Legislative Assembly 2573 1 August 1990

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

WEDNESDAY, 1 AUGUST 1990 ———— Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Retention of Bread Industry Committee Act From Mr Hollis (15 signatories) praying that the existing Bread Industry Committee Act including penalty provisions be retained. A similar petition was received from Mr Hayward (85 signatories). The Avenue, Hermit Park; Purchase of Property by Corrective Services Commission From Mr Smith (161 signatories) praying that no action be taken on the proposal to purchase property in The Avenue, Hermit Park for a facility to rehabilitate prisoners. Declaration of as a Nuclear Free State From Ms Robson (420 signatories) praying that Queensland be declared a nuclear-free State and that other Governments in Australia be encouraged to adopt a similar policy. Licensing of Firearms From Mr Campbell (19 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 Mackenroth (72 signatories), Mr Beanland (309 signatories), Mr Hamill (121 signatories), Mr Hollis (239 signatories), Mr Perrett (317 signatories), Mr J.N. Goss (62 signatories) and Mr Schwarten (291 signatories). Public Inquiry into Local Government Funding From Mr Barber (202 signatories) praying for a public inquiry into the present system of raising funds for local government through rates based on land valuations. Daylight-saving From Mr Hobbs (174 signatories) praying that daylight-saving be not reintroduced in future years. Wallaman Falls Road From Mr Rowell (2 261 signatories) praying for the upgrading of the Wallaman Falls road to an all- weather standard. Bread Industry Price Control From Mr Campbell (1 296 signatories) praying for immediate approval of bread industry regulations to control prices. Outlawing of Sex Discrimination From Mr Hamill (180 signatories) praying for legislation to outlaw sex discrimination. Legislative Assembly 2574 1 August 1990

Homosexuality From Mr Gilmore (668 signatories) praying that homosexuality be not legalised. PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts of the Forty-sixth Parliament for the period 6 March 1990 to 30 June 1990. The following papers were laid on the table— Rules under the Parliamentary Service Act 1988-1990 Proclamations under— Racing and Betting Act 1980-1990 University of Central Queensland Act 1989 and Gold Coast College of Advanced Education Amalgamation Act 1990 Regulations under— Racing and Betting Act 1980-1990 Liquor Act 1912-1989 Education Act 1964-1990 Orders in Council under— Electricity Act 1976-1989 Griffith University Act 1971-1990 Griffith University and Gold Coast College of Advanced Education Amalgamation Act 1990 Grammar Schools Act 1975-1989 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 Statutes under— Griffith University Act 1971-1990 University of Central Queensland Act 1989 Reports for the year ended 31 December 1989— James Cook University of North Queensland Toowoomba Grammar School Rockhampton Girls' Grammar School Ipswich Girls' Grammar School Grammar School Appendices to the annual report and financial statements of the University of Queensland for the year ended 31 December 1989. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Home Building Review Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (2.36 p.m.), by leave: Honourable members will recall my answer to a question on 6 March this year regarding the home building review. During the parliamentary recess, I wrote to the honourable Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Toowong informing them of the review's progress and updating my earlier statements to the House. Legislative Assembly 2575 1 August 1990

For the information of honourable members, I now table a copy of that letter about the home building review. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Moura Mine Disaster Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (2.37 p.m.), by leave: I rise to inform the House and the people of Queensland of a recent investigation into the Moura mine disaster. I wish to place on the public record the findings and recommendations of that inquiry and the Goss Government's swift action on those recommendations. I move to make this statement in the interests of the truth and for the information of this State's coal-miners, their families and friends and, indeed, all the people of Queensland. I have been deeply disturbed by the unfounded allegations of some form of cover-up. I emphatically deny any cover-up and assure the House that, on the contrary, I have made every endeavour to make the results of this investigation widely known. To that end, the opposition parties' spokesmen on Resource Industries—the member for Lockyer and the member for Moggill—were both given copies of the report and were briefed extensively by officers of my department, as have been the families of the Moura victims and representatives of coal-mining unions, industry and police. The report has also been supplied to overseas mining research centres and to any member of the public who has requested one. I suggest that that is a strange way to conduct a "cover- up". For the record, I will briefly outline the history of the investigation. As honourable members will recall, in July 1986, 12 miners were killed in an explosion in Moura No. 4 underground mine. In June 1987, a mining warden's inquiry found that the commonly used flame safety lamp was the most probable source of ignition for the explosion. However, the warden recommended ongoing research into the lamp and other possible causes. Consequently, the use of the lamp was banned. In 1988, three consultants—Dr Sally Leivesley, Dr Kon Romaniuk and Dr Tony Green—approached the then Government, saying they believed some evidence suggested another ignition source was likely. Not surprisingly, they sought to be hired to conduct further research. They were hired in a project team of six people, which also included a specialist mining consultant and a scientist at the Government's Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station, known as SIMTARS, with SIMTARS' director Peter Dent as project leader. A project review committee including police, union and industry representatives monitored the project. Each of the consultants and the SIMTARS scientist submitted a paper on his or her particular area of expertise. Overall findings and recommendations were written by one of the consultants and the SIMTARS scientist. The report was then examined by Professor David Rowlands, professor of mining engineering from the University of Queensland. Dr Rowlands commented that "there is obvious evidence of individuals promoting their favoured hypothesis". After six months of investigation, including overseas research, the overall conclusion was that no evidence had been produced to challenge the warden's inquiry finding about the lamp. The report also echoes the mining warden's qualification of the lamp finding, saying that it is still not possible to confirm or deny that the lamp definitely was the source. That may never be established beyond doubt, and the arguments about ignition sources could go on for ever. But there is one other very effective way of preventing explosions other than removing the source of ignition, and that is eliminating the fuel. In the case of underground coalmines, that fuel is flammable gas. Overseas experience has shown that a process called inertisation can neutralise those gases successfully. Legislative Assembly 2576 1 August 1990

That process has been recommended by this latest Moura investigation, and I can report to the House that I have already taken steps to implement that recommendation. A team is already working to adapt the current inertisation methods for use in Queensland's underground coalmines, and I expect implementation plans to be completed within six months. At this point, I must inform the House of the National Party's disregard for the safety of Queensland's coal-miners. Three years ago, the mining warden recommended that the Government examine this very process I have been speaking of. Despite the massive potential for eliminating dangerous situations, this process has never been pursued—at least, not until I took steps after receiving the latest report. The same crowd who have been hypocritically calling for yet another independent inquiry at the taxpayers' expense ignored this important recommendation for years until they were thrown from office. In comparison, the Goss Government has moved swiftly to protect the coal-miners of Queensland. Other safety recommendations made by the project team have also been implemented. The Government's research station is already at work on adapting mining machinery to prevent its setting gases alight. Training programs for mine-workers are being updated to advise them about the risks associated with this machinery. The report also recommended changes in the area of investigation techniques, starting with closer liaison between the chief inspector of coalmines, emergency services and other parties. The chief inspector has set up a standing committee of representatives from those areas, and that committee is at work on several projects, including how to collect photographic evidence after mine accidents and improvements in forensic facilities. As for the final recommendation on the direction of future research—I have already moved in that area. The report recommended that future research concentrate on prevention of accidents. Even before I had the report in my hands, an audit was under way at SIMTARS looking at research priorities. It is clear that this Government has moved decisively to protect the lives of Queensland's miners. The tragedies of Box Flat, Kianga and Moura will never be forgotten. It is important that those miners did not die in vain and that lessons be learned from those accidents to help prevent further tragedies. Every Queenslander is entitled to a safe workplace, and this Government is committed to providing them with just that. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Overseas Visit to Thailand and Japan by Minister for Primary Industries Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (2.42 p.m.), by leave: I wish to report to the House the result of my overseas visit to Thailand and Japan from 21 May to 3 June 1990. The aim of the visit was to examine the opportunities to strengthen Queensland's agricultural trade links with the two nations. In Thailand, I was able to follow up initiatives taken by me in relation to the export of live cattle from north Queensland to north-east Thailand and to examine the sugar experimental station work that is being carried out. In Japan, my visit was mainly connected with the three-year exchange program between the two Governments relating to the State/Prefecture agreement between Queensland and Saitama Prefecture, as well as trade arrangements. As it is a detailed report, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, the aim of the visit was to examine the opportunities to strengthen Queensland's agricultural trade links with the two nations. In Thailand I was able to follow up initiatives taken early in my administration, regarding innovative assistance for the live cattle export from North Queensland to north-east Thailand. Legislative Assembly 2577 1 August 1990

I also held talks with the Ministry for Agriculture and Co-operatives; with Ambassador to Thailand; Mr Richard Butler, and with the Executive Vice-President of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC). These discussions involved the possible involvement of my Department in future assistance through ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) and AIDAB (Australian Industry Development Assistance Bureau). I also visited the Suphan Buri Field Crops Research Centre, and the Green North-East Project, and recommendations for possible further co-operative research in grain and sugar cane growing are attached. In Japan I met with my Saitama Prefecture counterpart to lay the foundations for a proposed three year exchange program between the two Governments in accordance with our sister State/Prefecture agreement. This was a continuation of the agreed relationship programme as agreed to by the Premier's Department. I also met with representatives of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Japanese Trading Companies, Agricultural Research Grouping and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). In addition I visited the Osaka International Garden and Horticultural Expo to ascertain quarantine measures which will be required if Queensland holds a similar Expo in 1995/96. I also visited the Osaka Fish and Vegetable Markets, and the Nadakobe Co-operative store to investigate avenues for Australian producers. I was accompanied on the Thailand part of the trip by my wife; my Acting Director-General Mr J. Miller; the Manager of my Ministerial Liaison Unit, Mr M. Doyle; and Mr S. Di Bella from the Sugar Board. In Japan, this group was joined by Mr Laurie Bell, Manager of my Marketing Development Branch; Mr Grant Vinning, Principal Marketing Officer (Agricultural Products) (currently in Japan on a University Scholarship); Mr R. Coutts, Planning and Development Executive from the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing; and Mr H. Onji from the office in Japan. Expenses for Mr Di Bella and Mr Coutts were met by their respective organisations. Mr CASEY: I also table details of the itinerary, persons who accompanied me on the tour and the persons with whom I was in contact during the tour. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Future of Education in Queensland Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (2.43 p.m.), by leave: I rise to make a ministerial statement on the future of education in Queensland. As honourable members would be aware, the Goss Government was elected with a clear mandate to improve the delivery of education services in this State. Prior to last year's State election, on a number of occasions the then Leader of the Opposition indicated that education would be the No. 1 priority of the incoming Goss Labor Government. As Education Minister, it is my responsibility to implement the Government's considerable reform agenda and, in doing so, attempt to repair the damage of three decades of neglect of our schools by successive National Party and Governments. On assuming office, it became apparent to me that the Goss Government's ambitious policy reforms could not be properly implemented with the administrative structures I had inherited. I would like to make this point quite clearly, because it is a long-held community perception that the major problem with our education system is a lack of adequate resources. Although I acknowledge that, under the Liberals and the Nationals, our schools have been starved of funds, I also believe that the situation has been exacerbated by an education bureaucracy which has become less than fully responsive to the real needs of Legislative Assembly 2578 1 August 1990 students, parents, teachers and the broader community. I believe that resources should be targeted at students, not administrative structures, and that the class room should be the real focus of a truly effective education system. Therefore, in December last year, I commissioned the consultancy bureau to undertake a review of the Department of Education. That review was completed in February this year following an exhaustive process of consultation with all major stake-holders in education. After examining the review, I took steps to commence a major restructuring of the department. Following discussions with the Public Sector Management Commission, I established a policy unit in my department to provide policy advice on a process of restructuring. I inform the House that today I have received a copy of that policy unit's discussion paper, entitled The Future Organisation of Educational Services for Students. For the information of honourable members, I will table a copy of that discussion paper. The report contains a number of important recommendations, including— ¥ A reduction in the number of people in central office by 50 per cent by the end of 1992, with the relocated people going back either into the class room or to school support centres that would directly support class room teachers. As well as increasing the number of class room teachers, this would mean that elements of the education system such as guidance officers and therapists would be closer to the people whom they are meant to serve. ¥ The creation of 50 school support centres throughout the State. It is envisaged that the major function of these support centres would be to directly support class room teachers rather than be involved in administration. Support for smaller schools would be the focus of these centres, with the better resourced centres being in isolated areas. ¥ The abolition of the position of inspector, with this position's support function to be carried out by the school support centre, and with the accountability function to be carried out by 30 review officers. ¥ A recommendation that principals be chosen by panels comprising the regional director, a school centre coordinator, a parent of the school, a staff member and a neighbouring principal. Applicants for positions such as subject master and deputy principal would be chosen by panels comprising the school principal, a school centre coordinator, a school parent and a staff member. I stress that at this stage these are only recommendations for public comment. Public submissions will be considered carefully prior to any final decisions being made by the Government. Before concluding, I want to make some comments about the process of consultation that has characterised the work of the policy unit in this area. The discussion paper that I will table today is the result of four months of intensive consultation. More than 2 000 submissions have been received, and special regional coordinators have conducted public meetings in all areas of the State. It is my belief that effective reform of the education system is impossible if there is no genuine opportunity for members of the community to express their views. Through the "Have your say" campaign, all stake-holders in the education system have been encouraged to make suggestions as to how the department can improve the delivery of its services, and I have been personally delighted with the response so far. However, as I indicated earlier, this is only the first stage in the restructuring process. The centre pages of the discussion paper include a questionnaire on proposed changes, which can be filled in and should be returned to the policy unity by the end of this month. A copy of the discussion paper will be provided to each and every employee of the Department of Education, both teaching and non-teaching staff, and additional copies will be sent to schools to encourage responses from parents and other members of the community. In all, 42 000 copies of the report will be made available. At the end Legislative Assembly 2579 1 August 1990 of August, the policy unit will analyse all responses, and it will present a final report to me in September. This is undoubtedly the most comprehensive consultation process ever undertaken in the education. I believe that it will also lead to the most comprehensive decentralisation of educational resources in Queensland's history. Given the importance of the challenges facing our education system in the 1990s, anything less would be a compromise of the future prosperity of thousands of Queensland students. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Western Queensland Floods Hon. R. T. McLEAN (Bulimba—Minister for Administrative Services) (2.49 p.m.), by leave: It was 100 days ago on Monday that the floods hit Charleville and the central west of Queensland. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the men and women who in those 100 days worked so hard to rescue, clean up, rebuild and rejuvenate the communities affected. I especially thank the staff of the Administrative Services Department for their hard work and dedication under the impressive leadership of Dave Duncan. The likely Government bill for repairs to Government buildings is $1,240,000; repairs to private homes, $1,812,000; repairs to Aboriginal and Islander Affairs housing, $82,000; response and clean-up costs, $1,531,000; and relocation of 23 Housing Commission homes from Moura, $887,000. All repair work in Blackall and Alpha is scheduled for completion by the end of August, and work at Jericho will take another week. In Charleville, the completion date is 21 September, which is an amazing feat when one recalls the devastation in that town. My department still has 47 staff working in Charleville. Private contractors repairing 243 private houses through the Government's 100 per cent grant aid scheme have 65 tradesmen in the town. There are 25 prisoners working on the clean-up, along with 28 people who were unemployed but who have now been engaged on this positive task for several weeks. There will probably be work for them for another three weeks. The owners of another 45 houses are awaiting a final decision on funding. Nearly 60 more are receiving help through low-interest loans or a mix of loans and grants. All 23 Housing Commission homes are now in Charleville, with eight of them replacing homes that could not be occupied again after the floods. In conjunction with the Western Queensland Flood Appeal, my department is helping with restoration and repairs to Charleville's golf clubhouse, the RSL, the tennis clubhouse, the Warrego Club and the Augathella Pony Clubhouse. The department is also doing work on behalf of the council, including repairing the town hall and preparing reports and estimates for work on the swimming pool, the cultural centre and the council chamber. Throughout the flood-hit area, hardboard has been fitted to the floors of 180 homes before the laying of carpets. I visited Charleville again about a month ago. I congratulate the people on their resilience and on bouncing back so well, aided by the generosity of thousands of people who contributed to the Western Queensland Flood Appeal, and by the work of appeal chairman, Clem Jones, and Murweh Shire Chairman, Graham Andrews. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Annual Report MR HAYWARD (Caboolture) (2.52 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the annual report of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts for the period 6 March 1990 to 30 June 1990, and I move that it be printed. Legislative Assembly 2580 1 August 1990

Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. CONFIDENCE IN CHAIRMAN OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (2.53 p.m.): I move— "That this House expresses its full confidence in the Parliamentary Chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee." Motion agreed to. QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Licensing of Firearms Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Service— "With reference to his Government's proposal to introduce more stringent firearms laws to Queensland — (1) When were handgun licensing laws introduced in Queensland? (2) What percentage of firearm crime in Queensland is committed with handguns? (3) How many people are prohibited from owning firearms in Queensland? (4) Have the names of such persons been issued to firearms dealers?" Mr MACKENROTH: (1) The Firearms Licence Act of 1927, now the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act of 1979 to 1988. (2) No statistics have been collated as to the actual types of weapons used in the commission of offences. (3) Since 1957, 20 536 persons have been prohibited from owning firearms in Queensland. No statistics are kept as to the number still in force. This figure includes prohibition under section 61 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. (4) No. There is no statutory obligation to do so, and the areas of civil liberties and, consequently, civil litigation would have to be considered. 2. Education, Far-north Queensland Dr CLARK asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to the enormous population growth expected in the North Queensland area —What action will the Government take to ensure adequate educational services for areas north of Cairns in the future?" Mr BRADDY: I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed recently on the issue of population pressure in north Queensland. A recent population study has shown that, during the next decade, that area will experience some of the highest levels of population growth in Queensland, which will cause problems in terms of increasing enrolments in schools. The Government must act to ensure that school building projects keep pace with expected increases in population levels. I reassure the honourable member that the Government has in place appropriate mechanisms to monitor population growth and respond to significant changes in enrolment patterns. As well as monitoring enrolment changes in schools, officers of the Department of Education also monitor any town-planning changes and strategic plans that are developed by local authorities. Those officers regularly contact local authorities to discuss any future housing development expectations and identify, select and acquire school sites well ahead of any residential needs. A number of school sites are under consideration in the area north of Cairns. On a regular basis, officers from the department visit the area to have discussions with Legislative Assembly 2581 1 August 1990 representatives from the regional office, local government and developers. As recently as May 1990, two senior officers of the department visited the area to ascertain future needs. As evidence of this, the Port Douglas and Whitfield State schools were opened in 1989. The Port Douglas and Whitfield State preschool centres were opened in 1990. Facilities in Torres Strait Island schools have been continually upgraded since the Department of Education took responsibility for them in 1985. In addition, I recently gave ministerial approval for the acquisition of sites for a joint primary and secondary facility at Redlynch and a primary school at Kewarra Beach in the Barron River electorate. The Government is now acting to take a long-term approach to the problem of enrolment demands so that future generations of children will not be disadvantaged because of short-sighted or expedient decision-making. I know that the member for Barron River has a deep interest in education issues, and I commend her for her visionary approach to future education trends. 3. Referral to Australian Taxation Office of CJC Findings on Caspalp Mr SPRINGBORG asked the Attorney-General— "With reference to some key findings of the Criminal Justice Committee on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations, namely that invoices issued by the CASPALP promotions fund were false and may have provided Ainsworth Consolidated Industries with the means to claim a fraudulent tax benefit and as the CJC's finding indicates that criminal breaches may be involved, namely of Section 29B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act by the company and a section of the same act which is mirrored by Section 7 of the Queensland Criminal Code by the Member for Mackay— Will he, as the chief law officer in this State, refer this matter to the Australian Taxation Commissioner so that it can be fully investigated?" Mr WELLS: As the State Attorney-General, my obligations in respect of the Commonwealth Act and instrumentality referred to in the honourable member's question are no different from those of the honourable member or any other private citizen. Therefore, the answer is "No". 4. Government Policy on Land-clearing Mr SPRINGBORG asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage— "With reference to the uncertainty that now exists in the rural community with regards to the Government's environmental direction especially in the area of possible restrictions on land clearing— Will he outline the Government's plan with regard to this matter so as to eliminate the possibility of panic clearing?" Mr COMBEN: I state categorically that there is no justification for the uncertainty that the honourable member claims exists in the rural community, nor do I for a moment believe that uncertainty exists. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr COMBEN: Will the honourable member be clearing it? The option of introducing extensive land-clearing restrictions in this State on the basis of conservation or otherwise is not presently favoured. The policy of this Government is to promote land-care by involving producers in the care of their own land. In that regard, for some years the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has been working with property-owners and managers to ensure that the concept of nature conservation is not misunderstood and can be part of a land management strategy that is aimed at ensuring that our agricultural and grazing lands remain productive and Legislative Assembly 2582 1 August 1990 profitable. In return, producers have responded through their Landcare program, This Government will offer that program all possible support. The program was an excellent response by producers to a growing environmental awareness. The primary responsibility for clearing vegetation on Crown leasehold land rests with the Department of Lands and the Queensland Forestry Service. This system provides an opportunity for the clearing and development of areas to be undertaken following consultation. Whilst responsible attitudes are being taken and actions are seen to be controlled, clearing is occurring. This Government will not change the system, but it will ensure compliance. The previous Government never did that. My staff are now working on the development of a Queensland conservation strategy, which will examine options, policies and a new approach to this State's environmental problems as we move towards the twenty-first century. It will not be a strategy to preserve everything and not allow development. Instead, it will permit ordered development of the State's resources—rural or otherwise—within environmentally justifiable guidelines. A Green Paper on community or rural nature conservation, which is currently being prepared, investigates a range of initiatives from restrictions on clearing to voluntary conservation agreements and methods of financial assistance. Both producers and their organisations will have the opportunity to comment on that paper before any options are accepted by this Government. However, I repeat that the option of introducing extensive clearing restrictions is not favoured. In other States, such programs were introduced following extensive clearing at a scale that was proportionally greater than that which is occurring in Queensland. 5. Group Apprenticeship Scheme Mr MCGRADY asked the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations— "(1) What is the situation regarding group apprenticeship schemes in Queensland? (2) Will the Goss Labor Government confirm its continued support for this scheme?" Mr WARBURTON: (1) Queensland now has 23 group schemes coordinated by the Queensland Training Executive and operating under joint Commonwealth and State Government funding policy guidelines. To qualify for joint group scheme funding, interested parties must lodge a formal application and feasibility study indicating that the proposed venture has sufficient host employers and community or industry support for the employment of apprentices and trainees. Start-up funds for a group scheme's administration are $45,000. At the present time there are 3 027 young people employed by group schemes in Queensland, these being 2 644 apprentices, of whom 240 are female; and 383 trainees, of whom 236 are female. Needless to say, group schemes are required to maximise their efforts to employ apprentices and trainees in 40 defined traineeship models and 157 defined trade callings under which they operate in Queensland. (2) The current Commonwealth and State Government policy was introduced in June 1989 for a two-year period. The current agreement will be renegotiated prior to the end of June 1991. In the 1989-90 financial year the State Government's contribution to the support of group schemes was more than $1.5m. Budget projections for the 1990-91 financial year provide for the continued financial support of the group scheme system at a cost of more than $2m. Joint Government financial support to group schemes is secure over the next financial year, and over the next 12 months further negotiations will be carried out to ensure the continued program of joint Government support for the next two years thereafter. Legislative Assembly 2583 1 August 1990

I am aware that the honourable member for Mount Isa, Mr McGrady, has played a very prominent role in respect of the group apprenticeship scheme operating in Mount Isa. In fact, it could be said that the Mount Isa scheme is one of the great success stories in this very important area of training. Indicative of the success of the Mount Isa scheme and the way in which the scheme has operated under the chairmanship of Mr McGrady is the fact that the Suncorp building in Mount Isa was recently purchased by the group and that it was my pleasure to be present at the Mount Isa scheme annual dinner on the 11 July last. I want to personally thank the honourable member for the major role he has personally played in a scheme which I see as being vital to training and the part that training will play in regard to our State's economic future. I would encourage all honourable members to acquaint themselves with group training and become involved if at all possible. 6. Rural Health Task Force Report Mr MCGRADY asked the Minister for Health— "(1) What progress has been made by the Rural Health Task Force which recently visited north- west Queensland? (2) When will the report of the task force be handed down and what does he expect to achieve as a result of this task force?" Mr MACKENROTH: On behalf of the Minister for Health, the answer is as follows— (1) The rural health review team has now completed its program of visits to rural areas of Queensland. During these visits discussions were held with health workers from the hospital and community sectors, and with a wide range of individuals and representatives from community organisations. Issues of particular significance to health in rural Queensland were identified and particular problem areas concerning these issues were defined. Centres visited during the review were Roma, Surat, Wallumbilla, Injune, Mitchell, Emerald, Blackwater, Capella, Clermont, Moranbah, Dysart, Springsure, Toowoomba, Cairns, Port Douglas, Mossman, Thursday Island, Weipa, Cooktown, Mount Isa, Mornington Island, Normanton, Cloncurry, Kowanyama, St George, Dirranbandi, Mungindi and Goondiwindi. The review team has also examined literature and reports prepared in the past concerning rural health in Queensland and elsewhere. A wide range of submissions has been received from health workers, interested individuals and organisations throughout the community. The team is currently collating the enormous amount of information it has gathered and has commenced writing its report. (2) The report of the review team will be completed by the end of August this year. In view of the very broad terms of reference of the review and the extensive consultations that have been undertaken with the community, the Minister believes that a large number of issues of particular significance to rural health in Queensland will be identified. The report should serve as a blueprint for many future developments in this area. The Minister is committed to ensuring optimum access for rural Queenslanders to uniformly high-quality health services, and believes that this review will be a major factor in providing equity in health care for people in rural areas in the long term. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Government's Foreign Investment Policy Mr COOPER: I refer the Premier to the national and international confusion caused by his Government's ad hoc approach to foreign investment policy and the obvious differences between the State Government and the Federal Government on this Legislative Assembly 2584 1 August 1990 issue, and I ask: does he support the inconsistent stance adopted by his Treasurer as evidenced by Daikyo's problems, the Ensham coal deal, Green Island and many other matters? Or does he acknowledge the justifiable concern of the Federal Government on the effects of this confusion on the national economy, such concern being enunciated more clearly by the member for Leichhardt, Mr Gayler, who was acting and speaking on behalf—— Mr De Lacy: Strange bedfellows. It is the first time I have ever heard you supporting Gayler. An Opposition member: He is a bit touchy. Mr COOPER: He is touchy, all right. One has only to look at the colour of his face. As I was saying, Mr Gayler was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating. In other words, I ask the Premier: who does he support? His Treasurer or Mr Gayler? Mr W. K. GOSS: The answer to that question is quite clear: I support the Treasurer. Let me respond to some of the particular points raised, firstly in relation to Daikyo, which has been the subject of some controversy over the past week. The Treasurer and I agree, and have both said publicly, that Daikyo overreacted to the Trade Practices Commission investigation. We are optimistic that that situation will be resolved shortly. We see no reason why it should not be resolved shortly. We indicated to the Daikyo company and publicly that in respect of the Four Seasons hotel there was a concern about market domination at the top end of the hotel market in Cairns. Whether or not it is agreed that there is market domination is one question. The fact that market domination is a relevant consideration is another. Some businesspeople in Cairns have a concern about that; others are strong supporters of Daikyo. But let me refer to the project concerned in north Queensland in respect of which work was stopped. It is the Palm Cove project. There are no grounds for concern or stopping work in respect of that project, because quite a long time ago this State Government, including the Treasurer and I, made it plain to the Daikyo company that the Palm Cove project had our support. It has Federal Government support, and the Trade Practices Commission has said that it is not investigating Palm Cove. That is the basis for the Government's confidence that that situation will be resolved shortly. In relation to Daikyo's activities generally, the Government has indicated privately to Daikyo, and both the Treasurer and myself have said publicly, that Daikyo's investment in this State is welcome. It is a good corporate citizen engaging in quite an extensive program of not just worthwhile economic projects such as Palm Cove but, furthermore, extensive support of sporting and other community organisations. Mr Borbidge: Where are your guidelines? Mr W. K. GOSS: The guidelines have been published by myself to the Australia/Japan Chamber of Commerce. Mr Borbidge: Where are your guidelines? Mr W. K. GOSS: I do not have a copy of them with me, but I give an undertaking to bring those guidelines into this House tomorrow. I will cite to the honourable member the most recent example of this Government's progressive, positive and rational approach to foreign investment and, furthermore, the capacity that this Government has to attract massive new development to Queensland because of its capacity to negotiate a favourable agreement with the Commonwealth Government. Legislative Assembly 2585 1 August 1990

Yesterday afternoon, that agreement was reached. As a result of representations made over the last four days by myself and the Treasurer to the Federal Treasurer, , yesterday afternoon the Government secured a relaxation of the foreign investment guidelines to enable the announcement today of a new $500m coalmine in Queensland on which work will commence immediately. This new coalmine, which represents a $500m investment in Queensland, will commence operations immediately. It will be the largest underground coalmine in Australia and, at its peak, it will directly generate 600 jobs, with over 400 of those being permanent jobs. Annually, the project will earn $250m in export income for Queensland. It will provide a massive boost to the Queensland economy. The Opposition spokesman, who was vomiting in Gladstone last week, is shrugging her shoulders because she does not know anything about this project. Mr Speaker, it is most important that the people of Queensland understand that this project was at risk of stalling and nearly failed yesterday—— Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. I clearly understood the Premier to say that the Opposition spokesman for Resource Industries was a female who was in Gladstone last week and that she was vomiting. I inform this House that I am the Opposition spokesman for Resource Industries. I received no invitation prior to the opening of that gas pipeline by the Government. As the previous Government had initiated that project, I think it stinks that the Government did not even inform the Opposition spokesman of an event such as the opening of that gas pipeline. Mr W. K. GOSS: I apologise and accept the honourable member's assurance unequivocally. A female representative of the Opposition was at Gladstone last week and I assumed wrongly—— Mr FitzGerald: Nobody was invited. Mr W. K. GOSS: I am sorry, but Mrs McCauley was invited and was present. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to the Premier that he concludes his answer. Mr W. K. GOSS: Okay. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Lockyer to cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: As to the original subject matter of the question, foreign investment—the Government makes no apology for taking a stand which will be more beneficial to Queensland and which obtains a better deal for Queensland. The Government rejects absolutely the policy of the National and Liberal Parties, which they took to the last Federal election and which is one of open slather. Those parties would sell every last square inch of this State to foreign investors. The Government will not do that. Foreign investment is a two-way street and this Government makes no apology for obtaining a good deal for Queensland and ending the open- slather approach that benefits only the white-shoe brigade. Government's New Taxes Mr COOPER: The Premier has gone mental; he has gone completely berserk. I will direct a further question to the Premier and see whether I get a similar reaction. I ask: how does the Premier equate his specific election promise, which has been repeated many times since, that his Government would not institute new taxes or raise existing taxes and charges above the inflation rate with: firstly, a new and higher tax of Legislative Assembly 2586 1 August 1990

10 per cent associated with Footy TAB, which is almost double the 5.625 per cent taxes set by the previous Government on horse, greyhound and trotting meetings and, secondly, an increase of almost 1 200 per cent imposed by his Government on some farm vehicle registrations—— Mr Hamill interjected. Mr COOPER: What is so funny about that, boy? Tell the Opposition what is so funny? The member is a disgrace. He cannot even set foot in the grain-growers' building. He is not even game to do that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat when I am on my feet. I assure honourable members that I am going to have lots of patience today. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question. During question-time, he is not entitled to have an ongoing debate with a Minister. Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, I assume that that ruling applies to members on the other side as well? Mr Mackenroth: Do not question the Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: Mr Mackenroth should let the Speaker run his own show. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I run my own show. I ask him to ask his question. I do not require any advice from him at all. Mr COOPER: Secondly, I refer to the increase of almost 1 200 per cent imposed by the Government on some farm vehicle registrations, which, even under Mr Keating's economic bungling, is hundreds of times more than the current inflation rate. Mr W. K. GOSS: The promise is clear, and the promise stands. In relation to Footy TAB—Opposition members should look at the full picture. Footy TAB is not an existing tax; it is an innovation. Mr Cooper: It's a whole new tax. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is a whole new facility that is provided at a reasonable rate to the public. For heaven's sake, it raises only approximately $400,000. Further, it has been balanced by a reduction of the book- makers' tax to 1 per cent. All in all, it is quite a responsible package. I see no departure from any election undertaking whatsoever. Under the previous Government, there was no Footy TAB. In relation to the farm motor vehicles registration—the Minister for Transport has answered this at length to the particular constituency, and he tells me that he is happy to do it again. Honourable members must bear in mind that rationalisation of those registration fees creates a 75 per cent concession. Opposition members never recognise that. Mr Cooper: You're a liar. Mr W. K. GOSS: I beg your pardon? What did the Leader of the Opposition call me? Mr Cooper: I said it twice. You're a liar. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an unparliamentary phrase. I ask the member to withdraw it. Legislative Assembly 2587 1 August 1990

Mr COOPER: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw that. Mr Prest: You're learning. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Leader of the Opposition is learning slowly. In relation to the motor vehicle registration issue, it would behove the Leader of the Opposition to consider the history of the previous concessional regime. He may recall that the concession was introduced to balance the road maintenance tax of the previous Government. The concession was brought in to compensate—— Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Opposition members do not want to hear the truth. The concession was brought in to balance the previous tax. It was high time that the tax was withdrawn, and it was withdrawn. The previous Government should have done that. It is high time that motor vehicle registration fees were rationalised—which is what the Minister for Transport did—to take into account the removal of the tax. In other words, motor vehicle registration was oversubsidised. Motor vehicle registration fees are the subject of ongoing consultation by the Minister for Transport who is more than happy to consult with any person or organisation on this issue and any other issue. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The Premier told the president of the Queensland Graingrowers Association that the Government would not increase those registrations. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Tertiary Entrance Score Review Mr PREST: In asking a question of the Minister for Education, I refer to the fact that public submissions on the Viviani report on tertiary entrance were scheduled to close yesterday. I now ask: can the Minister inform honourable members of the public reaction to the report and what steps the Government will take in response to the views of the community prior to the implementation of the new tertiary entrance system in Queensland? Mr BRADDY: The system which will replace the TE score will result from an important commitment made by the Labor Party prior to the last State election. Upon becoming Minister for Education, I appointed Professor Nancy Viviani of the Australian National University to conduct a review of tertiary entrance. To assist her in the compilation of that report a wide-ranging reference committee, comprising representatives from all the major stake-holders in the education system in Queensland, was established. On 27 June, Professor Viviani completed her review. Following consideration by Cabinet, on 2 July the report was released for public comment. Copies of the report have been sent to schools, parent groups, universities and all honourable members. Additional copies are available for purchase from all Education Department regional offices and via a toll-free telephone number. In addition, a public information campaign is being conducted in newspapers and on the radio to encourage the community to put forward their views on the proposed model. As new members are aware, yesterday was the last day for the receipt of public submissions. More than 500 submissions have been received. However, I expect that during the course of the week some late submissions will come in. These submissions will be carefully considered before the Government makes its final decision. I am delighted to say that the reference committee unanimously agreed to assist the Government in considering public submissions. In recent weeks, individual members of that committee have travelled to many parts of the State to conduct meetings with parents, teachers, students and community groups. I have also visited many regional centres Legislative Assembly 2588 1 August 1990 including Toowoomba, Mount Isa, Thursday Island and the main provincial centres on the east coast seeking community input on the report. I agree with the broad thrust of Professor Viviani's model. However, the Government will look closely at all public submissions before making a final decision. The importance of genuine consultation in this process cannot be overstated. Over the course of the review it has become increasingly obvious that the greatest difficult with the TE score was that the public was no longer confident that it was a fair method of selecting students for entering university. In addition, it was being used in decisions for which it was not intended, especially by some employers. It is therefore very important that the new system has the confidence of parents, teachers and students, and that is why I have gone to great lengths to ensure that every member of the community is given the chance to have a say on the proposed new system. It appears from public feedback that there is broad general support for Professor Viviani's report, but some areas need to be looked at further. For example, there seems to be some concern regarding the section on field positions. These concerns relate to the belief that some subjects, for example foreign language courses, are not given a high enough weighting in certain fields. Because of this concern, and my own concern that this should be looked at, I am currently having examined the possible redefinition of the field position structure to better accommodate all subject areas in the school curriculum. I believe that, by listening and reacting to public opinion on this aspect of the report, the Government will be in a position to finally provide Queensland with a tertiary entrance system that is fair, simple and equitable. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling on the honourable member for Port Curtis to ask his second question, I remind Ministers that answers should be brief and relevant and should not debate the issue. I allowed the Minister for Education some latitude, but I think his answer was too long. I ask Ministers in future to keep more to the point. Carriage of Liquid Cyanide Mr PREST: I point out to the Minister for Transport that recently some concern has been expressed in the central Queensland media about the shipment of sodium cyanide from the ICI Gladstone plant, and I ask: can he outline the specific safety measures that have been implemented to ensure the safe transport of this sodium cyanide? Mr HAMILL: I thank the honourable member for the question. I know that this issue has been of some concern to honourable members on both sides of the House, and I note particularly the concern expressed previously in debate by the honourable member for Auburn. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that a number of safety measures have been taken to safeguard the public interest in the movement of the sodium cyanide from Gladstone. In July 1988, permission was given by the previous Government for the Gladstone cyanide plant. At that time, the Government accepted the impact assessment study submitted by ICI. Specifically, for the movement of sodium cyanide from the Gladstone plant to the gold-mining operations at Mount Morgan and Charters Towers, the following specific safety measures have been required. The prime mover used in the transport of sodium cyanide has to be and is speed limited. It is fitted with an anti-lock braking system. The prime mover has radio communication with base. The tanker is reinforced with external circumferential stiffening rings as well as side and top overturn protection. The drivers are trained and certified for bulk dangerous goods transport. The particular route was selected in conjunction with the Water Resources Commission to ensure that there was no danger of contamination in population centres and water catchment areas. The State emergency services, the fire brigade and the police Legislative Assembly 2589 1 August 1990 along the proposed route have been provided with the necessary information and the training to deal with the movement of those dangerous goods. ICI has trained staff at Gladstone, Mount Morgan, Emerald, Moranbah and Mount Leyshon, and they are equipped with neutralising chemicals to be used in the event of an unfortunate accident involving this substance. Importantly, the transport company concerned is required to have sufficient insurance to cover the cost of any clean-up and damage caused in the unfortunate and, I suggest, unlikely circumstances of any spill. In substance, every available protection has been afforded to the communities along the route to ensure that, in the transport of this dangerous substance, there is nothing to the detriment of those communities. Tertiary Entrance Score Review Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Minister for Education to the Government's proposed tertiary entrance system and the public aspersions by both the Premier and himself that the new system is simple and fair, and I ask: will he explain simply and fairly how a student becomes eligible for a field position to a specified number of weighted semester units and then how the student's field position, on a 1 to 10 scale, is determined through the use of subject achievement indicators, weighted semester units and whatever else contributes to the student's score in the field position? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Minister for Education, I ask him to be more brief than he was in answer to an earlier question. I do not know whether that will allow the honourable member for Toowong to be given the privilege of a full answer, but I suggest that the Minister does not take all day to answer the question. Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member should be aware if he were following the debate, no system is currently in place. At present, we have a report which called for public discussion up to yesterday. As I indicated in my earlier answer, the Government will be making a final decision this month, and an announcement will be made. The proposals that are finally adopted will be simple enough for the Leader of the Liberal Party to understand even though he and his party are the last troglodytes remaining in this State defending the current TE system. It has an overall position, which is very clear. It has a position which will be reviewed by the score skills test, which will test the skills derived from the curriculum, and it will have a yet-undetermined number of field positions, because the ones that are currently in the report have not been finally determined by the Government. I suggest to the honourable member for Toowong and Leader of the Liberal Party that he wait another couple of weeks and read the material this time so that he understands the position, instead of jumping in feet first. Footy TAB Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, I refer to his launch yesterday of the sports betting game, Footy TAB, and I ask: will he inform the House of the expected benefits that will accrue to Queensland as a result of this initiative? Mr GIBBS: I am delighted to advise the House of this. In fact, the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition amazed me somewhat, because the members of the Opposition sat in this House a couple of months ago when the legislation was passed through this Parliament. I point out that it was passed unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The amount of revenue that was expected to be collected as a result of that taxation was clearly outlined in my speech. Quite frankly, the Leader of the Opposition's failure to do his homework and his failure to realise the amount of the tax is an appalling indictment upon the competency of the Opposition. Legislative Assembly 2590 1 August 1990

I suppose the major benefit is that this Government has shown a great deal of initiative by following through with one of the reforms recommended by the . The Government has taken specific steps to clean up SP book-making. It has been known for innumerable years that illegal betting on football has been taking place. The problem has been widespread throughout this State. I believe that as a result of introducing legal betting on the TAB on Sydney Rugby League football matches and as a result of taking the further step yesterday of approving guidelines for registered licensed book-makers throughout Queensland to enable them to take legal bets, instead of illegal bets, on events, there will be a further diminution in SP book- making activities in this State. Moreover, this action will ensure a fairer share of revenue for the Government and will provide a fairer and greater return to those people who wish to invest their money either through the TAB or through book-makers. Interestingly enough, for the first time the Queensland Government has been able to reach agreement with another State Government to amalgamate the TAB pool. That will result in huge pay-outs being made to successful punters through the TAB. I have already mentioned the revenue that is expected to be collected and retained by this State. In addition, the prevention of the illegal activity to which I have already referred will ensure that book-makers will receive a better return as a result of SP book-making being cleaned up. The final point I make is that Footy TAB will now provide a service that the public has wanted. I might add that this morning I was advised by the TAB that as a result of the launch, the response has been overwhelming in spite of the fact that Footy TAB does not officially get off the ground until Friday, which only goes to show that it is a service that was strongly demanded by the public. Article Appearing in Sun on 26 July 1990 Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: is he aware of a newspaper article in the Sun on 26 July in which the Minister was accused by the Leader of the Opposition of taking part on 10 July with the Premier in a "brazen bid to slip their hands into the pockets of workers" and, no doubt even worse, speaking in support of the Federated Clerks Union joining the ALP? Is the article correct? If not, will the Minister inform the House of the real story behind that article? Mr McLEAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Firstly, I am aware of the article. Secondly, no, it is not correct. The article was headed "Goss accused of milking union" and stated— "The Opposition today accused Wayne Goss of being the 'pick-pocket Premier' for pushing the Federated Clerks Union to join the ALP." Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I was unaware that industrial relations matters now fall within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Administrative Services. The matters relate clearly to a union and equally clearly to the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Industrial Relations. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the honourable member that I was just discussing the matter with the Clerk. The honourable member has noted that very well, I notice. I rule the question out of order because I do not think it relates to the Minister's responsibilities. Mr McLEAN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, will you allow me to read one more sentence of the article? The article goes on to state—— Opposition members interjected. Mr McLEAN: This is just by way of clarification. Opposition members interjected. Legislative Assembly 2591 1 August 1990

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is taking a point of order. I am trying to listen to him. Mr McLEAN: This will not take a moment. The article states— "Opposition Leader said the push by Mr Goss and Administrative Services Minister Ron McLean was a 'brazen bid to slip their hands into the pockets of workers'. Mr Goss and Mr McLean spoke in support of the FCU joining the ALP at a July 10 meeting of the union's central and southern Queensland branch." Because of that reference in the article, I feel that I am entitled to answer this question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule that the question is out of order. I suggest that the Minister make a personal explanation or a ministerial statement. Unless the Minister proves to me that the matter comes under his administrative responsibilities or that it is a matter involving his administration, I cannot allow the question. Foreign Investment Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development, I refer to his comments made in Parliament on 15 March last year. I cite Hansard in which the honourable member states— "I am opposed to Japanese investment . . . and what it is doing to my community. . . . I have been challenged about my views on Japanese investment in the Cairns region. It is no secret that I have opposed it in all public forums." The Treasurer went on to say— "I do not care what the member for Toowoomba North or anybody else says, the Cairns region can do without that investment. It is not doing the people of Cairns one iota of good at all. They would be a lot better off without it. I will make that statement in any forum." I ask: do these comments reflect the Government's real foreign investment policy? As Treasurer, does he stand by those comments? Mr De LACY: I welcome the opportunity to respond. The simple answer is "No", those comments do not reflect the Government's point of view and they do not reflect the Government's attitude to foreign investment. The Government's attitude to foreign investment has been made clear on numerous occasions since the election. The Government takes a balanced approach and recognises the need for foreign investment. It realises that Queensland cannot exist without foreign investment and that this State's potential cannot be realised without foreign investment. On the other side of the coin, the Government says that foreign investment must be for the benefit of Queenslanders, and I make no apology for that. The Queensland Government's policy on foreign investment is crystal clear. It is consistent, and ever since the Government was elected it has been enunciated consistently. It contrasts absolutely with the policy of the National Party and the Liberal Party—the open-slather approach that was adopted when those parties were in Government, the kind of open-slather approach that the opposition parties have adopted now, and the kind of approach that was rejected comprehensively by the people of Queensland at the last election. Foreign Investment Guidelines Mr BORBIDGE: In view of the comments just made by the Treasurer, I ask him: will he now table in the House the foreign investment guidelines of his Government? Mr De LACY: The Premier has already indicated that tomorrow we will table in the House our foreign investment guidelines, which were spelt out with great clarity in a speech. Legislative Assembly 2592 1 August 1990

Logging on Fraser Island Mr DOLLIN: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to a newspaper report with an accompanying editorial in which he claimed that large iron spikes had been driven into trees on Fraser Island. I now ask: is he aware of that newspaper report? If so, will he outline to the House the Government's position on the apparent escalation of the Fraser Island logging issue? Mr W. K. GOSS: The media reports and the statement claiming that a certain group had driven metal or steel spikes into trees on Fraser Island are disturbing. However, I should say that there is no conclusive evidence that that has occurred. Nevertheless, the matter will be taken seriously. It should be made very clear that, in the event that any proof of such activity is established, serious criminal charges must inevitably follow. That tactic picks up a practice adopted in certain parts of the United States and, perhaps, I am told, in southern parts of Australia. If timber workers in the course of their work come into contact with those particular spikes, there is a risk of their incurring serious injury or even death. I stress that no conclusive evidence has been established. I believe that the overwhelming majority—if not the whole—of the conservation movement would reject such tactics. However, unfortunately, the report of such practices heightens the tension and the risk of confrontation on Fraser Island, which is something that this Government has been very keen—it has bent over backwards—to avoid. That does not help the process. The Government simply asks those on both sides of the argument who care about Fraser Island to participate in the dispute resolution process promised by the Labor Party prior to the last election and which is currently under way. The Government seeks support for the inquiry and the process from those groups who are currently protesting. More than that, it seeks support for the compromise agreement that has been reached between the joint conservation groups and the timber industry and that has ended logging in the old-growth or environmentally sensitive areas. Recently, the Wilderness Society has been giving some support to the small breakaway group who have been making all the noise on Fraser Island. People in the conservation movement should remember that the Wilderness Society and the Australia Conservation Foundation were parties to, and signatories to, a submission to the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry dated 27 April 1990, which I will table. In that submission, their request was— "The Joint Conservation Groups request the Commission to make a recommendation to the Queensland Government that, during the course of the Inquiry, no logging of old-growth forests on Fraser Island be permitted and that logging be confined to regrowth areas." In other words, the joint conservation groups, which included the Australia Conservation Foundation, the Australian Littoral Society, the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, the Queensland Conservation Council, the Rainforest Conservation Society, the Wilderness Society and the Wildlife Preservation Society, requested the Government to sponsor, endorse or agree to a compromise, which it did. That compromise ended the logging of old-growth forests on Fraser Island and confined logging—that means continued logging—to the regrowth areas during the course of the inquiry. The Government's action and policy is to support the inquiry, but also to support the compromise agreement. I thank the honourable member for Maryborough for his support and for the reasoned voice that he has added to this debate in the Maryborough/Hervey Bay/Wide Bay region, because it is important that that community also respect the process. We would not want to see people in that area who depend on the timber industry for their livelihood saying, "Well, because the agreement has broken down, we see no reason to commit ourselves to our commitment to stop logging in the old-growth areas." It is important that that compromise agreement be maintained, and that will be the continued attitude of the Government. We will look for guidance to the Fitzgerald report in terms Legislative Assembly 2593 1 August 1990 of the future of Fraser Island for the next 100 years. We are not looking at next week or next month; we are looking at the next 100 years. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Waterfront Reform Mr DOLLIN: I direct my second question to the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development. I am aware that the State Government has recently approved a wide-ranging reform to the Queensland waterfront administration. I ask: can he outline to the House what measures the Government has taken on waterfront reform since coming to office? Mr HAMILL: The Government, through Cabinet, has endorsed some 57 recommendations from the port review team which was commissioned by the Government to examine in close detail the administration and operation of Queensland's port system. Those 57 recommendations will provide a blueprint for reform on the waterfront. It is important reform which is within the ambit of the State Government to deliver, that is, reforms in infrastructure and port management. Although that work is being carried out by officers of my department, the Government has not been backward in bringing about important changes on the waterfront which will enhance performance there. In the case of the port of Brisbane, competition has been enhanced by the acquisition of additional cranes, which has put an end to the almost monopolistic practices of stevedoring in that port. The dividends as a result of that decision are already being seen. I cite the recent announcement by a French trading company, Compagnie Maritime Francaise, that, as part of its worldwide shipping operation, it will make Brisbane its only port of call in Australia. That is a tremendous boost for the port of Brisbane, and it is a direct result of the initiative that this Government has taken to enhance the operation of the Brisbane waterfront. In addition to that, the Queensland Government has been cooperating with the waterfront industry reform authority in regard to bringing about reform of manning levels on the waterfront. Recently, it was agreed that there be a significant reduction in the waterfront labour involved in grain-handling in the ports of Mackay, Gladstone and Brisbane. That demonstrates the approach of this Government to the important structural changes on the waterfront. It is a testament to this Government's approach of cooperation rather than confrontation. Cooperation and planning will result in waterfront reform in Queensland and the benefits that will flow from that. Dredging of Cairns Harbour; Sea Dumping of Spoil Dr CLARK: I ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: in the light of continuing community concern in far-north Queensland about the effects of dredging of the Cairns harbour and subsequent sea dumping of spoil, will he advise the House of the present position? In addition, will the Minister give consideration to visiting Cairns, making an on-site inspection, and meeting with local authority leaders and community business groups who have expressed concern about this issue? Mr COMBEN: I appreciate the concern of the member for Barron River in relation to the proposed dredging of Cairns harbour and, in particular, the disposal of the spoil from that harbour some 7 kilometres from the Marlin Coast, which is experiencing ongoing tabidity problems. I must also say that it is unfortunate that this matter has only recently come to the attention of my department. It has only recently been approached for a permit to carry out the dredging work. Two permits are involved: one from my department in regard to dredging and another from the Federal Government in regard to the dumping of spoil. However, the Cairns Port Authority, which knew in May last year that it needed Legislative Assembly 2594 1 August 1990 a permit, did not apply for one. The stage has now been reached at which the petrol supplies to Cairns are potentially jeopardised whilst the concerns in relation to the environmental aspects of the dumping of the spoil remain unaddressed. At present, the Government does not have any quick answer. I am seeking urgent scientific advice in regard to the true position in Cairns. By the end of the week, I will have a better understanding of what is going on. My ministerial colleague the Minister for Transport, Mr Hamill, and I have been very concerned about this matter. We will certainly be talking to the Cairns Port Authority and attempting to bring about a quick resolution which addresses both the concerns in regard to dredging and the concerns of the port authority. In view of the local concern, I will accept the invitation of the honourable member, and I will endeavour to visit Cairns next week and speak to local authority leaders and community and business groups. The tabidity problem has no apparent cause. It is not known whether it will be aggravated by dredging. It is known that investigations should be carried out into the Barron River, because it has experienced a lot of erosion. I am aware of the concerns. The Government is moving as quickly as it can. I would appreciate it if the local member would tell the community groups that the Government is monitoring the situation and looking for a solution. Dr CLARK: I thank the Minister for his acceptance of my invitation to visit Cairns. It is much appreciated. Reform of Defamation Laws Dr CLARK: I ask the Attorney-General: can he inform the House of the progress being made with respect to reform of the defamation laws in Queensland and in other States? Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her representations on this matter. As I have discussed previously with the honourable member, Australia has a plethora of defamation laws which differ from one State to the other; no two States have quite the same laws. That gives rise to a situation in this country in which there is no certainty as to what can be said. If there is no certainty as to what can be said, then one does not really have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These two things are the cornerstones of democracy. It was therefore very important that some action be taken to ensure that some greater degree of uniformity was achieved on this subject. I therefore sought to have this matter put on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys- General. It subsequently appeared on the agenda. However, before that, I received a very positive response from the New South Wales Attorney-General, John Dowd, who suggested that we should work together on a joint paper. We proceeded to do that work but, in the meantime, I also spoke to Jim Kennan, the Victorian Attorney-General. He also wished to be involved. Despite the dissimilarity in the defamation laws in those three jurisdictions, we found that we were able to reach a sufficient measure of agreement on general principles to be able to put together a joint paper. I have seen the first draft of that joint paper. Yesterday, I spoke with the Victorian Attorney-General. I was very encouraged by that conversation. The differences that we thought existed seem to have been resolved. I am confident that progress will be made. A more uniform defamation statute should be established to extend the scope of freedom of speech in our nation. Urban Development in Cairns/Innisfail Corridor Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Transport: bearing in mind the rapid urban development in the Cairns/Innisfail corridor, is he aware of the hardship that is experienced, especially by the elderly and disadvantaged in the community, because of Legislative Assembly 2595 1 August 1990 the lack of an effective public transport system? Has the Minister investigated the possibility of reinstating commuter rail services in that area? Would he be prepared to initiate a study of the transport needs of far-north Queensland? Mr HAMILL: Officers of my department conducted a transit study in the City of Cairns. Several important initiatives have been undertaken, including a transit mall in Cairns which will open in December of this year. Under the ACRD, my department has undertaken a program for bus stop sign-posting in the Mulgrave Shire. Both of those measures are designed to enhance passenger transport in that area. As to rail services in the area—the previous Government withdrew railmotor services between Tully and Cairns. Those services were losing $178,000 per annum. The Government has adopted an integrated approach to transport and is doing everything possible to enhance passenger transport in that area. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Naming of Minister for Administrative Services in Newspaper Article Hon. R. T. McLEAN (Bulimba—Minister for Administrative Services) (3.55 p.m.), by leave: As to the matter that I mentioned during question-time—in the newspaper article, which quoted my name in the wrong context, Mr Cooper was quoted as saying— ". . . the push by Mr Goss and Administrative Services Minister Ron McLean was a 'brazen bid to slip their hands into the pockets of workers'. Mr Goss and Mr McLean spoke in support of the FCU joining the ALP at a July 10 meeting of the union's central and southern Queensland branch." Mr Cooper interjected. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Burdekin! I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. They will cease interjecting. Mr McLEAN: That newspaper article adds to the credibility gap that Mr Cooper is forming in this House. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to the pork-barrelling exercise that the National Party undertook prior to the last State election. At that time, Mr Cooper tabled in this House documents that prove my point. Since that time he has accused me of stacking a joint consultative committee on structural efficiency in my department. Mr Cooper claimed that I had formed that committee. In fact, the former National Party Government established that committee on 31 October 1989. Mr Cooper: You are going to stack it. Mr McLEAN: The honourable member did that. That article quotes Mr Cooper as saying that I attended that meeting on 10 July. My diary note for that date indicates that, together with Dr John Flynn, I made inspections of schools within the Toowoomba North electorate. In the morning I visited the Newtown, Rockville and Wilsonton State schools. In the afternoon I met with my staff at the Administrative Services district office. I assure Mr Cooper that at no stage did I attend a clerks' meeting. In fact, to my knowledge I have never attended such a meeting. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will cease interjecting. Legislative Assembly 2596 1 August 1990

Mr McLEAN: I am a good-natured person and I have no intention of taking legal action on this matter. However, I feel that the best thing Mr Cooper could do is apologise in this House. My advice to him is that he should read his press statements and have them checked out, not by the person who is checking them out now but by somebody who has a few brains. Perhaps somebody could assist him in that. Mr Stoneman: You're volunteering, are you? Mr McLEAN: I could do that for him. I clarify the point that I was not at that meeting, and I have never attended a clerks' meeting. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to apologise in this House for his derogatory statements. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. The Minister and I are both very fair-minded people. I have a copy of the press release, which is very relevant. I listened to what the Minister said. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr COOPER: My point of order is that, although I listened to what the Minister said, the first couple of lines of the press release state—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr COOPER: It is very relevant. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat while I am on my feet. There is no point of order. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (3.59 p.m.), by leave: During question-time, the Premier referred to me as a female spokesman vomiting in Gladstone. That shameful description was extremely unparliamentary and very upsetting to me. As always, I was in perfect health in Gladstone. I believe that the Premier's use of the term "female" was extremely derogatory. I believe that, above all things, I am a member of Parliament and gender does not enter into it. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (4 p.m.), by leave: Because it is most relevant, I believe that the Minister is entitled to my explanation. The first couple of words of my press release related to a push supported by Premier Wayne Goss that ALP State President, Mr Ian McLean—— Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr COOPER: The honourable member should wait just a minute. It was Mr Ian McLean to whom reference was being made. The Sun newspaper genuinely made a mistake. It misquoted the name. The reporter has recognised that it was a misquote. Therefore, the Honourable the Minister is correct; we were not referring to him. Quite clearly, the release referred to the State president of the ALP. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (4.01 p.m.), by leave: During question-time the member for Surfers Paradise alluded to my making a statement in a context which sounded critical of the Government's foreign investment policy. I point out that I have never made such a statement. I am not sure who has misquoted me. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. If the honourable member had listened to the date I mentioned, he would know that I was referring to comments made by the Legislative Assembly 2597 1 August 1990 present Treasurer during the life of the previous Parliament when the honourable member for Toowoomba North was not a member of this House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been extremely tolerant. This is a time when Government business takes precedence, so I will ask the Clerk to read the order of the day. MR SPEAKER'S RULING Motion of Dissent Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (4.02 p.m.): I move— "That Mr Speaker's ruling of June 7 to disallow the Leader of the Opposition's question to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee in accordance with Standing Order 68 be dissented from." Many of the matters relevant to this matter were canvassed yesterday. Therefore, I will merely recap some of the salient points. The motion of dissent will be seconded and spoken upon. This issue relates to whether members are permitted to direct questions on notice to chairmen of parliamentary committees. Standing Order 68, which is extremely relevant to this debate, states— "A Member may put any question of which Notice has been given to any other Member of the House relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the Business of the House, of which the Member has charge." We in the Opposition believe most definitely that, as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice is in charge of a parliamentary committee, he is dealing with business of this House. Mr Speaker, I am also aware that your ruling centred on Standing Order 143 of the House of Representatives, which states that such questions are limited in their application and that they must relate to a Bill, motion or other public matter before the House of which the member has charge. That is exactly what is contained in Standing Order 68. We believe that that is most relevant. The question that was asked of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice came within the ambit of Standing Order 68 of this House and Standing Order 143 of the House of Representatives. Mr Speaker, you indicated also that questions could be of only a machinery nature. Standing Order 68 is far clearer than that. We do not believe there is any problem with the interpretation of that Standing Order; it is as clear as crystal. Standing Order 68 makes reference to it being any other public matter before the House of which the member has charge. To us, that is clear. The chairman of the committee, of course, is the member for Brisbane Central. Mr Speaker, you stated also that the report was tabled by you and that, hence, Mr Beattie was not in charge of it. In light of Standing Order 68, the Opposition disagrees with that interpretation. It is a well-known fact that the report of the Criminal Justice Commission was to be the subject of public hearings which were to be chaired by the member for Brisbane Central as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. Such hearings are to be heard, and have been heard, in the precincts of the Parliament. Hence we argue very strongly that the question was a matter before the Parliament and that it was certainly a matter of which Mr Beattie had charge. We believe that the question should definitely have been allowed. Some of the reasons why we believe the Government may not have wanted him to answer that question have already been canvassed. There is no point in going into great detail about that. The question has been tabled in the House. The question is quite clear in its request for information. We believe that the member for Brisbane Central, the chairman of the committee, is perfectly qualified and perfectly capable of answering that question. We simply ask: why does the Government not have confidence in the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice to answer the question? Legislative Assembly 2598 1 August 1990

General Business-Notice of Motion No. 2, which was moved and agreed to earlier, stated— "That this House expresses its full confidence in the Parliamentary Chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee." I do not believe that the Government has confidence in the chairman of that committee, otherwise it would have allowed him to answer the question. He is quite capable of doing so. The question was well within the realms of his responsibilities. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Parliament is in a new era in that a number of parliamentary committees have been established. We will have to get used to that. In the main, I think they have been generally well accepted. They are a new practice but one that I think will advance and certainly enhance the status of the Parliament in dealing with many of the matters that come before it. Those committees can be properly utilised in the public interest. But it is pointless if the chairmen of those committees will not be subjected to relevant questions in the House. I believe Standing Order 68 is perfectly clear. As many of the matters that are handled by parliamentary committees do not come within the realm of Ministers, somehow members of this House should have an opportunity to question the chairmen of the committees. As I said, that should be done in the public interest. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I do not believe it is possible or practicable to adhere to the ruling that you have made in relation to Standing Order 68. I believe it is far too narrow. If the Opposition has to adhere to your ruling, it will not be able to obtain the answers that it believes are necessary and most definitely in the public interest. The Opposition suggested that again in a letter that it has written to you, Mr Speaker, relative to parliamentary reform, which the Opposition has taken most seriously. That letter relates to many areas of parliamentary reform, including the independence of the Speaker, and deals with questions directed to parliamentary chairmen and others. This House is on the verge of a new and enlightened era in which Opposition members are absolutely determined to play their part. This year, the Opposition has made serious suggestions for parliamentary reform. It has adopted a very responsible view and it will continue to support those responsible measures for reform that it has suggested. That will entail a clearer interpretation of Standing Orders, such as Standing Order 68, to ensure that they are not misinterpreted. That will ensure also that parliamentary committee chairmen will be, should be and, I daresay in many cases, want to be, subject to questioning along legitimate lines. The adoption of that practice would be in the public interest and in the interest of all members of this House. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.09 p.m.): I support this motion of dissent against Mr Speaker's ruling, and I do so with the utmost concern and out of no disrespect for the office of Speaker. However, it is important that honourable members understand the background to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. If they are not fully acquainted with it, and if they have been doing their job, they should be. The circumstances relating to the question asked under Standing Order 68 go right to the basis of Fitzgerald reform in Queensland. They are the real litmus test of this Government's commitment to accountability. The bottom line is that the decision that was taken, for whatever reason, to rule out of order the question placed on notice by the Leader of the Opposition to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice has effectively gagged debate on the Fitzgerald process in this place. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice was asked— "Was the parliamentary Chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee being prevented from being accountable to this House on an issue that struck at the heart of all those alleged commitments to decency and propriety that the Labor Party claimed to hold so dear last year?" Legislative Assembly 2599 1 August 1990

That report relates to poker machines, the propriety of Ministers, possible corruption and political donations to the party that now forms the Government of this State. I suggest that, if the previous Speaker had not allowed that question, there would have been outrage in the wider community. I will cite the events that led to this motion of dissent. On 6 June, the Opposition intended to direct a series of questions to the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee. The questions were associated with the commission's report into gaming machines that was handed down the previous Friday. That report not only showed the poker machine industry in a very dim light but also questioned the rationale behind the Government's desire to introduce machines posthaste. I point out to the House that the stand taken by the Opposition has surely been vindicated by statements made in the last week or so by the Labor Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, and by the Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, who apparently do not know as much about the poker machine issue as Premier Goss in Queensland. As far as the Opposition was concerned, surely the overriding issue is: why is the Labor Party so hell- bent on introducing poker machines when no other Government wants them and when every informed discussion links them to organised crime. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to resume his seat. I point out that the members of this House are debating my interpretation of Standing Order 68. It is not a debate about whether or not poker machines ought to be introduced into this State. I know it is a debate on a motion of dissent, and I am going to be extremely tolerant. However, I suggest that the debate should discuss my interpretation of Standing Orders rather than issues such as whether poker machines are good or bad. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling, but I believe it is important that this House looks at the context at the time. In the light of the ongoing debate, the Opposition attempted to ask questions under Standing Order 68, which states— "A Member may put any question of which Notice has been given to any other Member of the House relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the Business of the House, of which the Member has charge." Members should then consider the whole effect of Standing Order 68. Firstly, the question was placed on notice. Secondly, on the Friday before the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, the report of the Criminal Justice Commission was handed to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, who promptly delivered the report to the Speaker of the Parliament on the same day. The Opposition presumed that it then became the business of this House. Mr Speaker, it was then as much the business of the Opposition as it was the business of the Government. Thirdly, the member for Brisbane Central, Mr Beattie, is in charge of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. Taking it as coolly and calmly and as rationally as I can, can I say—— Mr Mackenroth: If you want to be rational, just go back a couple of bits. Did you say that Mr Beattie, the member for Brisbane Central, took the report to the Speaker? Mr BORBIDGE: My understanding was that it was handed to the Speaker. Mr Mackenroth: Get a little bit rational. It was the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission that handed the report out, not the Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. Mr BORBIDGE: I take the Minister's point. Mr Mackenroth: It is an important issue. Mr BORBIDGE: I take the Minister's point. Legislative Assembly 2600 1 August 1990

Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: But that does not alter one iota the reasons why the Opposition asked the question under Standing Order 68, nor does it change my rationale. I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is about time he reread those sections of the Fitzgerald inquiry relating to parliamentary reform on which he campaigned so actively when he was in Opposition, because not much is happening under his stewardship of this place. For the benefit of the Leader of the House, I will summarise the situation: the question was on notice. It was the business of this House and the member had charge. I invite the Minister to say whether he disagrees with that? Am I wrong there? Mr Mackenroth: Yes. Mr BORBIDGE: I will be interested to hear the Minister's explanation later. If he intends to prosecute that sort of an argument, once again he is betraying all that he said he stood for when he was in Opposition. By any reasonable interpretation, the question according to Standing Order 68 was in order. It was on notice, and it was the business of the House. The member had charge. On page 336 of Erskine May, reference is made to addressing questions to unofficial members. It states— "Questions addressed to unofficial Members relating to a bill, motion, or other matter connected with the business of the House for which such Members are responsible, have been allowed; though the Speaker has expressed doubt whether it would be in accordance with modern parliamentary practice for questions to be addressed to unofficial Members except in the case of the Second Church Estates Commissioner and chairmen of certain select committees . . ." The Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice is a select committee of the Queensland Parliament. Members of the National Party did their homework and believed that the question was in order. We took advice from counsel. Mr Mackenroth: You should sack your advisers for the advice that you were given. Mr BORBIDGE: We also referred to Erskine May. Because the Leader of the House has the numbers, he thinks that he can treat this Parliament and members of Opposition with absolute contempt. We are seeing it every day of the week. Mr Mackenroth: We gave you the opportunity to debate it, and you didn't take it. Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable member is fair dinkum about implementing some reforms in this Parliament, it is about time that he started, because he is revealing himself as one of the biggest hypocrites ever to set foot in this Chamber. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand the sensitivity of the Leader of the House. It was with some surprise that I was advised that our office had received a phone call from a member of the table staff saying that the Speaker was going to rule the question out of order. At that stage, both the Leader of the Opposition and myself requested an urgent meeting with the Speaker to clarify the ruling. That was the subject of debate yesterday, and it resulted in both the Leader of the Opposition and myself making certain points that I do not intend to repeat. According to this ruling, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice cannot be questioned. The reason given by the Speaker for disallowing the question shed little light on the matter. He said that questions may be asked, which Opposition members accept, but it is advanced that those questions must be of a limited nature. Members of the National Party simply asked whether the Premier or members of his staff had contacted the chairman in respect of the report. It is as simple as that. We could not have asked a simpler question. He was not asked for an in-depth, considered appraisal of the recommendations of the report. A "Yes" or "No" answer Legislative Assembly 2601 1 August 1990 would have sufficed. However, the Government saw fit not to agree with that line of questioning. In light of the Fitzgerald report, the Speaker understands the importance of this question. He does have a commitment to parliamentary reform. In view of this experience, we will be pursuing the matter through the Standing Orders Committee. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition should be carried. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.19 p.m.): I refer to the claim that has been made throughout the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the decision was made by the Government. On approximately three occasions in his speech, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition implied that the decision to disallow the question by the Leader of the Opposition was a Government decision. Yesterday, honourable members spent almost two hours debating the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition, which was investigated by the Privileges Committee. Yesterday, the Parliament made a decision on that matter. Obviously, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition still cannot come to terms with the fact that the decision made in relation to the question by the Leader of the Opposition was made by the Speaker who is rightly charged with the running of this Parliament. On a number of occasions—— Mr Borbidge: You contradicted yourself yesterday. Mr MACKENROTH: I never contradicted myself yesterday. On a number of occasions throughout his speech today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contradicted himself. The dissent motion by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely without any foundation. Mr Borbidge: You protected a shonky statutory declaration from going to the Privileges Committee. Mr MACKENROTH: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated on the radio this morning that we in the Government would not send anything to the Privileges Committee. Three matters have been referred to the Privileges Committee. One was referred by the Opposition, which was resolved seven to nil in my favour. The other two matters involved complaints against the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. Both of them were resolved five to two. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. For the benefit of the Leader of the House, I point out that those matters were referred to the Privileges Committee by the Speaker, not by the Government. The Government has not agreed to refer to the Privileges Committee any matter on behalf of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he debate the issue before the House. Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Speaker, I was provoked. The question which the Leader of the Opposition placed on notice to the member for Brisbane Central as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice would have been disallowed without the slightest equivocation by any Speaker in any Parliament under the Westminster system. The twenty-first edition of Erskine May states— "The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions." It further states— "When a question has been refused and the Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for these to be made privately to the Speaker and not raised by way of a point of order in the House." Legislative Assembly 2602 1 August 1990

That, of course, is in line with the basic principle of parliamentary privilege that the character or actions of the Speaker may not be criticised incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by a substantive motion such as a censure or dissent motion. In moving this motion of dissent, the Leader of the Opposition shows his complete lack of understanding of Standing Order 68. I am not denying his right under the Standing Orders to do so, but I suggest that, in any future motion of dissent from a ruling by the Speaker, he at least receive advice from somebody who has some knowledge of Standing Orders. Standing Order 68 is almost identical with the House of Representatives Standing Order 143. Both Standing Orders state that a member may put a question to a private member on matters "relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the Business of the House, of which the Member has charge". Page 515 of the House of Representatives Practice, second edition, states— "A question without notice of a strictly limited nature may be addressed to a Member who is chairman of a committee. A question asking when a report would be tabled has been permitted. A question to a committee chairman asking if the committee intended to inquire into a certain matter has also been permitted." I must emphasise the strictly limited nature of the questions that may be addressed, that is, only questions relating to when a report will be tabled or if the committee will inquire into a matter. The House of Representatives Practice states— "The Chair has ruled out of order a question to a chairman which asked that the committee examine certain matters." It goes on to say— "In any question to a chairman of a committee it should be borne in mind that a chairman should not make public pronouncements on behalf of the committee unless the committee has been consulted or given its permission beforehand." Erskine May, twenty-first edition, page 286, under the heading "Questions to private Members" states— ". . . questions are also sometimes addressed to the chairmen of committees directly concerned with the workings of the House." Again one should stress that questions to the chairmen of committees are only allowed if they are directly concerned with the workings of the House. In fact, on 17 March 1944, the ruling was given in the House of Commons that— "A member may not seek by means of a question to the chairman to interfere in the proceedings of a select committee by suggesting a particular subject for an inquiry." This highlights that the House of Commons practice is of even a more limited nature than that of the House of Representatives. In the Queensland Parliament, on 18 March 1976, the Speaker ruled that— ". . . it is not the custom for private members to address questions to other private members. If a private member has a notice on the Business Paper, some consideration could perhaps then be given to what the honourable member for Townsville South asks. At present, however, there is no provision, nor has it been the custom, for a private member to ask a question of another private member." It is legend that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the doctrine of the separation of powers. It involves, for example, understanding the difference between the Executive and the Parliament. It is the Executive—the Premier and the Ministers—that is accountable to the people through parliamentary processes such as question-time. It is ludicrous to suggest that parliamentary procedures would allow private members, Legislative Assembly 2603 1 August 1990 even the chairman of a committee, to answer questions which are of a political nature and are solely the province of a Minister. This motion of dissent would not be taking place today if the Leader of the Opposition had either the intellect to interpret Standing Orders or the common sense to seek advice from the table. Such ineptitude is of concern to me in that it leads to the wasting of the time of the House. Moreover, it adds to what I perceive as a declining respect for the Parliament by sections of the public. It is fair to say that there is a great deal of cynicism about the operations of this Parliament. Ridiculous motions of dissent, such as the one we are debating today, unfortunately add to this perception. In conclusion, I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this is the Forty-sixth Parliament. It is patently obvious that the National Party is still going through the grieving process. However, the Leader of the Opposition, sadly, has not progressed through the first stage of the grieving process, which is denial. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (4.27 p.m.): I join in the debate on this motion of dissent to take on the Leader of the House. He put his case capably but we are now in a new era in this House in that there are so many select committees. If members are to be denied the right to ask questions of the chairmen of those committees, Standing Order 68 should be removed from the Standing Orders. I say that in all sincerity. It has been suggested by the Leader of the House that the House of Commons practice and Erskine May take precedence over the Rules and Standing Orders of this House. I do not believe that. Throughout the British Commonwealth, there are 100 or more rule books setting out the way in which questions can be asked. I do not believe that any Speaker has the right to ignore our Standing Orders. It has been said in this Chamber—even when the present Speaker was a member of the Opposition—that some people believe in the divine right of Speakers. I do not. I do not claim that some members of the National Party did not believe in it some years ago, but I do not believe in the divine right of Speakers. I believe that Speakers have to adhere to the Rules and Standing Orders of this House. Mr SPEAKER: And I agree with the honourable member. Mr BOOTH: I have not challenged you yet, Mr Speaker. The way I read Standing Order 68, it is perfectly legitimate for a member to ask a question of the chairman of any of our select committees. It has been stated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and rightly so, that, Mr Speaker, you did not give a very lengthy ruling on the matter. Perhaps you were thinking of other things that we have not heard of yet. I believe that a Speaker should be governed and motivated to a great extent by common sense. If he is, he will not go far wrong. I do not think we should reach the situation in which the Rules and Standing Orders are not adhered to. I believe that the present Speaker has tried to bring some order into the answering of questions and has tried to adhere to the rules. At times, the Speaker has had a great deal of difficulty with some Ministers who seem to think that they should be allowed to give 60 per cent abuse and 40 per cent answer in question-time, which also seems to be standard procedure in other Parliaments in Australia. I believe that the Speaker has tried to ensure that Ministers do not wander too far from the rule book and that on this issue members of Parliament should do likewise. The key phraseology in Standing Order 68 is— ". . . Motion, or other public matter connected with the Business of the House, of which the Member has charge." I believe that those words are the key to the whole issue because if the Speaker rules that the Chairmen of Committees do not have charge of certain matters—and I recall that the Leader of the House implied that it is Ministers only who have charge of matters—there is no point in retaining Standing Order 68. Legislative Assembly 2604 1 August 1990

As Standing Orders presently exist, I see no reason why any chairman of a parliamentary committee cannot answer a question, provided that the question is put on notice. Because these chairmen have onerous responsibilities and a long list of meetings to convene, it is fair enough to put the question on notice. However, I believe that they should be able to take the question upon notice, thereby ensuring that they are given plenty of time to examine the matter and can provide the House with a carefully considered reply. As this is the first time a question has been directed to a chairman of committees, I suppose the Speaker had to traverse new ground. However, I suggest that if Standing Order 68 is to be retained—and I see no reason why it should not be—Mr Speaker may have to change his mind on the matter and say, "Yes, provided that questions are placed on notice, they can be asked of chairmen." Because no-one likes to go back on what he has said, acceptance of that suggestion may create problems. In spite of that, having read Standing Order 68, I am unable to arrive at any conclusion other than that, as Standing Orders presently exist, it is permissible to follow the practice of allowing questions to be asked. If members of Parliament reach the stage at which they believe in the divine right of Speakers and in Speakers being able to do as they please, they will be wasting their time attending Parliament and would certainly be wasting their time drawing up rules and Standing Orders. Yesterday, the member for Yeronga made the ridiculous suggestion that the Speaker can do anything. Although I accept that Mr Speaker has the right to do many things—and I do not deny him that right—at times he is a bit toey, if I may use language that everyone can understand. By and large, however, I believe that he tries to do the right thing. In my opinion, the right thing for Mr Speaker to do today is admit that he probably did not have time to consider the matter fully and then allow questions to be put to chairmen of committees. If he does not do that, the committees will be a mockery. I do not wish to discuss in detail the central issue because I believe that the Speaker ruled correctly when he did not allow the adoption of a certain procedure. Nevertheless, I support the motion of dissent. I believe that it is only common sense that the members of this Parliament should support it. Although the Leader of the House was not harsh and did not insult anyone, I believe he was wrong when he suggested that Ministers only should be permitted to answer questions. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.34 p.m.): Because many of the issues concerning this matter were canvassed at great length yesterday and today, I will speak only briefly during this debate. The Liberal Party supports the ruling made by Mr Speaker in relation to this matter and opposes the motion. I believe it is important that the position of Speaker is not subjected to manipulation for political purposes. Earlier, the Leader of the House referred to the House of Representatives Practice. If one refers to that authority and to Erskine May, the position becomes very clear indeed. Standing Order 68 does not permit the asking of a question of the type described. Mr Gilmore: Why? Mr BEANLAND: Because it quite clearly spells out that questions of a limited nature only are allowed. I suggest that members of the National Party should read about the practice adopted by the House of Representatives and also refer to Erskine May. Previous Speakers have already spelt out that questions of a limited nature that may be allowed are questions such as when a committee's report might be tabled and whether or not the committee will inquire into a certain matter. A great deal seems to have been made by members of the National Party about whether the report was in the hands of the chairman of the parliamentary committee, Mr Beattie, and whether it was his report, or whether it was someone else's report. I understand that the report was completed by the Criminal Justice Commission and that the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice handed the report to the Speaker. If the report was in anyone's hands, it was in the Legislative Assembly 2605 1 August 1990 hands of the Speaker and in no-one else's. The report may have been handed to the chairman of the committee, but it is my understanding that the committee did not have any input into the report. As I said, it is a report of the commission. Perhaps the committee is now undertaking public hearings and delving into the contents of that report; nevertheless, the report must be regarded as being a report of the commission. Therefore, the points made by the Leader of the Opposition have failed not only in relation to who furnished the report but also in relation to who had charge of the report. The stage has been reached at which the notice paper of the Queensland Parliament has 16 Bills listed for debate. A number of questions must be asked, but members do not have sufficient opportunity to ask questions of Ministers in this Parliament. In spite of that, honourable members are now bickering about some petty political point-scoring exercise and are fighting over whether something should be done in relation to Standing Order 68. The meaning of that Standing Order is quite clear. The public is becoming cynical about politicians who carry on in that fashion. I believe that the public is looking to members of Parliament to show a great deal more respect for the institution of Parliament so that some of the dignity that has been lost in recent times can be restored. No doubt this has come about because of the emergence of a much wider media coverage and the televising of Parliament. I believe that there are dozens of matters—if not hundreds—on which members of Parliament should be spending more time. In this instance, the Liberal Party believes that, again, the Speaker was entirely correct in his ruling. I suggest that members of the National Party read Standing Order 68 of the House of Representatives, which is similar to the Queensland Standing Order, and that they also refer to Erskine May. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (4.38 p.m.): I support the motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's ruling. I take on board the comments by the honourable member for Toowong. If he honestly believes that Standing Order 117 should not be included in the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly, he should ask the Standing Orders Committee to examine the matter and recommend that this House abolish that Standing Order. However, while Standing Order 117 is a Standing Order of this Parliament, honourable members have every right to use it. I make this comment with no disrespect to you, Mr Speaker. If members of the House lose confidence in Mr Speaker at any time, they have the right to move a motion on no confidence in the Speaker. It is an extremely serious matter. I was a member of this Parliament when a motion of no confidence was moved against a previous Speaker. It is a very serious matter. When members of Parliament disagree with a Speaker's ruling, Standing Orders provide for a democratic way of pursuing the matter. I reject totally the assertion by the honourable member for Toowong that the Opposition is being mischievous in what it is attempting and that it is seeking headlines in the media. In my experience in this House, I have no knowledge of Standing Order 68 being used. I realise that honourable members may not understand what it means. An explanation of Standing Order 68 has been given to us by the Leader of the Liberal Party, but he did not quote the Standing Orders of the Federal Parliament. As well, a lecture was given to us by the Leader of the House on the practices in the House of Commons and the House of Representatives. However, he did not explain those Standing Orders exactly and inform us of their relevance to this matter. The wording of Standing Orders in this Parliament may be unique. In that case, the interpretation of those four very simple lines is a matter for the Speaker of this House. In his ruling, Mr Speaker stated— "Questions of a limited nature only are allowed. For example, questions may be asked when a committee's report might be tabled, or whether or not the committee would inquire into a certain matter." Legislative Assembly 2606 1 August 1990

I accept that as an example provided by the Speaker. However, the members of this House want the full parameters of the matter spelt out. Mr Speaker gave an example of how questions that are put to a chairman of a committee must be of a limited nature. But the members of this House must know the full width of the questions that can be asked so that they understand how the parliamentary system works. At present, the Parliament has 11 committees operating. Many people believe that the present Government established those committees. Contrary to common belief, almost all those committees were set up by the National Party. Honourable members must know the rules under which this Parliament operates. Members of those committees travel throughout the State and work very hard. It was unfortunate that, this morning, the Premier referred to my activities in conducting hearings whilst a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services. When I was at Rockhampton waiting for a flight to Cairns, I discovered that the State gas pipeline to Gladstone was being opened the following day. I had not received an invitation, nor had the Leader of the Opposition. Our officers begged the departmental officers for an invitation to that opening. I received an invitation in Cairns at 4.09 p.m. on 24 July 1990 to attend the opening in Gladstone at 9.45 a.m. on 25 July. If the members of this House are to understand how committees work, they should be made aware of all the rules. They should be aware of the circumstances in which they can make inquiries of the chairman. It is an insult that Ministers—and particularly the Premier—do not recognise that committees established by the Parliament must be allowed to operate effectively. It was unfortunate that the Premier stated that the Opposition spokesman vomited at Gladstone. It was most unfortunate that that derogatory term was used. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member return to the motion that is being debated. Mr FITZGERALD: Standing Order 68 is in the Standing Orders of this Parliament. Is that Standing Order exactly the same as those in the House of Commons and the House of Representatives? Mr Mackenroth: Yes. Mr FITZGERALD: The Leader of the House said that it is exactly the same. Therefore, he is using practices in those places as a precedent. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to distribute a paper to honourable members so that they all know what Standing Order 68 means. Obviously, you gave only an example of some of the matters that can be discussed. I ask you to spell out the parameters of Standing Order 68. I mean no disrespect to you, Mr Speaker—I certainly have confidence in you as Speaker—but on this particular ruling I wish to exercise my democratic right to disagree with you. Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (4.44 p.m.): I rise to speak against this motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's ruling. It is important that, when honourable members read Standing Orders, they try to exercise a little bit of logic. I will read Standing Order 68 into the record. It states— "A Member may put any question of which Notice has been given to any other Member of the House relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the Business of the House, of which the Member has charge." I repeat "of which the Member has charge". Mr Stephan: Are you saying that's not the chairman? Mr DAVIES: If the honourable member will bear with me for a moment, he will find out. That is why I said that we must use a little bit of logic. Legislative Assembly 2607 1 August 1990

Honourable members have to look at this report and ask, "Whose report was it?" "Was it the report of the member for Brisbane Central, in his role as chairman of the committee, or was it the report of the commission?" Clearly, it was a report prepared by the commission and given to the Speaker. So I cannot see how it can be the report of the chairman of the committee. Chapter XIII of the Standing Orders relates to select committees. Standing Order 202 states that the chairman is to prepare a report. Had the chairman of the select committee prepared a report for this Parliament? The answer is "No". Standing Order 203 is headed "Proceedings on Consideration of Draft Report". Standing Order 205 talks about progress reports. These are reports of a select committee. Standing Order 203 states— "The Chairman shall read to the Committee convened for the purpose of considering the Report, the whole of his draft Report, which shall be printed and circulated amongst the members of the Committee; and at some subsequent meeting of the Committee the Chairman shall read the draft report paragraph by paragraph, putting the Question to the Committee at the end of each paragraph, that it do stand part of the Report. A Member objecting to any portion of the Report shall propose his Amendment when the paragraph which he wishes to amend is under consideration. A Member disagreeing with the Report may require a statement of the reasons of his disagreement to be appended to the Report." Standing Order 204 states that the report has to be signed by the chairman. I do not recall a report coming to this House from the parliamentary select committee. What came to this House and what was delivered to you, Mr Speaker, as I understand it, was a report from the commission. Basically, I rest my case on the words "of which the Member has charge ". Clearly, the member to whom the question was addressed did not have charge. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Standing Order 117 provides that when the debate has exceeded 60 minutes the Speaker shall put the question and there will be no further speakers. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 20 NOES, 58 DIVISION Resolved in the negative. Legislative Assembly 2608 1 August 1990

INDY CAR GRAND PRIX BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development) (4.57 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of a promoter of and to facilitate the staging of Indy Car Grand Prix events in Queensland." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development) (4.58 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill will enable the successful staging of the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix. The first event will be held in March 1991. Indy car racing is a very popular form of motor sport within North America. It is expected that the 1991 PPG Indy Car World Series, which will commence with the Gold Coast event, will include some 18 races in Canada, the United States and Queensland. The legislation will provide for the appointment of the promoter, the declaration of the area and the period in which the event is to occur. It is intended that the promoter will be a partnership between a subsidiary of the Queensland Events Corporation and five other companies representing private investors. Through the Events Corporation, the Government will have a 50 per cent equity in the partnership. The financial arrangements involve each partner contributing $200,000 in cash plus $1.3m in guarantees for each 10 per cent equity. Therefore, the Government will contribute $1m in cash and guarantees totalling $6.5m through the Queensland Events Corporation. This Bill will provide for the promoter to have the power of access to public and private land, subject to gaining certain approvals, and to fence the land within the declared area. Any damage to the land or fixtures occurring as the result of the promoter's activity will have to be repaired. Certain Acts and laws, such as the Noise Abatement Act, will not apply to the event, although the promoter will have to comply with normal safety standards in relation to any works constructed for the event. Other provisions of the Bill cover the control of the promoter's interests in merchandise using the official event insignia and television rights, access for residents and ticket-holders to the area, the behaviour of people within the declared area and the ability of the Minister to issue directions to the promoter in relation to the management of the event. Many sections of this legislation have been based on the South Australian legislation for the Australian Grand Prix held in Adelaide. However, a number of changes have been made to reflect the specific requirements of the Gold Coast event. Honourable members will notice also that the Bill includes a sunset clause. The promoter agreement provides for the holding of five races over a maximum of six years. Therefore, the current legislation will expire after that period. If an extension of the promoter agreement is obtained at the end of its current term, the Government will seek to amend this Act to allow it to continue for a further period. However, the inclusion of a sunset clause is part of the Government's desire not to have legislation continue to apply beyond the time that it is necessary. Legislative Assembly 2609 1 August 1990

An event of that nature cannot be held without some disruption to the normal activities of the community in which it is undertaken. It is usual in these circumstances to have special legislation to ensure that the event occurs within a controlled environment and causes the minimum of dislocation consistent with its operations. The Government is well aware of the concerns of residents on the Gold Coast in relation to the event. At the same time, it is also mindful of the major impact of the tourist industry on the economy of south- east Queensland and, in particular, the Gold Coast community. For some time the tourist industry has faced significant difficulties, with the result that many of the tourist operators along the coast have struggled to remain viable. Therefore, the Government was required to balance the needs of individuals who may be temporarily disrupted by such an event with the opportunities that exist to strengthen the tourist industry through the ability to gain worldwide television exposure. The location of the racing circuit has been chosen to provide spectacular viewing to the television audience not only of the race itself but also of the diverse surroundings —beach and ocean views, parkland, high-rise holiday apartments and international hotels. This circuit will become instantly recognisable as being Queensland's Gold Coast and will not be mistaken for any other city. The Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix will be an ideal promotional activity and will provide a much needed boost to the tourist industry early in 1991. It is estimated that the first event will generate millions of dollars in spin- off benefits to the State. The potential exists for the positive impacts from the event to continue to flow for many years to come. The support for the event from the Gold Coast City Council, local business enterprises and others in the community has encouraged the Government in its commitment to the Indy Car Grand Prix. The Gold Coast City Council has been involved in the consultation process which was undertaken to draw up this Bill. The success of the event depends on the cooperative approach between the Gold Coast City Council, the State Government and the private sector. I look forward to such a constructive and cooperative approach from the council. It would be very easy to be carried away with the glitter of such an event and to lose sight of the objective of further strengthening the tourist sector of our economy. It would also be easy to overlook the real concerns of some within the local community. The Government therefore intends to maintain a balance between the legitimate interests of the various groups within the community. To achieve this balance, the Government and the promoter will work closely with the Gold Coast City Council and other representatives of the community in planning for the event. A number of working committees are being established to consider various issues such as emergency services, transport requirements, communications and the involvement of the community in activities associated with the Grand Prix program. Through this cooperative approach it is intended that the issues of concern can be quickly addressed. It is important that the 1991 event establish a solid benchmark of success which can be used in subsequent years. With a five-year agreement for the event, it is planned to increase the number of related activities in subsequent years so that the maximum benefit can be gained. The potential for other events, not just on the Gold Coast but elsewhere, requires continued examination. The Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix is the first major event to be attracted to Queensland since the establishment of the Queensland Events Corporation. The corporation is now redirecting its efforts in its search for other opportunities. This will include a review of existing activities throughout Queensland which, with some assistance, may be able to be built into more significant events. In this way greater exposure may be gained for these regional areas. The Bill before the House is therefore a measure of the Government's determination to facilitate the economic development of the State in a measured and responsible way. Legislative Assembly 2610 1 August 1990

It indicates our willingness to become involved, in a cooperative manner, with local government and the private sector to achieve desirable goals for the benefit of Queenslanders. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned. GAS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (5.05 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Gas Act 1965-1989 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Vaughan, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (5.06 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Bill currently before the House is one of the first steps in this Government's overall plan to better regulate the storage and handling of all hazardous substances in Queensland. This plan will involve several Government departments and pieces of legislation in the future and is a matter being dealt with by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Local Government and Housing. The Gas Act Amendment Bills seeks to amend the Gas Act to achieve two main aims. The first is to improve the safe handling and storage of gases in Queensland by extending the scope of the Act to cover all gases. The second aim is to allow gas reticulation companies to gain access to easements to expand, maintain and repair gas reticulation systems. The proposal to extend the Act to cover all gases is an important one for the health and safety of all Queenslanders. Community concern over the storage, transport, handling and use of gases has been intensifying as gases become more commonly used and storage and handling facilities increase in number, finding their way into more and more communities. Recent incidents such as the gas fire and explosion in Cairns in 1987 and the devastation of the St Peters LPG terminal in Sydney earlier this year heighten those concerns. It is the Government's role to take every reasonable step to prevent these types of incidents threatening property and lives. In Queensland, lessons have been learned from the Cairns incident and further preventive measures implemented. For the Goss Government's part, I have recently created a new gas examiner's position in Cairns and an appointee is soon to take up that role. However, he and the other gas specialists within my Department of Resource Industries are limited in their supervision and inspection duties by the current Gas Act. The Act as it stands is limited in its coverage as it defines "gas" as natural gas, town gas, similar gases, and acetylene and hydrogen.This restricted definition causes many unfortunate anomalies. Gas examiners can take safety measures to prevent an acetylene fire, but have no authority over the oxygen which so often accompanies it. A person installing a natural gas pipe must be trained and licensed, but a pipe carrying the extremely poisonous gas chlorine can be installed by someone with no training or Legislative Assembly 2611 1 August 1990 experience at all. This is particularly disturbing in the case of chlorine gas, as it is piped commonly into public swimming pools. The proposed amendments to the Act address those anomalies by changing the definition of "gas" to correspond with the United Nations classification of hazardous substances. The amendments will mean "gas" will be defined now as any substance which is in a gaseous state at normal temperatures and pressures. Regulations will be prepared to support the amendments. They will extend licensing to cover the reticulation of poisonous and all flammable gases. They will allow for approval of large gas storages as well as regulating loading and unloading facilities. The amendments, therefore, will place the safe handling and storage of all gases in the hands of one department—Resource Industries—and its network of highly-trained gas specialists. This centralised control makes for greater efficiencies and reduces potentially hazardous confusion. In emergencies, it is essential that fire brigade or police officers have a single point of contact, no matter which gas is involved. I move now to the second aim of the Bill, which is to make easements available to gas reticulation companies. As honourable members will appreciate, the laying of gas mains, particularly in densely populated areas, is a difficult and expensive process. From time to time an operator needs to traverse private land. This has caused some difficulty in the past, as this requires the company to reach agreement with each land-owner. Companies have had to suffer capricious refusal or demands for unrealistic compensation, the outcome of which is to force the operators to seek other, often more costly routes. Of course, the land-owners' rights must be protected if those easements are to be made available. This Government will not allow gas companies to overuse easement powers when perfectly acceptable routes are available through public places. I believe the proposed system will provide the right balance. The amendments allow for the director-general of my department, acting in the capacity of Secretary of Mines and in keeping with similar provisions in the Petroleum Act, to become the constructing authority and effectively hold the easement. The director-general then bestows the benefits of this easement on the appropriate company. This mechanism will enable the department to monitor and assess company requests for easements to ensure that a proper balance is maintained. As well as these two major amendments, some minor amendments have been incorporated in the Bill. The Act recognises the requirements of several other pieces of legislation, namely the Petroleum Act with regard to pipelines, the Health Act and its coverage of anaesthetic and other medical gases, and the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Act relating to gas transport. The amendments repeal a number of referenced Acts, many dating back to the last century and which are no longer relevant. They also give the power to the Minister to appoint honorary advisory committees to advise on gas licensing matters. Other amendments correct minor anomalies and definitions and bring the Act into line with the Acts Interpretation Act. I ask honourable members to appreciate the significance of this Bill. It is essential that the Government maintain and enhance safety standards within the community and it is equally essential that such standards be created and enforced by appropriately skilled officers. Two years ago, the Gas Act was amended with the unanimous support of the Parliament. The then Labor Opposition supported that Bill, which has seen a substantial lowering in the price of industrial LPG and the extension of natural gas reticulation. Today, I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to give similar full support to these amendments with the health and safety of all Queenslanders in mind. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2612 1 August 1990

EGG MARKETING BOARD (ADMINISTRATIVE LEVY) REGULATIONS 1989 VALIDATION BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.13 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to validate The Egg Marketing Board (Administrative Levy) Regulations 1989." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.14 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill provides for the validation of the Egg Marketing Board (Administrative Levy) Regulations 1989 and of all things done and levies collected in reliance in the regulations since they were promulgated. This Bill is necessary because the previous Minister for Primary Industries failed to lay the regulations before the Legislative Assembly as required by section 28A (1) (d) of the Acts Interpretation Act. The consequence of the failure is that, pursuant to section 28A (2) of that Act, the regulations are void and of no effect. On receiving advice from the Committee of Subordinate Legislation that the regulations were void, I moved as quickly as possible to have this validating legislation prepared. An Opposition member interjected. Mr CASEY: The National Party can thank its own former Minister for being the cause of it all. As honourable members would appreciate, the regulations have been acted on in good faith by the Egg Marketing Board, and the considerable sum of $2.72m was collected in levies from producers during the preceding period. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr CASEY: I can leave the Bill as it is if the honourable member for Lockyer would prefer, but many primary producers in his electorate and the Egg Marketing Board would suffer as a result. In order to rectify the legality of anything done in reliance on the regulations, a validating clause has been included in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Booth, adjourned. GRAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.15 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Grain Research Foundation Act 1976 to alter the composition of membership of the Foundation and for other purposes." Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 2613 1 August 1990

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.16 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Grain Research Foundation Act was enacted in 1976 to enable grain-growers, through representation of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, to have a direct role in the direction of research and development for their industry. As a corporate body, the Grain Research Foundation financed the construction of research facilities at the Queensland Wheat Research Institute. Some of its intended activities were not fully exercised because grain-growers have had satisfactory representation on State research committees for wheat and barley and Commonwealth rural industry research councils for wheat, barley, oilseeds and grain legumes. The Commonwealth has recently restructured its agricultural research and development funding arrangements and has created a national grains research and development corporation to replace several commodity research councils and State committees. As a result of this change in industry consultative mechanisms, Queensland grain-growers will lose the direct influence they have had on research and development for local issues. In particular, they will lose the strong role they had in guiding the operations and management of the Queensland Wheat Research Institute in Toowoomba. I have therefore agreed to representations from the Queensland Graingrowers Association that the Grain Research Foundation should assume the role in overseeing the operations and management of the Queensland Wheat Research Institute previously undertaken by the Wheat Research Committee for Queensland. The foundation will also be encouraged to foster and support research and development for all cereal grains, coarse grains, oilseeds and grain legumes. To carry out this wider role, the membership of the foundation needs to be expanded to include scientific expertise from research organisations other than my department and grain industry representatives who can make a positive and informed contribution to research priority setting and funding allocations. The primary intention of the Bill, therefore, is to expand and enhance the membership of the foundation to enable it to provide strong industry and scientific assistance to research and development for all grain crops. The Bill also brings the Act into line with current legislative requirements in relation to financial and procedural matters. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Booth, adjourned. SAWMILLS LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.18 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936-1979 to empower the Conservator of Forests to administer the licensing of sawmills and for other purposes. " Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time. Legislative Assembly 2614 1 August 1990

Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.19 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The purpose of the Bill is to reduce the regulatory burden of the existing legislation concerning the licensing of sawmills. At present, the Act provides for the stabilisation of the sawmilling industry by equating licensed capacity in any region of the State to the potential of the log resource in that region to sustain that capacity. By controlling the location and log input of sawmills, the Act also regulates the rate of harvesting and disposal of the privately owned log resource, unless the resource is not utilised for sawmilling purposes. Under the Act, any person wishing to erect or use a sawmill must make application to the Conservator of Forests for a sawmill licence. The Conservator of Forests is then required to forward such application, together with his recommendations, to the Minister at whose discretion a licence will be granted or refused. This process also applies in regard to the granting of exemptions from any provisions of the Act, any revocation or variance of terms and conditions to which any licence or certificate of exemption is subject and cancellation of such instruments. All applications for sawmill licences received by the Conservator of Forests are assessed in accordance with established guidelines and policies. As such, the need for the present level of approval is unnecessary duplication. The main focus of this Bill is therefore to streamline the process by transferring the responsibility to the office of the Conservator of Forests. This can only lead to the implementation of a less cumbersome system. It should also be recognised that the Conservator of Forests is ultimately accountable to the Minister through the Chief Executive of the Department. Provision is also made in the Bill to increase penalties to reflect current values. Penalties were last increased in 1976. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Stephan, adjourned. SWINE COMPENSATION FUND ACTS REPEAL BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.21 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to close The Swine Compensation Fund and to repeal certain Acts." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.23 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill now be read a second time." The purposes of the Swine Compensation Fund Acts Repeal Bill are twofold. Firstly, authority is to be granted to the Treasurer to close the Swine Compensation Fund and to transfer the balance standing to account to the Queensland Pork Producers' State Council. When this function has been performed, provision is made for the repeal of the three Swine Compensation Fund Acts. Legislative Assembly 2615 1 August 1990

The Swine Compensation Fund came into existence in 1962. In that year, an outbreak of swine fever occurred in northern New South Wales and it was feared that the disease would spread to Queensland. At that time, there was no financial help available to pork-producers who lost their herds because of disease outbreak. As a result, the Swine Compensation Fund Act 1962 was passed, establishing a compensation fund managed by Treasury and financed by the collection of stamp duty on all pig sales in Queensland. Payments from the fund were limited to compensation to pork-producers whose herds were affected by disease. By 1969, a total of $302,380 had been accumulated in the fund and no claims for compensation had ever been made. Consequently, the Act was amended to allow the collection of stamp duty to be suspended by Order in Council. It has never been necessary during the last 21 years to revive the collection of stamp duty. In 1975, the Act was further amended to extend the purposes for which money could be expended from the fund. A total of $249,495 has since been paid out for purposes connected with the improvement of pork production. The present balance of the fund is $16,544. Since the passage of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, which established the Exotic Diseases Expenses and Compensation Fund to cater for disease compensation in respect of all species of animals, it has not been necessary to maintain separate legislative provision for pork-producers. The Government's policy is to identify and review legislation which is no longer serving a purpose, and the Swine Compensation Fund Acts clearly fall into this category. It is appropriate that the moneys standing to the credit of the fund should be paid to the Queensland Pork Producers' Council, which will use it for purposes beneficial to pork-producers. The fund was established for the producers' benefit, and it was the producers themselves who built up the fund through payment of stamp duty on swine sales. The Bill contains a sunset provision in clause 3 limiting the life of the legislation to 12 months from the date of royal assent. This will allow ample time for the fund to be closed and will ensure that the repealing legislation will not itself become another Act remaining on the statute book long after it has outlived its function. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Booth, adjourned. TRADE MEASUREMENT BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.25 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill relating to trade measurement in Queensland as part of the scheme for uniform trade measurement legislation throughout Australia." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.26 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Legislative Assembly 2616 1 August 1990

The Trade Measurement Bill is the first of a package of three Bills, the framework of which implements a uniform system of trade measurement throughout Australia. The other two Bills—the Trade Measurement Administration Bill and the Trade Measurement (Bread) Bill—will be introduced immediately after this Bill. The objective of the Trade Measurement Bill is to reform the law in relation to the measurement of commodities for the purpose of trade in line with the principles enunciated in a national uniform agreement. This legislation repeals the previous Weights and Measures Act 1951-1983, which in turn replaced the Weights and Measures Act of 1924. Thus, this area of the law is one of the oldest in the line of statutes regulating commerce in Queensland. This Bill puts in place uniform legislation designed to ensure that common systems relating to measurement for the purposes of trade are used right throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth of Australia. The immediate history of the move towards uniform trade measurement legislation goes back some seven years. A consultative committee known as the Trade Measurement Industry Consultative Committee was formally established at a Ministers' conference in August 1983. Formal terms of reference in mode of operation were not clearly established. However, that committee was directed to report to the Formal Conference on Weights and Measures and, in so doing, it evolved towards being a body which investigated the feasibility of creating a uniform system of trade measurement. The conference of Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for trade measurement, at its meeting at Yulara in the Northern Territory in September 1986, agreed that the Formal Conference on Weights and Measures be renamed the Standing Committee on Trade Measurement. Included in the objectives of the committee was the stated aim to develop and maintain uniformity in trade measurement matters between States and Territories and between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The present legislation is a product of the work of that standing committee. The need for this legislation can be explained on two grounds. Firstly, enormous increases in interstate trade and commerce have made it mandatory that each State have in place a uniform system of trade measurement to ensure that the wheels of commerce run smoothly. Secondly, advances in science and technology have rendered many of the features of the previously existing system obsolete and have made a radical overhaul necessary. There is even an impact in this regard on the terminology in the Bill. For example, the word "weight" has been replaced throughout the legislation by the more appropriate scientific concept of "mass". Reflecting this consideration, the whole area is now to be known as trade measurement rather than the outdated term "weights and measures". This Bill is the principal Bill in the package and formalises the actual agreement among the States and the Commonwealth. A Bill in identical terms has been, or will be, introduced into all the Parliaments of every other jurisdiction in Australia. This distinguishes it from the other two Bills in the package, both of which contain certain differences which will be explained when each of them is introduced. Most of the States, together with the Commonwealth, formally signed the agreement at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers in Perth on Friday, 20 July 1990. Only technical difficulties prevented the remaining States signing the agreement at that meeting; for instance, the absence of Ministers. All States had previously endorsed the Bill in draft form. By entering into this agreement, the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers has agreed with the principle of uniform legislation and regulations that may only be amended by national agreement. The agreement specifies that the legislation is to commence on 1 January 1991. The Trade Measurement Bill simplifies and modernises legislation concerning standards for weights and measures, including measuring equipment and packaging. It introduces new licensing systems for the servicing of measuring instruments and the operation of public weighbridges and sets standards for the certification, verification and Legislative Assembly 2617 1 August 1990 reverification of measuring equipment, including weighbridges. It sets out the requirements for the packaging of articles sold as prepacked articles and standardises the powers of inspectors. The subject matter of this legislation may appear to be rather mundane but the reality is that society could not function without provisions of this nature. This legislation makes a significant contribution towards the efficiency of the Australian trading community and its introduction pays tribute to the role that the Queensland Government is playing towards making Australia as a whole a better place in which to live. I commend the Bill to the House. Bill, on motion of Mr Gilmore, adjourned. TRADE MEASUREMENT ADMINISTRATION BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.31 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill relating to the administration of the Trade Measurement Act 1990 and the Trade Measurement (Bread) Act 1990 and associated matters." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.32 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Trade Measurement Administration Bill establishes the necessary administrative infrastructure for the efficient and effective working of the principal piece of legislation in this package, the Trade Measurement Bill. Unlike that Bill, the format of the Trade Measurement Administration Bill varies from State to State, depending on the various administrative structures already in place in each State. For example, some other States already have established a commercial tribunal. In those States, appeals under the trade measurement legislation will be directed to those tribunals, which are presided over generally by judges having the equivalent of the status of District Court judges. As Queensland presently does not have a commercial tribunal, and as it was considered for various reasons that it was inappropriate to specify the District Court as the relevant appeals tribunal, the Trade Measurement Administration Bill provides for appeals to lie to the Magistrates Courts—an arrangement that is compatible with the national uniform agreement. Likewise, it was recognised that procedures pertaining to the appointment of inspectors to police the various provisions of the legislation vary from State to State and that no useful purpose would be served in standardising them. Other matters covered by this Bill relate to fees, powers of inspectors, savings and transitional provisions—which, of course, vary from State to State—and similar matters. It also provides that certain sections of the Penalty Units Act do not apply to the principal Act in the package because they would have the effect of distorting the penalties provided for in that Act. This is indicative of the lengths to which the legislation must go in order to preserve the principle of national uniformity. In common with the principal Bill, it is proposed that the provisions of this Bill become effective on and from 1 January 1991. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Gilmore, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2618 1 August 1990

TRADE MEASUREMENT (BREAD) BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill relating to the trade measurement of bread." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.34 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill is the third in the package of Bills in relation to the new structures being put in place concerning trade measurement. As I informed the House earlier, the Trade Measurement Bill is the principal Bill in the package. It implements the national uniform agreement in relation to trade measurement. However, part of that agreement was that problems associated with the issue of the measurement of bread could not be resolved and, therefore, as clause 6(3) of the principal Bill states, "Nothing in this Act applies to or in respect of bread." A good example of the insoluble differences that exist among the States relates to the appropriate method of determining the true mass of a loaf of bread. Queensland prefers a system known as the measurement of the "dry solid content" of bread and this method is reflected in clause 8 of the Bill. This simply means that when an analyst sets out to determine the true mass of a loaf of bread he uses methods which discount the water content of that sample and arrives at results which relate to the original dry ingredients in the sample. However, some other States follow a method which may be styled as the "net mass" approach; that is, the mass of the loaf of bread is determined on a basis which includes the water content of the ingredients. The Queensland objection to this method is that it leaves open the way to such undesirable practices as the steaming of bread in order to increase the water content thereof, thus increasing the net mass and decreasing the substantial ingredients. Also, such practices as the steaming of bread reduce the effective shelf life of bread. This Bill does not implement any substantial new provisions in relation to bread. In essence, it re-enacts certain provisions of Part IV of the Weights and Measures Act 1951-1983 that was a separate Part of that Act dealing specifically with bread. In addition, there are a number of provisions in this Bill that reflect general provisions in the principal Bill of the package, the Trade Measurement Bill; for example, general provisions relating to certain offences and available defences, the powers of inspectors and related matters. It is the view of the chief inspector of weights and measures that this Bill merely continues the present arrangements in force and will have no significantly new impact on the question of the trade measurement of bread. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Gilmore, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2619 1 August 1990

IRVINEBANK STATE TREATMENT WORKS (SALE AND OPERATION) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 7 March (see p. 285). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (5.37 p.m.): The history of the Irvinebank State Treatment Works is a rather long and torturous one. The mill was first opened in 1884 and is known as the Loudon Mill in the Herberton area of north Queensland. This is a historic piece of legislation because, once again, the State Government is reverting to free enterprise a State-owned venture. This happened to the mill previously. The history of the Irvinebank State Treatment Works is that it has been owned by the State and by private enterprise on a number of different occasions. When the tin mill was opened in 1884, it was a private-enterprise operation. Its fortunes fluctuated with the price of tin. By 1919, the State had to take over the operation to maintain the small diggings in the district. If the mill closed, it would have put in jeopardy the livelihood of all the tin operations in the Herberton district. In 1919, under Premier —known as "Red" Ted—the State took over the operation of the Loudon Tin Mill. In the late 1920s, the mill was again taken over by private enterprise. Because fortunes fluctuated again, in 1934 the State Government assumed control of the mill once more. In 1981, the National Party Government announced that the treatment works would be sold by tender. The successful tenderer was Frank Hilla, who took over the mill in July 1983 and has been operating it ever since. The legislation to facilitate that sale has not come before this House. It is unfortunate that the necessary legislation has taken so long to come before the House. I am sure that the lack of legislative backing has caused an amount of uncertainty in Mr Hilla's operation of the treatment works. I have never visited the Irvinebank State Treatment Works. However, the honourable member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, who will be speaking in this debate, knows the area well. As well, I notice that a Government member who has a great interest in the history of the region has signified his intention to speak in this debate. I will not go into detail on the historic nature of the district. The legislation allows for the preservation of the historic buildings and other works that are in the area. Mr Gilmore expressed concern in relation to Part VI of the Bill relating to water, which states— "The Purchaser undertakes to the State that he shall continue to provide and maintain at his own cost the bulk water supply to the Township of Irvinebank in a manner and on such terms and conditions as are approved from time to time by the Minister and otherwise in accordance with such provisions of the Water Resources Act 1989 as are applicable from time to time." I understand that in no way could that clause be an interpretation of the tender document that was signed by Mr Frank Hilla at the time. I have had discussions with departmental officers and I understand that the Minister may be proposing some amendments. If the Minister does not propose those amendments, I reserve my right to speak at the Committee stage. The fortunes of the tin industry throughout the world have taken a roller-coaster ride. The tin industry in Australia is no different. On 23 October 1985, the London Metals Exchange ceased trading in tin. It attempted to put in place a floor price that could not be maintained. The signatories to that agreement supported solidly the floor price and, when demands were made for more money to buy tin at the minimum price, some people reneged and said, "No. Enough is enough." What is more, I understand that the next day the Kuala Lumpur Tin Market exchange ceased trading. That brought about a crash in the price of tin. It had obviously been overpriced. The traders were attempting to maintain a price that was above what the rest of the world would pay. A catastrophic decrease in the price of tin occurred. Legislative Assembly 2620 1 August 1990

In Queensland, the tin industry is very small. In 1987, Australia produced approximately 4.9 per cent of the world production of tin. Of the Australian production, 90 per cent came from Tasmania, 5 per cent from Queensland and 3 per cent from Western Australia. The bulk of Queensland's tin is produced in the Herberton district, with relatively minor amounts coming from Ingham, Stanthorpe, Mareeba and Cooktown. Most of those operations are small. However, it is important that a treatment works operates in the vicinity. The Opposition is concerned that, with the tenure of land that he has, the operator of the treatment works is having difficulty in maintaining his operations particularly in some of the historic buildings. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Tablelands will raise some of those issues in his speech. Mr Hilla's major concern is that he believes that the legislation does not reflect the tender document that he signed. I reserve further comments to the Committee stage, if I believe they are necessary. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (5.45 p.m.): It is with a degree of sadness that honourable members effectively put to an end something that was introduced by a Labor Government in 1919. Mr FitzGerald: A pleasure! Mr SCHWARTEN: No. Anyone who has some cognisance of history must acknowledge that the passing of an era is always sad. Mr FitzGerald: Socialism goes down everywhere eventually, my friend. Look around the world. Mr SCHWARTEN: I draw the attention of the honourable member to the difference between socialism and State capitalism. This was in fact a State capitalistic effort which, quite frankly, was welcomed by conservative people over a number of years as being a solution to their problem in that regard. I draw the attention of honourable members to a book about the Ryan Government entitled Socialism at Work. It is a fascinating book about the plans of that Government. It refers to State-owned hotels, State-owned butcher shops and so on. All those things were tried. In fact, one of those State-owned hotels is still in existence at Babinda. It is now operated under private enterprise. I will tell honourable members an interesting little story about that hotel. After losing several thousand pounds in one year, the fellow who ran that hotel was able to come to Brisbane and buy two freehold hotels. I do not know how he managed to do that after suffering such a terrible loss. A Government member: Brown paper bags. Mr SCHWARTEN: One could labour the point forevermore, but that is not of any great moment in this debate. Theodore was the one who introduced the legislation in this House in 1919. I point out that at that time Ryan was no longer in charge of Government affairs. Anyone who studies history will know that Theodore was the Acting Premier on innumerable occasions when Ryan appeared before the Privy Council or went to the United Kingdom to obtain loans to enable that area to be developed. I suppose one could say that the events surrounding Irvinebank are an historic lesson. The fact is that Theodore worked at Irvinebank in his early days. He was a manual labourer who made his way up from Adelaide. During that trip he met up with Sidney Kidman, and he did all manner of things. The Mungana issue was not to the credit of Theodore and the then Labor Government. Irvinebank is the place where it all started. Reid was the name of the man who came out of the inquiry with a bad reputation. Reid and Theodore met in the pub at Irvinebank. For the benefit of students of history who are interested in the evolution of the trade union movement, I point out that the AWU in Queensland was actually formed at Irvinebank. It was then known as the Australian Workers Association. Theodore kicked it off. McCormack—another former Premier of this State—was also involved in Legislative Assembly 2621 1 August 1990 the formation of that union. So the whole area is pervaded by a great sense of history. When I used the word "sadness" earlier, I really meant it. If one visits that area today, as the honourable member for Tablelands has, one feels sad to see that a thriving enterprise—which was set up by John Moffat and various partners in 1884—has become just a shell. It is sad to see that happen. I have visited Irvinebank on a couple of occasions. During this year's Easter break I took my father-in-law, my mother-in-law and my son out there. They live in Miriwinni. I might add that my parents-in-law, Bill and Daisy Armstrong, are not supporters of the Labor Party. Nevertheless, we went up there, and we were entertained by the people who have been occupying those premises. I refer to Frank Hilla and his good wife. They showed us around. If honourable members care to look at some photographs that I have, they will see to what extent—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: If the honourable member for Lockyer puts on his glasses, he might be able to see them. Those photographs show the way in which that enterprise has run down over the years. Much of the original structure is still in existence. In fact, the rafters, which are made out of red cedar and which were milled locally, could probably be sold for a lot of money. Frank Hilla actually worked on the premises. He was able to tell me a few stories about just how the place had been allowed to run down. He showed me a pump that I think he said was fixed at a cost in the vicinity of $5,000 or $6,000. He told me that he had advised the people who were running the place in the early 1970s that they could buy another pump for a couple of thousand dollars and solve all their problems. No-one would listen to him. They continued to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Minister also has some affinity with the area. I am reliably informed that when he first became an official with the Electrical Trades Union, he was given a motor car and told, "Go north, young man." One of the places that he had to visit was Irvinebank to see an electrician by the name of McCarthy. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. He drove all the way out there on a dreadful dirt road to see him. So the Minister is one of the few members of this House who have been to that place. I wish Mr Hilla well in the enterprise. I concur with the stipulations that have been placed upon him under this legislation. I agree that he should maintain the works in good working order and provide an ore-treatment service to small-scale tin mines in the Irvinebank area. I agree also that the specified items of historical significance should be protected. I believe that the old Queensland National Bank building where Mr Hilla lives is of historical significance and that he has unearthed certain items of historical significance. The issue of water supply is a matter of some contention. I am confident that it will be redressed. Unfortunately, the hotel burnt down in approximately 1986. I suppose a lot of history would have been lost then. A man called O'Keefe, who was a former member of this House, owned that hotel. He followed Theodore into State Parliament when Theodore unsuccessfully aspired to be the Federal member for Lilley. In fact, O'Keefe said to Theodore that he could have his old seat back. I support the Bill. This legislation ends an era that started in 1916 when the Ryan Government attempted to establish a number of State enterprises. The last bastion is now passing away. Let the record show that a Labor Government established it and another Labor Government removed it. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.55 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the general principle of the Bill. I must admit that I do not have the historical perspective of this subject held by the honourable member for Rockhampton North. However, the Liberal Party believes that the State should obtain the maximum Legislative Assembly 2622 1 August 1990 benefit from the assets that it controls. From time to time that does not involve using them for their original purpose but selling them back to private enterprise. Some of the Federal colleagues of Government members should take note of what is occurring in Queensland as a result of what is happening in Federal Parliament. Mr Schwarten: In 1929 and 1932, when it was handed over to private enterprise, they couldn't handle it. Dr WATSON: Conditions have changed since then. The only similarity is that Australia was facing a depression at that stage, and the Federal Labor Party is trying to push us in that very same direction. Mr Palaszczuk: That's unkind. Dr WATSON: It may be unkind, but it is true. As I said, the Liberal Party supports the general principle of this Bill, namely, to obtain the maximum benefit from the assets that the State controls. As the honourable member for Lockyer said, honourable members are particularly interested in the first clause of Part VI of the Bill. I will also be interested to obtain more details about that at the Committee stage. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (5.57 p.m.): I greet this Bill with some delight. This one-off Bill, which is limited entirely to my electorate, removes a problem that arose in about 1981 when the then Government chose to call tenders for the sale of the Irvinebank mill. This matter is so complicated that it has taken eight or nine years to bring it to finality in this House. I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced this Bill and has adopted a very cooperative attitude on it. I thank the honourable member for Rockhampton North for bringing a historical perspective to this legislation. I must admit that I have not studied this matter in as much depth as he obviously has. Irvinebank has a long and wonderful history. It has played an important part in the development of far-north Queensland. Regrettably, it has fallen on hard times. Irvinebank is an isolated area that is entirely dependent for its welfare and well-being on the tin industry. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Lockyer, regrettably the tin industry has come undone since the failure some years ago of the cartel. It is my understanding that the unit price of tin is now $65, although I stand corrected on that. That price makes it almost impossible for anybody to operate in the tin industry. For instance, the alluvial industry has disappeared. The few people who take tin from the ground do so underground from very high-value resources. Those people require access to the Loudon mill for the treatment and processing of their product. I am very pleased that Frank Hilla and his family have finally obtained the Loudon mill. They have been in the area a long time, have worked in the mill and tendered successfully for it. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr GILMORE: Prior to the dinner recess I was discussing the collapse of the tin industry and the consequent collapse of the economy of the local area of Irvinebank and other areas in far-north Queensland that were involved in the production of tin. During the last 10 years, the tin industry has been one of the major non- agricultural revenue-earners in the Herberton and Mareeba mineral fields. In those places the demise of the tin industry was felt very heavily. In small, isolated communities such as Irvinebank, where tin was their only industry, the demise of the tin industry was felt even more heavily. Mr Schwarten: A 44-gallon drum is worth three grand. Mr GILMORE: That is on a really good day. Legislative Assembly 2623 1 August 1990

For the reasons I have mentioned, this Bill is very important indeed to the people of Irvinebank. I want to address a couple of matters in the Bill that make it particularly important. In the first instance, I will refer to a couple of things that the Bill sets out to do. Other than actually divesting the State of the Irvinebank mill and handing it back to private enterprise—which I applaud and which I believe people on this side of the House applaud as a matter of principle—the Bill sets out to protect the heritage of the area. That is most important to everybody in that area. As was so clearly espoused by the Government spokesman, this area has a deep and wonderful history that goes back for many, many years. Some of the buildings in the district have real heritage value. That in itself makes it an interesting place. Many of the places that are put on heritage lists throughout the country do not have in any real sense a historical value. As the honourable member said, the building in which Frank Hilla and his family live is the old bank. It is an extraordinary and quite beautiful building. The members of the Hilla family have carried out a lot of maintenance and restoration on that building. Indeed, it bears them some credit. They have also done a considerable amount of work on the old railway buildings. Because they are determined to look after the history and the heritage of the area, it does not mean that their heirs and successors will do the same. It is for that reason that I applaud the provision in the Bill that so clearly sets out the protection of the heritage of the Irvinebank area. The Bill also sets out to protect small miners, to ensure that the Irvinebank mill continues to provide a service to them. Mr Schwarten: About 14 of them. Mr GILMORE: I guess about 14 of them are left, but the number is withering away each day. It depends on the mineral that is being worked at the time. The Bill also sets out to provide a water supply for the township of Irvinebank. Without that water supply the township would disappear, because there is no alternative water supply other than the dam at the Loudon mill. It is my view that people left alone to provide their own water source could not manage it in an economic sense. In a sense, the Bill guarantees the future of Irvinebank, and I am pleased with that. However, a couple of things in the Bill concern me. First of all, I will deal with the special lease, which is allowed for in the Bill. In my numerous discussions with Mr Hilla and his family it became patently obvious to me that they required, for the ongoing benefit of the Loudon mill, a better tenure than the one that was being offered. I believe they require freehold tenure. There is a very good reason for that. I have already enunciated at some length the difficulty that the people in Irvinebank are facing with the downturn in their mining industry and the general downturn in the economy of their area. The Hilla family would like to do something which would, to a degree, revitalise the tin industry, that is, install a smelting operation on the site of the Loudon mill. Anybody who has been involved in such an industry is aware that it will cost a considerable amount of money. It is very difficult indeed for private enterprise to produce large sums of money without an asset that can be easily mortgaged—an asset which can be mortgaged and which protects the interests of the person providing the mortgage. A special lease and a long-term mining lease over this area does not necessarily provide that protection and it most assuredly does not provide a mortgagable asset of the value which would probably provide sufficient funds with which to build a smelter in that area. I will refer now to a couple of small details about a smelter. I am assured that 14 active miners are working in very difficult conditions in an isolated area. At present on the world market, tin is being sold for between $60 and $65 a unit. Those concentrates come out of the Loudon mill, and they equate roughly to $4,300 a tonne, depending on the day and on the price in Malaysia. Legislative Assembly 2624 1 August 1990

Australia currently has only two smelting operations, one in Perth and the other in Brisbane. The operation in Brisbane only processes material of 72 per cent ore concentrate value. Ore of a lesser value could easily be sent to a smelting operation in far-north Queensland. That would produce an incentive to small miners in that area to continue with their operations. It is my view also, and that of Mr Hilla, that, because of the value addition which turns a tonne and a half of tin valued at $4,300 into approximately one tonne of tin metal, he could probably pay somewhat more for the ore at the battery than is currently the case. On today's market, it is worth in the vicinity of $10,500. By anybody's accounting, and with the cost of smelting and refining at about $350, that value addition would provide a valuable new industry in far-north Queensland. By making that small amount of extra money available to the miners in that area, it may well provide the impetus for the continued operation of the tin industry in that area. I raise that matter tonight and ask the Minister to give consideration to it. In doing so, I am aware of the political considerations involved in this request, and that last night this House debated a Bill that froze the freeholding of land in this State. Realistically, and given the current political atmosphere, I could not suggest that the Minister amend this Bill tonight to provide for the freeholding of land. However, I believe it is timely to bring that matter to the Minister's attention. These are real people. They have at heart the best interests of the mining industry in far-north Queensland. It is my considered opinion that given time and some assistance, and certainly good fortune, far-north Queensland will have a small but viable smelting operation. That smelting operation would serve not only the tin industry but also those small but very valuable pockets of other base minerals such as antimony, lead and silver. That production would add to the new and viable metal production industry in far-north Queensland. An interesting spin-off to that project is the possible production of alloys for bronze castings. All of the base minerals that are required for that job are on hand in Herberton or in the immediate vicinity. In a metallurgical sense, Queensland could produce a valuable combination of native metals in the casting operations at the Wangan foundry and other places. Another interesting sidelight to the mining industry is that some rare minerals, such as indium, are to be found at Herberton. For some time, the discovery of those minerals has posed a tantalising question for the mining industry as to how it might economically extract that indium, which is a highly valuable commodity. It is in high demand in the world's markets, particularly in the automotive industry but also in other industries. Mr FitzGerald: Rare earths. Mr GILMORE: Yes, rare earths. That production can occur only if the tin industry and other base-metal industries survive and prosper in the Herberton area, because indium and the other rare earths are not available in sufficient quantity or value to create an industry on their own. I implore the Minister for Resource Industries to consider the future possibilities for that industry so that Mr Hilla and his family might be able to move towards the freeholding of that land to enable them to develop a better industry for that area. A second area of concern in this Bill relates to the supply of water. I am very pleased that the Minister has already circulated to the House an amendment to this Bill that does exactly what I had hoped the Minister would do. This Bill now reflects accurately and properly the appropriate clauses of the original tender for the sale of the Loudon mill. The Bill in its original form left Mr Hilla and his family, during the term of that lease, at the whim and possibly the mercy of numerous Ministers for Mines and probably numerous Governments. If Mr Hilla and his family had been asked to upgrade that Legislative Assembly 2625 1 August 1990 water supply to an ordinary town water supply standard, with filtration and chlorination, etc., they could not possibly have met the conditions of that contract. The Minister has recognised that problem, and I thank him for that. This Bill is only an enabling Bill. Having passed through the House, it simply sets out what the Government may do and the terms under which it may negotiate. The Government may sign a contract with Mr Hilla according to the terms set out in the Bill. In my view, it would have been very difficult for the Hilla family to proceed with a signature on a contract if this small but important change had not been made. I acknowledge the Minister's assistance and that of the Opposition's spokesman in initiating that change. It is a most important amendment. Mr Gibbs: That is very decent of you. Mr GILMORE: Of course. I am a decent chap. Mr Gibbs: I have always said that and you know that. Mr GILMORE: It has taken the Minister a long time to recognise that. With those few words, I put my imprimatur on this Bill. I am pleased that it has been introduced. It is important to a small, isolated area in my electorate, and it overcomes a long-standing difficulty. Because of the difficulties that were discovered after the tenders were called, in terms of ownership of the land and the continuation of the heritage values in the area, it is a complex piece of legislation. This legislation has been well put together, and I believe that it will achieve everything that it needs to do, except provide freehold tenure and a proper mortgageable asset for the owners of the property. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (7.44 p.m.): Because this area is such an important part of north Queensland, and indeed, Australia's history, I cannot but reflect on the role of Ted Theodore. Recently I was on an aeroplane with the person who is often referred to as Australia's leading historian, Manning Clark. I said to him, "Was Ted Theodore as smart as the history books tend to say that he was?" He said, "It is interesting that you should ask that question. I spoke to the Clerk of the Federal Parliament. He had been there for 50 years. I asked him who he thought was the brightest fellow to go through the Federal Parliament. He answered my question by saying that the most intellectually outstanding speech that he had ever heard in that place was Ted Theodore's second-reading speech in 1929 on the Budget." The Clerk of the Federal Parliament did not hesitate to answer the question in that way. Australian history shows that, during the Depression, Ted Theodore's advice was not taken and Australia suffered worse than any other country in the world. The unemployment rate rose to 30 per cent. In America, it rose to only 20 per cent. In Great Britain it rose to only 14 per cent. Theodore and McCormack changed the face of both Queensland and Australia so that it would never be the same again. It could be said that they were socialising the whole of Queensland. Theodore was referred to as "Red" Ted. In fairness to him, it must be said that people in north Queensland never, ever had access to finance. Even today, in the northern half of Queensland it is enormously difficult to amass the sort of finance that is needed to do the things that need to be done. For the first 100 years of Australia, financial decisions were made in Great Britain. The decision on the Depression was made by Dr Niemeyer of the Bank of England, not Ted Theodore. For the second 100 years, financial decisions were made in Melbourne or, to a lesser extent, in Sydney. Never have the financial decisions been made in north Queensland. When Theodore was Treasurer in this House, the financial decisions for north Queensland were made in north Queensland. Finance was provided for projects Legislative Assembly 2626 1 August 1990 that enabled the working class—by that, I mean the entrepreneurial class, the real working class—to operate. A small miner could not operate unless he had a processing factory, refinery, smelter, battery—whatever you like to call it. Theodore's idea was to provide those means of production which would enable the entrepreneurs—the risk-takers, the workers—to open up these mines and create great wealth for Queensland and Australia. Mr Schwarten: Ryan bludgeoned him into submission. He had to go to the United States. Mr KATTER: What the honourable member for Rockhampton North says is very true. I think that all honourable members enjoyed the reflections in his speech. To go ahead with this debate without making reference to the very famous Ted Theodore would be wrong. I refer to the Hilla family. When the National Party was in Government, on a number of occasions I tried to secure from the Cabinet of which I was a member the finance to purchase the Sydney smelter. All that the Hilla family wanted was the guarantees. At the time, I thought it was worth taking a risk to enable them to secure the finance in order to purchase that smelter and relocate it in north Queensland, where a great deal of Queensland's tin resources are found. North Queensland is certainly the most suitable site for the Australian tin smelter. After the tin is refined, or processed, only 30 per cent of the weight of ore is transported away from the site. Obviously, if the tin is processed before it is taken away from north Queensland—even if it is merely upgraded—enormous savings will be made. It is vitally important that that sort of facility is provided in north Queensland. I strongly support my colleague, the member for Tablelands, who said that ownership of that site should be freehold. It is very difficult for these people to operate without freehold tenure. Banks and other financial institutions do not like the ties that are being put on the site. I do not want to criticise the Government in any way for putting those ties on the site; I can clearly understand the reasons why it has done that. However, that can be done by other means which still provide for freehold ownership. Again, I strongly support the pertinent observations made by the member for Tablelands. It would be of great benefit if tin could be refined in north Queensland and if the Minister could use the good graces and power of his office to secure the diminishing dune at Shelburne Bay. That is the only dune that the plant operators need. However, the dune is blowing out to sea. In 70 years' time, it will not be there. If anyone were to suggest that some sort of conservation issue is involved, they are way off course. How can something be preserved that will not be here in 70 years' time? Pure, refined silicon, copper, aluminium, lead, nickel and hopefully zinc—if the refinery is built in Townsville—could be produced in Queensland. I am sure that it is within the achievable range of the Queensland Government—in its remaining two and a half years in office—to enable those things to be produced so that people throughout the world know that any refined base metal can be bought in Queensland. That is a very important thing for other parts of the world to know and understand. Zinc, tin and silicon are such strategic and vital commodities that, in order for such a range of products to be provided, they must be provided in Queensland. If Queensland could be freed of the stupid fetters applied by the Federal Government and by the people who are dictating to them and wrecking this country, the greenies—the dark greens, not the light greens; there is a big difference—the silicon could be processed in this State. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has been prejudicial in its treatment of Queensland—the same operation has been allowed to proceed in Western Australia. Western Australia is able to produce this refined product but Queensland is not able to do so for no reason other than the interference of the Federal Government. I strongly recommend the diminishing dune to the Minister. It will be a wonderful achievement for him, the Government, the State of Queensland and the Australian nation as a whole if that operation takes place. With it, the Government must secure Legislative Assembly 2627 1 August 1990 the zinc refinery in Townsville and the tin refinery. With help, the Hilla brothers' accomplishment of what is their own personal, family business objective to provide a major tin refinery in this State is an achievable goal. Some members spoke about the depressed price for tin. That is true. But we constantly talk about selling a base metal; we do not talk about selling alloys or selling an end product. We have an opportunity to mix tin with copper to produce brass and that would give us another major base metal for the world market. I ask the Minister to take these things into account and, like the honourable member for Rockhampton North, I ask the House to reflect on the historic nature of what is taking place here today. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (7.54 p.m.), in reply: I thank the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Lockyer, the honourable member for Rockhampton North, the honourable member for Moggill, who was the Liberal spokesman, and the honourable members for Tablelands and Flinders for their contributions. The Opposition spokesman referred to the history of the mill at Irvinebank and took the opportunity to refer to the divisions in the Bill and particularly to the schedule in relation to the supply of water. He pointed out that the successful tenderer, Mr Hilla, had not sighted the provisions in the tender document relating to the supply of water. Mr Hilla did not sign the tender document. The wording in the schedule to the Bill was agreed to by Mr Hilla's solicitors. The negotiations for the sale of the works go back to 1982. Tenders were called in 1982 and it has taken eight years for the agreement to come before the Parliament. Mr Hilla has been in occupation of the area since shortly after 1982. Mr FitzGerald: July 1983. Mr VAUGHAN: July 1983. He has been there a long time and we are only just finalising the agreement now. My research following the introduction of this Bill goes back to the negotiations that took place between the department and Mr Hilla's solicitors in 1984. Almost annually since that date, there has been an exchange backwards and forwards and nothing in relation to the water was raised by Mr Hilla's solicitors. On 9 December 1988, on his behalf Mr Hilla's solicitors indicated that the draft agreement as reflected in this legislation was in order. I think it is drawing a long bow to say now that he objected to this provision. The schedule is the agreement between the State and Mr Hilla to effect the sale of the works. Part VI is headed, "Provisions relating to water." Paragraph 1 places an obligation upon the purchaser to provide "a bulk water supply to the Township of Irvinebank in a manner and on such terms and conditions as are approved from time to time by the Minister". The purchaser, through some honourable members tonight, has expressed a reservation as to the inclusion of this requirement and has made representations for that provision to be amended so that the obligation on the purchaser to provide a water supply relates to a standard equivalent to that which existed at the date of his occupation of the works. The Government has considered the proposal and agrees to amend paragraph 1 of Part VI accordingly. As a result of representations made to me and in consideration of those representations, I intend to amend the schedule. However, I point out that the provisions presently in the schedule are very little different from the discretionary power of the Minister which exists in the provisions covering mining leases. I am prepared to amend the schedule to make it more acceptable to Mr Hilla. The honourable member for Rockhampton North outlined the history of the mill—a very colourful history. The area is steeped in tradition, particularly in the mining industry. I thank the honourable member for his research. He said he had visited the area and spoken to people up there. As a result, he has been able to place on the record of this Parliament very interesting and enlightening comments on the history of the area. Legislative Assembly 2628 1 August 1990

The honourable member for Moggill had general support for the principles of the Bill. He also referred to the water supply and, as I have indicated, I shall be moving an amendment in Committee. The honourable member for Tablelands indicated his support for the legislation. He expressed particular concern about the tenure of the land and said that Mr Hilla was interested in acquiring freehold title. I point out that on 22 January 1985, when commenting on the proposed agreement, Mr Hilla's solicitors requested a more secure title, that is, one that could be converted to freehold. As a result, in May 1986—many months later—the solicitors were advised that provision would be made for a special lease to be granted in addition to the mining lease. The reason that freehold title was not entertained—and I point out that freehold title is not indicated in the tender document in any way whatsoever—or not thought appropriate was that, in the event of Mr Hilla's failure to carry out his obligations in the future, problems would have occurred. If freehold tenure had been granted, the Government may have had difficulty in honouring its commitment to provide a service for small miners because of difficulty in attracting someone else to take over the operation of the mill, in the event that Mr Hilla failed to meet his obligations. By granting freehold title, the Government would have effectively given Mr Hilla a veto over the future operations of the mill, if he was unable to fulfil his obligations. The Government has examined the very proposal mentioned by the honourable member. Because many small miners are located in the area, the Government wanted to ensure that their future was protected by safeguarding their ability to obtain access to the treatment works. The honourable member also mentioned the possibility of a smelter in connection with the need for freehold title. I do not know whether the honourable member intended freehold title to be considered in relation to the payment of $120,000, or whether he intended Mr Hilla to pay an amount in addition to the amount he would pay for the treatment works, bearing in mind that he has had access to the property since 1983. However, I suggest that if freehold title were to be considered, it would be for an amount substantially greater than the $120,000 mentioned in the present agreement. When values in the area and the cost of a smelter are taken into account—even bearing in mind the honourable member's suggestion that the smelter should be regarded as a mortgageable asset—I do not think that a sum large enough would be involved. I say that to indicate the Government's thinking on this matter. For the record, I state that if circumstances change at some time in the future—for example, when the possibility of a smelter becomes a firm proposition—and if Mr Hilla decides to pursue freehold title, the Government may be prepared to reconsider the proposal. The last speaker in the debate, the member for Flinders, mentioned Ted Theodore. He also referred to the possible approval by Cabinet of the purchase of a smelter, freehold title and Shelburne Bay. All in all, his speech urged the development of industry in north Queensland. I support the concept of Governments doing their utmost to attract all types of industry, including downstream processing, to this State, particularly to areas in north Queensland. I can assure the honourable member that the Government will be attempting to attract industries to this State. If there is anything that either I or the Government can do to facilitate the construction of a smelter in north Queensland or the development of Queensland's resources, it will be done. Mr Katter interjected. Mr VAUGHAN: The Government's policy is to engage in downstream processing. The present situation is not satisfactory as far as the Government is concerned. It was the policy of the previous Government and it is the policy of the present Government to attract downstream processing of resources to develop the industry to the fullest extent. Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 2629 1 August 1990

Committee Hon. K. H. Vaughan (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 12, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Mr VAUGHAN (8.06 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 10, lines 9 and 10, delete— 'and on such terms and conditions as are approved from time to time by the Minister' and insert— 'as existed at the date of occupation'." I reiterate what I said in reply. I am moving this amendment as a result of representations that have been made to me. I have reconsidered the matter to provide Mr Hilla with what he might consider to be a more satisfactory position. I remind the Committee that the records show that on 9 December 1988 Mr Hilla's solicitors advised that the draft agreement was in order, and that is the agreement that appears in the Schedule. The provision contained in the Schedule is no more onerous than many of the special conditions that are included in mining leases and specify satisfactory performance in the opinion of the Minister. However, in an endeavour to ensure that Mr Hilla is happy with the arrangement that has been finally entered into and resolved tonight, I have moved the amendment. Mr FITZGERALD: I thank the Minister for moving to amend the legislation. The Opposition will certainly support the proposal. I appreciate the fact that the Minister took the submissions into consideration. I believe that bipartisan support for the proposal that has been accepted by the Government augers well for the future of the works. I thank the Minister for his cooperation. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Vaughan, by leave, read a third time. PICTURE THEATRES AND FILMS ACT REPEAL AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 May (see p. 1714). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (8.12 p.m.): I am surprised that the Government introduced a Bill to repeal this Act. I would have preferred it to strengthen the Act. I always thought that it was not strong enough. Mr Burns: You have not amended it since 1978. Mr GUNN: I will tell the Minister the experience that I had with the Picture Theatres and Films Commission. Ken Meade, who was the chairman of the commission, was a courteous man and would do whatever he could to assist people. However, the legislation had no teeth. I was concerned at the way the big distributors were screwing the small family theatres. Legislative Assembly 2630 1 August 1990

The honourable member for Wolston will be familiar with the Tivoli Drive-in Theatre. Mr Gibbs: Screwing? Mr GUNN: I do not know what the honourable member might have learned to do at some of those theatres. I am not referring to Russ Hinze. Mr Gibbs: Do you want Russo, do you? Mr GUNN: I was wondering if the honourable member had the same experience. A large distributor opened a drive-in theatre at Ipswich and it affected attendances at the small picture theatres. Not many popular films come to Queensland. Mr FitzGerald: Gone with the Wind? Mr GUNN: No. The honourable member is very old fashioned. The last film he attended was called The Crowning of the Queen. I have not viewed many films, either. If there was a fishing trip on, the Deputy Premier and I know where we would prefer to go. However, the large operators would show the good films until they were absolutely milked out and then the small operators were allowed to show them for a couple of weeks. The small operators received the third-rate and R-rated films. Today, the flavour of the month is videos. Every home has a video cassette recorder. Only the young people attend the picture theatres; the older people stay at home and watch the videos. However, it would be a pity if we lost the picture theatres. One thing that the Minister has in common with me is that we like to help the little guy if we can. The Minister is repealing the entire Act and the small operators will have no-one to appeal to, unless the Minister has something in mind that will assist people who operate theatres such as the Tivoli Drive-in Theatre. There are many drive-in picture theatres throughout the State. The honourable member for Lockyer would have a drive-in theatre in his electorate. Mr FitzGerald: It just closed down in Gatton. Mr GUNN: That is what is happening, and it is a pity. I make the point that the members of the commission were courteous and did their best on all occasions. When I had a problem, I would ring Kenny Meade. He would attend to the matter and things would even out for a while, but then they would get bad again. The National Party does not oppose the legislation. However, it hopes that the Government might be able to replace this legislation with something more suitable. I appreciate the fact that the big operators are hard to fight. Not only are they the distributors, but also they own the theatres. They will get first bite of the cherry. If the Minister can do something to help the small operators, he will have the National Party's full support. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (8.14 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the abolition of the Picture Theatres and Films Commission. I notice that the legislation does not relate to the censorship of films. The Minister has made the appropriate amendments to the other Acts to allow that to continue. This legislation relates simply to the erection of picture theatres or cinemas. I am pleased to see the legislation abolished for the very good reason that a constituent of mine who owned a theatre at Indooroopilly was involved recently in taking a case before the commission. The gentleman involved is very much a small-businessman. He believed that he had some chance of success in an appeal to the commission. He went investigated thoroughly the requirements of the commission under the Act. He employed not only a solicitor but also very good legal counsel. I am Legislative Assembly 2631 1 August 1990 sure that the Minister is aware of that case. After spending some tens of thousands of dollars—probably some hundreds of thousands of dollars—and going through a long, drawn-out process, he ended up being defeated before the commission. I think it is very sad indeed that this small-businessman appeared before the commission and is still confronted with the construction of an eight-cinema complex in a nearby major shopping centre. Because that man endeavoured to look after his business by following what he thought was the correct procedure, he is now worse off to the tune of more than $100,000—in fact, probably double that amount—and has little else to show for his efforts. He wasted a great deal of time and a great deal of money. It is quite clear that the commission is not performing any real duties or carrying out any real responsibilities. As many honourable members are aware and as the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, these matters come within the town-planning and building requirements of the relevant local authority. The commission is obviously meant for another era, not this era. Wherever possible, the Liberal Party is very keen to abolish quangos. It certainly agrees wholeheartedly that this is another one that can be abolished. It is just unfortunate that one of my constituents—and perhaps the constituents of other honourable members—has been caught and has spent a good deal of money for no good purpose. He would have been better off putting the money in the bank. He achieved nothing. He simply wasted his money and his time. The complex is still being constructed and will affect his business greatly. In fact, I think it is fair to say that when the new complex opens shortly, it will probably wipe him out. We are certainly better off without the commission. Small-businesspeople will no longer be fooled into thinking that they might be able to get some relief by appearing before the commission. No doubt the commissioners receive some appearance money, and that will mean a saving to the taxpayer as well. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (8.18 p.m.): Although the Opposition agrees that the operations of the commission probably have not been as good as they might have been, I would like to endorse the remarks made by the Opposition spokesman, Mr Gunn. My family was involved in the ownership of picture theatres in Queensland for about 30 years. Even in the days when my family was involved in that industry, the stage was being reached at which two or three big companies would dictate terms that the small operator just simply had to accept. One option was to doctor the returns for an evening, which involved a great risk of being sent to gaol. One of the Minister's ALP colleagues who was a barrister ended up the part-owner of a picture theatre because he represented the owners of a picture theatre in a court case. That was the way the industry was going. One simply could not survive in the industry on the terms that were dictated by the big operators. A monopoly was being created. Two or three companies had complete control of the marketplace. It was a classic example of vertical integration. Although I do not wish to disagree with our Liberal colleagues, I must say that if they think that the big destroying the small continuously is good for society, I am afraid I do not agree. To create competition, some type of assistance must be made available sometimes, and I think that it is warranted in this industry. Although the Opposition is not averse to what the Government is doing on this occasion, I believe that very real problems exist. I think that those problems should be addressed and that the people of Queensland—most certainly the picture-going public of Queensland—would appreciate any endeavours that the Minister may be able to make. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (8.20 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. Legislative Assembly 2632 1 August 1990

Quite simply, small picture theatre operators are experiencing major problems. It is a very big industry and one that involves large investments. When I first talked about repealing this Act and abolishing the commission, the first submissions that I received were from small-businesspeople who said, "We are short of movies. We just cannot get the movies." That point was made tonight by Mr Gunn. This Act has never been able to force movie- producers to give movies to little theatres. The honourable member for Lockyer mentioned that the movie house in his area has just closed. A string of them have closed down right throughout the State. The commission has afforded no protection to the small operator. The honourable member for Toowong mentioned the eight-cinema complex that was proposed for the Indooroopilly shopping centre. That eight-cinema complex was approved by the Brisbane City Council. Construction commenced while arguments were still being put before the commission on behalf of the Eldorado, the Regal and the Schonell theatres and I think one member of the community who objected to the proposal. As the member for Toowong said, his constituent spent a lot of money, and the commission still decided in favour of the eight-cinema complex. He is now going to the courts to argue that the commission made an incorrect decision on a point of law. Even if he wins, there will still be a moviehouse there. He has spent his money. The commission provided him with no support at all. The lengthy notes that I have received from my advisers reveal that no other State has legislation that regulates cinemas. In recent years the commission has not rejected any applications for new cinemas on the basis of competition or on economic grounds. So the commission has not accepted the arguments that are being put up. The existing Act provides small cinemas with no rights with respect to the films that they obtain from the distributors. So the Government cannot help them in that regard. What I say is that if the small operators can come up with a proposal that will give the Government the opportunity to help them, it would be only too pleased to consider it. However, this is not the way to help them. Whether a theatre is to be built in a town, a city or a shopping centre is really a town-planning matter and not a matter for this legislation or this type of commission. We need to find a way of removing the monopoly that exists, which has a lot to do with the high cost of producing films. When I was negotiating the arrangements for this, someone said to me, "If you spent $100m or $1,000m producing a movie, why would you send it to Gatton before you send it to the large centres that milk the money out of it first? You get the biggest return possible as fast as possible and then you give it to the smaller fellows." That is business. That is private enterprise. That is the way of the world. Under this legislation I cannot say to the distributors, "You must first provide Crocodile Dundee to little theatres." This Bill states that a person who wants to establish a picture theatre in a town must obtain permission from both the local council and the commission, whereas other businesses apply only to the council. Under those circumstances, the commission was of no help to the small cinema operators. It was an unnecessary appendage, and the Government decided to abolish it. I thank honourable members for their support of this legislation. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 2633 1 August 1990

STATE HOUSING (VALIDATION OF REGULATIONS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 May (see p. 1843). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (8.26 p.m.): In June last year, regulations were made under the State Housing Act. I do not believe that I was a Minister at that time. Mr Burns: We will say someone else was. Mr GUNN: We will say that. Mr Burns: There is another one coming yet. Mr GUNN: Yes, I had noticed that. I do not intend to blame anybody because the regulations were not tabled in the House in the required manner. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the regulations were not tabled before they became law. Because they cannot be handed back, the fees and charges that have been collected need to be validated. The original intention was clear. This Bill simply validates all Acts, matters and things done and all fees and charges collected under the regulations. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr KING (Nicklin) (8.27 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this simple, straightforward Bill. Unfortunately, because the regulations were not tabled in the House, this legislation is taking up the valuable time of the House. When the regulations were made in June of last year, they should have been tabled in the House in the required manner. However, they were not. That is a sad reflection on the competency and responsibility of the Minister and his departmental officers. Unfortunately, in 1988, an identical situation developed within the Corrective Services portfolio. As a result, this House will also be debating the Corrective Services (Validation of Regulations) Bill. I ask the Minister to give this House an assurance that adequate steps have been taken within his department to effectively ensure that such administrative slip-ups do not recur. As I said, the Liberal Party supports the legislation. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8.28 p.m.): This Bill is one of three pieces of validating legislation before this Parliament. On behalf of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, which has been reviewing the validating legislation, I thank the Minister for Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services for introducing this validating legislation into this House. The Minister for Corrective Services gave the Committee of Subordinate Legislation a pat on the back. Because I was a chairman of that committee, I thank him for that. Mr Milliner said— "I might also add that the Committee of Subordinate Legislation has played a very useful and a constructive role in this matter by originally drawing it to the attention of the then Minister." He was referring to the fact that the regulations were not placed before the House in due time. On behalf of the committee, I bring to the attention of honourable members the role of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. The Committee has been in existence for over 14 years. Because some honourable members may not be aware of the committee's function, its members thought that this would be an opportune time to comment on its role within the Parliament. The committee has played an important role. I congratulate the committee's secretary, Joan Dingwell, for the role that she has played for such a long time. Firstly, it might be helpful to consider the meaning of the terms "subordinate legislation" or "delegated legislation". It has been described as legislation made by a non-parliamentary body such as the Governor in Council, local authorities and judges Legislative Assembly 2634 1 August 1990 of the Supreme Court pursuant to an Act of Parliament. It lays down general rules of conduct affecting the community at large and takes the form, principally, of regulations, Orders in Council, proclamations, by-laws, ordinances and rules. Subordinate legislation has equal status and force in law with statutes that are enacted by the Parliament. Therefore, Parliament needs to exercise a degree of supervision of subordinate law. Prior to 1975, the responsibility for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation rested with individual members of Parliament. This did not provide for sufficient examination of subordinate legislation, and in November 1975 a committee was appointed to undertake this task. The appointment of the committee has relieved individual members of the responsibility of scrutinising legislation. It would have been very difficult for individual members to oversee legislation presented in its various forms. The committee has terms of reference. It has to examine all subordinate legislation that, pursuant to an Act, is required to be tabled in Parliament and is subject to disallowance by the Parliament. It considers— (a) whether the subordinate legislation is in accord with the general objects of the Act pursuant to which it is made; (b) whether the subordinate legislation trespasses unduly on rights previously established by law; (c) whether the subordinate legislation contains matters which in the opinion of the committee should properly be dealt with in an Act of Parliament; (d) whether for any special reason the form or purport of the subordinate legislation calls for elucidation; and (e) whether the subordinate legislation unduly makes rights dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions. Any deficiency observed by the committee is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister, whose cooperation is sought in having the matter rectified. If the Minister is not prepared to take corrective action, the committee may consider reporting the matter to the House and recommending disallowance of the offending instrument. In most instances, Ministers respond favourably to the committee's suggestions. Since 1975, there have been only three occasions on which the committee has reported grounds for disallowance of an instrument to the Parliament. The power to disallow subordinate legislation, of course, rests exclusively with the Parliament. The committee is empowered only to make recommendations for disallowance. It has access to the services of a legal officer attached to the Crown Solicitor's Office. He advises the committee on the validity and propriety of subordinate instruments and attends all meetings. Some of the matters that have come to the committee's attention include Orders in Council amending Schedules to Acts of Parliament. The committee is strongly opposed to this method of amendment and over the years has sought Ministers' cooperation in having the practice discontinued. They have become known as Henry VIII clauses. Steps are being taken to ensure that, if an Act requires amendment, it should be done through the Parliament and not by way of subordinate legislation. I have been a member of the committee for the long time that we have been fighting for this. It is pleasing to see it actually coming to fruition. The other matters include regulations that purport to have retrospective effect. Regulations take effect from the date of publication in the Government Gazette, or from a later date, but cannot operate retrospectively unless there is express authority in the parent Act to do so. Problems arise if action is taken or moneys are collected prior to the authorisation regulation taking effect. Sometimes a mistake may occur. Through no fault of the Minister or the department, a notification may appear in the Government Gazette a day after the regulation purports to take effect. Therefore, the regulation is Legislative Assembly 2635 1 August 1990 null and void for one day. That does not help things very much when an effort is made to ensure that everything is done legally. It has come to the committee's attention that regulations may be rendered void as a result of their non- tabling in Parliament. Difficulties occur if moneys are collected or action is taken pursuant to the void regulations after the expiry of the time for tabling and before their reappearance in the Government Gazette. When it appears to the committee that unlawful actions or the collection of moneys may have occurred, the committee suggests to the Ministers that validating legislation will be necessary. This is undoubtedly the proper approach in these matters and the committee appreciates a Minister's action in introducing legislation to validate the legislation concerned. The role of the Subordinate Legislation Committee is to protect the rights and liberties of individuals, whose daily lives are affected by subordinate legislation, and to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament as the law-maker. Since its establishment in 1975, the committee has fulfilled that role effectively, and I feel sure that it will continue to do so. I commend the Minister on this legislation and I urge honourable members to give it consideration. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (8.36 p.m.): I rise to express support for the Bill and for the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gympie. Publicity is the very soul of justice. The Subordinate Legislation Committee is to be commended for drawing this matter to the attention of the Minister. It illustrates the sorts of problems which can arise with excessive delegation of the law-making power. Under the doctrine of responsible Government, Ministers of the Crown are selected from amongst the Legislature. A particular problem arises in the case of delegated legislation, for we confer upon the Executive not only the power of the purse but also the power to make law. That is a power which is jealously guarded and monitored by the Parliament in any Westminster system. There is provision for the laying on the table of regulations. In this case, that was not done. It is for that reason that the matter comes before the House. By publicising regulations by laying them upon the table of the House, any member acting on behalf of his or her constituency may have the opportunity to challenge them in the House. Where that is not done, such opportunity does not arise. The proposition that publicity is the very soul of justice is apposite in this situation, for if that publication of the regulations to the House is not made in the manner that is provided for in our legislation, then the opportunity for the elected representatives of the people to challenge that law simply does not arise. The protection of the rights and liberties of individuals and the preservation of the dignity of the House are matters which often require the patient and careful work of bodies such as the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, which is to be commended for its work. I support the Bill. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (8.39 p.m.): I thank honourable members for their support for the Bill. As Mr Gunn stated, a mistake was made last year, and a number of them will be made. The Government is grateful for the work of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, which checks that the requirements of the Acts are met. When the Committee of Subordinate Legislation advises the Government of a mistake in the tabling of regulations in the Parliament, it is important that the House take note of that advice. As the honourable member for Yeronga said, there was a failure to announce publicly the decisions that have been published in the Government Gazette. They have been handled in the normal way, but they have not been tabled in this place so that members have an opportunity to object to them. The Government is thankful Legislative Assembly 2636 1 August 1990 for the work done by the members of that committee. I thank honourable members for their support. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. CORRECTIVE SERVICES (VALIDATION OF REGULATIONS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 May (see p. 1582). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (8.42 p.m.): Like the other validation legislation that came before the House tonight, this legislation is purely a housekeeping exercise and is supported by the Opposition. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (8.43 p.m.): I support the Bill to validate the Corrective Services Regulations 1988 and for related purposes. In doing so, I want to deal briefly with the regulations. Firstly, it is important that this House acknowledges the enlightened approach that has been taken recently by the Minister to penalties and to corrective services generally. No doubt from time to time that matter will be the subject of debate in this House, as it has already been. Members need to look very carefully at the subject of punishment in the area of corrective services because, in the final analysis, it is better to introduce techniques and systems that keep people out of gaol. All the evidence around the world suggests that once offenders, particularly young people, are placed in any form of corrective institution, they become hardened criminals by the time they leave gaol, or they become repetitive offenders. That is something that should be avoided. In recent times, a great deal of publicity has been given to crime, juvenile crime and gang crime in areas such as Fortitude Valley and the Queen Street Mall, which are in my electorate, as well as gang problems in areas such as Windsor, Wilston and Newmarket. Recently, I read a report on a British study that was carried out by Dr David Farrington. In July 1989, at Bristol, he delivered a major paper at a British criminology conference. The findings in that report are of immense significance. Dr Farrington carried out a 24-year study of a group of 411 London boys aged between 8 and 11. That report provided great insight into the way in which potential offenders may be identified from a very early age. It has produced empirical evidence on the most likely method of reducing youth offences. In particular, Dr Farrington found that potential offenders can be identified at an early age with a reasonable degree of accuracy. He identified problems such as poor parenting techniques, such as harsh or erratic discipline, parental disharmony, lack of supervision and separation of the child from its parents. He also identified areas such as socio-economic deprivation, family deviants, convicted parents, delinquent siblings, school problems, low attainment, hyperactivity and poor concentration. In particular, he identified behaviour parent-training. He stated that parent-training and preschool intellectual enrichment programs were ways to resolve problems. Dr Farrington suggested four ways to reduce juvenile crime. They included giving more economic resources to poor families, providing juveniles with socially approved Legislative Assembly 2637 1 August 1990 opportunities for excitement and risk-taking—in other words, not simply allowing suburbs to end up in the position of having no recreation for young people—finding recreational opportunities and encouraging young people to use them. Deterring offenders by increasing penalties has not been a solution. He said that alternative means should be found to identify how youth can in fact have an outlet. The French Government has adopted the bon maison system, which means "good house". In recent years in France, there has been a significant drop in juvenile crime because the Government has adopted the sorts of techniques to which Dr Farrington referred. In other words, rather than allow young people to grow up in suburbs in which there are no recreational outlets, recreational outlets have been provided for them. In Western Australia, the mounted police run a specific program that is designed to introduce young offenders to an alternative life-style. That program is having a marked impact on reducing juvenile crime in Perth. I support the Bill. It is important that alternative means of punishment are considered and a more enlightened approach is taken to corrective services. I congratulate the Minister on initiating some of those programs. Mr KING (Nicklin) (8.47 p.m.): For reasons similar to those given by the Liberal Party in the previous debate, the Liberal Party supports this house-keeping, tidying-up Bill. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (8.47 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In particular, I thank the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, for his support. Obviously, the Bill is technical. It validates regulations. All honourable members are human; they make mistakes. The Government acknowledges that this Bill rectifies a mistake. I again acknowledge the tremendous work done by the Subordinate Legislation Committee in checking these things. It is the checks and balances that make our system so good. Although people criticise the parliamentary system, I am yet to hear an alternative system suggested. All honourable members have a role to play in the system, as does the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which does a wonderful job. I thank the member for Brisbane Central for his contribution and his compliments. He strayed a little from the subject matter of the Bill. However, because the subject matter that he raised is very dear to my heart, I am very pleased that he did. A couple of weeks ago, I was overseas examining the same problems that he highlighted, namely, young offenders. In Great Britain, in the space of a little over two years, the number of young offenders in custody has been reduced from approximately 8 000 to fewer than 3 000. It is accepted worldwide by criminologists that it is counterproductive to put people in prison. All the criminologists overseas said that more than 90 per cent of young people who are sent to prison become habitual criminals. It is imperative that the Government does everything it possibly can to keep young people out of prison. That does not mean that the Government should adopt a soft attitude to young offenders and let them go unpunished. Alternative forms of punishment must be found. If young offenders can be kept out of institutions in their formative years, society will be far better off in the long run. The Government will save a lot of money. I thank the honourable member for Nicklin for his contribution. He was critical of the previous Bill, saying that these things should not happen. However, I repeat that we are all human. We are not perfect. Although mistakes do slip by, I am pleased that mechanisms to pick them up are in place. I am satisfied that the system of democracy in Australia serves the people of Queensland well. Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 2638 1 August 1990

Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, by leave, read a third time. LIQUOR ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 May (see p. 1849). Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (8.53 p.m.): On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to make a number of points. The Bill will not achieve the expressed statement of the Minister that— "It is not the intention of the Act, nor is it the Government's wish, that entrepreneurs become part of the liquor industry if their only aim is to make a profit by purchasing licences for removal and then reselling those licences at a greatly inflated margin." A leading case on the application of section 49A is the application for the removal of the Arcadia Hotel licence, in which the Full Court of the Supreme Court, particularly Mr Justice Dowsett, formulated the present precedent on the means and manner of operation of section 49A. The Bill introduces a variation that has appeared in previous legislation. The thrust of the Bill appears to be twofold: to more clearly set out the procedure under the section in accordance with the judgment of Mr Justice Dowsett, and to give the commission the role of sorting applications with a view to weeding out applications of an undesirable nature. I shall deal with each one of the three points I have to make. There is no change in the Liquor Act which will allow the commission or the court to determine whether the licence has been purchased by an entrepreneur seeking a quick profit or by a genuine licensee seeking to operate a hotel. To really achieve such an aim, the commission or the court should be empowered to satisfy itself as to the intentions of the party. For instance, in Victoria, an application is supported by evidence of ongoing management subsequent to the granting of the application. Mr Justice Dowsett's decision dealt with section 49A prior to its amendment in 1989, which allowed the removal of a licence from its existing neighbourhood. Effectively, section 49A has replaced the tender system under section 48 of the Act, although that section remains open for the commission to activate the removal of a licence on its own volition. There are some who believe that Mr Justice Dowsett got it wrong but, nevertheless, the procedure laid down in his reasons for judgment is the procedure now followed, and that is the procedure spelt out in the amendment presently being discussed. The amendment does nothing more than restate the existing law with some clarification in certain areas. As I see it, the principal change to be effected by this amendment is the creation of a role for the Licensing Commission to vet applications prior to calling for objections for the removal of a licence to its new site. What the amendment does quietly, however, appears in clause 2. On page 2 of the Bill, subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of clause (2) (a) separate these criteria for the first time. The reason for that appears in those subparagraphs. The first, subparagraph (i), relates to a hotel which no longer meets the needs of the public in the area in which the premises are situated and allows the Licensing Court—which is different from the commission—to remove the hotel from its existing site to another site within the neighbourhood. The second case, subparagraph (ii), deals with a hotel being no longer required to meet the needs of the public. In that case the Legislative Assembly 2639 1 August 1990

Licensing Court can remove the hotel from its existing site to a site not within the neighbourhood. In other words, where there is a need in the community for the hotel, but the hotel is not well situated—a classic situation being the Arcadia Hotel case—the licence can be removed only to another site within its own neighbourhood. Where a hotel is no longer required—a classic example was the Royal Mail Hotel at Cheepie, a town of 12 people, where the hotel burnt down and trade was being conducted from a generator shed—the licence can be removed to a more appropriate site outside the neighbourhood. I want to point out to the Minister that clause 2 will greatly reduce the opportunity for the removal of licences. It is unlikely that entrepreneurs, who will be the people buying and removing these licences, will want to buy a licence and remove it from—I beg the indulgence of the honourable member for Gympie—the south side of the Mary River to the heart of Gympie, where the hotel would be more appropriately located and there is an apparent need. The profits of doing this are not as inviting as the removal of a hotel licence from Cunnamulla to a coastal resort or town where the population is expanding either through tourism or further settlement. I believe that the Bill will not achieve a more even distribution of licences; it will simply force up the price of those licences eligible for removal because the highest bidder will acquire the licence. To gain an even distribution of licences, the tender system under section 48 of the Act is more appropriate. Under it, the commission determines the area to which the licence should be removed, and then seeks tenders for the licence from interested parties. To achieve what the Minister speaks of in his second-reading speech would require not only amendments to section 49 but also amendments to section 48, and a directive to the commission that it utilise section 48. Alternatively, section 49A should be left unamended and not try to differentiate between where a hotel no longer meets the needs of the public and where a hotel is no longer required. The court would then have to rationalise at stage 1—objection by the local authority—whether the licence should be removed. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on giving the community losing the licence the opportunity of objection or on placing greater responsibility on the person seeking the removal of the licence to demonstrate the basis on which the licence is no longer meeting the needs of the public or is no longer required. Basically, that is all I want to say. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment; I will outline its provisions now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! I think the honourable member will have time to do that in Committee. Mr VEIVERS: I will outline it in Committee. The Minister has got it just about right and my amendment will add a little more stick. Basically, the amendment I propose to move will make it easier for the commission to handle certain situations, whereas presently the cart is being put before the horse and it is virtually impossible to remedy problems quickly. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (9.01 p.m.): I will speak briefly to the Bill that is before the House tonight. The Liquor Act 1912-1988 is out of date and out of touch with many aspects of the modern marketplace. At a recent seminar chaired by the Minister, proposed amendments were tabled and debated by a broad section of community interests. Basic terms of reference were framed to consider whether the Liquor Act 1912-1988 continues to provide an appropriate basis to control the sale and supply of liquor in Queensland in the light of likely future social and economic developments. The seminar was asked to advise on the type of terms relating to the issue of licences for the sale and consumption of liquor in Queensland; the social, economic and health impacts of the sale of liquor in accordance with the Liquor Act and the likely effects of any change to the Act; the economic and other impacts of current restrictions inherent in the Liquor Act on development in Queensland, particularly with regard to the tourism Legislative Assembly 2640 1 August 1990 industry; the interrelationship, if any, between the existing restrictions on the sale and supply of liquor under the Act; the necessity to retain a specific licensing court under the Act; and the necessity to retain functional distinctions between types of licences for the sale of liquor in Queensland. Guiding principles used in the review and principles that were observed throughout the review were as follows— ¥ The Act should be simple to understand and administer. ¥ Control on the supply of alcohol should be viewed in conjunction with other legislation. ¥ The liquor laws should go beyond economic and physical dimensions to include health and social aspects related to the availability and uses of liquor. ¥ The Act should provide the minimum intervention to achieve its aims. ¥ The Act needs to be flexible enough to cope with changing conditions and local circumstances. ¥ The welfare of vulnerable groups, such as youth and Aboriginal and Islander people, should not be compromised by any moves towards liberalisation of the liquor laws. ¥ The liquor laws should be enforceable and enforced to provide swift and effective remedial action. The needs of the public are the overriding consideration in the licensing of premises and supply of liquor to consumers. The review took cognisance of the fact that the liquor and hospitality industry in Queensland services an extensive market that is spread over a vastly decentralised population. The traditional role of the hotel as a focal point in the community is recognised. Hotels have been required to service a diverse range of community needs, including the provision of liquor, accommodation, meals and social facilities. Clearly, Queensland's tourism industry is expanding. Steps must be taken to ensure that future development is well serviced by contemporary licensing laws and arrangements. Many deficiencies in the existing Liquor Act are now evident. They were identified and addressed by the review committee in order to cater for future needs and trends. A suitable legislative framework must be put in place to allow upgrading of the licensed facilities and services that are provided to the public throughout Queensland, especially in relation to this State's growing tourism industry. While looking after the interests of the consuming public, the Act must also address the economic balance of the industry by ensuring that the needs or wants of one industry sector do not disadvantage another sector. The Bill before the House addresses the need to ensure that an adequate number of suitable licensed premises is available to serve the needs of the locality. It represents an attempt to put into place mechanisms that will ensure that the economic balances to which I have referred are attained by curbing the ability of entrepreneurs to buy all the hotels in a town and then negotiate to move some of the licences to another area—often into a more lucrative market. Of course, it will still be possible to do that, but only in circumstances when such an action will be to the advantage of the public and lead to the provision of better facilities than are presently provided. I support the Bill. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (9.05 p.m.): As all honourable members would be aware, I represent a country electorate. This Bill could be a very important piece of legislation because its effects could be felt substantially in Warwick and Toowoomba. To a certain extent, the provisions have already been applied to East Greenmount. I understand that the hotel licence in that town could be transferred. The previous speaker suggested that the Act should be expressed in simple terms, and I have no quarrel with that suggestion. However, I point out that it is sometimes difficult to simplify provisions of this type, because to a great extent they are based on Legislative Assembly 2641 1 August 1990 arbitrary decisions. For instance, the Bill provides for the removal of a licence to another part of the State which is not adequately serviced by a hotel. No matter what the Government may think, such a move involves an arbitrary decision. The town that loses a hotel licence may be disadvantaged because the people who live there may think they need a hotel. I believe that East Greenmount falls into that category, but that the hotel in that town is only just viable. The member for Springwood also referred to upgrading services, which causes me concern. If requisitions are issued in country areas, people will be forced to undertake very expensive improvements. If that causes great problems, the licensee may prefer to surrender the licence. Although I do not believe that the owners of hotels would deliberately surrender the licence, they may be forced to do so. I suppose that everyone in Queensland would like to have a hotel such as the Sheraton in his or her town, but it is simply not possible to provide such a high standard on a widespread basis. I plead with the Minister not to be too rigid in the application of the terms of this legislation. I live near the country town of Yangan which contains a fairly good hotel facility. Even if the facilities were not as modern as they are, I would still consider it desirable to have a hotel in the town if I wanted to have a drink or take somebody for a drink. Thankfully, the hotel in that town maintains a reasonable standard, but some towns are not so fortunate. The legislation concerns me because its provisions could have considerable clout in towns such as Allora, Clifton and Warwick. If the legislation is enforced too harshly, it will have an adverse effect on my electorate. I am always worried when arbitrary decisions are involved, but I accept the fact that there is really no other way to deal with legislation of this type. I will not annoy honourable members with a long discussion on this legislation. However, in his second- reading speech, the Minister stated— "The proposed amendment will still allow licences which are non-viable, because of the number of premises in a town or area, to be removed to sites where there are inadequate licensed premises to service the needs of the public and enable the remaining owners to lift the standard of their premises, thus providing to the public in that area a better standard of facility for their enjoyment." I agree with that statement, particularly the last part of it. If half a dozen hotels in Warwick were forced to hand their licences in, it would not be in the best interests of the town. Therefore, I ask the Minister to be careful, to act with discretion and not allow someone to put pressure on the hotels so that people in country towns are left without the services of those hotels. Country people do not enjoy waiting in long queues to receive service. We prefer a more relaxed way of drinking and a more relaxed way of living. Very few constituents of my electorate have asked for the upgrading of local hotels. They seem to think that they are in pretty good shape. The local hotels provide good amenities. I am not aware of any hotel in my electorate in which one cannot obtain a good meal. Some of the country hotels provide a cold meal, but it is still a good meal. I travel around the electorate frequently and eat at the hotels. Although some of those hotels are not up to the standard to which city people are accustomed, they meet the requirements of country people. If this legislation was enforced too harshly, I would be concerned. An experienced Minister is in charge of the legislation, so that provides some guarantee that that will not happen. However I urge the Licensing Commission not to be too tough, because it will upset many people and cause a great deal of trouble. In conclusion, I support the Opposition spokesman, who believes he can improve the legislation by the proposed amendment that he has circulated. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment and, if he considers that it has merit, to accept it. If he sees a weakness in the proposal, I ask him to inform us. Although I am not bitterly opposed to the Bill, I must admit that I am slightly worried. Legislative Assembly 2642 1 August 1990

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.11 p.m.): I share some of the concerns that the honourable member for Warwick raised. I am aware of a problem that occurred a couple of years ago in the town of Yarraman. That small community had three hotels, which was far in excess of its needs. One of the hotels closed, and at a later time both of the remaining hotels, the Imperial and the Royal, were purchased by a person who wished to transfer one of the licences to another site. That caused some concern to the people of Yarraman. Many people and the Rosalie Shire Council objected strongly to only one hotel remaining in that town. It is a difficult problem to determine fairly, because in a small town such as Yarraman two hotels may not be a viable commercial proposition. Yarraman is on the highway and not far from Nanango. There are a number of hotels further along the highway. As the member for Warwick said, the local people guard very jealously and zealously the right to maintain a small hotel in their area. Because a number of townspeople of Yarraman and the council have objected to the predicament, their objection should be given serious consideration. Mr ELDER (Manly) (9.13 p.m.): As my colleague the member for Springwood said, the Liquor Act was first passed in 1912 and has since been the subject of 31 separate amending Acts. Over the years, provisions initially introduced to cater for the sale of liquor by licensed victuallers have been adopted to apply to the many other types of licences. As a result, the Liquor Act has become extremely cumbersome and complex to interpret not only for the general public but also for those who administer and police it. Many outdated and obsolete provisions still exist in the Act and its regulations. One of those provisions was an amendment made to the Act, effective from July 1989, which was introduced to assist with the rationalisation of the hotel industry in Queensland. In brief, the amendment made it possible for the holder of a licensed victualler's licence to— (1) Make application to have the licence removed to another site anywhere in the State. Previously they were only permitted to remove to another site within the same locality; or (2) Negotiate with the Licensing Commission to determine the amount of compensation which might be paid in case of surrendering the licence. Previously, they would first be required to surrender the licence before the amount of compensation was considered. A number of applications have been made under this amended section and they are currently being considered by the Licensing Court. When applications are lodged, objections may be made by the local community, the local authority or owners of licensed premises in the area of the new site. Ambiguity arises in the legislation as to whether the new site should be approved before objections are called for. In this process, if no objections are received or if those lodged are dismissed, the applicant can construct the premises on the new site and, when completed, the court can approve the transfer of the licence to the new site. Under the new Act, the ambiguity in the existing legislation will be overcome in that, after the court has determined the removal of the licence and the notice to show cause has been served on the local authority, the Licensing Commission will make inquiries and determine whether the needs of the public and the neighbourhood in which the proposed site is situated justify the removal of the licence to the that site and whether the additional accommodation, services or other matters necessary to meet those needs cannot adequately be provided through existing licensed victuallers' premises. In the event that the commission determines that these requirements do not exist in relation to the new site, then it should advise the Licensing Court accordingly and, subject to any appeal against the commission's determination, the Licensing Court shall determine that the licence not be removed to the site. The applicant may then apply to Legislative Assembly 2643 1 August 1990 remove the licence to some other site, and the commission will then follow the previous procedure. There will always be the right of appeal to the court if the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision of the commission not to support the application. I hope that this new provision is the forerunner of many new provisions that may be forthcoming from the committee of review. One area in need of streamlining is the sale of packaged liquor. Historically, it has been the traditional role of the licensed victualler in Queensland to provide a take-away liquor service for the general public. Expectations of the consumer have altered drastically over the last decade or so, and they are continuing to change. Rather than simply picking up a quantity of liquor, the consumer is becoming increasingly selective in his or her liquor- purchasing, particularly in relation to boutique beers and both Australian and overseas wines. Consumers want to be able to read labels and consult with sales staff on a wide range of well-presented products. These services cannot be provided by the standard mode of drive-through facilities presently operated by the majority of hotels in Queensland. A growing number of operators are beginning to see the need to provide these services to the public. At this stage only a limited number of hotels or taverns in Queensland have developed their facilities to meet this change in demand. For a variety of reasons, the hotel industry in general has not kept abreast of the changes in public demand in relation to take-away liquor. Even in metropolitan Brisbane there are large areas that are not being adequately serviced in this regard. I suppose that the lowering of the legal blood alcohol level for drivers and the introduction of random breath-testing has resulted in a greater demand for packaged liquor. Ultimately, it is the changing needs of the public that must be met. I believe that the liberalising of the State's liquor laws in respect of trading hours both on and off the Expo 88 site had a significant effect on people's drinking habits, so much so that it raised the awareness of Queenslanders, particularly in and around Brisbane, to the quality of service and the type of licensed facilities in the marketplace. Accordingly, if hotels wish to capitalise on the new and changing markets in the 1990s, they will need to invest in remodelled premises to satisfy the needs and expectations of the marketplace. They will need to focus on delivery of service to patrons. People are now demanding quality at all levels of service. It does not matter whether a hotel is rated as one-star or five-star; it must provide first-class service at that facility's rating. Unfortunately, some people still think that one-star facilities equate to poor-quality service. The Queensland hospitality and liquor industry services an extensive market which is spread over a more decentralised population than in any other State in Australia. There is no doubt that the hotel has traditionally played an important role as one of the focal points of the community in the country and provincial areas of this State. Hotels must be required to service a diverse range of community needs, including the provision of liquor, accommodation, meals and facilities for many local purposes. Queensland now possesses arguably the largest tourism industry of any State in Australia. If Queensland is to capitalise on further potential and development in all these areas, it must be serviced adequately by contemporary licensing laws and arrangements. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative and look forward to the review process continuing. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (9.19 p.m.): I support the general thrust of the Bill. I acknowledge, as the member for Springwood said, that it is a further amendment to the Liquor Act to make it more relevant to current circumstances. The member for Springwood spoke in general terms. The member for Warwick was more specific in his comments. I, too, want to mention a specific case in Jandowae, which is in my electorate. Legislative Assembly 2644 1 August 1990

The member for Southport mentioned section 48 of the Act, which gives the commission power to take away a licence if it sees fit. It so happens that in Jandowae there are three hotels. It is the old scenario of a falling population. The hotels do not have the clientele that they used to have. Although the three of them say that they are doing all right and they would like to stay there, the word is around that one will have to go, and the word is that it will be the one with the lowest turn-over. It is complicated because that hotel happens to be the one that has the local TAB. I ask the Minister and his department to pay particular attention to that problem in Jandowae. The idea of putting TABs in hotels certainly fulfills the needs of the Totalisator Administration Board, which wants to maximise turn-over. However, it could lead to problems in small towns that have more than one hotel, because as soon as one hotel gets the TAB agency, it has a bigger turn-over as a result of the extra service that it provides, and that creates a problem for the other hotels. Hotels and TABs both come within the Minister's portfolio. I ask him to bear in mind what I have said. He has probably already received representations in that regard. I want to talk on a broader scale about the social problems of alcohol, especially as they relate to young people. I know that it is a problem in city and metropolitan areas. However, I want to explain the problem in my electorate and in other country areas. The range of entertainment in the country is limited. Usually it involves young people and adults attending the same functions. The trouble is that as soon as a child reaches of 16—the adolescent stage—usually the only entertainment available is a licensed function at which the adults enjoy a few drinks. Of course, the 16-year-olds go to a disco, a bistro or a licensed ball and are tempted to have a few drinks. I think this is something with which the Parliament must keep wrestling. Alcohol seems to be becoming more and more a part of everyday life. It has a huge social cost. Young people in country areas cannot be denied entertainment, yet the temptation to drink alcohol poses a danger to them. In my day the drinking age was 21. The 17 and 18-year-olds used to put on a husky voice, slip into a hotel and have a few quiet drinks. Now, of course, the drinking age is 18, and kids of 14 and 15 are trying the same act. They are buying alcohol and drinking it fairly regularly, leading to fairly drastic social problems. When the National Party was in Government it wrestled with the notion of raising the drinking age to 21, and the Labor Government has probably also thought about it. It is something that the Parliament must consider. My personal view—not the view of my party—is that perhaps the drinking age should be raised to 21 again—— Mr Beattie: They will still drink. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Yes, but I do not think they would start so young. I think that it might help to put them off. That is my considered opinion. The member for Manly talked about the different types of liquor outlets. The representations made to me by sporting clubs such as bowls clubs, golf clubs and football clubs always relate to packaged beer. Without doubt, the imposition of the .05 level of alcohol in the blood has affected the way in which people amuse themselves these days. There is a constant urge for bowls clubs and golf clubs to be allowed to sell packaged beer. Many of their members who have a couple of drinks but are still under the legal driving limit want to go home, relax and have a couple of drinks with their wives. However, they find that difficult. This Parliament must come to terms with that. As the member for Springwood said, we must continue to upgrade the Liquor Act to maintain its relevance to current circumstances. I support the thrust of the Bill. I have taken part in several debates on the Liquor Act both in this House and in the party room. As legislators, we are trying to bring this legislation up to date. Although social problems are caused by liquor, we must consider the people who have an investment in the liquor industry. Legislative Assembly 2645 1 August 1990

I ask the Minister to take a special interest in Jandowae where a TAB operates within a hotel that may well lose its licence. I ask him to be a little wary of removing a licence even though it seems that that would be the best thing for the industry. However, we must consider the individual. Mr BRISKEY (Redlands) (9.24 p.m.): The Bill, which amends the Liquor Act, provides many important changes to the Act that will protect residents in both areas from which a licence is proposed to be removed and areas to which a licence is to be removed. I am pleased to support the Bill. The proposed changes are extremely important because the needs of local residents will be taken into account. The Bill provides that before a licence is able to be removed from an existing site to some other site, the Licensing Court must consider in a separate hearing the following extremely important considerations which enable the court to take into consideration the needs of local communities. When a licence is proposed to be removed from one area in a community to another area within that community, it must be established that the licensed premises no longer meets the needs of the first community. When a licence is proposed to be removed from one area in a community to another area which is not within that community, it must be established also that the licensed premises no longer meets the needs of the first community in that situation. Those considerations must be examined by the Licensing Court before it decides to where a licence is to be removed. The proposed amendment leaves in place the authorising circumstances that are currently contained in the principal Act and which must be adhered to before a licence can be removed from its existing site. The Bill also provides that the local authority in whose area the existing licensed premises are situated must be notified of the proposal to remove the premises. Further, the local authority has the right to have its objection to the removal heard and considered. The Bill provides that the needs of the community to which the licence is to be removed must be considered by the Licensing Commission. The important consideration that must be addressed by the commission is whether other licensed premises within the community already provide for the needs of that community. That enables communities to ensure that they do not have more licensed premises than they require. As well, it allows them a certain amount of control over the number of licensed premises within their community. That preserves their life-style and, consequently, the quality of life they enjoy. As a result of its investigations of that site, if the commission determines not to allow a licence to be removed to a new site, it must notify the Licensing Court. Subject to any appeal to the Licensing Court pursuant to section 8A, the Licensing Court shall determine that the licence shall not be removed to the new site. The proposed amendment is extremely important and long overdue. It means that local communities who do not wish a licence to be removed to their area will no longer be required to undertake extensive and expensive court challenges. In the past, the costs involved in court hearings have precluded many local communities from fighting against new licensed premises within those communities, thus destroying the life- style that they have enjoyed, which was the very reason for their wanting to live within that area. If the Licensing Court determines that a licence should not be removed to a site, the proposed amendment allows the applicants to nominate another site within a specified period. If the commission determines that a licence may be removed to another site, new section 49A (6) provides for the commission to determine what shall be provided at the site with respect to the needs of the community. It also requires applicants to publish their intentions and to call for objections to them. New section 49A (7) specifies those who may object to the proposed new site and the grounds on which they may object. Legislative Assembly 2646 1 August 1990

I support the Bill because it allows communities to have a say in where licensed premises will be situated and what services will be provided by them. More importantly, it enables them to put their case to the commissioner instead of having to go to court when they do not wish a new licensed premises to be situated within their community. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (9.29 p.m.): During this debate other speakers have canvassed most of the issues. The Liberal Party accepts the refinements to the Liquor Act and supports the amendment that has been circulated by the National Party. During the past decade the hotel industry has changed from a large hotel facility to include a number of small, local taverns where the provision of food, entertainment and accommodation is just as important as the serving of alcohol. The Bill improves the Liquor Act of 1989 by allowing the transfer of licences. As well, it protects the public because there must remain in a locality adequate licensed premises to serve the needs of the public. This process is already in place in cases in which applications for rezoning or consent use are being submitted to local authorities and where the applicant already has a liquor licence. In the past, local authorities considered the proposed use of the application—and I accentuate the word "use"—and then the matter of the licence for the approved application was decided later. The issue of entrepreneurial misuse of licences has also been addressed in this amending legislation. I want to comment on particular parts of the legislation. New section 49A (2) (c) (i) stipulates to local authorities that the area in which the existing site is located must be served with a notice to show cause why the licence should not be removed before the Licensing Court can consider the removal of that licence. I think that is a good provision. Similarly, new section 49A (2) (c) (ii) (A) states that the Licensing Court cannot remove the licence until it has heard and considered any objections or representations made by the relevant local authority. It also adds that a notice to show cause does not have to be served on a local authority which has joined in an application for the removal of the licence. It is heartening to see that appeal provisions against a decision to remove a licence are provided in new sections 49A (6) and 49A (7) and that a local authority in whose area the proposed site for the removal of the licence is located can appeal by publishing a notice calling for objections to the removal of the licence. This must be done twice in a period fixed by the commission. It has to be advertised in a newspaper that is circulated in the neighbourhood in which the proposed site in situated. New section 49A (7) (b) sets out that the only grounds for objection by a local authority are if— (i) the proposed site is in the immediate vicinity of . . . a place of worship, hospital or school". I suggest that there are other vicinities in which the siting of a hotel or a tavern would not be suitable. Unsuitable sites would be those next to a cemetery, those in a shopping centre, in a motel or in any other place where the increase in patronage has much wider ramifications in respect of traffic and car parking provisions, etc. New section 49A (7) (b) (ii) states that the local authority may object if the application causes undue offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience which would be likely to occur to the residents of the area, or if the amenity, quiet or good order of the area in the vicinity of the proposed site would be adversely affected. I think most local authorities would be interested in whether the proposed site satisfied their town plan or their strategic plan. Hopefully, the checks and balances in this amending legislation will be provided by the Licensing Commission to satisfy itself that the new site is suitable and justified. It is hoped that the Licensing Commission itself will at least acknowledge that there are matters that would concern a local authority other than those mentioned in new section 49A (7) (b). Legislative Assembly 2647 1 August 1990

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (9.34 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Liquor Act Amendment Bill because the rationale for these amendments is founded on two principles that I hold very dear, namely, fair trading practices and community involvement in decision-making. These two elements have been in evidence in other Government legislation debated in this House. I hope that the Opposition will support this legislation, which embodies these principles. It has become apparent that under existing legislation it is possible for a person or company to purchase all the hotels in a town and then apply to the Licensing Court to remove some of those hotels to other areas. This Government does not intend to sit idly by while certain individuals make a profit by purchasing licences for removal and then reselling them to make a windfall profit. Country members will also be heartened to know that neither does the Government intend to sit idly by and allow country towns to become dry if there is a viable living to be made by a hotelier there. Thus it is the Government's intention, through these amendments to the Liquor Act, that there must be a hearing in the Licensing Court to determine whether a licence should be removed from an existing site. This would then give patrons and the local authority the opportunity to object if they believed people would be disadvantaged by the removal of the hotel. Importantly, if the Licensing Court authorises the removal of a licence, then it must refer the application to the Licensing Commission with a view to an investigation of the proposed new site. These investigations, to which the public can have input, will then determine whether the new site is appropriate to meet the needs of the public and that neighbourhood. The rights of members of the public to appeal to the Licensing Court if they are not satisfied with the commission's determination is preserved in the present legislation. Because of the impact that hotels and other licensed premises may have on the lives of persons living in close proximity to them, the provisions for public involvement in the determination of their location is vital. That matter has been referred to by other honourable members. It may surprise some honourable members to learn of the licensed premises that are the cause of most complaints within my own electorate of Barron River. It may be imagined that Cape Tribulation, with its reputation as a wilderness area, a setting for an idyllic tropical life-style, is just that. Indeed, it is those things, but honourable members may be surprised to learn that it is also the location of hostels that shatter that tranquillity with noise late into the night from disturbances and occasional fights. Unfortunately, the nearest police officers who could control such disturbances are stationed at Mosman, some two hours' drive away. They also have to cross the Daintree River by ferry which in fact closes at midnight. A very interesting situation exists there. It is concern about any lack of police presence north of the Daintree River that has resulted in controversy regarding the proposed establishment of a hotel in that area. I sincerely hope that the Licensing Court will weigh up very carefully all the evidence that is presented to it at the appropriate time. Controversy regarding hotels in my electorate is not restricted to the wilderness of Cape Tribulation. In fact, residents in the small beach township of Holloway Beach have objected to the granting of a hotel licence in a residential area without adequate provision for parking. Those residents, like members here tonight, are concerned that, if that hotel licence is granted, the amenity of their area will be affected, particularly by noise and traffic hazards. I have lent my support to those residents' objections and also to the objections of the Mulgrave Shire Council. I hope those objections will be upheld in the Licensing Court when this matter is heard. As I said at the outset, I am pleased to support this legislation, primarily because it will increase opportunities for the public to become involved in a meaningful way in the decisions that affect their lives and, in this way, I believe will help to ensure that community interest is at all times preserved. Legislative Assembly 2648 1 August 1990

I support the Bill before the House. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (9.38 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you yourself would be well aware, our electorates have a number of hotels that, by city standards, would be considered very substandard. In days past, the hotel that received the award for the hotel of the year, the Blue Heeler Hotel at Kynuna, was constructed of galvanised iron without any lining whatsoever. These days, it is quite a handsome building, but some five years ago it was a galvanised iron building with no interior lining whatsoever, and yet it was the hotel of the year. It received that award because it was enormously popular. The publican there provided excellent entertainment at all times. It was a very desirable place to go and it quite rightly received that award. The point that I am trying to make is that people are more than a little worried that city bureaucrats, who do not understand the problems that exist in the country, will be making decisions that could cause the removal of a hotel licence. If people are confronted with not only a pub with no beer but also no beer and no pub at all, it will be very traumatic. From my reading of the Minister's second-reading speech and this Bill, it seems to me that it allows the commission to proceed even though the local community and the local authority wish the local hotel to remain. The criteria applied is whether a hotel is economically viable. A number of hotels in my electorate most certainly are not economically viable, yet they continue in operation. Their owners have other occupations to supplement their income from the hotel. I sincerely ask the Minister to look at the amendment that has been proposed by the Opposition spokesman for Tourism, Sport and Racing. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (9.41 p.m.), in reply: Initially, this legislation was introduced into this Parliament because of my concern about some of the practices that were occurring throughout Queensland in relation to the buying up of hotel licences and their transferral to other areas. The representations made to me on behalf of the Queensland Hotels Association certainly prompted me into action on this matter earlier than I had, perhaps, intended. I would have been quite happy to have addressed those concerns as part of the overall review of the liquor licensing laws of Queensland. However, the Queensland Hotels Association was dramatically concerned about the practices that were taking place. All honourable members would be aware of what occurred in places such as Mount Morgan and Barcaldine, where greedy speculators or entrepreneurs, as people term them—I am not against people who have entrepreneurial skills or flares—went into those districts and bought up every hotel in town and then applied to transfer the licences to all parts of the State. Those people are not the types of individuals that the hotel or the liquor industry needs. I have noted the concerns expressed by members on all sides of the House, and I say to Opposition members in particular that I will address their concerns about the removal of hotel licences and a lack of services available particularly in country towns. However, Opposition members have raised points that, quite frankly, existed under the legislation that the previous Government was responsible for. In 1989, the previous Government introduced legislation into this House that provided for virtually the open slather transferral of hotel licences anywhere in Queensland. That legislation exacerbated the problem that existed prior to the previous Government's taking that action. The Opposition spokesman, the member for Southport, has completely misread or misinterpreted my second-reading speech. I make it quite clear that the tendering system remains intact. The provisions of section 48 are unchanged and the amendment will place the Licensing Commission in the same position as currently exists in regard to new tenders. No relocation of a hotel licence can proceed unless and until the commission determines that a new facility is needed at the proposed new site. In other words if, Legislative Assembly 2649 1 August 1990 after consultation with the local authorities, the commission decides that it agrees with the licensee or with the publican that the licence can be transferred from the area, that does not necessarily mean that that particular person will be the one who relocates that licence to the area of need. The tender system will apply as it has always applied in the past. Tenders will be called publicly and people must make application to be part of that licence tender. The amendment to section 49A of the Act is to more clearly state the procedure of an application and to provide a new condition that the Licensing Commission should be satisfied that the removal to the particular site is justified by the needs of the public and the neighbourhood of the new site in the circumstances where those needs cannot be fulfilled by the commission exercising its power to impose requisitions on existing licensed victuallers. I do not think the position can be any clearer than that. I say to the member for Southport, without giving too much away, that this Bill is a forerunner to some other legislation that I hope to introduce later this year in relation to licensing laws in Queensland. I have long held the view that the Licensing Court has outlived its usefulness. I have never thought it necessary to tie up the services of one, sometimes two, District Court judges in hearings of the Licensing Court when they could be better utilised playing the role within the legal system for which they have been properly trained. They could be clearing the backlog in the clogged-up legal system. Mr Milliner: Hear, hear! Mr GIBBS: I am aware that my colleague is doing his utmost to assist in clearing up the backlog in the legal system. The review of the licensing laws to be undertaken later this year should result in the abolition of the Licensing Court and the establishment of a proper liquor authority, the members of which will have the experience and maturity necessary to understand the needs of the liquor industry in Queensland. Although I appreciate the concern expressed by the honourable member for Southport, I ask him to reconsider his proposed amendment. I attempted to be fair to him by making Mr McKnoulty, the Chairman of the Licensing Commission, available to speak with him. I am sure that Mr McKnoulty told the honourable member that his fears are unfounded and that his proposed amendment would serve no useful purpose. I thank the honourable member for Springwood, Ms Robson, who has shown that she has a very good understanding of this Bill. Her contribution was most valuable. The member for Warwick, Mr Booth, raised some salient points when he expressed the concern which is shared by all honourable members, about the small country towns in which hotels compete for business. When members of the Labor Party were in Opposition, they supported the rationalisation program that was established by the then National Party Government, which provided a central fund by increasing licensing fees to 10 per cent, 1 per cent of which went towards the rationalisation program. A pool of money was available to buy out hotels that were either not of an acceptable public standard or were not considered viable by their owners. The owners themselves surrendered their licences to the Licensing Commission and asked to be bought out. There is a vast difference between the acceptable standards of a hotel in a small country town and those of a hotel in an urban area. I do not want to name hotels, however one comes readily to mind. That hotel is in close proximity to Parliament House and is notorious for running the annual Australian cockroach championships. People are invited to catch a cockroach on site. Over the years, the licensee has received numerous warnings from the Licensing Commission, and he has ignored every warning. He runs a premises far below the acceptable standard for an inner-city hotel. In the not-too-distant future, either that person will have to voluntarily surrender his licence or the economics in the industry will force him out of the hotel. The Government will have no qualms about ensuring that that happens. Legislative Assembly 2650 1 August 1990

That situation does not apply in some country areas. The Government does not expect to see five-star, three-star or even two-and-a-half star hotels in country areas. It is necessary that rational judgment be exercised. It depends upon the circumstances of the town, its size, its population, local needs, the views of the local authority and the views of the residents. I have every confidence that the Chairman of the Licensing Commission will fulfil his role in a responsible and proper manner. I hope that I have addressed the problems raised by the member for Lockyer, Mr Fitzgerald. My colleague the member for Manly, Mr Elder, again displayed an excellent knowledge of the subject matter of the debate. He referred to takeaway facilities at hotels. It is acknowledged by people in the hotel industry that hotels have been dragging the chain in relation to the provision of proper takeaway facilities. For example, the drive-in bottle shop is, in many cases, totally inadequate to service the marketplace. In-depth studies and research show that women customers, in particular, loathe to go to the drive-in sections of some hotels. They are hassled on the driveway, treated in an uncomplimentary manner, and given very little time to choose a product. The legislation that will be introduced later this year will address that concern. The member for Condamine, Mr Littleproud, expressed a concern about the three hotels in Jandowae, particularly the one that currently holds the TAB licence. I assure him that, if indeed a hotel licence needs to be removed or transferred at some time in the future, any decision in relation to the three hotels will be made on a consultative basis. He referred to the TAB facility at the hotel. The TAB locates its agencies in hotels on a revenue basis. If the hotel with the TAB licence surrendered its licence on a voluntary basis, the TAB would give favourable consideration to relocating its facility in that area. The honourable member also raised the problem of the effect of alcohol on young people. The Government and I share his concern. Every member who has a caring attitude and takes the job seriously would be very much concerned about the problems experienced by our youth because of alcohol abuse. That matter will be brought sharply into focus and measures will be taken in the review of the Liquor Act and the legislation that I will bring before Parliament later this year. I thank the honourable member for Redlands, Mr Briskey. He plays an important role on my committee and, along with all other members who have made a contribution this evening, he displayed a commendable grasp of the legislation. I thank the honourable member for Currumbin for his contribution. He rightly put a case in relation to the role of local authorities. I am acutely aware that local authorities have a vital role to play in the decision-making process in relation to the location of hotels. His point about the additional sites that could be considered as being unsuitable, such as cemeteries, was well taken. I understand that it is always part of the consultative process between the Licensing Commission and the local authority that those matters are taken into consideration when an application for a licence is made. As a result of the initiative of the honourable member for Redlands at my committee level, action has been taken to ensure that whereas, in the past, when an application was made for a site anywhere in Queensland to be used for the location of a hotel, the public was notified by the insertion of a small notice in the Public Notices column of a newspaper, the notification in future will be in the form of a prominent sign so that people will be aware that an application for the construction or location of a hotel in a particular area is before the commission or the local authority. The honourable member for Barron River displayed an excellent grasp of the situation. She has made several representations to me about the problems at Cape Tribulation. I can assure her that the Licensing Commission is acutely aware of those problems. It must go through the normal processes of the law that allows for objections to be lodged. That process is currently being carried out. The honourable member for Flinders, Mr Katter, referred to the closure of country hotels. I would hope that my remarks have addressed his fears and concerns. Legislative Assembly 2651 1 August 1990

Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. R. J. Gibbs (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr VEIVERS (8.59 p.m.): Bearing in mind what the Minister has said and the fine advice given to me by his officer, I still intend to move my amendment. Basically, I support the entire Bill. I do not have any problems with it at all. Clause 2 amends section 49A and, although it is preceded in the Act by section 48, that section is not mentioned in this clause. My amendment will afford more protection, provide more understanding and create a fairer and quicker way of doing what is needed. For example, three licences are to be transferred into the Maroochydore area. One application has been heard by the Licensing Court but has not yet been determined. There are two remaining applications, but they will not be determined until the court makes a decision on the first one. To my mind, those situations should not arise. As I said earlier, the cart is being put before the horse. That is the reason I move the following amendment— "At page 2, after line 46, add— 'the powers of the Commission to identify those communities in need of a licence and then calling on companies or individuals holding licences to tender to the Commission for the removal of those licences to the local area identified by the Commission.' " Question—That the words proposed to be added be so added—put; and the Committee divided— DIViSION Resolved in the negative. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gibbs, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 2652 1 August 1990

JURY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 May (see p. 1861). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.12 p.m.): As far as it goes, this is essentially a good piece of legislation. It introduces the computerised random selection of jury lists. However, I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to redraft the whole Act. I am referring to the Jury Act 1929-1988, as amended from time to time, which is a very complicated piece of legislation. I have encountered considerable difficulty in coming to grips with several clauses of the Bill and several sections of the Act. Although the legislation has achieved the computerised selection of jury lists from the electoral roll, under clause 13 (5) (b) it proceeds to put in a box all those names on cards of the same size and shape and having thereon respectively the name of the court town for which the jury list has been made. Indeed, the Government has proceeded only a small way down the track towards proper computerisation of lists for jury service. Because it has not taken the opportunity to redraft the Bill and implement some essential provisions, which will probably be undertaken in the final redraft of the Bill in future, I offer a small criticism of the legislation. The process for the selection of the lists is still very complex. Under the legislation, the sheriff shall take what is essentially the electoral roll and remove from it those persons who are exempt for one reason or another. I find it interesting that under the old Act one section provided that he should remove from that list people who were known to him to fall within a certain category, and it appears to me that no appeal was allowed. Those categories included lunatics and others. That was obviously determined by the sheriff. Under this legislation, there will then be a random selection process by computer, the selected names will be put in a box and the persons will be contacted in writing to ascertain whether they come within the necessary category to be able to serve on a jury. The selection of the jury list remains a very complex process. I would appreciate it if the Minister would make a commitment to examine a possible redrafting of the entire Act in the near future to remove some of the overcomplex systems and wording from the Act. To illustrate my point, I cite a paragraph in clause 11 which states— "The number determined under paragraph (a) together with the number added thereto under this paragraph (b) is to be taken to be the number determined under paragraph (a) in lieu of the number first determined under that paragraph." Mr Milliner interjected. Mr GILMORE: I think that the Minister gets the point. In regard to exemptions, I do have difficulty with one other section. I think that the Minister may well have tackled this. The list of exemptions under the present Act is quite considerable, and it includes female persons. It states— ". . . female persons who have informed the sheriff as prescribed by this Act that they desire to be exempt from serving on any jury and whose exemption is thus obtained continues in force as prescribed by this Act." I believe that that is offensive to the vast majority of female persons in the community. I believe that the Minister could and should have taken the opportunity to have that provision removed from the body of the Act. As part of any redrafting of the legislation, I would like to see the removal of any suggestion of gender as a matter of course. I do not want to be too long-winded at this hour of the evening. However, I do want to raise a couple of other matters. I wish to say something about jury districts. In the case of Ipswich, for instance, the jury lists are determined from within a 10-kilometre radius around the Ipswich Court House. By virtue of geography, people outside that 10-kilometre radius are excluded from jury service. In Cairns persons are excluded from Legislative Assembly 2653 1 August 1990 jury service if they are outside an area as determined by the Governor in Council from time to time. I have been unable to ascertain the gazetted area for the Cairns Court House jury district. It seems to me to be grossly unfair that large numbers of people who are geographically isolated from a particular courthouse are therefore specifically excluded from jury service. There are large numbers of competent and reasonable people in the community who would be very pleased indeed to take part in jury service. Because of the voluntary nature of their service, they would possibly bring a quality to jury service. I think that in any redrafting of the legislation, if the jury districts cannot be extended to include all areas of Queensland, some provision should be made for persons who wish to give voluntary jury service. If there is a cost involved, so be it. People should be able to volunteer to put their names in the box and thereafter be selected at random for jury service. I acknowledge that there are some difficulties with my suggestion. A couple of people to whom I have mentioned this tonight have said, "Goodness me, we would have some real live ones nominating for jury service." I recognise that. However, I do not think that that is sufficient reason for not doing it. There may be ways of limiting the numbers of people. If a jury box has a minimum number—for instance, 10 000—perhaps an upper limit could be imposed as well. As the list now includes all persons who are not exempt, who are on the roll, who are now part of the random selection process, it would not be very difficult to include people outside the jury district. I ask the Minister to give consideration to that and not to be daunted by the task of trying to filter out the ratbags, because at the empanelling stage there is always the safeguard that counsel for the accused and, of course, the Crown can reject or accept a number of jurors. I believe that that can easily be done. With those few words, I offer the support of the Opposition for the Bill, and I look forward to debating at some time in the near future a fully redrafted Jury Act. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.21 p.m.): The Bill represents a continuing technological rationalisation of the process of jury selection which was commenced in 1972. At that time the Jury Act Amendment Act enabled the State to modernise the process which previously had relied on completely manual methods. The use of computers to assist in the compilation of the annual jury list and the prospective jurors' list was well received. Further amendments in 1976 only served to enhance the modernisation of the means by which jurors are selected to participate in our judicial system. Obviously, though, as Queensland is a large, decentralised State, it is not possible to convert immediately to computerisation. Many courts in remote areas will, by necessity, continue to utilise the manual system for a considerable time. To accommodate this need, the provision for manual processors will remain in the Act. As honourable members would be only too well aware, computers are not the infallible tool that they are quite often portrayed as being. It is not uncommon for these valuable technological aids to develop technical problems which can render them temporarily useless. For this reason, it is again important to maintain within the Act provisions for the manual process to be put to work. In his second-reading speech the Minister made reference to the restrictive nature of the Act brought about by the inclusion of detailed provisions. There is obviously a need for some degree of flexibility to enable those charged with the responsibility of administering the Act to meet change as it occurs. Reference was made by the Minister to other areas of policy covered by the Jury Act which would need to be reviewed at some later date. He cites the example of jury composition and the issue of exemptions, which are either applied by the State or claimed by citizens called to serve. In recent years, the common jury as an appropriate tribunal of fact for complex and lengthy criminal proceedings has been placed under challenge. The origins of the jury as an element in the criminal justice process can be traced back to 1215 and the signing of the Magna Carta. Prior to that, the establishment of an individual's guilt or Legislative Assembly 2654 1 August 1990 innocence was arrived at by the primitive and horrible method of trial by ordeal. However, the concept of involvement of ordinary people was not new, because the Romans had previously applied to sort out details of land ownership. Citizens were called upon to provide evidence in relation to ownership of land and other property, but they were not trusted to sit in judgment of the facts. The first recorded instance of juries having been used to determine the actual facts in a dispute can be traced back to the time of Henry II. A jury of 16 knights was sworn in, with four being selected by the local sheriff, whilst the two parties in dispute were able to select the other 12. From those humble beginnings, various versions have developed throughout the world. They all have as a common element the belief in the necessity to allow the accused the right to have judgment upon his action exercised by a panel of persons drawn from his peers. Several assertions that claim to underline fundamental weaknesses in the jury system are often made. For the benefit of honourable members, I list those assertions. The first is that the selection process is such that those who are finally chosen are not truly representative. They are more often than not unable to be presented as a true cross-section of society. Another assertion is that public debate and scrutiny of jury verdicts is inhibited because of the secrecy requirements. That is made more difficult by the fact that, when a decision is handed down, it is not accompanied by a statement of reason. The next assertion is that, in criminal trials, it is necessary for the jury to arrive at a unanimous verdict. It is claimed that that restriction places enormous pressure on a juror to change his or her mind. Many would argue that the individuals who serve on juries in many cases are not properly equipped for the role. Legal, technical and forensic arguments are quite often beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. The most often heard criticism is on economic grounds. It is claimed that juries in themselves lengthen trials and thus prove to be too costly. I intend to address those attacks on the jury system that for centuries has well served the English- speaking world. It is of importance that there is a sound understanding of what actually constitutes a common jury. In the 1954 edition of the Almanac of Liberty, Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court of the United States offered what I believe to be an excellent description. He stated— "A jury reflects the attitudes and mores of the community from which it is drawn. It lives only for the day and does justice according to its likes. The group of twelve, who are drawn to hear a case, makes the decision and melts away. It is not present the next day to be criticised. It is the one governmental agency that has no ambition. It is as human as the people who make it up. It is sometimes the victim of passion. But it also takes the sharp edges of a law and uses conscience to ameliorate a hardship. Since it is of and from the community, it gives the law an acceptance which verdicts of judges could not do." It is true that, in the past two decades, the composition of juries has changed greatly. In her interesting article titled Manipulating Your Verdict, which was published in the Bulletin on 10 May 1988, Lyndall Crisp pointed out— "Where once you might get a PMG linesman, two public servants and a storeman and packer, jurors today are predominantly women—and mostly housewives because they are easiest to summons and have trouble claiming exemption." Observation of the make-up of modern juries supports that argument. Although I have no diminished respect for the abilities of women, it is pertinent to note that the processes of selection are not, in fact, providing the protagonists with a truly representative jury. Legislative Assembly 2655 1 August 1990

Over the years, many attempts have been made in some States to establish panels of persons whose educational or occupational qualification in the scientific field or commerce better outfit them to make judgments upon the evidence presented. The report handed down by the Criminal And Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia in 1975 is typical of that line of thought. It is significant to note that the recommendations of that committee have not yet been taken up, and they ought not be. The arguments for specialist panels or tribunals as alternatives to the traditional common jury for complex criminal trials are unconvincing. I concede that it is difficult for unqualified and inexperienced jurors to properly and readily understand complex evidence and arguments. However, we must never underestimate the intelligence of the jury. Should complicated scientific evidence or complicated financial evidence not be understood, the fault lies with the quality of presentation. It is incumbent upon the legal profession and expert witnesses to clearly place before the jury and the public in general information that is in easily understood terms. Any movement towards specialised panels should be viewed with caution. Whereas expertise in a particular area may be of assistance, the exclusive use of those persons could lead to the dangerous situation in which only they could sit on juries. Should an elite group be developed to dispense justice, justice would no longer be the property of the community itself. There is no doubt that, of the many factors at work in undermining the place of the common jury in our court system, the issue of cost is most often raised. There is no doubt that there is cause for concern regarding the increasing and substantial cost to the State of conducting criminal trials. To combat that problem, there has been a marked increase in the extent of the jurisdiction of magistrates courts as determined by legislation. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases that are dealt with by the expensive mechanism of jury trials in higher courts. Further, when framing the laws legislatures have tended to become far more specific and precise in identifying criminal offences. That limits the scope for an effective defence. Additionally, it has become the accepted practice for prosecution agencies to encourage the conduct of certain negotiations with the defendant and counsel to bring about a plea of guilty. The courts have been playing their part in that process by offering sentencing incentives for guilty pleas. As a cost-saving exercise, the mechanism that I have mentioned can be very successful. However, it is possible that some may make a guilty plea on a promise of a lighter sentence even though they perhaps could have won a verdict of not guilty before a jury. Such a process encourages the State to place enormous pressures on accused persons who rightly view a jury trial with some trepidation. The requirement for unanimous verdicts in criminal trials is seen by some as a problem. It has been suggested that the method of decision by majority verdict based on a balance of probabilities would be a huge saving to the State. Obviously, that lends itself to early decisions without the likelihood of the jury being discharged and the case having to be heard again, as occurs sometimes when there is a necessity to obtain a unanimous verdict. I firmly believe in the requirement that the onus rests with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting vote of even one juror would indicate that doubt exists and that a guilty verdict cannot be recorded. I turn now to what Lionel Murphy said in 1986 during his last speech to the Australian Institute of Criminology on his acquittal at a retrial. He stated— "Trial by jury should be maintained and extended as far as possible." They are sentiments with which I fully concur. Legislative Assembly 2656 1 August 1990

Rationality, logic and thoughtful analysis may be against the jury system, but it works. It has worked for centuries and does so because as a society we have not devised, and are not likely to devise, something better. I support the Bill. Mr QUINN (South Coast) (10.31 p.m.): This legislation is of a purely mechanical nature and provides for the more efficient selection and summonsing of jurors by computer. It brings jury service in Queensland into a more modern era. As such, it has the support of the Liberal Party. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.32 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support. This Bill is basically of a machinery nature and will allow the selection of juries to be conducted by computer. I thank particularly the honourable member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, for his contribution. Yes, the Government anticipates a further review of the Jury Act. All of the matters raised by the honourable member will be taken into account. As a matter of fact, a review of the Jury Act is a part of Labor's policy, especially in the area of exemptions, as the honourable member pointed out. The policy is to restrict exemptions and to remove the exemption for women. I quite agree with the honourable member that jury service should be made gender neutral. That is something that I will be considering when the Act is reviewed. When that occurs, I will be open to any suggestions that the honourable member may wish to make to me. The honourable member raised the aspect of the manual system of jury selection. The Act still contains provision for that system to be used in remote areas. Mention was made of the exemption of people living more than 10 kilometres from a courthouse. That provision was inserted in the legislation in the early 1980s because of the cost factor involved in people travelling to and from jury service. Consideration will be given to the improvement of that provision. I do not have a closed mind on it. If someone on the Tablelands were selected to serve as a juror on a protracted trial in Cairns, he or she could incur quite considerable expenses in travelling to and from Cairns each day. That would be unfair. Perhaps the legislation could contain a provision to allow such a person to decline the invitation to undertake jury service. However, I have an open mind on the matter. Consideration will be given to resolving some of the questions that the honourable member raised. The honourable member for Mulgrave, Mr Pitt, quite clearly understands the amendment to the Act. He made a very interesting contribution to the debate. I thank him for that. I also thank the Liberal Party for its support. As I indicated, this legislation is really a machinery matter. However, it will allow for an enhancement of the selection of juries, which will be to the benefit of the system of jury service and the court system. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, by leave, read a third time. HEALTH ACT AND FOOD ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa—Minister for Health) (10.36 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Health Act 1937-1989 and the Food Act 1981-1989, each in certain particulars." Legislative Assembly 2657 1 August 1990

Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr McElligott, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa—Minister for Health) (10.37 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Brisbane City Council has drawn attention to certain provisions in both the Health Act 1937-1989 and the Food Act 1981-1989 which inhibit the council's exercise of powers of delegation conferred upon it by the City of Brisbane Act. At present, section 19 of the Health Act and section 26 of the Food Act authorise the Brisbane City Council to delegate to the Council Registration Board the power to issue, sign, seal, renew, revoke, or cancel licences, permits, authorities or consents. However, section 39B of the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1987 contains the necessary powers of delegation and, as a consequence, these powers are constricted by the operation of those sections of the Health Act and the Food Act. Repeal of the relevant provisions will be of great benefit to the Brisbane City Council, but will also take away the appeal provision whereby any person aggrieved by a decision of the Council Registration Board may appeal to the Minister for Health. However, this section of the Health Act has been in operation since 1959 and no record of any such appeal exists. In addition, due to the effects of amendments on other legislation, various provisions of the Health Act require attention so as to restore uniformity of expression and maintain the Act's effectiveness. These provisions include definitions which require clarification and the powers under which certain regulations are made. It is desirable that analysts hold accreditation recognised by the director-general rather than be registered under section 28 of the Health Act 1937-1989. The Registration of Analysts Regulations of 1981 were repealed in 1989. As a consequence, that part of the definition of "analyst" that relates to a person registered as a duly qualified analyst was rendered dysfunctional, and it would therefore be appropriate to amend the definition of "analyst" to exclude mention of registered persons. Section 27 of the Health Act, which relates to the power of the director-general to make regulations with respect to the qualifications of certain officers is amended to omit reference to "analyst". This is necessary to maintain consistency with the new definition of "analyst". As a consequence of the amendment to the term "analyst" and the 1989 repeal of the Registration of Analysts Regulations 1981, section 28 of the Health Act headed "Registration of analysts and premises" has no further use and is to be repealed. In the Health Act Amendment of 1989, the definition of "drug addict" was replaced with the definition of "drug dependent person" to maintain uniformity with the Drugs Misuse Act. The original definition of "drug addict" made reference to "restricted drug". However, by inadvertent omission the reference to "restricted drug" was not incorporated into the new definition of "drug dependent person". This term is required in the Health Act definition to ensure the correct administration of Part M of the Poisons Regulations of 1973. Those regulations refer to the requirements and responsibilities of medical practitioners in relation to the treatment of drug dependent persons and the prescription of dangerous and restricted drugs. People may and do become dependent on restricted drugs as well as dangerous drugs, and it is therefore necessary to include in the definition of "drug dependent person" the term "restricted drug" where appropriate. Legislative Assembly 2658 1 August 1990

Section 100A of the Health Act provides for the director-general to make regulations in relation to tattooing, ear-piercing or any like process involving the penetration of the skin of a living human being. The Skin Penetration Regulations provide for the registration, standards of construction, inspection and cleanliness of such premises and the disinfection and sterilisation of instruments, etc., used in the conduct of those types of practices. It was intended that those regulations would apply to all types of processes where the skin of a living person is penetrated. However, there is legal opinion to the effect that the practice of acupuncture is not a like process to tattooing or ear-piecing and therefore could be excluded from the application of the Skin Penetration Regulations. The Crown Solicitor has advised that to remedy the situation the Health Act should be amended to make specific mention to acupuncture in section 100A. Division III of Part III of the Health Act was amended by the Health Act Amendment Act of 1988 and all references to "communicable diseases" should have been replaced by the term "notifiable disease". Inadvertently, this did not apply to section 178. This amendment will rectify this inconsistency. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, adjourned. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) All Stages Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.41 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the receiving of Resolutions from the Committee of Supply and Ways and Means on the same day as they shall have passed in those Committees, and the passing of an Appropriation Bill through all its stages in one day." Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.