry. I especially mention the Director of the Machine Gaming Division, Mr Noel Hall, in whom I have absolute and total confidence and who has worked extremely hard and made a marvellous contribution to the preparation of the Bill by his advice to me over a considerable period. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Harper, adjourned. GAMING MACHINE BILL Incorrect Reporting of Division Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (6.07 p.m.): The result of the last division was inaccurately reported. There were 51 ayes, not 50. I therefore move under Standing Order 152— "That the votes and proceedings be corrected." Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.08 to 7.30 p.m. Legislative Assembly 6420 26 February 1991

QUEENSLAND FLOODS Debate resumed from 21 February (see p. 6330). Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (7.30 p.m.): I do not intend to speak at length. My electorate has not been affected by flooding as badly as some of the unfortunate areas to which honourable members have referred. Nevertheless, when one takes into account saturation of pavements, which was referred to the other day by the Minister for Transport, and other considerations, a certain amount of damage has been done in the electorate of Warwick. After listening to the debate last Thursday, most members would agree that a good deal of common sense has been used by the Government and that emergency services personnel have done an excellent job. In spite of that, people have suffered a great deal of hardship. The Government believes that the past year has been disastrous in terms of the rains, or acts of God as they could be called. Queensland is a large State. A natural disaster occurs almost every year and the Government must provide support. When one looks at all the effects of too much rain and damage caused by cyclones, one realises that people should be given some advice as to the type of insurance they should have. I know that it is probably impossible to get people to insure against every event, but people should be advised about the type of insurance they should have when they live in a particular area. One of the things that causes problems for the farming community when serious problems occur as a result of floods, such as the ones Queensland is experiencing at present, is that, when farmers go to the QIDC for a loan, they have to be able to prove that their farms are viable or that they are in serious necessitous circumstances. Those two things are very hard to prove, and one is walking a very fine line in order to prove them. King's Creek in the electorate of Warwick has flooded higher than usual. As a result, more damage has been done to farming communities and roads, and saturation of pavements has occurred. I believe that there must be more flexibility when people who have suffered serious damage apply for loans. I am not aware of any great problems in my electorate as yet, because the people who might be trying to get help would have lodged their applications only in the last three or four days. The Shire of Cambooya could also have suffered damage. There was some damage in the City of Warwick in the Shire of Glengallen, but it was more moderate than the damage that occurred further down. Those local governments might have problems in funding damage restoration. I have not been up north, but, after hearing about the amount of rain that has fallen there, it is my opinion that the damage to the roads will not show up for three or four months. That usually happens after severe flooding and devastation by cyclones and can sometimes happen as a result of smaller storms. Somewhere there is a lesson to be learned in this State of Queensland—a State that is more prone to cyclones and excessive amounts of rain than other States are. The Minister is in the Chamber and I know that he is listening. Some thought must be given to the type of advice that is provided to people about insurance. It would be ridiculous to take out flood insurance where I live, but there must be areas in which people take a punt on flooding, such as Charleville and other places out west. At this time we still hear about people who have not insured against floods. One night I heard on the television that a lot of people in Rockhampton had failed to insure, yet they were living in an area that was subject to flooding. That does not seem right. I did not think people would be so foolish. They must be led astray a little by people who have said that the area will never flood again because some sort of flood prevention scheme has been carried out. Businesses have not received a great deal of reference in this debate. Two or three days ago, a company running a fleet of buses in the north was put in the hands of a receiver because it could not get its buses through. I can understand that. I believe that there would be extreme pressure on transport companies, particularly livestock-carriers, who operate in the western areas. I am told that since the Charleville floods they have not been able to operate well. They have had great difficulty getting into the area and the floods, together with the wool debacle, will increase their problems. The news is not Legislative Assembly 6421 26 February 1991 good. We were not expecting that Queensland would have extensive flooding over such a lengthy period. I have just watched the television news, which reported the possibility of another cyclone. One cannot help wondering just when it is all going to stop. I suppose it will stop and then Queensland will have a lengthy drought, which in turn will place us under further pressure. There are two or three lessons that should be learned. Loans must be made available to primary producers, particularly individuals and small companies, when they suffer problems caused by flooding. On the one hand, it is fairly hard to prove that their farms are viable; on the other, it is also hard to prove that they are in necessitous circumstances. It is probably not hard for them to prove that they are viable, but the need to prove that they are in necessitous circumstances has probably been exaggerated a little. I would like the Government to relent a little on that provision and try to get the QIDC to help support people who have suffered damage, whether it be to fencing or to the cropping value of the land. Because I travel through the Beaudesert/Boonah area on my way to Brisbane, I know where the flood has gone through. People are struggling hard to try to get the farms back into production, but it is obvious that those farms will not be as good as they were before. I would like to see the powers that be—namely, the Government and the Minister—take the initiative and provide some guidelines to ensure that people who live in areas that are likely to be subjected to flooding have adequate insurance. The Government would not have to put much pressure on them. I think that it would suffice if the Government told people of the possible dangers and areas where problems may occur. I am not criticising the Government because, obviously, the National Party Government did not do it, either; however, that does not mean that it should not be done. Tonight, I am advocating that this action be taken. I hope that the Minister is listening and that he will endeavour to ensure that, when the next continuous downpour occurs, more people are covered by insurance and are in a better position to help themselves. Before concluding my speech, I congratulate the Minister on the efforts of emergency services in this State. Not only did emergency services perform well in the recent disaster, but also I have seen the assistance that has been provided when a storm has struck on a narrow front. It is great for people to know that within five or six hours they will have tarpaulins on their houses, most of their furniture will be saved and definite efforts made. I offer no criticism of Queensland's emergency services. I am not criticising the Government—yet. I hope that this Government will be lenient towards people who need loans and that a policy on advising people in relation to insurance cover can be worked out. Mr SMYTH (Bowen) (7.39 p.m.): Flooding of the type that is occurring in north Queensland has occurred in my electorate of Bowen at least three times since Boxing Day. During that time, 2 253 millimetres of rain has fallen, which is more than nine feet of water. The main damage to farms occurred close to Euri Creek, which is in the northern part of my electorate, where water pressure caused erosion. In some cases, more than a metre of top soil disappeared. It will cost rural people a great deal of money to either remove the sand that has been dumped on their properties or fill in the holes that have resulted from water pressure. They will also have to undertake laser levelling costing many thousands of dollars, so that, in dry seasons, they will be able to irrigate their land. I have been advised that the Don River Trust, which is based in Bowen, has carried out assessments on flood damage and will undertake emergency work on areas that could be affected by further flooding. The cost of damage caused by flooding has been expressed as emergency expenditure for the Bowen Shire and was $159,171. Total expenditure on flood damage at this stage—and I hope that more rain does not fall in the electorate, causing further damage—after emergency expenditure will be $2,342,951. On new year's day, I was fortunate to travel with the Deputy Premier, Mr Tom Burns, to Rockhampton, Proserpine and Bowen. On that day we went to the railway station at Rockhampton where we met people who had been stranded by the floods. Legislative Assembly 6422 26 February 1991

Those people had travelled either in Queensland trains or on coaches and were in high spirits, in spite of the fact that they had been stranded for a number of days. The reason that they were in high spirits was that the local police officers and Railway Department officers had looked after them very well. One person made the comment, "I have had such a good time this new year's eve that I am coming back to this place next year." When we arrived at Bowen, I was confronted with the news that a drowning had occurred in the town. The officer in charge of Bowen police, Ron Clark, had to leave the company of the Minister and initiate a search for the body of a young bloke by the name of Steve Kerr. Steve was 38 years of age. I worked with Steve at the Peak Downs mine for 14 years. He was a very healthy person and a very family orientated person. It was a sad event; his son fell into a flooded creek when the bank gave way. Steve dived in to recover his son and handed him to other people who were standing on the bank. The last words those people heard him say were, "I'm in trouble." With that, he was washed out to sea. Another sad event concerned a man who was swept off the Elliott River bridge at Guthalungra, which is in my electorate. This happened close to midnight on 3 February. His body was found late on 4 February at the mouth of the Elliott River. I received a telephone call on Monday, 4 February, from the ground party that was undertaking the search for him in the hope that he was still alive. The story that was told to me was that the SES helicopter was carrying out work in the Burdekin electorate. The group had asked the member, Mr Stoneman, if he could approach the SES to have the helicopter released to take part in the search for this man. The request was refused. It was a simple matter. They contacted me; I contacted the SES in Townsville; I asked that a helicopter from the north Queensland emergency response group in Townsville be released. The helicopter was just sitting there, waiting to go, and all that the member for Burdekin needed to do was ring up the SES in Townsville and it would have been released. That is what I did. The helicopter was released. The search was approved by Inspector Hansen at 2.10 p.m. on the Monday. The search got under way and the man's body was found at 3.45 that afternoon. The point I make is that the family of that person would have been distressed. People who did not know the name of the man who was missing may have been worried that the missing person was a member of their family, and they also would have been distressed. All that was needed was a telephone call from Mr Stoneman in the Burdekin electorate to release that SES helicopter. If that could not have been done, the helicopter in Townsville was ready to go instead. The member for Burdekin did not do that, and I think it is a disgrace. He should be condemned. Mr Rowell: Don't worry; it's not all that straightforward, I can assure you of that. Mr SMYTH: Perhaps the honourable member might be able to enlighten us later. The other matter that I draw to the attention of the House is that, when cyclone Charlie went through my electorate in 1988, the same thing occurred when the former member for Broadsound, Mr Hinton, asked for the SES helicopter to be released to round up cattle. That SES helicopter was assisting to lift farmers off the roofs of their houses and had to take two pregnant women to hospital. In another instance, a man had half his foot chopped off and needed assistance, yet Mr Hinton was asking that the SES helicopter be released to round up cattle in his electorate. That is typical of the two members whom I have mentioned tonight. They should be condemned. Mr Harper: You just don't understand. Mr SMYTH: I understand that people are more important than cattle to those members. Mr Booth: It's a pack of lies. Mr SMYTH: It is not a pack of lies. I have the evidence. However, I thank the local councillors and council workers who assisted people who had their homes damaged by floods. I commend the road and rail gangs which assisted in repairing road and rail Legislative Assembly 6423 26 February 1991 facilities. All of those people worked tirelessly in adverse conditions to assist in repair work and to assist those in need. As well, I commend the SES groups on their well organised and dedicated service to the flood-affected areas of my electorate of Bowen in north Queensland. I commend also the Government on the action that it has taken to ameliorate the effects of the devastating flood in north Queensland. All honourable members who are realistic in their appraisal of the matter would agree that the Government has done everything it can. It will continue to do that. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (7.46 p.m.): At the outset, I must say that I am disappointed. I was listening to the speech of the honourable member for Bowen. When he started referring to the soil erosion and the losses that have been suffered by primary producers in his area and the difficulties caused by the depositing of sand on otherwise fertile soil, I thought that he was indicating a real interest in and understanding of some of the problems that are associated with natural disasters of this type. However, I must place on record that I am disappointed that he should take the opportunity to attack a current member and a former member of the House when they were not in a position to respond. I am sure that the member for Burdekin will respond adequately later. As we come towards the end of this debate, it is opportune that we consider the motion that is being discussed, that is— "That this House take note of the devastating floods ravaging large parts of the State"— and when the Leader of the Opposition moved that the House do so, those floods were still ravaging— "and calls upon the State Government to take all measures possible to alleviate suffering and hardship and to ensure that those businesses affected, rural and otherwise, receive meaningful assistance to get back into productivity as soon as possible." It is right and proper that we take note of those sentiments and that we call on the State Government to make sure of that. Of course, the Government has moved an amendment to that motion. Because floods and drought will always occur in Queensland and other States of Australia there will always be a need for natural disaster relief. Just as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, these natural disasters—floods and droughts—will continue to be part of the Australian and Queensland scene. At least the experience of these floods within the first year of the Labor Government's term of office will have indicated to members now on the Government benches that many of the things that they said when in Opposition—most, if not all, of the criticisms that they levelled at the previous Government—really were not factual. They will have learned from these floods the lesson that there is a need for natural disaster relief. Unfortunately, sooner or later we will have another drought. The lesson then will not be learnt by this Government because it will not be in office, but its members may better appreciate the need for natural disaster relief in time of severe drought. We cannot prevent natural disasters. You, Mr Speaker, have a background that gives you a true understanding of what I am saying. You know—not many Government members know—that, although we cannot prevent these happenings, we should be able to take action to mitigate their effects. I thought that was something that the member for Bowen was showing a bit of understanding about previously. In that area, it is important that we in this State Parliament and the Government of the day liaise with, encourage and assist the Commonwealth Government and Commonwealth instrumentalities to develop and improve the warning systems that are presently available. The warning systems, particularly those on rivers, are of tremendous importance and they are relied on by people downstream. A number of years ago when I lived at Cunnamulla, we relied on the meteorological bureau at Charleville and on people further along the river to provide warnings of flood heights. Since then, technology has improved and we Legislative Assembly 6424 26 February 1991 have the ability to install warning devices, some of which need to be enhanced above their present capabilities. I have found that the contributions made by the member for Flinders, the member for Cunningham and all the speakers on this side of the House have illustrated a clear understanding of the problems caused by floods. I suppose that is because they are practical people who have experienced the difficulties associated with floods. In my own electorate, the devastating effect of the recent floods really only occurred in the Duaringa Shire in the north of the electorate. A couple of years ago, when I was Minister for Primary Industries, we had floods not quite as severe as the present one in that area and it was astounding to fly over the affected area in fixed-wing aircraft and in private helicopters to witness what was occurring and what had occurred. The loss of cattle is absolutely staggering. During this last flood I was talking to one of my constituents, who accepted the fact that it looked as though he had lost between 400 and 500 head of cattle. He felt that because of the drought-stricken condition that those cattle were in, it was unlikely that any of them, or many of them, would have survived, even if they had got out at a bend in the river onto land further down the river. Not so very long ago, I was pleased to hear from him that a fellow land- holder had rung him and said that some 250 head of those cattle had turned up further down the river, that they were safe and that they would be returned to him. People tend not to realise the significance of such a loss. The member for Mirani lost a couple of hundred of cattle. People just pass it off as a couple of hundred head of cattle that lay down and die. I have had the experience of much smaller numbers of cattle which, because of extremely cold conditions—something that has never happened before—just lay down, fold up their legs and die. People who do not understand tend to pass it off as just another couple of hundred head of cattle. They do not think of the economic repercussions of that loss to the individual and to the whole economy. That is a very significant loss to individuals and to the total economy. Indeed, it can be just as devastating as some of the losses being suffered by the bus lines to which the previous speaker referred. That needs to be understood. City people really do not realise the tremendous cost, frustration and mental anguish that is suffered as a result of fencing losses. Kilometre after kilometre of fencing has been lost in the Mackenzie River area, the Isaacs River area and that part of my electorate where these floods occurred. It is bad enough when one has to replace only a few hundred metres of fencing. It is all a cost. It is work that is really non-productive. It is something that one has to accept but which really does not return anything. All one is doing is restoring capital improvements that previously existed. One must also bear in mind the loss of crops, the erosion that occurs, and, of course, the devastation of roads and the cost to local government and State Government. Last Saturday, I attended a rural crisis forum in Banana. One gentleman mentioned the tremendous damage to roads in the flooded areas to the north of my electorate. Not just gravel roads but also bitumen-sealed roads have disappeared. That is a tremendous loss to the whole State, to the local authorities concerned and, of course, to the State and Federal Governments. It is important to understand and to appreciate that the Commonwealth Government accepts a responsibility to come in and provide funding after a trigger point is reached. I understand that at present that trigger point is $30m. After that the Federal Government comes in and provides $3 for each $1 that the State is called on to contribute towards restoring those improvements, just as the local land-holders have to restore their improvements. I was fortunate that in most of my electorate only minor flooding occurred. It was only in the north- eastern part of the Duaringa Shire in the electorate of Auburn that major flooding occurred, which resulted in devastating cattle losses, fencing losses and, of course, losses to homes and dwellings that were low-lying and close to the river systems. Other areas did not receive as much rain. Indeed, some areas received virtually no rain at all. However, even minor flooding in those areas of my electorate caused loss of fencing and other capital improvements and, in particular, loss of some crops. Legislative Assembly 6425 26 February 1991

I want to pay tribute to senior departmental officers in Rockhampton and especially to the director- general, Ms Matchett, and to Lex Burgess. As I say, because the flooding in my area was not anywhere near as bad as it was in many other electorates, I did not have great need to contact either Ms Matchett or Lex Burgess. However, when I did contact them, they could not have been more helpful, more understanding or more constructively supportive. I think it is well that honourable members recognise that sort of assistance when it is forthcoming. Other members have referred to all the volunteers who responded to the needs of people. However, I want to make my contribution and thank all those volunteers of the State Emergency Service, both male and female, the police, the ambulance officers, the electricity workers and the council employees who responded to people in need in what was undoubtedly a crisis situation. I do not support the amendment that has been moved by the Government. At present, all of the volunteers, all of the State Emergency Service workers and all those other people who responded to the crisis have proven their worth and their ability. At this stage, I do not see any reason for the Government to pat itself on the back. Only time will prove whether it, too, deserves congratulation. I hope that in the future the Opposition is able to congratulate the present Government for responding in a like manner to all of those people to whom the Leader of the Opposition has referred—all of those people whose businesses have been affected, whether they be rural businesses or otherwise—and for ensuring that they have received meaningful assistance, and the key words are "meaningful assistance", not token assistance. When means tests and other criteria are applied, people can come away without receiving any assistance at all. If this Government responds in a meaningful way, it will certainly be deserving of congratulations. However, unlike the workers who responded to the crisis, this Government has yet to prove that it will meet that challenge. Until it does so, I certainly reserve my congratulations. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (8.01 p.m.): Heavy rainfall in the aftermath of cyclone Joy and the associated monsoonal conditions have caused serious flooding to rural areas in my electorate, as well as the residential areas of Bucasia and Blacks Beach. For the period 25 December to 12 January, records from Mount Bassett showed that rainfall exceeded 2 000 millimetres. The Bureau of Meteorology at Mount Bassett reported that on 3 January some rainfall bursts between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. were at an average of 25 millimetres per hour, but by 5 a.m. rainfall bursts increased to an average of 25 millimetres per 20 minutes. In some cases, 25 millimetres of rainfall was recorded in periods as small as 10 minutes. As well as heavy rains and winds, the people in the south of my electorate experienced what were locally referred to as minitornadoes. Though lasting only a few minutes, the most damaging of the two tornadoes tore through caravan parks and homes destroying everything in its path, rendering people homeless and creating great distress and hardship for scores of residents. Within minutes of the announcement of the tornadoes, SES personnel and local authority employees were on the scene removing uprooted trees from homes and covering roofs with tarpaulins. Once notified, the Minister for Housing, Tom Burns, requested all personnel from the Housing Commission in Mackay to return from leave to assist in housing families and repairing damage to homes. I wish to record my thanks to the Minister and those workers who gave up their precious leave to assist. What was most damaging during cyclone Joy were the very high tides that caused flooding every time the tide reached its peak. No sooner did the residents clean up than the tide rose again, bringing more devastation. The member for Flinders has commented on the long-time closure of roads. Might I remind that member, who clearly knows nothing about things nautical, that when the tide comes in, the water rises and bridges go under water; when the tide goes out, the roads clear, hence the reason for the roads being closed for long periods, particularly on the coast. Few roads in my electorate have survived cyclone Joy and the monsoon unscathed. Both local councils are reporting large repair bills for damaged roads and bridges. I would like to reiterate the sentiments of both shires, and particularly those of the Minister for Transport earlier in the debate, concerning the inadequacies of the Commonwealth/State disaster financial arrangements. Legislative Assembly 6426 26 February 1991

Clearly, the anomaly lies in the non-cover for saturation and this urgently needs some review. In the Pioneer Shire alone, the conservative estimate of unqualified shire road damage is $1m, with $1.4m in storm water reconstruction for the Bucasia area alone. None of that damage will qualify for funding. The local authorities in my electorate also feel restricted further in the loan programs, with repairs to damaged drainage systems being confined by the ceiling on those loan programs. By no means am I convinced that the worst of the wet season is yet over. I am reminded of 1958, when an extreme wet season was topped by a cyclone in June when, in one night, 32 inches of rain was dumped on the area and in one night 13 bridges were totally destroyed. Clearly, at the moment, the movement of cyclone Kelvin is of real concern to the residents of the whole of north Queensland. The damage to my electorate and its people happened because of the inability of Queensland's roads, bridges and railways to handle the wet conditions of the typical north Queensland climate. I shall remind the members in this place who built those roads, bridges and railways. The electorate of Whitsunday is riddled with examples of inappropriate and/or bad planning by the previous Government. For example, the Proserpine airport, on receiving a minimum of rain, becomes an island cut off from Mackay to the south and Proserpine itself to the north; one access road to Airlie Beach, which repeatedly becomes impassable, making access for essential services, provisions and employment impossible; lack of facilities at the rural police station which previously lacked the basic facilities of facsimile machines and photocopiers. How dare those has-beens on the other side of the House infer neglect on the part of this Government of 15 months after 32 years of their blatant, ignorant neglect, particularly in the electorate of Whitsunday. Year after year, the rural constituents in my electorate made representations to the Bjelke-Petersen Government for better, more appropriate road and rail services. Since 1975, when the area lost Dr Rex Patterson as its Federal member, my electorate has had both local authority chairmen—National Party; both local authorities—National Party dominated; State member—National Party; and the Federal member—National Party. The lack of interest by the National Party is reflected in the poor quality of services, such as rail and roads, and badly planned service locations such as police stations, hospitals and ambulance. Disinterest by the previous Government in life-threatening congestion at the second busiest harbour in Australia led to serious and dangerous situations in the lead-up to the cyclone conditions. Failing conditions, rough waters and a mixture of charter, bareboat and luxury craft and barges in a very confined, ill-planned harbour made a recipe for disaster. When requested for assistance to relieve traffic congestion in Shute Harbour, the previous Government bulldozed the hill and installed an extra car park—congestion on the water was not given any attention. If it had not been for the hard work of Dr Rex Patterson while Federal member for Dawson, in preparing the way and setting the wheels in motion, today my electorate would not have a high-level bridge over the Pioneer River, nor would it have the Proserpine River dam. The failure of, firstly, Ron Camm followed by Russell Cooper's "good friend and colleague", Geoff Muntz, illustrates their incomprehension of the needs for roads, bridges and rail systems designed especially for the tropics. Why do honourable members opposite raise the matter when they know full well that their inefficiency is the reason for most of the suffering during the crisis? The question has arisen: if one life had been lost during cyclone Joy in Whitsunday, would we have had the moral obligation to perhaps charge some of those members of the former Government with gross neglect or manslaughter? It should be remembered that the people in those caravan parks who lost all they owned were mostly unemployed and working-class people. Most of them were long-time residents of the caravan parks. They were not there because they enjoyed living there or wanted to live there, they were there simply because the previous Government and its representatives refused to recognise the need for low-cost housing. However, honourable members should not worry. Thanks to Minister Tom Burns, this Government has housed them. Legislative Assembly 6427 26 February 1991

I am not the sort of person who gets satisfaction out of pointing the finger or putting blame where blame belongs. Nor do I get a lot of pleasure in repeatedly bringing up the incompetencies of the past. As a matter of fact, something inside me keeps saying, "Forgive them for they know not what they've done." But it was the dill on the other side of the House who pursued this matter. No-one, nowhere, with an ounce of intelligence could have expected more from the Ministers of this State. I would like to record my thanks from the people of Whitsunday for the many visits, support and assistance rendered by, especially, the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Emergency Services, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Primary Industries. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8.10 p.m.): After listening to the member for Whitsunday, I began to wonder just who her speech-writer was, because she could not understand what she was reading and she certainly did not understand what was written on a slip of paper in front of her. She referred to Dr Rex Patterson. Can she remember that far back? She held him up as her leading light. Mr Borbidge: A Whitlam Minister. Mr STEPHAN: That is right, he was a Whitlam Minister, back in the days of the devastation. He is certainly not a person to be proud of. Perhaps it might have been an idea if the honourable member pointed the finger in the right direction, namely, at her Federal counterparts and colleagues. She should have demanded from them an increased return in the amount that the Federal Government takes each year by way of fuel tax so that that money could be spent on roads. She should have pointed the finger at them rather than at the members of the previous Government who worked particularly hard in the last few years. The motion calls on this House to— " . . . take note of the devastating floods ravaging large parts of the State and calls upon the State Government to take all measures possible to alleviate suffering and hardship and to ensure that those businesses affected, rural and otherwise, receive meaningful assistance to get back into productivity as soon as possible." On hearing the remarks of some of the members opposite and some Ministers, one begins to wonder whether they think this is the first flood that this State has ever had. They are starting to blame the floods for the lack of funding that may be available for some of the projects that had been promised in the lead-up to the election. After a while, it wears a little bit thin when they look for excuses and try to blame somebody else. I do not know if they can continue to blame the floods for the problems that exist and say that this is the only time that floods have ever occurred. Queensland's history shows that extremely disastrous floods occur on a very regular basis. Mr Borbidge: We always made allowances for it. It never threw our Budgets out. Mr STEPHAN: That is the case. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, previously allowances had always been made for disasters such as floods. If the Government is to be a good steward and able to cope with such contingencies, surely it should make allowances. If the Government is now saying that it has not made those allowances, perhaps the Treasurer and the Cabinet have to answer for their lack of foresight and lack of ability in managing the finances of the State. Mr Harper: Just irresponsible budgeting. Mr STEPHAN: It is irresponsible, but it also shows their ability to be able to comprehend what is likely to happen. History shows that, from time to time, this State has storms, floods and droughts, the aftermath of which need attention. Some of the previous floods were caused by freak conditions. I cite as examples the floods in 1893, 1955, 1974 and 1988. They were some of the larger floods to hit this State. Other areas of the State have experienced far larger floods. In each instance, a flood leaves a trail of devastation behind it. For example, the Legislative Assembly 6428 26 February 1991

1974 flood left a large amount of silt in Brisbane City and caused enormous damage to homes, properties, cars and life and limb. It is in such cases of personal hardship that money cannot possibly hope to provide any assistance to the people affected. We should never lose sight of the fact that, during floods, a large amount of work is done by volunteers. The SES comprises men and women who work night and day to give assistance willingly. They are not called upon to put in an extra effort, they are there because they want to be there and they are there because they want to help. The help that they provide is appreciated very much by all and sundry. Of course, they cannot be everywhere at once. Some remote country areas also require assistance. It is very difficult to get to those areas and to the people who may be living in housing or tents which may be badly knocked around. However, those people are certainly reached eventually. I am sure all honourable members would admire the ability of people in rural communities to look after themselves under those conditions. Many people do not realise the extent of losses suffered by the rural community during floods. It is impossible to replace soil that is washed away. Landcare groups are doing a tremendous job of ensuring that every effort is put into looking after the land. A great deal of topsoil from rural communities is washed out to sea or deposited in gullies. Seeds, fertilisers and animals are also lost. One cannot imagine the conditions under which animals suffer during times of floods. Animals do not understand why the water has risen. When the gates to their yards are shut and they cannot get out, they perish. That is not something that one would wish upon anybody's animals. The problems associated with natural disasters will not be overcome pointing a finger and saying, "It is somebody else's fault. What I have done is correct and accurate." If we are to demonstrate any semblance of responsibility, we must consider these issues reasonably and ensure that, wherever possible, losses suffered during natural disasters are minimised. Restoring a rural community after a flood costs a lot of money. But floods will continue to occur and take all before them. I hope that we will learn from past experiences and be prepared to assist where and when required, irrespective of who will get the credit for it. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (8.17 p.m.): In supporting this motion I am mindful that, as I speak, another cyclone is threatening my part of north Queensland and that area represented by many members in this House. Who is to know where such devastation might occur in the future? At all times, people in this State are at risk of the ravages of acts of God over which they have no control. I endorse the comments of the previous speaker, my colleague the member for Gympie, who said that regardless of the political colour of the Government of the day, there is only so much preparation that can be made and limited facilities available to provide those processes which, from time to time in hindsight, we believe should have been carried out. For instance, recently in Townsville a flash flood occurred overnight. It might be reasonable to suggest that drainage in that area could well have been better looked after. Why not blame the Townsville City Council for not having done its work? The member for Whitsunday suggested that more work should have been done in that area under the previous Government. The fact is that no matter what preparations one makes, in some circumstances it is impossible not to bear the full brunt of natural disasters. Floods are not the only disasters that Queensland faces. It often faces cyclones, during which the entire north Queensland coast is saturated. Wind is the only factor necessary to create absolute devastation, because the ground becomes so wet that the trees fall over. The best will in the world and the best Government in the world cannot avoid that sort of havoc. Fires, floods and droughts are a fact of life in Queensland. My colleague the member for Gympie indicated that, particularly in a tropical State such as Queensland, we must recognise that natural disasters will occur and budget for them accordingly. At present, north Queensland appears to be facing one of the greatest cyclone seasons that it has ever seen. Later in the year, Queensland could face the worst fires that it has ever seen. That happened in 1963. In April 1963, Queensland suffered huge floods. In November of that year, I was almost burnt to death while fighting a fire. The Legislative Assembly 6429 26 February 1991 worst drought in the history of Queensland occurred in 1964-65. That is part and parcel of the cycle of natural disasters in this State. One of my colleagues on the Government side of the House sought to bring into question some alleged actions of mine. I do not intend to enter into a discussion on that matter until I study exactly what was said. At that time I will make appropriate comments. I do not intend to waste time on personal vindictiveness or to suggest that particular matters are anybody's fault or that one Government or another Government acted more or less responsibly. I intend to highlight some of the problems that are confronted by ordinary, everyday people in meeting acts of God. We must consider how people feel when they hear on the radio or see on television that another cyclone or other disaster could well confront them. That is what this debate is all about. During the past four years, my electorate was affected by cyclones Charlie, Aivu, Ivor and Joy, and now cyclone Kelvin is threatening it. The historical structure and paths of cyclones indicate that less than half of those cyclones cross the coast. During the past four or five years, virtually every cyclone that has reached the Queensland coast has crossed it. Three cyclones crossed the coast during the period of the previous Government. Governments face a huge cost impost when cyclones occur. However, cyclones are a fact of life and must be budgeted for in the normal, everyday management of the State. When a certain amount of damage is done, the Commonwealth pays a considerable amount to the States. Unfortunately, in the past few years, because of the damage that has been wreaked upon the community by cyclones and floods, that payment has had to be made fairly regularly. Unbelievable problems were experienced earlier this year in Rockhampton, last year in Charleville, in past years in Innisfail and Townsville, and three or four times in my electorate. I can speak with a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Every cyclone that has hit the coast of Queensland in the past three years has wreaked havoc upon me personally, my home and my property and has brought with it all of the dangers and problems that our families must face. In half of those instances, my wife was home on her own. Many honourable members would have experienced the same problems. It happens to many families when the breadwinner is away. Often, old people have to confront these disasters without the support of their families. When a flood occurs, because insurance does not always include flood damage, young, struggling people see their life savings or their life-time commitments put at risk. I refer to the floods that commenced on 3 February and continued until April last year. I was out of the country for the whole of that time. However, I was in constant contact with the police, the SES people, my electorate secretary and the people who were looking after my property. Unbelievable havoc was wreaked upon Home Hill, as happened to a greater degree recently in Rockhampton. We often hear of the problems that are confronted by the public in general. Roads and public facilities are wiped out. Power lines are wrecked. Sadly, on occasions, lives are lost. That is all reported on the television. However, the ordinary, everyday people are not reported on the television. Recently, I spoke to a young, married woman in Home Hill. To respect her privacy, she shall remain nameless. I am sure that throughout Queensland, many people are in the same circumstances. She and her husband had financial commitments and were making repayments. For the past 10 years, they had both been working and paying off their mortgage, but because of the increase in interest rates, they had made little indentation on their total indebtedness. Obviously, we must all accept that. Then along came the flood, which imposed upon them an additional minimum cost of $20,000. For the past 10 years, those young people struggled to break even. They then received a further impost that made it almost impossible for them to countenance continuing. They are the people who are tragically affected by floods and cyclones. They are the people who have nowhere to turn. They are the people who past, present and, I am sure, future Governments have been unable to assist. The task would be too monumental to impose on the public purse. We must remember that those people are our future. They are our income-earners, yet they are suffering the most. If people are on the breadline and have no assets and not a feather to fly with, they can receive Legislative Assembly 6430 26 February 1991 some form of assistance. However, if people have any assets, if they have an income—albeit they have a huge debt--unfortunately the Government and the community are not able to help. They are the people for whom I feel most of all. Assistance measures are designed to help genuine welfare cases. Similarly, commercial problems arise. I refer again to Home Hill. The lessee of the motel, Ross Dingle, and his wife could not get flood insurance. They had recently taken over the motel. They have suffered a $300,000 loss, and they must try to bail themselves out. They have no option but to commit themselves to the funds necessary to bring that motel back into business. It will be a life-time commitment just to break even. People such as those are suffering the most. There are hundreds of them throughout the State. I am sure that there are dozens in Rockhampton and Innisfail and in other places along the coast that are yet to be ravaged. They are the people that honourable members must consider. More and more people Queenslanders are requiring disaster assistance. That may not be because the cyclones are getting worse—although there is conjecture about that. The Government must support those people in some way or another, otherwise people will say that it is not viable to live in north Queensland, or in Queensland at all. Mr Schwarten: How do we do it? Mr STONEMAN: Unfortunately, the message carries and people decide that it is just not worth it. The honourable member asked how we should do it. I do not know. I admit that honestly. I am saying that honourable members must address the problem and somehow or other try to overcome it. It is vital to the future of this State and for the continuing support of young families and battling businessmen who are just starting out. Generations of work and industry can go down the drain in a very short time. I am pleased that the Minister for Land Management is in the Chamber, because I will refer to other matters with which he has been involved. Without becoming too critical, it is an area in which his department, both under his stewardship and under previous stewardships, has been somewhat lax. The small village of Cungulla, which is south of Townsville, is right at the mouth of the Haughton River. The member for Townsville would be well aware of some of the problems in that area, because many of his constituents own property in the region. One of the problems concerns a development, which was brought about by the Land Administration Commission. I acknowledge that it is a good development. It consists of some 600 or 700 blocks of land, many of which have been sold. A rearrangement and restructuring has taken place in the planning of this small community. In fact, a specifically designed community has been formed at the end of a road that people cannot traverse and have been unable to traverse for the last two months. This is not the fault of the current Government. Mr Davies: It is in your electorate. Mr STONEMAN: I acknowledge that it is in my electorate. It always has been and I hope it always will be. It is a problem that has confronted not only this Government, but also the previous Government. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue in the future and developments by the Land Administration Commission or other Government agencies that do not match up with the rules and regulations imposed on private individuals cannot take place. In other words, had a private individual developed the Cungulla area, first and foremost he would have had to provide an all-weather access. Unfortunately, during the time that the previous Government was in office, the Land Administration Commission superimposed this development on that community. During the last two months, the people who have bought land in the area and built their homes, and who understood that they could commute daily to Townsville to work, have been unable to get out of the area even to buy basics, for health reasons or any other reasons. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed. I feel for those people and the problems confronting the Government, the local council and everyone else who is involved. Some way must be found to overcome the problem. Legislative Assembly 6431 26 February 1991

I refer now to the problems confronting the small township that is situated closest to me, that is, the township of Giru. I live only three and a half miles by rail from Giru. Sadly, this year, it has become a famous little town, because in the eight weeks since Christmas it has been flooded eight times. On eight occasions store-keepers have had to lift their goods up onto higher shelves and the people who live in the low-lying areas of the town have had to vacate their premises. Old people have been assisted from their properties by the SES, and I pay particular tribute to the local SES under the leadership of Sergeant Neville Travis-Jones and Sergeant Laurie Navshe who have done a magnificent job. It has been a weekly occurrence: eight weeks and eight floods. That situation cannot go unnoticed. The problem is that the riverbank is being eroded and the town is not big enough in its own right to put up a levy bank or maintain a drainage structure that would save the town from constant flooding. The shire council cannot do it because the rate base is not big enough. This problem must be addressed by the Government, regardless of whether it is this Government, a National Party Government, a Liberal Party Government or the men in the moon. The fact is that there is a major problem in this little town which services potentially one of the largest sugar mills in the world. It must be acknowledged that if development is to occur and a huge irrigation scheme is to commence, the problems being confronted by that town through no fault of its own must be recognised. It is all very well for people to say, "Let them move somewhere else", but they cannot do so. A few weeks ago, one of my constituents, Mr Bill Fitzgerald, rang me and told me of a break that had occurred in the riverbank. He said that if someone did not do something about it, the break would become huge. I thanked him because I thought it was very public spirited of him to draw it to my attention as the local member. In consultation with the Water Resources Commission—to which I pay tribute—especially Tim Smith, the regional engineer and Dan Gleeson, the local mayor, a plan was undertaken to construct a small levy. The most recent floods last week precluded me from coming to this House. I was flooded in my own home and could not get out to visit people in my electorate. Two people in the community said that if the levy broke, the whole town would ultimately go under. Louie and Gary Corraji manned the shovels, almost like the boy in Holland with the dyke. They work in the town and have their own businesses to look after, but they maintained the levy banks and saved this Government and the community untold thousands of dollars and individuals a lot of pain. Those are the sorts of things that are happening, and there are many other people doing similar things in that little town. I am sure that town is mirrored right across north Queensland, out in the west and in all other areas of this nation that are subject to the vagaries and whims of the weather. It must be recognised that in this day and age people must be supported to a greater degree than we have been able to do so far. I do not know how this can be done, but the Government must plan to do it. The member for Whitsunday said that because the Labor Government is now in office it will be able to overcome the years of neglect by the National Party. I point out to the honourable member that that statement will strike fear into the heart of the Treasurer, because he has the problem of trying to balance the books. One would doubt that this could be done even in good times, but that is another argument and I do not want to get into that. Levy banks and drainage and the things that support the assets of this State and nation have to be looked upon as a part of the community in the whole sense and not just a part of the communities that are being ravaged by disasters from time to time. I pay tribute to all those people. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the northern division of the Railway Department for its cooperation concerning the requests that were made last week by the Burdekin Shire Council and me to send a railmotor down to provide a much-needed commuter service between the towns of Ayr and Home Hill. As all members would be aware, a flood was threatening those towns. As it happens, the flood did not affect any homes or businesses but it cut off commercial operations. The Railway Department rose to the occasion and agreed to send a railmotor. It ran a shuttle service backwards and forwards for hour after hour between those two towns so that commercial operations could Legislative Assembly 6432 26 February 1991 continue and the effects of earlier floods and cyclones and potential future disasters could be lessened to some degree. I pay particular tribute to the general manager, Mr Keith McElligott, his staff, the railway staff who manned the railmotor, the guards, the staff at both railway stations at Ayr and Home Hill, the gangers and the people working on the line for the way they got to work and made a particular effort to open up those lines of communication. Bread, mail, eggs and milk were able to get through, and that part of the process needs to be maintained. Governments must be aware, when they are budgeting, that these services must be provided. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (8.38 p.m.): I rise to join in this debate to give the House some indication of the problems associated with the floods that have occurred during the last couple of weeks in the Hinchinbrook electorate. Because of the devastating rains that have fallen right throughout north Queensland, the area has been prone to flooding over the last month. The floods that occurred recently—particularly the one that peaked at 3 a.m. on Monday, 18 February, a week ago yesterday, which was a major flood—have been of some significance. In the past, the Herbert River has experienced floods of significant proportions, and this flood would rate about the third or fourth largest. At about 6 o'clock on Monday morning, the SES controller, John Cockburn, sent a request to the SES in Townsville for a helicopter because he felt that the need for that type of equipment was very apparent, bearing in mind the level of flooding that was being experienced in the town. The townspeople were experiencing particular problems when trying to lift furniture, refrigerators and other types of furniture from their houses and also in taking vehicles to high spots on the landscape. Eventually, between 100 and 150 people had to be evacuated from the town and they spent a few days in the high school. I commend the efforts of the SES for doing everything possible under very difficult conditions. The river rose extremely quickly, and many people were caught unawares by the flood. I was informed of the situation on Monday morning by listening to radio broadcasts. Consequently, I decided it would be best if I took a closer look at the situation. I hired a helicopter and arrived at Ingham at approximately 10 o'clock. I contacted the SES, which is located near the racecourse and very close to the high school at Ingham. The SES had a group of people working extremely hard on fixing the telephones. Throughout the flood period, I had major problems caused by the number of callers using the lines, which were blocked for up to half an hour at a time and which made communication between people in the region extremely difficult, particularly for those people who were receiving calls for assistance. As I said, on a number of occasions it took me up to half an hour before I could telephone to inform various groups, organisations and people in particular areas that other people were in need of assistance. Upon arriving in Ingham, I was aware that Mr Cockburn had approached the SES in Townsville with a request for a helicopter but was unable to get one. I offered any assistance that I could give. I said that I would go to Halifax because, under wet conditions, the area is very prone to flooding. I proceeded to Halifax on the south side of the Herbert River and, as I travelled to Halifax, I became aware of major breaks in the river bank. I was aware of problems that had been experienced previously caused by the wash-away of Mombelli's farm. While travelling, I saw a cutting that had been made by CSR on Pulvireni's farm to put in a rail line to bring the cane to the mill. Some years ago, a floodgate system had been installed. I could easily see that that was inadequate. Subsequently, when I went there on Sunday, I saw that the floodgates were completely uprooted. The levy bank had been breached and stones that two people would not be able to lift were washed a distance of anything between 100 and 150 metres. There was also gravel in the cane fields. I can understand the problems that the farmer will experience when it comes to harvesting cane and rectifying those problems in the future. The damage is of major concern. On the Sunday, I visited Mombelli's farm and saw the effects of increased erosion. Two holes measuring 90 metres by 45 metres and 20 metres by 40 metres had been washed out; each hole was three to four metres deep. I hold fears for that area because Legislative Assembly 6433 26 February 1991

I believe that the river will eventually cut its way through there. A distance of only 30 chains lies between the farm and the mangrove area. If the river cuts through, it will be a major disaster for that farmer in particular. It would take only a moderate rise in the river's level or a moderate flood to cause major erosion in that area. When I arrived at Halifax, the police told me that, if the floodwaters had risen another 150 millimetres, a major problem would have been caused. The people in that area did a great deal of good work by placing sandbags around the shopfronts. The Minister was in Halifax some time ago with a group of Ministers and parliamentarians and I am sure that he would be well aware of that. Unfortunately, I could not spend much time in Halifax because an emergency call was received from the SES in Ingham. Medication was required for a lady who had problems at Taylor's Beach. We immediately made our way back to Ingham in the helicopter and, upon arrival, were informed of another request for medication in the Macknade area. We dropped the medication and proceeded back to Ingham, traversing the river as we went. We were very much aware of major problems caused by blockages in the river that were caused by siltation and islands on which had grown trees. The islands had gradually increased in size as each flood had come along. They are restricting the flow of the river, causing major flooding and diverting the river channels into areas that they normally would not go. When we returned to Ingham, we heard that a boy at St Theresa's College at Abergowrie had malaria and that the people there were extremely short of bread. We loaded 70 loaves of bread into the helicopter and sent it to Abergowrie College, which is about 50 kilometres west of Ingham. The bread was delivered and the boy was brought back. When we returned, we had another emergency involving a lady who required insulin. All of those problems could have been averted if the SES could have supplied a helicopter to meet the needs of the Ingham people. However, that did not occur, despite the requests of the controller in Ingham. Army helicopters and rescue helicopters were being used, but we could not obtain one from the SES for some period. That is quite significant. The army had 10 to 12 helicopters sitting on the tarmac in Townsville, yet we could not get one of them into Ingham. Eventually, we received helicopter assistance and food drops were made to Macknade, Bemerside, Halifax and a number of locations in the Abergowrie region that required that type of assistance. Mr Schwarten: Why couldn't you get the SES there? Mr ROWELL: We had to go through a great deal of red tape. The controller was extremely busy. Everybody had immediate needs and wanted to talk to the controller. There were forms to fill out and approaches had to be made through Townsville for a further approach to Brisbane, where the application was sanctioned. It came back and approval was then given from Townsville. I spoke to Warren Hansen in Townsville about it. Mr Schwarten: In my electorate that was done within 12 hours. Mr ROWELL: The honourable member was very fortunate. I also rang Warren Hansen at the time and he told me of the procedure that was necessary for the SES at Ingham to obtain a helicopter. It took nearly two days from the time that the request was made till the helicopters were made available to Ingham. They were only made available for extreme emergencies. In a number of instances they could have served very adequately in making food drops and assisting pregnant women. In fact, on a number of occasions, a private helicopter was used to assist pregnant women and help with other emergency cases. However, I commend the SES for the tremendous work that it carried out in the Ingham district during the floods. The problems associated with the rivers must be addressed. The member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, spoke of problems that he has with the Haughton River. Other members referred to problems that they have within their electorates. An accumulation of siltation is occurring in the rivers and, irrespective of whether levee banks are put into place, they do not have the capacity to carry the flow of the river in flood. It is essential Legislative Assembly 6434 26 February 1991 that a hydrological study is carried out on the Herbert River to assess the best way to attempt to correct the problem. It is not for me to say what should be done, whether the islands should be moved or whether a dam should be constructed at the head of the river. However, a study should be carried out into the problems associated with flooding in the region. In the last month, the district has been subjected to several floods. At present, it would not take a great deal more rain to create major problems. Problems are caused throughout the rural community. Thousands of hectares of sugarcane have been destroyed by flood waters. Mr Pearce: You should not have cleared it; that's the trouble. Mr ROWELL: If the honourable member believes that, he would believe in the tooth fairy. Currently, cane farms are expanding. Where will those expansions go? They will go into more marginal, lower areas. The honourable member does not really know what he is talking about. If we are to continue to obtain the benefits from the sugar crop that was worth $1.2 billion to the State of Queensland last financial year, we must address those problems that arise with the use of lower and more marginal ground. It is vital that further studies are carried out into the drainage of those areas in order to increase productivity and reduce the effects of the flooding that has been so devastating in the past few months. The point that I stress to the House is that the productive regions such as the Burdekins, the Whitsundays, the Herbert Rivers and the Mulgrave areas—— Mr McGrady: And the Mount Isas. Mr ROWELL: If the honourable member wants to include Mount Isa, that is fine. The flooding problems in those regions must be addressed. Australia is a reasonably dry continent. A great deal of emphasis is given to irrigation in rural areas. However, there needs to be great emphasis given to drainage of the low, flood-prone, productive areas that are worth an enormous amount of money to the State in terms of their capacity to earn export dollars. I commend the efforts of all the people who gave assistance in the flood regions of the Herbert River. They worked day and night to help people. Without their assistance, many people would have suffered a great deal more. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 49 Resolved in the negative. Amendment agreed to. Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 6435 26 February 1991

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T.M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (9.01 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Communism; Anti-Americanism; Gulf War Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (9.02 p.m.): I would like to strongly endorse Australia's commitment of servicemen to the Gulf war. There can be no other position for patriotic Australians to adopt. Queenslanders should beware of professional street demonstrators who attempt to use Australia's support of international action against the dictator of Iraq as a weapon to vent their hatred of the United States and the capitalist economic system. People are asking, "Where have all the communists gone now that Soviet communism has fallen apart and communism as a system has proven an horrific failure?" Although Soviet and other overseas communism has fallen apart, the local variety is alive and well and can be seen at the head of the anti- American protests in Australia, including Queensland. The old-time reds are providing the backbone and organisational push behind the street protests, but they are whistling in the wind. They have not learned a thing from the failures of overseas communism. The street protests are basically anti-USA hate operations organised and led by old-line communists and Trotskyist activists. The recent Brisbane street demonstrations were sparked by key figures like Dr Carole Ferrier and Tony Mitchell of Socialist Action, Ian Rintoul of the International Socialists, communist-controlled building workers, industrial union representatives and other communist and professional dyed-in-the- wool peaceniks. They all want a sound defeat for the Americans and their allies—and that means Australia, too. The Gulf war has served to prove that the extreme Left has never been more active. Bob Hawke has been doing something to expose the ratbag Left, but the Goss Government has been as silent as a mouse—except for the Minister for Family Services, Anne Warner, with her embarrassing attack on the Hawke Government. Mr Goss and the Labor Party tried to play down her claims but the damage has been done. Premier Goss should have sacked her on the spot and ended her gross embarrassment at a critical time in history when Australian servicemen are putting their lives on the line for international freedom. Anne Warner gives all the signs of being an unguided missile without a warhead. She does a lot of talking but her words are empty and silly. Her outlandish claims that women would have prevented the Gulf war if they had run the Hawke Cabinet were utterly silly. She is unrepresentative of Australian women, and the women she visualised as taking over the Labor Cabinet and capturing half the Labor seats would not be representative of Australian women, but representative of the extremist faction within Labor that really had little, if any, sympathy for traditional family life. Recent opinion surveys have revealed that Australian women, like their American counterparts, were strongly in favour of the Gulf war effort to liberate Kuwait. The Labor Party should be alert to the Leftist ambitions to take over the ALP branches, to promote union amalgamations to favour themselves, the cultivation of the greenies to use them as front-line cannon fodder, the raising of funds for the extremist antics of 4ZZZ or the organising of opposition to the Gulf war. While the communist philosophy has been totally discredited internationally and nationally, the Left ideology Legislative Assembly 6436 26 February 1991 has simply replaced it. The extremist Left in Australia has not really thrown aside its ambitions to seize control of Australian institutions and to force its evil ideas down the throats of others. An indication of the utter hopelessness of the communist cause was the official closure of the Australian Communist Party and new attempts to organise a coalition of the Left to carry its failed policies. The Left had no hope of infiltrating the National and Liberal Parties but had hopes of increasing its substantial influence inside the Labor Party at the expense of the moderates. Activists who condone Saddam Hussein's action in taking by force peaceful countries should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. What would life be like if the Iraqi President were to take over down under? In Hitler-like fashion he would trample rights and freedoms under foot using strict Islamic law as a backstop. There would be no point protesting when racecourses closed and clubs and pubs became re-education centres—unless a person was dead keen to share famous last words with others who questioned Saddam's ways! Australian women could forget universal suffrage. They would be forced to throw away their votes and their lipsticks and in public walk two steps behind men. Australia's children would no longer be reading their Golden Books; instead, they would be chanting verse in praise of Hussein's military muscle. The Queensland flag would fall from this Parliament and be replaced by Iraq's triple bars. Statues and huge posters of Hussein would adorn every public place. Female members of Parliament would be shuttled back to the kitchen—in fact, the entire Government would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hussein's mad schemes. Strict Islamic law would be enforced. Its terrible punishments would make even our ironmen wince—the left hands of thieves would be chopped off, adulterers stoned in public and murderers hanged. The free press would be throttled and the TV news would become an endless charade of Saddamania. Gambling would be outlawed—goodbye to Lotto, bingo and instant scratch-its. Eagle Farm and Doomben racecourses would host endless military parades before the dictator. Time expired. Youth Parliament Mr SULLIVAN (Glass House) (9.07 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the sky must be falling. Honourable members are aware that on 15 February this year, the Legislative Assembly Chamber was the scene for what it is hoped will become an annual event—I speak of the first Youth Parliament. Mr Springborg: Hear, hear! Well organised, Mr Sullivan. Mr SULLIVAN: I acknowledge the honourable member's assistance in that task also. The Youth Parliament saw members from the youth branches of the three parties represented in this place—87 young party members in all—in approximately the same proportions as actual representation in this Chamber, take part in a two and one-half hour session that included ministerial statements, answers to questions on notice, a second-reading debate and an Adjournment debate. Mr Mackenroth: How did the Leader of the House handle the job? Mr SULLIVAN: The Leader of the House was excellent, as is the person who is currently occupying his chair. Along with the members for Merthyr and Carnarvon, I was responsible for the organisation of the event. I want to use some of my time tonight to acknowledge the contributions of a number of the parliamentary officers and staff who helped to make the evening such a success. Insofar as those participating were concerned, an undoubted highlight was the fact that they were permitted the use of this Chamber. I know I speak for each and every one of them when I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to convey their thanks to Mr Speaker for making the facility available. Also greatly appreciated by the young people was Mr Speaker's presence in the chair and, after him, the presence in the Legislative Assembly 6437 26 February 1991 chair by you, Mr Campbell, as Mr Deputy Speaker. The firm but even way in which you guided the proceedings on the evening was instrumental in its great success. The member for Mulgrave, Mr Pitt, was pressed into service late in the day and fulfilled admirably the role of Sergeant at Arms. Perhaps the most difficult job on the night was that of the Hansard reporters, particularly as the participants, no doubt judging by the example of the current members, could see no reason to moderate their interjections. Mr Alan Watson, the Chief Hansard Reporter, and his staff are to be thanked for their perseverance and for the invaluable record of the evening that their work provided. I would also like to thank Dr Ruth Kerr, from the Parliamentary Library, who was responsible for the production of the information kit used by most of the speakers in the debate. Mr Dick Ford and the parliamentary attendants on duty for the evening, the catering staff and the security staff all deserve and have the thanks of those involved. I would specially like to thank my co-organisers, Mr Santoro and Mr Springborg, and the representatives of the youth parties—Paul Martyn and Anastasia Palaszczuk of Young Labor, Sean Cousins of the Young Nationals and Julian Sheezel of the Young Liberals—whose efforts to make this event a reality were well rewarded. I express my own appreciation for the assistance given to me by Mrs Beverley Watson in the preparation of the necessary paperwork for the Youth Parliament. Lastly, I would like to thank those members who generously contributed to the cost of the successful post-Parliament function. Mr Palaszczuk: Could you quote some of the words that were used? Mr SULLIVAN: The lines that Mr Palaszczuk is looking for are those that state the "Palaszczuk Government", as indeed the honourable member's daughter was taking the role of the Premier for the evening. Members of all parties can be proud of the way in which their young members defended the policies and positions of their respective parties. Several of the participants travelled great distances in order to do so. Ministerial statements included one on political studies in Queensland schools. It was that specific recommendation of EARC that led to the inception of the Youth Parliament as a means of advertising the existence of the youth branches of all parties to newly awakened young Queenslanders seeking information on political doctrines not provided in the Education Department's electoral and citizenship education. Topicality was the order of the day with regard to questions. Subjects for questions included: allowances of members of Parliament; recruitment of public servants; the Gold Coast crime rate; four-year parliamentary terms; the Rochedale dump; one vote, one value; and Fraser Island. In the second-reading debate of the Electoral Districts Bill, which was the draft legislation provided in EARC's Appendix G from its report on Queensland's electoral system, the arguments from both sides of the debate were well canvassed, with all speakers making excellent speeches given the five-minute time limit and the constraints that that imposes on speakers. In the Adjournment debate, topics included unemployment, prisons, women's health, gun laws, ALP/trade union links, education, restoration of the Legislative Council, police staffing and Aboriginal land rights. Obviously, the issues of concern to the youth branches of each of the parties are those that are of concern to us as parliamentarians. Accordingly, so that it is available to all members who may wish to study the arguments therein, I will now table the record of the debate prepared by Hansard. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr SULLIVAN: In conclusion, can I say that to be involved in this first Youth Parliament was an experience I found very rewarding. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 6438 26 February 1991

Councillors G. Knell and B. Griffiths, Mulgrave Shire Council Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (9.13 p.m.): This morning, the member for Barron River used this House to attempt to discredit two Mulgrave Shire councillors—Councillor Graham Knell and Councillor Bob Griffiths. It was a cowardly attack using the privilege of Parliament to dishonestly allege corruption and misconduct. It is Dr Clark and the Mulgrave Shire that should be investigated by the CJC. Dr Clark herself was a member of the Mulgrave Shire Council for five years. Being a member of the council, she must accept responsibility for council decisions made while a member of that council. The Mulgrave Shire has been mismanaged and maladministered and has loosely applied the Local Government Act. It is Councillors Griffiths and Knell who have tried to transform the Mulgrave Shire into an open, accountable shire. Dr Clark knows this and would appear to be scared of an investigation into the actions of the Mulgrave Shire. There is a case for a full and open inquiry before the local authority elections next month. Dr Clark made spurious statements about a pecuniary interests conflict by Councillor Griffiths. Councillor Griffiths did have a horticultural consultancy with the developer Daikyo, but in June 1988 Councillor Griffiths contacted the shire clerk, Mr Noel Mills, and in the presence of the shire chairman, Councillor Tom Pyne, discussed his business consultancy. Various examples of councillors pursuing their normal business activities with developers and even with the shire council were given by the shire chairman. Dr Clark met with Councillor Griffiths after allegedly using defamatory statements. She allowed Councillor Griffiths to leave this meeting believing that she would take the necessary steps to correct this attack on his reputation. Councillor Graham Knell was also discredited unjustly by Dr Clark. This was a poor attempt to discredit two men concerned with the actions of the Mulgrave Shire Council. And well might they be concerned. I will cite a few examples. The draft town plan has not been before a full council meeting for adoption before going on public display. The council is under investigation by the Ombudsman about the subdivision application of its own town-planning manager, Mr Robinson. The Ombudsman's letter concerning the Robinson application concludes— "My investigations revealed that the council's approval of the above subdivision has not been in accordance with its Bylaws and relevant policies." In summary, the council's breaches of its own policies are as follows: there is no reticulated water supply to that block of land; there is an unsealed access; there has been no roadworks contribution by the developer—in other words, some $5,000 was forgone by the council; the frontage of the allotment is less than the minimum allowable; and no water supply headworks charges have been levied. Once again, that represents a donation made to the developer by the council. The land is not within Division 3 and is not used as a cane farm. Therefore, the special circumstances policy was not even applicable. The Ombudsman states further— "I consider that the council's blatant disregard of its own policies . . . to be a clear case of administrative impropriety." I believe that this matter should be referred to the Minister for Local Government. Since January 1988, the Mulgrave Shire Council has considered 89 applications in respect of Rural C subdivisions similar to that of the Robinson application. Only nine of those applications comply fully with the council's by-laws and have been approved. Although 72 applications did not comply, they were still approved. Dr Clark was part of that approval process. However, Councillors Griffiths and Knell have been smeared by the member for Barron River for trying to open up the proceedings of the Mulgrave Shire. There are many examples of questionable tendering procedures associated with the Mulgrave Shire. For example, only one consultant is approached for design work. Consultancy fees of $42,500 were paid for a bridge design. According to the ACEA scale of fees, that work should have cost in the order of $20,000. The council should have Legislative Assembly 6439 26 February 1991 called for expressions of interest. This loose interpretation of section 19 of the Local Government Act smells of cronyism. However, the list goes on. There is an all-out attempt by the Labor Party to infiltrate local government in Queensland, not only in the Mulgrave Shire but in many other local government areas of Queensland. Dr Clark is obsessed with trying to elect a Labor council in Mulgrave. It appears that the last person in Mulgrave to be complaining about breaches of the Local Government Act should be the member for Barron River. The electors of the Mulgrave Shire will decide who forms the council upon the policies espoused by the candidates. There is no room in local government for party politics or the misuse of Parliament for mischievous actions. Fortitude Valley/Windsor Branch of ALP Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (9.17 p.m.): Earlier this evening during the dinner break, I attended a very historic meeting, namely, the annual general meeting of the Fortitude Valley/Windsor branch of the Labor Party, which is 100 years old today. It is the oldest branch of the Labor Party in Australia. I am delighted that I attended that meeting. I am also delighted to inform honourable members that the Brisbane Central electorate, which I have the honour of representing in this Parliament, contains the four oldest branches of the Labor Party in Australia. Some arguments have been advanced—not very substantive ones—that the Labor Party was formed in a little place in Sydney called Balmain. Those arguments contain absolutely no credibility. As all honourable members would be aware, the Labor Party was formed in Queensland. During the past century, the Labor Party began with the formation of people's parliamentary associations—organisations that started to form in the bush during the late 1880s. On 9 December 1890, at the Australian Labor Federation at Blackall, a constitution of the party was approved. That was the beginning of the Labor Party. That constitution allowed the establishment of what has become known as WPOs—workers' political organisations. The first of those organisations, which were the forerunners of Labor Party branches, was established 100 years ago on this day in the Oddfellows Hall in Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley. History books refer to that building as the Valley Hall. A tiny bit of uncertainty exists about exactly which hall it was, but most historians agree that it was the Oddfellows Hall in Wickham Street, the Valley. Therefore, it is appropriate that tonight the Fortitude Valley/Windsor branch is holding a major function at Dooleys Hotel, which is an Irish establishment. All honourable members would be aware of the association of the Labor Party with Dooleys. Senator Graham Richardson is the special guest at that function. I return to the first meeting of the Fortitude Valley/Windsor branch of the Labor Party, which is 100 years old today. Thomas Glassey, who later became the member for Bundamba, attended that meeting, which was attended by more than 300 people. Mr McGrady: Was he any relation to Bill Glasson? Mr BEATTIE: No. Let me hasten to add that he was not any relation to Bill Glasson. After the formation of the Fortitude Valley/Windsor branch, three other branches were formed during the next four months, namely, the Paddington branch—of which I am happy to be a member—the West End branch and the Woolloongabba branch. They are the four oldest branches of the Labor Party in Australia. Because this year is the centenary of the Labor Party, it is fairly important. It gives anybody who is fortunate enough to represent an electorate such as mine an opportunity to say that, on this occasion, it is important to look back and remember the foundation of the Labor Party itself. All honourable members would be aware that the Labor movement in Queensland and the rest of Australia had its origins in the struggle for an 8-hour day. Brisbane's first trade union, the Stonemasons, was formed in January 1858. The first 8-hour day procession was held on 1 March 1865. During the ensuing decades, the movement continued to undergo some patchy growth until the 1880s, which proved to be a period of strong trade union expansion. During that time, the first serious efforts Legislative Assembly 6440 26 February 1991 were made to unite the activities of the trade union movement. In 1885, the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council was established. Today, that body continues in a very strong form. The following year, 1886, saw the Government of Samuel Walker Griffith legalise trade unions through its Trade Union Act. During that time, the movement also started to expand beyond the craft category, and unskilled workers—especially in the bush—began organising themselves into trade unions. There began the growth of the Labor Party. For the information of members and future members, I table a pamphlet that was produced by the party in relation to Barcaldine. It is designed to support the Australian Workers Heritage Centre, of which all members of the party are necessarily proud. From that time this State witnessed the very famous Governments of T.J. Ryan and the introduction of the reformist program, which brought about the vote for women, the establishment of industrial rights, the establishment of the SGIO and the development of farm cooperatives and egg-marketing boards. I am proud to represent those branches in this Parliament. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Firearms Legislation Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.22 p.m.): The previous speaker, the honourable member for Brisbane Central, spoke about a branch of the Labor Party being 100 years old today. It never ceases to amaze me to hear members of the Labor Party promoting themselves. Obviously, no-one else is prepared to do it, so they do it themselves. However, we do not see the real Labor Party stand up too often—the Labor Party that has the ability to abuse, insult and threaten. An Opposition member interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The member for Brisbane Central is not too bad. He is quite a reasonable fellow. Some of the other members of the Labor Party have the ability to threaten and abuse. I am disappointed that the member for Rockhampton North is not in the House. I want to highlight a letter that he wrote that indicates the attitude of members of the Labor Party and the way in which they try to overrule. Mr Nunn: What did you say? Mr STEPHAN: If the honourable member cannot hear what I said, I will not repeat it. It is a pity that he is not listening. It is a shame that he does not have the ability to promote rather than abuse, particularly when it comes to the Labor Government's own union movement. Last week, the union movement was marching in the streets, telling Queensland what the Government has done. It is three or four months since the gun laws were passed. What is the hidden agenda of those gun laws? Considering the $40 registration fee, I wonder whether the legislation is a tax-gathering exercise. I notice that the member for Rockhampton North has entered the Chamber. I wonder what the Government wants in relation to gun registration, or is it gun ownership identification? The Government has placed very little emphasis on education about the gun laws. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. I understand that the honourable member is making derogatory remarks about me, but I cannot understand what he is saying. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the honourable member to speak up so that I can understand what he says. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The honourable member for Gympie. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member for Rockhampton North is a bit sensitive. I can understand him being upset about walking down the stairs. He should use the lift. I will highlight a letter written by the member for Rockhampton North to a person who Legislative Assembly 6441 26 February 1991 saw fit to point out to the honourable member that the Government was heading in the wrong direction with gun laws. The honourable member said— "You are obviously slow to accept the reality that the Firearms Act has been passed into law by the Parliament and you appear to disregard the general public acceptance of that law." That is stretching the imagination. He continued— "Continue to send me all your paraphernalia, as not only do I find it amusing, you also give me excellent material to use in Parliament." I do not hear the honourable member use it very much in Parliament. He continued— "I am also considering forwarding all of your correspondence to the Queensland Police Department to assist in its assessment of your suitability to be granted a firearm licence." I wonder what the honourable member has in mind. Where is the hidden agenda? The honourable member uses a threatening approach in letters such as that to point out to members of the community that they should not dare to disagree with what the honourable member thinks. Where does the honourable member seek to take the community when he tries to hide behind such a letter? Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member is not shouting loudly enough. I cannot hear what he is saying. His words do not mean very much, because his sending of letters such as this shows that he is obviously concerned about the repercussions of the legislation. He is not prepared to stand up in the Parliament and read the letter to all and sundry. Although the honourable member said that he wanted to raise the matter in Parliament, the letter was given to me to read. Ward 10B Inquiry Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (9.28 p.m.): The commission of inquiry into the care and treatment of patients in the Psychiatric Unit of the Townsville General Hospital, or the Ward 10B inquiry, as it is known, is in an indictment of, firstly, National Party Health Ministers Ahern, Austin and Harvey who did nothing about the claims of people in Townsville over all of those years; secondly, senior Health Department officials; thirdly, the Townsville Hospitals Board, particularly Marshall Davies, a stipendiary magistrate and chairman of the board; and, fourthly, the hospital executive. After the tabling of the report today on behalf of the Health Minister, who must be congratulated for pursuing the inquiry and making sure that it was held, many of those people named in the report will tonight be considering their future—particularly Marshall Davies, members of the executive and those senior Health Department officials who are named in the report. Clearly, Marshall Davies—who, incidentally, to the best of my knowledge is no relation—should resign his position as stipendiary magistrate. With his background, he should have known better. He presided over patients committing suicide and two patients dying because their treatment in Ward 10B was negligent and unsafe. The conduct of Dr Lindsay and Dr Cant in their care and treatment of patients was unethical. When Ken McElligott was pressing for investigation, he was rebuked by Marshall Davies and the manager for raising the issue publicly. As a member of the magistracy, he should have known better. He should resign the position from which he dispenses justice. He cannot even countenance continuing in that position. As the previous Health Ministers are gone, there is little point in my worrying about them. That comment applies also to the hospitals board, which was sacked last year by the Health Minister. Members of the hospital executive must live with their consciences. The summary of findings in the commission's report state— "The Commission, through its investigative process, identified 65 patients of Ward 10B who had died in circumstances which justified close investigation. In Legislative Assembly 6442 26 February 1991

several cases, the care and treatment of patients who later died was negligent and in the case of seven of these patients it was necessary to consider whether the negligence was of such a degree as to provide evidence of criminal negligence. P1 and P2 died because the treatment of them in Ward 10B was negligent and unsafe. P116, P85, P113, P33, P32, P118, all of whom committed suicide, were cared for and treated in Ward 10B in a manner which was negligent and unsafe. Many other patients, who are identified in the report, were treated in a manner which was negligent and unsafe. These were patients not included amongst the deaths. . . . Certain patients were unlawfully assaulted. There are numerous instances recorded, both in patients' files and in the evidence where patients were manhandled with the use of force by doctors, nurses, other staff and other patients, either for the purpose of administering medication or for effecting the seclusion of a patient or for what was perceived to be some justifiable therapeutic purpose." In Commissioner Carter's opinion, these instances constitute cases of unlawful assault. The findings continue— "Complaints from patients and their relatives became intensive in 1986 and their concerns were made public by Mr. McElligott, MLA, the elected representative for a Townsville based electorate." Mr McElligott is now the Health Minister and his electorate is Thuringowa. The findings go on to state— "These complaints were, in substance, the same complaints about the ward's treatment policies which had been brought to the attention of the hospital administration and the Director of Psychiatric Services by Dr. Scott-Young, MLA, the elected representative for another Townsville based electorate in early 1982/1983." This matter goes back a long way. The report continues— "Neither the hospital administration nor the Director of Psychiatric Services, Drs. Urquhart and Tucker, took any action to effectively investigate the various concerns which were dismissed with bureaucratic nonchalance and indifference. . . . In 1982, Dr. Urquhart prepared a letter for the then Minister for Health which asserted that the therapeutic community in the psychiatric unit at the Townsville General Hospital was a 'place of excellence'." What a mockery! The findings go on to state— "In 1986, the Hospital Manager, in collaboration with the Chairman of the Board"— that is Marshall Davies— "and after 'investigation' by the Medical and Nursing Superintendents, responded to Mr. McElligott, MLA alleging that 'relatives and friends are faced with the awesome truth that they may be a contributing factor to the patient's illness' and that they 'react in a defensive way to placate their own conscience'. At the same time, Mr. McElligott, MLA was rebuked for raising the issue publicly." Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.34 p.m.