Legislative Assembly 3386 4 September 1990

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 315-316

TUESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1990 ———— Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Real Property Acts Amendment Bill; Property Law Act Amendment Bill; Motor Vehicles Safety Act Amendment Bill; Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act Amendment Bill; Clean Air Act Amendment Bill. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Literature and Films Boards of Review From Ms Robson (9 signatories) praying for the maintenance of the Literature and Films Boards of Review and for a continuation of controls outlawing the sale of all pornographic matter. Licensing of Firearms From Mrs McCauley (242 signatories) praying that a licensing system for firearms be not introduced until public debate and alternative courses of action are investigated. Similar petitions were received from Mr King (33 signatories) and Mr Springborg (229 signatories). Human Relationship Education Program From Mr Katter (153 signatories) praying that the Human Relationship Education Program be not taught in public schools. Firearms Legislation From Mr Rowell (188 signatories) praying for no changes to the existing firearm legislation. Nurses, Conditions of Employment From Mr Smyth (885 signatories) praying that consideration be given to the wages and career structure of nurses in line with the national benchmark established by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Roma, Regional Education Centre From Mr Cooper (644 signatories) praying that Roma be retained and expanded as the centre of a south-western region for education. Petitions received. Legislative Assembly 3387 4 September 1990

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamations under— Drugs Misuse Act Amendment Act 1990 Corrective Services Act Amendment Act 1990 District Courts Act 1967-1989 Orders in Council under— Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1989 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1989 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1989 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1989 National Trust of Queensland Act 1963-1989 Jury Act 1929-1988 Supreme Court Act of 1921 Regulations under— Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1989 Marine Parks Act 1982-1988 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1989 Report and balance sheet on the Downs and South-Western Queensland Racing Association for the year ended 30 June 1990. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: Mr Speaker—— Mr Burns: What did you do wrong now? Mr SPRINGBORG: Nothing. In answering a question that I asked last Thursday, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services clearly indicated that I had met with Tom Mahon of the Queensland Police Union. I point out that, up until a telephone conversation last Thursday afternoon, I had never met Tom Mahon or spoken to him, let alone obtained any information from him. The information contained in the question was common sentiment expressed throughout my electorate and other parts of Queensland, including the Minister's own electorate. I also point out that Mr Mahon is as complimentary of the Minister as the Minister is of him. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Report on Criminal Justice Commission's Report: Report on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (10.07 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I table the report of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice on the report presented by the Criminal Justice Commission titled Report on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations. In doing so, I wish to thank the members of the committee—the Deputy Chairman, Bill Gunn, and members Robert Schwarten, Neville Harper, Wendy Edmond, Santo Santoro and Margaret Woodgate—for the time and effort they have contributed to the work of the committee and to the preparation of this report. I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Legislative Assembly 3388 4 September 1990

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Progress Report on Criminal Justice Commission Report: Reforms in Laws Relating to Homosexuality Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (10.08 a.m.): I table a progress report of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice in accordance with Standing Order 205. The report is a transcript of the evidence taken on 6 and 7 August 1990 at public hearings in relation to the committee's review of the report of the Criminal Justice Commission titled Reforms in Laws Relating to Homosexuality. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. COMMENTS ON REPORTS PRIOR TO TABLING IN PARLIAMENT Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling "Any other business?", I wish to express to the House my concern at comments reported in the media today on aspects of the Criminal Justice Committee report on poker machines prior to its tabling in the House. I view this matter seriously and urge that, in future, honourable members restrain themselves and refrain from commenting until after the tabling of reports in the House. QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Local Authority Applications for Land Rezoning Mr ARDILL asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government— "With reference to applications for rezoning by local authorities such as the Brisbane City Council— Does he consider the right of local residents to have confidence that their residential amenity will be protected by town planning provisions which clearly identify the zoning of various areas for clearly stated purposes?" Mr BURNS: There can be no guarantee that town-planning provisions will protect residential amenity in a residential zone. All property-owners have a legal right under the relevant planning laws of the State to apply to have their land rezoned to enable that land to be put to another use. When an application to rezone land is lodged with a local authority, a person has the right to object to the proposed rezoning. All objections must be considered by the local authority in making its decision upon the application. The effect of a proposed rezoning on the amenity of an area is a town-planning issue which should be taken into consideration in the assessment of the rezoning application. If dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority, the objectors and the applicant have a right of appeal to the Local Government Court. If the local authority submits the rezoning application for approval, responsibility for making a final decision rests with the Governor in Council. Later this year, the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Bill will come into operation and will provide that, where a rezoning application has been previously refused and it is again lodged with the local authority within 12 months of that refusal, the local authority will not be empowered to deal with it. 2. Application for Rezoning of Land at Algester Mr ARDILL asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government— "(1) Is he aware that an application by Brisbane City Council Liberal Alderman Stegman to his own Council, for rezoning of his own land at Algester, from future Legislative Assembly 3389 4 September 1990

urban to general industry, is admitted to be setting the precedent for other industry intrusions to a residential suburb? (2) Is he aware that the Liberal Alderman's associates have admitted at the residents' protest meeting on 26 August, that they knew the land was in a zone, which prohibits industry, when they purchased the land? (3) Is he also aware that the previous owner of the land claims that the Brisbane City Council refused his similar application to that council, after which he sold the land to the present owners?" Mr BURNS: (1) Verbal advice received by my department is that a rezoning application was lodged on 20 July 1990 with the Brisbane City Council for the rezoning of Alderman Stegman's land at Algester from the Future Urban zone to the General Industry zone. The applicant has undertaken the public advertising procedures, with the last day for the lodgment of objections being 31 August 1990. After the advertising period is completed, the council is required to decide the application and then refer it for a final decision by the Governor in Council. No decision has been made by the council and, therefore, no precedent has been set. (2) I have been told that the Liberal alderman's associates admitted at the residents' meeting on 26 August they knew that the land was in a zone which prohibits industry when they purchased the land. (3) Based on verbal advice again, I understand that the council has no record of any application being made for a rezoning of the subject land in the last 10 years. The council's records system apparently does not allow it to easily search beyond 10 years. As a general rule, there will always be concern in the community if a member of a council applies to the council for approvals which will grant that member a financial advantage. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act and the City of Brisbane Act, an elected member who submits a rezoning application is obliged to declare the pecuniary interest he has in the matter and cannot take part in the debate or vote on the application. It is my personal view that the pecuniary interest provisions should be tightened, and that matter is being examined as part of the current review of the Local Government Act. One suggestion that has been made is that councillors should not deal in land or make application to a council of which they are a member whilst serving on that council. In addition, my department is also looking at the possibility of a code of conduct and a code of ethics for local government in this State. 3. Disbursement of Moneys Donated to Western Queensland Flood Appeal Mr JOHNSON asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services— "With reference to the Western Queensland flood emergency measures— (1) How much money was donated to the Clem Jones Western Queensland Flood Appeal? (2) Did these moneys attract the full Federal Government subsidy? (3) How have these moneys been apportioned to each affected town?" Mr MACKENROTH: (1) As at 30 August, Australiawide donations, totalling $6,845,012.08, have been received by the Western Queensland Flood Appeal. (2) Federal Government subsidy applies to natural disaster assistance schemes and not public- funded appeals of this nature. Legislative Assembly 3390 4 September 1990

(3) Moneys are currently being allocated on the following basis— ¥ in respect of personal vouchers issued on an equal basis for each person—adult and child—resident in flood-affected homes; ¥ in respect of vouchers issued for replacement white goods or floorcoverings, with a total of $2,000 being available for each flood-affected home wherever located— Charleville 1 180 Alpha 76 Jericho 16 Blackall 45 Barcaldine 1 ¥ $2,000 grant to all affected businesshouses, to be expended on a customer amenity improvement; ¥ assistance—on an application assessment—for affected sporting clubs and community facilities wherever located; and ¥ assistance to disabled persons on a needs assessment. 4. Loggy Creek Dam, Horn Island Mr BREDHAUER asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the nearly completed Loggy Creek Dam on Horn Island, due to provide water to both Horn and Thursday Islands— Will he give details of (a) funding arrangements with the Federal Government and (b) when subsequent stages of the construction program are due to commence?" Mr CASEY: When the Goss Government came to office, this whole project received a much- needed impetus. Quick decision-making enabled us to take advantage of equipment and materials already on Horn Island for use in the construction of the dam. The Goss Government is determined to proceed with that vital project to ensure that the people of Horn and Thursday Islands finally receive a reliable water supply. The dam on Loggy Creek, Horn Island is the first stage of a project to upgrade the very low standard of reticulated water-supply systems serving Thursday Island and the township of Wasaga on Horn Island as the result of 32 years of National and Liberal Party Government in this State. The next stage of the project is the construction of a pumping station at the dam and a pipeline from the dam to a reservoir at Wasaga and thence across the channel to Thursday Island. The final section of pipeline on Thursday Island will deliver untreated water to the Torres Shire Council's water-treatment facility. The final stage of the project will be the construction of a treatment plant at the Horn Island Dam to supply treated water to both Wasaga and Thursday Island. When the project was originally approved, it was proposed that the Commonwealth Government meet 50 per cent of the cost of the project under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program and the Country Towns Water Supply Improvement Program. In spite of various representations made to the Commonwealth Government, until recently no funds have been made available by the Commonwealth, and the State has had to completely fund construction of the Horn Island Dam, that being of the order of $6.8m. The total estimated cost of the project is of the order of $12m, comprising $6.8m for the dam, $3.2m for the pump station and pipelines and $2m for the treatment plant. The Commonwealth Government has now agreed to provide $2m under the Country Water Supply Improvement Program for the scheme over the financial years 1990-91 to 1992-93, that is, approximately $650,000 per annum. However, the additional $4m sought under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program will not be forthcoming. My Government will, however, continue to make representations on that matter. Legislative Assembly 3391 4 September 1990

In addition, a number of options in relation to continued funding for the project are currently under consideration. Until such options have been considered by Cabinet, I am not in a position to provide a definite timetable for the next stages of the project. However, the Government is very aware of the urgent need to provide further funding for this project. Long delays in providing an adequate water supply for the communities of Thursday and Horn Islands, with the possibility that failure of a monsoon season, as nearly happened in 1988, could leave those communities without water, would not be acceptable to the Government. 5. Rural Rehab Scheme; Mr T. Ives Dr FLYNN asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— "(1) Is she aware of the proposed Rural Rehab scheme being developed by Mr Trevor Ives in Toowoomba and, also, the recent press statements which seem to indicate that the project has widespread community support? (2) Will she detail her investigations into this matter?" Ms WARNER: (1 and 2) I thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, I am aware of the proposed Rural Rehab Scheme being developed by Mr Trevor Ives in Toowoomba. I am also aware of some concern being expressed by other organisations and individuals in Toowoomba about his scheme. I have not gauged that there is widespread community support for Mr Ives. I understand that Mr Ives has been critical of professionals working in the area of youth homelessness in Toowoomba. I do not believe that this is constructive behaviour, and I believe that it has contributed to the unease felt by other organisations in the area about Rural Rehab. As well, I understand that Mr Ives has been making unsubstantiated statements about the funding and support base of the organisation. For instance, Lifeline has denied his claim that its counsellors would be available; Austudy has denied his claim that benefits would be payable; and I, as the responsible Minister, deny his claim that my department is currently funding and making referrals to the program. Mr Ives has produced a pamphlet in which he claims that Rural Rehab is a democratic body, run by a board said to be "voted in by the members as a whole". The pamphlet, and Mr Ives' other statements, do not explain how decisions will be made, nor does he list the current office-holders of the organisation. I understand that welfare organisations in Toowoomba have indicated that they will not refer young people to Rural Rehab and that there is some concern in the community about an organisation that boasts about its army-style discipline for young people. 6. Rural Rehab Scheme; Mr T. Ives Dr FLYNN asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— "With reference to the proposed Rural Rehab scheme being developed by Mr Trevor Ives in Toowoomba— What plans does she have to develop suitable programs for children at risk?" Ms WARNER: In the last financial year, $5,270,000 was allocated to youth services in Queensland under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which is a joint Commonwealth/State program. Some $5,865,000 has been provided to licensed residential care programs throughout Queensland. A further $691,000 was provided under the Youth Initiatives Program as part of the Government's response to the Burdekin inquiry. Some innovative pilot schemes have also been funded to address the needs of young people under the Youth Family Work Program. The member for Toowoomba North Legislative Assembly 3392 4 September 1990 may be interested to know that one of the pilot schemes under this program will be placed in Toowoomba and operated by the Toowoomba and District Youth Service Inc. It will provide an outreach family work service. As well, Toowoomba receives funding for two youth accommodation services and a number of licensed residential care programs. I am aware that young people still have unmet needs, in Toowoomba and elsewhere. Following the release of Budget details tomorrow, I will be in a position to answer this question in more detail. However, I can assure the House that my commitment to quality services for children who are at risk continues. By "quality services", I mean services that provide skills training in areas that are in demand by industry and acceptable to young people and programs that do not isolate children from family and friends. I refer to programs which are, and are seen to be, fully accountable to the community; targeted to high-need areas; appropriate to local needs; and accessible to local people. I want to see a flexible range of programs, including short and medium-term shelters, long-term housing options, and detached youth workers and youth housing workers visiting and supporting young people in the living situations of their choice, for example, shared households, single dwellings and hostels. I do not think that threatening, authoritarian, over-regimented projects which label young people as bad or mad, or in need of rehabilitation, are appropriate to the 1990s. As well, from speaking with people who work in the youth sector, I am aware that homeless young people are very reluctant to commit themselves to staying anywhere for 12 months. Above all, I want services which have credibility with young people and which involve them in decision-making as much as possible, enabling them to take control of their own lives. This demands that services are staffed with people who know and understand the normal developmental processes of adolescence and who are aware that it is a turbulent time for many young people. These services need to have sound management and organisational structures which are effectively linked with other Government and non-Government organisations at the local level. In this regard, honourable members may be interested to know of the significant involvement of my department in ensuring that Commonwealth and State Governments work together in addressing the problems of young people through an intergovernmental working party. 7. Forestry, Cooloola National Park Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the forestry in the centre of Cooloola National Park, commonly referred to as the Do—nut area of Cooloola and bearing in mind statements attributed to the Minister for Environment and Heritage earlier this year, that this area of forestry will become a national park— (1) Does he realise the importance of this forestry for the supply of timber to numerous saw mills in this area? (2) Is he aware no alternative supplies are available if this ceases to be managed by the Forestry Department? (3) What is the present situation regarding this area of forestry?" Mr CASEY: (1 and 2) The total Crown allocation in the Gympie zone is presently 21 260 cubic metres, of which 3 030 cubic metres relates to the Cooloola State forest. A proportionate reduction will apply to each of the five mills drawing supplies from this zone when the subject area is excised for national park purposes. Such mills will continue to obtain their reduced allocation from the balance of the zone. (3) Logging is continuing but is expected to cease in 1991. 8. Authority over Inskip Peninsula Development Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Land Management— "With reference to the proposed development on Inskip Peninsula and to my belief that the Widgee Council has been given the supervising authority on this development— (1) What is the present situation on the future of this development following his discussions with the Chairman of the Widgee Shire Council? Legislative Assembly 3393 4 September 1990

(2) Who has the authority on this proposed development?" Mr EATON: (1) Development leases Nos 11, 12 and 13 are held over parts of Inskip Peninsula. The lessees are required, in terms of those leases, to obtain all necessary changes in town-plan zonings and submit subdivisional design plans for approval by Widgee Shire Council and the Minister for Land Management. Submission of the required design plans must be based on the outcome of the lessees' applications for rezoning of the subject land. (2) I have advised the Chairman of Widgee Shire Council that development of the leased lands is to be effected in accordance with subdivisional design plans when approved and in accordance with the conditions of lease. 9. Tourism Plan, Far-north Queensland Dr CLARK asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing— "With reference to the wide recognition that the tourism industry in Far North Queensland relies for its success on the natural attractions of the area, in particular, the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas and that the tourism industry in Far North Queensland has enormous potential for future growth— When is it proposed to initiate a comprehensive tourism plan for Far North Queensland to ensure that future growth is well managed and, particularly, that the natural environment of the region continues to be a draw card to international visitors?" Mr HAMILL: Mr Speaker—— Opposition members interjected. Mr GIBBS: The Minister is a very competent fellow, and he learns a lot by sitting next to me. I thank the honourable member for her question and share her views on the future potential of the tourist industry in far-north Queensland and the importance of the area's natural attractions to the future growth of that industry. Several initiatives are either under way or proposed which, I believe, will meet the honourable member's expectations and ensure a balanced and compatible approach to the growth of tourism and the need to conserve the natural features of the region. As all honourable members will know, in the past decade in Queensland there has been considerable development of tourist attractions. However, in many instances, owing to the slackness and incompetence of the previous National Party Government, this development has been uncoordinated, with no consideration being given to proper planning on a State and regional basis and to such issues as impact on the environment. I am confident that this past haphazardness will be quickly corrected. This was one of the matters that I asked the Kennedy Committee of Review into the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation to examine closely. As a result of the committee's recommendations, in the foreseeable future a State tourism strategy plan will be developed, approved by Cabinet and put in place. The short and medium term marketing horizons embodied in that plan, will encompass objectives at State and regional levels and will ensure that future growth is orderly and well managed. In addition, a special study of tourism potential on the Cape York Peninsula has been commenced by a task force formed by the Pacific Asia Tourism Association—PATA—with assistance from the QTTC. The task force, comprising experts in many aspects of tourism, the environment and conservation, will produce recommendations on the major issues of tourism on the peninsula and will make a tourism- oriented contribution to the Government's current Cape York land-use study. Its charter canvasses matters ranging from the scale and style of tourism development to the interface between Legislative Assembly 3394 4 September 1990 tourism and the Aboriginal communities, to the impact of the space base and to the methods of community involvement. Another initiative with relevance to the question asked by the honourable member is the production of a code of environmental practice for the tourism industry. This Government is embarking on programs that the previous Government would never have even considered. Mr FitzGerald: What about the space port? Mr GIBBS: The honourable member is going to be the first astronaut. The code has been provided by the Australian Tourism Industry Association after consultation with the QTTC and other bodies. The objectives of the code include— (1) to recognise both development and conservation as important and valuable expressions of human utilisation of the environment; (2) to recognise tourism as legitimate and valuable resource utilisation; (3) to work towards an improved understanding of the allocation process of land and other resources and to establish uniform environmental policy guidelines for the tourism industry. The QTTC and ATIA will soon stage a series of workshops throughout key tourism areas of Queensland with a view to building on the code and commencing the process of consultation for tourism developers. The first of those workshops is tentatively scheduled for Cairns in late October this year and my department has sought the active participation of several other State Government departments and agencies. All of the initiatives that I have outlined demonstrate that the natural attractions of the far north of the State are a prime concern within the Government, and I can assure the honourable member that the necessity to preserve them for the successful growth of tourism is fully recognised. 10. Great Barrier Reef, Protection from Oil Spills Dr CLARK asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— "(1) What action will be taken to respond to an oil spill if it occurred in a remote part of the Great Barrier Reef in Far North Queensland? (2) What equipment is held in Cairns to be used in the case of an oil spill on the Great Barrier Reef in Far North Queensland? (3) What approaches have been made by the State Government to the Federal Government to achieve the goal of compulsory pilotage of all vessels moving through shipping channels of the Great Barrier Reef?" Mr HAMILL: I was understandably enthusiastic in answering this question. (1) Following the Commonwealth/State agreement under the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil, the Federal Department of Transport and Communications, in conjunction with the Queensland State Oil Pollution Committee, will assume the role of combat authority for a ship-sourced oil spill occurring in Queensland territorial seas or on the high seas. Queensland Department of Transport on-scene coordinators—harbour masters and senior marine pilots in Mackay, Bowen, Townsville, Cairns and Thursday Island—or the Department of Transport and Communications regional marine surveyor, Cairns, will undertake immediate response action, which will include aerial surveillance and recommendation for subsequent action, as detailed in contingency plans, to the combat authority. Containment and recovery equipment and operators, from all authorities will be placed on standby in all regional ports, interstate and, if necessary, overseas—in Singapore and in Southampton. Legislative Assembly 3395 4 September 1990

Depending on the type and amount of oil spilled, the area where it is released in relation to isolation and access, and the currents and expected weather conditions, the response options are— ¥ If oil is not threatening valued resources and prevailing weather and current conditions indicate that it will not impact on foreshores, it will be left alone and monitored; oil will degrade through natural bacterial action. ¥ Chemical dispersants will be applied aerially under certain circumstances if the particular type of oil spilled is amenable to their use; difficulties exist in remote areas as response must be swift to be effective. ¥ To contain and recover on site; this is extremely difficult in open sea conditions, particularly in areas with logistics problems. The use of barrier booms and oil skimmers is severely limited by current and weather conditions and the amount of oil spilled. No major oil spill has ever been effectively contained and recovered at sea, including the Exxon Valdez. ¥ To employ equipment in a defensive and diversionary mode in an attempt to protect valuable resources—fish-breeding grounds, mangroves, reefs, beaches and resorts—and recover oil in more suitable inshore conditions. ¥ If oil is coming ashore on the mainland or islands, to undertake manual and mechanical cleaning of affected areas as designated in a predetermined sensitivity priority listing. (2) The following equipment supplied by the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil is held in the custody of the Cairns Port Authority— 300 metres inshore/harbour boom 400 metres harbour boom 1 disc skimmer 1 mini skimmer 1 set of surface dispersant spray rig 1 pollution equipment shoreline clean-up trailer 1 dispersant pump 200 litres of surface dispersant. The Federal Department of Transport and Communications, Cairns, holds the following equipment in store— 2 sets surface dispersant spray rig 5 tonnes of surface dispersant. Because of its central location in relation to the reef, the other major storage centre for equipment in north Queensland is Townsville. The following equipment is stored there— Townsville Port Authority— 300 metres inshore/harbour boom 300 metres harbour boom 150 metres inshore boom 1 boom deploying catamaran 1 weir skimmer 1 drum skimmer 2 equipment trailers 200 litres of surface dispersant 1 dispersant pump Department of Transport, Townsville— 1 helicopter dispersant spray bucket Legislative Assembly 3396 4 September 1990

Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services, Townsville— 12 tonnes of serial dispersant 12 tonnes of surface dispersant 6 surface spray rigs To be delivered in September 1990— 600 metres open-water boom 300 metres inshore boom Department of Transport, Bowen— 200 metres harbour boom 800 litres of surface dispersant Mackay Port Authority— 300 metres inshore/harbour boom 500 metres harbour boom 1 disc skimmer 1 small drum skimmer 1 set surface dispersant spray rig 1 dispersant spray vessel 2 600 litres of surface dispersant. All other regional ports hold equipment with a back-up stockpile available from Brisbane. An Opposition member interjected. Mr HAMILL: I am surprised that the honourable member who professes such an interest in tourism is not interested in the environmental protection available to the reef. (3) Extensive liaison has taken place between officers of my department and the Federal Department of Transport and Communications on the matter of the implementation of compulsory pilotage of vessels through the Great Barrier Reef. Under the International Maritime Organisation, there exists a recommendation that vessels in excess of 100 metres in length and all vessels carrying hazardous or polluting cargoes are urged to engage the services of the Queensland Coast and Torres Strait Pilot Service. This recommendation covers the northern areas of the inner route through the Great Barrier Reef, the Prince of Wales Channel, the Great North East Channels and Hydrographers Passage. At present, approximately 10 per cent of vessels passing through the Great Barrier Reef do not observe this recommendation. It was only last week that officers from my department met with their Federal counterparts to discuss the issue of compulsory pilotage. The talks were productive, with areas of action identified. I understand that, in the near future, the Federal Government will be raising the matter in the appropriate international forum. 11. Government Receipts from Increased Traffic Penalties Dr WATSON asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— "With reference to his support for a proposal by the Federal Government for uniform traffic fines throughout Australia, which in Queensland's case will mean fines being raised by 200 to 300 per cent— As the Government is estimated to have raised more than $45m in fines and forfeiture in 1989—90, what does his department estimate the financial windfall will be to State coffers when Queensland fines are adjusted to national standards?" Legislative Assembly 3397 4 September 1990

Mr HAMILL: The question refers to my support for a proposal by the Federal Government for uniform traffic penalties throughout Australia. I wish to inform the honourable member that there is no such proposal. In fact, the Federal proposal to which the statement more than likely refers is the uniform points demerit scheme, an element of the Prime Minister's 10-point road safety package. Agreement has been reached to introduce a uniform points demerit scheme as part of the national licensing scheme for drivers of heavy trucks and buses. This scheme will allow for the accumulation of up to 12 demerit points within any three-year period, but will restrict these drivers to holding only one licence. The number of offences attracting demerit points will be restricted and will focus upon those that are potentially life-threatening, with less emphasis on minor offences. As part of this process, my department is assessing the fines and penalties associated with the 500 differing traffic offences in Queensland to assess whether the current penalties adequately reflect the seriousness of certain offences. The Road Safety Division of the Department of Transport is presently examining the penalties associated with all traffic offences having a direct road safety impact. The focus of this study is the determination of penalties aimed at optimising the deterrent effect and improving road-user attitudes and behaviour. Potential revenue considerations do not fall within the scope of the study. 12. Queensland Community Corrections Boards, Appointment of B. M. Anning Mr GILMORE asked the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services— "With reference to the gazettal of the names of persons appointed to Queensland Community Corrections Boards, wherein one, Bernice Mary Anning, did not qualify to be appointed under the terms of the Act —— (1) Has he reviewed the matter? (2) What action has been taken, or is intended to be taken in respect of this matter? Mr MILLINER: (1) Yes, the situation has been reviewed. (2) The appointment of each board member now complies with the requirements of the Correctives Services Act. 13.Abolition of Literature and Films Boards of Review; Banning of Films and Literature Mr GILMORE asked the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services— "With reference to the sacking of the Queensland Film Board of Review, and the Literature Board of Review, and the installation of Mr David Cannavan in their place— (1) What films have since been removed from the list of banned material? (2) What films have been reviewed, and placed on the list of banned material? (3) Is it his intention that ultimately all films or literature not banned by the Commonwealth censor will be available for public viewing in Queensland? (4) Does he believe that Queensland should not have any regulation whatsoever to control the distribution of pornographic or other offensive material either on film or in print?" Mr MILLINER: (1) None. (2) None. (3) It is my intention to ensure that all films or literature banned by the Commonwealth censor will definitely not be available for public viewing in Queensland. (4) No. Legislative Assembly 3398 4 September 1990

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1989-90 Budget Mr COOPER: I direct a question to the Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development. In recent days, he has made a point of indicating that, in his Budget Speech, he will seek to contradict the well-established reputation of the National Party for bringing down balanced budgets. I ask: can the Treasurer indicate whether he believes that the 1989-90 Budget carried a so-called underlying deficit of $180m, as he claimed in February? Or does he agree with the figure of a $4m surplus, which he touted at the Premiers Conference in July? Or does he agree with the latest Treasury advice that the last National Party Budget carried an $11m surplus? Mr De LACY: The honourable Leader of the Opposition obviously does not understand very much about budgeting. He has referred to two or three different measures. If he has any time available tomorrow afternoon, he should come along and listen to the Budget Speech, in which I will point out to what extent the previous Budget was balanced and to what extent this Government's Budget will be balanced. When the National Party used to beat its breast and use the old term that its Budget was balanced, it was referring merely to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is the easiest thing in the world to balance a Consolidated Revenue Fund, if the Government is prepared to borrow to balance it. Mr Veivers: What about Victoria? Mr De LACY: The Victorian Government had a balanced Consolidated Revenue Fund, which probably puts into context the hollow claims that the National Party has made in this House for years and years. If Opposition members come along tomorrow they will see at first-hand the performance of the Goss Labor Government and its response to Australia's current economic situation. I can inform them that it will be good. Funding of Social Infrastructure from Consolidated Revenue Mr COOPER: I direct a further question to the Treasurer, who in the past has also indicated, in a manner that suggests he is re-inventing the wheel, that he will give a commitment in the Budget to funding social infrastructure from consolidated revenue, and also to funding economic infrastructure with borrowings only where loans will be self-funding, and I ask: how can he suggest that his impending claim on social infrastructure is novel when Queensland, alone among all the States and under the leadership of the National Party, has responded to calls from the Commonwealth by actually achieving that goal—and it has done so for years? Secondly, how can the Treasurer justify his claim on economic infrastructure funding when what he seeks to implement was also implemented by the National Party when in Government, giving Queenslanders the lowest per capita debt of any State? Mr De LACY: The answer to the honourable member's question is that that is not true. In last year's Budget there were borrowings of $111m for hospitals and for water resources, neither of which returns an economic dividend. The fact is—and I have been saying it all year—that the financial management principles that this Government has introduced are new principles—they provide a new discipline to financial management in this State. For the honourable member to suggest that, in the past, his Government had that measure in place, is ill-informed—it did not have it in place. It is obvious to me that the honourable member has never prepared a budget, that he knows nothing about budgets and that he knows nothing about the principles under which previous budgets were prepared. Opposition members interjected. Legislative Assembly 3399 4 September 1990

Mr De LACY: I think I can detect some concern from Opposition members that tomorrow's Budget will be a good Budget; that it will be a financially responsible Budget. All of the people who have been hanging their shingle on the fact that the Government will not be able to balance its Budget or that it will introduce new taxes will be left without a feather to fly with. International Convention Centre Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing: is he aware of the need for an international convention centre in Brisbane? Can he inform the House of what benefits would flow to Brisbane and Queensland from such an establishment? Mr GIBBS: The introduction of an international convention centre and casino in Brisbane will have many benefits. During the weekend, I discussed this matter with my colleague the Deputy Premier. What we thought would be a fairly smooth road to the introduction of those facilities has become somewhat confused because of the appalling conference performance of the Liberal Party at the weekend. Coupled with that were the bleating statements by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper. It becomes obvious that, if we are to utilise the facilities of an international convention centre in Brisbane rather than adopt the international basis that is now a role model throughout the world, we must ensure that such a facility has a number of very small rooms. Those rooms will be needed for Mr Santoro's faction, another for the faction of the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beanland, one for Mr Everingham, one for Mr Cooper and a separate one for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. After the weekend's performance, it will be an absolutely impossible task for the conservative parties in Queensland to get their act together and come into this Parliament with any form or semblance of an organised Opposition. I have no doubt that, in the very near future, the Government will competently and ably settle on a suitable plan, whether it includes a multishared facility on the south bank or divided facilities with a casino in the inner city area and a convention centre on the south bank. When tenders are finally called, I envisage that the Government will allow developers to approach the project with an open mind on both of those bases. With initiative from this Government, Brisbane will start to recognise its true tourism potential, compared with the neglect that was so blatantly displayed towards Brisbane by the previous National Party Government. Student Education Profile Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the Government's recent decision to proceed with the implementation of the Student Education Profile as a means of selecting students for university study. I ask: can the Minister inform the House of the response by universities to the new system? Mr BRADDY: As I indicated to the House last week, I expected universities to respond enthusiastically and efficiently to the request for information as to how they would deal with the new system. Our confidence in the universities has been well placed. It reveals their enthusiasm and support for the new Student Education Profile system that has been introduced. All universities have indicated their responses. The Government has funded the printing of a special pamphlet that outlines the entry rules and procedures for Year 12 high school graduates in 1992. The pamphlet, which will be sent to each Year 10 student in the State, sets out the prerequisites for any courses that require prerequisites. As well, it states the fields that will be used to finalise and determine places between applicants who are otherwise equal on the overall position. Legislative Assembly 3400 4 September 1990

I am delighted by the cooperation of the universities and their prompt and enthusiastic responses. Another significant aspect of those responses is that, as a sign of their support for the new system, they have relaxed their prerequisites for entry to some courses. For example, the most competitively sought after university course in Queensland is the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery course, which at present has four prerequisites. The University of Queensland has indicated that, because of its support for the new system, it has relaxed one of the prerequisites for that course. It now requires only three prerequisites instead of four. The university will now use the field positions as determined by it to ascertain the people who are otherwise equal in the overall position. Similarly, because of support for the new system by the Queensland University of Technology, it has dropped prerequisites for entry to three courses. In no case has it increased prerequisites. Both universities have the greatest difficulty in sorting out students. That they have both dropped prerequisites is a significant sign of their enthusiastic and cooperative support for the new system. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr BRADDY: The University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology have been major supporters of the new system. In her report, Professor Viviani appealed to them to be more supportive and more rational in their decision-making for the continuation of students under the current TE score system. Despite the interruption from the member for Fassifern, those universities have cooperated significantly. The University of Queensland has indicated that, in 1991, if decisions have to be made about students who have the same TE score, the university will consider the performance of students in the prerequisite subjects rather than going into other information that was criticised in the report. Whatever the prerequisites are for those students on an equal TE score, the University of Queensland will consider the prerequisite subjects as stated on the Senior certificate and will use them to decide between students who are otherwise equal. The Queensland University of Technology has indicated that, in the future, it will not discriminate between students on the same TE score. All students on the same TE score who have applied to a university will be admitted without any discrimination between them. I thank the universities for their significant and enthusiastic cooperation, which heralds well for the continuation of the new program. Liberal Party and National Party Access to Budget Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Honourable the Treasurer, in light of the Fitzgerald report's specific recommendations that opposition parties be provided with information on Government activities, I ask: will he allow both the Liberal Party and the National Party access to tomorrow's Budget at the same time that the lock-up begins, as I understand happens federally? Mr De LACY: If the honourable member is prepared to sit in on the media lock-up, yes, I will undertake to do that. I do not know that the Government has made a decision, but I will ensure that the honourable member will get exactly the same treatment as the Labor Party used to get when it was in Opposition. Attitude of Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing to Racing Industry Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Honourable the Premier: will he intervene to prevent the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing from undermining the confidence and stability of the Queensland racing industry—the third-most important industry in Queensland—through his confrontationist attitude towards various sections of the industry, most notably the principal racing clubs? Legislative Assembly 3401 4 September 1990

Mr W. K. GOSS: There is no need for intervention. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing keeps Cabinet well briefed on his policies and proposals. Further measures must be taken in relation to the racing industry. Whilst the Minister was Opposition spokesman on Tourism, Sport and Racing, and since the election of the Government, he has been a very strong supporter of the racing industry and is well known within the industry. The Minister has taken the time to consult with all sections of the racing industry. It is inevitable that, when one particular party or coalition has been in power for a long time, an industry may get out of control, as we have seen. That means that changes must now be made, and they will be made. The Government believes that, in the long term, those changes will be for the benefit of both the racing industry and the punters. Report on Land Administration Practices Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Minister for Land Management, I refer to the present review of land administration practices. I ask: can the Minister indicate when the report of the review committee will be completed, and will he give an assurance that the recommendations will be made public and that an opportunity will be provided for input on the recommendations from interested organisations? Mr EATON: On Sunday afternoon, the review committee delivered to me a draft report. The report is very large and comprehensive. Because of ministerial commitments, I have not yet read the report completely. The normal procedures will have to be followed. I will read the report and then take it to the Premier and Cabinet. Until that process is completed, I will make no further statements on the report. Volvo Australia Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Manufacturing and Commerce: has his attention been drawn to the article in the Australian Financial Review of 3 September 1990, in which it is reported that the Swedish vehicle manufacturer, Volvo Australia, is to cut its work force by 5 000 employees over the next two years? Can the Minister indicate whether that announcement will affect the Volvo truck and bus manufacturing operation at Wacol? Mr SMITH: I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in the matter. Mr Stephan: We can't hear you. Mr SMITH: Honourable members opposite should be able to hear me. They should keep their ears open. I did see that article, which referred to the construction of passenger-car vehicles around the world. Last Wednesday, I had the pleasure of attending the ceremony at which the fifteen thousandth truck was delivered from the Volvo Brisbane factory. That was achieved by Volvo through a consistent policy of constant quality improvement. The Brisbane factory of Volvo Australia, which is a subsidiary of the Volvo world organisation, is recognised as the most efficient truck-assembly operation in the world. That is a great achievement. In addition, Volvo obtains from local sources up to 30 per cent of the components used in the manufacture of its vehicles. At the ceremony, it was great to hear that Volvo has taken a decision to make Brisbane its base for the supply of right-hand-drive trucks for the rest of the world. Volvo has secured contracts for the supply of some of those vehicles to a number of countries in South East Asia and to at least one other country. That the Volvo factory in Brisbane has become the world manufacturing centre for right-hand-drive trucks is a considerable achievement for the industry and demonstrates that Volvo is doing very well in the vehicle-factory manufacturing industry. Volvo recognises the support that my department has given to it. Legislative Assembly 3402 4 September 1990

Budget Mr BORBIDGE: I have a question for the Treasurer. I will keep it simple for him. I ask: does he stand by his claim that he made at the Premiers Conference that Queensland's efforts in maintaining a Budget surplus should be recognised by the Federal Government? Following his comments this morning, will the Treasurer now admit that he may have misled the Premiers Conference? Mr De LACY: Another clever question from the Opposition! It is very obvious to me that Opposition members have been saying all year that the Budget will be bad, that the Government will introduce new taxes and that it will not be fiscally responsible. All of a sudden, Opposition members have realised that the Budget might just be a good one, so they have made a big change in tack. Mr Cooper: We gave you a good Budget to work from. Mr De LACY: It may be a good Budget, but the Government created it. Mr Cooper: You had an $11m surplus. Mr De LACY: It really is pathetic to listen to and look at Opposition members. Tomorrow's Budget will be the Budget of the Goss Government. The Government will have its mark on it. Opposition members can sit in the background and say what they like and try to claim credit for the Budget. However, it is the Government's Budget, and the Government will take the credit for it. Inclusion in Budget of Poker Machine Income and Expenditure Mr BORBIDGE: I will have to make my questions simpler. In directing a second question to the Treasurer, I refer to the Criminal Justice Commission report on the introduction of poker machines in Queensland and to comments made by the Minister for Tourism, Racing and Sport earlier this year on the 7.30 Report that the CJC report had delayed the introduction of poker machines until at least the middle of next year. I now ask: because of possible delays in the introduction of poker machines and uncertainty on the date of their introduction, to protect the integrity of the Treasurer's Budget and the Estimates within his Budget can the Treasurer now assure the House that no provision has been made for income or expenditure in relation to poker machines in the preparation of his forthcoming Budget? Mr De LACY: Talk about simple questions from a simple person! Mr Borbidge: You will be 100 million bucks out on them. Mr De LACY: The honourable member has asked a question and, if he hangs on, I will answer it. The Minister for Tourism was right; the CJC inquiry into poker machines has indeed delayed the implementation of poker machines in Queensland. The report has been tabled today; I do not know of any reason why poker machines will not be introduced before the end of this financial year. As to whether or not the Government has included any possible tax receipts from the introduction of poker machines in its Budget, I again say that the honourable member should book himself a seat for tomorrow. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mulgrave. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will cease talking to the honourable member for Surfers Paradise. I wish to listen to the member for Mulgrave. Legislative Assembly 3403 4 September 1990

Public Housing in Mulgrave Electorate Mr PITT: I refer the Minister for Housing and Local Government to the demographic changes occurring within the Mulgrave electorate, in particular the population drift southward from the City of Cairns, and I ask: firstly, has the Department of Housing adopted a planned approach to accommodate the demand for public housing in the area, secondly, what action has been taken to meet this demand, and thirdly, will the Minister give an assurance that the township of Babinda will not be overlooked, as was the case under the previous Government? Mr BURNS: Since the honourable member was elected to this Parliament he has spent a considerable amount of time following up the issue of housing in his region. The waiting list in the Cairns district is one of the largest in the State and puts tremendous pressure on the Housing Commission itself. Naturally, when buying land and trying to improve the figures, the department tries to spread purchases around Cairns and into Mulgrave and other areas. There has been a problem in the past because the Clerks of the Court in some courthouses told people that the Department of Housing was not building in those areas. As a result, no houses were available and people did not go on the list. I am trying to decentralise the proposal as much as possible in an effort to get the department to spread its housing fairly widely. The Government has spent a considerable amount of money on the purchase of land and house-and-land packages in the Mulgrave area. The Department of Housing is inviting builders and private-enterprise groups throughout the State to become involved in a house-and- land package deal. The most important area is the Barron River/Mulgrave region around Cairns. I give the honourable member an assurance that the hard work that he has put in on behalf of the people of his electorate is recognised by my department and me and we will do all we can to assist him. Health Clinics in Eacham Shire Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I bring to his attention the importance of maintaining health clinics within the Eacham Shire and ask: will the Minister guarantee the people of the Eacham Shire that the clinics at Millaa Millaa and Malanda will not have their services reduced and will he consider providing additional medical staff at the Atherton Hospital so that the operation of the Malanda clinic can be restored to at least its previous level? Mr McELLIGOTT: The Atherton Hospitals Board, which administers outpatient clinics at Millaa Millaa and Malanda has recently been provided with additional funding to meet the employment costs of an additional medical position of principal house officer. However, the board has not been able to attract an additional medical officer until quite recently when an appointment to this third principal house officer position was made. It is expected that this officer will commence duty in the first week of October 1990. As indicated previously, a further medical appointee of principal house officer will be taking up duty at the Atherton hospital. The board has the responsibility of reviewing its needs in providing services to its clinics at an appropriate level, having regard to the assessed needs of the area. Malanda's needs will be considered in that light. Parliamentary Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services; Visit to Central Queensland Mr PERRETT: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to a recent visit to central Queensland by members of the ambulance review committee. I now ask: firstly, is the Minister aware, that two members of this committee, namely the member for Toowoomba North and the member for Glass House, Legislative Assembly 3404 4 September 1990 requested and were granted the use of a chauffeur-driven limousine to travel to Rockhampton, Biloela and Emerald; secondly, what was the cost of this indulgence; thirdly, how did the other members of the committee travel; and, fourthly, why were these two members accompanied by a Hansard reporter? Mr MACKENROTH: If the member for Barambah was aware of parliamentary practices, he would know that this is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of a select committee of this Parliament, and, as such, Parliament meets all those costs. The only reason I am aware that a trip such as the honourable member described was undertaken is that it was raised last week at a meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission. The matter would not have come to my attention as the Minister responsible for ambulances, because that committee is not one of my committees; it is a committee of the Parliament. Therefore, it is totally inappropriate for the member to direct the question to me . Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Associated Plywood Sales Mill, Ravenshoe Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (11.00 a.m.): I rise during the Matters of Public Interest debate to bring to the attention of this House the most difficult position of the people who live in Ravenshoe. I also wish to bring to the attention of the House examples of Labor incompetence, economic mismanagement and straight-out lies. This matter centres on the township of Ravenshoe, which is the focus of the World Heritage listing. Under Hawke and Richardson, Labor has taken an industry with an annual income of $40m and turned it into a $75m loss—a once-off loss. Along the way, they have misled the Australian people and destroyed an industry and the hopes and aspirations of generations of north Queenslanders. Labor in Queensland—both in Opposition and in Government—has been a willing accomplice. It stopped what may well have been a successful court challenge and has aided and abetted the liars and thieves in the Federal Government. The people of Australia and, in particular, of north Queensland were constantly assured and reassured that no person or business would be disadvantaged by World Heritage listing. The lunatic senator—supported by his cronies in Queensland—lied to that small community of Ravenshoe. He lulled the businesspeople of north Queensland into a sense of security that has now left them lamenting. Moreover, the Federal Government made an abysmal, expedient deal with a Sydney firm, Plywood and Plastics, which is the parent company of Associated Plywood Sales. This company has managed to achieve nothing except heartache and has lost many millions of taxpayers' dollars. I wish to outline to the House the way in which this occurred. After World Heritage listing became a reality, the Federal Government put in place a $75m World Heritage listing compensation package. Without going into the fine detail of the package, I point out that one aspect of it was the agreement previously spoken about, which was supposed to ensure the continuation of the APS mill in Ravenshoe. This was the crown jewel in the package. Along with this deal came assurances that the mill would continue to be a major source of employment in the region and would have at least 20 years of resources available. To a man, the people of Ravenshoe believed that somehow this meant that offering credit to the operators of that mill was a secure investment which would, in the long term, assist in guaranteeing the viability of the mill. They were wrong. In Ravenshoe, businesses are owed $220,000 by the company. The total amount owed throughout north Queensland to private businesses is $600,000, all of which is unsecured. The companies Plywood and Plastics and Associated Plywood Sales are both in receivership. Price Waterhouse has been appointed as receivers. Legislative Assembly 3405 4 September 1990

The deal struck between the Commonwealth Government and Plywood and Plastics allows for, in the first place, an interest-free loan of $4.3m up front and, in the second place, a grant of $8.5m over four years. To date, $2.125m of the $8.5m has been paid. A total of $6.425m has been paid to Plywood and Plastics. These funds were to be used to retool the APS mill at Ravenshoe to handle softwood, namely, pine from a Queensland Government plantation resource. Nothing in the document required the company to call for tenders for the work; nor was there any provision for progress payments to be made or verification that the work had actually been carried out. The effect of what has happened is that the Federal Government has provided two cheques for $6.425m and has said, "Go away and do it." At no time did the Federal Government make allowance for progress payments to be part of the deal. All the money was paid up front on the basis of trust. As a consequence, the retooling of the APS mill in Ravenshoe is incomplete. The mill and the companies associated with it are in receivership. At least $3m of taxpayers' money has been misappropriated, $600,000 in private debts is unpaid and $200,000 worth of prime timber—that is, rainforest timber—has been sold at auction. The money has disappeared. What a deal! In addition, the mill requires at least another $750,000 to buy new equipment to raise its capacity to 25 000 cubic metres of sawlogs per year, simply to become viable. Because of the nature of the timber resource, the mill needs an automatic finger-jointer and a new docking saw. It is rumoured that the State Government either has reduced or is about to reduce royalties by 30 per cent to try to assist the mill's viability. There is an urgent need for carry-on finance until the mill can be sold. Neither Westpac—the prime mortgagee—nor the Government will provide such funds. As late as last Thursday, the Federal Government decided that there will be no ongoing subsidy to a successful purchaser of the property. That simply means that any company purchasing the company will be cut off at the pass. The remainder of the $12.5m that was set aside and never paid will not now be paid. Any company that purchases the mill now will have to purchase it in an "as is" condition and will have to suffer at least $6m in retooling expenditure before the mill becomes viable. The Federal Government has announced that it will not use the frozen funds in the subsidy account to make an ex gratia payment to the businesspeople of far-north Queensland who have been disadvantaged through the lies told by the Federal Government and by being misled. As a result of these decisions, the mill must ultimately close. It cannot continue. What has been heard from the Federal and State Government about this matter? The Federal Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, says, "Don't say anything, don't do anything, and don't rock the boat because anything that you say might prejudice the sale of this mill." I ask the question in this House: why should the people of Ravenshoe go quietly to the slaughter? They have nothing to gain. As the prime mortgagee and secured creditor, Westpac has first call. The second-ranked secured creditor is the Federal Government. All the other businesspeople who invested were unsecured. A letter from the Federal Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, to those businesspeople states— "Unsecured creditors are most unlikely to receive any payment from the Receiver/Manager." That position will apply irrespective of whether the mill can work its way out of the debt or whether the mill is sold. Why should the people of Ravenshoe be quiet? Why should they cover up for the people involved? The Federal member for Kennedy, Mr Rob Hulls, has stated, "I think you've got a bright future." He is a wise young man. Bill Eaton agrees with everybody. It does not matter what people say, he will agree with them. The State Government just wishes this problem would go away. What does the future hold for the people of Ravenshoe? They have mostly nothing to look forward to. The reforestation resource is spread from Wongabel to Kuranda and Legislative Assembly 3406 4 September 1990 some of it is a distance of two hours' haul away. The resource varies from mature, clear fell hoop pine to Caribbean thinnings. The mature hoop pine is high quality and reasonably close to the mill. However, the mill has contracted with the Queensland Forest Service to take only 10 000 cubic metres of that hoop pine a year, and it has contracted to take 6 000 cubic metres of Caribbean thinnings from the Kuranda region. That means that 37 per cent of the plantation resource for that mill is thinnings, all of which is furthest from the mill. Thinnings produce an inferior product and high waste, and are expensive to saw. The mill has not been profitable even when cutting a high percentage of mature logs. When it begins to cut thinnings on a regular basis, it must fail. To add insult to injury, simply to survive the mill requires 35 cubic metres of rainforest species a day, which is coming out of private resource. If the mill closes, not only will Ravenshoe lose between 40 and 50 jobs but also the State Government will lose the only mill able to mill thousands of hectares of plantation pine. And—dare I say it—should the Tully/Millstream project go ahead, thousands of cubic metres of hardwood that should be sawn will be wasted if the mill closes. This is an incredible tale of deceit, lies and incompetence and callous disregard for the people of far-north Queensland generally and of Ravenshoe in particular. The Federal Government has said on a number of occasions, both through the agency of Mr Rob Hulls and through the Minister, that the people of Ravenshoe have no legal recourse to the Federal Government because the contract was with the mill and the company in Sydney, and not with those persons who gave their time, money and hard work to make this mill viable. The Federal Government, however, has a moral responsibility to those people. There is no question that they were misled. The Federal Government used their time. They gave credit and they have been used abysmally by the Federal Government. The Queensland Government, through Mr Eaton, must work very hard to get the Commonwealth Government to fulfil the expectations of those people in far-north Queensland who have been so badly misused. Lord Mayor's Secret Slush Fund Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (11.10 a.m.): I wish to draw to the attention of the people of Brisbane in particular and the people of Queensland generally a matter that I believe to be of grave concern to political life in Queensland in the post-Fitzgerald era. Over the past nine months, the Government has worked assiduously to put behind it the dark past of political patronage and political double-manoeuvring that characterised the politics of the previous Government over 30 years. However, the situation is not behind us. In the Sunday Mail of 26 August appeared a major article identifying a secret slush fund of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson. That article stated— "Brisbane Lord Mayor Sallyanne Atkinson has access to a secret fund worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time when the Liberal Party is flat broke." The article is substantiated by a copy of a document that I have in my possession which indicates that, in the course of 1988, a secret trust was established under a trust deed between certain founders of the trust and certain trustees. That secretly leaked legal document indicates that a secret trust fund has been established on behalf of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane to help her pursue her own political career regardless of the Liberal Party and in desertion of the people of Brisbane. Let us look at the people who are associated with that trust fund. The founders of the trust fund are identified as: John Geoffrey Allpass, Desmond Huxley Martin, Rodney Austin Samut, Andrew Alexander McWilliam and Richard Gerard Malouf. Those people have established the fund using the following trustees: John Geoffrey Allpass, also a founder, Desmond Huxley Martin and Rodney Austin Samut. Other people are associated with that secret fund. In a moment, I will refer to them. Legislative Assembly 3407 4 September 1990

That secret fund raises serious concerns about conflict of interest; the very conflict of interest that raises the question of political favours being bought through subscriptions to that fund. The fund has all the indicia of the infamous Bjelke-Petersen Foundation and the slippery slope to corruption which that foundation clearly showed was the falling-down of the previous State Government. Just as ministerial rezonings were purchased with the proverbial brown paper bag donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, so it may well be that favourable development approvals may be purchased at City Hall through patronage of the Lord Mayor's secret slush fund. It is interesting to note the connection of that slush fund with certain people in the National Party. Indeed, the first chairman of the secret committee to re-elect Sallyanne Atkinson was a National Party identity by the name of Geoffrey Dee. Let us look at the other members of the committee. They include Mr Julian Beirne, Mr Digby McLeay, someone called Lyn Everingham, Mr Rod Williams and Mr Barry Paul. Let us look at some of the less-than-popular relationships that exist between the Brisbane City Council, the Lord Mayor and people on that committee. As members might recall, some years ago, Mr Digby McLeay was a member of the Lord Mayor's personal staff. More recently, in the 1986 State election, he stood for the Liberal Party in the seat of Aspley. Since then, he has been writing less-than-intellectual articles for the Business Queensland magazine and operating a business which supplies bus shelters to the Brisbane City Council. I understand that those bus shelters are supplied according to some deal whereby he is able to sell the advertising on the bus shelters. The details of that lucrative deal should be made public and accountable, particularly having regard to Mr McLeay's association with that secret election committee. I turn now to Mr Barry Paul, who is also a member of the campaign committee. Mr Paul, of course, is associated with the Kern development company. We are well familiar with the recent controversy surrounding the redevelopment of MacArthur Chambers and the destruction of the Commonwealth Bank building in Queen Street. In the course of that controversy the Lord Mayor was conspicuously silent, until she was suddenly found to vigorously support the development and tried to lay blame for the destruction of the Commonwealth Bank building on the State Environment Minister. The air was thick with rumours surrounding the involvement of the Lord Mayor in that scandal and, indeed, there was some suggestion that a function from which contributions went to the Lord Mayor's slush fund might have been put on by the Kern Corporation or by election committee member Mr Paul himself. Finally, of course, there is Mr Rod Samut, a most interesting character and property-developer, who has taken over from Mr Dee as chairman of this committee to re-elect the Lord Mayor. Mr Samut was, of course, involved in assisting the Lord Mayor to raise money for a fund which, I understand, now exceeds $600,000. He has been rewarded for his contribution by being appointed chairman of the city council's Office for Economic Development—otherwise known as the Lord Mayor's international travel agency. Of course, there is also the recent controversy and confusion surrounding the future of the council's waste disposal contract. It may be useful to ask whether any of the tenderers are contributors to this slush fund, because there seems to be some evidence to indicate that at least some tenderers may have had access to the 1987 Maunsell report—a supposedly internal Brisbane City Council report which lays the parameters for waste disposal options for Brisbane. These matters indicate grossly improper and incestuously indecent connections between various people who might benefit from council decisions and the council itself and, in particular, the Lord Mayor. It is my suggestion that these matters and the circumstances surrounding the establishment of this fund and the use to which it is put should be subject to preliminary investigation by the Criminal Justice Commission. I Legislative Assembly 3408 4 September 1990 base this suggestion on the very clear recommendations made by Commissioner Fitzgerald in his report only last year. On page 137 he said— "The possibility of improper favour being shown or being seen to have been shown by the Government to political donors must also be eliminated. There is a legitimate entitlement, ordinarily, to privacy in respect of membership of or loyalty to political organizations. It may be that, however, that private right should be subservient to the public interest in proper standards in public administration." He further went on to say— ". . . there is an urgent need to consider establishing a public register of political donations. Lack of such a register has given rise to community suspicion and lack of confidence in the political process." Those comments by Commissioner Fitzgerald are just as relevant today in respect to the operation and management of the Brisbane City Council as they were to the State Government of that time. One consequence of the establishment of this secret fund is that the Liberal Party is riddled with disaffection and factional feud-fighting. This secret fund has been established to enhance the personal career prospects of the Lord Mayor. She is now seen by many Liberals to be no more than an interesting decoration adorning the edifice of City Hall. The fund shows that she has deserted the Liberal Party and intends to desert the people of Brisbane. Last year the Lord Mayor tried to undermine the election campaign of the then Leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party, Mr Angus Innes. Who knows; she may be poised to carry out the same witch- hunt and the same knifing of the present Leader of the Liberal Party. One can imagine that the prospects of Sallyanne for George Street are now pretty slim but, of course, it probably has little to do with the current Leader of the Liberal Party in this Parliament. The State Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Mathers, has told his party that he expects to have great difficulty in raising funds for the Liberals' next campaign because he has to compete in the donor market with Sallyanne's secret committee and its slush fund. This has created considerable disquiet in the Liberal Party. Indeed, a former vice-president of the party, Mr Grant Cameron, resigned several months ago in disgust at the Liberal Party's lack of control over the secret fund. It is not subject to access by normal party members and it is not scrutinised in accordance with the party's own funding codes. There is an urgent need for EARC to conduct an urgent inquiry into the whole question of pecuniary interests of people in public office and, indeed, in the interests of public political donation registers. Disbanding of Literature and Films Boards of Review; State Government's Intention to Decriminalise Homosexuality Mr KING (Nicklin) (11.20 a.m.): I wish to draw to the attention of the Premier, his Cabinet and, indeed, all members of the Government some matters of grave concern to the vast majority of Queensland citizens. I refer to the action by the Labor Government to date in disbanding the Literature and Films Boards of Review, and its foreshadowed intention to decriminalise homosexuality or, to put it another way, to legalise sodomy. More specifically, I refer to the terribly detrimental effect that such actions will have on the well-being of the people whom we serve. I remind the Premier, and draw to his attention, that in the past few weeks I have lodged with this Parliament, and am in the process of lodging, petitions containing the signatures of well over 25 500 very concerned citizens of Queensland. These people are strongly and deeply concerned about the actions, and indicated actions, of this socialist Legislative Assembly 3409 4 September 1990

Government in relation to these issues of morality. It is also noted that a number of petitions on the same subject have been submitted by other honourable members. I point out that, according to the office of the Clerk of the Parliament, the total of 25 500 signatures that I have referred to is the highest number of signatories to a petition recorded in this Parliament on any issue in the past five years. Surely that indicates the strength of feeling on these matters by the people of Queensland. I hope that the Government will take notice of the huge outcry by these concerned citizens, many of whom belong to that great band of usually silent citizens, the silent majority. These people usually sit quietly and say nothing but, believe me, these issues—in particular the issue of homosexuality and what this Government has allowed and already indicated that it will allow—have stirred them, as no previous issue has stirred them, out of their lethargy. If this Government decides to proceed further down the track with these issues, it will do so at its own peril. The average person in the community can see what has happened in recent years to our women and children, both girls and boys, in regard to violence and rape, both natural and unnatural, and the many cases of vicious sex-related murders. I say to the Premier, "Please do not believe that you are acting in the best interests of the majority of Queenslanders if you do proceed. You will be doing so on behalf of the very vocal minority only, and you will learn this to the detriment of your Government at the next election." Normally, it takes a lot to stir many of the silent majority to comment, but they are now standing up and saying, "Enough is enough. Stop all this rubbish pornography. It's hurting us too much. The price the people are now paying is no longer acceptable." The vast majority of people are not prepared to accept for their children sodomy as a legally acceptable standard. They know that such practices are not conducive to the mental, physical or emotional well-being of their children and grandchildren, and therefore of the future of Australia. Such practices are against the laws of both God and man, and the long-term price paid is unacceptable to the people of Queensland. I wish to quote from a few of the hundreds of letters that I have received from people throughout Queensland. However, I will begin with a press release citing comments made by the late Sir David Martin, the former Governor of New South Wales and a well-respected man in the community. He stated— "We have learnt a lot about some of the evils and the problems which affect our society. What we both feel and realise is that Australians are looking for decent standards and ethics, and they are reaching out for guidance and example." I will now quote from some of the letters that I have received from people all over Queensland, including the Mareeba area. A letter that I received from a citizen in the Maryborough region, in part, states— "I am personally convinced that if the matters you are dealing with were put to the people in the form of a referendum those who would debase our society would be resoundingly defeated." I now quote some paragraphs from a letter that I received from a citizen in Chinchilla— "However we need to pray that the Government will hear what people are saying and thinking and respond to their wishes and not to the Government's determination to change laws despite public opposition and the long term devastating effects which such changes will bring about." I next quote from a letter from a minister of religion in Mackay— "As a Minister of Religion, I am constantly aware and am in contact with men and women who have had their thoughts totally perverted by X-rated videos." Legislative Assembly 3410 4 September 1990

A letter from a resident of Clermont states— "We look forward to hearing of the success of this campaign that should not even have been considered by a Government working in the interests of straight thinking people. I firmly believe that anything that affects family life should be put to referendum. Whatever happened to judgment by the people, for the people?" I have a letter here from a resident in Annerley and another from a resident in Gayndah. Finally, I quote some paragraphs from a letter from a Loganholme resident— "I would like to state I am overwhelmed by the response I received and the ease that both men and women of the public (from all walks of life) would so willingly sign." That point needs to be highlighted. These petitions have been signed not just by conscientious church- going people, but by people from all walks of life in the community who understand the effects that this issue has had on the community. That letter further states— "It is my opinion that the majority of people, some 90% that I encountered, were outraged by these proposals to the Legislative Assembly." In conclusion, I re-emphasise to the Premier, the Cabinet and the Government the following points: firstly, there is much more evidence to support what I have said today than what time allows for discussion. Secondly, if the Premier is still intent on cutting the throat of the Labor Government by proceeding with these issues, I ask him to thoroughly research the feelings of the majority of the Queensland people. If that is done, the Government will discover that what I have said today is the truth. However, if it ignores the extremely strong feelings of the people of Queensland on these issues, it must be prepared to wear the results. Queensland's Railway System Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (11.27 a.m.): At Acacia Ridge, in my electorate of Archerfield, the Goss Labor Government is committed to expanding the rail freight terminal, which is playing a useful role in providing employment for people in my electorate. The Government is also about to play a very decisive role in the continuing reform of the railway system being undertaken by the Minister for Transport. On Wednesday, 22 August, the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Federal Budget specifically because he said it did not deliver on micro-economic reform, and in that interview he nominated railways as one of the areas that should be tackled. It is quite interesting to watch the members of the Opposition act as a rabble. They get up in this House and berate the Minister for Transport about the efforts that he is making on introducing micro- economic reform into the railways. Their daily attempts show that the Leader of the Opposition cannot command the respect of his own side on this one issue—railway reform. They demonstrate the failure of his own policy. The day after the Federal Budget was introduced, the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Federal Government on micro-economic reform and yet he cannot keep his own troops in line on this same issue in this House. The Leader of the Opposition wears a hairshirt when he gets in front of an ABC radio microphone and talks about Federal micro-economic reform, but he watches helplessly as his front-bench and back- bench colleagues desert him in this House on micro-economic reform of the State rail system. It is the same old duplicitous behaviour from the rural rump in the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition cannot hold his troops together on micro-economic reform because, as Mr Littleproud would know, they are too busy parading on the catwalk for their preselection votes, in case their rural seats are amalgamated. I foresee Mr Littleproud and Mr Cooper having a good tussle themselves in that regard. Legislative Assembly 3411 4 September 1990

I now turn to the genuine attempts being made by the Minister for Transport to introduce rail-freight reform. The former National Party Government left this Government a $270m inheritance of fiscal failure. The Minister has initiated an integrated transport project in an attempt to stem the revenue outflow. That will include a network of freight centres and rail and road transport, including door-to-door deliveries. As the Minister has pointed out previously, rail freight in Queensland is now handled at 312 stations and cattle are loaded or unloaded at 280 locations. An audit by the Transport Department found that 98 per cent of freight is handled at only 60 of those 312 centres. Mr Littleproud: It depends how often and what labour force is tied up, doesn't it? Mr PALASZCZUK: Many of the cattle loading points handle fewer than 10 beasts a day. As a result of the Goss Government's efforts, Queensland is seeking to establish modern freight terminals in conjunction with an integrated rail and road door-to-door service. Mr Stoneman: That could be up to $3m worth of cattle. Mr PALASZCZUK: I point out to the honourable member that, for the first time, Queensland Railways will be able to offer services in towns and centres which are not linked with the railway network. I turn now to my electorate. The Acacia Ridge terminal is already part of a well coordinated rail link from Brisbane to Sydney. It is run by the New South Wales authority's locomotives, crews and track- workers. Only the terminal itself is run by Queensland Railways. Because of moves to establish an Australian national freight business, I believe that the Acacia Ridge site will become a vital link in a profitable freight system in this country. Mr FitzGerald: They are trying to put all the truckies off the road. It's a deal between Abeles and Hawke—that's what it is—and you know it. Mr PALASZCZUK: I only hope that the Treasurer recognises this importance and can provide increased funding for the Acacia Ridge terminal in the Budget later this week. Does that answer the honourable member's question? It will be an important investment in infrastructure and a very valuable investment in helping to turn around the National Party's freight debt structure which Labor has been left to clear up. There is no doubt—no argument—that federalism has failed this country, specifically in terms of the chaotic rail system it created and allowed to run unchecked for the past 90 years. A cargo rail container on the Sydney-Perth route contends with four locomotive changes, five different sets of safe-working systems, five sizes of loading gauges, 10 different engineering standards and 10 or 12 more hours at sidings during crew changes, refuelling and inspections. Mr FitzGerald: It is 4 feet 8 and a half inches from Sydney to Kalgoorlie and 3 feet 6 inches from there on. They go from Sydney to Kalgoorlie on 4 feet 8 and a half inches through Broken Hill all the way, and then it goes on to 3 feet 6 inches from Kalgoorlie on. Mr PALASZCZUK: Is that the honourable member's story? Mr FitzGerald: Well, what's your story? Mr PALASZCZUK: Is that the honourable member's story? Mr FitzGerald: They don't go through Melbourne; they go straight across to Broken Hill, down on the Australian National Line. Didn't you know that? Legislative Assembly 3412 4 September 1990

Mr PALASZCZUK: One possible solution—— Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin! Mr PALASZCZUK: It is hurting, isn't it? Mr FitzGerald: You are misleading the House. They go through Parkes and Broken Hill and down from there. Mr PALASZCZUK: No, I am not. One possible solution being touted is a national rail freight initiative. I hope that, at the special Premiers Conference to be held in Brisbane in October, the Government will explore the pluses and minuses of a national rail freight system. A report undertaken by Booz Allen and Hamilton and Trevers Morgan has suggested that a national freight corporation could turn around the current loss of $343m to a profit of $37m in 1993-94. I urge the Minister to have his department explore the system in consultation—and I mean "consultation"—with the rail unions. I understand that modern freight transporters are keen to use more rail, especially in modern formats involving book-your-slot trains and high-tech wagons. TNT is the biggest user of rail for general freight. It also loads and unloads one or two block trains a day between Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. TNT has made big investments in terminals and plant that are linked to State rail systems. Other major companies have shown a willingness to use rail services. However, the rolling stock needs to be modernised. In the past, financially strapped State rail systems have proved inadequate to the need to respond to change. For example, APM moves about a million tonnes of paper a year, but of that total only 15 per cent is moved by rail. It has taken APM the first five years of a 10-year contract to get the railways to modify wagons for use at its Morwell paper-mill. The Pulp and Paper Federation has failed in its drawn-out efforts to hire a specialised weekly Melbourne-Brisbane paper train. Rail deliveries now take between five and 29 days. No-one pretends that solutions to rail problems will be easy and painless. State rivalries have traditionally stood in the path of attempts at genuine reform. As a nation, we need to find scarce funds to help upgrade the rail infrastructure to bring a more productive rail network to fruition. However, when we in this State are facing a loss on rail freight of over $270m, it will not be too long before we are forced to ask ourselves whether in fact we can afford not to update. Financial Management of Queensland under National Party and Coalition Governments Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (11.34 a.m.): I rise today, the day before the Goss Government brings down its first Financial Statement—its first Budget—and the first Labor Budget in some 33 years. That requires that a focus be directed towards the historical processes that have led up to this event. The single outstanding fact that even the most biased commentator has been unable to ignore is that this State's finances are by far the best of those of any State or Territory in this nation. Documents prepared by Paul Keating's Federal Treasury Department should be evidence of the highest order of credibility in socialist Government terms given to the Queensland budgetary processes. The Federal department lists, chapter and verse, the veracity of statements made over the years by National Party Premiers and Treasurers and coalition Treasurers, supporting the fiscal responsibility of the managers of this State's economy. No amount of rearranging of book-keeping protocols can hide the fact that Queensland has stood alone in terms of responsible economic management. Legislative Assembly 3413 4 September 1990

Let me consider the statistics. While in Government, the National Party held down State taxes. That is irrefutable. It made Queensland Australia's low-tax State while maintaining essential public services. State taxation per capita for the 1988-89 financial year was: New South Wales, $1,169.31; Victoria, $1,115.22; Tasmania, $1,008.89; South Australia, $951; and Western Australia, $892.39. However, Queensland was $150 below the other States, with $744.81. I turn now to the economic growth that over the years was encouraged by the National Party and brought Queensland to its prominent position. I refer to gross State product growth in nominal terms during the 1988-89 financial year, which was: 11.2 per cent in Victoria; 11.4 per cent in Tasmania; 12.5 per cent in South Australia; 14.1 per cent in New South Wales and 15 per cent in Western Australia. Queensland headed the list with 15.9 per cent growth in nominal terms. These are not my figures; they come from the national accounts, about which the Treasurer has said so much today. I turn now to the way in which the National Party managed the Government's finances and borrowings and did so with unrivalled efficiency. I will state the net indebtedness of State Governments as a percentage of gross State product for the 1987-88 financial. Tasmania was the worst with 41 per cent net indebtedness. In Victoria, net indebtedness was 28.9 per cent; in Western Australia, it was 24.3 per cent; in New South Wales, 22 per cent; and in South Australia, 21.2 per cent. By far the lowest net indebtedness of any State Government was that of Queensland, with 15.5 per cent. The source of that information was Commonwealth Budget Paper No. 4 of 1989-90. During that period the National Party set up the Fitzgerald inquiry and started implementing its recommendations. That commitment of the National Party was allied with sound fiscal and budgetary management. In the past, Mr Goss has espoused the credentials of Labor Governments in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales as role models. Who will ever forget Mr Goss' immortal comment that Victoria offered an example of what Queensland could do with more sophisticated financial management to deliver better services and make State assets work harder? What a role model to follow! As one perceptive commentator noted recently, the statement by Mr Goss now hangs like a smelly albatross around his neck. I turn now to the following comment from page 42 of today's Australian Financial Review— "But according to the Queensland Economic Forecasts, Queensland is considerably better off than most other States. In a preview of the six-monthly forecasts produced by the Queensland University of Technology's Business Research Centre, researchers say the State economy will be in for a soft landing 'putting paid to the doom and gloom prophets'. 'When compared with the rest of Australia, in particular the southern and western States, Queensland will enter and fare better in the coming tight economic conditions than their southern counterparts'." That will be for one reason and one reason alone, namely, the sound fiscal management of the former National Party Government. As any housewife knows—in terms of basic book-keeping, sound philosophy at any level of financial management means that one can extract from the handbag only that which is put into it. Once the credit card syndrome comes into force, both the housewife and Labor Governments get into trouble. To date, much has been made about the funding of services from current revenue and the commitment by the Goss Government to implement this policy as part of the new order. No doubt, the Treasurer will make much more of that in tomorrow's Budget. For many years, the Commonwealth has been pressuring the States to do that. Only Queensland has responded in realistic terms to the Federal call. Legislative Assembly 3414 4 September 1990

The last Budget saw the virtual achievement of the goal of meeting service commitments from revenue sources. If the Treasurer has the gall to announce that "new" goal tomorrow, his credibility will plunge again—if that is possible. The pattern was set by the National Party; it achieved the goals, and the template is in place for this Government to continue that if it has the will. The use of national accounting procedures cannot change the bottom line of practical management. No amount of fancy figure-fragmenting can change the fact that Queensland has achieved beacon-like prominence in leading the nation in sound fiscal management. That pattern is about to change. At first, the change will be subtle. Inevitably, it will follow the trend of Labor-managed States that are now hanging on the line of public exposure for what they really are—idealists who attack the productive sector in a modern-day version of Robin Hood under the heading of social justice; do-gooders who are locking up natural resources in the name of posterity; and union frontmen who are deflecting the hard decisions of micro-economic reform that require a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. Queensland has achieved the delivery of services measured to current revenue. It is able to borrow responsibly, maintain interest and redemption payments and develop the State's resources along sound, sustainable guidelines that are recognisable by the business community. The manner in which the figures are added cannot hide the fact that, under the National Party Government, Queensland had the lowest level of State taxes per capita, the highest level of gross State product and the lowest net indebtedness as a percentage of gross State product. Those are the issues that housewives and businessmen understand, and they will be the factors by which the performance of the Goss Government will be assessed—not fancy figures and socialist rhetoric. Government sources have given strong indications that the winners in the Budget will be education, police and the environment. Given the Goss Government's decision not to proceed with the widely acclaimed remote area incentive scheme for teachers—a $25m program—it is strange that education will be called a winner. Because a huge $10,000 increase will be given to a number of senior public servants, teachers will not be very happy when they find that their salary increases will be cut back to a level below that which the National Party would have given them. Mr FitzGerald: So much for those union reps who came to this place. Mr STONEMAN: So much for the union reps, yes. Rumours abound that a number of senior public servants will each receive a salary increase of $10,000. I wonder what the teachers will say about that. Time expired. Fraser Island Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (11.47 a.m.): To enable honourable members to gain a better understanding of Fraser Island, I rise to give a brief history of that place. Fraser Island is perhaps known as the largest sand island in the world. It is located approximately 250 miles north of Brisbane, off shore from Hervey Bay, and is separated from the mainland by the Great Sandy Strait. Fraser Island is more than 120 kilometres in length and, at its widest point, is more than 25 kilometres in width. For many thousands of years, the world's largest sand island was called "k'gari" by its Aboriginal inhabitants. In 1836, a group of shipwreck survivors from the brig Sterling Castle, commanded by Captain James Fraser, found their way to the island's shores. The events that followed, including the Aborigines' alleged maltreatment of the shipwreck victims, brought worldwide fame to the peaceful island and eventually led to the area being rechristened Fraser Island. Because of the island's picturesque and idyllic nature, the Aboriginal name may seem to be a great deal more appropriate to the modern-day visitor. "K'gari" means paradise. Today, there are few signs of the Aborigines who once called the large sand mass home. One may find a tree bearing a canoe-shaped scar or Legislative Assembly 3415 4 September 1990 huge middens—heaps of refuse—containing empty eugarie shells that once provided a food source for the natives. Carbon dating suggests that, as long ago as 30 000 years, Aborigines lived on the island. The first European to sight the island was Captain James Cook in 1770. He named both Indian Heads and Sandy Cape. Cook believed that the island was a peninsula. The Fraser Island Aborigines did not come face to face with a white man until 1802, when Lieutenant Matthew Flinders came ashore from his ship, Investigator. Flinders noted, "Nothing could be more barren than this peninsula"—a vastly different view from that expressed by visitors to Fraser Island today. Although he spent several days in the area, Flinders did not realise that Fraser Island was in fact an island. In 1842, Andrew Petrie proved that the sand mass was an island whilst searching for the remains of Captain Fraser. Although he failed to find the seafarer's grave, he made a discovery that would have far- reaching consequences for Queensland's forestry and timber industries. His glowing account of the island's timber would lure many adventurers to the area. The name of one man, William Pettigrew, stands out in the genesis of the Fraser Island timber industry. Pettigrew came from noble Scottish beginnings, one of four sons of the Lair of Tarshaw. His first vocation was medicine; but, having fainted at his first operation, he switched to surveying. It was during his surveying work that he first noticed the size and beauty of Queensland trees, remarking in his diary how suitable they would be for timber. In 1852, he began building Brisbane's first steam-operated sawmill. Always on the look-out for future log supplies, he was tantalised by Andrew Petrie's stories of the wonderful timber on Fraser Island. In 1862, he persuaded Petrie's son, Tom, to take him to the island in order to survey the timber. As a result, Pettigrew lost no time in starting a sawmill on the mainland at Maryborough in partnership with the Simms family. In 1863, the first kauri logs were punted from Fraser Island to the mill. In 1864, the Fraser Island timber industry experienced a temporary set-back when one of the island's first timber-getters, John "Yankee Jack" Pigott was clubbed to death by Aborigines. Because of his violent demise, no more major attempts were made at timber-getting on Fraser Island until 1868. Logging restarted on the west coast around Wanggoolba Creek and gradually spread over the island's rainforest pockets. In those early days, hoop pine, kauri pine and white beech were the most eagerly sought timbers. Probably the first pressure group for some sort of forest policy was the Acclimatisation Society of Queensland. Although one of its main concerns was the introduction of new species to the colony, it also interested itself in native species and their conservation. Lewis A. Bernays, one of the society's members, was an ardent advocate of forest protection. Between the late 1800s and the early 1900s, he was the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. His portrait can be seen behind the Speaker's chair and also on the sixth floor of the Parliamentary Annexe. In 1870, he complained to the colonial secretary about the gradual denuding of the countryside. In 1873, in the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, he helped to organise a public meeting on the issue of forest conservation. At that meeting, John Jardine delivered a paper condemning the indiscriminate destruction of forest trees. At that time, John Douglas, the member for Maryborough, was also concerned and, in 1875, he brought the matter to the attention of the Queensland Parliament. He pointed out how rapidly cedar supplies were running out. He joined other such critics who urged that the policy of proclaiming Crown land as forest reserves be extended. It was also suggested that forest rangers be appointed to supervise timber-getting. Many critics argued that the Government should look more seriously at its forests as a source of revenue. Existing regulations merely required timber-getters to hold a licence, which cost a nominal sum. It was argued that, apart from the licensing system, the Government should adopt a royalty approach on the amount of timber cut. Such assistance might reduce some of the indiscriminate clearing that has taken place. Legislative Assembly 3416 4 September 1990

Many people lamented the great wastage as selectors ruthlessly cleared and burned their land and cutters left logs to rot. These sorts of criticisms were voiced to the select committee which the Government appointed in 1875 to investigate forest conservancy. The committee took evidence from a variety of people, including two people with mill interests in Maryborough, William Pettigrew and Robert Hart. Robert Hart went on to become one of the founders of the Wilson Hart company, which operated for over 125 years in Maryborough utilising timber from Fraser Island. This mill is now owned by Boral and is still receiving a log allocation from Fraser Island. That mill has operated continuously for approximately 135 years under that same licence. Mr FitzGerald: Are you still in favour of milling on Fraser Island? Mr DOLLIN: Yes, I am. I had the pleasure of operating that mill for about five or six years. The committee reported in favour of a conservancy board, more forest reserves, supervising rangers and the prevention of log exports. However, the Government responded only with minor patching- up regulations. The main pressure came from the pastoral and agricultural pressure groups—which is still the case today—with the cry of opening up all the land. In particular, selectors demanded the right to cut timber and clear the land, partly because timber sales were often the main source of income for them in the first few years of selection. However, some selectors merely took up a lot in order to clear it of saleable timber and then abandoned it. At that time the land lobby was much more powerful than the timber lobby and forest conservancy was largely overlooked. In 1889, Mr R. M. Hyne—the grandfather of the present managing director of Hyne and Son, Mr Warren Hyne—introduced a successful motion approving forest conservancy in principle. That company is now operated by the fourth generation of the Hyne family and employs approximately 500 people in Queensland, 200 of whom live in Maryborough. This company is a very important employer in Maryborough. My research showed that Mr R. M. Hyne was described as the junior member for Maryborough and served a five-year term in this Parliament. However, I did not see his name up on the board outside this Chamber. Perhaps junior members' names were not put on the board. This motion approving forest conservancy came as something of a reversal of earlier attitudes. When he raised the matter in the Legislative Assembly, he indicated how ineffectual Government forest policy had been in the past. Although in the 1880s an attempt had been made to establish a 500-acre pine plantation on Fraser Island—which is the one that can be seen today around Central Station—the Government soon cut that experiment short. Hyne attracted much support for his motion and the Government and Opposition alike acknowledged that not enough was being done to look after Queensland's timber wealth. The motion passed through the House. Even so, implementation of the policy followed very slowly. Hyne stressed that the Government should look upon forest conservancy as one of its most important functions, that rangers should be appointed to check on the use of timber, an active plantation policy should be instituted and trees should not be carelessly destroyed. In 1908, largely because of Hyne's persistence, Fraser Island was declared a forestry reserve—one of the first in Queensland—and was placed under the control of the Department of Forests. In 1913 the first forestry camp was established at Bogimbah Creek. It was fitting that the first forest ranger was Walter Petrie, the grandson of Andrew Petrie whose first reports of the magnificent timber on the island contributed so much to the settlement of the area. In 1916 the camp was shifted to Central Station, which is its present site. In 1918, H. McKenzie Ltd of Sydney bought the timber rights to 4 000 hectares of Fraser Island for 10 years and immediately began constructing at North White Cliffs the first and only timber mill to ever operate on the island. This mill closed in 1925, and Legislative Assembly 3417 4 September 1990 the area is now being developed as a tourist resort. Throughout World War II, this site was used as a commando training camp. The brumbies which roam on Fraser Island have an interesting history. They are a legacy from 1879, when Harry Aldridge, the son of Maryborough's first resident, sent a herd of Arab greys over to the island to breed horses for the Indian army. Aldridge was in partnership with a chap by the name of George Dicken, who ran a horse and cattle concern, called the Fraser Island run, near Eurong on the eastern side of the island. Dicken bred Clydesdales. When the two men decided to give up the run some years later, they found that some of their horses had escaped into the scrub. Over the years the Arab strain has been tempered by inbreeding with the Clydesdale stock, and the brumbies' legs and hoofs—— Time expired. QE II Stadium, Use by Brisbane Broncos Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (11.57 a.m.): I rise to speak on a matter of public importance to me as the member representing the Mount Gravatt electorate, which is the home of the QE II sports stadium. Today's Courier-Mail reports that the "Broncos football team are set to call QE II home". The Broncos have come a long way in a month, because on 24 June, the same paper reported that the "Broncos eye the QE II as home". Let me say from the outset that, although I am not a football fan, I am not at all critical of the Broncos. Indeed, I understand that for some people the Broncos are akin to the flag and apple pie. However, I am disturbed to learn that the Brisbane Broncos are poised to move their Rugby League home matches to the QE II stadium next year. Apparently talks are progressing with the Brisbane City Council on hurried improvements to the QE II stadium in time for a March kick-off. Plans are sufficiently advanced for there to be talk about the placement of a giant scoreboard and floodlighting of the ground. I am concerned with the haste of these decisions. I believe there should be much public discussion and thought given to this move before the Broncos are allowed to call the QE II stadium home. Let's face it—the Broncos are a money-making business and the QE II stadium is a public utility. I ask: are the people of this State prepared to give away their only first-class athletics venue for this purpose? If the Broncos are given this venue, the athletics track—which is used as a training and competitive track by athletes of all ages—will be destroyed. These athletes may not be the same drawcard as the mighty Broncos, but each one of us is prepared to bask in their glory when the Commonwealth or Olympic Games are held. The athletes and the many schoolchildren who use the QE II stadium deserve this first-class facility. We all hope that this nation can produce sporting heroes. Often we do little enough to assist them in gaining athletic excellence, so we must think carefully before allowing the city council to give our QE II stadium to a profit- making organisation, thereby banishing our amateur athletes to an inferior ground. Another matter which concerns my constituents who live in the vicinity of the QE II stadium is the volume of traffic which a crowd of 62 000 football fans will bring to the area on the weekends. Kessels Road and Mains Road are both overloaded during the week and the residents who live along these roads look forward to some comparative peace on the weekends. Because there is no railway line and few buses to the QE II stadium, it is likely that the large football crowds will arrive by car. My constituents bought their homes in Robertson and Macgregor in good faith. They were aware of the weekday traffic but did not expect to be living on the edge of a football field, with traffic and crowds assaulting their senses on the weekend. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for Matters of Public Interest has now expired. Legislative Assembly 3418 4 September 1990

WEAPONS BILL Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time-limit Order Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12 noon), by leave, without notice: I move— "That under the provisions of Standing Order 273, the Weapons Bill be declared an urgent Bill and that the following time limits apply to enable the Bill to be passed with unusual expedition through its several stages"—— Mr FitzGerald: You are going to gag it, are you? Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member said that I would, so I am going to do it— "That the second reading be completed by 10 p.m. and that the third reading be completed by 11 p.m. That, at the time so specified Mr Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the Bill, including clauses en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill without further amendment or debate." Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is that that motion be agreed to. Mr LINGARD: Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the motion, and you have not allowed me to do that. Mr SPEAKER: I call the member for Fassifern. Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (12.01 p.m.): On the list that has already been distributed, the names of at least 35 members who wish to speak to this Bill appear. Every one of those members is entitled to speak on the Weapons Bill. Regardless of whether or not this House believes it, those members have an interest in the Bill and have put their names down on the list to speak. Already we have seen this Bill being crunched through the Cabinet and it will be crunched through Parliament. We have seen the business of the House changed so that this Bill can be crunched through in seven days. Members of the ALP will vote and say, "Yes, you can crunch it through this House." Every member of this House is entitled to say, "I wish to speak." At least 35 members wish to speak to the Bill. Mr Speaker, I believe that you should respect the fact that all members of Parliament are entitled to express their views on a very controversial Bill. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call upon the Leader of the House, I point out that that is not the prerogative of the Speaker. The prerogative of the Speaker is exercised when a motion "That the question be put" is moved. I have the responsibility of determining whether or not there has been adequate debate. This is a procedural matter that relates to Standing Orders. I suggest that the member for Fassifern pass his comments on to the Leader of the House, and not to the Speaker. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12.02 p.m.), in reply: A period until 10 o'clock tonight has been allowed for debate on this Bill. The question of the number of speakers who put forward their views on this Bill is up to the members. I have no doubt that as the names on the list are worked through, a fair amount of boring repetition will be heard and the same arguments that have been presented in the media during the past six months will again be mentioned. If the member for Fassifern wishes to ensure that the maximum number of members speak to the Bill, I suggest that he speak to the members of his party about the amount of time that they will waste during the debate. This Bill is not being put through in undue haste. The Standing Orders have been complied with in relation to the time that Legislative Assembly 3419 4 September 1990 the legislation should lay on the table. In relation to the document that went to Cabinet, I point out that it was not rushed through Cabinet. It went to Cabinet after it had been considered by my legislation committee. Cabinet approved the document and the Bill has been presented to the Parliament. I think that the honourable member has been listening too much to the gun lobby. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 August (see p. 3144). Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (12.11 p.m.): This Weapons Bill is just the start of the ALP policy to licence all gun-owners in Australia. It is the start of the ALP policy to register all guns. Clearly, it is the start of the ALP policy to have everyone's name on a list. Then the ALP can eventually have uniform laws throughout Australia, which will give it absolute control over all gun-owners. People who do not believe in that sort of philosophy should consider what has happened in this place this morning and during the past week. In their maiden speeches, new Government backbenchers talked about how badly Parliament had been conducted in the past, yet today they are prepared to vote for a leader who intends to crunch this Bill, which has been on the table for only one week, through the House. In his reply to the second-reading debate, I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will talk about how long the Bill has laid on the table of this Parliament. He will say that the former Government had between two and three years in which to pass its own legislation, yet he has to crunch it through in one week. Everyone knows why he is crunching it through. He is dead scared of the gun lobby. He knows that he has to crunch the Bill through before the House rises tomorrow. It is no wonder that many in the community see this Bill as the start of the eventual banning of all guns. Let us look at the reasons for that concern. ALP Senator Black has stated that he wants a ban on all guns. Honourable members know as well as I do that Senator Black has travelled through Queensland openly admitting that he wants to ban all guns. Yet Government backbenchers are still prepared to sit there and smile as this Bill is crunched through only seven days since its introduction into this House. Legislative Assembly 3420 4 September 1990

The ALP Attorney-General, Dean Wells, has indicated that he wants to make gun laws as tough as possible. He has said quite openly that he will support the introduction of the toughest regulations and the toughest legislation in Australia. In a recent outburst in central Queensland, the Deputy Premier, Tom Burns, stated that the army would be brought in to control those who wanted to hide their guns. No doubt he was provoked into saying that, but he has enough experience as a parliamentarian to refrain from such comments. Let us consider the position of a former member of this Parliament, Mr Eric Shaw, who wrote to the caucus stating— "Improved Gun Control Laws are only one very small part of an attack on increasing violence . . . Personally, I no longer support the idea of licensing for long arms and believe we should concentrate on strict regulations at sale, identification, cooling-off period etc, and requirements for the storage of rifles." What happened to Eric Shaw? Where is he now? He was sacked. He is out of this Parliament. The Government does not want that sort of philosophy in the ALP, because it is getting ready to take control of all guns. People who are concerned that guns will be banned have real cause for concern. I will tell honourable members what is contained in the statement from the former Opposition Leader and present Premier in his report to caucus. He said— "After careful consideration I propose that we follow the general approach to gun control adopted by South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory." No wonder he would not want to do exactly what Victoria and New South Wales have done. He can see the repercussions that resulted from what happened in those States. He wanted to license all shooters. He further stated— "A firearms licence holder will require a permit to purchase each and every firearm. A cooling off period will apply to all permits to purchase." He also said that all firearms must be registered, and that registration certificates for firearms must be provided. Last year, the then Opposition Police spokesman, Mr Mackenroth, suggested—and was adamant—that all owners should be licensed, that a register should be kept of all guns and that there should be cooling-off periods. He said that that position was non-negotiable. However, because of pressure—and everyone knows that there has been a lot of pressure—before the elections, the Minister chose a fall-back position of licensing of all owners. Mr Mackenroth: Lies! You tell lies. Mr LINGARD: The Minister knows that he has been to the firearms association and he knows that he said that in June or July last year. The Minister is now saying that that is a lie. The Minister is saying that the representatives of the firearms association told lies. The Minister is saying now that he did not say that there should be licensing of all owners, that there should be a register of all guns and that there should be a cooling-off period. The Opposition will say to the representatives of the firearms association and the gun lobby, "Mackenroth says you are lying." It will be interesting to hear what they have to say. I have no doubt that the Government is going to feel the repercussions of all of this. Two things have been dropped, but there is no doubt that there is a hidden ALP agenda. Honourable members should read the Bill itself, in particular clause 6.15, which states that the Governor in Council has not only the power to regulate but also the Legislative Assembly 3421 4 September 1990 power to prohibit. That means that if the Minister wants to do something, all he has to do is obtain Cabinet approval. For it to become a law, Cabinet has only to have it approved by the Governor in Council. Mr Mackenroth: Do you realise that is taken straight out of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act? Mr LINGARD: The Minister obviously has it there because he wants to use it in the future. The Minister knows as well as I do that he will be able to change Schedules and do all sorts of things with these regulations. The Minister knows as well as I do that this gives him great power, and it will allow the ALP to bring in its own regulations whenever it is convenient. This is the hidden agenda; this is the policy; and this is what is going to cause a massive reaction in this State. I want to say something about what the Minister did to the arms council, which was proposed by his review committee. It was suggested that that council comprise nine members, who would continually review the gun legislation. What has the Cabinet done? What has this Minister done? Out goes the arms council. It is not there any more. The advisory council recommended to the previous Government that there be such an organisation. What has this Government done? It has removed it. The Minister knows as well as I do that under the present legislation—if it is passed by 10 o'clock—he will have absolute control and can make whatever changes he likes, if Cabinet agrees. By getting the approval of the Governor in Council, the Minister will be able to do away with other rules and regulations. The opposition to these gun laws is massive. Dozens of large petitions opposing the gun laws have been presented to this Parliament. I am advised that Government members are in possession of up to 9 000 letters addressed to the Governor, stating that no law should be introduced to compile a register of or to seek in any way to restrict the rights of loyal Australian citizens from owning arms, if they desire, for sporting purposes, for the natural right of self-protection of life and property, or for the defence of the realm. I know that some of those letters have been forwarded to the Governor. However, there is no doubt that others have been placed in the cupboards and drawers of Government members. Mr Mackenroth: Hang on! Do you know what we did with them? Mr LINGARD: The Minister can laugh. He has upset a lot of dedicated people. When the Federal Labor Government tried to push the Australia Card, it was shell-shocked at the determination of the people. Labor also reeled because of the implications of the law at an international level. These letters of will affect more than 9 000 Queenslanders. In other words, more than 9 000 people have taken the time to sign these letters of will. Whilst the Minister will disregard them today and say that it does not matter, and whilst he might laugh at what has actually happened to those letters and the fact that they are being held in the cupboards and drawers of Government members, those people will be upset after today. Many people challenge the legality in Queensland of the Australia Act of 1985 because it was not put to a referendum. A similar challenge has been made in Western Australia. The Crimes Act of 1954 placed the final control of these issues with the Attorney-General. Some people will claim that under the Royal Style and Title Act the Government is overstepping the mark. Well the Minister might laugh, but 9 000 people—a lot of people—believe that the Government has done the wrong thing. I know that the Minister rejects the theory that is held by those people. However, Parliament is still assembled before God, with prayer in the morning, and some people believe that what the Government is doing is putting their security, peace and good government in jeopardy. By writing these letters, these people are saying that their will is now known, and the Government is violating that will. Many people might say that their theories are incorrect. However, the opposition Legislative Assembly 3422 4 September 1990 to the legislation exists. The Government has not respected that opposition, and it has certainly not been respected by the Minister. The ALP is underestimating the power of the gun lobby. The Government might think that it is smart in rushing this legislation through today. It might think that it is smart in saying to honourable members, "You have to finish by 10 o'clock. You are going to be repeating yourselves by 10 o'clock." The Minister might think that he is going to look tough in the eyes of his Left Wing mates. I point out that Barrie Unsworth fell into exactly the same trap. The story of Barrie Unsworth is so appropriate when one considers what is happening here today. It is a story of one of the greatest miscalculations in Australian political history. It is a story of how a Government tried to implement an unenforceable and undemocratic law and thought that by doing so it could win an election. It is a story of cynicism and arrogance. The campaign in New South Wales started with headlines which stated, "Tough new laws". They are very similar to the massive banner headline, "Tough Gun Laws soon" that appeared in last Wednesday's Gold Coast Bulletin. In 1988, Barrie Unsworth needed an image portraying him as a strong, decisive leader in New South Wales. As in Queensland, at that time, the New South Wales gun laws were not new. All honourable members know that, if the force of the law was implemented, Queensland's gun laws could be much stronger. When the New South Wales coalition decided that gun registration would not work and that its policing would be a poor use of police resources, it was referred to as weak and soft. That language has a ring similar to that used in Mr Mackenroth's second-reading speech. The Labor Party in New South Wales admitted that, because of gun laws, it would lose the rural vote, but it thought that it would win the urban women vote. However, a massive gun lobby was formed by the Firearms Advisory Council and the Sporting Shooters of Australia. It was nothing more than a coalition of individuals who wanted to protect their democratic rights, which is exactly the same thing as has been ridiculed by the Minister. Rallies were held, but Barrie Unsworth thought that he would still win on the issue. He commenced with statements such as, "I would rather lose votes than lose lives." Once again, members should look at the Minister's second-reading speech that has been handed out to them. In New South Wales, the gun lobby started an advertising campaign. This has not happened in Queensland, because an election is not imminent, but it will start closer to election-time. Because the gun lobby had no intention of becoming militant, no marches on Parliament House occurred in New South Wales. I congratulate Queensland's gun lobby on adopting a similar attitude during the past week. However, in rural New South Wales, the rage continues, and it reminded ethnic people of what had happened in the countries from which most of them had fled. In March 1988, the New South Wales election was held and the gun lobby conducted a massive media campaign. It is now history that those gun laws lost the New South Wales Labor Government seat after seat in rural areas. In the urban areas, because the Labor Party had overlooked the fact that the ownership of firearms is disproportionately high amongst its traditional constituency, seats fell to the Liberal Party. What did Barrie Unsworth say? He said— "Clearly, as leader, I must accept the major proportion of the blame for the defeat, especially in terms of the decision on the gun issue." He adopted exactly the same tactics as the Labor Party, the Minister and the Cabinet have adopted in Queensland during the past week. Queenslanders can clearly see the Left Wing taking over, and it is the force of the Left Wing supporters that the Government cannot control. Government members interjected. Legislative Assembly 3423 4 September 1990

Mr LINGARD: Well may they laugh; but they know as well as I do that the abortion, homosexuality and prostitution issues are beginning to come through. Government members know in their own hearts that those issues are not doing the Government any good, but they also know in their own hearts that they cannot stop those issues. However, the Government cannot keep its hands off the gun laws, and that is exactly what the Minister for Police and Emergency Services wanted. It gives him the chance to look tough. The gun lobby will not forget what the Government is doing here today. When it gets closer to the next election, the Government will rue the attitude that it is adopting. In fact, I warn the Government that at the next State election, it will find that it will be right in the middle of licensing 700 000 gun-owners, and those citizens who will be applying for a licence will wipe the smiles from the faces of Government members. The Government will have a bank-up of citizens who will decide not to apply for their licences until the last moment—the time of the next election. Those poor policemen at the front counter will be trying to issue licences to those 700 000 people. At that time, the gun lobby will undertake a massive media campaign and Government members will not be smiling then. Opposition members will be smiling and will pick up seats on that issue very easily. Mr Randell: Throw in abortion and daylight-saving. Mr LINGARD: That is right, abortion, homosexuality and daylight-saving. How will the Government fare in the country seats, then? How many things will fall off a truck around Mount Isa, then? When the police are bombarded with massive amounts of bookwork and the bureaucratic system is unable to handle the massive number of applications for gun licences, the Government will rue the day that it tried to be so smart and so cynical in this Parliament. As Barrie Unsworth discovered, it will not just be the rural vote that will turn against the Government, it will be a large proportion of urban young people and women with similar ideas. Once the police are having to invade homes in search of guns and once the first convictions occur, the Government will realise that this legislation is really its Achilles heel. However, the greatest insult is that, in trying to be smart and in trying to rush this legislation through this House, the Minister has made mistakes. This Bill is full of errors. Why? I will tell honourable members what happened. The Minister tried to get a lot of work done by his review committee. Last Sunday night, everything was in place and on the Monday the legislation was presented to Cabinet. That legislation contained much information that was well written, and much consultation had occurred in relation to this Bill. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. What the member is saying is completely untrue. The Bill, as presented to Cabinet, is the one that appears in this place today. I ask that the member stop attempting to surmise what may or may not have happened and accept that the recommendations of my parliamentary legislation committee were in fact in the Bill that went to Cabinet, which is the one that appears in this place. Now those comments are in his speech and he cannot take them out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! The Minister's point of order is accepted. I call the member for Fassifern. Mr LINGARD: Obviously what happened was that on the Sunday night the Bill was ready to be presented to Cabinet, and on the next day, it was so presented. Quite obviously, Cabinet had some concerns. Some of the things that appeared on the Sunday night have been omitted. They were omitted on the Monday afternoon. Those things were really rewritten—— Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. If the member was aware of the way in which our Government operates, he would know that anything that goes to Legislative Assembly 3424 4 September 1990

Cabinet has to go into the Cabinet bag the Tuesday prior to Cabinet's meeting. So any talk about something that happened on a Sunday night is completely untrue. I would ask him to withdraw any reference to some fantasy meeting that he is talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister's point of order is accepted. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those remarks. Mr LINGARD: I apologise to the Minister. So, on Monday afternoon, after these things were withdrawn from the Bill, the whole Bill was rewritten on the Monday night and was then thrown into the Parliament on the Tuesday. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I have explained the situation. If the member cannot understand that, I really cannot help it. But I would ask that he withdraw his remarks that this Bill was rewritten after it went to Cabinet. That statement is untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn. An Opposition member: You're a bit touchy on it. Mr MACKENROTH: I am not touchy on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Fassifern to withdraw those remarks. Mr LINGARD: I apologise. Quite obviously, by this time—— A Government member: Withdraw! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr MACKENROTH: I do not need an apology from the honourable member, I just want a withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I accepted the Minister's point of order. I ask that the honourable member for Fassifern withdraw those remarks. Mr LINGARD: I will. On the Tuesday afternoon, of course, this Bill was thrown into the House. Some sections of the original Bill were removed and as a result anomalies were created. That is what has happened, and the Minister knows it. I have no doubt that he would like to make some amendments to this legislation today, because he knows that he has been completely embarrassed by the fact that on Monday things were removed very, very quickly and now we all know—— Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I have already asked on three occasions for the honourable member to withdraw the implication that things were withdrawn from this Bill. Such implications are untrue. He keeps repeating them. I ask again that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! Under Standing Order 141, I find that the statements made by the honourable member for Fassifern are becoming repetitious. He has been asked on three occasions to withdrawn them. I would ask him to deal with another aspect of his speech. Mr LINGARD: I certainly—— Mr Mackenroth: Withdraw it! Mr LINGARD: I certainly withdraw the fact that the Bill was presented on Monday because every member of Parliament knows that a Bill is not presented on a Monday. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I ask that the reference to this Bill's being changed on the Monday be withdrawn. The member said that he was aware Legislative Assembly 3425 4 September 1990 that it was presented to the Parliament on the Tuesday. That is not a withdrawal of his completely untrue remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I again warn the member that his statements are repetitious. I ask him to withdraw and to please continue with another part of his speech. Mr LINGARD: I think I had withdrawn a while ago, but I will withdraw again, if you like, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, as far as the Bill's presentation is concerned, it was changed by the time it was presented to the House last Tuesday. Therefore, we know that it is different—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I rule that the honourable member is being repetitious. I now warn him under Standing Order 123A for questioning the ruling of the Chair. If he continues to do so, I will have to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. Mr LINGARD: The Minister's second-reading speech is obviously riddled with comments which try to ridicule the previous Government as being soft and delaying the implementation of the weapons legislation. As I have said before, this Bill has been designed to try to make the Minister and the Government look tough. Look at what the Police Minister did. He set up the review committee to look at the legislation. He told the committee what its findings had to be. It was not a matter that the committee could work out what its thoughts on licensing would be; he told the committee what its findings had to be. More than 74 per cent of the public submissions made to that committee were against licensing. When it looked as though the committee needed additional time to make further deliberations, he hurried it to make a final report. When it looked as though three committee members might reject his intentions and two intended to accept them, the Minister appointed an extra committee member. He accepted a three-all vote as a vote supporting his position. He then presented the Bill to Cabinet. From there it has come to this House—whichever way it has come. Clearly, the changes that this legislation seeks to implement have not been approved by Cabinet and it is clear that they have not been approved by the caucus. If the Minister wants to upset the public with that sort of cynicism, that sort of public contempt and that sort of disregard, he has to expect criticism. Clearly, what I have alleged has happened, because this Bill is full of anomalies. I will not refer any more to the aspect of the Cabinet. Before the Bill's presentation to Cabinet, it contained a provision that allowed dealers to take goods to the pistol range for sale at the range. It was quite obviously realised that not only should dealers be able to take goods to a pistol range but also they should be able to take them to a rifle range or a shooting range. Quite obviously, Cabinet Ministers have disagreed with the fact that goods should be allowed to be taken away from a dealer's premise for sale. Therefore, they have said that that provision should be removed. It has been removed. However, in addition, all of the previous provisions have been removed and now there will be the terrible anomaly as a result of which a dealer cannot sell outside his own premise. Therefore, the provisions which existed in the previous Bill have been removed, simply because sections have been taken out for the sake of the review committee. The previous Bill, which was presented to the review committee, is different from what we see here today. Such a procedure would be acceptable if the Bill was circulated again for public discussion. But that has not been done since those sections have been removed. This Bill was prepared in great haste by the parliamentary draftsman, a procedure already criticised by the EARC, and then thrown into the House the next day. The Minister's second-reading speech is full of anomalies. I have no doubt that, if this Bill is passed, honourable members will witness a constitutional challenge to it on the grounds of some of its obvious contradictions. Legislative Assembly 3426 4 September 1990

On 5 June, in this House, as shadow Minister for Police I outlined the National Party's policy on gun laws and stated— "The National Party is against any ban on or licence for rifles or long arms. It believes that there should be enforced penalty provisions on offenders in the use of firearms and stricter provisions for the storage of weapons. The National Party will continue to support the present licensing for concealable weapons. However, the licence should be for the owner and not for the concealable firearm. Owners should obtain a licence for five years rather than the present two years, and an owner's licence should list the concealable weapons which he owns. The National Party believes that there should be no licence necessary for possession of a long arm and there should be no cooling-off period or need for a permit to purchase." The Bill should include weapons which, when used offensively against any person, are likely to cause bodily harm, and those weapons would include firearms. At that time, the National Party recognised the importance of firearms safety education in the wider community and the good work that shooting organisations have already done in developing education programs. A firearms safety education manual should be compiled by the Government. As part of any safety education program, the Government should give suitable assistance to recognised shooting organisations by the provision of appropriate land designated for use as shooting ranges. The emotional issue regarding gun laws is generated by those who say that people are able to obtain a rifle and shoot indiscriminately. The National Party believed at that time that people who are prepared to act in that way must be prevented from doing so, first of all, by stricter supervision and care of all guns by both dealers and owners. This supervision, especially in gun shops, must be overseen by regular inspection. Police must have the ability to prohibit people from owning a gun and must be able to withdraw guns from use. The purchase of guns from dealers must be strictly supervised and recorded correctly. Careful checking of the identity of people who are buying guns also must be carried out. The identity of the purchaser must be matched against a list of prohibited persons who will not be able to purchase guns. Any type of concealable weapon must be identified on an owner's licence and all automatic weapons must be banned. A schedule to the legislation should contain an offensive weapons list that can be changed only by Order in Council. Those weapons should be defined as anything which, when used offensively, is likely to cause bodily harm. In his second-reading speech, the Minister also criticised the former Firearms Advisory Council. Under Mr Gil Alison, that council made some very important recommendations, including— "(1) Any police officer should be able to issue a temporary prohibition order against any person where circumstances warranted, for example, in situations of threatened domestic violence; (2) The council was unequivocally opposed to the introduction of a permit-to-purchase system or a cooling-off period; (3) Persons convicted of an indictable offence involving the use of a firearm should be subject to a sentence of not less than five years, in addition to any other sentences imposed, and these gaol terms should be served consecutively, not concurrently; (4) A list of prohibited persons should be regularly updated and distributed to all licensed firearms dealers by the Police Service; (5) A permanent advisory body should be established to inform the Queensland Government on firearms legislation and all associated matters; and (6) There should be no change in existing legislation regarding long arms." Therefore, the Opposition will reject completely the ALP's policy on licensing. It also rejects as completely false and misleading most of the statements in the Minister's Legislative Assembly 3427 4 September 1990 second-reading speech, which also contains a most ridiculous comment. The Minister stated— "The weapon that was most common to all the accidents was the .22 calibre rifle, and in many instances the people killed or injured by a .22 bullet were more than a kilometre from the actual shooting." I realise that the Minister might have meant to mention high-powered .22 calibre rifles. However, there is no doubt that he is talking about .22 calibre rim-fire rifles. People with any knowledge of .22 calibre rim-fire rifles would know that they can barely shoot a bullet over one kilometre. However, members of the Government say, "If the Minister says that those people who were killed were mostly more than a kilometre from the actual shooting, it must be right." I challenge the Minister to inform the House how many people were more than a kilometre away from the actual shooting when they were killed by a .22 calibre rim-fire rifle. I believe that the Minister is telling a blatant lie as part of his campaign to build up an emotional fear about guns. The Minister stated that guns are acknowledged as major contributors to suicides and that this system of licensing will stop them. The Minister knows that guns will continue to be contributors to suicides and that licensing will not stop them. This legislation represents an exercise in emotionalism to gain the first step towards complete registration and complete licensing. In his second-reading speech, the Minister also referred to young children and women. Once again, that represents an exercise in emotionalism that is aimed at an acceptance of the concept of registration and licensing. The Minister knows that that will not stop the problem. The Minister also implied that the gun lobby talks about disarming an entire population. The concerns of the gun lobby are linked with concerns that have been expressed about clause 6.15 Regulations in Part 6 of the Bill, which refers to "The power to regulate" which includes "the power to prohibit". That power would see the Cabinet agreeing to regulation, and then asking the Governor in Council for his agreement. That means that, from now on, the ALP or the police—without an arms council to advise them—have the power to regulate as determined by the Governor in Council. That does not necessarily have to be read just as far as Schedule 4 of the Bill. The Minister's statement that the system of licensing will weed out the irresponsible, the unfit and the criminal elements is ludicrous. It is a disgrace that the Police Minister is prepared to read such trash in this House. Many incidents, such as the Hoddle Street and Queen Street massacres in Victoria, were committed by licensed shooters. The Minister knows that there were special circumstances in the incidents at Wynnum and Sydney, too. He knows that he cannot say that, if Queensland laws such as the ones he is proposing were in place, those incidents would not have occurred. The Minister cannot guarantee that; he cannot even say that. Therefore, to say such things is to invite emotionalism. It is completely wrong for a police Minister to do that. All honourable members recognise and share the concerns held by the Minister. However, to make untrue and emotional statements to vindicate his own position is degrading to both the Government and the Minister. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to the list of licences that can be issued under the Act. I invite honourable members to read that. The Minister said that one such licence is— "A collector's licence Schedule 1 issued for life or Schedule 2 issued for five years." I am not sure that honourable members who will speak in the debate understand that. They should read the Minister's second-reading speech, because his speech, like the Bill, was prepared hastily. The Bill was thrown to members of Cabinet, changed and prepared for introduction the next day. The clause relating to a collector's licence does not even read correctly. Clearly, it should read "Class A" and "Class B", not "Schedule 1" and Legislative Assembly 3428 4 September 1990

"Schedule 2". The Minister should have picked up that discrepancy when he delivered his second-reading speech. In his second-reading speech, the Minister further said— "That clause will enforce a 28-day cooling-off period before a licence, and therefore a gun, is issued." Other members of the Opposition will refer to the 28-day cooling-off period and to the prohibited persons register. If the Minister had consulted with the public—including the dealers—he would have been aware of the concern held by those people. He would have picked up the fact that some dealers would not be able to sell long arms or long-arm parts and ammunition until 56 days after the legislation is enacted. Once again, the Minister says, "Don't worry. We will fix that. It should not happen." He expects both the Opposition and the gun lobby to accept that. As I have said—and some honourable members may disagree—the Bill has been changed dramatically by words being omitted, thereby making entirely incorrect the Minister's reference to some of those words. The Bill has not been checked since the Monday before its introduction. Dealers and members of the public have not been asked for their opinion on any discrepancies that may have arisen since the changes have occurred. Now the Minister has to make embarrassing public statements. He will have to try to overcome those anomalies. In his second-reading speech, the Minister further stated— ". . . the Bill provides penalties for trafficking in firearms and stiff penalties for offences against the Act." I am pleased to note that the Courier-Mail has seen how ridiculous it is that the Bill gives no definition of "trafficking". Labor Party members say that mandatory sentences of 15 or 20 years' imprisonment will be imposed for trafficking in firearms. Honourable members might recall the debate on the Drugs Misuse Act during which the National Party was criticised for proposing mandatory life sentences for drug-trafficking. The Government told us that that was not correct. Now, we have a Bill that provides penalties for trafficking but contains no explanation whatsoever of what trafficking is. A judge will have to interpret that. However, a mandatory sentence of 15 or 20 years will be imposed on persons found guilty of trafficking. It is interesting to note that the approach taken by the Minister is a complete reversal of the approach taken by the previous Government in the introduction of the Drugs Misuse Act. I am sure all National Party members recall the ridicule that we received over our proposal for mandatory sentences. The Labor Party is doing exactly the same thing yet it is prepared to allow the Bill go through. The statement that the Bill streamlines procedures is being treated with derision by both the collectors and the dealers. What a pity the Minister has not been brave enough to hold extensive talks with the gun lobby. Had he done that, he would have found out that he has been conned into adopting procedures that were not recommended by the firearms legislation review committee. At the last moment, some of those procedures have been changed dramatically. For example, a person may want to buy an antique firearm from a particular place, say, in the Esk valley. When he arrives, he will want to buy the particular weapon. He then has to advise a police officer—it could be on a Sunday—that he is going to buy the gun. He will then buy the gun, fill in the appropriate forms and advise the police officer once again. That is completely ridiculous. If the Minister had told the dealers of that procedure, they would have told him what would happen. However, the Minister had to rush the Bill through quickly. The Minister has also not realised that, when a dealer dies, the equity and succession laws must be considered. Under the legislation, the Minister has not allowed an immediate transfer of the dealership so that the business can continue after the death of a dealer. When a dealer dies and the equity and succession laws come into effect, his dealership cannot continue to operate. It could take 56 days for it to resume operation. That would be all right if the dealership employed only one person. However, some dealerships Legislative Assembly 3429 4 September 1990 employ more than one person, and those employees have to be considered. If the Minister had been prepared to ask the gun lobby for their criticisms of the changes that have just been made, that simple matter could have been corrected. The Opposition believes that the Minister's comments that the present Act does not allow collections to be moved to other premises are naive and immature. The Minister used his emotionalism again and said that, even during a fire, collections could not be moved to other premises. In fact, collections were allowed to be moved "for a reasonable excuse". What honourable member would suggest that a fire is not a reasonable excuse to move a collection of firearms? Government members were prepared to sit there whilst the Minister made such a naive and simple comment. A fire is certainly a reasonable excuse to move a collection of firearms. Under the present Act, a collection can be moved. The Minister has decided to take the credit for something very special. With the imposition of the licensing system, the Minister will force onto the Police Department a massive bureaucratic nightmare. It is easy to say that the police can get people to fill in a form. But the Minister will also require the police to make a judgment as to whether a person is mentally able to hold a licence. The Government's rejection of a prohibited persons register on the grounds that it contravenes the privacy laws will have to be continually explained in the future. Clearly, what is proposed is a central register which contains the records of persons who are considered unsuitable to have possession of a firearm. If the Government is not prepared to accept this, it must explain how it intends to give suitable explanations to police officers who wish to reject an application for a licence on the grounds that a person is mentally unsuitable. How can the Government do that if it previously criticised the prohibited persons register, which had the same effect? Honestly, how can the Government expect a policeman to find out if a person is mentally unstable? Obviously the part of the legislation relating to what doctors can say about these people will have to be changed. Yet the Government is prepared to say that there will be a central register and that somehow this information will come back to the police, who will then be able to say, "We have found out through a central register that you are mentally unsuitable." Does the Government honestly expect that, as people line up to get their driver's or firearms licences in a country police station, a police officer will say to the third person in the line, "You are mentally unstable. I cannot give you the licence"? This is absolutely ridiculous, and the Minister knows it. It is merely a sop to con the people into accepting that firearms must be licensed. It appears that the Police Minister has once again imposed a system that will place great onus on the police, but which will provide a very ineffective service when it comes to advice. It is ridiculous to think that a police officer who is sitting behind a desk and in a hurry will be able to give a correct opinion about every person's mental state. No wonder there is so much discontent throughout the electorate. The Government will have all of this discontent heaped upon it at the next election, especially those Government members who hold country seats. This discontent will increase when all these people have to queue up for firearms licences. In addition, this Government's policies on homosexuals, abortion, prostitution and daylight-saving will come back on top of it. The issue of personal and civil liberties is being brought to the fore by the United Nations conventions and copied merrily by the Labor Party. This is Left Wing philosophy. The Government knows as well as I do that it cannot control the Left Wing push that is coming up underneath it. The Government maintains it cannot prevent kids from leaving home, but it still talks about personal liberties. It maintains that people should be allowed to do what they believe is right and that they cannot be prevented from doing so. That philosophy rejects the personal liberties of those who conform to the control. The rights of responsible people are undermined in this legislation because they are being forced to obtain licences and, eventually, they will have to be part of these registers. Legislative Assembly 3430 4 September 1990

The Minister made the comment that a great many hours have gone into the framing of the legislation. This might be true; however, he has ruined the legislation by his own desire to get it through Cabinet and Parliament as quickly as possible. People reading his second-reading speech will find it laughable that the Minister made the following statement in support of his legislation— ". . . where weapons other than firearms are used, the survival rate for victims is much higher." Fancy putting that in a second-reading speech! That is obviously laughable, especially when the Minister is trying to promote licensing systems. Surely when the Minister was proof-reading his speech, he should have had enough sense to take that part out. Maybe his Canberra speech-writer wrote the speech. Honourable members will note that the second-reading speech is written on paper that is headed, "Hon. T. M. Mackenroth, MP". No other member of the Queensland Parliament uses "MP". Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. In 1979 or 1980, before the member for Fassifern came into this Parliament—and, as someone who quotes the CPA, the honourable member should be aware of this fact—the Queensland branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association made a decision that all members of the Queensland Parliament could call themselves MPs. I am the only member who ever did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): I accept that point of order. Mr LINGARD: I wish that when the honourable member sits on the Parliamentary Service Commission he would accept the rulings of the CPA. The other day it would have suited me very nicely if he had accepted the rulings of the CPA. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr Mackenroth: It was your ruling. Mr LINGARD: It was not my ruling at all, because the CPA said that everything was right. The Minister knows that as well as I do. The Premier and someone else also said it was okay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr LINGARD: This legislation will be seen as a soft approach-— Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr LINGARD: What the Minister is doing now is like killing a snake with a rubber hose, and he knows it. This legislation will be seen as a soft approach to the final, overall plan of a socialist Labor philosophy. Only last year the ALP and Minister Mackenroth wanted much more than what is contained in the Bill. Initially the Government decided to go soft, but instead it has subtlety left clause 6 in the Bill, which will allow the ALP to do whatever it wants in the future. The Minister has tried desperately to cover his back by saying things like, "That is not what we mean. We will not do that." The Government should have drafted this legislation correctly. It should admit that it has hurried the legislation through and made massive mistakes. The legislation should be withdrawn. Consultation should take place and the legislation should be rewritten. Naturally, the National Party rejects the Bill and will have much pleasure in voting against it. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (2.30 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Weapons Bill. I believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be introduced into this State in this term of Government because it will ultimately save lives. In common with my colleagues on Legislative Assembly 3431 4 September 1990 the Government side of the Chamber, I have been the recipient of hundreds of letters from members of the gun lobby. People from Biloela, Maryborough, Gladstone, Rockhampton and Calliope have sworn, threatened, complained and lied about the effects of this legislation. Their irrational logic and offensive letters have done nothing to help their cause. In my opinion, their lobbying has reflected poorly on the type of person who would want to own a gun. The member for Fassifern is quite wrong in saying that Labor members are scared of the gun lobby. This Government has not been diverted from its course by these cowboys and cowgirls from the gun lobby; nor will I be today. Over the last five years, 800 Queenslanders have died from firearms injuries. During every week that this State Government delays a decision on new gun laws, another three people will die. The member for Fassifern has criticised the haste with which this legislation was brought forward. Members of the National Party had 32 years in which to introduce some decent weapons control legislation in this State, but they lacked the will to do so. The Labor Government has had 10 months in which to draw up this legislation. Members of the National Party will have to learn that for intelligent, hard-working people—the type of people who now occupy the Government benches—10 months is not undue haste, even for legislation of this magnitude. Would the member for Fassifern have the Bill delayed so that another three people can die each week? Only in Queensland has a person been allowed to walk in and, along with his bread and milk, buy a firearm without any check on his character, mental stability, motives, criminal record or knowledge of firearms safety. Mr Littleproud: It didn't work too well in Sydney last week, did it? Ms SPENCE: He came from Queensland. The firearms people buy are used in scenes of domestic violence throughout the State. For a variety of reasons, guns trigger fear among women. Women are the most vulnerable group in our society and they are the most likely to be the victims of violence. The family is the breeding ground of violence in Australia. Gun control needs to instituted not only to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but also to protect family members who are the most frequent victims of murders involving firearms. One-quarter of all murder victims are killed by a family member. Guns—usually a rifle or a shotgun—are used in four out of every 10 domestic killings. I will now refer to some quotations from women who in 1987 took part in a phone-in on Queensland family life, because they are the women who will most likely benefit from the hard work of honourable members today. One woman stated— "You don't know what the limit is when he's attacking you. It is very frightening. Each time you think, 'This will be the last. He's going to kill me.' " Another woman stated— "I thought he would kill us. He threw my son into the back of the van and dragged me into the front seat. He bit my face like a ravenous animal. I can still remember the sick feeling of the froth from his mouth on my face and the pain of his teeth tearing into my skin. He said he would hunt us down and kill us if I tried to leave again. It was no idle threat." Yet another woman said— "No particular thing set him off which is the hardest to cope with. At least if you know exactly what will, you can take steps to prevent it. For example, the butter may be hard instead of easy spreading consistency because you overlooked taking it from the fridge early. This would trigger off verbal abuse, which in seconds became violent behaviour, chair overthrown backwards at the table and a mad rage—his demonstration of what I'd get if I didn't oblige every whim type of thing." Not quite the "Mom and apple pie" image of the average Australian home and family that we all like to believe provides a safe haven for its members; a place where they are protected and nurtured. Legislative Assembly 3432 4 September 1990

These quotations are from a Statewide phone-in on domestic violence that revealed that one in four Queensland marriages will experience a violent episode. In many of those instances, the results will be severe injury requiring hospitalisation, and even death. It is difficult for many people to believe these figures and scenarios because they challenge the deeply held values within our communities, such as the family being a safe haven from the dangers of the world. However, the reality is that homes are often battlegrounds where, for some, violence and abuse is a way of life, and where children grow up believing that aggression and bloodshed are normal. This has become widely known as domestic violence. Tragically, the extreme end of this terrifying continuum is killing. In the period l982-l987, spouse-murder comprised 22 per cent of Queensland homicides. Detailed research has revealed that women are more likely to be killed by a partner than by anyone else, and that the majority of spouse homicides are preceded by a history of domestic violence. In the context of this new Weapons Bill, however, is the fact that firearms are implicated to a greater extent in domestic killings than in homicide generally. In Queensland, gunshot wounds are the cause of death in 42 per cent of spouse- murders and 35 per cent of general homicides. The phone-in to which I referred earlier and which produced the quotations also revealed that guns are used to threaten many victims of domestic violence. Of course, the mere presence of a firearm in the house very much increases the fear in which victims of domestic violence live. The ownership of a weapon indicates an intent to kill. The rabbit is the excuse, but the capacity to kill is the main purpose of a firearm. In the main, spouse-murders occur in the home. If the couple were living apart, the murder would occur in the home of one of them, usually the victim's—the bedroom being the most likely place for the murder of a wife, and the kitchen for the murder of a husband. Since these murders often occur at home and at night, there are usually no witnesses. This year alone, Queensland has seen numerous tragic instances of a domestic relationship gone horribly wrong. On 12 June, at a farm just west of Toowoomba, a 48-year-old woman was shot in a murder/suicide. She had been due to marry in 11 days' time. After having been shot in the head by her former boyfriend, who then killed himself, Ms Marie Chicken died in Toowoomba General Hospital. On 27 June, a woman in the lounge room of a home at Matson Avenue, Browns Plains, was shot. A detective senior sergeant from Beenleigh police said that the woman's arm was severed by the blast. She was rushed to the Logan Hospital, where she died two hours later. The shooting is believed to have been the result of a domestic argument. A 33-year-old Browns Plains man was later found shot dead at Greenbank. On 5 June, in a Brisbane car park, a man shot his wife dead and then killed himself. He was a successful and respected Coffs Harbour businessman. Raymond Sinclair McKay shot his wife, Patricia McKay, when she returned to her car after work at Stafford on a Tuesday afternoon. He then shot himself in the head with a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle. The couple, who police believe separated about 12 months previously, had four children. On 30 July, after a murder/suicide in a family home at Berrinba near Woodridge, a blind man stumbled over the bodies of his mother and father. Werner Gabler shot his wife, Ellie, in the head and then put the .22 rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Mr Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on telling you of the murders that are being committed daily in Queensland homes—tragic instances of domestic relationships gone horribly wrong. Sometimes the circumstances are splashed across newspapers and television screens in a most spectacular way; and sometimes the details do not even make it into print at all. Often the slaughter involves innocents: unborn children; small children; or bystanders. Most often, as I have said, the event is preceded by a history of domestic violence. Legislative Assembly 3433 4 September 1990

Only in the past few years has this phenomenon made it onto the social agenda in Queensland. Prior to that, we were all familiar with the term "domestics"; it referred either to the squabbles we all had with loved ones or to the loud noises next door which frequently brought the police to restore the peace. There was, I suggest, a conspiracy of silence in the community about the women who were regularly bashed. We all had our own private thoughts about them and the kind of lives they led. There were—and still are—social jokes about wife-beating which capture an appreciative audience. Nationally, our whole attitude to wife-battering is surprising—and not pleasantly so. A 1987 survey of community attitudes to domestic violence revealed that an amazing 19 per cent of respondents considered it acceptable for a man to use physical force against his female partner under some circumstances. They believed it might be justifiable for a man to shove, kick or hit his wife if she did not obey him, wasted money, was a sloppy housekeeper or refused him sex. The results are consistent with some overseas research—but that in no way dilutes them. It really seems we have not come very far from the nineteenth century when the phrase "rule of thumb" emerged—a judgment which allowed a wife to be beaten with a stick no broader than a thumb. Although no such rule exists today, why do we have such difficulty in naming domestic violence, in describing it as it often is: criminal assault within the home? Let us face it, in our community, there have been few social costs for beating one's wife, and many social costs for women who choose to leave a violent marriage. Another common occurrence is the murder of estranged wives. Most of these murders are carefully planned in advance and women are often tricked into a rendezvous, where they are killed. Often women who have been threatened by their partner with a firearm are too fearful to leave the relationship for that very reason. Divorce and distance are not sufficient protection from the determined pursuer. Often, the battered wife then faces a choice between a life of continuing violence or a life of ongoing relative poverty. Whatever our perceptions, violence in the home in Queensland is a grim reality, often masked by fear and shame. The incidents range from occasional slaps to a chronic situation in which women and children are periodically assaulted with hands, fists, belts, irons, chairs, knives and guns. Too often, such incidents are not intercepted before a tragedy occurs. To listen to the accounts of victims who responded to the 1987 Queensland phone-in is to listen to a litany of smaller-scale tragedies which surprise and shock. The range of injuries is horrendous: 22 per cent report fractures; 10 per cent report losing consciousness; 35 per cent report being threatened or injured with a weapon; 19 per cent report being threatened with a knife or gun; and a staggering 6 per cent advise that a knife or gun was actually used against them. But the heart-breaking side to this is that many victims, including many of those subject to terrible physical assaults, say that it is the emotional abuse which is the most damaging. Emotional abuse can involve denigratory verbal abuse, threats, terrorising, or actions designed to lower the victim's self-esteem or security. Examples include killing or maiming family pets or destroying furniture and entire rooms in a house. Many women—frequently in rural areas—report the terrifying, silent threat of a gun kept under a pillow. Women living in the country are especially vulnerable to assault from weapons. In rural Australia, there is a higher rate of gun-ownership and greater variety of guns per household than in suburban Australia. The physical isolation of those women also adds to their difficulties. Often their partner has use of any transport, so they have no means of escape from a violent or threatening situation. In a crisis, for those women flight is often not an alternative. In addition, the property is usually in the name of the male partner, there are often no public roads, and the charge of trespass is added to the abuse. We can talk and talk about the incidence of domestic violence and illustrate it with graphic word pictures of injuries inflicted. Obviously, there is a need to address all bands of the spectrum. Legislation to license individual gun-owners does that—and in fact was Legislative Assembly 3434 4 September 1990 one of the recommendations of the Domestic Violence Task Force which in 1988 brought down its report, Beyond These Walls. At the very least, licensing will prevent a situation in which, in a fit of rage, a man could buy a gun and return home 10 minutes later to take his rage out on his wife and children. Two well- documented cases in Brisbane's bayside suburbs followed just that type of pattern—the price tags, in fact, were still on the guns used. This legislation will mean that anyone who has a history of domestic violence will not be able to obtain a licence for a firearm and, if he has one already, it can be confiscated if police are called to the home to investigate reports of violence. There is also critical evidence to suggest that men who witness violence in childhood may bring that experience to their marriage or to other relationships. Obviously boys who witness a warm, caring and egalitarian relationship between their parents will grow up with a perception of women which is different from that of those who grow up in violent homes. The amount of violence and aggression that is condoned among men in our society may also affect the manner in which men may behave towards women. However, I believe that there is a message here for all of us about the way we bring up our little boys, the values we inculcate in and pass on to them and the self-esteem we instil in them. But for some of the little boys who have already grown up, it is already too late. Too many of them are already abusing their wives, or perhaps their girlfriends or mothers. Tonight, women of all professional and social backgrounds—perhaps acquaintances of members of this Parliament—will flee their homes and sleep in backyards or cars, or just huddle in corners, frightened, cowering, unable to break a terrible cycle which may have been going for years. Do not ask, "Why does she not just leave?" The answers are much more complex than one might think. It is just as well to ask, "Why does he beat her?", or, "Why does he stay with her if she enrages him so much?" Many women are socially or geographically isolated from friends or family who might help; many have no financial independence; many suffer the social stigma of battering and feel shame; and by then many have such poor self-esteem that they do not think they can make it on their own. Others fear the reprisals that are so often threatened, and realistically so. Almost half the women killed by spouses are separated or in the process of separating at the time. If, through this Weapons Bill, we can prevent some of the terrible statistics of domestic violence from being repeated, its introduction will have more than served its purpose. Until we can go to the other end of the spectrum and mend those aspects of our society which produce that violence in the first instance, we need protection for the women and children who will otherwise and inevitably become the victims of it. Those aspects should certainly be addressed. Let us examine our tolerance of violence as a society, whether it is in the street or on the football field. Let us examine the way we bring up our little boys, and our little girls. In the meantime, the balance can be addressed with legislation which is both effective and humane. It is not the right of every citizen to own and bear arms. If the issue is boiled down to pure semantics, a firearm exists for the purpose of launching a projectile capable of striking with maximum force and accuracy a target beyond the physical reach of the shooter. With this definition in mind, it is clear that the uses of a gun are extremely limited. Apart from shooting at inanimate targets, the singular usage of a gun is that of directing it at living beings with the intent either to wound or to kill. The gun lobby is adamant that guns themselves are not to blame for the latest tragedies; rather, it is the users in each specific case. That is correct. One does not blame a door for the fact that one has just walked into it. However, in a situation of violence, the likelihood of a fatality is greatly reduced when firearms are not present. In a famous cartoon, R. Cobb expresses it perfectly. He says, "Anger plus fist equals bloody nose. Anger plus gun equals tragedy." Legislative Assembly 3435 4 September 1990

Gun-ownership has nothing to do with the expression or suppression of individuality. Indeed, it should be noted that in a majority of cases a gun is the instrument used to carry out those very acts of suppression that we regard as extreme. Those who advocate the free availability of firearms sometimes argue that people, not guns, kill—that the intent, rather than the means, is lethal. One can apply the same argument to nuclear weapons. I suspect that even the gun lobby would be relieved if the finger on the red button released a thousand spears rather than a thousand H-bombs. Limiting deadlines can be very important indeed. The argument of self-defence has very little going for it—the armed victim produces a more deadly attacker—and the notion of a right to carry arms is no argument at all. It is an assertion, nothing more—as indeed are most claims of rights to do this or that. Rights may be valid or invalid, good or bad, but mere assertion establishes nothing. This legislation will mean that anyone who has a history of violence will not be able to obtain a licence for a firearm. Will fewer guns mean fewer killings? All the indicators suggest that it will. Many unlawful homicides occur on the spur of the moment or in the heat of passion. The nearest available weapon is seized. If this is a gun, it is more likely to be fatal. Guns kill from a distance and their use involves little strength and no physical contact with the victim. Their destructive capacity is obviously greater than that of, say, a knife. An American study of comparable gun and knife wounds found that guns were at least five times more likely to cause death. This legislation is not an attack on the freedom of individual Queenslanders who choose to own firearms in the lawful pursuit of shooting as an acceptable recreational exercise or for their work in rural areas. Provided that a person is over the age of 17 years, has adequate knowledge of firearms safety practices and is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, he or she will be allowed to own a firearm. However, the Government is making it tougher for people to own a firearm. It is requiring people to submit to a licensing procedure; it is introducing a cooling-off period; and it is instituting tough penalties for people who break this law. I congratulate the Police Minister, Mr Mackenroth, on his steadfast resolve in introducing this legislation. I am pleased to have served on the Minister's legislative committee. For the benefit of members of the Opposition, I point out that that committee is an example of democracy at work under this Labor Government. It was that committee that studied the legislation, made changes and suggested, corrected and prepared the Bill for Cabinet. It is complete fantasy to suggest that anything improper occurred in the drafting of this Bill. Mr Stephan: What changes did you make? Ms SPENCE: The committee made many changes. It spent many long hours over this legislation, and is happy with it. Mr Stephan: What changes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! Mr Mackenroth: For one thing, the committee threw out the arms council. It was just a way for the people to get paid by the Government. Ms SPENCE: The committee did throw that out. This legislation will not diminish the civil liberties of Queenslanders; it will, though, enhance the civil liberties of the women and children who would have been killed in horrifying domestic murders around this State. I am not so blinkered as to believe that this legislation will prevent all such deaths and injuries, but I believe that there is reason to hope that lives can be saved. I ask honourable members to remember that gun-related deaths and injuries are not always committed by professional criminals, that they are more likely to be the result of domestic violence. If it is appropriate to be concerned about whales, the ozone Legislative Assembly 3436 4 September 1990 layer and plastic bags, surely it is appropriate to express similar concern about our fellow men and, more particularly, our fellow women in whose bodies most of the bullets lodge. I support the Bill. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (2.54 p.m.): The Liberal Party opposes the Weapons Bill and in doing so, it rejects any suggestion from the other side of this House that it is soft on gun-toting criminals. In fact, it claims up front and immediately that it is indeed the Labor Party that has its policies, priorities and legislative program all wrong and that, as a result, the criminals are constantly laughing all the way to their next job. This Bill is an example of what is rapidly becoming typical of the Labor Party's modus operandi within this place—and honourable members opposite should listen carefully—that is made up of the following steps: conjure up a harebrained idea, give that idea to a committee and a bunch of bureaucrats handicapped by prejudice and unrealistic terms of reference, ignore the experts in the field, hastily draft legislation which hangs together worse than a rag in tatters, introduce it to Parliament, lack the courage to allow it to sit on the table of Parliament for a period of time to allow reasonable scrutiny and then gutlessly slam it through in record quick time. The honourable member who preceded me in this debate stated that the Minister's committee is a paragon of democracy. How about displaying some of that democracy and showing a little bit of respect for the Westminster system in this place and not just in the closed committees of the Labor Party? This is the Labor Party that went before the people at the last election expressing support for the principles of openness, consultation, accountability and the sovereignty of this place—which the Minister has mockingly abused; not Labor Party committees or internal closed shops such as the Minister's committee. Today, the Labor Party brings shame on this great institution through its shameless abuse of it. The Minister and the Government seem to have gone out of their way to totally ignore and offend the very large sports shooting community of Queensland not only through the composition of the firearms legislation review committee, which was composed of members with a strong bias towards a licensing system, but ultimately even through the title of the Bill, which describes and defines all firearms as tools of war and offensive attack rather than sporting tools and essential work implements, which the vast majority of them are. If members opposite want to contest the validity of that definition, they should refer to the dictionaries. Early in this debate it is important to outline the philosophical and policy considerations that should shape the essence of the legislation that members are considering today. The Liberal Party, committed as it is to the liberty of the individual, believes that, in a free society, the rights and privileges of citizens should not be subject to restrictions or bureaucratic controls, except when there is a clear and undeniable requirement for such measures to guarantee the common interests of society as a whole. At the same time, the public has the right to expect that firearms' owners will act in a responsible way and that the criminals who use firearms will face the severest sanctions. The Liberal Party policy on firearms, which I will outline later on for the information of members, is designed to reflect those views. In acknowledging the Liberal Party view that restrictions and controls should be prescribed only to meet clearly established requirements, I believe that a firearm policy should recognise the following specific factors— (1) the necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals; Legislative Assembly 3437 4 September 1990

(2) that persons who use firearms in the commission of crimes display a contempt for the lives and safety of law-abiding citizens which warrants the strongest sanctions. Mr Ardill: How do you do it? Mr SANTORO: If the honourable member listens, I will tell him how the Liberal Party will do it. Such a policy should also recognise— (3) that shooting is a legitimate sport which should not be discouraged by unnecessary or oppressive restrictions and that it is the right of all law-abiding citizens to freely participate in responsible sports shooting; (4) that the collection of firearms is a legitimate recreation which should be open to all law- abiding citizens and that the intrinsic monetary and cultural value of collectable firearms requires that they not be needlessly vandalised. (5) that the destructive potential of fully automatic firearms and those which fire explosive projectiles is such that they should not be owned or controlled by private citizens except under exceptional circumstances under strict control; (6) that firearms' owners have a duty to their fellow citizens to ensure that their firearms are adequately secured so that they do not easily fall into the hands of criminals or people, particularly children, who are not proficient in their use; and (7) that the public has a right to expect that firearms' owners will be proficient in their operation and use and fully versed in responsible safety precautions. It is important in a matter which affects every member of the community so deeply that the laws enacted by Parliament should deal specifically with the problem by regulating only those persons who require regulation. Most members of the community are law-abiding persons and the resources of the State should not be expended in unnecessarily regulating them. So the question that needs to be asked at this stage is: does this legislation reflect the above essential and desirable qualities and criteria? The answer clearly is "No". Those criteria reflect and share the concerns that were in fact expressed by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt, who spoke before me. Nobody would disagree with her when she expressed the anguish and the anger of people in the community, particularly women, because she did concentrate her perspective on the women in society who are affected by the abuse of gun laws. The Liberal Party has outlined its criteria. It begins from principles and then talks about the specific policies that should be adopted to sustain those principles. The Government's legislation does not seem to contain any logic, any principles or any driving philosophical basis. That is where it falls. We in the Liberal Party do not condemn the honourable member for Mount Gravatt, who has already spoken, and other members opposite who will undoubtedly espouse very laudable sentiments. We want to ensure that those sentiments are in fact reflected in legislation which will protect the people in the manner in which the Government claims this legislation will protect them. It clearly will not. During the next few years, before the next election, members opposite will see that the crimes of passion that are perpetrated by the use of firearms have not decreased. Honourable members opposite should listen carefully to what I have said: they will not decrease. Honourable members opposite will be reminded by me and by and other members of the Liberal Party, including the honourable member for Sherwood who is our new shadow Minister for Police, of the abuse that they are perpetrating on the public of Queensland through this legislation. Clearly, this legislation fails in its intent because it deals mainly with the regulation of the responsible law-abiding members of the community and fails to regulate in a meaningful way the members of our society who, according to statistics, are most likely Legislative Assembly 3438 4 September 1990 to perpetrate violent crimes with guns—namely, persons with prior criminal records, drug addicts and persons with notified mental disorders. According to the statistics, they are the types of people who perpetrate the crimes that members opposite fear so much. The most fundamental aspect of the Bill relates to the establishment of a system of licensing which the Minister and the Government claim will catch the crooks and keep firearms out of the possession of individuals who will get up to no good with them. A close examination of the Bill—Parliament's close examination has been made impossible at the Committee stage—and its licensing provisions will quickly give the lie to the assertion that has been made, as well as demonstrate that this piece of legislation is— ¥ hastily written; ¥ gloriously unclear; ¥ internally contradictory; ¥ insensitive to the heritage value of antique firearms; ¥ loaded with the potential for abuse by people administering the system; ¥ prohibitively expensive to administer; ¥ bureaucratically cumbersome in the extreme; and ¥ shows an abysmal lack of understanding of firearms by those who have drafted the Bill. Given the time limitations, in my speech I wish to comment in detail only on the licensing aspects of the Bill and I will make only quick and brief reference to several other specific deficiencies which my Liberal colleagues and I hoped we would have been able to raise in detail during the Committee stage. Unfortunately, we have been deprived of the possibility to adequately do so . The Government's consistent approach to controversial legislation is becoming only too obvious. The Minister knows very well that, during the second-reading stage, members on this side of the House want to make broad, general comments such as those made by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt and those that will undoubtedly be made by other Labor members who will speak in this debate. As it did during the debate on the industrial relations legislation, which it slammed shamelessly through the Parliament under similar conditions, the Government has again denied members on this side of the House the opportunity to put it on the spot, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, and, if necessary, word by word. The Minister has deprived the Parliament and himself of the embarrassing time that he should have given this Parliament to critically analyse the very specific provisions contained in this Bill. We in the Liberal Party want to state some general principles. Like the Labor Party, we want to talk about the effect that this legislation will have on the community generally. But the general adverse effect on the community is made up of the composite effect of the idiotic consequences that will flow from the implementation of this Bill. The Minister and other members of the Labor Party who profess to be the demagogues of democracy and of democratic practices have utterly abandoned their principles. They have done it many times since their election and they will keep on doing it. The Liberal Party will keep on telling the public of Queensland exactly what they are all about. The process of issuing a licence, as contained within the legislation, warrants reiteration in this debate, for it will underscore just how unworkable it is. For those members opposite who have not read the Bill, I ask them to listen carefully. Before issuing a licence, the police officer concerned will have to ascertain all of the following matters— (a) Whether the person is 17 years of age; (b) whether the person has an adequate knowledge of safety practices relating to the use and maintenance of the types of weapons to which the licence relates; Legislative Assembly 3439 4 September 1990

(c) is not disqualified under the Act from holding a licence; (d) is a fit and proper person to hold the licence having regard to— (i) the mental state of the person; (ii) whether the person has been convicted of a drug or offence involving violence; (iii) whether the person is subject to an order made under the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989. If the applicant wishes to become a collector, the police officer must then determine in addition whether— (a) the applicant is over the age of 18 years of age; (b) he has sufficient storage facilities to reasonably secure his collection; and (c) must be satisfied that the applicant intends to become a collector. If the applicant wishes to obtain a licence for a pistol or other concealable firearm, the police officer must then obtain evidence that— (a) the applicant has attended the prescribed shooting club for a prescribed period of time; and (b) the applicant must produce a certificate from this prescribed shooting club that he is a financial member of the club and that he has the approval of this club for the use of the weapon at that club. Ignoring at this point the qualifications of police officers or any other authorised officer which would be essential if they were to comply adequately with these provisions, the sheer enormity of the logistical burden which this section of the Bill would impose on the Police Service will be crippling in its effect on the service. If the Minister is fair dinkum, he must clearly address this point in his reply, because that opportunity will not be available at the Committee stage. He must clearly answer these queries. Even assuming that such a mass of information could be processed by a police officer diligently carrying out his duty in 30 minutes, my calculations suggest that, for each individual firearms-owner, it would take the valuable time of 50 police officers nearly four years just to license the existing gun-owners in the State. I question the wisdom of taking up the time of our already understaffed Police Service to attend to the licensing of law-abiding citizens who wish to use their guns in a responsible manner. I fully suspect that, because the guidelines laid down in this Bill are all but impossible for the Police Service to administer properly, in a very short period, and particularly because the police are already overworked in catching criminals who have already committed crimes, the issuing of licences will become merely a rubber stamping exercise which will benefit nobody. Some of the licences contemplated by this Bill will need to be renewed frequently, thus involving the police in the never-ending responsibility of performing that time-consuming task. It is all very well for the Government to issue a list of criteria with which the police must comply, but the whole system will fall down because of the failure to date of this Government to adequately staff the police so that they can have any chance of performing properly their current obligations. The first Goss Labor Budget is to be handed down tomorrow. The Liberal Party awaits with great interest the details of the allocation of funds to the Police Service. Unless a massive injection of funds is forthcoming to the Police Service in tomorrow's Budget, an already demoralised, understaffed and underresourced Police Service—and I am quoting the words of the Police Commissioner in this morning's media—will suffer further only to satisfy the whims of those many sincere people who make up the hysterical anti-gun lobby, which has convinced the Minister and this Government that to overkill on this issue is to gain brownie points in the community, and to hell with the consequences that will see the very same community suffer at the hands of crooks who are already causing so much concern in the suburbs of fear. Legislative Assembly 3440 4 September 1990

I reiterate that if the police are to be assisted by the Government in performing their role of protecting the law-abiding citizens, they must be given tasks that are more economical and directed towards catching the criminals of our society and not towards overgoverning the law-abiding citizens. Under provisions of this Bill the police would also be required, all of a sudden, to become instant experts in the symptoms of mental disorders that often are not apparent. They would be required to become instant experts in aptitude assessment in relation to firearms use; to become bureaucrats who will be bogged down in the checking and counterchecking of trivial detail that will often be out of date and difficult to obtain. So much for freeing them up to enable them to walk the beat and look directly after and protect the citizens of this State! Somewhere along the line, if not in this Parliament then eventually in the community, when this legislation demonstrably does not work the Minister will have to explain how police officers are very quickly to become experts in diagnosing mental disorders and in ascertaining whether or not people have severe, latent mental illnesses that often are not apparent. If somebody appears before an authorised officer and makes application for a gun, the Minister will have to explain how that officer will be able to diagnose whether that person has a mental disorder. The Minister can laugh and grin all he wants, but he is not going to frustrate me. Every time that this legislation goes against the best interests of the community, the Liberal Party will let the Minister know about it. I assure him that the Liberal Party will continue to remind the Minister of the deficiencies in this legislation in the same way as it reminds the "Minister for Revolving Doors" every time that a prisoner escapes from or walks out of a gaol. People will continue to obtain guns no matter whether a licensing system is in place or a prohibited persons register—as advocated by the Liberal Party—exists. People will continue to abuse citizens with guns. Clearly, the licensing system proposed by this Bill is unworkable. The Liberal Party supports the comments of Commissioner Fitzgerald and reminds the Government that he said— "The present ad hoc approach to legislation means that more is constantly being demanded of the police force with no consideration being given to priorities and whether or not the resources exist to enforce new laws without causing an unacceptable shortfall elsewhere. Available resources are therefore spread more and more thinly." That advice, which Commissioner Fitzgerald tendered to the previous Government, is as applicable to this Government as it was when that advice was tendered originally. It is for that reason that the Liberal Party supports the introduction of legislation that incorporates a prohibited persons register, which was advanced as an alternative by the Queensland Shooting and Firearms Council. The Liberal Party pays credit to that council for formulating an alternative firearms control model that does not incorporate the shortcomings of this Bill. Contrary to what is being proposed by the Government in this Bill, that system would lead to a far more efficient use of the Police Service's human and technological resources and would have as its main priority the identification of persons who are most likely to commit violent crimes with guns or other offensive weapons, while leaving the vast majority of the law-abiding population unaffected by its draconian and Orwellian provisions. The Liberal Party has solutions to the contentious issue of gun laws and is prepared to articulate its firm views. Members of the Liberal Party are not knockers. We have answers and will constructively put them forward. Under Liberal Party legislation, the prohibited persons register would be complemented by a thorough review of the Criminal Code, which would see criminals who use firearms severely punished rather than being treated with kid gloves, as this Government is treating criminals. Our law reform would ensure that persons who use firearms to Legislative Assembly 3441 4 September 1990 perpetrate the crimes that were detailed by the Minister and other members who spoke and will speak during this debate are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or subjected to extremely heavy fines that are commensurate with the offence and lose the right to own or use firearms. The Liberal Party will substantially increase prison terms and non-parole periods for armed offenders by requiring that, in addition to any other sentence, persons who use firearms in the commission of criminal offences would serve an additional period of imprisonment that would not be subject to parole, remission or any other form of early release such as criminals enjoy under this Labor administration. Special attention would also be given to prosecuting illegal dealers who supply criminal elements with concealable and prohibited firearms, and penalties for those offences would be significantly increased. That is one aspect of Liberal Party reforms which would see a drastic decline in firearm offences within the community. The Liberal Party supports and proposes a system of registration so that persons who are identified by statistics and reasonable processes—and I stress "reasonable processes"; I am not referring to young constables and police officers who have no experience of what mental disorders are all about—as most likely to commit violent crimes are identified and refused the right to own a firearm. The advantage of a system of registration is threefold. Firstly, it stops those people who are most likely to offend from obtaining a firearm. Secondly, it identifies only those irresponsible members of the community and leaves the vast majority of gun-owners unaffected. Thirdly, it would not tie up the Queensland Police Service in a futile licensing scheme that will sap its administrative life-blood. We propose that— (a) a register be established of persons not entitled to own a firearm; (b) persons with relevant criminal records will be placed on that register; (c) persons with relevant mental disorders will be placed on that register; (d) specified authorities dealing with these groups will be required to notify the register of persons falling within the prohibited persons class. For the information of honourable members who have been interjecting and asking how all those things would happen, the answers are there. I do not hear the honourable member in front of me interjecting now. I am providing the answers. If he keeps listening, all the answers will be forthcoming. They are commonsense, workable answers. We propose also that— (e) persons guilty of domestic violence will be included on the register. Every person whose name is placed on the register would be notified and a right of appeal to the local magistrate would be available for persons who consider they have grounds to have their names removed from that register. Civil liberties and personal rights would be protected under a Liberal firearms—not "weapons"—Bill. It is proposed that vendors of firearms in Queensland contact the register and obtain a clearance for the proposed purchaser. The dealer would be required to obtain satisfactory proof of identification of the name of the proposed purchaser, with penalties for the dealer failing to comply with the notification requirement. If the purchaser's name appeared on the prohibited persons register, the dealer would incur a penalty if he then sold a firearm to that person. Private sales of firearms would be governed in a similar way except that, in those circumstances, the obligation to obtain a clearance would rest with the purchaser. The purchaser would have to obtain the clearance and submit it to the vendor before the sales transaction could take place. In that way, the privacy of the individual would be maintained. The register could be accessed only by the dealer or by the purchaser himself. Furthermore, under Liberal policy implemented in legislation, if the purchaser was not a prohibited person, the vendor would be required to record all details of the transaction including— (a) the details of the weapon; Legislative Assembly 3442 4 September 1990

(b) the buyer's name and address; (c) the clearance reference number; (d) the date of possession of the weapon. We propose that, at the beginning of the transaction before any of those inquiries were made, the vendor obtain the purchase price from the purchaser. That would protect the vendor from spending time on bogus applications. If a clearance was issued, the firearm would not be released for a period of 14 days. That is where the Liberal Party disagrees with the firearms council. We have not simply taken its policy, the bulk of which we find very sensible, and said that we would implement it in its entirety. The Liberal Party has said that the firearm would not be released for a period of 14 days after the date of the clearance, thus providing the essential cooling-off period, which is recognised by the Minister. The Liberal Party supports the cooling-off provisions in the legislation. We see enormous problems with the length of the cooling-off period, but we support the concept. The Police Department's register will identify and report when and where it receives a request that indicates that a prohibited person has applied to purchase a firearm. In those circumstances, a prohibited person would be subject to heavy penalties. Non-Queensland residents would be able to purchase firearms under that scheme. They would not be inconvenienced, as has been suggested in some quarters. In States where a shooter's licence system exists, the purchaser would be required to produce that licence before the firearm could be purchased. The vendor would be required also to check the prohibited persons register for such sales. The Liberal Party recognises that many accidents occur; that crime is a passion and that crimes are committed and operable firearms are stolen because firearms are kept in insecure circumstances. The Liberal Party would require: (i) That except on rural properties no firearms other than when actually in use shall be loaded and that ammunition be kept separately from the firearms. (ii) That when not in use all long-barrel firearms, or an essential part of their mechanism, be stored under lock and key. (iii) That concealable firearms be stored in a sealed, locked, immovable container. The Liberal Party also recognises that the collection of firearms for their historical and aesthetic value is a legitimate recreation and that collectable firearms should not be subject to unnecessary vandalism by deactivation as the Bill before us clearly requires. Therefore, Liberal firearms legislation would stipulate that— (1) Legitimate collectors should be members of an approved club and not have a criminal record showing serious or recent offences. (2) Not all firearms would be required to be rendered inoperable. (3) Cased ammunition firearms would only be required to be rendered inoperable only if their ammunition is available through commercial outlets or is capable of home manufacture from materials available through commercial outlets. At this stage, the question that can legitimately be asked is: who would pay for the implementation of the system that I have just described? In relation to that, I make two brief points— (i) That system would be funded by application fees payable by the purchasers of firearms upon a demand for information and all clearances from the prohibited persons register. (ii) The system that we propose would not be the bureaucratic monstrosity which the proposed licensing system so obviously is. It could be run by a well-qualified police officer who would supervise clerical staff numbering no more than 5 to 10 people who would be assisted by powerful computer facilities known to be available within the departments. Legislative Assembly 3443 4 September 1990

In the interests of fairness, on behalf of the Liberal Party I acknowledge that the Bill does contain some positive provisions that are long overdue in Queensland. In our view, the provision contained in clause 3.34 on page 24 of the Bill regarding the detention and disposal of weapons in police custody, represents a significant advance in law. In addition, the appeal provisions contained in the Bill, particularly as they enable challenges within the court system, certainly meet with the approval of the Liberal Party, because they allow opportunities for proper redress by aggrieved parties. If I had more time to speak to the Bill, I would have criticised in detail many clauses of the Bill. The clause that refers to possession entrenches absolute liability, a concept of law from which the Parliament should be moving away and that should not be supported by members of the Labor Party, particularly the member for Yeronga. The clause dealing with replicas is very deficient. The term "replicas" would cover children's toys, including cheap Chinese toy guns. If the Minister wants to ban children's toys, he should say so and do so. I turn now to the prescription that there be written examinations prior to the granting of a licence. The police force will need to set up a new education unit within its already overstretched organisation. The explanation as to how this massive logistical exercise will be undertaken is contained in only six lines of the legislation. Clause 3.8 concerning security precautions requires every gun-owner to install a gun cabinet. So much for sensible provisions such as the provision of a trigger lock; if the trigger is locked, a gun cabinet is not required. Other speakers from the Liberal Party will talk more about the deficiencies in this legislation. In conclusion, I say that the Liberal Party believes that the implementation of its alternative to this Bill will ensure, by the exclusion of those members of the community who are not considered suitable to own a firearm because they have come to the attention of the relevant authorities, that only responsible members of the community are entitled to possess firearms. The Liberal Party's scheme will help to ensure that the vast majority of Queensland's gun-owners who are law-abiding citizens are not harassed by the unnecessary bureaucratic demands of the Big Brother that is created under this legislation. It is a scheme that is cost-efficient, technically viable and sensitive to the real circumstances of the 700 000 Queenslanders who own guns. The Liberal Party strenuously opposes this Bill and will divide the House at the appropriate times. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (3.24 p.m.): The central question facing this Parliament is whether or not Queensland moves to a system of licensing for weapons. The principal reason for so doing was outlined very eloquently and powerfully by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt in one of the finest speeches that this House has heard for a long time. She spoke with great force in outlining the problems and difficulties faced by the women of Queensland for far too long from the unrestricted access to firearms that has been enjoyed in this State over a long period. That speech pointed out eloquently to all members of Parliament that women do have a voice in this Parliament and that their voice will be heard in determining the future of politics in this State. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr FOLEY: That is a patronising and sexist remark which does not give the honourable member dignity. The central theme of my speech is this: how does this Bill relate to the civil liberties of Queensland's citizens? In particular, how does it relate to what is described as the right to bear arms—and I will examine that right in our law and our culture—and how in particular do the safeguards on police power in this Bill promote civil liberties? Before dealing with those matters, it is necessary to deal with some of the arguments raised in debate by the honourable members who have spoken on behalf of the National Party and the Liberal Party to date. In the course of the speech from the honourable member for Fassifern, it became apparent that the National Party does not support a Legislative Assembly 3444 4 September 1990 cooling-off period, nor does it support a system of licence for long rifles. There is a disagreement of policy with the Government on both of those matters. It is my submission to this House that the people of Queensland are entitled to effective licensing provisions, and the absence of a cooling-off period and the absence of licensing provisions for long rifles would be fatal to an effective system of gun control. I will deal now with some of the other arguments raised by the honourable member. He criticised the Bill on the grounds that it introduces mandatory sentences for trafficking. The only difficulty with that argument is that it is entirely false and baseless. Clause 3.12, which deals with unlawful trafficking in weapons, is the relevant provision. It provides for imprisonment for 20 years if the weapon is a thing specified in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, and it provides for a period of imprisonment of 15 years if the weapon is a thing specified in Schedule 3. Nowhere in that clause do the words "and this penalty may not be mitigated or varied by any court" appear. It is simply not at law a mandatory penalty and the honourable member is mistaken in his submission to the House in that respect. I turn to his other criticism, namely, that the provision in clause 6.15 introduced to the law of Queensland a power to the Governor in Council to make regulations which would be consistent with what the honourable member for Fassifern described as the disarming of an entire population. I remind the honourable member and all members of the House that, under the previous Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, there was a power at large of proclamation pursuant to section 102 of that Act. Under that provision there was power for the making of a proclamation calling for the delivering up of certain types of weapons. This was a very wide power indeed which could have allowed any Government to ban all firearms at any given time. An examination of this Bill before the House will reveal that that provision has been done away with because this Government cares about the civil liberties of citizens. The fallacious attack mounted upon the Government on that basis is simply devoid of substance. Similarly, the honourable member criticised the absence of a legal definition of the term "trafficking" pursuant to clause 3.12 and yet—one would think—he would be well aware that that has been the subject of judicial discussion. I remind honourable members that definition in the law is provided by words and phrases being given explicit meaning in this House and by words and phrases being given explicit meaning through the development of common law in the courts system. Genuine differences of policy divide the Australian Labor Party and the National Party on this issue, but it should be said that there are errors of law that may have misled members of the National Party into making a spurious objection to the Bill. Moreover, there is an issue of an error of fact on the part of the honourable member for Fassifern, namely, that, between Cabinet and the Parliament, this Bill was in some way the subject of an eleventh hour amendment. With great respect, that is simply not correct. The process by which this Bill came before the House included extensive community consultation by the ministerial committee and careful consideration of the draft Bill by honourable members who are part of the legislative committee that assists the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. On a number of occasions, that committee met in order to carefully assess the provisions of the Bill. It received submissions from the Queensland Law Society Incorporated and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties in order to address the issues raised by the Bill in relation to civil liberties. At any time when a large section of the community comes into contact with the police and the exercise of police power, people discover profound questions of civil liberties about the way in which police power is regulated. In this case, thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens will come into contact with police, whereas in normal circumstances they would do so only in connection with traffic matters. When dealing with people who are otherwise law abiding and who are consulting the police for licensing provisions, it is therefore important that the powers conferred are specific and are no Legislative Assembly 3445 4 September 1990 broader than is needed. Later in my speech, I will outline a number of improvements and refinements to the civil liberties of citizens that have been arrived at in this Bill as a result of careful consideration of the extent and nature of police power. I turn to the contribution to the debate made by the Liberal Party and the honourable member for Merthyr. With respect, the philosophical proposition advanced by the honourable member seemed to be a little confused. It commenced with the proposition that the rights of individuals should be interfered with only in circumstances in which the need is clearly established. That proposition begs two questions: firstly, can it be fairly said, either at law or in a cultural context, that the opportunity to bear arms is in truth a right? Secondly, even if that were so, has a profound need not been demonstrated by the violence, particularly domestic violence, outlined by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt in her very fine speech? The honourable member for Merthyr set out certain classes of people who will obtain access to firearms, namely, people with criminal records, drug addicts and people with mental disorders—those about whom members of the Liberal Party are concerned—yet, the honourable member for Merthyr glossed blithely over the provisions of clause 2.2, which deal with those very classes of people. The suggestion made by the honourable member of a prohibited persons register flies in the face of the initial proposition of the Liberal Party's commitment to the rights and liberties of individuals. What could be more repugnant to the privacy rights of the citizen than a dealer acquiring over the telephone a list of names or obtaining the identity of the person who has come before him? That places an enormous loophole in our system of protection of privacy through which one could drive a coach and a team of horses. Mr Santoro: You are misrepresenting what I said. Mr FOLEY: Is it the case that the honourable member would have a person go to a dealer, who would then check up on that person over the telephone and obtain access to police information in that way? Is that the honourable member's position? Mr Santoro: A prohibited person. Mr FOLEY: That is to say, the identity of that person would be broadcast. Mr Santoro: You then tell us how your authorised officer would certify that somebody is mentally insane and not capable of responsibly using a gun. Mr FOLEY: I am delighted that the honourable member has asked the question, and I hope that he looks forward with great expectation to my dealing with that very point. The other proposition advanced as criticism by the Liberal Party is that the solution to these problems lies in the solution advocated by that misnamed organisation—the "Liberal" Party—that is, longer prison sentences. One wonder where members of the Liberal Party have been. Did they read the Kennedy report? Are they committed to the reforms of the corrective services system to which the Labor Party is committed? Indeed, if I may say so, one sees some very important steps being taken by the National Party in respect of support for the prison reform process; yet the Liberal Party proposes longer prison sentences. What a facile and anachronistic proposal to deal with the problems of domestic violence that confront society in this State! I welcome the honourable member's support of the cooling-off period and of the proposals of detention and disposal of weapons pursuant to clause 3.34, and in respect of the proposal for appeals. Let me turn to the question of whether or not the right to bear arms may be fairly described as a right. It is a matter which has been the subject of legal regulation from the earliest times of the common law. I shall analyse briefly that so-called right and demonstrate to honourable members that that right has from earliest times been fettered and controlled having regard to the social circumstances of the day. Legislative Assembly 3446 4 September 1990

As far back as 1181, Henry II's Assize of Arms expressed the supposed right as a duty and detailed the types of weapons to be kept by persons of various ranks. In 1285, the Statute of Winchester decreed "that every man have in his house Harness for to keep the Peace". But when one moves to the period of Henry VIII, one sees a certain reticence about it and a favouring of the longbow over the possession of firearms. In 1662, the Militia Act of Charles II outlined the types of arms required by the militia. It is important to understand what happened in the seventeenth century, because it represents the fruits of much of the thinking that occurs on the opposite side of the House. In the seventeenth century, the civil war led to the establishment of the Bill of Rights of William and Mary. That has been much quoted in the debate about the so-called right to bear arms. It purports to be, in the arguments proposed by the gun lobby, a right of all citizens to bear arms, carrying with it the virtue of ancient lineage. How did it arise? One has to go to the Bill of Rights of William and Mary. I should add in passing that the good King William and Queen Mary are to be commended for introducing a Bill of Rights, something that, let us hope, the Australian people will achieve in the not-too-distant future. The preamble to the Bill of Rights stated— "Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; . . . By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; . . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law . . ." That is the source and origin of this so-called right to bear arms. It arises out of the sectarian hatred and violence of the English civil law. Mr Mackenroth: What about us Catholics? Mr FOLEY: Quite so. The Minister makes the point that this so-called right was expressed in very sectarian terms. That is a matter which reflects ill upon its status in the common law. I will move to the next major plank in the arguments advanced by the gun lobby. It is often said that this right to bear arms is a right proclaimed by the Constitution of the United States of America. That is to say half of it, and to ignore the poignant half. The relevant provision is as follows— "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That is to say, one sees yet again that the so-called right to bear arms is expressed only in the context of the absence of a well-regulated militia. Since the passage of the Police Service Administration Act in this State, we may boast proudly that we have a Police Service which will in the fullness of time be second to none in Australia and, indeed, throughout the civilised world. Mr Santoro interjected. Dr Watson interjected. Mr FOLEY: I can see that that provision excites the imagination of honourable members opposite. Throughout the nineteenth century, one sees the Westminster Parliament limiting the use and possession of arms in the Seizure of Arms Act of 1820, the Gun Licences Act of 1870, the Regulation of Carrying of Arms Bill of 1881, and the provisions of the Pistols Bill in 1893 and 1895. That is to say that the so-called right to bear arms is a furphy. There is no Legislative Assembly 3447 4 September 1990 such right at common law or otherwise. The rhetoric out of which it proceeded, which dates back to the time of Cicero, is a rhetoric which grew out of a period in which arms were not capable of the profound destructive force of which they are now capable. It ill-behoves honourable members to recite the slogans of yesteryear while we see in our own community the terrible force of destructive power capable of being brought to bear. Twice in the last two months in my electorate of Yeronga, the National Bank at Moorooka has been held up. We live in a community in which we must take reasonable steps to control access to firearms. In so doing, there is a challenge as to whether or not the members of this House can show some leadership. This is the challenge amidst the braying of day-to-day debate: whether or not we in this place may rise to the challenge of changing this ancient and anachronistic devotion to arms in favour of the kind of issues identified by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt. From earliest times in our culture, the male image has been closely aligned to weaponry and arms. Virgil in the Aeneid started off with the famous line, "I sing of arms and the man." Hamlet, when confronting the question "To be or not to be", posed the issue as to whether or not he should take up arms against a sea of troubles. That is to say, we must act to reform the law, because we must act to reform our culture and to abandon the falsely heroic notions that came into our tradition from the great epic poems and which have been maintained today. As the honourable member for Mount Gravatt said, we must seek to discover some new way of bringing up little boys and a new way of relating to each other without resort to violence and the implements of violence. I turn to those specific provisions of the Bill which will cause citizens of the community to rejoice at the civil liberties advances made by this Government. I cite, for example, section 85 of the previous Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. That contained a blanket power to demand a person's name and address in a number of circumstances, which are set out in subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act, namely, where a person was found committing or reasonably suspected of committing an offence; where a police officer was making investigations to establish whether or not an offence had been committed; and in respect of a person in the company of a person committing or suspected of committing an offence. Clause 4.1 of this Bill narrows that to permit only the arrest of a person for committing or reasonably suspected of committing an offence when that person refuses to supply a name and address or is reasonably suspected of supplying a false name and address. That is a most important limit and fine- tuning of the exercise of police power. A register is provided pursuant to clause 4.4, so that where a police officer stops a vehicle or detains a person or enters a place, he or she is required to enter in a register in respect of search warrants. Clause 4.8 of the Weapons Bill provides— "The complaint is to specify the facts and reasons for the police officer's belief and the justice may determine the matter after consideration only of those facts and reasons." Limits are imposed on the power of arrest pursuant to clause 4.10 of the Bill. This clause gives police a power of arrest for offences against the Bill but only where proceedings by way of summons would be ineffective. There are privacy provisions pursuant to clause 4.11 of the Bill. That clause gives police power to take fingerprints and other means of identification from persons charged with offences under the Bill. It allows, however, for the destruction of these prints upon a defendant being found not guilty of an offence. It is similar to section 94 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act but has the extra safeguard that the fingerprints must be destroyed within 28 days if the charge has been withdrawn or dismissed or if the defendant has been absolutely discharged. Under the previous legislation, fingerprints could simply be kept without destruction. Greater rights of appeal are conferred pursuant to clause 5.1 of the Bill. The appeal now lies all the way up the system of courts, whereas under section 103 of the previous legislation the appeal was limited to a magistrate. A further reform, by way of increasing Legislative Assembly 3448 4 September 1990 court discretion, is to be found in clause 6.2 of the Bill, which allows the court a discretion as to whether a person will forfeit a firearm if convicted, replacing the automatic forfeiture under the previous legislation. Yet another civil liberties reform is to be found in the abolition of the proclamation provision under section 102 of the previous legislation, to which I referred earlier. Section 104 of the previous legislation did not attach liability to the Minister and police for their actions or for anything done for the purpose of the Act, as long as it was done in good faith, whereas clause 6.11 of the Weapons Bill makes the Crown and police liable for negligent or malicious acts. In other words, the same provisions which apply to the person who is injured to seek compensation or damages for personal injuries are now made available. Clause 6.7 of the Weapons Bill introduces yet another reform, namely, that the taking of proceedings is limited to the period of 12 months. That brings it into line with the normal principles set out in the Justices Act and overcomes this loophole whereby that could be circumvented by a police officer merely mentioning it to another police officer, who then became a complainant and had the opportunity to bring an action within a further four months. Those provisions reflect the commitment of this Government to civil liberties, not just in theory but in detailed practice. I hear no interjections when honourable members opposite are confronted with the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps they have not had the benefit of a careful examination of the Bill. One hopes that that having been done, they will see how important those achievements have been. I support the Bill. I commend the Honourable the Minister on his careful, consultative approach, the fruits of which have been manifest in the Bill. The arguments raised in debate by the National Party are in some respect based on errors of law and errors of fact, and the arguments raised by the Liberal Party reflect a somewhat confused and shallow approach to one of the great issues of modern law enforcement, namely, whether or not we in Queensland are to take steps to introduce an effective, efficient and fair system of licensing to overcome the problems or to confront the problems associated with weapons abuse. At the end of the day, this Government will be able to say that it took some steps to stem the tide of violence in the community, and it will be to the shame of those honourable members who do not support the Bill that they will be unable so to say. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (3.53 p.m.): I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate and at least bring some sanity back into it because, despite all the flair of the honourable member for Yeronga, he did not come up with one point that has absolutely convinced me of the necessity for this legislation. This Bill marks the beginning of a police State in Queensland and the duplication of crazy, foolish and worthless legislation from southern States which has already failed and which is making criminals out of everybody. Its language is that of a police State. A Stalin or Hitler could not have worded it better to enable the State to go after the law-abiding and honest citizen who has the pride to defend himself against the bullies, the thugs and the criminal element that this Government so favours. Today, by this legislation the Government is trying to make criminals of a third of the State's population, by opening up a police State special branch that boggles the imagination and that will be a ruthless, vicious and direct assault upon the freedom of all Queenslanders, it is going after law-abiding Queenslanders, not criminals. It is doing that today, but only recently it introduced legislation that turned drug criminals, after they had been sentenced to life, loose upon all Queenslanders. These are the people whom the Government, in its hypocrisy and duplicity, defends, goes to bat for and cuddles up to. This Bill is a recipe to disarm Queenslanders in the face of organised crime. If people wear protective clothing to defend themselves against assault, under this Bill they will be liable to penalties. Even their clothing may get them into trouble with the State Legislative Assembly 3449 4 September 1990 police. It has most of the notorious features of the failed legislation ruling New York city, where crime is literally out of control, little old ladies are gaoled for daring to arm themselves against the muggers, and where citizens are faced with endless legal harassment when they defend themselves against the mobsters and the gangs ruling the city. New York has been cursed by a Labor-style Government. One can see why crime is rampant and why lawful citizens live in fear for their lives and property. This is police-State legislation. The police can knock down a citizen's door, fingerprint him and take a mug shot of him. They can invade a citizen's house and, if he resists, they can use force to gun him down. It is extremist legislation put together by people with a peculiar hatred of free people and an overdependence on bureaucratic power and police standover tactics. If the police officer does not enter his actions in a register within a specified time, the act is unlawful. What an inversion of responsibility! What a cover-up! This legislation is right out of the Berlin decrees of the 1930s. It is taken out of the failed legislation of Victoria, that bankrupt State with a bankrupt Labor Government and a bankrupt people trying to get their money back from all the bankrupt financial institutions run by Labor and its cronies. This Bill is the greatest assault upon civil liberties that this State will ever see in my life-time. It is a Bill aimed to harass and hound a third of the Queensland population, without ever hurting a hair on the head of a criminal or even deterring criminals from criminal acts. The Minister has rejected the popular concept of a prohibited persons register, ostensibly because of civil liberties. What a laugh! This legislation invades the civil liberties of all Queenslanders and renders them defenceless in the face of criminal acts. It is done at the very time when people are being murdered in lonely alleys and green pastures by crazed criminals. Those people are dead because they were defenceless in the face of a brutal attack. Rapists and murderers are continually being released to prey upon the public while this Government quibbles about capital punishment and warns people not to fight back against those criminals. This Government cannot stop those abuses, those criminal acts. The police have not stopped crimes and yet, without socialist-styled gun laws, Queensland is the most law abiding of all the States. Down south in socialist Australia, in the land of bankruptcy and corruption, crime is more rampant than it is in Queensland, yet those States have Hitler-style laws such as this Government seeks to impose on Queenslanders. Not so long ago, members of the Government were marching up and down the streets trying to disarm the then free people of Vietnam. They succeeded, and today once free Vietnam is a socialist death camp, a living charnel house, and a socialist paradise where death is visited daily upon the people by armed police and military cadres working for the socialist State. It is now known why Labor here and the communists there wanted total disarmament of the then free Vietnamese. They wanted disarmament so that the free Vietnamese could not fight back in the face of brutal aggression and socialist reforms. Members should go out and ask some of their Vietnamese community about those days. Government members will not do that because they get all embarrassed and tongue-tied about their days of communist mateship and international solidarity. These same people were wrong then, and today they are attempting to impose this "nut-freak" legislation upon Queenslanders, and they are doing it in the face of the knowledge that half of their own firearms review committee members are already in bitter opposition to it. The Government picked that committee to suit its own ends, which only compounds its failure. There is so much wrong with this Bill that it is difficult to list all the faults short of using a document the length of an Encyclopaedia Britannica. Firstly, it gives the excuse to build a huge, useless police and public sector bureaucracy that will feed off sports shooters and whoever cooperates with it the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, it provides the excuse to pass on an endless flow of costs, charges and fees to sportsmen, Legislative Assembly 3450 4 September 1990 farmers and productive workers in order to feed and fatten the bureaucratic monster that is now being established. Thirdly, it is a recipe to destroy sports shooting in Queensland through useless harassment and ruinous costs and charges. Fourthly, it is not directed at stopping crime and therefore must have another goal that only the shadowy forces behind the Labor Party know and understand. Fifthly, it has the capacity to identify firearm ownership in Queensland, just as Adolf Schicklgruber did in the 1930s after seizing power in Germany, destroying the German constitution and the States, imposing licensing and then picking up everybody's firearms a few years later. Is that what is behind this Bill—disarmament of Queenslanders? Members opposite should beware. There is much heat behind this issue. Only recently in Landsborough, an Independent candidate reaped almost as many votes as did the Independent Labor candidate. The Independent candidate ran on only one issue: Labor's firearms policy. I can only conclude that if this Bill has nothing to do with stopping crime, bank-robbers and the like, then it must be another dialectical Labor ploy to get the Nationals re-elected at the next election. In that case, it will work to the advantage of Queenslanders. I am sure that, once elected, National Party members will move quickly to rid Queensland of this obnoxious legislation and all its abuses of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to own, carry and use firearms in a free society liberated from oppressive socialism and all it has come to stand for in the prison camps of the world. My first observation of this Bill is that all those Queenslanders who now own and use firearms should note what this Government is about to put them through and, without exception, they would have to have rocks in their heads if, at the next State election, they did not vote against this Government en masse. My advice to firearms-owners, dealers, collectors, users and sportsmen is to keep this issue alive so that at the next election the authors of this Bill will face their frontal anger that will result in a total and complete rejection at the ballot-box. The licensing provisions of this Bill are horrific enough to frighten even the toughest of red-tape specialists. The workload that they will generate will most certainly create backlogs, bottlenecks, mass armies of paper-shufflers, buck-passers and the frustration of long and senseless delays on the minutest of things. But why should members be surprised? This is the guts of socialism—long lines of frustrated people waiting to be served by a few bureaucrats who are at a union stop-work meeting or luxuriating on paternity leave while their wives do all the work. That sort of thing has been seen in Medibank offices, at the post office almost daily, and at the passport office, where some staff members seem to think they are doing a person a favour by serving him an hour or so later. And who has not had an unfortunate experience with the Taxation Office? The crux of this Bill is the reference to a "fit and proper person". I am sure that the bureaucrats, who will be given significant licence by this Bill, will come up with some novel and horrific criteria to underwrite what is a "fit and proper person". What is really sinister about this reference is that, to be effective, the police, bureaucracy or a new Special Branch must maintain a huge bank of computer files on all and sundry to determine if they are indeed fit and proper persons. To me, that seems to be very similar to maintaining a prohibited persons register, but a huge and expensive means of going about it when the prohibited persons register would be more efficient, more secure, more compact and more effective in achieving the removal of firearms from dangerous, insane and reckless individuals, not to mention organised criminals. It is utter hypocrisy, if not sinister duplicity, for the Government to decry civil liberties when talking about a prohibited persons register and then massively invade civil liberties by the very same means it originally decried, namely, the creation and maintenance of files to determine who is or who is not a prohibited person. Legislative Assembly 3451 4 September 1990

In my mind, a prohibited person would be anyone who has ever used a firearm to rob a bank, hold up a grocery store, mug a traveller, create a dangerous disturbance—— Mr Littleproud: Domestic violence. Mr PERRETT: That is right, domestic violence. It could be anyone who has a record of violence or insanity, either self-confessed or determined by the courts. The present system will be open to abuse and confusion because the Minister has failed utterly to acknowledge the problem of crime and its nature and has instead resorted to wild statements, blanket condemnations of a purely public relations nature, perversion of statistics, red herrings as to crime statistics and hysterical scenarios which he hopes and prays will panic people behind his licensing legislation. The Minister hopes and prays that the police can handle the bureaucratic nightmare he is now creating and that they will be able to effectively determine and apply the criteria he has placed in clause 2.2. This means that the issuing officer must determine four separate criteria for issuing a licence, each of which will take up loads of his time and must involve the community in additional loads of time wasted in waiting, processing, evaluating and recording. In just this one clause alone we are eyeballing a mountain of red tape and detailed criteria that must seriously invade the civil liberties of every applicant for a licence. The officer not only must determine if an applicant is a fit and proper person but also must determine if the applicant has undergone adequate training and retains adequate knowledge of firearms and, in addition, if the applicant is disqualified from holding a licence. What a nightmare of a task! Only an army of police many times the size of the present service could hope to process correctly and effectively this mountain of red tape. Considering the numbers of potential licensees involved and the time-frame involved, critics have already forecast that the task cannot be done effectively and that short-cuts will be needed just to meet one criterion involved in the issue of licences. There are people in the Government who are quite happy about the mess they are creating for the Police Service. They are happy because it will give them another chance to have a go at the police and to again reinforce their prejudice that really the police are a bad lot and that Labor was right all along about this bum group of officers. But I would hope that responsibility and sanity will triumph over blind prejudice. Members opposite will note that that clause also compels the issuing officer to consider, among many things, the mental state of the applicant. That phrase is so broad that one could drive a truck through it and not even notice the damage caused. If it refers to insanity, then I ask the Minister: is a mental capacity file to be maintained on all Queenslanders to make it possible for the issuing officer to effectively and efficiently process this judgment? The Victorian police, who operate under a draconian system such as that proposed by this legislation, considered the Hoddle Street gunman a "fit and proper person" and gave him a licence for person and gun. One might ask the Minister how many files are kept on the mental state of journalists in the press gallery. If such a file does not exist, how will an issuing officer be able to make a sound judgment if and when a press gallery journalist applies for a firearm licence in Queensland? I am reliably informed that psychiatrists will not cooperate to give the Government the latest mental state of their patients, so what is the use of that clause? The obvious answer is that it is useless, it will be seen to be useless and, short of the creation of a total police State, will do nothing to stop criminal acts. This Goss Labor Government is proposing the introduction of all the frustration of a police State without any chance of effective results against crime emerging at the end of the bureaucratic tunnel. Legislative Assembly 3452 4 September 1990

This Bill is a sop thrown to the Labor Party's extremist Left, its mates in the bank union and the domestic violence lobby. The Labor Party would achieve much more if it demanded effective security of banks instead of leaving them practically undefended as open-access areas. The Labor Party would achieve much more to stop domestic violence if it rejected its anti-family policies and got off the backs of families with its ever-increasing taxes, ruinous interest rates and value-free education nonsense. One can almost predict that police officers and public servants will be killed or injured in applying the police State powers of house entry, person search and harassment that will arise because of this Bill, which is designed to create trouble, not to stop it or hinder criminal actions. If the Government was genuine, it would include a prohibited persons register, but it does not. The passing of such useless legislation is a waste of the time of this Parliament. One can imagine hordes of beefy police officers raiding outback homesteads, seeking out firearms and arresting little old ladies who will not go along with red-tape procedures, or the midnight breaking-down of suburban doors as similar beefy police officers seek out firearm-owners who dare to ignore the new bureaucratic edicts or refuse to pay the exorbitant fees that will most certainly be demanded by a user-pays Government. One needs only to refer to the abuses that have arisen and will continue to arise because of the enforcement of provisions similar to those in clause 2.6 (a). It is a typically bureaucratic and offensive requirement that sport shooters must attend a specified percentage of shoots each year at their shooting clubs in order to qualify to hold a pistol or other firearm licence. While that requirement might seem modest on the surface, it ties down a person to endlessly rising costs, endless time commitments and extensive travel requirements that not only disrupt family life but also prevent people attending to a whole host of community service needs. Bureaucrats, and the politicians who give them the power, really force shooters to shoot whether or not they want to and despite rising taxes, rising petrol costs and the sacrifice of not being able to deal with important family interests. This Government and its bureaucracy ask why people do not take an interest in politics, schools or what have you. The reason is that, in their ignorance, politicians are legislating to keep people tied up by doing unnecessary things just to meet bureaucratic red-tape requirements. This Government says that it cannot legislate for morals, but it is quite content to legislate for sport. This legislation is a good example of that attempt. That requirement should be abolished, and the club's certification should be accepted as the only requirement of that category of licence. So much is wrong with this Bill that I am forced to confine my criticism. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in so many ways that it should be junked and a new Bill drafted to purge the excesses of the old. This legislation will not work. It cannot work because it does not tackle the problem. This is simply a sop for the Labor Party extremists who are fond of bureaucratic red tape and controls on fellow Queenslanders. People will ignore this legislation as an invasion of privacy, an invasion of their historic rights to bear and own firearms and a duplication of the failures that they know already exist overseas and interstate where crime is out of control. They know that, if citizens do not defend themselves, they will get hit over the head This Bill does not work. The Parliament must go after the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens who happen to own and use firearms. This Government can pass whatever legislation it likes because it has the numbers. However, that is not freedom. King Herod had the numbers and he murdered all those little babes to get at Christ. Although he had the numbers, he was horribly wrong. This Government is wrong, but it has the numbers. That means that, without an upper House to limit the abuses of this House and without the access of people to citizens-initiated referendums, we do not live in a free society and do not have the right to exercise our freedom except under duress and at the compulsion of the all-powerful State. Legislative Assembly 3453 4 September 1990

I challenge the Government to put this legislation to a referendum. It would be defeated heavily, despite all the bleeders and do-gooders and despite the Minister's humbug. This Bill is not the way to go. It is the police State road—the road to massive secret files on everybody—and the creation of oppressive bureaucracy. When firearm-owners realise what the Minister is giving them, some may want to support him. However, I believe that the great majority will tell him to take a long walk off a short dock and will then go about their business as usual. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (4.14 p.m.): I believe that the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders will welcome the passing into law of the Weapons Bill which is now being debated. In recent years, surveys have consistently indicated that more than 85 per cent of Queenslanders are in favour of some tightening of what are commonly called gun laws. It is easy to be critical of the previous legislation, namely, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1979-1988. It is easy to point to its inability to come to grips with a serious social problem. After all, it was a compromise. Introduced by the previous Government, that Act replaced the Firearms Act without addressing many of the central issues. Because it was mainly amending legislation, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act—in common with those who implemented it—was in many ways the prisoner of a sectional, yet vocal constituency. As my incoming mail can attest, the gun lobby has put its case most strongly and, in almost all cases, quite emotionally. I can fully understand the difficulties faced by those enlightened members of the previous National Party Government who attempted to come to terms with the issue. Statistics at the time clearly indicated an ever-expanding number of violent crimes committed with the aid of a gun, an alarming growth in the number of accidental deaths by shotgun or rifle, and a continuing increase in the rate of suicide by gunshot. I acknowledge and applaud the efforts made by some members of the Opposition, in both the National Party and the Liberal Party, who joined the wider community in applying pressure to have the existing legislation amended to more accurately reflect community wishes. Sadly, their good intentions were blocked by their colleagues who showed very little concern for, or real understanding of, the sense of apprehension existing in the community. They were more intent on retaining the votes of a small but vocal group of pro-gun activists. I refer to the efforts of National Party backbencher Gil Alison, under whose name an article appeared in the Sun on 5 September 1987, headlined "State toll to licence owners but not guns". In light of the legislation being debated today, those were prophetic words indeed. Mr Alison, who chaired a committee investigating the State's gun laws, quite rightly pointed out— "It doesn't matter whether a licensed shooter has got one gun or one hundred and one guns. If he's a responsible person, that's okay . . . and it works in reverse. If a bloke's a bit of a maniac or potential hazard with a gun, again it doesn't matter whether he's got one or one hundred guns. He can still kill with one." Mr Alison would no doubt be pleased to see the Bill reflect his views. The Labor Party went to the last election with the licensing of owners rather than weapons themselves as central to their firearms policy. When setting up the committee of review, the Minister made it abundantly clear that that aspect of party policy was not negotiable. It is obvious that any legislation can be effective only if it can be implemented in an administratively efficient manner. Licensing of individual weapons would have proved a bureaucratic nightmare in a State such as Queensland, which has an exceptionally high level of gun-ownership. The point should also be made that weapons themselves pose very little danger to society. It is the individual who is in possession of that weapon who has the capacity to wreak havoc. Legislative Assembly 3454 4 September 1990

I urge those members of the Opposition who understand the need for reforms to be undertaken to display the self-same courage that some of them and many of their former colleagues displayed in their party room. They can do that by supporting the Bill. They can indicate their preparedness to accept, for the good of Queensland, a piece of legislation that protects the rights of both the population at large and the genuine firearm owner. At this stage, it is important to lay bare the myth that the gun lobby represents the vast majority of firearm owners. Richard Harding, Dean and Professor of Law at the Law School at the University of Western Australia, was quite perceptive when he analyse both the nature and the structure of that sectional interest group. He stated— "The Australian Gun Lobby remains a shadowy entity . . . It is a loose coalition of importers, dealers and some shooters, attracted together by their commercial or political concern for untrammelled gun use." He further argued— "It is quite possible that legislative efforts to deal with gun ownership issues . . . would stimulate the emergence of an apparently coherent lobby." There is no doubt that that has been the case in Queensland. However, I refuse to believe though that the extremist Right Wing, and sometimes jingoistic, stance taken by the lobby is in any way truly representative of the vast majority of gun-owners. I am a gun-owner myself. I have many friends and acquaintances who are also gun-owners. To my knowledge, none of those people endorses the orchestrated nonsense that has emanated from certain subregional areas of the State. Moreover, the socio-economic profile of gun-owners reinforces the view that they are, by and large, very much a part of the mainstream of Australian society. Until recent years, very little research had been done in that area. That lack of knowledge resulted in many poorly based misconceptions about the real nature of persons engaged in activities which involved gun-ownership. Evidently, to most Australians, the pursuit of firearm-related activities is a very private matter. Only 6 per cent of Australians belong to organised gun clubs. Data also reveals that the ownership of firearms is predominantly a male phenomenon. Statistics show that the ratio of male to female firearm ownership is in the order of 18 to 1. Male ownership is also typically a young man's activity, with 20 per cent of firearm-owners being within the 15 to 24 years age group. Nearly 33 per cent of firearm-owners fall into the 15 to 29 years age bracket, and over half of all firearm-owners are under 35 years of age. To further substantiate the concept that firearm-owners in general differ very little from a normal cross-section of society, I again refer to Harding, who states— "Shooters appear to be much the same as non-shooters with regard to their marital status and social stability. Overall, it seems clear that gun owners are not, in fact, some freak segment of Australian society . . . People from all segments of Australian society are shooters." When legislation is being considered, it is therefore very important to realise that we are dealing with ordinary citizens, not some peculiar or deviant section of society. I have therefore approached my role in assisting with the development of the legislation from the viewpoint that, because of a renegade few, the Government should not seek to overly restrict the legitimate rights of the many responsible shooters. The legislation clearly offers that fundamental protection, which is so important in a democratic society. The decision to provide for a life-time licence for owners of the most common types of long arms acknowledges the fact that, indeed, most firearm-owners are fit and proper persons. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the legislation will ensure the continued good standing of the majority of law- abiding gun-owners. Those responsible citizens will welcome the weeding out of the irresponsible element. They will welcome the chance to dissociate themselves once and for all from the criminal Legislative Assembly 3455 4 September 1990 element and from that small group who, by the very nature of their extremist stance, cast doubts as to their fitness to continue to have access to weapons. Professor Harding claims that issues relating to gun control must be dealt with for the public benefit and not so as to serve sectional interests, such as those of the gun lobby or the police. That leads me to address the issue of civil liberties, which has already been dealt with in some detail by my colleague the member for Yeronga. The Minister has already informed the House that the Bill will not diminish in any way the civil liberties of owners of firearms. The legislation does, however, do much to enhance quite clearly the rights of potential victims of gun-related violence—malicious or accidental. It is logical, therefore, that the rights of the majority to live in safety and without fear must, at all times, override the perceived right to bear arms, as claimed by a small majority. Through the legislation, the Government does not desire to restrict unnecessarily the capacity for responsible citizens of good standing to engage in pursuits associated with the legitimate use of firearms. When the Bill was introduced, it was pleasing to note that the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, through its president, Mr Terry O'Gorman, signalled its support for the legislation. Mr O'Gorman said— "The Weapons Bill struck the correct balance between sensible gun ownership and use on the one hand . . . and the crying imperative to do something positive about the tragedy of unnecessary loss of life which has flowed from the ability of disturbed or violent persons to buy a gun today . . . and kill a stranger or loved one tomorrow." The Council for Civil Liberties, which has in the past showed great concern for any legislation which increases police powers, has in this case signalled its acceptance of this Bill. Where firearm jurisdictions incorporate licensing requirements, it falls to the police to take responsibility for regulatory enforcement. To effectively implement the provisions of the Bill, substantial powers must be delegated to police. These include a requirement to provide details, such as name and address and a respective firearms licence, and the ability to search and seize firearms believed to be unlicensed. Careful study of the legislation being debated here today will show that police powers—which by necessity are wide—are at all times subject to checks and balances which ensure that they are not used for purposes other than for which the law provides. Much has been said—and I am sure that more will be said today—about the restrictions this legislation places on owners, clubs, dealers and collectors. In the debate which surrounds these limitations, many people will fail to recognise the important initiatives contained in the Bill. These initiatives will prove to be of great benefit to a wide range of people associated with firearms. Although opposed to the concept of licensing per se, the Arms Collectors Guild and the Firearms Dealers Association have substantially agreed to the format of licensing as it impacts on their members. A new concession is also included in Part 2, which covers licences. The legislation allows a company to own a number of firearms, provided that it nominates a natural person to take out the licence as a nominee of the company. Changes to the minimum age of minors who may use weapons at ranges is attended to. Under the original legislation the minimum age was 14 years. The Weapons Bill reduces that minimum age to 12 years, allowing the holder to "shoot a pistol or rifle at an approved club". The reduction in the minimum age sits well with me. Education at a young age of those who will engage in the use of firearms will have a positive impact on overall standards of safety and should assist clubs to attract a wider membership. What better place to learn the fundamentals of weapons-handling and the responsibility that goes with firearms ownership than within a controlled environment such as an approved club? Clause 2.7 of the Bill is a sensible concession to practical efficiency and management. The existing legislation allows for the appointment of only one officer to issue licences Legislative Assembly 3456 4 September 1990 on the authority of the Commissioner of Police. Clause 2.7 delegates that authority to commissioned police officers, who will be far more accessible in regional areas. I have already mentioned the acceptability of ordinary licences for rifles and shotguns for life, unless revocation of the licence occurs. Class A collectors' licences also fall into this category. The legislation gives a generous extension to the period for a variety of other forms of licences. Clause 2.11, under the heading "Duration of licence", allows for a licence to be issued or renewed. It states— "(a) in the case of an armourer's licence, dealer's licence, collector's licence Class B, theatrical ordnance supplier's licence or a licence in respect of Schedule 2 weapons, for a period of not more than 5 years . . ." Currently, section 16 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act allows for a period of two years only. The new situation is flexible enough to allow the applicant to opt for a set period of up to a five-year limit, tailoring the licence to suit particular needs. Previously, a dealer or armourer who wished to dispose of his business was not permitted to sell the unexpired portion of the licence as part of the business. Of course, the purchaser would still have to gain approval prior to purchase. The ability to sell a business as a going concern is another major concession that was not available under the old Act. A further unfortunate restriction operating under the original legislation related to the movement of dealers from one place to another. Previously, when an operator moved premises it was necessary to go through the procedure of being relicensed. This will no longer be the case because the procedure is being streamlined under this legislation. Part 3 of the Bill covers the possession and use of weapons and also contains many initiatives. Under the existing Act a new licence had to be issued to the owner of an individual concealable firearm every time he or she wished to add to his or her collection. The resulting red tape was an unnecessary impost on both the owner and the police. The Bill allows pistol-owners and collectors to simply add the particulars of the new purchase to his or her inventory recorded on the police computer. During the life of the Firearms Legislation Review Committee the Arms Collectors Guild expressed concern that at present its members are required to present their collections at a police station for inspection. Sensibly, the new legislation allows for police officers to call at the homes of collectors to make the necessary inspection. Similarly, the guild sought some relief from the restrictions applying to the transfer of collections from one premises to another. This process has been considerably simplified. Provisions have also been inserted to permit police to provide authorisation to cover emergent situations. Clause 3.34 is a major expansion on section 421 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, allowing the parties concerned to cope with a wide range of eventualities. Section 51 of the original Act required the police to authorise each and every type of shooting match undertaken by a club. Clause 3.39 of the Weapons Bill removes this requirement. Other restrictions placed on clubs, relating in particular to run-of-the-mill modifications, have also been addressed. It will no longer be necessary to obtain police approval to put in a new door at a clubhouse. Clubs will no doubt welcome this more realistic provision in clause 3.43. Also of benefit to clubs is the allowance of greater flexibility in the appointment of range officers. Current legislation insists that only one officer be appointed for the entire duration of a shooting match. This was an unrealistic requirement, because a match could last for a full day. Now clubs have the flexibility to allow for the appointment of a number of range officers at one shoot and the power to delegate the powers of range officers. For a long time many clubs have complained about the need for shooters to fill out individual attendance cards each time they shoot. This was in addition to completing the club register. The new legislation will only require the member to complete the register, which is a welcome concession to thousands of shooters in Queensland. Legislative Assembly 3457 4 September 1990

The legislation is long overdue. I readily admit that it does place some added restrictions on a particular section of the citizens of this State. However, every attempt has been made to ensure that these restrictions suit not only the needs of society but also protect the rights of those to whom they apply. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill. Mr KING (Nicklin) (4.29 p.m.): "They had an electoral tiger by the tail." Those words, taken from the Minister's second-reading speech, refer to the previous Government's actions on this very issue. Most honourable members know the story of the young fellow who was sent out into the bush to catch the yellow-banded snake. He ended up grabbing a tiger by the tail. I believe that that is what the Labor Government has done with the Weapons Bill. It has a tiger by the tail and, mark my words, it will turn around and bite it. In considering the Weapons Bill that is presently before the House, when one has looked at both sides of the issue one must pose a question that screams out to be asked: why has this Government introduced such draconian, heavy-handed and overkill-type of legislation when a brief amount of research shows that the sensible proposals put forward by the Liberal Party, which were adequately explained by my colleague the member for Merthyr earlier, would avoid the many serious and totally unacceptable penalties and side effects that Labor's Bill will impose on the majority of honest and responsible citizens? The Liberal Party is in touch with the people and is without a hidden agenda. It believes that the following actions would have an adequately beneficial impact on current problems. Firstly, a register of people who are prohibited from owning firearms should be kept. This system would be much fairer than penalising the thousands of honest and responsible people—I believe it is more in the order of 700 000—who currently own firearms. It would also be more realistic, bearing in mind Queensland's limited police manpower, and more likely to be a system that would work. The alternative registration system proposed by the socialist Government is totally economically unrealistic. Secondly, a two-week cooling-off period is one aspect upon which the Liberal Party almost agrees with the Labor Government, which proposes a 28-day period. I acknowledge that such a clause will inconvenience gun-dealers to some degree, but I believe that benefit will also flow to the public well-being, which outweighs inconvenience. Thirdly, the Liberal Party believes that education processes should be implemented through recognised gun clubs. That process could include information on the storage and use of firearms. Fourthly, penalties should be significantly increased for breaches of firearms legislation. Unlike this socialist Government's proposals, the proposals put forward by the Liberal Party are capable of achieving a reasonably effective result without producing any greatly detrimental side effects. Moreover, I believe that the Liberal Party's proposals would be acceptable to the vast majority of honest gun-owners and to the majority of average Queenslanders. This Weapons Bill is a classic example of the ad hoc approach to law reform that Mr Gerald Fitzgerald warned so strongly against in his report. It is being pushed through this Parliament in undemocratic haste. This Labor Government has failed to allow full and necessary debate and has yet again broken a Labor promise of parliamentary reform and full and open debate. Let me assure the House that the 700 000-odd firearms-owners in this State see this matter in exactly the same way as I see it. They will not soon forget this action by the socialist Labor Government. In the mad rush to push through this Bill, many errors of judgment and presentation have occurred. I believe that an amendment will be introduced later in the Committee stage to provide, for example, for the inclusion of an explosives clause on page 48. I wish to read a letter from one of my constituents, which is addressed not to the Leader Legislative Assembly 3458 4 September 1990 of the House, but to the Minister for Resource Industries, Mr Vaughan. The letter states— "I urgently draw your attention to page 48 of the new Weapons Bill No. 7 (EXPLOSIVES). The current Explosives Act covers the testing and use of all explosives that come to Queensland. Why does the word explosives appear in the new Weapons Bill? I would appreciate answers to the following questions please. 1. Did the Chief Inspector of Explosives receive a copy of the Draft Weapons Bill? 2. Was the Chief Inspector or his Officers given a chance to give input, recommendations or discussion on explosives in the Draft Bill?" It is my personal understanding that they were not given an opportunity because the Bill has been pushed through so quickly. The letter also states— "3. Did you, Sir, see a copy of the Draft Weapons Bill, and have a chance for input, comment and recommendations? 4. As a Licenced Explosives Shotfirer, Licenced Explosives Carrier, Licenced Explosives Storer, Licenced Explosives Reseller, and Licenced User of Explosives in this State, I am most opposed to any additional taxes on me." He is just going to have to get used to new taxes, because a number have already been introduced by the Government. The letter also states— "The new Weapons Bill as presented by Mr Mackenroth in Parliament, with his hopes of ramming it through as soon as possible, will cause me to have two sets of licences and two masters; your Department and the Police Department. With all of the necessary requirements for Explosives covered in the existing Explosives Act, why duplicate and frustrate the system still further. 5. Is the Police Department going to check out ICI Australia, Dyno Wesfarmers and all of the other Explosives suppliers in Queensland? Are the Police going to check on all explosives used by Mt. Isa Mines or in all the coal fields in the State? Also bear in mind all gun powder used for fireworks displays, fireworks sparklers and caps for children's cap guns, are all explosives. Therefore Minister, I urge you to have the word Explosives dropped completely from this Bill and that open and balanced debate be given to this most urgent matter." Mr Mackenroth: Who signed that? Mr KING: That was from a constituent of mine. Let me now examine a few interesting aspects that have been taken randomly from the Bill. Mr Mackenroth: Just listen for a minute. We are going to amend it in the Committee stage. Mr KING: I thank the Minister. I thought that he might have been going to do that. I think that highlights, however, the fact that this legislation has been pushed through. The Bill will have to be amended at this late stage, which indicates that the proper input had not been obtained previously. There are many defects in this Bill. They have been adequately addressed by the member for Merthyr on behalf of the Liberal Party. At all stages, the Liberal Party will be opposing this Bill. The Government can rest assured that this Bill will be one more nail driven into its coffin by the people of Queensland. Mr ELDER (Manly) (4.37 p.m.): In rising to support this Bill, I congratulate the Police Minister who, unlike his predecessors and despite a heavily organised pressure Legislative Assembly 3459 4 September 1990 campaign, has had the courage to—dare I say it?—stick to his guns. He has brought before this House legislation that will bring Queensland firearm laws into line with other Australian mainland States, without restricting the rights of individuals who have a legitimate use for firearms. It is interesting that the National Party—which has been reduced to a rural rump—is strongly opposing this legislation. This has not always been the case. Indeed, the only consistent thing about the National Party's policy on gun reform has been its inconsistency. Let me give some classic illustrations. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr ELDER: If the honourable member listens, I will give him the illustrations. In June 1987, the then Police Minister, the aptly named Mr Gunn, stated— "There is no single solution for wiping out armed hold-ups, but a combination of different laws can reduce them and I am prepared to look seriously at introducing stricter gun laws." He continued— "It is recognised there is a need to urgently examine the provisions of the law and seriously consider the question of licensing either long arms or the holders of long arms in Queensland." Two weeks later, Mr Gunn said— "The ease with which top end killer Josef Schwab had obtained an arsenal of high-powered guns was another example of the need of a review." He said that a cooling-off period to control the spur-of-the-moment purchase of rifles or shotguns could help curb the increase in firearms-related crime. He stated at the time— "On current trends, we are looking at a 35 per cent increase in this form of crimes this year." His forecast proved remarkably accurate, because just three days later in the Courier-Mail Mr Gunn claimed that theft with arms was up—wait for it—exactly 35 per cent. Mr Gunn stated further— "I have been astounded by the groups favouring a cooling-off period and I'll be talking very hard in Cabinet to have such a scheme adopted." In September 1987, Mr Gil Alison, the former National Party member who chaired the committee investigating the State's gun laws, said that the Government should licence gun-owners rather than the guns themselves and that he had recommended that plan of action to the Police Minister, Mr Gunn. In November 1987, Police Minister Gunn promised that tighter gun laws could be expected to be imposed in Queensland by Christmas. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case, as the Telegraph later reported— "The revised gun laws received a setback when Parliament rose two weeks early." Fortuitous indeed! Mr Gunn, however, was not deterred and expressed at the time that the legislation would be introduced early in the new year. In that, he was supported by the then Premier, Mr Ahern,who said that Queensland would have tighter gun laws in 1988." He went on to say— "In fact, tougher gun laws would be a top priority and the proposals by Deputy Premier and Police Minister, Mr. Gunn, for tighter laws would be strengthened." But in January 1988, in stepped the redoubtable good old National Party Senator, Senator Sheil, who stated— "If only the Army had guns, then a revolutionary force need only take over the Army to hold every gun in Australia, putting them in complete power with no means for citizens to set up a resistance." Legislative Assembly 3460 4 September 1990

The wheels were turning. In March 1988, upon seeing that the gun lobby had turned both its barrels on its former mates in the National Party, when Mr Rob Lewis, spokesman for the Maryborough branch of the Firearm Owners Association of Australia, stated— "The National Party is to blame for any hysteria resulting from the proposed gun law legislation in Queensland." He continued— "Everyone has a right to know what's going on. It's the National Party and Mr. Alison's fault because they won't release fine details of the proposed legislation." The following day he was joined in his criticism by Mr Ron Owen, the Gympie director of FOAA, who stated— "National Party MLA's seemed confused over their own party's proposals for tougher gun laws in Queensland and there were obvious inconsistencies in information National Party MLA's had provided the FOAA." Mr Prest: They haven't changed. Mr ELDER: No. The blow-torch would have been turned to the belly there, I can imagine. Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, in defence of his backbenchers, accused the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia of indulging in deceit. It is a pity his loyalty was not later rewarded! The next day, the Courier-Mail headline read— "Ahern and Gunn at odds over gun policies." By May 1988, Premier Ahern was saying that there would be little change to existing firearms legislation. Mrs Edmond: Just a little backdown. Mr ELDER: Just a little backdown. In April 1989, the head of the Queensland firearm task force, Mr Gil Alison, having finally brought down his report, summoned up the courage and hit out at the Government's failure to act against the abuse of guns in this State. Always the master of the understatement, Mr Alison said at the time— "I am disappointed the Government hasn't acted before this." He went on to state that the evidence was quite clear, that explicit violence has a very harmful effect on some people. How right he was! Mr Prest: A Liberal or a National—he was a National. Mr ELDER: He was a National. In July 1989, Cabinet vetoed gun reform promoted by the latest Police Minister, Mr Cooper, and rejected all recommendations of its own Firearms Advisory Council. Police Minister Cooper stated that the National Party believed all people had the right to bear arms. May I say that I agree with him that all people have the right to bear arms—two, one from each shoulder. I should not miss Mr Cooper on that point. In 1989, Mr Cooper, the Police Minister, said that he was totally against that form of licensing and that the National Party believed that people had the right to bear arms. However, a 1988 article stated— "Primary producers, gun and rifle clubs should not panic as a result of 'attempts by opposition parties to table gun law legislation . . . ' 'The facts of the matter are that other States, who once intended to abolish all firearms, have now fallen into line with Queensland's more temperate position.' 'This involves a minimum standard 14-day cooling-off period and a ban on heavy automatic weapons . . . ' " Legislative Assembly 3461 4 September 1990

The article continued— "Mr Cooper said the State Government would adopt a moderate stance on the issue and has a responsibility to protect society from impulsive hot heads making gun purchases in the heat of the moment. Hence the proposal for a 14-day cooling-off period." Mrs Edmond: It is a pity they didn't do it. Mr ELDER: It is a darn pity that they did not do it. There he was in 1988 performing a double backflip with a two and a half twist to the right. A Government member: What was the degree of difficulty? Mr ELDER: The degree of difficulty was only one. It was not a very difficult decision. However, undeterred, the two revolutionaries in the National Party, Gunn and Alison, soldiered on. The former Police Minister, Mr Gunn, said that he would again lobby State Cabinet colleagues to overturn the Government's decision not to introduce tighter firearms laws. Mr Beattie: A nice old bloke—"loyal" Bill. Mr ELDER: "Very loyal" Bill. The rejected Chairman of the Queensland Firearms Task Force, Mr Alison—wait for it—was now appointed head of the Community Violence Action Unit—this is after be brought down the report—whose main purpose was to try to pin-point why nine Queenslanders had been blasted to death in the past two months. I thought that he would address that matter in the report. In October 1989, the Police Ministry had changed yet again—— Mr Mackenroth: Five times last year. Mr ELDER: The Minister says that it was five times. This time the portfolio went to that man for all seasons, the Minister for barbecues and motor bikes, Mr Vince Lester. Of course, Big Vinnie rejected stiffer gun laws for Queensland once again, despite claims at the time that such laws had almost halved firearm-related murders in Victoria. In relation to the Victorian experience, Mr Lester said— "It seems to be human nature; you make something harder for people to get and they go to greater lengths to get it." Obviously, the National Party has the same philosophy in regard to illegal prostitution. All I have been attempting to do throughout this myriad of quotes is to set the record straight and to clarify in the minds of all honourable members exactly what the National Party policy on gun reform is—united, coherent, unequivocal. Mr Booth: You completely confused me. Mr ELDER: Exactly. That is a clear demonstration of someone who knows that the policy of his party is united, coherent and unequivocal. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr ELDER: I would like to see the scars on the honourable member's belly from a blowtorch. I reckon that it would have been turned right up. I should not forget our colleagues who sit behind me, the members of the Liberal Party. The member for Merthyr and the member for Nicklin were crying out, "Shame!" I am not sure whether the member for Nicklin knew that the Liberal Party had a White Paper on the subject. I might find out later in the debate. Legislative Assembly 3462 4 September 1990

While I am on the subject of shamefulness, I will examine the position of the Liberal Party on gun legislation. In answer to the early blast from Senator Sheil, the then State Liberal Party President and former member for Ryan, Mr Moore, condemned the State Government for refusing to fall into line with the proposed uniform national laws. At the time, Mr Moore said— "The State would be known as Australia's Dodge City and flooded with guns that would later be sold on the southern States' black markets." Mr Innes supported that, and at that time—in the early 1980s—he supported the licensing of long arms. However, by March 1988, when the then National Party State Government was considering uniform national gun laws, the Liberal Police spokesman, the former member for Stafford, Terry Gygar, was forecasting a rural revolt. Interestingly, in March 1988, the Liberal Party brought out a White Paper on proposed amendments to Queensland firearm laws. In that paper, the Liberal Party called for shooters' permits for the owners of long-barrelled rifles, club licences, collectors' licences, restriction on the sale of certain firearms, proper storage of firearms, stringent regulations for concealable firearms, special dealers' licences and a firearms proficiency certificate. All of those proposals are covered to some degree in this legislation. Of late, the Liberal Party—including the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beanland—has stated that, in reality, the licensing of firearm-owners would only be counter-productive. Mr Beanland does not believe that licensing of shooters would have any impact on growing crime levels and he says that his party will oppose the legislation. It is interesting to note that when that White Paper was released by the Liberal Party in 1988, it called for comments, submissions and suggestions. Obviously, the comments, submissions and suggestions received ensured that the Liberal Party would pursue its usual stance along the picket fence and that any policy on firearms legislation would again be filed in the too-hard basket. In introducing this legislation, the Labor Party has considered the views of all sections of the community. While respecting the rights of sporting shooters and other responsible citizens who wish to bear arms, it has also recognised that the greatest single responsibility of the community is protection of the innocent and the right of individuals to go about their business in safety. Perhaps honourable members opposite would have difficulty accepting protection of the innocent as a responsibility, as they robbed the State blind for the last 32 years. This legislation is, of course, supported by the three major trade unions whose members are regularly confronted with firearm-related crime. I refer to the Commonwealth Bank Employees Union, the Australian Bank Employees Union and the Queensland Professional Officers Association. In addition, owners and workers in small business have repeatedly lobbied Governments to provide them with a safer working environment. Honourable members opposite who objected to this Bill obviously have never had the terrifying experience of looking down the wrong end of a loaded barrel. My younger brother, Michael, has faced this experience, and I am only too personally aware of the trauma that this causes to both the victim and his family. It is a sad reality that any worker who has to handle money in a public place lives daily with the fear that he or she may be faced with an armed hold-up. It is totally unacceptable to me that men and women going about their business and trying to earn a decent living for themselves and their families have had to go to work with the possibility of being killed, maimed or emotionally scarred for life. The purpose of this legislation is to repress the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms and to ensure that licences are issued to responsible, competent citizens. The statistics are interesting. In the decade between 1962 and 1972, accidental shootings killed and injured more Australians than those who died or were wounded in Vietnam during the same period. That is a startling statistic. Those who have a legitimate need to own a firearm have nothing to fear from this legislation. However, those who have a desire to do harm must be curtailed for the Legislative Assembly 3463 4 September 1990 benefit of the community at large. The community at large could well do without the comments from the Sylvester Stallone of the north, the revolutionary, reactionary Rambo from Flinders. I have to say that his contribution to the debate was nothing less than derelict and inflammatory. I will leave my comments at that. A Government member interjected. Mr ELDER: The standard of debate that the member for Flinders engages in is absolutely appalling. In conclusion, I want to quote another member of the National Party, the member for Carnarvon, who in the Warwick Daily News of 17 August said—— Mr Stephan interjected. Mr ELDER: The honourable member should listen. The member for Carnarvon said— "It appears on this issue the Labor Party is driven by the idea that if it saves one life, it is worth it." That is exactly right. If this legislation saves only one life, then it is worth it. If that life turns out to be that of the member for Carnarvon, I am sure that he will prove to be duly grateful. I commend the Minister for the introduction of this legislation. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (4.53 p.m.): I rise to speak in this debate because I feel an obligation to speak on behalf of the large silent majority of women who do not feel threatened by the lack of stringent gun laws in Queensland. Perhaps I say this because I am a countrywoman, but I feel very strongly that the firearms legislation review committee was hijacked at a late stage of its deliberations by the appointment of a woman representing the domestic violence group. I have a great deal of disquiet about the opposing views that were expressed in the committee's report and the fact that the report was not released to the public. In May, I received a copy of a letter from the Womens Legal Service, complaining about the membership of the committee. That letter was addressed to the Minister, and it stated— "We consider this group to be entirely inappropriate and more akin to the type of committees established under the National Party Government." A few days after I had received that letter, which also contained the submission from the Women's Legal Service to the committee on gun laws in Queensland, I received a phone call from a person, who said, "Sorry. We sent you the letter by mistake. Please send it back." Apparently that person only just discovered that not all the women in Queensland Parliament are members of the Australian Labor Party. I am proud to be a conservative in this Parliament. I will quote the words of a learned gentleman, who said in this very chamber— "True conservatives support the rules and the lessons of the past. True conservatives support the institutions of Government and the time-honoured principles and lessons that have been derived." He went on further to state— "Conservatives do not do that. They do not play around with sensible rules, particularly written rules." That man was Angus Innes. I wonder what he thought of Mr Beanland's comments on television last weekend that the Liberal Party is not a conservative party. I did not send back the letter from the Women's Legal Service because, as I had already read it, it seemed to me a rather foolish exercise. I was told that I could keep it but, because it was very highly confidential, I must not use it. Legislative Assembly 3464 4 September 1990

In its submission to the firearms legislation review committee, the Women's Legal Service says that firearms pose a particular problem for rural women, and the member for Mount Gravatt also mentioned that. It was obvious from what she said that she has not the faintest idea of what rural women are up against at all and that she was just quoting from the submission. That may well be true in some areas in which women are isolated and, if they are subject to abuse by their menfolk, guns could be used to threaten them. However, I say very clearly that, in the majority of cases, rural women would consider guns their friends and not their enemies. My husband and I have a property, and the house on that property is located very close to a main highway. If I were to live in that house permanently, I would have a gun. Many years ago, when I was renovating the house, I well remember an occasion when I turned around and found a strange man standing in the kitchen. He said that his car had two flat tyres and that he wanted to use the telephone. He had not knocked; he had just walked straight in. Mr Mackenroth: Did he want to use the telephone? Mrs McCAULEY: No. I believe that it would have been very useful to have had a firearm on that occasion, as particularly because I did not know who he was or what he was about. Also if I were to live on that property permanently, I would have a very large dog. Ms Spence interjected. Mrs McCAULEY: I ask the honourable member not to get hysterical. No-one is denying that often guns are used wrongly and a homicide occurs, and the statistics quoted by the Women's Legal Service show that guns caused the death in 34.7 per cent of murder cases. Spouse homicide victims accounted for 42.4 per cent of those cases. They are Queensland statistics, and they show that, despite the fuss that is being made, the use of guns in spouse murders is not nearly as high as I would have expected. It is something like two-fifths of one-third. Mr Elder: What was your position in 1988? Mrs McCAULEY: I have never changed my position on this matter and the National Party never introduced any stringent legislation on gun laws, and that speaks for itself. Domestic violence is a disease. If that disease is to be treated, it must be treated, and not the symptoms. Allowance must be made for the fact that alcohol is often a factor in incidents involving domestic violence. When I refer to spouse homicides, I am referring also to women who use guns against men. Therefore, I do not believe that women should feel so personally about the lack or otherwise of gun laws in Queensland. Last week, I read an article in the Sun about a woman social worker's remarks about the spate of recent murders of young women in Brisbane. I was appalled to read her comment that if a woman is going to be raped, there is nothing she can do about it. The social worker further stated that an increase in the number of police would not help the cause of young women, either. Without wishing to sound militant, I believe that every young woman has an obligation to herself to make it very difficult for a man who wishes to commit an act of aggression against her. I believe that every mother should tell her daughter exactly and concisely how to bring tears to a man's eyes—and I am not talking about loving words! In this day and age, many women attend aerobic classes, go jogging and are very fit. I cannot understand why women who are fit and who have a certain amount of feminine cunning cannot defend themselves against men who may well be bigger and stronger but not necessarily smarter. Legislative Assembly 3465 4 September 1990

In recent years, a school of thought has sprung up overseas, particularly in America and in the United Kingdom. Women are being trained to defend themselves, not aggressively but assertively, and I believe that this is most important. My personal belief is that if a woman is going to be raped and killed, she should make a big fuss and not go quietly, and I feel very strongly about that. It is most important that young women learn to be assertive, not aggressive. When they go out and have a few drinks, they must remember that they should keep in company because they could find themselves in trouble. Just as I tell my sons not to drink and drive, mothers should also tell their daughters that if they are going out for a night on the town, they should do it in company because a few drinks will lower their guard and they may be more vulnerable than they are at any other time. I do not advocate that women use firearms as a means of protection. However, I was interested to read an article by Tony Ormon titled "Gun Control—the Facts". He reported that, in Florida, a highly publicised training program, in which 6 000 women mastered hand-gun combat skills, resulted in the incidence of rape dropping by 90 per cent. I thought very long and hard about trying to get a licence for a hand gun and keeping it in the glovebox of my car because I am often on the road late at night. Because I attend many meetings, I often return home very late at night or in the early hours of the morning and I am relatively unprotected. If something goes wrong with my car, I can do very little about it. I drive a car with wheels so heavy that I cannot even lift them. As a result, I feel rather vulnerable. In fact, one night at about midnight, when I had reached the top of the Calliope Range, a man staggered out in front of my car yelling, "Stop! Stop!" Because I was not on my own but accompanied by my husband, we stopped the car. The car in which that man and his two companions—two young girls—had been travelling had gone over the edge of the range. They were on the side of the road and were all extremely drunk. My husband and I put them into our car and took them to the Biloela hospital. Ever since then I have agonised: would I have stopped if I had been on my own, or would I not? I know that I would not have stopped because I would have been very, very scared about stopping for somebody who was obviously very drunk. Mr Schwarten: Would you stop if you had a gun? Mrs McCAULEY: No, I would not have stopped if I had had a gun. However, as I know all of the property-owners in my electorate, I guess I would have gone to the nearest one for help. That incident made me think. However, I do not think that, had I had a hand gun, my problem would have been solved. As a result, I decided against seeking a permit for a hand gun because I felt that I might kill somebody, and I would not like to be put in that situation. However, the problem is not solved for me. I really do not know how best to defend myself if I am caught on the road late at night. I was interested to read about a paper presented by Colin Greenwood, a firearms consultant from the United Kingdom, in which he examined the history of firearms legislation in Britain. He came to the conclusion that the simple fact is that neither the existence of controls nor the type of control has any influence on the criminal's choice of weapon. He examined the crime situation in the United States and showed that there was no relationship between areas of high firearm ownership and the areas of with high amounts of armed crime. His conclusions were reinforced by a firearms safety officer for New Zealand's Mountain Safety Council who said that criminals will get weapons regardless of any law. I believe that the reason for crime lies in the societies we are creating with our lack of morals and our lack of ethics. I believe that the Labor Government has to bear the responsibility for much of the downward trend in this area. I heard the member for Mount Gravatt talking about violence. I wonder how she feels about abortion, which is Legislative Assembly 3466 4 September 1990 the ultimate violence, and how she will vote when legislation concerning pornography and such things are dealt with in this House. I will be watching and listening very carefully. The answer to crime rates does not lie in the control of firearm ownership but in society and its values. It is rare to find the clay target shooters, the rifle range addicts or the kangaroo-shooters being involved in crime, because they are sportsmen who take their sport seriously and who are very involved in their leisure activities. Criminals are a race apart from these people. Tony Ormon mentioned some countries with high rates of firearm ownership. I know that everyone cites as examples the Swiss, who lead the world in firearm ownership, while the Israelis come a close second. Denmark and Finland are further behind, yet are ahead of the United States. If firearm ownership corrupts society and increases crime rates, then Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland should be crime- infested societies. Apparently all of them, according to Professor Don Kates, have very low rates of homicide and other criminal violence. The evidence to date shows that restrictive firearm legislation not only greatly increases crime and the criminal use of firearms but at the same time prevents the honest citizen from the lawful use of firearms and from having a means of defence in a crisis. Let us always be aware of our proximity to Indonesia and its potential to cause major problems for us. I am not being a scaremonger; that is just a simple fact of life. I have no problem agreeing to the provision of a comprehensive training program for gun-owners. This could probably lower the accident rate. I do not believe anybody would feel threatened by that. Nor do I disagree that a strict control on the sales outlets of firearms would help to reduce the irresponsible and incompetent from buying firearms on impulse. I disagree very strongly with supermarkets stocking guns. I believe that the sale of guns is a specialised field which should be carefully controlled. I certainly do not believe that anybody should be able to walk into a major supermarket and buy a firearm without any questions being asked of him. The other problem with introducing a form of licensing for gun-owners is the sheer logistics of the matter. This problem has been summed up by the Queensland Shooting and Firearms Association thus: given that there are approximately 700 000 firearm-owners in Queensland, representing some 25 per cent of the population, the task of processing applications, maintaining up-to-date files and enforcing the new legislation could only be described as monumental. Allowing a very conservative estimate of 30 minutes' processing per application, rough estimates suggest that, based on a 38-hour week, it would take 100 police officers 3 500 man-hours, or 1.7 years, just to license every shooter in the State. That is patently ridiculous. What will the licence cost? It is not stated in the legislation. Will it be $50? Will it be $100? It needs to be spelt out very, very clearly. We have a right to know. For people on the land, guns are a necessary tool in the control of vermin and in cases in which animals are stuck in dams or are afflicted with some illness and need to be humanely put down. Guns are very necessary. When my boys were younger, they both wanted to learn to use the gun that we keep on our farm. I spent many hours sitting with them while they learned how to shoot at targets down in the back paddock and instilled in them the basics of gun safety. I felt that was most important. They both are capable of using a gun if the need arises. They also learned to drive as soon as they could see over the steering wheel. When they finally were allowed to drive on the road, they were excellent drivers. Mr Braddy: They got a licence to drive, didn't they? Mrs McCAULEY: Yes. They were excellent and very experienced drivers. Legislative Assembly 3467 4 September 1990

Finally, on behalf of all the people in the Callide electorate who have protested at the licensing of firearms and whose large number of petitions I have tabled in this House, I again state my opposition to this legislation. An editorial in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 1 September stated—— "A roll of the State's gun owners is an unlikely panacea for the problem of improper weapons use; more likely it will serve as a fulcrum for future legislation aimed at disarming the public." Mr Randell: That is not known as a conservative paper, either. Mrs McCAULEY: No, I know that it is not known as a conservative paper. It is very hard to get space in that paper. I think that was a very telling comment. I believe that the final word rests with Mr Fitzgerald, QC, who said on page 361 of his report— "Laws may be futile when they fail to address the problems caused by certain conduct, or when they are inadequately enforced. Laws should reflect social need, not moral repugnance. The use of scarce police resources on enforcing laws which prohibit conduct on which the community is divided, and which does not threaten the community, is questionable. This is especially so if such enforcement diverts resources from the policing of other activity which truly threatens society and against which the community is more or less united." Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (5.08 p.m.): I am pleased to speak to this Bill. The honourable member for Fassifern said that this was not a democratic process of legislation and claimed that there were shady deals behind the progress of this Bill. Mr Stephan: Are you trying to say there wasn't? Mr HOLLIS: I am saying that. Despite all the protestations of the member for Fassifern, I am pleased to say that, together with Mr Mackenroth's legislative committee, this Government spent many hours discussing this legislation clause by clause. The Government was very fortunate to have the member for Yeronga assist it with the legal and civil liberties aspects of this legislation. That long, exhaustive process has resulted in a Bill that is very fair to all the people of Queensland, not just a few. People have asked, "Why license?" The licensing of firearm-owners achieves two objectives. Firstly, it will affect the nature of criminal use, suicides and accidents within the community. Secondly, it will bring Queensland's firearms legislation into line with all mainland Australian States. The Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act has been used as a basic model for this Bill, into which has been incorporated the Government's licensing and firearms policy. Almost every component of the Australian Labor Party's gun policy has been incorporated in this Bill, which streamlines firearms regulations so that they do not unnecessarily restrict individuals who have legitimate uses for firearms. As well, the Bill removes some of the repressive and draconian provisions that existed in the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and creates a modern, up-to-date system of firearms regulation. This Bill establishes a system whereby the owner of any weapon, including a pistol, rifle, machine gun or hand grenade, will have to obtain a licence. An applicant must apply to a police officer, who is authorised to carry out a series of inquiries. A major concern of the gun lobby is the nature of those inquiries. In particular, the gun lobby is concerned about fingerprinting, etc., of applicants. The Bill states specifically that fingerprinting and photographing of an applicant can be undertaken only if reasonable grounds exist to suspect that the identity of the applicant is false. A protection provision states that, if the applicant's identity is found to be correct, all records relating to that fingerprinting and photographing must be destroyed. Legislative Assembly 3468 4 September 1990

The cooling-off period gives police an opportunity to ascertain a person's background and why that person wants a gun. An article about the Ward 10B inquiry that appeared in last Thursday's Courier-Mail stated— "A relative identified as R14 said her schizophrenic son, P76, absconded from Ward 10B many times after his first admission in 1979. In 1982, P76 told his mother that he wanted to buy a gun and shoot himself to escape the voices he heard inside his head . . . Soon afterwards, her son discharged a gun in his car before handing the weapon over to her . . . A gun dealer, Ray Hughes, of Shooters Corner in Townsville, phoned R14 to warn her that her son had bought a gun, but that he had filed down the firing pin and sold him a box of blank cartridges." That gun-dealer was interested only in the money that he could make from that deal. He was not worried that that fellow could take a gun with blanks in it and put the fear of God into people. This Government is trying to do something about those profit-makers. The Liberal and National Parties do not want provision for a cooling-off period included in the legislation. The member for Merthyr asked who will do the checks. The important thing is who is checking the dealers. Under this legislation, checks are done of the people who are buying the weapons. The Liberal Party's opposition to the Bill is incredible. The Liberal Party's policy on the storage of firearms states— "That except on rural properties, no firearms, other than when actually in use, shall be loaded and that ammunition be kept separately from the firearms." Mr Coomber: Whose policy is that? Mr HOLLIS: This is Liberal Party policy. It states further— "That when not in use all long barrel firearms, or any essential part of their mechanisms be stored under lock and key, in a locked gun cabinet, by use of trigger locks, keeping bolts in sealed, locked containers, etc. or by storage in a rifle case or similar container closed with a padlock. That concealable firearms be stored in a sealed, locked immobile container, e.g. a safe or lockable filing cabinet." Who do the Liberals envisage would undertake checks on whether ammunition is stored in guns and that those guns are kept in sealed containers? If the Liberal Party ever enforces such legislation—and it probably never will—does it intend to have a special police force to do that? The Liberal Party does not know what it wants. The former member for Toowoomba North, Dr J. A. R. Lockwood, said— "Legislation is needed to restrict the possession of all firearms to fit and proper persons. What we need is a positive system under which a person who wishes to own, carry or bear a firearm, whether it be a rifle or a shotgun, must display a licence showing clearly that he is entitled to own that rifle or shotgun." The Liberal Party has changed its views on that. The firearms committee heard from dissenting dealers. It is incredible that Messrs G. Nelis from the Firearms Dealers Association and R. Green from the Sporting Shooters Association stated— "We totally reject the licensing of longarm users as proposed in the draft Bill and expressly forbid any and all reference to ourselves, or the associations that we represent, as having any part in its inclusion in the draft Bill." In light of the example I cited of a dealer who was willing to sell to a person whom he obviously knew was mad, no wonder those associations do not want to have any part of the Bill. Legislative Assembly 3469 4 September 1990

Australia's best-known scholar on firearms legislation, Richard Harding, has described how a former Minister for Police, Mr Camm, finally disposed of attempts to include long arms within the licensing procedures with the following utterance, which was very similar to that made by the member for Barambah— "Let the opposition members remember that when the communists take over a country the first thing they do is to say that all firearms in the country must be registered and that all people who have firearms must be licensed. This is communist doctrine. It has happened in every country they have ever taken over." Professor Harding added— "Whilst the Minister's own perception of the problem doubtless has a strong bearing upon the ultimate outcome, it should also be put on the record that a powerful gun lobby seemed to have been at work trying to influence parliamentarians in the four years since amendment of the gun law had first been mooted." Obviously, the Opposition is not coherent. Harding continued— "The Australian gun lobby remains a shadowy entity. There is a gun lobby in Australia, however, it is a loose coalition of importers, dealers and some shooters, attracted together by their commercial or political concern for untrammelled gun use. It is quite possible that legislative efforts to deal with gun ownership issues in ways such as I have suggested would stimulate the emergence of an apparently coherent lobby. I believe it is likely that the bulk of shooters would not support the more extreme postures which any gun lobby might be tempted to adopt. The socio-economic profile of Australian gun owners indicates that they are very much part of the mainstream of Australian society." I was interested to receive a letter from a member of the gun lobby who lives in the electorate of Callide. When I have finished reading the letter, I will ask the honourable member whether she knows that gentleman. He is probably one of the property-owners to whom she referred. The letter stated— "Some down-the-ladder upstart had the audacity to point out that my letter was a photocopy . . . I dare say that most of you are a bunch of yellow gutless has-beens who couldn't make a crust anywhere else but in the arena of bureaucratic power and conmanship—and 'Fill your own pocket League'." I think that last sentence referred to the previous Government. The letter continued— "Are you all this crazy? If so—believe you me you will have hundreds of thousands of real Australians"— and he underlined that— "waiting to have your hide some day." He went on to say— "I dare you to put the firearms and daylight saving issues on your upcoming referendum! Come on! If you don't you'll be thinking of me when you cast your vote! Yours to be reckoned with, John Rasmussen, farmer, Biloela." He is one of the property-owners to whom the member for Callide referred, one of the madmen who should not even have a licence. I do not believe that any member of Parliament should put up with that sort of thing. I answered Mr Rasmussen in the following terms— "Dear Mr Rasmussen I am in receipt of correspondence from yourself dated 10.7.90. A copy of the letter has been forwarded to the Officer in Charge, Biloela Police Station asking that you be interviewed regarding the offensive comments therein. It is of great concern as a Member of the State Government, that this type of response is generated from the actions of the Minister and Members in seeking to reduce the amount of offences regarding firearms in this State. Legislative Assembly 3470 4 September 1990

I would suggest that if you have a particular point of view you wish to convey to other people, it would be better received if written in a polite and rational manner." I also sent a letter to the Biloela police asking them to interview that gentleman. The Government will not be intimidated by that sort of person. That is the type of letter that Government members have received during the drafting of the legislation. The member for Callide asked what the Labor Party had done since it was in Government. I pose the same question to her: when the National Party was in Government, was there no prostitution? Was there no abortion? Were there no homosexuality problems? Was there no pornographic literature in newsagencies? I am absolutely sure that there was. The National Party cannot put its sins onto the Government. That is probably what it is trying to do, but it will not work. Returning to the gun laws, it is interesting to note the comment that, if people do not use guns to commit suicide, they will use something else. That is typical of the statements that are made in relation to guns. However, that argument ignores the research that shows that suicides by firearms are significantly higher in high gun-ownership areas in Australia than in low gun-ownership areas. A significant number of people who attempt to or actually commit suicide do so on impulse rather than by plan. It follows from that that easy access to firearms increases the chances of a successful suicide. Another comment is that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That slogan ignores the reality that outlaws already have guns and are already using them with despatch against law-abiding people. Evidence suggests that, if firearms were so scarce that only clever persons could get their hands on them, most criminals would remain unarmed. In the US, more than 50 per cent of hand guns used in crime are stolen or purchased at second hand. A similar situation could exist in Australia. Mr Heath: Under this Bill, guns are not outlawed. Mr HOLLIS: Guns are not outlawed under the legislation. That is the point. The Government is simply licensing the people to have them. In his speech, the member for Barambah said that, under a Labor Party plan, all Queenslanders would have to give up their arms. If he had read either the draft legislation or the existing legislation, he would have noticed that the proclamation by the Governor for Queenslanders to give up their arms has been withdrawn completely. The member for Merthyr referred to collectors' arms. He said that clause 2.3 provided that all collectors' arms should be made inoperable. But the honourable member should have read clause 3.25, which provides that collectors can fire their guns. Provision is contained in the legislation for them to obtain another licence so that a collector's gun can be fired at a fair, or wherever, to demonstrate its worth. The Government is not causing vandalism to the guns that people wish to use for one purpose or another. It is ensuring that people take some responsibility for holding those guns, which is very fair to everyone. The most important thing about this legislation is that it is fair. Recently I read a comment made by the late Mr Hooper, who was previously the member for Salisbury. He said— "All guns and their owners should be licensed. I know that the gun dealers in this State will throw up their hands in horror at any suggestion of registration but, of course, it is quite obvious, as the Minister knows, that they have a vested interest." Back to our man in Townsville, again. Mr Hooper continued— "They are afraid that there will be a drop in sales. They are afraid that they will be saddled with extra paperwork." That is typical. It is a terrible shame that the previous National Party Government and the Liberal Party were more worried about the money and the interests of those who make money out of arms, than they were about the safety of Queenslanders. Queenslanders Legislative Assembly 3471 4 September 1990 should take note of that. It is important that legislation contains social as well as monetary implications. Mr Davies: They wouldn't provide the money for the Ward 10B inquiry. Mr HOLLIS: Exactly. That is typical of the previous Government. This legislation goes a step further when it comes to dealing with security guards. This new provision in the Bill replaces section 27 of the original Act, which gave a special exemption from having firearms' licences to financial organisations. Banks and other financial organisations no longer require this exemption, which was used by security firms to carry firearms in the course of cash escorts. It is proposed to require security personnel to obtain a security guard's licence prior to being able to carry firearms while on duty as a security officer. This clause requires that a security guard weapons licence be obtained. Today's society includes many security officers as well as police officers, and this Government will ensure that they all have firearms licences of some kind. As member for Redcliffe, I am pleased—and I am sure that Inspector Doonan, Inspector Behm and other police officers in Redcliffe are pleased—that the police will be looked after by the police powers contained in this legislation. It will be much better for police officers when they have to face some perilous situations in the course of their duties to be able to call up details of licences and find out who has a gun. This will be a great help to them in many cases. Before attending a domestic dispute they will be able to find out whether or not there is a gun in the house and take the necessary precautions. Hopefully this legislation will save the life of an officer in the Police Service, as well. With those few words, I am pleased for Queensland's sake that the legislation has reached this stage, that this Weapons Bill will be passed by this House tonight and that tomorrow we will have a safer Queensland. I support the Bill. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (5.26 p.m.): It is of great interest to note that any legislative attempts throughout Australia to reduce the number of victims of gun assaults have generally not been successful. The Queensland ALP Government is deliberately making an emotive issue out of this proposal to introduce new gun laws. Mr Schwarten: Put your glasses on. Mr ROWELL: Yes, I will do that. Looking at what Unsworth did in New South Wales prior to the 1988 State election, I ask: is the timing of this legislation simply a cover-up for this State Labor Government's poor performance that will be revealed in the Budget that is due to be handed down tomorrow? Is there an ulterior motive for ramming this Bill through the House in such a short period of time? Whenever people are injured or life is lost, something can always be done to reduce the level of human suffering. There will be an ongoing challenge on Governments in particular to bring this about. Road accidents, drowning and industrial injuries are but a few of the areas where good legislative changes can assist in the reduction of injuries and mortality involving human life. In his second-reading speech the Minister stated— "One of the difficulties in seeking out firm evidence about firearms legislation is the absence of accurate statistical information and monitoring." Dr Flynn: He was referring to the situation in Australia. Mr ROWELL: It does not matter what he was referring to. Statistical information is difficult to accumulate. Amidst all the Minister's rhetoric, this factor throws doubt on the essence of the proposed legislation. The legislation is based on emotion. It is difficult to get firm Legislative Assembly 3472 4 September 1990 evidence of the benefits that firearm legislation will bring to this State. One thing it will do is tie police officers down with paperwork. If this Bill goes through the House, the Police Service's scant resources will be inundated by applications from hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders. There will be considerable demand on police officers to fulfil the prescribed criteria that are required in the administration of this Bill. Lately Ingham has experienced a number of break and enter crimes. I ask the Minister: will he provide additional police officers to do the clerical work involved in the administration of the provisions of this Bill? Has the Minister sought the views of police officers on the job of the legislation and what value they see in the proposed gun laws? From what I have heard, I would say that he has not. It would appear that the Government never intended to take any notice of the submissions that were put before the Firearms Legislation Review Committee. In his second-reading speech the Minister used an argument about the infringement of civil liberties to distort the proposal for a prohibited persons register. This proposal centres around the registration of people who have a record of violence or an unstable mental condition, are known criminals or who would be a threat to the community if they had access to firearms. The Minister's statement misrepresents the proposal by using the infringement of civil liberties as a red herring to fob off the initiative. The Minister would be aware that, in order to obtain access to the proposed prohibited persons register, a combination of personal details leading to a person's positive identification—for example, by reference to a driver's licence containing the exact surname, Christian name, date of birth and address—would be required. This proposal is equivalent to the PIN system used by banks. Unless the right combination is given, access to the desired information will not be achieved. Information could be relayed through a 008 number to enable the vendor in either a business or private transaction to obtain a clearance for a sale. This system would deter persons of questionable character whose names are listed on the prohibited persons register from attempting to purchase a firearm. In the unlikely event that that took place and a positive match was obtained, the office containing the prohibited persons register dealing with the inquiry would immediately telephone the police station nearest to the sale site and request the police to intervene. The vendor would then receive a sale prohibition number. The register would require only a fraction of the administration that would result from the proposal put forward by the Government, which includes the licensing of all firearms-owners throughout the State. In targeting the group that is most likely to use guns to terrorise—that is, those who are of unstable character and who have a history of violence—the register has considerable merit. Criminals will have their names included on the register at an early stage—hopefully, before they commit a gun-related crime. Although it might be said that a person would need to have a record of socially unacceptable behaviour to be included on the prohibited persons register, by virtue of this legislation a similar record would be needed for their exclusion from buying a firearm or holding a shooter's licence. The Government will be creating an unnecessary bureaucratic framework, as well as wasting the time of and causing inconvenience to people who have no record of offences associated with the use of firearms. Those people will also be obliged to obtain a firearms licence. The issue of abuse of the rights of individuals should also be highlighted, because it was raised by the Minister. The combination of the exact surname, Christian name, date of birth and address would be known only to the person involved, his closest friends and family. Legislation could provide for significant penalties if unauthorised entry to the prohibited persons register occurred. Moreover, the register could be made as secure as any other Government database that contains personal details. For example, strict privacy responsibilities are imposed upon an employer in relation to employees' tax file numbers, health institutions, medical histories and age and date of birth to maintain the confidentiality of the employees' personal affairs. Legislative Assembly 3473 4 September 1990

The Government's motive for insisting on the shooters' licence is not clear. The socialists have a desire to keep tabs on people; or perhaps they are just rank amateurs at drafting effective legislation. It is interesting that the Minister raised the issue of Claytons legislation, because nothing could be a more accurate description of the effects of the provisions contained in this legislation. It will do nothing to reduce the incidence of assaults caused by the use of guns, and that is what this Parliament is aiming at. This legislation is supposed to reduce the incidence of assaults with guns and other weapons. Although the Bill contains some beneficial house-keeping elements, its impact on gun-related crime will be negligible. I reiterate that the reduction of gun-related crime should be the intent behind the drafting of this legislation. The Government Statistician's Office records that fatal assaults involving the use of firearms during the nine-year period from 1980 to 1988 in this State totalled 1 391. Of that total, 130 people died from assaults, which represents 9.3 per cent. ABS mortality statistics for the year 1988 revealed that in Queensland assaults by firearms and explosives resulted in the death of six men and two women out of an Australian total of 124. Mr Palaszczuk: What about suicides? Mr ROWELL: I am referring to the main component to which I believe the legislation should be directed. I believe that the assault element is a very important issue. Irrespective of whether people are able to obtain a gun or not, they will commit suicide. It has been mentioned that it would probably be easier to take a decent number of pills and suicide in that way because it would be an easier way of dying. Dr Flynn: But usually they don't die. Nine times out of 10, they are unsuccessful. Mr ROWELL: The point I make is that people would attempt suicide. The whole point behind this legislation and the problem to which it should be directed at solving is the number of assaults. Queensland has in excess of 12 per cent of Australia's population yet accounted for only 6.45 per cent of mortalities that occurred in Australia as a result of an assault by firearms and explosives. Victoria, with its stringent gun laws and with more than double Queensland's population, recorded 59 deaths whereas Queensland recorded eight deaths in a similar category. During the same period in Queensland in 1988, eight deaths occurred as a result of assault by firearms and explosives whereas 14 people died as a result of assault by other, unspecified means. In addition, 21 people died as a result of being assaulted by cutting and piercing instruments. The comparison reveals that more people die as a result of cutting and piercing instruments than died as a result of discharge of a firearm. I think that that point should be taken on board. It was mentioned that in Switzerland, the population is obliged to be armed, yet the level of assault by firearms is negligible. People should be educated about firearms. Mr Davies: Wait until tomorrow. Mr ROWELL: I am talking about education in the use of firearms; not education as such. Perhaps TAFE colleges could run courses for adults in regard to the safety and servicing of firearms. Mr Randell: Do you think the socialists over there will allow that to happen? Mr ROWELL: I do not know what they are thinking. However, there is an element within our society that could be educated about firearms. As children reach the higher levels of education, they should be taught how to handle firearms safely. Even in the earlier grades, an awareness of guns should be taught. They should be taught that firearms are dangerous and should be treated with due care. Mr Davies: Teach them in schools? Legislative Assembly 3474 4 September 1990

Mr ROWELL: I am saying that in schools children should be made aware of the dangers of firearms. Mr Davies: That can be done when they get the licence. Mr ROWELL: I do not know that it needs to be done through a licence system. It could easily be done through the school system. It is well documented that States such as Victoria which have stringent gun laws have not been able to curb the instances of assaults by persons with firearms. In Australia, domestic violence is becoming more prevalent. Undoubtedly, that has been brought about by the high level of pressure on the family unit. Today, the poor state of the Australian economy has a major bearing on the turmoil that is occurring within families. With the need for both the husband and wife to work, children are left to their own devices and are often denied the opportunity of a normal family relationship. The other disturbing element is the level of crime and violence viewed on television and video films. Since the Films Board of Review was closed down by the Goss Government, the standard of films coming into Queensland has deteriorated. Mr Barber: That is unfounded. Mr ROWELL: Why? Mr Barber: It is easy to say, but there is no evidence. Mr ROWELL: I have an article from the Bulletin in December 1987—— Mr Mackenroth: You go and book into a motel and watch dirty movies; I have been told that. Mr ROWELL: The Minister knows about dirty movies in motels. I do not think that dirty movies are the types of things that we want in Queensland. I have an article from the Bulletin—— Mr Davies: Who wrote it? Mr ROWELL: Dr Paul Wilson did not write the article, but comments attributed to him are included in it. The article states— "Even experts are uncertain of all the factors that go into a decision to kill. But according to Dr Paul Wilson at The Australian Institute of Criminology in Canberra, certain patterns emerge. 'We are all capable of violence,' says Wilson. 'But very few sustain their rage for such long periods of time. They're the problem.' Mass murder/suicide types are sociopathic. They care obsessively about themselves and no one else. Often they grow up in families with problems, rejected by their fathers, and smothered by their mothers. Socially they are isolated loners with low tolerance for others. They can't handle life's frustrations. Their general rage with life can be set off by any number of events. Strife in personal relationships, unemployment or financial difficulties can precipitate a breakdown. They often love guns, traditionally seen as a means of asserting masculinity and power. When most vulnerable to anger, other violent events or images can push them over the edge. Says Wilson of the killers, 'Their life is characterised by low self-esteem and they are determined to go out of it in a more glorious way than they lived it.' That such wanton violence has occurred in Australia must be seen as a symptom of a sick society. As Melbourne families bury their dead, authorities and politicians face a clamour to do something. Wilson fears the real reasons behind such killings could be overlooked as interest groups wrangle over gun control and how to curtail the amount of violence passed on by the media, and in the explicitly violent videos investigators believe influenced Vitkovic. Says Wilson, 'I certainly welcome fewer guns and less visible violence, but more police and more legislation aren't necessarily Legislative Assembly 3475 4 September 1990

the answer. We must take a long, long look at our society to find the causes of the pressures which force people into such desperation.' " That pretty well sums up one of the major problems within our society. People have reached the stage at which, because of lack of money and through exposure to violence in video films and pornographic material, they are having difficulty in coping with all the pressures that have been exerted upon them. The legislation will not lessen those pressures. I strongly oppose the Bill. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (5.44 p.m.): It is with great pleasure indeed that I speak in support of this Bill, as I support it wholeheartedly. I grew up on a dry-dirt farm where there was a need for guns. All members of the family used them to put down ailing stock, especially during droughts. Although I know that the Minister for Environment may disapprove, we also used them to dispose of the occasional aggressive snake. My father was very strict when dealing with guns. We were taught to respect them. Guns and ammunition were always kept separately. If we left a gun uncleaned or loaded, we could expect real trouble. My father would not even allow us to point toy guns at each other, even in jest—let alone a real rifle. If all gun-owners were as responsible as my father was, there would be no need for these gun laws. Yet, being so responsible, I know that my father would have found no reason to object to these commonsense laws that are designed to help protect society from the effects of the yahoos. Over many years, I have been appalled at the stupidity and irresponsibility of some people in their handling of guns. I have been equally appalled at the stupidity of the arguments that some groups use to counter any measures aimed at protecting society from this very irresponsibility. There can be no worse tragedy than the loss of a child, but when that loss is avoidable, the tragedy is intensified. How much more traumatic is it when the death is caused, as so often happens, either accidentally or during some momentary loss of control by another loved one? How does one live with and continue to love a child who has killed his brother, for it is usually amongst boys that this happens? I invite honourable members opposite to think of that trauma and then tell me about the inconvenience of filling in a few forms at the police station and having to pass a safety test. As a woman, I suppose I speak for that 50 per cent of the population that is not enamoured with artillery. Perhaps that is not a coincidence, when one considers how guns are used against women in today's society. Almost half of all female homicide victims are killed by their spouses, and 40 per cent of those deaths are caused by shooting. Because their husbands own a gun, many women live constantly with fear and trauma. As indicated earlier, 14 per cent of respondents to the study conducted by the Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force lived with constant fear and tension because of the threat, "If you leave me, I'll kill you and the kids. Wherever you go, I'll get you." These women believe this threat. Who wouldn't? The newspapers regularly remind us in graphic detail of the finality of these domestic disputes. These men are not criminals in the normal sense of the word—— Mr Harper: But how will this overcome it? Mrs EDMOND: The honourable member should just listen. As I was saying, these men are not criminals, like bank-robbers. They experience a loss of control, usually after the consumption of alcohol, and it is the ready availability of a firearm that makes a spontaneous action so dreadfully final. Mr Harper: That is all right, but how will this overcome it? Mrs EDMOND: If the honourable member will be quiet and listen, I will address that. Legislative Assembly 3476 4 September 1990

The member for Fassifern thinks that this is just a bit of emotionalism. Yes, it does make me emotional. It makes me very, very angry that these facts can be dismissed as just a bit of emotionalism. The member for Merthyr blithely—as is his want—ignored totally the rights of the many people who want—no, need—stricter gun laws. He ignored also the fact that by far the majority of murders occur within the family, and are not committed by easily identified and labelled criminals—and criminals do not always conveniently wear badges telling you that they are such. I ask honourable members to consider these private family rows and then tell me that licensing is a breach of privacy. Mr Harper: You tell us how this will overcome that. Mrs EDMOND: I will. The honourable member should sit there and be quiet. More and more we see a tragic loss of young life in rural areas. Although it is hard to gain access to figures in Queensland, I am sure that they generally match the New South Wales figures. In New South Wales, in 25 years, there has been a 570 per cent increase in youth suicides, and 75 per cent of those deaths involved firearms. Studies of this problem were dealt with in depth on recent episodes of Countrywide and Couchman, which highlighted that the ready availability of firearms turned teenage depression into irreversible tragedy. I would like to believe that these deaths were important to rural representatives, but it appears not. Point-scoring is more important to them. Although nothing may stop a person who is determined to commit suicide, guns make success—if one can call it that—far more likely on even the first tentative attempt than any other means. Believe me, it is rather difficult to commit suicide by using a knife or taking pills, as somebody suggested. If honourable members doubt that, I suggest that they take a sharp knife, dig it into their stomachs and see how far they get. Most people stop and rethink the whole procedure before they get through the half-inch of protective blubber. I ask honourable members opposite to consider the rights of children and young people, who need to be protected from their own moods and passions, and then tell me about some so-called right to bear arms. As a health professional, I must express my disappointment at the apparent lack of concern shown by the Opposition Health spokesperson for the mental and physical health of rural youth and women, who are traditionally the most common victims of violent crime and oppression. That is well documented. Unarmed combat is poor defence against a gun, unless it is in the hands of Bruce Willis. However, I agree with the member for Callide on one issue: it is the attitude of society that counts, and it is the attitude of society, that the ownership of guns and the need to own automatic rifles should be put above safety, that I question and will not accept. I am not at all sure what it says about Queensland when one reads that Queenslanders, because they are afraid, own more guns than do people in other States That is right. Because he or she is afraid of other people, one in every three Queenslanders owns a gun. When I lived in New York in the 1960s, a similar study revealed that, because they feared other people who owned guns, the majority of people owned guns. They slept with loaded guns under their pillows. That resulted in a massive increase in the accidental deaths of spouses, lovers and children—all mistaken as burglars or prowlers. I am afraid of all those paranoid people who own guns, because, I believe that gun ownership escalates violence. I am more afraid of being shot by some trigger-happy paranoiac than being unarmed during the invasion that many people seem to expect. Recently, in Western Australia, the issue of licensing of weapons was discussed with the head of the Western Australian Police Academy. I hope that Mr Harper remembers that visit. The Western Australian police have no difficulties coping with gun licensing requirements that are more strict than those in Queensland. They urged that Queensland Legislative Assembly 3477 4 September 1990 should proceed with such legislation. The suggestion by the member for Fassifern that the Queensland Police Service cannot cope is totally unworthy and casts unfair aspersions on it. The member for Merthyr's memory has either let him down or he has conveniently forgotten that discussion. The police in Western Australia felt that it was absolutely vital to have legislation to prevent unnecessary tragedies that so often occur when young police officers walk straight into armed domestic violence. In Western Australia, I was assured that before a police offficer arrived at the scene of domestic violence, a computer check could warn him of arms kept on the premises. A tragedy in Rockhampton in the early 1980s stressed to me the absolute necessity for gun-licensing laws. There is absolutely no argument that can counter those tragic, unnecessary deaths. To be forewarned is all important. I am referring to a readily available deadly weapon that costs less than most toys, not about some hard-to-obtain item. In January this year, an advertisement displayed a Stirling model 20, 22 semi- automatic, 15-shot rifle for $99. I have spoken about some of my concerns and the reasons why I believe this Bill is essential. Like my parliamentary colleagues, I have also received many submissions asking me to oppose this legislation. It is only fair that I address some of them. I am sure that the member for Fassifern will be glad that I have taken note of those letters. Many of them were form letters or letters based on published, suggested responses, and showed great similarities. As I have mentioned before in this House, I was amazed at the number of Gympie and Callide constituents who wrote to me as their local member of Parliament and insisted that I carry out their will. I suggest to those good people that they look a little closer to home for a representative and, no, the Governor does not accept petitions; and, yes, Australia Post does expect stamps—even on letters from Calliope. I am concerned that so many Gympie folk are terrified of imminent invasion, though the invasion may take the form of warlike women if those gun-owners keep up their insistence that all MLAs are men. Not one letter from the Gympie area was addressed other than to Mr Edmond—one was even addressed to Mr Wendy Edmond. Like the member for Redcliffe, I did not appreciate the threatening tone of many of those letters, and they did little to convince me that the authors were responsible citizens, suitable for holding a gun- owner's licence. It hardly counts as rational argument or behoves rational behaviour for me to be told that I supported this legislation at my own risk and that they would get even. However, I was delighted with the argument, again from the Gympie area—it is a pity that the member for Gympie cannot be bothered listening to this debate—that the Government was banning guns to allow a socialist take-over by disarming the population. Included in the plot—I ask all honourable members to listen to this—were "all Rhodes scholars who have been in Government, for example, Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser, John Stone, Kim Beazley and Bill Hayden. All have shown Communist Party sympathies over many years." Mr Mackenroth: Malcolm Fraser! Mrs EDMOND: I was intrigued at John Stone. This argument appears to have originated with the member for Fassifern and shows the depth of his knowledge and scholarship in politics. I was also amazed at the number of people in the Callide area who insist on the need for an arsenal of weaponry, including semi-automatic and automatic rifle, "for protection of themselves against dangerous wildlife, for example, dingoes and rabbits" and, to quote another author, "for protection against marauding wildlife and vermin". The mind boggles—muckle great rabbits and rats in Callide! Legislative Assembly 3478 4 September 1990

At the end of April, in a letter sent from Gladstone, a person claimed that the Government had not shown any genuine need for this legislation. The letter arrived at a time when the newspapers had been full of tragedies, with 11 shootings that had left six people dead in a short 25 days. For how many more avoidable tragedies would that author like to demonstrate genuine need? However, the best letter goes to the chap who argued— "The events of the past week at Burleigh Heads (the shoot-out) clearly shows that Queensland needs more firearms to stop the manics who can otherwise shoot people openly, unopposed, until the police arrived." The next showing at the cinema will be titled "Gunfight at the Burleigh Corral". I received many more letters. The most worrying aspect was that of the hundreds of letters that I received, only a handful seemed to come from rational people, whom I would accept to be responsible gun- owners. I was very glad that only two irresponsible letters came from my own electorate, and only a few from Brisbane. I would be seriously concerned at the thought of many seemingly irrational people being armed in my electorate. There seems to have been a campaign of deliberate, mischievous misinformation dissemination in some areas. This legislation is not draconian and heavy-handed, as has been claimed. It is sensible, responsible legislation that will be welcomed by all similarly sensible and responsible shooters.I congratulate the Minister for withstanding the ill-informed hysteria that has surrounded this legislation. Knowing how strongly the member for Somerset, who normally sits opposite but is missing just now, urged the previous Government to introduce gun legislation three years ago, I wonder whether he or his present leader, who just as strongly opposed it, has kept a tally of the wasted lives lost because that Government backed down in the face of the gun lobby pressure, presumably egged on by the member for Fassifern then, as now. Frankly, I cannot understand why this pressure concerned the National Party. Almost every letter I received from the gun lobby came from a "disenchanted Labor voter"—which raises two questions: why then are the Nationals so opposed to this Bill? Secondly, if all these people voted Labor, why did Labor not win the seats of Gympie and Callide? On that note, I support the Bill. I know that it will be welcomed by police officers, bank officers, women and responsible sporting shooters. Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (7.30 p.m.), in reply: As no members of the opposition parties are in the Chamber to take part in the debate—and a member of the opposition parties was next on the list of speakers—I will take the opportunity to reply to the members who have spoken. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The Minister is on his feet. He has been recognised. Mr LINGARD: I was standing all the time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable member's point of order. What is his point of order? Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been recognised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable member's point of order. Legislative Assembly 3479 4 September 1990

Mr LINGARD: Quite obviously, this was planned before members moved into the Chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I rule that there is no point of order. Mr LINGARD: I am not sure who the next person on the list of speakers is, but quite obviously I would say it is a member of the Government. If a member of the Government is not prepared to speak, then quite obviously a member of the Opposition should be allowed to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time is now 7.30 p.m. There was no member of the opposition parties in the Chamber when the sitting resumed. There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr MACKENROTH: It is quite obvious that no members of the opposition parties are interested in speaking to this Bill. It was up to the opposition parties to supply the next speaker. The member for Mount Coot-tha had finished her speech prior to the dinner recess and had sat down. Throughout this State and again today, members opposite have been posturing about the great need that people had to speak on the Weapons Bill, yet we see in this Chamber now only one member of the National Party who bothered to come back from the dinner recess, and one member of the Liberal Party who has just wandered in. One would really wonder where is their great concern for this Bill that they have outlined. I listened with great interest to the speeches of members opposite. None of them said anything different from what they have stated in the papers over the past six months. It is quite apparent that they have not read the Bill. Not one of them made any concession in relation to the good measures that are contained in the legislation. It is quite apparent to me that they have neither read nor understood the legislation. Members of the Government, though, have done so. The first five Government speakers in the debate, Ms Spence and Messrs Foley, Pitt, Elder and Hollis, who are members of my legislative committee, were certainly well aware of all of the Bill's provisions because they, along with me, had spent many hours discussing the legislation and were involved in drawing it up. It was not done in the manner that was suggested by the Opposition spokesman, who tried to imply some fanciful idea that the Government had changed this legislation at the last minute. For the benefit of the Opposition spokesman, for other Opposition members and for interested people, I will spell out once again the way in which our Government went through the process of drawing up the Weapons Bill. At the last election, the Labor Party stated quite clearly that, in Government, it would set up a committee to make recommendations—that is the key word "recommendations"—to the Government in relation to firearms legislation. In so doing, the committee was to advise on the provisions of licensing. When I set up that committee, as the Government spelt out that it would, I explained to its members that they were to come back to me with their recommendations in relation to changes, as well as their recommendations on the way in which a licensing system could be implemented. I also explained to them that, after they had brought down their recommendations, if they wished to oppose the legislation they were quite at liberty to do so. Some of them have done that. I do not take away from them their right to be able to do so. The reality was that there was never any commitment by the Government to accept 100 per cent every recommendation that was made by that committee—no commitment whatsoever. My legislation committee then sat down, went through that report, considered it at length and took on board a large number of the recommendations that were made. Some of them were not accepted but a large number were. The point that I do not believe has been made, except by one firearms-dealer, about whom an article appeared in a country newspaper today, is that there is nothing to fear from the Weapons Bill. Legislative Assembly 3480 4 September 1990

When one sits down with the shooters and goes through the Bill with them, they will readily agree that the fears that they have been told exist do not in fact exist. They are required to obtain a licence for long arms only on a one-off occasion and then they can go about their pursuit of shooting, if that is their sport, without any intrusion whatsoever from the Government. But in the first instance they will certainly need to obtain a licence. I do not intend to answer any more of the claims that were made by members opposite, because most of them were ridiculous. This particular debate has raged throughout Queensland for the past eight months. Contrary to the views that have been expressed that our Government is rushing this legislation through, I am not aware of any other legislation that has had as much input from the community as this Bill has. People have been allowed to make recommendations to the Government. If people cannot understand that the Government has listened to them, I am sorry; there is not much more that I can do to help them. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Hon. T. M. Mackenroth (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1.1— Mr SCHWARTEN (7.47 p.m.): Madam Temporary Chairman—— An Opposition member: Say a few words. Mr SCHWARTEN: I intend to, and I hope that the honourable member will listen to what I have to say. I have listened with a great deal of interest to what honourable members have said during this debate. I have been involved with firearms ever since I have been able to have such an involvement. In fact, when I was a youngster my father taught me a lot about firearms, and I have maintained that interest. For almost the past 20 years, I have participated in competition shooting. Accordingly, when I discuss firearms, I believe that I know what I am talking about. In fact, I have 34 firearms under my house, so if any Legislative Assembly 3481 4 September 1990 member of the Opposition wants to suggest that I am anti-gun, I invite him to do so. The fact is that firearms are not repugnant to me. They are an interest to me. I have a valuable collection of them. To say that members of the Labor Party are anti-gun is a great misnomer that has been promulgated by those people who wish to push their own barrow. Some Government members have taken up arms in the name of this country. I refer, firstly, to the honourable member for Broadsound. The member for Ipswich West was a member of the State pistol-shooting squad and does not wield a bad shotgun in a skeet-shooting competition, either. I urge those people who say that the Labor Party is synonymous with the term "anti-gun" to think again. The reason why I welcome the legislation is that I have nothing to fear from it. I have a good record in relation to guns. I maintain them well and I understand how they work. When the time comes to obtain a licence for my guns, I will be the first person to go down to the police station. Because I will fit the bill, I have no doubt that I will get a licence. Mr Littleproud: What will you do if he won't give you one? Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member should sit and listen. This morning, I listened to the honourable member for Fassifern, and it was interesting to hear what he had to say. He has aligned himself with the sorts of people who, over the past six months, have been corresponding with me. I want to share with honourable members my experience with some of those people. The first is a Mr Ted Dey, a very interesting character who subscribes to the theory that the legislation is an unholy plot to bring about world government. The correspondence that I received was in the form of a media release and was signed by a Mr Ian Rabig—I think that should have been Ian "Ratbag". Frankly, there is no other word to describe a person such as Mr Dey. The media release states— "Think about this one for yourself, but if somewhere in your answer, the expression One World Government appears, you may well be on the right track. And if you think that this 'Convention' on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women' is a 'Far Out' document, wait until you see their latest offering, the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child', now that is a real lulu. That will be the one which will enable The State to take over the upbringing of your children from you and where the children will actually be encouraged to inform on their parents. Frightening, isn't it?" What an outrageous lot of nonsense that man promulgates! He is a spokesman for an organisation that opposes the legislation. I wonder why those sorts of people oppose the Bill? I will come to that in a moment. In the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin of 27 August 1990, Mr Dey had this to say— "If a man loses his temper the way he did and threatens fellow Australians with using the Army against them he's not loyal to Australia." I do not know why the Morning Bulletin would bother to give Mr Dey any space. However, it did, and he referred to the Deputy Premier, who, when confronted by one of the lunatics from the gun lobby, rightly pointed out to him that, if he was referring to building stockades, arming himself and hiding in the bush, he was talking about subterfuge and ought to be dealt with accordingly by the army. When we are dealing with ratbags such as that, I endorse that sentiment. It is good to be on Mr Dey's fax list, because he sent me another little treasure and challenged me to put it on the front door of my office. It states— "Notice This Property Protected By Unarmed People" Legislative Assembly 3482 4 September 1990

I do not know how many members of the Opposition post armed guards outside their offices. The reverse side of the notice stated— "Please place this sign on your front door if you feel there is no need for personal firearms. But—before you do, please realise this would inform degenerates bent on murder, rape, or robbery, that . . . you are unarmed and defenseless!" Are they the sorts of people with whom Opposition members want to be associated? I put that notice on my door and, as yet, nobody has come and raped me or tried to bash me. Somebody did break into my office, but that is another story. I wrote back to Mr Dey and pointed out a few home truths to him about this issue. I told him that I put the sign up on my office door. I have received no response from him. As I understand it, he is a great supporter of the National Party in Mackay. Mr Katter: He will be after he reads your speech. Mr SCHWARTEN: He is a supporter of the National Party. In Mackay he stands up with an idiotic- looking straw hat pulled down over his stupid head and proceeds to embarrass the National Party. I am told that accordingly the National Party shuns him on election day and that he is treated as something of a pariah. However, some members in the debate this morning supported people like Mr Dey. I wonder whether he will be welcomed back into the National Party fold as a result. Mr Smyth interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, like the Logos Foundation. It is the same sort of group; it is similar to the League of Rights. The next person I will refer to has been mentioned previously; he is a real treasure—a Mr Rasmussen from Jambin, near Callide. He wrote the same offensive letter to every member on this side of the Chamber. His letter is a real cracker. He talks about defence, but when I received his first letter I thought that the man was in need of some psychiatric assistance and I did not reply to him. However, I took a great deal of offence at his next letter, because he accused me and my colleagues here of being gutless. In his letter he stated— "I dare say that most of you are a bunch of yellow gutless has-beens . . ." I wonder if he is talking about honourable members collectively—he is the sort of person who members on the Opposition side of the Chamber are supporting. It is up to members on the other side of the Chamber whether they like being called gutless has-beens, but I certainly do not like it. I replied to Mr Rasmussen and, in order to find out whether he had any guts, challenged him to repeat those claims. I asked him to write to me and tell me I was a yellow, gutless has-been and I would see him in court. I found out who had the guts, and it certainly was not him. When I replied to Mr Rasmussen I asked him a few questions and I will put the same questions to the Chamber tonight. For example, Mr Rasmussen claimed that the Labor Party is synonymous with an unearthly plot, or notion, to undermine good government and democracy, and that by disarming people they will be put in a position where others can easily stand over them and get at them. He referred to Tiananmen Square and other things. As a gun-owner, I told him that I do not have any problems holding a gun licence because I have nothing to hide. I asked him what his problem was but he did not answer. He called the members of the ALP traitors and said that hell hath no fury like the scorn of the gun lobby and that he and all the other gun-owners would get square on the ALP. My own father, who is a returned serviceman—he took up arms to defend this country during World War II and served in every theatre of war over the whole six years—owns a gun and is prepared to get a licence. I asked if my father is a traitor. Mr Dey could not answer that question either, and I will bet that Dey would be one of those people who, if he heard an angry shot, would climb into the nearest hollow log. Legislative Assembly 3483 4 September 1990

One point that Rasmussen and Dey both made is that Queenslanders need these weapons to protect themselves from the screaming hoards that will invade Australia. Pity help us if people like Dey and Rasmussen are the ones to defend this country! Mr Katter: It's not going to happen, though, is it? We are going to be the first country on earth not to be invaded. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will tell the honourable member that it will be no thanks to the people who have a single shot .22 rifle underneath their house to defend this country. Does the honourable member know what the Government did during World War II? The Government of the day took firearms away from people; they had to be handed in to police stations. In the middle of a war the Government determined that it was better to put the weapons in one place and keep them out of the hands of civilians. Mr Mackenroth: They had brooms to train with. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, they were given brooms to train with. A good mate of mine on the Gladstone wharf had a wooden .303 rifle and he said to a bloke, "Halt! Who goes there?" The bloke said, "Me." My mate said, "Stop, or I'll fill you with white ants." That is what happened during World War II. These ratbags out there talk about defending this country with home arms! What an absolute absurdity that is. I am not alone in that view. A good mate of the honourable member for Barambah, Mr Perrett, by the name of Maurice Binstead said— "Can you imagine everybody running around the scrub with a .22 rifle trying to defend the country?" He has no problem with the gun-licensing system either, because he can see some sensibility and reasonableness in what this Government is about. However, people like Rasmussen who really have some other agenda to peddle and who as far as I can ascertain are not really concerned about the gun issue, want to trade in a lot of platitudes, just like the League of Rights. There is no doubt that, if honourable members scratched these people deep enough, they would find the League of Rights lurking there somewhere. They are a front for the League of Rights. They are like the New Guard in New South Wales at the time of Lang, that is, de Groot and his mates, and they have the same mentality. The questions I put to Mr Rasmussen he does not have answers for. In one of the points I made to him I said— "Law abiding citizens in Australia accept the need to license the users of potentially dangerous objects e.g. motor cars, poisons, even the electricians in this state . . ." Even the electricians in this State have some sort of licensing system, because it is acknowledged that electricity is not something to be tinkered with, in just the same way as guns are not something to be tinkered with. What is so wrong with the Government addressing the issue of guns in the same way as it addresses the issue of electricity? In fact, a householder cannot even connect his own water supply to his house unless he is a licensed plumber. Is that also part of a world plot to end democracy? Just in case that people think that it is only outside Rockhampton where these people lurk, I have this "wonderful" pakapoo ticket that was sent to me on my fax machine by J. S. and M. I. Sivyer. I used to buy a bit of ammunition off this fellow and also a few firearms in my time. Mr Mackenroth: How many guns have you got? Mr SCHWARTEN: I have 34. Mr Mackenroth: You are happy to be licensed? Legislative Assembly 3484 4 September 1990

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am happy to be licensed. I said that at the outset. I have no problems with licensing. Mr Sivyer states that he has been asked by many of my "erstwhile supporters" to convey the message that they feel that the ALP's attempt to disarm the Australian people is tantamount to treason. He says that they hesitate to approach me directly for fear of reprisals, as do many conservative voters who have never voted for me, anyway, which is a fairly intrusive statement to make. Mr Sivyer also stated that he personally hopes that very severe gun laws are introduced into Queensland because at least this will guarantee that the ALP will not win an election in Queensland for the rest of this century. He was not content with that, so I wrote back to him. Mr Elliott: You told him that you would buy your ammunition elsewhere, did you? Mr SCHWARTEN: No, but I will. I will have a licence to do it, and I will be all right. I can give the honourable member the drum—I certainly will not be buying any more from Mr Sivyer. He then referred me to the Queensland Shooting and Firearms Council. The council wrote a very pleasant letter to me and stated as follows— "It is disappointing to see that the debate on gun laws can produce extremist type contacts with politicians which, in the long run, do nothing to add to the debate." The council can say that again! I show honourable members the rest of the rubbish that Mr Sivyer has sent to me. My throwing it on the floor will indicate to honourable members the way I feel about it. He was very hurt that I had the audacity to write to him in a tone similar to the one in which he wrote to me. I could fill a pillowcase with the letters that I have received over this issue. People must have known that I own firearms and they must have looked upon that as a peg on which to hang their hats. Not all of them were ratbags. In fact, I worked quite closely with some people who had a contribution to make to discussion of the issue. A couple of people queried the tax issue. They saw the Government's proposal as a hidden tax. One gentleman said that he presumed that the revenue generated would be considerable and wondered whether it could be a roundabout way of imposing another tax on a certain group in the community, bearing in mind that this is a no new taxes Government. The fact is that this is a revenue neutral proposal and if people say otherwise, they are absolutely crazy. The bottom line with this legislation is that anyone who deserves to own a firearm in this State will be able to own one. They will have to get a licence, and there is no problem with that at all. I do not know what all the kerfuffle is about. I have no problem with this legislation at all, but I know what all the people who wrote to me are worried about. They are fearful that there will be a psychiatric test associated with owning a firearm and that they will not pass the test. It would not matter whether a logical analysis or a test were applied or whether a person wished to cite statistics to ratbags of the type who wrote to me, he would come to the conclusion that I reached. I believe that these people ought not to have firearms. Perish the thought that that fellow Dey is wandering around with a gun! Perish the thought that Rasmussen has got one! I am not the only one who thinks that Rasmussen is a nut-case; I believe that the honourable member for Callide thinks that he is mad, too. As far as I am concerned, the real agenda of the people who have written to me is that they realise that they are not fit and proper people to own firearms. Their actions point directly to the reasons why they are opposed to this legislation. In my opinion, this legislation contains many good features, but people have not bothered to look thoroughly and objectively into it. For example, the pistol licence issue is a totally satisfactory arrangement to people in the pistol-shooting clubs. I have spoken with those people and they are very satisfied with the fact that no longer will people who own a .38, a .357, a .22 and a .32 have to have four separate licences, which was the case under the National Party Government. Yet members of the National Party Legislative Assembly 3485 4 September 1990 preach about the way they looked after the gun lobby! The point I make is that the pistol licence issue will be looked after by this Government. Mr Mackenroth: One licence, and five years instead of two. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes. Moreover, people will not have to obtain the Minister's approval to hang a lavatory door. The proposed arrangements contrast markedly with the previous arrangement, which required applications to be made in quadruplicate. The other point I wish to make is that some members of the opposition parties would have people believe that this legislation will not save lives. Presently, anybody can wander in off the street—people such as Rasmussen and Dey—buy a semi-automatic and as much ammunition as they can carry, and blow away people in a public place. Is that what members of the opposition parties want? That is the current situation. Perhaps members of the opposition parties can tell me how such people are prevented from doing that. At this moment, nothing prevents people from taking that action, and if that is the type of situation advocated by members of the National Party, for example, then they will have to live with it. This Government acts responsibly and it is not about to allow lunatics to wander in off the street and buy a semi- automatic firearm and shoot everybody who happens to be in the street. There are many other issues that I would like to address, but I have run out of time. Time expired. Mr CONNOR: There is one very big difference between this Bill and the Liberal Party's policy on gun control and that is that members of the Liberal Party do not believe that a person has to have a licence to own a weapon. That being said, I must also say that the Liberal Party does not believe that anyone should be able to own a rifle. Mr Welford: Is that what Santo said? Mr CONNOR: That is exactly what he said. The Liberal Party also does not believe that anyone should be able, on the spur of the moment, to buy firearms. The Liberal Party believes that there should be a two-week cooling-off period. It does believe that there should be a prohibited list and that people with criminal records and mental disorders should not have those weapons. The Liberal Party sees no value in requiring a person to carry around a piece of paper. Work is involved in supplying the licence, and replacing it if it is lost. The licence has to be distributed and checked to ensure that it cannot be duplicated easily. Other associated costs are incurred by and inconvenience caused to the licensing people. More than anything else, what does it achieve? Because people carry around a licence, are fewer people likely to be killed? If a person who is about to buy a rifle has a criminal record, that information could be ascertained by consulting a prohibited persons list. A cooling-off period would prevent a person who was temporarily insane from obtaining a weapon. We agree with the Government that a cooling-off period is most important. It will reduce the number of people who on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage might attack their spouses or other people close to them. What does a licence achieve, other than perhaps create a few more jobs for public servants? Will it stop a person who already has a licence and who goes insane? The licensing system would make no difference in that regard. What else will the licence achieve? When a person who does not have a licence with him is pulled up by the police, he will be liable to be fined for not carrying a licence. What does that achieve, other than perhaps create a bit of revenue for the Government and extra paperwork for the public servants working in the police department? Legislative Assembly 3486 4 September 1990

Under the Liberal Party system, if a person who had a weapon was pulled up by the police, it would be easy to ascertain whether the person had a criminal record and was prohibited from holding a licence. As we know, that information is already on computer and the police could check it over the radio. I return to the question: what do we achieve by requiring people to have a licence to own a long rifle? Earlier, a Government member cited Professor Richard Harding of the University of Western Australia and past director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. In his book Firearms and Violence in Australian Life, Professor Harding stated— "Whatever argument might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them. Suicide should be discarded as a consideration when making gun laws." It has already been established that licensing will not keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Short arms such as pistols have been licensed weapons for some time, yet most robberies are perpetrated by people using those types of weapons. As we can see, licensing has not kept those weapons out of the hands of criminals. I turn to the ammunition that is used. The Government proposes that a person will not be able to purchase ammunition unless he has a licence with him. That will not stop ammunition from getting into the hands of the criminal element, because it would be very simple for a person to get a friend or his wife to obtain a licence and buy ammunition for him. What are the disadvantages in having a licence system? There is the inconvenience of a person's having to remember to carry the licence with him, and also the potential for prosecution if that person fails to carry the licence when transporting or being in possession of a rifle. As well, inconvenience is caused if a person loses, misplaces or damages a licence and has to replace it. An additional photograph would also be required and, in some cases, the person would suffer the inconvenience of having to travel into town. That is not a great inconvenience for people who live in the cities, but it is a great inconvenience for people who live in the western and far-northern areas of the State to visit the city to have a photograph taken and to meet all the requirements that are necessary for the issue of a licence. That brings me back to whether or not it is a good idea to restrict firearms. Government members have worked on the premise that, if laws of this type can stop just one person from being killed by firearms, it is worth while. That is blatant rubbish. How can the Government justify inconveniencing 700 000 people in Queensland to this extent? On that argument, it could justify putting bars on every window of every building over two storeys high because someone could fall out or be pushed out and killed. What is more, it could justify limiting road speeds to 10 kilometres an hour, because cars kill many more people than firearms do. The life of a human being is very precious, but that does not mean that the State should have the right to abrogate one more human right. I will turn to the political aspect of the legislation. The gun-owning population of Queensland is huge and there are many reasons why those people believe they have the right to bear arms. All honourable members would have received large amounts of mail on this topic. They would find that one thread runs through all the letters, that is, that the gun-owners of Queensland do not trust the politicians or the Government in curtailing the rights of individuals to bear arms. I turn to the power to search for weapons. The giving of this power sets a very dangerous precedent. It gives the police almost unbridled power to stop and detain individuals. Mrs Edmond: I thought it was a public service. Mr CONNOR: No. I am talking about stopping and detaining people. It does not relate to public servants; it relates to the powers of police. The Bill provides— "A police officer may stop, detain and search— . . . (b) any person whom the officer suspects on reasonable grounds of being in physical possession of any weapon liable to seizure under this Act or any other Act." Legislative Assembly 3487 4 September 1990

That is a very wide power. In practice, it will give police the power to stop, detain and search everyone. If a person is wandering in a park, the police can stop and search him, whether they can justify the search on a reasonable ground or not. They could make something up. The member for Yeronga, with his experience in civil rights, must surely understand the excesses to which some police—only a minority, of course—will go. This legislation represents a huge threat to civil liberties. Matt Foley knows very well how it could be abused. How it will work in practice is that if the police see someone whom they do not like the look of, say, a young fellow riding a motor bike down the street, they will use this power to stop the bike—— Mr Hollis interjected. Mr CONNOR: I said that they were in a minority. Only a few police officers are involved. That was revealed in the Fitzgerald report. When the Labor Party was in Opposition, it was very critical of the police under the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The legislation introduced by the National Party was nothing when one compares it with the excesses of this Bill, particularly in relation to civil liberties. This clause is the epitome of those sorts of excesses. The Liberal Party does not propose longer sentences per se, as was suggested earlier by a member of the Government. The Liberal Party believes in truth in sentencing. It believes in having only criminals in gaol and in keeping criminals in gaol for longer periods. How often does one hear about prisoners who have received long sentences for violent crimes such as rape and other sexual offences, murder and armed robbery getting out in two years or less? How often does one hear about violent prisoners escaping after they have been let out of gaol unescorted to visit an accountant or someone else? Firearms are not the major problem. The people who pull the triggers of the firearms are the major problem. If these people are going to be allowed to remain on the streets, more firearms offences will be committed. I will cite a few examples to demonstrate that the system that the member for Yeronga supports is collapsing. Recently, a man named Steen pulled off his second escape from gaol. The wardens only realised that he had gone when he failed to turn up for a training run at 7 a.m. Stein was sentenced to 10 years' gaol after being convicted of armed robbery. He had been placed in "a non-secure accommodation area" of Wacol gaol. This fellow is an armed robber. He was sentenced to 10 years in gaol and had served only three years. He is dangerous, and he has already escaped twice. I turn to the case of Jane Fuller, a convicted armed robber, who escaped when she was let out of a women's prison to attend a self-esteem course. She was let out of gaol in the company of a nun. Fuller had been in gaol for only six months when she was let out to attend a self-esteem course—an armed robber! Now two at a time are leaving Wacol gaol. Jamieson and Coogan, both armed robbers, threw a rope over the wall and escaped. An estimated 150 prisoners—including murderers, rapists and drug- pushers—are walking out of Queensland gaols every weekend. This is happening under the new policy of unsupervised leave for prisoners, regardless of their crimes. The prison system makes a laughing stock of the whole court system. Corrective Services in Queensland are in chaos. One convicted drug-pusher named Kilroy was stopped in a car when she was on one of these weekend junkets. Mr Mackenroth: What's that got to do with guns? Mr CONNOR: These are armed robbers that the Government is letting out on the streets. Mr Mackenroth: Kilroy was never armed. Legislative Assembly 3488 4 September 1990

Mr CONNOR: Kilroy was involved in an armed robbery. She is a convicted armed robber, and she was let out of gaol on a weekend junket. She was pulled over in a car and found to be in the company of two known drug-pushers. That is wonderful! But these prisoners promise that they will not consume any alcohol or take any drugs while they are out on these weekend junkets and that they will not break any laws! If these people are out on the streets, they will find a gun, whether there is a system of licensing or not. It does not matter how many restrictions the Government imposes; these people will find a gun. These licences will simply stop the 700 000 honest people in Queensland from owning a gun. Mr STONEMAN: I believe quite sincerely that this legislation should be named the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill. One only has to look at the list in the Schedules to realise how wide-ranging this Bill is. It does contain a great many weapons. I will get to those later. Why not include golf clubs, lumps of wood and knives in the legislation? Why are those things not included? The fact is that this Bill opens up a Pandora's box. The Bill had potential for good. Unfortunately, because the Government either is not being realistic or has no understanding of the implications of this legislation, it will fall down. That is what concerns me. Of course, the Government has the numbers. In this debate, honourable members have heard some rather incredible speeches. I refer in particular to the contribution by the honourable member for Rockhampton North, who undoubtedly will now become known as one of the great after-dinner speakers. I do not say that in any derogatory sense. Obviously, the honourable member has an understanding of guns. Like me, he owns a number of guns. I wonder whether, under this heavy-handed legislation, the honourable member and I and others are going to be considered to be collectors. This Bill does not really define when one ceases to be an owner and when one becomes a collector. I am particularly concerned about the definition of "owner" and the definition of "collector". It is a problem. It is just one of the grey areas in this Bill. I will let the Minister return to his work and come back to that point later on. One gun-owner spoke to me after a quick scanning of the Bill. All members would be aware that this legislation has been in the hands of those people who have a very deep and genuine interest in firearms only for the briefest amount of time. The committee of one gun club in the north, which has found no bogies in this legislation, met only last night to discuss this legislation. The time has been taken up with conveying the Bill to the electors and calling meetings. I believe that all honourable members would concede that that has made it extremely difficult to fully discuss this legislation with people. The unseemly haste with which the Government has proceeded over this legislation will not only create a backlash but also a deep and, at times, unreasonable fear in gun-owners. As a person with a country background, in my youth I carried guns, both concealable and long arms. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I would not be talking about this had that not been the case. They have been a part of my occupation for the past 25 to 30 years. I am well aware of the implications of and of the need for safety and training and of the fact that society does not want guns in unfriendly hands. I am a believer in stronger controls. One area in which this Bill falls down is the constraint it puts on genuine gun-owners. However, more particularly, it does not put enough constraints on the people who seek to own firearms for illicit reasons. Those people who would use guns for illegal activities are the ones not really addressed by this legislation. The Bill creates a whole range of problems for those people who currently own guns. It may put unnecessary fear into their hearts but, when the Bill does not address Legislative Assembly 3489 4 September 1990 their fears, who can blame them for having extreme feelings. A major problem is that people do not understand the parameters of the Bill. I can advise the Minister that the community will be greatly concerned during the changeover from the old order, as it has been known, to the new order. People such as myself have lived with licensing to some degree for many, many years, but the average person has no understanding of what this legislation will mean. What will they do when the dreaded knock comes to their door? As one of my colleagues stated earlier, how will this Bill operate if people do not voluntarily apply for a gun licence? The Government is relying on people coming forward willingly and without fear to apply for a licence. This Bill does not address the problem of those gun-owners who do not apply for a licence. What is going to happen? Will the Government make criminals out of those people? If someone was over at Joe Blow's shed and saw an old gun and if he was a bit sour on him, he might be reported to the local policeman. Because he does not have a licence, he will not show up on the police records as a licensed gun-owner. In all honesty, he may have forgotten about the gun that was in the shed or under the seat of the Land Rover and that he had not opened since the last time he had a flat tyre. All those circumstances can genuinely happen but this Bill does not provide for them. As far as I am aware, this Bill does not provide for an appeal process. What is to happen if people believe that they have been unfairly wronged? Mr Mackenroth: Read the Bill. Mr STONEMAN: They are the grey areas. People who are interested in the Bill and who spoke to me last night on the telephone from gun clubs said, "Where is the appeal?" They looked through the contents section and said, "Hang on. We have got a problem." Mr Mackenroth: I don't believe you. Open the Bill up. Mr STONEMAN: I am saying to the Minister—— Mr Beattie: Take the interjection. Mr STONEMAN: I will get to Part 5, but the Committee is dealing with clause 1.1, which is the short title. Mr Mackenroth: You said there was no provision. Mr STONEMAN: The point I am making is that, in their minds, the Bill contains no appeal provision. I am reporting on what has been reported to me. What about those people who will be wronged by this legislation and those who will change from one form of licensing to another? For instance, are those people guaranteed a roll over? Are they guaranteed that, under the provisions of this Bill, their good behaviour and good gun ownership over many years—the graziers, the people who own licensed, concealable firearms—— Mr Mackenroth: No problem. Mr STONEMAN: Is that a guarantee, that everyone who currently owns a licence—— Mr Mackenroth: Anyone who currently owns a licence who applies for a new licence and meets those provisions—— Mr STONEMAN: Within the new licence? Mr Mackenroth: Within the new licence, within that time. Mr STONEMAN: That is what I am getting at. It will be a further judgment. Mr Mackenroth: No, the licensing provision now is still the judgment of the police officer, exactly the same as it was under the Act. The only difference with the concealable Legislative Assembly 3490 4 September 1990 firearms is that, when they apply for their new licence under this Bill, they will get it for five years rather than for two years and, when they go to renew that licence, it will be a renewable licence and not as it was under the previous Act—applying for a new licence for two years. Mr STONEMAN: Good. I thank the Minister for that. Mr Mackenroth: They are much better provisions. Mr STONEMAN: I am very pleased to hear that, because that is one of the grey areas. I am pleased that the Minister's comments are on the record. Mr Mackenroth: The gun lobby will not talk about the good things in this Bill. Mr STONEMAN: I am trying to be reasonable and fair. The Minister will not find that I have misunderstood the extremist attitude in the community, but I do not believe that those attitudes are unreasonable. I believe that they have been fairly and squarely represented by many people who see many problems with this legislation. I believe that this legislation will not work. I do not believe it is a good Bill. It does not have a practical component—— Mr Mackenroth: You have not read it. Mr STONEMAN: I have read it. Mr Mackenroth: If you had read it, you would have known about the appeals section. Mr STONEMAN: As far as I am concerned, the appeals section is very wishy-washy. The Minister will have his say later on. Let me refer to some of the other matters. Mr Mackenroth: Do you agree with the provision? Mr STONEMAN: I will have to come back to the Minister later on. I have only 10 minutes; he has plenty of time. One thing that is of great concern is how a gun club will provide on its rifle range a moveable gun shop to which a gun-dealer will be able to take guns and, in abiding by the provisions in the Bill, display his wares, set up a trade process and generally perpetuate the good structures of the sport? That would appear to be an anomaly also. Hopefully, the Minister may be able to give consideration to the matter of gun club meetings to which a gunsmith can take his guns, display them on site and trade them away from his premises. That is a concern that he may be able to address. Mr Mackenroth: That was a concern that they had with your Act, too. Mr STONEMAN: I inform the Minister that, before I became a member of Parliament, as a shooter of some repute, I attended gun club meetings all over the State and the nation and that was never a problem. It now concerns those people. I also inform the Minister that this legislation contains so many grey areas and so many unknowns that people are fearful, and they have a right to be fearful, because the Government is ramming this legislation through without most clubs having had the benefit of having access to this Bill. So why should people not be concerned and fearful? Will children going to the Barrier Reef with spear guns have to be licensed to use them? Mr Mackenroth: No. Mr STONEMAN: Well, a spear gun is an offensive weapon. What about the licence fees? People do not know how much they will be. Will corner stores be able to sell ammunition and will they be licensed to sell firearms? Mr Mackenroth: If they're licensed to sell them. Legislative Assembly 3491 4 September 1990

Mr STONEMAN: That is what I am getting at. What if some places do not sell firearms but are permitted to sell ammunition and send it out on the mail truck to properties? They will have to be licensed as a gun shop. Mr Mackenroth: They will be licensed to sell ammunition. Mr STONEMAN: That is right. They will have to be licensed to sell ammunition. Mr Mackenroth: Under the Explosives Act they will be licensed to sell ammunition. Mr STONEMAN: Exactly. They will have to go through that process. They will be required to do more and more bookwork. In fact, in many areas of Queensland of which the Minister would not be aware, ammunition, bread and butter, reloading components and those types of things are a part and parcel of life. They are carried by the mail truck, sometimes only once a month. They are the sorts of things that are matters of concern. Mr Mackenroth: They're already licensed under the Explosives Act. Mr STONEMAN: Okay. I raise again the point I raised earlier. What about old and unused guns? For instance, recently I found in my shed an old, rusted gun. My thought was: will this be classified as a firearm? Under the terms of the Act, it is a firearm. My thought was that I could be in breach of the law for having that in my possession. If a person has an old, rusted gun in a cupboard somewhere that has not been used for many years—as the one I found had not—is he in breach of the law? The gun that I found still had the bolt and the barrel but the stock was totally gone—the white ants had eaten it—and it was all rusted up. Nevertheless, some innocent person could find himself in a situation such as that and not be aware of the consequences. Under the terms of this Bill, such a person could be prosecuted. I am very concerned about some of the details in this Bill, but they will obviously be referred to later in the debate. As I said, the penalty provisions are far too light. The penalty provisions against the genuine owner are one of the major problems. We know that, in the community, there are probably many hundreds, and probably thousands, of illegal concealable firearms. For many years, it has been a requirement that concealable firearms be licensed. Yet a third of all crime that is committed with guns is committed with concealable firearms. But today, members of the Government have made ridiculous statements by saying, "Bring this in. For God's sake, don't let it go another week; you'll save more lives." What a lot of poppycock! What a lot of codswallop! The people who will come forward and license their weapons will be those who are honest, those who are in fear of being locked up, those who have the fear that honourable members on this side have expressed today. The crooks will not come forward. They will continue in the same manner as they always have: they will steal guns and make guns. That will continue ad infinitum. It is part and parcel of life. One of the problems is that the Government has no understanding of the practicalities of this matter. This legislation has been half-thought through. It is a good thing to get a headline. The Government has received some good editorials. It has got on side those people who do not understand what this legislation is all about. But the problem is that, by the passage of this Bill, the Government will not encourage an educative program; it will not encourage young people to join pistol clubs, rifle clubs and sporting association clubs. There will be no return of funds generated. In fact, the paperwork that will have to be undertaken as a result of this legislation will be a drain on the public purse. As my colleagues on this side of the House and in the Liberal Party have indicated, this will be another impost on the Police Service of this State. Mr FitzGerald: And the taxpayer. Mr STONEMAN: And, of course, the taxpayer, as the honourable member for Lockyer said. Legislative Assembly 3492 4 September 1990

This Government is paying lip-service to the anti-gun lobby. Members opposite can talk about the pro-gun lobby, but it is the anti-gun lobby which is being pandered to by this Bill. The problem is that the Government does not understand how impractical this Bill is and how impossible it is for it to achieve what it seeks to do. I do not blame the Government for trying to achieve a lessening of the illegal use of weapons and of people being shot accidentally. But, regardless of legislation, accidental shootings still occur. Those things cannot be addressed by this type of legislation. The Government cannot legislate for common sense. That is impossible. A Government can impose all the laws in the world but it will still not come to grips with the problem. Another question that needs to be answered is: what happens to the old gun that is lying in the cupboard at home, out of the way so that no-one can find it except when it is needed to kill a snake or something like that? Are expensive security processes necessary to control the storage of such guns? Many people own old pea rifles or shotguns just in case something happens. When does a person such as a kangaroo-shooter or a grazier become a professional weapon-user and when does he become a gun-collector? It is most unfortunate that those grey areas are not delineated in this Bill. They should be. If the Government had licensed guns along the lines of the New Zealand system, sensible gun- users would have felt more protected. I am not saying that I would necessarily support or adopt the New Zealand structure, but it does contain some realism. Its processes allow for checks and balances and do not specify that the authorised officer is the sole judge of whether or not a person is suitable to hold a gun licence. I am concerned—and I am sure that a vast number of people are concerned, too—that people will increasingly have to justify why they own guns. I do not believe that it is necessary for a person to have a reason to own a gun. If a person is reasonable, is held in reasonable esteem within the community and has some integrity, it should be his or her right to own a gun or guns. Constraints should not be placed on the numbers or types of guns that people can own, except perhaps for machine guns—I do not agree with people owning them. This Bill will turn gun-collectors into registered owners of guns. All guns will have to be registered. I am concerned about another aspect of that which I will mention at a later stage if the Government does not gag the debate. As a long-term gun-owner, gun-user and gun addict, the practicalities for me are such that I am dismayed at the ineptitude of the Government and the emotion that it has used in mounting its arguments. Most of all, I am disappointed that thousands of decent gun-owners in this State will be at risk. Time expired. Mr HEATH: I agree with the Minister that this Bill is of vital importance. I represent a suburban city electorate in which people do not use guns in the course of their work, and the vast majority do not use guns in the pursuit of their recreational activities. There is a widespread fear amongst residents who already suffer from crime problems that violence involving firearms is likely to extend into their households. On behalf of the people of the Nundah electorate and personally, I strongly support this Bill and the measures that it will introduce. Members of this Parliament have received many letters from Queenslanders expressing opposition to the introduction of any system of licensing for guns. Not one of those letters came from a constituent of mine. I shall address some of the commonly occurring points and submissions in those letters. This Bill is not unworkable. It is quite simple, and it is certainly not unwarranted. The Bill is not intransigent or unfair, unwieldy or unnecessary and is not a blatant attack on 700 000 Queenslanders. The Bill is not inefficient or expensive and is not the first step towards a total ban on firearms. There will be no central repository where all firearms are kept. Government members in this Chamber are not traitors, spies, fools or international socialist plotters. Legislative Assembly 3493 4 September 1990

I single out for special mention the Australians Right to Bear Arms Association. A document in my possession contains the most unbelievable collection of lies and facts and figures that are twisted into incredible conclusions and unsupported and unsourced allegations. For example, the document states that 78 per cent of teachers are Marxists. Not even Mr Lingard could agree with that—with or without his experience in the education system. The document to which I refer is signed by Mr A. R. Pitt of 79 Ferry Street, Maryborough. Mr Elder: What was his name? Mr HEATH: Mr A. R. Pitt. He mentions the names of Peter Sawyer and Bob Doring. I assume that they are leaders of the organisation. The views expressed in the document are so extreme that they have shocked and sickened members of firearms associations to whom I have shown it. I was very disappointed to hear similar views expressed by the member for Barambah and other members. To allow Queenslanders to understand the type of lunacy that is espoused and promoted by the Australians Right to Bear Arms Association, I shall read a few extracts from the document. The hypothesis of that association is as follows— "We need an armed populace for the defence of Australia." In support of that premise, the document states— "It is my opinion that the people who gibber about the dangers of domestic violence, criminal violence and bank hold-ups deliberately play up minor danger for ulterior motives. Nobody could be stupid enough to ignore the probability of war and holocaust to concentrate solely on tiny social upheavals . . ." One section of the publication headed "Traitors" refers to members of Parliament from all parties. It states— "Every would-be invader gets his spies into the public service, the military, the church, the schools, the media, the unions, the police and anywhere else information can be gained, disgruntled nationals recruited or sabotage instigated. Fools led by these traitors signed an agreement for 'total and complete disarmament of Australia', not just civilians, in 1982. That was ratified in 1984. Neither party involved saw fit to tell us at the time or thereafter . . . Our defence plotters have worked vigorously to get rid of . . . anything . . . we could use to defend this land. Whether they are traitors or fools matters little, the end result is defeat." The document states further— "Our laws are complex. They date back to antiquity . . . Mark well the men who subvert our laws. We may need to seek revenge if our families suffer the same fate as the Jews of Europe, the Soviets in the Gulags or the Cambodians under Pol Pot." Under the heading "Identify law breakers", another article states— "We must expose all politicians who fail to obey the Statutory Laws our forebears put into effect to control the Crown and the Parliament." Mr Beattie: Or refuse to turn up to debates on time. Mr HEATH: Or refuse to turn up to debates on time. The article continues— "We must dismiss or punish the puppet judges who deliberately misinterpret our Constitutional Law. We must ensure all Australians are fully aware of our rights. We must not let these evil legislators work their will by circumventing our Statutory Laws. We will lose our precious rights if we fail to act now." Now here is something about the National Party— "Some people are too ignorant to educate or do not want truth. Many politicians fall into this category." Legislative Assembly 3494 4 September 1990

That applies to many Opposition members— "Some are evil and work for foreign ideology." I do not say that any Opposition member is like that. The article continues— "They laugh at out pathetic efforts to avoid disarmament, totalitarian government oppression and holocaust. Some are stupid. Nearly all are too lazy to read correspondence. Save paper. Convert the people." Here is one for the journalists. The article states— "Most journalists are really kids and not involved. The physical abuse of the real world has not touched them so they have no survival instinct. They just swallow the tripe they get from the wiremen and regurgitate it. By warning them time and time again of the possible consequences of disarmament, invasion and rampant internal government some will wake. Just pray that it is not too late." The articles goes on and on. It states that 78 per cent of teachers espouse Marxism. An Opposition member: I'm enjoying this. Mr HEATH: The honourable member is enjoying it. All right. The article continues— "Work out what it will cost you when you hand your guns in during the amnesty."— which does not even occur under the Bill— "If you think you will not end up with your gun in the central repository you kid yourself. If you think that one day they will throw away the key to the repository you are dead right. Give $10 a week now. Give it to men who will fight for your rights." Under the heading "Use psychology", another article states— "Study of human behaviour indicates that the soft approach works, but that is not the whole truth. That approach only works after the victim has been kicked, bashed and brutalised by a third party. It is up to us to be the bad guys, tell the voters the awful truth, rub their noses in their own stupidity . . . " That is wonderful stuff. Mr Katter: This is the best part of your speech. Mr HEATH: It will be obvious from what will be recorded in Hansard that that association represents the dangerous extremist fringe of Australian society, even though the member for Flinders seems to enjoy it. One point that is consistently raised by those who are opposed to the licensing of long arms—including speakers in this debate—is that statistics show that licensing does not prevent gun-related crime. I agree that prevention is impossible. The Bill seeks—and I believe it will produce—a reduction in such offences. Another point that is raised regularly is that licensing does not work in practice. I have a letter from the Sunshine Coast branch of the Firearm Owners Association of Australia, which states in the paragraph headed "Licensing does not work in practice"— "Experience in southern States with various forms of licensing systems is that it has little effect on crime involving the unlawful use of firearms . . . mass shootings—such as Hoddle Street and Queen Street in Melbourne—were by deranged people who held a firearm license. So one key question is raised by the FOAA members—why the push for a system which has been shown not to work in practice in southern States in preventing such incidents?" Again, the word "preventing" is used instead of the word "reducing". Any effect that the Bill will have upon gun-related crime will be on a much wider range of incidents than just those involving mass shootings. Legislative Assembly 3495 4 September 1990

Mr Katter: So you are admitting that it would not stop those massacres. Mr HEATH: I am suggesting that statistics in other parts of the world, to which I will refer shortly, suggest that the Bill will reduce incidents that involve primarily the use of firearms in domestic altercations. It is misleading of the association to use a section heading such as "Licensing does not work in practice" and then to address only one small issue under that heading. Experience in Canada, where a very accurate record has been kept since the introduction in the late seventies, of gun-control laws shows that even the number of mass shooting have been reduced. In relation to licensing and indiscriminate shootings—the State President of the Firearm Owners Association of Australia said that no amount or degree of licensing will ever stop that type of horrific crime and that such crimes are usually preplanned. Firstly, the word "reduce" is not used. He used the word "stop". Secondly, I disagree that such crimes are usually preplanned. Last Thursday, in Sydney, five people were killed by a person who bought a shotgun for self- defence. According to the Courier-Mail, he was insulted at about 8.40 a.m. and began shooting people just before 9 a.m. I suppose it could be argued that 15 minutes is time to carefully preplan the shootings. However, it sounds to me more like a spur-of-the-moment attack. The State President of the Firearm Owners Association of Australia also says that there is, in fact, no such thing as a spur-of-the-moment crime. That is an indefensibly outrageous statement. Had the person involved in the shooting last Thursday in Sydney not owned a firearm, there was a 45 per cent less chance of his using any other weapon to carry out such a homicide. Mr Littleproud: How do you justify that figure? How do you justify that last statement you made? Mr HEATH: It is in the statistics—in the summary. In the same paper, the association notes that, bank hold-ups have decreased by 40 per cent. If that is true, that is good. That information is not accurately sourced in the association's paper. Over the previous seven years, bank hold-ups increased by 600 per cent. Further, surveys show that firearms represent 97 per cent of the weapons used in bank hold-ups in Australia. The Bill does not introduce a draconian set of restrictions on gun-owners. As an attack on civil liberties, as it has been portrayed, the Bill is about as draconian as the requirement for drivers to be tested and licensed. I will not refer in detail to the clauses. I support the Bill strongly, and my support is based on a belief that domestic gun-related homicides and injuries will be curtailed and reduced by the changes that will be brought about by the Bill. That belief has not been arrived at lightly or emotively, nor is it based on an incomplete or one-sided study of the relevant statistics and arguments. Mr FitzGerald: You've got no guns in Nundah, you told us before. Mr HEATH: No. I am talking about Queensland. The key statistics are that firearms are used in 35 per cent of the total number of homicides in Queensland and in 42 per cent of domestic homicides. Further, the statistics show that the use of guns in domestic altercations is three times more likely to lead to death than use of the next most dangerous weapon, a knife. Firearms form the largest single weapon usage percentage by far. As I mentioned previously, the prevention of all firearm-related crime is not a realistic possibility. Its reduction in some areas would also seem to have a limited likelihood, although it is possible. This legislation gives the Government a very real Legislative Assembly 3496 4 September 1990 opportunity to reduce the incidence of domestic firearm-related deaths and injuries. It is an opportunity which this Chamber would be foolish and remiss to ignore. I support the Bill. Mr KATTER: Today, I have listened to a number of speeches from members on the other side of the Chamber. The member who spoke before me gave two reasons why this Bill is being introduced: firstly, because there has been an increase in burglaries in Nundah, and presumably throughout Brisbane and the State of Queensland and, secondly, because it will stop deaths from domestic violence. There is one small hole in his argument; that there have only been eight deaths in the State of Queensland. In the great, enlightened State of South Australia, which has one-third of the population of Queensland, there were seven deaths. Mr FitzGerald: Over what period? Mr KATTER: In a period of one year. A State with one-third the population of Queensland had almost exactly the same number of deaths as Queensland, presumably half of them as a result of domestic violence. Statistically the honourable member's proposition is quite crazy. It simply does not stand up to reality. Under his statistics, the State of Victoria—which is the State with the tightest gun control laws in Australia and which has twice the population of Queensland—should have had 10 deaths as a result of domestic violence. I ask: did Victoria have 10 deaths as a result of domestic violence; this great, horrific problem outlined by the honourable member for Nundah that is caused by people having guns? No, it did not. Did Victoria have 20 deaths, that is, twice as many as Queensland? No, it did not. Did Victoria have 40 deaths, that is, four times as many? No, it did not. In fact, Victoria had 59 deaths. If honourable members are to accept the argument put forward by the honourable member for Nundah, we can look forward to a 500 per cent increase in deaths by domestic violence in the State of Queensland. That clearly indicates the absolute stupidity and superficial nature of the sorts of arguments that have been put forward by the imbeciles on the Government side of the Chamber, who can deal in such a flippant manner—— Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: I withdraw those remarks, but members on this side of the House become angry when they hear such spurious arguments totally lacking in logic or any sort of scholarship. Government members could have at least made the effort to walk over to the library and check how many deaths had occurred. Mr Elder: You should have been here this morning to listen to the debate. Mr KATTER: I certainly listened to the debate. The honourable member may not have noticed it yet, but this building has closed-circuit television and members can work in their rooms and listen to a debate. This issue has been pulled down out of the trees by the socialists; it is a flag they must wave. This is one piece of legislation that the ALP had to put through this Chamber, come hell or high water. One of my senior advisers in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was a person of Aboriginal descent and he said— "The social workers love me because without me they haven't got a job. There is just one thing I have to do, though, and that is I can't stand on my own two feet because the day that I do is the day that I don't need the social welfare payments. I don't need the social workers or the socialists to look after me. That's the day that we don't need them. Therefore, they have a vested interest in having me around and having me on my knees where I can't look after myself. They have a big vested interest because the day that I have self-reliance, pride and independence is the day that they haven't got a job." That is one of the reasons why the ALP—the party that advocates socialism in this place—feels very threatened by self-reliance and independence and people being able to Legislative Assembly 3497 4 September 1990 look after themselves and not having to throw themselves upon the tender mercies and inefficiencies of the State mechanism. For those members who have at least made the effort to do some research on the Hoddell Street massacre—the perpetrator of the crime had a history of mental imbalance, and he would have had to be listed on a prohibited persons register. He was a Duntroon graduate, and if he could not have a rifle, who in Australia would be allowed to have one? Obviously, he would have been licensed to have a rifle, but he would have been included on a prohibited persons register—that is, a properly working register—after he had been charged with assault with a knife. Mr Mackenroth: Why didn't your Government introduce one? Mr KATTER: What was done or was not done in the past is of little relevance to the debate tonight. What is relevant is: what are the best laws for the State of Queensland? Queensland had eight deaths, yet the State that has twice the population of Queensland and is playing around with all these exciting laws, that is, Victoria, had 59 deaths. I do not think that the problem in Queensland is so great that we have to get agitated about it. Mr Elder interjected. Mr KATTER: Some people had very strong convictions about this issue and were able to have their arguments prevail in the halls of power. That is the reason why those proposals were not proceeded with at the time. The second reason advanced by the previous speaker was that burglaries are committed in Queensland. I received in the mail an excellent leaflet—I presume other honourable members received it, too. The leaflet stated that this Parliament is unarmed. By virtue of this legislation and by imposing a licensing system on gun-owners, the Government is in fact disarming people. By doing that, the Government is really advising every burglar who operates in this State that he can freely enter the Parliament because there is no way that anyone can do anything about it. I wonder what this Government would recommend that the wives of many honourable members who are left alone at night while their husbands are working late should do if a burglar breaks into their houses? Should they say, "Please do not rob my house."? I would imagine that this Government would regard that as the adoption of a reasonable approach. By the operation of a prohibited persons register, the offender in the Hoddle Street massacre would have been prevented from being able to obtain a gun and the massacre would not have occurred. In contrast to that, under the circumstances in which a register of firearms was in operation, the massacre would most certainly have occurred. The recent Sydney massacre involved an offender who was mentally unbalanced and who had been the subject of charge after charge. New South Wales had a register that was supposed to work and was supposed to prevent people of that type obtaining firearms. I would say to anyone who tried to tell me that a person who is mentally unstable cannot obtain a firearm in some way or other that he had rocks in his head. Recently I asked a person who runs a light engineering works in Charters Towers how long it would take him to machine a weapon that would work, and he told me that it would take about 15 minutes. Quite frankly, I would regard a Molotov cocktail as a more efficient weapon and I would expect anyone I trained when I was in the army to have been able to put one of those together in approximately five minutes. To obtain a lethal weapon, I do not think anyone would experience any difficulty in putting together a fairly effective weapon in a very short period. Constant emphasis is placed on the dangers posed to society by madmen, but emphasis should be placed on enabling a society to defend itself. When a lunatic starts running around with an automatic shotgun in a manner similar to the incident that occurred in Sydney recently, are people supposed to throw rocks at him? I suppose that people could telephone the police, but the police took 31 minutes to arrive at the Sydney incident. By the time they had arrived, six people had been killed and the offender was Legislative Assembly 3498 4 September 1990 having a cup of coffee, waiting for the police to come and get him. That is how effective calling the police was in that instance. By the presentation of this legislation, this Labor Government is advocating leaving people to the tender mercies of lunatics. Mr Elliott: Do you think that these people are advocating that you will have to have a licence for a piece of four-by-four? Mr KATTER: That is true. Mr Elder: If you had had the courage of your convictions, you would have done it two years ago. It is as simple as that. Mr KATTER: No. The National Party does not believe in that. The difference between the honourable member who interjects and me is that I do not believe in disarming the public and he does. I believe that every person has the right to defend himself. Over the years, a few important pieces of paper have been put together, such as the Magna Carta and various Bills of Rights. Probably the most famous is the American Constitution, which I do not think has served the people who live in the United States too badly. It seems to have resulted not only in their success but also, when imposed on Japan, in the tremendous success achieved by the Japanese. I assume that the people who wrote the American Constitution were not entirely fools; it has enshrined in its provisions the right to bear arms. Mao Tse-Tung was right when he said that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. He who has the gun has all the power and those who do not have the gun are subjected to the totalitarian rule of the Government of the day. The disarmament of the population has been a hallmark of totalitarian regimes over many, many years. Mr Beattie: Are you agreeing with Mao? Mr KATTER: I take the interjection and the jeers. When I said that the hallmark of a totalitarian regime is the disarmament of the people, the honourable member roared laughing. I wonder if he wishes me to list the countries in Europe that do not allow people to have rifles and those that do? It will read like a Who's Who. Mr Beattie: Go on! Mr KATTER: Let me name the countries that do not allow people to bear arms. They are: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany and Russia. I am simply listing the communist regimes of Europe. Switzerland is a country in which every single person is issued with a rifle and 100 rounds of ammunition. A number of books and statistics to which I can make reference state that, arguably, the lowest level of crimes of violence involving firearms can be found in Switzerland. Let me also examine the position of the State of New York, which has the highest incidence of firearm-related crimes and the most stringent gun controls of any American State. At the other end of the spectrum is the laissez-faire attitude of the State of Texas, which has an extremely low incidence of crimes involving firearms. If criminals know that people are not allowed to carry weapons, it is a pretty fair invitation to them. In such circumstances, criminals will be able to do exactly as they please. It is certainly true that, when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. Those who stand in opposition to the views that I have put have subjected me to sneers and jeers over the issue of defence. Perhaps Government members have not read any history books and perhaps they have never heard of the holocaust or the Warsaw ghetto. I point out that the Jews who lived in Germany were disarmed and there was no way in which they could fight back. The Jews in Poland, however, witnessed what had occurred in Germany and proved to be a little bit smarter. They got hold of some firearms and were able to hold out for a longer period. They held more of the Wehrmacht at bay for longer than the French and the British were able to withhold the German army. Legislative Assembly 3499 4 September 1990

That is what an armed populace can do. If they are disarmed, they will suffer in the same way as the Jews in Germany suffered. If the Israeli population were asked today whether they would agree to disarmament, not a single person would agree. How has the State of Israel been able to survive? Three of the seven wealthiest countries in the world, including 200 million Arabs, surround and are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which consists of 3.75 million Jews. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr KATTER: Mr Palaszczuk is sitting there making painful noises. I want it placed on the record of Hansard that a person whose family came from Europe is acting in that fashion. Why were the events in Europe allowed to occur? In the past, in Germany, one person was able to seize power and impose his will, completely untrammelled, upon a huge nation. At this time, Israel is able to exist because it is a fairly wealthy country and can equip an army of a million people. But, when an army attempts to invade Israel, suddenly it is up against an army of 3 million people who have access to automatic weapons. In that situation, constantly the Arabs find themselves outnumbered three to one. That is the type of thing that a country such as Australia can do to provide a very cheap and credible means of defending itself. As to the issue of personal protection—if a person does not have a firearm, especially a woman or a child, that person is at the mercy of any pack of louts that might happen to chance by. In 12 years, 12 murders have been committed on the Flinders Highway. Even the Federal ALP Minister for Northern Development has advised people not to set out on the Pacific Highway south of Mackay without a weapon. That comment was made after 20 murders were committed on that highway in the space of seven or eight years. If a pack of louts were to come upon a woman with four children in a broken-down car, and if her husband had gone to get help, what hope would she have without the assistance of a weapon? Even if she had a weapon, she may not be able to save herself and her children. However, she would have some chance of defending herself. The ease with which one can make a weapon makes futile any efforts to curb ownership of weapons or restrict ownership of weapons. It has been said that all we are doing is licensing the firearms. Mr Sullivan: No, we're not. We're not licensing firearms. Mr KATTER: I apologise; I meant "licensing the owners". That is exactly what was done with concealable firearms. This is identical legislation to the concealable firearms legislation. I cannot blame the police for deciding that everyone should be disarmed and that they should be the only ones with firearms. If I were a policeman, I would also make that decision. Under the legislation, police will be given discretionary powers. Obviously, the Minister does not intend that that discretionary power will be exercised. He is issuing licences for life. However, the legislation could be amended or any new applications could be refused. I asked an old politician who was involved in public affairs at the time when the concealable firearms legislation was introduced what the position was at that time with concealable firearms. I was told that there were hundreds of concealable firearms in our district. My own family had four or five concealable firearms. Since I have been a member of Parliament, I am not aware of a single concealable firearm licence having been issued. However, I am aware of approximately 30 or 40 applications that have been refused. Concealable firearms have been taken from the people of Queensland. The discretionary power was used by the licensing officers—the police. Who could blame them? They simply would not allow people to have firearms. No grounds have been laid down Legislative Assembly 3500 4 September 1990 upon which the police can issue a firearm. It is purely a matter for the discretion of the licensing officer. The appeal system is not worth two bob. Because there is no basis on which a person can claim a right to have a licence, no argument can be advanced. People have no substance upon which to mount an appeal. The appeal is a travesty. The same situation that existed under the concealable firearms legislation exists under this legislation. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (9.14 p.m.): In common with many people on this side of the House, I am a little distressed about the poor level of debate from the Opposition. It has been absolutely appalling, and Opposition members know it. They have not even read the Bill. We received a tirade from the honourable member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, who raised a question with the Police Minister about whether there were any appeals. He has not even read Part 5 of the Bill—a key section. If Opposition members want to debate a key piece of legislation such as this, they should at least give the Committee the courtesy of having read the Bill. I will deal with some matters that I think are important. Mr Katter: What are the grounds of appeal? Mr BEATTIE: I will get to the honourable member; I have got plenty of time. Many members of the Government have been subjected to a fairly vicious and officious campaign orchestrated by people who can loosely be described as part of the gun lobby. I do not have any hesitation in saying here tonight that I am appalled by some of the tactics that have been used. A large number of letters which did not have stamps on them have been sent to my electorate office. They had to be paid for at my end, which meant that the taxpayers of Queensland were paying approximately 96c a letter. Those are the sort of dirty tactics that were adopted by those in the gun lobby who were opposing this legislation. Mr Stephan: I thought that would have come out of your account. Mr BEATTIE: Well might Mr Stephan croak, because most of those letters were posted from his electorate of Gympie. I have raised this matter before in this Chamber, and I make it absolutely clear that I regard that as an offensive way for anybody to deal with an objection to a piece of legislation. If anybody wants to write to me and pay the appropriate postage fee, I will be happy to provide the appropriate reply. I think it is an underhanded and dirty tactic for anybody to leave the taxpayers to pay their postage fees. When it gets to 100 or 200 letters, it becomes expensive. I do not believe that that is an acceptable code of behaviour. Mr Prest: It is in keeping with National Party behaviour. Mr BEATTIE: I will take that interjection. It is indeed. I want to say something about the hysteria that has been communicated to the Government. A Mr J. Smith of Buderim sent a letter. He had the kindness to enclose a newspaper clipping. It was from the Biloela Central Telegraph of 27 June 1990. It is a pity that the local member, Vince Lester, is not in the Chamber. I will read out the sort of diatribe that is contained in the local newspaper—— Mr Hollis: That is Mrs McCauley's electorate. Mr BEATTIE: I extend my apologies to Mr Lester. I stand corrected. Legislative Assembly 3501 4 September 1990

That does not change the fact that what is contained in this article is diatribe. It is headed "Burns all 'fired up' at Biloela". I invite honourable members to listen to this nonsense. It states— "Deputy Premier Tom Burns has threatened to use the Australian Army against Queensland citizens who oppose the Labor Party's new Firearms Legislation, according to an observer at Friday's Local Government conference at Biloela." It goes on— "Councillor Maurice Hetherington who attended the conference as an observer from Banana Shire Council"— which sounds appropriate— "said he approached Mr Burns after he addressed the meeting of 32 shire councils. Mr Hetherington said he was 'disgusted' with Mr Burns' attitude." One does not have to be Einstein to know that the Deputy Premier of Queensland does not have access to the Australian army. That is a Federal responsibility. That is the sort of nonsense that has been printed. But it gets better. It is interesting to note that all the letters that I received are very similar. Pieces of paper have been cut and pasted and many of them are from the same newspaper. Some of them are identical. Strangely enough, when I read the letters, I find that most of them are exactly the same—the whole 235 of them! I want to read a couple of these letters because they are real beauties. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Gympie will enjoy this; he should listen. One letter says— "According to the latest 1982 police report the existing Act is more than adequate for police purposes. There does not appear to be any rational reason to change the Act." That letter states that the latest police report is 1982. There happened to be one in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, and in October this year the Honourable Minister will table the report for 1990. The erroneous material that has been provided is ill-founded and basically nonsense. Honourable members should not lose sight of the fact that the National Party set up a committee which sat for 18 months and then recommended that the law be changed. The gun lobby was represented on that committee. Bill Gunn, the then Deputy Premier, supported change. What happened? Members of the National Party went to water because they know that this legislation is important. It is vital and it is crucial to the lives and future of the people of this State. Mr Katter interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member should not get excited. I want to return to some of the material and correspondence that members of the Government have received. Perhaps the best that I received was sent by the Arms Collectors Guild. It was a little bit like Nostradamus. It was headed, "Urgent, urgent. New gun Bill nobbled". That was right because of what happened in this Chamber tonight. Members of the Opposition could not even be bothered to turn up on time. They can bleat all they like, but at 7.30 no member of the opposition side was present to debate the Bill about which the National Party and the Liberal Party are so concerned. That would have to be one of the most disgraceful performances ever by any political party. Members of the National Party and the Liberal Party were so fired up that they could not even be bothered to turn up to debate the Bill. Mr Prest: Not one. Legislative Assembly 3502 4 September 1990

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, not one. It gets worse. One of the many standard letters says— "I must also advise that failure to comply with the wishes of voters will lead to a Constitutional challenge. This in turn could bring about your dismissal and a by-election in your electorate." That is the sort of diatribe and nonsense that I am talking about. Mr Sullivan: Is that an abuse of our privilege? Mr BEATTIE: Not only is it an abuse of the privileges of this Parliament but also—as my learned colleagues the honourable member for Yeronga and the Attorney-General would agree—it is also a breach of the Criminal Code to threaten members of Parliament in the carrying out of their duty—— Mr FitzGerald: Is that section 60? Mr BEATTIE: I will take that interjection. I see that the honourable member is a budding lawyer. I thought he was a QC. Three sections of the Criminal Code deal with threats of this nature. Of course, no-one in this Chamber took them seriously. Nevertheless, it is the sort of tactics that have been used in this debate. I will read some more of these letters—— Mr Katter: We have read them. We've got the letters, too, you know. Mr BEATTIE: It is a pity that the honourable member did not take some notice of them. If he had, he would have been as inflamed as I was. Another standard letter states— "They do not want any restrictions on the rights of loyal Australian citizens from owning arms, if they so desire, for sporting purposes, or the natural right of self-protection of life and property, or defence of the realm." What do we have an army for? These people have no idea of the history of the Constitution of this country, nor of our British ancestry. I received material headed "Attention all Queenslanders" that goes on about why the Government is limiting the ownership of guns. It is a load of sick nonsense. It talks about the strategy being pursued by certain people to corrupt the young, get them away from religion, get them interested in sex, make them superficial and destroy their ruggedness. What sort of garbage is this that has been distributed by people to try to influence members? I will deal with two more matters before I come back to clause 1.1, the specific clause under debate. I have one letter that deals with the often-quoted figure of 700 000 individual Queenslanders who are in fact holders of guns. Two and a half million people live in this State. Anyone who seriously suggests that 700 000 separate individuals own guns must have the mathematical ability of Bob Katter. One cannot end up with 700 000 people out of a population of 2 500 000 who own guns, babies in cribs are crawling around with guns. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The statements made by the honourable member reflect upon me. I ask him to withdraw them. I did not make any statement about 700 000 nor, to my knowledge, have I done any arithmetic this evening. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to withdraw those remarks. I have no expectation that the honourable member would know anything about arithmetic. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The remarks were not withdrawn. He reasserted the same statement that he made in the first place. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments because I find them offensive. Mr BEATTIE: I am quite happy to withdraw the remarks. Legislative Assembly 3503 4 September 1990

Dealing with the document that was referred to by my colleague, the honourable member for Nundah, I have to say that of all the documents that have been distributed to members during this debate, I find this one the most offensive. The document displays a photograph of Belsen, one of the holocausts of the world, which everyone in this Chamber knows was a disgusting event. The production of this photograph in relation to a gun debate is sick. I do not care what view members in this House adopt, I do not believe any member opposite who has a view opposed to this legislation—they are entitled to be respected, for that—can possibly support the type of propaganda that has been distributed. It has the heading "The Gun Debate; we need an armed populace for the defence of Australia". I will deal with some of the material contained in it, but not at any great length. An Opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member should be aware of what the argument is. I am not going to come into this place and have a glorified debate on the terms that the member wants. The issues will be dealt with on the basis of the argument. If the honourable member does not like that and throws it out, he will have to cop it. On page 2, the document states— "What proof is there that armed civilians are good defence?" Mr Katter interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member in fact dealt with this issue. If he pays a little attention, he might learn something. The document states— "The Swiss have had peace for 150 years. It is compulsory for all men under 55 to have a rifle and 100 rounds of ammunition. Hitler avoided invasion of Switzerland despite the lure of the world wealth held in the Swiss banks." Talk about playing with history! Hitler did not invade Switzerland because he needed a neutral country for negotiation and diplomatic purposes. One does not need to be Einstein to know that. To suggest that he did not invade Switzerland because it had guns has got to be the greatest fallacy since Topsy. The document further states— "Even today it would require 6,000,000 regulars to defeat the 600,000 armed civilians supporting the tiny regular army. When Hitler asked the Swiss Premier what he could do if the Germans sent a million crack troops against the 500,000 guerilla defenders the Swiss replied, 'We will have to shoot twice'." What a lot of diatribe and nonsense. However, one of the worst aspects is a section that deals with what is termed "The Muck Chuckers". The document states— "The anti-gunners discredit us by association. When a crazy kills with a gun they immediately blame the gun for the death. Then, because we have guns, they insinuate that we are therefore potential killers. We can muck chuck too. Australia's democratic socialists are the motivating force behind the anti-gun lobby. They have a skeleton in their cupboard. Their international socialist mates have killed more innocent people this century than all wars. Our socialists have given these murderers physical, financial and moral support all through The Gulags, The Big March . . . " In conclusion on that point, I wish to say that sort of sick debate and sick argument that has been put by those people, and indeed repeated in this House, is not worthy of serious consideration But that is the sort of material that members have been subjected to as part of the lead-up to this debate. I have been requested by those people concerned to bring this to the attention of the Government. I have no intention of doing that, but I do table for the future history of this State the diatribe and nonsense that has been sent to me. I table 235 letters that I have received from people who, quite frankly, I do not believe would be competent to hold gun licences in this State. I table those letters to allow future people to make their judgment on the material that is contained in them. Legislative Assembly 3504 4 September 1990

Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Mr BEATTIE: I will deal with some of the myths that have been dealt with in this place. One of the points that I think has been lost sight of is that the provisions of this Bill are quite sound. What do they provide? They provide for the following requirements before someone can obtain a licence: the person has to be over 17; he has to have an adequate knowledge of firearm safety practices; he cannot be disqualified under the Act from holding a licence; and in the opinion of the police he must be a fit and proper person. In determining who is a fit and proper person, the police look at the mental state of the person, whether he has been convicted in Queensland or elsewhere of an offence, whether it related to the misuse of drugs or involved violence or threatened violence, and if the person is subject to an order made under the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act of 1989. Once issued, a firearm owner's licence is issued for life. Quite frankly, anybody who wants to argue about those reasonable, sensible and practical propositions is simply being deceitful, dishonest and misrepresenting the case. That is basic logic and common sense, and anybody who is afraid of that is afraid of common sense. The nonsense that has been put before this House tonight, including that from the honourable member for Flinders, is quite frankly a disgrace. Having dealt with those matters, I will now deal with the honourable member for Flinders. He argued before this House that people found it easy to make weapons. Why should there be legislation such as this if people could go out and make weapons. What absolute nonsense! Certainly a very small percentage of people can do that, but the member must have rocks in his head if he believes the general community will have access to home-made guns. The small percentage of people who would have access to them would be so minuscule that indeed it would not be worth considering at any great length. If the member uses that as an argument against this Bill, quite frankly, he really has got major problems. The second point I wish to raise relates to guns. The honourable member for Flinders suggested—and I can hear him becoming hoarse at last—that if someone has a gun in his car or at his home, in some way that means that he will be safe. What he ignores, of course, is that, at law, only equal force is permitted to be used. The law is very clear. A person cannot simply shoot an unarmed person with a gun. That is a basic principle of law. The criminal law provides that only equal force may be used. The honourable member's proposition—— Mr Katter interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member said it. He might not like it, but he has to live with it. He said it. He should read what he said. Quite frankly, he does not understand the law as it exists at present. As someone who is concerned about the 800 Queenslanders who died as a result of firearm- related incidents over the past five years, as someone who is concerned about those people who work in banks and finance institutions who do not want to be constantly put in a position of receiving threats during their lives and to whom I have spoken and seen the social trauma and the physical—— Opposition members interjected. Madam TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mrs Woodgate): Order! There are too many interjections. Nobody can hear the honourable member on his feet. I ask honourable members to keep down the level of noise. Mr BEATTIE: As someone who is concerned about those people who work in banks and finance institutions, who have had to go through trauma because of hold-ups and who have suffered psychological impairment as a result, I say that they deserve better. The next time all of those members opposite who oppose this legislation go into Legislative Assembly 3505 4 September 1990 a bank or a building society or any other place that deals with finance, they should have on their conscience exactly what they have done tonight, namely, opposed legislation that will protect those employees from not only physical violence—— Mr Veivers interjected. Madam TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Mr BEATTIE: I believe it is important that consideration be given to bank employees in this State. Over the years, I have spent time discussing these matters with bank employees and I have spoken to people who have been subjected to threats of violence and, indeed, who have been victims of violence. I believe that this legislation is important to their protection. I intend to conclude by making three points. Mr Veivers: Three points? Mr BEATTIE: The points are very simple. Even Mick Veivers could understand them, notwithstanding those many years of hard knocks he has suffered in the ruck. The three points are these: over the last five years, as a result of guns, 800 Queenslanders died. Legislation is needed to protect people who work in the banking industry. The most important point is this: I believe that the orchestrated campaign which has been waged against members of Parliament on this side of the House is nothing short of a disgrace. I believe that it has certainly had political overtones and that sections of the National Party were clearly behind it. If Opposition members want to oppose Bills such as this, they ought to do so in a proper manner, not in an underhanded way. Madam TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Before I call the next speaker, I will say once more that there are too many interjections. Nobody can hear what is going on. I warn all honourable members. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is with a deal of remorse that I rise to speak on clause 1.1. When issues such as this are debated, it is found that we are quite often debating philosophy, not common sense and practicabilities. Such contributions have been made all night by honourable members opposite. All we have heard from Government members is a diatribe on the Opposition saying that it exhibits facile, ultra Right Wing stuff tendencies. That is not the case. I think it is necessary that that be put on the record here and now. How often have such suggestions been made by members on this side of the House? Perhaps once or twice. But that is the whole basis of Government members' arguments. Below that, their arguments are extremely shallow. I think they would probably do well to debate the issue instead of introducing emotional issues. I refer now to a point that I noticed in a ministerial circular which was circularised to Labor Party members by the Honourable Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In paragraph 5.12 on page 30 of that circular we see something that could cause us to embark upon a great trail of supposition in trying to understand what it means for the future. That paragraph, headed "Licensing or registration will not control the millions of guns already in circulation", states— "Licensing alone will not control all weapons already in existence. But registration would make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns—at least from retailers." Now we really do see what will come about at some time in the future. Mr Mackenroth: What's that from? Mr SPRINGBORG: That is from the Minister's circular to his Labor members. I will table that document. Legislative Assembly 3506 4 September 1990

Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr SPRINGBORG: From that document, it can be seen that, at present, the Government is really playing to the sentiments of a lot of decent, respectable people in the community. The Government is saying that it will not institute a system of gun registration. That is fair enough. That is almost palatable. I can almost swallow that myself. The Government is saying that it will introduce a system of one-off licensing, which is also fair enough. But what happens a bit further down the track once all the claims that have been made by members opposite that this State will not have three murders a week in the future and that perhaps 800 Queenslanders will not be killed in the future do not come true? Once the Government finds that these erroneous claims are not coming true, then it will be backed into a corner by the very people who are supporting this licensing system. That system will be expanded and a system of gun registration will be introduced. Perhaps a little bit further down the track gun-licensing will be introduced. This is just a step in that direction. I make the prediction that, at some time in the near future, if this Labor Government can make it through the next three years and the term after that, we will see a strengthening of this legislation. We will see that; mark my words. As I said, honourable members are debating philosophy, not common sense or practicalities. Much has been said about the much-vaunted Canadian system, which is supposed to be the role model for the rest of the world. Worldwide trends show a decline in murder rates. A document in my possession states that, in about 1915, there were almost two homicides per 100 000 of the Australian population. It states further that, from 1915 to 1986, the Australian homicide rate fluctuated between a low of .08 per 100 000 in 1941 and a high of 2.1 in 1919. Those figures, which cover a period of 72 years, show two general trends, namely, a declining rate of homicide until 1949 and a rising trend since 1915. Homicide rates have levelled off since the mid-1970s. The uncertainty with those rates is the same as the uncertainty that exists now with the greenhouse effect or the ozone layer. We have not been on this planet long enough to establish whether it is cyclical or whether there may be some outside influence. Much has been said also about the administrative and policing nightmare associated with the implementation of this legislation. It will be an administrative and policing nightmare for our resource- starved police. This problem should be addressed now. If this Government intends to license 200 000, 500 000 or 700 000 shooters in this State, that problem should be addressed so that police have the necessary resources to issue those licences. I suggest to the Minister that those particular resources do not exist at the moment. Something must be done to address the problem. Mr Smyth: If you are so concerned, why weren't you here after dinner? Mr SPRINGBORG: I take that interjection from the honourable member for Bowen. I was in my room attending to my speech so that I could inform honourable members about many aspects of this legislation. It is a pity that members of the Government did not do the same research as I did. They should hang their heads in shame. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will coach myself. The same trend as that which has developed recently in Australia is emerging in Queensland. If this Government wants to license guns, I suggest that it would be remiss to embark upon this process without licensing other objects that are used in society to inflict grievous bodily harm and to commit homicides, robberies and assaults. Amongst those acts is the ever-increasing number of knives that are used in domestic violence in this State. Legislative Assembly 3507 4 September 1990

Let me cite some of the statistics in relation to domestic violence, which has been mentioned during this debate. This legislation is being heralded as the much-vaunted panacea that will eliminate or help to eliminate those problems. I suggest that that is not the case. I turn now to statistics relating to the use of weapons as a threat in domestic violence in Queensland during 1982-87. A total of 661 weapons were used during that period. Knives were involved in 94 cases, or 14 per cent. Guns or rifles were involved in 91 cases, or 14 per cent. Blunt instruments accounted for 17 incidents, or 3 per cent, and no weapons were involved in 420 cases, or 64 per cent. This legislation does not address the underlying problem, which is not necessarily guns. The majority of gun- holders are responsible people. Mr Perrett: What about AIDS? Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes. Recently, somebody asked me what would happen if a bank-robber entered a bank with a syringe full of AIDS-infected blood and said, "Give me some money or I will inject you." Should syringes be licensed? I realise that some of these examples are unusual. However, Government members believe that the licensing of firearms will be the panacea for the problems. It will not. I am talking about a major societal problem that originates from financial stress and the impact of particular films. I am not referring solely to pornographic films. I am talking about the Americanisation of some Australian television programs. The high incidence of violence in the United States, including murders, assaults and robberies involving firearms, has been mentioned during this debate. However, the John Wayne movies and other westerns that are shown on Australian screens originated in the United States. That particular cult is being inflicted upon Australians. Americans quote the Second Amendment as their right to bear arms. I do not necessarily agree with the way that that Amendment has been bludgeoned into them. Americans believe that they have a right to defend themselves by bearing arms. Because of what Americans see on many television programs and in movies, they believe that it is almost socially acceptable to indulge in those sorts of activities. The incidence of suicides involving firearms was mentioned. I believe that approximately 93.4 per cent of deaths in this State involve firearms. Because I am taking that figure off the top of my head, I could be .1 per cent out—if I am out at all. Approximately 9 per cent of those people are murdered or assaulted. The statistics also include legal intervention, etc. I suggest to the Minister that this legislation will not solve the problem of suicide. Many people who commit suicide or murder/suicide have been driven to that end. I am sure that many sociologists would agree that that is the case. In many cases, people are driven to that end because of the impact of poor finances and high interest rates. I have read about incidents that have occurred in country and city areas of Queensland where people have been driven to suicide or murder/suicide. This Government should be addressing the social well-being of people. Many ostensibly very responsible people commit suicide by using firearms. A Government member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: That deserves a reply. The honourable member for Maryborough must understand that many of those people are driven to the point at which they can snap. They see suicide as their last resort, the way in which they can get themselves and their families out of their predicament. It is terrible that those people have to resort to such measures to solve their problems. In accepting its responsibility, the Government should try to alleviate the social plight of those people. By bludgeoning this sort of legislation through the Chamber, the Government will not reduce the number of people who commit suicide. The legislation will not catch the people who deserve to be caught. That will become evident in a few years' time, when the Labor Government, if it is still Legislative Assembly 3508 4 September 1990 in power, will have to introduce a system of firearm registration. Firearm registration will be introduced as surely as the sun will rise in the east. It has been found throughout the world that even if guns are taken away from people—I am not suggesting that the Bill does that—human ingenuity cannot possibly be overcome. The human mind is the most ingenious, devious piece of machinery that one could ever come across anywhere in the galaxy as we know it—there are other places in the universe that might contain a life-form that is more intelligent than we are. I watched a program on television about people in South East Asia who were banned from owning guns. I am not suggesting that that is the case with the Bill. I am alluding to the ingenuity displayed by those people, who did not have the sophisticated lathes, drills or machinery that we take for granted. They took an axle from a car and drilled another hole through it. They hooked it up to a very primitive flintlock system. Gunpowder was not available, so they chipped the heads off some matches and ground them up. Because they could not buy projectiles they melted down some toothpaste tubes and, put the substance down bamboo shafts. When they dried, the people cut them to the size that they wanted, which produced a very effective weapon. Mr Mackenroth: Where did it happen? Mr SPRINGBORG: It happened a couple of years ago in Sumatra. The reason why I mentioned that was to point out to the Minister the level—— Mr Mackenroth: Was it an American movie? Mr SPRINGBORG: No, it was not, it was a documentary. If the Minister had not watched so many wild western movies that enabled him to run away with his fantasies and fixations, the Government would not have introduced the legislation. I mentioned that documentary to illustrate that there are within the community extremely sophisticated people who will overcome any laws that the Government inflicts upon them. How long have we had concealable firearm licensing and very prohibitive concealable firearm regulations in Australia? I suggest that the regulations have been in place for many years, probably dating back to before most honourable members, even the oldest ones, were born. I will refer to some of the statistics. It is almost impossible for many people to obtain a pistol in this State, yet pistols continue to be a major contributing factor in murders, assaults, robberies and crimes involving grievous bodily harm. Between April 1985 and September 1987 in Australia, pistols were used in 287 bank hold- ups—that is, in 31.4 per cent of bank hold-ups. Mr Elder: What about rifles, shotguns? Mr SPRINGBORG: I will read the figures. In the same period, shotguns were used in 240 bank hold-ups—that is in 26.3 per cent of bank hold-ups. Sawn-off shotguns were used in 166 bank hold- ups—that is in 18.2 per cent of bank hold-ups. The point is that, although Australia has extremely prohibitive regulations with regard to concealable weapons, people still manage to obtain weapons with which to commit a crime. Because the black market is readily accessible, no amount of legislation, regulation or registration will solve that problem. Only if a trend continues for 10 years will it be a true indication of what will happen in the future. I wish that I received a dollar every time somebody said to me, "If people want pistols, all they have to do is go down to the Woop Woop pub on a Friday night and they can soon buy them." How does the Minister address that problem? I suggest that the only way in which the firearms problem can be addressed is by banning weapons altogether, and the Government would not want to do that. Rather than going into philosophical arguments and drafting philosophical legislation such as the Bill before the House, which is based less on common sense and practicability and a bit more on emotion, the Government must make the population more socially responsible. In Legislative Assembly 3509 4 September 1990 the future, if the Minister wants to travel along that path, he will have to introduce more restrictive legislation in Queensland. I turn now to accidental shooting. I was extremely amused to read in the Minister's second-reading speech that the legislation was introduced because many people had been shot from distances of over one kilometre by persons using small weapons, such as .22 rifles. Ammunition boxes state that bullets can travel up to two kilometres, but I suggest to the Minister that surely in those circumstances a shooting would not be considered as deliberate; it would be accidental. If someone was simply shooting at a flying fox in a tree, the bullet could go a bit further. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, but how can that problem be addressed? The only way to address it is to take the guns away. If a gun is shot into the air for a particular purpose, for example, to frighten a crop predator, there is a real chance that the bullet might continue on. In the future, legislation must be considered more carefully. The Government must not be reactionary, because some of the consequences of this legislation could be subordinate in the future. It may come back to bite us. I can quote many examples, such as the little old lady out in the bush with a .410 who goes out to shoot a snake occasionally. What happens if she does not go into the police station to license her weapon and does not understand the licensing procedure? Will she be charged? Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to answer one claim made by the member for Carnarvon when tabling a document. When referring to page 30 of the document, he failed to say that page 27 contained a summary of arguments that were put forward by the gun lobby against the imposition of restrictions on firearms. The words that he quoted were not my words; they were arguments put forward by the gun lobby. The honourable member was wrong in attempting to say that they were my words and in using a document that outlined a number of points. Mr Borbidge: Put out by your office. Mr MACKENROTH: I am not doubting that; I admit that my office distributed it widely. Page 27 contained the arguments put forward by the gun lobby. All the statements made over the years by the different National Party Ministers arguing for gun licensing were also included in the document. If the honourable member for Carnarvon wanted to quote that document, he should have read the heading on page 27 and not tried to use one sentence in isolation. It did not make his speech sound very good. I thought that some of the statistics he used were quite good because they also were taken out of my document. Obviously, the honourable member has read it. The one thing that came through in the honourable member's speech—it also came through in an article I read last week in a newspaper about a statement made by the honourable member—is the same argument that has been presented to this Chamber all night: the licensing the owners of guns will not prevent people from being shot. In all of the statements that have been made, not once has any member of the National Party or the Liberal Party put forward the argument that gun-licensing will not reduce the number of people who are shot. The National Party maintains that the legislation will not prevent shootings. I believe that this legislation, which can be compared with the Canadian legislation, will reduce the numbers of people who are killed. As I said in my second-reading speech, if the legislation prevents one person from dying, then this Government has achieved something. The honourable member for Carnarvon said in his statement that if it prevents only one person from being killed with a gun, then it is not worth while. That is a fairly sick attitude. The argument put Legislative Assembly 3510 4 September 1990 forward by the gun lobby is that someone can throw petrol over another person, kill him with his hands or run over him with a car. The reality is that guns are more lethal than knives. More people who are shot with firearms die as a result of their injuries than those who are stabbed with knives. The honourable member only needs to read the document and he will know that that is the truth. The Bill contains restrictions on the types of knives that people can carry. This legislation will not only outlaw flick-knives but also butterfly-knives. I am not referring to fishermen's butterfly-knives; I am referring to butterfly-knives that can be purchased over the counter for $15. Such a knife is a concealable weapon because a person can hold it in one hand, flick his hand and have ready a four-inch blade with which to stab someone. The sale of those knives could not be prevented under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and today every disposal store in Queensland is selling them. The Bill will stop the use of those knives, which can be concealed in one hand and produced when required. That answers that argument. Mr Rowell: What about a knife in a sheath? Mr MACKENROTH: No, I was referring to a knife that can be held in one hand and flicked out. The description is contained in the Schedule to the Bill. The existing legislation uses the word "flick-knife", but there are other adaptations of what was referred to in the early 1960s as a flick-knife. Other types of knives can be used. Mr Stephan: Used as a weapon and held in one hand. Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, concealed in one hand. Mr Stephan: Used as a weapon and held in one hand. Mr MACKENROTH: Concealed. Mr Stephan: No, held in one hand. Mr MACKENROTH: Concealed. Mr Stephan: Held in one hand. Mr MACKENROTH: Concealed in one hand. The legislation will stop those types of knives being sold to young people. If an honourable member were to ask any high school student to describe a butterfly-knife, the student would tell him and show him how to use one. Mr DOLLIN: I rise to speak to clause 1.1. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on its courage and commitment in bringing the Bill before the Chamber. It is largely in line with the Labor Party election policy on gun laws and is in keeping with what the Labor Party promised to the people. Last year, the Labor Party went to the election with a clearly stated policy of introducing gun- licensing. The Labor Party made no attempt to creep up on it and there were no falsehoods about it. People have known the Labor Party's policy for 12 months or longer. The pros and cons of gun laws were debated long and hard during the election campaign. Some gun lobbyists went to ridiculous lengths by scandalmongering and distributing misinformation about gun laws that a Labor Government would introduce. These people stated that those laws would lead to the disarming of the entire population and made many other ludicrous statements. In spite of this smear campaign embarked upon by the gun lobby, on 2 December 1989 the Labor Party was handed an overwhelming victory by the people of Queensland. The Labor Government won a mandate. The people of Queensland knew when they voted Labor that a Labor Government would introduce gun laws. The 700 000 people who did not vote Labor are not needed. Contrary to all that has been stated by radical gun lobbyists, I regard this Bill as being even-handed, fair and balanced legislation. I feel sure that it will be acceptable to the great majority of Queensland citizens. Legislative Assembly 3511 4 September 1990

I believe that at the next election the Labor Party will win an even greater majority because of this legislation, and members of the National Party should just wait and see that happen. In the past, they should have had the fortitude to bite the bullet. I believe that many members occupying the opposition benches would love to act honestly and vote for this Bill. I say that because, in the past, so many of them have argued in favour of this type of legislation. The Bill provides that in order to obtain a licence a person must be 17 years or older and have an adequate knowledge of firearms safety practice relating to the use and maintenance of a weapon to which a licence relates; he must not be disqualified under the Act from holding a licence and, in the opinion of the police, he must be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Each of these conditions must be evident before a licence can be issued. A police officer must consider the following points when determining whether or not a person is a fit and proper candidate for a licence: the mental state of the person—and judging by some of the letters I received, one wonders—whether the person has been convicted, in Queensland or elsewhere, of an offence, and if a person is subject to an order made under the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989. All those requirements are pretty easy to fulfil. An Opposition member interjected. Mr DOLLIN: The honourable member asks a question. I will take the interjection. The National Party has been preaching that the Labor Government should have simply had a prohibition register, but I ask how members of the National Party would find out whether or not a person was mad? The Liberal Party asked the same question, and I can inform them that the Labor Government will find out in exactly the same way as they would. The full list of licences that can be issued under the Act are: a firearm-owner's licence, which will be the licence for long arms and will be a one-off licence issued for life, contrary to statements indicating that it would have to be renewed every 12 months; a collector's licence, which is a Schedule 1 licence that is issued for life or, under Schedule 2, a licence that is issued for five years; a dealer's licence, which is issued for five years; an armourer's licence, which is issued for five years; an approved club licence, which is a pistol-shooter's licence, which is issued for five years; and a theatrical ordinance licence, which is issued for five years. Mr Elder: All these are improvements. Mr DOLLIN: All of them. The provisions of this Bill will enforce a 28-day cooling-off period before a licence—and, therefore, a gun—is issued. Although ordinary licences for rifles and shotguns are issued for life unless the licence is revoked, all other licences will apply for five years, whereas previously they applied for only two years. There is ample provision for an aggrieved person who has been refused a licence to appeal to the Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court. The provisions of the present legislation allow for an appeal to be lodged in the Magistrates Court only, so this Bill represents an improvement. In many instances, the current legislation requires an offender to prove his innocence, but this Bill provides that the prosecution must first establish the guilt of alleged offenders. The Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act provides the Minister with powers to issue a proclamation declaring any class or classes of gun prohibited and handed over to police. In effect, this power could have been used to disarm the public. The possibility of that type of action is a major concern of the gun lobby. I point out that the new Weapons Bill does not contain any such provision. The police and Government are no longer immune from negligent actions, which is the case under the current legislation. It is noteworthy that a former president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, Mr O'Gorman, said that the Weapons Bill strikes a correct balance. Contrary to the gun lobby's claim, there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that more Legislative Assembly 3512 4 September 1990 homicides are committed in the home than anywhere else and that the majority of victims and perpetrators know each other as spouses, friends, lovers, family members or neighbours. The majority of victims in these situations are women, and often children, who are gunned down in the average suburban home or in quiet, isolated farmhouses. Sometimes, guns are not taken out for the purpose of killing but are used to threaten or terrorise a family which may live in continual fear for years. At this very moment, there are many families who live under those conditions. Between 1962 and 1972, accidental shootings killed and injured more Australians than were killed and injured in the Vietnam war during the same decade. It is important to remember that this Bill does not impose harsh restrictions on farmers or responsible shooters. It is indeed interesting to recall the recorded statements of members of the defeated National Party Government to ascertain their thinking not very long ago. The former member for Maryborough and my opposing candidate, Mr Gilbert Alison, stated on 5 September 1987 that the State Government should license gun-owners rather than the guns themselves. He said that Queensland would be making a "serious mistake" if it licensed guns. Mr Alison chaired a committee investigating the State's gun laws and said that licensing owners would be a much easier task. He stated— "It doesn't matter whether a licensed shooter has got one gun or 101 guns. If he's a responsible person, that's okay. And it works in reverse. If a bloke's a bit of a maniac or potential hazard with a gun, again it doesn't matter whether he's got one or a hundred guns. He can still kill with one." Mr Nunn: Would you say that Mr Alison would need a gun to protect himself? I believe he has had some problems with the greyhound club and the trotting club. Mr DOLLIN: I believe that he has had a few worries. Mr Alison said that he had recommended to the former Police Minister, Mr Gunn, the plan to license owners in conjunction with limiting the availability of films showing explicit violence. On 18 April 1989, Mr Alison was head of a firearms task force that hit out at the former National Party Government's failure to act to prevent the abuse of guns in this State. He said that he was frankly disappointed at his Government's inaction on the committee's report. Mr Alison said that at least 12 of his committee's recommendations should have been implemented and also said that the evidence quite clearly indicated that explicit violence has a very harmful effect on some people. I would have thought that violence would have a harmful effect on everybody. Since the great Labor victory on 2 December, things have changed. Would honourable members believe that Mr Alison is now chairman of the gun lobby in Maryborough that is totally opposed to gun control? The gun lobby espouses the theory that this Labor Government intends to disarm the citizens of Queensland and that this State does not need any additional gun laws. In Maryborough, Mr Alison is known for his great ability to change his mind. I think that this is one of his better efforts. He is definitely an each-way punter. Let us see what the then Minister for Police, Mr Gunn, had to say about guns on 14 July 1987. An article headed "Gun law plan: police to check on buyers" stated— "Police would investigate people who want to buy guns in Queensland, under a plan by the Police Minister, Mr Gunn. He wants a cooling off month between an application to buy a gun and the purchase of a gun. 'It would allow hot-headed types to rethink spontaneous violent action and allow police to make a check of prospective buyers' Mr Gunn said. It was certain the Firearms Act would have to be reviewed because of pressure from lobbyists such as bank officers. 'I have been astounded by the groups favouring such a move (for a cooling off period) and I'll be talking very hard in Cabinet to have such a scheme adopted,' he said." Legislative Assembly 3513 4 September 1990

A short two weeks later, Mr Gunn had changed his mind and wanted only a two week cooling-off period. An article of 10 August 1987 stated— "Queenslanders may have to get police clearance to buy rifles after a review of the State's gun laws. Police Minister Mr Gunn said last night that he wanted a permit system with a 'two-week cooling off period' so police could run checks on intending buyers." On 17 August 1987, an article headed "Permit plan to delay gun sale for two weeks" stated— "The State Government will impose a two week cooling-off period for all gun purchases. The Police Minister, Mr Gunn, said yesterday he planned to introduce amendments to the Firearms Act so anyone wanting a gun would have to apply to police for a 'permit to purchase'. The gun dealer would retain the permit and return it to police for their records. Each permit would allow the purchase of only one gun. Mr Gunn said firearms could only be sold through licensed gun dealers and he would close loopholes by banning privately advertised sales. 'I don't pretend that this will stop all impulse crimes, but it will help,' Mr Gunn said." A day later, Mr Gunn had changed his mind again. On 18 August 1987, an article stated— "The Police Minister Mr Gunn, said yesterday he did not plan to ban private sales on firearms. Mr Gunn who said on Sunday he would push for a two week cooling off period for all gun sales, said that under his proposals private sales would be subject to the same rules as gunshop sales. 'Basically this would involve a private buyer obtaining a permit and a private seller receiving that permit before any sale could take place,' Mr Gunn said." On 27 August 1987, an article headed "State set for tough gun laws" stated— "A two week cooling off period for gun buyers and stiff penalties for people who buy and sell guns without a permit have been proposed in a crackdown on Firearms in Queensland. Police Minister, Mr Gunn yesterday took the proposals to a National Party Parliamentary Meeting and was given approval to develop tighter gun control laws." On 11 July 1987, the honourable member for Roma and Minister for Police at that time said that he would stick with National Party policy of no more gun controls and rejected all the recommendations that Mr Alison and the Firearms Advisory Council had put up after 18 months of investigation. I wonder how much that cost? Mr Alison's recommendations were just about always rejected by his Government. The honourable member for Roma, Mr Cooper, said that the National Party believed that all people had the right to bear arms and that Cabinet would not interfere with that right. What about the rights of our women and children who have been killed in domestic murders in this State? What about the rights of the many young people who are accidentally killed by a stray bullet or an inexperienced gun-handler? I ask Mr Cooper whether "all people" include the insane, the murderers, the violent and the criminals. Surely not! However, I think that by then the Nationals were beginning to realise that their time was running out. They had one foot in Opposition and the other on a banana skin, and that drained their courage. The gun lobby was frightening them to such an extent that they threw common sense out the window in the hope of hanging onto Government. The Liberals' policy seemed to lack positivity, though they appeared to be in favour of some restriction. Their aims were not all that far away from the provisions contained in this Bill. Legislative Assembly 3514 4 September 1990

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Over the years in this Chamber, there has always been a complete ban on the reading of speeches. The honourable member is reading his speech verbatim. I ask for a ruling on that. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr DOLLIN: I am merely quoting what Opposition members said. On 18 March 1988, the Liberal spokesman, Terry Gygar, spoke out against Mr Gunn's announcement concerning the implementation of uniform gun laws. Mr Katter interjected. Mr DOLLIN: I know that the honourable member does not want me to say any more; it is starting to get up his nose. The Liberal member for Sherwood at that time, Mr Innes, supported long arms being licensed. He agreed with Mr Gunn. They were the only two who had any brains. I believe that the opposition parties in this Chamber should support the Bill, as it is doing what they would have loved to have done had they not lost their courage in the face of the pro-gun lobby. The Labor Party has proved that it is made of stouter stuff. I support the Bill. Mr LITTLEPROUD: During this debate, it has become obvious that people have tried to cast the aspersion that Opposition members have extreme views. However, I inform the Committee that the people who have spoken to me about the Bill are not extremists or ratbags. In relation to the matters that have been canvassed this evening, they have expressed the same types of concerns about care for their fellow man as any other person in society would express. I am concerned that some of the material that has come through the mail, about which the member for Brisbane Central complained, is a bit past the pale, and people have dismissed it as such. But the types of people who talk to me about this legislation want—I will use the Minister's phrase—to reduce the impact of guns on society as a whole, to get away from violence and to attempt to disarm criminals. We are all working towards that. Government members would attempt to paint the National Party as being completely against any controls over firearms. I remind honourable members that gun laws have been in place for a long time. We were also very mindful of the fact, as were the people with whom we spoke, that the model in operation in Victoria and South Australia at present is not as successful as that in operation in Queensland. They did not want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. They know that violence occurs and they want to reduce it, but they did not want to introduce a system that could make the violence worse. The legislation has been well canvassed and statistics have been used. However, I wish to raise some new issues. A lady from the Darling Downs wrote to the Minister and stated— "Dear Mr Mackenroth, Could you please forward to me proposed legislation relating to gun laws for Queenslanders? I would like any other material that you can send me on this subject as quickly as you can by post. Looking forward to your co-operation in this matter." That is not a ratbag letter; it is from a fair-dinkum citizen. The response, which is dated 12 April 1990, states— "Dear Mrs Teakle, I refer to your letter concerning the review of the firearms laws. Your comments and concerns have been noted." Legislative Assembly 3515 4 September 1990

She did not express any views; she just made a request. The letter goes on— "As you are aware, a review committee has been established under my Ministry. The committee consists of persons who have a wealth of experience with firearms. They will be making recommendations to me on the whole issue of firearms regulation. Your letter and comments have been forwarded to the committee for their information." She made no comments. It goes on further— "Should you need to make further submissions, you are most welcome to do so. The submissions should be forwarded to Mr Gary McFredericks, Secretary, Firearms Legislation Review Committee. Yours sincerely, Terry Mackenroth Minister for Police." It seems that something went wrong in the administrative area. The Minister did not quite answer the letter as the lady expected. I thought it was worth reading because the lady showed good faith. She was not a ratbag, she just wanted to look into the proposals. Members of the Government have said that members of the Opposition are scaremongering and saying that all guns will have to be banned. I want to read from a letter—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr Schwarten interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Will honourable members cease the cross-fire and let the member speak? Mr LITTLEPROUD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Accusations were made that it was ridiculous to say that the ALP would take guns away from people. I want to read from a letter dated 7 June 1990 and sent by a senator of the Federal Parliament to a Mr John Bradbury. It states— "Dear John, I am totally amazed at the tone of your letter where you state you believe my attitude about the subject of gun control to be dangerously irresponsible and poorly informed. I stand by my press statement. Could I say that Senator Tate will be meeting with the various State Ministers and the matter of gun laws will be raised at that meeting. If I have any influence at all I will certainly press for the banning of guns. Yours sincerely, Gerry Jones Senator for Queensland." As I said, members of the Government have complained that some members of the Opposition are scaremongering. One of their colleagues—a senator—has said that he wanted to ban guns. It is there in black and white. Mr Borbidge: Is he an acquaintance of the Premier? Mr LITTLEPROUD: That could well be the case. I am not into all that factionalism. I am concerned that people are being criticised for being sensationalist because they have said that guns are going to be banned. Yet, as recently as 7 June an ALP senator is on record as saying just that. I table that letter. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Legislative Assembly 3516 4 September 1990

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Accusations were made by the member for Fassifern that the Bill was hastily prepared. In reading through the Bill, I noticed one commendable aspect, namely that the Government wants to allow employees of a land-owner to have use of that primary producer's licence to shoot on his behalf on his property. I have pointed out to the Minister privately and I say now that it seems that the Government has not thought it through properly. The Minister might care to address this matter. The legislation states that the employee has to live on the property to which the licence relates. I think it is deficient in that the employee may not live on the property; he may live in town or on his own property some miles away and travel to and from work every day. It would seem that the wording of the legislation may preclude that. Perhaps an amendment is needed. These days it is likely that a land-owner will have more than one block and that the blocks will not be contiguous. It is a normal part of primary production operations that the employee of the boss, who has the licence, goes from place to place. If he sees some vermin or a beast in trouble, he is expected to get rid of the vermin or put the beast down. If it is not already covered in the Bill, because that is normal practice I suggest that the Minister move an amendment. The fellow might not live on the place and the employee may have to go from block to block. They belong to the one owner, who holds that licence. It is not a big change. It is just an improvement that I think may be necessary. I support the remarks of the member for Fassifern, who said that some aspects of the legislation still need refining—— Mr Stoneman: What if you are on the boundary fence and you have to go and see your neighbour and tell him about something and you have got a gun in the car? What do you do? Do you prop it up against the boundary fence? Mr Mackenroth: He is supposed to have a licence in the first place. It is to enable somebody else to use the gun in emergency situations. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That can be sorted out later between the member for Burdekin and the Minister. I want to finish my speech. From talking to people in my electorate and others, I have found that we all share a common concern in that we want to ensure that guns are more safely handled. We want to make sure that society is safer. However, many responsible people hold the point of view that I hold, namely that the full registration of all gun-owners is not the right way to go. I strongly support the prohibited persons register. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to think about what I have said. I know that they will not take the approach that I have suggested. However, I believe that that is a reasonable way to go about it. Much of what is contained in this legislation is a carry-on from the laws that are already in place. The record in Queensland is not too bad. I urge some caution, because the model that is being proposed could take us down the Victorian track which, as the member for Flinders pointed out, compared to Queensland in terms of population brought about a fivefold increase. Dr FLYNN: My comments will be brief. Basically, I want to have recorded my strong support for this clause—which provides for the short title of the Bill—and, obviously, the Bill in general. I know that this Bill will be widely supported by Queenslanders and also by a majority of shooters. Apart from the large number of ratbag letters that I have received and to which several of my colleagues have alluded, I have spoken to a number of my constituents, who have personally approached me about this issue. As a result of those discussions, it is my conclusion that the majority of shooters who spoke to me about this issue had two major concerns. They were concerned that any legislation to introduce licensing would be used to raise revenue and that this type of legislation could become a bureaucratic nightmare. Legislative Assembly 3517 4 September 1990

This legislation introduces a licensing system for shooters under which a shooter gets a life-long licence. That should completely reassure any sensible shooter in this State that this legislation will not be used as a form of revenue-raising. Although a bit of procedure will have to be gone through, it will have to be gone through only once. It is not like having to go to the dentist every two or five years. I know from the discussions that I have had with people in my electorate that the majority of shooters will be quite happy with this legislation. I also mention how sad and disappointed I am with the attitude of the Liberal Party to this Bill. I would have expected a different attitude from the Liberal Party on this legislation. The Leader of the Liberal Party recently was in Toowoomba opposing the concept of licensing—that was before the legislation was presented to the House. I quote briefly from an article in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 15 August— "The Liberal Party has joined the Firearms Owners Association of Australia (FOAA) and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) in condemning the Queensland Government's proposal to register all firearms and license their users. State Liberal Leader Mr Denver Beanland and Federal Member for Groom Mr Bill Taylor met with four FOAA members . . ." Further on, the article stated— " 'The Government is simply using the catch-cry of crime control as a smokescreen for their own method of people control. It would be a ridiculous harassment of innocent people,' he said. . . . 'People have the right to defend themselves,' he said. 'No-one, no authorities, have any right to deny them doing this.' " I believe that the Liberal Party is out of step on this issue with the people of Queensland, particularly the people of Toowoomba North. I remind members of the Liberal Party of what Angus Innes had to say in this House on the last occasion on which gun legislation was debated in a major way. In October 1979, he stated— ". . . the reality of the statistics shows that 90 per cent of the irresponsible and damage-creating use of weapons, either in a criminal or a negligence sense, involved longarms . . ." To paraphrase Mr Innes, basically he was saying that any legislation that looked at gun-control laws should include a system for the licensing of long arms. He went on to state that any legislation that does not do that is squibbing. I believe that is very much what the Liberal Party is doing on this issue—it is squibbing. I am sure that in the future, the Liberal Party will try again to win the seat of Toowoomba North, and obviously it is entitled to do that. However, I remind it that Dr Lockwood was the last Liberal member to represent that seat. He would still be well known to a number of members in this Chamber. He is a person who I know and respect. In that same debate in October 1979, Dr Lockwood expressed his attitude to firearms as follows— "Legislation is needed to restrict the possession of all firearms to fit and proper persons. What we need is a positive system under which a person who wishes to own, carry or bear a firearm, whether it be a rifle or a shotgun, must display a licence showing clearly that he is entitled to own that rifle or shotgun. He should have to show that licence before he is entitled to purchase a shotgun or rifle from any source. He should also have to produce it before he is allowed to purchase ammunition." Legislative Assembly 3518 4 September 1990

Obviously the views of the Liberal Party have changed substantially since former members Angus Innes and John Lockwood were members of this Chamber. Mr Katter: Do you think that might be why they are not with us now? Dr FLYNN: No, I do not think that is why they are not in this Chamber now. Very few people in my electorate have responded to this legislation in a negative way. As I have already said in this debate, they were mainly concerned about gun licensing being used as a revenue- earning measure, which is not the case. On behalf of the electorate of Toowoomba North, I leave the final word on this subject to an editorial in the Chronicle on Friday, 31 August. Under the heading "The right to bear arms wisely", it states— "The Weapons Bill 1990, introduced into the Queensland Parliament this week by the Police and Emergency Services Minister, Mr Mackenroth, is a piece of legislation which should meet with the approval of most reasonable Queenslanders. Arguments against it have largely come from organisations and individuals with weighted interests and have ranged from the merely indignant to the almost hysterical"— and that certainly describes a lot of the debate from the other side of the Chamber tonight— "backed up by vague and often ludicrous assertions and the selective use of statistics. . . . Who could reasonably argue that, in a society that is becoming increasingly violent, lethal weapons should not be subject to a precautionary system of licensing and control in their distribution and ownership? Is this really repression and an infringement of personal liberty? Surely no more so than requiring vehicle owners to have their vehicles registered and to be duly licensed to drive them." After this Bill completes its passage through the Parliament tonight and the various administrative arrangements are put in place allowing responsible shooters throughout Queensland to apply for their licences, everybody will be happy. Members will not hear anything more about this legislation, and perhaps by the time the next election comes around, the members of the Liberal Party might rediscover their principles. Mr JOHNSON: Firstly, I congratulate my colleague the member for Fassifern for his contribution to this debate and, secondly, I congratulate the member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, for his contribution. Both those gentlemen put forward very valid arguments, and I hope that the Minister noted their comments. I hope that every member has read this legislation. There is no doubt that many members have not scrutinised it with a fine-tooth comb. I remind members on the other side of the Committee that this legislation is a complete invasion of people's privacy. If one reads the small print, one will see that that is exactly what it is. I refer again to the part that police have to play. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "In order to determine whether the person is 'fit and proper', the police officer is to consider the following points . . ." I ask honourable members: will the police become psychiatrists and check out a person's mental standard? If the police are to play their part in the administration of this legislation, they might like to firstly check some of the members opposite. Another part of the Bill that many people have misunderstood relates to the term "thing". I do not know what the "thing" is. My colleague the honourable member for Flinders mentioned earlier a series of different objects such as a steel bar, a knife, a bunch of fives, a boot or whatever. In my time in the bush, I have seen many people who could have used a fist to kill somebody; they did not need a gun. I think that is probably still the case today. Legislative Assembly 3519 4 September 1990

Mr Katter: A bottle is pretty good, too. Mr JOHNSON: That is right, as my colleague the honourable member for Flinders said. In the case last week of the young girl who was murdered with her pantihose, would her pantihose be called a "thing"? In this modern day and age, when we are trying to uphold the morals of society, not invade them, perhaps all the women in the State should be armed so that they can protect themselves against some of the depraved idiots who are roaming the streets. I mention particularly that the issue that we are addressing is very serious. I hope that when the Minister replies he will also take that into consideration. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not in the Chamber at present. Another aspect of this Bill that I think has been overlooked is: how are carpenters' pneumatic nail guns classified? Do they fall into the same category as guns? If they are used the wrong way, they are a very malicious weapon. I think that particular attention should be given to that point. Carpenters or anyone else can go into a hardware store and purchase such a nail gun. Will they be classified as a licensed weapon? Unfortunately, the Minister is not in the Chamber to hear my question. Later in his second-reading speech the Minister said— "The suggestion of a prohibited persons register is not acceptable, as it would clearly be an infringement of one's civil liberties." I do not think the Government knows what "civil liberties" means. As I said, this Bill is a complete invasion of privacy. As the honourable member for Fassifern said this afternoon, the police could rap on anyone's door at any hour of the day or night and conduct a search of their premises. I do not believe that that should occur in Queensland in 1990. I suggest that Christian values, such as those that existed 20 or 30 years ago, should again be instilled in people. Those moral Christian values that we have been taught should be upheld as they were upheld in the past. Some of us are still trying to instil those values in our children. Thank God that there are still some Christian people opposite, because they kept a little bit of common sense in the abortion debate last week before legislation was prepared to come before the House. Thank God there are still some such people in the Labor Party, otherwise we would find ourselves down in the gutter with people such as one who murdered the young girl last week and those who have murdered other women throughout the State. Although this might be a laughing matter for some members opposite, it is not a laughing matter for me. I am talking about people's rights. Because the Minister is not in the Chamber, I hope that one of his two colleagues sitting on the front bench will pass my remarks on to him. I remind the Minister that we are about looking after each other, not trying to take away from each other. It is about time that the Labor Government realised that this is a free country which allows democracy, private enterprise and freedom of speech. It is not a totalitarian society, although the Government seems to have that idea instilled in its head. It is about damned time that it forgot about that and got on with the job of governing this State and looking after the majority of people in this State. The Government should forget about guns; they are only a minor issue. It should get on with the real bread and butter issues about which people are concerned. They do not involve guns, they involve the governing of this State and dealing with its economic problems. I ask the Honourable Minister—unfortunately he is not in the Chamber—to apply common sense to his reply. I remind him of what happened in New South Wales a couple of years ago when Barrie Unsworth was the Premier: the gun laws cost the Labor Government power in that State. Mark my words, it will be the gun laws that will cost the Labor Government power in this State, too. Legislative Assembly 3520 4 September 1990

Mr HAMILL: I draw the attention of the Committee to the presence in the public gallery of the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Bob Collins of the Northern Territory. Mr KING: Early this evening, the Minister made the comment that if one life could be saved by this piece of draconian legislation, that would be fine and it would be well worth while. I suggest to the Minister that he has his values all twisted. I suggest that, if he stopped to think of the number of police who will be needed to implement this drastic legislation, and if he then used that same number of police—and hundreds would be involved—to go out into the community and police things such as highway speeding and armed robbery, far more lives would be saved than would ever be saved by this legislation. I suggest also that the Labor Government came to power in this State not on a mandate to do things such as decriminalising sodomy and introducing gun laws but to clean up the way in which government operates. It was not given a mandate to do the sorts of things that it seeks to do with this legislation. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe the honourable member is straying a little bit far from the Bill when he introduces matters not associated with weapons. I ask him to confine his remarks to the Bill under discussion. Mr KING: A survey was conducted amongst average citizens in the Buderim and Maroochydore areas of the Sunshine Coast. The first question that was asked was: "In view of the crime wave sweeping Australia today, do you feel safe in your home or in the street?" Forty-four per cent of those surveyed said, "No", they do not. The next question asked was: "Do you think the Govt. is doing enough to protect you, your family and your property from criminals?" Seventy-eight per cent of those surveyed said, "No", they did not believe that the Government was doing that. How could one blame them for that when a burglar alarm, which is installed in a service station that is next door to the local police station, rings for three-quarters of an hour before the police can get around to investigating it? One week later in the very same town, four or five shops were broken into during the same night. The burglars obviously knew that there was no need to worry, because it was unlikely that a police patrol would come up the street. Mr Bredhauer: That is a legacy of the National Party. Mr KING: What has the Labor Government done to rectify that problem? It has done absolutely nothing! One must ask: why is this Government introducing this legislation? Honourable members will recall a man by the name of Dr Jim Cairns, the former Federal Treasurer. He may not have been a particularly smart politician, because he was a bit too honest in some ways. In his book, he said quite clearly that, in order for socialism to take over in Australia, the first thing to do is ruin the economy. By jeez, didn't he go down the right track to doing that! It is now being finished off by the balance of his party. I wonder what will happen when this legislation is introduced. What sort of hidden agenda and implications are honourable members likely to see flowing from this legislation? The Labor Government is badly misjudging and misunderstanding the character of the Australian people and particularly the character of Queenslanders whose fathers and forefathers were Anzacs, light- horsemen and Tobruk Rats. They displayed qualities such as pride and a rebellious and independent nature. The people of Queensland who have that heritage will not take this legislation lying down. They will not become second-class citizens and will not obey this legislation. Every dog has its day and every wheel turns. When the Liberal Party regains power in this State, many sections of this legislation will be repealed. Legislative Assembly 3521 4 September 1990

Mr HARPER: This legislation will do nothing to reduce crime. Dedicated criminals will not be restricted by it. Heat-of-the-moment acts of violence will still occur unimpaired. If a firearm is not available, some other weapon will be substituted. For many decades, the possession of concealable firearms has been restricted, but only honest people are unable to possess those guns or pistols. Dishonest people have no difficulty in obtaining such concealable firearms. During the course of this debate, honourable members have stated that this legislation will not lead to a total restriction on the possession of firearms. I believe that will occur eventually. I concede that perhaps it is not the intention of the Premier or the Minister that should occur. Mr Elliott: The ultimate. Mr HARPER: It will be the ultimate. At the whim of one small-time police constable in a country area who says, "There will be no concealable firearms in my district. I am not going to let you have a .410 shotgun to kill snakes because it is classed as a concealable firearm", people have been denied possession of concealable firearms. Honourable members should make no mistake that, with the effluxion of time, that will continue to occur when this legislation is implemented. This Government does not appear to comprehend the needs of primary producers to possess firearms, including rifles and shotguns, nor does it appreciate the rights of recreational shooters and people who make a hobby of collecting firearms, rifles, guns and the like. This Government appears hell-bent on placing one imposition after another on the productive sector of the community. In this case, the primary producers will be treated most harshly. Eventually, this legislation will create difficulties for recreational shooters. However, it will mainly be an imposition on primary producers. Later during this debate I will mention restricted weapons. The Bill contains no definition of "loaded". I will also mention gunpowder, the reloading of shells, explosives, the term "ammunition" and the availability of persons to obtain ammunition and the like. It is particularly distressing that Minister after Minister in the Goss Labor Government has made statements such as that made by the Minister in charge of the Bill. In March, when the Government set up the Firearms Legislative Review Committee, it was claimed that the committee completely lost its credibility. When Mr Mackenroth opened it, he pre-empted it with the announcement to the media that the briefing of the committee would not be whether long arm owners in Queensland should be licensed but how it should be done. That is an unfortunate statement for any Minister to make. I know that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing did the same thing in regard to poker machines and that the Attorney-General has prostituted his office, but I did not expect it of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I bring that to his attention. As I say, the Opposition certainly does not want to associate itself with people such as the Federal member for Hinkler, who was quoted as saying—and Government members would be well aware of the statement—that shooters and gun-owners who do not want to be licensed have something to hide and could create a Wild West society. What utter nonsense. The fact is that those people have a need for firearms such as rifles and shotguns, because those guns are as much a part of their equipment as are tractors, motorbikes and the good, old-fashioned axe and crowbar. Mr Milliner: Rubbish! Mr HARPER: I know that the honourable member who interjected would not know what a crowbar or a shovel is. Legislative Assembly 3522 4 September 1990

However, firearms such as rifles and shotguns are as much a part of farmers' equipment as are those other tools of trade. Naturally, the Opposition strongly opposes the licensing of people in the manner that is proposed under the legislation. Mr STEPHAN: In rising to speak to clause 1.1 of the Bill, I question some of the comments made by Government members. I notice that the member for Brisbane Central is not in the Chamber. I will have to speak to his chair. It would appear that he does not like to receive letters. I point out to the honourable member that the attitude reflected in the letters to which he referred is that of many Queenslanders. Whether or not he likes to receive or to read those letters, they are sent by people who live in country areas. They deserve some attention; they certainly do not deserve ridicule. Mrs Edmond: They deserve the attention of a psychiatrist. Mr STEPHAN: I thought I heard an interjection. If the Opposition wanted to ridicule the suggestions made by the member for Brisbane Central, it would not get anywhere. However, the honourable member should take heed of the attitude displayed by people who live in country areas. The proverbial tiger could come back to bite the Minister. He has made the comment that he has the tiger by the tail, and he seems to think that he does. The Minister said that the Bill would decrease crime. I challenge him to point out where or how that will happen. If one takes into account events in New South Wales and Victoria, one would find that such legislation does not decrease crime. During the same period, in Queensland, eight gun homicides were committed, compared with 39 in New South Wales and 59 in Victoria. One can hardly say that, because of the legislation and the regulations that are in place in New South Wales and Victoria, those States are in a better position than is Queensland. The figures do not add up. They do not substantiate the comments made by the Minister. Mr Milliner: What about the increased population in Victoria? Mr STEPHAN: The higher population does not make that much difference. Approximately 3 million people live in Queensland. The rate of homicides in New South Wales is four times the rate of homicides in Queensland. The rate in Victoria is seven times the rate of homicides in Queensland. The Minister cannot say that the greater population in Victoria accounts for the higher rate of homicides in that State. That is not the case. If that is an example of the Minister's mathematics, his knowledge in that field is almost equal to the knowledge of geography shown by the member for Brisbane Central. It is a bit wrong. I would not like to place too much reliance on the figures given by either of those members. If it had the time, the Opposition would like to consider some other aspects of the legislation, one of which is explosives. I wonder which piece of legislation will deal with explosives? Will they come within the provisions of the Weapons Bill or the Explosives Act? Who will have control over the issuing of licences for explosives? The Bill does not address that issue. Neither the Minister for Resource Industries nor the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is aware of who will have the power to deal with explosives. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services also commented on the supposed lack of control of knives under the legislation. I point out to him that Schedule 1, which relates to restricted weapons, includes— "Any knife so designed or constructed so as to be used as a weapon that whilst the knife is held in one hand . .." The language of the Bill is very clear—"held in one hand". Any kitchen knife is held in one hand. Under the legislation, will kitchen knives be restricted weapons? Schedule 1 also provides that any crossbow designed to be discharged by the use of one hand—not being a toy pistol crossbow—which, when discharged, is capable of Legislative Assembly 3523 4 September 1990 causing damage is a restricted weapon. That means that any fisherman who carries a speargun would be in possession of a restricted weapon. Mr Milliner: It is a word out of your Act. Mr STEPHAN: I am asking the Government the questions. The National Party did not pass legislation in respect of that weapon, so how can the word be taken out of any other Government's Act? Mr Milliner: Word for word out of your Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. Mr STEPHAN: The Bill is the responsibility of the Government. Over the past six to nine months, the Government has tried very hard to blame other parties for its problems. Because the Government cannot substantiate its argument, it is trying to blame the National Party. I cannot find a provision in the Bill that power guns that are used to kill sharks are to be restricted weapons. That such weapons are not regulated does not make sense. Some data has been collected on the use of firearms in robberies. Pistols have been used in some robberies. Honourable members know that for a long period very severe regulations have applied to pistols. The data revealed that pistols were used in 30 serious incidents out of 110, knives were used in 35 serious incidents and rifles, including sawn-off rifles—which again are illegal weapons—were used in 13 incidents. The figures do not add up at all well for the Government, which is trying to ram this legislation down our necks by saying that Queensland will end up with a far better system. However, history and other regulations have shown that this is not the case. I turn now to the Bill and the reasons, purposes and conditions under which firearms can be forfeited and taken away. Clause 6.1 (2) states— "Where a person charged or indicted with an offence against this Act is not convicted of any offence on that charge or indictment, the court before which that person is charged or indicted may order that any weapon or thing found in the possession of that person at or about the time of the alleged commission of the offence or the time of that person being charged with the offence be forfeited to the Crown and any thing in respect of which the order is made thereby is forfeited accordingly." In this instance a conviction has not been made; a person has merely been charged. Under this legislation that weapon can be forfeited. I question the rights and wrongs of this and whether or not this type of clause should be included in the legislation. Under Division 3, concerning collectors, clause 3.25 states— "A collector is not to discharge or operate or cause or permit to be discharged or operated any weapon held or proposed to be held as a collector unless authorised to do so under a licence." Further on in the legislation clause 3.30 concerns the deactivation of collectors' weapons, which contradicts the provisions contained in clause 3.25. Time is running out and my colleague the honourable member for Cunningham also wishes to speak to this Bill. This legislation is very important to all members in country areas and to people throughout the State. Mr HOBBS: Tonight it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The legislation is a disgrace for the people of Queensland. The National Party regards it as the first step towards disarming all Queenslanders. I see that the Premier has entered the Chamber and is sitting on the Government side of the Chamber. He is a disgrace to the people of Queensland, and this legislation will eventually reflect on his Government. It will be a millstone around the Government's neck and in due course will bring it down. The time I have left is very short. This legislation will involve an absolute waste of police officers' time. A large number of people will be involved in the administration and regulation of this Bill and there will be total chaos throughout Queensland. One Legislative Assembly 3524 4 September 1990 important matter I wish to raise concerns ammunition, because people living in western areas of Queensland need to obtain ammunition. Under this legislation ammunition will be almost impossible to get. Normally the people who live out on properties and who require ammunition order it through the mail contractor. The mail contractor will not be able to produce that person's gun licence; therefore he will not be able to deliver the ammunition to the person who needs it. It must be remembered that there are no dealers out there in the west. A dealer might be 400 miles away and the use of mail contractors is very important to the people in that region. I will move on quickly because I know some more honourable members wish to speak. I object to the police powers contained in this legislation. The legislation contains provision for police to obtain voiceprints, photographs, fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, toe prints and handwriting from a person. I ask: is that necessary? Will the police have to take toe prints from them all? Mr Ardill: And a tattoo on the forehead. Mr HOBBS: And a tattoo on the forehead as well, as the honourable member for Salisbury says. How far does the legislation need to go? It is absolutely crazy. This is draconian legislation and a disgrace to the members of the Labor Party, who supposedly represent the people of this State. Mr ELLIOTT: I ask the Minister to take note of the fact that the members of the Labor Party are supposed to look after and initiate support for women in society. The Labor Party is attacking women in this Bill because under Schedule 1, paragraph 3, it precludes the use of such substances as Mace and all sorts of aerosol packs that women carry for their protection, particularly when moving about in areas where numbers of people have been attacked, such as when leaving trains late at night. I suggest that this Bill does not protect women. In fact, it will have a detrimental effect upon their safety. This Government stands condemned for introducing a Bill along these lines. Previous speakers drew analogies with Victoria, but the growth industry in Victoria will not be bank and building society robberies—because they are all going broke—it will be robbing little old ladies of the money that they have hidden under their beds. Question—That clauses 1.1 to 6.15, Schedules 1 to 5 and the Minister's amendments be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Legislative Assembly 3525 4 September 1990

The CHAIRMAN: Order! For any further divisions, the bells will ring for two minutes. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.05 p.m.), by leave: I move— "That the Bill be now read a third time." Question put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That clauses 1.1 to 6.15, Schedules 1 to 5 and the Minister's amendments be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION

Resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN: Order! For any further divisions, the bells will ring for two minutes. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.05 p.m.), by leave: I move— "That the Bill be now read a third time." Question put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (11.13 p.m.): I move— "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow." Motion agreed to. ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (11.14 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Legislative Assembly 3526 4 September 1990

Diesel Generation in Torres Strait Islands Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.14 p.m.): I rise to speak about a matter that is of great importance to Queensland, that is, the matter of the energy requirements of north Queensland. Firstly, I will refer to a decision by the Government to install diesel generators on the Torres Strait islands. The Preece Ewbank report, which was a very expensive report compiled for the Queensland Government, states— "It will be noticed that the Distributed PV System is significantly more expensive than the other alternatives and that the Centralised PV System is the best alternative. For the most realistic situation, fuel at 86.9c/litre and cost recovery of electricity supplied, the comparative values are $1,105,000 for the Diesel System and $890,000 for the centralised PV System." I table an extract from the report. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr KATTER: For the information of honourable members, I point out that it refers to the photovoltaic system, or solar cells. On Coconut Island, the cost of supplying diesel is $215,000 more than the cost of supplying electricity. If that figure is multiplied by 30, there is $6m difference between the cost of installing the PV system—— A Government member interjected. Mr KATTER: I take the interjection. I am talking about $6m. A decision has been taken in this place by either the Minister for Family Services or the Minister for Resource Industries which will cost the people of Queensland $6m. That amount of public money has been thrown away. Reports were compiled for the Government on the whim of one of those two Ministers. What is more, the beautiful islands suddenly have dirty, filthy, belching, polluting diesel generators on them. Where are the great voices for the environment from the other side of the House? Mr Beattie interjected. Mr KATTER: I will explain the matter to Mr Beattie. Fifteen Torres Strait Islands, on which 3 000 people live, do not have electricity. There is a choice of putting in either diesel generators or, as was done on Coconut Island, photovoltaics or solar energy generators. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr KATTER: I take the interjection because the honourable member's performance on this issue in this House is nothing less than disgraceful. He has left the people of Coconut Island short of two alternators, or inverters—whatever the technical term is. I am speaking of the particular facility to convert the direct current into alternating current so that they can have ordinary 240 volt AC current. As I say, two inverters are required. The honourable member for Cook has done absolutely nothing about providing an adequate electricity system for Coconut Island. Having done absolutely nothing to help those people, he then adds insult to injury by claiming that the system does not work and that all the other islands should have diesel generators imposed upon them. Let them curse their member of Parliament for the next 10 or 20 years for what was done. Mr Bredhauer: Why didn't you do it? Mr KATTER: I will answer that. The reason that I did not do it was that it was one year before the Government was approached by the Torres Strait Islanders and asked to supply the power. The systems up there were totally inadequate. That was the first year. In the second year the Government decided to go ahead, and it immediately proceeded to ascertain the cheapest form of power. Having done Legislative Assembly 3527 4 September 1990 that, it was then some two and a half years before the State Government could reach agreement with the Federal Government. In the third year, expressions of interest were called. Of course, that was the year in which I was sacked, or resigned, from that portfolio. As far as I was concerned, the program should have been operating by the end of that year. That is no reflection on the people who followed me. They most certainly did not have the time in which to take action. The Government cannot get away from the fact that $6m of public money has been thrown away and that these people are going to have imposed upon them a system of electricity—— Time expired. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Education and Transport Services Mr HEATH (Nundah) 11.18 p.m.): Over the past months it has astounded me to sit in this Chamber and to hear the Opposition—— Mr FitzGerald: You aren't reading again, are you? Mr HEATH: I have extensive notes. As I was saying, it has astounded me to hear the Opposition complain about the wide consultation and discussion practices that this Government regularly employs before delivering some decisions which affect many Queenslanders. Perhaps the National Party believes that public involvement in Government should occur only every three years at the ballot-box, but this Government wants to involve Queenslanders in planning the future of Queensland. I want to address for a moment the tertiary entrance requirements. For years and years there has been dissatisfaction with the currently used TE score system. That dissatisfaction has been voiced by students, parents, teachers, p. and c. associations, the Queensland Teachers Union, the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools, tertiary institutions and employers. Everyone was unhappy with it. When so many Queenslanders have a vital interest in the education system and in the new proposal to replace the TE score, the widest possible consultation is of paramount importance. I do not see how members of the National Party can insult Queenslanders by suggesting that such consultation is time- wasting, as they have done. How can they justify that claim and then give notice of a motion in this House calling for the deferral of implementation of the proposal for 12 months? How can they have called for this when the report was still open for review and the final proposal was not yet announced, when the National Party did not even know what it was trying to defer? This Government recognised the need for a reform of the whole process of the supply and delivery of educational services to the community, so it introduced the campaign called "Education, Have Your Say". Again, here was a chance for the entire community to contribute towards the reshaping of education services Statewide. Not only has the community had one opportunity for input, it gets a second go because the information from the "Education, Have Your Say" campaign was collated into a discussion paper containing the proposals for the future and again opened for public input. For the National Party to lump these schemes together with others, to complain about the number of inquiries under way and to suggest that these sorts of consultative review processes are detrimental to Queensland, or are too slow or indecisive, is absurd. Another area in which community concern must always be taken into account is in the planning for future transport requirements. The Government has announced an initiative to "integrate community consultation into its transport planning process", and Legislative Assembly 3528 4 September 1990 further, "a program of detailed study and community consultation which will bring problems into sharp focus and help find solutions which are acceptable to the community and have a minimum impact on the urban environment". That is a big difference from the National Party, and it is a big difference from the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane and her faceless councillors. For years the transport needs and plans for Queensland, particularly south-east Queensland, have been a sort of indecisive, jumbled mess. There has been too little coordination between the old Transport Department, the Main Roads Department, the Brisbane City Council and the other councils. Of course, the people omitted from any planning processes were the residents. Their only chance of any input was an objection to a rezoning. One dramatic improvement has been the integration of all the old State Government transport- related departments into one Ministry of Transport. It is such an obvious move to provide efficiency and proper coordination, yet somehow I am not surprised that it did not occur until this Government came to office. It is then a very logical next move to initiate passenger transport and freight movement studies and to encourage the residents of Brisbane and Queensland to have their say. Then there is one single Transport Department in place to assess the information from all of the studies and the public, and it can formulate long-term plans which best address the needs of every interested party. Long-term and homogenous planning in the transport area is essential. An ad hoc approach will lead to chaos on the roads, for example, because every traffic study carried out in Brisbane predicts continued growth in the use of motor vehicles on city streets. Poor planning can lead to financial losses on the railways, like the ones that the previous Government tried to hide from the people of Queensland. A lengthy and careful assessment is being undertaken into the needs of society and studies are being carried out in search of long-term, practical and genuine plans and solutions. The National Party and the Liberal Party call that "being indecisive". Far from being indecisive, it shows a desire to reach the best decision possible for Queensland. I have no doubt that those decisions will be better decisions and, in the best interests of Queenslanders, because the Government has encouraged Queenslanders to tell it about their needs. It cannot be called indecisive. It is an essential part of democratic government; it is an essential part of the open government which the Labor Party promised Queenslanders prior to the election last December. If members opposite consider those processes unnecessary, time-wasting or indecisive, then they are merely showing their desire for a return to bad government. Time expired. Gold Coast University College Campus Land Acquisition Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (11.24 p.m.): I fully support moves by the Gold Coast University College of Griffith University to secure adequate Crown land for projected future extensions. The local authority, the Gold Coast City Council, has withdrawn its support in principle for the sale of Crown land near the Gold Coast University campus for residential development in favour of keeping the land for the future development of the campus. Council support for that residential development had been sought some time ago, but the rapid growth of the Gold Coast University has put a whole new complexion on the most sensible future use of nearby vacant land. This is the last opportunity to reserve adequate land in close proximity to the university college and everything must be done to support the university's forward planning for land requirements. Legislative Assembly 3529 4 September 1990

In order to encapsulate the key points associated with this proposal, I wish to underline the following— (a) The present Gold Coast University College campus will accommodate approximately 8 000 students when buildings are fully developed over the next 10 years. (b) The university college expects to have a total enrolment of 3 000 students in 1991 and to reach 8 000 students by the year 2000 or even earlier if the present rate of growth continues. I would estimate that the university college will have a total enrolment of 12 000 students by the year 2010 and will continue to expand as long as there is population growth in the Gold Coast region and in the Brisbane/Gold Coast corridor. (c) Even on its present campus, there is relatively little space available for student residences, and it is expected that the first student residence on the proposed additional site would need to be constructed before 1995. (d) There is clear evidence that multicampus sites separated by substantial distances are undesirable for universities. They create dislocation and additional cost and travel for students and staff and are very cost intensive in terms of resource provisions. This difficulty is already being experienced in working from both the Southport campus and the Surfers Paradise campus. (e) Unless this proposed additional site is made available at this time for the Gold Coast University College, the acquisition of additional land at a substantial distance from the present campus is inevitable and, accordingly, the university college will face a multicampus state. The council of the university college has been concerned about this problem since the college commenced, and it is now history that the original provision of land proposed in 1974 for the then Gold Coast CAE was 59 hectares. Mr Paul Braddy, the Minister for Education, supports the university college proposal and is willing to initiate a meeting with the Minister for Land Management and relevant officers of the Gold Coast City Council, the Department of Land Management and the university college. I consider that the proposal by the university college is a most important proposal that should be fully supported by this Government. The need to ensure adequate land for the development of the university is critical in ensuring the provision of a major facility for the Gold Coast region. Currently, the opportunity exists to obtain part of the Crown estate on the southern side of Smith Street. Should this opportunity be lost, effectively there will be no alternative to providing adequate land in close proximity to the existing college. Many universities suffer from a lack of forward planning for land requirements. The University of Queensland at St Lucia and the Queensland University of Technology in the city are good examples of overcrowded campuses. It may be necessary for the university to do a longer-term projection of land needs beyond the year 2010. If representations are to be made to secure part of the Crown estate, then the ultimate land requirement for the university should be established at this time. If additional land beyond the amount indicated in the university's submission is required, then it also should be included. As I have said, this is the last opportunity to secure suitable land in this location. Detailed consideration should be given to suitable buffering and traffic access as part of any planning for the use of the site. This would conform with the current moves from the State Government level to ensure a coordinated and planned approach to the provision of regional facilities. This is particularly so in this case as the proposal involves Crown land. The short-term financial benefit to the Land Administration Commission of the sale and development of this land as a residential estate should not jeopardise the provision of such an important regional facility. Legislative Assembly 3530 4 September 1990

This proposal is an excellent opportunity for the State Government to prove its commitment to the planned provision of public services and facilities and to demonstrate the ability of State Government departments to support such proposals that may not be fully in their individual interest but are seen as an overall benefit to the community at large. The Department of Land Management is proceeding with the development of this land as a Residential A type conventional subdivision and has been working in close liaison with the Gold Coast City Council to ensure adequate park link and buffer areas have been achieved for this particular site. However, the local authority is now of the view that it would be imprudent to proceed with the original proposal for a conventional residential-type subdivision of this valuable land that could be utilised for the provision of an extension to the University College of Griffith, which is located to the north of Smith Street. The provision of either a pedestrian underpass or overpass is considered feasible as a vital link for the sites located on either side of Smith Street. Time expired. Queensland's Neighbourhood Centre Program Dr CLARK (Barron River) (11.29 p.m.): I wish to speak tonight about the Queensland neighbourhood centre program. Neighbourhood centres are located within residential communities, are multifunctional in nature and offer a broad range of services and activities for families and individuals. Because they are located within the community, they are managed by the community and they are particularly responsive to local needs. They can act as a catalyst facilitating self-support groups and community workshops; they can provide a venue for meetings, education sessions and visiting agencies. Services and activities that are provided by neighbourhood centres have a preventative and developmental focus and are flexible according to the various needs amongst community members. The neighbourhood centre program is a Statewide program and, to date, 52 neighbourhood centres operate throughout Queensland. So I am sure that other members are aware of the benefits that these neighbourhood centres can bring to their local community. Mr SPEAKER: So is the Speaker. Dr CLARK: It is the identification of community needs by local residents that has resulted in the establishment of two neighbourhood centres within my electorate and it is about these that I wish to speak tonight. Since the tourist industry and Christopher Skase discovered Port Douglas, many things have changed, including the social fabric of this once sleepy fishing township. There has been an influx of people associated with both the construction and operation of the tourist facilities located there. These new arrivals have needs, similar to those of people everywhere, for education, health and welfare services. But, in the past, neither the Government nor the local authority needed to provide those community facilities and services in Port Douglas, because the small population there had been quite adequately serviced by the facilities that existed at Mossman. To make matters worse, when families came to Port Douglas they did not bring with them those networks of friendship and family that often support young families who have children. So people were not there to provide support in times of need. It was in response to that situation that the Port Douglas community service network was formed by a group of women drawn together by this common need and desire to help both themselves and the community to respond and to fill the gaps in the provision of services. This dynamic group of women learnt the skills of lobbying and submission-writing. Having been on the receiving end of such lobbying, I can attest to their very well-honed skills. Their efforts have resulted in the production of a community directory Legislative Assembly 3531 4 September 1990 of services, a regular newsletter, a vacation care program, a women's forum, volunteer training programs and many more services. The group has also been involved in the creation of the Port Douglas and Mossman counselling service, which has received full funding for a social worker and which provides a much-needed service to these two townships. The most ambitious project of these women, though, was the establishment of a neighbourhood centre in Port Douglas. Having shared some of their frustrations along the way, I now share their sense of satisfaction and excitement at their achieving their goal. A whole range of activities are happening now. They include art and craft workshops, coffee mornings, a playgroup, a diet club, cycle maintenance, environmental recycling and many, many more, all of which are being very well attended. Another group of women in my electorate with whom I have been privileged to work is the Marlin Coast friendship group. The Marlin Coast covers the coastal townships north of Cairns that have seen enormous growth over the last five years, again associated with rapidly expanding tourism. Again, the group was born out of a common need by women new to the area and lacking support. This group, too, took the initiative to meet their needs. They came together and established a neighbourhood centre at Smithfield, a suburban area in the southern part of my electorate. A range of activities is also undertaken there two days a week, meeting the needs of the elderly, mothers with young children and adolescents. It is the energy, commitment and determination of these community groups that are quite truly remarkable and admirable. However, the neighbourhood centres in my electorate, in common with centres elsewhere in Queensland, find the task of staffing and administering the centres totally with volunteers to be taxing them to the limit of their resources. I know that the Minister for Family Services recognises the need for paid workers to help coordinate centre activities, and recurrent funds are needed to cover operational costs. I sincerely hope that the representations that I have made to the Minister will be evident in the Budget that is brought down tomorrow, which will hopefully provide the funds that these centres need. I hope that such funds will provide the additional support that is necessary to enable these groups to continue the vital job that they are doing in the community. Morale of Officers in Police Service Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (11.34 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate about an issue that is of concern throughout my electorate and all other areas of Queensland. I refer, in particular, to the condition of the Police Service. Since Mr Fitzgerald conducted his inquiry into corruption in Queensland, the condition of the Police Service has been deteriorating. I do not say that Mr Fitzgerald caused that to happen; I am saying that certain problems have arisen since the presentation of the Fitzgerald report, and they seem to concern a large number of police officers. As I travel round my electorate, I notice continually an appalling lack of morale in the Police Service. Dr Watson: It's everywhere. Mr SPRINGBORG: I take the favourable interjection from the honourable member for Moggill. As I travel round the rest of Queensland, I notice that that same lack of morale is evident everywhere. Mr Dollin: Are you suggesting we shouldn't have had the Fitzgerald inquiry? Mr SPRINGBORG: No, I am not suggesting that the Fitzgerald inquiry should not have been conducted. The National Party Government instigated the Fitzgerald inquiry. Legislative Assembly 3532 4 September 1990

I suggest that certain assumptions are being made about the Police Service. The image of the Police Service is a little bit like the image of politicians. At present, that particular image is not very good. That image is based on assumptions that all police are corrupt. Every time we pick up a newspaper we see a cartoon that depicts—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr Prest interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I ask for your protection, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport and the member for Port Curtis! Mr SPRINGBORG: As I was saying, every time we see a cartoon in a newspaper, it portrays members of the Police Service as pigs with their snouts in the trough. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of members of the Police Service are the same as the majority of the politicians in this House: they are honest, hard-working people who are doing their very best to service the community. Those people are chairmen or presidents of their local Lions club or Apex club, and they have a community involvement that dates back 10 or 15 years, or perhaps even longer. But those people can be pushed only so far. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is because of the continued lack of interest by the Government. We should be out there talking to those members on a one-on-one basis. Police officers have come to me and said, "Look, Lawrence, when are things going to pick up for the Police Service?" I say to them, "Look, I honestly wish I could help you with regard to that. But we will really have to wait and establish the trend from the Budget." I do not say "never". I do not turn up a particular problem. That is the sort of disparaging nonsense that is heard from members opposite, who continually degrade the Police Service. When one hears that sort of nonsense one cannot help wondering about some of the rumours that are floating around in relation to the hierarchy in the Police Service. It has been said that the officers who have more than eight years' service must be equated with dinosaurs; that they have very little to offer and that they should be replaced with the intelligent, sophisticated policeman of the 1990s—the more sensitive version. I point out that the practical experience of the existing officers cannot be replaced. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I would expect snide remarks from members opposite, who have had their snout in the trough. However, I am not talking about that; I am talking about those officers who have a lot to offer. I take this opportunity to mention some statistics in relation to police resignations. In the 10 years from 1978 to 1987, 692 officers resigned—an average of 69 per annum. In 1988, there were 97 resignations and in 1989 the number was 133. That represents an average of 115 resignations per annum. To date this year, 153 officers have resigned. In the 10 years between 1978 and 1987, 160 police officers were declared to be medically unfit and resigned. That represents an average of 16 resignations per annum. In 1988, 29 officers resigned as medically unfit. In 1989, the figure was 43—an average of 36 per annum. So far this year, 70 officers have resigned as medically unfit. That highlights the problem that the Police Service is facing. This Government must demonstrate an interest in the Police Service. Not only are members of the Police Service suffering, but their families are also suffering because of very obnoxious remarks that have been made. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 3533 4 September 1990

Buckley's Hole, Bribie Island Mr SULLIVAN (Glass House) (11.39 p.m.): I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House an area of my electorate that is of faunal importance and international significance. The quaintly named Buckley's Hole, which fronts Pumicestone Passage on Bribie Island, is a proven bird habitat of note. I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of species that were observed in that area during 1986-90. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— BUCKLEY'S HOLE, BONGAREE, 1986-90 BIRD LIST Jean Tilly Australasian little grebe (tachybaptus novaehollandaie)—common breeding resident; short-tailed shearwater (puffinus tenuirostris)—occasional storm casualty along Buckely's Hole Beach; Australian pelican (pelecanus conspicillatus)—common resident along Pumicestone Passage in flocks of 10-20, use Buckley's Hole continually; Australasian gannet (morus serrator)—winter visitor; darter (amhinga melanogaster)—winter resident; little pied cormorant (phalocrocorax melanoleucos)—common resident breeds locally; pied cormorant (p. varius)—resident along foreshores; little black cormorant (p. sulcirostris)—common resident flocks up to 300 on Buckley's Hole; Pacific heron (ardea pacifica)—uncommon resident; white-faced heron (a. novaehollandiae)—common breeding resident; cattle egret (ardeola ibis)—uncommon visitor; great egret (egretta alba)—common resident, probably breeding; little egret (e. garzetta)—common resident; intermediate egret (e. intermedia)—uncommon, but numbers increasing; eastern reef egret (e. sacra)—very rare visitor; striated heron (butorides striatus)—common breeding resident; rufous night-heron (nycticorax caledonicus)—uncommon to rare; black bittern (dupetor flavicollis)—rare resident; black-necked stork (xenorhynchus asiaticus)—very rare winter visitor; sacred ibis (threskiornis aethiopica)—common resident, probably breeding locally often forms large flocks; straw-necked ibis (t. spinicollis)—uncommon visitor; royal spoonbill (platalea regia)—very common visitor; magpie-goose (anseranas semipalmata)—very rare visitor; black swan 9cynus atratus)—common resident has bred at Buckley's Hole for several years; Pacific black duck (anas superciliosa)—very common breeding resident; grey teal (a. gibberifrons)—uncommon; numbers fluctuate according to weather and season; chestnut teal (a. castanea)—uncommon visitor; maned duck (chenonetta jubata)—uncommon visitor; osprey (pandion haliaetus)—common resident, breeding at Red Beach; brahminy kite (haliastur indus)—common resident, breeding locally; whistling kite (h. sphenurus)—the most common raptor, breeding resident; collared sparrowhawk (accipter cirrhocephalus)—occasional visitor; brown goshawk (a. fasciatus)—occasional visitor; white- bellied sea eagle (haliaeetus leucogaster)—common resident, breeding locally; wedge-tailed eagle (aquila audax)—uncommon visitor; brown falcon (falco berigora)—occasional sighting overhead; brown quail (coturnix ypsilophorus)—common breeding resident in rank grass and swampy areas; dusky moorhen (gallinula tenebrosa)—very common breeding resident; purple swamphen (porphyrio porhyrio)—very common breeding resident; Eurasian coot (fulica atra)—common breeding resident, numbers have declined sharply in recent years; brolga (grus rubicundus)—very rare visitor, used to be comparatively common but has dwindled in numbers; comb-crested jacana (irediparra gallinacea)—uncommon visitor; pied oystercatcher (haematopus ostralequs)—resident on beach; sooty oystercatcher (h. fuliginosus)—increased sightings in 1988-89; masked lapwing (vanellus miles novaehollandiae)—common breeding resident; lesser golden plover (pluvialis dominica)—uncommon migratory shorebird from Arctic Circle; double-banded plover (charadrius bicinctus)—uncommon migratory shorebird from New Zealand; large sand plover (c. leschenaultii)—migratory shorebird from Arctic Circle, roosting flocks of up to 50 in summer; red- capped plover (c. ruficapillus)—occasional visitor; Mongolian plover (c. mongolus)—migratory shorebird from central Asia, roosts of up to 100 in summer; black-fronted plover (c. melanops)—fairly common resident, probably breeding; black-winged stilt (himantopus himantopus)—variable in numbers, but probably some present all year and perhaps breeding, juveniles recorded; ruddy turnstone (arenaria interpres)—migratory shorebird from northern hemisphere, uncommon visitor in October and April; eastern curlew (numenius madagascarienis)—migratory shorebird, common in small numbers along passage beaches; whimbrel (n. phaeopus)—common migrant along sandy beaches; terek sandpiper (tringa terek)—uncommon migratory shorebird from central Asia; greenshank (t. nebularia)—migratory shorebird from Arctic Circle, occasional visitor; Latham's snipe (gallinago hardwickii)—uncommon migratory shorebird; bar-tailed Legislative Assembly 3534 4 September 1990

godwit (limosa lapponica)—migratory shorebird from Eurasia, common on sandy beaches forming large flocks up to 3000 in season; sharp-tailed sandpiper (callidris acuminata)—migratory shorebird. Numbers declining; red- necked stint (c. ruficollis)—migratory shorebird, numbers declining; curlew sandpiper (c. ferruginea)—migratory shorebird, summer flocks decreasing in numbers owing to change in feeding areas; great knot (c. tenuirostris)—migratory shorebird, numbers declining; silver gull (larus novaehollandiae)—very common resident; Caspian tern (hydroprogne caspia)—resident in small numbers along passage; gull-billed tern (gelochelidon nilotica)—fairly common; common tern (sterna hirundo)—fairly common migrant; white-fronted tern (s. striata)—occasional visitor; crested tern (s. bergii)—very common resident; little tern (s. albifrons)—uncommon but often seen on Buckely's Hole beach; rose-crowned fruit-dove (ptilinopus regina)—less than six sightings; topknot pigeon (lopholaimus antarticus)—occasional flocks overhead; feral pigeon (columba livia)—large flocks overhead and odd strays probably from racing flocks; spotted turtledove (streptopelia chinensis)—common breeding resident; brown cuckoo-dove (macropygia amboinensis)—occasional sighting; peaceful dove (geopelia striata)—common breeding resident; bar-shouldered dove (g. humeralis)—common resident, breeds locally; crested pigeon (ocyphaps lophotes)—very common breeding resident, increasing in numbers; little corella (cacatua sanguinea)—uncommon, but increased sightings; long-billed corella (c. tenuirostris)—very rare visitor; galah (c. roseicapilla)—uncommon visitor; sulphur-crested cockatoo (c. galerita)—very rare visitor; little lorikeet (glossopsitta pusilla)—usually heard overhead; seasonal depending on eucalyptus flowering; rainbow lorikeet (trichoglossus haematodus)—very common breeding resident; scaly-breasted lorikeet (t.chlorolepidotus)—very common breeding resident; Australian king parrot (alisterus scapularis)—uncommon visitor; pale-headed rosella (platycercus adscitus)—common breeding resident; brush cuckoo (cuculus variolosus)—uncommon seasonal visitor; pallid cuckoo (c. pallidus)—irregular seasonal visitor; only two sightings; fan-tailed cuckoo (c. pyrrhophanus)—common, probably resident, breeding; Horsfield's bronze cuckoo (chrysococcyx basalia)—reasonably common summer visitor; golden bronze cuckoo (c. lucidus plagosus)—common breeding migrant; long-tailed cuckoo (eudynamis taiteusis)—one unconfirmed sighting by reliable observer; Indian koel (e. scolopacea)—common breeding migrant; channel-billed cuckoo (scythrops novae-hollandiae)—uncommon small flocks overhead; pheasant coucal (centropus phasianinus)—common breeding resident; boobook owl (ninox novaezeelandiae)—common breeding resident; barn owl (tyto alba)—common breeding resident; tawny frogmouth (podargus strigoides)—common breeding resident; white-throated needletail (hirundapus caudacutus)—uncommon seasonal visitor, sometimes in large flocks; azure kingfisher (ceyx asureus)—common breeding resident; laughing kookaburra (dacelo gigas)—common breeding resident; forest kingfisher (halycon macleayii)—common breeding resident but numbers are decreasing as habitat is destroyed; sacred kingfisher (h. sancta)—common seasonal breeding migrant; collared kingfisher (h. chloris)—common; rainbow bee-eater (merops ornatus)—breeding vagrant, sometimes in large flocks, although appears to have declined in numbers; dollar bird (eurystomus orientalis)—common breeding migrant from Indonesia; welcome swallow (hirundo neoxena)—very common resident, often in large flocks, breeds locally; tree martin (cecropis nigricans)—common resident, breeding locally; fairy martin (c. ariel)—common resident, breeding locally; black-faced cuckoo-shrike (coracina novaehollandiae)—common breeding resident, forming loose flocks up to 30 in winter; cicada bird (c. tenuirostris)—uncommon migrant; varied triller (lalage leucomela)—seasonal visitor, irregular in numbers; white- winged triller (l. sueurii)—two confirmed sightings; rose robin (petroica rosea)—seasonal visitor; eastern yellow robin (eopsaltria australis)—common breeding resident; jacky winter (microeca laucaphaea)—decreasing in numbers, originally breeding but now restricted resident; rufous whistler (pachycephala rufiventris)—common breeding resident; golden whistler (p. pectoralis)—seasonal visitor, more females than males; little shrike-thrush (collurincla megarhyncha)—uncommon breeding resident; grey shrike-thrush (c. harmonica)—common breeding resident; black-faced monarch (monarcha melanopsis)—common migrant, probably breeding; spectacled monarch (m. trivirgatus)—fairly common migrant; restless flycatcher (myiagra inquieta)—common seasonal visitor, probably some resident and breeding; leaden flycatcher (m. rubecula)—common seasonal breeding migrant; grey fantail (rhipidura fulignosa)—very common breeding resident; rufous fantail (r. rufifrons)—uncommon migrant; Willie wagtail (r. leucophrys)—very common breeding resident, increasing; clamorous reed warbler (acrocephalus stentoreus)—very common seasonal visitor with some remaining resident or breeding; little grassbird (megalurus gramineus)—rarely seen resident, probably breeding; tawny grassbird (m. timoriensis)—uncommon, dependent on thick cover; golden-headed cisticola (cisticola exilis)—very common breeding resident; variegated fairy wren (malurus lamberti)—common breeding resident in small groups, red-backed fairy wren (m. melancephalus)—common breeding resident in damper areas; white-browed scrub wren (sericornis frontalis)—decreasing in numbers but still breeding resident; brown thornbill (acanthiza pusilla)—common breeding resident; mangrove gerygone (gerygone levigaster)—very common Legislative Assembly 3535 4 September 1990

breeding resident; white-throated gerygone (g. olivacea)—common resident; varied sittella (daphoenositta chryoptera)—common breeding resident; white-throated treecreeper (climacteris leucophaea—common breeding resident; little wattlebird (anthochaera chrysoptera)—common breeding resident, increasing in numbers; noisy friarbird (philemon corniculatus—common breeding resident, sometimes in large numbers; little friarbird (p. citreogularis)—less common but probably still resident and breeding; blue-face honeyeater (entomyzon cyanotis)—uncommon; noisy miner (manorina melanocephala)—common breeding resident; lewin's honeyeater (meliphaga lewinii)—seasonal resident, probably breeding locally; yellow-faced honeyeater (lichenostomus chrysops)—uncommon breeding resident; white-throated honeyeater (melithreptus albogularis)—occasional visitor; brown honeyeater (lichmera indistincta)—very common breeding resident; white-cheeked honeyeater (phylidonyris novaehollandiae)—common breeding resident; scarlet honeyeater (myzomela sanguinolenta)—common resident, possibly breeding but numbers irregular; mistletoe bird (dicaeum hirundinaceum)—common breeding resident, probably increasing in numbers; spotted pardalote (pardalotus punctatus)—irregular visitor; striated pardalote (p. striatus)—common breeding resident; declined in numbers through loss of habitat and suitable nesting sites; eastern silvereye (zosterops lateralis)—common breeding resident, present in larger numbers during colder months; house sparrow (passer domesticus)—breeding resident, slowly increasing in numbers and competing with other hole-nesting species for sites; red-browed firetail (emblema tgemporalis)—common breeding resident, probably less in numbers through loss of habitat; double-barred finch (poephila bichenovii)—common breeding resident; chestnut-breasted mannikin (lonchura castaneothorax)—irregular visitor; common starling (sternus vulgaris)—irregular visitor; figbird (sphecotheres viridis)—common resident, often in seasonal large numbers, breeding locally; olive-backed oriole (oriolus sagittatus)—breeding resident; spangled drongo (dicrurus hottentottus)—common resident, Buckley's Hole is an important wintering ground for small groups; Australian magpie lark (grallina cyanoleuca)—common breeding resident; white-breasted wood swallow (artamus leucorhynchus)—common breeding resident, increasing in numbers as land clearance provides open habitats; grey butcherbird (cracticus torquatus)—common breeding resident; pied butcherbird (c. nigrogularis)—common breeding resident; Australian magpie (gymnorhina tibicen)—very common breeding resident; pied currawong (strepera graculina)—fairly common winter visitor; torresian crow (corvus orru)—very common breeding resident. Mr SULLIVAN: In tabling that document, I acknowledge the work of local ornithologist Jean Tilly, who is largely responsible for the sightings and is a tireless campaigner for the Bribie Island Environment Protection Association, which is known locally as BIEPA, and the protection of that vital habitat area. At various times of the year, Buckley's Hole hosts 170 species of bird life. That must be compared with 267 species for the entire Pumicestone Passage area or 280 species for the Kakadu national park. In the opinion of Jeremy Thompson, who is completing a doctorate on migratory shore birds in Moreton Bay, Pumicestone Passage is very significant in Moreton Bay with regard to such birds. I understand that Mr Thompson receives some assistance from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SULLIVAN: The member for Southport would probably do better if he reserved his enthusiasm for another occasion when time is not quite so pressing. During the course of the year, 16 of the 76 species listed in the annexe to the Agreement between Australia and Japan on Migratory Shore Birds are found to be residing at Buckley's Hole. That represents 20 per cent of the species in that annexe. For that reason alone, the area assumes a particular significance. Among the migratory shore birds that are listed in the annexe and found at Buckley's Hole are: the Pluvialis dominica, or lesser golden plover, which is a visitor from both sides of the Bering Sea, Alaska and Siberia; the Chardrius Mongolus, the Mongolian plover from central Asia; the Arenaria Interpres, or ruddy turnstone; and the Tringa nebularia, or greenshank, which comes from the Arctic Circle. Article V of the agreement provides for the Government of Australia to endeavour to establish sanctuaries and other facilities for the management of migratory birds and their environment. Buckley's Hole is an important habitat in respect of the agreement and must be protected under that article. Legislative Assembly 3536 4 September 1990

As I understand it, similar agreements have been signed with China and Russia. I expect that Buckley's Hole would also host a significant number of the species listed in the annexes to those agreements. Buckley's Hole was formed more than 30 years ago by the Caboolture Shire Council to address severe sandfly and mosquito problems. By blocking the creek mouth with a sand wall, a perched watertable was formed. The lagoon took its name from a fishing location off shore from the area. The great diversity of bird life in the precincts of Buckley's Hole can be explained by the existence in a compact area of a number of different habitats. Fresh water, tidal beaches, mangroves, woodlands and wetlands are all found in close proximity. The area also provides roosting banks of great significance for various species of migratory shore birds, with flocks of up to 3 000 being observed in season. The man-made nature of Buckley's Hole has led to criticism of the calls for the area's protection. Australia has signed and ratified the Ramsar Treaty of 1971. Article 1 of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance provides for those wetlands to be artificial. The determining factor is not the manner in which an area is formed but rather its environmental importance. Other States have declared areas under that treaty. Queensland has none. The Minister is moving in that direction. However, I do not know whether Buckley's Hole would qualify. It certainly qualifies under the Australia/Japan agreement and as a location of vital significance in Moreton Bay and Queensland as a whole. Other advantages of protection for that area are the provision of a pleasant bush landscape and a recreational area for walking, bird-watching and fishing adjacent to a major population centre. The area is already extensively used by local schools for fieldwork. It is a hands-on tool for environmental education. The Chairman of the Caboolture Shire Council has been outspoken in his support for the protection of Buckley's Hole. To their very great credit, Councillor Muldoon and his shire council have continued to manage the area in a responsible and effective manner. I commend them for their management efforts. The area needs exceptionally good management. During periods of heavy rain, the sand wall breaks and the resultant inundation of the tidal and mangrove areas alters the feeding grounds. That cannot be avoided, but regular repairs to the sand wall are necessary to prevent the lagoon from draining completely. It may not be sufficient simply to provide protection for Buckley's Hole. It may be necessary to preserve as much as possible of the catchment for Buckley's Hole to ensure its long-term viability. That may well be incorporated with the protection of the southern foreshore of Bribie Island. A conflicting land-use claim exists for Buckley's Hole to be developed into a marina. I do not oppose marinas per se. However, Buckley's Hole is not the place for a marina development. Protection for Buckley's Hole and a marina for Bribie Island are not mutually exclusive events. Other options for a marina are available, and those options should be canvassed. There are few, if any, impediments to the Minister's moving rapidly to declare the immediate precincts of Buckley's Hole to be protected as an environmental park. I urge the Minister to take the appropriate action without delay and to ensure the viability of that important habitat area. I thank honourable members opposite for their consideration. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.