Legislative Assembly 2452 31 July 1990

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

TUESDAY, 31 JULY 1990 ———— Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Superannuation (State Public Sector) Bill; Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Act Amendment Bill; Electricity Superannuation Restoration Bill; Parliamentary Members' Salaries Act Amendment Bill; Local Government Acts Amendment Bill; Superannuation Acts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill; Pay-roll Tax Act Amendment Bill; Land Tax Amendment Bill; Industrial Relations Bill; Miners' Homestead Leases Act and Another Act Amendment Bill; Gold Coast Waterways Authority Act Repeal Bill; Heritage Buildings Protection Bill; Mining (Fossicking) Act Amendment Bill; Mineral Resources Act Amendment Bill; Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill; Dispute Resolution Centres Bill; Trading Hours Bill; Stamp Act Amendment Bill; Privacy Committee Act Amendment Bill; Corrective Services Act Amendment Bill; Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Bill. ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF LANDSBOROUGH AND SHERWOOD By-election Dates Mr SPEAKER: I inform the House of the following dates in connection with the issue of the writs for the election of members to serve in this House for the electoral districts of Landsborough and Sherwood— Issue of writ—5 July 1990; Nomination day—12 July 1990; Polling day—28 July 1990; Return of writs—28 August 1990. Legislative Assembly 2453 31 July 1990

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Police, Marsden Area From Mr W. Goss (1 170 signatories) praying for the establishment of a police station and for the upgrading of police numbers in the Marsden area. Retention of Hospitals Boards From Mr Springborg (263 signatories) praying that the present structure and budgets of hospitals boards be maintained. Voluntary Employment Agreements From Mr Borbidge (268 signatories) praying for reconsideration of the termination and/or abolition of voluntary employment agreements. Port Livistona Complex, South Stradbroke Island From Mr Comben (1 039 signatories) praying that Cabinet be requested to withdraw endorsement of the proposed Port Livistona resort and marina complex on South Stradbroke Island and proclaim the area an environmental park. Bundaberg Civic Centre From Mr Campbell (1 008 signatories) praying that no borrowings be allowed for the refurbishment of the Bundaberg City Council Civic Centre until boundaries of local authorities have been reviewed. Licensing of Firearms From Mr Booth (42 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 Dr Flynn (41 signatories), Mr J. N. Goss (70 signatories) and Mr Harper (121 signatories). Enforcement of Fisheries Rules From Mr Beattie (84 signatories) praying for the appointment of more fisheries inspectors and for an increase in penalties for breaches of the rules. Daylight-saving From Mr Harper (153 signatories) praying that daylight-saving be not reintroduced in future years. Literature and Films Boards of Review From Mr Lingard (235 signatories) praying for the maintenance of the literature and films boards of review and for a continuation of controls outlawing the sale of all pornographic matter. Declaration of Parts of Fraser Island as National Park From Ms Robson (95 signatories) praying for action to be taken to declare all forestry and vacant Crown land on Fraser Island a national park. Petitions received. Legislative Assembly 2454 31 July 1990

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— The one hundred and second report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies covering proceedings under the general administration of the Friendly Societies Act 1913-1986. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Police Service Administration Act 1990 State Service Superannuation Act 1972-1989 State Service Superannuation Act 1972-1990 Superannuation (Public Employees Portability and Acts Amendment) Act 1985 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangement Act 1982-1989 Stamp Act 1894-1989 Stamp Act 1894-1990 Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950-1989 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 Superannuation (Government and Other Employees) Act 1988 Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1988 Harbours Act 1955-1989 Brisbane and Area Water Board Act 1979-1989 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 City of Brisbane (Flood Mitigation Works Approval) Act 1952-1988 Fisheries Act 1976-1989 Forestry Act 1959-1987 Local Government Act 1936-1988 Meat Industry Act 1965-1989 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangement Act 1982-1989 Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act 1923-1989 Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1989 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949-1989 Stock Act 1915-1989 Sugar Experiment Stations Act 1900-1983 Water Resources Act 1989 Water Resources Act 1989 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982- 1989 Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979-1989 The Supreme Court Act of 1921 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1986 District Courts Act 1967-1989 Magistrates Court Act 1921-1989 Justices Act 1886-1989 Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1958-1974 Regulations under— Libraries and Archives Act 1988 Legislative Assembly 2455 31 July 1990

Adoption of Children Act 1964-1990 Police Service Administration Act 1990 Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936-1988 Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1988 Stamp Act 1894-1990 Land Tax Act 1915-1990 Harbours Act 1955-1989 Queensland Marine Act 1958-1989 Traffic Act 1949-1990 Agricultural Standards Act 1952-1981 Fisheries Act 1976-1989 Hen Quotas Act 1973-1987 Plant Protection Act 1989 Poultry Industry Act 1988 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949-1989 Stock Act 1915-1989 Wheat Pool Act 1920-1989 Art Unions and Amusement Act 1976-1988 Associations Incorporation Act 1981-1989 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1988 Bill of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955-1989 Building Societies Act 1985-1987 Business Names Act 1962-1979 The Cash Orders Regulation Acts, 1946 to 1959 Collections Act 1966-1989 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1986 Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1958-1974 Credit Societies Act 1986 Elections Act 1983-1989 Friendly Societies Act 1913-1986 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 Invasion of Privacy Act 1971-1988 Land Sales Act 1984-1989 Motor Vehicles Securities Act 1986-1989 Recording of Evidence Act 1962-1988 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962-1989 Retirement Villages Act 1988 Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973-1989 Travel Agents Act 1988 Weights and Measures Act 1951-1983 Rules under— Police Act 1937-1989 Casino Control Act 1982 Coroners Act 1958-1988 Legislative Assembly 2456 31 July 1990

Proclamations under— Public Sector Management Commission Act 1990 Police Service Administration Act 1990 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 Superannuation Acts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1990 Financial Administration and Audit Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1988 Gold Coast Waterways Authority Act Repeal Act 1990 Forestry Act 1959-1987 Sugar Acquisition Act 1915-1989 By-laws under— Harbours Act 1955-1989 Harbours Act 1955-1989 and Gold Coast Waterways Authority Act 1979-1989 (A) A proposal by the Governor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act 1959-1990 of:— (a) All that part of State Forest 1294, parishes of Boompa, Broomfield, Doongul, Dunmora, Ferguson, Gungaloon, Kolbore, Kullogum, Walsh, Warrah and Woocoo, described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1560 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 381 hectares, (b) All that part of State Forest 607, parishes of Cairns, Danbulla, Dinden and Grafton, described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1569 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 9.853 hectares, (c) All that part of Clemant State Forest-34, described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1565 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 42 hectares, (d) All that part of Abergowrie State Forest-591 described as Lot 132 on plan CWL 800987 in the Division of Geographic Information, Department of Lands and containing an area of about 95.2 hectares; and (B) A brief explanation of the proposal. Reports— Brisbane and Area Water Board for the year ended 30 June 1989 Central Queensland Grain Sorghum Marketing Board for the year ended 31 December 1989 Navy Bean Marketing Board and the Bean Growers' Co-operative Association Limited for the year ended 31 March 1990 Queensland Cane Growers' Organisation for the year ended 31 December 1989 Resolutions of the 133rd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. MOTION OF CONDOLENCE Deaths of Mr W. McM. Lamond and Hon. K. B. Tomkins Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.14 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this State by the late William McMillan Lamond, Esquire, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland, and the late Honourable Kenneth Legislative Assembly 2457 31 July 1990

Burgoyne Tomkins, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland and Minister of the Crown. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the families of the deceased gentlemen the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained." Ken Tomkins served in this House as the member for Roma for 16 years. He was elected in June 1967 and retired in October 1983 after serving eight years as a Cabinet Minister, first as Minister for Lands, Forestry, National Parks and Wildlife, then as Minister for Transport, and finally as Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Ken Tomkins had a very sound record of service to the community through local government, having served on the Bungil Shire Council for 18 years, including eight years as its chairman. A noted cattle-breeder, for 10 years he was also President of the Maranoa Graziers Association and a member of the executive council of the United Graziers Association for 16 years. He was the first Minister to have charge of national parks as a separate portfolio and while Transport Minister from 1977 to 1980, he oversaw the development of the first major inner-city railbridge link across the Brisbane River and the electrification of the Brisbane-Ipswich railway line. Ken Tomkins was an affable man. I am told he made friendships on both sides of the House. His political style was perhaps more reminiscent of the old Country Party than the National Party which replaced it. On behalf of the Queensland Government, I extend sincere condolences to his widow and family. Bill Lamond was elected as the member for Wynnum on 7 December 1974 and served a three-year term. Mr Lamond—a real estate agent and valuer—took a keen interest in his local community. He was chairman of the Wynnum senior citizens project, President of the Wynnum Chamber of Commerce and a foundation member of the Moreton Bay Lions Club. He was also Commodore of the Manly Boat Harbour and Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club. In 1980, Bill Lamond was a director of the Queensland Small Business Corporation and also served as mediator of the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal. He was born in Cloncurry in 1920 and was known as a man whose interests in people and their well-being extended well past his term as a member of this House. On behalf of the State Government, I offer sincere condolences to Mr Lamond's family. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (10.16 a.m.): I join with the Premier in paying tribute to Bill Lamond and Ken Tomkins. I wish to extend the personal sympathy of my wife, Angela, and me to Bettina Lamond, Bill's family and his many friends, especially his six children, 18 grandchildren and three great grandchildren. Bill was the local member in my area and was a well respected man. After a short recess of the Parliament, I always make the point that members often make speeches about colleagues, many of whom they have never met. In the case of Bill Lamond and Ken Tomkins, a few of the members present served in this Parliament with them and knew them well. At this time, we all should recognise the service that those men gave to this State, the service that they gave to this Parliament in their daily lives, and the commitment that cost their families so much. No matter what people say about politicians as a group of people, if a politician performs his job properly, his family misses out. No matter what side of the political spectrum a politician is on, if he does his job properly, his wife and kids lose. When people criticise politicians about the wages and the superannuation they receive, those people ought to remember the loss that politicians' families suffer as a result of their commitment to public life. Bill Lamond was born at Cloncurry. He was an ex-serviceman and a big, soft bloke. He did not display feelings of malice or spite. His father was a well-known author who wrote a number of books and sold them internationally to make a Legislative Assembly 2458 31 July 1990 living. His father also worked in the wool industry. Bill's father owned five islands, including South Molle Island, where Bill grew up. On South Molle Island, Bill acquired a love of the sea. When Bill left South Molle Island, he moved to a dairy farm at Lindum. After serving in the war, he established himself in the real estate business in the Wynnum electorate. In 1974, only Bill Lamond could have won the Labor seat of Wynnum. He won that seat by 23 votes at a time when the Labor Party's numbers in this Chamber represented a cricket team. I knew Bill in those years. I know of his love of the bayside area and of the Wynnum area in particular. Bill's son would agree with me when I say that the members of his family spent most of their lives on Moreton Island. The Lamond family was one of the first families to visit Moreton Island. Bill loved the bay and Moreton Island and worked very hard for the area. Bill was a founding member for just about anything worth while in the bayside area. He was a former President of the Chamber of Commerce. He was a central figure in the establishment of the Waterloo Bay's fifties and over leisure centre. He was a charter member of the Lions Club and the first Commodore of the Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club. He was also an avid supporter of the Wynnum Manly Rugby League Club. In the years when the Wynnum Manly football team was performing well, honourable members will remember Bill wearing his club colours at Parliament House. This year, I am sure that Bill was unhappy to see the Wynnum Manly football team with two points from one victory in the Brisbane Rugby League competition. Bill was a tireless worker for the community and was part of the local scene in the real estate business. His last fight was in helping the Labor Party to make the Wynnum Hospital, for which he fought so hard in the early stages, a fair dinkum hospital. Bill will be missed in the Wynnum area. I offer my deepest sympathy to Bettina and his family. Ken Tomkins was another bloke whom I would call a mate. I liked Ken. He was one of the last of the Country Party members elected to this Parliament. Following the death of Bill Ewan, he was elected in a by- election in 1967. There was not a nasty bone in Ken's body. In the Chamber, honourable members could have a bit of fun with Ken. Perhaps I should not say this during a debate on a condolence motion, but when Joh left this place, a lot of the fun that we used to have in this place disappeared. We used to have a bit of a fight across the Chamber with each other. Vic Sullivan and Ken Tomkins were a great pair when they got together. Opposition members interjected. Mr BURNS: I will continue the story. When a person passes on, there is no reason why his mates should not reminisce about some of his deeds. Ken Tomkins and Vic Sullivan went on a fishing trip. Vic Sullivan tells the story that, during that trip, while they were sitting in a dingy, a helicopter flew over. Vic said, "Look, there's a helicopter. It will be a mob of tourists. Give them a wave." They gave the helicopter a wave, but in it was a Courier-Mail photographer. The next day, a photograph of them fishing on the Melbidir appeared on the front page of the Courier-Mail . They were virtually forced out of Parliament, which was to the detriment of the House. When both Vic Sullivan and Ken Tomkins left this House, I missed them. This morning, I asked Jack Stanaway from my office to ring Vic Sullivan. Vic asked me to mention Prince Ruling. Ken Tomkins had some very good racehorses. Prince Ruling should have been one of the best racehorses in Australia, but it ran into a far better horse in Kingston Town. A person can have a top horse and still not win the big money. I understand that Prince Ruling is still one of the best performers in the racehorse-breeding industry. Ken was also very much into stud cattle. Ken Tomkins' Croxley Stud outside Toowoomba is still in operation and quite successful. Ken is also remembered at Roma as being one of the key movers in the development of the Bassett Park sporting complex. I still remember a speech that Ken made when Legislative Assembly 2459 31 July 1990 debating legislation about Bassett wines. If honourable members want a good laugh, they should read the speeches that Ken and Vic Sullivan made when debating the regulations in the wine industry back in those early days. Although Ken and Bill were never on my side of the fence politically, they played the game decently, fairly and honestly. I enjoyed their company. The Parliament is sadder for their passing. Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 a.m.): I endorse the remarks of the Premier and the Deputy Premier. I believe it is right and proper that honourable members, whatever side of the political fence they be on, pay their respects to those who have served the people well in this place. On behalf of the members of the Opposition, I take the opportunity to place on record our condolences to the families of the late Ken Tomkins and the late Bill Lamond. I speak for other members who may not have the opportunity to speak. My deputy, Rob Borbidge, who as a Minister enjoyed a very close relationship with Mr Lamond will speak in more depth about Bill Lamond. I was a close friend of Ken Tomkins. In fact, I succeeded him as the member for Roma in this place. I have many fond memories of Ken, whom I knew for years. I used to hear stories of this place; I am not too sure, but it seems to me that in earlier years it may have been friendlier. In those days members from both sides of the House tended to get to know each other a little better and, as a result, achieved a better understanding of one another. Perhaps honourable members can learn from the past. As I said, I knew Ken Tomkins for a long time. He was a cattle-breeder of some repute. In that field he was a perfectionist. He owned probably the largest non-commercial Hereford cattle stud in Australia and was renowned for the purchase of high-priced but high-quality bulls from South Boorook in Victoria and from other places. The measure of a man is always how successful he is in his business affairs. For Ken Tomkins, the proof of the pudding was in his successful sales. A number of honourable members may have attended those sales. Certainly former honourable members used to attend. Norm Lee always attended. He was also one of the buyers. He constantly purchased bulls from Ken Tomkins. He had to pay for them, too. Ken made sure of that. The quality of stock showed. Ken was able to conduct in Roma sales of whiteface cattle from bulls on his establishment. The numbers of cattle for sale started at about 6 000 head and increased to about 8 000 head. The increase is an indication of the success of that stud. Ken Tomkins was also keen on pastoral improvement, which he did, and did it well. Ken was one who believed in leaving the land better than when he found it. He certainly did that with his properties, particularly with Stuarts Creek. As has been mentioned, Ken was president of the Maranoa Graziers Association. His involvement in the association was an indicator of his interest in the producer organisations. He was president of the association for ten years,the longest-serving president to date. He was the sort of man who got on well with people from all walks of life. No-one in the Roma area would deny that. He was known as a gentle gentleman, but he was an achiever. He was no wimp. He generally achieved what he set out to achieve, but he did it in such a way that he did not rub anyone the wrong way. Ken was a councillor of the Bungil Shire Council, the council associated with the town of Roma. While he was a member of Parliament he was chairman of the Bungil Shire Council. He entered Parliament in 1967 and resigned the chairmanship of the Bungil Shire Council in about 1975, when he became a Minister. He showed that it could be done. I do not know whether it could be done today; the pace of Parliament, as well as the pace of life in general, is much faster now. Ken did his job as a councillor and chairman of Bungil Shire Council well. The fact that he was elected to these positions is an indication of his genuine interest in the community. He carried out his duties well. Legislative Assembly 2460 31 July 1990

One of Ken's greatest achievements was Bassett Park racing complex. Bassett Park, as well as being a racing complex, is a showground, rodeo ground and football ground. It is an example of good decentralisation in the west that these functions can be incorporated in one facility, without duplication. It would be pointless to have two showgrounds, two rodeo grounds, two race courses. Ken showed clearly that these functions could be integrated in one venue. The complex was properly financed. Ken's generosity showed; he donated the water bore which enabled water to be available constantly to Bassett Park. The complex is certainly an epitaph to him. When Ken was Minister for Lands, he pursued the right to freehold tenure of land. Honourable members will be aware that people on the land hold that right dear and are certainly thankful for it. Ken recognised that private ownership of land is necessary and desirable. He undertook his responsibilities with care and sensitivity, in recognition of the public interest. Ken fought hard for the abolition of death duties and the people of Queensland can be thankful for that. Memories are short, but Ken will long be remembered for his efforts in that area. After one electoral redistribution, Ken's area took in the Springsure, Rolleston and Ryan area as far as Dingo, Duaringa and Bluff. The people in those areas will long remember Ken Tomkins. He was a legend there. At the time of the redistribution the roads in the electorate were disgraceful. By the time Ken left this place, he had demonstrated quite clearly that those people were entitled to reasonable funding for roads. That was a matter of vital importance to those people and Ken's achievement will long be remembered. The people in the electorate certainly benefited from Ken's endeavours and will always be thankful to him. As I said, Ken Tomkins was still the member for Roma when I won the plebiscite for the seat. There were seven candidates for that plebiscite, and although he did not necessarily support anyone in particular, he was always a fair man. Once I won the plebiscite, Ken Tomkins and his friend Vic Sullivan, the then member for Condamine, were definitely part of a team. As Brian Littleproud said, they were a good pair, and they were very good to us. They showed us around the electorate and introduced us to people from all political parties. It took Ken a long time to take me around various towns, including Dingo, Duaringa, Bluff and Blackwater. I think that he was keen to ensure that the new member would not get it too easy. I had to pay when we stayed at various motels. When we were leaving the Blackwater Motel I said to him, "Ken, what are we going to do with this bill?" He said, "I suggest you pay it." Although that was our joint bill, he must have thought that if he was going to take me around and spend time with me, I might as well get used to paying my way. As has been indicated, Ken did not mind a spot of fishing. I do not say that frivolously. As Vic Sullivan so often said, "If you were in the Torres Strait after 5 o'clock and you did not throw out a line, you would definitely need to have your head examined." I am sure that all honourable members would agree with that. A person would have to have his head examined if he did not throw out a line after 5 o'clock and the weather was as beautiful as it can be in that area. On behalf of all members of this House, I place on record the sympathy of this House. Honourable members will remember the happy memories, the contributions that those gentlemen made, the sort of people they were and the lessons that can be learned from them. They were selfless people who were generous in the extreme. I offer my condolences to their families, particularly to Ken's wife, Lillian Tomkins, and his daughters Rosie, Libby, Anne and Helen. I wish them well in the future, knowing full well that their husband and father served their State and nation well. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.33 a.m.): During the parliamentary recess we lost two of the great gentlemen who have been members of this Parliament in its recent history. Although I served with Ken Tomkins, Legislative Assembly 2461 31 July 1990

I also got to know Bill Lamond closely, particularly during my period as Minister for Industry. At that time Bill performed with great distinction the role of mediator of the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal. Firstly, I pay tribute to Ken, who was a great gentleman. Approximately six months into the 1981 Parliament I got to know him very well when I joined a parliamentary delegation to South East Asia with the former Ministers for Police and Justice and the members for Gympie and Warwick. Ken Tomkins demonstrated a great love and understanding of people. He had a very distinguished career in this Parliament and in commerce. To his wife Lillian and his family, I offer my sincere condolences. Although I did not serve in Parliament with Bill Lamond, the Deputy Premier demonstrated very clearly to this House the great degree of respect in which Bill was held by representatives of all political parties. He was born on 13 July 1920. He saw service in World War II in New Guinea and the Pacific. Bill was a founder of the Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club and was largely responsible for the building of the Wynnum State High School. He was the member for Wynnum from 1974 to 1977. Bill Lamond became chairman of the Small Business Development Corporation and was subsequently appointed mediator under the provisions of the Retail Shop Leases Act. Bill Lamond was not only a very good friend of mine but also a well-respected employee of the public service of the State of Queensland. The Retail Shop Leases Act was a pioneering piece of legislation in 1980. The primary reason why it worked so well was that Bill Lamond was in charge of its day-to-day administration. Bill's life spanned some 70 years and was littered with achievements. However, in my view, the introduction of that legislation was probably the most outstanding service that Bill Lamond rendered to the people of Queensland, particularly the small-business sector, with which he had a very close affinity. Bill Lamond was the principal architect of that legislation. When it was introduced it was greeted with a degree of scepticism from all sides of the Parliament. However, the legislation worked, and it is pleasing that its effectiveness has been acknowledged by this Government. Indeed, the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business recently introduced legislation to build on the work that Bill Lamond carried out. It is important to note that, in his recently released report on small business, the current Federal Minister for Small Business, David Beddall, made various references to the legislation for retail lease mediation in Queensland, for which Bill Lamond was responsible. In his report, Mr Beddall said— "His committee supports the establishment of an independent body to hear disputes between landlord and tenant. The disputes tribunal created in Queensland could serve as a model for similar tribunals in other States." The success of the tribunal did not occur by accident; it was the result of Bill Lamond's dedication and hard work. The tribunal's success was Bill's success. His dedication to making the legislation work is evidenced by the fact that more than 80 per cent of all disputes referred to him under that legislation were satisfactorily resolved. Prior to the introduction of the legislation and prior to Bill's appointment as mediator, that aspect was a minefield for landlords, tenants and Governments. More than any other person, Bill Lamond was responsible for improving relations between landlords and tenants under retail lease agreements in Queensland. His patience and his genuine concern for fair play earned him the respect of people throughout the State. I pay a personal tribute to Bill for the invaluable assistance that he gave me during my time as Minister for Industry. His preparation of legislation was meticulous, well researched and well developed through close consultation with various interest groups, in whose eyes he was well regarded. His loyalty in carrying out his duties was absolute. I am sure that he extended the same courtesy to the new Minister. His expertise in the area of mediation will be sadly missed by all honourable members who had occasion to call on his services. Legislative Assembly 2462 31 July 1990

As the Deputy Premier mentioned, his loss is even greater for the people of Wynnum, who came to regard him almost as a de facto mayor. He was very deeply involved in local affairs right up to the day he died. To his family—his wife Bettina, his six children, 18 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren—I express my deepest sympathy at their sad loss. Just as they will not forget Bill, neither will the business community of this State forget him and the great contribution that he has made. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.39 a.m.): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I pay tribute to both Ken Tomkins and Bill Lamond. Although I did not have the pleasure of sitting in this Chamber with either gentleman, many former Liberal members have very fond memories of them. I personally knew both gentlemen very well, particularly Ken, whom I got to know very well over many years when I was involved in the Brisbane City Council. Ken Tomkins was certainly a gentleman and a person who was responsible for making great achievements, some of which have already been mentioned today. In addition to being involved in local government activities, Ken was a racehorse-owner. He had many wonderful times on the racetrack. He was well known throughout the State as a cattle-breeder. His love of the land was also well known. When he came into this place he brought with him a great deal of that expertise, which flowed over into the fellowship and the friendship that he attained with many members of this place. Ken Tomkins was not only a gentleman but also a great achiever. Perhaps in some respects he was a quiet achiever, but nevertheless he was a great achiever. Many of his achievements will be remembered in this State for many years. The mark that he has made in this State, both in community affairs and in this Parliament, will not be forgotten. On behalf not only of present Liberal Party members but also former members who have many fond memories of Ken and his family, I extend to his wife Lillian and his family our deepest sympathies and condolences. Bill Lamond did not serve in this place for as many years as Ken did. Nevertheless, he left his mark, particularly in the small-business area, as has been mentioned. Mention has also been made of his love of the sea. Over many years he built up a tremendous following in the Wynnum area which, as a previous speaker mentioned, allowed him to gain a seat in this place—something that he would not otherwise have been able to do. Bill was a well respected person who had a great involvement in many community activities. He displayed generosity to the people with whom he associated. He was responsible for many achievements, not only on behalf of shop-keepers through the Retail Shop Leases Act but also on behalf of businesspeople in the community. In the broader community generally, Bill Lamond will be remembered for many, many years. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I extend to his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren the condolences of the Liberal Party. Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville East—Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business) (10.42 a.m.): I wish to place on record my expression of sadness at the passing of two former members of this Parliament. I knew both of them quite well. I served with Ken during the period 1980 to 1983. After five members have already spoken about their passing, it is very difficult to introduce any new material. I will not cover the ground that has already been covered, but I will certainly endorse the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to Ken. He was a gentleman. He was an old country squire. I guess that, in years past, times were more relaxed. He was a very friendly and affable fellow, particularly outside the Chamber. I believe that in the Chamber he did his job very well. Although I was not a member of this Parliament when Bill Lamond was a member, I became acquainted with him long before I met him in my capacity as the Minister responsible for the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal. Bill would always write to me and let Legislative Assembly 2463 31 July 1990 me know when he was coming to Townsville and ask me whether there were any problems. If he had the time, he would drop in and see me. I really knew Bill before I became a Minister. From the time I became a Minister, Bill was right on the ball to brief me—not to harass me—and to keep me informed of those things about which I needed to know. I very quickly became reliant on his information. I could see the depth of knowledge that he had built up over the years. One of the last jobs that he did before he passed on involved going to Townsville to sort out a problem which had existed for a couple of years but which had previously not been resolved with any success. As a matter of fact, one of the people involved was the lady who stood against me as the Liberal candidate in the most recent election. Problems had arisen in getting the owners, who were based in Melbourne, to talk to the tenants. Bill managed to arrange for a meeting to take place. The owners flew up from Melbourne. Although quite a heated meeting occurred, Bill showed what a persuader he really was. As a result of that meeting, a very long-standing problem was resolved to the great satisfaction of the tenants in the centre. As a further indication of his dedication to the job, I point out that while Bill was lying on his deathbed in Wesley Hospital I received a request from his wife to go and see him. He knew that he was on the way out, but he was so dedicated that he wanted to make certain that I knew about some things that still had to be done. He wanted to ensure that after his passing the work with which he had become so involved would be carried on. From 1984 onwards, Bill took over the role of spokesman for that industry. He was respected by everyone. I saw no evidence whatsoever of Bill's political persuasion, one way or the other, in his activities. I offer my condolences to his widow and to Mrs Tomkins. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (10.46 a.m.): I join in the condolence motion that was moved by the Premier and in those tributes that have been paid by the Premier, the deputy Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business. The late Hon. Kenneth Burgoyne Tomkins was born in Sydney in 1917. He was educated at the Goondiwindi State School and Kings College at Parramatta, which he attended from 1929 to 1933. In 1943 he married his wife, Lillian, and together they raised a family of four attractive daughters—Rosie, Libby, Anne and Helen. I was privileged to count Ken—"KB" as he was often referred to— as a friend. I came to know him well in his political life. He entered Parliament on 24 June 1967 as a result of a by-election following the death of the late W. M. Ewan, who was then the member for Roma. In the context of the remarks made by the Deputy Premier, it would not be out of place for me to recall a story about Bill Ewan, Ken Tomkins' predecessor. Bill lost his seat in this House for one short term. Subsequently, Bill, Ken and I discussed the reasons for that loss. Bill told it this way: immediately prior to an election, he refused a salary increase that had been granted to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I am sure that the present member for Roma, Russell Cooper, has heard this story. After being defeated, Bill was poking around Roma and spoke to an old supporter, a pensioner, at a garage. This man said, "Bill, I am sorry that you lost your seat, but I had to vote against you." Bill said, "I cannot understand why. We have been friends for a long time and you have always supported me." The pensioner said, "But, Bill, you refused to take a salary increase. What hope have I got of you helping me get an increase in my pension?" Members on both sides of this House should remember that story. In 1967, when Ken Tomkins entered this Parliament, the electorate of Roma encompassed an area of 57 150 square kilometres, slightly larger than the present Legislative Assembly 2464 31 July 1990 electorate but with a similar voting population of 8 400 people. At that time, the electorate of Roma included my home town of Wandoan. I remember well the preselection plebiscite system. Ken Tomkins and I endorsed the plebiscite system, as I am sure Russell Cooper does, because we all won our plebiscites. At that time, another person was very involved with the then Country Party, a personality remembered by fewer and fewer people—Colonel Hatton. Ken Tomkins won that plebiscite and, for a number of years, he and I worked together in the political arena. From 1969 to 1972 I was chairman of his Roma electorate council. I had continuous dealings with him when I held various positions within the National Party, such as State vice-president and divisional council president. In 1980, following a redistribution, as the member for Auburn I was privileged to work with Ken in this Parliament. Ken was a person who was prepared to listen and not simply give lip-service to representations made to him. As the Leader of the Liberal Party stated, Ken was an achiever, but today many of his achievements probably are not appreciated. I recall very well a problem in my home town of Wandoan, and it was only through Ken's being prepared to listen that a satisfactory outcome was achieved. Ken said to me, "Neville, you draw up what you want. Work it out with the local people and then give it to me." I did that and, as a result of Ken's efforts, Wandoan has its present hotel/motel and a police station. Many other facilities have flowed on from Ken's efforts. As I say, he was an achiever, but those efforts are not often fully appreciated. He was a gentlemanly person. He was quietly spoken, even when angered, but he had a quiet sense of humour. In short, it could be said that he was a gentlemanly man who enjoyed living. He served his community in many fields. Being a member of a rural community, his activities were essentially rural orientated. He was a breeder of fine Hereford cattle. The Stuarts Creek annual Hereford bull sale is an event that is known throughout Australia, indeed, throughout the Hereford breeding world. Ken Tomkins was a developer of country. He saw fit to improve pasture to make the country a better place for his presence—better for the community in general as well as for his own interest. It has been said that he held an interest in racehorses. I agree that the clashes between Prince Ruling and Kingston Town will long be remembered in racing circles. Ken Tomkins was President of the Maranoa Graziers Association. He was a member of the UGA Executive Council, and he served on the Queensland Government's meat-handling authority. The late Ken Tomkins was closely associated with, if not instrumental in, the development of Bassett Park in Roma, which is a community recreational area, probably unsurpassed in rural Australia for the facilities provided. As a sporting complex, it includes a racecourse, a showground, a rodeo ground and a convention centre. Ken's public spirit was demonstrated by his service as a councillor on the Bungil Shire Council from 1949 to 1967 and then his subsequent term as chairman of that council from 1967 to 1975. Between 1949 and 1975, he served the community as a shire councillor. That is a service which is often not fully appreciated, particularly by urban dwellers. If any person has served his community well in the area of local government, it must surely be the late Ken Tomkins. He retired from this Legislative Assembly on 22 October 1983, after having served it well as Minister for Lands, Forestry, National Parks and Wildlife, from December 1974 to December 1977, as Minister for Transport, from December 1977 to December 1980, and, finally, as Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, from December 1980 to December 1982. It was in that latter portfolio that he and his long-term friend, Vic Sullivan, enjoyed a spot of fishing in the Torres Strait. In telling that story, people often forget that Ken Legislative Assembly 2465 31 July 1990

Tomkins was there because he was Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. The Leader of the Opposition said that the fishing always began after 5 o'clock in the afternoon. As a member of the navy, I spent some time in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait. I am not ashamed to say that we threw a line out occasionally, too. In the course of our work, which often involved moving from place to place, we had lines trawling behind the ship. There were no Courier-Mail photographers flying above us taking photographs. At the time of the Melbourne Cup, the radio on every ship in the flotilla was tuned into the Melbourne Cup. We did not hit the headlines. Ordinary people do these things regularly. They go on their fishing trips, and their photographs do not appear on the front page of the newspaper. The reason why the photograph of Ken Tomkins and Vic Sullivan appeared in the newspaper was that they were members of Parliament. All honourable members know that there are few people who other people like to kick more than politicians. I agree with the Deputy Premier that that was an unfortunate event. However, it happened; but it is past now. To a large degree, it was a sad reflection upon a number of people and interests at the time. On behalf of the people of Auburn and my own colleagues, I place on record my appreciation of the gentlemanly man, Ken Tomkins, and express my sincere sympathy to his widow and family. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (10.57 a.m.): The main reason I rise to speak to this motion is to pay tribute to Ken Tomkins. I enjoyed Ken's company. I attended his funeral. One only had to look at the large number of people from Roma and the number of politicians and former politicians who were there to appreciate that he was a well- respected man. For some reason or another, Ken Tomkins and I used to enjoy sitting around a table at night and having a drink. I certainly appreciated that. An Opposition member interjected. Mr BOOTH: Yes, he did. I wish my constitution was still strong enough to enable me to drink as much as I could in those days; but that is another story. Ken Tomkins was always a tolerant man. He never tried to kick people when they were down. Through tolerance, he often managed to get his own way. Amazingly, sometimes the tolerant approach is the best approach. I extend my sympathies to his family. Ken Tomkins was one of the most respected men who ever entered this Parliament. He was appreciated by his friends. Together with several members of the Opposition, I accompanied Ken Tomkins on an overseas trip. It was a happy trip. Ken Tomkins conducted himself well. He was very tolerant and he expected other people to be the same. Before we returned to Australia, I was frightened that he might start a war. He simply thought that other people should view matters in the same light as he saw them. I did not know Bill Lamond as well as I knew Ken Tomkins. Bill always took the opportunity to call into my office. I am pleased also to be able to pay a tribute to him. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.59 a.m.): Likewise, I pay tribute to Ken Tomkins and Bill Lamond. I have something in common with Ken insofar as I was elected to Parliament at a by-election. Bearing that in mind, we could both relate to the difficulties that a newly elected member experiences in acclimatising himself to this Chamber under those circumstances. I remember Ken's good work, particularly in transport. I had several discussions with him on road safety, particularly the driver education centre with which I am involved in my own area. Ken was always willing to listen and give assistance wherever and whenever it was required in the setting up of that centre. Legislative Assembly 2466 31 July 1990

I remember also his work in water resources. Honourable members have already referred to some of his activities. I can also remember some of the not-so-pleasant comments, such as when changes were made to remove from local authorities some authority over water supply. I asked Ken to come up and talk to the local authorities in Gympie and Widgee. He said, "No, that won't be necessary, Len. You go ahead and do it. I have great confidence in you." I hope I was able to live up to the confidence he had in me. Reference has been made to his overseas trips. At one stage, he was on the receiving end. The representatives of one country were pointing out the area of land in that country and Ken said, without malice, "Yes, well, that is about the same area as my property." That indicates the size of the property controlled by Ken and the work involved in running it. I was not in this House with Bill Lamond, but I came across him on many occasions after he left the House, particularly on matters of small business and retail outlets. He left no stone unturned in his efforts to get round the community and communicate with the small-business world. That was very much appreciated in the country areas of Queensland. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (11.03 a.m.): I take pleasure in joining with other honourable members in this motion of condolence. I was a member of Parliament with both of these gentlemen—and gentlemen they were. Firstly, I pay tribute to Bill Lamond. As was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—I am sorry, the Deputy Leader of the Government; that is one of those Freudian slips we still make—Bill Lamond bore no malice towards anyone. I certainly had a great relationship with him. I enjoyed working with him. Today, I record my condolence, particularly to Bettina. I have always liked her. She has always been very pleasant to all of us and particularly to our wives. The person I knew best, of course, was Ken Tomkins. I have some very interesting recollections of him. My first knowledge of him was before I met him. I worked for his cousin who lived near me. When he went to the Roma show, he stayed with Ken. Later, I asked him how he got on. He said, "It was all right except for the trips in and out from Ken's place." I asked him the problem and he said, "He has this old Merc. I don't think he has quite got out of riding horses. He drives the car hard into all of the gullies, stands in the stirrups, and the car bottoms in the bulldust in the gullies, and away he goes again. Somehow the old Merc hangs together. I am not too sure how." Later, I was with Ken on a ministerial trip somewhere out near Westgrove. He took over the wheel of the car, and it was evident that he had not changed much. All of those years had not changed his style of driving at all. I do not know how he was on a horse; I never had the privilege of being beside him on a horse rattling through the scrub. He might have been fairly wild in his young days. When he was Minister for Lands and I was a member of his committee, we travelled through the gulf country and Cape York Peninsula. We stayed on a number of the gulf properties. It was really quite an experience. Whatever else Ken had, he had a tremendous knowledge of the west, the land and how things should be done on the land. He had the ability to do those things himself. There is an old adage that some people who walk with kings ne'er lose the common touch. Ken had that ability. The older members of the Government would attest to that fact. That is a rare quality. Many people who are born in high places or achieve high status in life do not have the ability to communicate with people in all walks of life. I pay tribute to Ken, particularly for that. It is a gift. If more people were prepared to act like that, this country of ours would be a hell of a lot better. I am sure that Lillian, Rosie, Libby, Anne and Helen will have many fond memories of Ken. In the end, the loss of their father was a blessed relief to all. They will have many pleasant memories to look back on. As a friend to all of them, I pay a tribute to Ken in this place today. Legislative Assembly 2467 31 July 1990

Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.06 a.m.): I speak briefly about these two gentlemen, both of whom I knew well. I do not want to reiterate all that has been said about Ken Tomkins, who was a very successful businessman. He had one of the best and finest cattle studs in the State. His work enabled the rest of us to produce far more weight of beef than would otherwise have been the case. By the time he left his property, he had improved it so much that it could run two or three times the number of cattle it could carry originally. That is what business is about. He was president of the United Graziers Association, a shire councillor, a member of Parliament and a Minister for a long time. That, as well as the stories that have been related, attest to his being a good bloke. There was no difference in the way he treated members of the Government and members of the Opposition. He understood human nature. He had a few human frailties. It is difficult to think of Ken without thinking of Vic Sullivan. They could be seen together at the races, the Rugby League, fishing, and enjoying an odd drink or two. Those two were able to identify with others who had human frailties. They brought a humanity to Government that these days people probably do not see enough of. That was the reason for their outstanding success, in spite of the fact that they probably had a style that was more suited to days past than to the present day. I was very close to Bill Lamond. We entered Parliament together,and he and I were on a number of committees together. He was the first National Party member to ever win a city seat. I agree with the Honourable Deputy Leader of the Government, who said that except for the fact that Bill Lamond was a candidate, the seat would never have been won by the National Party. During Bill Lamond's 30 or 40 years, there was hardly anything that occurred at the bayside with which Bill was not intimately associated. The very rise of the term "bayside" occurred at the same time as Bill Lamond came to prominence. The rise of the bayside and the rise of Bill Lamond were interlinked. I strongly support the remarks made by my own deputy leader, who said that the success of legislation referred to earlier was very much attributable to Bill Lamond. If there is some criticism to be made of Ken Tomkins, let me say that, effectively, I inherited an administration from him, and I can say that there were enormous difficulties with it. I could have been the Good Lord who had come again, but there was nothing much that could be done with the internal administration and the situation that existed. Although much of the credit for the success of the legislation should be attributed to the Minister, credit must also go to Bill Lamond for the way in which he was able to handle difficult problems. Those of us who at that time were members of the Parliament would remember that that was also a period of proliferation of shopping centres throughout the State. The venomous fighting that occurred was really Bill Lamond's problem; but, because of his endeavours, it ceased to be a problem. I strongly endorse the valuable comments made by both deputy leaders. Ken Tomkins and Bill Lamond were two men who had a great depth of humanity at all times, which was the reason for their enormous political success. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Foreign Investment Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (11.11 a.m.): I rise to mention a matter that is certainly of public interest and very relevant to society. I refer to the chaos into which the Goss Government is leading this State in relation to foreign investment. Lately, people have seen a charade and have heard a series of statements that not only have led this State into international disrepute but also will lead to a situation in which job opportunities in this State will diminish rapidly and in which investment potential will wither on the vine. Legislative Assembly 2468 31 July 1990

A front-page article in today's Sun really says it all. The article suggests that Queensland is going along the path of the other Australian States, particularly the Labor States. It is beyond my comprehension how Mr De Lacy—Queensland's part-time Treasurer, I suggest—can be so surprised at the suggestions that are being made. The article states that Mr De Lacy expressed disbelief at criticisms of Queensland that are contained in a "damning opening summary of the annual Moody's report" into Australian States. The article states— "Mr De Lacy said criticisms in the report were 'not only wrong but Moody's knows they are wrong.' " Investors in this State are starting to vote with their feet. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation. Members who wish to speak to each other should do so outside the Chamber. Mr STONEMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the last few days, the Treasurer of Queensland has moved from the warm lettuce syndrome—as the former Premier and member for Landsborough, Mr Ahern, termed it—to a hot potato syndrome, and he should be dropped. Within Government ranks, a division is developing that is not only profound but also being noticed across the nation and internationally. The Federal member for Leichhardt, Mr Gayler, has stood up and said to Queensland's Treasurer, "Butt out! You don't know what you're talking about." I do not think that there would be one investor in this State, this nation or overseas who would disagree with the suggestion that Mr De Lacy does not know what he is talking about. He should not only butt out, but also be dropped. Recently at a function in Gladstone, Mr Gibbs endorsed publicly the remarks that he had previously made on the Gold Coast. He said— "Without foreign investment in Queensland, tourism is dead." Yet the hot potato, who was formerly the warm lettuce, is trying to kill foreign investment! Contrary to the picture that the Premier and others are trying to paint, the action taken by the Trade Practices Commission is not the real reason for the Daikyo freeze. In fact, that action should be looked upon as a last-straw effort. For how long can investors in this State cop the muddying of the waters and the shilly-shallying around, the parochialism and, sadly, the racist undertones and overtones that are epitomised by statements made by the Treasurer? Over the last few days, in an attempt to divert attention from the problem, the Premier has indulged in carping criticism. If one reads transcripts of his radio broadcasts, one sees that he has referred constantly to the white-shoe brigade, which is a futile attempt to divert attention from the basic issue. A lack of confidence is growing daily in the business community, and it is underlined by the Daikyo decision to freeze its operations. Investment at any level is based on confidence. When confidence is in any way diminished, a decrease in investor confidence, a withdrawal of funds and a reduction in development automatically follow. The Premier and the Treasurer must understand that they are now in Government. They are acting as though they are in Opposition. Every statement that they make sends a signal that must be taken seriously by the whole community. The Premier must immediately send a signal to the community that the Government has recognised its bungle over foreign investment and the bungles that are being made daily by Mr De Lacy. He must show us that he is serious by removing the loose cannon or warm lettuce/hot potato from his position as Treasurer. That is the only way that this problem can be overcome. If Mr De Lacy is allowed to continue to attack foreign investment in his own electorate and if the Goss Government endorses that policy in other areas and attacks what it calls the white-shoe brigade, it will be to the detriment of the vast majority of Legislative Assembly 2469 31 July 1990 developers who have brought the Gold Coast and, therefore, Queensland to pre-eminence in world investment terms. Mr Borbidge: They didn't reject the stamp duty. Mr STONEMAN: The Government certainly did not reject the stamp duty. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised that point. I am positive that Treasury figures will reveal a dramatic flattening-out—if not a diminishment—in the growth of stamp duty collections in this State, on which so many people depend and on which this Government must depend for its income. The Government has assumed that there is an automatic continuation of the increase in stamp duty receipts. However, it has found a way to stop that. It has found a way to drive investors away, to stop the markets and to drive this State towards the Western Australian and Victorian models with such ease that one must be concerned. The suggestion has been made that the word "profit" is dirty, and that it is particularly dirty when it applies to a foreign investor. The Premier has stated that the Government does not mind investors being involved in value-added areas, but it will not allow them to be involved in speculative areas. What does "speculative" mean? How are we to judge whether the purchase of the Four Seasons Hotel in Cairns is speculative? It could be one of the greatest loss operations that Daikyo or any other foreign investor ever entered into. No-one can look into a crystal ball and have knowledge of what will occur in the future. Even if it were to be speculative—I look upon it as a cash-flow situation—it underlines the fact that foreign investors, like Australian investors, must have a balanced investment. The Treasurer and the Premier are saying, "We do not mind if you invest, as long as you invest at high risk and leave behind a lot of dead wood and a graveyard of foreign investment in this State." At present, the Queensland market has limited buyers and limited developers. The Australian market environment virtually precludes local investment. We have record interest rates and record tax rates. We also have an uncertain industrial climate, which has been created by the undertaker of industrial relations in this State, Mr Warburton. As well, as has been pointed out time and time again, we have muddy foreign investment guidelines. There is also an open slanging match going on between the State and Federal Labor Governments. In those circumstances, one wonders why anybody would invest in Queensland, let alone an organisation such as Daikyo, which has made such a large commitment to the State. Areas of concern exist which should be worked through logically and reasonably. However, the Government is making ad hoc policy decisions. It has swept aside an Australian company from an island near Gladstone. One company can mine 100 per cent at one end of the reef but, at the other end, Green Island is allowed to wither and die. What will happen in 10 years time? Green Island is held under a leasehold tenure and the Government already owns 100 per cent of it. The Treasurer has used Green Island as the rabbit that he has pulled out of the hat. He has discovered that it is impossible to impose leasehold tenure over freehold land. It just does not happen. The Government has a Cairns policy, a Brisbane policy, a mining policy and a Gladstone policy. It is okay if it is an "at risk" policy. Mr FitzGerald: The De Lacy policy and the Gayler policy. Mr STONEMAN: The Government has a Gayler policy. Unfortunately, at the moment, it has a De Lacy policy. Unless the Goss Government sends a clear and unequivocal signal to the international investment community that it has been wrong by removing the Treasurer and returning to the formula that has been tried and tested and has led the State to pre-eminence, Queensland will surely move down the Western Australian line, the Victorian line and further down the line along which the Goss Government is taking this State at the moment. Legislative Assembly 2470 31 July 1990

Report by Moody's Investors Services Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development) (11.21 a.m.): Today, I principally wish to address some of the misconceptions that have arisen this morning following media coverage of the latest report by Moody's Investors Services and its comments on Queensland. However, I also wish to respond to the remarks made by the Opposition spokesman on Finance. He was not very impressive. He did not say anything new. If that is the best that he can do, he should sit down. I note that the honourable member called on me to resign. I will not be drawn into that trap. Mr STONEMAN: I rise to a point of order. That is a total misinterpretation of the statement I made. I did not call on the Treasurer to resign; I called on the Premier to sack him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Chair will not countenance another point of order like that. Mr De LACY: I will not be drawn into Mr Stoneman's trap and ask for his resignation for fear that he will accept the invitation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Treasurer continue his speech. Mr De LACY: At the outset I must say that the references in this morning's Australian to the comments contained in the report regarding the role of Queensland's central borrowing authority, the Queensland Treasury Corporation, and its relationship with the Government are wrong, and comprehensibly wrong. The Government has no fundamental objections to the remainder of the comments contained in the report, as I will show. However, for the sake of accuracy, I will quote relevant sections of the report which were not covered in media reports this morning. I have only received a copy of Moody's assessment this morning. Firstly, the section of the report covering political developments states— "The most noteworthy political event in Queensland this past year has been the change in political leadership." It then talks about the landslide election. It continues— "Statements by the new premier Wayne Goss and treasurer Keith de Lacy indicate that they are 'economic rationalists' who are pro-business and pro-development. In particular, the government holds that the private sector has the primary role in generating economic activity and employment and that growth must be the precursor to the fulfillment of social objectives. The Goss government will focus on deregulation and the development of the state's core industries." The article talks about this Government's program for reform. It states— "Reforms are aimed at restoring faith in public institutions, which were shaken following the improprieties of the previous administration. Every section of the government plus the 1100 statutory bodies are being asked to justify their functions. Senior civil servants may soon be paid based on performance. Government is to become more accountable and efficient. In the process of restructuring, administration costs may be cut by as much as 10%. Government-business relations are being reexamined in the light of past practices, including financial irregularities and cronyism. Premier Goss wants to distance his administration from the interventionist approaches of two other State Labor Parties: the Burke/Dowding 'WA Inc" style in Western Australia, and the Cain/Jolly practice in Victoria of backing risky venture-capital enterprises. Instead Mr Goss intends to cultivate an arms-length facilitative role for the Government rather than direct State involvement in business. There have been no allegations of financial impropriety on the part of Queensland's central financial authority, the Queensland Treasury Corporation." Legislative Assembly 2471 31 July 1990

To further put this latest Moody's report in context, I quote from another section dealing with economic and financial trends. It would do honourable members well to listen. It states— "The new Government intends to address long-standing weaknesses in the economy. For example, income per capita and wages remain below the national average. New private business investment has performed significantly below the Australia-wide average. The unemployment rate exceeds the national average, and manufacturing accounts for a smaller proportion of the state economy than in other states. There is a recognised need to broaden the state's economic base to ensure future growth and to reduce vulnerability to global commodity price shifts. The new administration hopes to provide the appropriate environment to attract investment in industries which add value to rural and mineral products. Like its predecessors, the Goss government believes in the 'minimalist' approach, i.e., a low-tax, low-expenditure policy." When honourable members read or hear the full text of these two sections, they may have a different view of Moody's assessment from the one gained by reading this morning's newspapers. I want to address the key section of the report to which we as a Government—and a new Government at that—take greatest exception. I refer to the section dealing with the central borrowing authorities of the States which implies that we as a Government are embarking on an interventionist approach to our economic policies. I refer to the latest Moody's report, which states— "The distinction between government and business enterprises becomes blurred, and the risks of secret deals and abuse of power are heightened. This process has already shaken the governments of Western Australia and Victoria. Queensland may now be embarking on the same path, having reorganised its CBA." I refer to the corresponding section of the March 1989 Moody's report, which was compiled when the previous Government was in power. It states— ". . . CBAs are becoming entrepreneurs or commercial risk-takers in enterprises of inherently uncertain, and sometimes dubious, value. The distinction between government and business becomes blurred. This process has already shaken the governments of Western Australia and Victoria. Queensland may now be embarking on the same path, having reorganised its CBA." Honourable members will note that the comments by Moody's in March 1989, which refer to the former National Party Government, are almost identical to those in its latest report. The criticism contained in those sections of the last two Moody's reports refers to the very existence of a central borrowing authority—the Queensland Treasury Corporation, which, with the support of the then Opposition, was established in 1988 by the Ahern Government. It was the former Government that allowed the Queensland Treasury Corporation to operate for some months and make investments totalling $500m without the benefit or control of an investment advisory board. I invite honourable members to look at those investments, with particular reference to one of them. I quote again from the Moody's report. It states— "The QTC's urban property portfolio amounts to A$700 million. QTC claims it does not invest in high-risk ventures, but its shareholdings did include Qintex Australia Ltd, a major firm in financial straits." Let us not forget that the decision to invest in Qintex was made, in effect, by the former Government—before the Investment Advisory Board of the QTC was in place. As I said at the start of my speech, this Government takes great exception to the section Legislative Assembly 2472 31 July 1990 of the Moody's report that gives the impression that this Government is somehow repeating the mistakes of its predecessors. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my time as Treasurer, I have done nothing to change the statutory basis or organisation of the QTC. However, I have made it clear to the corporation that neither I, as Minister, nor the Government will seek to direct it in relation to its investment decisions. The QTC's investment policy is clear—to get the best possible return at acceptable levels of risk. I make no apologies for criticising the presentation by Moody's of this section of its report. It is wrong; it is as simple as that. The section of the report dealing with spending and taxes draws no conclusions about this new Government. It states— "Premier Goss has promised not to raise total taxes and charges as a share of GSP." To address that statement fully would require me to prejudge the outcome of the State Budget, but I do not intend to do that. In conclusion, I restate clearly this Government's position on taxes and spending. This Government stands by its threefold commitment. It will not borrow for social infrastructure; it will borrow only for projects that can repay debt. This Government will not be introducing any new taxes, and increases will be kept at or below the inflation rate. It will continue to exercise fiscal restraint and responsibility at a level that has never been seen in this State. In other words, this Government will not indulge in the kind of spending orgy in which the previous Government indulged prior to last year's State election. Labor Party Attitude to Logging of Fraser Island Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.31 a.m.): I wish to highlight the contempt with which the Labor Party regards the forestry industry. One needs only to consider the inquiry into the logging of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Straits region to realise that this Government is losing the support of the forest industry and the greenies. The Government cannot maintain its current attitude and expect to gain the support of any sector of the community. Many people are beginning to question the actions of the protesters who are sitting on tripods on Fraser Island. The Minister for Environment and Heritage has said, "I will speak to the protesters. I will tell them what they can and cannot do and let them know where they stand." Those people already know that. They have been professional protesters for a long time. In fact, one of them was arrested because he failed to appear in court in relation to an incident in the Daintree region. For a long time the Government has said that it will take action against the protesters. Although those people are almost at the end of their tethers, they are doing what they like. For example, on how many occasions have they been lost on Fraser Island while trying to find the tracks that loggers have developed? Mr Beattie: Is this part of a quiz game? Do we get a prize if we get it right? Mr STEPHAN: No. I am sure that the honourable member would also get lost if he went to Fraser Island. Did the protesters receive permission from the department to cut down saplings to make those tripods, or did they do it off their own bat? Were they taken to task over that? What action did the Government take on that? Those protesters did exactly what they have been accusing everybody else of doing. The protesters claimed that the original blockade of the sawmill on the mainland was a great success. Although they stopped the mill from operating, it was not going to operate that day, anyway. One must wonder what the future holds for the forestry industry, building programs, furniture-manufacturers and other related industries. Dr Robert Bain, the executive director of the National Association of Forest Industries, issued a plea to protesters to "allow the umpire to make his decision in Legislative Assembly 2473 31 July 1990 peace". Dr Bain said that the protest, which was led by the Brisbane-based Rainforest Action Group, was an attempt to pre-empt the umpire's decision. He said also that the environment movement should allow the inquiry to proceed in an atmosphere of peace, not confrontation. With some hesitancy, the Premier has made comments about logging on the island. I wonder how long it will be before logging resumes on the island. What will happen when this Government, Mr Goss and his Ministers are called upon to make a decision? Will pressure groups continue to cause disruptions while other sectors of the community are expected to obey the law? Would a similar situation be allowed to occur on mainland roads? Would 40 or 50 people be allowed to sit on tripods on highways or streets simply because they objected to a particular development? Of course not! If protesters on the mainland are not allowed to do that, why can protesters on Fraser Island get away with it? The 30 to 50 protesters who have set up blockades in the eight logging blocks on the island have disrupted the viability of those logging areas. The Premier said that, under this Government, the diversity of opinion and the right to protest are accepted, but breaches of the law which deliberately obstruct others from earning their livelihood and exercising their lawful right will not and should not be tolerated. Honourable members have not seen any evidence of that. It is obvious that one law exists for the majority and another for the protesters. Although the Fraser Island protesters may be marching under a green banner, that does not alter the fact that they are breaking the law simply because the umpire's decision went against their wishes. Although the protesters said that they would not abide by the guidelines of the inquiry, the media is now covering their activities on the island for no reason other than to highlight their point of view. Are the protesters taking every aspect into account? Are they taking into account just what the forestry industry and the logging industry have done and will continue to do in this State? The timber industry is vital to the economy. It is becoming apparent that the ALP Government, including the Labor politicians in the electorates concerned, places more importance on the cessation of logging than on people themselves. The Government should bear in mind that long-time timber-workers have expressed dismay at the Government's suggestion to shut out logging from the 10 000 hectares of land—the doughnut area—adjoining the Cooloola national park. Apart from the loss of jobs, the cessation of logging would affect the availability of hardwood, as this alternative species is not available anywhere else in Queensland or, in fact, anywhere else in Australia. I remind the Government that at present Queensland is importing vast quantities of timber. Unless logging is allowed to proceed under the strict guidelines that have been set by the Forestry Department over a long period, this State will suffer financially and building projects will be affected. The shadow Minister for Transport has just spoken about the dire straits that the economy is in at present and also about the Daikyo incident in north Queensland which has not been handled very well by this Government. Heaven help us if such a situation is allowed to occur in relation to other areas of the economy! I refer now to the western part of Fraser Island and to the area known as "A Flat". Clearing and planting in that area has been stopped. The 80 hectares under consideration is a relatively small section of the total area, which has been managed very well indeed. The natural environment has been left in a very large portion of that area. Because of the attitude displayed by a small section of the community, the Minister has ordered the cessation of clearing and planting in that area. That area has never been in danger of being damaged by such activities. In fact, the plantations that have been established there have grown exceptionally well and have made a great contribution to the State and also to the natural flora and fauna in the area. Legislative Assembly 2474 31 July 1990

This is yet another example of the Labor Government pulling down rather than building up. It has not taken into account what the timber industry is doing and it has not taken into account what the Queensland Forest Service, with all its resources and expertise, has been able to offer. That service monitors every stage of harvesting and ensures that logging is carried out on a rotational basis and that regenerated timber is available for the next generation. It is a fallacy that timber companies go into the forest and cut down whatever they like. They are restricted in what they can cut down and the quantity of timber that they can fall. As the timber that may be logged has been marked by the industry, it cannot be said that timber companies cut down whatever they like. Time expired. Differential Rating by Brisbane City Council Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.41 a.m.): Prior to the last State election, the Australian Labor Party promised that it would support a policy of autonomy for local authorities, a policy that is supported strongly by members of this House. However, when abuses of the autonomy of local authorities occur, it is important that they be exposed in this House. I deal in particular with the rating policy introduced by the Brisbane City Council. My office has been inundated by people from Spring Hill and other suburbs, who are being savaged by this rating policy. Even if Mick Veivers lived in Brisbane, he could not afford to pay the rates. Let me cite a couple of examples. One of my constituents in Spring Hill, a Mr W. G. Fox, has written to me stating basically, "What do you think of this for a rip-off for a pensioner? How can anyone be expected to pay these exorbitant increases?" Rates are rising through the roof, not only in Spring Hill but also in West End, Highgate Hill, Herston, Kelvin Grove, Paddington and other areas throughout the city. In three years, rates for rental properties in Spring Hill have risen almost 200 per cent. The impact on people who are renting has been and will be devastating. The people hardest hit—and this is the central point—are those who are least able to pay. Let me refer to the Brisbane City Council's idea of what an equitable differential rating policy is. Those people whose property is valued to $50,000—those in the poorer bracket—pay the highest rate in the dollar. Those people whose properties are valued between $50,000 and $100,000 pay the second-highest rate. But guess who pays the lowest rate in the dollar? It is those whose properties are valued at more than $100,000. The higher the value of the property, the lower the rate. It is a case of the poor being bludgeoned to pay for the rich. There is no way that that policy can be justified by the Brisbane City Council. This Parliament gave the Brisbane City Council autonomy to introduce a fair and equitable rating policy. So what did the council do? It got stuck into the people who cannot afford to pay the increased rates. It got stuck into the people who will now be struggling simply to buy a home and in fact to hold onto that home when it is bought. In fact, people in Inala pay a higher rate in the dollar than the people of Ascot, Hamilton and Clayfield do. I will tell the House how great this rating policy is. This year, people who live in Ascot will pay an average of $144 less in general rates than they did last year. What a great policy! The people of Ascot get a reduction of $144. What happens to the poor people in Inala and other areas? They pay an increase. Of course, that is not the end of it. I can see my colleagues in the Liberal Party squirm, and they ought to squirm, too. What is happening in Hamilton? This year, the council rates in Hamilton are $72 lower. It is an absolute disgrace that in Clayfield the rates are $64 lower. The residents of Spring Hill live in my electorate. In Spring Hill, the average increase in general rates alone is $600, and the average increase in water charges is $400, Legislative Assembly 2475 31 July 1990 which means that the average rate increase in Spring Hill totals $1,000. Honourable members do not need to be Einstein to work out the injustice in that rating system. On the one hand, residents in Spring Hill are paying an average additional increase in rates of $1,000—some of them are paying much more—yet the rates paid by the residents of Ascot, Hamilton and Clayfield have been reduced. As I indicated earlier, that policy extends not only to Spring Hill but also to West End, Highgate Hill, Herston, Kelvin Grove and Paddington. The tragedy in Spring Hill is that many landlords who own rooming and boarding houses in that area will have to close their premises. They will not be able to recoup those rate increases from the people living in those rooming and boarding houses. Those people are not very financial. They are the battlers of this world, and they simply are unable to afford any increase in their rent. What will happen to the owners of those properties? Because they will not be able to pay this 200 per cent increase in rates, they will have to redevelop them or sell them. What will that mean? It will mean that, as those rooming and boarding houses close down, Spring Hill will become vastly different. It will mean that those battlers will be forced out onto the street. They will no longer have an opportunity to live close to the inner city. In the long term, the people of Queensland will be required to pay more to provide the infrastructure to enable those people to move away from the inner city. It is not just the battlers who will be affected. The middle income earners and the middle class who live in Spring Hill will also be affected. They also will be savaged by those great rate increases. As high-rise buildings replace these rooming and boarding houses the central business district will devour Spring Hill, and that is all supported by the Brisbane City Council. Luxury penthouse apartments will be owned by absentee corporations and other people will be forced out of the inner city. That change to the face of Spring Hill will be permanent. Brisbane will have more concrete glass towers—another Dallas—sitting on the top of Spring Hill. The insensitivity of the Brisbane City Council is highlighted by the fact that on the last tiny piece of land that it owns, an allotment of 2 000 square metres in Water Street, the council has decided to erect a display home with all the latest mod cons and great space-age technologies. That display home will be sited on this last piece of vacant land. It will be constructed in cooperation with the Housing Industry of Australia. Brisbane will have a Sanctuary Cove on the footsteps of the city. The Brisbane City Council is totally insensitive about the feelings of the people of Spring Hill. Brisbane will have this wonderful Sanctuary Cove sitting in Spring Hill like a pimple on a duck's nose. It will be as compatible with the environment of the Spring Hill area as some Liberal Party members are with this House. The residents of Spring Hill only want to live in peace and quiet in affordable conditions and not next door to a display home, and not paying rates that make it almost impossible for them to remain in those inner suburbs. Because they will not be able to afford a 100 per cent increase in rates, year after year, many residents of Spring Hill will be forced out. That rates policy will have a devastating impact on the social and economic circumstances in Spring Hill. In fact, this policy will have a more devastating impact on Spring Hill than any other changes that have taken place in the last 30 years. I will deal with Brisbane generally. The average rate-payer in Brisbane will be paying more than $100 extra in rates. That represents a rise of 12.3 per cent overall, and it is well above the inflation rate of 7.8 per cent. That policy is a good indication of Liberal Party mismanagement. That is the way in which the Liberal Party does things when it is in power. It increases charges by 12.3 per cent when the inflation rate is only 7.8 per cent. There is nothing wrong with differential rating per se. It is how it is used. It should be used equitably on behalf of people and in accordance with their ability to pay. Clearly, Legislative Assembly 2476 31 July 1990 that is not what has happened. My close friend and colleague Mr David Hinchliffe, the alderman for Spring Hill, strongly argued that point on behalf of the rate-payers of Spring Hill and was thrown out of the council chamber for eight days. He was banned from going anywhere near City Hall. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane said that this was better than winning the casket for the people who lived in Spring Hill. That has got to be the most twisted sense of logic that I have ever heard. Alderman Hinchliffe interjected and said, "So, you are going to let them eat cake?", and he was thrown out of the council chamber for eight days. He was defending the people who live in his ward and he had the courage to argue about rates. When the Lord Mayor spoke of letting them eat cake she should have remembered that that was the attitude adopted by Marie Antoinette, and all honourable members know what happened to her. The people cut off her head. Government's Law and Order Policy Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.51 a.m.): Last December, the Australian Labor Party was elected to Government in this State on a platform of delivering a new deal on law and order. It released a five-point plan for effective prison sentencing. The promises made by the Australian Labor Party are included in a law and order policy document. At page 15, it states— "A Goss Government will . . . ¥ abolish all existing remission and early release schemes; ¥ ensure that the only grounds on which an offender can be returned to the community prior to the expiry of a sentence will be that the offender has reformed or has changed in such a way as to be unlikely to repeat the offence." Honourable members know what has happened to those two promises. Within 10 weeks of the Government taking office, the Sun carried the banner headline, "Weekend Gaol Exodus—Freedom for 150 Inmates". These inmates included murderers, rapists and drug-pushers who were all granted special leave for the weekend. Most importantly, those convicted criminals were allowed out unescorted and unsupervised. Debra Kilroy, a convicted heroin-trafficker who had been sent to prison only four months earlier, was granted special leave. Supposedly out on trust, Mrs Kilroy, in breach of her conditions of release, was seen in the early hours of Saturday morning with two known drug-offenders. Despite the public outcry, the weekend release scheme has continued. It has made a mockery of Queensland's judicial and sentencing systems—its law and order—to such an extent that people in the community are talking about a breakdown of law and order in society. The Government displayed the most incompetence in its handling of the security classification given to prisoners. Several escapes have considerably embarrassed prison authorities. Henry Bartczak was jailed for life for shooting his sister-in-law in the head. He had threatened to kill the rest of his family. In April, he escaped from Wacol after being allowed to travel unescorted on a six-hour pass to the taxation office in Brisbane. Henry Bartczak was recently recaptured. All honourable members know his history. The sentencing judge recommended that Bartczak not be released on parole until he was no longer a threat to the community. The Government took no notice of that. It threw that information onto the scrap heap. It knew better than the judge. Bartczak was released on a six-hour pass, unescorted and his escape caused a great deal of concern to his family. In order to get even with members of his family, he had threatened to kill them. He was said to have put aside weapons for this purpose. The Government totally ignored that. It has gone soft on criminals. Henry Bartczak was allowed out of jail unescorted to go to the taxation office. Some time later, through his own volition he gave himself up. Legislative Assembly 2477 31 July 1990

Marshall Steen, a former Ipswich heroin addict, was jailed for 10 years on multiple armed robbery charges. On 21 May, he walked out of Wacol prison. Steen escaped because he feared being reclassified to a higher security jail. Darryl Andrew Ogbourne was jailed for 10 years for rape, sodomy and deprivation of liberty. In February, he walked away from the dairy at Wacol prison. Countless other escapes have been made, mostly involving so-called model prisoners who have been moved to minimum security prisons. Many of those escapes occurred only a few days after those inmates had been moved to minimum security prisons. Obviously, those inmates deliberately set out to deceive both the jail authorities and the Government. That has proved to be a very easy exercise. The Government claims that it will now give those special benefits only to so-called rehabilitated prisoners. However, it allowed the release of former licensing branch policeman, Noel Kelly, after he had served only 17 months in prison. He was released to a half-way house and allowed to go home every weekend to see his de facto wife. Kelly admitted receiving approximately $100,000 in bribes. He refuses to repay even a cent of his ill-gotten gains, yet the Government allowed his release from prison after he had served only 17 months of his sentence. Despite his complete lack of remorse, jail authorities labelled him "rehabilitated". The early release of prisoners has become a farce. Queensland people are becoming alarmed at the Government's soft attitude towards criminals. They are alarmed at the Government's revolving-door policy, and they are extremely concerned about the complete breakdown of law and order. The Government is rapidly acquiring a reputation for being soft on crime. It says that it is embarking upon a cost-cutting program in Queensland's gaols that is likely to wipe $20m to $30m from the budget for prisons. The ALP has targeted prisons as an area where it can make big cuts—big savings—to pay for its many election promises. Honourable members are all very familiar with those promises, which run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of those promises are unaccounted for. The Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Milliner, has returned from a European tour. He says that he wants to empty Queensland's gaols. Every weekend, he does that very effectively with the number of escapes that occur. That is fine. The Liberal Party accepts that there are too many fine defaulters and minor offenders in Queensland's prisons. The Liberal Party supports the Government's attempt to clear those people out of the system by getting them to do community service work. However, in the circumstances, the Liberal Party will not support the wholesale release of murderers, rapists and drug-traffickers long before they have completed their prison sentences simply to empty our gaols and save this Labor Government money. People who have committed serious offences are being released after serving sometimes less than one-fifth of their sentence. This approach is completely out of step with community attitudes. In the recent Sherwood by-election, a familiar concern was shown at every door on which the Liberal candidate, David Dunworth, knocked. In Landsborough, Joan Sheldon received the same response. People were concerned about law and order. Their homes had been broken into. Many had been robbed. Women were frightened for their safety. They believed that criminals were getting off far too lightly. The Government has forgotten that prison is as much a deterrent as a centre for punishment. Therein lies the value of deterrents. This message does not appear to have sunk in with this Government. Since the Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Milliner, has taken over the portfolio, there has been unprecedented turmoil in the prisons system. That is something of which the present Government was so critical of the previous Government. It is far worse now than ever before. There have been murders, mass escapes and strike action, all of which have occurred in the prisons system during the past eight months. It is extraordinary that, in the face of the threat of industrial action, Mr Milliner left for his overseas trip, leaving the industrial action unresolved. Today, prison officers and the Corrective Services Commission are at each other's throats. Policy is being made on the run. With the Minister overseas, the Corrective Services Commission announced that it was embarking Legislative Assembly 2478 31 July 1990 on a major privatisation project. That was quickly knocked on the head by the Premier. But the division within the department continues, with the Premier alleging that some prison officers earned up to $70,000 a year. That is something the Premier has failed to substantiate. The Liberal Party is not opposed to reform but it does not believe that people who commit serious crimes should be let off so lightly. That is why, today, I am calling for truth-in-sentencing legislation to ensure that killers and other dangerous criminals remain in gaol. Truth in sentencing would mean that the most serious offenders and dangerous inmates served at least 80 per cent of their prison sentences. Currently, prison authorities are putting themselves above the law with remissions and early paroles that make a mockery of the judicial system. Under the present system, a judge hears the evidence about the circumstances of the crime and the offender, sees the effects of the crime on the victim and sets a prison sentence as both a deterrent to others and a punishment. Time expired. Closure of Rockhampton Branch of Sunshine Produce Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (12.02 p.m.): The matter I raise today concerns the closure of the COD in Rockhampton on 13 July last. A Government member interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, it is a shame. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because of parallel events which should be of concern to all members. I refer to not only the way this was done but also the trend that appears to be developing. My office was advised on 9 July that this would occur. It was brought to our attention by a union official who had been advised by his members at 11 o'clock that morning that they would be paid off within two days. The union official contacted my office. Regrettably, I was in Hobart with the Criminal Justice Committee. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that the honourable member is a fruit cake. He cannot help that. If he listens he will learn something. If he has no concern about this matter, he should not worry about it. At 4.30 p.m. that day, my office was advised, and so was the Minister. That was the only consultation that this Government had. In fact, it is the only consultation that occurred in Rockhampton, as my following remarks will prove. The next day, we received a fax which, in part, reads— " 'Sunshine Produce's supply to Cairns through our Brisbane Distribution Centre has proved to be successful and we see no reason to believe that this will not be the case for Mackay and Rockhampton,' Mr Rossiter said. 'The Objectives and Marketing Plan also included the disposal of a number of assets within Sunshine Produce which were not being fully utilised.' " The basis for those statements was dreamt up in a board room in Brisbane. There was no discussion with the local board. This Government cannot be blamed for the closure. That statutory authority is free from any political influence. There is no interference by this Government, so it cannot be blamed in any way. It was a commercial decision made by that committee. The history of the board is very interesting. The Labor Government put it in place in 1923. It was created by that Government to rationalise the sale of fruit and vegetables. It was an integral link in the chain of fruit and vegetable marketing, especially for the small grower. Legislative Assembly 2479 31 July 1990

I turn now to what makes this into something of a saga like Days of our Lives. The only problem is that this was a real drama being played. On the following day—10 July—the COD sent its hatchetman to Rockhampton. His name is Maurice Marranan. He slithered into town that day. It was clear that he was present to shut the organisation down. He was not there to talk to people such as the Mayor of Rockhampton, my representative and the honourable member for Broadsound, Mr Pearce. They tried to arrange an audience with Mr Marranan but he would not come into it. He said that he was not there to talk to any politicians. Members of the trade union movement tried to talk to him, but he would not come into that, either. He said he was not there to talk to workers' representatives. The only people to whom he wanted to talk were the growers. He would not listen to their protests. He was there to read them the Riot Act and tell them to close down. He said the decision was irreversible and that he did not want to discuss it in any shape or form. The growers and other interested parties tried to suggest a compromise. He said he was not interested in any compromise. He said that the decision was totally irreversible and suggested that the workers prepare themselves for getting out of the gate with a week's pay in their kick. That indicates the action taken by the committee. It did not want to talk to any of the stake- holders who were interested in it, the mayor of the city, or the local member. They came in holus bolus and sacked 60-odd people on three days' notice. As far as I am concerned, that action completed a very effective deception that started about September last year. During May 1989, workers were told by the chief executive, Bob Seaman, that the COD had something of the order of $50m in reserves. It is no wonder that the workers involved did not place too much credence in the rumour that the COD would close. During the week previous to the closure, one of the workers had to travel to Brisbane and pick up a van for the continued operation of the COD in Rockhampton. A couple of months ago a new fork-lift was ordered and was delivered on 11 July, which was two days before the place was actually closed down. As late as March this year, the Minister was assured that the COD was sound and solvent. All the time that these assurances were flowing, the veritable Judas—the COD—was plotting to get rid of the centre and there were not even 30 pieces of silver involved. Is it any wonder that the cold- hearted decision made by the COD was greeted with disdain and disgust in my electorate and in Broadsound? The response to the letter I sent to Mr Pearce is as follows— "You appear to have a misconception about the nature of the COD, its role and accountability. Whilst being a Statutory Marketing Authority reporting to the Minister for Primary Industries, the COD is controlled by fruit and vegetable growers elected every 3 years." The fact of the matter is that the decision was made without any consideration being given to the workers, growers, local businesspeople and general community people in Rockhampton. Further investigation reveals that the plot thickens. COD incurred a loss of approximately $2.2m. Mr Stephan: Did you speak to the growers' representative in the area? Mr SCHWARTEN: I am pleased that the honourable member finds that amusing. In the last 12 months, a loss of $2.2m has occurred in spite of the fact that, over the last 10 years, the output of horticultural products has increased 100 per cent and exports have also increased. These brilliant managers who are in charge of the COD have been able to turn increased exports and increased output into a disaster. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: It is obvious that they are incompetent. The honourable member can read the balance sheet—that is, if he is able to read, and I doubt very much that he is. Legislative Assembly 2480 31 July 1990

A few questions must be asked about this matter. The first question is: when was the decision made? I am informed that the decision was made in September 1989, yet nobody was advised. The workers were not informed and I want to know why. I also want to know what part the Yeppoon cooperative played in all the skulduggery in bringing this centre to an end. Try as I might, I cannot find the answers to those questions. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member probably knows. He seems to be very interested in this matter. There is one question I know the answer to and that is: how well is the COD managed? It is managed about as well as one would expect a fox to run a fowlhouse. The truth of the matter is that just as the fox would eat the fowls, similarly the COD has been able to eat up the profitability of the enterprise. Thankfully, a group of interested people in Rockhampton is setting out to rebuild the enterprise that COD has made a gigantic mess of, and I wish it well. Mr Stephan: Who is doing the rebuilding? Mr SCHWARTEN: As a matter of fact, one of the former managers of the COD in Rockhampton who has now retired. He set the group up himself. Mr Stephan: What group? Mr SCHWARTEN: It is a group of private individuals. I trust that the honourable member is happy with that explanation. As far as I am concerned, the whole situation reeks of centralisation of the COD. It certainly flies in the face of this Government's policy of decentralisation. In no shape or form could any fair-minded person on the Opposition side of the Chamber think that 60 Rockhampton people losing their jobs is remarkably funny. I know why the National Party will never get anyone elected in Rockhampton. Time expired. SELECT COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES Report on Matter Referred by Legislative Assembly on 7 June 1990 Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (12.12 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the report of the Select Committee of Privileges on the matter referred by the Legislative Assembly on 7 June 1990. I thank the Deputy Chairman, Mr Neal, and all other members of the committee for their hard work on this difficult and time-consuming matter. I gratefully acknowledge the considerable assistance given to the committee in the preparation of this report by the Clerk Assistant (Committees) and by Ms Jan Arbuthnot of the secretarial staff. I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 May (see p. 1625). Mr SMYTH (Bowen) (12.13 p.m.): I rise to support the Land Act Amendment Bill. The speech made by the Opposition spokesman, Mr Hobbs, was exactly what one would expect; that is, it was a continuously negative response to the Bill and to the progressive thinking of the Goss Government. I am sure that, as the debate continues, it will become obvious that the National Party and the other conservatives on the Legislative Assembly 2481 31 July 1990 opposite side of the Chamber will continue to carry on in the way they have for the last 32 years. They will try to divide the people of this State and persuade them that this Government will sacrifice some of Queensland's greatest assets. Mr Hobbs stated that the Goss Government should continue to allow freeholding of large tracts of land to encourage development in Queensland, but that would depend on what type of development this State needs. During the National Party's regime, the people of Queensland witnessed foreign companies buying leasehold land for a pittance. That land, which was owned by overseas companies, was turned into freehold lots at the expense of the people of Queensland. It would not be beneficial to the majority of landholders to allow open-slather freeholding of land in Queensland for those who wish that to occur. There is a continual debate engaged in by landholder representatives— such as the Cattlemen's Union and others—who are concerned that foreign companies will be able to purchase land on a freehold basis and compete with graziers in sales, while vesting ownership of the land in overseas parent companies. That is a real problem in my electorate. There is genuine concern felt by graziers that overseas companies may be able to purchase freehold land and compete with them on their own front. The Goss Government's announcement on 5 February 1990 of a freeze on freeholding of grazing and homestead perpetual leases, special leases and non-competitive perpetual leases was a responsible decision. It allowed people who intended to purchase land to become aware of the Government's precise intentions in relation to land management in this State. The Government intends to review this State's land use. As outlined by the Minister, Mr Eaton, the committee of review has been established to advise on the underlying principles for future policies and administration of land in Queensland. The last public inquiry into land policy was the Payne report in 1959. Over the past 30 years, because they viewed the land in this State as a possession for them and them alone, conservative Governments have not bothered to protect one of our most valuable assets. If one looks back at some of the actions of the National Party Government, one must come to the conclusion that land in Queensland was used as a political tool. It was sold and freeholded at a cheap cost to National Party cronies both in Australia and overseas. Honourable members do not have to go back very far to find examples of mismanagement. They can look back in anger at the Lindeman Island fiasco, when attempts were made to sell off our national park to a developer. Mr Speaker, you and other members of this House will recall that ridiculous nonsense. Of course, honourable members are aware of the ultimate outcome of that fiasco. The people of Queensland rose in anger, and the intending purchaser pulled out from the unscrupulous deal so that the National Party Government could save face. At that time, the people were not told that the agent handling the affair was entitled to commission on the sale, and it is still not clear what commission was paid and to whom it was paid. National Party members continue to display their arrogance to the people of Queensland, both in this Chamber and throughout the State. This Bill does not intend to change the policy; it simply freezes the freeholding of leasehold land in Queensland. The objective of the review is to generate a fair return to the State on its land assets, to ensure consistency and fairness within land policy and administration and to enhance sustainable economic growth in Queensland. Mr Hobbs estimated that 80 per cent of land-care problems are caused by outside economic pressures. He stated that a large proportion of the outside pressures can be attributed to blocks that are of insufficient living area for grazing and primary industry. That will be addressed by the review. The people of Queensland need responsible Government. This is a responsible amending Bill, which I support. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (12.18 p.m.): At the outset, I make it quite clear that, although the Minister for Land Management considers this Bill to be insignificant, its Legislative Assembly 2482 31 July 1990 ultimate ramifications will have a very substantial impact on our rural industries. I personally believe that those ramifications make the Bill one of the most important ever to be introduced in this Parliament. This move to freeze freeholding is an obvious and very ominous ploy by the Government to deliberately pre-empt the outcome of the pending committee of review. The Bill, by its implications, obviously threatens the claimed independence of the committee and its freedom from Government influence. I assure the Minister that the rural community has not missed the pertinent point that the Bill specifically excludes Crown leasehold land in industrial estates from its freeze on freeholding rights. The Crown estate covers more than 90 per cent of Queensland's total land mass, comprising some 153.7 million hectares out of 172.7 million hectares—a huge area in anyone's language, and substantially larger than most countries in Europe. Indeed, my own electorate of Gregory—the largest in Queensland at 443 250 square kilometres—is made up mainly of Crown leases. When superimposed on parts of Australia, Gregory has a land mass twice the size of Victoria, half the size of New South Wales and 13 times the size of Tasmania. In point of fact, it comprises about one-quarter of this entire State. I make those comparisons to indicate the huge area of this State that is administered by the Crown and, therefore, falls clearly within the ambit of the Bill. In debating both this Bill and the eventual recommendations of the pending committee of review, honourable members carry a very heavy burden because this legislation will affect not only the direction of Crown land policy in future years but also the livelihood of many thousands of people. The Bill affects not only lessees and their families but also the rural work force and the future of our small-business communities, which service and depend on our rural industries for their very existence. As I have said, the ramifications of this Bill are anything but insignificant. By implication, it will change the thrust of Crown land management in this State. Honourable members must not forget that Queensland's agricultural production, a very large percentage of which comes from Crown leasehold lands, comprises approximately 19 per cent of the nation's economic performance and a substantial proportion of the 20 per cent that Queensland contributes each year towards Australia's total export earnings. In the main, that export income is utilised by our urban regions to boost our labour-employing industries and, of course, to meet the cost of the many overseas manufactured goods, including luxury goods, destined for our urban areas. I want to point out as forcefully as possible to honourable members opposite that withdrawal from our farmers and graziers of the opportunity of freeholding leases will diminish their desire to undertake the many financial risks involved in working the land today. The mortgage value of a leasehold property is recognised as less than that of a freehold property. Therefore, the borrowing capacity to develop a parcel of Crown estate is diminished immediately. In tough times, knowing that they can never own the land that they are risking everything to develop and maintain, our farmers and graziers will not be so anxious to stick their necks out financially. The recent widespread severe flooding of the west and south-western regions of Queensland was a typical example of the hardships associated with the bush. Other hardships include fires, the inevitable droughts and market fluctuations. Another example is the current reduction in the wool floor price, which the Federal Government has so happily lowered from 870c a kilogram to 700c. What is more, the proposed ISC upgrading of road-transport registration in this State will have a detrimental effect on the man on the land. The city people who buy the commodities and rely on the man in the bush to produce the commodities will be paying much more. There may not be any people in the bush to provide the commodities; they may all go broke. If the provisions of this Bill come to fruition, a very substantial personal incentive to lease will be wiped out. That very human desire of people to maximise their efforts towards improving their leases to enable them eventually to buy the land to ensure the future of their families will surely disappear. Legislative Assembly 2483 31 July 1990

The flow-on effects of this Bill are anything but minor. The implications relate not only to rural communities. Even a minor lowering of the production capacity of each farming and grazing unit will have a detrimental financial effect on the whole of the State's economy, including the living standards enjoyed by urban communities. I wish to raise several other matters which I feel are interwoven with this short Bill. In doing so, I direct a question to the Minister for Land Management. Is this committee of review simply a ploy which this Government will use to force increases in Crown lease charges under the guise that the increases were recommended by this supposedly independent committee? As honourable members should well know, sheep and cattle rents were substantially increased following the review of land rents undertaken in 1988-89 by Mr C. H. Carter of the Land Court. I note with some concern that one of the published objectives of the review is to make recommendations as to land policy administration which will "generate a fair return to the State on its land assets". I ask the Minister to state publicly the Government's position on the future of the Land Court. Today, this judicial body is the only truly independent and accepted referee available to lessees who wish to appeal against excessive rental assessments set by the department. Will the Minister give the House an unqualified guarantee that the Land Court will continue to ensure that this safety net against excessive rentals remains available to all lessees? I further ask: will this committee be used as a tool by which the Australian Labor Party can appear to gain respectability for its policy of splitting up large, viable properties into non-viable smaller units? Have the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet recognised the folly of the two earlier forays into this utopian plan, which, with the inevitable cycle of hard seasonal and market conditions, saw so many returned men after the First and Second World Wars forced off the land into bankruptcy. I am sure that not one of those men or women who toiled so hard and so long trying to make a go of it on soldier settlement blocks would wish a similar fate on anyone, especially in a world of high interest rates and commodity market uncertainty. Following this review, are the new settlers not only to be saddled with this very real danger of failure in tough times on non-viable sized blocks, but also to be faced with excessively high rents? These new rents do not take into account the inevitable ups and downs of reality for the man in the bush. Seasonal fluctuation and uncertain markets could well push many existing properties into the non-viable area. Finally, might I put my position fairly on the line in relation to foreign ownership of land in this State—and anywhere else in Australia, for that matter. I believe that foreign ownership of land in this country should be restricted to leasehold tenure. I am not opposed to foreign investment in Australia. It is my belief that most Australians today acknowledge that, if we wish to maintain our standard of living in a global marketplace, we must encourage and expand the inflow of outside risk capital to achieve continuing, adequate economic growth. However, I firmly believe that this goal could be equally accommodated by offering foreign investors special, long-term, secure leases while retaining actual ownership for the future benefit of our citizens. Mr NUNN (Isis) (12.25 p.m.): I rise to support the Bill. As the Minister has already said, this is a short Bill designed to place on hold the freeholding of certain tenures under the existing Land Act. It is worth noting that the previous speaker—and I have no doubt those who will follow him—has spoken about virtually anything except what is contained in this Bill. Rather, Opposition members speak of what may or may not happen in the future—as if they are guilty of some secret sin of which only they know. Every honourable member should know that the last public inquiry into land policy in this State resulted in the Payne report. That was 31 years ago. There have been many inquiries since then. The most notable of these was the royal commission into the National Hotel. Legislative Assembly 2484 31 July 1990

Other inquiries resulted in the publication of the Hanger report and, of course, the Fitzgerald report. Some inquiries were more productive than others. Some people found them to be bitter pills, while others gained great comfort and satisfaction from them, even a sense of justice having been done. The Payne report was delivered in 1959. It is patently obvious and clear to all concerned with land matters that some of the recommendations of that report may not be as relevant today as they were then. No-one who takes note of the social and economic changes that have occurred since that time can dispute the fact that an inquiry is now needed. We need an inquiry so that all interested parties can have their say and have their submissions examined by the committee. The inquiry is necessary, in part, to ensure that outdated, unfair or impractical clauses relating to certain tenures are rectified. The greater the public input to this matter, the more thorough and careful will be the deliberations of the committee. The inquiry and the Bill will pave the way for the streamlining of the Act. It will give ordinary people the opportunity to better understand their rights and their responsibilities as they pertain to a particular land tenure. I know that there are many leaseholders of Crown land who would like to see the Land Act improved in one way or another. People need to be reminded of their rights and, just as importantly, of their obligations. The time span covering some leases ensures that some people will lose sight of their clauses and conditions. I remind the House that this Bill is basically an interim measure. It provides for the freezing of applications received on or after 5 February 1990 for the freeholding of grazing homestead perpetual leases, special leases and, now, competitive perpetual leases. It is important for the freeze to be implemented. It would be unthinkable if the inquiry were to be held at the same time as freeholding negotiations were proceeding. That would make the pre-empting of the committee's decisions a distinct possibility, and nobody would want that. Most of the amendments and the new clauses contained in this Bill deal with the freezing of applications to freehold. However, the terms of reference exempt those leases that are situated in an industrial estate that is administered by the Department of Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business. Those leases may continue to be freeholded. That demonstrates this Government's commitment to expand the manufacturing base in Queensland in an effort to provide jobs for the unemployed people of this State. This Bill contains nothing to stop anyone from making an application for freeholding. Such applications will not be processed until the inquiry is complete. Legislation based on the recommendations of the inquiry can then be enacted, and any necessary legislation can then be exposed to public scrutiny and debated in this House in the full light of day. Because this Bill will enable the terms and conditions of leases relative to the true wealth of the State of Queensland to be dealt with by way of future legislation, it is important. I await the outcome of the inquiry with great anticipation. I support the Minister's endeavour to improve the Land Act, and I support the Bill. Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (12.32 p.m.): I am sure that members on both sides of the House who represent country electorates and who travel throughout those electorates would realise that a great deal of uncertainty exists with respect to the inquiry. At the outset I make it clear that although I support the inquiry I do not support some of its sinister overtones. Although many members on this side of the House have a few basic misconceptions about that inquiry, I believe that, by the end of the day, those misconceptions will be addressed. I refer to the notion that people on the land who have applied for the freeholding of leasehold land in the past have done so basically for unscrupulous reasons. The majority of those people have done so because of a long-term commitment to the Legislative Assembly 2485 31 July 1990 land. Some of those people and their families have been on the land for 50 or 100 years. Their original leases were special leases or 99-year leases. Some time down the track when their economic situations may have dictated, those people wished to freehold that land. This Government should not penalise such people. There is absolutely no doubt that, in the past, individuals in this State have set out to freehold land basically because of a profit motive. However, by taking that notion to its logical conclusion, it appears to members on this side of the House that the Government believes that everybody who freeholds a piece of leasehold land must be doing so for a profit motive. That is not necessarily the case. Some members on the Government side of the House are exhibiting a re-emergence of the pre-1957, old-age, socialist philosophy that the Government should own everything. In many countries, particularly the Eastern Bloc nations, that idea is coming unstuck. It has been proved that, when a State owns everything—and I am not suggesting that that will be the case, but this is a step in that direction—and controls and leases all the land, a deliberate disincentive exists for people to have a go and to do their best for the future. The Government should do away with such notions. The freeholding of leasehold land has some very positive aspects. Since about 1920, my family has owned a piece of leasehold land. We have absolutely no intention at present or in the future to freehold and sell that piece of land. However, at some time in the future when economic circumstances dictate, my family would like to be able to freehold that piece of land so that it can remain in the family. Because we developed that land, we would like to maintain the security of tenure that is offered by freeholding. Some people might suggest that a 99-year lease offers the very same security of tenure. In a way, that may very well be true. However, in a realistic sense, the freeholding of land means that a family can retain land into which it has put so much work. I turn now to the notion that people on the land can afford to pay more in rents for leasehold land. Firstly, I must say that the Minister for Land Management is an honourable individual who is held in high respect by members on this side of the House, and I do not say that lightly. However, I ask him to understand that many people on the land cannot afford great increases in land rent. Although they might be able to afford increases of 10, 20 or 30 per cent, suggestions have been made that the increases may be in the order of 100, 200 or 300 per cent. If those suggestions are true, they will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and the back of many worthwhile enterprises and many worthwhile people who are doing their bit to help pull this country out of its economic plight but who are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. The Government has the utopian idea that it should own the land and lease it to people if it so desires. That land may be only one living area. It is extremely hard to define "one living area". I know that many people consider that, if somebody lives on the land, it should be only one living area. Let us take a moment to consider what one living area is. I suppose that, basically, a living area is an area of land on which a person produces enough to feed his family and himself. My idea of a living area is an area on which somebody can live comfortably, provide for his family and be given an incentive to be able to expand in the future and perhaps become a little bit more productive. At present, people in the bush do not have much confidence in this Government. I hope that the Minister realises this. Our hospitals boards and fire boards have been disbanded. Our concessional rates for motor vehicle registration have also increased. We have also seen the report of the Inter-State Commission, which was referred to by the honourable member for Gregory. I am appalled that, when the Federal Government established the guidelines for that commission and asked it to investigate another system of road charges in this country, the investigation of the social implications of such a system was not a part of those guidelines. I cannot believe that that occurred. It seems to run so much against logic. This is relevant to my remarks on the Bill, which I will bring it to a conclusion in a minute. It is relevant in that, if a further cost is imposed on the people who cart the food and the produce, that cost will be passed on to consumers, who will pay more for a kilo of rump at the butcher shop. When inquiries are undertaken, Legislative Assembly 2486 31 July 1990 they should consider the social implications. I suggest to the Minister that there may be dire social implications in increasing land rent by any great proportion. The committee's membership should have included representation from someone in the rural industry, from land-holders or from somebody west of the Great Dividing Range. I do not doubt the credibility of the committee members in their own respective fields. However, the committee should have received input from people with a more broad-based opinion. One of the committee members is Mrs Patricia Wolfe, who is a barrister-at-law, no doubt very skilled in her field. Another is Douglas G. Murphy, a land economist and private consultant, who specialises in property economics and town-planning matters. Those matters are a bit different from the economics of things west of the Great Dividing Range. Another member is Mr Ron Wright, a member of the Land Administration Commission. As I said previously, those people may very well be very adept in their own fields; however, the committee should have comprised more people with a greater diversity of opinion—people who could say that they were sitting as a representative from the Queensland Graingrowers Association or from the Cattlemen's Union, that they had already heard a particular submission and that it was wrong because of certain things. I know we all had the opportunity to make submissions to the committee. I took the liberty to do so. It is good that people had that liberty. However, the committee should have comprised more people with a primary industry background. In conclusion, I urge the Government to tread wisely with some of its ideas and misconceptions that all freeholding done in this State has been on an unscrupulous basis and that all people on the land are silvertails who can afford to pay more rent. That is not necessarily the case. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps the guidelines should be tightened up. There should not be unscrupulous freeholding just for the profit motive. The majority of people in the west who have freeholded have done so for security of tenure and in the desire to keep the property in the family name. I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this very important issue. Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (12.43 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak to the Land Act Amendment Bill. This Bill's purpose is to put a temporary hold on the freeholding of certain tenures under the Land Act. This Government has established a committee of review to advise on the underlying principles for the future policy and administration of land in Queensland. As the previous speaker said, the committee comprises three members. One is Patsy Wolfe, who assisted with the Fitzgerald inquiry into alleged corruption within the National Party Government. She also has a background in commercial and property law. Another is Doug Murphy, who is a land economist and marketing consultant who has had extensive experience in the public and private sectors. The third is Ron Wright, who is an experienced member of the Land Administration Commission with expertise in land legislation. He was also involved in the Fitzroy River land development scheme and the Glen Idol ballot blocks. The committee members have the necessary experience to make the proper recommendations. I listened very intently to the members for Gregory and Carnarvon. I think they are chasing a few ghosts. They are afraid of a few things which are not intended in this Bill. To wonder why a Government would be concerned about leaseholding and freeholding is fairly obvious. I have with me figures in relation to freehold land and leasehold land. In order to receive a quick return from a cash crop, people are prepared to plough the land and plant wheat knowing quite well that over a period of five years they will reap only one crop that has not suffered from the effects of erosion either by wind or by water. People will be addressing those concerns, not so much whether the land is freehold or leasehold. It is a fallacy for members to say that people will not go on to the land if they cannot freehold that land. Eighty per cent of farmers are now on leasehold land. Therefore, Legislative Assembly 2487 31 July 1990

20 per cent of land is freehold. Farmers have found leasehold land quite profitable. Some of the biggest grazing properties in Australia are operated on leasehold land. Leasehold land has some advantages. Firstly, it saves a tremendous amount of capital outlay. People who have leased land are not paying high interest rates on a huge mortgage. In those circumstances, because he does not require to outlay capital in the first place, the lessee has an advantage. That land policy allows people who are not born rich to commence farming on the land. Australians have been well served by utilising leasehold land instead of having to supply millions of dollars to purchase a freehold property. For anyone to state that very little freeholding is done for the purpose of gain is a fallacy. In the first place, the average businessman does not do anything unless it involves a profit, and there is nothing wrong with that approach. I do not always end up with a profit, but at the start that is my intention. Most of my life has been spent in the timber industry, and I have followed the freeholding of land, particularly in the Auburn area. When the farmers freeholded that land, they purchased the timber on it for a mere pittance. From the windfall that they received when they sold the timber they were able to pay for the land and just about stock it, too. The Moura ranges, which run for 20 to 30 miles, carried a lot of first-class spotted gum. It was considered that that timber was not worth giving away. When the Department of Forestry objected, the farmers appealed to the Land Court. In the end, the department got sick of doing that because the Land Court always decided in favour of the grazier. I know of areas within 50 miles of a sawmill in which farmers obtained their land for nothing simply by producing a letter that stated that the sawmiller did not want to buy that timber at that time because it was not a suitable time to purchase timber. In some of those instances, the sawmiller had already put up the money for the freeholding of that land so that he could obtain the timber. To state that rorts have not occurred is very much an understatement. I have no doubt that many people genuinely wish to freehold their properties, including the homestead, the yards and other areas. However, as in the old Dad and Dave stories, when those farmers brought the deeds home, they did not find themselves very much better off, anyway. They had more interest to pay on a mortgage. Members of this House know that many areas have been ploughed for wheat by using a ball and chain up hill and down gully, no matter how steep or rough the terrain. That timber was torn down in the hope that in 20 or 30 years somebody would come along and purchase it. Those farmers were not concerned about the long-term environmental consequences or about future generations. Many areas in this State should never have been ploughed. I have visited the area near the head of the Burnett River. The country is so steep that one can hardly walk up it. Within three weeks of that land being changed to freehold, the tordon axe was applied to every tree on those slopes. This Government's strategy should be aimed at achieving sustainable, integrated land use for the benefit of all Queenslanders, and it should look after the needs of the future generations. I recommend this Bill to the House. Mr QUINN (South Coast) (12.49 p.m.): It is time for a review into land tenure in Queensland, especially as a result of the public concern that has been expressed over past instances of the freeholding of leasehold land on Cape York peninsula. The Liberal Party does not necessarily support the final outcome of this review. It has noted some of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the National Party. It reserves the right to judge the outcome of this review at the appropriate time. However, it does respect the right of the Government to conduct this inquiry, and appreciates that a sunset clause is contained in the Bill limiting the inquiry to three months. Consequently, the Liberal Party will support this Bill. Legislative Assembly 2488 31 July 1990

Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (12.50 p.m.): I congratulate the Minister for Land Management, the Honourable Bill Eaton, for his prompt action in applying a freeze to the epidemic freeholding of land in Queensland. I am aware that, for a long time, the Minister has viewed with great concern the practices of the previous Government. His concern was shared by the vast majority of Queenslanders; none more so than the citizens of north Queensland and, in particular, those who had any association with Cape York peninsula. In fairness to those who previously occupied the Treasury benches, the freeholding of tracts of public land in the name of development is a time honoured and acceptable practice. However, what is not acceptable is the looseness with which that process was administered. Therefore, it is little wonder that, in view of the windfall gains that fell to certain individuals and companies, many people expressed the view that the methods employed were in some way tarnished. In an economic climate where ordinary citizens could not afford to purchase a housing block, it became an obscenity that the already well-heeled could freehold public property and subsequently sell it to reap huge rewards. On 13 April 1989, the Minister raised this very matter in a question to the then Minister for Land Management, Mr Glasson. Mr Eaton asked the previous Minister— "(1) Is he and the Government aware, that a full time land dealer, has purchased large cattle properties in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape York area, and also have taken options over many other cattle and grazing properties with the sole aim of selling these properties and leases for a very large profit? (2) Will he see that these properties are not allowed to be freeholded? (3) Will he and the Government look at resuming part of those properties to be put up for ballot to allow many Queenslanders the opportunity to settle on the land instead of allowing wheelers and dealers and fast buck merchants buying up grazing properties, selling of the stock, freeholding, then selling it off to other big companies for big profits, thus keeping many genuine rural workers from the land by pricing them out of the market?" In his reply, Mr Glasson made the valid point that the bulk of the area in the Gulf of Carpentaria is comprised of land tenures that are not directly freeholdable. He failed to mention that a number of those tenures were capable of alteration to other forms that were, in turn, directly freeholdable. Mr Eaton's concern for the welfare of the average Queenslander is amply exemplified by his desire to provide access to land by way of ballot. He rightly asserted that many of those individuals who sought freeholding of land did so for the express purpose of reselling it at an exorbitant profit. I am not suggesting any direct impropriety on the part of former Ministers. However, they and their Government stand condemned for not taking prompt action to bring an early end to that nefarious practice. Due credit should be given to the former Leader of the Liberal Party who tirelessly pursued the National Party Government over its freeholding policies on Cape York. On 11 April 1989, Mr Innes raised the matter of Starcke Station, which comprised 20 000 hectares. However, the former Minister for Land Management evaded the issue. On 27 September 1989, Mr Innes attempted to gain from him a clear picture of the status of land tenure and the granting of leases which could lead to freeholding. He referred in particular to Silver Plains, which, at that time, had attracted media attention. Although the former Minister provided details about Silver Plains, he did not address the wider problem. He claimed that "wider research" was required to elicit the information sought. Obviously, that exercise was being placed in the too-hard basket. On 17 October 1989, Mr Innes called upon the then Minister for Land Management, Mr Harper, to give an undertaking not to grant any new freeholding special leases on Cape York because the State election was pending. Sadly, that Minister did not have the will to accede to that request. He merely gave an undertaking to fulfil his commitments Legislative Assembly 2489 31 July 1990 in the customary manner, with integrity and honour. When a simple "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed, by ducking the issue the former Minister chose to fuel speculation that the Government had something to hide. Two days later, Mr Innes again pursued the matter by questioning the former Minister on Punsand Bay. Mr Harper was obviously tiring of the chase and he lashed out at members of the media, accusing them of weighted coverage, by tabling a letter from an individual who had an axe to grind with the ABC. By this time, the National Party's credibility on land tenure issues on Cape York had sunk to an all-time low. This issue served only to drive one more nail into the National Party's coffin. The mad scramble for unencumbered control over tracts of land on Cape York has been fuelled by two issues: firstly, the proposal to establish a space base and, secondly, the ongoing march of the tourist resort juggernaut. I refer honourable members to the sale late last year of Bertiehaugh, a 1 396 square kilometre pastoral lease which had failed as a cattle station. A realistic price for the land was estimated to have been in the order of $50 per square kilometre, but the selling price obtained was $358 per square kilometre. The property was promptly put on the international market at approximately $3,582 per square kilometre. Such a sale would realise a whopping $4.9m profit. That land was only a few kilometres from the proposed spaceport and a similar distance from widely touted tourist developments. The key element, in dealings with that land was not a desire to work the land; it was greed. Because insufficient controls were placed on the freeholding process, a quick dollar through land speculation became available. Professor Holmes of the University of Queensland made a study of land speculation and the reform needed in policies for land tenure on Cape York. He is quoted as saying that such sales have "a powerful spill- over effect onto other lands, grossly distorting the land market". A by-product of the epidemic of land speculation epidemic is the danger posed to genuine cattlemen who are already suffering. High overheads and the effects of destocking have left them in a vulnerable position, making them easy prey for unscrupulous people. Over the past few decades, the land tenure practices which have developed in Queensland have been out of step with those operating in other States, where it is more difficult for lessees to convert large areas of land to freehold. By means of ministerial fiat, the reverse was occurring in Queensland. The Crown Leasehold Land and Administration Review Committee has received approximately 270 submissions from interest groups, individuals and industry representatives. The committee has an enormous task ahead of it. It is vitally important to restore public confidence in the ability of the Government to operate under consistent and clearly defined guidelines. I suggest that land conversion should be directly related to demand and must take into account social and environmental considerations. Mechanisms should be put in place to halt new developments that are dependent upon windfall gains by individuals who use development as a front for real estate speculation. Further, I suggest that the Government must not offer direct or indirect financial assistance from the public purse. The days of the easy conversion of cheap pastoral land to valuable, high-return special use must come to an end. I support the Bill. Sitting suspended from 12.58 till 2.30 p.m. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjourned. REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES Media Release by Leader of Opposition Questioning Impartiality of Speaker Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (2.31 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That this House takes note of— (i) the Report of the Select Committee of Privileges tabled today; and Legislative Assembly 2490 31 July 1990

(ii) the findings of the Committee in respect of breach of privilege by the Leader of the Opposition in issuing a media release reflecting on the impartiality of Mr Speaker and accordingly suspends him from the service of the House for the remainder of this sitting day." The motion refers to the media release that was put out by the Leader of the Opposition some two months ago in relation to a question that had been placed on notice by him and then ruled out of order by you, Mr Speaker. I believe that the stage has been reached at which honourable members should examine very closely the motives behind the manner in which not only the Leader of the Opposition but also the Opposition in general have treated the office of Speaker in this Parliament since the last general election. It is quite obvious to me, from the assertions made in this Parliament, that Opposition members have not been prepared to allow Mr Speaker to have a fair go in this Parliament. The job of Speaker is a very difficult one, and I know that the Government has made absolutely no demands on Mr Speaker. Members of the Government have not—— Opposition members interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: We have made no demands on Mr Speaker. Each and every day that this Parliament sits, the reflections—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! An Opposition member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: We can give the honourable member seven days, if he likes. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Fassifern has said that the Leader of the House influences me. That is a reflection on the Chair. I warn the honourable member under Standing Order 124. Other members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, are interjecting and in fact stating that I did hear something, when I did not, in a previous situation. He knows the facts of that matter. I will not countenance those comments about the Chair and the important position of the occupant of the chair in this Chamber. I warn all honourable members on all sides. Mr MACKENROTH: The circumstances of this particular case are such that the Leader of the Opposition released a media statement, I guess right throughout Queensland, clearly stating—— Mr Lingard interjected. Debate interrupted. NAMING OF MEMBER Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just warned the honourable member for Fassifern about casting aspersions on the impartiality of the Chair. He has accused me of this ever since I became Speaker. I now name him under Standing Order 124. SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (2.35 p.m.): I move— "That the honourable member for Fassifern be suspended from the service of the House for seven days." Question put; and the House divided— Legislative Assembly 2491 31 July 1990

AYES, 54 NOES, 21 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Fassifern withdrew from the Chamber. REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES Media Release by Leader of Opposition Questioning Impartiality of Speaker Debate resumed. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (2.41 p.m.): I had begun to say that since last year's election, the Opposition has raised continually the question of the impartiality of Mr Speaker. Once again, it has happened today. I believe that since that time, the Speaker of this Parliament has acted in a fair way. I know, as Leader of the House, that at no time has the Government gone to Mr Speaker regarding any of the rulings he has made in this Chamber or any of the matters upon which he has had to make decisions. I know that those decisions have been made by him in a totally impartial, very fair and honest manner. It is about time the Opposition began to realise and understand that position and got on with the job of being the Opposition in this Parliament instead of just being a bunch of narks. In the media release that was circulated, the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly stated that he believed that the Speaker had been got at, and that that was why the Speaker had been forced into a backflip. That is quite clearly what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. The report that was presented to Parliament today states—— Mr FitzGerald: You just handed that out now. Mr MACKENROTH: If the honourable member was interested in it, he would have gone to the Leader of the Opposition and got a copy. Mr FitzGerald: It's still hot. Mr MACKENROTH: That has never bothered the member for Lockyer before. Legislative Assembly 2492 31 July 1990

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I wish to point out to the Leader of the House that the Opposition requested copies of the report at a little after 2 o'clock this afternoon. At the time when the bells were ringing, copies of the report that we are now debating had not been delivered to members of the Opposition. Mr MACKENROTH: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has omitted to say that at exactly the same time as I was handed my copy—at approximately 12 minutes past 12 when it was tabled in the House—members of the Opposition were handed copies. Mr FitzGerald: One. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member got one and the Opposition also has a photocopier upstairs. Mr FitzGerald: This has 51 pages. Mr MACKENROTH: The situation is—— Mr FitzGerald: The Privileges Committee has no power; you know that. Mr MACKENROTH: I will talk long enough for the honourable member to read it, if he wishes. The situation is that the Leader of the Opposition—— Mr Cooper: You have provided none. Mr MACKENROTH: If the Leader of the Opposition will be quiet, I will draw attention to the relevant parts which will make it easier for him to make up his mind. The report indicates that on three occasions the Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity to appear before the Committee of Privileges, but he declined to do so. On three occasions he was asked to do that. The committee's recommendation is to leave to the House the matter of penalty, but the report states that similar kinds of breaches of privilege have attracted penalties in the order of seven days' suspension. Because members of the Labor Party believe that the breach is severe, the Leader of the Opposition should be censured by the Parliament. If the Parliament agrees, he will be censured and suspended from Parliament for the remainder of this day. The Government believes it is most important that the Leader of the Opposition is in this Chamber tomorrow for question-time, because he is its most important asset during question-time. The Government does not wish to reach the stage at which the Leader of the Opposition is not in this Chamber during question-time. In his letter to the Privileges Committee about his allegation of Mr Speaker's having been got at, the Leader of the Opposition stated that information available to him suggested that that person was Mr Begley. Page 4 of the Clerk's letter states— "The procedure followed with regard to that question was that outlined in paragraph 2.4 of this letter. The notice of question, together with others on that day, went directly to the Clerk-Assistants"— not to Mr Begley— "who passed the original question on to me;"— to the Clerk— "I had asked the officers at the Table to bring it up after sub-editing to ensure it was in order." The Clerk requested that it be brought up so that he could ensure that it was in order. Later that afternoon, I took the question to Mr Speaker, who formed the view that it ought to be disallowed. I cannot see on page 4 of that letter any implication that Mr Speaker had been got at. Legislative Assembly 2493 31 July 1990

Mr FitzGerald: I love your legal interpretation. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member should read the letter. The Leader of the Opposition claims that Joe Begley is the person who was got at. It is a cowardly attack on a public servant. Mr Cooper: Are you glad he wasn't questioned? Mr MACKENROTH: He does not need to be. I will read his statutory declaration to you. Mr Cooper: I'll put it in perspective for you. Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to put his case later. Mr Cooper: I even get that? Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition had three opportunities to go before the Privileges Committee and he declined the lot. The statutory declaration states— "I, Joseph Daniel Thomas Begley of 52 Sixth Avenue, Windsor, in the State of Queensland, do solemnly and sincerely declare that, 1. My attention has been drawn to the claim made in Mr Russell Cooper's letter of July 20, 1990 to the chairman of the Privileges Committee in which Mr Cooper claims to have information which suggested I had given advice on behalf of the Government to the Speaker concerning the application of Standing Order 68 to a question which Mr Cooper asked of Mr Beattie in the Legislative Assembly on June 6. This is not true. 2. Late in the afternoon of June 6, 1990 members of the Press Gallery were commenting that the Speaker had ruled Mr Cooper's question out of order. I undertook to check this matter with the Speaker on behalf of members of the media. At around 5.50 p.m."—— Mr FitzGerald: No wonder he was suspicious. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member should listen. The statutory declaration continues— "At around 5.50 p.m. I sent a note to the Speaker in the Chamber asking if he had ruled the question out of order. The Speaker replied by way of notation to my note that he would inform the House of his decision on the question the following day. This brief written exchange was the only contact that I had with the Speaker on this matter." The statutory declaration was signed by Joe Begley. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were informed by Mr Speaker prior to 5.50 p.m. that the question was out of order, because they informed the media. The Government did not know about it. The first Government members knew of the question being ruled out of order—or the first time they believed that the question had been ruled out of order—was when they heard it on the 6 o'clock news. Mr Cooper is the person who informed the media. Mr Cooper: How could we inform the media? We didn't know. Mr MACKENROTH: What time did Mr Speaker inform the Leader of the Opposition that it was out of order? Mr Borbidge: We didn't see the Speaker until 8.30. Mr MACKENROTH: The Opposition was informed that it was out of order. Legislative Assembly 2494 31 July 1990

Mr Borbidge: I will give you a statutory declaration later and you are not going to look too good. Mr MACKENROTH: Will the honourable member give me a statutory declaration to say that the Clerk had not informed him that it was out of order? Will he also give me a statutory declaration stating that neither the Clerk nor any other member of the Parliament House staff had told him that it was out of order? No. Of course he will not. The Opposition informed the media about this matter. Mr Cooper: We have got a full record of the discussion. Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition will give a full record? Mr Cooper: We have got a full record of what took place in the Speaker's office. Mr MACKENROTH: I hope that the Leader of the Opposition repeats what he said in his letter. Mr FitzGerald: Go back to your notes. Mr MACKENROTH: It is not a note; it is the committee's report. Even when the Privileges Committee gave the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to appear before it, he failed to do that. Then, if honourable members read the letter that the Leader of the Opposition sent to the Privileges Committee, they will see that the Leader of the Opposition even questioned the impartiality of the Privileges Committee. I believe it is about time the Leader of the Opposition realised the way a proper Parliament operates—and that is the way this Parliament operates. Each and every day, the Leader of the Opposition brings into question the impartiality of the Speaker. He is the person who issued a press release claiming that the Speaker had been got at. He did that. That claim, obviously, is untrue. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: Are you repeating that? Mr Cooper: I have said what I have said, and I will not repeat it. Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to appear before the Privileges Committee. I believe that he deserves to be censured by this Parliament for his actions. As I stated, the Government will not take the more drastic step of suspending the Leader of the Opposition for seven days. Quite truthfully, he is ineffective when he is in the Chamber. We may as well keep him here. He is the best asset the Government has in this Parliament. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would welcome the absence of his leader. He might then have the opportunity to perform. I ask that all members consider very carefully the recommendations made by the Privileges Committee. It is a very serious matter when a member brings into question the impartiality of the Speaker. This is not something that was ever done when I was in opposition. Members did not go outside this place and say those things. It was never done. Opposition members interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition should not have taken the action that he took. He has had an opportunity to apologise. The Government does not agree with the dissenting report by the two members of the Opposition who simply stated that the Leader of the Opposition should be given the opportunity to apologise. It is quite obvious from their recommendation that even they think he is guilty. Legislative Assembly 2495 31 July 1990

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (2.55 p.m.): Mr Speaker, the question honourable members must consider is a very simple one. That question is whether the language that was used by the honourable the leader of the National Party was so unparliamentary that it deserves the sentence of expulsion from this House for a period of time. In the context of that matter which requires decision, it is important—— Mr FitzGerald: It says, "matters". Mr WELLS: The honourable member opposite may look at all sorts of plural "matters", but at the moment the House is considering one matter. That matter is whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is about to be suspended from the service of this House. The language that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition used was, "I believe he was got at and pressured to change his mind". Mr Speaker, the honourable member actually said, "I believe he was got at and pressured to change his mind." What an extraordinary about-turn for the Leader of the Opposition. What an extraordinary about-turn from somebody who, only a few short months ago, told this House that he believed in the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. The Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed in the independence of the Speakership and he believed, furthermore, that the Westminster convention of the Speakership should be introduced into this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition said, "We have got to start with it sometime." I suggest to honourable members that the principle of parliamentary democracy will start now with the present Speaker of the House. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the process of electing the Speaker should be abandoned. He suggested that when a Speaker assumed his office there should be no further elections in that honourable member's electorate, or at least that the honourable member should not be opposed in his electorate, and that the Speaker should thereafter continue to hold office with the agreement of both sides of the House. What an extraordinary turnabout from somebody who is now taking the position—"I believe that he was got at." What have honourable members opposite done since those days to enable the Westminster convention of the Speakership to come into force? What steps have they taken to fortify the independence of the Speaker's position, to recognise the independence of the Speaker's position, and to act with respect for the Speaker's position? The Leader of the Opposition issued a press release. He was not just running off at the mouth, or walking off at the mouth, which more accurately describes his manner of delivery. Rather, it was a cold-blooded, clearly intended action, an action which cast the most serious aspersion on a Speaker that can be cast—the suggestion that the Speaker was, in fact, in thrall to one political party or another. A parliamentary system will not work while people treat the institution of the Speakership in that way. The Speaker is so-called because he speaks on behalf of all members of Parliament. If his authority to speak on behalf of all members of Parliament, on behalf of the House itself, is undermined by this sort of language, the institution of parliamentary democracy is itself threatened. Erskine May states— "The Speaker's actions may not be criticised incidentally in debates or other forums of proceedings. Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticised incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion"—— Mr Borbidge: Your Premier said no-one is above criticism when he attacked the CJC. Legislative Assembly 2496 31 July 1990

Mr WELLS: Nobody, including the Speaker, is above criticism, but that criticism must be expressed by substantive motion. Some time ago when the Leader of the Opposition dissented from the Speaker's ruling, this Government did not seek to enforce to his detriment the Standing Orders of this Parliament, because that ruling could properly be criticised and properly debated under substantive motion. Motions can be moved within the Legislature of the Westminster system. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Would the member for Murrumba clarify whether he is speaking as the Attorney-General, who has a role independent of politics, or as the member for Murrumba? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I will try to be as patient as possible with members of this Chamber. However, I will not allow members to make disparaging comments about the Chair during such an important debate. I again warn all members to take note of my ruling, because I will not allow that to occur. It is as simple as that. I include the Leader of the Opposition in my comments. Mr WELLS: In the context of this or any other debate I do not claim any more elevated status than that of the honourable member for Auburn. The Attorney-General acts quasi legally only when he is making a determination about a nolle prosequi, an indemnity and so on. In the context of this debate I claim no more elevated status than that of the honourable member. That status is perfectly sufficient for me to nail the nonsense that has been exhibited by members of the Opposition. I refer to the nonsensical and contradictory attitude that they have adopted since the State election. Firstly, they want an independent Speaker and, secondly, they want the capacity to attack and vilify him in the most unseemly language, which is technically defamatory. I have just quoted from Erskine May's publication. The point is that one may reflect upon the Speaker's rulings or determinations in the context of a substantive motion but not by press release. One does not sneak around Parliament House with a piece of paper in one's hand while trying to smear other members of this House, least of all the Speaker. The language that I referred to at the beginning of my speech represents a low point—a nadir—in parliamentary behaviour. It might very well represent the standard fare of the previous Government. It might also represent the standards that the National Party adopted in the conduct of Parliament. However, in this Parliament the Opposition has reached an all-time low. Erskine May stated— "Except in moving dissent from a ruling, the Speaker's actions can only be criticised by a substantive motion usually in the form of censure or want of confidence. It is not acceptable for the Speaker to be criticised incidentally in a debate. Traditionally, a reflection on the character or actions of the Speaker inside or outside the House has been punishable as a breach of privilege, although with the enactment of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, proposed actions in such circumstances would need to be considered in light of the provisions of the Act." It is not as if the National Party has not had some experience in this regard. It is not as if members of the National Party are not aware that it is impossible to reflect upon people holding particular positions except in the context of a substantive motion. Members of the National Party will remember that the rule applies also to judges. That should have been dinned indelibly into their minds as a result of particular events that occurred last year. They know that one cannot reflect upon people in particular positions without moving a substantive motion. However, even though they knew what they ought to do, they imposed the behavioral standards of the gutter upon the Legislature of Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned by his own words. His language was severe, insulting, untrue and unparliamentary. In fact, it was so unparliamentary that it eroded the very basis of our Westminster system of democracy. Although the Legislative Assembly 2497 31 July 1990

Leader of the Opposition was given three separate dates on which to appear before the Privileges Committee, he elected not to do so. The sentence that could be imposed upon the Leader of the Opposition is a suspension for seven days. The proposal by the Leader of the House in respect of a breach of privilege by the Leader of the Opposition in issuing a media release reflecting on the impartiality of Mr Speaker is that the House should accordingly suspend him from the service of the House for the remainder of this sitting day. The action of the Leader of the House, which I support, is designed not to unduly punish the Leader of the Opposition but to uphold the dignity of the House and ensure that no member of this House will again use that sort of language in those sorts of circumstances. If the honourable Leader of the Opposition wishes to use that sort of language, or if he or any of his colleagues wish to make those sorts of points, they have the free speech of the House in which they can do it by substantive motion. It is not as though they do not have the opportunity to move substantive motions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition could, had he wished, had he regarded himself—— Mr Cooper: Freedom of speech? You don't know what it means. We've been gagged on nearly every occasion. Have a look at the notice paper, too. Mr WELLS: The honourable Leader of the Opposition is not gagged, but if he were the difference would be very subtle indeed. I support the motion. I do so because it is necessary, not to punish the Leader of the Opposition, not to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition for half a day, not to rid our environment of an unfortunate influence, but to uphold the dignity of this House; to uphold the status and position of the Speaker; and to maintain the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (3.09 p.m.): That was an absolute charade, but the honourable member did not have his heart and his soul in it. Mr Speaker, at least I am given an opportunity of putting the record straight from where the Opposition sits and from where I sit. In the light of the report of the Privileges Committee, it is absolutely necessary that our side of the story be told. Thankfully, a dissenting report has been tabled, and I urge honourable members to read it. The report presented by the Privileges Committee has found against me. However, before I indicate my attitude to that finding, I will take this opportunity to put my point of view on the record so that, at the very least, those people who are fair-minded can at least read the other side of the story. I am afraid that this whole charade started when the Opposition was not permitted to ask questions in this House following the tabling on 5 June of the Criminal Justice Commission's Report on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations. That report shot very large holes in the Government's plans for the introduction of poker machines. History will prove that right. The report questioned the past actions of a former Labor Opposition Leader, who is now a Minister of the State Government, over the issue of invoices for advertising in Labor papers which were non-existent. The report found that the issue of such invoices may have provided the means by which a fraudulent tax benefit could have been claimed. Because the Government did not like the findings contained in the report, it set about doing a comprehensive demolition job on the CJC and its report. Literally everyone from the Premier down took a chop at the CJC, with Mr Goss remarking—— Mr Ardill: It's been discredited. Tell the truth for a change. Mr COOPER: Listen to what I am saying, you poor old bottle-brushed idiot! The Premier himself said that no-one in this State was above criticism. At the time there were suggestions that the Government may have attempted to influence the public Legislative Assembly 2498 31 July 1990 handling of the report prior to its release. That was the reason why the Opposition needed to question the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. That was the reason why the Opposition was not receiving answers. I table the question that I have in relation to that, because it is still very relevant as far as the Opposition is concerned and as far as members of the public are concerned, and I invite Mr Beattie to answer it publicly. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr COOPER: This entire issue revolves around the CJC report and subsequent actions by this Government to cover up possibly corrupt practices which may have been associated with taxation fraud. The Opposition sought to explore this with the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice and on 6 June, in accordance with Standing Order 68, I placed on notice a question to the member. Honourable members would have seen the Clerk of the Parliament confer briefly with the Speaker when the question was put, and no objection was raised to it at that time. Later that day the Opposition learned that the question would be disallowed, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I met Mr Speaker that evening. He advised us that on the following day he would rule against the question and he mentioned to us that he had taken advice on the matter from other than the Clerk of the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. I note that, according to page 34 of the committee's report, the Leader of the Opposition stated in his letter to that committee— "My Deputy and myself attended the Speaker's office and were informed by him that he had taken advice on the question of the operation of Standing Order 68, but not from the Clerk." I would like to make the statement—and make it quite clearly—that I did not say that at all. In fact, my recollection is that I said, "I am not inclined to seek your advice on this matter. I will be giving my reasons for the way I will rule in the House tomorrow." That is exactly what I said. Before I am misrepresented, I point out that the facts of the matter are quite clearly that the Clerk of the Parliament came to me in my office with the question; we discussed it then; we had a look at Erskine May, the House of Representatives Practice and the Standing Orders and we came to the decision—it was his advice as well as mine—that the question was totally out of order. I believed that any Speaker in any Legislature in the Westminster system would find it to be out of order. Then, as is the normal procedure, the Clerk advised the office of the Leader of the Opposition that the question would be disallowed the following day. The only other contact I had at any stage was when I received a note from Joe Begley of the Premier's Office asking me whether the question had been disallowed or not. I told him, "Yes, and I will give my ruling as to that tomorrow." That is the absolute truth. I am absolutely outraged that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest—and I cannot understand why—that I had said that I would seek an opinion; that I did not get the Clerk's opinion but another opinion. That is contrary to the facts. I will leave it at that. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to say what he likes in this debate because it is a debate that concerns him. When I first read that letter, I had not intended to make this explanation. The matter had been referred to the Privileges Committee and I thought that it was for the Privileges Committee to determine. However, I have been sorely misrepresented by what the Leader of the Opposition said, and I wanted to point out my side of what happened. I now ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue. Mr COOPER: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for again allowing me to continue to put my side of the case. I believe that through the report of the Select Committee of Privileges everyone has had an opportunity to put their side of the case, and that it is only right and proper that I be given that opportunity. I am simply calling it as I see it, as I recall Legislative Assembly 2499 31 July 1990 it. I adhere to my recollection and that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of that time. You, Mr Speaker, have had your say and I have had mine. I believe that it is necessary that my recollection should be placed on the record. There is a difference of opinion, but I am the one who is being tried and convicted, even prior to having my say. Mr Welford: Come on! You've had a go. Mr COOPER: This is the first chance I have had. That is how much the member for Stafford knows about the matter. He was asleep before. Mr Welford interjected. Mr COOPER: The idiot is only making a greater fool of himself. I will continue because I know that I do not have all day. On that same day, not long after question-time, a member of the Opposition's staff happened to be in the Speaker's lobby when he saw the Premier's principal press secretary enter the area and inquire if anyone had seen the Speaker. Because of the interest that the question had generated among the media on that day and because of the timing of Mr Begley's visit, the assumption that the two issues could be connected was a reasonable one. The actions which followed the disallowance of the question were born out of the Opposition's frustration in attempting to sting the Government into action on the issue of the poker machine lobby and the report of the Criminal Justice Commission. The Government rode to power on the need for reform and public accountability and it is doing its best to sweep its own dirty linen under the carpet. This whole episode highlights the hypocrisy of the Labor Government, particularly as it relates to its so-called commitment to parliamentary reform. Seven months of Labor Government have taught the Opposition, and Queenslanders generally, that what Labor promised and what it has actually delivered are as different as chalk and cheese. Labor abuses question-time by the use of long, innocuous ministerial statements on allotted days and long-winded non-answers on others. It guillotined the most important piece of industrial legislation introduced into this House in many a long day, the vital Industrial Relations Bill, through in 55 minutes. Later I will return to the issue of parliamentary reform because I believe that the submissions recently put forward by the State Opposition have considerable merit. Firstly, I will outline the Opposition's position on the report by the Select Committee of Privileges and show how this Labor Government has dug itself into a hole by a rather naive and impromptu overkill on this issue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he confines his comments to the report by the Select Committee of Privileges. This is not a discussion about parliamentary reform. Mr COOPER: I defer to your ruling, Mr Speaker. I am speaking to that report. However, I do believe that there are also matters that stem from the decision of that committee. The Government's action in criticising the report by the Criminal Justice Commission was taken in full knowledge that the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice was to undertake public hearings on the poker machine issue, and those hearings were to be chaired by Mr Beattie, the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. Because parliamentary committees are rather new to this Parliament—but they are part of this Parliament—the means must exist for members to question their activities and responsibilities. No Minister can answer for those committees. Therefore, the logical course is to utilise Standing Order No. 68, which allows questions to be placed on notice to members of a committee for which they have responsibility before the House. This was the basis on which I placed my question on notice to Mr Beattie on 6 June. As I said Legislative Assembly 2500 31 July 1990 earlier, when Mr Speaker later advised the Opposition that he had taken advice on the question from other than the Clerk, Opposition members were startled by that admission. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition stated that I had advised the Opposition that I had taken advice on this matter from other than the Clerk. Again, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that that is not what I said. He is misrepresenting my point of view. Mr COOPER: I accept your point of view, Mr Speaker, but you also did say that you would allow me to have my say. You said that was fair, and I accept that it is fair that I at least have my say. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mackenroth: You're lucky we didn't give you seven days because he is trying to take over your job already. Mr HARPER: There is no need to worry about that, old fellow. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HARPER: With the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, and in deference to you, it seems to me that you feel obliged virtually to take points of order during the course of the Leader of the Opposition's speech in this Parliament. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, have considered whether it would not be more appropriate to take your place in the House as a member and have someone else chair the debate? Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for Auburn for his suggestion, but I am not inclined to take his advice. Mr COOPER: When Mr Speaker advised the House of his ruling on 7 June, equating Standing Order 68 in this House with the House of Representatives Standing Order 143, his reasoning appeared to be contradictory. Mr Speaker said that such questions had to be of a limited nature, stating that they must relate to a Bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House for which the member had charge. The Opposition had a report by the Criminal Justice Commission which had been released publicly and which was to be subject to public hearings by the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. If that does not constitute a public matter connected with the business of this House for which the member has charge, then I do not know what does. As I said earlier, it was a fair question and, in the view of the Opposition, it is still relevant. The Opposition cannot understand why that question cannot be answered. Was the Government afraid of what this member may have said? Mr Beattie had already indicated that opposition existed within the Government's own ranks to the Fitzgerald reform process. This is the ultimate challenge to the party that preached open government. As I said before, let Mr Beattie answer the question. On the afternoon of 7 June, the Leader of the House, Mr Mackenroth, in his rather indecent haste to capitalise on information fed to him by the media, moved that this matter be referred to the Select Committee of Privileges. Mr Mackenroth's motion brought into question the impartiality of the Speaker and raised the claim that the State Government had got at the Speaker, who had been forced by the Government to do a backflip. The Opposition could not believe how stupid the Government was to put such a motion on the record, let alone refer it to the Select Committee of Privileges for investigation. Unfortunately, as I will illustrate, when it came to the crunch that committee was not prepared to investigate any of the issues referred to it. By letter of 28 June, the chairman of the Select Committee of Privileges, Mr Foley, advised the meeting of the committee that day that a prima facie case for breach of Legislative Assembly 2501 31 July 1990 privilege existed and invited me to present evidence before it at a date and time to be arranged. By letter of 5 July, I advised Mr Foley that I would give evidence, as would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I also advised that as a result of the evidence to be presented, I expected that evidence would have to be given by the Speaker, Mr Joe Begley, members of the Speaker's personal staff and other persons identified in the testimony. I requested that the committee, chaired by Mr Foley, take steps to secure the attendance of those persons before the committee. I also requested that any further hearing be held in public. It is on the record that I wanted a public hearing. I requested that I be represented by counsel. I remind honourable members that the chairman of the committee is a barrister and that the National Party does not have the numbers on that committee. I also requested that my counsel be permitted to cross-examine anyone appearing before the committee, just as the chairman would have cross-examined me. I also advised the chairman that because of the National Party's State conference and another unavoidable electoral commitment, the suggested dates for the hearing were unsuitable. On 13 July, Mr Foley replied in a long-winded letter quoted from Erskine May, the Standing Orders or the House of Representatives Practice, and stated all sorts of reasons why my requests could not be granted. That letter amounted to five pages of excuses as to why no normal rules of giving evidence could apply. The letter stipulated a date on which the committee would meet and asked whether or not I could attend. There is one rule for the Government and another rule for the Opposition. Although I would never suggest that the committee was acting like a kangaroo court, the tone and nature of its approach clearly conveyed that its attitude to this issue was predetermined. On 20 July, I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee conveying my disappointment. That correspondence is essential reading, if honourable members are to grasp the full picture of the political ineptitude of the Government. On 8 June, in my first letter to Mr Foley, I pointed out that the critical issue was whether or not any person on behalf of the Government spoke to the Speaker in relation to this matter in an attempt to influence his decision. I indicated that if all members of the committee were satisfied that no such discussion occurred between any member of the parliamentary Labor Party or any member of the staff of any Minister and the Speaker in relation to this matter, I would accept that assurance, withdraw the points made in my media release and apologise to the Speaker in the House. On that basis, an apology may have been forthcoming. Unfortunately, the committee's investigation and subsequent actions were limited to my actions only and not to the actions of others who may have been involved. The committee's attitude is outlined in the letter from Mr Foley, which points out that no matter how biased a Speaker may be, a member of Parliament—or any other person—who makes that observation other than in a substantive motion before the House commits a breach of privilege. I remind honourable members that the Premier said that no person in Queensland is above criticism. Clearly, in the eyes of the Privileges Committee, the Speaker is above criticism. The case against me amounts to a basic and intolerable restriction of freedom of speech. This restriction is made by a party that supposedly champions the cause of civil liberties. I ask the chairman of the committee: where are such principles now? Obviously they do not suit the Government. Therefore, they no longer apply. What a bunch of hypocrites the members of the Labor Government turned out to be! I seek leave to table a letter to the Speaker dated 9 July 1990, in which I suggested reforms of this Parliament relative to the National Party's stance on the Westminster system. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Legislative Assembly 2502 31 July 1990

Mr COOPER: That letter contained suggested outlines for changes to questions on notice, supplementary questions, question-time itself, questions to parliamentary committee chairmen and ministerial statements. The National Party has suggested ways to augment the independence of the Speaker, the most workable of which appears to be based on the UK suggestion that a Speaker represent a separate constituency comprising the parliamentary precincts. The measures outlined contain a much-needed reform of question-time as well as a proposed new Standing Order to allow questions on notice to committee chairmen. The Government's highly critical attitude towards the initial CJC report indicates that it would be totally inappropriate to entrust Ministers with that responsibility. The question should be directed to the committee chairman. Finally, because the conditions on which I may have apologised have not been met by the committee, I cannot withdraw my comments or apologise. I will give honourable members some examples of what members have said in the past when members of the Government were in Opposition. The first example I cite is that of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wright, who said— "I withdraw it"— meaning a previous statement— "but I am fed up with the Rafferty's Rules here. I suggest that you start to do something about keeping to the rules of the House." He was not disciplined. In a separate incident, a member called the Speaker a "fascist". He was not disciplined, either. I refer to a comment made by the member for Lytton when he was in Opposition. On 19 February 1986, the Speaker named the honourable member for Lytton, Mr Burns, after Mr Burns had said— "Mr Speaker, are you going to apply the same rules to all members of this Parliament, or are the rules to be applied only to members on this side of the House? . . . We'll see how strong you are." Before the Premier could move a suspension motion, Mr Burns said— "You are a fraud as a Speaker. It is a scandal that you should be allowed to run this House. You are a wimp and a disgrace." As a result, Mr Burns was suspended for five sitting days. Compared with what I have said, the suspension for five sitting days was fair. In July 1984, Associate Professor Kenneth Wiltshire said on television— "The Speaker, Mr Warner, has been hopeless. He's probably one of the worst in the history of the State. He's made a number of errors which have been tragic for the independence of Parliament . . . frankly, the current Speaker isn't worth two bob." On 13 August, Mr Warner replied to Professor Wiltshire's comments as follows— "The allegations contained in the statements are unfounded, grossly offensive, and a breach of the privilege of the House . . . I require that you tender to me a complete and full apology and retraction." In his reply Professor Wiltshire apparently offered to give Mr Warner lessons as to how to run a Parliament. Warner took constitutional advice from the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, who advised him to order the professor to appear before the bar of Parliament and be tried for contempt. No further action was taken. There are reams and reams of examples—disgraceful examples— set by Government members. It is perfectly obvious to members of the Opposition and to people outside that this is an absolute charade. The Government is not serious about what it is doing. It has been frivolous and it has treated this whole matter with contempt. The Government has the numbers to do whatever it wishes, regardless of the precedents that have been Legislative Assembly 2503 31 July 1990 set and regardless of the actions that I have taken. I hope that, in using its numbers, the Government realises that one day the Opposition will have the numbers. I sincerely trust that we will not abuse them as the Government is doing today. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.31 p.m.): In opposing the motion, I should like to reply to the comment by the Leader of the House that members of the Opposition have sought not to cooperate with Mr Speaker and that they have tried to frustrate him and make his job all the more difficult. Unfortunately, those comments led to an exchange between you and I, Mr Speaker, and I wish to clarify the situation. You and I, sir, know what happened on that particular night when I was sent out of the Chamber for defending my good name. I appreciate and respect the assurances that you subsequently gave me. But the fact remains that no-one else in the House does. The comments made by the honourable member for Port Curtis that night were reported throughout the media of Queensland and, for defending my good name, I and not the honourable member for Port Curtis was asked to leave the Chamber. Whilst I accept your assurance in regard to this matter, Mr Speaker, can I say that relations would have rested a little more easily if the matter had been subsequently clarified in the House. Having said that, I point out that today will go down as Labor's day of infamy in this Parliament, because all of its talk about accountability and parliamentary reform and all of its promises will be seen for what they are—an absolute and total sham. The Government may have been just too smart and I hope that, a little later, I will have the opportunity to put something on the record that might change the course of this debate. At 2.30 p.m., on 7 June, the Leader of the House said— "I rise to a point of privilege. I have in my possession a media release by the Leader of the Opposition which brings into question the impartiality of the Speaker of our Parliament. It claims that the State Government has got at the Speaker. It also claims that the Speaker has been forced by the Government to do a backflip. I move— "That this matter be referred to the Privileges Committee." My argument is that the report of the Privileges Committee is flawed to the extent that the committee did not examine in detail all the matters referred to by the Leader of the House. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition did not necessarily relate to any attack on Mr Speaker; rather, they related to the fact that the Government, or people acting on behalf of the Government, may have sought to interfere with, or unduly influence, the impartiality of the Chair. Mr Nunn: When did it say that? Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable member reads the matter that was referred—— Mr Nunn interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member cannot cop it. Honourable members have seen a kangaroo court in action. For whatever reason, the Privileges Committee has not been prepared to address all of the issues. As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition received a letter from the Privileges Committee inviting him to tender evidence. He did not get that opportunity. He was denied that opportunity. There was no opportunity for people to be called before the Privileges Committee, which could well have determined whether the Government had sought to exert some undue influence on Mr Speaker. I want to say something else. It is all very well for you to smile, Mr Speaker, but I think you should be making—I shall leave it at that. The Government's handling of this issue has demonstrated the total contempt with which it holds the House. The Legislative Assembly 2504 31 July 1990 report was tabled this morning. As I understand it, it was distributed to the press gallery at about 1 o'clock, or shortly after. Yet members of the Opposition walked into this Chamber this afternoon expecting to debate a complex issue—it is admitted by the Chairman of the Privileges Committee to be complex—without those reports having been made available to them. That is absolutely indicative of the contempt with which the Opposition is being treated consistently in this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has cited ample precedents of Leaders of the Opposition, members of Parliament and academics outside having seen fit, for whatever reason, to criticise the Speaker of the day. I cannot recall, certainly in the recent history of the State of Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition being suspended from the service of the House for persevering with a question under Standing Order 68 which related to the report of the Criminal Justice Commission, which related to the propriety of Ministers and which related to possible corruption. That is what Government members are doing today. They are betraying the spirit of Fitzgerald. I am fascinated by the comments and the attitudes of the honourable member for Yeronga since coming into this place. There would not be a member who has come into this Parliament with such high hopes of commitment to fair play and common decency as those espoused by the honourable member for Yeronga. I remind the House of the honourable member's maiden speech in which he referred to public anger at official excesses of the past and the lack of respect for civil liberties. I ask: what about the lack of respect for the civil liberties of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in this place? Mr Stoneman: What about natural justice? Mr BORBIDGE: What about natural justice? What about the right to present one's case to a select committee of this Parliament? The member for Yeronga went on to state— "The Government of the day used its numbers in this House repeatedly to gag debate, particularly when debate focussed on a matter embarrassing to the Government. The principal public opportunity for the Parliament to render the Executive accountable—question-time—became a standing joke amongst the citizens of Queensland. Long- winded, evasive answers from Ministers were interspersed with irrelevant invective against the questioner. The practice adopted by other Parliaments of using parliamentary committees to investigate and review complex matters was virtually ignored. By these devices the doctrine of responsible government was abused in Queensland. . . . The power of the former Executive (was used) to frustrate the proper public airing of issues." He went on to state— "All these matters, taken together, have produced the passion for reform on the part of the Queensland people. Democracy . . . requires constant attention to its institutions, eternal vigilance to ensure the liberty of citizens, and energy to explode the pious humbug which always surrounds the excessive centralisation of power." I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition's frustration grew out of having had ruled out of order a question about the first major report of the Criminal Justice Commission, the son of Fitzgerald. Today, in all seriousness I wish to say that members of the Government have been too smart. They now have to make a choice between Mr Speaker and Mr Begley, because, by his comments made earlier this afternoon, Mr Speaker has contradicted the contents of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Begley. As I understand this matter, Mr Begley's statutory declaration states— "The Speaker replied by way of notation to my note that he would inform the House of his decision . . . the following day." Legislative Assembly 2505 31 July 1990

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr Speaker, you said that you had received a note from Joe Begley asking if the question had been ruled out of order and that you replied— "Yes I had, and I will inform the House of the reasons tomorrow." There is a contradiction between the statutory declaration signed by Joe Begley and comments made by Mr Speaker to the House today. This demonstrates very clearly that right, at least, is on the side of the Leader of the Opposition. I wish also to put my side of the story in relation to my recollection of the meeting with Mr Speaker that took place on 6 June 1990. Mr Prest: You are still suffering from sour grapes, eight months after the election. Mr BORBIDGE: The Government has used as its defence a statutory declaration from a member of the Premier's staff which is at odds with a statement made this afternoon by the Speaker. I suggest to members of the Government that they have been caught out, and that they have to make a decision. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Does the honourable member support Mr Speaker? Does he support Mr Begley? Whose side is he on? Who is right? Who should the Opposition believe? Members of the Labor Party have been too smart, and they have caught themselves out. I trust that members of the Government will not be running upstairs to Hansard very quickly to check the record. Mr Speaker, I wish to relate my recollection of a meeting held with you on 6 June 1990. Let me say that it accords with that of the Leader of the Opposition and that I am prepared to give it in the form of a statutory declaration. If it is not consistent with your recollection, sir, I can offer no explanation for that. Immediately the Leader of the Opposition and I left your room, we dictated the following comments to a secretary in the offices of the Opposition— "At approximately 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday 6 June, 1990, the Opposition offices received a telephone call from the tables office advising that the Leader of the Opposition's question to Mr Beattie had been ruled out of order by Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and I sought a meeting with the Speaker. As no reply had been received the Leader of the Opposition and I proceeded to the Speaker's room after the dinner adjournment. In the subsequent discussion the Speaker expressed some annoyance that we had been advised of his intention and confirmed that he would rule the question out of order. He declined to give reasons for his decision and stated that this was a matter for the House." Again I say that this is related to the best of my recollection and to the best of the recollection of the Leader of the Opposition— "The Speaker confirmed that he had received advice on the matter and also confirmed that this advice which would form the basis for his ruling had not come from the Clerk of the Parliament. T h e Speaker was obviously uncomfortable with the meeting." I have signed that statement. I table it. I am prepared to provide a statutory declaration to that effect. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr BORBIDGE: The situation is particularly serious. The Leader of the Opposition is not on trial today; rather it is the Labor Party's handling of the entire operations of the Parliament that is on trial. I remind the House that the last Parliament in the Commonwealth in which a head of government sought to expel a prominent member of the Opposition was in Zimbabwe under the leadership of Robert Mugabe, just before that country moved to a one-party system. Legislative Assembly 2506 31 July 1990

There are too many unanswered questions. As a result of comments made in the House today, there are now additional questions about Mr Begley's statutory declaration. However, the central issue is: will we ever know if there has been a conspiracy to prevent the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice from complying with the provisions of Standing Order 68? What was the involvement of Mr Begley, particularly taking into account the conflict that has emerged today. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Lockyer interjects, perhaps not everything was in Mr Begley's statutory declaration. What was the substance of Mr Begley's inquiry into the whereabouts of Mr Speaker? Is it as simple as the statutory declaration which so far has survived the scrutiny of Parliament for about 20 minutes? On whose instructions was Mr Begley acting? Those are serious questions that need to be answered. I suggest that, before the Government proceeds further, it should examine its own credibility in that regard. The matters that the Leader of the Opposition sought to raise—in my view, completely in accordance with Standing Order 68—go to the heart of Fitzgerald reform. It will be a sad day for this State if all those reforms that have been put in place are sacrificed at the altar of political expediency, as once again the Goss Government demonstrates that its actions do not match its rhetoric. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling on the next speaker, I will restate my position. At no time did I speak to anybody other than the Clerk about that matter. The Clerk and I decided in unison. The Clerk's office advised the Leader of the Opposition's office that I was going to disallow the question. I did not speak to Joe Begley. I merely received a note from him at 5 minutes to 6 or 10 minutes to 6. I said that it was 5 minutes to 6 and he said that it was 10 minutes to 6. At that time, I advised him that, next day, I would give my reasons for disallowing the question. It is as simple as that. I find that it is outrageous that my credibility is being questioned. I will let honourable members and the people of Queensland judge my credibility on the matter. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis will cease interjecting. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (3.48 p.m.): It is important to recap the events of the past hour. Previously, the Attorney-General asked the National Party, "What did you do to achieve an independent Speaker?" Its first act was to make an offer to the Government that it would not contest Mr Speaker's seat at the next election. By making an offer of that nature, the National Party could not have done more to deliver to this House an objective Speaker. The National Party took the strongest possible action to deliver a fair and objective Speaker. Mr Wells: It was a hypocritical offer to get a headline on one day; that's what it was. Mr KATTER: Our record stands for itself. I ask the Government what it has done to deliver to this House a fair and objective Speaker. The Attorney-General also said that, through the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, the National Party has reached an all-time low. I ask the House to consider which was the lowest of the two statements that were made. Mr Cooper stated— "I believe that the Speaker had obviously been got at. I believe that he was forced into giving a political ruling and not a procedural ruling." During a division, the Deputy Premier stated— "President Marcos ought to come over here and find out how to run his Parliament. You would be able to teach Marcos a few things. This is why they call Legislative Assembly 2507 31 July 1990

this the Marcos of Queensland rules . . . . You have shown that there is one rule for the Premier and another for me. That is what we have proven this morning, and we have proven it for everybody in Queensland to see—that you are a Government stooge, that is what you are." He stated further— ". . . on this matter, but you have not had the guts, to be truthful. Which crook are you protecting, Mr Speaker? Joh or Hallahan?" I ask members of this House to judge fairly and objectively which of those statements is the lowest. I do not intend to reflect upon your ruling, Mr Speaker, on Mr Lingard earlier today. However, I ask honourable members to compare the statement made by Mr Lingard with statements that were made frequently, and recorded in Hansard, by members of the Labor Party and to note the action that was taken by the National Party against the people who made those statements. If honourable members make that comparison, they can judge for themselves how fair the decision on Mr Lingard was. The Government's case was based on Erskine May, which states that one cannot criticise the Speaker unless there is a substantive motion before the House. That is the principle we are considering here today. It is very important to understand one very major difference between this House and the House of Commons in England. That difference is that you, Mr Speaker, would not face your seat being contested at the next election. In that Parliament a member becomes an apolitical person when he ascends the Speaker's chair. That makes an enormous difference. In this House the holder of the office of Speaker is subjected to the endorsement of his party prior to an election. That requirement in the State of Queensland imposes difficulties in interpreting Erskine May. That is my first point. I do not wish to embarrass the civil libertarians in this place. With all due respect, the Chairman of the Privileges Committee does a commendable job, despite the pressures imposed upon him—as do you, Mr Speaker. I think you try to do what you can do within the bounds of politics. If I were the honourable member for Yeronga, or if I were Mr Beattie, I would blush with embarrassment over what I am about to read to honourable members. I refer to Wade, H.R. on Administrative Law , an Oxford publication. The chapter to which I refer deals with the right to a fair hearing—in Latin audi alteram partem, hear the other side. Wade states— "It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard—" The author is referring to administrative law. I emphasise to honourable members that the author is referring not to common law, but to administrative law. It is not the laws of Parliament; it is administrative law—a far lower plane than we are debating here in Parliament where one would expect a higher standard than the standards I am talking about here dealing with a document on administrative law. The author states— "It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard: audi alteram partem, 'hear the other side'. This is the more far-reaching of the principles of natural justice, since it can embrace almost every question of fair procedure, or due process, and its implications can be worked out in great detail. It is also broad enough to include the rule against bias, since a fair hearing must be an unbiased hearing; but in deference to the traditional dichotomy, that rule has already been treated separately. . . . The right to a fair hearing has thus been used by the courts as a base on which to build a kind of code of fair administrative procedure, comparable to 'due process of law' under the Constitution of the United States. As already mentioned, there has been an outburst of such activity since 1963, when the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Ridge v. Baldwin put an end to a period of judicial backsliding. Parliament also has made many provisions for tribunals and inquiries, and, particularly since 1957 . . . " Legislative Assembly 2508 31 July 1990

Mr Speaker, in the pages that follow, case after case and authority after authority, again and again, emphasise the point that the dictates of natural justice require that a person has the right to put his arguments in a tribunal. If he does not have the right to put those arguments, it is not a fair court of justice and can never be deemed to meet the dictates of the determinants of natural justice. As the authorities will show, the courts took their stand several centuries ago on the broad principle that bodies entrusted with legal power could not validly exercise it without first hearing the person who is to suffer. Wade continues— "Again, under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, which is binding on the United Kingdom as a treaty and under which individuals can take proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights, it is provided that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Ringeisen v. Austria, Koenig v. Federal Republic of Germany, Kaplan v. United Kingdom, Pudas v. Sweden, and Boden v. Sweden—each and every one of these European cases upheld that an administrative tribunal must hear the other side of the story. Again, principles of natural justice are required to be applied. I do not wish to bore the House with case after case. I think it is absolutely essential in the issue before the House today and in all further issues dealt with by the Privileges Committee, or any other tribunal which is supposed to make a determination, that they consider and adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Speaker had been got at. In doing that, the Leader of the Opposition wished to bring forward certain evidence that would support his claim. When the Leader of the Opposition attempted to bring forward that evidence, the Privileges Committee told him that—and this is the reason for the dissension by myself and an honourable member who is absent today because of illness—he could not bring forward that evidence. However, without that evidence he had no case. So there was absolutely no purpose served by the Leader of the Opposition appearing before the tribunal. I have put forward the concept of natural justice. As I say, I do not wish to read out case after case. I have referred to 10 or 15 already; I could read another 10 or 15. In an administrative tribunal the person appearing before the tribunal must have the right to present his side of the argument. The Leader of the House and the Attorney-General have come into this House and said on three occasions that the Leader of the Opposition was invited to put his case. With all due respect, Mr Speaker, without evidence from Mr Begley and without evidence from yourself,there is no case to be put. The honourable member's case depended entirely upon his ability to express what occurred. Mr Elder: Can we have that again? Mr KATTER: I will say it again for those who are a little slow. The concept of natural justice dictates that a person has the right to be heard and to put his case. The honourable member could not put his case without taking evidence from Mr Begley and from Mr Speaker. It was decided in the Privileges Committee—I must say very much against my wishes and the wishes of Mr Neal—that the parameters for discussion were very definitely whether the Leader of the Opposition had made a public reflection upon the Chair. That was the only matter for determination. No other evidence supported the case in point before the Privileges Committee. Mr Nunn: And had he? Mr KATTER: He asked to appear before the committee and to produce evidence on his behalf. However, he was refused permission to do so. Mr Elder: Did he say it publicly? Legislative Assembly 2509 31 July 1990

Mr KATTER: He most certainly said it publicly. Nobody questions that for a moment. In fact, that was rather a stupid question. I ask the honourable member not to ask such a stupid question of me again. The first point I make is that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to in the committee's deliberations. Secondly, the committee should have taken into account previous cases that occurred in the Queensland Parliament. The committee took the view that those cases were not authoritative as to whether or not Mr Cooper had breached privilege; that they were relevant only to the degree of culpability or, more specifically, the duration of any suspension that was proposed. I cannot think of one suspension having occurred except, firstly, when there was a refusal by a member to withdraw remarks or to apologise to the Chair and, secondly, when there was general uproar, the Speaker had constantly called for better behaviour and then tossed somebody out. Those are the only two cases that I can think of that would create a precedent for saying that there was a breach of privilege when a person made a statement. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has never been requested to apologise and withdraw. He has simply been hung, drawn and quartered. I did not expect the Leader of the House to do what he did earlier today. The Leader of the House made a bloody-minded mess when he drew the terms far too wide to suit the interests of the Government. He has now made another mess by not giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to apologise and withdraw. This is the first occasion in my 16 years as a member of this House when that opportunity was not afforded to a member of this House. Judgment was passed upon the Leader of the Opposition without his being given an opportunity of withdrawing or apologising. At no stage has the Government made that request of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Mackenroth has been very foolish. Once again, he has made a terrible mistake that has embarrassed his Government. It is important for me to mention some statements that have been made previously. Mr Ken Wiltshire said— "The Speaker, Mr Warner, has been hopeless. He's probably one of the worst in the history of the State. He's made a number of errors which have been tragic for the independence of Parliament . . . frankly, the current Speaker isn't worth two bob." Mr Warner replied to those comments as follows— "The allegations contained in the statements are unfounded, grossly offensive, and a breach of the privilege of the House . . . I require that you tender to me a complete and full apology and retraction." Wiltshire utterly ignored that request, but no action was taken against him. If one is looking for precedent, that is it. The former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Warburton, said that Mr Warner's action was "stupid and unnecessary" and that "it shows there is no impartiality." In other words, he accused the Speaker of partiality. He said that it was "indicative of the man's general attitude and ability". He reflected upon the ability of the Speaker of the House. Again, no action whatsoever was taken against Mr Warburton. The Leader of the Opposition has made no such ridiculous and outrageous statements. He made a simple statement based upon information that he received and which, I thought, reflected upon the Government, not the Speaker of the House. Honourable members must be politically realistic. They should realise that the Speaker of the House relies upon a party endorsement to seek re-election at the next election. Honourable members have had to live with that reality for the past 16 years that I have been a member of this House and they must face that reality now. However, the Leader of the Opposition should not be muzzled and then be expected to mouth some sort of lying hypocrisy that that is not the case. It most certainly is the case. Legislative Assembly 2510 31 July 1990

Mr Speaker, as to whether or not that affects your judgment is a different matter. However, if considerable pressure is applied by the Government to the Speaker, it is our duty to speak out. The Leader of the Opposition felt obliged to speak out. If he had not spoken out when considerable pressure was applied to you, Mr Speaker, he would not have been doing his job and he should have resigned. The Opposition's next point was that, prima facie, this matter should more properly have been a matter for determination by the Speaker. The fact that the Speaker has not made a ruling on the matter referred to the committee could indicate a reluctance to deal with this matter. If so, we would deem this to be an indication that he considered himself to be an integral part of the reference by the Leader of the House and therefore an unsuitable person to adjudicate. I respect you, Mr Speaker, for making that judgment. However, I point out that the matter could not be fairly handled by the Privileges Committee because honourable members heard only one side of the story. They most certainly could not hear the story of the Leader of the Opposition. It was impossible for him to do so. The other point that I make is that to attribute complete immunity to the Speaker, except through the House—a body controlled by the majority party—is drawing the ambit of the principle of inviolability of the Speaker far too widely. I do not hesitate to refer to an appeal report in this House. In that case the Speaker had agreed to the transfer of travel warrants from interstate to overseas. Whether that was improper or not, I do not know. People had in all honesty gone to the Speaker and requested the change, which had been stamped with the seal of the Speaker. They then proceeded overseas. Some of them were the most honest people I have ever known. Dr Scott-Young is a name that leaps to my mind. A more honest person I have never met. He was traumatised when he was suddenly indicted as a criminal for having thieved public moneys. That was the allegation that was made against 23 members of this House. The Speaker was able to hide behind closed doors and not give any sort of an explanation. No-one could assail him with any sort of explanation. The people concerned were totally unable to defend themselves. To construe the inviolability of the Speaker so widely, as is being done here, is to deprive people of their right to natural justice. That is what occurred in relation to the Leader of the Opposition. Without some clear statement by the Speaker, it was not proper, fair or just to proceed against the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, in saying that, in no way do I reflect upon you. All I am saying is that, having taken the position that you took—and it was not an unreasonable position for you to take for the reasons I have given—it was therefore impossible for us to pass judgment if we wanted to pay anything but lip-service to and show hypocrisy towards the concept of natural justice. As I said before, Mr Mackenroth has twice made a mess of the wording of his statement in failing to ask the Leader of the Opposition to apologise and withdraw. By failing to do that, the Government marks itself down as breaking new ground in depriving members of their freedom and rights in this House. To my memory, in the 16 years that I have been a member of this House, that has not been done previously. I do not notice any member opposite contesting what I am saying. Therefore, I assume that all of them cannot think of a single case in which it has occurred. New ground has been broken in taking away from members the rights and privileges of the House. The wording of Mr Mackenroth's motion is such that the Speaker and the alleged pressure that was put upon him were an integral part of the matters referred to the committee. Therefore, to discuss only a selective part of the motion and consider it in isolation was not the direction given to the committee by the House. Upon that issue, there is no way that we can pay even lip-service to the concept of natural justice by proceeding in this case. I do not think that anyone who speaks to this motion should not reflect upon some of the comments that were made in the past in this place. On 20 March 1985, Mr Gibbs, in leaving the Chamber, shouted— "I will leave the Chamber. It is a pleasure to leave." Legislative Assembly 2511 31 July 1990

That was an act of defiance against the Speaker. During the associated division, the member for Ipswich, Mr Hamill, shouted repeatedly— "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!" Before the Premier could move the suspension motion, Mr Burns said— "You are a fraud as a Speaker. It is a scandal that you should be allowed to run this House. You are a wimp and a disgrace." Honourable members should reflect upon the fact that the Attorney-General said that the Opposition has reached the lowest level. If what the Leader of the Opposition said is the lowest level, I will leave to honourable members' imaginations to what level members who belong to the party on the opposite side of the House sunk in previous years. They can decide that for themselves. Mr Palaszczuk: What did Mr Hamill cop for his "Sieg Heil"? He copped seven days. Mr KATTER: He was given the opportunity to apologise and withdraw. That is the difference between the case we are discussing and previous cases. Mr Campbell: He was not. Mr KATTER: Let me take the second interjection, which was, "He was not." If he was not, then it most certainly fits into the category in which there was general pandemonium in this place and the Speaker—— Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, I am trying intelligently to take the interjections, because I think it is an important debate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Archerfield! Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr KATTER: I am taking the honourable member's interjection. If he would shut up for a moment and give me an opportunity to answer it, I may be able to give him the answer that he is seeking—not that I think he is seeking an answer. In fact, I think he desperately does not want to hear an answer. In the case to which I referred, the difference was that the Speaker had constantly and continuously called for order and he had warned honourable members that if they continued to interject he would throw them out. At the point at which he was continuously being defied, in spite of the fact that he had given three, four or five warnings, he was left no alternative but to suspend someone. That is the difference between the present case and the cases to which I have referred. The honourable member asked me for an answer and I have given him one. I am sure that he did not want that one, but he has to live with it because he was stupid enough to ask for it. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Archerfield will cease interjecting. Mr KATTER: If we are to judge people in this place without giving them the opportunity to have their say, with only one side being allowed to speak, then we are not in a very happy society. I think this has to be said in this debate. During the Fitzgerald inquiry, pious statement after pious statement was heard from the members who at that time were on this side of the House. It was stated that there must be fair and open government. The Fitzgerald inquiry made statement after statement and decision after decision which reflected upon the National Party Government in the most deeply damaging way Legislative Assembly 2512 31 July 1990 possible. On the very first occasion on which the CJC acted, it made a very mild criticism of a member of the Government. Honourable members should compare that with what happened to members of the National Party Government at that time. Following that very mild criticism, what was the reaction? The Premier himself proceeded to launch a massive attack against the CJC. I defy anyone in this place to cite any occasion on which Opposition members have attacked the Fitzgerald inquiry. I ask honourable members to compare the Government's performance on the issue of fair and open government with that of the National Party Government. I asked the Parliamentary Library to provide me with some information. Unfortunately, the library had only 20 minutes in which to do so, and I deeply regret that that information has not been provided to me. In the past, Mr Lester has claimed that in his first 12 months in this House he asked 100 questions. I thought my record was pretty close to that. In my first six months, I asked about 50 questions. However, in the six months before I became a Minister—Mr Speaker, please bear with me; my comments are most relevant to this debate—I asked about 20 or 30 questions. In my first six months in this Parliament, I have not asked one single, solitary question, yet members of the Opposition work on a rotation list that is fair to all of its members. Even though the Opposition was working on a rotational list, the Government was able to screw it down during question-time. One of the recent editions of a publication that members of this House receive contains an interesting article on how question-time in the various Parliaments has been cut down by various Governments, namely the Federal ALP Government and the ALP Government in this House. Since the Labor Party came into Government, there has virtually been no question-time, and that is what this debate is about, an effort to gag the members on this side of the House on an issue that was enormously damaging to the Government. The gag was used ruthlessly, as it has been ever since the Labor Party gained power in this House. I will raise two other points. When the National Party was in Government, it eliminated the first-reading debate. I might be wrong in saying that other Governments eliminated the first-reading debate, but I am positive that no other Parliament without a house of review has abolished the first-reading debate. Members of this House now have very little ability to review legislation or consider it in a wider ambit and from a wider viewpoint. Mr Ardill: How is it that you did not have this criticism when you were in Government? Mr KATTER: That is the point that I want to make. In all of my time in this House after the first-reading debate was abolished, I can never remember any honourable member being pulled up because he was straying too widely in his speech at the second-reading stage. When a previous Government abolished the first reading debate, there was an agreement among members in this place that a member's speech to the second-reading debate could be extremely wide ranging. Mr Borbidge: It has been a convention for years. Mr KATTER: It has been a convention in this House for years, and that convention has been abolished by this new Government. In other words, the freedom of speech in this House has been dramatically restricted by this new Government. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr KATTER: I take that interjection. The honourable member says that it has not been his experience that his speeches have been curtailed. Mr Ardill: No, I did not say that. Legislative Assembly 2513 31 July 1990

Mr KATTER: Out of the mouths of babes—the member stands condemned by his own statement. Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order. The member for Flinders is telling an untruth. I did not say that. What I said was that that has not been my experience with the present Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Salisbury will resume his seat. The member for Flinders' time has expired. I call on the member for Moggill. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.19 p.m.): I rise somewhat reluctantly to participate in this afternoon's debate. It is very unfortunate that this House has to debate this motion. I rise to point out the Liberal Party's traditional position with respect to the issue of the Speakership and the Parliament and the Liberal Party's general support of the Speaker. Members of the National Party should reflect on past Parliaments. I have got only Hansard to refer to, but many of them were in this House during those years. They will recall that, when the Liberal Party was in Government, it traditionally supported the rulings of the Speaker, and it did so for two particularly good reasons. Firstly, the rights of all honourable members in this House rest upon members recognising the authority and the integrity of the Chair in applying the Standing Orders of the House. Not to do so simply leads to the degeneration of debate and of the procedures of the House. For that reason, the Liberal Party supports the Chair. If honourable members do not support the Chair, they are all affected adversely. Secondly, the Liberal Party traditionally supports the Chair because it believes in the institution of Parliament itself and the long road that our forebears had to undertake to arrive at the stage that honourable members are at today of a democratic and relatively free society and of free parliamentary speech. I will not review that process, but it was fought for over many, many centuries. The Liberal Party believes that the population in general has an idea of the role of Parliament and how members should act. I believe that the people of this State support the concept that members of Parliament be afforded a great deal of latitude. However, along with that latitude comes a responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner. If honourable members look at the ratings of parliamentarians in today's society and ask themselves why they are sometimes held in a regard lower than in which they believe they should be held, it is partly due to the public's perception of the behaviour adopted by members of Parliament. The Liberal Party believes that this House should have strong, vigorous debate with lively interchange between members of Parliament. However, if parliamentarians are to be respected by people outside this place, they must behave in an appropriate fashion. Members of this House discipline themselves and it is up to them to ensure that their behaviour is appropriate. Members of the Liberal Party supports the Chair, firstly, for the protection of all honourable members and, secondly, because they believe in the institution of Parliament and what it stands for. We believe the community expects an appropriate standard of behaviour. From my position on the Privileges Committee, I consider that there are two central issues in this case which should not become confused. The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of whether or not he had reasonable grounds for suggesting that the Speaker did not act impartially. The Privileges Committee raised the further issue of whether or not the press release that reflected on the impartiality of the Speaker was an appropriate method of bringing those grounds to the attention of honourable members. The answer to the first question is irrelevant. The Leader of the Opposition may or may not have had sufficient grounds to question the impartiality of the Speaker. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to address that issue at the appropriate time. The Privileges Committee inquired into and reported on whether or not the Leader of the Legislative Assembly 2514 31 July 1990

Opposition chose the appropriate methods to raise the issue. Most honourable members have a copy of the report and can refer to it. The Privileges Committee has cited numerous examples of a long standing parliamentary practice in the House of Commons, in the House of Representatives and in this House which suggests that reflecting upon the impartiality of the Speaker by a comment, a press release or a radio interview is inappropriate. To call into question the authority and the integrity of the Chair willy-nilly would put all honourable members at a disadvantage. According to the traditions of the Westminster system, the answer to the question of whether or not it was appropriate to do that is, "No, it is not appropriate." One only has to read Erskine May, House of Representatives Practice or Standing Orders to know that there is an appropriate way to address the issue of the impartiality of the Speaker. Honourable members do not always say that the Speaker is right. Like any honourable member, the Speaker is fallible. The critical point is that a number of procedures are laid down for addressing the issue of the impartiality of the Speaker. One procedure is for a member to move a motion of dissent from the rulings of the Chair. That procedure was adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. Another procedure is for a member to move for the suspension of Standing Orders, to move immediately a censure motion or a vote of no confidence, in the Speaker. Those procedures are available to all honourable members, including the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition chose to follow the first procedure. Because the incident occurred on the last day of sitting, this is the first occasion on which that motion could be debated without the suspension of Standing Orders. Because of the current political issues, it may not have been politically appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to do that. However, the time when that motion is debated does not make any difference to the running of the House. If honourable members believe that the Speaker is not acting in an impartial manner, a substantive motion to that effect ought to be moved so that a debate on that motion can take place. Having spent some time in another place, I took part in a number of debates during which the impartiality of the Speaker has been an issue. On one occasion, the former Federal Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, was suspended for 24 hours. If honourable members want to read an excellent speech on that issue, they should read the speech made by the then Leader of the National Party, Ian Sinclair. Even today, I can recall parts of that speech. Although the National Party in Queensland does not find Ian Sinclair always to its liking, he was one of the best performers in the Federal Parliament. He made an excellent speech that day drawing to attention the questions that were critical. At that stage, he moved a motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling. I can also recall some of the speeches made when Mr Wilson Tuckey, the honourable member for Connor, was removed, again for making a reflection on the Chair when he was outside the House. Again Ian Sinclair and John Howard made excellent speeches on the question of the partiality or impartiality of the Chair. I hasten to record that, in each of those instances, the members of the Opposition were actually speaking to a substantive motion before the House. They were not going out and making statements; they were actually speaking to a substantive motion before the House, and that is the appropriate place for these issues to be raised. I will not take up substantially any more time. It is important to understand that there are two issues which we, in the Privileges Committee, tried to make sure that we separated. One was whether or not there were substantial reasons for believing that the Speaker was impartial. The other was whether or not the members of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were able to raise the issue in the appropriate fashion. That, as the history of the Westminster system indicates, was not appropriately done. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (4.32 p.m.): Our liberty depends upon a healthy parliamentary democracy. A healthy parliamentary democracy under our system depends upon adherence to certain principles of the Westminster tradition. One of the most basic principles Legislative Assembly 2515 31 July 1990 of the Westminster system of Parliament is that one may not reflect upon the impartiality of the Speaker except by substantive motion, such as a motion of censure. That is a basic and fundamental principle. It is disappointing, amidst the sound and fury of debate, that there should be any disagreement with that principle. It is certainly not suggested by any of the honourable members who have spoken. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members on my left that they have been heard almost in silence all afternoon. I would like to hear the honourable member for Yeronga. I am asking quite politely that I be allowed to hear him. He should be allowed to make his points without members asking questions. Mr FOLEY: It has not been suggested thus far in debate that that is not a correct statement of the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy. It is so, because to adopt any other principle would be contrary to the great traditions of the Westminster parliamentary system. The most elementary analogy with the court system will illustrate the point. Every day, persons go to court to argue about matters upon which strong feeling is generated. Every day in our court system, some litigants are unhappy with the decision of the court. It is open to a disgruntled litigant to lodge an appeal to an appeal court and, in that appeal, to attack the decision of the judge at first instance. What is forbidden for that litigant is to go outside the court room and to issue a media release attacking the judge and alleging that the judge has been got at. It is sad that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise seeks to personalise the debate. Perhaps it illustrates the absence of any argument to the contrary of these simple principles which are being expounded. It is sad that that simple principle which one might have thought would unify all members of this House has been subject to so much disputation as to remove or seek to remove the simple clarity of its message. If that principle is, in truth, a principle of the Westminster parliamentary system and if, in truth, in the post-Fitzgerald era we are to have a healthy parliamentary democracy in Queensland, then we must adhere to that principle. It is little to the point to deflect the debate into other matters that go to the political issues of the day. Nobody, in the course of the debate, has suggested anything other than that the media release in question is a media release which attacks the impartiality of the Speaker. In the course of the debate, various criticisms have been made of the approach adopted by the Privileges Committee. Those matters have been dealt with in some depth on pages 9 to 15 of the report, and I will not deal with them in depth in this speech. Suffice to say that the complaint that natural justice was not observed is a complaint that is utterly baseless. Opportunity was given for the honourable member to appear before the committee. The complaint really centres on what was the relevant issue before the committee, and on that the honourable members in the minority had a dissenting view. Several reforms to the law of parliamentary privilege, which have been adopted in the Commonwealth parliamentary sphere, have been identified in the report. Those reforms warrant careful study at the appropriate time. There is one further matter to which I wish to allude. The letter of the honourable Leader of the Opposition of 8 June 1990, which appears at page 28 of the report, indicates the willingness at that time of the honourable member to give an apology in this House upon his receiving a satisfactory assurance from the Speaker that, in short, the Speaker had not, as alleged in the media release, been "got at" by the Government. In the course of this debate, the Speaker has given precisely that assurance, and it is a sad fact that the apology has not yet been forthcoming. I support the motion. Legislative Assembly 2516 31 July 1990

Mr KING (Nicklin) (4.38 p.m.): Mr Speaker—— Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (4.39 p.m.): I move— "That the question be now put." Motion agreed to. Question—That the motion (Mr Mackenroth) be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58 NOES, 21 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to leave the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Roma withdrew from the Chamber. PRIVILEGE Referral to Privileges Committee of Matters Contained in Statutory Declaration of Mr J. Begley Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.49 p.m.): I rise on a serious matter of privilege. I refer to certain revelations in the recent debate and the fact that a statutory declaration used by the Leader of the House may actually be in contempt of the House. I also refer to revelations that Mr Begley passed a note to Mr Speaker after media speculation that the question that we were discussing was to be ruled out of order. The Leader of the House, in reading Mr Begley's statutory declaration, said— "The Speaker replied by way of notation to my note that he would inform the House of his decision on the following day." In your latest statement to Parliament, Mr Speaker, you said that you had received a note from Mr Begley asking if the question had been ruled out of order and you had replied, "Yes, it is out of order, and I will advise the House of the reasons tomorrow." Legislative Assembly 2517 31 July 1990

What is of concern is that the statutory declaration says that the Speaker did not inform Mr Begley of the decision but that the Speaker, in his later statement to Parliament, said that he had advised Mr Begley. I therefore move— "That the matter of Mr Begley's statutory declaration referred to by the Leader of the House and in conflict with assurances given to the Parliament this day by Mr Speaker be referred to the Privileges Committee to determine whether an issue of contempt may have arisen." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 20 NOES, 58 DIVISION Resolved in the negative. LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed (see p. ). Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (4.57 p.m.): This is a brief but important Bill. Contrary to the posturings of honourable members opposite, it is not controversial. Indeed, the Bill in its intent is supported by the majority of thinking land-holders in the Cook electorate and throughout the State. The spurious argument that the present review of land tenures and administrative procedures places the existing security of tenure under some threat will be exposed as a myth. I note some comments that were made earlier in the debate today, particularly by the honourable member for Carnarvon, who suggested that the review has generated some sinister overtones in rural electorates. I would suggest that the sinister overtones, if any, associated with the land policy review are due in no small part to the scaremongering tactics of honourable members opposite and the fact that they have taken what I would regard as an irresponsible attitude to the review. I refer particularly to suggestions that were made about massive increases in rural rental or lease rates. Those suggestions are pure speculation and do nothing to assist people to participate in the review of land policies in a positive and constructive way. Legislative Assembly 2518 31 July 1990

This Bill temporarily freezes applications for freeholding of certain types of land, in particular, those applications received after 5 February for the freeholding of grazing homestead perpetual leases, special leases which do not contain a specific freeholding option, and non-competitive perpetual leases. The freeze is necessary in part because no public review of land policy has been undertaken since 1959. More importantly, however, this freeze is necessary because the land administration practices of the previous Government were in many instances nothing but a rort enjoyed by the mates and cronies of the National Party. This Bill finally brings down the curtain on their sorry performances. Several weeks ago the Minister for Land Management, the Treasurer and I attended a meeting in Cairns with representatives of the Cape York Peninsula Development Association at which the issue of the amendment to the Act and the actual review were discussed. That meeting was enlightening for me and, I believe, for some honourable members here, particularly honourable members opposite. The group included many peninsula graziers, local authority representatives and tourism interests from the area. Many honourable members would be surprised to learn that a very small proportion of the vast Cook Shire is currently under freehold tenure. Most of it is presently held under leasehold tenure of one description or another, particularly grazing leasehold. The people present at the meeting were not panicking about the review. They did not perceive the potential threat to their operations or to the continued use of their land which seems to be present in the minds of some honourable members opposite as a result of the review and this Bill. In fact, members of the grazing industry present at the meeting indicated that, whatever eventuated, they were unlikely to want to hold their land on a freehold basis. They were quite happy with the concept of leasehold land, particularly for the large tracts of Cape York Peninsula. They were quite happy to continue to hold their land on a leasehold basis. While they continue in the grazing industry, it is unlikely that they will want to hold their land on freehold tenure. Members of the association who were present stated that they appreciated that the review panel had been to far-flung places in my electorate like Coen and Cooktown and that the review panel had taken the opportunity to talk to industry representatives in those areas and to allow them the opportunity to have some input. I refer again to some comments of the honourable member for Carnarvon about the credentials of the members of the review committee. Obviously, a panel that reviews land policy cannot comprise people who have experience in every conceivable sphere within that policy. Such a panel cannot include people from every industry group and geographical location, including west of the Great Dividing Range, north of Cooktown or east of Thargomindah. The Government must determine the people whom it believes are capable of doing the job, and the review panel that has been chosen is well capable of doing so. To obtain the views of the people, the panel has travelled throughout the State. Members of the panel have spoken to people and sought submissions from them. The honourable member for Mulgrave mentioned that some 270-odd submissions have been received. It is important to realise that people have been given the opportunity to put forward their views to the review panel. Some of the people who attended the meeting in Cairns stated that land policies must be reviewed to allow some of the larger leaseholdings to be broken into smaller parcels to give others, particularly family members, a start on the land. Mention was made earlier about the definition of "living area". Because of my level of expertise, I cannot make a determination about that, particularly as it relates to the grazing industry. However, many people believe that the determination of a living area is not uniform across the State. Obviously that is so for a variety of reasons. The industry representatives who attended that meeting, particularly those from the peninsula area, believed that scope exists for some of the larger leasehold properties to be divided into smaller leasehold parcels to give other people a start on the land, particularly family members, which would attract people back to rural areas. That is the sort of issue that the land policy review can address. Legislative Assembly 2519 31 July 1990

Potentially, productive properties in the Cape York peninsula and the gulf regions have been purchased by would-be real estate developers who propose to freehold that land. They have no intention of grazing cattle on it. Unfortunately, particularly in my electorate, that practice was allowed to proliferate under the previous Government. Because those developers have no intention of using that land for grazing purposes, that is to the detriment not only of the land, the life-style and the social environment of the area but also of the industry. Some properties have been allowed to run down, which is to their detriment and that of neighbouring properties, national parks and the grazing industry generally. As one travels throughout the peninsula region one hears people complaining that their properties border on properties that are owned by absentee landlords. Because those properties are in a state of decline, problems are caused with the maintenance of boundary fences. While the speculators have queued for the windfall profits of past freeholding practices, stock disease control has become a problem. Mention has been made of the BTEC program and the required destocking. For example, properties in my electorate have not been well tended because they were not purchased in the interests of the grazing industry. As a result, problems have occurred with stock straying from infected areas into areas that were previously free from infection. That has generated considerable hardship for people who have a legitimate interest in the grazing industry. Valuable properties have been idle while absentee landlords await the opportunity either to freehold and subdivide or to plan tourist developments that have seldom eventuated. Because the tourism industry is no longer enjoying the boom times of a few years ago, properties have been allowed to run down. Because of the land policies of the previous Government, young families have been deprived of a start on the land. Recently in this House during the debate on the Land Act Amendment Bill, the member for Warrego stated that the review of land policy would impede productivity. He said— "The other aspect of concern relates to a reduction in productivity for the State. Who in his right mind would look to boost productivity if his lease may be withdrawn, reduced or forfeited?" One might ask: who indeed is in his right mind? No suggestion has been made that the people who hold leases might have them withdrawn, reduced or forfeited by the review. This represents an opportunity for people to put forward their views. Mr Hobbs: You don't even know your own policy. Mr BREDHAUER: I am quite aware of party policy. The honourable member for Warrego said also— "There is also a need for security for the employees who work on the land. Land-owners want to pay their employees reasonable wages and to provide them with reasonable living conditions." I found that comment of great interest, in view of the debate that occurred in the House at that time. Those are admirable sentiments, and I found the honourable member's new-found concern for the welfare of workers touching and a little refreshing. At that time honourable members were debating the Electricity Superannuation Restoration Bill. When that legislation was debated, none of the members opposite was imbued with such sentiments for the workers of this State. Members of this Government are accustomed to the exhortations of members of the Opposition and the Liberal Party for greater productivity from the workers of this State. They claim that greater productivity is needed from the workers of this State. That issue has been raised time and time again by members opposite during debates on the Industrial Relations Bill and other Bills. In the past, their limited conception of improved productivity extended only to screwing down wages, screwing up conditions and generally dispossessing the workers. Legislative Assembly 2520 31 July 1990

I turn now to some of the productive land dealings that were allowed to occur in the past. The honourable member for Mulgrave mentioned the freeholding practices that occurred under the previous Government, which included members opposite. I refer now to a statement made in the House by Mr Goss on 27 February 1985 referring to the Silver Plains pastoral holding. On that occasion, Mr Goss stated— "Let me first outline briefly what the Americans are to be given. The deal includes a special lease, with eventual freehold, over two areas totalling 24 300 ha or 60 000 acres. It also includes a 50-year pastoral development holding lease over the balance of 'Silver Plains', and other leases and licences. Overall, through this package deal, Rand and the "Silver Plains" company will get control of an area of 2 000 sq. km of pastoral holding and Crown land on the Princess Charlotte Bay coast on the eastern side of Cape York Peninsula." Mr Harper: Have you had a look at it? Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, I have been there. Mr Goss continued— "The Minister might try to tell members that it is just grazing property and that the property is not that good." "Mongrel country" was the term apparently used by the Minister. Mr Goss continued— "Let me give members a description of some of the potential of this prime Queensland land— 'The property has 80 km of sandy beach front, next door to the Great Barrier Reef, with permanent fresh water, rivers and lakes—a great location with development potential.' " Mr FitzGerald: Every salesman would say it has potential. That is the biggest con in the world; didn't you know that? Mr BREDHAUER: At the time Mr Goss pointed out that that was an extract from an advertisement. I take the point raised by the honourable member for Lockyer that it was on the basis of a real estate advertisement. It proves the point that I am trying to make: what members opposite were worried about had nothing to do with the area's potential for the grazing industry but what it might fetch on the real estate market after a person had freeholded it. The honourable member came right in on that. I draw on the fact that no productivity is involved in turning properties over at increasingly higher speculative rates of profit without any work being put into them. I will conclude my remarks on the Silver Plains property. Honourable members might ask how much the Government intended to charge for the freeholding of 24 300 hectares of Queensland's prime coastal land. At the time, the figure was $5 per hectare. Other examples of such freeholding can be cited. I refer to the Starcke freeholding, which is a matter that has been raised in this House on a number of occasions by members of the present Government and also by the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Angus Innes. The Starcke holding was an area of about 24 400 hectares. Upon compliance with numerous lease conditions, which I will not read, the property was to be freeholded at a purchase price of $1.25 per hectare. I could cite numerous other instances of similar freeholdings. It is clear that in such property turn-overs no productivity was involved. The exhortations from the other side of the Chamber that productivity should be constantly improved are belied by the fact that the previous Government allowed people to make windfall gains from speculative land deals while other people who had a legitimate interest in the land and a legitimate interest in the industries for which the land could be used continued to suffer. Opposition members and members of the Liberal Party have in the past proved that they have supported what I regard as an Orwellian theme, namely, that the National Party and its former coalition partner had one rule for those who were actually genuinely interested in the grazing industry and a separate rule for the pigs. Under this Government, Legislative Assembly 2521 31 July 1990 there will be no troughs for the snouts of the National Party or its mates. The support of this Bill will ensure that the review is undertaken and that some fairness and sense is be put back into the land tenure and administration policies in this State. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (5.12 p.m.): To quote the Minister's words, this Bill was introduced "to place on hold the freeholding of certain tenures under the Land Act". In fact, this is retrospective legislation, for it seeks to come to conclusions and to put those conclusions into effect before this House has debated the issues. On 5 February this year, this Government effectively imposed the provisions contained within this Bill. When the present Government was in Opposition, much was heard about its objection to retrospective legislation. Let the Government not deny the fact that this is fundamentally retrospective legislation—conclusions reached and implemented before this Parliament had an opportunity to debate the issues. Admittedly, that is not very surprising, because it has been recognised that the views expressed in this House by the Labor member for Isis are those of the Australian Labor Party. Those views are the philosophy of the Labor Party in this State: simply, that it is immoral for individuals to own land. The Labor Party does not believe that Queenslanders should own the piece of dirt on which they live and on which they build their home. However, as the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the Government set up a committee of review, which is now one of some 80 or more such reviews, inquiries and investigations which the Government has set up in the course of a little more than six months. The Minister said that the Government set up a committee of review "to advise on the underlying principles for future policy and administration of land in Queensland". That one paragraph alone in the Minister's second-reading speech gives much food for thought. The Government set up the committee. Frankly, the responsible Minister knew neither all of the members of the committee nor their qualifications. So he was quite right in telling the House that it was the Government that set up the committee of review. No-one whom I approached had even heard of one of the members of the committee. The Minister indicated that a certain gentleman would be included on the list of appointees. I know many people in the area of lands in Queensland, and I made phone calls to them to discuss that nomination, and no-one could tell me what connection that person had with the land. Another member of the Government's committee of review is the public servant who put forward the views of the Lands Department to the Carter inquiry into land rentals. Any fair-minded person would hesitate to appoint a member of the permanent public service to that committee of review and require that person to undertake an impartial review of land matters in Queensland. That public servant is now expected to adopt a neutral stand when hearing views and making recommendations to this Government on what the Minister refers to as underlying principles for future land policy. What an invidious position for any Government to place a public servant into, especially at a time when loyal public servants have been subjected to the most shocking harassment in a calculated and deliberate exercise to remove them from their secure career positions! Public servants have been harassed and removed from their career positions in the service of this State as a prelude to the filling of those vacant positions with, in many cases, Labor Party hacks. Mr Ardill: You are not talking about Mr Daly, are you? Mr HARPER: As he has raised that subject, I will take the honourable member's interjection. I wish I had been given an opportunity to put forward the full facts about Mr Daly, to whom the member for Salisbury referred. Mr Ardill: You have had all the opportunity you could want. Mr HARPER: No, the member is wrong. He does not know the facts. Legislative Assembly 2522 31 July 1990

Mr Daly was not dismissed and he was not harassed. Because he could not accept the ruling espoused under the Public Service Act, he was simply moved from one position to another. The member for Cook tried to make excuses for the composition of the committee of review. I make it very clear that my comments do not reflect on the individuals selected for that committee by this Government. However, the selection reflects on the Government. The people of Queensland, the large and small land-holders, have a right to expect a committee that is clearly and unequivocally seen to be both competent and impartial in its role. How can the people of Queensland have confidence in any report by this committee under the circumstances that I have outlined? Nevertheless, such is the nature of the people most likely to be adversely affected that they have been prepared to give the committee the benefit of any doubt and to cooperate in that exercise in the belief that the committee is devoid of any disposition to simply accept Labor Party philosophy and that this review will be of great significance to the future development of this State. I do not criticise the members of this committee. They have been placed in an invidious position by this Government. I do not criticise the Minister because he obviously acted on a direction from I know not whom but, like many other members in this House, I would not need too many guesses to come to a conclusion. The member for Mulgrave referred to land and land tenures on Cape York peninsula and to action that I may have taken during the couple of months that I was the Minister for Land Management. In that short period, I personally inspected Cape York lands, including Silver Plains, and I met with groups of graziers and individuals who hold leases in that area, and with officers of the Lands Department stationed in the Cape York area. My conclusion was that reasonable security of tenure should be made available to the men and women who are prepared to eke out a living from those lands, not only for their own meagre benefit but for the overall security and benefit of this nation. I was not prepared to allow manipulation to bring about the development of coastal tourist facilities. It is unfortunate that the member for Cook, having said his piece, has now left the Chamber. I repeat that, as the Minister for Land Management, I was not prepared to allow manipulation to bring about the development of coastal tourist facilities in the guise of rural land development, and the departmental records would clearly prove that fact. The member for Cook also referred to Silver Plains and to the potential of those leases. If he endorses the comments made by his leader in 1985, I suggest that he should look much more closely at the issue. The media caused a stir at the time, but did not take account of the facts. The predictions that were made did not materialise. Most of Silver Plains is desolate country, as I am sure the Minister would appreciate. Most people who criticise Cape York land have never been near that relatively desolate area of Queensland. Mr Eaton: There's some good country up there. Mr HARPER: I agree with that. I give the Minister credit for knowing that part of the State. He and I have both been there and we agree there is some good country there. However, there is also some pretty desolate country, the sort of country that is fit to run one goanna to 50 acres. The lessee of Silver Plains carries out a lot of work. A large amount of money has been poured into timber regrowth. Honourable members will scratch their heads, as I did, and wonder how on earth the lessee has the will, let alone the financial resources, to do the work that he is doing. In cooperation with officers of the Minister's department, he is paying private consultants—people experienced in land development—to try to grow grasses, improved pastures and legumes and to do anything to turn what is really desolate country into productive country that will benefit not only the economy of this State but also the nation generally. Legislative Assembly 2523 31 July 1990

It is a pity that more people with an understanding of the land did not look at some of those areas before they criticised them. Certainly, small pockets of very good country are capable of development. Some very small pockets of land are being left in their natural state. I commend the lessee for the work that he has done and for the attitude that he has taken in preserving some of those areas. The Minister knows, as I do, that Cape York is not just one massive tract of green rainforest. There are rainforests in parts of Cape York, but generally it is not country that entices one to spend one's life in isolation and use one's financial resources developing it. I visited Silver Plains on the same day as Dr Aila Keto. Considering the high profile given to her views by the media, at the very least, I was surprised to learn that she had not previously inspected that country. I am only too pleased to place on record my pride in the relative common sense which I believe I, as Minister for Land Management, exercised over Cape York and other matters with which I had a brief opportunity to deal. The honourable member for Maryborough apparently referred to rorts, using that much-savoured Labor phraseology. Mr Booth: Everything is a rort. Mr HARPER: That's right. Everything that happens is a rort, as the honourable member for Warwick said. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, everything is a rort. There are a few rorts on the Government side, too. The honourable member for Maryborough referred to practices in Auburn of land-holders who converted their lands to freehold tenure under the enlightened policies of the National Party Government and then sold the timber on those lands for huge profits. That is an amazing claim from a man who is undoubtedly skilled in forestry. For the record and for the benefit of honourable members who do not travel outside cities for any purpose other than to visit other cities, I will trace the steps involved in conversion of tenure. Firstly, the lessee makes an application for conversion of that tenure from leasehold tenure to freehold tenure. The application is received by the department. Under the retrospective legislation that is being debated, since February of this year those applications have been put on hold. Prior to that date, an application was received and, if it was in order, an inspection was carried out by a land-inspector who then prepared a report. Those land-inspectors are all registered valuers who have qualifications to prepare reports for consideration by the Land Administration Commission and the Minister. In areas containing commercial forest timber, an officer from the Queensland Forest Service carries out an inspection, makes an assessment and furnishes a report to his department, which then goes to the Minister for that department and eventually to the Minister for Land Management. Those forestry officers carry out a detailed inspection. Occasionally, when they find timber on leasehold land, as a team they spend days, weeks and even months assessing the quantity of timber, marking trees and assessing the value of that timber. Mr Dollin: Then they go to the Land Court, and the Land Court says, "That's too much, old chap. You'll have it for so much." Mr HARPER: I will take the interjection because, unfortunately, the member for Maryborough has again, to my surprise—I give him credit for my surprise—demonstrated his ignorance in this matter. After that report or those reports from the land inspector and the registered valuer—the experts in forestry—assessments are made. The lessee of the land is made an offer in respect of the value of the land and the value of the timber on that land. Then he has the opportunity to decide whether he will accept the offer for the land,the offer for the timber, or both. Having made that decision, he notifies the Land Administration Commission. Of course, if he accepts one or both offers, that matter then proceeds to finality. Legislative Assembly 2524 31 July 1990

He may, of course, decide to exercise that democratic right to dispute the matter. It is a pity that the honourable member for Maryborough again has walked out of the Chamber having said his piece. The lessee can exercise his democratic right and have the matter referred to the Land Court, a process which, I believe, is not surpassed in any other State and one of which we, in Queensland, have a right to be very proud. The matter is referred to that independent court and a decision is made by the court after hearing expert evidence. In the case of the land value, the evidence comes from the Lands Department valuers and, as the lessee determines, from his representatives and/or himself. It may be himself alone, it may be with the assistance of a solicitor or it may be with the assistance of a valuer. If there is a timber assessment to be made, the lessee has that democratic right to call evidence from skilled foresters, such as the honourable member for Maryborough, or any other person who he believes may be able to assist by giving evidence. Having heard that evidence from the officers of the Forestry Department and the lessee's expert witnesses, the court reaches a decision. The lessee then has a right to either accept or reject the final determination made by the court or to take the matter further to the Land Appeal Court, and the whole process of evidence is gone through again in that court. Finally, a determination is reached which the lessee has to either accept or reject. Because of the interjection of the honourable member for Maryborough, might I say that, in my experience in forestry matters in the Land Court, usually, when the matter is referred to the court the forestry officers have made a reassessment of their earlier valuation. Sometimes, because of the change in the value of timber since their initial inspection and the lodgment of the application, the value may have increased. Very often, because of factors put forward by the lessee, such as the type of timber, its commercial value and faults in the timber, the value will be reduced by the Forestry Department or its officers. In many cases, an expert forester who is a miller and has an opportunity to inspect can bring forward evidence that convinces the court that there should be a reduction. Likewise, again in my experience, very often the value placed on it by the Forestry Department is the value determined by the court. It would seem that the honourable member for Maryborough believes that timbered country should not be developed for agriculture or, I surmise, for grazing. I find that just as surprising, just as incredible a philosophy, as the statement of the honourable member for Isis, who believes it immoral for an individual to own land. Not only is this Bill proposing retrospective legislation but it is also not disclosing other related action taken by this Government. It is my understanding that land-holders are now not being allowed to pay out the unpaid instalments on freeholding leases. I hope that the Minister will see fit to respond on this issue because it is just as fundamental as the issues addressed in this Bill. So why has there been no inclusion, in the proposition now being put to the Parliament, of this further action which is apparently being taken within the Land Administration Commission? If it is a fact, is it a decision of the bureaucracy, the Minister or the Government? Of course, there is a difference. Perhaps, as I say, the Minister may see fit to address that issue when he responds. This Bill is an anachronism, a turning back of the clock to those dark days of early Labor Governments. The Minister might well say that it is really only setting in train a situation that will allow his committee—I apologise; not his but the Government's committee—to address these matters before any further freeholding is taken. I suggest that what we see is the putting of the foot in the door by the Labor Government with its philosophy of having no private ownership of land. That foot in the door is certainly designed to return our land tenure and our land development back to those dark days of previous Labor Governments. Across the length and breadth of rural Queensland, primary producers are daily recognising the vindictiveness, the arrogance and the hate of this Government of academics for the rural sector. Queenslanders at large are recognising that same arrogance, that same vindictiveness and that intent to dishonour commitments given when the Labor Party was in Opposition. No new taxes indeed! Legislative Assembly 2525 31 July 1990

The Leader of the House has proposed a $25 new tax on motor vehicle registrations to fund fire services. When the Labor Party formed the Opposition, the leader said, "No new taxes", yet the Minister for Primary Industries has imposed fees for services. The member for Rockhampton North, who spoke earlier today about the COD, should take notice of this. Fees will be charged for services that assist to arrest land degradation. "No new taxes", indeed! Registration fees for road transport vehicles have increased beyond comprehension and ambulance services in country areas are no longer an entitlement. Compulsory trade union fees are being channelled into Labor Party coffers. The list goes on and on. I urge the Minister for Land Management not to be a part of the retrogression and at least complete his portfolio responsibilities with a clear conscience, knowing that he has fulfilled his responsibilities with neutrality and impartiality. The land-holders of Queensland have a right to expect that type of Minister. He should also ensure that the committee of review imposed upon him by the Government understands its responsibility and the need for it to be objective, and not simply reflect the archaic Labor philosophy of the immorality of individuals owning land. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (5.39 p.m.): I rise to join in this debate and realise that many of the points I would otherwise have made have been eloquently put before this House not only by the shadow Minister, the member for Warrego, but also by a previous Minister for Land Management, Neville Harper. It was a sad day for this State when the work he had begun was nipped in the bud. I believe that a great deal of good would have emerged from his administration as a result of his flexible attitude, experience and knowledge of this State. To adopt Mr Harper's words, it is hard to witness this retrogressive attitude. Let us pause for a moment and consider the reviews that the Goss Labor Government has undertaken and the impact that those reviews have had upon the rural communities of this State. I remind the House that Queensland's rural communities produce a great deal of the wealth of this nation and that the economy of this State owes a great deal to those isolated and less well-serviced areas. Having been involved in the pastoral industry for many years, I can speak with personal knowledge of much of the pain that is felt in those rural communities. I also know full well the extent of the good that was being done by previous administrations as a result of the flexibility of previous Governments which demonstrated an increasing realisation of the need to support people who were in very difficult financial circumstances. The rural land-holders to whom I refer are those upon whom the impact of administration of the Lands Department can either be beneficial or retrogressive, as the member for Auburn has so eloquently said. I understand that approximately 80 committees of review have been set up by the Goss Government. Before considering an overview of what now confronts the Minister because of the committee that has been imposed upon him, it is worth while examining some of those other committees. In fact, I understand that the Minister had not even met one of the members of the land management committee when it was established, and certainly no-one involved in land administration in this State knew anything about that person. However, let us not reflect on the integrity of the person involved in any way, shape or form, but instead draw attention to the review processes that are being undertaken by the Government. Let us consider the review of drought assistance that was undertaken almost immediately upon the Goss Government being elected to office in 1989. I ask: who were the losers when the new broom swept through the Department of Primary Industries, and who will be the losers when a drought strikes in the future? The practitioners engaged in the livestock industry of this State will be placed in a much more tenuous position than would have been the case had the National Party been re-elected. The review of drought assistance completely turned around the practical processes that had been put in place by a former Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Neville Harper, and later by me. That action was a vicious, political whim undertaken in an attempt to grandstand and kick the people who live in the bush. The pastoral, grazing and farming industries Legislative Assembly 2526 31 July 1990 of this State are a favourite whipping-post of the ALP, and the people who live in service towns and villages will also be affected. A review of the QIDC was recently undertaken, and the famous Polichronis report has been presented. I have no doubt that Mr Polichronis is a man of integrity, but he has no knowledge of the industry upon which the report is based. What did the report recommend? It recommended commercialism. Let's be more commercial! The position is that the people who received loans from the QIDC now have to justify the decision, in spite of the fact that the loans were approved by people who understand problems faced by rural producers. Just to survive, the borrowers now have to go back to this Government on bended knee and justify the rates of interest that apply to the loans. The QIDC review was another process that has brought pain to the pastoral and grazing industries of this State. Mr Harper: It was political interference in a commercial activity. Mr STONEMAN: Exactly—political interference of the first order. The Government has said that, in relation to concessional registration, no new taxes will be imposed. The Government stated that if taxes had to be increased that would be at a rate similar to CPI increases; yet, in some instances, increases of 500 per cent and 1 000 per cent have been imposed on the cost of registration of farm vehicles. I point out that many of those farm vehicles really only ever cross the road, and that they are registered by farmers as a protective measure in the unlikely event that the farm vehicle ever has to travel on the road. What has this Government done? It has not increased registration charges by the 5 per cent, 6 per cent, or 7 per cent that one might have expected if CPI levels had been applied. Mr Eaton: Tell us about the maximum subsidy, the $1,500. What other Government could you get a $1,500 subsidy from? Mr STONEMAN: I accept the interjection because I believe that Hansard should record the truth of the attitude that is springing forth from the mind of the Minister. This Minister is in charge of the leasehold framework and Lands Department administration of this State. He is the man who is now trying to shape land administration in terms of his own vindictive philosophy. He is trying to grind people into the dust. The real attitude is, "Let's kick the boss." It is clear that the Minister is out to get the primary producers, the people whom he believes support the National Party in this State. In doing that, his actions will affect the fencers, the road-workers, the railway fettlers, the shearers and the rouseabouts. The Minister ought to attend the rural crisis meetings that are taking place throughout the State at present. People who have admitted that they voted for the Labor Party on 2 December are now saying that they did not know what they were in for. Mr Eaton: The Federal blokes. Mr STONEMAN: I will correct the Minister. Has he been to one of those meetings? Mr Eaton: I haven't been to one, but—— Mr STONEMAN: The Minister is talking to a man who has attended one of those meetings and has spoken to the people who are affected. They spoke about the QIDC, concessional registration, gun laws and all the other things that are happening. Mr McGrady: It's a set-up. That's why. It's organised by the National Party. Mr STONEMAN: The final speaker at the meeting held in Charters Towers last week was the new—and temporary—member for the Federal seat of Kennedy, Mr Robert Hulls. He was allocated the prime speaking position to enable him to reply to all the criticism. The honourable member for Mount Isa cannot claim that that was organised. I point out to him that Mr Hulls received a hot reception. Legislative Assembly 2527 31 July 1990

In the bush where the real activity is taking place, the Government is starting to smell. The pioneers are having to re-establish themselves in the face of the attacks that have been launched upon them by the State Government and the Federal Government. I will turn to Federal Government intervention. The Federal Government has conducted a review into the wool industry. For the past 17 years, the wool industry in Australia has funded totally a floor price support plan. Not one dollar was contributed to that scheme from the public purse. The industry was happy to maintain the floor price support plan and also increase the input to 25 per cent—a considerable component of the wool-growers' income. I challenge the Minister to ask the workers whom he claims to support to donate 25 per cent of their wages to support this nation to help pull it out of the mire. They would not do it; nor would he expect them to do it. Even the buyers asked the Government not to interfere with the floor price because they knew where they were. However, another review was initiated. Along came John Kerin on his black horse in the middle of the night. He rode roughshod over all the industry advice. Many meetings took place. The economists, who knew it all, said, "Let's do it. This will unfreeze. This will get the wool industry going. This will generate sales." What do we see? The Government is buying half of the wool offered for sale on a very sketchy market. The buyers are saying, "We do not know when the Government might intervene again and reduce the floor price further. Why buy now?" Mr Harper: "Greenie" Richardson could have done a better job. Mr STONEMAN: There is no doubt about it. When compared with some of the other Federal members, Senator Richardson is proving to be a friend of the farmer. Mr Harper: Look at wheat and sugar. Mr STONEMAN: I will look at sugar. A similar review is being undertaken of the sugar industry. Mr Dollin: I thought we were dealing with the Land Act. Mr STONEMAN: I am drawing a parallel between the various reviews. Mr Casey initiated a review into the sugar industry that has been castigated throughout the State. It has drawn cane-farmers together as never before. The Australian Cane Farmers Association and the Queensland Cane Growers Council are united against the Minister for Primary Industries, who laughs at the industry. Each new review provides more pain for the primary producer. A similar thing occurred in the wheat industry. The Federal Government went against everything that the industry recommended. Along came Kerin's raiders, supported, aided and abetted by the Labor Party in Queensland, which was at that time in Opposition. During the wool crisis, did the Minister say to Mr Kerin, "Hang on, if you do that, it will affect the viability of thousands of growers throughout the State"? Did he issue a statement of support for the wool-growers? Did Mr Casey, the man vested with the responsibility to support primary industry and promote it in this State, issue a statement of support? Did Mr Goss support the wool-growers? There was not a word from him. Mr Hobbs: He refused. Mr STONEMAN: They refused. I now turn to gun laws. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! If the honourable member discusses that topic, he will be moving away from the Bill. Mr STONEMAN: I am overviewing the review process. Every time the Government introduces a review, it inflicts pain on the pastoral, grazing and farming industries of this State. Reviews are being conducted into daylight-saving and electoral divisions. It goes on and on. Legislative Assembly 2528 31 July 1990

Mr Dollin: That's got nothing to do with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr STONEMAN: I will return to the Bill. I commend you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the marvellous job you are doing. I will turn to the people who are involved in the review. I am not casting aspersions on any of them. Mr Eaton: You don't like them. Mr STONEMAN: I do not know them. I have met only two of them. I am sure that the phantom, Mr Murphy, is a great guy, but there is not one person on the committee that the Minister has put in place who has a practical understanding of the operations of the land tenure system in this State, except from a departmental point of view. On other committees of review, there has at least been someone who understood the industry and could say, "Hang on, that's not quite the way it really is." Which member of that committee will represent the people being investigated? I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that not one member of that committee has a clue about what it means to fight fire, what it means to be one of the 1 122 people in this State who have to operate an insufficient pastoral holding. The Minister would not care to attempt it. If my memory serves me correctly, 1 122 pastoral holdings in this State are less than living area size. The Minister would not be aware that people such as myself and most honourable members on the Opposition side have an intimate knowledge of the operation of those properties in the areas being attacked by the Government. We know the vagaries of droughts. We know the ups and downs of the wool industry. Since he decided to take away from the sugar industry its policy-making function, the Minister for Primary Industries has found that the price has gone down in New York. The Federal Minister, Mr Kerin, has discovered that the economic advisers—brilliant as they may be—who advised him to lower the wool floor price to 700 cents do not know what they are talking about. The fact is that the primary producers in this country, the people the Minister is attacking, know that what goes up must come down. Mr Eaton: You're attacking the committee of review. Mr STONEMAN: The Government has given the committee of review an impossible task. The committee has no practical understanding of the job that it has been given. Mr Eaton: You're not happy with them. Mr STONEMAN: I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of the committee appointed by the Government, the people who were finally acceptable to Cabinet—and I am not casting aspersions on them—are all highly regarded by the Opposition. In fact, when we were in Government we appointed some of these people ourselves. I would not like the Minister to suggest that I am saying that the Opposition is unhappy with the appointments. Mr Eaton: That's what you're trying to say. You're trying to say it politely. You're not game to say it outright. Mr STONEMAN: What I do say outright is that not one member of the committee has the slightest practical understanding of the job that has to be undertaken. Mr Eaton: They are impartial. Mr STONEMAN: Has one of these people been through a drought? Is there one member of that committee who knows what a flood is, who knows what it is like when Legislative Assembly 2529 31 July 1990 one has to battle a wipe-out of stock, who knows that from time to time, no matter how carefully one looks after the land, droughts will occur that are beyond one's control, who knows that no matter how heavily the land is stocked, there will be losses? Is there one member of the committee who has experienced that? That is my point. There is not one member on the Government side who knows what I am talking about. The comments by Government members are merely political rhetoric coming from those who hate the people who produce the wealth of this nation. The review is retrospective. It is backdated to 5 February. Mr Eaton: That's a long way, isn't it? Mr STONEMAN: It is a long way. Mr Eaton: It's a terrible long way, isn't it? Mr STONEMAN: The relevant date is 5 February. The review has effectively placed a cloud over the future of the tenure structure of grazing homestead perpetual leases throughout this State. I was proud to be a member of the Minister's committee when the grazing homestead perpetual lease structure was put in place. That provided a tremendous boost to the security of the people who battle under those adverse conditions. In most instances, primary producers are not in a position to increase carrying capacity. The only thing that they can hope to do is to increase their security base. One of the means by which they can do that is to move gradually to freehold, so that they can provide for their family. That is expected by any thinking and knowledgeable person. That process has been put on hold. What must this be doing to the property market? I urge the Minister to visit Richmond, where property prices have fallen by more than 30 per cent. In fact, the lowest price is not known because no sales are taking place. If the Minister visits Richmond, he will discover what has happened to confidence in this industry in the past few months. If the Minister asks those people what is going on, they will tell him loud and clear. Mr Eaton: I have been out there. Mr STONEMAN: Yes, back in 1926. Mr Eaton: This year. I was in Hughenden, Cloncurry, Mount Isa, Barcaldine and Longreach. Mr STONEMAN: The Minister learnt nothing. It must have been a very speedy trip. As one who has lived and sweated and cried and nearly died out there—and I say that in all seriousness—fighting a bushfire—— Mr Eaton: You spent half your time whingeing instead of working. That's what you did. Mr STONEMAN: The Minister has come down from his telegraph pole and discovered a can of worms. This Government is sending a signal of intent to the industry. It is sending a signal of change. That changed intent is affecting confidence and the equity base upon which banks make loans. The Government has encouraged the QIDC to become more commercial. One of the great things the QIDC did was to keep bank interest rates on a level plain and, in fact, to suppress interest rates. This Government said, "Out with that. Let's forget it all." I make the point that in his former position as Opposition spokesman for Land Management, the Minister talked constantly—in fact, he carped—about cutting up properties and getting the battler onto the land. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr STONEMAN: Prior to the dinner recess I was about to mention the repercussions of this Bill on those areas that will be frozen. During the dinner recess I was reflecting Legislative Assembly 2530 31 July 1990 on a similar event in 1973 when a fresh, new Federal Government came to power, namely, the Whitlam Government. At that time I was on a pastoral development holding trying to fix up some bores. In fact, I can picture a particular bore. Mr Nunn: What was the name of it? Mr STONEMAN: It was named Tom's bore. When I was fixing up the bore on that pastoral development holding in 1972 or 1973, I heard Frank Crean, the Federal Treasurer, deliver his Budget Speech. He attacked the Pitt Street farmers. I well remember that Mr Crean said to the Liberal/Country Party at that time, "I will get your Pitt Street mates tonight. They are going to cop it." Mr Crean forced people to divert immediately into taxation money that they would otherwise have used to increase the production of the land. Previously, they bought and developed land and left it in a better state than it was in when they purchased it. In their well-meaning attack on that process, Mr Crean and Mr Whitlam took the Australian entrepreneur out of the pastoral industry of this nation. The tank-sinkers, the fencers, the shop-keepers and the mailmen disappeared. The Pitt Street farmers then entered bottom-of-the-harbour operations. As a spin-off, it has been necessary to attract foreign money to Australia. The Queensland Treasurer made some rather flippant remarks. He decided that it would be a good idea to kick the foreigners, but he did not realise the effects of that. In case anyone misinterprets my remarks or thinks that I am taking a party political point of view, I point out that one of the people who condemned Mr Crean's actions was Malcolm Fraser, who I believe was even worse than Frank Crean. At least Frank Crean honestly did not know what he was doing, but Malcolm Fraser should have known. When he was given the opportunity to correct the wrong, he did not grasp the nettle. I am knocking not only the Liberal Party but also the former Country Party, which did nothing to redress what was done. The Fraser/Anthony Government stands condemned for endorsing the wrong that was done to this nation by Frank Crean, Gough Whitlam and others who did not understand what they were doing. This Government does not understand what it is doing. The Minister for Land Management is in the unfortunate situation of having to carry the can. At the end of the day, when the scorn of the community turns against the Minister, he will be the one who suffers, not those who put in place the review panel. People do not seem to understand that the freeze that applies as from 5 February 1990 will affect one of the most volatile pastoral areas of this nation. As my colleague the member for Warrego will attest, at times that land is some of the most productive and beautiful land in this nation. The problem is that because land looks so good, people cannot believe that it can become so bad. In approximately 1914 a closer settlement scheme was introduced in Queensland. In the Winton, Longreach, Muttaburra and Aramac districts people settled on properties of approximately 15 000 acres. After a few years, when they discovered that that area was insufficient for their needs, additional areas of land of approximately 10 000 acres were given to them. Although those blocks were disjointed, during the 1950s they did remarkably well—momentarily. I do not believe that anyone did well from the boom years of the fifties. During the 1960s I became involved in the pastoral industry, which then struck the greatest series of droughts that it has ever experienced. During the 1920s and prior to World War I, that land was not fully developed to the extent that large pastoral areas, better water supplies and fencing were developed, so that was capable of improvement. Without casting any reflection upon the Minister and the review panel, they obviously do not know what it is like within the industry. The capacity of graziers to expand, take up the cost squeeze, face droughts, sink additional bores and move stock out a little further has been lost. The Minister and this Government Legislative Assembly 2531 31 July 1990 are attacking the larger pastoral holding fringe areas around the 25 000 and 30 000-acre blocks. The Government says, "We can put on more people." What is not understood—and this is the case in the Burdekin irrigation area—is that, at the very minimum, if the land is given away, it costs between $500,000 and $750,000 before the first income is received. The member for Gregory would know very well what I am talking about. This State is stuck with a Government that has a 28-perch mentality. That has now changed to a unit mentality. The imposition that the State Government seeks to make on the pastoral industry of this State by dint of the application of the provisions of this Bill will lead to the same repercussions as those brought about by Frank Crean in the early 1970s when he thought that he could get at the smart alecs who were dodging a bit of tax. All he did was create a situation in which they diverted their money into non-productive tax-savings. Instead of people being productive and putting up new fences, building new dams, sinking bores, building roads and shearing sheds and doing other things that in the end benefited people, they became involved in bottom-of-the- harbour schemes which benefited lawyers and accountants. The members who sit on the Government side can understand that. Mr Beattie: We can understand it. Mr STONEMAN: I am not referring to Mr Beattie. I know that he is in a different ballpark. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many, many thousands of people when I say that the review structure that this Government is putting in place is being regarded with fear and trepidation throughout the country. I know that the Minister is an honest and well-meaning man. However, he does not understand the havoc that he is creating by the passage of this Bill. Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (7.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions—particularly those who I felt made worthwhile contributions. In fact, in relation to the comments made by the member who has just resumed his seat, I point out that I have not heard or seen anything as wild and rambling as him since I saw a mentally retarded, drunken rat on the wharves in Cairns. The honourable member wandered all over the place. He spoke about everything but the Bill before the House. He tried to denigrate the three people chosen as committee members. They were chosen on an impartial basis. Mr STONEMAN: I rise to a point of order. I constantly made reference to the fact that under no circumstances was I denigrating the bona fides of those people upon whom the Minister is trying to reflect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! There is no point of order. Mr STONEMAN: There is no way in the world that the professionalism of those people has been questioned by me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to continue. Mr EATON: I find the honourable member's point of order a bit strange. However, I will have to accept his explanation. I am sure that, when they read his speech in Hansard, many other people will not be able to understand why he tried to criticise the committee members by saying that they did not know anything and that they were strangers to me. I point out that two of them were strangers to me. I only met them—— Mr STONEMAN: I rise to a point of order. The Minister has indicated—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under what Standing Order is the honourable member rising? Mr STONEMAN: The comments I made have been misrepresented by the Minister. Legislative Assembly 2532 31 July 1990

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the honourable member asking the Minister to withdraw them? Mr STONEMAN: I am asking the Minister to withdraw the suggestion that my comments impinged upon the professionalism of those people. I did not do that. Mr EATON: I will withdraw. Instead of commenting on some of the waffle that came from members opposite, I compliment those Opposition members who did make a contribution to the debate. I listened to some of the things that were said by members of the Opposition, but they defeated their own argument. They started off by being critical of this Bill, which will introduce a temporary freeze on the freeholding of land. However, they then tried to have five bob each way. They said that they agreed with the Government's policy, that they did not want to see large companies taking over the land and squeezing the little fellow out. They agreed that ordinary Queenslanders should have the opportunity to go onto the land. They then went into a tirade of accusations, claiming that the Government does not know what it is doing. The fact is that it was they who did not know what they were doing. This freeze has been introduced as a temporary measure to stop the very thing that the Opposition was criticising, that is, the aggregation of land by multinationals and foreign companies, which had the effect of preventing the ordinary Queenslander from settling on the land. Members of the Opposition made criticism—however veiled it may have been—of the three people who were chosen to conduct the review. The chairman of the committee, Mrs Patsy Wolfe, is a very well-qualified person in her own profession—the legal profession. She is a barrister, a wife and a mother. She has handled literally hundreds of court cases dealing with family hardships. She has appeared in cases involving people who find themselves living in poverty. She was chosen not only because of her legal ability but also because she is a wife, a mother and a house-keeper who could relate to the women in the backblocks. Mr Stoneman: On the perpetual leases. Mr EATON: On all sorts of leases. The fact that she could relate to women in the country would have given confidence to those who were involved in making submissions to the review. Perhaps she would have had a better understanding than some men. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr EATON: As well as being credible, she was capable. The other committee member is Mr Doug Murphy. He is a specialist in his own field which, admittedly, relates more to urbanisation. He is a land-planner as well as a land economist. Mr Stoneman: You said in the House you didn't actually know him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The Minister is replying. Honourable members have had their chance to speak. In most cases the speeches were heard in silence. I would like the Minister to have his chance to reply and to be heard in silence. Mr EATON: I admit that, until those interviews were conducted, I had not met either Mrs Patsy Wolfe or Mr Doug Murphy. They supplied resumes and, after the interviews, the Government was satisfied that they were capable of conducting a review of the land tenure system and the land administration system in Queensland. Those were the guidelines that were given to that committee of review. The members of that committee have carried out the review. The Government should receive the report by the end of August. It did not want to put pressure on the committee or interfere in the review. The committee, since its establishment has approached the Government on only two occasions to request an extension of time. The first extension related to the closing Legislative Assembly 2533 31 July 1990 date for public submissions as a result of the floods in western Queensland. The committee had planned to visit Charleville during the week of the floods. The Government granted that extension of time. In its second approach, because of the number of submissions that it had received, the committee sought another extension of time to finalise the review. The Government established the committee of review to afford every land-holder in Queensland the opportunity to make a submission on changes to the Land Act. Nobody has any doubt that that Act needs reviewing. This Government is aware of the scams and scandals that occurred under the previous Government and how the Land Act was manipulated and misinterpreted. This Government wants to tidy up the Act and give all Queenslanders the opportunity to settle on the land. Opposition members have stated that Queenslanders do not want to settle on the land. If the Government had not believed that a review was needed, it would not have established the committee. Tonight, members of the Opposition have made the accusation that rents and prices will rise. Because of their maladministration of the Act when they were in Government, Opposition members have a guilt complex. As a young lad, I experienced flood, fire, drought and famine. Later, I worked on cattle and sheep stations. I experienced those problems at first hand, and that is why I know that the women on the land work as hard and as long as the men do. At night, they go home and cook the tea and stay up till all hours sewing, mending and washing, and the next day they will be out in the paddock with their husbands, who will be fixing tractors and mending fences. I have experience of those problems. Opposition members cannot say that I do not know what occurs in those country areas. If the Government had intended to increase rents, the cost of freeholding land and the other costs associated with administering the land, as the Opposition has accused it of doing, it could have done that and saved itself the cost of the review. It could have received income straight away; but that is not the answer. Tonight, Opposition members said that one needs $300,000 to $400,000 to start off a grazing property. I do not doubt that in some areas one would need that amount of money. What is the Government going to do? If it increases prices to get a fair return, it will force many people off the land, because they will not be able to afford to pay those increases. Queensland will return to the position that existed under the previous Government, which catered for only the rich and the greedy. Only the millionaires and the large companies could buy those properties. Mr Hobbs: That's not true. Mr EATON: That is true. The previous Government catered for the rich and the greedy and not for the poor and the needy, and that is the system that this Government is trying to do away with. It is trying to create opportunities and incentives for the average Queenslander, for the farmer's son and the grazier's son who cannot afford to get on the land themselves unless dad becomes a millionaire. The previous Government set up the Young Farmer Establishment Scheme, but what did the young farmer find? He discovered that he had to borrow $150,000 to get started. How many young people today can afford to buy a $30,000 home. They cannot afford that. How are they going to buy a $200,000 property when they have to borrow $150,000? They cannot afford that. This Government is trying to cater for that position. I know from personal experience that many properties in Queensland are too small to enable the owners to achieve a reasonable standard of living, and that position was brought about by the previous Government. What did it do about that? What did Opposition members do about those small parcels of land? Mr Stoneman: We gave them better tenure. Legislative Assembly 2534 31 July 1990

Mr EATON: That will not help those people if they cannot achieve a reasonable standard of living. That is not the answer. The Government has to give them a sufficient area on which to live, and that is what it will be looking at. Mr Harper interjected. Mr EATON: On many occasions, money was put in the pockets of friends of the honourable member. That is what happened. The members of the previous Government invented schemes that would help their mates. That happened. Under the rural reconstruction scheme, the Federal Government gave the previous Government $20m and charged an interest rate of 4 per cent after two years. The previous Government received $20m for two years for nothing. No interest or principal had to be repaid for two years. Under the rural reconstruction scheme, the previous Government received that money for two years for nothing. What happened to that money? The previous Government lent some of that money to its friends at an interest rate of 4 per cent. Certain amounts were then lent at12 per cent and 14 per cent, which was the ruling rate at that time. I am going back a few years to show honourable members how honest the previous Government was. It had $10m left in that account. That money was withdrawn and transferred to consolidated revenue. At that time, the sugar-millers needed some money. The previous Government said that, because of the changes introduced by the environment legislation whereby some mills had to spend up to $2m to arrest the fall-out from the old- fashioned chimneys and because of the other environmental issues addressed by that legislation, it would lend that money to the sugar-mills as Government money. If honourable members look at the previous Government's report, they will see where the Government took those funds from consolidated revenue in two lots of $8m and $2m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I know that it has been a broad-ranging debate, but I ask the Minister to return to the Bill. Mr EATON: Opposition members need to be protected. It is obvious that only Government members understood the Bill. Opposition members spoke about everything. Mr Harper interjected. Mr EATON: They were living areas at the time. The previous Government solved the problem by not giving anybody an opportunity to get on the land. Queensland needs proper land management. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr EATON: That is rubbish. Opposition members have talked about everything tonight except the price of hundreds and thousands. I shall return to the Bill. This Government has wanted to introduce this legislation for a long time. Members on this side of the House have made a good contribution to this debate because they understood the purpose of the Bill. Opposition members ranged wide and spoke about everything except the Bill. I congratulate a couple of Opposition members on destroying their own argument in the process of their short speeches. They fortified the Government's argument by saying that it must not let big companies take over and that ordinary Queenslanders must have an incentive to earn their living from the land. I appreciate that Opposition members were honest enough to say that. I can assure them that that is what this Government is all about. Proper land management will solve a lot of the problems that the Government has inherited from the previous Government. Honourable members have noted how the previous Government altered, amended and adulterated the Land Act. That is why the Land Act is in the state that it is today. Many young people were stopped from getting onto the land. The previous Government killed incentive and opportunity. Mr Stoneman: Interest rates are 18 per cent. Legislative Assembly 2535 31 July 1990

Mr EATON: That is not the fault of the Government. It cannot be blamed for the interest rates. Mr Stoneman: You support it. Mr EATON: I do not support high interest rates. Mr Stoneman: Eighteen and 20 per cent. Mr EATON: That is beside the point. I compliment those members who made a good contribution to the debate. Some Opposition members showed their true colours. That is what will be remembered by the new members of Parliament who are observing how Parliament operates and which honourable members make contributions and which ones do not. It was a great learning experience for them. I am pleased, in a way, that Opposition members carried on as they did; new Government members will learn how not to behave in this House. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58 NOES, 19 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I advise honourable members that, for the remainder of the debate on this Bill, the division bells will be rung for only two minutes. Committee Hon. A. G. Eaton (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr HOBBS (8.03 p.m.): Clause 3 gives retrospective effect to the Bill, and I am very concerned about it. The review has not been handled professionally at all. Originally, Legislative Assembly 2536 31 July 1990 the review was to take place in three months. We are now about six months down the track and the committee still has not made its determination. This retrospective legislation gives the Government an open chequebook in time with which it can hold up the productivity and the progression of this State by denying people the right to freehold land of any type. I should like the Minister to tell this Committee how long it will be before that committee reports. In my original comments on the review, I said that it would be perhaps six or nine months. It is now six months, so possibly nine months is the answer. I should also like the Minister to explain exactly why retrospectivity is needed. Considering that people who wished to freehold previously had an avenue by which they could do so, is it necessary for the Bill to contain a clause providing for retrospectivity? It was probably a long process, but it was reasonably easy to freehold. If the suggestion is that there would be a rush of applications—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Johnson): Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. The member should be heard in silence. Mr HOBBS: If people suddenly felt insecure and wished to freehold their land, they had the opportunity to do so. This Government ccame to power on 2 December last year and people had the opportunity to freehold until 5 February this year. I do not believe that there would have been any surge in the number of applications to freehold. I ask the Minister to explain why this provision is necessary. Mr EATON: That is very easy to answer. We announced an inquiry into land tenures and land administration because of what happened during the 32 years of the previous Government. I can give an example. An area of 3 400hectares of land in the Cape York area was freeholded for, I think, $2,268 and was sold a few months later for $14.2m. That is probably the most extreme case I know, but there were many other cases of land being freeholded by friends of the previous Government for $10,000 or $15,000 and sold later for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not like naming people in Parliament but, no doubt, all honourable members have heard of the Emmanuel group of companies. Opposition members should ask Mr Emmanuel whether he has ever freeholded any land or whether he got any cheap land from the previous Government. I do not want to go into personalities or engage in character assassination, but I could drop a lot of names in this Parliament. I could give block numbers, because I sat up until half past two morning after morning looking at the files when I was investigating instances given to me. While no criminal acts were committed, morally a lot was left to be desired in the prices at which some of the blocks changed hands under the freeholding system of the previous Government. Imagine what would have happened and the rush that would have occurred if people thought for one moment that the ALP Government would stop freeholding! Contrary to suggestions made by the Opposition, the Labor Government is not totally opposed to freeholding. It is part of the ALP's policy to allow development of residential leasehold land that at a later date can be changed to freehold title. The owners will have an option either to leave the land as leasehold or change the tenure to freehold. The Opposition spokesman also referred to the period of three months for the review. The Government had hoped that the review could have been conducted within three months but, because it was considered desirable to give people from all areas in Queensland an opportunity to make a contribution to the deliberations of the committee and because the Government wanted to have an open and impartial consideration of the issues, an extension of time was granted. The Government did not want to deny Queenslanders the right to have input; the review was set up to cater to the needs of all Queenslanders. After the committee had toured country areas and the submissions had started to come in, it became obvious that an extension of time would be needed to do the job properly. The member for Cook has already referred to the fact that the committee travelled to places such as Coen, Cooktown, Longreach and Mount Isa to give country people in Legislative Assembly 2537 31 July 1990 those far-flung places the opportunity to make a contribution to the review. That process took time. Because the Government wanted the committee to undertake a thorough review, its members were told from the day the appointments were made that there would be no interference, no contact and no communication from the Government. The committee's task was to go out into the community and conduct an independent review, go to the places that it thought should be visited, and make its own decisions. The Government placed no restrictions at all upon the committee and emphasised the need to have the job done properly. In conducting the review, members of the committee were told to do their own thing in their own way. As I said earlier, after the appointments were made, the first time that the committee came to the Government was to ask for an extension of time. After all the submissions had been received, it was the committee's intention to go through them thoroughly and then come back to the Government with findings and recommendations. The large number of submissions received showed that many people in Queensland were interested in the process, which is the reason that the time limit for receipt of submissions was extended. It is hoped that the committee will present its report by 31 August. At that stage, the report will be given to me and I will consult with the Premier. In line with the usual policy of Governments, the report will then be discussed at Cabinet level, and Cabinet will decide upon the wheels that will be set in motion to make changes and upon the recommendations that will be accepted for implementation. Until Cabinet has considered the report, I have no way of knowing which recommendations will be accepted. However, I can assure the Opposition spokesman that there has not been one iota of interference in the committee's deliberations from any Government department or by any Government Ministers. I have mentioned that, because it would have caused a rush of interest from investors, the Government did not wish to embark hastily on freeholding. As the responsible Minister, I have approved the freeholding of many parcels of land—some involving grazing properties containing many hundreds of hectares. Under the provisions of the Act, there is no way in the world that, just because the Labor Party does not like freeholding, the Government could have refused freeholding applications. Quite a large number of applications were approved, but some had to be rejected because of local authority objections to the proposals. For example, in the case of some applications, my department wrote to the local authority concerned and asked if there were any objections to a freeholding application being granted in relation to certain property. The local authorities indicated that at a later stage the area was to be developed as an environmental park or a sports ground, which constituted genuine objections to the proposals. In those cases, the Government refused to grant freehold title, which probably answers the questions posed by the honourable member in relation to retrospectivity. The Government had to have a cut-off date. Earlier an honourable member asked whether the committee of review was my idea, Tom Thumb's idea, or somebody else's. I inform the Committee that the proposal was part of a submission that I took to caucus and Cabinet. The submission was approved; not one voice was raised in dissent. When members of the Labor Party discussed the matter in the public arena, the people wanted the Government to take the matter further and set up a royal commission. When the matter was mentioned to the average Queenslander to ascertain the depth of feeling on the matter of a review, the response was that the people wanted a royal commission and wanted to inquire into all the members of the previous National Party Government. In my opinion, the former National Party Government has got off very lightly, which should answer questions asked in relation to retrospectivity. The Land Court is not even mentioned in the guidelines. As far as I am concerned, the Land Court will remain until a better system can be devised to replace it. If members of the Opposition can propose a better system and put forward a submission, the Government will consider its implementation. Legislative Assembly 2538 31 July 1990

Mr HOBBS: I make the point at this stage of the debate that the Opposition acknowledged that the review would take quite some time. In relation to this matter, the Opposition has been correct and the Government has been wrong. I certainly suggest that the Minister should take note of the Opposition's comments in relation to other clauses to be considered by the Committee because the Opposition might be right about those, too, and the Government might be wrong. Mr EATON: The Opposition spokesman's comments are way out of line. The Government never committed itself to a three-month period. The Government expressed the hope that the review would take three months only but recognised that the magnitude of the task and the desire of members of the committee to do the job properly might necessitate an extension of time, and that is why the extension of time was granted. From what I have heard from people who live in the places that have been visited by the committee, everybody—including the Cattlemen's Union and members of the UGA—has been happy about being given the opportunity to make a submission to it. Some people have complained that the period for receipt of submissions was not long enough, but the Government could not allow the inquiry to go on forever and a day. The Government had to set the timetable and nominated a period of three months. However, because of circumstances that even members of the Opposition would acknowledge, the period was extended. The Government wanted the job done properly and did not want to instruct the committee to have it completed in 12 weeks if the task had to take 24 weeks. The Government told the committee what had to be done but did not tell the committee how to do the job or impose time constraints which would jeopardise a proper finding being made. Although the Government mentioned a period of three months, it was only too pleased to grant the necessary extension. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Johnson): Order! Before continuing, I remind honourable members that there is too much noise in the Chamber. There was too much noise while both the honourable member for Warrego and the Minister were speaking. I ask honourable members to curtail their conversations. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr HOBBS (8.15 p.m.): Clause 4 contains the nuts and bolts of the legislation. Previously, the lessee of a grazing homestead perpetual lease could in time apply in writing to the Minister to have the tenure of his lease converted to that of a grazing homestead freehold lease. The Government is taking away the ability of a land-owner to convert his tenure to freehold. The Bill is not necessary. If he wishes, the Minister can withhold applications for freehold tenure. There is no need to punish the majority of the people of the State for the sins of a few, which seems to be what has happened. It is Labor Government policy to attempt to make a big kill. It is cracking nuts with a sledge-hammer. It claims that the developers are the baddies who are ruining the ownership of land. In fact, it is hurting the little man whom it claims to represent. Earlier, we stated that the review would take longer than was expected. Mr Harper: They should have known that, shouldn't they? Mr HOBBS: As the member for Auburn said, they should have known that. I reiterate what was said earlier about the members of the committee of review. I do not wish to cast aspersions on their credibility. They are functioning to the best of their ability. However, we are talking about land- ownership throughout Queensland and about people's livelihoods and aspirations for the future. This review is being carried out by people who are not directly involved in working on the land. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "This Government has set up a committee of review to advise on the underlying principles for future policy and administration of land in Queensland." Legislative Assembly 2539 31 July 1990

But the Government has forgotten to put on that committee people who have a working knowledge of the land. Queensland is a large State, yet all the members on the committee of review come from the south-east corner. Surely Government members can understand what we are trying to say. The Government is saying that the people who own the land, work the land and love the land do not know what they are doing. It is wrong. That is where the Government has made a big mistake. The people on the committee of review are probably quite credible and very good in their own fields. The Opposition does not cast aspersions on them personally; it casts aspersions on the Government, which set up the committee of review because it did not think widely enough on the issue. I foreshadow that, at a later time, this legislation will cause real trouble. Problems created by insecurity of tenure will be paramount. At the end of the day, people who work the land want to be able to obtain security of tenure. At present, they do not have that security of tenure. A Government member: Whose fault is that? Mr HOBBS: For the benefit of the honourable member who interjected from the wrong seat, I point out that statements that he has made undermine the credibility of the Government in the eyes of land-holders. The Government has not supported the land-holders. Because of the sins of a few, the Government has crucified everyone involved in land-ownership. One will find baddies in every industry. Whether they be taxi-drivers, graziers or politicians, people will always attempt to rort the system. However, the Government is cracking nuts with a sledge-hammer. Productivity is important in this issue. Land-owners must plan ahead and develop their land. Planning ahead costs people much money and families a lot of time. Sons come home from school and work for next to nothing to give their parents a hand in the hope that one day they will be able to have a family farm of their own. The Government is attempting to disfranchise those people of what they are working for today. Mention was made of 99-year leases. I have no problem with those. However, at the end of the 99-year lease, the conditions may change. Freehold title provides a different concept. It is the best method of land tenure and provides a safe investment for a family in times of trouble. In the days of probate, I went through terrible times. In those days, because it would have added value to our asset, we would have preferred to have had freehold tenure. Nevertheless, we survived, as most people in the bush do survive. Earlier, I mentioned employees. I have people working on my property who want security. Without security of tenure, employers cannot guarantee security of employment for their employees. Many other questions need to be answered, but I think one of the most important is: what will happen after this committee makes its findings? Incidentally, when the members of the committee visited western Queensland, they really missed an area probably twice the size of Victoria. They came to my area after a certain amount of persuasion. The original plan was that they would arrive in Charleville and move on very quickly. They wisely decided to stay and conduct hearings all day, and I appreciated that. By the same token, they missed the pastoral areas in the gulf and the far west, the places where the big bucks are being made. They did not get to those areas. Really, they have not covered the whole of the State. Of course, Queensland is a vast State. I ask the Minister whether a Green Paper or some similar document will in fact be released, giving the findings of this review, and whether the public will have an opportunity to comment on those findings? We do not want too many more reviews. This Government now has the record for setting up the greatest number of reviews. The guidelines under which this committee of review is working at present are so wide that nobody can really focus on the particular issues in respect of which the committee will make recommendations. Legislative Assembly 2540 31 July 1990

I ask the Minister: when the committee reports to him, will he let the public have an opportunity to debate the recommendations? That is important, because then we can home in on the particular issues. I accept that the members of the committee are an independent group of people, and I thank the Minister for allowing them to do their work independently. That is commendable, and I appreciate it. The other matter I want to query is the retrospective ban on freeholding. The Minister did not really answer the question properly before. I again ask: why is the ban on freeholding necessary? Cannot the Minister withhold applications as they are received? Also, will the Minister refer the recommendations of the committee to the public? Mr HARPER: During the second-reading debate I asked the Minister why there was no mention in this retrospective legislation of unpaid instalments and the ability of those people who own freeholding tenure to pay out unpaid instalments. Perhaps the Minister was occupied when I raised the matter with him. I asked him whether this was a decision of public servants, bureaucrats within his department, whether it was his decision or whether it was a decision of the Government. It is my understanding that people who hold freeholding tenure have been denied an opportunity to pay out unpaid instalments and so complete the freeholding of their lease. Certainly in at least some invoices for rental this year, a pay-out figure was not given. Mr Littleproud: That's right. Mr HARPER: As the honourable member for Condamine says, that is right. At present, people who previously had an opportunity to complete the freeholding of their land appear to be denied that opportunity. I indicated in my remarks in the second-reading debate that that aspect was at least equally significant, as is the basis of this legislation, to retrospectively place a freeze even on applications for freeholding of those leases named in the Bill. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation. Has the Government, or has he or someone within the Land Administration Commission, made a decision that those who hold freeholding tenure leases will no longer be allowed to pay out the unpaid instalments, as had been the case under the previous Government? Mr ELLIOTT: I would like to make a couple of comments in support of the previous speaker. The anomalies contained in this legislation concern me greatly. In general, the attitude of the Minister and the Government in respect of the whole process of freeholding has been an absolute disaster. If honourable members look back to what has happened in Western Australia—for argument's sake, in the Kimberley district over the past 30 years—they will see the sort of environmental disaster that was created. If the Government wants a repetition of that disaster, it should continue to adopt the attitude that it has expressed here tonight. If the Government wants to create havoc in this State and degrade and destroy the most precious resource that we have, our land, then it should go ahead and put the land in short-term leases. That is the surest way I know of to wreck the country. The land will be exploited by those whose only interest is to make the most out of it. History has proved that time and time again. Government members should remember those big companies in the Kimberleys region. I invite them to consult the history books that deal with that area and to talk to land commissioners. People who have contractual agreements to freehold their land have been cut off at the pass. It would be reprehensible and it would demonstrate its lack of ethics if the Government did not allow those people to continue to freehold that land. Mr EATON: I cannot believe my luck. Opposition members have earned the title of "whingeing farmers". All of the farmers with whom I have ever worked were hard workers who never whinged. I am sure that all land-holders who are whingers are elected to the National Party and are sent to this place. Talk about a Dad and Dave show! Legislative Assembly 2541 31 July 1990

Because the supposedly learned members of the Opposition come from the land, they should be familiar with the Land Act and its implications. They should also be aware of the responsibilities of a responsible Government. However, they did not even read page 4 of my prepared second-reading speech. During the debate on the second reading of the Land Act Amendment Bill, members of the Opposition cried tears of blood for the poor farmers who cannot pay out their freeholding dues. During my second-reading speech I said— "Freeholding tenures and tenures containing a right to freehold are not affected by this legislation." I have already said that I have signed many freeholding agreements. The honourable member for Warrego asked about freeholding. If he reads the Land Act he will learn that, after a person has honoured his obligations and paid his contributions, he can apply to the Minister, who shall grant freehold. Mr Hobbs: There is no time-frame in the legislation. Mr EATON: No, but there is no way that the Minister can refuse a freeholding unless it affects a matter of public interest. Mr Hobbs: You are going through a review of three months, you said. You could have held up the particular ones for three months—the ones that you were worried about. Mr EATON: I could not. The Government obtained legal advice on that issue. That is why the retrospectivity was included. Mr Hobbs: It is in the Act. Mr EATON: Various sections of leasehold land are mentioned in sections 184, 145, 143 and 146 of the Act. I invite the honourable member to read it fully. Mr Hobbs: I've read it. Mr EATON: The honourable member has not interpreted it very well. There is no way that the Minister can refuse to grant freeholding if a person has honoured his obligations. There is no way that the Minister can stop freehold grazing and agricultural leases being obtained. Members of the Opposition are unaware of the provisions of the Land Act that the National Party introduced. I challenge members opposite to provide me with the name of any person who applied prior to 5 February and was refused. The applications for freeholding by people who applied prior to that date were treated as though this Bill did not exist. Applications have only been refused because objections were lodged by local authorities or the DPI on the basis that the land in question is required for future resumptions. I can justify every freeholding application that I have refused. I have approved dozens of them because no legal grounds existed to refuse them. The Government is administering the Act as it was written. Members of the Opposition have demonstrated their ignorance of this Act. They should read it again. Does that answer all the questions of the honourable members for Cunningham, Auburn and Warrego? Mr Hobbs: The Green Paper. Mr EATON: This Government cannot predict what the findings of the committee will be. There has been no communication with it other than when two extensions of time were sought. A Green Paper might be necessary. The Government will not know that until it receives the report of the committee, which will not be until after 31 August. Mr HARPER: I ask a very simple question of the Minister, and I hope that he will answer simply "Yes" or "No". From what the Minister has just said, is it correct Legislative Assembly 2542 31 July 1990 that, since this Government came to power, there has been no change in relation to the payment of unpaid instalments by those people who hold freeholding tenure and who desire to pay out those unpaid freeholding instalments? Mr EATON: If that is the case, it applies only to people who made application after 5 February. If they made application prior to that date, they would have been granted freehold and would be able to pay it out. Mr HARPER: Although the Minister has castigated members on the Opposition side for not understanding the legislation, he has demonstrated clearly that he does not understand it. I will repeat my very simple question: from what the Minister has said, is he assuring this House that there has been no change in policy in regard to those people who hold freeholding tenure—and who obviously held it before 5 February—and have made initial payments to the Crown in respect of the conversion of their tenure? I ask for a "Yes" or "No" answer. I assume that there has been no change in policy in regard to the payment of unpaid instalments relating to those conversions. Mr EATON: The simple answer is, "No." As I said, if the honourable member brings them to me, I will grant them freehold. There are no restrictions. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister commented earlier about making land available for young farmers and for livable areas. I ask him to explain from where this land will come. At the end of a 30-year lease, will land be taken from existing owners or will the leases be taken back and made available at a cheaper price? Mr EATON: It is hoped to return to what occurred in the old days when decisions were based on the family unit farm. I am sure that the Opposition agrees with this. That does not mean that it has to be a dairy farm or a pig farm; it means the family unit block. Even blind Freddy would know that land can be acquired in only two ways, both of which are really resumptions. At the expiration of a lease, an area of one or two living areas can be resumed from an area of three, four or five living areas. The area resumed can then be put up for ballot. Another way is that the area can be resumed outright with the payment of compensation for the resumption. It can then be offered at ballot with a cost added to it. I am thinking of an instance involving one of the best grazing properties in Australia. If I had $10m, I would buy it; that is what I think of it. A responsible organisation has put to me that, if the Government is to carry out its policy of settling young people on the land, it should buy that property, divide it up into whatever are considered to be living areas and offer them at by a ballot. That property would not sustain 10 living areas. However, if $10m was paid for it and it was divided into 10 lots, $1m would have to be charged for each lot. With today's high interest rates, how could a young fellow manage to buy a block costing that much? He would be put into debt for the rest of his life. The answer to the honourable member's question is that the Government hopes to do it in the same manner as it was done years ago. Many graziers in Queensland today still occupy the block of land that they won at a ballot. Mr STEPHAN: Is the Minister saying that at the end of the lease, whether it be 30 years or 50 years, the land will be resumed and then subdivided? Mr EATON: Yes. The criticism levelled at the Government that it intends to take over all the small blocks of land and cut them up into smaller blocks is ridiculous. The Government will be resuming land only at the expiration of a lease. The lessee will have plenty of warning of resumption, and he will not be left with only one living area. It will be conducted in the way in which it was done years ago when a person was left with one and a half living areas, which allowed for the future. Mention was made earlier of the areas that previous Governments cut up. Although they were living areas at that time, today they are not. We have to plan for the future. Legislative Assembly 2543 31 July 1990

The Government has no qualms whatsoever about it. If the Government needs to pay compensation, it will. However, it does not want to resume land at high cost on the open market and saddle young people with debt. That is not what it is all about. Mr Stephan: You're going to take it off the people who developed it. Mr EATON: Only off the big people who can afford to lose it. Mr HOBBS: I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister, particularly in the light of what he has just said. If I interpreted correctly what he said, it is the Government's intention to cut up some of the bigger blocks. At present we are seeing what is happening in Australia, particularly in Queensland, with tumbling prices, even with external pressures being applied. The review is also hanging over our heads. The bigger companies, such as King Ranch, have developed the channel country and have provided money to develop the block that the Minister often speaks about. The Minister would have to agree that that place would not be in the position in which it is now had it not been for that company's injection of capital. The Minister is saying that the Government will reduce the value of all of those properties that are more than a living area for a family. In other words, he is saying that the assets of companies such as AA and Stanbroke Pastoral Company are just about gone. What exactly is the Government going to do with those blocks? How many will be cut up? The Government says that it will resume those areas. The Minister has said that the Government does not want the people who successfully ballot for those blocks to pay market value for them but a reasonable value. If those blocks are to be resumed, it is therefore presumed that the present owner will not receive a reasonable price for his block of land. Mr Eaton: Not on the open market, no. We're not going to go out and buy it. Mr HOBBS: Therefore, after the committee of review has been set up, a person who buys at auction a place such as Nockatunga near Thargomindah, which is for sale at present and in which there is a lot of interest, may pay far in excess of what it is worth. I ask the Minister to consider this: if a person wants to build a house, he calls a carpenter. If he wants to fix his motor car, he calls a mechanic. If he wants some advice on what happens on land matters in the rural industry, he talks to land-owners. The people in my area are land-owners. People can say what they like about us, whether we whinge or not. By the same token, the Minister is riding roughshod over us. He is not taking advice from us. We know the industry backwards. We have been in it for generations. We can offer advice. We ask the Minister to take note of what we are saying because it is quite relevant and important to us. We do not want the value of our land, whether it be leasehold or pastoral lease, to tumble. That is what is occurring at present. This could be happen with a house block. Would the Minister be happy to allow someone to come in and take over half of his house block that he has paid off all of his life? Mr Eaton: You're splitting straws. Mr HOBBS: No, I am not. It is exactly the same thing, only on a smaller scale. The bigger one is, the harder one falls. It is as simple as that. Whether a person owes $10,000 on a small business or $100,000 on a big business, the principle is exactly the same. Usually bigger operations have a smaller margin. In the rural industry today, if a farmer makes 3 per cent on his capital investment, he is doing very well. If this Government intends to reduce that farmer's asset by resuming the land, it will reduce that return even further. I believe that the Minister is on the wrong track and I ask him to accept advice from Opposition members. Mr EATON: I am amazed by the member's question. From what he said, he wants to cater only for the rich and greedy. He spoke about those people with big blocks who Legislative Assembly 2544 31 July 1990 have spent millions of dollars developing their land and who cannot afford to lose any of it. They have long-term leases and they own several blocks. He was referring to owners of properties such as King Ranch, who have just sold off some blocks of land for $10m because the rural industry is experiencing a downturn. All honourable members are aware that Mr Holmes a Court has achieved a lot for the rural industry. He owns racehorse studs, stock horse studs, cattle studs and sheep studs. Prior to taking over the Sherwin Pastoral Company, he owned many parcels of land. There should not be any National Party members who are not aware of the Sherwin Pastoral Company. Following the take-over of the Sherwin Pastoral Company, Mr Holmes a Court's company now owns more than 1 per cent of the land mass of Australia. Although most of that land is in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, he does own properties in Queensland. Mr Elliott: How much money are you offering to invest in land in Australia? I do not hear you investing your money. Mr EATON: Because I do not have any. If I had $10m, I would have paid $10m for that property. An Opposition member interjected. Mr EATON: Opposition members want only the rich and greedy to own land. They do not want to take any land from them because they believe that they should be allowed to become bigger and bigger. If that were permitted, no-one could compete with them. Opposition members are living in dream world. Queensland is in its present state because that is how Opposition members ran this State when they were in power. The previous Government encouraged property-owners to become bigger. It developed a policy of "get big or get out", and that is why Queensland is in trouble today. The day will come when children will want to become land-owners. They will ask their fathers for a loan, but they will not be able to help. When that happens, Opposition members will understand the problem. Mr HOBBS: There is one further point I wish to raise. At the moment, the favourite buzz word is "Landcare". Recently, at a convention on land care, the Premier, of all people, lectured the members of the United Graziers Association. By the way, he read all his notes, which I presume were written for him by somebody else. The very important point I make in this debate about freeholding is that the Government needs to give people security of tenure so that they can plan ahead. Good land care is tied in with that. It costs a lot of money to plan and develop land over 10 or 20 years. People need to plan how they are going to pay for that land. Mr Eaton: Should we let only the rich people have land? Mr HOBBS: No. The Minister is trying to change what I am saying. At present, approximately 70 Landcare groups operate in Queensland. The Minister spoke about cutting up those bigger blocks in the pastoral zone. Those blocks are more fragile than all the developed country in the middle because it has been eroded by wind. It has the same problem as South Australia, where the country is all flogged out and will not rejuvenate. This State and nation would be far better off with two or three reasonable properties operating on a profitable basis than seven or eight property-owners starving because they cannot afford to develop their properties. Those owners cannot afford to maintain the land in the way that it should be kept. They have to overstock by retaining extra calves or an extra mob of sheep. Mr Harper: The previous Labor Government designed most of those substandard blocks, anyway. Legislative Assembly 2545 31 July 1990

Mr HOBBS: They did. Mr Eaton: They were big enough at the time that they were designed. Mr HOBBS: That is not true. I refer to a point made by the Minister in his second-reading speech. He asked what the previous National Party Government had done about farm build-up. One of the things that it did in recent times was to introduce the Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme, or PIPES. That scheme allowed the amalgamation of smaller, uneconomic blocks into one larger block. To achieve that, the previous Government had to give assistance in the form of low-interest, long-term loans so that a person could buy out his neighbour. Obviously, the property owned by the person who was buying out his neighbour was not financially viable because he had a small block and he was struggling. Therefore, the previous Government had to help him. This Government has abolished that scheme. Mr John Polichronis delivered a political report on the QIDC. I think that Polichronis is a good name for him because that is exactly what it was. He recommended that, in future, under the PIPE Scheme the QIDC should issue short-term commercial loans. It is absolutely impossible to achieve economic farm build-up by amalgamating smaller blocks into larger ones if the person who buys those blocks cannot reduce the overall carrying capacity on those blocks to achieve better land-care methods. That is what the previous Government was trying to achieve. This Government has abolished that scheme. Mr EATON: The member for Warrego failed to get the message when I said that Mr Holmes a Court's company owns more than 1 per cent of the land mass of Australia. That is one company. Does the honourable member believe that there are not another 99 companies in Australia or the world that could take up that other 99 per cent? If they did, he would then want some Government controls. He would be more worried about the big fellows then. One company owns more than 1 per cent of the land mass of Australia. I would like Opposition members to tell me the law that states that another 99 companies cannot come in and buy the other 99 per cent of the land. I will take an interjection from any Opposition member who can show me where the Act stops another 99 companies, such as the one owned by Holmes a Court, coming into Queensland and buying up the other 99 per cent of this State. That is what Opposition members are saying. They want to help the big fellows. It has to be stopped somewhere along the line. They cannot be allowed to get bigger and bigger. I am surprised that members of the Opposition want to throw themselves on to the open market to face that monetary competition that they would have to face if they got their way. Time expired. Mr ELLIOTT: Honourable members should not let that pass over the shoulder. The Government is misinterpreting totally what Opposition members are saying. Not one Opposition member supports a person buying the whole of Australia or believes that Mr Holmes a Court should continue to buy land ad infinitum. However, the Opposition is saying that under the Government's suggested terms of reference for freeholding, blocks will be cut down into such small areas that as soon as one of those inevitable droughts occur—they occur every six or seven years—problems will arise. I am not talking about areas of the Darling Downs or around Roma or even Dirranbandi. I am talking about the channel country, the gulf areas and the other extreme outback areas of Queensland. Whether honourable members like it or not, those areas will suffer from a drought every six or seven years. All honourable members who have worked on or owned properties in those areas know only too well that that will happen. If the Government cuts those blocks up, they will be subjected to wind erosion. That is what the Opposition spokesman on Land Management is saying. The Government is misrepresenting what he is saying and trying to make out that the Opposition is supporting the Holmes a Courts of the world. All the Opposition is saying is that some far-flung blocks in the State are not suited to being cut up. Legislative Assembly 2546 31 July 1990

I do not have the financial clout to buy and run those cattle properties in the gulf. I could not handle that in a fit. Companies such as the Stanbroke Pastoral Company and other big family companies that have been built up over the years have the ability to run those properties. That land should not be confused with land that is situated further inland and which is, and can be, split up into a reasonable area. The Government should not make the mistake that has been made previously by Governments of both political persuasions of cutting up blocks into areas that are too small. Those areas would be totally devastated. Time expired. Mr EATON: Opposition members are drawing red herrings across the trail. They are trying to create fear among the public that the Government will take the land off people willy-nilly—— Opposition members: You said you would. Mr EATON: I ask Opposition members to wait a minute. How many leases will expire in the next five years? If the Government were to race out and grab land everywhere, a false market would be created. If three or four blocks in cattle-breeding country are thrown open the price of breeders will be forced up. If the same thing happens in sheep country, again, a false market will be created. The poor land-owner will be in trouble. The Government wants to do it on a scale that does not interfere with the market. The leases on blocks that expire will not all be in the one area of Queensland. Opposition members are talking about secure tenure and long-term leases. I spoke in this House on the Bill that did away with perpetual leasing and for which the Minister for Land Management, Mr Glasson, was responsible. He said that it had outlived its usefulness. He stood up and crowed, and all his cronies clapped and cheered. They said that long-term perpetual leasing had outlived its usefulness. What are honourable members hearing now? The same National Party members who were here when Mr Glasson introduced that Bill are saying that they do not want short-term leases; they want long-term leases. When Opposition members found that they had made a mess of it, they approached the Premier. They flew him all around Queensland. What did he do? He said, "We cannot go back on it now. If people apply up to 10 years before the expiration of that lease, the Government will grant them an automatic 20-year extension. That will stop them expiring." Mr Stephan: You said you were against any automatic extension. Mr EATON: Yes, because that way, the lease never expires. We believe in perpetual leasing—99 year leases. The only two reasons why leasehold land has been taken from the people of Queensland are that the lease-holder has not paid either his rates or the bank. No Government has taken any leasehold land off anybody other than for those reasons. Freehold land could be taken off a person for the same reason. It does not matter whether the land is freehold or leasehold. If land-owners do not pay their rates, the land will be taken off them. At the expiration of a lease, land is taken away from a lease-holder if the area is larger than that required for a living area. If it is the size of three or four living areas, the Government may take one area here, another area further north and one somewhere else. The Government will not cut off all the blocks in one area. Opposition members should talk to the members of the UGA and the Cattlemen's Union about the Government's policy. They should talk about the family that owns six or seven cattle stations, and how poor it is. I can name a few people. If Opposition members can get those people to publish their tax returns for the last five years, I will give my tax returns for the last five years to the media and let them publish the returns. Legislative Assembly 2547 31 July 1990

Mr HARPER: In view of the comments that the Minister has just made in regard to giving people a fair go, I put to him—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Johnson): Order! The member for Auburn has spoken three times. Mr SPRINGBORG: I have a sincere question because I think—— Mr Vaughan: What clause are you talking on? Mr SPRINGBORG: I am talking to the clause and to most of the matters that have been discussed in the debate. I refer to the comment that the Minister just made about an automatic renewal not being available for some leases. One of the problems is that honourable members do not understand the definition of a living area. The Minister should answer my question sincerely because, if we do not get this straight, there will be a lot of alarmed people in the community. Suppose a person has one small freehold property that can be defined as half a living area or one living area, another property which could be defined as a living area and a special lease property with a 30-year lease, which is the main home block with two houses on it, a number of bores, a number of dams—— Mr Elliott: Shearing sheds. Mr SPRINGBORG:—and shearing sheds; would that be excluded or would that be under review after the lease expired? I endorse what the honourable member for Warrego said about land care. A person who has security of tenure will look after his land better than one who does not have security. I have seen this before, and so have a lot of other people on the land. This is a relevant analogy. A sharefarmer comes in for one or two years on a freehold block. He knows that he will be there for one year so he clears a piece of land. He leaves stumps in the ground. He ploughs up gullies, which will erode badly. He knows he will be there for only one year so he exploits it. If he had the security of long-term tenure, he would look after that land, which is what most people on the land do. Sure, there are a few renegades and rednecks but the majority are not. Could the Minister answer my two questions because I think that, if he does, he will allay a lot of the concerns of the people out in the bush? Mr EATON: In answer, let me say that they do not understand. Our policy on family units is black and white. We cannot resume freehold land unless we pay for it. However, I understand what the honourable member meant. A person could have a small area of freehold land, a larger piece of freehold land and a pastoral lease here and there. Provided it is not held by a company that owns thousands of square miles comprising five or six living areas, we would not touch it. Provided it is only two living areas, we would not touch it. We do not want to interfere with the small people. It will be done on a planned basis under proper management. We will be settling on the size of the living area that is needed in a particular locality. If we intended to resume a sheep block near Longreach, we would have discussions with the United Graziers Association and the wool industry and establish what was considered a reasonable living area and we would resume it from a big property. Mr Elliott: What is your suggested living area in the sheep country? How many sheep is a living area? Mr EATON: It depends on the time when it is done and the area it is in. More sheep can be run round Longreach or Richmond than at Oodnadatta or Birdsville. Opposition members are trying to make me say tonight that we will limit the area to 10 hectares or any other set figure. We cannot put a set figure on it unless we know the locality. I am not silly enough to be taken in by Opposition members. I think that answers the honourable member's questions. Legislative Assembly 2548 31 July 1990

Mr BOOTH: The Minister has widened the debate considerably, much more than we expected. He has admitted that he has already made a decision to make resumptions. I do not think that many people out there would know that. An Opposition member: They will tomorrow. Mr BOOTH: They will tomorrow or next week or the week after that, because we will make sure that they know. We will tell them. If the Minister has decided to resume land from the people out there, he surely has made a policy decision on how much will be done and whether the people will be compensated for the pasture and other improvements on the land. A detailed decision will have to be made on those matters. Will the review committee make a decision on the resumptions, and the compensation for the pasture and other improvements and all the other things that have gone into the development of the country? The Minister has admitted that a decision has been made to make resumptions and I think the price of land will tumble. It has to. People cannot carry on in a hazardous business such as farming and not know where they are going. I sympathise with the Minister in wanting to assist young people and I think that he is sincere in that, but putting people onto a block they cannot live on will not help them; unless they know what they are doing, it will destroy them. In answering the honourable member for Carnarvon, the Minister was a little more explicit. He said that, if there were only two living areas, he would not take any. I suppose that will give people a bit of heart. The point I make is that the Minister has opened the discussion so widely tonight that he must move very quickly to make decisions on resumptions, compensation for improvements and everything else. The land-holders out there will be very worried after tonight's performance. Mr GILMORE: I have a question to the Minister as a follow-on to his answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Carnarvon. I ask him to clarify something for me. He said that he was prepared to take into consideration in the calculations freehold land as part of a living area. If a person has a piece of freehold land and a piece of leasehold land—I want this to be made very clear—is the Minister prepared to consider the total amalgamation of that land in determining living areas and then will he undertake the resumptions of the leasehold land based on the accumulated land, including the freehold, or will he consider only the leasehold land? Mr EATON: If a person owns 10 000 acres of freehold land and 30 000 acres of leasehold land comprising six living areas, I think we have to look at the leasehold land, but we would have to take the freehold land into consideration. If it is only two or three living areas and a whole heap of blocks, it is not the same as a big block. I have gone to UGA meetings and Cattlemen's Union meetings and expressed there what I have expressed tonight and have answered questions. They are not worried; they are not frightened. The impression that the Opposition is trying to create tonight is that we will go out there and take land hand over fist. Mr Hobbs: You said you are. Mr EATON: That was never said. The Government said that, at the expiration of a lease, the arrangements would be looked into. Mr Hobbs: They are expiring every week. Mr EATON: Rubbish! That just shows how much members of the National Party know about the land. They were in Government for 30-odd years, yet the Opposition spokesman is trying to tell me that the leases are expiring. Small leases have expired, but the larger properties are provided with 20-year extensions and the leases will continue in perpetuity. The lease will never expire because, as long as the owner applies 12 months before expiration or earlier, an automatic extension can be obtained. Legislative Assembly 2549 31 July 1990

Earlier an honourable member asked about compensation when areas of grazing land are resumed. When cattle or grazing properties containing improvements have to be resumed, the owners will be paid compensation. The Government will not take people off the land and give them nothing for it. The member for Warwick made a very poor contribution to the debate. He has tried to misinterpret every provision in the Act and did not even notice that clause 4 contains freeholding provisions that apply prior to the freeze taking effect. A great deal of misinformation is being circulated in the community, and I am sure that a lot more will be spread by members of the Opposition. However, I am prepared to explain publicly to representatives of the UGA and others the Government's policy in relation to this matter. So far, I have encountered no difficulty when I have met representatives in central and north Queensland. As a matter of fact, in north Queensland the Cattlemen's Union has asked the Government to create smaller blocks from large properties. The representatives are asking the Government to do it. Mr Booth: But you haven't answered my question about compensation for improvements. Mr EATON: I have just said that compensation will be paid for any improvements that are part of the property, irrespective of whether they are pasture improvements, fences, dams or whatever. Compensation will be paid, and those factors will be taken into consideration. Mr GILMORE: Has the Minister considered that the improvements for which the Government will compensate people might have been the reason that the property reached living area standard? Mr EATON: The Government will not take living area blocks into account. Each member of the Opposition who has participated in this debate tonight has tried to create the impression that the Government intends to take single living area blocks away from the owners. Mr GILMORE: With respect, the Minister has misunderstood what I have said. For example, if a person has, according to the Minister's calculations, three living areas, has the Minister considered that the property is regarded as containing three living areas because of the improvements for which the Government must compensate the owner? Mr EATON: I am not saying that the Government will be taking into account properties containing three living areas. The Government will probably be examining larger properties but, if smaller parcels of land are considered, the improvements will be taken into consideration. As I said, compensation will be paid. Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr EATON: What more can the Government do? Compensation will be paid and the owner will still be left with two living areas. Mr SPRINGBORG: I wish to refer to the second question I asked the Minister in relation to Landcare. I point out that I was extremely sincere when I raised the issue because, as I have said to him, I have seen the results of land being exploited by people who know that they will retain it for a maximum period of five years only and wish to get the maximum benefit out of the lease. I believe that, if an air of uncertainty surrounds the period of the leases, the people who hold the leases will try to maximise their profits during the last five years. Although I recognise that it would be difficult to achieve that through legislation, I believe that the Government should make a statement or frame a provision that will stop that type of vandalism from occurring. Contrary to what the Minister and other honourable members might think, I understand what the Bill is all about. The Minister says that the legislation will place a temporary freeze on the freeholding of land while a review takes place to determine the future course of action and the terms and conditions of land rental. I point out to the Minister that, when I Legislative Assembly 2550 31 July 1990 spoke earlier in the debate, I did so sincerely and as an effective voice in this Parliament on behalf of my electorate. I hope that this Government does not penalise people who for very genuine reasons wish in the future to obtain freehold tenure. The shadow Minister has pointed out that many genuine people wish to obtain freehold title so that in the future they will have security of tenure. They want to have the title deed in their hands, and they want the land to stay in the family and to be passed on to future generations for 300 years or more. I emphasise that I really understand these issues. I am sure that honourable members would have no qualms about doing away with the unscrupulous element in property development that obtains freehold for purely profit motives. I do not think members of Parliament can excuse those actions, because the people involved seek only to plunder the land for short-term gain, which is not much good for the future. I can assure the Minister that there is absolutely no disputation among honourable members about that matter. Members of the National Party support the review, but I point out that we have reservations about the freeze on freeholding. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to answer the question I have posed in relation to Landcare. Mr EATON: Landcare is a relatively recent concept. The Premier has pledged support and the Minister for Primary Industries is providing a service to property-owners through his department. The Government is well aware of the problems involved and would like to provide more financial assistance to property-owners whose land is affected. The Government recognises that, because of their interest in preservation, many people involved in Landcare units throughout Queensland—including Government employees—are working unpaid during weekends. I can assure members of the Opposition that the Government will not interfere in the management of small properties. Members of the Opposition have been trying to create the impression that the Government will take properties from people who have owned the land for a long time. Mr Springborg: No. I just wanted clarification. I am genuine in what I am asking about, because there will be a lot of uncertainty after tonight. Mr EATON: I cannot see why there would be. Uncertainty will be created only by members of the Opposition. I reiterate that the Government is looking mainly to long-term large properties. Uncertainty will surely be created by members of the Opposition spreading misinformation. The Government wants to streamline the provisions that apply to tenures, but I feel that the Government will not be able to get away from special leases. It is difficult to raise finance on land that is subject to a five-year special lease, and many five-year special leases have been granted. The Government wants to provide long-term secure tenure. If it were left to me, the provisions of the Act would go straight back to 99-year leases or perpetual leasing, but that type of change is also subject to the proper procedures. In the short time that I have been Minister, I have granted extensions and have approved longer terms for leases than applied previously. I am in favour of long-term leases. If I could, tomorrow I would love to introduce a Bill into the Parliament to place land under perpetual lease provisions or 99-year leases. I point out that it was the previous National Party Government that did away with perpetual leasing; it said that it had outlived its usefulness. It did away with long-term secure tenure. Anybody who has leasehold property will not have it taken away unless the rent is not paid, the rates are not paid or the lessee is declared bankrupt. They are the only reasons why people would lose the land. Mr STEPHAN: Can I assume from his response that the Minister has decided that he will not make land available for young people to purchase farms? He has been contradicting himself. He cannot say that he is not going to resume the land and then say that he is going to make it available. Which way will it be? Legislative Assembly 2551 31 July 1990

Mr EATON: At the expiration of a lease, when the Government resumes a living area from a large holding, the owner will be paid for his improvements. The honourable member is again attempting to split hairs. I have answered this question a dozen times, but I will answer it again. The Opposition wants the Government to buy the land on the open market. Mr Stephan: You were saying that you are going to make land available for young persons. Mr EATON: Yes. At the expiration of a lease, the land will revert back to the Crown. Mr Stephan: Make it available, you said. Mr EATON: It will revert back to the Crown. Any improvements on the land will be paid for. Mr Stephan: So you are going to resume land for them? Mr EATON: I cannot see why the honourable member is trying to split hairs. When the lease expires, the land will revert to the Crown. We own it and it is our right to do what we like with it. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr HARPER (9.16 p.m.): I will deal only with the matters to which the Minister referred previously in the debate. The first matter relates to the substandard areas in the shadow spokesman's electorate of Warrego, in which there is an effort to mitigate land degradation. The National Party Government introduced the PIPES scheme. I had the pleasure of bringing the scheme forward. Of course, the Polichronis report to which the Minister referred earlier indicated that those people should not have been helped with concessional loans. Without having any knowledge of the facts, he made a judgment that the majority of the land-owners should have been paying the highest rate possible—12 per cent—and he believed that there was some sort of cronyism-type rort going on. An Opposition member: Rort? Mr HARPER: That is a popular Labor word which Polichronis used. Does the Minister agree with that interpretation, or does he believe that the efforts of the previous Government to overcome land degradation with the PIPES scheme were valid and should have been supported by the present Government? I turn to my second point. During the couple of months that I had the privilege to serve as Minister for Land Management, I inspected land on Cape York and talked with land-holders. Officers of the Minister's department disagreed with a scheme to subdivide the land of people who have eked out a living in an area and been prepared to put up with the isolation and difficulties to make the land available for their sons and daughters who want to share in the development of the land. After talking to some people who were able to put forward a worthwhile case, I was prepared to allow subdivision to take place to put two or three families on areas which were owned by a single entity. When the previous clause was under discussion, the Minister said—it rather shocked me, but is obviously his philosophy and, unfortunately, the philosophy of some officers who work within the Department of Lands—"It is our right to do what we like with it." That is an unfortunate attitude. It is not the Minister's right to do what he likes with it. He is only a temporary custodian. The employees in the Lands Department are not even temporary custodians. When a proposition is put to him by people experienced in working particular areas, is the Minister prepared to look at a rational and logical subdivision in an effort to increase the number of people who make a living in those areas and who have reasonable security of tenure in their own right? Legislative Assembly 2552 31 July 1990

There are two issues. The first one relates to overcoming land degradation through a scheme such as PIPES. The other one relates to the reasonable and logical subdivision of land in those isolated areas to which he has been referring when talking about resumptions in large areas. Mr EATON: Because schemes such as PIPES were abused and mismanaged by the previous Government, this Government has had them investigated. Because they were not serving the purpose for which they were created, they have been cancelled. When I stated that it was our land and we could do what we like with it, I was referring to a time after the expiration of a lease when the land reverts back to the Crown. At that stage it is Crown land and it is ours. If people are leasing it, it is not ours. I agree with the honourable member that we are the custodians of leasehold land, but my statement related to a time at the expiration of the lease when the land becomes vacant Crown land. Mr HARPER: I challenge the Minister to indicate any one case in which the provisions of the Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme were abused in any way. He has a responsibility to back up the direct accusation that he made against primary producers in this State who had their backs to the wall and who were offered assistance under the Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme. He has claimed in this Chamber that that scheme was being abused. I challenge him to substantiate his claim by naming one case in which abuse has taken place. Mr EATON: If the honourable member reads Hansard tomorrow, he will ascertain that I said that PIPES, like many other schemes, was investigated. Those schemes were terminated because they were not serving the purpose for which they were created. I did not refer particularly to PIPES. I referred to a number of schemes. I do not know a great deal about PIPES. I was a great believer in the Rural Reconstruction Scheme. It was honourable members opposite who rorted the scheme, which ultimately resulted in its cancellation, and I could name people in that context. I could give the names of people who abused the Rural Reconstruction Scheme. Those honourable members opposite who are attempting to split hairs and twist the facts should read Hansard tomorrow. It is that aspect of these debates that annoys me. I said previously that PIPES was like a number of other schemes. When they were investigated, because of some of the rorts and mismanagement, and because they were not doing the job for which they were created, they were cancelled. The same applied to PIPES. I admit that I do not know a great deal about that scheme and I cannot give any names with regard to it. Mr HARPER: I direct a third question to the Minister, and I believe that the primary producers of Queensland have a right to know the answer. The Minister repeatedly referred to PIPES. I challenge the Minister to provide to the Committee further details of that scheme. If he cannot do so—and he has now indicated that he does not know much about it—he should not refer to PIPES. Mr HOBBS: Today is indeed a sad day for primary industry in Queensland. I refer to the Minister's earlier comments on this clause, because it is very similar to the previous clause. This one deals particularly with perpetual town leases and suburban and country leases. Mr Eaton: Which clause is it? Mr HOBBS: It is clause 5. It is a similar clause. Previously, the Minister mentioned tax returns. He made some challenge to primary producers to submit their tax returns. I say to the Minister that more tax has been paid by primary producers in the past two years than probably for many years previously. The Minister would be surprised, I think, if he followed that through. He would find that in the last couple of years primary producers have paid millions of dollars in taxation. Of course, that will not apply to Legislative Assembly 2553 31 July 1990 producers in the wool industry, because there will not be any income on which to pay tax. The Minister is casting a slur on one of the most efficient industries in the world. It is one of the few industries that is subsidised in other countries. Producers in European countries that are members of the Economic Community receive huge subsidies for their products. In America the position is the same. In Australia, that does not happen. We survive or we die without subsidies. Australian producers are very efficient. The Minister should not cast aspersions on the people in the industry that, in actual fact, is keeping Australia afloat. We were back on the sheep's back until Mr Kerin arrived with instructions from Mr Keating. He took away wool producers' livelihoods and killed the goose that laid the golden egg. One day we will understand why Mr Keating did that. The Minister mentioned that he would like to have discussions with the UGA before blocks are divided. He stated that he would advise those industry organisations what constitutes a living area. We have seen what this Government has done in the communications industry. What happened with the registration of farm trucks? We never heard a word about it. The Minister for Transport went to Emerald. He knew that registration fees had been increased, but he did not have the intestinal fortitude to tell the people involved. He said, "Put in a submission." He knew that a decision had been made. He knew that those fees would go up. There was no consultation at all. Mr Harper: What about the Mining Act? Mr HOBBS: The member for Auburn asks, "What about the Mining Act?" The same applied there. I will not go into that matter because I do not want to deviate from the Bill under consideration. Previously, the Minister mentioned three living areas. I know of properties where young people bought a very rough lot went in and built it up. Today, that rough lot represents probably four living areas. It has been developed through the blood, sweat and tears of a father and his three sons. I do not know what those three boys will do at the end of the day, but that is a typical example of where one family actually occupies three living areas. Will the Government say to those people, "I am sorry, but two living areas is about the limit. It is a nice little block and it's very close to town. We'll cut it up"? The Minister has let the cat out of the bag. Tonight, his true intentions have been exposed. Mr Eaton: We would go back to the old system of ballots. That's what you fellows are frightened of. We are not going to touch the small farmer—— Mr HOBBS: We are not frightened of ballots. We have ballots as well. Over a period of years, as has been proved time and time again, the blocks that have been cut up have always been far too small. I do not know how many more times we have to see it before the Government realises that it cannot go out and cut up living areas at this time. At the end of the day—— Mr Harper: They will go back to the days of Foley. Mr HOBBS: That is right; "Fine-cut" Foley. Is that the name? Mr Harper: That's right. Mr HOBBS: Yes. The Minister must consider very carefully this important issue. I urge him to take advice from the industry. We are the voice of the industry. We represent it. We have been involved in it. If we do not know—— Mr Eaton: I have a bit of knowledge of the industry, too. Legislative Assembly 2554 31 July 1990

Mr HOBBS: I am sure that the Minister has. It is just that we stake our livelihoods on it; the Minister does not. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (9.31 p.m.): I move— "That leave be granted for the third reading of the Bill." Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 54 NOES, 19 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Bill, on motion of Mr Eaton, read a third time. EXPLOSIVES ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 March (see p. 1049). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.39 p.m.): The Opposition supports this legislation. I do not believe that this debate will take as long as the previous debate. The history of this Bill was outlined by the Minister in his second-reading speech. It emanated from a decision by the previous Government that the Act needed to be amended. From time to time it becomes necessary to amend legislation because loopholes are found in it. A need exists to standardise legislation and for requirements to be uniform both nationally and internationally. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that a Green Paper was issued in September 1989. I am not quite sure whether that is correct. Page 33 of the final paragraph of the 1989 annual report of the Department of Mines states— "As a result of industry response to a Green Paper issued in August, 1988, Cabinet approved the preparation of a Bill to amend the Explosives Act. The Legislative Assembly 2555 31 July 1990

amendments will reflect rapid technological changes in the explosives area. Penalty provisions will be substantially increased." The person responsible for writing that paragraph may have made an error. For the sake of accuracy, it should be amended. The explosives industry is very important to the mining industry in Queensland. A number of projects have been developed that support the mining industry. In future, in addition to supporting the mining industry, they will be substantial revenue-earners for our export industries. I understand that at present in Queensland about 200 000 tonnes of explosives are used per annum. About 19 explosives plants are located in Queensland. A couple of them are located in my electorate in the Helidon district. I had quite some input in attracting those industries to that area. At Helidon there is a large State Government magazine which, if I recall correctly, has been there since the war. Because of the two factories that have been established in the district, that magazine has been expanded. At present, work is being carried out to maintain the roads in the area. I have noted that the grounds are kept in very good order. It is quite a suitable site for a factory because it is fairly handy, by road, to some of the western mines and, of course, it services the best part of Queensland. It is also convenient to rail. In fact, it is actually on a rail loop. The explosives product may be railed to the port of Brisbane and exported if necessary. At present, most of the components are manufactured overseas and they come in through the port of Brisbane. This industry employs quite a few people in the Helidon area. In fact, one of the groups employs about 80 people and the other employs approximately 35 people. It is quite an important little industry in the Helidon area. In addition to that, it services the whole of the mining industry throughout Queensland. This legislation is necessary for a number of reasons. The penalties have been reviewed and substantially increased. It provides for the imposition of penalty units instead of the existing monetary fines. I note from the annual report of the department that in the last financial year there were five prosecutions for breaches of the regulatory requirements of the Act. It is worthy of note that even though the Act has existed for quite some time, breaches still occur. The general public expects the regulations under the Act to be enforced tightly. It is pleasing that that is taking place. In addition, I think the general public wants to be assured of the safety standard that has been reached in the transportation of explosives. The fact is that during the year only two accidents involving explosives were reported. One resulted in substantial burns to a youth who was experimenting with a home-made mixture. The other involved an explosive-laden vehicle which overturned near Emerald. In that incident, people received minor injuries but the explosives remained intact. From the point of view of the general public, that is heartening to note. Accidents can occur when explosives are being moved by road and rail. Although vehicles carrying explosives have been involved in accidents, the explosives have remained safe and have not caused any problems. It is important that the people realise that. While I wish to make no comment about the other accident, it stands as a warning to all young people, or anybody who wishes to experiment with explosives, how dangerous they can be. This evening, during the dinner recess, I was talking to some of my colleagues from the land, a number of them had actually used explosives on their properties. I can be included in that group because I have used a number of explosives on my property to clear trees in order to grow agricultural crops. I do not know of any accidents that have occurred involving explosives. However, primary producers expressed concern that they were not educated properly in the use of explosives and that accidents could take place. I share those concerns because one is not allowed too many mistakes in the explosives game. It is important that safety measures should be foremost in people's minds when they are handling explosives. Legislative Assembly 2556 31 July 1990

The explosives industry has a fairly short history because it was not until 1864 that dynamite was first invented. Prior to that, there was gunpowder and other explosive substances. When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, he created an industry that supported mining throughout the world, and it had a very big impact on the production of ore. It revolutionised mining throughout the world. Many explosives factories have been built throughout the world. Over the years, that technology has improved, and developments are still taking place in the mining industry. In the last few years, new techniques have been developed in the mining industry. I cite the recently invented Nonel product, which is non-electric detonation. That product ensures that timed detonation will be very precise. It cuts down the number of misfires. It is actually a shock wave that is transmitted through a tube. Just as light goes through a tube, the shock wave is transmitted, a connection is made and a detonator is set off. A technician in that area can achieve a neat job by setting the explosives with time-delay detonators. I noticed that the person who invented the Nonel initiation system, the non-electric initiation system, recently received an award in New Mexico. It is important that inventors in this field are rewarded just as others are rewarded in other fields. This invention has had a very big impact on the mining industry. My electorate has two plants. The first one erected was the Ensign Bickford plant. It was owned by IES, formerly a subsidiary of ICI. At present, that manufacturing company employs 80 people, and is planning to export its product to all the Pacific rim countries. Because its product can be produced quite cheaply and competitively, it is well situated in Queensland to take up the challenge of supplying product to those Pacific rim countries. The company was looking for stable Government and set up this industry in Australia. At the time, I welcomed them to my electorate. Since then, Dyno West Farmers established at a place called Laurel Park. It is located not very far from the other establishment. At present, Dyno West Farmers employs about 35 people and is manufacturing the Nonel detonators. That plant was opened on 26 August 1988 by the then Premier, the honourable Mike Ahern. Present at that opening was Mr J. Benkow, who was the President of the Norwegian Parliament. It was unusual to have in attendance at the opening of a plant in Australia the president of a Parliament, a position something similar to the Speaker of this House. At that opening, it was impressed upon us that the Australian miners now have available to them new techniques that they did not have many years ago. They now have computer simulation techniques that will enable them to predict the required quantity of explosives, where it should be located within the ore body, the sequence of how the individual charges should be exploded to produce different fragment sizes, the level of noise created, the distance and the trajectory such rock fragments will be thrown, and many other variables. When anyone is blasting a rock face it is becoming very important to know what size material one will end up with. It is not much good ending up with great big boulders that have to be crushed down if, by proper techniques and with the same amount of explosive, one can end up with the right sized fragments. If that material has to be crushed, that will cut the costs down quite significantly. Those techniques are now being used by miners. The techniques for manufacturing explosives right at the mine and safely loading such explosives immediately at the required location eliminates much of the need to transport prepared high explosives by road and rail throughout Australia. Most large mine operations use a product that is known as nitroprill in which a prilled ammonium nitrate is mixed with a hydrocarbon such as diesel in a ratio of approximately 16 parts to 1 by volume to create an explosive mixture in a matter of seconds or minutes. When that is detonated, it is quite useful. Provided that the prilled ammonium nitrate does not have any hydrocarbons on it, it is an extremely safe product to transport. If it was not prilled, it could be used as a nitrogenous fertiliser. The product is harmless and safe Legislative Assembly 2557 31 July 1990 to transport. If hydrocarbons, such as distillate, are put on it in approximately the right ratio, the mixture will have the desired explosive effect when it is used. The technique for initiating explosions in a controlled way with a high degree of accuracy and precision is another tool that the miners have available to them. They also have the monitoring techniques for measuring the performance of the blast—noise, vibration, etc.—which can be compared with the predicted results. Those are some of the tools that are available to mining companies as the development of explosives has continued. I support the provision for increased penalties because companies should realise the seriousness of their obligations to the general public. The Bill deals with a number of issues. The Minister has the power to delegate some of his powers. The chief inspector of explosives also has that power. However, the Minister always has the final say. There was an unnecessary, complex and time-consuming requirement for explosives to be approved by an Order in Council, according to the definition of an explosion. When explosives are registered, they are put into various categories and have to be approved by an Order in Council. The Queensland Government Gazette of 28 April 1990 contained an Order in Council relating to explosives known as Powergel Seismic 3000 and classified them as "Class 2—Nitrate-mixture". It is reasonable that these things no longer have to be approved by an Order in Council. That is quite reasonable. Restrictions on the possession of explosives have been tightened. In the last couple of days, honourable members have been shocked by the dreadful assassination of a member of Parliament in England when an explosive device was put under his car. I suppose one could call him a colleague. Although it will be impossible to trace all explosives, the Bill provides for restrictions to be placed on the possession of explosives. Honourable members might be familiar with some of the earliest members of Parliament, such as Guy Fawkes, who intended to use explosives in the House itself, members of Parliament have always frowned upon anyone who tried to use explosive devices to remove them from their right and proper place. That is something that honourable members look upon with abhorrence. I hope that those techniques are never used by terrorists in Australia. It is important that the right to restrict possession of explosives be contained in the legislation. Concerns have been expressed by primary producers as to whether they still have the same access to explosives as they have at present. There will be absolutely no changes as far as they are concerned. The small miners will not be affected in any way. The restriction under the legislation deals basically with the importation of explosives and the standards that are to be maintained in factories. It has nothing to do with the use of the explosives, which is regulated under the Mines Regulations Act. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (9.58 p.m.): There is no great opposition to the Bill from the Opposition side. It is very heartening that members on both sides of the House share the same concern about explosives and the need to contain them. Honourable members understand that explosives are an essential part of life, whether we like it or not. They have been and always will be used in the building, rural and mining industries. As I have a building industry background, I saw my father use various means of detonating gelignite to blast post-holes. I would never aspire to achieve the ability that he had. Explosives always frightened me. My father learned about explosives during World War II. Since that time, the developments that have been made in explosives would leave him behind. To some extent, that illustrates the need for honourable members to address that issue. The explosives industry in Queensland is booming. Each year it uses approximately 200 000 tonnes of explosives. In Queensland, approximately 19 plants are registered to use explosives. One can understand the need for this legislation. The original 1952 legislation was amended several times up until 1988, and many people inside and outside the industry Legislative Assembly 2558 31 July 1990 accepted the need to review it. A Green Paper was issued in 1988 and public submissions were sought. Even prior to that, people in the industry were consulted. The result is the Bill before honourable members tonight. I suppose that very process has led us to this debate, if one could describe this as a debate. It is more a consensus. I suppose that any of us who, like the honourable member for Lockyer, take cognisance of what has transpired over the years would agree that to have explosives in the hands of villains is not wise and, in the hands of fools, is even worse, and that there is a need to continually upgrade the legislation. The Bill will take us into the year 2000. We have caught up with all of the technology. We have taken into account the needs of various persons to use explosives. To that extent, the Bill provides for people to lodge applications and to have them certified not by the Governor in Council but by the Chief Inspector of Mines. They will not have to go through the previous lengthy and laborious process. More importantly, the Bill ties us into the United Nations classification system, which is rapidly being accepted throughout the world. Queensland has been the odd man out. This legislation will bring Queensland into line with the rest of Australia. Internationally, Australia is one of the leaders in getting the classification system together, and we ought to be proud of that. As well as the carrots that the Bill holds out for people in the industry, it contains a few sticks. The fines have been increased to $5,000 per person and $50,000 per company, so there is a financial deterrent for people who do the wrong thing with explosives and tinker with them or use them illegally. Without further ado, I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. To me and to others on the Government side, it is a welcome change. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.04 p.m.): I indicate that the Liberal Party also supports the Bill. There is no doubt that safety considerations and control procedures are critically important in an industry such as this one. The Liberal Party is also pleased that there is a streamlining of the administrative processes, and it will be interested to see exactly how they work. We will, of course, look at and judge the effectiveness of those procedures over time. I would, however, like to draw the Minister's attention to clause 28. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to do so now rather than wait until the Committee stage. Clause 28 inserts new clause 46A, subclause (2), which states— "The Chief Inspector may communicate any matter which comes to his knowledge in the exercise or performance of his powers, duties or functions under this Act to an officer or authority engaged in administering or executing a law of Queensland, the Commonwealth or of another State or a Territory of the Commonwealth relating to explosives." I recognise the need to be able to communicate information between States, and between the Commonwealth and the States, and the part that Queensland should play in that process. What concerns me is that, once the information goes from Queensland to another State, Queensland in essence loses it. Once information is communicated from one State to another, that information can be recommunicated. Over time, a looseness tends to develop in the transmission process. What may start off as a very sincere and worthwhile exercise in the transmission of information can lead to some very serious considerations about the abuse of the privacy of the information. The particular concern of my party and myself is to make sure that something that is legitimately done in the exercise of administering the law does not end up causing an abuse of the privacy of other people; that the information is not then transmitted to additional parties, resulting in problems. I am not sure that anything can be done under this Bill at this time, and I am not suggesting that it should be. I would, however, suggest to the Minister that he consider referring such items to the Privacy Committee. If he did so, this particular issue could be looked at generally and perhaps some guidance obtained not only in relation to this Bill, but also at some time in the future in relation Legislative Assembly 2559 31 July 1990 to other legislation that may purport to contain similar provisions. That is the major issue that I wished to draw to the attention of the Minister, and I look forward to his reply. As I indicated earlier, the Liberal Party will support the Bill. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.08 p.m.): The Bill now before the House is a comprehensive piece of legislation. Its presentation to Parliament follows a period of broad consultation that commenced in September 1989 when a Green Paper was issued by the former Minister for Mines and Energy, Martin Tenni. The importance of this Bill is reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding the election of a new Government, it was introduced on 23 March this year. In his capacity as Minister for Resource Industries, the Honourable Ken Vaughan acted decisively to put in place changes that had obviously become necessary. Australia is acknowledged worldwide as the repository of a significant proportion of known mineral wealth. In this country, the mining industry operates on a vast scale, and Australia finds itself being in the position of being the world's second largest user of explosives, being second only to the United States. It therefore comes as no surprise that Australia has attracted the interest of some of the world's largest explosives manufacturers. In particular, two stand out. The first is the British chemical giant, ICI, which holds more than half the Australian market, valued at approximately $270m per annum. The other major player in the market is the Norwegian-owned Norsk Hydro. Between them, these two multinationals have managed to devour most of the smaller operators. There is no doubt that the explosives industry is big business and, bearing that in mind, the Government has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of consumers and the wider community are protected. In Queensland, the explosives industry is continuing to grow. Since 1983, four magazines have been constructed at Helidon, near Toowoomba, and these are now operating at or near full capacity. As recently as last year, the previous Government decided to build two additional magazines at Helidon at a cost of more than $500,000. Those 200-tonne capacity facilities were required to meet the increasing demands placed on Queensland's explosives industry. Government magazines are able to provide an invaluable, independent service to explosive manufacturers through the testing and inspection of explosives. A measure of their value to both manufacturers and to the mining industry is the fact that they are operated on a fee-for-service basis, with full cost recovery being achieved. Current legislation provides for a method of control based largely on a system of classification that is of British origin. This means of classifying explosives no longer fits in with national and international trends. At this time, all other States and Territories in the Commonwealth have adopted the United Nations system of classification of explosives, which is clearly outlined in the Australian standard AS1216.1 of 1984. Key elements are uniform packaging and labelling requirements. Queensland can no longer afford to be out of step with those standards. In brief, the United Nations system does away with classifying explosives by chemical or physical characteristics. It is more properly based on the actual explosive capabilities of the substance, which gives a greater link to the safety requirements associated with handling and storage. As a result of the adoption of this measure, much less confusion should exist when explosives are transported within Australia, and into and out of the country. Natural by-products are an improved capacity to enforce regulations and an improved basis for any required educational activity. Because it has not kept pace with technological change which, to a large extent, has left regulatory change far behind, the present legislation has been shown to be deficient. This Bill addresses the problems associated with the inability on the part of the Minister or the chief inspector of explosives to delegate powers. The carrying out of simple procedures—such as handling seized explosives, disposing of explosives considered dangerous to the public and trialing unauthorised explosives—all required ministerial authority far too frequently, sometimes averaging three times per week. By including Legislative Assembly 2560 31 July 1990 powers of delegation, the Bill allows the Minister or the chief inspector to exercise authority through subordinate officers. There is no doubt that the administrative efficiencies that will result will be of benefit to all concerned. As a safeguard, however, the legislation clearly identifies powers that should never be delegated. That is as it should be, because safety must always be the prime consideration. Importantly, the non-negotiable limitation on powers of delegation are referred to in section 11 (3) of the Act, which the issue of licences, and section 28, concerning the establishment of magazines. An addition to section 10 of the existing Act enables people appointed as inspectors of explosives to readily identify themselves if called upon to do so. It also limits the possibility of unauthorised persons, under the guise of holding inspectorial powers, gaining admission to areas where explosives are stored. In a world in which the use of explosives for violent purposes is all too common, this simple measure has great relevance. The Bill sets out to tighten restrictions placed on the illegal possession and unsafe use of explosives. In doing so, section 38 of the principal Act has been amended. To create a realistic deterrent value, the amendments provide for significant increases in monetary penalties. Penalties of $5,000 for individual offenders and $50,000 for corporations have been included. No doubt they will have to be increased from time to time to maintain the intended deterrent value. To facilitate the need for constant change in penalties, a system of penalty units has been included. Under the new legislation, the value of $5,000 is represented by 84 penalty units, whereas $50,000 equates to 840 penalty units. Greater clarification is also given to responsibility and accountability when offences involve companies, employers and employees. It is quite possible that, by direction or even under threat, an employee may commit an offence at the behest of an employer. While the legislation does not prejudice the liability of the offender, it provides for the enforcement of liability on the employer. As an adjunct to this provision, in certain circumstances the Bill also sets out to protect the corporation or employer against liability by way of limitation. Those circumstances are outlined in section 38 as, firstly, an offence having been committed without the knowledge of the employer; secondly, having been committed by an employee, even though the employer had taken all reasonable steps to prevent commission of the offence; and, thirdly, having not been in a position to influence the conduct in relation to the commission of an offence. Another provision in the legislation relates to the restriction of access to explosives to fit and proper persons. Because the chief inspector of explosives may require information on the background of people applying for a licence under the Act, the Bill empowers him to obtain that information. Of course, the confidentiality of the information is essential, and the proposed new section 46A addresses that very question. Matters which may prevent a person obtaining a licence or permit include— having been convicted of any offence against this Act; being subject of an order to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace; being of good character and repute; and being of such a nature as to be trusted to deal with explosives in accordance with the Act. In conclusion, I wish to bring to the attention of the House certain media reports relating to the Government magazine at Queerah, situated near White Rock in the electorate of Mulgrave. On 16 May this year, the Cairns Post contained a report which suggested— "If there was a major explosion at the Queerah Magazine, more than 60% of buildings at White Rock would be destroyed." That alarming statement was attributed to a Mulgrave Shire councillor, Councillor Allen Hassall, who has quite rightly taken an interest in public safety following the gas tank Legislative Assembly 2561 31 July 1990 explosion of 1987 and the derailment of a train containing gas and fuel supplies earlier this year. However, Councillor Hassall's comments in relation to the Queerah magazine have caused considerable concern to residents in the area. This is particularly unfortunate, as the facts do not support the conclusions that he has drawn. At the time, the magazine-keeper, Mr Ron McSwan, quite correctly pointed out that modern explosives are aluminium and water-based, making them very stable, unlike the gelignite used in the past, which was based on nitroglycerine. He indicated that a detonator would have to be used to set off the explosives and that detonators are stored at another location. To my knowledge, the Queerah magazine has existed for more than 60 years and, during that period, no problems have been experienced. The Mines Department was able to confirm the extremely low level of risk which exists when proper precautions are taken with the storage and handling of explosives. Contact with Professor Mark Tweedale of the University of Sydney only served to reinforce the department's assessment. According to Professor Tweedale, the assessed risk in this case was estimated at between one chance per million per year and ten chances per million per year. To give some idea of the relative scale of this risk, one should realise that the estimated risk of injury to a person in a modern building during a cyclone is of the order of 20 000 chances per million per year. It is widely recognised that the public is less tolerant of man-made risks than natural ones. However, Professor Tweedale indicated that risks below 1 000 chances per million per year are often acceptable as a community norm. For example, risks from road accidents are much higher. I feel that the matter I have just outlined only serves to highlight the excellent record and due regard to public safety displayed by those charged with the administration of the Act under this and previous Governments. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill, as it ensures that this good work continues, albeit in changing circumstances. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.17 p.m.): I rise to support the Bill. In particular, I share the concern expressed by the honourable member for Moggill in respect of issues of privacy raised by the Bill. The provisions of new section 45A empower the obtaining of a police report. In so doing, the Bill cloaks the exercise of that power with certain safeguards in what will be the new section 46A relating to disclosure of information. It is, of course, important that there be opportunity for police investigation where licences in respect of explosives may be issued. Few would dispute that proposition. Equally, however, it is important that the information so obtained be purpose-specific, that is, that it be maintained in a way that is devoted to the purpose for which it is obtained. In the new section 46A, the disclosure of information is provided as an offence. It is necessary to provide that sort of safeguard lest we develop a flow of information about an individual's background and information which would tend to erode the privacy of the individual in our society. Recently, the Privacy Committee Act was amended to give further life to the Privacy Committee and to review the approach of the law in this area in Queensland. It would be appropriate for matters such as this to be the subject of consideration. Whether we move to a model such as the privacy commissioner of the Commonwealth or to a concept such as the statutory tort of breach of privacy which some authors have discussed remains to be seen. It is important, however, that in the diverse fields in which information is obtained by the extensive resources available to modern Governments, we build in as we go safeguards to ensure that the opportunity that citizens have for a private life is maintained. The common law in this regard has developed out of medieval origins which are inadequate to deal with the age of the silicon chip and the capacity for the transmission of information that that brings. Legislative Assembly 2562 31 July 1990

It is, accordingly, with pleasure that I support the Bill and, furthermore, that I support the concerns raised about the possible open-endedness of the further passage of information pursuant to new section 46A (2). However, the Minister is to be commended for including such a provision as the new section 46A, which provides a safeguard which is very necessary if we are to preserve the private life of the citizens of Queensland. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (10.21 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I turn, firstly, to the comments by the Opposition spokesman on Resource Industries, the honourable member for Lockyer. I confirm that a misprint occurred and that the year in which the Green Paper was issued should have been 1988 and not 1989. I stand corrected in that regard. The member for Lockyer mentioned the expectation in relation to enforcement of the Act. Of course, the Explosives Act is a very important piece of legislation and one which is designed to protect not only the users of explosives but also the public in general. Therefore, I assure him that for my department enforcement will continue to be of the high standard that it has been over the years. The honourable member also referred to the expectations of the public in regard to safety. He referred to a couple of accidents that have occurred. I point out that in this State the incidence of injury as a result of the use of explosives is relatively minor. I would say that that is because of the activities and the vigilance of my departmental officers. I can assure the honourable member for Lockyer and all other honourable members that that vigilance will continue and that officers of my department will continue to ensure that the handling, use and transport of explosives is carried out in the safest possible way. To that end, action is being taken to warn children of the dangers of explosives. As has been revealed by a number of the incidents that have been reported in recent times, there is a tendency for children to experiment with explosives. The Government is taking steps to warn children of the dangers involved in experimentation with the use of explosives. Posters have been produced and will be issued throughout all schools. Those posters will be accompanied by a letter to school teachers, particularly science teachers, explaining the hazards associated with the use of explosives or the handling of explosive mixtures. In some cases, children at school have been taught about explosive mixtures and they have then set out to experiment with them. This, of course, has resulted in rather disastrous consequences. A video is also being made in that regard. The important thing is that, where possible, people will be encouraged to learn how to mix and produce explosives from materials that are readily available in the community. There is, of course, no change to the use of explosives by primary producers. The honourable member also raised that matter and expressed concern in that regard. Returning to the significant use of explosives in our mining industry, I point out that the virtually accident-free situation at present demonstrates the very high standards that are maintained throughout the mining industry and wherever explosives are used. The honourable member for Rockhampton North referred to the contents of the Bill. I do not know whether he realises it, but he referred to the explosives industry in Queensland as being a "booming" industry. I do not know whether he intended that comment, but it certainly is very appropriate. I thank him for his comments. I thank the honourable member for Moggill for his remarks in relation to proposed new section 46A. This section is reproduced in the legislation of other States and Territories. Its inclusion protects the position adopted by the Government. Information collected from the police is used in the assessment of applicants for licences. As honourable members would appreciate, it is very important that the Government has as much information as possible on the backgrounds of people who are attempting to obtain a licence to purchase and to use explosives. It is important that, as far as possible, the Government is made aware of any undesirable people—people who should not have access to explosives. Reference was made to a recent incident overseas. All honourable members know the manner in which explosives can Legislative Assembly 2563 31 July 1990 be used by people who set out to destroy our society in one way or the other. It is very important to have this information. The clause also allows information to be released by the chief inspector to his counterparts in other States and Territories for the same assessment protection. While this exchange of information is important in Queensland, it is just as important that other States and Territories also have that information. There is no point in Queensland being vigilant in monitoring applicants for explosives licences or for the purchase of explosives if other States and Territories do not adopt the same practice. It is important that if an applicant goes interstate or to any other Territory or any other part of the Commonwealth, that safety valve is in place. If the information is released to other than the appropriate authorities, then that is a breach of the Act. The provision of that safeguard is one of the reasons for inserting this provision in the legislation. Both the honourable member for Moggill and the honourable member for Yeronga have expressed concern about this legislation. I assure honourable members that I will take on board what they have said and that I will direct my department to clarify those aspects of the legislation that concern them. The Government does not consider that it is necessary, but in view of the concerns expressed, we will proceed down that path. The honourable member for Mulgrave spoke at length about the Bill. He gave a very lucid outline of the amendments that are proposed. He referred to the situation at the Queerah meatworks, where low quantities of explosives are stored. I can assure the honourable member that all of the provisions of the Explosives Act are observed at that meatworks, that the prescribed safety distances are adequate and that the installation at Queerah is quite safe. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 30, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Vaughan, by leave, read a third time. COAL MINING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 10 May (see p. 1356). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.32 p.m.): The Opposition wholeheartedly supports this Bill. I do not intend to waste the time of this House by talking about many other matters that relate to coal-mining but are not pertinent to this Bill. This Bill is necessary because advice from Crown law indicates that the amendments that were made to the Act last year in this House were deficient. I understand that a court case occurred following an accident that occurred during the construction of a coal-preparation plant in southern Queensland. When such deficiencies are discovered it is important that they are rectified as soon as possible so that the intent of the Act is enforced. The contention arose because, although an extension to a coalmine was quite clearly covered by the Workplace Health and Safety Act, when that work was completed and the area that was excised for a short period from the general mine site was returned to the mine area, that operation was covered by the Coal Mining Act. Some confusion arose over the construction of a coal-preparation plant that was not actually part of a mining operation. That was when the deficiency was discovered. I do not think that I Legislative Assembly 2564 31 July 1990 need to speak at length about the coal-mining industry. As I said, the Opposition supports this Bill. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (10.34 p.m.): In common with my friend the member for Lockyer, I do not intend to take up much of the time of this House. The Bill amends the Coal Mining Act. Because honourable members would realise that Mount Isa is not a coal-mining area, they might wonder why I am speaking to a coal- mining Bill. The reason is simple. A very great relationship exists between miners throughout this State and around the world. Because this Bill affects the mining industry, I consider it my duty to participate in this debate. This Bill is designed to rectify a situation that arose as a result of changes to legislation and to give coverage to people who are employed on the construction of new coalmines. I understand that this Bill has the support of both sides of the mining industry, which is a very progressive industry. Any Bill that is designed to improve safety in the workplace certainly has my support and, I hope, the support of this Parliament. The Bill is intended to correct duplication in the occupational safety laws applying to construction projects on coalmine sites. Those sites are currently covered by two pieces of legislation, namely, the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mining Act, which are administered by two different departments. In the past, inspectors from two different departments policed two different sets of laws on one mine site. This Bill will rectify that anomaly. One of the great achievements of this Government is in workplace safety. This Bill goes a long way in adding to previous legislation to make coalmines safer working places. I support the Bill. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.36 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this Bill. The original legislation was introduced by the previous Government. The Bill basically corrects some drafting errors that occurred in that legislation, which did not quite reflect the agreement that had been reached at the time. It is hoped that this Bill will correct the existing situation. In the future the legislation will be implemented as it was originally intended. As I said, the Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (10.37 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As indicated, the speakers to this debate have all read the contents of this simple Bill, which corrects some anomalies that came to light as a result of the practical application of some legislative amendments that were effected last year in conjunction with the introduction of the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Because this legislation is straightforward, I will say nothing further. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Vaughan, by leave, read a third time. ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.39 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Legislative Assembly 2565 31 July 1990

Homeless Children Mr SLACK (Burnett) (10.40 p.m.): I refer to the criticism made by Commissioner Burdekin of the Human Rights Commission of the Family Services Department in relation to homeless children, and to his reported statement that evidence given to the commission that six Fortitude Valley children and six children from Logan City were infected with AIDS was a gross underestimation. As the statement was supported and reference was made to other unsavoury aspects associated with homeless children, the situation should be accepted as being extremely serious. It is not good enough for the Minister to acknowledge the problem, promise to give it a higher profile, simply thank Mr Burdekin for raising the issues and say, as quoted from a radio interview, that it gives us the opportunity to be able to look again at the whole issue and to look very carefully at what society is doing in respect of making sure that children in this State are protected and have their rights upheld. If this State has an increasing number of homeless children and if they are involved in crime, drugs and prostitution and are carrying AIDS—and the evidence says that they are—then it is a major issue for this Parliament. Consequently, I believe that the Minister for Family Services should outline to this Parliament what action she is taking to deal with the problem of homeless children. Firstly, let it be clearly understood that I have every sympathy for many of the children who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being homeless. Many have been ill-treated at home and many are no doubt unloved and unwanted. But there are also those whose leaving has brought much anguish to a caring family. Whatever the circumstances, the number of homeless children appears to be on the increase, and the problems associated with them are serious and have to be faced and dealt with. The facts are that these children have nowhere to live and no legal means of support. They cannot receive unemployment benefits until they are 18 but they can legally leave home when they are 16. The homeless survive by being street kids. They break and enter, steal, engage in prostitution and take drugs. Now we have this revelation concerning AIDS. They should be their parents' responsibility. But when the parents have lost control, society has a responsibility. Within the education system we devise ways to entertain children, and we encourage them to be independent. But many of them are not mature enough to handle this independence and there is a build-up of expectation that cannot be fulfilled. Whatever the reason, when the commissioner and social workers tell us that 12 AIDS cases in the group is only the tip of the iceberg, it is time we acted. It would be ideal if these children were to seek out social workers so that they could receive individual attention, but we do not live in an ideal world and, even if we could give them individual counselling, it would not effectively solve the problem. Millions of dollars are being spent on programs to give potentially loving parents a child, but here we have countless fit and healthy children approaching adulthood, who need a helping hand to survive. It should not be beyond the resources of the Queensland Police Service and the Family Services Department to locate and identify these children. In the light of the AIDS finding, these children should be automatically tested for AIDS. Counsel must be provided to facilitate the return of these children to their homes. When the return to the parental home is neither possible nor desirable and an alternative home such as that of a relative cannot be found, hostels which can provide supervision and training must be provided until the children are able to support themselves. This would involve the Commonwealth, and arrangements would need to be made between the States and the Commonwealth relative to child support and Austudy. Money is being spent to ensure no child is living in poverty. But when the child is sleeping unidentified under a bridge, on whom and where is that money being spent? Let it be spent on providing the resources to salvage that life. Legislative Assembly 2566 31 July 1990

It is time we put all this talk of the rights of the child into perspective and considered the rights and the welfare of the community at large. I may appear to be harsh and uncaring, but I can assure honourable members that I am not because, in the longer term, we will all be better off, particularly the young people to whom I am referring. It should go without saying that it is essential that Governments, both State and Federal, do everything within their power to promote and encourage the family unit. However, that does not overcome the immediate concern which requires some positive action on the part of the Minister to demonstrate that the situation in relation to homeless children is under control. Malanbarra Tribal Aboriginal Corporation Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.45 p.m.): The Malanbarra Yidinydji people of my electorate still ritually introduce visitors to their country to ensure safe passage and use. It is a little known procedure which is indicative of the powerful links that the Bana, or Aboriginal people in my electorate, still have with their traditional land. This bond has remained despite 111 years of European occupation which entailed the forced removal of Aboriginal families as late as the 1930s. At the beginning of this year, the Malanbarra clan, or the "flat-rock people" of the Yidinydji tribe, formed a corporation in order to re-affirm their identity and to return to their traditional land. It is, as one of the elders has stated to me, a need "to feel free; at one with the land where I was born . . . and where all the ancestors came from. This is why I relate to and feel so close to the land." Another elder, Ungabana, has expressed it this way— "If we are not on traditional land, we feel like foreigners in our own country . . . Bana Malanbarra is our own environment. It is where we know our sacred spots, and places where we can hunt and gather other foods. Malanbarra country is hill country—rough—but that's where I was born and roamed as a young fella and where I want to go as an old fella." It is remarkable that the Malanbarra descendants bear little or no animosity towards the broader white community for the atrocities of earlier times. However, amongst elderly members they recall the fear with which white people were held, especially when remembering massacres, the chasing of women and the removal of children. The feeling of "be careful of the white man" still persists. The clan estate is the Goldsborough valley, the catchment of what is now called the Upper Mulgrave River. The Malanbarra Tribal Aboriginal Corporation was incorporated in February 1990. It is administered by a committee of management in consultation with a group of elders. The group aims to provide cultural, social and economic support for Aboriginal people who are related to, and associated with, the traditional occupiers of the Malanbarra Yidinydji tribal area. It is estimated by the corporation that there are about 300 people who have links with the Malanbarra group. Since European occupation, many of those people have come to live in Gordonvale and Atherton. The core organising group includes most of the key elders who now live in Gordonvale. This comprises the management committee of the corporation. One of the main aims of the Malanbarra corporation is the development of credibility of Aboriginal land and natural resource management. This could provide a future social and economic base for the Malanbarra. The majority of the 20 000 hectares involved is State forest and world heritage. It is a matter of justice that traditional land lost through European occupation should, where practicable, be restored to its original owners, not only for their use but also to encourage the broader community to visit and learn about aspects of Malanbarra culture. Hence, a fundamental aim of the Malanbarra corporation is to gain access to Legislative Assembly 2567 31 July 1990 as much of their traditional estate as possible, through commercial acquisition and the negotiation of secure tenure over unalienated Crown land. To achieve this, they have prepared a five-year plan. This involves a land and resource management program which, when implemented, will save the valley for future generations of far-north Queenslanders and still retain and perpetuate the Aboriginality of the land. The plan includes a ranger/guide training program which will strengthen Malanbarra cultural heritage. The wider community will gain a clearer understanding of Bana culture through visiting and camping on Malanbarra land. The recent completion of a research project on the history of the Djabugay-Yidiny speaking peoples of the Cairns rainforest region has illustrated the extent of European misinterpretation of the original inhabitants and their unique way of life. This work, Djarrugan, the Last of the Nesting, by Timothy Bottoms, is being utilised as a basis for an extended interdisciplinary research program which will be made available to educational institutions and the visiting public. A proposed environmental study will encourage cooperation between traditional land- owners and the broader community in the management of the valley for future generations. On a regional level, the Malanbarra initiative represents an exciting prospect for change by way of forging a more understanding Australian society as we approach the dawn of the twenty-first century. I support the Malanbarra corporation in its attempts to develop a land and resource management program which incorporates traditional cultural aspects and environmentally compatible projects for the advantage of Malanbarra Yidinydji and, in the long term, the wider Australian community. Community Policing Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (10.49 p.m.): The concept of community policing was endorsed by the Australian Labor Party prior to the 1989 election and in its electioneering it convinced the public of Queensland that it was genuinely committed to the principle of community policing. In its law and order policy, the Australian Labor Party stated— "The Labor Party understands the community's need for a more visible, and more effective police presence. This can only be achieved by a combination of higher staffing levels and better police resources. A greater emphasis on community-based policing will cut response times, and provide a visible deterrent to offenders." More specifically, the following commitments were made— ". . . a Goss Government will: provide more mobile and foot patrols following an increase in police staffing levels and the freeing of police from clerical and other duties that currently absorb police time; guarantee the future of existing police stations, and provide new stations in areas of rapid population growth." One would have thought that immediately upon gaining Government, the Australian Labor Party would have taken immediate action to give effect to the aforementioned commitments. However, other members of the Liberal Party and I have been saddened that eight months after the election of a Labor Government, and despite the promises made by Mr Goss and Mr Mackenroth, the level of crime committed within the community is not decreasing but, from all available evidence, is in fact increasing. Despite that, members on this side of the House have been witnessing an alarming softening of the attitude by the Minister and members of the Government towards one of the most essential aspects of police reform, and that is the adequate funding of the Police Service, which in turn will enable a real boost in community policing and the implementation of one of Fitzgerald's fundamental reform planks. By any reasonable measure, Government members would have to agree that crime in the Queensland community has not decreased. One only needed to door-knock in the electorates of Sherwood and Landsborough to realise that the safety of person and property still remains one of the major concerns of the people of Queensland. Had the Australian Labor Party fielded candidates in those two electorates and had it displayed the courage to test the public perception of its performance to date, it would have quickly learnt that its performance in the area of community policing has convinced no-one. Concern for the adequate provision of law and order is one of the major reasons why the Liberal Party enjoyed its historic victories last Saturday, and the Government should heed that message. I need not look past the experience in my own electorate to see clear examples of just how bad the Legislative Assembly 2568 31 July 1990 problem of crime is becoming. Day after day, I hear of cases of break and enters and robberies in my electorate, whether they be in the residential suburbs of Ascot, Hamilton, Clayfield, Lutwyche or New Farm, or in the various commercial areas in my electorate such as Racecourse Road. Recently, I surveyed the traders of Racecourse Road on their experience of break and enters and robberies of their premises and gathered some very alarming statistics. I was told that the majority of traders are concerned about the security of their businesses and property, that they believe that the State Government should be providing more police patrols, that 17 traders have suffered losses of approximately $82,000 during the last few years, that those 17 traders have experienced 38 break and enters, and that 24 robberies were committed on the premises of those 17 traders. If all of the 100 or so traders had responded to the survey, I am sure that a far more alarming picture would have become evident. The story is the same right across Brisbane and throughout Queensland, whether it be in Racecourse Road, the City Mall, the Gold Coast, Landsborough, Kenmore or Sherwood—the streets of fear really exist in the community. The Government must clearly keep its commitments if that invidious problem is to be eliminated. The question of funding thus becomes one of fundamental importance. As far back as 18 or 19 April, Mr Mackenroth started to make very cautious, some might say negative, statements that he would fight for a fair share of the cake for police in the State Budget. Since then, honourable members have heard members of the police union, the Police Commissioner and others involved in law and order talk about the current shortage of funding and that which is anticipated after the State Budget. The bad result for Queensland at the recent Premiers conference has been peddled as the latest excuse for a cut-back in Budget allocations not only for law and order but also across the whole spectrum of Government expenditure. This happened despite the claim by members of the Labor Party that they would be better placed to negotiate with the Federal Labor Government. No previous Premiers of Queensland have returned from Canberra with as little funding as did Mr Goss. Mr Mackenroth, as a very senior Minister, must demonstrate that he has clout in the Cabinet room. He must obtain funding which, in very significant net terms, will increase the number of police who walk the residential and commercial beats of Queensland and to enable police stations in sensitive areas such as Hamilton and New Farm to open on a 24-hour basis. The police force should be able to adequately remunerate its members so that the 50 per cent of the police force who are working overtime for the service in the interests of the public of Queensland do not need second jobs. I was informed by the honourable member for Currumbin that, because of the ban on overtime, police on the Gold Coast have been told not to order drug raids in the early hours of the morning. A relaxation on the limits on overtime would immediately boost police presence in the community. If the Police Minister can achieve those objectives and meet pre-election promises, the Liberal Party will be the first to congratulate him. Legislative Assembly 2569 31 July 1990

If he cannot, he and his Government will stand condemned for yet another broken promise. Federal-State Relations Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (10.54 p.m.): I rise to draw to the attention of honourable members a matter which I believe will be of seminal importance to both this State and this nation over the next five to 10 years. I refer specifically to a speech delivered on 19 July at the National Press Club by the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, in which he raised questions that require thought by honourable members of State Parliaments and that require the people of this country to give consideration to greater cooperation between States as part of a new federalism. In that speech, the Prime Minister said that the time had arrived for a closer partnership between all levels of Government. The Federal Government should have addressed this matter long ago. It is certainly a matter to which the State Parliaments should direct some attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to some of the issues raised by the Prime Minister in that speech. There are two major tasks for Governments. The first is to establish better coordination between the levels of government and the functions which government performs in this country. The second is to develop a new approach which will achieve some measure of constitutional reform and which will enable Australia to develop economically and socially so that we can achieve our social justice goals into the twenty-first century. The Prime Minister said that, although a number of our national economic institutions in the communications field had delivered quality services throughout the country, a significant level of bureaucratic overlap and duplication exists between the services delivered by Government departments, particularly in the areas of health, welfare and education. The Prime Minister said, and I quote— "The battling family in the city fringe; the Aboriginal community in the remote outback; the frail aged at home or in hospital—they don't want to argue the toss about which bureaucracy provides the help to which they are entitled. And their least concern is some academic argument of Commonwealth versus State rights." That is a sentiment with which I entirely agree. The Prime Minister called a Premiers Conference to be held on 31 October to address many of the issues that he raised at the National Press Club. Amongst others, he raised the issue of micro-economic reform. For better or for worse, there has already been some reform in the financial system. I urge the Federal Government to proceed cautiously in reforming the other major areas of national economic infrastructure, such as transport, communications and energy distribution, in which greater cooperation between the States is needed. The question of the privatisation of Australia's national networks of communications and transport must be addressed very cautiously. I refer to financial relations. As the Premier said when he returned from the Premiers Conference this year, financial relations between the States need to be addressed. Through the Constitution, the Commonwealth quite properly has the major taxing powers of the nation. However, the distribution of funds between the Commonwealth and the States must be addressed. The Prime Minister has raised the possibility of the Commonwealth relinquishing some of its taxing powers to the States. Australia needs one central level of effective economic management. In order that a national economy can operation in an international world economy, it is important that the national Government exercises overriding economic control. However, in doing so, efficiencies can only be achieved if the national Government exercises its functions in cooperation and in proper coordination with the functions of the States. The question of delivery of services in a coordinated and efficient way is one that needs to be addressed by both Federal and State Governments. Legislative Assembly 2570 31 July 1990

Industrial relations and the environment are important to Australia's economic interests. Both have a proliferation of regulations at State and national level. To encourage a more cooperative effort between State and Federal functions, the Government has tried to address that in some of the legislation that it has recently introduced. However, that needs to be taken further. Honourable members need to decide once and for all whether national, local or State Governments will perform some of the functions that are part of Australia's national interest and part of the respect that we attract internationally. The Premiers Conference on 31 October will be the first step towards achieving this coordinated attempt to address these issues. I give full support to the Premier of Queensland and to the Prime Minister for seeking to objectively, sensitively and rationally coordinate these issues. Time expired. Regionalisation Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (11.00 p.m.): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a matter that is causing a great deal of concern in Warwick and in many other country towns, that is, the Goss Government's policy of centralisation, or regionalisation as it is sometimes called. It will destroy a large number of cities and towns throughout Queensland and will take from them any autonomy or right to have a say in anything. I shall deal firstly with fire brigade boards and ambulance boards. There may be others. To start the ball rolling, the weights and measures office has been shifted from Warwick to Toowoomba on the ground that it will be more efficient there. I am annoyed not only with the fact it was shifted but also with the way it was done, which was a direct insult to me and the people of Warwick. A letter from the Director of Consumer Affairs, Jan Taylor, was addressed not to me but to my secretary. She said that, on a certain date, which was 14 days hence, the office would be shifted. I have not learnt of any benefits to be gained, but I have found out that the person in charge of that office wanted to be shifted to Toowoomba. That is just crazy. It is worse, because it started rumours that all Government offices in Warwick will be shifted. The people are very annoyed. They want somebody to visit Warwick and talk to them. They would like the Premier or the Treasurer to visit the city, but it seems that they are being completely ignored. All of the senior Ministers should be out talking to the people. If the Government wants to destroy these towns, let the Ministers face the residents eye to eye and tell them about it. Ministers cannot spend all their time jogging or saying that they are too busy. They have to do some work somewhere along the line. It is time that the Goss Government decided to do something about it. Mr McElligott: I went to Warwick and addressed the hospitals board. Mr BOOTH: Yes, that is so. I did not want to attack the Minister. However, he did not tell the people that he would close the board down. He forgot to do that. Mr McElligott: I talked to them about regionalisation. Mr BOOTH: I did not hear anything about regionalisation. Mr McElligott: You were there. Mr BOOTH: Yes, but I did not hear anything about regionalisation. Let me deal with the fire brigade board. The management people have already been told that they are not wanted and that they can go home. Within a month of the board being sacked, the Minister in charge, the Leader of the House, who is usually in the Chamber, wants to impose a levy on car registration. He said that the Government needs more money. Of course it does, because management will deteriorate. It is of great benefit to have businessmen in a town helping with management. If the Government disposes of them, they are of no benefit. I do not know the thinking behind this, but it Legislative Assembly 2571 31 July 1990 is all wrong. The Government will eventually get the message. It thinks that, as long as it can retain enough seats in the capital city and the regional cities, the rest of Queensland can go to hell. It thinks it can fence off the rest of Queensland and destroy it. I do not think the Government can do that. The people out there are just starting to get the message. The Government's main advertisement was that it be given three years to fix things up. The country people will be fixed up in 12 months. Most of their facilities will be taken away. Once a regional board is set up in another town, the hospital in that town will not be kept up to standard. There will be no input from the town and every facility will go down hill. I urge the Ministers in the Chamber to do something about it, and I even urge the Premier to stop jogging and see whether he can do something about what is happening in the country areas. The country people will lose heart. The reason Mr Hawke is in trouble with the balance of payments is lack of production in country districts and secondary industries. To maintain the balance of payments, Australia needs top production. Snubbing the country towns and cities and disheartening country people is not the way to get it. The way to get it is to cooperate with the people in country cities and towns. That is the way to get production up, that is the way to improve the balance of payments and that is what we should be doing. Fossicking, Mount Isa Area Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (11.05 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of this Parliament the concern of the people of my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Flinders at the attempts by certain individuals to secure leases over areas of land which, at present, are being used by many thousands of people to fossick in their spare time. Whilst I knew that there was a keen interest in fossicking by many people in north-west Queensland, I was amazed when I realised just how many people spend their leisure-time out bush searching for these gemstones. In many cases they spend almost every weekend at this chore. Another reason so many people from my electorate are expressing concern at the attempts to lock up these areas is the effect that it will have on the tourist industry. North-west Queensland has many unique attractions and there is a concerted effort by local councils to promote this industry and to encourage people from Australia, and indeed from around the world, to visit north-west Queensland and see for themselves the real Australia. Tonight, special mention must be made of the efforts of and the professional way in which the North- west Queensland Tourist and Development Board, led by its manager Petrina Dorrington, has steadily built up the number of visitors to this area and worked so hard promoting this region. Many thousands of people travel to our part of Queensland to spend their time fossicking and searching for these gemstones. I do not have to remind honourable members of the benefits that tourism brings to the outback areas of Queensland—in this instance Cloncurry and Mount Isa. Most small business houses, particularly caravan parks, motels, service stations and food outlets, can benefit from this influx of tourists to our area. Tonight, I have brought into this Chamber some samples of the stones that are found in this part of Queensland. I am concerned that individuals have sought to gain exclusive rights to this unique part of our State. The land belongs to the community and whilst I support the granting of leases for many activities, such as mining and grazing, I believe that we must satisfy ourselves that these leases, if granted, will benefit the State and, indeed, the whole community. Today I met the Minister for Resource Industries and presented a petition containing approximately 2 000 signatures of people who live in my electorate, the electorate of Flinders and many other parts of Queensland. Those people expressed concern that these areas of land could be locked up. Legislative Assembly 2572 31 July 1990

Queensland has many unique attractions, which is why this State is regarded as a tourist Mecca. However, I believe that in this hectic world many people want to get away from the hustle and bustle of city life and to come to north Queensland, which provides them with the opportunity to relax in the comfort of the bush. I am informed that the Queensland Parliament's mace, which lies before honourable members in this Chamber, contains eight gemstones that come from the area to which I have referred. The Minister has been made aware of expressions of concern by organisations such as the Cloncurry Shire Council, the North West Queensland Tourism Development Board, the four-wheel drive clubs in my electorate, the Mount Isa Lapidary Club and by many thousands of other Queenslanders in the Mount Isa region. This area of Queensland and the activities that are carried out in it are part of this State's heritage and the folklore of Australia. The land should remain free to enable Australians to carry out their pursuits. It should not be tied up by individuals whose only intention is to lock the land up, thereby securing for themselves a profitable business venture. In conclusion, I wish to read a letter which is one of many hundreds I have received. This letter was written by a young child and states— "Dear Sir, I am the oldest of five children in my family and I feel that to take these few but worthwhile places is terrible. I have been brought up for most of my life to be fascinated by gemstones and I am proud of that but I am not proud of the act you are trying to put over your future generations of Mount Isa and Cloncurry. Us kids need to have hobbies but how can we if you take them away from us? Every weekend, my family and friends take me out to get away from the city but by leasing Crystal Mountain . . . where are they supposed to take us? We just don't look for gemstones but we get to see all types of animals and we sometimes get to swim and see the most beautiful landscapes that other people don't really notice. . . . If you take these wonderful places away, you might as well take everything. We can't play squash, ten pin bowling and tennis all our lives. . . . We are just normal people, just wanting to do something we dearly love. These places aren't meant for one set of people. God made plenty for everyone to enjoy." Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.